I hear that Dorset, England is a hotbed of activity that may require we come over there and do something particularly nasty...like film an episode of the Anna Nicole show! YIKES!
will you be kind enough to elaborate a bit ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhh I'm mostly joking. There has been speculation that France and Germany don't want Sadam out of power because of the lucrative business deals they've made as well as maybe they don't want the US to find out that they, France and Germany, have been ignoring the UN embargo for years and shipping banned items to Iraq (think WOMD). It's 99.5% speculation.
So ... if France is so great and we can't go ahead without them ... let them take the lead on this one. Take one or the team France!
Perhaps rather than invading countrys the US should give them less reason to be hostile in the first place. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
And finding ways to appease them would require a few simple steps:
1)declare the US to be a Mulsim nation.
2)fully abandon Isreal as an ally and leave them to be destroyed
3)completely disarm themselves of nuclear weapons
4)abandon all other allies that do not fully align themselves with a fundamentalist Islamic doctrine.
5)wipe out all third world debt to US and hand over an even larger portion of US GNP to underdeveloped nations.
These steps will help to reduce hostile feelings toward the US from radical, fundamentalist groups and nations. Failure to complete any of these steps would result in a continuation of hostilities from these groups. Sounds easy, let's do it.
If France and Germany are breaking the UN embargo, I salute them. Of course, I shît on them for placing stupid tarriffs on everything else and maintaining the lunatically stupid EU economic policies. If France and Germany are giving Iraq better tarriffs than the US, I say we replace the tyrants in power in those countries.
On a serious note, I wonder if the US military could non-nuclearly take-over Western Europe. I think it probably could, and without too much trouble.
On a serious note, I wonder if the US military could non-nuclearly take-over Western Europe. I think it probably could, and without too much trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And finding ways to appease them would require a few simple steps:
1)declare the US to be a Mulsim nation.
2)fully abandon Isreal as an ally and leave them to be destroyed
3)completely disarm themselves of nuclear weapons
4)abandon all other allies that do not fully align themselves with a fundamentalist Islamic doctrine.
5)wipe out all third world debt to US and hand over an even larger portion of US GNP to underdeveloped nations.
These steps will help to reduce hostile feelings toward the US from radical, fundamentalist groups and nations. Failure to complete any of these steps would result in a continuation of hostilities from these groups. Sounds easy, let's do it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) How would that help the N. Korea situation?
2) Again, N. Korea?
3) Make a relevant point. Everyone should abandon all nuclear arms, and you know it.
4) Hello. N. Korea???
5) Sounds like a good idea to me.
You make your short-sighted, racist point of view all too clear. So the only people that don't like the US are the Muslims and the only reason that they don't like the US is because it is not a Muslim nation. HAHAHAHA. You have much to learn when it comes to politics and you're way too naive for your own good.
Pick up a good book by a dissident and see what they have to say.
And you call yourself a Canadian??? I thought Americans had the corner on the market when it came to xenophobic ideas. I guess not...
And you call yourself a Canadian??? I thought Americans had the corner on the market when it came to xenophobic ideas. I guess not...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that's Europe these days. Look at the racist attitude toward Turkey. Turkey can't join the EU. Turkey can't enjoy the benefits of NATO. For Europe treaties don't matter when you're brown. Europe == racist.
Europe cornered the market on racism way before the KKK, or other racisist organizations. The past is history but it does have a tendency to repeat itself.
On a serious note, I wonder if the US military could non-nuclearly take-over Western Europe. I think it probably could, and without too much trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A serious note?!
Where do you think the US could launch a land invasion of Western Europe from, Russia? It's taken the US months to build up the necessary infrastructure in neighbouring countries just to invade Iraq.
What's to pevent the UK and France responding nuclearly?
<strong>How do you respond within seconds of a missile launch? You need proximity, of both detection and response, both of which are generally impossible. Watching too much star trek?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, too much Gulf War. How did the Patriot Missile Batteries respond?
Look at the Phalaynx info. The world's only autonomous weapon system. It has FLIR and radar to fire automatically without human intervention or lag.
Place them in South Korea. We should be able to produce a missile that is faster to intercept with a 15 second time to confirm launch, I'd think. Remember, the Patriot Missile exceeds Mach 1 at the time of its EXIT from it's launching containers. So, in just 12 feet, it goes from 0 past the speed of sound. Pretty impressive.
We have plenty of radar capabilities.
Or, use directed energy weapons. They are outfitting the AC-130 gunships with them. Just a matter of time before they can deploy them for missile intercept functions.
Maybe the military contractors, who have produced advanced weaponry, have watched too much star trek. Not sure why you would doubt the capability.
First of all I'm not pro-war, and I tend to border on anti-war, but I just posed a question for debate: Is Western Europe a superpower?
My answer is no. Ridiculous economic practices plus weak militaries mean no power. Since guns are basically illegal in most of Western Europe, and since it doesn't have the industrial infrastructure to rapidly produce enough weapons at a moments notice, I think if America hit Europe, it wouldn't take long to destroy these nations.
Please understand that, for one, I don't support attacking Europe, and for two, that I'm just offering this as a question for debate. No need to get defensive. I'd rather you offer an explanation why you think what you do.
Actually, too much Gulf War. How did the Patriot Missile Batteries respond?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you were watching that much Gulf War footage you should be aware that the Patriot missiles performed rather poorly as targetting short range missiles like SCUDs was not what they were designed for, especially ones with trajectories as erratic as the ones Saddam was lobbing.
summary: patriots suck. initial official estimate of success against SCUDs say 100%. Later revised to 90, 80, 70, 52 then 25%. Independent analysis only finds evidence for 9% success.
If you were watching that much Gulf War footage you should be aware that the Patriot missiles performed rather poorly as targetting short range missiles like SCUDs was not what they were designed for, especially ones with trajectories as erratic as the ones Saddam was lobbing.
summary: patriots suck. initial official estimate of success against SCUDs say 100%. Later revised to 90, 80, 70, 52 then 25%. Independent analysis only finds evidence for 9% success.
I was talking capability THEN, PLUS 12 years. NOT whether or not the Patriots did well.
My point was exactly the OPPOSITE. Patriots were the 'wait till after the apex' interceptor. MY first point was 'intercept while elevating'. And that the patriot had the ABILITY (not proven success, since it wasn't of the same intercept type) to accellerate quickly! We should be able to out-accellerate and intercept what should be a heavier missile.
That was my whole point.
Create a missile defense not located HERE (to at least me) but THERE. It's easier to see a rocket when you are within 100 miles of its launch, than to be 100 miles from where it's going to land. I know, I've seen rockets take off when I was near. They are very obvious.
But, a missile incoming is not so obvious. One reason is when it takes off, you're looking at the hot/fire end. Incoming, it's usually no longer powered, and less of a heat signature.
I can't believe I have to explain my point even more.
<strong>First of all I'm not pro-war, and I tend to border on anti-war, but I just posed a question for debate: Is Western Europe a superpower?
My answer is no. Ridiculous economic practices plus weak militaries mean no power. Since guns are basically illegal in most of Western Europe, and since it doesn't have the industrial infrastructure to rapidly produce enough weapons at a moments notice, I think if America hit Europe, it wouldn't take long to destroy these nations.
Please understand that, for one, I don't support attacking Europe, and for two, that I'm just offering this as a question for debate. No need to get defensive. I'd rather you offer an explanation why you think what you do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I certainly don't consider Western Europe to be a superpower at all, but I do think it would be difficult (if not impossible) for America to destroy the European nations at an acceptable cost to itself.
I thought one of the reasons why America invaded Afghanistan was because terrorism posed an unacceptable threat to the American people. Similarly, I thought one of the reasons why America is preparing to invade Iraq is because chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable threat to the American people. You don't need to be a superpower to have the potential of inflicting unacceptable human and economic damage on your enemies, making the cost of an invasion a deterrent. Saddam was getting close to having nuclear weapons, Western Europe already has them.
What price would the American public be prepared to pay? How many nuclear strikes or acts of terrorism would be deemed an acceptable cost? I thought the war in Vietnam was lost in part due to the part public opinion played back at home. Would you deem an invasion of Western Europe a success if 1,000 US soldiers/civilians were killed in the process, how about 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000? Don't you think Russia might notice if the US military turned up on it's doorstep?
I also think that's why you won't invade North Korea. The cost of them using nuclear weapons is too high, and the payback (no oil) too small.
Comments
Talk about BOMBS!
yeesh,
<strong>Scott,
will you be kind enough to elaborate a bit ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhh I'm mostly joking. There has been speculation that France and Germany don't want Sadam out of power because of the lucrative business deals they've made as well as maybe they don't want the US to find out that they, France and Germany, have been ignoring the UN embargo for years and shipping banned items to Iraq (think WOMD). It's 99.5% speculation.
So ... if France is so great and we can't go ahead without them ... let them take the lead on this one. Take one or the team France!
<strong>
Perhaps rather than invading countrys the US should give them less reason to be hostile in the first place. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
And finding ways to appease them would require a few simple steps:
1)declare the US to be a Mulsim nation.
2)fully abandon Isreal as an ally and leave them to be destroyed
3)completely disarm themselves of nuclear weapons
4)abandon all other allies that do not fully align themselves with a fundamentalist Islamic doctrine.
5)wipe out all third world debt to US and hand over an even larger portion of US GNP to underdeveloped nations.
These steps will help to reduce hostile feelings toward the US from radical, fundamentalist groups and nations. Failure to complete any of these steps would result in a continuation of hostilities from these groups. Sounds easy, let's do it.
On a serious note, I wonder if the US military could non-nuclearly take-over Western Europe. I think it probably could, and without too much trouble.
<strong>
On a serious note, I wonder if the US military could non-nuclearly take-over Western Europe. I think it probably could, and without too much trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a serious note is it?
"Not too much trouble."
Bwa.
Bwahahahaha.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
<strong>
And finding ways to appease them would require a few simple steps:
1)declare the US to be a Mulsim nation.
2)fully abandon Isreal as an ally and leave them to be destroyed
3)completely disarm themselves of nuclear weapons
4)abandon all other allies that do not fully align themselves with a fundamentalist Islamic doctrine.
5)wipe out all third world debt to US and hand over an even larger portion of US GNP to underdeveloped nations.
These steps will help to reduce hostile feelings toward the US from radical, fundamentalist groups and nations. Failure to complete any of these steps would result in a continuation of hostilities from these groups. Sounds easy, let's do it.
1) How would that help the N. Korea situation?
2) Again, N. Korea?
3) Make a relevant point. Everyone should abandon all nuclear arms, and you know it.
4) Hello. N. Korea???
5) Sounds like a good idea to me.
You make your short-sighted, racist point of view all too clear.
Pick up a good book by a dissident and see what they have to say.
And you call yourself a Canadian??? I thought Americans had the corner on the market when it came to xenophobic ideas. I guess not...
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>
<strong>
1) How would that help the N. Korea situation?
2) Again, N. Korea?
3) Make a relevant point. Everyone should abandon all nuclear arms, and you know it.
4) Hello. N. Korea???
5) Sounds like a good idea to me.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think NK would like 3 and 5. Duh.
<strong>
...
And you call yourself a Canadian??? I thought Americans had the corner on the market when it came to xenophobic ideas. I guess not...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that's Europe these days. Look at the racist attitude toward Turkey. Turkey can't join the EU. Turkey can't enjoy the benefits of NATO. For Europe treaties don't matter when you're brown. Europe == racist.
I think this country is not exactly a democracy. That's why they're no inside of the EU.
In Europe we don't have a segregation as you do in the US for black people. We just don't care about that.
It's like talking about racism between the different states in the US. just silly.
<strong>
On a serious note, I wonder if the US military could non-nuclearly take-over Western Europe. I think it probably could, and without too much trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A serious note?!
Where do you think the US could launch a land invasion of Western Europe from, Russia? It's taken the US months to build up the necessary infrastructure in neighbouring countries just to invade Iraq.
What's to pevent the UK and France responding nuclearly?
<strong>How do you respond within seconds of a missile launch? You need proximity, of both detection and response, both of which are generally impossible. Watching too much star trek?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, too much Gulf War. How did the Patriot Missile Batteries respond?
Look at the Phalaynx info. The world's only autonomous weapon system. It has FLIR and radar to fire automatically without human intervention or lag.
Place them in South Korea. We should be able to produce a missile that is faster to intercept with a 15 second time to confirm launch, I'd think. Remember, the Patriot Missile exceeds Mach 1 at the time of its EXIT from it's launching containers. So, in just 12 feet, it goes from 0 past the speed of sound. Pretty impressive.
We have plenty of radar capabilities.
Or, use directed energy weapons. They are outfitting the AC-130 gunships with them. Just a matter of time before they can deploy them for missile intercept functions.
Maybe the military contractors, who have produced advanced weaponry, have watched too much star trek. Not sure why you would doubt the capability.
<strong>What the hell would we want with Europe?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. It rains to damn much over there. If we must invade, lets take Cuba. Imagine all the condo's we could put up over there!
<strong>What the hell would we want with Europe?</strong><hr></blockquote>
when are you people going to learn? it's all about the cheese! it has always been about the cheese.
<strong>
In Europe we don't have a segregation as you do in the US for black people. We just don't care about that.
It's like talking about racism between the different states in the US. just silly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What segregation would that be eaxctly. Are you living in a time warp? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
My answer is no. Ridiculous economic practices plus weak militaries mean no power. Since guns are basically illegal in most of Western Europe, and since it doesn't have the industrial infrastructure to rapidly produce enough weapons at a moments notice, I think if America hit Europe, it wouldn't take long to destroy these nations.
Please understand that, for one, I don't support attacking Europe, and for two, that I'm just offering this as a question for debate. No need to get defensive. I'd rather you offer an explanation why you think what you do.
<strong>
Actually, too much Gulf War. How did the Patriot Missile Batteries respond?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you were watching that much Gulf War footage you should be aware that the Patriot missiles performed rather poorly as targetting short range missiles like SCUDs was not what they were designed for, especially ones with trajectories as erratic as the ones Saddam was lobbing.
Their deployment was mostly PR.
edit: read <a href="http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/patriot.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/patriot.htm</a>;
summary: patriots suck. initial official estimate of success against SCUDs say 100%. Later revised to 90, 80, 70, 52 then 25%. Independent analysis only finds evidence for 9% success.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>
If you were watching that much Gulf War footage you should be aware that the Patriot missiles performed rather poorly as targetting short range missiles like SCUDs was not what they were designed for, especially ones with trajectories as erratic as the ones Saddam was lobbing.
Their deployment was mostly PR.
edit: read <a href="http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/patriot.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/patriot.htm</a>;
summary: patriots suck. initial official estimate of success against SCUDs say 100%. Later revised to 90, 80, 70, 52 then 25%. Independent analysis only finds evidence for 9% success.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to my point.
I was talking capability THEN, PLUS 12 years. NOT whether or not the Patriots did well.
My point was exactly the OPPOSITE. Patriots were the 'wait till after the apex' interceptor. MY first point was 'intercept while elevating'. And that the patriot had the ABILITY (not proven success, since it wasn't of the same intercept type) to accellerate quickly! We should be able to out-accellerate and intercept what should be a heavier missile.
That was my whole point.
Create a missile defense not located HERE (to at least me) but THERE. It's easier to see a rocket when you are within 100 miles of its launch, than to be 100 miles from where it's going to land. I know, I've seen rockets take off when I was near. They are very obvious.
But, a missile incoming is not so obvious. One reason is when it takes off, you're looking at the hot/fire end. Incoming, it's usually no longer powered, and less of a heat signature.
I can't believe I have to explain my point even more.
<strong>First of all I'm not pro-war, and I tend to border on anti-war, but I just posed a question for debate: Is Western Europe a superpower?
My answer is no. Ridiculous economic practices plus weak militaries mean no power. Since guns are basically illegal in most of Western Europe, and since it doesn't have the industrial infrastructure to rapidly produce enough weapons at a moments notice, I think if America hit Europe, it wouldn't take long to destroy these nations.
Please understand that, for one, I don't support attacking Europe, and for two, that I'm just offering this as a question for debate. No need to get defensive. I'd rather you offer an explanation why you think what you do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I certainly don't consider Western Europe to be a superpower at all, but I do think it would be difficult (if not impossible) for America to destroy the European nations at an acceptable cost to itself.
I thought one of the reasons why America invaded Afghanistan was because terrorism posed an unacceptable threat to the American people. Similarly, I thought one of the reasons why America is preparing to invade Iraq is because chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable threat to the American people. You don't need to be a superpower to have the potential of inflicting unacceptable human and economic damage on your enemies, making the cost of an invasion a deterrent. Saddam was getting close to having nuclear weapons, Western Europe already has them.
What price would the American public be prepared to pay? How many nuclear strikes or acts of terrorism would be deemed an acceptable cost? I thought the war in Vietnam was lost in part due to the part public opinion played back at home. Would you deem an invasion of Western Europe a success if 1,000 US soldiers/civilians were killed in the process, how about 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000? Don't you think Russia might notice if the US military turned up on it's doorstep?
I also think that's why you won't invade North Korea. The cost of them using nuclear weapons is too high, and the payback (no oil) too small.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>