(squeeky voice) Helium anyone?GeneralDodo wrote:
The only gas that isn't a WMD is human gas.
I dont know what to tell you, but as a conservative, I havent noticed any of my counterparts "cheering" when an insurgent is killed. However, maybe you know some conservatives who do have a beer to celebrate the death of an insurgent. Hiroshima was nuked only 65 years ago, but now it is once again a sprawling city. What you're forgetting about Chernobyl is that it was not a nuclear explosion, it was a conventional explosion caused by the extreme pressures of incredibly hot steam from the uncontrolled nuclear reaction. This sent small fragments of the core into the surrounding environment, which ultimately caused catostrophic damage. In that case you have not fallout, but the core of a reactor spread out in an environment, which is entirely different. In a nuclear explosion, while there is considerable fallout, it is not nearly so permanent as we have seen with Hiroshima.Bubbalo wrote:
Oh, sure, pick on him, meanwhile the conservatives cheer everytime an insurgent is killed.iamangry wrote:
Spumantiii, do you not feel bad when people are killed? Does the thought of other human beings dying not depress your spirits? I hope it does, or you've really been dehumanized by something.Years may be an understatement, they aren't exactly sure of what lasts for how long with nukes. People may be (and probably are) still feeling the effects if Chernobyl, and they can't be certain what effect that had on a worldwide scale.iamangry wrote:
The point I was trying to make was that sarin is indeed a wmd. Of course a nuclear or thermonuclear explosion is more destructive, it takes out the buildings as well and generates radioactive fallout that can last for years.
There was that thread on Zarqawi........iamangry wrote:
I dont know what to tell you, but as a conservative, I havent noticed any of my counterparts "cheering" when an insurgent is killed. However, maybe you know some conservatives who do have a beer to celebrate the death of an insurgent.
No, I'm not. They know the ground that it's on is still seriously bad, and they think the surrounding area is. They also don't know how far the effects reached (i.e. did it make it to France, Britain, US?). Besides which, it was just the same a a nuclear bomb: they created a critical mass larger than they intended (of course, the phrase "critical mass" is factually incorrect......).iamangry wrote:
Hiroshima was nuked only 65 years ago, but now it is once again a sprawling city. What you're forgetting about Chernobyl is that it was not a nuclear explosion, it was a conventional explosion caused by the extreme pressures of incredibly hot steam from the uncontrolled nuclear reaction. This sent small fragments of the core into the surrounding environment, which ultimately caused catostrophic damage. In that case you have not fallout, but the core of a reactor spread out in an environment, which is entirely different. In a nuclear explosion, while there is considerable fallout, it is not nearly so permanent as we have seen with Hiroshima.
my father worked in iraq for 3 years as a contractor for USA envriomental. EOD tech/supervisor
this is nothing new. they have found at least 38 biological
72 checmial warheads already in 2004. and scud's of course
the news is a poor place to get your info
this is nothing new. they have found at least 38 biological
72 checmial warheads already in 2004. and scud's of course
the news is a poor place to get your info
False, the meltdown process does not result in a nuclear explosion. Fuel rods, while of sufficient purity for a reactor, are not of sufficient purity for a nuclear weapon. A nuclear explosion requires a weapons grade purity, while a reactor requires reactor grade purity. Weapons grade has a much higher concentration of fissile material than reactor grade material. Simply put, it is impossible for a nuclear reactor to explode like a nuclear bomb does.Bubbalo wrote:
There was that thread on Zarqawi........iamangry wrote:
I dont know what to tell you, but as a conservative, I havent noticed any of my counterparts "cheering" when an insurgent is killed. However, maybe you know some conservatives who do have a beer to celebrate the death of an insurgent.No, I'm not. They know the ground that it's on is still seriously bad, and they think the surrounding area is. They also don't know how far the effects reached (i.e. did it make it to France, Britain, US?). Besides which, it was just the same a a nuclear bomb: they created a critical mass larger than they intended (of course, the phrase "critical mass" is factually incorrect......).iamangry wrote:
Hiroshima was nuked only 65 years ago, but now it is once again a sprawling city. What you're forgetting about Chernobyl is that it was not a nuclear explosion, it was a conventional explosion caused by the extreme pressures of incredibly hot steam from the uncontrolled nuclear reaction. This sent small fragments of the core into the surrounding environment, which ultimately caused catostrophic damage. In that case you have not fallout, but the core of a reactor spread out in an environment, which is entirely different. In a nuclear explosion, while there is considerable fallout, it is not nearly so permanent as we have seen with Hiroshima.
Zarqawi was not just any ordinary human being, he was a human being who tortured and beheaded innocent civilians. He coordinated a full scale insurgency which is so ineffective and irrational that it has been responsible for the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than the intended coalition targets. There's a big difference between Zarqawi and a normal person; whether they are a soldier or a civilian. Some would even go so far to say that aside from the obvious physiological humanity possesed by Zarqawi, there was nothing human about him.
The only change that creates is the force created relative to the amount used.iamangry wrote:
False, the meltdown process does not result in a nuclear explosion. Fuel rods, while of sufficient purity for a reactor, are not of sufficient purity for a nuclear weapon. A nuclear explosion requires a weapons grade purity, while a reactor requires reactor grade purity. Weapons grade has a much higher concentration of fissile material than reactor grade material. Simply put, it is impossible for a nuclear reactor to explode like a nuclear bomb does.
The same could be said about the officers who were aware of happenings at Abu Ghraib, or William Calley. To say that someone is inhuman is the most inhuman act one can make. Call him violent, stupid, lacking empathy, or incredibly cruel, but do not be so stupid as to argue that you can call him inhuman because of his actions. If we say that, I can easily cheer the death of any American soldier by saying that killing is inhuman.iamangry wrote:
Zarqawi was not just any ordinary human being, he was a human being who tortured and beheaded innocent civilians. He coordinated a full scale insurgency which is so ineffective and irrational that it has been responsible for the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than the intended coalition targets. There's a big difference between Zarqawi and a normal person; whether they are a soldier or a civilian. Some would even go so far to say that aside from the obvious physiological humanity possesed by Zarqawi, there was nothing human about him.
About the nuclear part, that is completely untrue. I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of nuclear processes. Nuclear core fragments have a much longer half life than radiogenic products of a fission reaction. This means that they have a much longer term effect on their surroundings. During a nuclear explosion like that in a nuclear weapon almost all of the fissile matter is used, releasing various other products, most of which are harmless. The resultant neutron and gamma radiation excites particles in the environment around the explosion, but the strength of the resultant radiation is a drop in the bucket compared to the intensity of radiation created by core fragments. About Zarqawi, I did not say I believe Zarqawi was inhuman, I said some people would. However, I must disagree with your statement that calling someone inhuman is the most inhuman act possible. You cannot cheer the death of American soldiers because killing is inhuman, because unfortunately we've seen throughout history that killing is woefully human. What other animals kill others of their own kind? Can you give an example of another animal that kills other than for food or for defense of itself and its young? I cannot. You cannot cheer the death of American soldiers simply because they may have killed others. You do not know how or why they killed, or even if they did kill. We're they knowlegable participants in an atrocity of war, or we're they just a cook? The difference with Zarqawi is we do know. We know that he killed, not to defend himself or his people, but to promote his own political and religious agenda. He killed for the very purpose to inflict pain and suffering on others, to dehumanize other people. Its not identifying a person as being inhuman that is the most inhuman act, it is the the act of dehumanizing other people that is the most inhuman act.Bubbalo wrote:
The only change that creates is the force created relative to the amount used.iamangry wrote:
False, the meltdown process does not result in a nuclear explosion. Fuel rods, while of sufficient purity for a reactor, are not of sufficient purity for a nuclear weapon. A nuclear explosion requires a weapons grade purity, while a reactor requires reactor grade purity. Weapons grade has a much higher concentration of fissile material than reactor grade material. Simply put, it is impossible for a nuclear reactor to explode like a nuclear bomb does.The same could be said about the officers who were aware of happenings at Abu Ghraib, or William Calley. To say that someone is inhuman is the most inhuman act one can make. Call him violent, stupid, lacking empathy, or incredibly cruel, but do not be so stupid as to argue that you can call him inhuman because of his actions. If we say that, I can easily cheer the death of any American soldier by saying that killing is inhuman.iamangry wrote:
Zarqawi was not just any ordinary human being, he was a human being who tortured and beheaded innocent civilians. He coordinated a full scale insurgency which is so ineffective and irrational that it has been responsible for the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than the intended coalition targets. There's a big difference between Zarqawi and a normal person; whether they are a soldier or a civilian. Some would even go so far to say that aside from the obvious physiological humanity possesed by Zarqawi, there was nothing human about him.
Your talking to some one who said this
Bubbalo wrote:
The point was that the US could strike the USSR with nukes, the USSR could not strike the US.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-06-30 13:29:28)
people keep trying to use the "they were degraded" or "they were manufactured prior to 91" argument, while the truth is that these were the exact type of shells which were to be destroyed as part of the surrender agreement......
again....I have a rusty, degraded 10 gauge that I found in one of my uncles barn's, you wanna stand in fron of it while i pull the trigger?
again....I have a rusty, degraded 10 gauge that I found in one of my uncles barn's, you wanna stand in fron of it while i pull the trigger?
War is terrible thing, I think that we all may be able to agree with that (especially those of us who have been through it). The problem does not lie in what weapons dictator X used to kill people Y. The problem is that the media is edited, commentated, and publicized by humans. Everyone has their own biased agenda that they try to persuade others to their line of thought. Take away the media's rights to cover the war. Let the soldiers do the dirty work that needs to be done. So that all fighters in this tragedy can come home.
So as i scrolled through the messagesl, I got the general drift that because it was from Fox it wasn't reliable.
What about if it were from the military.
http://www.military.com/features/0,1524 … C=dod-b.nl
Does this make it any more reliable?
(Oh, and yes. I am back again.)
What about if it were from the military.
http://www.military.com/features/0,1524 … C=dod-b.nl
Does this make it any more reliable?
(Oh, and yes. I am back again.)
probably a right wing conspiracy
Yes, because the American military has historically been so very trustworthy...............
The worlds best !
so yeah...I haven't heard too much about this shocking revelation. Seeing the fuss they make about gay marriage and immigration I would think they would. Or is it one of those OMG LIBERAL MEDIA COVERUP CONSPIRACIES!!!111
Also military.com is a commercial website. It isn't the government.
Also military.com is a commercial website. It isn't the government.
Last edited by Ikarti (2006-07-09 21:29:42)
Flushes twice and lights a match !Ikarti wrote:
I think .50 cal should be ok as long as its only used on US troops.
So what, he believes that US soldiers should die and that proves something?
is it not obvious?
It proves that he feels using soldiers are on the wrong side of the battle, nothing more.
I don't trust FOX News and any thing from it I don't give a care... If this reported on CNN or other news stations, then I beg to differ...
But haven't you heard? Fox news is the only unbiased news station. Totally.
well if fox news said it, it has to be true, obviously
I have an idea!!! Lets just let the dictators of the world who starve/kill their own people have WMDs!!!! Won't the world be a fun place? I hope all you liberal retards would be happy!!
And btw, FOX News is fair and balanced, you guys have CNN that is totally in bed with liberals, and us Republicans have FOX, so its all fair and balanced! HAHAHA.
A quick question, why do there tend to be more Liberal douchebags than Conservative ones? There are so many of you guys I'm surprised you don't all kill each other.
And btw, FOX News is fair and balanced, you guys have CNN that is totally in bed with liberals, and us Republicans have FOX, so its all fair and balanced! HAHAHA.
A quick question, why do there tend to be more Liberal douchebags than Conservative ones? There are so many of you guys I'm surprised you don't all kill each other.
Don’t tell me...you are a rocket scientist?Capt_Flapjack wrote:
I have an idea!!! Lets just let the dictators of the world who starve/kill their own people have WMDs!!!! Won't the world be a fun place? I hope all you liberal retards would be happy!!
And btw, FOX News is fair and balanced, you guys have CNN that is totally in bed with liberals, and us Republicans have FOX, so its all fair and balanced! HAHAHA.
A quick question, why do there tend to be more Liberal douchebags than Conservative ones? There are so many of you guys I'm surprised you don't all kill each other.
When I was there I kinda felt they were buried under the mousqe.chuckle_hound wrote:
Considering the number of bombs America dropped on Iraq, it's no surprise there's WMDs there. What the report probably neglects to mention is that they're all in American camps