Forums at Modded Mustangs - Reply to Topic
Thread: U.S Bombing SYRIA Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
September 13th, 2013 05:22 PM
vroom vrooooom ^ I didn't know all that .
September 13th, 2013 04:23 PM
specknowsbest
Quote:
Originally Posted by vroom vrooooom View Post
im guessing it is a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION, in witch one strike can kill millions people at once .VS , just a reagular bomb has a very limited kill/destruction range,......im guessing that a 100k killed in 2 years could easly turn into 200K a year killed if these kinds af weapons start to be ok to use in war , Im sorry that is my best guess .
Just gonna comment real quick from a veteran's perspective on WMDs. It's always been explained/understood among military personnel and units I've been with that a WMD isn't necessarily a weapon that can kill thousands in one go, but a weapon that causes uncontrollable damage in a single use. For example, Agent Orange would have been classified as a WMD, Phosphorus shells were counted among WMDs after the seige of Fallujah in Iraq. Even something as lowly as the improvised chlorine bombs used by Iraqi insurgency/military remnants against civilians and Coalition Forces would be considered WMDs, because the amount of damage that they create cannot be contained or controlled effectively like a bunker buster, .50 cal, 107mm rocket, etc.
September 13th, 2013 03:33 PM
1RŠpidoZorro There seems to be a lot of speculation about who did it for a situation that "has been proved beyond doubt by facts".

I wish they would just release these facts already...
September 13th, 2013 03:28 PM
BWAL
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDEAFBRO? View Post
12 U.S. Intelligence Officials Tell Obama It Wasnít Assad | Washington's Blog

Don't know if this was posted yet but what do you guys think? Do you think that this story is real or what? I haven't seen it on any mainstream news programs (which might be a good sign to it's validity) so I'm not sure what to really say. The first site I saw it on was an Iranian news site so I had to check on other sites and they are the exact same thing. Word for word. Still not sure what to make of this. Obama has no proof that it was the Assad regime that used chemical weapons so I guess there is no definite answer.
i doubted it was assad from the beginning
September 13th, 2013 11:16 AM
UDEAFBRO? 12 U.S. Intelligence Officials Tell Obama It Wasn’t Assad | Washington's Blog

Don't know if this was posted yet but what do you guys think? Do you think that this story is real or what? I haven't seen it on any mainstream news programs (which might be a good sign to it's validity) so I'm not sure what to really say. The first site I saw it on was an Iranian news site so I had to check on other sites and they are the exact same thing. Word for word. Still not sure what to make of this. Obama has no proof that it was the Assad regime that used chemical weapons so I guess there is no definite answer.
September 13th, 2013 05:07 AM
Novanutcase I would have commented earlier but when I saw JohnC post a link from a liberal source and agree I passed out......

John
September 13th, 2013 03:28 AM
JohnC Middle Eastern Promises - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/10/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
September 12th, 2013 04:45 PM
44 cents
Quote:
Originally Posted by vroom vrooooom View Post
i have learned a lot ,from people here with diffrent point of views.and maybe some of the things ive said in the past were wrong.... but lets move on

Vroom. I am now a fan of yours. You think like I do. This is a web forum. Too many people here get all on their soap boxes and wont get off. What silly is that it carries over to other threads. Great pov! I have nothing to prove to anyone and with that mind set, Ive can say Ive learned some things around here.

I got alot out of these posts...changed my stance at least twice! lol! So what!
September 12th, 2013 12:45 PM
vroom vrooooom i have learned a lot ,from people here with different point of views.and maybe some of the things ive said in the past were wrong.... but lets move on
September 12th, 2013 02:19 AM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerminalIntelligence View Post
You laugh because she's right. And that's the only news broadcasts that will show people standing up to him like that.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
I laugh because she, like most of the anchors on Fox tabloid news, go along with the same BS they've always espoused. Like Hannity, it's sensationalism masquerading as news. That goes for the left leaning station MSNBC also!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerminalIntelligence View Post
I never said they were the best news station nor did I say they were perfect. I don't always agree either, but they aren't pushed around.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
So because they push out bullshit on a massive scale it's OK because they do it in a way that shows they are tough?

John

---------- Post added at 05:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by vroom vrooooom View Post
Well ,this has just been a rollercoaster of emotions for me, on one hand ,i with pres Obama. and i understand the point that no matter what we cannot let thies kind of inhumanitiy to start running rampid at will .but our military familiys have givin so much to the world to hold these maniacs back from destroying life,But all in all Obama may be the one who is correct on this. at least it might have gave us a diplamatic breakthrew without chancing another full out war. Hopefully Obama can play this new hand of cards very carefully and make Putin own this shit now.
Dude! Your respect meter just jumped up a few notches in my book.....

I always considered you a completely close minded person but you just proved me wrong!

John
September 11th, 2013 10:37 PM
Nightmare69 I would have loved to been a fly on the wall in the Putin/Obama meeting
September 11th, 2013 08:02 PM
T-Lee. 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by vroom vrooooom View Post
im guessing it is a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION, in witch one strike can kill millions people at once .VS , just a reagular bomb has a very limited kill/destruction range,......im guessing that a 100k killed in 2 years could easly turn into 200K a year killed if these kinds af weapons start to be ok to use in war , Im sorry that is my best guess .
Quote:
Originally Posted by WickedSnake00 View Post
Only if you think about it in a very macro sense.

There is a massive difference between killing civilians with chemical weapons and striking military installations with precision guided munitions.

Chemical weapons are extremely cruel. We're talking about burning and/or liquifying your airways, asphyxiation, or drowning you in your own bodily fluids. It is a slow, painful, gruesome death.

I mean you know the shit is horrible when Hitler made a choice not to use it in combat.

Meanwhile the strikes we propose (not saying I support them) are primarily aimed at destroying equipment or facilities, not human lives. The goals are to disable or destroy munitions and their facilities. There is a massive difference between demolishing a bridge, or chemical weapons plant versus burning down a village and killing every person there.
I know some have made the point that you will die either way, but those were both some damn good answers imo.
September 11th, 2013 07:52 PM
WickedSnake00
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 cents View Post
I have one question...this is on topic in its own way.

What is the difference between "gassing" and "dropping a smart bomb"? The end result is still the same. Yes, I understand the chances of a smart bomb killing innocent children is less but I remember seeing alot of Iraqi body parts being pulled out of rubble that looked like child limbs. Death is death. The end result is the same. If i shoot a bullet and it misses the target and takes half a kids head off yet he lives...is it still the same? I think so. How can "INTENTIONS" define how we kill innocent people? Well, its OK if we "meant" to only kill adult bad guys. Im wrestling with this right now.

It reminds of the stories of how back in the day, Red Coats would stand in a line and march into fire. It was somehow "dishonorable" to try NOT to get shot? WTF?

Rules of war sometimes boggle my mind. There is no perfect indiscriminant killing weapon. It doesnt exist. Whatever means you use it can kill me the same as killing a kid or a kangaroo.

Someone explain this and then MAYBE the whole argument of this thread will make more sense to me.
Only if you think about it in a very macro sense.

There is a massive difference between killing civilians with chemical weapons and striking military installations with precision guided munitions.

Chemical weapons are extremely cruel. We're talking about burning and/or liquifying your airways, asphyxiation, or drowning you in your own bodily fluids. It is a slow, painful, gruesome death.

I mean you know the shit is horrible when Hitler made a choice not to use it in combat.

Meanwhile the strikes we propose (not saying I support them) are primarily aimed at destroying equipment or facilities, not human lives. The goals are to disable or destroy munitions and their facilities. There is a massive difference between demolishing a bridge, or chemical weapons plant versus burning down a village and killing every person there.
September 11th, 2013 07:48 PM
GT o1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nasty View Post
So what about the Russians saying they would help oversee Syria's disarmament of chemical weapons? Obama is just going to turn that down to flex his muscles? My God...
Russia is in control of this entire situation no matter what anyone thinks. Two points about "disarming Syrian chemical weapons"...who's to say they have any or will give ALL of them up. Not going to happen. Two, you really want Russia and Putin over seeing this? Russia may be an ally but they have never stopped wanting to be top dog of the world. Every suggestion they give or any action the make towards this situation is 100% in their own best interest and has nothing to do with making peace. That's a fact.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by vroom vrooooom View Post
im guessing it is a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION, in witch one strike can kill millions people at once .VS , just a reagular bomb has a very limited kill/destruction range,......im guessing that a 100k killed in 2 years could easly turn into 200K a year killed if these kinds af weapons start to be ok to use in war , Im sorry that is my best guess .
There is no difference in death. Whether you are strangled or shot. Death is death. Then matter in which it occurs should have no effect in peoples feelings. We're getting maybe 10% of the facts in this whole situation. This administration has lied and altered the truth to fit their own needs since inauguration.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
September 11th, 2013 07:11 PM
vroom vrooooom that damn Obama had me under that damn brain washing spell for a moment he is so very good at , after his amazing speech. you gotta fight that shit you know expescially under the influience of booz and a long, long day at work.
September 11th, 2013 06:15 PM
BWAL
Quote:
Originally Posted by vroom vrooooom View Post
Well ,this has just been a rollercoaster of emotions for me, on one hand ,i with pres Obama. and i understand the point that no matter what we cannot let thies kind of inhumanitiy to start running rampid at will .but our military familiys have givin so much to the world to hold these maniacs back from destroying life,But all in all Obama may be the one who is correct on this. at least it might have gave us a diplamatic breakthrew without chancing another full out war. Hopefully Obama can play this new hand of cards very carefully and make Putin own this shit now.
were you drunk when you wrote this?
September 11th, 2013 06:01 PM
vroom vrooooom don't know i havent watched the news today , last i heard he was all about the new deal
September 11th, 2013 05:53 PM
Nasty So what about the Russians saying they would help oversee Syria's disarmament of chemical weapons? Obama is just going to turn that down to flex his muscles? My God...
September 11th, 2013 05:33 PM
vroom vrooooom im guessing it is a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION, in witch one strike can kill millions people at once .VS , just a reagular bomb has a very limited kill/destruction range,......im guessing that a 100k killed in 2 years could easly turn into 200K a year killed if these kinds af weapons start to be ok to use in war , Im sorry that is my best guess .
September 11th, 2013 05:02 PM
44 cents I have one question...this is on topic in its own way.

What is the difference between "gassing" and "dropping a smart bomb"? The end result is still the same. Yes, I understand the chances of a smart bomb killing innocent children is less but I remember seeing alot of Iraqi body parts being pulled out of rubble that looked like child limbs. Death is death. The end result is the same. If i shoot a bullet and it misses the target and takes half a kids head off yet he lives...is it still the same? I think so. How can "INTENTIONS" define how we kill innocent people? Well, its OK if we "meant" to only kill adult bad guys. Im wrestling with this right now.

It reminds of the stories of how back in the day, Red Coats would stand in a line and march into fire. It was somehow "dishonorable" to try NOT to get shot? WTF?

Rules of war sometimes boggle my mind. There is no perfect indiscriminant killing weapon. It doesnt exist. Whatever means you use it can kill me the same as killing a kid or a kangaroo.

Someone explain this and then MAYBE the whole argument of this thread will make more sense to me.
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome