Band of brothers

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Aug. 30 2002,03:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW I think that some people here have issues about being so politically correct that its disgusting.<span id='postcolor'>

I was thinking the same thing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sort of like the doctored photo of the Brits in Africa capturing a Nazi tank that the MOHAA guys changed to Americans<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, I remember making an angry post here a while ago about that as soon as I saw that picture. That is one of the worst games I have ever spent money on.

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

The arch conservatie Canadian is back!  Wooo Good to see you Assault

billytran:

The Kyoto accords wouldnt have destroyed American industry.  And even stopping the advance of global warming would be a pretty damn good thing.  After all, a large portion of the American population lives on the eastern and western coasts...so stopping the halt of something that may cause the ocean to grow is a pretty wise idea.

As for the US running afoul of the UN, have you ever stopped to think that the world might be right and the US wrong? Ooooh. Of course not!  

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The arch conservative Canadian is back! Wooo Good to see you Assault <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, 'Arch Conservative'.

Thanks, it's good to be back at home. I get my own private shower, my own bed (no more cots), I don't have to follow a timetable and get up at 50am, and I get 6 days of payed leave time. Life couldn't be sweeter.

As for the Kyoto deal, don't the Americans already have their own environmental plans?

Tyler

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Aug. 30 2002,05:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the Kyoto deal, don't the Americans already have their own environmental plans?

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it's called 'Rape and Pillage and let our Grandchildren sort it out'

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 30 2002,05:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Aug. 30 2002,05:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the Kyoto deal, don't the Americans already have their own environmental plans?

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it's called 'Rape and Pillage and let our Grandchildren sort it out'

<span id='postcolor'>

your posting rights are removed!

ahhh crap..i'm not a mod....

billytran.

one degree change means a whole lot. i'm not really keen on this mechanics of 1degree change, but i can assure that sheer size of environment and one degree change of it equals drastic change. and why is UN criticizing US? let's say there are at least 250 million reasons.

i don't like some europeans getting satisfaction from last episode of BoB either.

back on topic:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, and about the U571 thing, at the end it said that american scientists were the ones who broke the enigma's code, well, actually it was Polish codebreakers working for the british who decoded it.<span id='postcolor'>

actually polish decoded older, cruder version of Enigma and let Brits have some of the technics. by the time US got hands on Enigma, Brits were running into walls.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 30 2002,05:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i don't like some europeans getting satisfaction from last episode of BoB either.<span id='postcolor'>

The funny part is that the same ones that get satisfaction from it would probably be the ones bitching and moaning if it wasnt in there. 'The US is trying to rewrite history wahhhh!'

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I really dont care too much about global warming, because if the ice caps do melt, Im looking forward to having some prime beachfront real estate

[Cloney 0]

*EDIT*

Nevermind... this was highly flammable.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 30 2002,01:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Russian were one of the allies. Besides what the russians did doesn't excuse any one else. If a British officer had a town of innocents shelled or raped I'd want him brought to  justice, why don't you think Americans should face the law they flount?<span id='postcolor'>

Come on, guys, we've been over this before. The rules after the war ends are made up by the side that won. That's why nobody on the Allied side was ever prosecuted for war-crimes, be they Russian, British or Americans. And as for shelling civilians, Paratrooper, does Dresden ring a bell?

[John C Flett 0]

Just checked the book to refresh my memory over the prison camp commander. According to the book ( which should be more accurate ) Moone, Liebgott and Sisk were the men sent by Spiers with Sisk doing the actual killing.

I can't say for myself I feel any sympathy if they got the right man. Too many Nazis were allowed to get away with their crimes. The simple problem is in a case like that how do you know your information is correct. Still since none of us have ever been in a situation like that ( I hope ) its kind of hard to judge.

Not sure quite where you get your rape comments from. Sure it happened and is a dreadful crime. And I would insist a war crime even if higher authorities don't recognise it as such. In the series though the only soldier who went chasing after a german woman took a slap in the face and read that as a no.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

One American soldier was executed by SHAEF during WW2. His crime was rape.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (John C Flett @ Aug. 30 2002,09:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Moone, Liebgott and Sisk were the men sent by Spiers with Sisk doing the actual killing.<span id='postcolor'>

I would have taken that order "in paper", if you know what I mean..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The simple problem is in a case like that how do you know your information is correct.

<span id='postcolor'>

It's easy to say "I'm just a soldier and I do what I'm told to", and most of

the Nazis caught after the war used that phrase in the Nurnberg trial.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Still since none of us have ever been in a situation like that ( I hope ) its kind of hard to judge.

<span id='postcolor'>

I think that you have a point there.

[theavonlady 2]

If I were there, I would have happily pulled the trigger myself. I think I can speak for many other people I know, relatives, friends and neighbors.

I don't know if this was posted yet, but here's an interesting page on the massacre (I prefer the word execution) of Dachau's Nazi personnel at the camp:

http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation/

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Couldn't agree more Avon.

Human life, in itself, is not sacred. What a person does with that life is the criterion for judging who deserves life and who deserves death.

[RedRogue 0]

Since you all have decided to jump onto the enviromental bandwagon I pose a question to you.

Where do you stand on the use of nuclear fuels to provide power where the byproducts cannot be absolutely safely stored or disposed of for hundreds of years?

Answer first in your mind and then read the following:

1. A single coal plant emits more radioactive particles into the atmosphere and enviroment in a year than a nuclear power plant will in its entire lifetime. This is from the fact that coal desposits contain thorium and uranium isotopes.

2. In the USA emission plants are required to use scrubbers to clean their emissions of particles before released into the enviroment. Somehow coal power plants have become exempt to this law. Can we say Senators and Congressmen with investments into coal production and power production.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Aug. 30 2002,11:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. A single coal plant emits more radioactive particles into the atmosphere and enviroment in a year than a nuclear power plant will in its entire lifetime. This is from the fact that coal desposits contain thorium and uranium isotopes.<span id='postcolor'>

How much is "more"? What effect do these amounts have on the environment over the lifetime of the plant? Are these isotope particles more or less dangerous than a coal plant's other emissions?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. In the USA emission plants are required to use scrubbers to clean their emissions of particles before released into the enviroment. Somehow coal power plants have become exempt to this law. Can we say Senators and Congressmen with investments into coal production and power production.<span id='postcolor'>

Gotta link for all these nifty facts?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well, heres a nice little side note on coal vs nuclear. Power plants that use coal dont melt down and turn the surrounding 100 miles into a radioactive wasteland.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 30 2002,12:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, heres a nice little side note on coal vs nuclear. Power plants that use coal dont melt down and turn the surrounding 100 miles into a radioactive wasteland.<span id='postcolor'>

Coal plants turn everything into a peat bog when they melt down, no?

[Oligo 1]

Sigh. Some people in here are a little thin skinned. All I said is that it was a brave thing for the makers of BoB and the U.S. veterans to admit that even yanks did perform loot, rape and kill, like EVERY OTHER NATION that participated in WWII. That includes the european countries as well. I'm absolutely certain, for example, that some finnish soldiers did loot, rape and kill. I'm sure simply because it is in the nature of the male sex. If you take a bunch of males and put them into a stressing situation like a war, some of them will turn out to be a little ... relaxed about certain morality rules. These people will think: "If I'm going to be killed tomorrow anyway, what the fuck does it happen if I rape somebody today, because I REALLY want some poontang?"

Also, the issue about the supposed commandant had nothing to do with whether the man was guilty or not. You cannot just go around shooting people in peacetime, because "some pole told me he was a commandant of some camp". That is bloody vigilanteism.

IF the man was a commandant, he surely deserved to die. But the guilt of somebody has to be established in a court of law.

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Aug. 30 2002,04:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Aug. 30 2002,11:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. A single coal plant emits more radioactive particles into the atmosphere and enviroment in a year than a nuclear power plant will in its entire lifetime. This is from the fact that coal desposits contain thorium and uranium isotopes.<span id='postcolor'>

How much is "more"? What effect do these amounts have on the environment over the lifetime of the plant? Are these isotope particles more or less dangerous than a coal plant's other emissions?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. In the USA emission plants are required to use scrubbers to clean their emissions of particles before released into the enviroment. Somehow coal power plants have become exempt to this law. Can we say Senators and Congressmen with investments into coal production and power production.<span id='postcolor'>

Gotta link for all these nifty facts?<span id='postcolor'>

If I can find my thesis paper I did this on in the library I will provide the biliography links for it.

And the isotopes are cancerous if inhaled or ingested but they are not as lethal on an individual level as spent U-235 or Plutonium (The most lethal element in any isotope form).

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 30 2002,04:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, heres a nice little side note on coal vs nuclear. Power plants that use coal dont melt down and turn the surrounding 100 miles into a radioactive wasteland.<span id='postcolor'>

If you will read into the incident of Cheyrnobal (spelling?) you will find that it was the result of the most ignorant thing you could do in operating a nuclear reactor.

1. They disabled and locked out all fail safes.

2. They brought the other 3 reactors down to minimal levels

3. The plant was now running on the 1 reactor they where going to test with.

4. They removed the control rods and decreased primary and secondary coolant flow.

5. The power levels, because of the decreased secondsary coolant flow to the turbines, began to drop.

6. With decreased primary coolant flow the reactor began to overheat

7. Coolant flow was further decreased with concurrent drops in power levels and increase in core temperature.

8. Now being without sufficent power supply to increase coolant flow, insert the control rods or do an emergency flush they where helpless to keep the reactor from overheating and breaching its core.

3mile Island was a result of the same, idiots bypassing safety devices to run 'experiments' that shouldn't have been performed in that manner. Fortunately they where able to vent the hydrogen gas formed from the overheated reactor and thereby restore coolant flow.

In the manner which western nuclear reactors are designed in not being dependant on control rods for primary reactor control it is impossible for them to have a self-initiated 'melt-down'. When a critical situation has developed an automated self-powered and redundant system begins an emergeny flush of the reactor, fully inserts the control rods and brings primary coolant flow to its maximum safe levels.

[ralphwiggum 6]

human error has to be calculated into every aspect of technology..and with that in mind, nuclear power plant, despite its safety, still poses a threat.

persoanlly i'd love to see more earth-friendly way of transfering energy for our use.

[RedRogue 0]

If your talking about the way that power is trasmitted from generating station to the user AC power lines are here to stay. There is no other safe and viable means of transmitting usable amounts of power.

1. Microwave is possible but alot of people don't like the idea of bouncing mwaves all over the place. And the precision control required to bring waste to a minimum would be cost prohibitive.

2. Laser is becoming possibe but with high waste in the forms of diffusion in the transfer medium and reciever end. Again the precision control required is cost prohibitive. Without reactive stabilization controls to a pico meter adjustment your 10 MWatt laser might get pointed right thru downtown LA due to a nano meter movement of the earth.

3. Currently fiber optics cannot withstand the intensity required for usuable power transfer without using huge diameter bundles of fiber.

Comparison:

1. AC wires, safe until you touch them like a dumbass. And for those that believe in the EM radiation levels causing cancer from AC lines. If you stood directly under a primary AC transmission tower you would recieve more EM radiation from the moon during that night than from the power lines all day.

2. AC lines are cheap, relatively speaking, and require little maintanence.

The real issue:

The arrangment of the power grids. I don't understand why you would want to send power thru thousands of miles of wire creating high loss.

Examples:

My hometown is right next to Beaver Damn in NW Arkansas, USA but the power generated there is sent to West Oklahoma. My hometown recieved power generated in Joplin MO, USA. Instead of selling the power to surrounding users power is sent criss cross all over this nation. Sure it works but there is alot of power loss.

Change in topic:

There will never be a 0 enviromental impact form of power. If you undestand the law of conservation of energy and matter you will know that power does not come from nowhere. Theretically if enough solar power was used world wide the earth would become colder because energy that would be used to warm the earth's surface would be used to generate power. Wind power is the same, if enough wind power was used atmospheric circulation would be impacted because power in the form of moving wind would be sucked into generating electricity.

The goal is to spread out our fuel/power sources and to spread their damage out of longer periods of times at lower levels. Therefore bringing the damage they cause into managability (word?).