the dynamite politics thread

Originally posted by NicktheClayman
See VC fanatical people like Saddam will start a war like that.

Now hear you talking - WHO actually is starting the war here, may I ask? Fanatical idiots like Bush.

Saddam has started what, two wars in the past thirty years? Meanwhile, the idiot Americans have started countless wars and killed thousands of innocent people.

The United States has used Nuclear Weapons against Iraq - the depleted uranium rounds used in the Gulf War are still contaminating Iraqi civilians. Every day an Iraqi baby is born defected or dead because of the illegal munitions the Americans used against them a decade ago.

American planes are constantly making illegal attacks (those "no-flight zones" are not legal by UN decision) against Iraqi troops and civilians. And you wonder why they don't like you Americans?

The Fascist States of America are a threat to ALL HUMANITY in this world - the war of terrorism they have waged against everyone not willing to do exactly what they say for the past fifty years is something that makes every US-taxpayer an enemy of mankind.

-Villain (again, pissed of)
 
@Villain: Your "factual" posts go against every single popularly believed theorem. Since I made the effort to note that these are "popularly believed," please post your sources, as you'll forgive me for not simply trusting you & your word.
 
Originally posted by VultureCulture
i for one think saddam might very well have nuclear weapons, but he for sure has mass-killing chemical and bio weapons.

Actually, the head of the last weapon-inspection group in Iraq (an American, I might add) said in a recent interview that there is no evidence that Saddam has any of those or that he has the means to produce them - all the facilities were destroyed in the nineties. Also, he said it was most improbable that they had managed to make any in this time (after '98 I think).

-Villain
 
Originally posted by markgugs
@Villain: Your "factual" posts go against every single popularly believed theorem. Since I made the effort to note that these are "popularly believed," please post your sources, as you'll forgive me for not simply trusting you & your word.

Could you be a bit more specific - I stated quite a many of those things that go against popular believes and have only very limited time at my hands right now. But if you take one or two out (feel free to choose ;) ) I may have the time to find some sources for you to inspect in this weekend.

Also, please note that many things that are "popularly believed" are that just because they are not thoroughly thought-out - it was very popularly believed that the earth was flat or that smoking was good for lungs not very long ago.

-Villain
 
@ Villian, Depleted uranium isnt radioactive, soldiers hadle tons of it all the time, the yare used in the 20mm cannon on the A-10 Warhog, they are only used b/c uranium is much more dense that lead, you have your facts out of place.

30 years? I can only think of 3 wars, Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and the one now. Is that countless? b/c I just counted them.

I am an emeny of humanity? Hahahahaha please Villian stop making such stupid statements. You are very ignorant to alot of things, your facts arent fact, I am well very well versed in military history, and weaponary, so dont use the depleted uranium thing, and about the U.S bombing MILITRAY threats in Iraq, thats not a bad thing.

Nick(ignorance is bliss)
 
Nick, please don't be so tough towards Europeans in general. Some of us are in favor of the pre-emptive strike.

Villain: I concur on the fact that the Soviets were responsible for blocking Hitler's eastern campaign, and I might even agree on their possibility of taking Berlin (with, as you mentioned, American-supplied technology, since their own tanks were basically WWI stuff and they did not have an equivalent to the Reich's air-to-ground bombs) without direct help from the Allies. But what you fail to consider in your argument is what would have happened to Western Europe under Soviet rule.

My country, not yours, ran the risk of being the first one in the NATO bloc with a Communist majority in parliament: right after the end of the war, there was no sure knowledge as to whether Togliatti's party would win the elections and possibly conduct Italy towards the Warsaw pact instead. Let me tell you that I'm perfectly glad it didn't, and if there were American-bred covert actions to alter the election's result as some leftist stalwarts claim I am equally glad. Had Europe been in the orbit of Moscow, probably no elections at all would have been held, and if they had been held their outcome, especially in countries with strong Communist parties like Italy at the time, would have been piloted by the Soviet regime instead.

I think that Communist rule would have done fine for me personally, since I'm a natural climber and it's the kind that sells easily in hierarchical systems. But this does not stop me from saying that Communism hurts a country's populace as a whole, as shown by the pitiful economic results of the Eastern regimes. As a scholar in income inequality, I can also tell you that USSR-bound nations and the USSR itself have not been less unequal internally than the west, at least as far as my data go which is around 1950, and Russia and the new independent states are now experiencing a resonant bout of disparity as the result of the transition as opposed to spontaneous springing of a capitalist economy.

This should put your case to rest: even with the most conservative assumption - which I don't really concur on - i.e. Americans were not instrumental in defeating Hitler (but, then again, what about Mussolini? I know he wasn't that scary, but the Fascist regime was overthrown by Italian partisans and the Angloamericans, not many Soviets on our ground. And what about the Japanese? Did Stalin bomb them or what?) -, there is still a very important and positive fallout from the American intervention against Hitler: Western Europe did not turn Communist.

Of course, I suppose that a Leninist would not consider this consequence positive: but, should you be one - or any other current in the proximities - I urge you to take a long hard look at the list of countries that tried and failed, and either move to one of the few that still didn't fail (Cuba, Laos, PRC, North Korea) and enjoy its economic and social wonders (like not being able to publish your own political newspaper or not being allowed to be homosexual) or try to provoke a likeminded revolution in your country.

This said, I did not mention England, France and Israel (or Italy) in my list of atomic powers because they do not worry me: I don't see Berlusconi trying to bomb, say, Spain anytime soon and concern is left for the s. c. "rogue states".

I already said that getting rid of Saddam while supporting the Saudis is a tad worrying, and I am by no means saying that this particular operation ("Operation Desert Vacuum"? :lol: ) has been conceived in the most perfect of manners, also because I have no idea of the details and I don't even think mr. Rumsfeld knows them at the moment - they simply are not there.

Finally, let me tell you that bleeding-heart liberals normally tend to wreck havoc in their personal lives besides not understanding political imperatives. Please abstain from such behavior now. And if you think I am insulting you, double-check before calling "ignorant" people you do not know.

hyena
 
I'll take these one by one.

Originally posted by NicktheClayman
@ Villian, Depleted uranium isnt radioactive, soldiers hadle tons of it all the time, the yare used in the 20mm cannon on the A-10 Warhog, they are only used b/c uranium is much more dense that lead, you have your facts out of place.

Okay, here you go:

"In the southern, beautiful, relentlessly bombarded city of Basrah where the biblical Tigris and Euphrates rivers meet the Shat Al Arab, the state of health takes another dimension again. One doctor has completed a thesis comparing the congenital abnormalities, cancers and malignancies since the Gulf War with Hiroshima. Dr. Jenan Ali has been keeping a record of 'mysterious' congenital anomalies. Her photographs for 1998 were chilling. Full term babies undeveloped, the so-called 'bunch of grapes' babies reminiscent of the nuclear testing areas of the South Pacific. A baby with no face, another with no eyes, twisted limbs, or no limbs. A tiny mite with a huge head - and no brain. Page after page of tragedy. "All young parents, with no history of abnormalities in the family as far as we can tell - since we have few laboratory facilities now" further, many she felt "not recorded in the text books - but we cannot be sure since we have had no text books since 1990." (Text books and medical journals are vetoed by the UN Sanctions Committee.) "

Taken from: http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html - check the whole site for more information on the matter.

Also:

By Dr. Alim Yacoup; Dr. Imad Al-Sa’ doun; Dr. Genan G. Hassan

College of Medicine, Basra University

Information on the incidence of malignancies among children below 15 years of age in Basrah, southern Iraq was updated to include 1999 in addition to the already reported for the period 1990-1998. There has been a 100 % rise in the incidence of various forms of leukemia among children in 1999 compared to 1990 while the reported percentage increase 1997 compared to 1990 for the same forms was 60 %. The corresponding rise for all malignancies among such children in 1999 compared to 1990 was 242 % while the percentage increase in 1997 compared to 1990 was 120 %. The overall incidence rate of all malignancies was 10.1 per 100, 000 of children below 15 years of age compared to 3.98 in 1990 and 7.22 in 1997. During the period from 1993 to 1998 the average annual incidence rate of malignancies among children ranged from 3.1 per 100,000 in Shatt Al-Arab district to 11.8 per 100, 000 in Al-Hartha. In 1999 the reported rates ranged from 5.3 in Abu-Al-khassib to 13.2 in Al-Zubier district with noticeable increase in such rates in all districts in Basra including Basra center, Qurna, Mudaina and shatt-Al-Arab. The findings reported in 1999 provided further epidemiological evidence that the increased incidence of malignancies among children in Basrah is related to exposure to depleted uranium used by the western allies during their aggression on Iraq in 1991.

Taken from from http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_iraq.htm - again, read the whole site and learn some facts, before you come here showing your stupidity.

Depleted Uranium rounds do cause deformities, it has been proven statistically numerous times - the fact the soldiers are not affected as much and as often (although they are - read those sites) is due to numerous facts, one of them being that they are not eating the food grown on the ground contaminated by the fired ammunition.

-Villain
 
Originally posted by NicktheClayman

You are very ignorant to alot of things, your facts arent fact, I am well very well versed in military history, and weaponary, so dont use the depleted uranium thing, and about the U.S bombing MILITRAY threats in Iraq, thats not a bad thing.

You still claim you are well versed in miltary history, although you didn't show me any proof for your words? And how many of my "facts" have you proven wrong in any way?

I have shown my facts for my depleted uranium -claim and in that older thread I have shown my facts for my claim that Americans had nothing to do with defeating the Germans in Europe in WWII (I can dig that up, if you wish), while you have shown me nothing. Will you PLEASE try to come up with some argument from someone else's mouth than just your own and we can discuss it - otherwise admit your complete lack of education in both military history and weaponry.

Oh, and regarding the US bombings in Iraq, here you go:

By Ramsey Clark

"On December 4, 1990, the General Assembly of the United Nations, meeting just a few hundred yards from here and apparently having decided that the United States was determined to attack Iraq and that it was powerless to prevent the attack, resolved that no attack should be made on any nuclear reactor—an inherently dangerous facility. The vote on this resolution was 144 to 1; only the U.S. voted against.

The resolution should not have been necessary—such attacks have been war crimes since Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977. Article 56 of the Protocol prohibits what would obviously be catastrophic to life, any "attack (that) may cause the release of dangerous forces... and consequent severe losses among the civilian population." The article protects works and installations from an attack which can endanger thousands and thousands of people in the immediate vicinity and beyond and perhaps in ways we don't know.

On January 23 of 1991—the end of the first week of the assault on Iraq—General Colin Powell announced—and the international media were all there—that Iraq's "two operating reactors... are both gone. They're down. They're finished." (New York Times, January 24, 1991, p. A11.) He said it proudly and no member nation of the UN, no member of the U.S. Congress, no international leader, none of the media said a mumbling word in protest.

(Developed from a talk given September 12, 1996 at the UN Church Center in New York.)"

Taken from one of the sites above.

-Villain
 
Hyena: I agree with your point that the western Europe was not swallowed up by the Soviets due to the American/British actions, but that really wasn't part of the original disagreement between me and mr. "Well-versed".

Anyway, here:

Originally posted by hyena
(with, as you mentioned, American-supplied technology, since their own tanks were basically WWI stuff and they did not have an equivalent to the Reich's air-to-ground bombs)

you are very wrong.

While the Soviets used a lot of out-of-date tanks in 1941, they soon became the leading power in armored vehicles manufacturing. The 1943-model T-34 was one of the best tanks of the war in terms of maintenance vs. battle-effectiveness and their late-war tanks like JSII and the KV-series were even better than the famed German Panthers and Tigers - and far superior to any mass-produced western combat-vehicles.

I have no stats for this, but I'm pretty sure less than 1% of the tanks the Soviets used were made by Americans.

They didn't have comparable aircraft to the Germans, but dealt with it by numbers, not by anything the Americans gave them.

What the Americans did give them was mainly ammunition, small arms, tires, infantry equipment and such, as far as I remember. Valuable, yes, but considering the scale of the war (most of which was, again, fought between the Soviets and Germans) only barely significant. The Soviets would have won without it - their losses would just have been higher.

-Villain (who hates communists just as much as he hates fascists)
 
I stand corrected on the T-34's. And I'm relieved that you are not a Communist. Now I need sleep, therefore I will bail out of here - too bad because the discussion is interesting.

hyena
 
Oh, I almost forgot..

Originally posted by rahvin
oh, now that even dr. tranquillity has become a supporter of the "first off, fuck off everyone" policy we can really call it a day and close this board for a couple of decades.

Sorry for that. But this time they (as in "they"...) just hit the topic I love/hate to argue about with passion. I really would not be writing these posts here at around 2 o'clock (by night), if I didn't feel the huge urge to do so.

And I must apologize the tone of my posts; I simply couldn't do anything about it. However, my opinions still stand as they are written above - I just hope no-one takes them as insulting.

Good night to all for now - I'll try to get back on this tomorrow, but it might be that I'll lack the time to do it properly.

-Villain (too tired to be angry anymore)
 
I am not well-versed in military knowledge (beyond what I've seen on the History Channel :) ) But I would call myself well-versed in biochemistry, and, as it pertains here, chemistry as well. While the sites you list do strongly make their case about DU's toxicity, I still am bothered by the lack of longterm studies of DU's effects. DU is 0.6 - 0.7 times as radioactive as natural occurring Uranium, which is about as abundant in the earth as tin (2 parts per million). Given, this is naturally occuring Uranium....Anyways, I don't have the time to do proper research into it, but in the time I had I found this link http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm to an independent study which found that DU was not harmful to some of our soldiers. Bassically, what it says, as one of your links said, Villain, that Uranium and DU would most effect the kidneys. The study says these men had no kidney problems. Yeah, the study was released by the dept. of Defense, but it was still an independent team of scientists who conducted the studies. The soldiers have "embedded fragments" of DU shells in them, which they claim is more exposure to radiation than could be had in Iraq....

Then there's also the fact that these are grown men and not fetuses or young children....

I dunno...like I said, I have to read up on this more, but from my knowledge of radioactivity and the like, I would question whether DU was the sole cause.

Wow...that was waaay too much time I spent on that. And I'll probably spend more time on it tomorrow....

As far as Hussein goes, I think an outright 'pre-emptive strike' isn't the best way....covert shit is the way to go. I'm just tired of the US getting in everyone's bussiness....there is no more threat of communism taking over...democracy's pretty safe. I say we go back to Isololationism! Anyway, like Nick, I don't think Iraq has any ICBMs, so I'm not too worried.

Alright, I'm late as it is. Let me end this rambling post now.
 
Ah Villian Im not well versed? Well let us argue more egh? The evidence you gave me about depleted uranium isnt very substantial.

Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you.

A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.

When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large. However, the amount which remains in the body depends on a number of factors, including the amount inhaled or ingested, the particle size and the ability of the particles to dissolve in body fluids.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

Or how about this?

Aside from the problems associated with their traumatic injuries, to date, this follow-up program has attributed no illness or other harmful effects in the evaluated veterans to DU.

Same website.

So please dont mock me, and yes I am well versed if you want to discuss more military history we can. Infact it would be inviting.

Nick
 
To Mark and Nick, I'm sorry but I'm entitled to my opinions.

Irac is a menace: ok I don't really need to argue about this one

USA is a menace: the United States are not as powerful as they once were, but they still have the same *power*, both political and economical. It is clear that whithout war, where they can refund themself and begin a new cycle for their economy.

If there is no important war in the world in the next 10 years, we will assist to a massive crash of the United State where they should be in the reality. They are really not that powerful, and with the growing in power European continent, they can't rivalize. The war in Irac is not supported by many country. If the USA do this war, they'll loose a LOT of power, because they will play everything themselve. The war vs Irac would be a very difficult one. I am sure that after such a war, they'll realize that they do not have that much power.

I admit that the statement saying "If these two country fight and kill themselves, that means: less iraquian, and less american, with more peace." was a bit stupid if taken to the first degree. But it meant that after such a war, both country which I think are nuisable for the mondial economy and the worldwide policitals will be really weaker, and there will be a kind of "peace".

I do find the USA very hypocrital, uneducated and arrogant. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE ALL THAT. But a vast majority of population live with the two last caracteristics, and the politicians live with the first one.

Samarkol
 
Originally posted by Villain
And I must apologize the tone of my posts; I simply couldn't do anything about it. However, my opinions still stand as they are written above - I just hope no-one takes them as insulting.

it is quite hard not to take as an insult being labeled as your personal enemy and a curse to all mankind because i happen to have a dissenting opinion. most of all coming from someone who's always showed he's quite controlled and able to speak his mind without preposterous flames.

i wonder how is it that although it's me (and a few others) who support the "fascist" usa and their terroristic means, it's basically you who can't discuss your theories without racist generalization such as us taxpayers being the enemy. what's the big difference between ranking among the fanatical (mostly american) fools who think all muslims are three-headed demons and being one of those that label an entire population of more than 250.000.000 the scourge of the earth?
no matter what my stance about the war might be, it still just sounds like you merely swallowed the very opposite side of propaganda...

@nicktheclayman: yeah, it's like hyena said. not all europeans are so uninvolved.

rahvin.
 
To Rahvin: That's exactly why I was apologizing above. This very topic is probably the only one I can't discuss in a civilized way - due to my immense hatred against Americans (as a nation, not as individuals) and everything they represent: greed, hypocrisy, oppression and the justice of the strongest.

I'll try to present some factual reasons for my hatred, if I have the time. But beware, it will be a long thread.

I agree I could have stated my opinions in a far less aggressive manner - but I simply couldn't. Again, sorry for that.

Originally posted by rahvin
it is quite hard not to take as an insult being labeled as your personal enemy and a curse to all mankind because i happen to have a dissenting opinion.

This is however an off-interpretation of what I said - your opinion is not what makes me angry, but if you voluntarily support the American government for example by giving them money or servitude, I really must label you as my enemy. Much in the same manner I believe a typical American would label me as their enemy if I was actively supporting bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda.

Now, including every US-taxpayer in the "supporters"-cathegory was indeed an overstatement, but there are those who could change their allegiance to some less-evil government (by moving to Europe, for example).

Also, my way of generalizing the "Americans" as one big cow-herd that is lead by cowboy-Bush, is of course wrong. There are those among them that try to change their country and I respect their efforts. However, there were similar people in Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union as well - still labeling the Nazis or Soviets as evil is rarely seen as generalizing.

-Villain (just woke up)
 
@villain: i'll wait to hear these reasons for your hatred before commenting about it, no problem about that.
as for supporting, although i'm not sending money or offering to help personally, i think that if there is ever going to be a way of showing approval or doing something tangible to prove i'm with the us and against al-qaeda, i will.
you see, i don't think i can judge ethical absolutes, but the values (distorted and corrupted) the western civilization is bringing forward still appeal to me better than the values (distorted and corrupted) the muslim terrorists are bringing forward. i'd rather like living in a world where there's powerful moneymakers exploiting other nations' oil than living in one where i'm forced to believe in a specific god and where my wife is nothing more than a piece of furniture for me to dispose of.

and i wasn't referring to your generalization as in "all americans follow bush", but as in "all americans following bush are enemies of mankind". so the parallel with nazis and soviets doesn't really apply, since - correct me if i'm wrong - you do think each and everyone who would agree on an attack against iraq is evil.

rahvin.
 
Originally posted by NicktheClayman
Ah Villian Im not well versed? Well let us argue more egh? The evidence you gave me about depleted uranium isnt very substantial.

How is it not substantial? Or rather, how is your evidence any more substantial than mine? Your source is from the propaganda-unit of US Defense Ministry, whose job is to cover these kind of things - a couple of decades ago they denied the use of biological weapons use in Vietnam, yet those poisons kill people even today. There were similar units in both Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union and they succesfully covered many of the attrocities those governments conducted, until they finally fell.

My sources are from various independent researches, whose job is to bring the truth forth. While the reliability of any research can be questioned today, given the context it is not hard to see who are more willing to lie or fake their results - your propagandists or my independent researchers.

Also, most importantly, your source does ONLY handle the soldiers that participated on those operations - it does not take into account the civilian populations exposed to depleted uranium, something my sources are bent on. Could you please give me some reasons, why not to believe my sources?

-Villain (and please, learn to spell my name correctly)
 
samarkol, come on. small wars do not overturn economic cycles, this is pure fiction. consider this: a war against Iraq might lower the price of crude, yes. Is the current recession in the US caused by high gross energy prices? No. The current recession in the US is about consumer confidence and the results of many years of negative propensity to save - it's not an *electoral* cycle, it's a plain old aggregate demand-driven cycle and there's no way an act of war on Iraq alone can be decisive in reverting it. It can help, il can give a little kick in the ass so to speak, but no crucial difference, if the war does not transform into something so tough that we'll buy oil with $5 per barrel afterwards.

hyena
 
rahvin, i really wish that considering wives a piece of furniture was specific to muslim extremists and very, very far from the western world. this of course implies that i must hate everyone. will work on it.

villain, if we're starting to accuse the other of coming up with counterfeit sources i might just as easily point out that the researchers you quoted had Arab names therefore they must be plotting in favor of their nations. i don't think that telling the other guy "your sources are propaganda" is going to help much. that's the problem of discussing topics where one is not a specialist. that's, basically, the problem of not being a powerful policymaker: you have to stop at some point when putting your opinion forward, since you don't have the information, you can't tap the sources, you bear no relevance anyway, and you might be a piece of furniture before you know.

hyena (if all enemies of mankind were like me and rahvin, mankind could relax a whole lot)