IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The Patriot

0 helpful
97 replies

by oz_media

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Last night I was watching a W5 report on the Partiot missiles failure and how the government had mislead not only American citizens but the Amry too. The end result was that American's were killed because they were assued the Patriot would intercept a scud coming at their bunker. If they had taken normal cover proceedures, they may have lived but since they were assured that the Patriot had been intercepting scuds (actually 0 for 41) they waited patiently and unfortunately died. Now the government's lies are killing soldiers. I took notes and wrote a short paper based on the information provided. I have posted it to a freind's website and would like feedback as to your thoughts on the situation.
NOTE: I am not aiming this as an attack on American's but it was a real eye opener to see the evidence put forth and made me wonder about the accuracy in their saying the American public is blind to the issue, even though it has been well known for over 12 years that the Patriot has NEVER made a successful SCUD intercept.

Here's a link to the paper I put together (in haste at midnight, ignore bad grammar please)
http://tinyurl.com/17a

97 replies

by timwalsh

I think part of it got cut of. There's usually four characters in the last part of the URL.

by oldefar

Take a look at some additional references -
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html

I opted not to trust TinyURL on these.

Now for some of your points and questions. I don't know anyone who thought the SCUD had sufficient range even after modification to hit anywhere outside of the Middle East. If either the US media or some segment of the population had that idea I never heard about it.

Effective is a relative term. I never thought any weapon or defense system was 100% effective, or was expected to be. The TRIAD system of nuclear missile silos, bombers, and submarine launched missiles that supported the MAD policy during the Cold War was a result of that. For the Gulf War, the Patriot was the only missile defense system active. A modified anti-aircraft system.

During the Gulf War, I never felt there was an implied promise of effectiveness. There was a hope for success against SCUD missiles, in particular against those launched towards Israel. A key factor was keeping Israel on the sideline, a tough request when under attack.

There is a very legitimate reason for limiting the publication of military performance. I may be able to convince you to stop an action if I have a gun pointed at you. This is less likely if my gun is known to shoot only blanks. As long as you think it may pose a threat or defense, you must take it into consideration with your plans. This also would explain why Saddam would act as if he had WMD to hide if he did not.

As for Star Wars, a totally secure defensive system is a pipe dream. The 9-11 attack again demonstrates how low tech approaches can wreak havoc if the attackers are willing to make the sacrifice. However, advances from pursuing Star Wars may prove a gain for us all. Military programs often provide rapid advancements in other areas - transportation, communications, information technology, process and procedure, manufacturing, medicine.

by maxwell edison

A 10 month investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. (It actually had only about a 27% hit rate in that first Gulf War.) Testimony was provided in these VERY PUBLIC hearings by a number of people.

The hearings were in April, 1992 - WELL BEFORE the 1992 elections.

There were even a couple of mishaps with the Patriot in the recent Iraq war. Perhaps you read about those. (Again, nothing that an "informed" person wouldn't have heard.)

Your paper is just dripping with mistruths and half-truths. I would point them all out, but I think it's rather pointless. You should do your own research on the subject instead of relying on a biased CBC story.

Here's a tip for you. If you read of hear something in the news (or in one of those "documentary" type stories), do some research to try to disprove a claim or to see it from the other perspective. Your findings will be quite interesting. An old debate class strategy - take the opposing view and find ways to support it. That's the best way to defeat it. And in this case, it's a good way to see something in a more balanced way.

by oz_media

"Your paper is just dripping with mistruths and half-truths. I would point them all out, but I think it's rather pointless. You should do your own research on the subject instead of relying on a biased CBC story.

Here's a tip for you. If you read of hear something in the news (or in one of those "documentary" type stories), do some research to try to disprove a claim or to see it from the other perspective. Your findings will be quite interesting. An old debate class strategy - take the opposing view and find ways to support it. That's the best way to defeat it. And in this case, it's a good way to see something in a more balanced way."

gee Max, I think that is what I'm trying to do. You should know I don't believe ANYTHING I hear or read, I'm the first one to shoot down biased media, unless written by Richard Scarry.
MANY countries including the US had contributed to these statements via live interviews, it wasn't just a CBC angle, although somewhat colored for TV viewers.

The statements were that NO Patriots had EVER intercepted (hit and destroyed) a SCUD. The American press also stated that MOST Americans still believe they were effective.

by maxwell edison

Find a reliable American source that said, "NO Patriots had EVER intercepted (hit and destroyed) a SCUD". I don't think you can.

Find another "American press" source that said, "MOST Americans still believe they (the partiots) were effective". Again, I don't think you can.

You claim to credit (or blame, whichever it is you're doing) an American media source for what you heard stated (or aired) by a Canadian media outlet. What's wrong with this picture?

And anyone who thinks that the American military would want to use an ineffective weapon, and would conceal its ineffectiveness to serve that end, doesn't have a clue about how the military operates. If anything, they would be screaming about how ineffective it was so they could justify budget increases to update it.

by generalist

Interception and destruction are two different things.

If you make the claim that NO Patriots had EVER utterly destroyed a SCUD, converting it into completely harmless pieces that fall to the ground without causing problems I would totally agree with you.

Unfortunately, technology isn't quite at the point where you get complete destruction and an intercept that 'kills' a missle doesn't necessarily keep it from causing damage when the missle AND the interceptor fall to the ground.

The interception may keep the missle from hitting it's intended target with a functional payload. But it doesn't prevent a target of accidental opportunity from being hit as a consequence.

I would have to see the W5 program to see how they deal with the fact that a 'killed' missle still has the capability of doing damage just by falling out of the sky. And if W5 uses the word 'intercept' to mean 'hit and destroy', then they are playing fast and loose with the language.

by generalist

Interception and destruction are two different things.

If you make the claim that NO Patriots had EVER utterly destroyed a SCUD, converting it into completely harmless pieces that fall to the ground without causing problems I would totally agree with you.

Unfortunately, technology isn't quite at the point where you get complete destruction and an intercept that 'kills' a missle doesn't necessarily keep it from causing damage when the missle AND the interceptor fall to the ground.

The interception may keep the missle from hitting it's intended target with a functional payload. But it doesn't prevent a target of accidental opportunity from being hit as a consequence.

I would have to see the W5 program to see how they deal with the fact that a 'killed' missle still has the capability of doing damage just by falling out of the sky. And if W5 uses the word 'intercept' to mean 'hit and destroy', then they are playing fast and loose with the language.

by oz_media

It was in the best interests of the American government to not leak the reality of the ineffective SCUDS to the masses, understanding that those with any intelligence would know already. The cabinet decided it may be better to wait until after the election.

by maxwell edison

There you go again. You state a lie, base your argument on that lie, and then derive a faulty conclusion.

You said, "The cabinet decided it may be better to wait until after the election."

Prove that was indeed the case. I don't think you can.

But I can prove the opposite is true by simply pointing out the April 1992 PUBLIC hearings on that very matter. (The elections were in November.)

Would you like a link to the full text of those hearings? Well, you claim to be a smart guy. Find it.

And another thing that's become quite obvious to me is the fact that you have a very misguided view of our political system. I guess your political ignorance (your own admission) is getting the best of you. The Democrats in America (including 33% of "the masses") would never allow such a concealment. And the same could be said for the Republicans (another 33%). If one can get any dirt whatsoever on the other, look out. The S&$# is going to hit the fan.

For someone so critical of us, you sure don't know much about us.

by mrbill-

?The cabinet decided it may be better to wait until after the election?

That report was done during a Democratic presidency about an event that happened during a Republican one. The ?cabinet? you speak of would have shouted it from the rooftops to prevent a Republican victory. I like most informed Americans did know about the fallacies of the Patriot, why do you think the systems deployed to Junior?s Iraq war were the improved ones, not that they were any better. As pointed out elsewhere, the Patriot was originally intended as an anti-aircraft weapon system deployed into a role they were not intended for because some Gov contractor told some General ?Of course it will knock down aircraft and missiles? he probably told the General it would do his taxes and make coffee, anything to make the sale. Oh no, now I?m be cynical! Oz you are the corruptor!

by maxwell edison

Wage controls: Not a great way for people to prosper.

The Salvation Army goes on strike: Not a great way to help all those needy people.

The inmates are in charge of the prisons. Prisons are a failure.

http://www.opseu.org/news/AxFax98/AxFax_200224.htm

Canadian drug problem:

http://www.bdtzone.com/news_details.asp?ID=18

Brain Drain: Canada's future wealth producers are leaving for the United States.

U.S. Dollar outpaces Canadian Dollar by 47%.

Canada - not a great place for engineers and professors to earn a living.

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/taxes2.htm

Vancouver - the highest crime rate in Canada

http://www.bdtzone.com/news_details.asp?ID=18

Activist Supreme Court Justices - no woman can be a perpetrator, no man can be a victim.

http://www.fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/remarks_McLachlin1.htm

homicides involving firearms has increased

plagued by muggings

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=canada+muggings+increased&fr=fp-top&vm=i&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt

Canadian government's ineffective and expensive bureaucratic gun registry scheme - expensive and discriminatory practice involving this registration scheme. It is a cash grab.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/110_2000-06-08/han110_1425-e.htm

Canadian health care crisis. Canada's health care continues to unravel

http://www.cbc.ca/news/national/magazine/health/

http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/dsd/cced/faculty/dcharbon/kdn/healthcrisis.htm

Canada's unemployment rate increased for the second consecutive month to 7.8 per cent in May

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Business/story_49301.asp

Canadian military - general background of decay and ineffectiveness.

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/library/recovery.htm

Canadian Glass House Residents continue to throw stones.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5221-6230-0.html

by maxwell edison

That's why I posted all those links. Each and every one of those statements was taken from an article - a Canadian article - for which the link was provided.

by oz_media

Your points are true and quite valid, although our homicide,crime and drug rates are touted, they are not even remotely close in number to the same problems in the US. BUT.... I don't care either, I don't think Canada is the greatest place in the world, the best looking, but not the best. I never said I liked or supported the Canadian government either. Some things are great most of them suck, it's a reality shared by every country in the world, except yours.

The MOST important F-up of our government lately is cancelling Molson F1 racing in Montreal dur to cigarrette adsvertising and sponsors. People don't START smoking because Players sponsors and Indy car or JPS sponsors and F1 team. Existing smokers MAY change brands but it doesn't encourage NEW smokers. Secondly, sale, and smoking of tobacco is legal. It is not prohibited and you don't need a cultivation license or card from the cannabis club to smoke.
It is one of the largest sources of tax dollars for the Canadian government, yet they cancell Players auto racing events, the Benson and Hedges Symphony of Fire (now promoted by HSBC)and Export A sponsored golf and tennis tounaments. Now THAT's F-CKED UP!! But I never said it wasn't.

unlike Americancitizens, Canadians feel it is OK to disagree with the governments decisions, we like somestuff and hate most of the rest of it, but that is our freedom.

by jimhm

Do you like any government or nation - or are you just simply unhappy with the world as it is today. I was mistaken that you just hate America - it appears that you just hate all forms of government.

Boy, if that is true you are going to life a long and unhappy life... It's better to understand - that somethings you can't change and you must accept them as they are - and move on...

You sound like you just don't like anything - find fault with every form of government - find fault with every decision the government makes - is your prozac working?

Maybe you should change your name from OZMedia to DonkeyHotee -

I hope someday you will find happiness - and when you do get to those Red / White / Blue perily gates (at the peace bridge) we will let you in - to enjoy the freedoms that are behind the curtain...

by oz_media

"Activist Supreme Court Justices - no woman can be a perpetrator, no man can be a victim."

Did you read the source?? It is a guy with a home page in Alberta! If I posted crap on my homepage would you cut and paste the URL's to enforce your point? This guy also has the comprehension skill of many peolpe found here.

The judge stated "We have stopped ignoring it and have put it on the social agenda."

to which the writer inserted ["family" violence, meaning "wife abuse"] (sounds like a pissed off assumption to me.)

THEN:
Judge says- "one relating to victims, largely women, and one relating to abusers, largely men"

From this he got- "no woman can be seen to be a perpetrator, or instigator, of family violence and no man can be seen to be a victim. "

That's like saying "all fish live in water, therefore all that swims is a fish"

February 24, 2000

Salvation Army workers on strike since Dec. 14
Fight against private jails heats up
Tories slap wage controls on BPS
In what amounts to a return to wage controls for Broader Public Service workers, the provincial government has slapped a 2 per cent ?ceiling? on government funding for transfer-payment agency pay raises.

Labour Minister Chris Stockwell calls wage increases above 2 per cent ?excessive? and said that the government would not fund BPS contracts negotiated above that rate.

?Try telling a social services worker who makes $25,000 a year that $500-a-year raise is unreasonable,? said OPSEU President Leah Casselman. She predicts that the maneouver will backfire on the government, especially in the areas of social work and the custody of young offenders.

?BPS agencies will have even more difficulty attracting and keeping staff,? she said ?This will effect the clients and the families they serve.?

Casselman called on BPS members to solidify their resolve to negotiate better contracts. ?Two per cent should be a floor for wage increases, not the ceiling,? she said.

There can be no jusification for the government interference in collective bargaining in the BPS, since private sector negotiated wage raises are running at about 3.4 per cent, Casselman said.

Stockwell?s slap at the lowest paid public employees comes after Tory political staff and senior members in the provincial government received wage increases of up to 30 per cent.

?The provincial government is flush with extra revenues generated by a booming economy, but they need to slap a wage freeze on us so they can fund the tax cuts and raises for their well-off friends.?

"Salvation Army workers on strike since Dec. 14"
Well I guess a non-profit in London Ontario can be considered the Canadian government for this particular case just to appease you.

"Fight against private jails heats up" Private jails, not jails.

"The CBC?s national magazine program also did a lengthy piece on private prisons, which reached the same conclusion."

Didn't you just say the CBC was a biased and unreliable news source?

"RECOVERY MEASURES FOR THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES"
But we don't attack other countries?! We aren't constantly threatened, or terrorised. Our soldiers could use new boots for their peace keeping missions in Afghanistan though, maybe some warm cocoa and home knitted mittens.

"Canada's unemployment rate increased for the second consecutive month to 7.8 per cent in May"

So we've got a good welfare system and people who abuse it are bound to come out of the woodwork.
Doesn't mean there are no jobs, just that people aren't working, too much other syuff to do here, work is secondary to most.

Wage controls: Not a great way for people to prosper.

Nice minimum wages for students though, nobody controls my paycheck, I like to write those myself. I've never even heard of wage controls in Canada or what they represent, obviously not such a massive a act of parliment that has effected anyone I know.

U.S. Dollar outpaces Canadian Dollar by 47%

So.....the UK dollar is higher than America's and Canada's. Again, so? The only time it bugs me is when I need to exchange Canadian for UK pounds. This is why I have a bank account in England as well as Canada. Bring a few of those bucks home and it's off to the track for me!!

Canadian drug problem:
We've NEVER had a problem gettng drugs. The only difference is, we smoke weed mainly with the exception of the crack and powder cocaine that is traded straight across by the US for Canadian weed. You guys do realize we grow that bunk in our basements right? For free?

homicides involving firearms has increased

Now this one makes me chuckle! There are probably less people killed in Canada each YEAR than in AM/PM's across America daily.

I usually don't bother going to all the URL's people post here to support their concepts and ideas, but these have really shown me the sources of your resources are quite lame. I may actually check links more often now, I always figured you were educated enough to only use reliable and useful websites to obtain information.

by mrbill-

I?m sorry, did you see the title of my reply? I applaud your post for its many references. Good job. I guess my humour is misunderstood on this forum, oh well.

by oz_media

Do you think I actually take the time to visit the thousands of weblinks that are posted here.
I posted a single like for this paper because is is 5000 characters and would be too many posts.

As for "here's my opinion ...URL..." "here's my other opinion ...URL..." Do you guys actually have an opinion or just one formed from what you read on the web? Don't you see, these are NOT YOUR opinions but those of others who you sgree with.

by jardinier

Looking for links that support your opinion does not provide proof or vindication, but merely reveals that you are unable to think for yourself, or unable to find valid proof, or unable to construct a sensible argument.

The same principle applies to the Bible. You can readily find a verse in it to support any point of view you wish.

Well you certainly stir the pot, Oz, but I would take your PERSONAL opinion over that of a bigot any day.

Let me know if you ever catch me using a URL to save the bother of expressing my own opinion. My opinions may not always be correct, but they are always based on my personal experience and on what I sincerely believe to be the truth.

by jimhm

It appears that the Oz (I think that is where he lives - with the Wizard) - just hates americans and America. No matter what he speaks his tone and verbage is Anti-American.

Now isn't that illegal in Canada - don't they have laws against that - Not very P.C. there OZ -
Light up another Bowl - Shoot up in the other arm - travel - back in time... again..

God - bring up history -

Plane and Simple - You Hate America and the freedoms it stands for ... Oz must be a Commie - or Nazi or Maxist or Socialist ... or maybe just a Liberal ... Whatever ... He/she Hates America ..

What would that be - Anti-americaism or anti-angloism - many be anti-freedomism ...

by oz_media

Your ability to decipher the human mind is simply applaudable. I humbly bow to your graciousness.
You are correct, I despise America and it's citizens, I hate anything that is not me. Tomorrow Pinky, we'll try to take over the world!!! NYA, HA, HA, HA, HAAAAAAAAA!

Lesson learned, NEVER disagree with an American, they are right, they are better, they are simply the best!!

I just hope when my day of judgement comes, when I stand before the Red, White and Blue gates, that you will find it in your heart to consider me an ignorant, clueless foreigner who simply didn't understand that America ruled the world.

Give your F-in head a shake.

by generalist

I would assume that the military realizes that, even with a 100% effective kill rate, intercepted missles AND their interceptors pose a hazard when they fall from the sky. Even if they are intercepted miles from the interceptor's launch site, there is always a chance that parts of the hardware will land on friendly forces.

Therefore I would assume that SOP during a missle attack would be to take normal cover procedures.

Now there might be certain problems with informing people that they should take cover. You don't get much lag time when dealing with missles and interceptors.

There may also be problems with building such cover. Making something proof against large falling objects takes a lot more effort than making it proof against small arms fire. And if you are far enough behind the front lines, you balance risk versus resource availability.

by oz_media

Interviews condicted shortly after the initial trials as well as after the Gulf War with American Military officers (Ok, they MAY have been Canadians POSING as American military officers)showed them ADMITTING to the judge who conducted the trial that the SCUD had NEVER hit a target. Well they tried to pussy foot and rephrase the judges question into 'Intercepted' missiles. But then were asked for their definition of Intercept, which was "...crossing the path or matching the tradjectory at SOME point".

["Find a reliable AMERICAN SOURCE that said, "NO Patriots had EVER intercepted (hit and destroyed) a SCUD". I DON'T THINK YOU CAN.]

[..."American military would want to use an ineffective weapon, and would CONCEAL IT'S INEFFECTIVENESS"]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I think you're on to something here.
Let's see, No American sources of this info, yet, American's wouldn't conceal the info. But it was taped live at the trial (You're right Max, they must have been Canadian imposters dressed up as American military officials).

"Find a source that says they were ineffective..."
it was taped video of the American military trials after Tel Aviv comlpained they were lied to about the Patriot's effectiveness. Patriots were 'apparently' hitting SCUDS but TelAviv was still getting hit by the SCUDS that had apparently been destroyed (sorry, 'intercepted')

"Find a source who says the Americans would conceal this information"....How about the fact that YOU can't find an AMERICAN source that says they never DESTROYED a SCUD. Many sources will say they intercepted SCUDS, but again, as the American military officials stated in court, they have a different definition of INTERCEPT.

by oz_media

"Well, you claim to be a smart guy." Don't remember that POST but thanks for the compliment.

"The cabinet decided it may be better to wait until after the election."
This was simply a conclusion that was drawn after many officials decided to not admit the outcome of the trials. When attempts at inteviews were made, the NO COMMENTs were flying. When asked WHY, the asnwer was it was not in the best interests of the upcoming race. The military trials were so evasive that many people, of course not as clever as you, still didn't understand what was said and what conclusions wer reached. The press tried to get a straight answer from the presidential cabinet and was avoided. Now that's standing up for the people's best interests.

"You state a lie, base your argument on that lie,"
Strong words from the red faced and mislead?

by oz_media

The SCUD warheads were completely intact and hammered on the intended targets with complete destruction. What was shown to many as a successful interception was actually a SCUD breaking apart as it neared it's target. The widely aired firest M-M intercept wasn't even a Patriot shooting at a SCUD, but a misfire due to a computer error, admittedly by the American DOD.
the Patriot simply flew and detonated in mid air.
as for tapes of SCUDS being HIT by Patriots, they were found to be SCUDS breaking up naturally as they neared targets, due to heat and exceesive vibration.

by generalist

Could you please give the source you are using as proof that the SCUD warheads hit their intended targets intact and caused complete destruction?

Unless the intended target is a vague one like "Somewhere in Israel" or "Any Alliance Troops" it is a little hard to prove that those were indeed the targets. I don't recall hearing any rumors about Iraq doing much more than lobbing SCUDs in the general direction of Israel and the Alliance forces.

It would be interesting to compare the number of SCUD launches with the number and location of completely destroyed targets as well as the number and location of SCUD duds.

by oz_media

You're right, just about anything hitting a dust ball can be considered a hit I suppose.

First it was noticed when a bunker of US soldiers (I believe an intelligence bunker of some sort) was hit while the soldiers were watching the missiles on radar. They were confident the SCUD would be destroyed but it hit the bunker while they were unprepared and not under cover. That was the Gulf though and everyone knew that thier accuracy was under question, well almost everyone.

As for the Israeli incidents, I didn't catch his name but it was a military, possibly government official who made the statement. If a SCUD was launched and hit say a military installation amid civilian buildings, one can assume that it was the intended target as opposed to the 7-11.

the person who made the accusations of being mislead was actually taunted by the US military for doubting the Patriot's accuracy. He was told to be confident in thier accuracy and that they had been successfully tested against missile attacks. This was a statement that the US officials held strong to until finally giving 'thier' definition of Intercept to the courts.

I supose the part that got me was how they pussyfooted and sidestepped the question until finally asked by the judge to explain thier meaning of intercept. The judge had pressed them to admit that they weren't intercepting SCUDS, the military denied it over and over again by simply repeating, they had been tested and proven to successfully intercept another missile.

The judge played the video and experts were asked to describe the video step by step, which showed without doubt that the SCUDS were NOT being intercepted and in MOST cases were missed completely (as was the "first successful M-M intercept in world history").
To this the judge pressed how the American military could make such claims that SCUDS were being intercepted, FINALLY they added that Intercept didn't mean hit or destroy and that MOST people have a different understanding of the word. What they had MEANT was that the missiles were matching the trajectory OR crossed the flight path of the intended target. They also had NEVER been tested against an actual SCUD but much slower, low flying, unmanned drone aircraft.

Side stepping that caused people to die.

One person had the nerve to say, at least it was tested in TelAviv instead of costing more lives down the road. I consider that a copletely self-centered, selfish and ignorant opinion. Better they die than me? What kind of statement is that?

As I've said before, these are NOT my words but those reported on W5. The reason for my post here is to get American opinions, NOT what is printed on websites or American History books. I'd rather know how the story unfolded in the US media and what the people heard, I wouldn't believe a word your government said or printed anywhere anyway.

by oz_media

I live an extremely happy and easy life. My house is on beautiful tree covered property 5 mins from a gorgeous lake. I spend the majority of my time with freinds as well as act as big brother for a young autistic boy who's father left his mother when he was an infant. I get to travel all over Europe and sometimes Japan with the bands I manage. I meet happy people allover the world that don't have a bone to pick, they think everyone is equal and enjoy life without fear of being attacked or their brothers/sisters dying due to government decisions.

I don't like or believe in politics politicians or lawyers (even though my brother runs a corporate law firm). For this reason, I must hate governments and live a miserable life. I think that if I took what the government said as gospel, they way you seem to (remember this is just a man with a job, not God), I would really be miserable. The government doesn't say, "Hey man, how's your day, can I help you with that?", my friends do. The government takes my tax money and spends it how it chooses, much like yours, I don't agree with all their motives but I appreciate some aspects of the Canadian government, they aren't constantly seeking war to gain resources, they don't tell me if I disagree I will be banished, they protect my friends and family without war and they elect guys that speak with those funny French Canadian accents that we all like to mimick so frequently while drinking beer at the campfire.

by oz_media

Remeber when you wer a kid, life was so much fun, so easy and the day was so simple?
Does that HAVE to end when you get older? Do you have to stop enjoying life just because you see the real dangers of the world and the nasty criminals and muderers?
Do you have to hate people because of what their country has or even worse what country they are from?

Life doesn't have to be complicated, people just choose to make it that way because see reality and unkind people and feel threatened that it isn't all Peaches and Cream. It is though if you take it for what it is....LIFE.....it's a wonderful gift, don't forget to live it.

by mrbill-

The problem is that some people say "where is your proof" others say "we don't want proof, think for your self". What do you people want? BTW if you just "think for your self" without looking at multiple views all you are doing is useless. Are you saying you look at no other source? in that case you are fantasising about what you think is right and not about the truth.

If you just take one passage from the Bible, yes you can support any idea you want, you have to keep it in context! Take only a small part of any source and you can too.

by jardinier

Obviously my viewpoints are derived from a variety of sources, including discussions with serious minded people; following the media; surfing the net; referring to encyclopedias and so forth. As mentioned, my real life experiences help to form my viewpoints. And I test my views regularly by discussing them with people with a wide spectrum of knowledge and experience.

My personal views have not been created out of a vacuum, nor do they become fixed. My viewpoints are continually modified as I am exposed to new experiences and information. However I do not feel any need to quote a particular source to vindicate any of my opinions.

If you consider anything I say is incorrect, then feel free to explain why, so that I may learn from your experience/knowledge.

by mrbill-

I agree with your intent, however in the past some people have made posts and others have said things like where is your proof. So people put the proof and then if the opponent does not like it they yell don't give me links , I want original thinking. We all have orginal thinking, even those poor souls who only listen too Rush.

by jardinier

Thank you mrbill for understanding and accepting my simple statement. However you got me thinking and it occurred to me that whenever anyone is trying to push a particular point of view (and this applies equally in areas like PhD theses and non-fiction books) they will invariably, by human nature, seek to support their argument by quoting other people of like mind.

I don't have a problem at all with people adding a URL or two to support their point of view. It is just in the instances where people post multiple URLs to justify their point of view, which suggests to me that they are not at all sure of the premise of their statement.

by hal 9000

If or when the US gets its Star Wars or Son of Star Wars or whatever it is called now system to work or at least in mass production?

There has always been one question that I have continually asked and never recieved an answer to and that is what happens to the warheads of an intercepted ICBM?

Now for one I personally don'r care if a missle defence shield actually works or not it is the development that causes advances in technology that have unforseen spin offs that generally benifit the comunity as a whole. That is part of the reason why I support Space Exploration and any number of cutting edge projects as they develop products that make our lives easier always.

From my understanding the Scud isn't a very accurate weapon and while it is more accurate than the the old German V2 Rockets which where just a fire and let go and they hit the ground when they run out of fuel but had no real targeting system, however the Scud is only slightly more advanced and again from my understanding only sutiable for conventional warheads because their basic design precludes any biological or chemical warhead proving as effective and this is purelly from heat generated both in flight and in its decent destroying the contents of the warhead.

But an effective anti missle sustem hasn't as yet been developed of for that matter a Air to Air interception system that results in the imediate destruction of the target even that 747 that was shot down by the Russians all those years ago took time to hit the ocean it just didn't explode in midair raining down bits and pieces it came down in mostly one big bit and if it had of been over land would have caused considerable damage at the impact site. In that case however it hit the water and in all probability caused a severe concussive force to spread out from its primary impact point which while it didn't hurt anyone outside that aircraft would have proved unpleasent for any wild life in the area.
What I'm basicly trying to say here is that there is no fool proof system that man has so far made that will work 100% of the time no matter who makes it we simply use the best that we have got available at the time.
Remember back in WW11 the anti aircraft weapons didn't actually shoot down indivual aircraft but sent an explosive shell that detonated at a predetirmended height and tore holes in any aircraft that was close to the primary explosing or flew through the falling bits of the anti aircraft shell. Now no one would claim that these weapons where ineffective.

by oz_media

My point wasn't to take away from the Patriot. I was watching a TV show that was stating the Patriot had NEVER been effective against another missile but the American publis was led to believe it was working, or later, worked sometimes. Yet NO eveidence has ever shown a single Patriot to be effective for Missile interception (unless the definition of interception is explained to mean, crossing and intended path or tradjectory).

I wasn't posting this as an understanding or statement of MINE but as I mentioned, that was how it was reported with American sources used. I posted the paper to show what I had heard and gain American citizens feedback to compare the accuracy. Max feels I was making a statement and obviously hadn't read the paper or comprehended it properly.

The SCUDS that were apparently hit are said to have landed on target and caused destruction. Wqhen Tel Aviv claimed war on Iran, the American government had told them it was not neccessary and that the Patriot was proven to be succesful in destroying the SCUD. When all the Israelis were killed, question as to their effectiveness were rainsed, to which the American answer was that they had been tested succesfully against other missiles. This was false, they had only been tested on unmanned drones at lower altitude and MUCH lower speeds. This falsification in order to deem the Patriot worthy of it's proposed task caused people to die. Bottom line, American BS is killing people. Again.

Either America has to be completely ignored as a viable force or they should be held responsible for such blatant lies and court marshalled if caught. What right do they have to knowingly kill innocent people just to look cool and save face? Too bad Hitler isn't around, maybe we could rely on his word instead.

by mrbill-

If you ignore America as a viable force do not be surprised if the rest of the world laughs at you. Iraq proved what the US Armed Forces are capable of, and that was with a small force; imagine if we threw our whole weight at them. We wanted to mount a surgical strike and we did. Yes we had help and we had an established launch point, but do not think we could not have done the same over the beach and by airborne insertion. We would have had higher losses of course, I?m glad we did not have to do that.

I wish you would stop comparing the US to Nazi Germany. Yes Hitler was originally elected but he took absolute control over all aspects of the country. Do not forget that it was the other European countries that imposed such a high compensation penalty on Germany after WWI that led to his coming to power. I seriously do not think Bush will be able to do that even if he wanted to, although John Ashcroft looks to be trying. The US has not invaded its neighbors for annexation in a long time. We do not send our citizens to concentration camps to be eliminated. Yes during WWII (sorry I had to bring up the past, twice) we did intern many of our west coast citizens of Japanese descent, a fact we should be ashamed of, I am.

It is a pity we are not as peace loving as the British, who never invaded or enslave anyone. The whole Empire was done voluntarily. And the trouble in Northern Ireland is over what, football?

by hal 9000

But I was only trying to point out that there are no real systems that prevent something from hitting the ground even if they actually make contact with their intended target. At the moment the Patroit is "Top Dog" as an anti missle defence shield but I was never under the impression that it actually worked and at best only stoped in this case a Scud from reaching its intended target {hopefully} I was never under the impression that even a volly of Patroits could stop any missle from hitting the ground in more or less one piece the best that could be hoped for was to stop it from reaching its original target and since these Patroits are mainly deployed close to populated centres it only stands to reason that they couldn't perform in a manner that would prevent the Scud from hitting the ground they at best can only stop it from going further and doing more damage but as they are deployed too late they don't have much of a chance to do much. It would be a better propisition to deploy these things close to the borders of a country from where an attack is expected and then hopefully they just might be able to stop Scuds from reaching populated areas. It was quite funny to me that after September 11 the French placed Anti Aircraft Missiles close to their Nuck Power Stations as once an aircraft was considered a threat to one of these installations it was already too late to stop the thing and even if a dirrect hit happened the main bulk of the aircraft would still have made impact on the power station.

You have to forget these things being destroyed in flight as this only happens in Holloywood not real life. That is probably where this belief that was claimed by the said program originated from. Fantasy rather than fact by the masses who know no better!

by oz_media

Obviously you have nothing relevant to say yourself, nor do you actually form your own valid opinion. You make a statement based on something you read on the Internet and then post links to thet site to validate your point. If you couldn't find a website that gives you an opinion, you wouldn't POST.

I'm starting to feel that as an individula, you have no opinion and simply cannot decide what to say unless it is given to you.

You come across here as a guru of all knowledge but are actually showing as someone who knows nothing but will research a given discussion to find points you agree to and then POST a link.

I don't welcome your opinions any longer, at one time I welcomed your opinion as it seemed to be derived from logical thought, but I was wrong.
Other people here, Chas, GuruofDOS, Colin Luck to name just a few, offer valid rebuttals based on what they believe or how they feel. Try opening your mind up once in a while, you may even come up with a thought all by yourself. This kind of input is much more acceptable, I can surf the net for opinions by myself thanks.

As for your resorting to name calling, it really goes to show how insecure you can get when you run out of sources to post.

Have a nice day Max, go for a walk and THINK about something for a change.

by maxwell edison

Everyone who is a regular on these threads knows what a flake and fraud you really are. You don't welcome my opinion anymore, you say. Great, I wouldn't want it any other way.

You're the biggest ass whose ever posted on these threads. I may be the only one to say it, but I'm not the only one who thinks it.

Now go get stoned and think up some more of your meaningless dribble.

by oz_media

What an absolute freak of nature you must be. I once thought you were a typical uneducated idiot, then you came across as just being different. You have now resorted to simply calling names and stating other people's thoughts for them, very sad Max. I'm sure that all the people you speak for are extremely happy to finally have a voice, you just don't stop giving do you!?

You say I'm the biggest ass that has ever posted here as well as saying that you speak for everyone else, where's the URL's to back it up? Did you actually formulate that opinion yourself.

I'm proud to have finally been able to help someone think by themself, it makes me warm inside.

I'm a flake and a fraud, good thing the bands don't know it, shhhhhhh, they might wonder how I got them signed and making money.

For a guy who acts and can appear to be somewhat intelligent, you sure lose it like a child when you can't find a link with a new idea.

Grow up Max, some people must still believe in you, you wouldn't want to ruin it for them.

Oh yeah, knob !! Now I'm cool too.

by oz_media

Maybe splach your face with cold water and wake up to what people aer actually saying.

"I wish you would stop comparing the US to Nazi Germany." This happens so often in my POSTS. I just can't seem to see the difference.

I don't know what website you've been getting this info from but saying "Too bad Hitler isn't around, maybe we could rely on his word instead." somehow gets translated into English, I know it's not REALLY English but American English should be close enough, as comparing America to Nazi Germany, oh yes and that you wish I would stop it as if I do it constantly. Hey, it's your country, people only see what you show them.

"Iraq proved what the US Armed Forces are capable of"
I sincerely hope you don't perceive the biggest farce in military history as a symbol of what your country can do. Are you really stupid enough to see a botched and pathetic attempt at gaining resources as a viable show of military force? All it would take is ONE of the Canadian Forest Fire water bombers to turn the whole country into a giant mudpie. This isn't an enemy, go fight Korea, China or Vietnam again and realize your force is from as strong as you thought it was. You guys have bever actually WON a war, you've jumped in late a few times, been attacked miserably on your own soil, and killed more Allied troops than bad. Maybe why nobody will fight along side of an American, it's a death wish. Granted, you have the budget, ego, and the resources to be a force that is feared, unfortunately nobody is buying it due to your constant misfiring and invading countries without completing the publicized objective.

by mrbill-

OZ: ?Maybe splach your face with cold water and wake up to what people aer actually saying.?

OZ: ""I wish you would stop comparing the US to Nazi Germany." This happens so often in my POSTS. I just can't seem to see the difference. "

Reply: Is that because you are so wrapped up in your hatred (envy?) of the US you can not help but lash out against us?

OZ: "I don't know what website you've been getting this info from but saying "Too bad Hitler isn't around, maybe we could rely on his word instead." somehow gets translated into English, I know it's not REALLY English but American English should be close enough, as comparing America to Nazi Germany, oh yes and that you wish I would stop it as if I do it constantly. Hey, it's your country, people only see what you show them."

Reply: I have no idea what you are saying, have you been smokin the same stuff as River Freight?

OZ: ""Iraq proved what the US Armed Forces are capable of"
I sincerely hope you don't perceive the biggest farce in military history as a symbol of what your country can do. Are you really stupid enough to see a botched and pathetic attempt at gaining resources as a viable show of military force? All it would take is ONE of the Canadian Forest Fire water bombers to turn the whole country into a giant mudpie. This isn't an enemy, go fight Korea, China or Vietnam again and realize your force is from as strong as you thought it was."

Reply: If you think the US Armed Forces botched the invasion of Iraq you must have some inside info the rest of the world does not. Did we not take Baghdad? Did we not totally remove the Iraqi military as a threat to regional stability? As to the "post war" Iraq situation we did drop the ball a little. Maybe we need to bring in the feared Canadian army. Before anyone starts flaming me about the Canadian Army, I know many fine Canadian Army troops, worked with them in many locals, but they are not overly impressive. As too the resource grab you keep referring to, the US gets most of its oil from Venezuela, a South American nation. BTW the US has enough oil reserve to last over ten years, that is without touching the Alaska fields, it would require some cut backs. Korea would fall in 3 months if nukes stay out of it. No need to fight Vietnam, France is not over there causing trouble, I hope. China would be the only real challenge you mentioned. But why should we fight someone who is not openly threatening us.

OZ: "You guys have bever(never?) actually WON a war, you've jumped in late a few times, been attacked miserably on your own soil, and killed more Allied troops than bad. Maybe why nobody will fight along side of an American, it's a death wish. Granted, you have the budget, ego, and the resources to be a force that is feared, unfortunately nobody is buying it due to your constant misfiring and invading countries without completing the publicized objective. "

Reply: We have never won a war huh. First we stomped British butt, including defeating their navy, at the time the ruler of the high seas. Then we stomped British butt again (of course if the short French maniac was not running around Europe causing trouble it might have been more of a fight), guess what, we defeated their navy again. Then we went and handled a terrorist situation in North Africa that the Europeans did not have the B*&&s to handle, US navy and Marines lead the way. Then we stomped Mexican butt. Then we got into a family squabble and wasted a lot of good American blood, but in the process we became stronger as a Nation. Then we stomped Spanish butt (another European nation feels the sting). Then we lent a hand with the other ?great powers?, though at the time the high and mighty Europeans thought of us as insignificant. Then we were invited into the big one, which no one wants to remember, maybe because it was when we took over as one of the dominant world powers. In that one the US did most of the fighting in the Pacific, through lend-lease and the ?Arsenal of Democracy? program gave billions of US dollars to the Allies, 10 billion to USSR alone, that is 1940s dollars. After that war, which you say we came late and did little, we were stomping N Korean butt until about a half-million Chinese came pouring across the Yalu. But even then we stopped that advance. In SEA we went in to help the French who immediately pulled out leaving us with the check. The US military did not lose the war; the politicians lost it. We defeated the USSR in the Cold War, and saw the downfall of that great power. In Iraq 1, we defeated the third largest land army in less than a week. Now tell me we never won a war. Ask Australia if they will not fight at our side. Ask Britain. Ask the real Canadians. Yes there may be situations where they may falter, but when push comes to shove they will be there, just as we will be there for them.

Reply: The only time we were attacked on our soil was by cowards. Suicide bombers and hijackers are not soldiers they are terrorist. How many thousand Allies have we killed? I want actual stats not imaginary figures. How many enemies have we neutralized?

by oz_media

You must be the country's favorite American, first of all, your post doesn't make much sense.

"China would be the only real challenge you mentioned. But why should we fight someone who is not openly threatening us."
- Iraq openly threatened you?

"If you think the US Armed Forces botched the invasion of Iraq you must have some inside info the rest of the world does not."
-Arguable because nobody here has actually agreed on why you went to war, WMD (not found), Saddam (not found), ?? Perhapse you can enlighten the rest of America just why you went to war and felt "OPENLY" threatened by Saddam who did not have the ability to launch an attck on the USA.

"We have never won a war huh. First we stomped British butt, including defeating their navy, at the time the ruler of the high seas. Then we stomped British butt again (of course if the short French maniac was not running around Europe causing trouble it might have been more of a fight), guess what, we defeated their navy again."
- I assume this was before the British stomped in and burned down the whitehouse?

"In that one the US did most of the fighting in the Pacific, through lend-lease and the ?Arsenal of Democracy? program gave billions of US dollars to the Allies, 10 billion to USSR alone, that is 1940s dollars"
-The war had been in progress for almost 10 years before you got involved. England was NOT under immediate threat of invasion because Hitler was unable to beat out the RAF with his Luftwaffe. Damn you guys must get taught some really screwed up and one sided history in school.

"In Iraq 1, we defeated the third largest land army in less than a week."
-Third largest starving and hopeless army. These guys were trying to surrender BEFORE war was declared. American soldiers had to tell them to wait in their bunkers until the war was official. You never achieved the objective of capturing your MOST WANTED MAN, I can almost hear the whistle of the Good Bad and the Ugly here.

"Ask Australia if they will not fight at our side. Ask Britain. Ask the real Canadians."
-they are obligated to fight for their country the same way you are. No matter where they are sent, they will do it. I have two family members in the RAF as well as several friends, American political cartoons are plastered all over their lockers and tha base about cowering from American troops, and hiding in time to avoid the American's shooting them. You are a running joke worldwide.

" The only time we were attacked on our soil was by cowards. "
-what so that doesn't count right? You can attack another country but not kill a coward? YOU see them as cowards, they are seen as heroes in Afghanistan.

by maxwell edison

...the British never invaded or enslaved anyone?

The British Empire was one of the largest and most oppressive in all of history. (Well, maybe they weren't the MOST oppressive, but they were right up there.)

Examples of British Imperialism:

India was under British rule for quite some time, and Queen Victoria even declared herself the "Empress of India". And as I recall, it was a British massacre of hundreds (maybe thousands) of Indian protesters which led to the rise to prominence of Mahatma Gandhi and the efforts to gain India's independence from Great Britain.

The British also tried to occupy and control Afghanistan in the 19th century, but the Russians kept them from doing it.

The original American colonies were greatly occupied by British subjects loyal to the King and the British empire, and they remained under English rule for almost 200 years before the birth of the new nation after the Revolutionary War, which ended in 1783. And it was British (among others) slave traders who enslaved Africans to work on British controlled plantations. (There were all those "British trading companies".) By the middle of the eighteenth century British ships were carrying about 50,000 slaves a year to the West Indies and the British Colonies (thru London, Liverpool, and other British ports), and the goods produced by these slaves were sent back to England in British ships. Britain didn't outlaw slavery until the early 19th century. The USA outlawed slavery in the middle 19th century. (The British were the original slave owners in the British colonies for 200 years. It only took about 70 years for the new United States to abolish the practice.)

More: British imperialism in Africa - British imperialism in Asia - British imperialism in Australia killing local aborigines.

I could go on and elaborate, but I think I'll pass.

by oz_media

At no point in this thread have I said anythjing to the contrary. I make statements that you relate to American repression and then you go digging up URL's from history? To one like you, the idea that we can learn from History obviously means that if it was done in the early 19th century, it should be done now?

Your post merely evades the debate by referring to age old facts that have NOTHING to do with what is being debated here.
You may wnat to try Google, I hear they have some thoughts you can share for them.

by mrbill-

I hope that was not aimed at me. If it was I will have to stop using sarcasm in my posts and blast straight on. I know that GB was the most imperialistic "empire" in the (known) history of the world.

by maxwell edison

No, I didn't (originally) read the sarcasm, but I should have. Upon reading it again, it should have been obvious.

by oz_media

If you have the time to waste, the ever intelligent Mr. Edison has offered a slew of links to British history for you to peruse, thus the target of my last post.

Sarcasm is rarely appreciated here, most people here can't even understand a post when it is written straight up, yet alone with a slant.

As for me, I live for sarcasm and appreciate a good, witty slanted opinion.

by hal 9000

There with the best of them.

What I particuarly liked from History was that Americian Indians where given rights by the British {which where hardly ever honored} but they had paper rights while here in Australia the Aboriginals where never given these rights and where treated as vermin by the British Rullers and Settelers.
All through our very short history there have been cases of masacers of native Australians and it wasn't even until the 1960's that they where even counted as inhabidents of this country and even then it took a referendum to acomplish this very small step.

To this day our current Primer Minister can't bring himself to appoligise for past atrocities that have been committed against these people or the attempted genocide that was imposed by trying to bread out the original inhabidents and the breaking up of the families all this continued up until about 40 years ago or latter with British Approval.

by oz_media

I'm not in England. I'm British but have NEVER said they do things right, nor have I said Canada is better. You see, in the rest of the world, we know our government's can be and constatly are wrong.

I can just see Canada telling it's citizens to go invade a third world country due to a supposed threat. The people would all laugh heartily and tell the government to go themselves. Probably why we aren't attacked or are under attack. We don't live in fear, we just live.

by mrbill-

From now on I am going to put "Sarcasm Alert" in my subject. Just so no one can accuse me of supporting the "wrong" conclusion.

by hal 9000

It is a pity we are not as peace loving as the British, who never invaded or enslave anyone. The whole Empire was done voluntarily. And the trouble in Northern Ireland is over what, football?

While the British may now be the Peace loving country that you seem to think they are this was not always the case they did invade lands and colonized them in the name of Britian and for Britian after all that is what the Americian War of Inderpendance was all about wasn't it?

Remember it was also the British who invented "Gun Boat Diplomacy" you get a local up rising against you just send in the Gun Boats. The same thing happens today but we are now in a position to deliver both weapons and troops far faster and further than any time in the past and while Britian may no longer be a "Super Power" it's hardly defenceless either.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but wasn't it the British who burned Joan of Ark at the stake as a witch when they where invading France?

Sure Britian has now sought of outgrown that faze and so in time will the US and they will be replaced by another nation with delusions of grandure but until that happens what is the point of hitting on the Americians all the time just because they are in the same learning erra that Britian and most of Europe went through all those years ago? The US is still a realitively young country who is still making their mistakes that they will eventually learn from just like all the previous "Super Powers" of their time.

by mrbill-

From my 08/11/03 post of the same title:

"Excuss me?
I hope that was not aimed at me. If it was I will have to stop using sarcasm in my posts and blast straight on. I know that GB was the most imperialistic "empire" in the (known) history of the world. "

by hal 9000

I was sure that some of the other wouldn't and just might take you at your original posting.

No it wasn't aimed at you but only to inform others who might take you literally that the Mighty GB who once bosted that the sun never set upon its Empire where just as guilty as the rest of them.

Keep up with the scarcasm I love it but then again I have a perverse sence of humour.

by oz_media

we are supposed to learn from our past mistakes and those of others. We are also expected to get smarter as we learn from our mistakes. England has made some awful mistakles in it's history, which spans back many centuries old. At one time, it was comlpetely acceptable to throw your garbage and sewage over your wall onto the streets. We have now grown up and learned that this is wrong, unhygenic etc. So why shouldn't America shine brighter because they are SO aware of what mistakes OTHER countries have made.

You'd think that with all their knowledge of what other country's are doing right or wrong, they'd know better than to fall into ancient footsteps. Perhapse they are all too busy trying to decide which political party was represented to actually figure out what was wrong. I mean can you imagine a Republican actually finding something wrong with Republican's, that would be embarrassing! It's not like they are not aware of what other countries are doing or how they feel, have you EVER tried telling an American something? 1st - You'll be wrong , 2nd - It is correct if it is American, 3rd - it's probably due to your weak country, 4th - it is because you wish you lived in America. 5th - whatever, your country sucks, you must like French people.

What a narrow minded farcical headspace they show to the rest of the world. America may be Beautiful but it's far from gracious.

by mrbill-

1st ? You are wrong, 2nd - That is correct, 3rd ? it is, 4th - you wish. 5th ? I like French people, its their Government I can?t stand. OZ we have something in common!

by mrbill-

If you could catch the missile in the ascent phase right before it goes sub-orbital, if it does, then you have a good chance of knocking it off course and attitude. When it starts back down it is not in the designed aerodynamic trajectory and will be ?burnt up? on re-entry.

The best time to hit it is before the launch when it is still on the launcher, destroying both.

by hal 9000

Or are we still on the subject of Scud's? If you where talking about ICBM's then the warheads casing are U235 which will survive reentry only the paint on them won't and it is the casings that become part of the fission reaction when the things deploy or go bang on the other hand Scud's are only short range low level weapons that would be easier to take out as close to the launch point as possible rather than leaving it to the last possible minute to try to stop the things and even if hit in descent will still end up very close to their intended target. Which is probably a good thing as they are expected there rather than some poor farmer working his field having the thing unexpectly fall on him aqnd although it would do far less damage in an unpopulated area I'm sure that the people living there wouldn't agree.

Any yes I fully agree with your last statment the best place to kill these things is in their silos before they can even be armed but with the demise of the USSR who now has the capacity to launch an ICBM thta could strike mainland America? And more to the point does the intellegence services know where these things actually are and could they be stopped prior to launch? Here I talking about ICBM's that places like China and North Korea atre developing because these are mostly launched from mobile sites which arn't possible to preprogram into a computer to take out.
These places at least while not having the most sofiscated technology have learnt the lesson from Germany durring WW11 as these mobile launch platforms are impossible to detect prior to launck unless someone is silly enough to park them all together in the open for the world to see. They would also have the time to assemble the warheads as these countries technology isn't up to the same standards as the "Modern Atomic Weapons" as used by most of the Western World and Russia. They have to be stored dismalated as there is too greater risk of a misfire of the warhead.
But if we are still talking about the Scud's they are just a development of the V2 German rocket and very old technology.

While it isn't in the normal range of this discussion forum I'd be glad to discuss these areas with you.

Col

by mrbill-

This whole thread is out of the "normal" range of this forum. I thought the SCUD went airless for part of its trajectory. I have been wrong before, and will be in the future, I am only human. I appreciate your info about the U235 casings. Doesn?t putting fissionable material on the outside of the warhead cause reduce the efficiency of the blast and increasing the fallout yield? Yes making the casing out of the denser material does increase life expectancy on re-entry, but what a waste. All nukes are a waste, but they serve their purpose I guess.

by jimhm

Yo - Oz - man you just wasted all that intelligance in 1 line.. A SCUD does not go Sub-orbital or anywhere close to it. It is lucky if it goes over 50,000 feet.

If you were talking ICBM's - They don't reach termal volicity from that low of an Orbit. They may be going at 10,000 to 15,000 feet per second.. in a sub-orbital path...

If you were talking about SCUD - dam you just proved your lack of any knowledge on any subject... Ouch .. you just shot yourself in the foot - then put it in your mouth - The old Hoof-in-mouth ...

by mrbill-

That post was from me not Oz, his intelligence is not in question, at least not from that post. Please apologize to him as soon as possible, or you may end up with foot-in-mouth disease. My knowledge of nukes is somewhat limited. More of a conventional weapons kind of guy.

by jimhm

Sorry bro - missed it was "Oh No - MrBill" ..

My appologies - for the miss reference

by oz_media

"But I was only trying to point out that there are no real systems that prevent something from hitting the ground even if they actually make contact with their intended target. At the moment the Patroit is "Top Dog" as an anti missle defence shield but I was never under the impression that it actually worked and at best only stoped in this case a Scud from reaching its intended target {hopefully}"
-This is true and completely acceptable, we just don't have the ability yet. When the TelAviv military was told to NOT invade by America and that they had designed a Patriot that was COMLPETELY effective at intercepting a SCUD (which was untrue and known by military officials), people in Isreal were killed. BS about success for the purpose of looking good is simply unacceptable by ANY government, yet alone one who reassures a country that their people won't die, only to have them killed in war. American officials STILL denied the Patriot was not effective until they were brought in front of a court. Even then they stuck to their "effective" guns until proof was shown and then nervously backpeddled to explain that the English definition of Intercept as it is known worldwide was incorrect and that they had a different meaning of the word. I say Bullsht! America should be held responsible for the deaths of those Isreali soldiers, like that would ever happen, claim responsibility for not being perfect?

by mrbill-

Did you ever stop to think that there might have been a political reason to tell them not to get involved with the Iraqi war? If the US had not made an effort to defend Israel, unfortunately not as successfully as hoped, they would have attacked Iraq causing the coalition to collapse. The Arab nations would have turned on Israel and WWIII would be in the history books. Unfortunately no one would be around to read it. It is a shame civilians had to die. Do not blame the US for their deaths; the SCUDs did not carry US markings.

p.s. Did I not see those same comments in another post by you, talk about lack of original thought.

by oz_media

As far as my repeating myself, I think that these discussions CONSTANTLY repeatedly chime about the same thing. America is saving the world and we should ALL like it or else.

TelAviv was in a perfect position to launch an attack on Iraq with US forces already agreeing to back them as were many others. They were told that Patriots would be more effective and had been tested successfully as a missile to missile defense system. End of story.
They were LIED to by your government and people died. Now, I don't know which part of that you are trying to sidestep, but somebody has to assume responsibility when people die. Was this Israel's fault for believing the US? Was it the TelAviv military superiors who thought the SCUDS were no match for the Patriot? No it was the USA. Now you were wrong, but unlike any other country in the world you just can't seem to admit fault. This is why people don't believe in the US. Forever full of crap and always slinging it elsewhere to retain your arrongance as "The World's Protector".

The American forces are a fantastic strength just in number. The brave soldiers stand up and fight for their country, the people back the soldiers with full support. This is not wrong, this is not madness it is true patriotism.

Because you all back your government with any decision they make, if your government could retain some credibility, perhapse you could all gain some respect from others too.

by hal 9000

Of the Patroit wasn't it better to keep Israil out of the First Gulf War?
Their involment would only have galavnisied most of the Islamic World into combining to confront the "Invaders" who where then percieved as supporting Israil. And would have played right into Sad Man Who Sucks hands and possibly made that fool the Leader of the Untied Islamic World. I don't know about you but I'd prefer to have kept the whole thing small like it was instead of esclating it to the point of another World War. So what harm did a few lies do there if they saved far many more and stopped an all out World War from starting?
Oh by the way it may make some interesting viewing if you take the time to watch some of the US made films on the development of Weapons from the Stated Hollywood viewpoint we develop the weapons and then rely on field testing in combat situations to improve/perfect the design as yet there hasn't been enough FIELD TESTING to perfect this design but an all out War that takes years to finish and kill millions of troops would present the perfect oportinuty to perfect these weapons. Personally I'd prefer them not to work instead.

by mrbill-

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way. And it was not the US that fired the SCUDs at Israel.

by oz_media

I actually never wanted anyone's history research as a result of this.
I heard one thing and doubted it. I then posted what I'd heard and asked for people's PERSONAL opinions on what they felt. NOT a political stand off of what is fact and what is fiction.
I think I've only seen one perhapse two posts that addressed the questions properly.

Those people said what THEY thought about the government's BS and how THEY felt about the public being mislead. End of story, full stop.

Instead, I got a series of defensive rants and pot shots with links to facts and fiction found on the web. I have a browser, I wanted to find out how PEOPLE felt. Understanding that many IT staff have completely lost all sense of self and simply rely on links to command their day to day life, this seemed to make this a much harder task than writing the ever so popular MCSE exams.

So out of all the response so far, I think there have been two that actually read, understood and replied to my questions. Great job guys, way to see the forest through the trees.

by mrbill-

You must be the country's favorite American, first of all, your post doesn't make much sense.

* And yours are crystal clear eh?

"We have never won a war huh. First we stomped British butt, including defeating their navy, at the time the ruler of the high seas. Then we stomped British butt again (of course if the short French maniac was not running around Europe causing trouble it might have been more of a fight), guess what, we defeated their navy again."
- I assume this was before the British stomped in and burned down the whitehouse?

* Yes the mighty British Army marched into Washington and burned down the presidential house, it was not painted white until after the burning, thus ending the war and re-acquiring the colonies for England. Jackson never defeated Packenham at New Orleans. We never did defeat the glorious royal navy; it is still the ruler of the high seas to this day! There, does that suit your revisionist history better?

-The war had been in progress for almost 10 years before you got involved. England was NOT under immediate threat of invasion because Hitler was unable to beat out the RAF with his Luftwaffe. Damn you guys must get taught some really screwed up and one sided history in school.

* Lets see 1939 + 10 = 1941, yes we might have been taught some screwed up history, but you were taught some screwed up math. Hitler never had the intention of invading England until he saw how fast he conquered Western Europe. Yes Hitler was unable to defeat the RAF. Luckily for all concerned he kept changing his tactics, he had the RAF against the ropes on more than one occasion and then changed targets. England was a secondary objective for him. He would have been able to defeat them but the cost would have prevented him from pursuing his main objective, Russia. Though I will say this, if had tried to invade England it would have been the British people not the Army that would have turned the tide. The BEF was stung pretty badly in France; they did not have a serious threat to the Panzers.

I will pit my history education against yours anytime, maybe my math too.

" The only time we were attacked on our soil was by cowards. "
-what so that doesn't count right? You can attack another country but not kill a coward? YOU see them as cowards, they are seen as heroes in Afghanistan.

* Hitler was seen as a hero to the downtrodden Germans. Stalin was seen as a hero to the USSR. In Palestine are many would be heroes running around with bombs strapped to their backs. In Belfast they talk of many Irish heroes in British prisons. Are you saying they are all heroes?

"In Iraq 1, we defeated the third largest land army in less than a week."
-Third largest starving and hopeless army. These guys were trying to surrender BEFORE war was declared. American soldiers had to tell them to wait in their bunkers until the war was official. You never achieved the objective of capturing your MOST WANTED MAN, I can almost hear the whistle of the Good Bad and the Ugly here

* They were trying to surrender before the land assault due to the massive air campaign. In the first Iraqi war the objective WAS reached, getting Iraq out of Kuwait. That was all that we were allowed to do. As regards to the most wanted, all in due time.

?You are a running joke worldwide?

* At least we have the conviction to do something about the worlds Tyrants. Do you think Charles Taylor would have left if the US marines were not off shore? In a Reuters quote from the rebel leader Sekou Fofana as saying: "If they (US Marines) land, they can take over security." It sounds like laughter to me, how about you.

by oz_media

"Lets see 1939 + 10 = 1941, yes we might have been taught some screwed up history" 1939!! My mom was born in '39 she saw the END of the war.
http://tinyurl.com/jte4

"Hitler was seen as a hero to the downtrodden Germans. Stalin was seen as a hero to the USSR. In Palestine are many would be heroes running around with bombs strapped to their backs. In Belfast they talk of many Irish heroes in British prisons. Are you saying they are all heroes?"
You said it yourself, Stalin was a HERO to the USSR. Kinda like Bush is a hero to the US. You just have to see a different perspective once in a while othe than the American Ideal Perspective.

"As regards to the most wanted, all in due time."
So all the posts and reports of the USA going after BinLaden were just mistakes and diversions from the truth?

"At least we have the conviction to do something about the worlds Tyrants."
Thank you, oh blessed "self appointed" world police. You don't have much of an ego I see. I don't know why people see you as arrogant? Perhapse one of the personal pyschologists here can help.

Anyhow, no matter what, you will always be right, there are more American's here with thoughts of victory being the ultimate goal than there are people with a brain. America is the beautiful, America has never been wrong and never killed sombody at war without reason. God if we could all just be American's.

by mrbill-

Lets see 1939 + 10 = 1941, yes we might have been taught some screwed up history" 1939!! My mom was born in '39 she saw the END of the war.
http://tinyurl.com/jte4

***My mother was born in 1917, she remembers the start and end. 1939-1945. Your original comment was ?The war had been in progress for almost 10 years before you got involved? if so then it was over for 4 years before we did anything. But then again I guess there is an argument for the war really starting in 1936 when Japan started invading China, and Europe doing nothing to stop them. The US imposed sanctions against them which eventually led to their declaration of war against us in such a civilized way.

"Hitler was seen as a hero to the downtrodden Germans. Stalin was seen as a hero to the USSR. In Palestine are many would be heroes running around with bombs strapped to their backs. In Belfast they talk of many Irish heroes in British prisons. Are you saying they are all heroes?"
You said it yourself, Stalin was a HERO to the USSR. Kinda like Bush is a hero to the US. You just have to see a different perspective once in a while othe than the American Ideal Perspective.

*** The Russian people saw Stalin as a tyrant! He ruled by fear. He killed 100,000s of Soviet citizens and created the Siberian death camps. He purged the Soviet Army in the late 1930s of most of its great generals for political reasons, luckily Zuhkov(SP?) was in the east watching the Japanese so was overlooked. Bush is not a hero, he just our leader, and history will look back on him and frown.

"As regards to the most wanted, all in due time."
So all the posts and reports of the USA going after BinLaden were just mistakes and diversions from the truth?

*** Have you never heard the phrase ?all in due time?? It means we will get him when we get him. He will make a mistake, if he is truly is still alive.

"At least we have the conviction to do something about the worlds Tyrants."
Thank you, oh blessed "self appointed" world police. You don't have much of an ego I see. I don't know why people see you as arrogant? Perhapse one of the personal pyschologists here can help.

*** It?s a dirty thankless job but somebody?s got to do it. Maybe you should talk to a Shrink, they might be able to help you get over all your negativity about the world.

Anyhow, no matter what, you will always be right, there are more American's here with thoughts of victory being the ultimate goal than there are people with a brain. America is the beautiful, America has never been wrong and never killed sombody at war without reason. God if we could all just be American's.

*** I never said America is always right, or victory is the ultimate goal. But if you have to fight, fight to win. Nice crack about ?never killed sombody at war without reason?. Yes friendly fire does happen; we are not the only ones who do it. It is something the Anti-Americans love to throw in our face.

BTW we do not want every one like you to be American, we do have our standards.

by jimhm

Now look who's calling the kettle black - Ozzie man you yell at me for doing exactly what you ust did..

Hum - shows that I was correct a long number of posts ago ... you have no agenda - you have no principles on which your beliefs are founded ... no matter what someone posts - you are negative on it..

But - I just can help - trying to fire you up..

by oz_media

Many people think they know me based on the drivel that is posted here. It has been a really long time since anything of relevance has been added to these discussions. It seems to always rutn into an American pissing contest. American's post all over about how victorious the Armed forces are or how your'e literally wiping out a chosen country. As soon as someone posts any thoughts to the contrary or states that tey don't like the way the American government is handling affairs, the war begins.
American's start slamming everyone who disagrees, they then belittle the poster's country, scream loudly that they are saving the world from certain doom and that we should all be thankful.

Well, I for one am not thankful. I also think that a few mroe opinions from around the world would help you all see how unappreciative people are (although that wouldn't help because you would deem them jealous of America).

Just because not everyone loves America doesn't mean that they are insane Nazi lovers.

As for what people think of me, they think exactly what I want them to, when I want them to. The Internet is a game. Nobody has or shows their "true colors" here, as many seem to feel they have unraveled a mystery by deciphering the psychological balance of posts here. Don't flatter yourselves, you know nothing other than what you are told.

My friends all say I'm the most laid back and easy going person they've met, however here I'm seen to be high strung and edgy. I'm also known as a kind person who would do anything to help his fellow man without question, here I'm considered selfish and self centered. My friends say I'm one of the nicest and most astute guys they know, here I'm seen as mean, cold and in the words of the brilliant Maxwell "an idiot".

Thank you all for your assumtions, you will never be correct until you open your eyes see, while using your ears to listen, but then again you will probably construe anything as a Socialist, Republican, Democratic or Liberal comment and close your eyes once again.

"See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" NOT
See ALL as evil, Hear ALL as evil, hear ALL as evil.

by lordinfidel

Not for nothing, but this bickering amongst you is bad form.

Now don't get me wrong, i've done my share of being an asshole to people who act like idiots on this site. So don't think I don't know I am being somewhat hypocritical and soapboxish.

The main difference is, you guy's (and girls) are all vocal members of TR. People like us are supposed to help the little guy with IT related crap. Not show them how we can quabble with each other, slandering and calling each other names.

Like I posted on the "Bashing America"/whatever discussion. If you come to a stalemate, just say so. Don't resort to insults.

I guess what I am saying is. For the people like ourselves who have been here a while, we are coming off like baffoons to the rest of the world.
I'm saying this across the board.

Now if some jerk really deserves to be blasted then fine. But most of what I see here is just a difference of opinions escalating to name calling. Which is really un-productive.

So I want everyone to post underneath here and kiss and make up damn it. Then you can go back to pissing each other off.

just my ignorant american whitey babbling idiot obnoxius hypocritical opinion

by oz_media

You do have a good point, I was thinking last night at how ridiculous these threads get.

I posted information as it was given on TV in Canada. I then asked fro people to give me their personal opinions to see if the report was accurate in anyway. I even started by saying it was NOT an atack on America, I don't trust most news sources so I wanted tyo hear it from the horses mouth, many people here have military experiences.

It started OK but then I think people jumped into the middle of discussions without reading the intent of the POST. As usual, it turned into an American pissing contest. Now, I don't know if this validates my point that American's band together without questioning the motive or not, it got taken so far off track.

I've pulled the paper I posted and am waiting patiently for a more interesting discussion, this one is just a dead end waste of time now.

You babbling, obnoxious, hypocrite!

by maxwell edison

...try to stir things up. They know what buttons to push, and that's their only purpose on these threads.

OzMedia is about the only one who fits the above description who has taken it too far. He's a boorish clown who deserves........well, I'll refrain from giving my opinion on what he deserves. He's like a little child who intentionally taunts and teases others just to get a reaction out of them. He's a transparent liar, obviously ill-informed, has terrible grammar skills, and has way too much time on his (employer's) hands.

Personally, I've replied to - and read - the last of his messages. I'll no longer even read one of them, much less reply to one. If there was an ignore feature, his is the one I'd set to ignore. Anyone who can't see him for what he is, isn't looking very hard.

RiverRock and OzMedia - one in the same perhaps? If not one in the same person, at least one in the same psychological problems - A little kid screaming for attention? He'll no longer get any from me.

Bye Bye, Harold.

P.S. Lordinfidel, as I said on the other thread, well said, very timely, and most appropriate. Thanks for chiming in.

by mrbill-

****WARNING THIS POST CONTAINS SARCASM*****
OK here goes.
(**SARCASM ALERT**)
It was all my fault. First I talked Saddam into invading Kuwait. then I talked the Pentagon into convincing Israel that the Patriots would work. I personally delivered them to TelAviv. I then snuck into Iraq and launched them at Israel. I am also the Boston strangle. OK? there someone has admitted responsibility. Happy?

Now for the reason. If Israel had attacked Iraq then the Middle East would be a smoldering pile of glass!
(**END OF SARCASM ALERT) you may continue your regulary scheduled flame wars.

by hal 9000

Despite the intended sarcasm.

But shouldn't you olso have addmitted to being "Jack the Ripper" as well? At least that way you would have given it an International Flavour instead of just bashing the poor US for it's percieved and real faults.

Sorry but I just couldn't resist that one.

by mrbill-

I was Jack the Ripper, plus the Hillside strangler and Son of Sam. I taught my good buddy Charlie everything he knows.

by oz_media

" But then again I guess there is an argument for the war really starting in 1936 when Japan started invading China, and Europe doing nothing to stop them. The US imposed sanctions against them which eventually led to their declaration of war against us in such a civilized way."

You just finished saying, that Europe did nothing to INTERFERE with the war betwen Japan and China.
The US played policeman and imposed sanctions against them, they then bombed Pearl Harbour and you joined the war. Of course this is phrased as 'imposed sanctions' not "stuck their nose in and got attacked for it." So, if it were not for the USA sticking their arrogant noses up another country's ass and telling them how to run their country, you wouldn't have been bombed and therefore NEVER joined in WWII. Guess we're supposed to be thankful for your'support'too?
OK, whatever turns your crank, man. Thankfully not everyone thinks the way you do and we can enjoy our freedom and peace because of it.

by mrbill-

No, what I said was Europe did nothing to help the Chinese during the early stages of that war. Some war, reminiscent of Italy and the Ethiopians. What did Europe do during that massacre? If the US is forced into the role of world policeman we better do a better job then the previous ones.

Ok maybe we should have stood by and watched more ?Rapes of Nanking(SP?)?. It did not bother the rest of the world why should it bother us. The sanctions were to reduce the sale of scrape metals and other strategic resources, more than enough reason for them to attack. (SARCASM ALERT)

I guess appeasement is what works huh. Chamberlain ended Hitler?s plans with that document, yep he sure did. Live and let live only works when both sides believe that way.

It is interesting that when Japan invaded China Europe did almost NOTHING, but when Hitler invaded Poland everyone declared war. I guess NIMBY is the way to go. And yes Japan, Germany and Italy all declared war on the US first; we are the war mongering people who never do anything or contribute anything after all. BTW if not for Russia we would all be speaking German, or at least sending the Nazis ?tribute?.

It is because of people who think and act on their beliefs that we all can enjoy freedom and peace.

by oz_media

And you have a much smaller mind. Far to small to conduct an intelligent conversation.

Unless america is deemed the world leader and all powerful force, despite their idiotic combat reputation, you will not be happy. I guess that 's why everyone loves the US that has grown up there. It is an ideal country if you only see your side to everything.

Too tiny for me, bye.

by mrbill-

I guess it all depends on what your definition of is is.

I guess in the case of the first M-M ?intercept? an argument could be made that with improved warheads and triggering systems crossing trajectories could lead to a true M-M intercept/destruction. Not with the current systems though. That means we need to continue to find a way and not except the current temporary fix.

Whoever said ?at least it was tested in TelAviv instead of costing more lives down the road? was an insensitive twit.

by sandy rideout

He actually witnessed Patriots intercepting scuds successfully. My definition of success is that it didn't cause destruction to its intended target. Of course that could be coincidental if the missile was off target to begin with. And an interception could change the course of the missile to damage unintended targets...but in my view, any help is better than no help at all. He is home in one piece!

by mrbill-

I am happy for you and your son, tell him thank you. My nephew is headed there or afganistan. Maybe Liberia. Don't really want to see him or anyone over there, but that is life.

by sandy rideout

I am happy to have him home, but will continue to pray for the soldiers still over there, and in other dangerous places around the world.

by jimhm

Thank them for their Service to this Country (and to all those servicemen and women out there) - and for their dedication to duty, Jim U.S.N. Vietnam vet - (71-75)..

by oz_media

Glad to hear someone has made it home safely. I'm, not American but I salute anyone who fights for their country.

by oz_media

I SUPPOSE I can let you go on this one. I coulda come up with some really good piss-on -America stuff but seeing as your kind enough to post an apology, I'd be a real knob to slam you.

Just don't ever let it happen again, OK? ;-)

Thanks Jim.

This discussion is closed to new replies.