OMars posted on Sep 30 2006 at 08:15 AM said:
Look, you are extremely intelligent when it comes to technology, but apparently not politics.
Oh, this coming from the guy who takes most of Loose Change as gospel. I can tell already this is going to be fun. I'll thank you for the first half of that comment, though.
OMars posted on Sep 30 2006 at 08:15 AM said:
The "freedom fighters" I am talking about aren't the people who blows themselves up in the middle of a street. The current government in Iraq is a joke, full of kurds and Iranis. They are only trying to get their country back from foreigners.
Now you're just talking in circles. You were talking about 'freedom fighters' attacking coalition troops, you made no mention of the new government, or the foundations of it, anyway. Also, how is an Irani fighting to get 'their country' back from foreigners? If I'm not mistaken, Iranis .. are .. from .. Iran.
Oh, and the WMD's...did you know that the American army has been using depleted uranium shells in the tanks(the radiation from this lasts
45 billion years, so I don't know what kind of "future" america wants for us
)?
I've heard mixed reports on its half-life, from 4.5 billion to 713 Million years. No need concerning ourselves that far in the future, suffice to say 'it's a long time'. The real risks of cancer or other ill health effects from limited exposure to DU remain in doubt. Unless you're rubbing yourself down with depleted uranium or eating it, it does not appear that there is a good reason for you to be harmed significantly by it. Secondly, the country is not peppered with these shells. And if I'm not mistaken, they're being phased out, or have already been. Thirdly, the level of radiation from a DU shell is nowhere near that of say, a dirty bomb or the detonation of an actual nuclear device. It's not even close. If you walked around Baghdad with a geiger counter, you'd likely be hard pressed to hear any elevation in the level of chatter at all over a peaceful area.
Calling DU shells a WMD is certainly making a mountain out of a molehill.
They have also used(i believe it is called)MK-77, which is pretty much the same as napalm and they used white phosphorus which burns skin on contact even through protective clothing. Unfortunately, innocents are not immune to this.
We never napalm-bombed Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe you are thinking of Vietnam where we napalm-bombed forested areas because VC used forests heavily for military operations. There isn't a logical scenario that would place a significant number of noncombatants in the line of fire of such weaponry. Again, calling that a WMD would be illogical as it's not a weapon with a wide range of dispersal, such as, say, nerve agent shells/warheads that might release a huge cloud of deadly vapor that could kill countless hundreds if not thousands.
Have you ever heard of a JDAM? A precision strike munition? Because it's the majority of how we attack targets nowadays. We don't carpet-bomb cities to hit a small location where a terrorist leader or a bunker or training camp might be located, we don't nuke cities and level them to the ground, and we don't napalm-bomb Baghdad to root out some Al-Qaeda elements because #1, it's not necessary, and #2, the collateral damage would be enormous. This isn't the 1940s, and we don't fight a war like it's the 1940s. There are even tinier weapons being implemented in the USAF's arsenal that can fly for MILES after being deployed from aircraft, and land within 5 feet of their intended target, regardless of weather. Needless to say, when flying right overhead in clear blue skies, you can be much more accurate than that. You don't wipe out a city block to destroy a building, you put a bomb through the roof.
The point is that the world does not need a bully, because at one point it will snap and fight back.
Nothing the US or coalition forces have done constitutes 'bullying'. Iraq did everything to suit that terminology long ago, and it spawned the Gulf War. After which, we had sanctions in place to prevent it happening again. Iraq violated these sanctions time and time again, narrowly preventing confrontation many times. Eventually things were going to come to a head if Iraq continued its resistive behavior to uphold their end of agreements they entered into to end the Gulf War. They did not uphold these agreements, thus there was conflict.
It's not a matter of bullying, and it's not a matter of 'The US vs. The World', and the world is just going to gang up and attack the US. The US isn't its own little world, either. Your simplistic little analysis of the situation demonstrates you're not the one who should be bringing my political knowledge into question.
