Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > Misc > Off-topic
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-01-2003, 12:23 AM   #61
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,846


this is an article i read at thestar.com under the editorial sections..
i think it is really good and highlights everything you guys are talking about Sorry it was posted a few days ago so its gone now i think, im not sure, u can go look for it at thestar.com under editorials but anyhow its right here just kinda messy.
Id like to say that I totally agree with this author.


"A week for decisions that could lead to war
GWYNNE DYER

This week, we'll know whether the chief United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, have asked the Security Council for another 60 days to go on looking for Saddam Hussein's elusive "weapons of mass destruction" (almost certainly yes). We will know whether President George W. Bush tells the American public he wants to go to war right now in his State of the Union speech (probably another yes).
However, we will still be waiting to learn whether Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the only two Western leaders who think a war is necessary, decide in their scheduled meeting at Camp David at the end of the month to ignore the United Nations and their allies and go it alone.
That's the key question and the answer is a maybe. For all the bald assertions about Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" coming out of Washington, there is no meaningful proof, and over two-thirds of the Americans questioned in a Washington Post/ABC News poll last week said that the inspectors should be given months more before military action is considered.
All the other major powers apart from ultra-loyal Britain certainly think that.
As France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said last week: "Since we can disarm Iraq through peaceful means, we should not take the risk to endanger the lives of innocent civilians or soldiers, to jeopardize the stability of the region ... to fuel terrorism."
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder chimed in at once: "Do not expect that Germany (which holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council next month) will agree to a resolution that legitimizes war."
But Bush is seething with impatience: "Surely we have learned how this man (Saddam Hussein) deceives and delays," he said last Wednesday. "This business about more time. How much more time do we need to see clearly that he's not disarming? This looks like a re-run of a bad movie and I'm not interested in watching."
His sidekick Blair then chipped in with some of the deliberate confusion that implicitly (but falsely) links Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein, and Saddam to nuclear weapons:
"Do we really doubt that if these terrorists could get hold of these weapons of mass destruction they would not use them? The most frightening thing is the coming together of fanaticism and the technology capable of mass destruction and mass death."
One of the falsehoods in this farrago of illogic is obvious enough: Why would a brutal but entirely secular dictator like Saddam, whose whole life has been spent in the Ba'ath Party (more or less the Arab Communist party), want to give anything to a bunch of fanatical Islamist terrorists except a lingering death in his torture chambers?
After all, they have been trying to kill him for a long time now. But the subtler bit is this constantly repeated guff about Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction."
To the person in the street, that means nukes but Saddam doesn't have any nuclear weapons. He had an ambitious nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War in 1990-91 (to create an Arab deterrent to Israel's nuclear monopoly, not to give them to terrorists), but it never got close to an actual weapon, and it was comprehensively dismantled by the U.N. inspection teams afterwards.
There was a four-year gap in 1998-2002 when the inspectors weren't there. But given the strict embargo Iraq was under, there is no chance that they could have got the program into high gear again. NO Western intelligence service, including the American ones, believes that Saddam has nuclear weapons.
He might, on the other hand, have more old chemical shells and warheads lying around like the 11 (unfilled) ones the inspectors found recently, because Iraq made and used tens of thousands of them during the war with Iran in 1980-88.
The U.S. knew and tacitly approved of their use at the time, because Washington became Saddam's de facto ally in its eagerness to prevent an Iranian victory.
It even provided Saddam with U.S. satellite intelligence and air force photo-interpreters to help Iraq plan its attacks on the Iranians. That was naughty of the U.S. government, but it reflects the truth that chemical weapons are not really "weapons of mass destruction" at all. They are battlefield weapons, first used in World War I and only really useful in situations of trench warfare like the latter stages of the Iran-Iraq war.
Nuclear weapons are the only true weapons of mass destruction: a single one can kill a quarter million, a half million, even a million people.
Biological weapons can't do that (the anthrax attacks in the U.S. in 2001 killed five people), and neither can chemical weapons.
When Aum Shinrikyo terrorists released nerve gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995, a dozen people died, not millions. An airliner loaded with fuel, or even a big nail bomb, is a far more terrifying weapon than poison gas.
The phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is merely a catch-all category for all non-conventional weapons, legal or illegal.
Nobody would want to go to war because Iraq might have a few old poison gas shells left over from a war that ended 15 years ago, but that's the shell game that is being played. So why is the White House so eager for a war with Iraq?
I dunno. Maybe it has some resource that Washington wants."
__________________
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2003, 12:34 AM   #62
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,846
Quote:
Originally posted by SickFinga
yeah ok, damn I will dig some history sites and you will see. Too lazy to do that now.

Let me ask you just one question, Russia, England, Germany had more war experience than any other country outthere. How come USA came with NO war experiece whatsoever and won it for the whole EUROPE??
Does it make any sense?

HAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHA sickfinga that was sad. Americans didn;t win ww2 they helped win it.. what the americans had where millions and millions of fresh men.. imagine being demoralized for 3 years hidding from german shellings for ****en 3 years.. man i dnt know about u but id be quit demoralized, shell shock and whatever else.. dont froget supplies running low..

why did the englihs russians and the rest not fend well against the Germans.. lets see now..
a) best armed forces
b) lots of man power, well fed, well trained well equiped

what else can be said?

the americans only did two things in ww2, send wave after wave of air raides and then, when all was done bombed the **** out of germany, and paraded over as the champions over the world.
__________________
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2003, 04:31 AM   #63
SickFinga
Moderator
 
SickFinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Location:
Posts: 16,583
US wasn't that tough in army in WW2.
UK had the best navy.
Russia had best infantry.
US only had bombers.

US was far from the best in that time.
SickFinga is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2003, 05:24 AM   #64
Marecar
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 297
Send a message via ICQ to Marecar
A few things i have to say. Im not gona go into who i agree aor dissagre with justa few facts and opinions.

1) Steel does melt at 1500*C but it drastically changes property when its heated up. Ill dig out the exact info out of my university textbooks. It also has to do with statics and kinetics, different forces act ona structure while its standing still but as soon as something gets moving (the top flors started going down) its a totaly other ballpark

2) This is a question actually was there a period in US history when it was not in war ? I mean first the Civil war then WW1 then WW2 after that the cold war, during that there were north corean war, vietnam, midleeast (Irak No.1) dezert storm and all that s..t then there was Yugoslavia pointless bombing of Belgrade then Kosovo as soon as that was done Sept 11 and war on terorism and now Irak No2. And im shur i left out a few. I heard stories that war is already unoficially declared and that US is going in Irak on February 15 no matter what. (rumors)

3) WW2 didnt make US what it is now but it had HUGE influence on its economy. they were late entering the war only because of one reason becayse there was more profit thet way. America was selling weapons to both sides both germans and allies dont ever forget that untill Brits closed access to german shores.

Im going to Bed now
__________________
Speed never killed anyone, its the sudden stops that hurt!!!
Marecar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2003, 05:06 PM   #65
Autotechnica
BMW Traitor
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Hill, Ont
Posts: 4,989
Send a message via MSN to Autotechnica
Quote:
Originally posted by sirex
HAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHA sickfinga that was sad. Americans didn;t win ww2 they helped win it.. what the americans had where millions and millions of fresh men.. imagine being demoralized for 3 years hidding from german shellings for ****en 3 years.. man i dnt know about u but id be quit demoralized, shell shock and whatever else.. dont froget supplies running low..

why did the englihs russians and the rest not fend well against the Germans.. lets see now..
a) best armed forces
b) lots of man power, well fed, well trained well equiped

what else can be said?

the americans only did two things in ww2, send wave after wave of air raides and then, when all was done bombed the **** out of germany, and paraded over as the champions over the world.
Actually I don't think the Russian's were that well equipped for WW2, I seem to remember them running low and supplies and blindly running into German chainguns unarmed. I forget which documentary it was, but it was about how Russian's faught in WW2 against the German's. They had like 1 gun for every 3-4 solilders and when one soilder would fall, the unarmed man picked up his gun. And no, I'm not talking about the movie which was about 2 snipers.

Bry
__________________
'02 C32 AMG @ 18psi - Eurocharged custom ECU/TCU, ASP 178mm crank pulley + NW PSK, CM30 i/c pump, NW i/c iso kit, EC i/c, Magnecore wires, NW CAI, SL55 Y pipe, NW ported intake manifolds + gaskets/spacers, NW inconel exhaust manifolds, NW catch can, dual exhaust, H&R sways, H&R coilovers, H&R spacers, Quaife ATB LSD, goodridge lines, EBC yellowstuff, AMG 18" rims, Zeitronix datalogger.

Autotechnica is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2003, 05:17 PM   #66
SickFinga
Moderator
 
SickFinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Location:
Posts: 16,583
Brian, yes this is true. But German's tanks were running out of gas
SickFinga is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2003, 05:49 PM   #67
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,846
Autotechnica my bad i mean the GErmans where the best armed and best fed and best everything.... sorry its not to clear.

and yes u are correct, the only thing the russians did was send wave after wave against gernamn machine gunners.. this is true, they simply couldnt arm so many men and probably where not as well prepared as the germans where, who had been amassing weapons for 10 years.
__________________
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2003, 04:16 AM   #68
SickFinga
Moderator
 
SickFinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Location:
Posts: 16,583
Quote:
Originally posted by sirex
Autotechnica my bad i mean the GErmans where the best armed and best fed and best everything.... sorry its not to clear.

and yes u are correct, the only thing the russians did was send wave after wave against gernamn machine gunners.. this is true, they simply couldnt arm so many men and probably where not as well prepared as the germans where, who had been amassing weapons for 10 years.

Hell yeah russians were not prepeared. Russia and Germany signed papers that they will not fight each other. Then in summer in the morning started bombing russia.
SickFinga is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2003, 05:01 PM   #69
Magma
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London and NYC
Posts: 155
By mkgino,

"North america is the best place in the world to live."

Not quite....huge corporate scandals, gang warfare, drive-by shootings, an ecenomy that is falling fast, and several other things make the USA not a good place to live in. Yeah, I know there are several good things there, but it's just too polluted, overcrowded. Canada...well, it might probably be the best place to live in the world, but people think the USA is a good place only cos of these big-headed patriotic kinds.

Before you start anything, I have abstolutely nothing against ordinary Americans, I like the place, nice food, nice people, but its the big-heads that is hated so much. They are totally convinced that the US is the best in the whole world, while never having been to Europe, or Japan.

This is not directed to any of you specifically, but it might be prejudice to assume the US is the best, while you haven't been to nay other countries.
Hell, I'm just like it, I reckon the UK is ONE OF the best places, as it's practically a smaller version of the US, with our own culture, and historical buildings, so "Judge not lest ye be judged", eh? Different people from different countries are just the same.

However, I wouldn't exactly emphasise it too much, or talk as if its completely true-opinions differ, and if you go OTT about it, no-one will like you. Loads of people hate the Americans because they think ALL of them are extremeley patriotic, while it's only a minority of the population.
Magma is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2015