Dirty bomb ... dirty bomb ... d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d dirty bomb ... Halliburton dirty bomb

sheesh! how quickly we forget!!
it was the year 1920, the iihf world championships! we lost to the canadians!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A UN mandate does not make it right

It is as if a "UN mandate" serves to make some people feel better about this war. The Swedish government, as an example of a country whose solidarity with the UN has never been questioned, seems to hope that it will not be forced to criticise the United States. Because, if there is such a UN mandate, it would be possible for Sweden to say, "well, we don't like wars, but this one has a UN mandate, and therefore it is acceptable to us." The Danish government, still the head of the EU for a few more days, has declared that it is willing to participate directly in the war if there is such a mandate.

http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/2002/PI168_No_UN_mandate.html

also most of the wars this century have been fought without security council
approval. so.......what the dillio?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ergo: UN mandate withheld does not make it wrong.

Terribly inconvenient, maybe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not at all g
deep down i really couldnt care less if the whole world went to pot, let alone some funky ass m e country

 

then at least you will be sleeping well because my friend the world is going to pot and has been for a long time ^_^

 

Is that the Left's version of the Right's "thrown from the Garden of Eden" story?

 

Mr. G

Hallelujah!

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's hard to miss the unmistakable signs of faith-based reasoning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Faith in peace

Given people's general unwillingness throughout history to give peace a chance, I fully admit that the peacenik utopia is a matter of faith.

I cannot be held responsible for the failures of those who come before me, only for my failure to address those failures.

Nor shall I be held responsible for whatever degree of ridicule people choose to hold those evangelizations. What would be the point of attempting to force conformity when liberty and peace are the objectives?

And, given history, the belief that war brings peace is as much faith as anything else. Based on historical considerations, I cannot expect the military extermination of the Hussein threat to make the world safer. A faith in things untried, I think, is marginally less irrational than a faith in things demonstrated to fail.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i think those that yearn for a simpler way of life (farming, self sufficiency.....) or the anti-industrialisation crowd could just as well make statements like that.

what say you g?
yes? no?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: Faith in peace

when history is taken into account, you are dealing with facts and not faith.
i imagine there would have been an instance where war had ushered in a long period of peace and prosperity and yet another instance where things had just fallen apart. badly!

ps do not ask me to open a history book and provide examples. thanks!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

is it impossible to imagine iraqi peasants showering the gi's with flowers? offering their daughters in gratitude for liberating em? of course it might be hard to find flowers or peasants after 300-400 cruise missiles home in on their targets......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This story of using radioactive sources obtained from people who use radioactive materials for x-ray purposes seems to be being revisited yet again. There was a write-up about it shortly after the 9/11 incident. At the time, the write-up downplayed the quanity/amount as being worth going after by terrorist as a source for a dirty bomb.

Stating that these boxes would have to be disassembled to obtain the radioactives and that it would take considerably more than one of these boxes to make reasonable amount for the effect to be achieved.

I have seen such boxes. While they are small, they are heavy. They do not contain a lot of material. Rather very little and most of the weight of the box is in the sheilding.

There is enough radioactives there that while in use, keeping people out of the area is a concern. The concern is that of reproductive issues. If dispersed in the form of a bomb, the amount would have long lasting effects, true. The amount of the effects is what is questionable. As you disperse the material, so do you desperse the strength and likewise the effects of said material. Eventually rain would remove anything but chunks. This lowering exposure rates even farther.

In my humble opinion, these would be hardly worth going after.

 

Technology is advancing. Access to technology is exploding. With technology ever the 2-edged sword, we can arrive at further conclusions:

Impregnible defense is impossible.

Deterrence is protagonism.

Destabilization is antagonism.

Pissing off large numbers of people is death.

And to paraphrase an old sailor song- What do we do with a drunk-on-power?

Take away his power, and if necessary, take his life. Individually. Earl-eye in the morning.

 

Dirty bombs are not currently a threat as terrorists have not demonstrated that they have the means to deliver one in their notes. If they did we would have the reserves searching the ports to find it. Pissing off large numbers of people is sometimes a fact of reality

 

Piss off enough of them, and before you read their notes, they are going to sh!t in your cornflakes.

 

shadows

"reserves searching the ports"

The reserves are stretched very thin right now. GW sent them to the middel east. We have vast quantities ( millions of tons) of consumer goods arriving daily on conatainer ships. Searching them all would be, nearly if not totally, impossible, especially since no one has bothered to prepare to do that.

But there is no need to bring anything in through the ports when our borders are open to pedestrain traffic. And whats to say that whatever is needed for such a weapon is not here already, waiting in a self storage unit in a city near you.

We no longer live in a world where we can presume that the government can protect us.

 

But we must quickly confront the fact that the government can recklessly endanger us.

 

This link gives one small example of "whats out there"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0131_020131_atomic.html

 

Dirty what?

Either way, no it is not impossible. It also occurs to me that we might have to answer for the amount of radioactive crap we left littered around Iraq last time. Dirty bomb?

I wonder if we'll be firing radioactive rounds in this war. Actually, I expect it.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

O heck sorry tissa i went to hit quote and i hit report, honest mistake

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For the nuclear rounds thing i've already said GWB seems awful eager to find an excuse to use a nuke , or if he can't get his way with that "Recreate" the effects of a nuke with conventional war heads "Shock and Awe".
I imagine after the DU incidents and all the rest of it from the last Gulf war (And that the british troops equipment is actually worse than stuff even i have for Airsofting :bugeye: and gas masks out of date by 10 years) yes there may very well be a lot left to deal with.
Fortuanatly this time round we are not pumping our people full of deadly drugs (to protect them :bugeye: )
So hopeful we wont see any gulf war II syndrome.

And finally as for finding a few 100 civillians, i'm sure they will dig up one or two for the press back home..ignoring the other several 100 who shower them with abuse and spittle and rocks etc not flowers ^_^.