[OT] Cr*ppy Belgium - Page 6

Sinapus · #51 February 13th, 2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruatha:

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Ruatha, mines in and of themselves aren't a problem. It is not cleaning them up once you're done that causes problems.

Phoenix-D

Hmm, yes I see. The atombomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima didn't kill people, it was the one dropping the bomb who killed people.

(In US many says " it's not guns whoo kill people, people kill people", yeah, five year olds who find's their dad's gun!)

Actually, the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US are quite adept at keeping their children from killing themselves or their playmates with dad's(or even mom's) gun. But don't let facts get in the way of rabid emotionalism.

As for the person who mentioned weapons that kill people for "years after the war is over" well, you just eliminated artillery shells, bombs and pretty much anything that uses explosives. Unexploded shells from a past war are still being found in France, IIRC. That past war being the Great War. AKA World War I, or "The War to End all Wars"... (Of course, I could be mistaken and the supply of unexploded shells found in French fields for the past few years might now be solely from the 2nd World War, but I hope someone gets the point.)

The "blunt our swords" line, btw, is from Clausewitz, and didn't mean swords in a literal sense. I guess metaphors are a two-edged sword, though.

(Why am I having flashbacks to a Saturday Night Live sketch parodying Rumsfield's press conferences a little over a year ago. "Our troops are using night vision goggles, while the Taliban and Al Queda forces are not... is that fair?")

primitive · #52 February 13th, 2003, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
(In US many says " it's not guns whoo kill people, people kill people", yeah, five year olds who find's their dad's gun!)

You do realize that that almost never happens, right? Maybe just a few times a year in the world, which is not enough to cry about. I wouldn't doubt it if there are more deaths from lighting strikes killed than there are accidental deaths by five year olds (and other young ages) with gun access.

Fyron: Please define "young ages"

Some1 · #53 February 13th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone was very drunk or naive when writing this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And some1 was very flippant or cryptic when writing this. Why? Please explain your viewpoint.

Sorry, i will, thought it was clear already

Quote:

Re: anti personel mines. How Can anyone defend the production of a weapon that maims 22000 civilians every year?? (and I sure that number includes a ton of children) Sure the problem may be not cleaning them up but frankly I think the world could avoid a lot of problems if those selling weapons cared a little more about how and who would be using them.

"I think the world could avoid a lot of problems if those selling weapons cared a little more about how and who would be using them."

Why make them at all??? US(and ofcourse other countries) should stop make these things. Anyone who owns stuff they can't use can thrown it away. If countries have them, they WILL use them one way or the other, is it selling them, or using them when in trouble themselfs....

So, avoid the problem.... don't make them at all.

Not selling is just tending the wounds,
not making is the remedy..

R.

edit: Drunk = not thinking about it.
naive = thinking that if people have stuff they can sell for money... they would not sell.

[ February 13, 2003, 21:25: Message edited by: Some1 ]

DavidG · #54 February 13th, 2003, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Some1:

quote:
Re: anti personel mines. How Can anyone defend the production of a weapon that maims 22000 civilians every year?? (and I sure that number includes a ton of children) Sure the problem may be not cleaning them up but frankly I think the world could avoid a lot of problems if those selling weapons cared a little more about how and who would be using them.

Someone was very drunk or naive when writing this.

R.

Oh very nice. I offer my 2 cents worth and get accused of being drunk. Got anything less insulting to say?

DavidG · #55 February 13th, 2003, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sinapus:

quote:
Originally posted by DavidG:
Re: anti personel mines. How Can anyone defend the production of a weapon that maims 22000 civilians every year??

How can anyone support production of a device that kills 50,000 civilians every year (and maims many more) in the United States alone?

Or is it only bad if it's a weapon that maims people, while objects that you might find useful are okay, even if people die or are maimed by them?

Where exactly did you get from my post that I "support production of a device that kills 50,000 civilians every year"???

Some1 · #56 February 13th, 2003, 11:29 PM

i apologize for my bad choice of words...

I don't want to trigger a discussion about my post..

sorry,sorry,sorry,sorry

R.

Sinapus · #57 February 13th, 2003, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:
Originally posted by Sinapus:

quote:
Originally posted by DavidG:
Re: anti personel mines. How Can anyone defend the production of a weapon that maims 22000 civilians every year??

How can anyone support production of a device that kills 50,000 civilians every year (and maims many more) in the United States alone?

Or is it only bad if it's a weapon that maims people, while objects that you might find useful are okay, even if people die or are maimed by them?

Where exactly did you get from my post that I "support production of a device that kills 50,000 civilians every year"???

A guess. So I was wrong and you do have objections to the manufacture of automobiles? My sincere apologies.

Sinapus · #58 February 13th, 2003, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Some1:
"I think the world could avoid a lot of problems if those selling weapons cared a little more about how and who would be using them."

Why make them at all??? US(and ofcourse other countries) should stop make these things. Anyone who owns stuff they can't use can thrown it away. If countries have them, they WILL use them one way or the other, is it selling them, or using them when in trouble themselfs....

So, avoid the problem.... don't make them at all.

Not selling is just tending the wounds,
not making is the remedy..

edit: Drunk = not thinking about it.
naive = thinking that if people have stuff they can sell for money... they would not sell.

Oh, I think the word naive covers quite a few assumptions.

Thermodyne · #59 February 14th, 2003, 12:01 AM

Let�s see how much you guys really know. Which 10 countries export the most arms? Not so quick, Aircraft sales are not to be counted, and costal patrol ships don�t count either. They are very big ticket items, and tend to distort the big picture.

Next, who are the five largest exporters of ballistic missiles?

Then let�s ask who are the five largest exporters of anti shipping missiles?

And just for fun, who manufactured the majority of the land mines that are responsible for the death toll in Asia? Bosnia?

Puke · #60 February 14th, 2003, 12:07 AM

i would be much happier in a world without cigarettes, than in a world without anti personnel mines. it just happens to be very popular at the moment, to disaprove of AP mines.

for a while it was popular to disaprove of DU tank rounds, because the uranium vaporizes as it sheers through tank hulls, and the particulate matter gets into the air, food, and water, causing cancer and radiation sickness in nearby villagers.

for a while, it was popular to disaprove of cluster bombs, because their submunitions dont always explode, and their paper packaging looks just like the packaging on air-dropped food supplies.

for a while, it was popular to disaprove of ethnic clea.. oh wait, thats still bad.

we have developed battlefield lasers that can shoot down missiles and planes, and attack targets on the ground. sounds slick, but the refracted energy from them tends to burn the corneas of happless civilians within a radius of a couple miles. while weapons designed to blind people are specifically prohibited by the Geneva Convention, lasers are not. we put that provision in there because we knew we were in the process of developing lasers that would BLIND BYSTANDARDS as far back as 60 years ago.

The basic truth of the matter, is that war is hell. and its in mankinds blood to wage war. these truths are not about to change. we have set up some basic rules of engagement regarding the kinds of things that are "foul play," and this may eventually extend to AP mines.

but even the things we Banned over half a century ago, are being stockpiled "just in case" and are being sold to "lesser" countries for their petty conflicts that fall outside of the jurisdiction of the "big boys" like civil war in South America. NATO does not give a ****. they dont give a **** about the Congo, either.

we will happily sell those guys whatever nasty stuff they want to buy, because their not in our little club. so we keep making the biological weapons. and the chemical weapons. and sometimes, we do the nasty things our selves. we were not attacking military targets in Dresden or Tokyo, but the firebombings had a strategic objective.

you can express your outrage, but you will only frustrate yourself unless you actually make an effort to understand the motives behind the things people do. no one is making weapons for the express purpose of being evil. there is a method to all of it. you can disagree, but you have to realize that its there.