25 Years. 425 Million Readers. 54 years of Motorcycle Guides ∙ Reviews ∙ The friendliest motorcycle community on the internet!
https://www.totalmotorcycle.com/BBS/
the censorbot is working overtime tonight) exchange of atrocities (overwhelmingly on the part of Israel) between the two sides for years? Uranium rounds are as discriminate as a rifle round. They're used for their density and ability to penetrate armor. It's about the furthest thing from a WMD as possible. By your definition, any weapon, including small arms can be included in the WMD umbrella. If you do this how do you distinguish between the massive destruction caused by the standard definition of WMD(nukes, bio and chem) and your definition?sv-wolf wrote: The term, ‘Weapons of mass destruction,’ means different things to different people. There is no standard international definition. From my perspective, any weapon which causes indiscriminate harm to innocent lives is a WMD and that includes cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells. Your own government’s definition would seem to support this view. It has successfully convicted people under laws against possession of WMD who have been found with truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, etc.
There are no ‘acceptable tactics’ in war when the war is conducted out of self interest on a largely civilian population (i.e. all of them).
Hard to detect sarcasm over a written text over the internet, but if you are serious...YOU' A FUGGIN LUNATIC!!!!crazy5dave wrote:Every nation on earth that wants Nuclear weapons should be allowed to have them. Its your right. Especially all crackpot dictator lead regimes. I would be very happy to see Iran get some nuclear weapons technology. In fact i think the US should give them the technology for free. We could drop some off at 30,000 feet from our B2 delivey trucks with only a 24 hour notice. The Air forces overnight delivery service works very well i hear. Every capital could then see for themselves what good America technology we can export.
Its a pity they polute the environment so.
I do know where he's coming from though. I have heard the reports of the possible side effect of uranium rounds. It has been debated with facts on both sides, so it is hard for me to decide who is right, but there is a factor of damage beyond the bullet itself, or so it seems. Firing the rounds, or being near where they are striking may have some radiation related effects that are not 100% proven.Andrew wrote:Uranium rounds are as discriminate as a rifle round. They're used for their density and ability to penetrate armor. It's about the furthest thing from a WMD as possible. By your definition, any weapon, including small arms can be included in the WMD umbrella. If you do this how do you distinguish between the massive destruction caused by the standard definition of WMD(nukes, bio and chem) and your definition?
Uranium rounds are as targeted as ordinary rifle rounds, but their immediate effects extend over a much wider area because of the enormous heat they can generate. However, that is not the issue. It is the lingering presence of uranium in the ecosystem after their use that qualifies them for the title of WMD. This continued presence can be devastating to any resident population. Research still goes on into the exact effects of these weapons but the Pentagon, for example, has known about (and quietly admitted) the highly indiscriminate 'after effects' of depleted uranium since at least the time of the 1991 Iraqi debacle.Andrew wrote:
Uranium rounds are as discriminate as a rifle round. They're used for their density and ability to penetrate armor. It's about the furthest thing from a WMD as possible. By your definition, any weapon, including small arms can be included in the WMD umbrella. If you do this how do you distinguish between the massive destruction caused by the standard definition of WMD(nukes, bio and chem) and your definition?
sv-wolf wrote:Hi Swatter555
Just to get a few things straight.
First, sorry. Brit humour. ‘Answers on a postcard please’ is a cant phrase deriving from BBC competitions before the coming of email. I used it ironically to indicate despair (mine) at the lack of any apparent solution to this situation.
Thank you for agreeing that I ‘tell half the story’. That is more than the Western media would admit. And it is also the point I am making (which I think you missed). I am not in the slightest bit interested in justifying the actions of the Iranian government which in my view are every bit as corrupt, aggressive, irrational, self-deluding and manipulative as those of the United States and Great Britain. However, they are not 'mad' in the comic book sense that the media likes to present.
As for bias in the media, how often these days do we get a serious news report on Israel’s commitment to the destruction of Palestine? Or one which questions the notion that it was an action by Palastinian 'terrorists' that ‘caused ‘ Israel to attack Lebanon, when there has been an ongoing "lightbulb"-for-tat (Edit
Who you think is responsible for the present Middle Eastern situation depends, like the current Lebanon conflict, on where you choose to draw your bottom line. You could go right back. The Middle East is a largely Western construction. Its tyrannical rulers were largely installed and maintained by the West in its own self interest. Would the Mullahs have come to power if the United States had not installed the wholly despotic and unbelievably vicious regime of the Shah, and supported all his crimes (just as they did with Saddam Hussein until he had outlived his usefulness.) I don’t know? But I doubt if we would be in quite the mess we are in now if it hadn’t.
I would disagree strongly with your point that the Middle Eastern media is more irresponsible than its counterpart in the West. Right from its beginnings the Western mass media has consistently supported the genocidal and self-interested activities of Western governments by highly slanted and downright lying news reports. It therefore bears a huge weight of responsibility for a vast amount of bloodshed this old earth has had to suffer down the years.
In almost every media report I have ever read there seems to be a simple assumption, that the 'enemies of the West' are somehow deranged, evil and malicious, evil, while Western governments, though they make the occasional 'mistake' are largely well-balanced, rational, benign and well-meaning. This is an ideological steroetype and, like all stereotypes, wholly false - on both sides.
Whether Iranian propaganda (holocaust denial, character assassination etc) is believed by those who propound it or not doesn’t really matter. It is no different from and no more accurate than the kinds of propaganda put out by the West (which for instance invented a genocide ordered by Milosovic to justify the bombing of Serbia by Clinton.)
The term, ‘Weapons of mass destruction,’ means different things to different people. There is no standard international definition. From my perspective, any weapon which causes indiscriminate harm to innocent lives is a WMD and that includes cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells. Your own government’s definition would seem to support this view. It has successfully convicted people under laws against possession of WMD who have been found with truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, etc.
There are no ‘acceptable tactics’ in war when the war is conducted out of self interest on a largely civilian population (i.e. all of them).
Hitler did not gobble up the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria because he was mad. He was pursuing an entirely rational expansionist policy on behalf of a German economy that had been hobbled for twenty years by the Treaty of Versailles. Of course, the toll of human life that resulted from his actions might mark him out as morally deranged. But then the same could be said of Bush and Blair in their attack upon Iraq and of course, elsewhere. That’s my point.
What I hear in your reply to my post (correct me if I'm wrong) is a justification of the Western/Israeli governmental position, and a demonising of Arab nations, Iran in particular. Sounds pretty familiar to me.
Well, not quite yet. The July test of the Taepodong-2 ICBM was a complete failure. That doesn't mean they won't get it right eventually, though.jmillheiser wrote: North Korea has missiles that can deliver a nuke to the western US and just about anywhere in Asia.