India-USA Sign 10 Year Military Agreement

Most of the Insurgents are from Syria and nieghboring nations of Iraq anyways. Tehy're not even fighting for Saddam. We kicked their ass long ago. We're fighting Anti-American terrorists who see the new Iraqi government as another American puppet. And with teh way we're handling teh setup of the new governemnt, they're kinda right. They want a direct democracy, but we force this representitive crap on them. That's the biggest mistake our Founding Fathers made, making a Representitive government. Too easily corrupted.

And in war, civilians take casualties, so don't use that crap against us, alright?
 
uziel said:
Most of the Insurgents are from Syria and nieghboring nations of Iraq anyways.
Proof?
We kicked their ass long ago.
Then why are people still dying? Who are you fighting if you have already kicked their arses?

And in war, civilians take casualties, so don't use that crap against us, alright?
Ah, massive native casualties are A.O.K, because Shit Happens.

How can you be so blasé about people dying? People who, for the most part, have comitted no crime, participated in no act worth dying for.

Would you be so dismissive about a full-scale war in America?
 
I still have shock over the elections in 2000 and 2004. First of all, Gore should have won the election. We probably would not be in this mess if that had happened. And second, I can't believe that 53% of my fellow Americans were stupid enough to put GW back into office.

Ugh. This war is a travesty built on a web of lies.
 
uziel said:
Most of the Insurgents are from Syria and nieghboring nations of Iraq anyways. Tehy're not even fighting for Saddam.
if they are foreigners, they have no rights
if they are natives, they have no rights
if they fight for saddam, they have no rights
if they fight against the puppet governement & the american invasion, they have no rights

oh what a wonderful world we live in.
for a nation that is so fixated on their own rights, you sure have a hard time to recognise that those other 'savages' around the world are human as well & that they have human rights too. but hey, i guess all humans are equal, but some are more equal than others right?
uziel said:
We're fighting Anti-American terrorists who see the new Iraqi government as another American puppet. And with teh way we're handling teh setup of the new governemnt, they're kinda right.
although i really dont agree with their idiology, that kinda makes them somewhat legitimate in their strife, doesnt it?
 
Well, except the Geneva Protocols does apply to irregular combatants.

CCR- I have serious doubts about your argument that the Republicans are not "taking over" all branches of the government. They have the executive, control Congress and dominate the Surpeme Court. What's left? To assume that there hasn't been a rollback of civil rights in the US for the past 5 years (or even over the past 28 years)- is just foolishness.

That said, China- during it's Maoist heyday, did support insurgencies along it's periphery. It did give weapons to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, supported the Khymer Rouge in Cambodia, funded the Burmese Communist Party- etc. Creating puppet regimes? The Vietnamese did kick them out and the North Koreans would swing between the PRC and USSR, but generally favored the USSR (primarily because China was both too big and too close- so better to bandwagon with the bigger Communist power than the locally big regional power).

Trying to compare the extent of Chinese influence in their periphery to US control in the Western Hemisphere? That's silly. The US had more influence and greater ability to intervene not only in the Western Hemisphere but in other regions of interest than China has ever had.

The US supported authoritarian leaders rather than take a chance of left-leaning democracies might have been a "risk adverse" choice based on the notion that democracies can elect communists (just like democracies can elect islamic fundamentalist strongmen). Therefore it was better to protect authoritarian strongmen favorable to the US rather than take a risk with entrenched communist authoritarianism (which would have a stronger chance of surviving the death of a particular strongement). That was a rather Machiavellian choice at the expense of a lot of people around the world and a bill that the US has yet to fully account for.

Wooz- this argument that "gulf war syndrome" was due to depleted uranium rounds is an interesting one. I haven't heard it before. Any sources you might have on it? I know there was a case of a Japanese fishing ship that got shot up with DU rounds and the fisherman subsequently sued the US for injuries. I would imagine that an investigation into the service records of men who were exposed to fired DU rounds might shine some light on the source of Gulf War Syndrome. Considering the government's desire to cover it up, perhaps there is more to your theory.

___
OK, back to your argument.

CCR- you are arguing that the US-India agreement might be aimed at China. Perhaps. India did receive substantial armaments for the USSR during the Cold War, and the Indians did go a border skirmish with the Chinese. Considering the Chinese moves in Tibet, possible ties between China and the Nepalese maoist insurgency, and the fact that the two countries with the largest populations on earth are bumping up against each other- India might be wise to look for new allies.

ALternatively- this could have more to do with software, and not just the US outsource national security high-tech to India. India is a growing source of high-tech and is aware that the US is feeling threatened- perhaps a military agreement involves side-benefits in terms of trade acceptance.

Another argument might be that this is part of a policy to disarm South Asia. Since the USSR's fall, India has been on its own. If it's nuclear testing was a means of shoring up nationalist support, the weapons program was probably more as an insurance policy against local hostiles (China or Pakistan).

By forming an alliance with India, the US could put the pressure off both Pakistan and India from continuing on a dangerous and expensive nuclear program. Nuke programs will generally not be effective deterrents until they obtain second-strike capacity. Prior to that, the incentive is actually for a preemptive first strike that takes out the enemies nuclear capacity. Neither India nor Pakistan can afford to build the infrastructure needed to assure a second-strike against the other.

Therefore by assuring the sovereignty of both countries by developing militaries ties with both, the US provides an incentive to both countries to get past their military differences and make nice. It also puts pressure on Pakistan to be a bit more supportive of US policies regarding the Taliban and Afghanistan, least the US switch to backing up the Indians and not the Pakis.
 
CCR- I have serious doubts about your argument that the Republicans are not "taking over" all branches of the government. They have the executive, control Congress and dominate the Surpeme Court. What's left? To assume that there hasn't been a rollback of civil rights in the US for the past 5 years (or even over the past 28 years)- is just foolishness.
Welsh, civil liberties are still better then what they where during some parts of the Cold War, and while there has been some 'rollback', we're also involved in dangerous parts of the world far more often, and face a threat that is at once both domestic and foreign. This is not the Clinton administration, where the only times we are involved in the Middle East is running the fuck out of Somalia or bombing a pharmacutical factory because of the news about Monica.

Trying to compare the extent of Chinese influence in their periphery to US control in the Western Hemisphere? That's silly. The US had more influence and greater ability to intervene not only in the Western Hemisphere but in other regions of interest than China has ever had.
Today, I'd say the influence the PRC exerts on 'puppet' nations is more then we do. I almost wish we really did control South and Central America- we might have more foreign troops in Iraq.

But nations in our sphere of influence tend these days towards doing that of thier own will, sad considering that our 'allies' left us all at the gate during the Iraq war.

We've been using our diplomatic clout to evangelize Democracy, as well, in Lebanon, the Ukraine and half a dozen other nation, don't forget that.

Compare to Vietnam, Laos, pre-UN Cambodia, North Korea...and thier influence is now considerable in Singapore and half a odzen other undemocratic nations.

Welsh, have any complaints about the alliance with India? Those comments sound pretty positive.
 
CCR- It's a hard argument to make that civil liberties are better now than during "some parts" of the Cold War. SOme parts suggests McCarthyiesm or FBI spying on student anti-Vietnam War organizations?

To say that we are more involved in more dangerous territory now than during the Cold War is also nonsense, least your forget that whole mess in Vietnam and the numerous other interventions during the Cold War. When the Cold War ended, restraints on US intervention also declined- perhaps.

But I would hesitate to say that the world is more dangerous now than then, unless you want to make an argument about WMDs.

A better issue might not be whether the US was living in denial prior to 9-11 or whether the nature of fear has been constructed by the administration to justify numerous abuses in both domestic and foreign policy. I would say it's a bit of both.

No offence, but CCR, you are talking out of your ass when you compare the US to China, even when you speak about the Asia Pacific. The US maintains a naval base in Singapore. We've got military ties with the Philippines and Thailand. Malaysia and Singapore have defense agreements with the UK.

Seriously dude- The Vietnamese don't like China historically- which was why they turned Cam Rhan Bay over to the USSR and not China. Laos? Cambodia? Burma? Countries that have generally been forsaken by the US. The Burmese fought Chinese influence in their war against the BCP. Laos and Cambodia are more Vietnamese satellites than Chinese. North Korea turns to China by default because ties with Russia are not what they used to me. That's not much left.

Tibet = China filling a power vacume that the West could not defend.

South China Sea- Chinese expanded influence has more to do with ASEAN failing to get their priorities straight and the US backing off over a regional border dispute.

Where China has expanded its influence it has done so only because of the withdrawal of Western influence. Perhaps the US might have stopped Communist expansion in Laos and not Vietnam, but that was back in the 1960s.

If you are going off on another of your "support Paccom" because Robert Kaplan (a dipshit sensationalist journalist if there ever was one- who's single article you have posted here was both singularly uninformed and unimaginative) says so, than I suggest you take a better look at the region. I notice you still haven't read half the stuff I forwarded to you. Really, before you get all neurotic about another "China threat"- do your homework first.

As pointed out before, even if China might be a long-term threat, it is not the short-term threat that suggests an impeding war or the need for a new containment strategy. Simply, China is not a serious military threat to the US, not now or in the foreseeable future.

As for alliance with India- no I think its a very good idea. We've been beholden to Pakistan for too long- afterall they stole their nuclear technology from us. I also don't much care how their intelligence service plays double service between us and the Taliban.

.
 
Pu238 rounds are depleted and don't cause damage to people who are'nt hit by the round

By far, the most uneducated drivel I've read in a long time.

Here, free Cluepon:

Because Pu-238 is 247 times more radioactive than Pu-239, a "lethal particle" of Pu-238 is only 1/247 the mass of a "lethal particle" of Pu-239. Correcting the worst-case analysis from Pu-239 to Pu-238: the same mass, optimally divided, would yield 247 times as many lethal particles and therefore 247 times as many fatailities, using the same statistics as the original. But an additional adjustment is needed: a particle 1/247 the mass has 1/247 the volume and therefore 1/6.27 the diameter. The smaller particle would fall about 6.27 times slower. That would multiply the fatal inhaled doses again by 6.27, using the original statistics. The two corrections mean a combined multiplication of 1549 times, , when translating from Pu-239 to an equal mass of Pu-238.

Plutonium (Pu) is used for shit that has HIGH radioactivity in mind.

Uranium is used for depleted shells like CIWS, I should know, I had to know how the entire system worked before I ever got certification to work on it. DU rounds are simply not clean as Wooz has said, and their use near civilian establishments is also yet another war crime. It is also suspected to be the cause of many new unexplicable Iraqi babies to be born with deformities or missing limbs.

Please, try to put spin on this one, but I'm not expecting much since you'rve put your education level substantially lower than acceptable Arkansas GED pass levels.

We still have Miranda,

Dissolved in certain situations that can be used to further walk on the rights of people to search/sieze/arrest. Due process with even suspected terrorists is a joke, and Britain had a recent hearing about that as well, IIRC.

Geneva does not apply to terrorists

And the countries that the terrorists are in, I suppose, considering that the Geneva Conventions have nothing on occupying another sovereign nation. Oh, wait. THEY DO.

The US has violated the Geneva Convention, which forbids "individual or mass forcible transfers […] of protected persons from occupied territory,” by taking prisoners out of Iraq for interrogation.

The US has violated the Geneva Convention by cutting off water supplies to Tall Afar, Samarra and Fallujah for several days in September and October 2004, denying up to 750,000 civilians access to water. The US further breached international law when forces refused to let the Red Cross deliver water to Fallujah the in hopes that dwindling supplies of food and water would eventually cause the insurgents to surrender.

I could quote more, but I'm afraid it would just be "tl;dr" for you, and hopefully these examples alone make it clear to you that these war crimes have JACK SHIT to do with terrorists or terrorism. In fact, cutting off the water supply to entire population sectors of civilians is a terrorist act in itself, and thusly it was provided for in the Geneva Conventions. No matter how you and the US administration want to try and dice it around, the US invaded another sovereign nation and has been committing war crimes against it, its citizenry, and the Geneva Conventions ever since. They are not war crimes against terrorists, and I still wince at the US administration's decision to again fight guerilla tactics with conventional warfare when that bullshit didn't work for Viet Nam nor the English in the US Revolutionary War. Even if the Geneva Conventions do not explicitly bind actions against terrorists, it was established as a means to both protect against extreme treatment of prisoners AND also as a set of protection rights for the citizenry. Another little fact that you seem to have forgotten or have just been blissfully unaware of, kid. Look up Convention IV (Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) of the Geneva Conventions and read the preamble, as the rest proves that you are full of shit despite the fact that you will never read it to figure out why, then you can try to claim any of the bullshit that you have previously.

Again, and I tire of saying this: it might help to know what you're talking about before you make these moronic declarative statements. Don't bother to speak about the Geneva Conventions, because it is clear that you have no fucking clue what they are.

You <s>Euros</s> suiburbanite American kids are really out of it about your own country, especially in regards to international law. It's kind of <s>funny</s> pathetic.
 
Welsh said:
Wooz- this argument that "gulf war syndrome" was due to depleted uranium rounds is an interesting one. I haven't heard it before. Any sources you might have on it? I know there was a case of a Japanese fishing ship that got shot up with DU rounds and the fisherman subsequently sued the US for injuries. I would imagine that an investigation into the service records of men who were exposed to fired DU rounds might shine some light on the source of Gulf War Syndrome. Considering the government's desire to cover it up, perhaps there is more to your theory.

Sure, I found an 1995 Interview with a German scientist


Interview said:
DAVID MULLER: What are the short term and long term effects of DU contamination in Iraq?

PROF. GUNTHER: From my own observations in Iraq, the long term effect of contact with DU results in the breakdown of the immune system. Other effects noticed have been:
# Many infectious diseases, with serious complications are on the increase. Sometimes diseases break out which are known in Europe only through text books;
# Herpes infections, Zoster infections and AIDS-like symptoms are dramatically on the increase, all of them possibly related to the breakdown of the immune system;
# Premature births are numerous. Congenital malformations of the newborn show a high postwar percentage (26.8% according to Dept. of Pathology, College of Medicine, University of Baghdad). In the countryside, children die in great numbers and are buried without possibility of diagnosis;
# During the lambing season in 1993 a high percentage 10% according to IPA Agricultural Research Center) of abnormal newborn lambs have been observed. Most of them died a few days after birth.

I've ran across a few sites that downright deny the existance of Gulf War Syndrome, labelling it a media hype or a story used by "anti-war liberals to defame the 1991 war". I find it extremely curious that all those symptoms occur in populated areas on which the DU rounds were used.
 
Back
Top