Modded Mustang Forums banner

261 - 279 of 279 Posts

·
dirt/street Motorsports
Joined
·
683 Posts
Discussion Starter #261
:headscratcher: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:dunno , Im sorry that is my best guess .
 

·
Made in U.S.A.
Joined
·
22,435 Posts
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...
 

·
dirt/street Motorsports
Joined
·
683 Posts
Discussion Starter #263
don't know i havent watched the news today , last i heard he was all about the new deal
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
33,193 Posts
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 **** now.
were you drunk when you wrote this?
 

·
dirt/street Motorsports
Joined
·
683 Posts
Discussion Starter #265 (Edited)
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 **** you know expescially under the influience of booz and a long, long day at work.:redface:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
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 ----------

:headscratcher: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:dunno , 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
 

·
King Trashmouth
Joined
·
21,885 Posts
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 **** 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,183 Posts
:headscratcher: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:dunno , Im sorry that is my best guess .
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 **** 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
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!

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 ----------

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 **** 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
 

·
dirt/street Motorsports
Joined
·
683 Posts
Discussion Starter #271 (Edited)
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,489 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts

·
Loud Exhaust Enthusiast
Joined
·
5,051 Posts
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.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
33,193 Posts
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.
i doubted it was assad from the beginning
 

·
Skirt Chasing Philanderer
Joined
·
14,391 Posts
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
:headscratcher: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:dunno , 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.
 
261 - 279 of 279 Posts
Top