Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brgnorway

The Iraq Thread

Recommended Posts

Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 23 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So AP mines would be OK if they'd kill every time?

Loosing a leg is better than dying for most people.<span id='postcolor'>

AP mines kill. You bleed to death on the battlefield in horrible pain. The principle is the same as with hollowpoints and AP mines should be banned for the same reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone shots you 3 times to the leg or arm and nobody isn't helping you you die in pain and thats a fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wound from an AP mine can certainly be lethal and so can a bullet wound without immediate first aid. I don't think taking a shot at someone with an assault rifle is any more humane than trying to blow somebody's leg off with a mine.

The point is to make the enemy unable to fire his weapon back at you. I seriously doubt the first thing in your mind in the battlefield is how easy a death the enemy will have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing bullets to landmines is a no-brainer.

How many bullets kill and maim civilians years after the conflict has ended? I'm guessing not many.

AP mines are a nasty weapon that are prone to being used irresposibly, even if deployed with the best of intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

Even according to your link Bernadotte the US gives out the most foreign aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why they should be charted and listed on map so they can be dismantled after the war. Anyway mines that don't contain metal parts are banned so they are always detectable by metal detectors. Again, purely defensive use is justified. Many countries who are defending their country don't have farmers and shepherds wandering around the battle area before they are cleared.

But I think we should ban the mine discussion from this thread now wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

wow.gif5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 24 2003,00wow.gif5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol

Even according to your link Bernadotte the US gives out the most foreign aid.<span id='postcolor'>

No, not if you exclude the economic help that Pakistan got for combating terrorism. It's ridiculous that they even attempt to list that as foregin aid.

About 18% of the world's foregin aid comes from the US. About 50% comes from the EU.

Edit: I withdraw my second sentence. It is foregin aid (since you are giving money to another country) but it certainly isn't humanitarian aid. You providing your allies with money and weapons to fight your enemies can hardly be called altruistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 24 2003,00:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's why they should be charted and listed on map so they can be dismantled after the war. Anyway mines that don't contain metal parts are banned so they are always detectable by metal detectors.<span id='postcolor'>

the ones that are detectable and not outclassed are generally equipped with a dispositive that will trigger the mine if you pass a mine detector on or around it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Governments Cutting Back on Promised Responsibilities

The U.S., especially during the Clinton Administration, has tried a different approach to the issue of poverty, aid, debt etc. The common phrase heard is that third world nations want trade, not aid. While this is an important point, that people would rather do things themselves than always rely on handouts, it is also criticized by many as an excuse for the US to cut back aid that has been agreed and promised at the United Nations.

When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross domestic product (GDP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). (Side Note: ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn't include private contributions or private capital flows and investments. The main objective of ODA is to promote development. It is therefore a kind of measure on the priorities that governments themselves put on such matters. Whether that necessarily reflects their citizen's wishes and priorities is a different matter! Other aid, such as private capital flows may be for investment purposes, etc.)

Even though these targets and agendas may have been set, the following is interesting to note:

Almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach this 0.7% target.

For example, USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GDP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world.

Since 1992, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw dollars. That was until 2001 when the United States reclaimed that position, a year that also saw Japan's amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars (as tables and charts below will also show).

Commenting on the change in trend in 2001, the OECD noted that:

"Most of the United States' increase in 2001 was due to a $600 million disbursement to Pakistan for economic support in the September 11 aftermath.

Japan's ODA fell by nearly $4 billion. A key factor accounting for this was a 12.7 per cent depreciation of the Yen, which fell from 108 yen to the dollar in 2000 to 122 in 2001. Other factors included the timing of Japan's disbursements to multilateral organisations and loan repayments from Asian countries that have recovered from the Asian financial crisis. In real terms, Japan's ODA fell by 18 per cent."

This OECD chart (also shown below, underneath the table) shows that for 2001 in terms of raw amount of dollars in aid, the U.S. is the largest donor, followed by Japan.

When looked at in terms of percentage of its GNP, it is the last of the 22 donors.

At the same time one must note that most nations, not only the US, do not meet their agreed obligations.

According to the World Bank, the official development assistance worldwide has been decreasing about 20% since 1990.

According to the British paper, the Guardian, if all countries from the OECD were spending 0.7% of GDP on aid, aid flows would be $114bn higher than current levels. (The World Bank say some $40 to $60 billion extra is needed, while the international development organization, Oxfam, say some $100 billion is needed. So, regardless of those numbers, meeting the 0.7% promise is therefore important.)

Those charts and such data from their web site have also been reproduced here for 1999 to 2001, which are latest available figures (at time of writing. It will be updated when possible). You can sort by GNP or raw dollars to see how various nations rank.<span id='postcolor'>

Source - http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

-----

Not pointing the finger at the US, most developed countries are slack in this field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 24 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, not if you exclude the economic help that Pakistan got for combating terrorism. It's ridiculous that they even attempt to list that as foregin aid.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't if it's included on that file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 24 2003,01:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 24 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, not if you exclude the economic help that Pakistan got for combating terrorism. It's ridiculous that they even attempt to list that as foregin aid.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't if it's included on that file.<span id='postcolor'>

Could Saddam claim the value of any WMD given to terrorists as foreign aid? tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 24 2003,01:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 24 2003,01:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 24 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, not if you exclude the economic help that Pakistan got for combating terrorism. It's ridiculous that they even attempt to list that as foregin aid.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't if it's included on that file.<span id='postcolor'>

Could Saddam claim the value of any WMD given to terrorists as foreign aid?  tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Only if they're not the same WMDs that he originally received as foreign aid from the USA. tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 23 2003,18:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 24 2003,01:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 24 2003,01:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 24 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, not if you exclude the economic help that Pakistan got for combating terrorism. It's ridiculous that they even attempt to list that as foregin aid.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't if it's included on that file.<span id='postcolor'>

Could Saddam claim the value of any WMD given to terrorists as foreign aid?  tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Only if they're not the same WMDs that he originally received as foreign aid from the USA. tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Well if we're being gracious, we shouldn't leave Germany out since they did build the facilities for him to process and produce them. biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 24 2003,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 23 2003,18:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 24 2003,01:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 24 2003,01:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 24 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, not if you exclude the economic help that Pakistan got for combating terrorism. It's ridiculous that they even attempt to list that as foregin aid.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't if it's included on that file.<span id='postcolor'>

Could Saddam claim the value of any WMD given to terrorists as foreign aid?  tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Only if they're not the same WMDs that he originally received as foreign aid from the USA. tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Well if we're being gracious, we shouldn't leave Germany out since they did build the facilities for him to process and produce them. biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

I think a lot of western nations need to step up and take a bite of the 'responsibility for Iraq shit sandwich'

The exact reason I find attempts to tie Saddam to fundamentalist muslim terrorist groups rather humourous is exactly the reason he was such a popular dictator back in the day.

Saddam is a very secular man. And the fact that he is not religious and not a fundamentalist is, to my way of thinking, why he was supported by western nations. Greed we can understand. Power hunger we can understand. Ruthlessness we can understand. And it's much easier to deal with someone on a secular level than it is on a religious level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at this point, although it maybe offtopic, I gotta point this helluva ironic point (again).

Iran-Iraq war could be partially blamed on how then Iran rulers(the religious Ayatola Homeini and his disciples) handled Iraq. Iran called Iraq too secular and called in non-muslim. which did not fit well with Hussein and he attacked them.

after war, to punish Kuwait from producing over quota, he invades them and gets kicked out by international forces.

so in other words, Saddam is not a good musilm, if any. And now OBL is going coocookaka about how US's attack on Saddam would be attack on Muslims, when Saddam attacks his Muslim brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 24 2003,10:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think a lot of western nations need to step up and take a bite of the 'responsibility for Iraq shit sandwich'<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think it matters who's responsible for it. Lots of factors and countries are. But we need to realise we have a problem and deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Feb. 24 2003,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">at this point, although it maybe offtopic, I gotta point this helluva ironic point (again).

Iran-Iraq war could be partially blamed on how then Iran rulers(the religious Ayatola Homeini and his disciples) handled Iraq. Iran called Iraq too secular and called in non-muslim. which did not fit well with Hussein and he attacked them.

after war, to punish Kuwait from producing over quota, he invades them and gets kicked out by international forces.

so in other words, Saddam is not a good musilm, if any. And now OBL is going coocookaka about how US's attack on Saddam would be attack on Muslims, when Saddam attacks his Muslim brothers.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, UBL seems to think Saddam being out would be a good thing. Now, an attack on Iraq would be an attack on honest muslims, because not everyone in the country is a power hungry dictator wink.gif

Getting rid of Saddam = Good

Killing innocents = Bad

Funny thing is, in that way, the USA is in agreement with UBL biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 23 2003,23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bullets are made for killing, not mutilating. They are not designed to produce unnecessary suffering. Some types of ammunition are and they are bannd (hollow points for instance). That's the whole point. AP mines are designed not to kill the enemy but to mutilate him and indeed cause unnecessary suffering.<span id='postcolor'>

Come on, Denoir. We Finns have to have SOME thing to cling on to against the opposition of the rest of the world, just like the Norwegians who just keep on killing whales and so on. So let us have AP mines in warehouses, it's not like we're going to use them anytime soon, Russia willing. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 24 2003,08:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">have to have SOME thing to cling on to against the opposition of the rest of the world, just like the Norwegians who just keep on killing whales and so on.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on Oligo - we are not killing whales for the hell of it!

We actually know they are producing weapons of massdestruction. Don't oppose this because we know they do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 24 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 24 2003,08:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">have to have SOME thing to cling on to against the opposition of the rest of the world, just like the Norwegians who just keep on killing whales and so on.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on Oligo - we are not killing whales for the hell of it!

We actually know they are producing weapons of massdestruction. Don't oppose this because we know they do!<span id='postcolor'>

Do you have aerial photos and a Powerpoint presentation to prove this? tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 24 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh come on Oligo - we are not killing whales for the hell of it!<span id='postcolor'>

Well, we do not have AP mines for the hell of it either. We have them because we have such a big and unpredictable neighbour, which ocassionally has invaded us in the past. We're very good friends with this neighbour nowadays, but you never know about the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well, we do not have AP mines for the hell of it either. We have them because we have such a big and unpredictable neighbour, which ocassionally has invaded us in the past. We're very good friends with this neighbour nowadays, but you never know about the future."

Thats right, buddy. We might be coming for you anyday now!

Long live Sweden!

;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 24 2003,11:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 24 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 24 2003,08:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">have to have SOME thing to cling on to against the opposition of the rest of the world, just like the Norwegians who just keep on killing whales and so on.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on Oligo - we are not killing whales for the hell of it!

We actually know they are producing weapons of massdestruction. Don't oppose this because we know they do!<span id='postcolor'>

Do you have aerial photos and a Powerpoint presentation to prove this?  tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

whale1.jpg

whale2.jpg

whale3.jpg

whale4.jpg

whale5.jpg

whales6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that´s awesome denoir biggrin.gif

You definately have to much time for terrorist research wow.gif

I hope you mailed a copy to Powell. He will certainly countercheck it and present it to the UN SC right away tounge.gif

He´s used to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, denoir, that`s one of the funniest posts in these forums so far!!  biggrin.gif  biggrin.gif  tounge.gif  tounge.gif  smile.gif

US government officials claims the whale class submarine being able of carrying 4 tactical nukes each... Special trained seals are now searching for the violators of US rights...

Seehund9.JPG

Tired after 48 hours of anti terror training

Seehund6.JPG

Always ready for action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×