US goes to war

[drslump]

@Gurm:
ONU means Organization of Nations United (well this is a plain word by word translation), so it's the UN.
It's like NATO, over here is called OTAN, it's not a big problem only that ''latin' languages have a different grammar.

--

As a matter of fact all governments think that their population is dumb. There is nothing wrong about this, it's just that they are politicians and that means that they are not very intelligent either.
An intellectual who cares too much about politics is call communist. That's the way it works, and people don't like governments with intelligent people.

The other day listening to the radio I heard that the US have a military budget bigger than the sum of the 25 more powerful nations ones.
Does anyone know if this is true?
Everybody does whatever he/she wants with the money, but if this is true I understand why so many governments want to be very friendly to the US

one more thing, that video about the shuttle that drizzt was referring to showed that a piece of metal hit the wing panels on launch. Nasa knew about this but the only solution was to try the normal landing.
Anyway that was a sad day for the whole human kind and I hope their deaths are not in vain and we can keep learning more about space.

[cjolley]

Originally posted by drslump

a, ...that video about the shuttle that drizzt was referring to showed that a piece of metal hit the wing panels on launch.

b, ...Nasa knew about this but the only solution was to try the normal landing...

a, Foam insulation, not metal. Big difference.
b, A secret like that would last about 10 seconds in this country.
chuck

[KRSESQ]

that video about the shuttle that drizzt was referring to showed that a piece of metal hit the wing panels on launch. Nasa knew about this but the only solution was to try the normal landing. [/B]

Just a quibble: it was foam insulation from the external fuel tank, a little over a square foot, not anything metal, that hit the wing. Still, chilled to supercold temps by the tank's contents, it hit the wing at 1500 mph, with the force of a brick.

However, chunks of foam from the main tank have hit the orbiter before without causing loss of the ship. That's the reason NASA engineers were convinced that it wouldn't cause a serious problem when it was investigated on day two of the flight.

Now back to your ongoing political debate.

Kevin

[KRSESQ]

Damn!

Kevin

[Gurm]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by drslump
@Gurm:
ONU means Organization of Nations United (well this is a plain word by word translation), so it's the UN.
It's like NATO, over here is called OTAN, it's not a big problem only that ''latin' languages have a different grammar.


I know. I was being a shit, because he's being such a bizarro freak on this topic. I want some of what he's been smoking today.

- Gurm

[Wulfman]

Phone conversations saying essentially "did you hide all the illegal material? yes? good!" date from last month.

from what I know us courts don't allow recordings like that as evidence.

*sigh* I'll explain this VERY VERY SLOWLY, so that you're sure to get it. We (the USA) do NOT decide who gets to have weapons. The UN decides. And the UN has decided that there is a VERY limited number of countries allowed to have Nuclear weapons, and NOBODY is allowed to have biological weapons. Iraq is NOT on the list of countries allowed to have nuclear weapons. We're enforcing that... because ironically, having made that decision, the UN doesn't want to enforce it.

you know what's really ironical? that the US boycotted the biological weapon-control-program initiated by the UN. iirc there was something like "controlling each other". no controls for the US?

mfg
wulfman

[Gurm]

Hey I didn't say it was conclusive evidence all by itself.

And the REALLY GOOD EVIDENCE is being withheld. Why? Two reasons.

1. The US has never formally admitted that its spy satellites are capable of seeing how big the booger you picked out of your nose is... from orbit.

2. We're still trying to find the security leak.

- Gurm

[GT98]

Originally posted by drslump
The other day listening to the radio I heard that the US have a military budget bigger than the sum of the 25 more powerful nations ones.
Does anyone know if this is true?
Everybody does whatever he/she wants with the money, but if this is true I understand why so many governments want to be very friendly to the US

The US has the biggest Defense budget for a couple reasons...we have the worlds largest GDP and the Defense Budget is a percentage of that and also we have some of the most expensive equipment you can buy in our inventory. You can probably go out and get 3 Chinese made Tanks for the cost of one of ours, but you can kill 10 of those Chinese tanks with that one

[Dr Mordrid]

Let's also not forget that in the US a large part of the Defense budget is for benefits offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, supporting the National Guard (which is most often used for civilian disasters/emergencies) and housing for families of the troops.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wulfman]

Originally posted by Gurm
Hey I didn't say it was conclusive evidence all by itself.

they why should I believe it?

And the REALLY GOOD EVIDENCE is being withheld.

oh, really? I thought the "real evidence" was shown by powell. at least that was promised for months/weeks.

mfg
wulfman

[Gurm]

No. Powell showed the stuff that could be declassified.

We have video of Iraqi troops cleaning out sites the day before a "surprise" inspection. Either they've been REALLY LUCKY in their guesses as to which site will be inspected next... or there's a leak.

But we can't show that video, for the reasons I detailed.

And when I said that each piece of evidence is not necessarily compelling... put TOGETHER they are.

One conversation about illegal materials is not a conspiracy to defraud the UN. A hundred conversations... probably is.

- Gurm

[GNEP]

How do you know about that video Gurm if it's so classified?

[Dr Mordrid]

It, and a lot of other evidence, has been talked about on the news proggies here and reporters say they've seen it in off-the-record briefings but the intelligence agencies are reticent to show them publically because the camera angle, timing, details etc. could well reveal sources & methods. This would make further monitoring difficult.

Example: you just know that some photos & videos are being shot by US Special Forces in-country...but you don't want to show the images because that would also reveal their monitoring positions etc.

Dr. Mordrid

[Gurm]

Thanks Doc.

- Gurm

[Wulfman]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
It, and a lot of other evidence, has been talked about on the news proggies here and reporters say they've seen it in off-the-record briefings but the intelligence agencies are reticent to show them publically because the camera angle, timing, details etc. could well reveal sources & methods. This would make further monitoring difficult.

Example: you just know that some photos & videos are being shot by US Special Forces in-country...but you don't want to show the images because that would also reveal their monitoring positions etc.

Dr. Mordrid

why do they show it to reporters but not to someone like, lets say, kofi anan or members of the security council?

mfg
wulfman

[edit] added persons