FoxLeanod made a very astute observation in the topic :"Korean Nukes - and US hypocrisy"

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
The SIPRI Yearbook of World Armaments and Disarmaments 1991, mentions a series of military-related technology transfers between the UK and Iraq, in 1990. Among those, a deliverance of nuclear trigger devices. This is known because that deliverance was intercepted at Heathrow airport on 28 march 1990. It might have been the one and only deliverance of its kind, even if that is unlikely.

---

A recent report showed that Britain has sold arms to :Iraq, Iran, Israel, Qatar, India, Pakistan, Cambodia, Vietnam, South Korea, North Korea, and a whole host of other countries to boot but I can't remember them all. When criticised about it's sale of jet fighter kits to India, who is on the brink of a war with Pakistan (our supposed ally), they retorted wioth words to the effect of "That's okay because we sold Tomahawk anti aircraft missiles to Pakistan".

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

---

They have sold arms to scores of nations deemed as "Rogue Nations" (although the USA can make it's own), including all of the axis of evil! ...Including Iraq.

This is not a problem though is it? Because the flagship of the British army's rifle armoury is in fact completely useless in the desert.... just a point.

Before anyone rushes to Britain's defence claiming that "At the time, Iraq was the lesser of two evils" This is based upon evidence from 2002.

Please note (and I urge any Americans who don't know what I am talking about, to check up on this... I assure you it is true) that on my way to the shops I pass a factory in Sheffield famed for building a huge gun capable of firing shells thousands of miles, and accurately, to sell it to Iraq during the Gulf War!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
famed for building a huge gun capable of firing shells thousands of miles, and accurately, to sell it to Iraq during the Gulf War!

---

Thousands of miles? The name of this gun is (please don't say, 'The Thousands of Miles Gun')?

Nox

Yeah, that would be one impressive piece of artillary. Who needs ICBMs when you can have that thing in your back yard.

quote:

---

This is not a problem though is it? Because the flagship of the British army's rifle armoury is in fact completely useless in the desert.... just a point.

---

Please elaborate on this and how the desert effects the performance of the gun.

The idiots been reading too much of the Guardian recently or something.

He is reffering to the SA-80s which have been in use in the British army since the early 80's. There was no problem with it through the 80's or ninties, even in the Gulf War.

Recently they have been having operational problems and done tests while on manouvers in the Gulf last year.

The main problem was with the Magazine lips folding over when in use and blocking the rounds from entering the rifle.

There were other minor problems that were because of slight changes.

Essential the Rifle is sound.

Chuckie, please remember that the SA-80 is actually a Heckler and Koch and is therefore not a British weapon, even though it is manufactured and shipped from H&K (UK).

And the point about the desert is thats where the guns have been the most used recently, since the gulf war, especially in Oman where most of the tests were conducted.

Chuck!

Do me one favor. Don�t use quotes from me to "decorate" your posts, as you have done in your first post.

I don�t refer to the quote about the arms deals. That one I�m even glad that you used.

But what function does the line of exclamation- and question-marks have?!

A joke?! OK, I can accept a joke. On one premise, that the joke IS from my original post.

It isn�t, because there it only says:

?!?!?

No big deal?! It is, as you as likely could make me say anything that fits into your posts.

If we can�t trust eachother on that, and if our fellow totseites can�t trust the quotes they are reading in posts. Then we will have a hard time understanding eachother at all.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by preying mantis:
The idiots been reading too much of the Guardian recently or something.

---

Yeah, but he's ragging on the Brits now, so he's your problem.
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Thousands of miles? The name of this gun is (please don't say, 'The Thousands of Miles Gun')?

---

"Supergun". I saw a documentary on this last year, and thought it was damn interesting.

link.

link.

To this can be added that the company Matrix Churchill, who were supposed to build the tools for manufacturing of the supergun in Iraq, is one of the companies that delivered equipment for nuclear weapons to Iraq. Matrix Churchil also delivered other equipment of strategic use to Iraq, all the way up to 1990. And they did this, even if they in 1989 went through a trial, for the deal with the supergun, among other things. they are not considered among the more trustworthy in the business, so to say...

According to one book source I have, the supergun can fire a missile up to 1200 kilometers. Wich is far from "thousands of miles", as one article in the links starts off with. On the other hand, to send a small missile into orbit, as the gun also can do, could perhaps be refered to as "thousands of miles".

FoxLeonard

Chucky, once again you get it wrong. The Tomahawk is not an anti aircraft missile, it is not made in the UK and it has never been sold to Pakistan. The only anti aircraft missile made in the UK, and I refer to ground to air missile, is or was Rapier. That was sold to Zambia and a few other nowhere states.

The fact is that every arms producing nation sells or trys to sell its weapons, and why? Because modern weapons systems are so expensive that domestic use of them has to be subsidised by foreign sales. There is no arms producer that I know off that does not do this - Sweden sold the Gripen to SA; Switzerland has sold Fledermaus and super Fledermaus to anyone with a cheque book, the Chinese do it, The USA does it, everyone. Why should Britain be different? UK weapons have served several countries very well - for example Rhodesia used Vampire jets, Canberra Bombers and Hunter fighters for over 30 years - 15 of which were civil war. The UK builds good weapons, or at least it did until Duncan Sandys - why not sell them, if the UK doesnt some one else will ...

M

And if you truly believe that countries should be left to settle their own problems, without outside interference, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling weapons to warring countries.

That shouldn't even be a consideration. The decisions on who to sell to, and when to sell, should be designed to protect your own country, over those that also wish to be global survivors, and whom you've dismissed as not worthy of your morals.

Wouldn't selling armament to warring countries constitute outside interference. again, the winner would somply be the one who Britain prefers,.
The supergun is a ridiculous notion though isn't it? just becasue a factory has a large tube, doesn't mean that it is making a massive gun (a super gun in fact). The "supergun" didn't even have any rifling in it, so how is it supposed to fire a shell accurately from Iraq to Israel? And just how much would it cost to create enough of an explosion to propel it that distance? But despite the ridiculousness involved in this supergun (NOx may take the piss, but I never said it was true), the British public still believed it, because it is a fairly realistic prospect to envisage us selling huge guns to Iraq.

Britain and the USA recently had a fallout with the Ukraine over the alleged sale of arms to Iraq.... This is ridiculous is it not?

Saddam was building a "big gun" before the Gulf War destroyed it. Think of it as a very large piece of artillary. Battleships can launch their shells "very far" so it is not overly impossible to immagine a larger and modified version of that.

"Saddam was building a "big gun" before the Gulf War destroyed it."

I'd be willing to bet you've just made that "fact" up on the spot. Battleships have rifling, the "SuperGun" was literally just a tube. To be honest I think it was just overreactions at the war. But the point is nobody disbelieves it, they just took it as red because it's regular behaviour.

The reason weapons are sold to potential enemies is because they are either sold in small quantities so as never to provide an impact if we ever went to war against them, or knowing that they'll never be able to use them as effectively.

Ukraine wasn't selling arms, it was selling technology.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckStone:
[B]". Battleships have rifling, the "SuperGun" was literally just a tube.

In fact the concept of the big gun as a weapon is neither new nor as silly as it appears on the surface. The Germans were building several on the Normandy coast in 1944, aimed at London, and the gun that we are discussing, was prototyped in Canada. They usually have several breeches branching onto the main barrel, allowing you to accelerate the warhead at a rather gentler rate than is the case with normal tube artillery. This also allows the propellant load to be changed, thereby changing range. What you can't do is change the bearing, so you draw a straight line through the most valuable parts of your target ( in this case Israel), align your gun to that and walk your fire up and down that line. Not hugely effective, but certainly the pschological warfare tool of all time.

The Germans used a smaller weapon, the 21cm Kanone 12 (E) "Paris Geschutzes", to bombard Paris in 1918 - it caused mass panic. That barrel was so long it drooped, and the firing of the propellant actually straightened it out.

Just some really obscure info :-)

M

Corrected Paris gun name

[This message has been edited by mzilikatzi (edited 11-26-2002).]

I'll bet those guns had rifling too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by preying mantis:
The reason weapons are sold to potential enemies is because they are either sold in small quantities so as never to provide an impact if we ever went to war against them, or knowing that they'll never be able to use them as effectively.

---

Also, I've read that fighter/bombers being sold to potential future adversaries have "dumbed down" avionics, and are designed to accept disabling signals from the country of manufacture's forces.

Does anyone here have an on-line subscription to Janes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
I'll bet those guns had rifling too.

---

Nope, the V3 is or was unrifled IIRC, the Paris gun had lug rifling

[Quote] Originally posted by user x:
Also, I've read that fighter/bombers being sold to potential future adversaries have "dumbed down" avionics, and are designed to accept disabling signals from the country of manufacture's forces.[QUOTE]

So they are in fact deliberately misleading the customer into buying an inferior product under the pretence that it is fully active. Selling weapons is a case of using something as brutal and pointless as war, to achieve financial ends. This is similar to someone selling pictures of murder victims to tabloid newspapers after encouraging the murder so you can acquire the photos. It's immoral and just wrong... why are you trying to justify it?

Fuck 'em if they didn't read Consumer Report.

Seriously, you would advocate selling your country's top military technology, for the sake of fulfilling some kind of truth-in-advertising moral imerative?

I think the lesser levels of technology are common knowledge anyway.

It's difficult to know whether you are blind or just stupid. I thought I'd made it expressly clear that I don't advocate it at all. Whether it is intact or not. If it gives the receiving country a new sense of strength it would encourage war. And it works against other countries too. I couldn't care less if it can kill American soldiers, America only ever fights wars as the aggressor anyway and the soldiers deserve to die, that's their job. But when this country is attacking a neighbour (probably wrongly accused of harbouring Al Quaeda anyway) with weapons and technology supplied by the self appointed peace-keepers of the world... Then I take issue.

You're very quick to go on the offensive against america, but all countries do it. The soviets are in fact the worse for it, have a nigger list of interferance in countries political and military affairs and have killed many more than any of the figures you could give for the US.

The US also give aid to countries, a lot more than the Soviets (now russians) ever bothered to do.

Also, i suggest you find out what the 7:1 ratio of Isreali weapons to arab weapon the US employs.

Also, they aren't selling inferior weapons secretly, the buying country knows they are, but they're cheaper and they can have more of them, its simply to keep the price down to what they can afford.

I suggest you learn a bit about what you're talking about before opening your mouth. You've been factually wrong on every point of discussion bought up on this topic so far, i doubt that will change soon.

-----"You're very quick to go on the offensive against america"-----
When? Here? Are Britain and America the same? I have not accused America of this yet, I do believe they are culpable, but my gripe is with Britain today. But if the cap fits....

-----"The US also give aid to countries, a lot more than the Soviets (now russians) ever bothered to do."-----Example? This aid seems to manifest itself in invasions (okay, there is some aid, which I commend and I hope it continues) and military coups against so called dictators (often democratically elected or revolutionary governments, which are more democratic than voted governments) who are deemed as bad for the US's interests. The US's interests lie with keeping Indonesia et al in a continued state of poverty where they are easiest to manipulate. I would be willing to bet more people are empoverished by direct actions of the USA than those who's lives are improved.

-----"Also, i suggest you find out what the 7:1 ratio of Isreali weapons to arab weapon the US employs."----- Where do Israel get their weapons from. They are armed with M16s, M111s, M1A1s. All US produced machinery. The Arab weapons aren't dealt by USA on the whole, but Britain is one of the worst culprits.

-----"I suggest you learn a bit about what you're talking about before opening your mouth. You've been factually wrong on every point of discussion bought up on this topic so far, i doubt that will change soon."-----
I think you must be confusing me with someone else (Nox?) because just go ahead and disprove me I fuck-ing dare you. I have seen evidence of all that I am trying to inform you about (although I often quite embarrasingly, cannot retrieve it again but...)

Now just a technicality but... Soviets and Russia are not the same in the slightest. Russian Federation are no better than America or Britain or France or any of the so called "keepers of the peace". It is blatant hypocrisy. Almost all of the crimes levelled at Iraq as reasons for invasion can be levelled at USA and Britain (The real Axis of Evil) The "Soviets" however are not waving their fists at the world claiming to be protecting the free. All countries behave like this, but it offends me when the likes of American journalists and British politicians start laying down the law and do not obey it themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:
It's difficult to know whether you are blind or just stupid. I thought I'd made it expressly clear that I don't advocate it at all. Whether it is intact or not.

---

I heard you whine about the violation of your morality the first time, but politely ignored it. I was refering to the side discussion regarding the technology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Thousands of miles? The name of this gun is (please don't say, 'The Thousands of Miles Gun')?

Nox

---

He might be referring to late Gerald Bull and the artillery gun he developed:
http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/bull.htm

Basically, before he was assassinated in 1990, he was trying to build an artillery gun that could fire projectiles into orbit. He developed a gun that could fire 180 kg projectiles to altitudes of 180km. He was eventually hired by the Iraqis to build a "super gun" and also helped them to develop some of their missile technology.

The idea of a gun that can fire 100s of miles is one thing, but the British people somehow got it into their heads that the supergun could hit Britain accurately. Let's just say the factory (whose name I cannot remember) is still open, and still makes industrial pipes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
-----"The US also give aid to countries, a lot more than the Soviets (now russians) ever bothered to do."-----Example? This aid seems to manifest itself in invasions (okay, there is some aid, which I commend and I hope it continues) and military coups against so called dictators (often democratically elected or revolutionary governments, which are more democratic than voted governments) who are deemed as bad for the US's interests. The US's interests lie with keeping Indonesia et al in a continued state of poverty where they are easiest to manipulate. I would be willing to bet more people are empoverished by direct actions of the USA than those who's lives are improved.

---

If you knew otherwise you'd have thrown the book at this statement. But as you haven't i'll assume you know its right and that you'll never disprove it, or want to blatently ignore it.

Either way, you've harped on about several issues of nonsense that bear no relation to the statement i made.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Where do Israel get their weapons from. They are armed with M16s, M111s, M1A1s. All US produced machinery. The Arab weapons aren't dealt by USA on the whole, but Britain is one of the worst culprits.

---

Yes, but they are also armed with equipment and arms manufactured and designed by themselves. So what, they bought arms off the US, wouldn't you if there was a tide of arabs wanting your blood.

But this statement of yours clearly shows you have no idea. The arab states also use US arms. Not not very good ones.

I can provide facts if you wish.

Between 1991 and 2000 the value of US military assistance to the middle east totalled 74,213 million dollars.

Only 18,763 million dollars of that was to Israel.

I belive the third highest was Eygypt which is completely hostile to Israel.

I can provide more if you wish.

The source of this information is a US government document which is far to long to reproduce here as it is in PDF form. It also states that only Israel may have access to certain weapons as i stated above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Now just a technicality but... Soviets and Russia are not the same in the slightest.

---

I made sure i pointed that out....

quote:

---

The US also give aid to countries, a lot more than the Soviets (now russians) ever bothered to do.

---

And yes, although the boundries have gone inwards, not a lot has technically changed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by preying mantis:
Between 1991 and 2000 the value of US military assistance to the middle east totalled 74,213 million dollars.

---

How did we go from "sales" to "assistance"? if this is sales, then it's way too low. Link. If it's assistance, then the US gives Israel a billion annually.

Also, the good avionics aren't sold because of budgetary reasons, they're just not for sale to countries like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by preying mantis:
Yes, but they are also armed with equipment and arms manufactured and designed by themselves. So what, they bought arms off the US, wouldn't you if there was a tide of arabs wanting your blood.

---

Odd statement really. Because your timeline is completely fucked up. You see, the tide of Arabs are sfter their blood because of repeated incursions into their territory, there is a vague reasoning now, but it translates as "The Arabs are defending themselves, from us, so we need to stop them". The Israeli aggression is what caused the discontent, and that Israeli aggression was committed by the weapons. So it is absurd that you claim they have their weapons to protect themselves from the Arabs. Especially givent hat in the last century (and before that Israel dodn't exist) Israel have alway been the aggressor in every conflict it was involved in (Apart from the Gulf, but as allies of the US, who were the aggressor, they were not on the defensive either.)

How is it right to sell arms to countries. In doing so you are making money out of war. Out of the deaths of hundreds of people... often innocent civilians and people attempting to defend their freedom.

USA are extremely aggressive. They claim that they are defending freedom, yet they are imposing thier warped sense of morality onto the world against their will. And the very acts which they critisize certain countries for (eg Iraq, supporting terrorism) they do so themselves on a larger scale (arming the contras, Bay of Pigs, Kurds, Northern Alliance).

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
USA are extremely aggressive. They claim that they are defending freedom, yet they are imposing thier warped sense of morality onto the world against their will.

---

As usual this makes no sense. Please explain "thier warped sense of morality".

If you refer to democracy, if you refer to open elections, if you refer freedom of speech, religion, et al as "warped", then hallelujah brother and amen, guilty as charged.

Nox

This statement says it all. I know it was a while ago but I think that it is still relevant today which is a shame

quote:

---

Originally made by Ronald Reagan:
I favour the civil rights act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if neccessary

---

Admittedly Reagan was a laughing stock, and as one comedian said, you'll notice Nancy never drinks water when he is talking. But unfortunately this attitude is reciprocated constantly.

If you refer to democracy, if you refer to open elections, if you refer freedom of speech, religion, et al as "warped", then hallelujah brother and amen, guilty as charged. They are not as such warped, but it's more how you go about enforcing this worldwide.

Muslims don't allow freedom of religion so we must kill them.

The right to free speech must not infringe upon another persons right to not hear bad things about America.

Open elections are a farce in the USA where you keep recounting them until the Republicans win. And any ballot boxes likely to favour Democrats are "lost"

And it appears you are forcing democracy upon the world against their will. Ahem, what is going on there. In Iraq you are actually replacing an elected leader with a military general chosen by nobody but the US government, so that is actually fighting AGAINST democracy. The "warped" statement is not the major issue in my statement, but rather the "against their will" part, especially when what you are imposing is allegedly democracy. I stick by my statement.

(good going taking the piss out of evangelists though, freedom of religion and all that. No doubt you take the piss out of Amish too)

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:
...forcing democracy upon the world against their will....it's more how you go about enforcing this worldwide.

---

How would you enforce this ideology?

quote:

---

The right to free speech must not infringe upon another persons right to not hear bad things about America.

---

Lol, you pulled that one out of your ass, didn't you?

quote:

---

And it appears you are forcing democracy upon the world against their will. Ahem, what is going on there. In Iraq you are actually replacing an elected leader with a military general chosen by nobody but the US government, so that is actually fighting AGAINST democracy.

---

Saddams democracy is more fake than the American one that you claim to hate. If the American people are tools of the state and being abused, then I want you to compare the American situation to what Saddam is doing and I want you to tell me one more time that Saddam is democratically ellected and that the war against him is a war against freedom.

quote:

---

Muslims don't allow freedom of religion so we must kill them.

---

Its more along the line that since we are not intolerant with them, and our existance provides a contrasting rule and a viable option for their people to see, we are a threat to them. Simply put, our example weakens their power and therefore we are hated. The only way they can justify their intolerance is through the supremacy of their own beliefs. That supremacy can only be realized if they destroy the antithesis of their claim that they are the ideal civilization. America is the great Satan because we tempt people away from their oppresive regimes. We show the benefits of freedom and how much are people are prospering. The common man in the Muslim countries sees this and then looks at the shit he is living in and the obvious choice is to emmualte the best possible system. At this point, the government losses power. The only way they can keep power is to preach about the supremacy and perfection of Islam while decrying the West and promoting our destruction. Yes, I guess it could be argued that since they are intolerant, they deserve to die. Why? The implications of their intolerance are a threat to us.

quote:

---

The right to free speech must not infringe upon another persons right to not hear bad things about America.

---

Wrong. I would not run around claiming emotional distress as a reason to silence critics. Mental pain is a lot of bullshit. Virgin ears don't really bleed. Unless it is an incitement to riot or violence against property, then critisize as much as you want, advocate our firery death, well my friend, you just might have a fight on your hands.

quote:

---

(good going taking the piss out of evangelists though, freedom of religion and all that. No doubt you take the piss out of Amish too)

---

What?

Your Reagan quote is funny becuase it implies that you favor discrimination. If that is true, then you would also have no problems with exploting the third world because well, he's just a chink.

Saddam recently handed out free Kalashnikovs to anyone who wants one. Would he arm a nation that wants to overthrow him? He has however armed a nation to fight you!

-----"Its more along the line that since we are not intolerant with them, and our existance provides a contrasting rule and a viable option for their people to see, we are a threat to them."-----

Christ your ignorance makes my ears bleed. After all that has happened do you still believe that? When will you learn? That they hate you because your people directly threaten their freedom! What kind of moron would think that someone would be prepared to kill themself in a final ditch effort to free their people - because you are free?

9-11 should've taught you a lesson, it clearly hasn't. You are still behaving in exactly the way that AQ are trying to stop... MORE SO THAN EVER BEFORE! WHY? HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE NEED TO DIE FOR YOU TO LISTEN?

9-11 will be repeated 10 fold! And you will never be safe unless you get this little bully boy attitude "I'm all right Jack, pull the ladder up" out of your obese systems and start perhaps looking at a map and discovering exactly where the Middle East IS?

Oh and by the way... Saddam is democratically elected and the war against him is a war against freedom. I have looked at his situation and perhaps 2 years ago I would have agreed with you. But now I have actually done as you asked, I can see that we are being fed a string of lies about him. I can't imagine I would vote for him, but I'd prefer to live under Saddam than under George W Bush or Tony Blair, because they are ultimately very selfish, and will do anything to please the electorate... Saddam has already done that and now he can run Iraq as a good leader. Perhaps that's why the War must happen... because he shows GWB and TB up. They aren't going to die for it are they, what do they care?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
I'd prefer to live under Saddam than under George W Bush or Tony Blair

---

And just when I thought I would never agree with you, you go and come up with this. I too would prefer that you live 'under' Saddam. I'll bet the pictures of the kiddie porn would really make some money.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:
I'd prefer to live under Saddam than under George W Bush or Tony Blair.

---

We had one of those over here. We caught him and put him in a pen.

But what the hell? Why not? Pack your fucking bags and get on over there son. Trade in your citizenship, for a new life in sunny Iraq. Get yourself one of those Kalashnikovs (is he also handing out free ammo?) Goddamn! you would be one fine speciman of a man; a true freedom fighter, standing in the desert and scowling at the Great Satan, as the sun sets on the western dunes.

And, BONUS!, nobody would know you at school, and you wouldn't get picked on!

quote:

---

Saddam recently handed out free Kalashnikovs to anyone who wants one.

---

Prove this. Saddam is trying to make himself the voice of reason in Iraq. When his generals and others condmened the searching of his palaces as an insult, he calmed them and told them to let the UN do its business. When they voted to reject UN demands, Saddam pursuaded them to seek the peaceful way out. It would not make sense for him as of this date to pass out rifles to the people. The UN report has barely been filed and it could only be seen as a sign of guilt if he immediately prepares for war after filling it.

It could also be propoganda, remember the news clipping of the enraged Arab Street every time Israel attacks? It could just be a fear tactic to make the US afraid of invading.

It could also be viewed as an action of desperation as ala Machiavelli, he is trying to desperately create partisans that would slow the US advance. He can deal with his own people more effectively than the US, therefore its a calculated risk on his part.

quote:

---

That they hate you because your people directly threaten their freedom!

---

What freedom?

quote:

---

What kind of moron would think that someone would be prepared to kill themself in a final ditch effort to free their people - because you are free?

---

They are not killing themselves to free their people, they are killing themselves for the glory of Islam and to get into paradise. They are attacking us, because the legitimacy of the leaders rests in their spiritual supremacy. Their leaders are allowed to get away with their abuses, because they tout the supremacy of Islam and therefore strictly follow the Koran and hadith. One of the prominent themse in the Koran is that Allah rewards his followers. The problem here is that most Islamic countries are dirt poor. The people look around them and wonder why their lives suck, in order for the religious leadership to maintain power, they can not tolerate a successful example, other than theirs, to exists. This means that they demonize the West as the great Satan and the root of all their problems. This attitude of Supremacy eliminates all intro-spection, reflection, and places the faults of the leaders upon others. It isn't their own mismanagement, it is America. That is the problem, religion has mixed with the state and the state uses religious excuses for whatotherwise would be secular problems.

quote:

---

HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE NEED TO DIE FOR YOU

---

The extremists, all of them.

quote:

---

-11 will be repeated 10 fold! And you will never be safe unless you get this little bully boy attitude "I'm all right Jack, pull the ladder up" out of your obese systems and start perhaps looking at a map and discovering exactly where the Middle East IS?

---

As long as radical Islam exists and the tendancy to prostelatize and convert by the sword, we will never be safe. These people are trying to kill us, it has gone beyond the time for quaint group issues where we discuss our feelings. Their will only be peace once the violent extremists who will not tolerate it are dead.

Here is an example from history, the Kwarijites. The Kwarijites used to be part of Ali's, the fourth Caliphs, army. Ali got into a civil war with Muawiya. Ali did not like the idea of fighting his fellow Muslims, so he attempted peace. The Kwarijites were enraged that their righteous spiritual leader would make peace with the kafirs, the infidels. A simmilar theme is seen in Wahhabism were all disenting voices are outsiders are labeled as Kafirs. The Kwarijites then assassinated Ali. The point here is that no leader who bases himself upon religious authority, or fundamentalism/extremism, can moderate their views without the risk of assassination from the extremist elements.

quote:

---

Oh and by the way... Saddam is democratically elected and the war against him is a war against freedom.

---

You put more faith in the elections run by a dictator than by the United States, that is too damn funny.

quote:

---

because they are ultimately very selfish, and will do anything to please the electorate...

---

Were'nt you the one arguing that it was a good thing to please the electorate rather than just your "rich friends." This is also funny too, because Saddam is so unselfish, that he build pretty palaces for his people to look at while they starve to death. What an ass.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
[QUOTE] Saddam is trying to make himself the voice of reason in Iraq. When his generals and others condmened the searching of his palaces as an insult, he calmed them and told them to let the UN do its business. When they voted to reject UN demands, Saddam pursuaded them to seek the peaceful way out. It would not make sense for him as of this date to pass out rifles to the people. The UN report has barely been filed and it could only be seen as a sign of guilt if he immediately prepares for war after filling it.

---

War is inevitable, no matter what anyone says. When the inspectors find nothing, Bush will simply claim some other reason to invade..and so the cycle begins. He is being very cooperative so when US do invade, it is obvious who is in the wrong, as it always was.

I'm fucking sick of USA deciding for the world what is right and what is wrong. Remember this, USA is just another country and has much right to tell Iraq and Yemen how to behave as Monaco.

Islamic extremism may be wrong, but I don't see war being declared on the Bible belt, and they are just as bad - but I suppose it's okay if you are Christian? And the people of these countries are advocates of Isalmic extremism which you have not a single speck of right to take away from them. Why should YOU decide who is to run a country? You made an almighty FUCKUP in your own country electing (or not electing but that is another story) a royal idiot to start WW3.

quote:

---

He is being very cooperative so when US do invade, it is obvious who is in the wrong, as it always was.

---

If Saddam stone walled inspectors, we would have pretext for invasion. His only hope therefore was to be as cordial as possible and let the inspectors in and hope that they found nothing or that Bush did not have other evidence against him. In politics, it is folly to believe that everyone is acting how they truly feel. An analogy is TV's version of high class society where all the rich people are sipping champagne and talking politely, but underneath that facade of pleasantness, they all hate each other.

quote:

---

I'm fucking sick of USA deciding for the world what is right and what is wrong. Remember this, USA is just another country and has much right to tell Iraq and Yemen how to behave as Monaco.

---

The US is protecting its interests and therefore has a right to do what it is doing. The idea that all countries are equal, is preoposterous, as in a situation of equals, none is in a positon to criticize the other and any sort of lawless activity is condoned.

quote:

---

but I don't see war being declared on the Bible belt, and they are just as bad

---

We are a secular nation, the Bible belt cannot gain the power of the state, therefore even if their fringe movement grows, it will be hard for them to enact any of their legislature. Islam, however, seeks to merge church and state, and therefore when the kooks gain power power, they have access to military and the resources of the state. That spells problems.

quote:

---

but I suppose it's okay if you are Christian?

---

Quit pulling the race card, it makes you sound like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

quote:

---

And the people of these countries are advocates of Isalmic extremism which you have not a single speck of right to take away from them.

---

If they want to turn their country into a cesspool, and swim in it for the rest of their lives, fine. When, however, they decide to leave that toilet of theirs and start violently attacking others, that is where the problem arises and that is why we strip them of their beloved extremism.

quote:

---

You made an almighty FUCKUP in your own country electing (or not electing but that is another story) a royal idiot to start WW3.

---

Personal Opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Islamic extremism may be wrong, but I don't see war being declared on the Bible belt, and they are just as bad - but I suppose it's okay if you are Christian?

---

By the way Chucky, without looking it up, where is the "Bible Belt". And how many buildings/people have they destroyed/killed?

Maybe that's why we haven't 'declared' war on them.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:
You made an almighty FUCKUP in your own country electing a royal idiot to start WW3.

---

He may be an idiot, but he's our idiot dammit! And he ain't no damn Roy-El neither! Don't make me mash the WW3 button boy!

*Yells to his fat-ass wife to get on down the road for some more McDonalds*

The Bible Belt may not have destroyed many buildings. But certain so called "Christians" kill on a regular basis. Have you heard of the Ku Klux Klan. They are a Christian version of Al Quaeada (whatever the spelling). They restrict freedom, isn't that what you are trying to stop? Bullshit, that's just a getout clause.

-----"The US is protecting its interests and therefore has a right to do what it is doing."-----
Explain. Actually don't bother, you'll just spout off another load of "facts" from the top of your hairless head.

-----"any sort of lawless activity is condoned."-----The only lawless activity seems to be that which is defending/avenging your lawless activity. Initially, no lawless activity has happened. And the idea that you are qualified to decide what is lawless activity is also preposterous. The UN were founded to do just that, and I can see you going above their head, manipulating them and forging documents to sway them - I'd call that lawless activity.

-----"When, however, they decide to leave that toilet of theirs and start violently attacking others"----- Again you miss the point to why they are attacking you. You really do deserve it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:
Have you heard of the Ku Klux Klan. They are a Christian version of Al Quaeada

---

lol,

quote:

---

the idea that [the US] is qualified to decide what is lawless activity is also preposterous.

---

Those that amass the power to decide, always think that they're qualified. It has never been any other way, and never will be.

You're not smart enough to feel authentic moral outrage.

The US's power lies on it's huge army. It's massive nuclear stockpile and other WMDs. So exactly how can they then tell other countries that they can't have the same weapons.

America claims to be acting on the behalf of the world which is one thing... but they aren't. They are acting on their own behalf and WORSE, they lie about it. The problem with the US is it's mixture of hypocrisy and lies along with the zealous following of it's mindless citizens. At least at the height of the British Empire, Britain never made a secret of it's brutal treatment of Africans etc.

I take great offence at the idea that America are trying to make our lives better with their immense war-mongering. Why do you persist with the argument that Americans represent the epitomy of grteatness when as a Nation, you are an arsefucker.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:
The US's power lies on it's huge army. It's massive nuclear stockpile and other WMDs. So exactly how can they then tell other countries that they can't have the same weapons.

---

By recognizing: that being labeled a hypocrite, is less important than the prize of longevity

I'm very pleased that we offend you, because that makes it more likely that my culture will never suffer the injury of your presence. But we'll have a place for your kind, in the end, when you've been assimilated. You think it feels like an ass-fucking now? just wait.

quote:

---

The US's power lies on it's huge army.

---

From what other basis is their power? Don't forget our economic might either.

quote:

---

It's massive nuclear stockpile and other WMDs.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

So exactly how can they then tell other countries that they can't have the same weapons.

---

I have no problem with Monoco or Luxumberg having nukes, however if you want to allow those weapons into the hands of Iran, Norht Korea, Iraq, or others, you are an idiot. These countries are hostile to the west and are crazy enough to use them.

quote:

---

America claims to be acting on the behalf of the world which is one thing... but they aren't. They are acting on their own behalf

---

It is amazing how often the worlds interests and Americas interests intercept, the world is safer when we despose of violent third world tyrants. When these areas of unrest calm down, it is possible for markets to develop, which means potential exports for both sides, wealth generation, and a higher standard of living.

quote:

---

I take great offence at the idea that America are trying to make our lives better with their immense war-mongering. Why do you persist with the argument that Americans represent the epitomy of grteatness when as a Nation, you are an arsefucker.

---

Was the world a better place because of the Soviet Union? Was the world a better place because Saddam was invading his neighbors? Was the world a better place when terrorist had free access to an entire country from which to launch their terror attacks? No. America is one of the only forces left in the world capable of enforcing UN resolutions. Treaties that cannot be enforced mean nothing. Unless your words are backed by blood and iron, they cease to have meaning and will be ignored. North Korea and China could give a damn about human rights vilolations, why, because, what are you going to do about it? There are few good answers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
Treaties that cannot be enforced mean nothing. Unless your words are backed by blood and iron

---

May I refer you to the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty... which the USA decided to cancel immediately that it ceased to be of use to them.

And the West is hostile to the Middle East. I remember from the Cold War there was a system known as MAD (aptly named) which only existed because the Soviet Union was there to control the USA, to stop it nuking everyone LRandC. If the so called enemies of the West were armed with WMDs, we would be less likely to nuke them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:
I remember from the Cold War there was a system known as MAD.

---

You "remember" something from a time before you were born? MAD is more of a concept, than a system. It's a strategic stalemate between two developed nations, so giving the nuclear gift to suicide bombers wouldn't produce a state of MAD.

I've got to remind you that Iraq are not suicide bombers. In fact - it's completely false that the Iraqi administration support international terrorism. It's just another unsubstantiated claim by Bushy boy to gain support for his war in the belief (quite right he is too) that following Sept 11 the American people will be so scared of terrorists that they will not even question him and follow mindlessly.

And just a point, given that the Cold War ended in the 90s, I was born - albeit very young. I don't "remember" MAD, but I am aware of it's existence if you are gonna get all comic-book-guy on me.

MAD only worked because the Soviet leaders wanted to live. Expalin how that would work in a case where one side is not afraid to die. Also explain how one prospers from arming their enemies.

Saddam wants to live too (the guy moves to a different palace every couple of nights and has three "body doubles", suggesting that he's rather more aware of his mortality and his unpopularity than the average person).... which is why he isn't stupid enough to hand over any nuclear secrets to suicide bombers (who also happen to hate his Ba'ath regime)

Arming enemies invariably fails to be counter-productive. Which is why "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is such a stupid basis for foreign policy, no matter which nation is conducting it.

Why wouldn't Saddam arm the terrorists? It would effectivel buy them off and allow him to covertly strike at his enemies. There is also the risk of theft.

Saddam is aware of his own mortality, and the thing which makes him dangerous is the fact that he knows that soon, he will have nothing to lose - and then he will unleash. Obviously USA aren't fully aware of this or war would be almost out of the question.

Saddam doesn't deserve this slander. He hasn't harboured any terrorists (the only terrorist activity detected has been in the autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq - Halabja for example).

One reason why he wouldn't arm the terrorists is because they are bad muslims, and Saddam is a good muslim. ALso arming terrorists would lose him favour in the eyes of the West, and he is desperately trying to appear pro-Western. the claim that he loves "Big Red Buses and Winston Churchill" before offering his interviewer a Quality Street is testament to this.

Saddam would do the same as the America and the Communist nuclear powers do ie. arm his allies (or enemies of his enemies) with conventional weapons and keep his nuclear secrets safe as a deterrent.

Some Muslim groups would be just as glad to threaten Saddam with newly-acquired nuclear weapons, thus giving themselves a virtually invulnerable base and somewher for them to set up another horrible Muslim fundamentalist state on the lines of Afghanistan.

...which begs the question, "how does Bush come up wiht these ridiculous accusations about him arming AQ w/ WMDs"

Chucky,

Read the book, "Brighter than the Baghdad Sun". I just finished it. It answers many questions.

Nox

I actually have that book, and have been meaning to read it, guess its time to blow off the dust and dig in.

a quick but good question pops out.
If he has been arming the terrorists why havent they used those Weapons yet?

Here's a point, the French police found some nasty stuff in a bedsit in Paris this morning. Having said that, the terrorists want attention and they aren't gonna get much if they kill everyone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Here's a point, the French police found some nasty stuff in a bedsit in Paris this morning. Having said that, the terrorists want attention and they aren't gonna get much if they kill everyone.

---

what was found??

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingenrage:
why havent they used those Weapons yet?

---

Who says they haven't. One of the real problems is tracing weapons. Case in point, the serial numbers on the AA missiles used in Kenya were similar to (but not chronological) to a lot used in the Afghan/Soviet war. This begs the question: Where did those missiles come from?

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by piggarro99:
what was found??

---

A "Chemical Cache". They haven't tested the chemicals yet so they don't know for sure. They arrested some Morroccans for suspected terrorism after they linked him to the "shoe bomber" (and they were a bit brown)and searched their houses and found a suitcase full of dodgy chemicals at 8:30 this morning. I'm a bit low on details it was just a quick news story on R1:5E this morning.

I understand that when the Soviets left Afghanistan they did so in a hell of a hurry and left a shit load of weapons behind. When you see Talibans armed with RPG's, that's where they're from. They even left empty, fully operational tanks behind so I'd imagine they'd not exactly rush to gather up their AA missiles. But when the AQ fled Aghanistan they had a bit of warning (US weren't exactly quiet about it) and it's very probable they took some to Pakistan with them.

*A totally unsubstatiated (yet feasable)theory*

Chuck

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:
I've got to remind you that Iraq are not suicide bombers. In fact - it's completely false that the Iraqi administration support international terrorism.

---

Neither does the Saudi gov't, but their society still produces the suicide bombers. And as I said before, MAD is strategic in nature - a skill that Hussein has never mastered, as is evidenced by his sorry military leadership example. MAD doesn't just work for everyone.

quote:

---

I don't "remember" MAD, but I am aware of it's existence if you are gonna get all comic-book-guy on me.

---

"What? me worry?", lol.

I see you've fallen into that trap of insulting Saddam Hussein without any justification other than he is the enemy of the country you fluked to be born in.

I hate it when so called satirists fall into this trap. I saw 2D TV last night, and it depicted a US missile hitting Saddams palace. How come when US missiles can NEVER hit what they are aimed at. And you get South Park, which is supposed to be anarchic showing Saddam Hussein as a gay satanist, and Osamam Bin Laden as having a small penis (btw, being an Arab he's probably very well endowed).

quote:

---

How come when US missiles can NEVER hit what they are aimed at.

---

Please don't tout your ignorance of US weapon technology.

quote:

---

btw, being an Arab he's probably very well endowed).

---

I want to ask how you know this, but I don't want to hear any stories from the bath-houses.

So are they deliberatly aimed at allied trucks and civilian homes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhuckStone:
I see you've fallen into that trap of insulting Saddam Hussein without any justification other than he is the enemy.

---

I said he was a poor military strategist. There are volumes of evidence from the Iranian wars and the gulf war.

quote:

---

So are they deliberatly aimed at allied trucks and civilian homes?

---

You said never and had once again made an overly broad generalization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
"Saddam was building a "big gun" before the Gulf War destroyed it."

I'd be willing to bet you've just made that "fact" up on the spot. Battleships have rifling, the "SuperGun" was literally just a tube. To be honest I think it was just overreactions at the war. But the point is nobody disbelieves it, they just took it as red because it's regular behaviour.

---

Just to throw a fact out to Chuckie, but Tank guns are also not rifled. A rifled barrel does not last as long as a smooth-bore. You also do not need rifling if your round is fin-stablized or rocket powered. Look the the Paris Gun the Germans used in WWI to bombard Paris from 80 miles away, from what I remember, after about 60 rounds, the barrels had to be changed out, not easy with a 200 ft long barrel.

It was also Gerald Bull who built the super gun. Can you guess what nationality he was? (A big hint for the ignorant Chuck, His country has a big red leaf on the flag)

"Just to throw a fact out to Chuckie, but Tank guns are also not rifled. A rifled barrel does not last as long as a smooth-bore. You also do not need rifling if your round is fin-stablized or rocket powered. Look the the Paris Gun the Germans used in WWI to bombard Paris from 80 miles away, from what I remember, after about 60 rounds, the barrels had to be changed out, not easy with a 200 ft long barrel."

And the supergun fired shells - solid lumps of nicely shaped metal. And whilst tank guns are not rifled, they are also not accurate and are rarely used over around 200 metres - not 5000 miles!

Chuck! I love your blind ignorance and stupidity! From your perspective, apparently America can't do anything right, and all Americans are stupid, and of course you are superior to all. Your false bandwagon hatred of America has caused you to discredit yourself entirely. The comment you made about Saddam 'democratically' winning the election was so stupid my heart stopped for a second.

Lets look at Saddam's election:

1. One Candidate: Saddam
2. The election was not secret, and your selection was reviewed by his "Special Security Service"
3. Voting no is punishable by death
4. You get free food once you voted yes.
5. According to saddam, half the population (all men) voted, all 20-30 million of them, and all the votes were counted in one day and not suprisingly

SADDAM WON 100% OF THE VOTE.
VOTE SADDAM, under pain of death!

Be real. Your in a fantasy land. Also, are you in Iraq yet, since you'd rather live under Saddam then a legitimate, democratically elected government.

Your statements are so preposterious, boisterous, obscene, stupid, retarded, and downright ridiculious that they sound like they came from the Iraqi Ministry of Truth. If you ask me, you sound like a newspaper of a hostile communist country, a mouth piece, a tool who tries to infect hatred, and created and distorts facts to make yourself appear smarter.

I'm suprised I even sunk to your level to respond to your comments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
So are they deliberatly aimed at allied trucks and civilian homes?

---

Civilian homes that just happen to harbor enemy troops?

Allied trucks mis-identified?


You tell me asshole, when you've seen one of our missiles miss?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
[B

And the supergun fired shells - solid lumps of nicely shaped metal. And whilst tank guns are not rifled, they are also not accurate and are rarely used over around 200 metres - not 5000 miles![/B]

---

During the drive north during the Gulf War, I was routinely watching British Challengers and American M1's hitting targets far beyond 200 meters. Including one where an Iraqi tank was hiding behind a sand dune and the round went through the dune into the tank, from about 3200 meters. Try again. Why not actually learn something of this nature before opening your nasty sewer? Tank guns also happen to fire shells.


Mr. Chuck, There are alot of people on this thread who are, or where, in the armed forces. Just a little reminder I'd like to throw out to you.