RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War

RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 4:42:10 AM)
I didn't say there were no protests, I said people all over the world thought there were WMDs. Vastly different things. And just because someone did not want war, did not mean they disbelieved the existence of WMDs.

Muttling -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 4:48:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ostentatious You're talking about profits for companies making war a good idea. People have died in this BS 'war'. A lot of people. You should ashamed. Actually, I am NOT talking about proffits for companies making war a good idea. I am talking about the realities of war. In case you missed all the headlines, roughly 1500 contractors have died in Iraq. 17 of them were people I knew (I have lost count of the military people I knew that died.) 2 of them contractors were working for me when they died. Welcome to the wonderful realities of warfare. It aint pretty. We charge a very heft price because we take big risks in doing it. That said, the military could not function without our support and we have taken on the majority of defensive operations which free's up the active duty for offensive operations. Yes we charge a LOT for our services, but we also put ourselves in the line of fire by doing so. When the job is done we don't get VA benefits or a job stateside. We get a handshake and a termination of contract. Damn straight we're going to charge a lot of money for it, we're a temp agency for warfare. If you can find someone who's gonna do our job for normal wages then you should go hire them.

Ostentatious -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 4:53:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level I didn't say there were no protests, I said people all over the world thought there were WMDs. Vastly different things. And just because someone did not want war, did not mean they disbelieved the existence of WMDs. Listen, I don't want to argue with you. America is my favorite country. Problem is, the press is controlled and unobjective. We were right not to believe in them, they didn't exist. In the mean time, Israel, The US, Russia, The UK, China, Pakistan and India have all probably increased their arsenals. The US has NO right to dictate who can and who cannot have/develop/use WMD. None at all.

Muttling -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 5:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ostentatious In the mean time, Israel, The US, Russia, The UK, China, Pakistan and India have all probably increased their arsenals. ummm.....Not only no, HELL NO. The Israeli's have never disclosed the extent of their arsenal but the extent of the weapons platforms has not increased. It is logical to conclude that they have not increased their arsenal since the 1980's. The US and Russia are under treaties which are verified by inspectors from both sides. We are BOTH in the process of depleting our arsenals of nuclear and destroying our arsenals of chem. The bio arsenals are pretty much destroyed with the exception of operations for defensive research. (Defensive research operations are identical to offensive research operations but on a far smaller scale.) The UK gets it's nuclear technology from the U.S. under a very long standing treaty. China is an odd ball, but a pretty tame one. The only scarey aspect of them is their miniaturization technology which they stole from us. They have a blue water navy but it is really small. Pakistan and India are rookies in the nuclear market. They can't make a bomb lighter than 1 ton which severely limits their delivery systems. That said, the governments are quite unstable and that is the big worry. NOW.........What about the successes????? Can you name the ONLY country to voluntarily give up a highly advanced chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs? What about other countries??????? The proliferation of weapons has dramatically decreased in the last 17 years or so. That said, there are weapons in the hands of some very unstable states and that is very worrisome.

Ostentatious -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 5:21:51 AM)
Muttling, I disagree with a lot of what you say but I'm not getting into an argument about it BUT you have helped with my point. These countries have meetings, agree to destroy their bombs and make a hundred more instead... Call me a cynic...because that's what I am :) If India and Pakistan were rookies, what the hell made Iraq such a threat? Do you never think about these things logically?

RealityLicks -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 5:36:29 AM)
[sm=lol.gif] What a catalyst you turned out to be You lit the fuse then you ran off home for your tea

Muttling -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 5:41:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ostentatious If India and Pakistan were rookies, what the hell made Iraq such a threat? You have MUCH learn about NBC warfare my boy. You also have no concept of my opinions on the war in Iraq. I said from day one that Bush mispelled Iran when he signed the invasion orders. That said, India and Pakistan do not have bio or chemical weapons programs. Furthermore, they do not have experience in deploying such weapons on the battlefield. Iraq AND Iran have the most recent and THE MOST extensive experience in combat operations on the chemical/ biological battlefield. I'm sure you're not going to understand this so I will make it as clear for you as I can. I don't believe there was justification to invade Iraq, but I believed it at the time based on what the administration told me. That said, Iran and Iraq are VERY different than Pakistan and India. I'm not sure which is more frightening, but they are definitely different. quote: Do you never think about these things logically? I think in terms of reality. I presume that you realize Iran and Iraq fired more chemical munitions during the 1980's than was fired in all of World War I. Furthermore, their munitions were 100x's to 1000x' more lethal than what was used in World War I. My profession was Explosive Ordnance Disposal. I have hands on experience with the weapons you are talking about (including chemical and biological ordnance). Have you even touched a military projectile?

RealityLicks -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 5:51:24 AM)
Muttling, I don't know why you're taking such a condescending tone in this post. It's not something I've noticed about you previously, you can usually be relied on for great inside information if nothing else. Does you no favours, mate, chill out. As for the notion that someone has to physically handle ordinance before they can have a say in it's use; any one can see what a complete no-starter that is. quote: Muttling: That said, Iran and Pakistan do not have bio or chemical weapons programs. Furthermore, they do not have experience in deploying such weapons on the battlefield. Iraq AND Iran have the most recent and THE MOST extensive experience in combat operations on the chemical/ biological battlefield. Spot the deliberate error.

caitlyn -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 5:52:34 AM)
With all due respect ... You seem to be treating the understanding of something, and acceptance of it for what it is ... as defacto approval for that which these things suggest. Those are things which are mutually exclusive.

RealityLicks -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 5:56:02 AM)
Faulty reasoning. They aren't mutually exclusive, they simply aren't contiguous arguments, however their meaning was clearly assumed to have been inferred by the context in which they appeared.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 5:57:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level I didn't say there were no protests, I said people all over the world thought there were WMDs. Vastly different things. And just because someone did not want war, did not mean they disbelieved the existence of WMDs. This is not true. The Germans thought the CIA was greatly exaggerating the situation in Iraq and that the US government wanted war come what may, the German government was diplomatic in not coming right out and saying the US government was lying over WMDs but many junior politicians were letting it slip what the German government really thought. Chirac said WMDs were a fantasy and that all that the war will do is provoke a civil war. This was comfirmed by the ex-British ambassador to Paris after he resigned after the war but Chirac's opinion was well known before the war .Again junior French politicians let the media know just what the French government thought, in a way the French government could down play it for diplomatic reasons but everyone south of the English channel knew damn well there was no WMDs which was why they would have no truck with the war. If the Brits were getting the same information that was being shown on German, French, Dutch and Belgian TV, I doubt the British government would have been able to join the war. Luckily Britain can't get continental broadcasts and even if they did, not enough people would watch it because of the language problem, Britain is also a more centralized and secretive state than many on continental Europe but the accepted fact on continental Europe was very much that there was no WMDs and WMDs were just an excuse for war which Bush wanted at any price.

Muttling -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 5:58:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks Muttling, I don't know why you're taking such a condescending tone in this post. It's not something I've noticed about you previously, you can usually be relied on for great inside information if nothing else. Does you no favours, mate, chill out. As for the notion that someone has to physically handle ordinance before they can have a say in it's use; any one can see what a complete no-starter that is. quote: Muttling: That said, Iran and Pakistan do not have bio or chemical weapons programs. Furthermore, they do not have experience in deploying such weapons on the battlefield. Iraq AND Iran have the most recent and THE MOST extensive experience in combat operations on the chemical/ biological battlefield. Spot the deliberate error. Do you never think about these things logically?

RealityLicks -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 6:01:26 AM)
I have you in my eye, sirrah! Tell me England is your favourite country and we'll call it quits.

Muttling -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 6:07:14 AM)
I have respect for England just as I do many other countries. That said, I stand by my homeland despite our recent mistakes in leadership. I also stand by our support of the U.K. during our efforts to provide refueling of the Falkland Islands armada. Similarly, I support the U.K.'s efforts to help us out during operations in Somalia (among many other operations.)

Ostentatious -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 6:10:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling Have you even touched a military projectile? You're rather patronising. I don't need to patronise to win an argument. You've attacked my intelligence and you think the above is some kind of justification on the morality of our respective positions. You need to grow up. I have a five year old that can construct an argument, both faster and more logically than you can. America didn't INVADE Iraq to stop them firing weapons at each other. If that had anything to do with it they would have left them to it and saved three trillion dollars, try to stay on topic. Oh, I'm not your boy.

Ostentatious -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 6:15:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling I have respect for England just as I do many other countries. That said, I stand by my homeland despite our recent mistakes in leadership. I also stand by our support of the U.K. during our efforts to provide refueling of the Falkland Islands armada. Are you seriously saying we should be grateful to you for some fuel we paid for? They have nothing to do with this argument. The Falklands was over very quickly, they invaded, we kicked them out, we went the hell home. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

RealityLicks -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 6:17:02 AM)
Do you mean Ascension Island? I know Caspar Weinberger got a "K" but many in Washington backed the Junta. I'm not aware of the Somalia collaboration, so I can't comment on that.

Muttling -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 6:18:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ostentatious quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling Have you even touched a military projectile? You're rather patronising. I don't need to patronise to win an argument. You've attacked my intelligence and you think the above is some kind of justification on the morality of our respective positions. You need to grow up. I have a five year old that can construct an argument, both faster and more logically than you can. America didn't INVADE Iraq to stop them firing weapons at each other. If that had anything to do with it they would have left them to it and saved three trillion dollars, try to stay on topic. Oh, I'm not your boy. YOU started the conversation with the subject of the use of contractors on the modern battlefield. You then attempted to bring non-conventional weapons into the subject matter. Finally, you tried to compare nuclear powers to countries with chemical weapons but no nuclear weapons. You obviously have no concept of the realities of warfare and now you are trying to avoid the very topics which you raised. I don't know what the heck your point is as you keep changing the target which you claim to be shooting at. The only logical conclusion is that you have no concept of what you speak and hope to get luck enough to hit something with suppressive fire.

caitlyn -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 6:20:40 AM)
I didn't infer it, so it wasn't clear to everyone. I saw Level express that many people around the world thought there were WMD's in Iraq. That is a true statement. The response outlining how many protesters there were as a rebuttal of Level's statement, is meaningless. There were millions of protesters here in America also. That only proves that millions of people didn't believe there were WMD's, and in no way disproves that many people thought there were. Muttling, simply pointed out who was making a profit on this war, and who was not ... and the answer to that was that he should be ashamed. Ashamed of what ... knowing who ripped us off? I stick with my statement. Understanding something for what it is ... is mutually exclusive from agreement with it.

Ostentatious -> RE: The Three Trillion Dollar War (3/10/2008 6:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling YOU started the conversation with the subject of the use of contractors on the modern battlefield. wrong! You then attempted to bring non-conventional weapons into the subject matter. did i? lol okay... As above

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875