backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 183 comment(s) - last by Lakku.. on Jan 5 at 5:39 PM


Image courtesy Popular Mechanics

Image courtesy Popular Mechanics
X-51 would be seven times faster than the Tomahawk

With the United States military looking for faster ways to destroy targets anywhere in the world, it should come as no surprise that a new hypersonic cruise missile is currently in development for precision strikes.

Conventionally armed Trident II missiles (which are the same size, have the same speed and are launched from the same locations) have been tested by the Navy since 1993. However, many are concerned that the launch of ballistic missiles equipped with multiple warheads could spark a crisis far more dangerous the one that it is supposed to subdue.

"The launch of such a missile could provoke an inappropriate response from one of the nuclear powers, could provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," said Russian president Vladimir Putin in a 2006 state of the nation address.

Donald Rumsfeld, former United States Secretary of Defense, seemed less concerned over the possibility that America's actions might be seen as nuclear-inclined. "Everyone in the world would know that [the missile] was conventional," said Rumsfeld. Many in congress along with weapons experts aren’t quite as sure as Rumsfeld.

With conventionally-tipped Trident II missiles catching flak from almost all sides, the Department of Defense is looking to the X-51 WaveRider as a solution. The 14-ft long missile can travel at hypersonic speeds (greater than 3,600MPH or Mach 5). At that speed, the X-51 is seven times faster than the humble Tomahawk cruise missile and can make the trip from the Arabian Sea to eastern Afghanistan in roughly 20 minutes. Tomahawk missiles took two hours to make the same trek in 1998 and missed Osama Bin Laden by 30 minutes.  Popular Mechanics reports:

What the X-51 does is to turn some of the most brutal effects of hypersonic flight to its advantage. Take shock waves, for example. Bursting through the air at a hypersonic rate produces a train of waves, one after the other, which can drag down an aircraft. But the X-51 is a "wave rider," with a sharp nose shaped to make the waves break at precisely the right angle. All of the pressure is directed beneath the missile, lifting it up. The shock waves also compress the air to help fuel the X-51's combustion process.

The X-51 would be launched from a B-52 Stratofortress and carried to supersonic speeds by a booster rocket. From there, the missile’s scramjet engine would take over. The X-51 has the advantage of being able to hit targets much quicker than the Tomahawk missiles employed today without being mistaken for a much larger nuclear weapon. "You don't worry about starting World War III," said Air Force chief scientist Mark J. Lewis.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fuck Yeah!
By Ralph The Magician on 12/21/2006 8:32:13 PM , Rating: 5
AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!




RE: Fuck Yeah!
By djkrypplephite on 12/21/2006 9:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
I like this guy^^


RE: Fuck Yeah!
By Enoch2001 on 12/21/2006 9:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
LOL - we ARE Team America: World Police!


RE: Fuck Yeah!
By QuadCore6700 on 12/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: Fuck Yeah!
By msva124 on 12/22/2006 1:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Fuck Yeah!
By Ardan on 12/22/2006 2:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really need to relax. Take a laxative or something, phew.


everyone should die
By Serifan on 12/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: everyone should die
By dallasskins on 12/22/2006 12:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
This is weak minded drivel. Here is a link to the top ten bloodiest dictators. Notice most were Communist (read atheist) or Facist. None killed in the name of religion, but in the name of their political belief system. Even Hitler falls into this category. Yes he killed millions of Jews, but also millions of other non-Arayans were killed in the death camps. So much for religion being the source of all evil. Here is the link if you want the truth, or just google mass murderers yourself.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.4.GIF


RE: everyone should die
By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/22/2006 12:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
1. Instead of religion, substitute belief systems (politics, religion, economics, etc.) and you have it dead on.
2. Money, always. People kill and screw each other for it all the time.
3. You've been looking while other's post haven't you?


RE: everyone should die
By DOSGuy on 12/22/2006 1:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
Religion was merely the best excuse for war prior to the 20th century. When kings wanted to conquer their neighbors, they often used religion to justify ordering their subjects to lay down their lives. Money and power were always the true motivations. Even conflicts within the Catholic Church were about power: whether the power lay in Rome or Constantinople, for instance.

As religion began to lose its influence, the excuses for war changed. The vast majority of all the casualties ever suffered in war occurred during WWI, WWII, and the Chinese Civil War, none of which were about religion. As far as genocide, the Stalinist purges were an attempt to subdue Ukraine; the Khmer Rouge was to eliminate threats to the government, and Rwandan Genocide was the result of the artificial socioeconomic divide of Hutus and Tutsis that was created by Europeans. In Kosovo it was "ethnic cleansing". The excuses change, but money and power continue to be at the root of human conflict.

Religion is still used to manipulate violence in Iraq today. Sunni and Shia have been separate for so many centuries that they now represent distinct cultural heritages, so it's unfair to say that religion is the only difference between them. Control of Iraq is the true motivation of those who incite the violence; religion is merely the best excuse to convince people to fight. Whether it's Sunni vs. Shia in Iraq, or Fatah vs. Hamas in Palestine, the root of the conflict is power.

It boils down to greed. Whether the desire for money or the desire for power, or both, greed is the real reason for war. The excuses will change with the times, but the root will never change unless humanity does.

Does humanity deserve to be wiped out? The world would certainly be better off without us, but there is cause for hope. Consider Gandhi, who could summon 700 million people to crush the occupying British force if he had wanted to, but chose peace instead. Martin Luther King led a civil rights revolution by refusing to be violent, and shaming those who would use violence to suppress them. Humanity is capable of peace. We just have to take it one day at a time. Just as an alcoholic can determine that he's not going to have a drink today, and then get up the next morning and decide that he's not going to have a drink today either, we can decide not to be killers, one day at a time.

"All right! We're savages. We have the blood of a million years of history on our hands. But we can change that. We can tell ourselves we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes; one simple decision. We're not going to kill… today!" ~ James T. Kirk


RE: everyone should die
By SmokeRngs on 12/22/2006 5:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
I've been saying this for a long time now and this is the first time I've seen someone else actually say it.

Power is the reason. People use religion and many other things as tools to get their power. The tools are used to create the events that lead to the individual or group obtaining power.

There will always be people that want power. There will always be a few of those people that will use any means necessary to obtain it. Then are people or countries that spend large amounts of time and money to make sure there is a defense against those few.


RE: everyone should die
By tdream on 12/27/2006 10:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
This is a good post and I agree with what you've said. Many nations have gone to war under false pretence and as you clearly stated the root cause being human desires of greed and power.


RE: everyone should die
By msva124 on 12/22/2006 1:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like humans either. Can a comet hit the Earth please?


Fast, but....
By InTheNameOfMyself on 12/22/2006 7:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I get it that this thing is fast.

But, how much punch does it pack?
1ton? 2tons?

You got to bundle a strong warhead you know.




RE: Fast, but....
By tdream on 12/22/2006 7:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
foookin ridiculous, here america are blatantly improving their already considereable armament and they hold countries hostage for even ATTEMPTING to improve their own defences with nuclear capabilities. such irony is lost one americans though. peace by power such double standards for a war on terror, more like a suppression of any other country that dares match america in it's weaponry.

yes we should bash america, are we to sit idly by and let those ignorant masses continue on build up super powered weaponry until no one has a choice but to listen to america? its a free country after all and being so i retain to right to slag the living shiit out of america until it ceases to be a world power. the ignore forget more and more of the atrocities by each passing day and also forget that american defense is big business, and that's the problem with america. capitalist kunts who will stop and nothing for the bottom dollar. missle that missed it's target by 2 miles, friendly fire, user error and whatever bs their news reporters cococted to put a positive spin on a tragic event. this is not the only time this will happen if no one raises an eyelid to forcefully denigrate what they are doing. the US of A is a virus on the planet and the sooner they run the natural course of all powerful sovereignties the better, even roman empire had to end.


RE: Fast, but....
By Tedtalker1 on 12/22/2006 3:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
What an ignorant statement.The differece is obvious-the antichrist running Iran and the doofus in charge of North Korea want to blow up whoever they want just for kicks because they don't like you.Like a kid just coming back from the fireworks stand with a sack of rockets and Roman Candles.


RE: Fast, but....
By tdream on 12/27/2006 9:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly is ignorant about what I've written? Would you like to retort each of my points or are you going to blanket "ignore" anything that has a negative point of view towards america?

Well obviously there is an antichrist and doofus in charge of america, to use your own words. Trouble is you don't know what the leaders of Iran and North Korea are like. Sure they might spin you the truth and all the while hiding some ulterior motive, but that is exatly what Bush has done in Iraq. WMD, which we now irrefutably known to be non existant, and everyone else knew thi before the US began their invasion. You see where is the accountability, you can't point the finger at Iran and North Korea, when your own government can't justify it's own actions. No one is repsonsible for freedom or justice, the US use these ideals to masquerade for their real motives, ie. economic power, monetary gain and political influence. It's a self serving agenda with no concern for anyone else.


RE: Fast, but....
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 6:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not touching your US bashing.

WTF is with
quote:
missile that missed it's target by 2 miles, friendly fire, user error and whatever bs their news reporters concocted to put a positive spin on a tragic event
(fixed typos in your quote btw) should we just go back to carpet bombing entire cities to ashes with B-52s?

All the time I have to spare from my new, improved, precise warmongering


RE: Fast, but....
By tdream on 12/27/2006 9:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
How about not using bombs altogether where substancial loss of innocent life is at stake, like a populated city?


Ironic?
By Hoser McMoose on 12/22/2006 11:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone else find it ironic that the main excuse for going for this missile is the fear of ballistic missiles being a nuke, even though there is nothing preventing them from putting nuclear warheads on this cruise missile? There is nothing special about a cruise missile vs. ballistic missile when it comes to the type of warhead they could carry, the US is quite willing and able to equip either one with conventional or nuclear warheads (they could probably toss a chemical or biological warhead on either one as well, but that is much less likely to occur). Certainly the Tomahawk was designed to carry tactical nukes, conventional munitions were more of an afterthought it seems (I doubt it ever would have been build, back in the 60's and 70's, if the only plan was to use conventional warheads).

Certainly there is more history with ballistic missiles carrying nukes, what with the whole cold-war era, but that was simply due to logistics (it's easier for U.S. to hit Russia, and vice versa, with a ballistic missile than a cruise missile due to the distances involved). If the cold war had been between two countries that shared a land boarder then cruise missiles might well have been the delivery method of choice for nukes.

I guess it's all about perceptions though.




RE: Ironic?
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 3:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
Likely wouldn't be too effective. First there is payload. I doubt this could hold a large warhead. Also took me a while but I found they have 600 mile range.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art...

Not effective for a massive enough attack that could look like nuke war. Seems more like international figures getting mad about new weapons research in general. I doubt these could really be confused with nuclear attack (yes subs shoot from short range, but all out nuke war wouldn't just be subs).

I'm sure that wouldn't really matter to the city that was hit by a single small yield missile, but I hope US would never do anything like that.


RE: Ironic?
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 3:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Better link
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar...

Don't confuse info though. Some is about Trident II conversion and rest is X-51.


RE: Ironic?
By Eris23007 on 12/22/2006 3:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's not quite what you think. Trident II missiles are kept in submarines - which are quite stealthy. It is extremely difficult to track the location of those submarines. They also have ranges in the thousands of km. However, when one launches a ballistic missile, there is an incredible amount of infrastructure in place to observe the where and when - the russians, chinese, etc. will all know when a ballistic missile is fired, and potentially respond accordingly (I.E., nuclear exchange, as they say. How's that for an Xmas present!).

This hypersonic cruise missile, on the other hand, is fired from a B-52 - an airplane with a very large radar cross-section (I.E., not stealthy), and while the missile is fast, it isn't as fast as a ballistic missile, and it doesn't have anywhere near the range.

Let's put it this way: you fire a Trident II from a submarine in the middle of the pacific, it could be targeting Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, etc. Launch a Hypersonic missile from the same spot, and it probably can't reach any of those (depending on where it's fired from).

It is a much less "overtly aggressive" sort of technology...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_II

This is based upon my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of the tech of the hypersonic one. If this thing has a thousands-of-km sort of range, let me know and perhaps I'll reconsider my viewpoint. Otherwise this thing sounds like an outstanding solution for for its stated purpose of quickly putting conventional ordnance on target...


RE: Ironic?
By Eris23007 on 12/22/2006 3:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
Upon further review:

quote:
That doesn't mean the X-51 will be in competition with a conventional Trident. It will have a range of only 600 nautical miles. And it first needs to be lifted into the air by a plane, then accelerated by a rocket-fueled booster before its hypersonic engine kicks in. But if the 2008 test flight is a success, the X-51 will be the first weapon other than a ballistic missile to fly at hypersonic speeds.


Compare 600 nautical miles range vs. over 6000 nm for the Trident II. This thing is a totally different animal - far less aggresive and far less concerning to countries such as Russia and China from a Strategic standpoint - they also don't have a "multiple warhead" capability the way a Trident II does - a single Trident II missile can carry a number of independently targetable warheads - so in theory a single missile could destroy multiple cities, not just one. This thing can't do that.


Out come the surrender monkeys...
By jarman on 12/22/2006 11:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
You know, it has gotten to the point that I absolutely hate getting tech news from Daily Tech. The content and reporting done at the site is fine, but all of the whiny little tree huggers come out in force when there is an article like this posted.

It can't be said enough, that If you have a problem with this country and its history, then LEAVE and go to one of the "better countries". Yet, strangely enough, the surrender monkeys never do. Wonder why?




RE: Out come the surrender monkeys...
By poohbear on 12/23/2006 9:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
ROFL!!!!! yes please run for president w/ that slogan. "leave america if u dont like our problems! yes, u were born here, and u're an american citizen, and maybe u even served and bled for this country, but is that any reason to whine u spoiled motherfuker?!?!?!?"

that needs to be the republican slogan.


RE: Out come the surrender monkeys...
By jarman on 12/23/2006 12:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ROFL!!!!! yes please run for president w/ that slogan. "leave america if u dont like our problems! yes, u were born here, and u're an american citizen, and maybe u even served and bled for this country, but is that any reason to whine u spoiled motherfuker?!?!?!?"


Wow! My comment about pussies like you bitching about this country without the ability to identify a better one must have really hit home, huh? Please educate me with your incontrovertible wisdom on how you correlate asking someone to put their money where their mouth is, makes me spoiled?


By Kuroyama on 12/23/2006 2:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My comment about pussies like you bitching ... how you correlate asking someone to put their money where their mouth is, makes me spoiled

I take it you're a soldier or veteran? If so, then you're a braver person than me and I certainly salute you for serving our country. But if not then you're no different than people like Bush and Cheney who talk tough but stayed at home when they had the chance to put their money where their mouth is in Vietnam. It always amazes me how overwhelmingly the "don't be pussies" crowd is made up of chickenhawks.


By Kuroyama on 12/23/2006 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I feel the same way, but about idiotic people who think they are somehow being convincing by being shrill and using childish name calling like "surrender monkeys". Given that we both feel the other side is clueless, maybe it's a good sign that we're getting different opinions here than what we normally hear from our friends and favorite web sites. As Sun Tzu famously said, "know your enemy". When you (or I) only read sites that are preaching to the converted then we don't really learn much of why some people have different opinions than we do.


It's all about Israel
By Tedtalker1 on 12/22/2006 5:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
It's the USA's support for Israel and what seems like the rest of the world's disdain for them that is a cause for so much USA bashing in this thread.And the sad thing is the bashers don't even realize it.The dark force has crept upon them while they sllep in ignorant bliss.Looks as though the prophets were right and the armies of the world will soon be lining up to do battle with Israel and her allies(Ally).God help us all!There are no perfect countries and we all know who the weaklings looked to when they were invaded by tyrannts.The USA; and I hope in their military might because that's the side I want to be on whe the final sheet hits the fan.Merry Christmas to all :-)




RE: It's all about Israel
By tdream on 12/22/2006 7:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
It could be any country, it could of even been iraq if they co operated with USA. They could of been the lapdogs for bush and co, but saddam decided he wanted a bit more. The relationship with Irasel exists for one sole reason, not politics not friendliness but one simple thing $$$$$$$$

That's right economic control in the middle east is VERY important to their fuel based economy and control of the prices is even more important. Where had all the stock of Iraqs natural resource disappered to, Fox, NBC any other poor excuse for a news station fails to report on the obvious criminal activities that have taken place without no global eye on the valuable commodity that is OIL baby. And it shows that Bush and friends have done their job very well, keep the ignorant american's minds incapacitated with Prison Break and Desperate Housewives meanwhile, there is a war going on, halfway across the planet for the last and vast remain sources of oil left on this sphere. People dying everyday so you joe amerianc bloggs and sleep in the comfort of your own home. And why knock something like that, even if you descent of such a subject it's not like you can do anything about it. So that's right go back to sleep america, go back to sleep.


RE: It's all about Israel
By camped69 on 12/23/2006 6:40:41 AM , Rating: 3
I will sleep and sleep well. And when I wake up I will love and be loved. I will also be free. As free as a working man can be.

It's all about the oil, everybody needs it or their economies will grind to a halt. So were protecting our interest in the in Iraq, big deal. Cry me a river. Hopefully we can tap the oil resource in Canadas soil, develop better alternatives or tap new regions soon so the middle east can fade away into irrelevance.

We rolled the Iraqi forces in a matter of days. But were still there. Mostly acting as a policing unit although our presence has slowed down the movement of the extremists. Our military is not designed to police. It is designed to decimate and it does that extremely well. I'm sick and tired of all the..."oh how could they kill innocent life" comments and such. The world witnessed the most precise tactical engagement, even though it presented in a total bs manor as to why we were going. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that everyone in the US is stupid. We are a free thinkg people with passion and fortitude. Not to mention FREE. To all you creampuffs out there, grow a pair and embrace your heritage.

The political correctness in the world is sickening. If you declare war, you take no prisoners and be done with it. End of problem. I think every option should be used before war but if you throw down the gauntlet, do it Fin right. Or strap a bomb to yourself and blow up 100 countrymen. WEAK

And in the free world there is something that you can do, VOTE!

sidenote: when calculating the population of the US just include Canada and Mexico.


RE: It's all about Israel
By Tedtalker1 on 12/24/2006 2:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree camped69.It just seems more than coincidence,in which I don't believe; that most of the oil is under evil's control in the middle east.That in all the thousands of years of mankind,oil would run the world only in these last 100 years.And that the whole world would go to war over this black goo if need be.Very revealing to some of us..


The news article
By Ardan on 12/22/2006 3:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
So after reading all of this, I have one question for the people posting and replying constantly: What was the original subject of this page? :P

We have gotten WAY off topic and drifted into the realm of endless political arguments instead. I'm sure someone might try and connect the dots here, but there is absolutely no way i'm going to buy that. Some of the things people are discussing are way, way off and it is just the same thing over and over again.

It just got tiring to see people from different countries posting with a completely misplaced 'holier than thou' attitude. Sure, the US has done some bad stuff, but we've also done a lot of good things but the same goes with EVERYONE ELSE in history. Nobody has been truly a country of angels, so everyone should stop trying to be so condescending and stay on topic. It is madness seeing people insult America or other nations and generalize what a nation of (in America's case) 300 million people is like and think of them as idiots or clueless. People that try and do that in a serious manner are just as stupid as the people they claim to allegedly be "stupid." Some people here are stupid and don't really know much, sure, but the same thing is the case in every other country out there.

I know those guilty of it will vehemently deny this to be the case, but you won't get a discussion and I won't change my mind for you, so don't even try to get a response. I mean, its ridiculous: of course we'll take pride in aspects of our nation (such as the military) and you take pride in your respective nations and its strengths as well. National pride is not a foolish idea, you know, so show some respect. If you don't like the foreign policies of the US Government, then do what we do and spew forth hatred upon the government for its policies and not the people because you will never know what goes on in the minds of a huge nation of people (no matter what your over-sized egos think). There, I said my 2 cents and now its time for bed. Goodnight and Merry Christmas! Have fun taking time out of your weekends just to write a blistering response when I won't even read it :).




RE: The news article
By lufoxe on 12/22/2006 8:11:47 AM , Rating: 2
wow, I've actually read through this whole thing... and this man is right.
quote:
What was the original subject of this page?

It's about a new technology/weapon. Not America bashing. I have to say I love my county and I would not trade it for citizenship elsewhere. For all those who have a stick up their bum about us, well... join france. I'm tired of seeing us being bashed and then when push comes to shove you come to us for military/economic aid. This is not a forum for international relations of the US or how the U.S. is doing in foreign policy. This is a TECHNOLOGY FORUM! We bash microsoft and sony, or some other international corporation that f**ks up. Leave politics where it belongs, outside of this forum.


RE: The news article
By Dfere on 12/22/2006 12:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
This is the internet. This is the new battleground.

And I disagree.

Sorry to say the article did have political discussions, not just tech news. Other nations do not want us to develop more sophisticated and powerful weapons (Well it says they don't want us to test them which is necessary for development) so I disagree.

Actually what I take from the article is we are developing more sophisticated and cost effective ways to "reach out and touch someone" directly in response to the political repurcussions of testing certain different missile techs, thus furthering development in other missile tech areas.

And people say we becoming stifled in innovation.


RE: The news article
By joset00 on 12/22/2006 10:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
@ Ardan:

Probably, the only OT worth reading, here.

quote:
Nobody has been truly a country of angels (...)


Probably true... but irrelevant; if you care to consider just the two last centuries of History, you'll notice the USA just continued the expansionist, dominating attitude Europe's started. You've mentioned "country" and, both Europe & the USA built & destroyed some.
'Sanctity', in this context, is out of the equation; we're Human; we make mistakes, both as individuals & as [sophisticated] groups we call societies; the issue, in my opinion, is not who's done more & for how long but, rather, who's doing it now.
I'm European; we've 'carved' more countries in the Earth's surface than any other sophisticated group before; we've been - and we still are - hated for what we've done in almost every corner of this planet, in the good name of profit... & slavery. The USA just followed the trend and became the Roman Empire of modern times.
Ask yourself the question "why are we so much hated, around the world?" Simple.

quote:
It is madness seeing people insult America or other nations and generalize what a nation of (in America's case) 300 million people is like and think of them as idiots or clueless.


True. Europe (well, the EU) is going over 500M & counting.
But, what if you take the other side, for a moment? What if less than a sixth of the world's population is taking the other 5/6 as idiots & clueless?
Neither Europe or the USA can [should] claim 'democracy', 'freedom', 'independence', etc for themselves, while still trying to enslave the other 5/6. That, is idiocy.
If we've managed to have our own 'way-of-life', in this XXI century, it's because of the living standard's penalty we're still inflicting on the rest of the World; and, the USA has reached the culprit as the sole dominating power on the Planet, carrying the arrogance & pre-potence I still can see in Europe, nowadays.
It's no surprise for me that the 'rest' of the world looks at Europe and, mostly, at the USA as 'evil'; call it morale if you will, but we do have our own "maddrassas" & X-51s to carry the message...
I, for one, do plead guilty for not knowing much about Afegan, Iraqui, Kwaiti or Iranian culture & how their people find themselves (idiots & clueless or otherwise); but I do know a lot of them died (& will die) without knowing who the hell are we (better like that, perhaps?!); maybe, they wouldn't care... we sure don't.
So, I'm not sure about those who're posting here some trivialities but, I - for one - would fear a botulin syringe in a supermarket, not any hypersonic X-whatever...


Cheers!


Why is America so off balance
By Senju on 12/22/2006 4:00:00 AM , Rating: 2
Good old USA. They never learn! They spend all their money and resources into their great military. It is always so funny to see Americans travel abroad because it shocks to see how Asian countries are so economically advance. And the shock goes both ways! I was shock when visiting the US to see how screwed up the cities are. I feel like it is a 3rd world country or a time slip back 30 years. There is no growth in the inter cities. The roads are really bad.
So When I see these headlines how America is going to spend Billions of money for their great freedom...it makes me wonder if any of them are really happy. Anyway, I really feel sorry for people living in the US.




RE: Why is America so off balance
By Tedtalker1 on 12/22/2006 6:11:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you really want to know -certain decisions were made in the past 150 years to let too many leecher immigrants into the United States and it continues to this day.They have to live somewhere and the inner cities are full of them.Hey maybe the USA could send them all to your wonderful country!


RE: Why is America so off balance
By Keeir on 12/22/2006 2:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, its true that many countries have more vibrant and new cities than the United States, especially in Asian countries. A few points however to consider

#1. Many US cities are significantly older Urban Developments. This leads to very poor road layouts, "historic" districts full of decaying structure, additional costs to build new buildings (tear down and proper disposal of older material that are now potentially hazardous)

#2. Asian countries have yet to lose the core businesses that thier cities are based on... Most of the worst US cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, etc have had their core businesses destroyed in the last 30 years IE Automotive production, Steel Production, etc etc.

#3. Asian countries have gotten alot of help and lessons learned from experience. As Asian Urban Developments tend to be the newest in the world, they have benifited from the experiences and knowledge gained throughout the world from the European and North American Urban Developments.



In conclusions, lets see how some of these wonderful Asian Cities (and yes, they are wonderful) fare over the next 50 years. And maybe by 2100, the best cities in the world will all be in Africa....


RE: Why is America so off balance
By jarman on 12/23/2006 12:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They spend all their money and resources into their great military.


5% of GDP is all of our money and resources??????????????


What is so wrong with it
By ajfink on 12/21/2006 8:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
If they had these in 1998, Osama Bin Laden would be dead today. This is one thing I don't mind my tax dollars going toward.

Also, Canada doesn't need a large armed force because they live next to and share deep cultural and economic ties with the US.




RE: What is so wrong with it
By Kilim on 12/21/2006 8:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
Dude, Bin Laden was a good chap until chicks started reading. Chicks learning too read, that's going to far man, everyone has limits.


RE: What is so wrong with it
By Dfere on 12/22/2006 8:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
Was that a Sammy Davis/Tom Jones explanation of world politics? OMG. Cool.


Ohh Yes, America and its armed forces are soooo evil.
By Dfere on 12/22/2006 9:18:40 AM , Rating: 3
Let me understand this. We pay for an Army. We use this army (in the last century to keep the scope down) to combat fascism and communism, and any countries we "liberate" or "conquer" we never claim as our own. The only land we claim for our army is for foreign grave sites for our soldiers killed overseas. We do do this in the name of democracy (which is in our best interest). We do set up or assist pro-American factions during this time. During this time, no one in the UN opposes us except the Soviet and pro-Soviet countries. USSR collapses. Many Euro countries immediately reduce military spending. The Germans do this to integrate their country once again and become an economic powerhouse (my congratulations). The French and many Scandinavian countries use this extra 10-20% of GDP to fund social programs. Meanwhile, all US allies, except primarily for Israel, begin to fund private companies with state intelligence to compete with our companies.

We maintain the Army. We pay for it. We then cut some costs by closing bases, and certain Asian countries scream we are killing their hard currency economy. We still spend a lot of currency in Europe when their is no invasion threat and we get kicked in the teeth. And the UN feels it has the right to tell us what to do.

The truth is, if the UN would PAY for what they want, I would gladly see us close all of our bases overseas and shrink our naval capacity. Currently this would lead civilization in many countries collapsing and posssibly a small nuclear war in the middle east. Where is China in this? Their middle class is BIGGER than our entire population! They accumulate resources while we spend ours trying to keep a balance in the world. Only a few countries actively assist in this.

If you want to spit on America as unilateral, go ahead. but don't think I don't realize this job is forced on us. I truly with a lot of foreign countries would ttop funding their own direct economic and social programs you claim are superior to ours and spend more on military for world security and give your forces over to the UN. Then comlpain, or "comment" about us "chaps" being so aggressive, or talk about us being "warmongering", or talk about us not "being harmonistic", or calling us "Imperial", or patronizing or any other second guessing of our actions. Only a few countries have assisted us, and only some of the populations in thoise countries. I hope they help us more and take more leadership.

End rant.




By Dfere on 12/22/2006 9:19:27 AM , Rating: 1
Oops truly "wish"- my fingers got tired.


By Goatjoe on 12/22/2006 11:41:04 PM , Rating: 1
I cant believe that I read all of the posts... My brain hurts...


By Gannon on 12/23/2006 9:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
"...combat fascism and communism, and any countries we "liberate" or "conquer" we never claim as our own."

The truth is US culture is at the root of many of the worlds ills, lets face that fact. Unfettered capitalism while it has brought much wealth to some works by displacing disproportinately the wealth of others, the concept of ownership and earnings is so primitive in capitalist thought in the USA and the west in general, its no wonder that you have a huge enormous underclass growing (34 million plus nad growing daily).

Most of all it's the middle men and the rich people who benefit, now the rich are disposing of the middle class in their home country to go to cheaper countries via the "pump and dump" method. They use countries and play them off one another as one big power game. The sad fact is nationalism and patriotism was designed by the rich for the people of these countires... thats us, they tell us we have freedom... when you're only as free, and only have as many rights as your economic wellbeing allows. More money = more freedom = more rights.

Therefore the poor are basically without rights and wage slaves in their home country.

The end of war will not come through more war, it will come through developing superior culture and infecting all other human beings with this superior culture. And american capitalism is not it.


America the bipolar
By mackintire on 12/21/2006 10:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I live in america. I m intellegent to know that the world sees us and the 4 year *itch. Our goverment changes its mind every 4 years and reverses policy. Unfortunately for you and and fortunately for us we also have the largest economy in the world, and thus the most cash. He with the most cash wins.

The UN is mostly unless because it has no teeth. Name me one country that is actually afraid of the UN. There arn t any. There are many countries afraid of the US. When the US and the UN are on the same side its going to have a similar effect to the US standing alone with the exception that instead of ONE country making a point MOST countries are trying to make that point.

The whole Iraq/ Afgan thing is NOT the current President Bush's fault. Blaim the poor desisions of his father. He was the one that let down the people of Iraq some 13 years ago and create most of the hatred in that country towards America.

Don't worry within 20 years China will have the largest economy and we will all be looking towards them to run things. Go put that in your pipe and enjoy your smoke.





RE: America the bipolar
By Gatt on 12/22/2006 12:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt China's going to make it. They can't get a grip on certain fundamental economic sectors like the entertainment sector because they refuse to reign in Piracy, so there goes a few hundred billion dollars.

Additionally, they're increasing manufacturing capacity beyond they're ability to consume, or even sell, for the sole purpose of decreasing unemployment. Producing what you don't need, and can't sell, is a sure-fire way to create an economic collapse. Which, if bad enough, would shortly be followed by a revolution.

China's got some impressive potential, but I don't think it's going to pan out anytime soon.


RE: America the bipolar
By AndreasM on 12/22/2006 3:02:27 AM , Rating: 2
I would be more worried about the US economy. China manufactures real, tangible things, instead of ethereal concepts like "intellectual property". I find the thought of a future with these stringent copyright laws laughable; what's the point with petabytes of storage if you have to spend millions of dollars to license entertainment to fill it up?


So civilians get the short end of the stick again?
By Shintai on 12/22/2006 7:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if people realize, or even the US army about the usual cruise missile situation. Unlike bombs or the like they rely on low attitude flying. So even tho it might be launched on a B52, it will have to drop down under radar to avoid radar and SAMs.

Now here is the part, sonic bangs in extremely low altidude. It gonna be deaf people and ruined house, not to even talk about the horrors and such.




By Dfere on 12/22/2006 9:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the US should not hurt anybody when using violent force. Drivel. War is evil, violence is a last resort. The best you can hope for, if needed, is surgical deadly force. But don't scare anyone.


By SGTLindy on 12/22/2006 10:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
"it will have to drop down under radar to avoid radar and SAMs"

The Tomahawk had to fly low because of its low speed. At Hypersonic speeds (mach 5) nothing is going to shoot this down. Also ramjets work best at high altitudes.

I bet this thing will leave the B-52 and go up higher near space to skirt along the edge of the atmosphere enhancing its speed.….fly 95% of the way there at high altitude and then point down and blaze into the target. I think the explosion will be much louder than any sonic boom.


These look almost too futureistic.
By kuyaglen on 12/21/2006 8:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder which one of the nuclear powers Putin had in mind (and here I was thinking that the cold war was over). Anyone know approximately how much these cost vs the Tomahawk?




By codeThug on 12/21/2006 9:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's the bang per dollar that's important not the actual per unit cost. Lets call it the booyahBuck. These things definitely have more booyah.


Some good may come of it
By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/21/2006 10:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Look on the brightside, while we're busy trying to blow people up for the next 10 years or so, there will be more research done on hypersonic airframes. This has the added benefit of bringing hypersonic air travel closer to being a reality. This could also serve as a stepping stone to cheaper launch vehicles for low orbit insertion.

As an American I am proud of the fact that we can walk into any country in the world, find the bigggest shit head, and put him in charge. Knowing full well in 20 years we'll be back to take him out. If you ask me that's good PR, we make sure we're always in need. I'm so going to get flamed from all directions on this one.




RE: Some good may come of it
By nicknet on 12/21/2006 10:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
ya know what... in many ways you are quite right. Simple laws of business is all that the USA tries to imply. Just running like one huge corporation. And who said a corporation has to have ethics?


Anti nuke missile?
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if these types of missiles are capable of bringing down an airborne nuke or other missile. Since they are so fast and precise I'd be willing to bet it's possible.




RE: Anti nuke missile?
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 2:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. They would most likely be designed to fly straight line to target. Not for any quick, tight maneuvers. You would need lots of tracking data to plan the flight path of a nuke close enough for straight line impact (they go into Thermosphere, same as shuttle). Doubt these will be designed to go that high.

If you ever did hit one I would think it would have to be more luck. I heard something about patriot system maybe being able to intercept nukes as they re-enter (before they detonate). Now that you've peeked my interest maybe I'll have to see if anything became of that.


Fancy toys
By crystal clear on 12/22/2006 9:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
Just how much will these toys cost?????

and are they worth the price paid for it.

Hey its the tax payers money you are playing with-these toys certainly dont come cheap.




USA
By Missing Ghost on 12/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: USA
By thewalrusnp on 12/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: USA
By camped69 on 12/22/2006 2:04:20 AM , Rating: 3
You'd either be speaking German or you would be dead if it wasn't for the US. Call us what you want but when the s*it hits the fan as it soon will, you may just find yourself and your family saved by a United States armed soldier.
Just ask the French. The world will get worse before it can get any better. Count on it. Oh, and don't forget to clean your rifle and fuel up the K-5.

Semper Fi


RE: USA
By msva124 on 12/22/2006 2:22:31 AM , Rating: 4
GO TEAM AMERICA!!!!


RE: USA
By Samus on 12/24/2006 10:49:56 PM , Rating: 1
FUCK YEA


RE: USA
By probedb on 12/22/2006 6:15:53 AM , Rating: 2
<cough>yeah right</cough>


RE: USA
By xeal on 12/22/2006 7:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You'd either be speaking German or you would be dead if it wasn't for the US.


Wrong. It should be "Russian". At least for Europe.
If US (and its allies) would not have started the Normandy invasion and advance to push the Germans back as fast as possible, Stalin would not have stopped till the whole map of Europe would have been red . Like in Red Army . Even so, he got half of it.


RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Read again homeboy. It sounded like he was addressing the original comment, written by someone clearly from Canada (it said in their post).


RE: USA
By rcc on 12/23/2006 12:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
We could play the history game for quite a while.

But, had the US, Britain, etc. not been sending supplies, munitions, food, ships, etc. to the USSR at the time, and creating a threat, knocking out strategic targets in Germany, etc. ad nauseum, the USSR would not have been in a position to threaten the rest of Europe or defend itself from Germany.


RE: USA
By Bladen on 12/22/2006 7:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
More likely speaking Japanese, or some kind of Japanese-German mix...

(Germanese?)


RE: USA
By poohbear on 12/23/2006 9:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
im sorry, some of us are more educated than the i watched CNN to for 2 minutes level, so your celebrity comment "we'd all be speaking german right now if it was'nt for the US" has absoluetly no bearing here. The treaty of versailles, created by the british and french, utterly ravaged germany after WW1 and WW2 was inevitable. So, if it was'nt for the french and british, there probably wouldnt have been a WW2 and a ruthless Nazi government in Germany. And we'd be speaking japanese my ass, why did america have guam and hawaii at japan's doorstep, fuk me that looked aggressive enough to the rest of the region of American imperial ambitions to trigger japanese expansion before america ate up more islands. Please oh PLEASE try to disprove me since im a history buff and could care less about this "american patriotism we are the world's saviours" drivel. Yeah, the whole world starts fights, america never does right? gimme a break.



RE: USA
By Miggle on 12/26/2006 6:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. But lets keep the peace here.


RE: USA
By Skilty on 12/22/2006 7:17:43 AM , Rating: 2
Ok being a limey I don't understand all of the yank bashing. At the end of the day every country must have a defense against hostile intent against its borders and its interests. I have to admit US foreign policy is the thing that should be questioned as it has caused more issues in the Middle East than it can ever hope to solve. Rather than fighting terrorism its actually probably radicalised more groups into action. Having said that the British government are no better!

As for WWII, weren't the Americans rather late to the party? ;-p


RE: USA
By Nightskyre on 12/22/2006 9:22:05 AM , Rating: 3
Late to the party? Absolutely not. America was actively trying to remain a non-hostile party. Yes, they were giving supplies to the British, but they were actively NOT engaging in warfare. It wasn't until the Japanese directly attacked the American borders that they became actively involved. Read your history book. America retaliated when it was threatened.


RE: USA
By Kuroyama on 12/22/2006 6:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
Read your history book. If you want to start pointing fingers, you might realize that Japan attacked the US when we put an oil embargo on them. By your logic Japan retaliated when it was threatened by economic destruction.

Not to mention that our "non-hostile" behavior included supplying those actively fighting Germany and Japan (as you yourself note). Based on your jingoistic attitude I am sure that you consider Iran as an enemy of the US for supplying those who dislike us, so by your logic we are if anything worse than Iran because we supplied people actively fighting wars against Germany and Japan.

Disclaimer: No, I don't think Japan, Germany or Iran were/are justified in their actions. But don't go pretending we are an innocent party either.


RE: USA
By Shintai on 12/22/2006 7:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
I think you lack quite abit of facts on history.

http://politics.videosift.com/video/Lil-Hitler-suc...

Thats alittle funny, but also shows WHEN the US cared. Until then they couldnt be bothered. And saved us? You know without the french you hate so much, you would be a british puppet now.


RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 8:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
You do really you made a silly contradictory comment there right? LOL....you emphasis "WHEN the US cared"...but yet you bring up the French helping the US during the revolution....you do realize right that the French were rather late in helping the US as well.....in fact the US was getting strung out pretty thin waiting for some allied help..then the French showed up...at last. Now I'm not making fun of the French here having said that, I'm merely stating it because if you are gonna mock the timing of the US help in WWII, let's also mock the timing of the French in the Revolution.

Now that that business is out of the way...

The original comment in this posting was silly about Canada and never should of be stated.

Every nation has a duty to protect its citizens, in fact that is one of (if not THE most important) reason for governments to even exist....provide for the defense and security of all its citizens.

The US btw, giving aid to our allied nations before we got physically involved in WWII due to the attack on Pearl...and FINALLY.....don't bullshit everyone with the "US was late" rant.....I don't rightly see a lot of nations helping out with a lot of operations the US nearly stands alone on. And can the "world police comments"....some of that is valid, and Iraq is a poor excuse to use....but with the middle east situation over the decades....research the numbers of forces...its US overwhelming have spilt more of its own blood than any of our allied nations have.

Not saying the action is right or wrong for us even being over there...but what happened to the "team spirit" allies are supposed to have?

And so yeah..that's why I find it rich and ironic....



RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Are you trying to tell me that the American Revolution was inspired by the French Revolution? Probably not, since it took place after. Or maybe you mean the French directly liberated us from the British.

I don't really follow. Maybe I should have paid more attention in history classes. :( Do expand please.


RE: USA
By Trippytiger on 12/22/2006 1:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you should have paid more attention. The French played a big role in the American Revolution; they sent soldiers to America to help fight the British troops and poured a great deal of their own money into the effort. The number of places in the U.S. named "Lafayette" pays tribute to the marquis de Lafayette, a French general who fought with the Americans.

In turn, this actually had a fairly large part in the French Revolution, as it can trace its roots back to the meeting of the Estates General, which I believe (been a while since history class for me) was mostly about the king wanting to raise taxes to help the French government recover some of the money it sunk into America.


RE: USA
By iNGEN on 12/22/2006 3:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
The French have shown up at critical times during each of the conflicts on US soil. With the exception of the French & Indian War (you folks in Canada, and in Europe call it something else) the Frenchies have provided critical support in America's moments of greatest need. The American's have always found it interesting, however, that the French never show up until the winner is clearly decided.

Examples:
During the War for Independence the French had 3 officers assigned to liaison with the colonist forces throughout the war, but would not commit any troops despite repeated promises to the contrary. In the closing days of the war Washington and his Continental Army, supplemented by states' militias, drove Gen. Cornwallis into the sea. Earlier coastal battles had functionally eliminated the American Navy and shrunk the British flotilla to only transports and a handful of combat vessels, only one of which was a ship-of-the-line. No matter how bad Cornwallis was beaten, he could always make reparations in the Caribbean and reinvade in a few short months, potentially carrying on the conflict for several more years. Just as Cornwallis began loading his transports the French Navy showed up. The Frenchies blasted the hell out of the already warn-torn British ships leaving Cornwallis no alternative, but surrender.

During the War Between the States the British , oddly enough, showed favor upon the Confederacy. The Brits wouldn't field infantry in the internal conflict of another nation, so they used their navy to protect Confederate merchant ships along their trade routes. This kept the whole of the inferior Confederate Navy free for combat operations while the Union Navy had to divide up its superior forces to maintain civil patrol; thereby "leveling the playing field". It worked for the first part of the war. But shortly after the Battle at Gettysburg, the French Navy showed up again, this time with notice they would fire on any vessel firing on any Union ship, American or not. This network of ultimatums effectively took British naval power off the balance sheet. Union naval forces quickly blockaded Confederate trade routes forcing surrender years sooner than would have otherwise been likely in a war that had already run far to long a course. It's important to note that in both cases French use of force saved a considerable number of American lives, but also that the French did act until it was clear which side was the victor and there was minimal risk of loss.

My knowledge of French action in The Great War is limited. I only know French casualties were proportionally far worse than the other western allied nations, and that the French desertion rate was likewise proportionally higher.

During the Second World War about 2/3 of France capitulated with the Nazi invaders almost immediately. Although I've heard people here on this board comment like they rolled over without so much as a shot being fired. I think the Vichy French put a little bit of a fight before crying uncle...just not much of one. On the flip side of the coin, French resistance (mostly bourgeois civilians whose businesses had been nationalized by the nazis) provided absolutely crucial intelligence about occupation forces in France during the summer of 1944. Without that intelligence the D-Day invasion would likely have failed. French resistance also sabotaged German equipment, moved road signs so German reinforcements went they tried to move south to cut off the freshly landed allied forces. They even assasinated a few Nazi officials and officers before D-Day. Once again its important to note how important their contribution truly was. However, it's worthy of note as well that when they stood to loose a lot they just gave up, but when the risk of loss topped out at a few hundred volunteers they were all in. It is often believed that the U.S. liberated France, this is a fallacy as fighting throughout France far outlasted D-Day and involved significant action by Canadian and British forces as well as US, but the US landed on heavily defended beaches whereas the former encountered little resistance landing. It is said an American died for every step taken back from the German's in France.

Hopefully this helps you, WhiteBoyFunk. As well as those of you who were didn't follow all the animosity between the French and American posters on this board.


RE: USA
By JoseMaria on 12/22/2006 8:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
Eeeerrrrr, quick history lesson. It was SPAIN who helped the US, with CASH as a matter of fact, used to pay for weapons. France was late and lame to the party.


RE: USA
By dsumanik on 12/22/2006 11:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, have a look on youtube and watch what our military is doing over there....and recording it for the world to see. semper fi! we got some really smart marines nowadays.

We have wiped out a complete country and mentally and physically torment innocent citizens regularly, even women and children.

sound familiar?

like a terrorist organization perhaps?

its us man.

You think 9/11 was bad?

9/11 is a complete joke compared to rolling an army onto foriegn soil and blowing everything up.

what if a foriegn army rolled onto american soil and decided to attack? Would that be more monumental than 2 planes crashing into a building? 5000 dead?

big whoop.

Would you expect an armed response form your military to retaliate against a foreign invasion?

Guess what? The Arabs over there will too, and in 10 years further splinter cells and terrorists organizations will be retaliating for what our glorious army is doing over there now.

Congratulations, we've secured more terrorism at the cost of 600 billion and counting.

The only way the ignorant, uneducated, fat, lazy, and money hungry consumer troggs of our "glorious" country will ever wake up is when someone they know gets killed as a result of this senseless and stupid unwinnable battle.

when a family member die, then youve paid the price. When you lose a leg in a bombing, then youve paid the price.

you heard bush in his last statement, i encourage you to go shopping.

spend spend spend so we can kill kill kill, oh well change the channel rosie andthe donald are fighting...much more entertaining.

i see why america is so hated, were disgusting.

happy holidays and safe flying.




RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 11:44:17 AM , Rating: 3
Nice. Judge an organization of around 300k (USMC) on the behavior of a handful. I love blanket statments. Condemn the majority for the acts of the few.

Damn armchair assholes slaming the military who are sacrificing their lives, while you have your smug remarks from the safety of your home..then after you are done here you'll log off and what go play your PS3 or maybe watch a movie, go over a friends house ?

What an idiot.

NEWSFLASH...in EVERY group you WILL have bad seeds....its all the law of averages and part of the human condition. The more people in a group the greater the likelihood, the less people the chance decreases.



RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
This kid is a pr0 debater. Everyone should rate him up ^_^


RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
This comment, much like its creator I'm sure, is without base and useless to the direction of the thread.

Yes, we have wiped the country out. Utterly and completely, without a doubt. This is of course since we are the ones killing thousands of innocent Iraq civilians each month. Not so much.

People like this are the ones who give me reason to believe that the draft should be re-reinstituted. Just think how his perspective would shift once his truck was hit by an RPG on the streets of Baghdad.


RE: USA
By Schadenfroh on 12/22/2006 11:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
This weapon is a big win for civilians. One of the reasons that cruise missiles in Iraq hit civilian buildings was that anti-aircraft guns damaged them and threw them off course. These fly so fast that it would be very hard to hit with said guns, and thus they will hit their correct targets.


RE: USA
By Gannon on 12/23/2006 8:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
"You'd either be speaking German or you would be dead if it wasn't for the US"

What a bunch of nonsense. Look at asia, india's and russia's population. There is no way Germany would have taken over the world it simply did not have the manpower or the technical expertise. Just look at the blunders in IRAQ by the USA right now, they can't even manage to take over a small country of around ~25 something million. Sad.


RE: USA
By alcalde on 12/24/2006 1:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, you'd be speaking...um... English... well, the Queen's English, anyway... if the French hadn't helped America during the Revolutionary War. And the Soviets were the real heroes of WWII, grinding Hitler's military machine to a halt at an astounding cost in lives and property.

I also can't conceive of an imminent threat to Canada that will require the intervention of U.S. forces. In fact, with U.S. forces stretched to the breaking point, the U.S. couldn't send a significant military force into Canada if it wanted to.


RE: USA
By spluurfg on 12/22/2006 7:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
Horrible? Weapons like these are designed to be fast and accurate in order to destroy their targets and cause little collateral damage. I see smart weapons like these as a step forward from the days when nations, say, firebombed cities and annihilated their populations.

The firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet did not have nearly the same psychological effect. It is better to have a strike option that causes fewer casualties to reach the desired objective. This weapon could have a dramatic psychological impact if knowing that ambushing a patrol could bring a missile strike in 20 minutes from a loitering bomber; an impact that could potentially save lives.

Of course, that isn't to say that diplomacy shouldn't be our first option...


RE: USA
By Seer on 12/24/2006 2:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
The fire-bombing of Dresden killed more people than either Fat Man or Little Boy.


RE: USA
By dome1234 on 12/21/2006 8:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
canada is land&sea-locked by the states. Another way of putting it is that canada has less enemies.

Given the current state of world, a supersonic cruise missile definitely wouldn't win any wars on terror.

btw, has the osama chap been caught?


RE: USA
By badgeror on 12/22/2006 3:20:43 AM , Rating: 1
Nope Ossama hasn't been caught and I don't know if you're aware of it but it seems that some french special forces (yeah I know thanks to you guys they don't speak german, blablabla) had 2 opportunities to shoot him in 2003 and 2004 but they had to wait for US instructions to do so (as they are under US command in Afganistan), instructions that never came. Now tell me about how much Georges wants his Ossama killed. I guess it would have prevented him and Donald to go after Sadam and his oil rich nation...


RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 9:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
I know dispite any disclaimer I could write this will likely sent off a political rant but its the truth....

The REAL genuine and BEST opportunity we had (USA) to kill Osama was well before George Bush was president....it was during the Clinton administration. We had special forces who literally had him in their friggin sights but they were told to stand down.

And btw....this information is from the guy that was running the Osama Bin Laden desk at the CIA...translation he was tasked with heading the operations to get bin laden.

Micheal something or other was his name I believe.

Last name was Schaffer or Sawyer or something like that.



RE: USA
By psenechal on 12/22/2006 11:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
Donny Whalberg played him in the TV movie :)

You're right though...everyone was too chicken sh!t to be the one to authorize pulling the trigger and were afraid of the fallout. Same thing when we had a missile strike...someone in the State Department called and warned the Pakistani government that a missile was going to be crossing their air space. And of course they called and told Bin Laden to get out.

It kills me at how many chances we had to stop 9/11 and just flat out blew it.


RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
I never saw the movie you refer to. But yes when I think about how we had Osama so many times and didn't act and then look at the state we are in....just makes me sick.


RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
I hardly believe this claim. We were in the same situation with another member of our so 'loved' organization, the dirka-dirkanians, and we took his ass out right quick and in a hurry. Al-Zarqawi or something I believe his name was. F-16 smart bomb jacked his ass and his homeboys in their hut probably talking about the next 'Khoabar Towers.' God knows they got what they deserved.


RE: USA
By Martin Blank on 12/21/2006 8:24:45 PM , Rating: 5
The idea behind such weapons is to allow rapid strikes upon receipt of actionable intelligence, cutting off the heads of organizations before they have a chance to move, and thus hopefully shortening any conflict.

In Canada, the military is quite important. That's why money has been spent lately upgrading the CF-18 fighters, purchasing new helicopters and submarines, and preparing to buy new naval vessels to replace aging units. All of these would have upgraded weapons systems.

It is also my experience that Canadians often love to boast of the skill of Joint Task Force 2, a special operations unit that has been deployed in Afhganistan and Iraq.


RE: USA
By Duwelon on 12/21/2006 8:27:06 PM , Rating: 3
The USA Is spreading lies that Iran wants nukes. They're spreading lies that dictators want such weapons. Oh the lies that are being spread, the world is like a fluffy bunny, harmless if it just weren't for countries like the USA!


RE: USA
By ajfink on 12/21/2006 8:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
You've been hanging out with Kim Jong Il too much.


RE: USA
By OddTSi on 12/21/2006 9:01:06 PM , Rating: 3
I believe he's being sarcastic.


RE: USA
By QuadCore6700 on 12/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: USA
By Ardan on 12/22/2006 2:37:27 AM , Rating: 1
LOL, that's no surprise to anybody here. Most people know that Bush is a big threat to world peace whether they are in Europe or over here in the US. If you were, don't assume that everyone here just totally loves him and thinks he's great. His approval rating has been in the toilet for a while now (and he should never have been re-elected).


RE: USA
By tdream on 12/22/06, Rating: 0
RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 11:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. ;)


Indeed you did make your point. Message received -- you are rambling idiot who talks out his ass. Well said.



RE: USA
By tdream on 12/27/2006 9:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, the typical american pov, ignore everything and bark out what you've been brainwashed to say. "My country's great, there isn't even a possiblity of corruption going on in government, heck I've to worry about the kids, my job, my family and everything else.. all the while some europeons are telling me whats wrong with my country, gosh darnit, I'm gonna give them a piece of my mind, now where's my gun." You opinion is null and void, go back to sleep.


RE: USA
By JoseMaria on 12/22/2006 8:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
Idiot. Have you ever had an original opinion? I doubt it. Who tells Bush what to do? No please. Don't tell me it's corporations . Retard.


RE: USA
By tdream on 12/27/2006 9:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
It's so obvious even a retard like you knows. Of course it's the coporations, but don't bandy about the word like some toy. It's about people, money, political influence and economic ties with other countries. So one US company decides to set foot in the middle east, they discover the wonders of oil, it can make so many things, and be used to power cars, create electricity. It's a very important resource you say to yourself. Well you are right, so important the US will kill, deceive, coerce and blatantly invade to get it and control it.

It doesn't matter to you, you are living in your suburban house, with central heating, and all manner of electronic toys blaring and making noise, you don't have time to think how this is happening and nor do you care. I do.


RE: USA
By JoseMaria on 12/22/2006 1:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
Get your head out of your ass and speak for yourself, and not for a good 25 nations. Not everyone in Europe shares your stupid armchair view of politics. The fact of the matter is that people who mostly agree with Bush, like I do, do not go out to protest given a chance.

Incidentally, this will be a great weapon to replace tomahawks with.


RE: USA
By elegault on 12/21/2006 8:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
How ironic, the USA supported Saddam (during the Iraq/Iran war) and Osama (when Russia occupied Afganastan) and then they became enermy #1.

The USA should just mind there own business, unless as part of the UN.


RE: USA
By DkFFIV on 12/21/2006 9:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose you would rather we still be in the Cold War with the U.S.S.R. controlling most of Europe and the Middle East.

The U.N. doesn't do anything - its a useless organization. The U.N. would've never done anything about Iraq, not due to moral grounds but rather because Iraq owed countries like France, Germany, and Russia so much money. If the government was overthrown, all those debts would be void.


RE: USA
By Fenixgoon on 12/21/2006 9:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
qftmft - after WWII, the US was the major force keeping communism in check. we were (and still are) considered the leaders of the free world. look how well communism turned out for the USSR. they're doing great, aren't they? </sarcasm>

and yes, the UN is a useless organization. it takes them forever to do something (if it at all - look at rwanda and darfur, where people refuse to actually call something a genocide and take real action). and of course, the brilliantly successful oil for food program. then, we have the "threats of possible embargo" for breaking UN treaties set (both NK and Iran, IIRC). and what was the response when NK kicked out UN nuclear inspectors? "Please, could you keep them? We're asking nicely, but we won't do a DAMN THING if you say no, even though you're breaking our mandates, as ruled by the security council."


RE: USA
By QuadCore6700 on 12/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: USA
By neihrick1 on 12/21/2006 10:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure the "Iron Curtain" was considered under USSR control.
http://www2.michael-cramer.de/uploads/pages_200510...

Everyone's anti-America remarks show signs of envy which i take as complimenting.


RE: USA
By LiberalBlaster on 12/21/2006 11:20:32 PM , Rating: 3
Your extreme anti-Americanism takes your comments out of the realm of credibility.

Why hasn't the UN acted to stop the genocide in Darfur? Is it the US that's blocking those efforts? Why did SUDAN head the human rights council?

And as to the world 'hating' America, so what? That's juvenile logic. We aren't engaged in a popularity contest. Would you prefer China or Russia as world leaders setting the standard of liberty and individual freedom?


RE: USA
By Fenixgoon on 12/22/2006 12:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
so, when does an "act of genocide" become full fledge "genocide"? i'm sure the 800,000 rwandans slaughtered appreciated the inability of the UN to take a proper moral stand and intervene. :disgust;


RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The USSR controlled most of *Eastern* Europe, that's not the same as "most of Europe".


Damn bro, your arrogance is starting to blur out everyone else's replies on this page.
That sort of crap you post is relative. Define 'Eastern Europe' and 'most of.' You are just here to point fingers and promote your anti-Bush politics. I'm no Bush fan myself, but I know my place. I doubt you could lead a Bingo club for the elderly not to mention a flippin' country.


RE: USA
By crazydrummer4562 on 12/22/2006 1:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
Controlling most of Europe? Are you on crack?

Anyhow I do agree with your UN view to a certain extent, they need to exert more force more quickly to even be useful.


RE: USA
By borowki on 12/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: USA
By gersson on 12/22/2006 8:56:43 AM , Rating: 1
lol yeah too bad Reagan didn't know the future...


RE: USA
By glennpratt on 1/4/2007 12:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, what assholes modded this down?


RE: USA
By pauldovi on 12/21/2006 11:59:17 PM , Rating: 4
The United States has never supported Osama Bin Laden, the Al-Quida terrorist network, or any other fundamentalist terrorist group, ever. You seem to be one of countless people who hate President Bush, but you don't know why.

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States made an agreement with Saudi Arabia. The US government would match dollar for dollar the money that the Saudi's contributed to rebel forces in Afghanistan. The US support went to Pakistan where it was distributed to local tribal rebel groups. The Saudi's government money went to fundamental Islamic groups that were foreign to Afghanistan (mostly from Saudi Arabia). These groups included Al-Quida.

Having a extremely powerful military is the best assurance of peace. Do you think that South Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, India and Pakistan, most of Africa, and countless South American countries would be currently free and independent or peaceful without the military presence of the United States to keep order? Kuwait would be under Iraqi control, South Korean a communist providence of North Korea, Taiwan would be in a bloody war with China, India and Pakistan would be slaughtering each other, Arab states would destroy Israel, and the war would be a mess. However, the presence of US armed forces around the world continually keep the peace. The United States has spent billions of dollars, and countless lives to protect most of the world. You may say that is non of our business. At least that is what they said in the 1920's and 1930's. How long was it before England and France were begging for US support? The US minded its own business, and look what happened to 32 millions civilians because the US wanted to mind its own business and England didn't want to start a war.

The US has an interesting role that has been bestowed upon its government. Countries expect it to come to the rescue when they need help. Countries expect US aide when disaster strikes. How many countries COMPLETELY rely on their defense from the US? Japan, Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia, ect.

What has the UN done? Nothing. The United Nations has allowed countless cilivians be murdered throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East while doing nothing. Shame on them.

Are you really naive enough to think that a world exists without militaries, without armed conflict, without war? As Plato said, "Only the dead have seen the end of war", and in the worlds of Einstein, "perpetual peace in a futile dream." Time to hit reality my friend. Deterrence really works. The most successful instance of it was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) during the Cold War.

In this day and age of global terrorism and a world economy. Everyone and everything is especially vulnerable. By having free trade around the world, trade and economics becomes just as much a weapon of war as tanks and bombs. Thus, one must be able to extend its military power to defend its economic interests.

If a country develops a weapon so powerful and so deadly as to assure your destruction, isn't that the ultimate defense of peace? Who would attack a country or their allies when faced with total destruction? That my friend, is the only way to ensure peace. Something holding hands will never do.


RE: USA
By Martin Blank on 12/22/2006 12:33:52 AM , Rating: 2
By and large I agree with you, but to be fair, the US has had little to nothing to do with the "peace" between India and Pakistan, who fought wars in 1947, 1965, and 1971, and have engaged in weeks- or months-long skirmishes at various points since then that have cost hundreds and sometimes thousands of lives. The lack of a full-scale war in the last 35 years has to do with matched forces, their borders being on some of the worst terrain in the world, and in recent years a low level of mutually-assured destruction.

The CIA also had boots on the ground in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, so it wasn't just sending money. Real weapons were sent to the mujahedeen, and they, in turn, sent back fragments of Soviet equipment from vehicles destroyed and infantry equipment captured.


RE: USA
By tdream on 12/22/2006 8:25:25 AM , Rating: 2
I firmly believe that the world would be a safer place without the militaristic intervention of the US.

Lest you forget who put Saddam in power in the first place? Do you forget the meeting with Rumsfeld and Saddam, or are you selectively remembering. You could easily work for Fox News, in fact I'm surprised you haven't received a letter of invitation to work of them. They way you spin off verbal tripe for facts.

China is the reason North Korea and Taiwan are not at war not the US. Countless South American countries free, lol, give me a break, they would be no better or worse without american "aid".

An interesting role ... bestowed.... how about replacing those words with, self-proclaimed and political corecion? Because if you don't agree with america they you are the enemy how thats for political suicide. Everyone said don't go into Iraq yet not until everyone at the UN agress, but oh no... george and his cornies completely ignore the advisors in the UN and wanted swift economical and phsycial retribution for 9/11 which was very useful and timely excuse to plow hundreds of thousands of troops into iraq.

You see the problem that you and so many americans are missing is that you cannot possible have an objective view of the international operations of your country. I am neither american nor from the middle east. I just see what is happening. I see american splurge into Iraq, killing innocent people under the banner of "the war on terror" (cough...bs) and democracy. Is it not democratic to let other people run their countries and lives they way they want to? Hmm... that sounds a heck of a lot more democratic than rushing in with the latest weaponry bombing a 3rd world country to kingdom come and stick your flag on the Saddam Statue. Which btw actually happened until some clever american realised they should actually put the Iraqi flag on the statue, that is the mentality of the entire militaristic operation. They don't give a flying f00k where they're going or why they're doing it. They just follow orders, like the simpletons they are.

Oh and your point about free trade. American like the bullies they are, saw a weak crippled country with vast natural resources, and they wanted it. Just like taking candy from a baby. That's exactly what happened as simple as it sounds.

Mr Kim Jong Il is also developing a weapon for you MAD. Why doesn't every country develop a MAD weapon so that no one has to listen to the drab foreign policies of america, and that way know one has to co-operate with you unless they want to.


RE: USA
By Martin Blank on 12/22/2006 10:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
"Lest you forget who put Saddam in power in the first place?"

No, those of us who know what we're talking about have not forgotten that Saddam put himself in power through bribery, extortion, and murder, long before the US took any serious interest in what was happening in Iraq, which was much closer to the Soviet Union at the time and considered a threat only insofar as they had participated in combat operations against Israel.


RE: USA
By tdream on 12/27/2006 9:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
So "before the US took any interest" and why did they take interest hmm.... ?? out of sheer good will... lol

Yes Saddam had positioned himself to take over but he absolutely did not have the capability to invade kuwait until the US came in and sold him all the weapons, tank and munitions his oil could pay for. Which in itself was a good thing for america, because the blood thirsty nation and yet another reason to go to war. And war is a good time for 2 things, business and politics. A lot of money was made churning out bombs, guns, and men. It's easy to get your people to be patriotic when you're fighting the so called enemy and so easy to stay in office tho bribing officials also helps, couldn't also to allude to Saddam path to power. Your own president did not officially win through fair means. He used the same methods as Saddam to get into power. Of course murder would be harder to cover up, there's always blackmail, political influence and money. The ways to capitalism and corruption. Thats why the world hates america and why middle eastern countries don't want to follow in your tainted footsteps.


RE: USA
By edge929 on 12/22/2006 11:19:16 AM , Rating: 2
Two phrases come to mind.

"Never bite the hand that feeds you"

"Survival of the fittest"


RE: USA
By pauldovi on 12/22/2006 12:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
The United States had little influence in the rise of power of Saddam. That would be where the British come in.

North Korea and Taiwan have no interest in fighting. China would like to invade Taiwan, but they haven't because of the US carrier fleet along with the US policy of supporting all freely elected governments. North Korea hasn't invaded South Korea because of the US presence in Asia. Should North Korea show any aggressions, the United States would commit several carrier battle grounds and the entire Pacific Command to defending Korea. That is quite a formidable force, one that not even Kim Jong Crazy is going to mess with.

If America doesn't come to the aide of countries that have been attacked or hit by a natural disaster, there is an international outcry. If you look at recent US Wars, very few have been initiated by the US:

War of 1812 - England tried to take over the US again, failed. Initiated by England.
Mexican American War - Instigated by both sides, Mexico refused diplomatic solutions, invaded Texas.
Spanish American War - The US supported Cuba rebel forces against Spain, attacked their assets in Asia. Started by the US in support for a rebel force.
World War I US enters the war late (after US passenger ship sunk). Saves England and France and brings a swift victory.
War World II - Again US enters the war late, after being attacked by the Japanese. The US saves England and France once again, and defeats Japan at the same time.
Korean War North Korea attacked S. Korea. US supported South Korea.
Vietnam War - US support South Vietnam after the Communist invasion of North Vietnam.
Desert Storm - US and coalition response to Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Operation Enduring Freedom - US response to terrorist attacks on America and the refusal of the Taliban to remove Al-Quida.
Iraqi Freedom Initiated by the US to remove Saddam from power.

In all the wars the US has been involved in, it only initiated 2 of them (Spanish American War and Iraqi Freedom).

Since the US invasion of Iraq, and the birth of a new freely elected government, do you realize the effect of rising expectations is? Saudi Arabia had its first free elections and the first woman member of parliament. Same can be said for Lebanon and Syria. The effects of rising expectations throughout the Middle East has been wonderful.

Since the US invasion of Iraq, the US has lost hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. Not a single dollar has been taken from Iraq, or its supplies to pay for that cost. Halliburton, the company so many say is making money in Iraq has made less than a 1.5% profit. The US isn't in Iraq to make money. They are there to secure the Middle East. The Middle East is the source of a vast amount of oil and terrorist.


RE: USA
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/22/2006 6:18:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
China would like to invade Taiwan, but they haven't because of the US carrier fleet along with the US policy of supporting all freely elected governments.


That and the fact that China has been bleeding Taiwan dry economically for 10 years. They don't need to invade anymore.


RE: USA
By Kuroyama on 12/22/2006 6:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the US policy of supporting all freely elected governments.

Glad to hear that we will be supporting Chavez in the future. He may be an a-hole, authoritarian, and possibly have manipulated earlier elections, but I do not think anyone serious has claimed that he did not win the election they just had in Venezuela or that he is not supported by a majority of Venezuelans. Ah, and Commandante Ortega did win the previous election in Nicaragua. It's so wonderful that we are supporting all freely elected governments these days!


RE: USA
By Eris23007 on 12/22/2006 3:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China is the reason North Korea and Taiwan are not at war not the US. Countless South American countries free, lol, give me a break, they would be no better or worse without american "aid".


False. China (and to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union) is the reason that North Korea even exists. The UN troops had pushed the North Koreans nearly to the Chinese border in 1950, before the Chinese sent their troops into North Korea, which led to them recapturing Seoul in 1951. The Korean war was extended by nearly two years as a result of Mao's decision to involve China in the war, and resulted in a stalemate that perpetuated the North Korean regime. China is the reason why millions of North Koreans live in abject poverty while Kim Jong Il lives a life of wealthy splendor. China consistently refuses to follow the international convention on refugees, forcing North Koreans who attempt to flee the harsh conditions in NK to return to NK and face almost certain death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

quote:
American like the bullies they are

quote:
You could easily work for Fox News, in fact I'm surprised you haven't received a letter of invitation to work of them. They way you spin off verbal tripe for facts.

quote:
Why doesn't every country develop a MAD weapon so that no one has to listen to the drab foreign policies of america, and that way know one has to co-operate with you unless they want to.

quote:
You see the problem that you and so many americans are missing is that you cannot possible have an objective view of the international operations of your country. I am neither american nor from the middle east. I just see what is happening.


You accuse Americans of non-objectivity while refusing to observe your own biases. I recommend you consider this problem before accusing others. You might find that people pay more attention to your viewpoints when they are backed up with fact and references, as opposed to vitriolic bluster. Until you actually back up your wild claims with objective fact-checkable evidence, I personally cannot give your points reasonable consideration, particularly when I am so easily able to contradict one of your central claims (see above). I hope others will take such a fact-based (i.e., non-emotional, but purely rational) approach to such topics of debate as well - the vitriol does no one any good.

quote:
They just follow orders, like the simpletons they are.


Finally: I encourage you to continue to believe our military and civilian leaders are "simpletons". Please spread this impression around as much as possible. Life is much easier when your enemies (and sometimes even your allies) underestimate you.


RE: USA
By Orpheus333 on 12/22/2006 7:34:12 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, cause the UN gets a lot done.

Have you ever heard of Darfur? oil for food? I mean, Do you know what the UN does? cause... I sure don't. Its just a flame America fest while we pay for the UN dues and act like they have some influence in the world when they actually don't and we end up doing everything unilaterally anyway.

If you think the US is corrupt then you know nothing of the UN.

However, I do think the US should just mind its own business- Develop missile defense and the hell with everyone.

*braces for the rate down*


RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 11:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
Wow you don't know much about the history of wars/military in the world if you think the USA is the only time they made a temporary ally out of an enemy to hopefully crush a then considered worse enemy.....

The history of the world is filled with such things....hell empires rose up built off the very principle.


RE: USA
By Goty on 12/21/2006 10:01:35 PM , Rating: 1
Yup, we're lying when the Iranian Prime Minister has publicly announced that his country is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons and intends to use them to wipe Israel off the map. Guess we just made that up, too.


RE: USA
By Martin Blank on 12/22/2006 12:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
There's no such thing as an Iranian Prime Minister. There is an Iranian President, who has declared publicly that his country is pursuing the development of nuclear power (electricity), and that Israel "should" and "will be" wiped off the map. Whatever nuclear weapons Iran is pursuing is under a secret program the existence of which Iran continues to deny.

If you're going to try to prove a point based on what someone said, don't get it out of context and do attribute it to the right person.


RE: USA
By crazydrummer4562 on 12/22/2006 1:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
Prime Minister? Public announcement? Get your shit straight before you post and make yourself stupid, because you did an excellent job right there.


RE: USA
By hecksign on 12/22/2006 2:17:36 PM , Rating: 1
why the US can make new weapons but country like Iran cant have nuclear technology for electric?


RE: USA
By Hawkido on 12/26/2006 12:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why the US can make new weapons but country like Iran cant have nuclear technology for electric?


Why would Iran be seeking nuclear power for electricity? They can use oil as it is nationalized in their country and generate electricity at 10% of the cost that america pays for it. It has no source of Plutonium or Uranium in it's country, and last time is checked the cost of fueling a reactor would exceed 50 years worth of oil for powering their country. Fuel rods only last 15 to 25 years depending on the quality. Oil generated electricity is much more economic and enviromentally friendly. Or do you think they will be carefully disposing of the fuel rods once spent. You would have to be a fool to think they do not have ambitions to make nuclear weapons. There have been statements from Hezbolla that they are seeking Nukes, and Iran IS Hezbolla by proxy.


RE: USA
By afkrotch on 12/21/2006 8:41:44 PM , Rating: 1
And in Canada, they'd require the US military to protect them. The US Airforce is kicking more ppl out of the Airforce than Canada has in their entire military.

There's more planes in the US Airforce, than there are tanks, planes, ships, boats, choppers, APCs, subs, etc that are owned by Canadian Forces.

If the US doesn't intervene, a like 10 special forces soldiers from like Israel or something with nothing but AK-47s could destroy Canada.

That's not something to be proud of.


RE: USA
By Trippytiger on 12/21/2006 9:51:00 PM , Rating: 4
Canada has a small, but capable armed forces. We don't pour the kind of money into our military as the United States for several reasons...

1 - Our population is 1/10 that of the U.S., and the money available for military spending is commensurately reduced. It would be ridiculous to expect Canada to have an army that even begins to approach the size of the American military - it would be unsustainable.

2 - Unlike the U.S., Canada does not make a habit of starting military engagements. Our armed forces are usually employed in peacekeeping missions or tagging along with allies who do start wars. As such, we have no particular need for an army capable of overpowering that of any other country. Besides, we basically get one free invasion anyways - nobody would see it coming.

3 - Also unlike America, Canada does not generally make a habit of provoking the enmity of other countries, deliberately or otherwise. As such, the need for a large defence force is eliminated.

And quite frankly, the fact that my country prefers to put more money towards efforts that help people (like socialized medicine and paying our U.N. dues) rather than efforts that kill people (like supersonic cruise missiles) makes me very proud. I'm glad that I don't live in a country that has the unenviable position of being the world's foremost military power.


RE: USA
By QuadCore6700 on 12/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: USA
By pauldovi on 12/22/2006 12:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
If you actually did some research instead of spit out useless fact-less opinion, you might say something worthwhile.

1. Gun bearing communities contain far lower crime rates then those with guns.
2. Well over 90% of violent crime is committed with illegal weapons. (those that are not registered)
3. Why would someone who is going to murder (and thus break the law) be interested in following laws regarding gun control?
4. Why should the government have absolute control over its citizens. "A man with a gun is a citizen, and man without is a subject."
5. England nearly lost WWII because of the virtual disappearance of firearms due to strict gun control. Only the NRA (National Rifle Association of America) was able to provide them with weapons.

An excellent example:

"Kennesaw has the nickname of "Gun Town, USA" due to a city ordinance passed in 1982 [Sec 34-1a] that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the law.

Criminologist and gun-control critic Gary Kleck attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law (Kleck, 1991), and Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners Foundation). Other criminologists dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed (McDowall, Wiersema and Loftin, 1989; McDowall, Lizotte and Wiersema, 1991)."


RE: USA
By Martin Blank on 12/22/2006 12:39:56 AM , Rating: 3
"England nearly lost WWII because of the virtual disappearance of firearms due to strict gun control. Only the NRA (National Rifle Association of America) was able to provide them with weapons."

Erm... WHAT?

What does a lack of rifles have to do with World War II Britain, which had to deal with German bombers, fighters, and V-weapons, and the occasional saboteur, but not an invasion? I've never once heard this kind of assertion, and I've read plenty about that war and about gun control and the effects thereof over the years.


RE: USA
RE: USA
By Martin Blank on 12/22/2006 10:55:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'm familiar with the plans for an invasion, but plans don't mean much unless they're carried out. The basic conditions for a German invasion of Britain (elimination of the British naval and air forces) never arrived. The lack of an invasion had nothing at all to do with the NRA shipping rifles across the Atlantic.


RE: USA
By pauldovi on 12/22/2006 12:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Incidentally, the NRA's call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain's defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II).


http://nra.com/aboutus.aspx


RE: USA
By Martin Blank on 12/22/2006 9:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
...

Do you really think that -- even if an invasion had happened, something which, as I stated above, Germany never was even close to implementing -- a mere 7000 weapons would have done anything significant? Do you not think that the US would not have sent hundreds of thousands of rifles, by air if necessary, which would have dwarfed the contribution by the NRA?


RE: USA
By badgeror on 12/22/2006 3:35:50 AM , Rating: 2
Hum I love this kind of NRA loving trash... Geez man you've got to be really high on crack don't you? Let's take an example : what if guns were forbidden to be bought or carried in US let's say just as in some moron country like France? Welll guess what there would still be some crimes but far less (and bar far less I mean hundred times less) than in the US because people would not shoot at each other for the slightest reason. And frankly I find it much more manly to have a good fight with bare hands than shoot a gun at someone. But hey I'm a retard as I'm french ain't I?

I also love point 4 aren't you part of some kind of militia?

for point 5 read some real history book man you'll avoid looking like one stupid moron stating facts that never were... If NRA guns had been useful to prevent german invasion then it would have meant pilots that were fighting german bombers and fighters were using NRA guns and not such mighty planes as the spitfires. The battle of england was one solely thanks to the courage of those english and european pilots that fought nazis over England not because of some NRA provided weapons


RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
Guns are good. And laws allowing them are even better. Imagine who would be trying to take over the world if guns were prohibited in some countries and not others.

You can NOT stop people from getting a hold of weapons. Appropriately, a perfect example can be applied in current news - Iran and nuclear power.


RE: USA
By pauldovi on 12/22/2006 11:59:16 PM , Rating: 2
1. Guns are used 80 times more often to protect lives then to take them.

2. Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.

3. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent. Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.

4. ccording to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.18 And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

Source: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

If you have a gun, no one is going to mess with you. In Kennesaw, Georgia, a law was enacted requiring all citizens to keep a loaded gun in their house. The results, a 89% drop in residential burglaries, and a 24% drop in murders.

Why don't you use facts in your post?



RE: USA
By Gannon on 12/23/2006 8:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
You wouldn't need a gun in the first place if america was not a hyper selfish society.

I know people in the US right now who are on the verge of homelessness, simply because the social programs absolutely suck. Simply because the state is spending money on military or corporate welfare while a good majority of the american population suffers psychologically and turns to crime, etc. Not to mention the enormous problems with corruption the US has in State prisons, etc... where its profitable to make people criminals for petty crimes and lock them up and take away their freedom to work as slaves for the state.

There's a reason other countries like Canada have lower crime rates, they are simply better people who have better values and are more altruistic in terms of social welfare.


RE: USA
By Misty Dingos on 12/22/2006 10:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell are you on?
quote:
5. England nearly lost WWII because of the virtual disappearance of firearms due to strict gun control. Only the NRA (National Rifle Association of America) was able to provide them with weapons.
I have never heard of this before. And I am a lifetime member of the NRA. Prove this or step back from the bottle.


RE: USA
By Gatt on 12/22/2006 12:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
Actually,

If you reread your history, 3 of the fights we got into in the last century were to bail out France. WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. We went into Iraq the first time to bail out Kuwait, We went into Afganistan because the people they supported thought it'd be cool to ram planes into skyscrapers in the U.S.

You might be able to make a case for Korea, or the second invasion of Iraq, but the rest of it? We were bailing out other countries.


RE: USA
By Martin Blank on 12/22/2006 12:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
France left Vietnam in 1954 or 1955 as a result of the Geneva Accords. American advisors didn't go in until the early 1960s, and the first major combat forces weren't deployed until 1966.

How were we bailing out France there?


RE: USA
By Lakku on 12/22/2006 6:49:56 AM , Rating: 3
1) France didn't leave Vietnam on its own free will. They got whiped during the first Indochina war and were completely whipped out at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. The Geneva Accords split the country in 1951 before the war, but only to wait for democratic elections and reunification. Apparently, Ho Chi Minh had other ideas.

2) Ho Chi Minh was educated in the US at UCLA. He loved it and asked for help during WW2 from the US. The US was willing to help at wars end, but, as you can guess, the French decided it was a good idea to re 'colonize' the area. The US stayed on the side of France, a grave mistake.

3) This angered Uncle Ho. Not only that, the US decided to help with weapons and air power while the French got their asses kicked, for the Nth time in their history. It didn't help, and even though the US didnt puplicly intervene, the Viet Minh knew, and that's all that mattered.

4) Guess who Uncle Ho turns to for help now? Communist China. Guess what the US doesnt like? Communism. Guess where this leads a mere 5 or 6 years later? Advisors on the ground of South Vietnam, sent by good ol JFK, though originally given the idea by previous president Eisenhower.

5) The US then fights it's longest 'war' in history, for a country that couldn't give a crap, all in the name of stopping communism (this is sounding familiar, though in reality, the Vietmanese are much better fighters and quite a bit smarter then middle eastern 'terroists', though I guess in the end they both get the job done).

6) The French got us into it partly, JFK did more, then LBJ did the rest. It didn't need to happen, but it did. And no, combat forces in the thousands were on the ground in 1964.

7) Lesson: Don't fight wars of strategic-less value (read: Iraq), don't fight guirrilla wars, the home 'team' will always win unless you absolutley crush the opposition, mostly by killing everyone different then you, whether they be man woman or child, have the home support, and HAVE AN EXIT STRATEGY. Colin Powell was the last Vietnam general still around when this second invasion came up, and he opposed the idea, though he probably supported Bush publicly for political reasons and because he knew the country needed some kind of solidarity should a war come. Someone lost the Vietnam Doctrine (yes, they had one drafted to keep a second one from happening) apparently, and history is repeating itself. Don't fight wars unless you are willing to kill everyone and destroy everything of the opposing faction (preferably dont start them, try to just defend yourself), or unless you are gaining your liberty. End of story.


RE: USA
By Martin Blank on 12/22/2006 11:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
And this invalidates my point how?

The US did not bail out France. France had been gone from the area for close to a decade.


RE: USA
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 1:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Simply because he replied to your comment doesn't mean he has to provide a counter point. In fact it seems it is helping validate your argument. Instead of looking for a fight you should be thanking him for providing significantly more, valid information in regards to the topic. Why do people always look to pick fights when a "post" button is involved?


RE: USA
By mytran on 12/22/2006 4:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know where you got your facts from but Ho Chi Minh never went to UCLA.


RE: USA
By Lakku on 1/5/2007 5:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, I'm an idiot. Not only is UCLA wrong, I got, for whatever dumb reasons, his background mixed up with Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who was educated at, or attended the US Fleet Academy and Harvard univerisity. He didn't want to attack Pearl Harbor and was the famous qouter of waking the sleeping giant. It was he who liked the US, but Minh did ask for our help during WW2, sorry I got that all messed up, don't know what I was thinking.


RE: USA
By Trippytiger on 12/22/2006 2:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you'll reread your history, you would realize that America's entry into WWI was primarily due to unrestricted submarine warfare on Germany's part; a number of American merchant ships were sunk by German subs. America's military involvement in WWII only began when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, and they directed most of their efforts towards the fight in the Pacific theatre. And the main reason the U.S. got in to Vietnam was because the government wanted to prevent the "spread of communism," of which they had an irrational fear. Finally, the first Gulf War had as much to do with America wanting to keep Iraq well away from Saudi oil fields as it did with defending Kuwait's oil fields.

So, you see, a lot of the wars the U.S. have been stemmed primarily from self-interest. The fact that other nations also benefited was simply a bonus. I'm not complaining about that, but you simply can't say many of America's military engagements had altruistic motivations.


RE: USA
By rcc on 12/23/2006 1:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
America's military involvement in WWII only began when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, and they directed most of their efforts towards the fight in the Pacific theatre.


When the US entered WWII, by agreement with the Allied governments the bulk of our efforts were directed at the European and African theatres. Except for naval forces which were of limited value in Europe apart from ASW operations. The Brits had plenty of naval power to handle Germany, Italy, etc.


RE: USA
By spluurfg on 12/22/2006 7:49:33 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that Canada isn't so inclined to start military engagements is admirable, but give the USA credit for two things:

1 - MOST of the time when we put boots on the ground, we try to achieve some good - ie peacekeeping and aid distribution have been the most common mission of the USMC in the last couple decades

2 - The US does put a LOT of money towards aid programs, whether from federal or private money. (Donations are deductible from taxes in the US, so that removes a big barrier to contributions)

Note that the USA is the largest dollar contributor of governments for aid, though one of the smallest as % of GDP. (about $15B and 0.2% of GDP). However, private contributions totally eclipse this at ~$30B a year, so total contributions of the US are roughly $45B and 0.6% of GDP.


RE: USA
By Trippytiger on 12/22/2006 2:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, that's very true. I hope you didn't mistake my post for America-bashing - while I admit it may have had a little of that, I was mostly just trying to outline why Canada doesn't share America's need for a large army.

I may not always agree with what the U.S. does with their large army, but most of the time the troops are there to do some good work, like you said, and they usually do a decent job of it.


RE: USA
By djkrypplephite on 12/21/2006 9:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Canada doesn't have an army because they know the US will defend them if anything happens.


RE: USA
By poohbear on 12/23/2006 9:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
yes Canada has a small army cause the US will defend us from the "evil empire". Get the fuk out of here w/ that nonsense. Canada had a much larger armed forces when the USSR was around. After the collapse of the USSR, it shrunk considerably because there was no longer any such threat. Canadians troops were all withdrawn from the big american base in Germany. Oddly enough, america didnt reduce its armed forces at all.

also, canada doesnt have one of the most powerful armies in the world because it has among the best, if not the best, police forces in the world. A country that can maintain domestic order & respond to domestic crises (even terrorism) through its police forces doesnt need a uber armed forces.


RE: USA
By Hawkido on 12/26/2006 1:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
Per Capita the US army is smaller than most other country's. Most other countries have a reduced army size because America is the world's peace keepers. You can state you opinion that America starts more wars, and to a point you will have some justification for that.

But read your history, and check the frequency on some dictator rising and trying to consume the area. The occurance of this is not because of the US, this is part of the human condition and has been going on throughout all history both on the macro and micro scale.

The US is not an empire. We gave up Imperial status and disbanded the War Department with WWII and with it we gave up our Neutral status. We are now a proactive force that is seeking to stop any global wars from breaking out (Holy Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, Brittish Empire, Napolean Empire, German Empire, Russian Communist Empire, Etc...)

The problem with the world is now there are no REAL WARS. Everyone knows the US will step in and stop it before one side gets wiped out. Therefore there are no more Victors and Loosers, just ongoing grinding stalemates that claim 10X to 100X the the lives. Countries are not afraid to start a war with a larger better equipped nation (as they should be) because the UN will step in and stop the counter attack (which means US troops on the ground). If the UN just once would turn the other way these littel piss ant countries would win a darwin award and dissappear, no future conflict.

I agree the US needs to become less proactive in the world, and we need to become an Empire again. We should not aid a country unless it subjects itself to us as a territory (no free food, medical aid, or money). When WWIII rolls around, we will claim any country that needs our help. Once claimed the country that is attacking it should get scorched to the hard packed clay underneith it then the ground should be salted. No repeat wars that way... I believe this is called Pax Romana. Oh wait, I guess that didn't work out either.

World opinion should have no bearing on a nation. If France wants to have a say in what the US does, come WWIII, you can wait for statehood.

Because we all know you'll surrender.


RE: USA
By LiberalBlaster on 12/21/2006 11:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
You are proud of living in a country that is so defenseless that without the protection of a neighbor they could be easily conquered by a small military force?


RE: USA
By DOSGuy on 12/22/2006 12:32:38 AM , Rating: 3
Nonsense. Canada had virtually no military prior to World War I, but conscripted and trained an army of 600,000 on the fly. It was one of the best trained and most successful forces in the European theatre.

Canada again had virtually no military prior to World War II, but created an army of more than 1 million which, again, was regarded as one of the best in the Allied forces.

If the need would ever arise, Canada (which now has 32 million people) could conscript an army in the millions and train them in parts of the country that were far from the war (one of the advantages of being the second largest country in the world). With one of the world's largest economies, Canada has hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on weapons. Having to invade by sea would be a huge disadvantage to any invading nation, and such a force could be repelled or confined long enough for American, Commonwealth and NATO reinforcements to arrive. There are more than a billion people in Commonwealth nations; it's hard to imagine who would be stupid enough to attack one of them. The only threat to Canada would be an American invasion, and there may not be any nation capable of repelling such a thing, so why worry about that?


RE: USA
By ceevanz on 12/22/2006 1:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny how so many people from around the world just love to bash the good ole' US of A. What's really ironic, is that if it wasn't for the US (including it's military), you people probably wouldn't have the freedom to post these messages. Hell, their probably wouldn't even be an internet that allows you to post your comments so freely.

Who was it that created the internet in the first place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_...

Also, the reason the US is like this today, is because if we aren't the Global Police Force, then who would be? I guess it would be best if things went differently during WWII? Huh?

Just remember, when the crap ever hits the fan, whose side do you guys really want to be on?

USA stands for freedom and if most Americans have their way, it always will. We have to be on top of the latest and greatest weaponry, becasue if we aren't, then someone else will. The alternatives are scary.


RE: USA
By DOSGuy on 12/22/2006 2:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure someone else would have invented the internet by now.


RE: USA
By msva124 on 12/22/2006 2:37:01 AM , Rating: 1
You reproducing is scary.


RE: USA
By Dribble on 12/22/2006 5:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
Internet as in network of networks first appeared in the us, but it was a Brit who invented the world wide web which we are all using now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web


RE: USA
By tdream on 12/22/2006 8:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
This guys penis is so small he probably owns a mustang or similar model. His point was that Canada does NOT start military engagements against other countries so other countries would not want to battle with Canada anyways. Canadians are a lot more friendly and open minded than americans. As you can see, you are a perfect example of american majority, think with your cock, biggest is best. Are you from Texas btw?


RE: USA
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 1:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
Love generalizations. Everyone hates America so much because they say we do it all the time. I don't know about you, but I just want to live a peaceful happy life (am an American). I don't know what to believe anymore will all the BS flying around about everything, but one thing I do know is generalizing everyone into one group is always a bad thing.

I could care less about what you say about politicians because I feel it is unlikely any are really decent people, but I the american people in general are just like you. We are made of flesh and blood. I don't want blood on my hands or anyone to kill me either. Don't put us all in one group just so you can feel better about hating us.


RE: USA
By tdream on 12/27/2006 10:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
Well I apologies for generalisations, and judging by the narrow victory for Bush in the previous election, it's obvious that everyone does not think like Bush. So please don't feel that the last statement was directed at you. It just saddens me to see so much redneck "yeehaw" behaviour when scientific research produces weapons of even greater destruction. I mean where is that missle going to end up. I can assure you, the end result will never be a good one.


RE: USA
By ceevanz on 12/23/2006 12:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by tdream on December 22, 2006 at 8:05 AM

This guys penis is so small he probably owns a mustang or similar model. His point was that Canada does NOT start military engagements against other countries so other countries would not want to battle with Canada anyways. Canadians are a lot more friendly and open minded than americans. As you can see, you are a perfect example of american majority, think with your cock, biggest is best. Are you from Texas btw?


Sorry. I didn't mean to post this after his Canadian comment. It was meant as a general comment based on everyone else's posts.
BTW, no I'm not from Texas. Try Florida.
You can say what you will, but was your family put in concentration camps by the Japanese in WWII? Was your grandfather a POW in WWII, captured by the Japanese and seen many atrocities? Actually, I'm a Dutch Indo American. Damn proud to be an American, and I'm proud of my heritage.
As far as weaponry goes and this missle, just becasue it's labled as the United States' venture, doesn't mean that other countries aren't involved. Using the F35 as an example:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5398
Look at the picture, whose flags do you see on this plane???
Nuff said.


RE: USA
By rtrski on 12/24/2006 2:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, so being from Texas is now the primary indicator of someone who wants to see war, death, terrorism, counter-terrorism gone overboard, mass hysteria, cats and dogs living together, etc?

You make generalizing assumptions on both sides ("Canadians are a lot more friendly and open minded...", "Are you from Texas?" asked as a slur) while presenting yourself as a moderator calling out someone else's excesses?

Look in the mirror if you want to see an ignorant, insulting asshat. I don't care where you're from...its what you say that tells me about you.

Me? I am living in Texas. And most of the individuals I meet, whether they are from here, immigrated from further South, moved here from elsewhere in or outside of the USA (some even from Iran or Iraq), or are visiting from Britain, Canada, etc. are generally nice people who don't want to dominate or kill anyone. No more so or less so than from anywhere else. Regardless of what 'color' - red or blue - the news prefers to paint the entire state due solely to the direction the electoral votes go, there are all kinds here, as there are everywhere.

And you, by apparently not being from Texas (if you use that so loosely as an insult) yet being an insulting, monolithically categorizing asshat prove the point quite soundly.

Jingoistic jerkoff....


RE: USA
By tdream on 12/27/2006 10:13:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well at least you can appreciate the media's interpretation of your own state. Yes there and a multitude of different minded individuals everywhere, but when you see the news on television and they're counting up the electoral votes, you can see Texas as a big giant red state. So even your own media portrays you that way.

I can understand your resentment towards me but who else will speak up against yahoos who cheer at the creation of a missle that will be useful for deadly purposes. A missle has no other reason for existing other than to kill and destroy. That certainly sounds like it would not fit into your mental lifestyle, and that is why I'm posting on this thread to put forward my anger and disappointment toward this behaviour.

And rather than castigate myself further, if you mean what you have posted, what do you think about the missle?


RE: USA
By Hawkido on 12/28/2006 2:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
open minded


Correct me if I am wrong... and I'm not. (Air Force Arabic CryptoLinguist trained by native Egyptians and Iraqis) Being openminded will get you killed in Radical and even traditional Muslim countries. Shi'a law practically forbids anything not in the Quran, and that's a tiny book to be locked into. So in response to your point that no one would seek to subdue Canada is really weak. This scourge that is now boiling will come for you. Read the history of Islamic expansion. They target weak countries and overrun then with Immigrants then change the laws one by one till it is an Islamic country. If they refuse to change the laws the country is slaughtered. (e.g. Egypt 900A.D. 3 million Coptic Egyptians slaughtered in the streets of Alexandria, history says the streets ran with blood up to the bellies of horses in some places. Those were civilians not soldiers.)

France... Question please... Where are your nude and topless beaches, what's this about you having to place restrictions on them because Muslim Immigrants are offended? Surrendering already?


RE: USA
By heffeque on 12/26/2006 9:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well... nobody attacks Canada because they don't seem to be hated by everyone. Why build an army when you don't need it?


RE: USA
By Dfere on 12/22/2006 8:48:10 AM , Rating: 1
That is real easy to say when most of your population is tucked in between Maine and Minnesota.

Keep throwing away your responsibility to try to advance ALL civilizations on this planet, and keep forcing us to do the job.

Really, this attitude reminds of a little child who has its toy taken away by its mother. We help keep you cozy and warm (in terms of international politics), you get to be the only anglo (well at least partial) country that does not have to address issues of piracy, trade, terrorism and IMHO diplomacy, and you bite the hand that feeds.


RE: USA
By Misty Dingos on 12/22/2006 9:50:34 AM , Rating: 2
I too am glad you don't live in the USA. Freedom isn't free and pacifism is the first step to becoming a slave. I hope you enjoy the feel of a lash across your back. After of a few hundred years of enslavement perhaps you and your kind will rethink the pacifism lifestyle. Meanwhile back in the USA we will still be fighting amongst ourselves and everyone else. Expressing ideas and living pretty much as we please. I will drink some eggnog at Christmas and pray for those that would willing allow themselves to be enslaved because pacifism is the right thing to do.


RE: USA
By TimberJon on 12/22/2006 1:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you dont need an army, then another country would just invade you. No resistance and high acres.

Reminds me of Earth: 2025 (almost there)
www.swirve.com


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki