Posted: 2003-01-25 01:52am
I second that.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Of course you do, any chance to escape having to back up your crazed bit of nationalism brought on by a third parties post is very good news for you.Necro99 wrote:I second that.
Saddam himself said that the original Desert Storm would be "the mother of all battles". It turned out to be the mother of all ass-kickings.Montcalm wrote:Saddam`s son said if the US attack september eleven will look like a picnic.
He was correct in a way; Desert Saber saw the biggest tank battle since 1943 at Kursk. 800 M1A1's and Challengers reducing 300 T-72's to scrap didn't take very long though.Darth Wong wrote:Saddam himself said that the original Desert Storm would be "the mother of all battles". It turned out to be the mother of all ass-kickings.Montcalm wrote:Saddam`s son said if the US attack september eleven will look like a picnic.
The Black Eagle is prototype that the Russian Army doesn't want. As such, it is completely impossible to guage its capabilities, and it's absurd to say it's better than the combat proven M1.Necro99 wrote:Lets say they didint have much chance. The M1A1 is probably the best tank in the world (after the chiorny oriol http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_sy ... el_MBT.htm ) and the T-72 is... Well... the most Common Tank in the world after the T-54/55.
The T-72BM, T-80U and T-90 series can all shrug off NATO 120mm ammunition along their frontal 60 degree armor arc at normal battlefield ranges thanks to their heavy ERA. This was proved true in 1997 US Army tests. Also, stripped of their ERA (which isn't normally the case), their armor is much thicker and of higher quality composite construction than the export shit the Iraqis were using- compare the T-72B turret to the T-72M turret, you'll see what I mean.HOWEVER, i would like to see how well a M1A1 would fare against an OPFOR modern tank like a T-80 or T-90. It would be pretty even, but the T-90 can fire ATGM's
Now see if it was 800 T-80U versus 300 M1A1s then it'd be a battle to sing about.Sea Skimmer wrote:
He was correct in a way; Desert Saber saw the biggest tank battle since 1943 at Kursk. 800 M1A1's and Challengers reducing 300 T-72's to scrap didn't take very long though.
No, lefty morons in almost every country hate the USA, including in the USA itself.Necro99 wrote:BDZ? Bomb them to stone age?
WTF???
God damnit fucking hell, this is THE reason why almost every country in the world HATES the USA, you fucking allmighty allpowerfull full of shit bastards. Well i got some news for you, Russia+China+France+Germany > USA. Yes, they do. Don't even fucking argue. They have much more soldiers than you, if it is not the Su-27, it's the chinese human waves. You cry about 2 dead soldiers? Wait till the toll reaches 500,000...
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yes, he does. But he has no damn reason to. Saddam certainly gives fuck all about civilian casualties. The US won't be bombing anyone to the stone age. They'll be attacked with precision bombs and HPM weapons designed to minimize collateral damage.Bushler dosent care about the Iraqi people, NOT A FUCKING BIT.
Just like you guys did the first time?unigolyn wrote:Yes, he does. But he has no damn reason to. Saddam certainly gives fuck all about civilian casualties. The US won't be bombing anyone to the stone age. They'll be attacked with precision bombs and HPM weapons designed to minimize collateral damage.Bushler dosent care about the Iraqi people, NOT A FUCKING BIT.
It is a sovereign nation. Its recognised by the UN. Its independant. And why don't you just shut your fucking pie hole you goddamn dubya-monkey.And get this through your thick skull - a shithole run by a dictator is NOT a sovereign nation. The Iraqi people did NOT freely elect him, unless you seem to think that a 100% vote result is possible. Judging by that banner in your sig, you probably do. Instead of that hammer and sickle, why not try a swastika and call your group the Third Reich? You'd be pissing on a lot less graves that way.
Umm, who's this 'you guys'? I'm not from the states.weemadando wrote: Just like you guys did the first time?
So is North Korea. So is China. So is Cuba. The UN? The UN just elected LIBYA as the head of it's Human Rights Council or whatever the hell it's called. The UN recognized the Soviet Union, which was a criminal conglomerate of occupied countries. The UN can go fuck itself.It is a sovereign nation. Its recognised by the UN. Its independant. And why don't you just shut your fucking pie hole you goddamn dubya-monkey.
So, we'll just let everyone run ruckus again will we? What fun that will be, especially for you in Estonia.unigolyn wrote:So is North Korea. So is China. So is Cuba. The UN? The UN just elected LIBYA as the head of it's Human Rights Council or whatever the hell it's called. The UN recognized the Soviet Union, which was a criminal conglomerate of occupied countries. The UN can go fuck itself.
Yes. And? Look at America and whats happened to those who speak out against the Bush regime. Look at the treatment of vulnerable minorities there.The point is that it's a nation of one delusional madman. The civilians everyone's so worried about don't have any say in what Saddam does, and if they do pipe up, they're sent off to jail, if they're lucky.
And? Its a PR stunt, no denying it. Thats not to say that it didn't work to gain the support of certain elements of the populace. It didn't have to fool anyone else.Speaking of Iraqi jails, the Honoured and Exalted Leader also RELEASES ALL PRISONERS as a political PR stunt. Not just political prisoners, but every criminal.
Semantics.Sovereign nations have democratically elected governments. The rest are sovereign dictatorships.
Oh, thank you, great and powerful United Nations for freeing us from the oppression of the evil russians. We're free because the US bankrupted the USSR, and that's the ONLY reason. And contrary to the UN, the US never recognized the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. More power to them.weemadando wrote:
So, we'll just let everyone run ruckus again will we? What fun that will be, especially for you in Estonia.
Yes, indeed, I just must have missed the tank treads crushing the poor anti-war protestors. I must have missed Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore being dragged off to a torture chamber under the Pentagon somewhere.Yes. And? Look at America and whats happened to those who speak out against the Bush regime. Look at the treatment of vulnerable minorities there.
Sure its more of a problem in Iraq, but is it enough of a reason to justify an attack on them? Obviously not as every other time that form of action has been proposed its been knocked back.
It DID fool other people. On BBC's Talking Point, one dimwitted UK lefty said 'Well, at least Saddam's doing something, when all the US is doing is warmongering'. Tell that to the Afghani people who survive on US state-sponsored food aid, which constitutes almost 90% of the food aid going there, and that has been the situation well before 9/11.And? Its a PR stunt, no denying it. Thats not to say that it didn't work to gain the support of certain elements of the populace. It didn't have to fool anyone else.
Semantics? Argue about it being semantics to the protestors killed on Tianenmen Square and the gassed Kurd children, argue about it being semantics to the people slaughtered in Africa by 'sovereign' warlords, argue about it being semantics to 6 million dead Jews, argue about it being semantics to my great-grandparents who were loaded on cattle trains and shipped to Siberia, where they died from malnutrition.Semantics.Sovereign nations have democratically elected governments. The rest are sovereign dictatorships.
Do trying to bribe weapons inspectors and after they refuse, attempted poisoning attempts count among passive compliance with the UN?Saddam will happily sit and passively comply with anything that the UN asks him to do.
Umm, the US occupies Iraq, and the military government uses oil proceeds to actually buy medicine, food, schools, and actually make the country a somewhat passable place to live in. If they prefer poverty and constant fear of speaking out to that, then they ARE stupid. I don't think they are, though.When the US inevitably has had enough of it and attacks he'll suddenly jump up and start screaming about the oppressors etc... And it'll work. It will likely turn his own population and much of the Middle East.
And what reason does the Iraqi population have to trust the US? They left them for dead once. Who's to tell them that they won't do it again. Just because they are arab doesn't make them stupid, which is unfortunately what too many "stupid white men" think.
Sorry, but I don't think that sort of fairness works. There'll be a new dictator in Saddam's place quicker than you can say 'Le roi est mort, vive le roi'. Or, even worse, fundie nutjobs will take over quicker than you can say 'Ayatollah'. In any case there'll be a civil war. What Iraq NEEDS is a military occupation that builds the country's economy up enough for the people to notice the benefits of living in a secular, westernized country. Nation building works, if it's done right. Compare the McArthur and Marshall plans to the CIA's half-assed puppet governments of the 60s and 70s. The worst mistake the US can make is repeating what it did in Afghanistan after helping them kick the Soviets out, which was jack shit.Darth Fanboy wrote:Once Saddam is gone then the Iraqis can sell their fucking oil again, they can be a prosperous nation, they don't need the US to do it though. Once the US moves in and destroys the tyrants that threaten to kill US Civilians then we leave and let Iraq do hat it bloody well pleases, if they want us around thats another f'ing story but I doubt it.
Get off your high horse. You're free because the USSR let you go, the US didn't do jack crap to help you. The Russians like it or not were fucking magnanimous enough to completely give exactly HOW many countries independence? They could've crushed you under a tank tread if they wanted to. Be thankful that they weren't so evil as everyone in the West likes to think.unigolyn wrote:
Oh, thank you, great and powerful United Nations for freeing us from the oppression of the evil russians. We're free because the US bankrupted the USSR, and that's the ONLY reason. And contrary to the UN, the US never recognized the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. More power to them.
What USSR? The one that collapsed because the Cold War bankrupted them? Yeltsin let us go, not the USSR. Save that 'not so evil' ditty to the millions who were killed by the Soviets. And there'll be a blizzard in hell before I'm thankful for being 'let go' because Russia had bigger fish to fry, such as its nonexistent economy.Vympel wrote:Get off your high horse. You're free because the USSR let you go, the US didn't do jack crap to help you. The Russians like it or not were fucking magnanimous enough to completely give exactly HOW many countries independence? They could've crushed you under a tank tread if they wanted to. Be thankful that they weren't so evil as everyone in the West likes to think.
Personally I don't think that you should go in until the UN finds conclusive proof of weapons WHICH SADDAM THEN REFUSES TO DISPOSE OF
A sovereign nation is in no way bound to be a democracy. And it's not your right to say countries what form of government they are to have.unigolyn wrote:Sovereign nations have democratically elected governments. The rest are sovereign dictatorships.
unigolyn wrote:
What USSR? The one that collapsed because the Cold War bankrupted them? Yeltsin let us go, not the USSR. Save that 'not so evil' ditty to the millions who were killed by the Soviets. And there'll be a blizzard in hell before I'm thankful for being 'let go' because Russia had bigger fish to fry, such as its nonexistent economy.
What did you expect him to say when France was at first falling over itself to say they would sign then switchs positions(As the French always do) agian and probably will at the last mintueAnd about the Germany/France/Europe thing: Rumsfeld did more for the German-French friendship with his idiotic "Old Europe" interview than the Elysee treat
Erm ... no.Mr Bean wrote: The US and the UK could collectivly conquire the entire World Save China if they REALY wanted
Occuiping would be hard but defeating the Armys would not...
The thing is, France never really has a position you could nail them to.Mr Bean wrote:What did you expect him to say when France was at first falling over itself to say they would sign then switchs positions(As the French always do) agian and probably will at the last mintueAnd about the Germany/France/Europe thing: Rumsfeld did more for the German-French friendship with his idiotic "Old Europe" interview than the Elysee treat
Where the fuck did I imply that WE had anything to do with it, if you don't count peaceful demonstrations involving nearly half the population of a country? So the tanks on the streets here were doing what exactly? I didn't see any red carpets of freedom rolled up on military transports. Yeltsin didn't want us, Gorbachev did.Vympel wrote:Yes, the Russians couldn't afford to hang on to Estonia because of economic troubles. Must've been the elite Estonian resistance forces.
I know my history. *Followed* is exactly right. YELTSIN recognized us, and if you think Gorbachev had any clout left by September 1991 then you're dreaming.Maybe you should learn your history. It's truly amazing that an Estonian doesn't know that Yeltsin's Russia recognized Estonia on August 24, *followed* by Gorbachev's Soviet Union on September 6. You also apparently never heard of Gorbachev's prior referendum on whether the USSR was to break up or not.
Red herrings your specialty? What the fuck does the coup have to do with the USSR collapsing? I lived in the damn thing and saw first hand what the Cold War did to the economy. Or do you think that Gorby tanked the USSR economy on purpose? Perestroika was an attempt to recover the sinking ship of the USSR, not some Machiavellian ploy of the brave premiere with a splotch on his head.As to your simplistic nonsense about the end of the Cold War being due to 'bankruptcy', maybe you should go take a Cold War history course. If the coup in Moscow had been successful, I wonder how long Estonia would've remained independent.
Well, sure, the arguments I didn't make and that you distorted ARE pretty embarassing. And yes, you ARE in Australia, so might I ask what you base your encyclopedic knowledge of the USSR collapse on?I mean fuck, I'm in Australia over here, really, this is just embarassing.
Red herring. You implied that Russia couldn't hang on to you because of 'bankruptcy'. This is bullshit.unigolyn wrote:
Where the fuck did I imply that WE had anything to do with it, if you don't count peaceful demonstrations involving nearly half the population of a country? So the tanks on the streets here were doing what exactly? I didn't see any red carpets of freedom rolled up on military transports. Yeltsin didn't want us, Gorbachev did.
Tell me, if Gorbachev was so determined to keep you before that, why didn't he crush you?
I know my history. *Followed* is exactly right. YELTSIN recognized us, and if you think Gorbachev had any clout left by September 1991 then you're dreaming.
Do you even know how stupid you sound? If the coup had been successful, you twit, there would have been no collapse. DER.
Red herrings your specialty? What the fuck does the coup have to do with the USSR collapsing? I lived in the damn thing and saw first hand what the Cold War did to the economy. Or do you think that Gorby tanked the USSR economy on purpose? Perestroika was an attempt to recover the sinking ship of the USSR, not some Machiavellian ploy of the brave premiere with a splotch on his head.
Common knowledge, which you seem to be sorely lacking.Well, sure, the arguments I didn't make and that you distorted ARE pretty embarassing. And yes, you ARE in Australia, so might I ask what you base your encyclopedic knowledge of the USSR collapse on?