Correspondent:: "Moab og Nooobe" Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:03:29 -0500
--------
Subject: Look what the government is planning on using against "Hostile
Crowds"
Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems is about
to deliver a nonlethal weapon system to the U.S.
military that can disable enemy soldiers or hostile
crowds with a painful beam of electromagnetic
energy, a company official said Wednesday at
an optics forum.
Raytheon also is on track to demonstrate an initial version
of a high-energy laser weapon by year's end, said Wade
Smith, deputy director of Raytheon's Directed Energy
Weapons program.
After more than three years in development, Raytheon
will meet a May deadline to deliver its "active denial
technology" to the Air Force Research Laboratory for testing,
Smith said at the inaugural Photon Forum 2004, an optics
conference held Tuesday and Wednesday at Loews Ventana
Canyon Resort.
The Air Force lab's Directed Energy Directorate handles
the Department of Defense's laser and
other directed-energy technologies. The system, which will be mounted on a
military vehicle, inflicts no permanent damage on humans, but temporarily
inflicts a disabling, burning pain over the whole body by triggering heat
receptors in the skin.
"This is an effect that literally gets under your skin," said Smith, who
has
voluntarily felt the "intolerable pain" of the beam during testing.
"I can assure you, once you come in contact with the beam, you will be
inclined to stop whatever you are doing," he said.
The active-denial system uses so-called "millimeter waves" of
electromagnetic energy to penetrate about one-64th of an inch
into the skin. The nonlethal system could be used to control
crowds or to disable enemy soldiers, Smith said. Raytheon's system will
likely be tested by the military through midsummer at a test range
in China Lake, Calif., Smith said.
Another so-called "directed energy weapon" system being developed by
Raytheon in Tucson is the demonstration of a high-energy, solid-state
laser that could be used to shoot down enemy planes and missiles
or attack ground targets.
The highest-powered lasers currently being used are large systems that
amplify light using chemical reactions. The military is seeking to develop
equally powerful, solid-state, electrical lasers small enough to be mounted
on planes, ships and ground vehicles.
Raytheon is in the final phase of a contract awarded in late 2002 by the
Air
Force Research Laboratory to produce a 25-kilowatt solid-state laser
to demonstrate the weapon concept, and the company is on schedule
to deliver the laser by year's end, Smith said.
Ultimately, the military wants to produce weapons-grade solid-state lasers
rated at 100 kilowatts or more. But because of challenges in developing
small power
sources and accurately controlling such beams, deployment of such
solid-state laser weapon systems in the field is
likely 10 to 15 years away, Smith said.
Raytheon has relied on local optics companies as subcontractors for the
directed-energy programs and other systems, he said. In 2003,
Raytheon awarded more than $68 million in contracts to
Arizona firms, with more than half of that going to Tucson-area
companies, he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Americans do not appear to comprehend the bitterness that has grown around
the world as a result of their illegal invasion of Iraq. While once
Europeans looked up to, and admired America; today it is held in utter
contempt for its arrogance and warmongering. Anti-European comments in the
American media have only added to this hostility towards the US.
America's attempt to impose its version of government on the world, its
hypocrisy in claiming to be the moral leader of the world, while flooding
the media with degenerate filth and garbage, has bought upon it disgust and
contempt that few Americans can comprehend.
****************
V.I. Lenin said it: "democracy is indispensable to socialism" (?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Correspondent:: Claude Balls Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:20:12 -0600
--------
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:03:29 -0500, "Moab og Nooobe"
wrote:
>Subject: Look what the government is planning on using against "Hostile
>Crowds"
What they need is a giant laser that burns the rag headed fucks to a
cinder.
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:22:29 -0700
--------
Moab og Nooobe wrote:
>
> Subject: Look what the government is planning on
> using against "Hostile Crowds"
>
> Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems is about
> to deliver a nonlethal weapon system to the U.S.
> military that can disable enemy soldiers or hostile
> crowds with a painful beam of electromagnetic
> energy, a company official said Wednesday at
> an optics forum.
Seriously, I think one of the big uses for this will
be the Jewish evacuation of Gaza.
To explain. When the Israeli army retreated from
southern Lebanon, the Hizbollah and other forces
turned their orderly departure into a rout, by
mustering huge crowds of old people, women and
children to charge the Israeli guns. Gunmen then
used the advancing mobs as human shields, shooting
at the Israelis with less fear that they would
shoot back.
The Israelis did not want to slaughter hundreds of
these Arab old people, women and children, so they
abandoned their positions, and in some cases armored
vehicles and ran away.
The Israelis do not want this to happen again, which
their intelligence informed them is in the works, the
Hizbollah, Hamas, Fatah, and all the other Arab gangs
planning to use Arab old people, women and children,
en masse as shields from which to turn the evacation
"into a bloodbath."
BTW, several times, the noble "fighters" in Iraq have
tried to surround mortar tubes with women and children,
hoping that the US wont fire counter-mortar battery
fire at them. This worked until they discovered our
snipers are very good shots.
So, let's hear it for Raytheon. Maybe their invention
can save thousands of lives.
--
"We've pretty much just been patrolling
and flying helicopters all over the place,
and when we see something bad, we blow it up."
-- Maj. David Holahan, US Marines
Correspondent:: Reverend Kenny Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:34:15 -0500
--------
Moab og Nooobe wrote:
> Subject: Look what the government is planning on using against "Hostile
> Crowds"
>
> Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems is about
> to deliver a nonlethal weapon system to the U.S.
> military that can disable enemy soldiers or hostile
> crowds with a painful beam of electromagnetic
> energy, a company official said Wednesday at
> an optics forum.
>
> Raytheon also is on track to demonstrate an initial version
> of a high-energy laser weapon by year's end, said Wade
> Smith, deputy director of Raytheon's Directed Energy
> Weapons program.
>
> After more than three years in development, Raytheon
> will meet a May deadline to deliver its "active denial
> technology" to the Air Force Research Laboratory for testing,
> Smith said at the inaugural Photon Forum 2004, an optics
> conference held Tuesday and Wednesday at Loews Ventana
> Canyon Resort.
>
> The Air Force lab's Directed Energy Directorate handles
> the Department of Defense's laser and
> other directed-energy technologies. The system, which will be mounted on a
> military vehicle, inflicts no permanent damage on humans, but temporarily
> inflicts a disabling, burning pain over the whole body by triggering heat
> receptors in the skin.
>
> "This is an effect that literally gets under your skin," said Smith, who
> has
> voluntarily felt the "intolerable pain" of the beam during testing.
> "I can assure you, once you come in contact with the beam, you will be
> inclined to stop whatever you are doing," he said.
>
> The active-denial system uses so-called "millimeter waves" of
> electromagnetic energy to penetrate about one-64th of an inch
> into the skin. The nonlethal system could be used to control
> crowds or to disable enemy soldiers, Smith said. Raytheon's system will
> likely be tested by the military through midsummer at a test range
> in China Lake, Calif., Smith said.
>
> Another so-called "directed energy weapon" system being developed by
> Raytheon in Tucson is the demonstration of a high-energy, solid-state
> laser that could be used to shoot down enemy planes and missiles
> or attack ground targets.
>
> The highest-powered lasers currently being used are large systems that
> amplify light using chemical reactions. The military is seeking to develop
> equally powerful, solid-state, electrical lasers small enough to be mounted
> on planes, ships and ground vehicles.
>
> Raytheon is in the final phase of a contract awarded in late 2002 by the
> Air
> Force Research Laboratory to produce a 25-kilowatt solid-state laser
> to demonstrate the weapon concept, and the company is on schedule
> to deliver the laser by year's end, Smith said.
>
> Ultimately, the military wants to produce weapons-grade solid-state lasers
> rated at 100 kilowatts or more. But because of challenges in developing
> small power
> sources and accurately controlling such beams, deployment of such
> solid-state laser weapon systems in the field is
> likely 10 to 15 years away, Smith said.
>
> Raytheon has relied on local optics companies as subcontractors for the
> directed-energy programs and other systems, he said. In 2003,
> Raytheon awarded more than $68 million in contracts to
> Arizona firms, with more than half of that going to Tucson-area
> companies, he said.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Americans do not appear to comprehend the bitterness that has grown around
> the world as a result of their illegal invasion of Iraq. While once
> Europeans looked up to, and admired America; today it is held in utter
> contempt for its arrogance and warmongering. Anti-European comments in the
> American media have only added to this hostility towards the US.
>
> America's attempt to impose its version of government on the world, its
> hypocrisy in claiming to be the moral leader of the world, while flooding
> the media with degenerate filth and garbage, has bought upon it disgust and
> contempt that few Americans can comprehend.
> ****************
> V.I. Lenin said it: "democracy is indispensable to socialism" (?)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
Has anyone read the news articles that Sean O'Keafe of NASA is stepping
down and may be replaced by the former chief of the missile defense
system? What if the installed one of these weapons above into earth orbit?
--
Illuminations,
Reverend Kenny
For every extremist, there is an equal and opposite extremist...
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:39:48 -0700
--------
Reverend Kenny wrote:
>
> What if the installed one of these weapons
> above into earth orbit?
There's a little problem called the Inverse Square
Law. It applies when you are dealing with unlased
energy of all kinds.
It is easy to understand using a "one candle" model.
Let's say you are looking at an ordinary lit candle
from 10" away. Call the brightness of light,
and the heat it gives off at that distance "10".
Ten somethings. Doesn't matter what.
You would think that if you moved to 20" away from
the light, its brightness and heat would be 1/2 as
much as it is at one foot, but this would be wrong.
Because this is where the Inverse Square Law comes
into effect. Its brightness is actually one over
the square of the new distance.
So instead of 1/2 as bright and hot, it would be
1/100th of "somethings".
This applies to brightness, heat, light, sound,
and microwave radiation, etc.
So if this weapon was installed in space, it would
practically need a big nuclear explosion to generate
enough microwave energy to make it through the
atmosphere, some 100 or so miles.
--
"Mars was destroyed with weapons from the future.
There, does that make you feel any better?"
-- nu-monet
Correspondent:: asscoassc@aol.comSHUTUP (AssCo Assc)
Date: 12 Dec 2004 23:51:40 GMT
--------
<< So if this weapon was installed in space, it would
practically need a big nuclear explosion to generate
enough microwave energy to make it through the
atmosphere, some 100 or so miles. >>
Like in that 007 movie, Die Another Day.
---
Same old rules: no eyes, no groin.
ooOOoo
It petrifies the tongue. . .
Shoots arrows through the lung. . .
Guttural rending pain . . .
. . . and next it Sclerotifies the brain
-- Copyright 2004 Ilya Shambat
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:56:34 -0700
--------
AssCo Assc wrote:
>
> << So if this weapon was installed in space, it would
> practically need a big nuclear explosion to generate
> enough microwave energy to make it through the
> atmosphere, some 100 or so miles. >>
>
> Like in that 007 movie, Die Another Day.
That was probably a lased energy weapon. It *is*
possible to laser microwaves.
To put this into perspective, you know about how
bright a 15W lightbulb is? Comparitively, a 5W
laser can burn through a cinderblock. The
difference a little lasing can make.
And since lased light doesn't spread out by the
Inverse Square Law, their topmost concern is
obscuration, or atmospheric particles that tend
to diffuse lased energy.
--
"Money can't buy you happiness,
but when you're poor, you can't
buy shit, and nobody will loan
you happiness."
--nu-monet
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 02:55:25 GMT
--------
In article <41BCE8C1.1E61@succeeds.com>,
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote:
> That was probably a lased energy weapon. It *is*
> possible to laser microwaves.
> To put this into perspective, you know about how
> bright a 15W lightbulb is? Comparitively, a 5W
> laser can burn through a cinderblock. The
> difference a little lasing can make.
> And since lased light doesn't spread out by the
> Inverse Square Law, their topmost concern is
> obscuration, or atmospheric particles that tend
> to diffuse lased energy.
My secondary one would be "Will it tear me a new hole or simply enlarge
the one I already have?"
--
HellPope Huey
Why is it so hot in here?...
Oh yeah. That stuff I did.
"Religion is kinda like nuclear power:
you split the atom this way, you get electricity;
you split it that way, you get an atomic bomb."
- Jon Stewart
"We get a something-falling from-the-sky memo every week.
We've put over 17,000 things in space
and remarkably,
not one person has been hit."
- "The West Wing"
Correspondent:: mshotz@aol.commonkeypo (Rev. Richard Skull)
Date: 13 Dec 2004 23:11:52 GMT
--------
><< So if this weapon was installed in space, it would
>practically need a big nuclear explosion to generate
>enough microwave energy to make it through the
>atmosphere, some 100 or so miles. >>
>
>Like in that 007 movie, Die Another Day.
>
Like that James Bond Movie "screw spying, I'm gonna shag some babes!"
MSHOTZ: The Post Post Modern Man
"War hath no Fury like a non-combatants"
Charles E. Montague
Correspondent:: asscoassc@aol.comBLOWME (AssCo Assc)
Date: 14 Dec 2004 01:49:23 GMT
--------
<< Like that James Bond Movie "screw spying,
I'm gonna shag some babes!" >>
And then kill them and go get drunk and drive real
fast off to some casino.
Bond should start smoking cigarettes again.
ooOOoo
It petrifies the tongue. . .
Shoots arrows through the lung. . .
Guttural rending pain . . .
. . . and next it Sclerotifies the brain
-- Copyright 2004 Ilya Shambat
Correspondent:: fungus Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 03:38:02 +0100
--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> ....this is where the Inverse Square Law comes
> into effect. Its brightness is actually one over
> the square of the new distance.
>
> So instead of 1/2 as bright and hot, it would be
> 1/100th of "somethings".
>
> So if this weapon was installed in space, it would
> practically need a big nuclear explosion to generate
> enough microwave energy to make it through the
> atmosphere, some 100 or so miles.
>
This isn't true if the beam is focused.
If I want to make a point energy source provide one
watt of energy per square centimeter at a distance of
one kilometer from me then I need an awful lot of
energy because the enery goes in all directions and
there's an awful lot of square centimeters on the
surface of a one kilometer sphere.
But... if I only want to heat up *one* of those
square centimeters then I only need a one watt
source and a lens capable of focusing it into a
centimeter dot one kilometer away (I assume I'm
doing this in a vacuum so there's no energy losses).
--
fungus
"Tards get up early, you know? If that isn't
in the tardspotter's handbook, it should be."
Correspondent:: Reverend Kenny Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:28:36 -0500
--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Reverend Kenny wrote:
>
>>What if the installed one of these weapons
>>above into earth orbit?
>
>
> There's a little problem called the Inverse Square
> Law. It applies when you are dealing with unlased
> energy of all kinds.
>
> It is easy to understand using a "one candle" model.
>
> Let's say you are looking at an ordinary lit candle
> from 10" away. Call the brightness of light,
> and the heat it gives off at that distance "10".
> Ten somethings. Doesn't matter what.
>
> You would think that if you moved to 20" away from
> the light, its brightness and heat would be 1/2 as
> much as it is at one foot, but this would be wrong.
>
> Because this is where the Inverse Square Law comes
> into effect. Its brightness is actually one over
> the square of the new distance.
>
> So instead of 1/2 as bright and hot, it would be
> 1/100th of "somethings".
>
> This applies to brightness, heat, light, sound,
> and microwave radiation, etc.
>
> So if this weapon was installed in space, it would
> practically need a big nuclear explosion to generate
> enough microwave energy to make it through the
> atmosphere, some 100 or so miles.
>
>
Sorry, missed my point, my question was looking more towards the future.
Not current technology. More of a "What If" scenario you know?
Especially since it looks like a weapons chief is about to take over NASA.
--
Illuminations,
Reverend Kenny
For every extremist, there is an equal and opposite extremist...
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:17:44 -0700
--------
Reverend Kenny wrote:
>
> Sorry, missed my point, my question was looking
> more towards the future. Not current technology.
> More of a "What If" scenario you know?
> Especially since it looks like a weapons chief
> is about to take over NASA.
>
Well, there are certain principals of economy that
apply to space-based weapons. A directed-energy
weapon would be optimal for high-atmospheric use,
say as an anti-ballistic missile weapon.
However, for ground targets, you get much greater
effect going with a lower-tech solution--rail guns.
Imagine an object, anywhere from 100-1000Kg, made
entirely of advanced ceramic, and very, very durable.
Then imagine it being accurately launched at
7-10km/sec from a space platform straight down.
It impacts with considerable more effect than a
meteorite of its size, creating a very large blast
area, or a very deep blast area, with no radiation
or fallout.
Said space platform could fire something like a
shotgun shell of much smaller projectiles, not at
Earth targets but at space targets, making it much
less vulnerable to attack.
--
"We've pretty much just been patrolling
and flying helicopters all over the place,
and when we see something bad, we blow it up."
-- Maj. David Holahan, US Marines
Correspondent:: fungus Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:40:50 +0100
--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
>
> Well, there are certain principals of economy that
> apply to space-based weapons. A directed-energy
> weapon would be optimal for high-atmospheric use,
> say as an anti-ballistic missile weapon.
>
I've thought about this whole American "Star Wars"
program thingy, and all the trillions of $$$ your
taxpayers are spending on it.
If I was the enemy I'd just make my missiles
nice and reflective. A nice shiny chrome finish
or something like that would look cool and make
them impervious to lasers. It'll probably add
about $500 to the final asking price and that's
a pretty good ROI if you ask me...
--
fungus
"Tards get up early, you know? If that isn't
in the tardspotter's handbook, it should be."
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:41:22 -0700
--------
fungus wrote:
>
> If I was the enemy I'd just make my missiles
> nice and reflective. A nice shiny chrome finish
> or something like that would look cool and make
> them impervious to lasers. It'll probably add
> about $500 to the final asking price and that's
> a pretty good ROI if you ask me...
Reflective coats and spinning the missile both have
serious problems. Reflective surfaces and friction-
induced heat generally don't go well together, and
a spinning missile tends to tear itself apart and
tumble.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: mshotz@aol.commonkeypo (Rev. Richard Skull)
Date: 13 Dec 2004 23:18:06 GMT
--------
>Reflective coats and spinning the missile both have
>serious problems. Reflective surfaces and friction-
>induced heat generally don't go well together, and
>a spinning missile tends to tear itself apart and
>tumble.
Not so. Several ballistic Missile spin to maintain stability.
They don't have to spin at the same rate as a bullet. Just enough to help
stabalise the flight.
MSHOTZ: The Post Post Modern Man
"War hath no Fury like a non-combatants"
Charles E. Montague
Correspondent:: mshotz@aol.commonkeypo (Rev. Richard Skull)
Date: 13 Dec 2004 23:16:35 GMT
--------
>If I was the enemy I'd just make my missiles
>nice and reflective. A nice shiny chrome finish
>or something like that would look cool and make
>them impervious to lasers. It'll probably add
>about $500 to the final asking price and that's
>a pretty good ROI if you ask me...
Or put advanced ceramics on it as shielding.
Ceramics are what are used on the Shuttle heat shield.
If they can take the heat of re-entry, then they can take the momentary (and
due to they high velocities involved it will only be monmentary) stress from
this "wonder weapon".
Or just build a chep cruise missle, use then to explode enhance EMP tuned Nucs
in the Stratophere and watch the US come to a halt. Just like in "The day The
earth Stood Still"
MSHOTZ: The Post Post Modern Man
"War hath no Fury like a non-combatants"
Charles E. Montague
Correspondent:: "ArWeGod" Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:22:13 GMT
--------
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote in message
news:41BCC8B4.2DDB@succeeds.com...
> Reverend Kenny wrote:
> >
> > What if the installed one of these weapons
> > above into earth orbit?
>
> There's a little problem called the Inverse Square
> Law. It applies when you are dealing with unlased
> energy of all kinds.
> So if this weapon was installed in space, it would
> practically need a big nuclear explosion to generate
> enough microwave energy to make it through the
> atmosphere, some 100 or so miles.
Good thing there isn't a big nuclear reactor up in space pouring energy
out in all directions and sometimes projecting huge focused energy
packets right at us. That would be Bad.
--
ArWeSunny
Correspondent:: mshotz@aol.commonkeypo (Rev. Richard Skull)
Date: 13 Dec 2004 23:10:40 GMT
--------
>Has anyone read the news articles that Sean O'Keafe of NASA is stepping
>down and may be replaced by the former chief of the missile defense
>system? What if the installed one of these weapons above into earth orbit?
>
>--
Well,
It would require aq huge power source and need to be serviced by the Space
Shuttle to refuel it.
If it was aimed at a ground target, the earths atmoshere would refracr the
disperse the heat and neglegate any effects.
It would need to be in low orbit, requiring occasional "boosts" to prevent the
Atmosheric drag from making it fall & burn up.
Both the Soviets & the US demostrated vey capible anti-satilaite weapoins in
the 1980's which were basicly modofied Air to Air Missles that were luncahed
from extream high altitude by conventional Fighters and could lock on to and
distroy loe level Satillites. The US used a warhead like a "shot gun", the
Soviets just exploded the missile like a hand grenade. Both were tested and
were found effective. The cool part was because it was "off the shelve"
technology, the costs were about $5 to $8 Million to knock down a satillite
that cost several hundred millions to build & launch into space.
The US was bragging about this 20 years ago with Ronnie Raygun. The Army even
built a prototype laser tank. But once again the limitations of the Atmoshere
and battle field dust & smoke prooved to be its undoing.
Beside, most of these guys seem willing to die for their cause. What make the
US think that a "burning snesation" will stop them from a suicude attack?
MSHOTZ: The Post Post Modern Man
"War hath no Fury like a non-combatants"
Charles E. Montague
Correspondent:: Candlemoth Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:51:22 -0800
--------
Moab og Nooobe wrote:
> Subject: Look what the government is planning on using against "Hostile
> Crowds"
>
> Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems is about
> to deliver a nonlethal weapon system to the U.S.
> military that can disable enemy soldiers or hostile
> crowds with a painful beam of electromagnetic
> energy, a company official said Wednesday at
> an optics forum.
>
Um-hmm.. and can also be used to quash pissed-off American voters.
Probably be needed in the next 10 years or so..
Correspondent:: mshotz@aol.commonkeypo (Rev. Richard Skull)
Date: 13 Dec 2004 23:01:21 GMT
--------
>Subject: Look what the government is planning on using against "Hostile
>Crowds"
>
>Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems is about
>to deliver a nonlethal weapon system to the U.S.
>military that can disable enemy soldiers or hostile
>crowds with a painful beam of electromagnetic
>energy, a company official said Wednesday at
>an optics forum.
>
>Raytheon also is on track to demonstrate an initial version
>of a high-energy laser weapon by year's end, said Wade
>Smith, deputy director of Raytheon's Directed Energy
>Weapons program.
>
>After more than three years in development, Raytheon
>will meet a May deadline to deliver its "active denial
>technology" to the Air Force Research Laboratory for testing,
>Smith said at the inaugural Photon Forum 2004, an optics
>conference held Tuesday and Wednesday at Loews Ventana
>Canyon Resort.
>
>The Air Force lab's Directed Energy Directorate handles
>the Department of Defense's laser and
>other directed-energy technologies. The system, which will be mounted on a
>military vehicle, inflicts no permanent damage on humans, but temporarily
>inflicts a disabling, burning pain over the whole body by triggering heat
>receptors in the skin.
>
>"This is an effect that literally gets under your skin," said Smith, who
>has
>voluntarily felt the "intolerable pain" of the beam during testing.
>"I can assure you, once you come in contact with the beam, you will be
>inclined to stop whatever you are doing," he said.
>
>The active-denial system uses so-called "millimeter waves" of
>electromagnetic energy to penetrate about one-64th of an inch
>into the skin. The nonlethal system could be used to control
>crowds or to disable enemy soldiers, Smith said. Raytheon's system will
>likely be tested by the military through midsummer at a test range
>in China Lake, Calif., Smith said.
>
>Another so-called "directed energy weapon" system being developed by
>Raytheon in Tucson is the demonstration of a high-energy, solid-state
>laser that could be used to shoot down enemy planes and missiles
>or attack ground targets.
>
>The highest-powered lasers currently being used are large systems that
>amplify light using chemical reactions. The military is seeking to develop
>equally powerful, solid-state, electrical lasers small enough to be mounted
>on planes, ships and ground vehicles.
>
>Raytheon is in the final phase of a contract awarded in late 2002 by the
>Air
>Force Research Laboratory to produce a 25-kilowatt solid-state laser
>to demonstrate the weapon concept, and the company is on schedule
>to deliver the laser by year's end, Smith said.
>
>Ultimately, the military wants to produce weapons-grade solid-state lasers
>rated at 100 kilowatts or more. But because of challenges in developing
>small power
>sources and accurately controlling such beams, deployment of such
>solid-state laser weapon systems in the field is
>likely 10 to 15 years away, Smith said.
>
>Raytheon has relied on local optics companies as subcontractors for the
>directed-energy programs and other systems, he said. In 2003,
>Raytheon awarded more than $68 million in contracts to
>Arizona firms, with more than half of that going to Tucson-area
>companies, he said.
>
>
Why are we wasting Billions of this crap when our troops in Iraq are getting
killed & maimed becuase they lack proper equipment?
Oh! Thats right, Military Industrial Complex. I forgot about that. Must have
been all the peace & properity in the 90's.
MSHOTZ: The Post Post Modern Man
"War hath no Fury like a non-combatants"
Charles E. Montague
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:12:05 -0700
--------
Rev. Richard Skull wrote:
>
> Why are we wasting Billions of this crap when
> our troops in Iraq are getting killed & maimed
> becuase they lack proper equipment?
And why are we wasting Billions on equipping them
when children are starving in Ethiopia?
And why should we waste Billions of dollars on
feeding starving children in Ethiopia as long as
Americans are eating so much fatty food?
And why should we waste Billions of dollars on
getting obese Americans to diet when those very
dollars are rapidly becoming worthless on the
international markets?
And why are we wasting time comparing unrelated
things?
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:20:27 -0800
--------
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:12:05 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Rev. Richard Skull wrote:
>>
>> Why are we wasting Billions of this crap when
>> our troops in Iraq are getting killed & maimed
>> becuase they lack proper equipment?
>
>
>And why are we wasting Billions on equipping them
>when children are starving in Ethiopia?
>
>And why should we waste Billions of dollars on
>feeding starving children in Ethiopia as long as
>Americans are eating so much fatty food?
>
>And why should we waste Billions of dollars on
>getting obese Americans to diet when those very
>dollars are rapidly becoming worthless on the
>international markets?
>
>And why are we wasting time comparing unrelated
>things?
because the money spent on the war in Iraq could go to more worthwhile
things?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Any technology distinguishable from Magic is insufficiently advanced
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:09:43 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> because the money spent on the war in Iraq
> could go to more worthwhile things?
Nothing government does is worthwhile to
everybody.
Besides, we have strategically made out like
bandits by invading Iraq.
1) We have inserted US power, important enough
for it to be a Command, equal on a par with
CENTCOM, NORTHCOM, or SOUTHCOM, dead center on
the far side of the world, and able to intervene
from there in Central Asia, the Middle East *and*
Northern Africa. This menaces several of the most
annoying and belligerent dictatorships still around.
We are also creating a modern democracy where many
said it could not be done.
2) We now defend not just the Iraqi oilfields from
Saddam and other parties interested in causing a
global economic and maybe even environmental
catastrophe, but also the Saudi oilfields, and the
flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
3) We got rid of an asshole who had the money to
get nuclear weapons, had the scientists to get
nuclear weapons, had much of the infrastructure to
make nuclear weapons, had adamantly expressed his
*desire* to have nuclear weapons, helped other
countries in their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons,
and had used other WMDs in both war and peace and saw
no problem with using such weapons against military
and civilian targets.
4) And as an extra added bonus, we have been able to
field test and modernize broad segments of our military,
down to the very lowest level, introducing battlefield
enhancements like lightweight body and vehicle armor,
Stryker vehicles, unmanned robots and aircraft, field
officer PDA's, several extraordinary intelligence
gathering integrated networks. We are re-writing broad
sections of doctrine and tactics.
5) Oh yes, and we have killed something on the order of
30,000 vicious fanatics in the process. Something for
which we should be joyfully grateful.
And we have done it with minimal killed and casulties,
far below even the most conservative estimates.
Damn good job.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:33:31 -0800
--------
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:09:43 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>> because the money spent on the war in Iraq
>> could go to more worthwhile things?
>
>Nothing government does is worthwhile to
>everybody.
>
>Besides, we have strategically made out like
>bandits by invading Iraq.
>
>1) We have inserted US power, important enough
>for it to be a Command, equal on a par with
>CENTCOM, NORTHCOM, or SOUTHCOM, dead center on
>the far side of the world, and able to intervene
>from there in Central Asia, the Middle East *and*
>Northern Africa. This menaces several of the most
>annoying and belligerent dictatorships still around.
>We are also creating a modern democracy where many
>said it could not be done.
>
>2) We now defend not just the Iraqi oilfields from
>Saddam and other parties interested in causing a
>global economic and maybe even environmental
>catastrophe, but also the Saudi oilfields, and the
>flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
>
>3) We got rid of an asshole who had the money to
>get nuclear weapons, had the scientists to get
>nuclear weapons, had much of the infrastructure to
>make nuclear weapons, had adamantly expressed his
>*desire* to have nuclear weapons, helped other
>countries in their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons,
>and had used other WMDs in both war and peace and saw
>no problem with using such weapons against military
>and civilian targets.
>
>4) And as an extra added bonus, we have been able to
>field test and modernize broad segments of our military,
>down to the very lowest level, introducing battlefield
>enhancements like lightweight body and vehicle armor,
>Stryker vehicles, unmanned robots and aircraft, field
>officer PDA's, several extraordinary intelligence
>gathering integrated networks. We are re-writing broad
>sections of doctrine and tactics.
>
>5) Oh yes, and we have killed something on the order of
>30,000 vicious fanatics in the process. Something for
>which we should be joyfully grateful.
>
>And we have done it with minimal killed and casulties,
>far below even the most conservative estimates.
>
>Damn good job.
what crap.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"Haircut or lobotomy, sir?"
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:39:53 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:09:43 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
> wrote:
>
> >Zapanaz wrote:
> >>
> >> because the money spent on the war in Iraq
> >> could go to more worthwhile things?
> >
> >Nothing government does is worthwhile to
> >everybody.
> >
> >Besides, we have strategically made out like
> >bandits by invading Iraq.
> >
> >1) We have inserted US power, important enough
> >for it to be a Command, equal on a par with
> >CENTCOM, NORTHCOM, or SOUTHCOM, dead center on
> >the far side of the world, and able to intervene
> >from there in Central Asia, the Middle East *and*
> >Northern Africa. This menaces several of the most
> >annoying and belligerent dictatorships still around.
> >We are also creating a modern democracy where many
> >said it could not be done.
> >
> >2) We now defend not just the Iraqi oilfields from
> >Saddam and other parties interested in causing a
> >global economic and maybe even environmental
> >catastrophe, but also the Saudi oilfields, and the
> >flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
> >
> >3) We got rid of an asshole who had the money to
> >get nuclear weapons, had the scientists to get
> >nuclear weapons, had much of the infrastructure to
> >make nuclear weapons, had adamantly expressed his
> >*desire* to have nuclear weapons, helped other
> >countries in their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons,
> >and had used other WMDs in both war and peace and saw
> >no problem with using such weapons against military
> >and civilian targets.
> >
> >4) And as an extra added bonus, we have been able to
> >field test and modernize broad segments of our military,
> >down to the very lowest level, introducing battlefield
> >enhancements like lightweight body and vehicle armor,
> >Stryker vehicles, unmanned robots and aircraft, field
> >officer PDA's, several extraordinary intelligence
> >gathering integrated networks. We are re-writing broad
> >sections of doctrine and tactics.
> >
> >5) Oh yes, and we have killed something on the order of
> >30,000 vicious fanatics in the process. Something for
> >which we should be joyfully grateful.
> >
> >And we have done it with minimal killed and casulties,
> >far below even the most conservative estimates.
> >
> >Damn good job.
>
> what crap.
Nah. Your crap is crap.
We've made no major boo-boos so far and scored big.
So, tell us how wrong we are.
Tell us how we are forcing Iran to get nuclear weapons.
Explain how all we have to do is give up civilization
and heard goats for a living so that they no longer want
to kill us.
Defend the indefensible.
--
"I can imagine a LOT when it comes
to unimaginable power."
-- nu-monet
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:27:42 -0800
--------
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:39:53 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Nah. Your crap is crap.
>
>We've made no major boo-boos so far and scored big.
>
>So, tell us how wrong we are.
>
>Tell us how we are forcing Iran to get nuclear weapons.
>
>Explain how all we have to do is give up civilization
>and heard goats for a living so that they no longer want
>to kill us.
>
>Defend the indefensible.
War is bad.
War is bad in and of itself. If you really don't grasp that I really
don't have a huge desire to try to spell it out in simpler terms.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
For all your answers are great and excellent; and which a man can hardly
understand.
- Apocrypha
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:32:02 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> War is bad.
>
> War is bad in and of itself. If you really
> don't grasp that I really don't have a huge
> desire to try to spell it out in simpler terms.
You realize, of course, that war had little to do
with the Nazis death camps, do you? Had there been
no war, they were still planning to exterminate
large numbers of people.
And slavery in the US wasn't caused by the Civil War.
And the forcible movement of hundreds of thousands
of Native Americans from their homelands onto distant
and desolate reservations, causing the deaths of tens
of thousands, wasn't done in time of war, either.
Actually, when you say that war is bad, most of what
you are talking about isn't really part of "war",
that is, soldiers killing, wounding and capturing
other soldiers, and trying to stop their enemy from
fighting back.
It is what happens when soldiers meet civilians and
abuse them. That is what you find so offensive.
But that is not really part of war, which is why it
is seen as a war crime.
But war crimes, and abuses far worse than most war
crimes happen in peacetime, too. Often, western
nations and some others actually go to war to STOP
such horrific abuses.
And I'm surprised that I had to explain that to you.
Do you really not appreciate that Americans TRY to be
the "good guys", and in a vicious, cruel, indifferent,
and greedy world, Americans are the ones who still
have ideals, who work for just causes, and do whatever
they can to minimize injury to civilians?
Do you morally equate what Americans try to do with
what the people Americans fight try to do? Not just
right now, but the Nazis, the Communist North Koreans,
the Communist North Vietnamese, Saddam and al-Qeida?
I just cannot grasp moral relativism taken to such
irrational extremes. But I do know that some leftists
in America embraced Stalin's Russia as a model for
America to follow. And that some of the leaders of
ANSWER, the current anti-war movement, are avowed
Maoist-Marxists, who even justify Mao's Cultural
Revolution and the murder of perhaps 30 million
people, as "just" and "moral".
I also know that they do not, and perhaps cannot see
how bizarre their hatred of America has twisted their
perception of reality.
--
"Money can't buy you happiness,
but when you're poor, you can't
buy shit, and nobody will loan
you happiness."
--nu-monet
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:45:58 -0800
--------
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:32:02 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>You realize, of course, that war had little to do
>with the Nazis death camps, do you? Had there been
>no war, they were still planning to exterminate
>large numbers of people.
>
>And slavery in the US wasn't caused by the Civil War.
>
>And the forcible movement of hundreds of thousands
>of Native Americans from their homelands onto distant
>and desolate reservations, causing the deaths of tens
>of thousands, wasn't done in time of war, either.
>
>Actually, when you say that war is bad,
blah blah
OK numo, war is good. You've proved it.
Whatever.
Thank you for another round of "some dipshit defends a completely
stupid point ad absurdum". I hadn't had one of them in hours.
In another location I am watching an argument between three people who
are arguing that time contracts near light speed (I am one of the
three) versus another fellow who argues that it doesn't.
The basis of the other fellow's argument is that he isn't reading the
three people's posts because they're too long. But he continues to
maintain his point is true because he hasn't read anything to
contradict it.
That's a novel approach, you should try that one next time.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
You can't make people happy by law. If you said to a bunch of average people two hundred years
ago "Would you be happy in a world where medical care is widely available, houses are clean, the
world's music and sights and foods can be brought into your home at small cost, travelling even 100
miles is easy, childbirth is generally not fatal to mother or child, you don't have to die of dental
abcesses, and you don't have to do what the squire tells you", they'd think you were talking about the
New Jerusalem and say "yes".
- Terry Pratchett
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:14:19 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> OK numo, war is good. You've proved it.
>
> Whatever.
And you've just made the argument the left often
makes, that if you just refuse to fight, then the
other side wont fight you.
--
Rev. nu-monet
Founder and High Priest
Church of Kali, U.S.A. (Reformed)
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:37:46 -0800
--------
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:14:19 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>> OK numo, war is good. You've proved it.
>>
>> Whatever.
>
>And you've just made the argument the left often
>makes, that if you just refuse to fight, then the
>other side wont fight you.
You went way off on an irrelevant tangent, trying to prove a stupid
point. I didn't "refuse to fight" in some kind of Ghandi attempt to
prove a point. I refused to fight because it was too stupid to
respond to.
>Do you morally equate what Americans try to do with
>what the people Americans fight try to do?
And so on and so on and so on. I didn't say anything like that. I'm
not even going to bother going through your response 80 times and
replying "I didn't say anything like that" to everything you said.
It's just too stupid.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
I always say I'd much rather be around someone who comes right out and
admits he's a hateful intolerant son of a bitch than someone who's
always calling people down for not coming up to their noble standards
while pretending it's for everybody's benefit.
- nenslo
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:44:16 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:14:19 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
> wrote:
>
>>Zapanaz wrote:
>>>
>>> OK numo, war is good. You've proved it.
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>
>>And you've just made the argument the left often
>>makes, that if you just refuse to fight, then the
>>other side wont fight you.
>
>You went way off on an irrelevant tangent, trying to prove a stupid
>point. I didn't "refuse to fight" in some kind of Ghandi attempt to
>prove a point. I refused to fight because it was too stupid to
>respond to.
>
>>Do you morally equate what Americans try to do with
>>what the people Americans fight try to do?
>
>And so on and so on and so on. I didn't say anything like that. I'm
>not even going to bother going through your response 80 times and
>replying "I didn't say anything like that" to everything you said.
>
>It's just too stupid.
>
>
I agree with both of these posts.
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:03:39 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
Okay, so I'll say it.
War for a good cause can be good.
Just being opposed to the concept of war
because you think all war is "bad" is
pretty damn dumb, like being opposed to the
idea of "police", because "police are bad".
And, last but not least, even if you don't
want to play, there are lots of people willing
to come to your door and kick the shit out of
you, rape and kill your family, and burn down
your house.
Not only because they can. But because they
like doing it. No greater reason needed than
that. And they don't give a shit what you think.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:43:29 -0800
--------
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:03:39 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>War for a good cause can be good.
>
I didn't say otherwise.
>Just being opposed to the concept of war
>because you think all war is "bad" is
>pretty damn dumb, like being opposed to the
>idea of "police", because "police are bad".
>
I didn't say anything resembling that.
>And, last but not least, even if you don't
>want to play, there are lots of people willing
>to come to your door and kick the shit out of
>you, rape and kill your family, and burn down
>your house.
>
That has nothing to do with what I said.
>Not only because they can. But because they
>like doing it. No greater reason needed than
>that. And they don't give a shit what you think.
Who said they did?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
God does not play dice with the universe;
He plays an ineffable game of his own devising,
which might be compared,
from the perspective of any of the other players,
to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker
in a pitch dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes,
with a dealer who won't tell you the rules
and who smiles all the time.
- Gaiman and Pratchett's "Good Omens"
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:14:47 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:03:39 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
> wrote:
>
> >War for a good cause can be good.
> >
>
> I didn't say otherwise.
You wrote:
"War is bad.
War is bad in and of itself. If you really
don't grasp that I really don't have a huge
desire to try to spell it out in simpler terms."
That was just a few posts ago. Have you
forgotten already?
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:27:05 -0800
--------
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:14:47 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:03:39 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >War for a good cause can be good.
>> >
>>
>> I didn't say otherwise.
>
>You wrote:
>
>"War is bad.
>War is bad in and of itself. If you really
>don't grasp that I really don't have a huge
>desire to try to spell it out in simpler terms."
>
>That was just a few posts ago. Have you
>forgotten already?
Yes, war is bad in and of itself. I don't disagree that sometimes
it's necessary. Saying "war is bad in and of itself" does not imply
that under some circumstances war might not be the greatest good
possible.
Neither does it imply the dozen or two dozen other things you have
pretended I said.
It's just debate tactics. Put the other person in a position that
seems related but is undefensible. One can play all kinds of games
with a verbal discussion. As soon as the games start though the
conversation has become pointless; fools trying to reinforce their
already foregone conclusions.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas.
I'm frightened of the old ones.
- John Cage
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:57:23 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> Yes, war is bad in and of itself. I don't
> disagree that sometimes it's necessary.
I didn't say "necessary", I said "good".
You see, that is the trouble with using absolutes
like "bad", when you mean "bad sometimes".
Me, I am willing to accept the notion that war is
sometimes "good", even though sometimes bad things
are done as part of it. Those bad things do not
diminish from the overall motives, practices, and
results of having gone to war in the first place.
By my understanding, this war could have had ten
times the US and enemy casualties it did, and still
be a "good" war. It could have accomplished a heck
of a lot less and been a "good" war. Iraq could
have been left in some pre-democratic autocracy
that was friendly with the US, and it still would
have been a "good" war.
A good war. Not "war is good". There is a difference.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:51:32 -0800
--------
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:57:23 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>> Yes, war is bad in and of itself. I don't
>> disagree that sometimes it's necessary.
>
>I didn't say "necessary", I said "good".
>
>You see, that is the trouble with using absolutes
>like "bad", when you mean "bad sometimes".
>
>Me, I am willing to accept the notion that war is
>sometimes "good", even though sometimes bad things
>are done as part of it. Those bad things do not
>diminish from the overall motives, practices, and
>results of having gone to war in the first place.
>
>By my understanding, this war could have had ten
>times the US and enemy casualties it did, and still
>be a "good" war. It could have accomplished a heck
>of a lot less and been a "good" war. Iraq could
>have been left in some pre-democratic autocracy
>that was friendly with the US, and it still would
>have been a "good" war.
>
>A good war. Not "war is good". There is a difference.
What crap.
"Bad" is not an absolute, except in your imagination, where most of
your argument has been taking place.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Imagine what having a really ripping female orgasm would do to all
those gnarly macho cowboys.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:49:43 -0800
--------
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:57:23 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>> Yes, war is bad in and of itself. I don't
>> disagree that sometimes it's necessary.
>
>I didn't say "necessary", I said "good".
>
>You see, that is the trouble with using absolutes
>like "bad", when you mean "bad sometimes".
>
>Me, I am willing to accept the notion that war is
>sometimes "good", even though sometimes bad things
>are done as part of it. Those bad things do not
>diminish from the overall motives, practices, and
>results of having gone to war in the first place.
>
>By my understanding, this war could have had ten
>times the US and enemy casualties it did, and still
>be a "good" war. It could have accomplished a heck
>of a lot less and been a "good" war. Iraq could
>have been left in some pre-democratic autocracy
>that was friendly with the US, and it still would
>have been a "good" war.
>
>A good war. Not "war is good". There is a difference.
So you're in favor of raping nuns and killing puppies.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"I just got sick of the bullshit"
- Howard Beale
Correspondent:: "Revi Shankar" Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:58:18 -0500
--------
"Zapanaz" wrote in message
news:u06vr0tvvkq42g52ej143nmunjogjp5ug0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:57:23 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
> wrote:
>
> >Zapanaz wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, war is bad in and of itself. I don't
> >> disagree that sometimes it's necessary.
> >
> >I didn't say "necessary", I said "good".
> >
> >You see, that is the trouble with using absolutes
> >like "bad", when you mean "bad sometimes".
> >
> >Me, I am willing to accept the notion that war is
> >sometimes "good", even though sometimes bad things
> >are done as part of it. Those bad things do not
> >diminish from the overall motives, practices, and
> >results of having gone to war in the first place.
> >
> >By my understanding, this war could have had ten
> >times the US and enemy casualties it did, and still
> >be a "good" war. It could have accomplished a heck
> >of a lot less and been a "good" war. Iraq could
> >have been left in some pre-democratic autocracy
> >that was friendly with the US, and it still would
> >have been a "good" war.
> >
> >A good war. Not "war is good". There is a difference.
>
> So you're in favor of raping nuns and killing puppies.
Z. your endurance is amazing. Sisyphus is ashamed. And has a higher chance
of actually suceeding at what he does.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:24:28 -0800
--------
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:58:18 -0500, "Revi Shankar"
wrote:
>Z. your endurance is amazing. Sisyphus is ashamed. And has a higher chance
>of actually suceeding at what he does.
yeah I know ... it's pointless and annoying
but the sky is not green and pigs can't fly. dammit.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Any technology distinguishable from Magic is insufficiently advanced
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:48:47 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> So you're in favor of raping nuns and killing puppies.
No more drugs for you. You're making Howard Dean sounds.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: "Revi Shankar" Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:50:19 -0500
--------
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote in message
news:41BFA60F.13CF@succeeds.com...
> Zapanaz wrote:
> >
> > So you're in favor of raping nuns and killing puppies.
>
> No more drugs for you. You're making Howard Dean sounds.
At some point in time, you will come to the realization that almost
everybody is making Howard Dean sounds. At that point, it might occur to you
that maybe it isn't 'nearly everbody' that is a little off...
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:38:43 -0700
--------
Revi Shankar wrote:
>
> At some point in time, you will come to the
> realization that almost everybody is making
> Howard Dean sounds.
No, I'm pretty convinced that Howard Dean sounds
are pretty rare. His followers attend group therapy
sessions, cry and curse a lot, and have serious denial
problems.
--
"We're going to take things away from
you on behalf of the common good."
-- Hillary Clinton
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:03:26 GMT
--------
In article ,
"Revi Shankar" wrote:
> At some point in time, you will come to the realization that almost
> everybody is making Howard Dean sounds.
Sig file, even if I did realize it quite a while back, before it got so
LOUD. When just 2 or 3 were making Howard Dean sounds on an occasional
street corner, why, it was just fine, but now that you can't go into a
store without hearing over half the people making Howard Dean sounds,
well, its just creepy, is what it is.
--
HellPope Huey
Lewd Interpretive Dance Done
In The Privacy Of Your Own Home; by the hour.
I have no need of your God-damned sympathy.
I only wish to be entertained
by some of your grosser reminiscences.
- Alexander Woolcott
"'Black Dracula' is now a congressman from West Virginia."
- "The Simpsons"
Correspondent:: mshotz@aol.commonkeypo (Rev. Richard Skull)
Date: 14 Dec 2004 23:20:12 GMT
--------
>"War is bad.
>War is bad in and of itself. If you really
>don't grasp that I really don't have a huge
>desire to try to spell it out in simpler terms."
>
>That was just a few posts ago. Have you
>forgotten already?
>
>
If is good that war is so terrible or we should grow too fond of it.
Gen Robert E. Lee
MSHOTZ: The Post Post Modern Man
"War hath no Fury like a non-combatants"
Charles E. Montague
Correspondent:: mshotz@aol.commonkeypo (Rev. Richard Skull)
Date: 14 Dec 2004 23:32:23 GMT
--------
>You realize, of course, that war had little to do
>with the Nazis death camps, do you? Had there been
>no war, they were still planning to exterminate
>large numbers of people.
With Bush's Grand Father loaning them the money to do it. Mr. Prescott had his
little bank confinscated after WWII under the "Trading with The Enemy Act" for
trading with the Nasi's
>And slavery in the US wasn't caused by the Civil War.
No. It was caused by white people too lazy to work their own farms.
>And the forcible movement of hundreds of thousands
>of Native Americans from their homelands onto distant
>and desolate reservations, causing the deaths of tens
>of thousands, wasn't done in time of war, either.
>
But it was done at by the US Army under teh so called "manifest Destiny." In
fact until the 20th Century, the US Army still refered to them as "The Indian
Wars"
>Actually, when you say that war is bad, most of what
>you are talking about isn't really part of "war",
>that is, soldiers killing, wounding and capturing
>other soldiers, and trying to stop their enemy from
>fighting back.
>
>It is what happens when soldiers meet civilians and
>abuse them. That is what you find so offensive.
>But that is not really part of war, which is why it
>is seen as a war crime.
Or just having some fun! Remeber, if it does not hurt like major organ failure,
its not torture! That what Rummy seez!
>But war crimes, and abuses far worse than most war
>crimes happen in peacetime, too. Often, western
>nations and some others actually go to war to STOP
>such horrific abuses.
>
Like when? Only once, Bosnia. And Clinton was hounded the the GOP & the media
all thruogh it.
>And I'm surprised that I had to explain that to you.
And I am not surprised that you obviously no NOTHING about US Histroy.
>Do you really not appreciate that Americans TRY to be
>the "good guys", and in a vicious, cruel, indifferent,
>and greedy world, Americans are the ones who still
>have ideals, who work for just causes, and do whatever
>they can to minimize injury to civilians?
Thats right! Our good guys said that this little war in Iraq would 'PAY FOR IT
SELF VIA OIL REVENUES! I'm sure that is what all good guys decide when going to
war.
>Do you morally equate what Americans try to do with
>what the people Americans fight try to do? Not just
>right now, but the Nazis, the Communist North Koreans,
We went to war with Germany in WWII becuase Germany Declared war on the US as
part of its treaty obligation to Japan.
>the Communist North Vietnamese, Saddam and al-Qeida?
Of all those you listed, 3 of the 5 are still here. And North Korea now has
Atomic Weapons. estimates are between 5 and 15. But could be more.
And Bin Laden looked like he had been staying at Club Med in the last Video he
released in October.
>I just cannot grasp moral relativism taken to such
>irrational extremes. But I do know that some leftists
>in America embraced Stalin's Russia as a model for
>America to follow.
And we are doing a damned good job of doing it these days too!
>ANSWER, the current anti-war movement, are avowed
>Maoist-Marxists, who even justify Mao's Cultural
>Revolution and the murder of perhaps 30 million
>people, as "just" and "moral".
>
Yea, those damned Quakers! All commies! Look at that State they settled,
Pennsylvania!
>I also know that they do not, and perhaps cannot see
>how bizarre their hatred of America has twisted their
>perception of reality.
You preception of "reality" appears to be achieved through some cheap
Conspsracy Grade "Q" Frop.
MSHOTZ: The Post Post Modern Man
"War hath no Fury like a non-combatants"
Charles E. Montague
Correspondent:: mshotz@aol.commonkeypo (Rev. Richard Skull)
Date: 14 Dec 2004 23:18:48 GMT
--------
>1) We have inserted US power, important enough
>for it to be a Command, equal on a par with
>CENTCOM, NORTHCOM, or SOUTHCOM, dead center on
>the far side of the world, and able to intervene
>from there in Central Asia, the Middle East *and*
>Northern Africa. This menaces several of the most
>annoying and belligerent dictatorships still around.
>We are also creating a modern democracy where many
>said it could not be done.
Or, we are surrounded on two sides by nations who hate us (Syria and Iran) who
militaries are no decrepid like Saddams, and who combined strength is about
twice the present strength of "Allied" troops in Iraq. And thier militaries are
well trained and professionel. Sure their equipment is not he best. But niether
was ours in WWII.
>2) We now defend not just the Iraqi oilfields from
>Saddam and other parties interested in causing a
>global economic and maybe even environmental
>catastrophe, but also the Saudi oilfields, and the
>flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
But the insurgents have cuased so much damaage & disruption of the oil
production, the monthly production totals are actually LOWER then prior to the
invasion.
>3) We got rid of an asshole who had the money to
>get nuclear weapons, had the scientists to get
>nuclear weapons, had much of the infrastructure to
>make nuclear weapons, had adamantly expressed his
>*desire* to have nuclear weapons, helped other
>countries in their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons,
>and had used other WMDs in both war and peace and saw
>no problem with using such weapons against military
>and civilian targets.
And who would have been driven out of power by his own Military if Ronny
Reagan, Bush I, Cheney and Rummy (lets shake Saddams hand on CNN after Saddam
gassed all those civilians) had not propped him up and helped him with overt &
covert military aid in his war with Iran. ALL Saddams Bio germs came form the
USA.
Many US firms were more then happy to sell Sadam ANYTHING to include precision
machine tools (which by the way, thnaks to poor post war secuirty, has
dissappered) and incubators to breed TONS of germ warfare germs. Reagan even
convence French President Mitterand to "rent" Saddam Super Entard Aircraft. One
of which fire the Exocet Missle into the USS Stark.
>4) And as an extra added bonus, we have been able to
>field test and modernize broad segments of our military,
>down to the very lowest level, introducing battlefield
>enhancements like lightweight body and vehicle armor,
>Stryker vehicles, unmanned robots and aircraft, field
>officer PDA's, several extraordinary intelligence
>gathering integrated networks. We are re-writing broad
>sections of doctrine and tactics.
Anistan Army Depot have in AL. and Texarcana Depot in TX have acres of
equipment distroyed or Damaged in the. about 75% can be rebuilt with the rest
being a source for cannabalized parts. The Strykers are being deployed with the
Famous "Hillbilly Armor" becuase they are esily penitrated by RPG's
The $4 Million a pop M-1 tank has been knocked out in combat by the insugents
on a regular basis. They wait in the hiddy holes the US Air strikes created
unitl the Tanks are at point balnk range, then fire into the tracks. Once
immoblized, a couple Molitov Cocktails finish the job.
The DoD Civilians, who have been watching to many Rambo Movies, never thought
to making sure the Army had enough Spare parts to fight a prolonged war. So the
Units have gone through thier "war Stocks", the depot stocks, the
reserve/National Guard Stocks, and are now begining to cannablize equipment at
US facilities. And Rummy & his "super-genius" experts are only now looking at
procuring more parts.
As for teh Light weight body armor, that National Guardsman formTennesee said
it all. (too bad he is now a marked man)
>5) Oh yes, and we have killed something on the order of
>30,000 vicious fanatics in the process. Something for
>which we should be joyfully grateful.
30,000? Not a bad start, but I think Iraq had a population of about 36 million.
So thats a drop in the bucket. But for every 30,000 "fanatics" we kill, we
usually end up killing 3 to 4 civilians who just happned to be too close to a
"precision" stricke with a 500# bomb. They will only kill anything and anyone
within 200 meters of the impact zone. And for every civilain we kill, we make
more & more people support the insergents. THis is something the Germans
learned in france and the Eastern Front in WWII.
>And we have done it with minimal killed and casulties,
>far below even the most conservative estimates.
>
Big talk form someone who is in a nice comfatable home typing on a PC. Whydon;t
you get up and streach your legs by walking down to the Local Army or Marines
recruiting station?
Seeing your such a big fan of this war, you should be knocking down the doors
to go in & help fight it!
Remember, the MOS you want is 11B!
Let us know when you leave for Basic!
And since Ft. Benning is next to Columbus, you can drop by & say hello to Jesus
& Magdelene!