Animals and war

[please]

USA is using dolphins to find water mines.
USA is using chickens and pigeons to find poisonous gases and chemical weapons.
USA is uning monkeys to find ground mines.
What kind of animal is commanding this war?

[kleinma]

The dolphins, Atlantic bottle-noses named Makai and Tacoma, carry fin-mounted sensors which record their response to underwater targets enabling their handlers to pinpoint the location of suspected mines.

Officials say the dolphins are taught to keep a safe distance from the mines and face little risk in carrying out their duties.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.ummqasr/index.html

Birds have always been used for detecting gas... miners always used to bring birds in mine shafts because they gas hits them first..

but I can't say I have read any articles about the monkeys or birds... do u have links to them? i would like to read them

oh yeah BTW... some of those dolphins are part of the US navy... but if you read that article.. the first line is

-- A coalition team of Australian and British navy divers aided by specially-trained dolphins have completed work to clear mines from sea lanes around the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr

[NotLKH]

I heard bolivia or morocco or someplace with some excess monkeys offered to give us some to throw on some mines, but I'm sure we "politely" turned them down.


And as to useing animals to detect poisonous gases and chem weapons, I believe we use something a little more high tech.

Of course, I could be wrong.

So, if so, feel free to give us an update.

-Lou

[please]

It really was Morocco who offered the monkeys:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030324-064259-1443r

I don't mind if the dolphins are Australians or what. The fact is that USA is using them.

Can you imagine how the monkeys are trained? The trainer put bananas in fake mines, and teach the monkeys to open the cover to find them. Then in real war, the monkeys try to open the real mines, and BOOOM! The sad part is that the poor monkey can't go to his collegues to tell them to stop...

[please]

Originally posted by NotLKH
I heard bolivia or morocco or someplace with some excess monkeys offered to give us some to throw on some mines, but I'm sure we "politely" turned them down.

-Lou

For you "politely" turned down, I believe it was because of the societies for animal protection and not your "politiness"

What about the animal that sends a "high tech" army to kill children, families, civilians...

[kleinma]

Originally posted by please

I don't mind if the dolphins are Australians or what. The fact is that USA is using them.


actually if you read the article i posted.. it says that Australia and Britain are the ones using them...

[kleinma]

Originally posted by please
It really was Morocco who offered the monkeys:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030324-064259-1443r



BTW that isn't an article.. it is 3 sentences...

[MasterBlaster]

The Coalition is using dolphins and chickens. The dolphins are well taken care of and properly trained. Negative reinforcement training on marine mamals does not work. They swim away and never come back if you are not nice to them.

Chickens are being used to detect chemical weapons attacks. Dude get over it. It's a fookin chicken. The only crime about using chickens in a war is that there is one less chicken in the world to be covered in beer batter and deep fried.:rolleyes:

[Cander]

LOL. Chickens are not safe from any Col. Wether it be Powell or Sanders.

[JPicasso]

Originally posted by please
USA is using dolphins to find water mines.
USA is using chickens and pigeons to find poisonous gases and chemical weapons.
USA is uning monkeys to find ground mines.
What kind of animal is commanding this war?

I don't think we are using monkey to find landmines.

But what's the problem?

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by please
For you "politely" turned down, I believe it was because of the societies for animal protection and not your "politiness"

What about the animal that sends a "high tech" army to kill children, families, civilians...

Are you insinuating I would get some joyful pleasure out of drop kicking a monkey into the middle of a mine field?

Why would you think that of me?

Why would you think that of anyone?

Are you suppressing some inner torments, perhaps projecting them onto strangers?

Perhaps you need a little therapy.

;)
-Lou

[please]

Originally posted by NotLKH
Are you suppressing some inner torments, perhaps projecting them onto strangers?
Perhaps you need a little therapy.
;)
-Lou [/B]

Who needs therapy is George W, who starts a war to demostrate something to his father.

And you didn't undestand the small irony under my statements.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by please
... the monkeys try to open the real mines, and BOOOM! The sad part is that the poor monkey can't go to his collegues to tell them to stop...

And there ain't no banana either :rolleyes:

.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by please
Who needs therapy is George W, who starts a war to demostrate something to his father.


you cracked the case!!!! that's why we are at war!!!! oh yeah.. that and we want to colonize Iraq too... that would be wonderful as well

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
that and we want to colonize Iraq too... that would be wonderful as well

Not far off it.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12279751,00.html

[honeybee]

Originally posted by JPicasso
I don't think we are using monkey to find landmines.


A BBC reporter got out of his car and stepped on a landmine, only to blow himself up.

Could this be of any relevance?












Yeah, I know it's a sick joke. Sorry for that. :(

.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
Not far off it.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12279751,00.html

hmm all that article says is that we are going to have military there to create in infrastructure for govertnment before we leave.. where does that say we were colonizing?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
hmm all that article says is that we are going to have military there to create in infrastructure for govertnment before we leave.. where does that say we were colonizing?

I'm not saying you're going to colonize it, but if your military is running the country... christ almighty you're going to spawn an entire population of Osama Bin Ladens.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
I'm not saying you're going to colonize it, but if your military is running the country... christ almighty you're going to spawn an entire population of Osama Bin Ladens.
How are we going to do that? If you ask me Muslims should be happy. All of the last 5 wars we have fought were for the liberation and benefit of Muslims. Kuwait (first Gulf War), Bosnia, Kosovo, Afganistan, and now the present war to free the Iraqi people.

Saddam is not friend to the Muslim extremists he is widely seen as anti-Muslim and only uses his religious ties when it suits him politically. His persecution of the Shiites has been nothing but brutal. Saddam is the last dictator alive in the world today responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people. Support for coalition forces grows every day. Even today a prominent Islamic Ayatollah in Iraq called for the cooperation of all Muslims in Iraq with the coalition forces.

No one will miss Saddam when hes gone, especially Muslims.

X

[plenderj]

I didn't say he wasn't hated, and I didn't say he would be missed.
I'm saying that your occupation of the country will infuriate the region and could spark an entire wave of terrorist attacks.

And he's not the only dictactor left that's responsible for millions of deaths.
Look at china, and an entire handful of african nations.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
I didn't say he wasn't hated, and I didn't say he would be missed.
I'm saying that your occupation of the country will infuriate the region and could spark an entire wave of terrorist attacks.

And he's not the only dictactor left that's responsible for millions of deaths.
Look at china, and an entire handful of african nations.
Actually from what I have read he’s the only dictator left alive that is responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people. There are other nations and their dictators that are responsible for the deaths of countless people but from every indication it looks like Saddam was the top's that was left alive in the world today.

X

[plenderj]

Just because he's killed his own people doesn't give you the right to go in there and take him out.
That's what the UN is for.

If the US was so intent with overthrowing Saddam, you should have pressed the UN to secure the country, or incited a coup.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
Just because he's killed his own people doesn't give you the right to go in there and take him out.
That's what the UN is for.

hey plenderj... lets say your govt killed a crap load of your citizens.. including your family.. and the US was going to come to liberate you from your govt because of what they were doing...

would you welcome us to come there??? or would you want your government to keep in power?

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
hey plenderj... lets say your govt killed a crap load of your citizens.. including your family.. and the US was going to come to liberate you from your govt because of what they were doing...

would you welcome us to come there??? or would you want your government to keep in power?

If the Irish people requested help then I would welcome you.
If you rolled your tanks into my country without us asking for help, I would fight to defend my country.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
If the Irish people requested help then I would welcome you.
If you rolled your tanks into my country without us asking for help, I would fight to defend my country.

fight to defend the people that killed your family???

how could the Iraqi people ask us for help when they are under dictatorship rule run with an iron fist? with only state run media to watch and read. with elections with only 1 candidate.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
fight to defend the people that killed your family???

how could the Iraqi people ask us for help when they are under dictatorship rule run with an iron fist? with only state run media to watch and read. with elections with only 1 candidate.

1) I would fight to defend my country.

2) There are always undergound murmerings. There is always hidden governemt opposition.


Why didn't the US roll into the cities and just ask if they want help ?
Instead you just bombed the **** out of the place, killed familes and rolled on by.

That sort of approach will only cause problems.

[plenderj]

And don't forget that people are returning from countries around the world to help fight for Iraq.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
And don't forget that people are returning from countries around the world to help fight for Iraq.
That’s been largely exaggerated. I actually feel sorry for the people doing so as well. They have been so brainwashed by the Arab press that they are willing to give up their lives for the most brutal dictator left on the planet in Saddam.

X

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Xanith
That’s been largely exaggerated. I actually feel sorry for the people doing so as well. They have been so brainwashed by the Arab press that they are willing to give up their lives for the most brutal dictator left on the planet in Saddam.

They're fighting an invading force of their country.
They're fighting for Iraq - not Saddam.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
They're fighting an invading force of their country.
They're fighting for Iraq - not Saddam.

yes because we are going to colonize... i already have my house picked out.. as soon as we are done bombing i am moving in

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
yes because we are going to colonize... i already have my house picked out.. as soon as we are done bombing i am moving in

I'm not saying because you're going to colonize.
But you are invading their country. You're a hostile force coming into their country, and searching through their homes.
That's just not on.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
I'm not saying because you're going to colonize.
But you are invading their country. You're a hostile force coming into their country, and searching through their homes.
That's just not on.

maybe you should go live there for a while and then see if you would like things with or without saddam

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
maybe you should go live there for a while and then see if you would like things with or without saddam

There you see, if I oppose war you say I don't want Saddam gotten rid of.
I'm sure the country would be better off without Saddam.

I never said it wouldn't. But war isn't the solution.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
There you see, if I oppose war you say I don't want Saddam gotten rid of.
I'm sure the country would be better off without Saddam.

I never said it wouldn't. But war isn't the solution.

what is the solution? sanctions that the UN backs out of? inspections that don't do squat? what would you suggest as the solution to this threat?

[run_GMoney]

Whatever we're not doing

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
what is the solution? sanctions that the UN backs out of? inspections that don't do squat? what would you suggest as the solution to this threat?

1) For the hundreth time now - incite a coup.
Send in forces to organize and incite a coup and let the people take over the country themselves.

2) No-one cared 5 years ago that the UN wasn't doing much about the resolutions passed.

3) See #1

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
2) No-one cared 5 years ago that the UN wasn't doing much about the resolutions passed.


see what does that mean?? because no one cared 5 years ago we shouldn't care now???? i mean come on...

no one cared about AIDS a while ago because it was a "GAY" disease... if it was taken more seriously it might not have spread so badly...



BTW how are the Iraqi people supposed to rise up and defeat a ruler that will just whipe them all out??? he did it to the kurds why would he not do it to his people that rise up against him

[Memnoch1207]

1) For the hundreth time now - incite a coup.
Send in forces to organize and incite a coup and let the people take over the country themselves.

It will never happen. They're scared, they don't have enough people willing to fight, they would get slaughtered, and they don't have the weapons to do it. besides what's the difference between do that and doing this??? Either way our troops would be over there fighting???

2) No-one cared 5 years ago that the UN wasn't doing much about the resolutions passed.

Thanks to the Clinton administration, he was more worried about nailing an intern then what was going on in the middle east.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
1) For the hundreth time now - incite a coup.
Send in forces to organize and incite a coup and let the people take over the country themselves.

2) No-one cared 5 years ago that the UN wasn't doing much about the resolutions passed.

3) See #1
That’s exactly what they have been trying to do for 12 years. Through sanctions and covert operations. This has been a big failure and Saddam despite all attempts has remained in power.

And Clinton was in power at this time and failed to deal with Saddam during his presidency. Plus 9/11 changed the world in many ways pushing threats like Saddam to the forefront.

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
How are we going to do that? If you ask me Muslims should be happy. All of the last 5 wars we have fought were for the liberation and benefit of Muslims. Kuwait (first Gulf War), Bosnia, Kosovo, Afganistan, and now the present war to free the Iraqi people.

Saddam is not friend to the Muslim extremists he is widely seen as anti-Muslim and only uses his religious ties when it suits him politically. His persecution of the Shiites has been nothing but brutal. Saddam is the last dictator alive in the world today responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people. Support for coalition forces grows every day. Even today a prominent Islamic Ayatollah in Iraq called for the cooperation of all Muslims in Iraq with the coalition forces.

No one will miss Saddam when hes gone, especially Muslims.

X

You managed to destroy two Muslim countries.

Both Taliban and Saddam had been created by you in the first place.

Your government is not-so-surprisingly silent about Israel's violations of the UN resolutions, and has been helping it do so by using its own veto power.

I don't think the Arabs can think highly of the US after that. :)

.

[Gary.Lowe]

I've been watching Question Time the last couple of weeks.

One week was full of an audience against the war. The other week was an audience for the war.

What struck me as interesting was the fact that the majority of the people in the audience in the show against the war were western people. The show that was for the war had a majority audience of iraqi people.

Now that stikes me as a pretty overwhelming proof that the Iraqi people do want this.

[Memnoch1207]

Gary.Lowe thank you for bringing that the attention of these "War doesn't solve anything" groupies. The iraqi people want their freedom from saddam, and they know they can't do it by themselves. BTW it was the iraqi civilians that informed the coalition troops where PFC Jessica Lynch was being held captive.

[Gary.Lowe]

Memnoch1207

Again another example thet the iraqui people do want thier freedom.

I also want to add the one of the main reasons Civillians are getting caught in the crossfire is the fact that the Sadam regime are using the Civillians as an aid in thier war tactics.


As a country that wanted to protect it's people you would think they would attempt to get thier people out of direct warfare. As we have seen though they are used as part of the warfare by the regime.

[please]

1- It's not for the oil. But if Irak produced carrots, would you invade them???

2- Bush, Dick Cheney and sweet Condoleezza Rice, are they still involved in the oil industry? Or they grow carrots?

3- You are going to set a democracy. What kind of democracy? Like the one you gave to Haití, Dominican Republic, or Nicaragua? You occupied Haití for 19 years and founded a military power that raised a dictator like Francoise Duvalier. Occupied Dominicana for 9 years end gave them Rafael Leónidas Trujillo. Occupied
Nicaragua for 21 years and founded the dictatorship of family Somoza. Please free us from your "democracy"

4- You encouraged the dictatorship of Noriega in Panama as long as he fighted "comunists". But when he tried to nationalize the Channel of Panama, ah! For God sake! Then you discovered he was a narco!

5- You say Saddam encourages terrorism. In Irak they have Hollywood movies, women wear jeans and they teached English in High School. Not a single 9/11 pilot was from Iraq, most of them came from Saudi Arabia. Also Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. But Saudi is a cgood friend for USA.

6- Irak violates the UN resolutions. Conceded. Does USA obey them? The USA has invaded 74 countries in the last century. It is the only country who dropped nuclears, and over civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets.

7- In the gulf war, Bush senior distroyed Irak. They said "the military power of Irak is completely defeated" What is left over?

8- Secretary Rumsfeld said that USA was going to use "non lethal gases". Are they the kind Puttin used in Moskow that killed 100 innocent hostages?

9- In 1898, president William McKinley declared that God gaved him the order to attack Filipinas. Bush assuresthat God is his side in the attack to Irak. What kind of God gives contradictory orders to Bush and to Pope Juan Pablo II??

10- If I had the cruelest dictator, and you came and bombed my cities and killed near a thousand civilians, including children, women, elders... would it be insane to fight?

11- Didn't Bush said there wouldn't be ANY dead civilians in this war? What about that "delicate surgery operation"

12- Plenderj I love you!

P.S. Answer me the very first question: What kind of animal commands this war?

[Cander]

Misdirection. Misinformation. Half truths. Misquotes. Irrelevent information. That is the modus operandi of you people and quite frankly no one is buying it!

[kleinma]

Originally posted by Cander
Misdirection. Misinformation. Half truths. Misquotes. Irrelevent information. That is the modus operandi of you people and quite frankly no one is buying it!

I would invade a country for carrots though.. i must admit that

[Cander]

eww not for carrots:o

[Memnoch1207]

1) The US is not going to control the oil, the UN is, to better have a handle on the oil for food program. And yes we would still have this war, it's not about the oil, its about saddams failure to abide by the UN resolutions and his oppresive regime.

2) And your point is???

3) People make mistakes, governments are run by people, therefore they too make mistakes. Besides your talking about a totally different adminstration, and totally different presidents.

4) Friends and Foes can come about at any time. Former Foes can become Friends (Russia), and former friends can become foes (Iraq)

5) Ansar Al-Islam a know terrorist group linked to Al-Queida has been protected, and aided by the Saddam regime in northern Iraq. Yes, Bin Laden is from Saudi, but before saddam ever thought about attacking the US, he was attacking the Saudi government, he only started targeting the US after the gulf war in 1991, why, because Saudi Arabia asked the US to come and assist them, letting the US setup camps for our troops, Bin Laden saw this as westerners invading muslim holyland, even though the saudi government asked the US to come in the first place, because they felt threatened by the Iraqi regime after it invaded Kuwait.

6) Name the 74 countries! Want to know why bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? READ THIS (http://www.dannen.com/decision/)

7) We did not destroy Iraq. And with Saddam stealing money from his people (oil for food program) he used that money to recreate his army and their WMD's programs.

8) Provide me a link where this was stated.

9) Your quoting something from years ago, what relevance do that have to the situation at hand???

10) That would depend on if your whole family had been slaughtered by that dictator prior to us coming.

11) When the iraqi government is forcing the civilians into the line of fire, then yes, civilians will be killed, we are not targeting, they are being forced into those situations. The latest statistics show that about .01% of all missles and bombs launched, have missed their targets

P.S. A Lion, the king of the jungle.

[run_GMoney]

I would only invade a country for carrots if they also had a surplus of ranch dressing...yummy...

[Cander]

Same here except it would have to be celery.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
1) The US is not going to control the oil, the UN is, to better have a handle on the oil for food program. And yes we would still have this war, it's not about the oil, its about saddams failure to abide by the UN resolutions and his oppresive regime.

......

P.S. A Lion, the king of the jungle.

man i wanted to do that.. u just didn't have the patience to type back a response to all those stupid things :D

[run_GMoney]

I think continuing the carrot portion of the thread is just as useful. Those little minature carrots, baby carrots, and ranch. Yum. C'mon, you can't deny that. We can all agree that baby carrots and ranch is good.

[Cander]

I would invade a country to get rid of Carrot Top!

[kleinma]

Originally posted by Cander
I would invade a country to get rid of Carrot Top!

but then how would you know how to dial down the center???? :D

[Cander]

Id follow the cute angel and dial 1 800 Collect

[run_GMoney]

Alyssa Milano is so hot. I'd take her over baby carrots and ranch any day.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by please
1- It's not for the oil. But if Irak produced carrots, would you invade them???

Yes the US army has thousands of land mine sniffing bunny rabbits that need to be fed.

2- Bush, Dick Cheney and sweet Condoleezza Rice, are they still involved in the oil industry? Or they grow carrots?

No they are not, they are employees of the US government as of now.

3- You are going to set a democracy. What kind of democracy? Like the one you gave to Haití, Dominican Republic, or Nicaragua? You occupied Haití for 19 years and founded a military power that raised a dictator like Francoise Duvalier. Occupied Dominicana for 9 years end gave them Rafael Leónidas Trujillo. Occupied
Nicaragua for 21 years and founded the dictatorship of family Somoza. Please free us from your "democracy"

The people in those countries you speak of asked for our help. Whose fault is it that they couldn't figure out how to make democracy work even after years of US help? BTW, how much OIL does Hati produce?


4- You encouraged the dictatorship of Noriega in Panama as long as he fighted "comunists". But when he tried to nationalize the Channel of Panama, ah! For God sake! Then you discovered he was a narco!

The chanel was set to be nationalized. The US bought and paid formost of the chanel and had done this under contract stipulating the ownershi[p of the canal. Noriega got greedy.


5- You say Saddam encourages terrorism. In Irak they have Hollywood movies, women wear jeans and they teached English in High School. Not a single 9/11 pilot was from Iraq, most of them came from Saudi Arabia. Also Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. But Saudi is a cgood friend for USA.

First off Saddam has been on television offering money to the familys of suicide bombers to attack the "infidels". They get a bonus if the Infidel is an american citizen. Saudi arabia is NOT a good friend. They are a busisness partner.


6- Irak violates the UN resolutions. Conceded. Does USA obey them? The USA has invaded 74 countries in the last century. It is the only country who dropped nuclears, and over civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets.

The US is the bulk of the UN's military force. I have lost many friends and have nursed injured family members who got that way by enforcing the Fooking UN's policy. PS on behalf of my fallen friends "Go fook yourself"


7- In the gulf war, Bush senior distroyed Irak. They said "the military power of Irak is completely defeated" What is left over?

Anthrax, VX gas, and a dictator in charge of them who pays people to commit terrorst acts against american people.


8- Secretary Rumsfeld said that USA was going to use "non lethal gases". Are they the kind Puttin used in Moskow that killed 100 innocent hostages?

No they are called smoke gernades. They produce a cloud of gas similar to the kind they spray into the crowd at Metallica concerts. completly harmless


9- In 1898, president William McKinley declared that God gaved him the order to attack Filipinas. Bush assuresthat God is his side in the attack to Irak. What kind of God gives contradictory orders to Bush and to Pope Juan Pablo II??

LMFAO


10- If I had the cruelest dictator, and you came and bombed my cities and killed near a thousand civilians, including children, women, elders... would it be insane to fight?

*** are you babbeling about?


11- Didn't Bush said there wouldn't be ANY dead civilians in this war? What about that "delicate surgery operation"

No, he never said that. It's kicking the sheit outta The republican Guard as we speak. What about it?


12- Plenderj I love you!

:rolleyes:


P.S. Answer me the very first question: What kind of animal commands this war?
[/quote]
An animal smart enough to graduate from one of the toughest colleges on the planet. An animal in charge of the most powerfull military machine on the planet right now. An animal who cares enough about his bunny rabbits to invade an entire country so they can have the biggest freshest carrots on the planet
:rolleyes:

[Arc]

Where were we 1 year ago, 5 years ago,10 years ago? As was said earlier "giving peace a chance", which is what you and your like keep claiming that we refuse to do.

The Iraqi people did Invite us into thier country to take out saddam a few years ago. Do you think living conditions in Iraq have improved so much that they have changed thier mind?

You say we shouldn't war against Iraq but we should support a coup. Isn't that the exact same thing? We currently have 10,000's of Kurds armed and fighting against Iraqi soldiers. The Leader of the Shiites has just told his people not to interfere with the Western coalition's actions. There have been several uprisings in different cities. All the Iraqis i've seen on the news(That aren't soldiers) have been cheering the coalition soldiers and waving American flags. So what's the difference between a U.S. lead war and a U.S. lead Coup? The main difference from what i can tell from your discription would be that the coup would have ALOT less fire power and therefore be doomed to lose. But that's exactly what you want isn't it?

I saw alot of Iraqis leaving Turkey to come back to Iraq to supposedly fight against the coalition. That is REALLLY F'IN FUNNY. The whole reason they are in Turkey is because they fled Iraq because of Saddams brutal regime! Yet now they want to go back and defend the very thing they fled from? Hahahaa... poor brainwashed idiots. I really do feel sorry for them.


Ohh yah the point of the thread was animals.

Using Chickens to detect Gas is stupid. Because the way VX gas works is the bigger you are the faster you die. A Human would die a long time before a chicken would. Not to meantion the fact that even if the cheicken did die first you would already be exposed to the gas so it's too late for you too. Americas army has incredibly accurate sensors that detect any nerve agents long before they are harmfull to humans, so again using chickens is pretty stupid. I did here that some army guys were using chickens though..go figure.:confused:

As far as the dolphins go, i've seen them on TV and they are never in any danger. They do not actually touch any mines.. they simply locate them with thier built in sonar and drop a marker beuy next to them so the divers can go and disarm them. Those dolphins are really cool. Also the dolphins are never kept in cages, they are free to roam the oceans thier entire life and they always come back of thier own will. I have heard that few a have taken unexpected extended vacations though:D

[kleinma]

Originally posted by run_GMoney
Alyssa Milano is so hot. I'd take her over baby carrots and ranch any day.

no it is Jamie presley now... oooo sooo fine...

although Alyssa Milano provides stiff competition... lol stiff... sorry i crack myself up sometimes..

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1785/JaimePress_Grani_823860_400.jpg
Vs.
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1485/AlyssaMila_Ausse_532091_400.jpg

[Cander]

speaking of coup. There would be a HELL of alot more civilian casualties during a coup!

[Memnoch1207]

anyone notice that Gary.Lowe's avatar looks like that guy from "Will and Grace"?

baby carrots and ranch dressing...mmmm
jamie presley and ranch dressing...mmmmmm
Jamie presley without any dressing....ooohhhooooohhooh....I need a cigarette.

[Gary.Lowe]

Whatever you say now does not matter anymore.

We are at war now

What does matter now is that Saddam is gotten rid with few civillian deaths as possible.

Also now it is more what happens after the war and how the country is rebuilt by the Iraqi's.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Gary.Lowe
Whatever you say now does not matter anymore.

We are at war now

What does matter now is that Saddam is gotten rid with few civillian deaths as possible.

Also now it is more what happens after the war and how the country is rebuilt by the Iraqi's.

But that sounds likes such a cop-out for future transgressions by the US.
Just ignore the public, goto war with a country, then let people say "well we're at war now so no point in complaining about now".

[Gary.Lowe]

It's not a cop out Jamie. This would have happend last October but Saddam was given more time again and and did nothing to or very little to prove to the rest of the world that he was a diplomatic leader and had his countries interest at heart.

If you think there was any way that the Saddam regime would fall into line with world policy I feel you are being a little naive.

People are always banging on about human rights and aid support to iraq. The Iraqi people have no rights and lot of Saddams palaces are built on western aid.


There were are a lot of countires that support the war but none of them had the balls to stand up and do it.

I do admit the US tend to get a bit gung ho but the fact that our goverment are also involved should make sure the US don't do anything too rash.

The main point that needs to be addressed is that just becasue the US have gone in does not give them any right as to how the country is run.

The whole point of this war is to give Iraq back to the people.

I do hope the UN step in and take the diplomatic role in rebuilding the country once Saddam is gone.

[plenderj]

I don't think Saddam was going to step into line with world policy, but, there are other ways of getting rid of him.
For example a coup, incited and supported by the coalition.

Let the people take back the country themselves.
That way everyone comes out smelling of roses.


But this way the US is going to be hated for years.
And about the US running the country - they'll install a puppet government - that is of course after the military government they install has left - after of course US companies have made millions in the rebuilding of the Iraq the US army bombed.
Oh yeah and did you read that it has been written into some bill just passed in the states that the French, Germans and Russians cannot benefit from any rebuilding work done in Iraq.

That smacks of complete childishness.


Blair cannot stand up to Bush. Not now, and probably not ever.

[plenderj]

To quote : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12279751,00.html


Reports have suggested that the US wants to put a military administration in place, with its own officers in key roles and American firms carrying out lucrative work restoring Iraq's battered infrastructure.

[Gary.Lowe]

Originally posted by plenderj
To quote : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12279751,00.html


Reports have suggested that the US wants to put a military administration in place, with its own officers in key roles and American firms carrying out lucrative work restoring Iraq's battered infrastructure.



If that was to happen then I think there would be world uproar.

I think that is most probably press mongering.

[plenderj]

Well the US military will definitely occupy the country and control things until they feel it necessary to setup a government.
There's going to be uproar no matter what happens.

[Gary.Lowe]

Originally posted by plenderj
Well the US military will definitely occupy the country and control things until they feel it necessary to setup a government.
There's going to be uproar no matter what happens.

Valid

The same thing happened in Afganistan and they ahve had no problems so far.

They will have to tred very carfully though and they know this. Other wise a lot more faith in them will be lost which lets face will be the rest of the world that doesn't hate them already.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Gary.Lowe
Valid

The same thing happened in Afganistan and they ahve had no problems so far.

They will have to tred very carfully though and they know this. Other wise a lot more faith in them will be lost which lets face will be the rest of the world that doesn't hate them already.

Afghanistan's a warzone still. Warlords vying for power.
And opium production has tripled which'll end up with a country full of druggies.

Its a mess!

[Gary.Lowe]

The americans though still have a presense there which is lot more than they have done in similar instances previously.

I don't agree with war but I also don't agree with sitting back and letting people suffer.

The UN is the right way to approach things but when you dealing with someone who has no regard for human life and world polotics what do you do.

It would be far easier to sit round a table an discuss things which everyone knows the Saddam Regime will not agree too.

The regime is all to quick to show 100's of innocent people dying for injured rom warfare. What you won't see is the 1000's upon 1000's of people he has killed because they did not agree with him.

[plenderj]

The UN should have occupied Iraq - not a unilateral force making up reasons for doing it as they go along.

[Gary.Lowe]

agrred but I think the warfare would have still been inevitable at some point.

As we have seen in past UN inspectors were just kicked out when what they were doing wasn't to Saddam liking.

[plenderj]

This time they weren't given a chance. Iraq was co-operating with the inspectors.
But the US wouldn't give them enough time.

[Gary.Lowe]

I think that was more a last minute attempt by Saddam to look like he was co-operating as he knew this time the crying wolf trick wasn't going to wash

[plenderj]

Okay even if it was just to save his own skin, the inspectors weren't being interfered with and they were getting the job done.
That's what counts at the end of the day.

The US pushed for a military solution, when a peaceful one was working.

[venerable bede]

You managed to destroy two Muslim countries.


GOOD

[Memnoch1207]

Okay even if it was just to save his own skin, the inspectors weren't being interfered with and they were getting the job done.
That's what counts at the end of the day.

The US pushed for a military solution, when a peaceful one was working.

But it wasn't at the end of the day he started to cooperate...It was at the end of 12 years, when he was finally being threatened with war.


The UN should have occupied Iraq - not a unilateral force making up reasons for doing it as they go along.


This would have never happened...The UN can't unanimously agree on anything when it comes to Iraq, and when it did (the UN Resolutions) it didn't back them up (the consequences for violating them). How is it unilateral (UNI means 1) there are 3 countries that have troops over there (US, UK and Austrailia), plus there are 49 other countries supporting the effort in other ways...So explain to me how this is UNILATERAL.

And everyone wants to point the finger at the US. What about the UK or Austrailia? Nobody put a gun to their heads had made them go there...They're doing it, because it is the right thing to do.

And let me explain why a coup wouldn't work.
1) Take a look at the general population of Iraq. They're farmers, not soldiers. They're not trained in anyway for combat. And even if coalition forces went in to train them, a war would have broken out anyway. Saddam would have tried to stop any rebellion with force, killing civilians as well as coalition forces. Which would have led to an all out war against him.

2) He would just gas them like he did the Kurds. He will have to think twice about using WMD's against the current coalition for a couple of reasons a) We are trained in the detection, protection and decontamination of them b) Hate to say it but, there would be a good chance we would nuke baghdad if he did use them.

That's why a coup wouldn't work.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Hate to say it but, there would be a good chance we would nuke baghdad if he did use them.


we wouldn't need to... if saddam did use a WMD (other than a nuke) and whipped out our forces there...he would also whipe out ALL the civilians.. and since the only reason we haven't bombed the crap out of baghdad is because we are preserving the city for the civilians... we would just bomb it to hell... we wouldn't have to use nukes.. a few moabs would do the job anyway... but other than nukes... i dont know if it would matter if he does use chem weapons.. other that to kill all the civilians.. because we have protection from checmical and biological agents he might use

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
This time they weren't given a chance. Iraq was co-operating with the inspectors.
But the US wouldn't give them enough time.
Iraq was only partially cooperating because there were 250,000 troops parked outside his border. If they were not there Saddam would have just thrown the inspectors out again just like in 1997.

Not enough time???? 12 years is not enough time??? He wasn’t disarming he was REarming thanks to countries like France, Russia, and Germany.

Come back to reality. I can't believe you can't see this and you actually believe Saddam was cooperating with inspectors. No one is that naive.

X

[please]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Want to know why bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? READ THIS (http://www.dannen.com/decision/)
From that site:
In a radio speech to the nation on August 9, 1945, President Truman called Hiroshima "a military base." It seems likely, considering his July 25 diary entry, that he was not aware that Hiroshima was a city. Otherwise, he was being untruthful about the nature of the target
This is the relevant part of the speech:
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians
Either Truman was misinformed or he was lying, as Bush lies.

[Memnoch1207]

Either Truman was misinformed or he was lying, as Bush lies.

I agree Truman was probably misinformed. And what exactly in your opinion has bush lied about?????

[please]

This war is against terrorism
The oil has nothing to do with it
Bin Laden is responsible for the attack to the twin towers
We will make a clean, surgical operation in Irak
We are not after the oil in Afghanistan, either
I am a nice boy

See this for further info on the oil topic:

http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=238073

those aren't just opinions

[Memnoch1207]

This war is against terrorism
The oil has nothing to do with it
Bin Laden is responsible for the attack to the twin towers
We will make a clean, surgical operation in Irak
We are not after the oil in Afghanistan, either
I am a nice boy


This war isn't against terrorism, this war is against Saddams regime....The war against terrorism is in afganistan.

Tell me this...When the US had the oil shortage in the late '70's why didn't we just attack them then??? gas prices aren't that high right now ($1.39/gal) where i'm at. Saudi Arabia has increased its production to make up for any losses. Even if oil was part of it who cares...You show me someone who wants to spend $2.00+/gal for gas. Besides the UN is taking over the oil to accomadate the food for oil program to provide the iraqi people with food and medical supplies...meanwhile saddam was selling it to fatten his pockets.

Bin Laden was responsible for the terrorist attacks...show me some proof that says otherwise.

I would say that 99% accuracy is pretty damn good!

There was never any mention (in the press or otherwise) that what is going on in afganistan is about oil...quit basing your arguments on emotion and look at the facts!

He never said the either :)

[please]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
There was never any mention (in the press or otherwise) that what is going on in afganistan is about oil...quit basing your arguments on emotion and look at the facts!
He never said the either :)

You can't be so ingenuous!

Please look at

http://members.localnet.com/~jeflan/jfafghanpipe.htm
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/...es/05132524.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/oil-j03.shtml
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/art...jared/oil-1.htm
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/front.htm
http://www.zmag.org/tanteroil.htm
http://www.blueprint-magazine.de/oil/oil.html
http://www.brojon.com/frontpage/bj091701.html
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK24Ag01.html
http://www.altavista.com/r?ck_sm=636431bc&rpos=3&rpge=3&ref=100020080&uid=29ce3038b8c25551&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediamonitors.net%2Fjosephclifford2.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

And the very best of all, "It is the oil, stupid!" by Joseph Clifford, an American boy: (he said "stupid", not me)
http://www.mediamonitors.net/josephclifford2.html

Need some more? Look at altavista! Are they all biased against USA? No, those are facts, my friend.

And take a look to an American publication: National Geographic, May 1999 (long before 9/11), the article on the Caspian Sea. America's eyes were on the oil long ago!

[NotLKH]

Pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard of Joseph Clifford before. Isn't that strange!

:p

[please]

Originally posted by NotLKH
Pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard of Joseph Clifford before. Isn't that strange!
:p
LOL! :) ROFMAL! :D )

I never heard of NotLKH before! What does it prove?

Did you ever heard of Altavista.com? Or National Geographic Society?

[Memnoch1207]

your also talking about liberal media. There are also articles stating that it isn't about oil...It really just depends on the political beliefs of the people who own these companies publishing this stuff. For every article you point out that says it is about the oil...I can point out another that says it isn't.

[please]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
your also talking about liberal media. There are also articles stating that it isn't about oil...It really just depends on the political beliefs of the people who own these companies publishing this stuff. For every article you point out that says it is about the oil...I can point out another that says it isn't.

But these are facts, my friend, the pipeline is under construction, and is UNOCAL who is doing it.
But I was told that:
There was never any mention (in the press or otherwise) that what is going on in afganistan is about oil and I showed the very first 14 that appeared on Altavista. There are hundreds of them.

[please]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
6) Name the 74 countries!
Sorry I can't. But I'll give you the 22 that you bombed since WW II

1-China 1945-46
2-Corea 1950-53
3-China 1950-53
4-Guatemala 1954
5-Indonesia 1958
6-Cuba 1959-60
7-Guatemala 1960
8-Congo 1964
9-Peru 1965
10-Laos 1964-73
11-Vietnam 1961-73
12-Camboya 1969-70
13-Guatemala 1967-69
14-Grenade 1983
15-Libia 1986
16-El Salvador 1980
17-Nicaragua 1980
18-Panama 1989
19-Irak 1991-99
20-Sudan 1998
21-Afghanistan 1998
22-Yugoslavia 1999

After the invasion, none of these countries got a democratic government. Isn't that strange?

[please]

Originally posted by NotLKH
Pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard of Joseph Clifford before. Isn't that strange!
:p
Yes, you are ignorant.

Have you ever heard of William Blum??? Take a look:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html

From that site, I recommend:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/IraqHypocrisy_WBlum.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_BiologicalWeapons_Iraq.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/WhyTerroristsHateAmer.html

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by please
Sorry I can't. But I'll give you the 22 that you bombed since WW II

1-China 1945-46
2-Corea 1950-53
3-China 1950-53
4-Guatemala 1954
5-Indonesia 1958
6-Cuba 1959-60
7-Guatemala 1960
8-Congo 1964
9-Peru 1965
10-Laos 1964-73
11-Vietnam 1961-73
12-Camboya 1969-70
13-Guatemala 1967-69
14-Grenade 1983
15-Libia 1986
16-El Salvador 1980
17-Nicaragua 1980
18-Panama 1989
19-Irak 1991-99
20-Sudan 1998
21-Afghanistan 1998
22-Yugoslavia 1999

After the invasion, none of these countries got a democratic government. Isn't that strange?


Err... China was never invaded by US troops, when was Indonesia invaded?

And they never tried to install democratic governements in those countries.
They did in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan in 2001? How did they go?

[Xanith]

Originally posted by please
Yes, you are ignorant.

Have you ever heard of William Blum??? Take a look:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html

From that site, I recommend:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/IraqHypocrisy_WBlum.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_BiologicalWeapons_Iraq.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/WhyTerroristsHateAmer.html
What a bunch of left wing clap trap. Ive never read such distortions and such obvious misrepresentations in my entire life. I sure hope you are not buying all of this obviously slanted and politcally motivated garbage. If you are I really feel sorry for you.

X

[Cander]

Originally posted by please
Sorry I can't. But I'll give you the 22 that you bombed since WW II

1-China 1945-46
2-Corea 1950-53
3-China 1950-53
4-Guatemala 1954
5-Indonesia 1958
6-Cuba 1959-60
7-Guatemala 1960
8-Congo 1964
9-Peru 1965
10-Laos 1964-73
11-Vietnam 1961-73
12-Camboya 1969-70
13-Guatemala 1967-69
14-Grenade 1983
15-Libia 1986
16-El Salvador 1980
17-Nicaragua 1980
18-Panama 1989
19-Irak 1991-99
20-Sudan 1998
21-Afghanistan 1998
22-Yugoslavia 1999

After the invasion, none of these countries got a democratic government. Isn't that strange?

More classic misdirection. Keep going please!

[Gary.Lowe]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Err... China was never invaded by US troops, when was Indonesia invaded?

And they never tried to install democratic governements in those countries.
They did in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan in 2001? How did they go?

Probably a movie that they made look like they did all the work, saved the world and made the wolrd a better place. :D

Only joking the yanks wouldn't do such a thing ;) :p

[please]

Originally posted by Xanith
What a bunch of left wing clap trap. Ive never read such distortions and such obvious misrepresentations in my entire life. I sure hope you are not buying all of this obviously slanted and politcally motivated garbage. If you are I really feel sorry for you.
X
Scrap? Clap trap? Chit Chat? Do you know who is Mr .William Blum?
Take a look:

http://www.speakersandartists.org/People/WilliamBlum.html

from that site:
William Blum left the U.S. State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer because of his opposition to what the United States was doing in Viet Nam. ......... Blum was honored with a 1998 Project Censored award for his "exemplary journalism"

[Maven]

Originally posted by please
USA is using dolphins to find water mines.
USA is using chickens and pigeons to find poisonous gases and chemical weapons.
USA is uning monkeys to find ground mines.
What kind of animal is commanding this war?

Dolphins do a really good job at finding them.... They can swim a little better then we can =P

[Maven]

Originally posted by please
From that site:

This is the relevant part of the speech:

Either Truman was misinformed or he was lying, as Bush lies.

I consider Truman to be one of the greatest presidents of all time and was very honest.

He was very correct to use the nuke on Japan. A lot less people died in the result of the nuke then what there would have been without it.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by please
Scrap? Clap trap? Chit Chat? Do you know who is Mr .William Blum?
Take a look:

http://www.speakersandartists.org/People/WilliamBlum.html

from that site:
LOL this guy left government service over 35 years ago. Talk about being out of the loop. So we are supposed to be impressed that he’s won some award from some unknown group? I'm sorry still not impressed here. Its obvious the slant all of his material has just by reading them. I would rather get my information from more balanced sources rather than the "lunatic fringe" that exists on both sides (left and right).

X