Northern Alliance To Take Kabul Tomorrow

[RedRed]

Not fair Mordred - you completely changed/edited your post!!!!


The USSR was on its knees long before the Pershing missile stuff...

Your twaddle about the chemical lasers stuff.... I read that It might work, if the missiles are not rotating or sivlered and as you point out, it is a theatre tool, not one for some form of missile defense. (it only work for a couple of hundred km, as I understand it, grand for the battlefield, assuming air superiority.....)




RedRed

[Rags]

Rags:
My comments stem from the fact that most US citizens seem to assume that whatever they or their government decide is right, goes, irrespecive of what the rest of the world thinks.

Fact according to you, according to what you have heard, or have you actually done any research to come up with such a fact. Americans are most vocal about their government because they are free to do so. Our press is USUALLY pretty damned scrutinizing of our officials. I don't know where you get your "facts" from. It seems you just like to use the word to bolster any comment you feel fit. Like I said before, you are pretty ignorant and isolated from the way things really are in the real world. After you finish your potatoes you might actually want to spend some time discussing things with other people of the world before you spew out "facts".

Admittedly it would be impossible for Pakistan to launch a missile strike against the US - I never suggested something so stupid.

Sure you did. You said our coast would be wasted at the very least.

2 pounds of weapons grade plutonium or 6 pounds of weapons grade Uranium and a large conventional bomb would be sufficient. This could be used to make several 'dirty bombs' which would leave any city unuseable for years. Any country with even '70's nuclear technology' could do that. the same could apply for Biohazard or chemical.

I am referring to their delivery methods, not their substance. We have no fear from the 'mighty pakistanis'.

If Pakistan or syria North Korea or any other near-nuclear country seriously believed that the US would try to 'make a walmart car lot' out of them, they would disperse this tech.

See, it would never go this far. Because they know that even if we attack them, they could never even try to use weapons because, like I said before but you chose to ignore the context, we would flatten their countries and have them paved over for whatever before they knew it. No one wants this to happen.

an [sic]another point, the US would have to 'dream on' as far as support from ANYONE else in the UN for such an action. This is a former British Colony. Britian even has something like 130 000 first and second generation packistani people living within its shores.

You don't think that if we got pakistan tossing nukes into the atlantic, that we wouldn't have UN authority to level them? Come on, you really aren't that stupid.

I am sorry Rags, but I pray that your perception of how far other countries will support the US in this is WAY out. The world WILL support the US against pariah states, but it would be stupid to think that they support 'normalised' ones.

You can't even read and comprehend, so how on Earth do you think you have an idea of what my perception is?

Like I said before, go back and eat your "patatoes", maybe learn how to read and comprehend what you read and maybe we could have an intelligent discussion. Otherwise it's pointless.

Rags

[RedRed]

Rags

Fact according to you,

Thats small of you. in my later reply to Mordrid, took that statement back. (i dont believe in doing content-edits after a post)

Sure you did. You said our coast would be wasted at the very least.

no, I did not. the reason for saying the word 'coast' was because the major centres of population are around the coast of the US. there would be little point detonating such a device in woming!

they could never even try to use weapons because <snip>

Why not? it took a several weeks to get the US task force over to attack Afghanistan. That amount of plutonium would fit into a lunchbox! it could be brought into say mexico or canada to agents and delivered through bloody fedex! The explosive would be harder to move, but i imagine if this sinario was enacted, they could get it.

See, it would never go this far. Because they know that even if we attack them, they could never even try to use weapons because, like I said before but you chose to ignore the context, we would flatten their countries and have them paved over for whatever before they knew it.

Ehhh.... dream on! What I am talking about is the US atacking Pakistan (or any such country). America would go through the norms and convensions of a 'normal' war. America is not going to 'Nuke first' and I never suggested that. However, if that enemy know that they are getting knocked to the stone age and they have nothing to loose, its an insurance policy.
'They' could deploy the weapons and either inform the UN that they had, and were willing to discharge them, or they could discharge them first. I believe that this form of blackmail would be reason enough for the US (or anyone else) not to attack a developed nuclear power. Nukes could be used tactically by Pakistan (very unlikely) to attempt to destroy the US naval forces which would be required to prove air support. No air support, no b52's.

You don't think that if we got pakistan tossing nukes into the atlantic, that we wouldn't have UN authority to level them?

Oh for gods sake take it in context Rags! You really are blowing it out your ass! As I have said above, it would not happen that way round. You originally posted:

When the UN and NATO set aside articles for us to commence action, it became very clear we aren't ****ing around anymore, and Pakistan knows what will happen if they decide to support the Taliban.

My comments were to the effect that Pakistan withdrew its support because it could get its sanctions lifted, not because it thaught that the US would attack. The rest of this was about why they wouldnt feel threatened by the US attacking, nothing to do with them launching an attack! like, D'oh!

You can't even read and comprehend, so how on Earth do you think you have an idea of what my perception is?

I think you have made your perceptions clear, Rags! Even I have adequate comprehendsion. Keep your personal critisms up your rectum where they belong.

It would never happen as:
at least 4 from :Colombia Ireland Mauritius Norway and Singapore
(the current security council members) as well as the unanimus consent of Five perminent members need to agree to lift the Articles.
(its called "great Power unanimity")
The US would not get the Articles lifted on ANY country, only the worst 'pariahs'.

RedRed

[Dr Mordrid]

RedRed;

you must have caught me mid-edit. I often post then when I see something that needs rewording I'll edit.

That said the Pershing-II missile deployments were on Nov. 23, 1983 in response to the Soviets Premiere Andropov deploying the SS-20 theater nukes in eastern Europe. I didn't see many Europeans marching in the streets over that, even though they were aimed at them. Wonder what that says....

Regan had made the policy decision that no Soviet move would go un-answered and one-upped. In this manner he made our economic strength a weapon in the cold war. It worked in that the Soviets had to sue for peace when their economy could not sustain the effort to keep up with the U.S. militarily.

In short Regan wanted to end the cold war by kicking the feet out from under a hobbled bear. The fall of the Soviet Union finally came in '89 when Bush 41 was president.

IF the European public opinion had its way the Soviet Union would not have been met move-for-move and might still be around, hobbled but very dangerous and funded part by American inaction and part by European complacency.

I go back to "duck & cover" in the '50's and the Cuban missile crisis, which happened when I was 13. That gives one a very long perspective on how things came about and the sequence of events that lead to those results....

Dr. Mordrid

[Rags]

RedRed,

You are far more ignorant than I first realized.

Thats small of you. in my later reply to Mordrid, took that statement back. (i dont believe in doing content-edits after a post)

I responded to what you wrote in your post. I still disagree with your way of "taking back" your statement. The US citizens are the most critical of their government actions whenever there is a huge crisis. When we are attacked, we just feel like we should do WHATEVER it takes to protect ourselves. We have the resources to do it and we have the desire to do it.

no, I did not. the reason for saying the word 'coast' was because the major centres of population are around the coast of the US. there would be little point detonating such a device in woming!

Why not? The largest MX missile stock is located in Cheyenne Wyoming. We have enough nukes here to flatten Asia and Europe three times over. Why wouldn't they attack us in that form if they were doing it in a retaliation to military aggression against their country? It's HIGHLY unlikely that Pakistan would resort to nukes if they were ever attacked. North Korea is on our list of countries that are going to be targeted for military action. North Korea has responded with a list of rules they are attempting to comply with at the time to avoid military action. Why do you think that is? I know, it's because they don't want to get in the line of fire, they are very aware of what will happen.

Why not? it took a several weeks to get the US task force over to attack Afghanistan.

No. It took the US several weeks to allow compliance with the demands. They chose to ignore those demands. We already had enough Naval force in the Gulf to launch an attack, in fact if we ever need to, we can launch an attack right from the base in Kansas to ANYWHERE in the world and deliver ANY payload we wish. You seriously underestimate our military capabilities and response time.

That amount of plutonium would fit into a lunchbox! it could be brought into say mexico or canada to agents and delivered through bloody fedex! The explosive would be harder to move, but i imagine if this sinario was enacted, they could get it.

Again, it's very unlikely Pakistan would do this, maybe a terrorist group would, but you are way off base IMO.

Ehhh.... dream on! What I am talking about is the US atacking Pakistan (or any such country).

Of course we would. That's what I said first. But you responded with we would never do it because they have nukes. Believe me, their having nukes wouldn't stop us. We aren't going to stand by and be attacked and not respond because those responsible have nukes.

America would go through the norms and convensions of a 'normal' war.

Pete and Repeat were sitting on a fence, Pete falls off, who is left?

America is not going to 'Nuke first' and I never suggested that.

Bone up on your English skills and reading comprehension. I never alluded we would and never suggested you had said this.

However, if that enemy know that they are getting knocked to the stone age and they have nothing to loose, its an insurance policy.

Nukes aren't an insurance policy. They are a mutual destruction tool. It only protects yourself from nuclear attack, and if you believe they would use them any other way, then you seriously underestimate their intelligence. You think they are that stupid? Or are you that stupid?

'They' could deploy the weapons and either inform the UN that they had, and were willing to discharge them,

Yeah. Then NATO would pave their country. That's the way it works.

or they could discharge them first.

That is laughable.

I believe that this form of blackmail would be reason enough for the US (or anyone else) not to attack a developed nuclear power.

Ask North Korea about their thoughts on this. They would disagree with you, as does our government. We aren't going to let Nukes get in the way like I have said so many times before. Even China is backing us in this regard.

Nukes could be used tactically by Pakistan (very unlikely) to attempt to destroy the US naval forces which would be required to prove air support. No air support, no b52's.

BBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are one seriously disallusioned individual.

Oh for gods sake take it in context Rags! You really are blowing it out your ass! As I have said above, it would not happen that way round.

Ummm....you specifically said "If Pakistan or syria North Korea or any other near-nuclear country seriously believed that the US would try to 'make a walmart car lot' out of them, they would disperse this tech.

an another point, the US would have to 'dream on' as far as support from ANYONE else in the UN for such an action. This is a former British Colony. Britian even has something like 130 000 first and second generation packistani people living within its shores. "
Now who's blowing what out whose ass? Pakistan, Syria, North Korea, et'al all KNOW we would use nukes if we were attacked with a nuclear weapon. UN would back us, NATO would back us. It would suck, but we would be in our own rights to protect ourselves, you mental midget.

You originally posted: ''''When the UN and NATO set aside articles for us to commence action, it became very clear we aren't ****ing around anymore, and Pakistan knows what will happen if they decide to support the Taliban.''''

My comments were to the effect that Pakistan withdrew its support because it could get its sanctions lifted, not because it thaught that the US would attack. The rest of this was about why they wouldnt feel threatened by the US attacking, nothing to do with them launching an attack! like, D'oh!

I still think you are wrong. While the sanctions are a reason; They are going with us because they know we could and would attack if they tried to be like the Taliban. I also believe that we would attack regardless of their nuclear capabilities. You are too small to see the forest for the trees.

I think you have made your perceptions clear, Rags! Even I have adequate comprehendsion. Keep your personal critisms up your rectum where they belong.

You go back to school and learn how to read and comprehend, and we can have a real discussion, rather than having to hear what games you like to play with your boyfriends. Personally I don't want to hear what you do for recreation.


Let's summarize what I have said, so maybe after you are done with your anal games you can actually sit down (on something soft...ouch!!) and read and maybe understand.:
1. We are justified in protecting ourselves from attack.
2. We are backed by the majority of the nations, and by the UN in our actions thus far.
3. We would be justified to move on even without UN backing.
4. Pakistan wouldn't stand in our way.
5. You are mentally unprepared for any debate.
6. Your English comprehension is sub-par.
7. No nation is going to nuke anyone,
8. We aren't feeling any nuclear threat because of our actions.
9. Any nation who stands in our way of protecting ourselves will be mowed down like weeds.
10. US citizens aren't sheep who follow whatever their government does (for the most part)
11. You have an unhealthy affection for Anal games.



Rags

[Dr Mordrid]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nukes could be used tactically by Pakistan (very unlikely) to attempt to destroy the US naval forces which would be required to prove air support. No air support, no b52's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this guy for REAL??

First of all Pakistan has no delivery system that could come within 1000 miles of our carrier groups before getting fried. Currently we now have 3-4 carrier groups in the area plus one on the way to provide releif. Attack one and the others will be all over you like paint on a wall.

Additionally our naval forces have nothing to do with our B52's or our ability to provide air support for them. We can launch B2 Stealth bombers from the central US and have 'em there in 16 hours or less. In addition we can launch bombers and air support from;

Japan
Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean)
Uzbekistan and other former USSR states

Also; a carrier group consists of much more than a flattop and a few air defense cruisers & destroyers. They also have at least 2 nuclear subs armed with cruise missiles, nuclear and conventional, and some also have ICBM's that can be re-targeted in about 5 minutes.

Each ICBM carries 10 independently targetable 150 kiloton (7x Hiroshima) warheads. One of these subs can deliver more firepower than all sides used in WW-II many times over.

And for good measure: the put in place during the Gulf war that warns that if we are attacked with weapons of mass destruction we reserve the option to respond with nukes.

Would we? Not under William Jefferson Clinton, but with GWB I'd be ducking for cover.....

Uppance: attacking one of our carrier groups is tantamount to national suicide.

Dr. Mordrid

[mdhome]

Rags/Dr Mordred/Gurm

You sometimes seem unwilling to accept some of the reasons why people will sit here and debate with you over American actions. Generally the US is benevolent but you have to realise that for whatever reasons much of the world just doesnt like your behaviour. Not only that but many of your country's actions which your proclaim as being altruistic are really self serving. Not that I should be complaining too much because my country lost the role of being the worlds policemen a century ago and we had a worst record for benevolence than you. If you dont believe me then aspects of your attitude to RedRed displays this. I havent perceived him to be offensive yet after the answering his replies you then verbally attack him. Why? This isnt the f***ing gutter press yet you still talk in a Gung-ho style and use jingoism to bully people. Not only that but you have refused to answer my question. Why did your people pay for the weapons that led to the deaths of thousands of innocents from his country. As I see it he has the right to be pissed with you and not the other way round.


regards MD

[The PIT]

While this debate goes on it seems Britain have upset the NA by flying a load of troops in without asking first. The NA seem quite peeved at this so we maybe asked to leave. Perhaps Mr Blair will be a bit more cautious next time.

[Dr Mordrid]

1. He's being attacked because his logic is less than logical, his historical perspecive is in gross error and he's being arrogant himself with his mis-statements. 'nuff for me.

2. "Whatever the reason" is exactly it. Some take that to mean they can kill our citizens and try to screw us over at will without consequence. WRONG!!

3. I take it by "his country" you mean that the US was somehow responsible for the weapons used in N. Ireland? Perhaps in a small way, but only because people from THERE came HERE and solicited "charitable donations for the children of N. Ireland" that were then illegally converted into arms. Both sides did it. I know because I have relatives on both sides that saw it happen.

4. Lets also not forget that until the Soviet Union broke up a large portion of the IRA's arms and explosives came from eastern Europe and NOT the US. This was part of their "wars of national liberation" campaign that blew up countries from Korea to Nicaragua.

Is he equally PO'ed at those eastern European countries? I think not. I'ts too PC to be mad at America and not PC at all to look at those who provide much, much more firepower to the "troubles".

Dr. Mordrid

[omegaRED]

That may be Mordrid, but most of those eastern european countries are no more (or at least they changed the regime), and nobody is defending all their actions back then. I criticize US actions when i feel they are wrong, and in my opinion, not everything the US does is right nor is everything wrong.

Q: Why does the US call the Chechens rebels, when they are clearly using terrorist methods?

[RedRed]

1. We are justified in protecting ourselves from attack.

Yup. No Question, and I never said otherwise. you have read between the lines to think it.

2. We are backed by the majority of the nations, and by the UN in our actions thus far.

Yup but you would not get that for states who are not designated paraih by the rest of the world.

3. We would be justified to move on even without UN backing.

Here we differ. Withoout UN support, the action cannot be justified. Should the US decide a state is rough, but the rest of the world thiks otherwise, well the US cant just march in anyway.

4. Pakistan wouldn't stand in our way.

Yup it hasnt.... I never said it did. We started this discussion disagreeing over the point that Pakistan was afraid that the US might attack it. I dont believe that the US would. But I also do not believe that Pakistan 'feared' attack, mearly that it saw its chance for a load of aid and sanctions lifted. Period. The rest of this was just gloss.

5. You are mentally unprepared for any debate.
6. Your English comprehension is sub-par. .

Personal insults, not worth commenting on

7. No nation is going to nuke anyone,

I never thaught they would, because no nuclear country is threatening another! D'oh!

8. We aren't feeling any nuclear threat because of our actions.

Thats nice

9. Any nation who stands in our way of protecting ourselves will be mowed down like weeds.

Thats good! Should the al queda be found to have, in your opion, (but noone elses) to have a cell in Turkey or Russia, then you will mow them down too? (that is not serious)

10. US citizens aren't sheep who follow whatever their government does (for the most part)

Already commented on and apologised for that.

11. You have an unhealthy affection for Anal games.

see 5 & 6

Mordrid
Your uinderstanding of the Northern Ireland conflict is wrong.

but only because people from THERE came HERE and solicited "charitable donations for the children of N. Ireland" that were then illegally converted into arms.

Noaid made it Completely CLEAR what its fund raising was about. There could be no mistaking it. The Regan and Bush administration turned a blind eye.

I did not raise the arms issue, I believe that MD Home did, however:
Apart from M60 M16 Claymores and Baratt rifles, you are correct. The IRA has traditionally preferred the Eastern Bloc countries as a source of arms. They tended to purchase these through Lybia, however. I am not commenting on the difficulties with the east because this was not the flavour of the thread. Should you wish to discuss that, perhaps you could start one off.

And yes I would be, if those countries still existed. Every country does things for its own benefit, it annoys me if those actions cause huge problems for third parties.

RedRed

If this is going to continue to get personal, then Im off!

[The PIT]

What the west should learn from all this is that it's not a good idea to support dodgy regimes. Supporting them when it politically suits the present government has been proven to be short sighted and costly in lifes. We're stuck with the NA and will have to tread carefully to prevent the formation of another hostile Government.
In this country we've got tighten up on sheltering terrorists and forget the stupid rule that if theres a death penatly we can't deport the murdering swine.
In the long term the only way to reduce Terrorism is international cooperation however you will always get countries that won't play the ball and as sanctions have proven ineffective against such regimes there will only be one course of action available.
Terrorism is going to be the blight of this century I feel.

[RedRed]

pit
You have a scored there on all points, my friend!


On another note.... Sunday morning on BBC News 24 :

In Afghanistan we have the NA foriegn minister saying that western troops are welcome. On the other we have had a NA commander claiming to have given his soldiers orders to attack the 85 UK marines at Baghram, 'if they so much as point a gun at an Afghan citizen'

[Rags]

Originally posted by mdhome
Rags/Dr Mordred/Gurm

You sometimes seem unwilling to accept some of the reasons why people will sit here and debate with you over American actions. Generally the US is benevolent but you have to realise that for whatever reasons much of the world just doesnt like your behaviour. Not only that but many of your country's actions which your proclaim as being altruistic are really self serving. Not that I should be complaining too much because my country lost the role of being the worlds policemen a century ago and we had a worst record for benevolence than you. If you dont believe me then aspects of your attitude to RedRed displays this. I havent perceived him to be offensive yet after the answering his replies you then verbally attack him. Why? This isnt the f***ing gutter press yet you still talk in a Gung-ho style and use jingoism to bully people. Not only that but you have refused to answer my question. Why did your people pay for the weapons that led to the deaths of thousands of innocents from his country. As I see it he has the right to be pissed with you and not the other way round.


regards MD

I have no problems with people who dislike the US, but they better bring facts to the table rather than misconceptions.

Personal attacks? I simply responded to his vulgar remarks about backsides and in jest I might add. As to his knowledge, if he waves his flag of knowledge of everything west and continues to wave it when he's at least partially misinformed, what good does it do?

In cases like this, I want the US to be totally self serving. Either we die or those who want us dead die. I think we deserve to be self serving.

Rags

[Dr Mordrid]

Contradictory, yes. Expected, yes.

Perhaps the Brits should have better coordinated with the local commander before riding in? 3 armies in one place is not a good mix....

As far as NOaid goes, that was hard for them to stop. An attempt to create a law to prevent such donations could well run afoul of our 1st amendment right to free speech. Our Supreme Court has equated donations and free speech in many decisions. This is why it's so hard for us to enact campaign finance reform, among other things.

Besides: if you add up the total $$ in weapons imported from e. Europe and Libya on the Soviet Unions ticket to NOaid contributions my guess is that the US donations to NOaid are still in 2nd place and not by a little.

Dr. Mordrid