If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Get Ready Cousins ~ Iraq To Be Bombed
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Time to get ready for what is coming; A B-1 bomber will leave its base in Missouri, USA, with a direct fly to Iraq where it will bomb stragic targets and then return to its base...to rearm and return, over and over again.
They won't see or hear a thing until the bombs start hiting targets and the targets are already marked and known...anyone 'down wind' from the neuclear facilities probably won't survive.
All in a war brought to you and US by islam.
<IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
They won't see or hear a thing until the bombs start hiting targets and the targets are already marked and known...anyone 'down wind' from the neuclear facilities probably won't survive.
All in a war brought to you and US by islam.
<IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
0
Comments
Are you making this stuff up, or do you have a source for this information.
How long have the US govt been posturing about Iraq? I constantly read messages and comments about how the US is gonna invade Iraq..been hearing it for 3 months now.
Diesel, maybe you can shed some light on it for me...Why is an invasion of iraq being considered? whats the point?
Nuclear facilities? Which nuclear facilities?
And why is there a need to start bombing it..there are still US seveillance teams in Iraq! Surely whatever they want done could be done peacefully?
<IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> sorry i think your comments are as bad as the suns front pages...(I seem to remember a certain problem with Enron lately! yet The Sun had Pop idol crap on its front cover when that was discovered.)
Because we can; and, it's cost effective to do it this way.
Furthermore, we have all these new toys that haven't been tried yet.
Keep an eye on the news, it's coming...you should get it in the early edition.
<img src="http://www.cegunshows.com/smokinggun_md_wht.gif" alt="image">
You are referring to military teams? Or to the arms control inspectors?
The US attacked iraq in defence of Kuwait, it just happens that Kuwait are rich, oil suppliers <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
There won't be many 'live' military targets...top brass, some barracks, mostly weapons development complexes and 'royal' palaces. All chemical plants will be hit; all research and development labs; based upon sonic and thermal immaging scans every underground or deep basement in the country will get a 'visit' from above!
And then there will be a three day wait! You figure out what for!
<img src="http://www.cegunshows.com/smokinggun_md_wht.gif" alt="image">
Well you have no reasoning for the bombing of Iraq.
Its like the whole American populace just wanna bomb iraq for the hell of it. Regrets that we didnt finish it last time maybe?
I love the way people think that new technology is winning wars, when at the end of the day its just B-52s carpet bombing whole areas that get the job done. Oh well, I suppose its more interesting to read a newspaper article on the "KillMax 3000 Laser Guided Supermissile" than "Big Bomb - Kills lots of civilians"
<img src="http://www.cegunshows.com/smokinggun_md_wht.gif" alt="image"> Is this supposed to be Bush? I can see a resemblance...
[ 22-02-2002: Message edited by: Vox populi, vox Dei ]
We only have a few B-1 bombers so expect them to go over in a spaced manner which implies a continuous flow of aircraft to the target(s) and back.
Instead of 'roling tunder' they will have Tors hammer...over and over and over~
<img src="http://www.cegunshows.com/smokinggun_md_wht.gif" alt="image">
Yea i am referring to the arms control inspectors..if there are nuclear weapons stored somwhere surely these people should have found them and would rather they be avoided! I think a nuclear mistake is not needed at this time!
New technology does win wars. Remember the atomic bomb? Remember iron? Sure, we could use old technology and still do the job. But that is because Iraq, and most other countries don't have that ability. The appeal of new technology is that it is more efficient.
The Japanese were on the verge of surrender anyway; there's the popular myth that they were going to "fight to the last man", but after the firebombing (old tech) of Tokyo, which killed 80,000 civilians, almost as much as the A-bomb, they knew it was over with. They also knew that they'd come out of it a lot better if they surrendered and negotiated terms, and didn't force a war of attrition.
So why did the whiter-than-white Truman use "the bomb", if even he knew they were about to give up? For two main reasons:
Neither of these reasons are that the atomic bomb was a war-winning strategy - it wasn't - the hopeless military situation was the cause for Japanese surrender; the bombs just appear to catalyse it.
Not quite sure what you mean here. I'm not familiar with any war in which the discovery and use of iron suddenly yielded a massive technological advantage for one side over the other. Perhaps you can enlighten me...
Like the stealth bombers with stealth material that washes off in the rain? :P
Originally posted by Texas:
Remember iron?
Perhaps s/he meant that iron was used as a technological advantage over animals..im fairly sure iron was not used to any great effect as a technological advantage..although i believe Mithril may have been!
I wont argue with you Vox Pop, i agree with you totally
<IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
With the new bombing techniques I am relieved to learn/believe that the wonderous archaeological treasures in Iraq will be preserved...really, what's important? Ancient culture of course!
Here in US folks are awaiting an excuse to 'clean house' using another act of terrorism as an excuse...clearly, there is no more dangerous place on the face of the earth for islamics than the US has become. As our economey converts to wartime measures and suddenly jobs are found readily and even our 'rif raf' has become patriotic in bent and bearing I can only say that I haven't seen anything like it since WW-2!
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020222-77660232.htm
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Someone ask that this be posted over here...some interesting points for folks 'over there' to consider!
What do <STRONG>you</STRONG> think?
This is something to be proud of? Thomas Jefferson said:
"[No man] shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."
The TERRORISTS must be condemned and must be justly tried and punished. But to make the US a place dangerous for Muslims, to cheer the growth of anti-Islamic hatred, is against the civilised code on which the US was founded, and on which all civilised countries must operate.
If the US really is the most dangerous place for Islamics (which it of course isn't - Israel systematically kills far more Muslims each year, and of course the Muslim countries themselves are extremely dangerous and oppressive towards their own people) then you should not be pleased by this fact; you should stop and think "How on Earth can I, a civilised American citizen, allow my country to turn into a temple of hatred for a particular group?", and you should then stop hating regular Americans simply based on their faith and embrace the principles laid down by your own forefathers.
Some things are rather self-evident. Have you read the linked article???
Rather apropos, don't you think?
You would collectively hide from responsibities of defense, in fear of reprisals directed at YOU, and at the same time, condemn US for its actions. You collectively condemn US for sticking our face in where it is unwelcome. You say our "foreign policy" is responsible for ALL of the hatred in the world today.
Our "foreign policy" is what makes it possible for you to demean and insult US.
Our "foreign policy" is what has frequently saved you from YOUR "foreign policy"...
When our "foreign policy" ends, so do you, just as Hitler would have ended you little more than half a century ago. How much German shipping did Britain sink before Germany actually declared war upon you? <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Without the US bombing of Germany, what would have been the consequences of Hitler gaining a viable rocket program, and completing the development of nuclear weapons? Had Japan not attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, your island would have become the predecessor of Bikini Atoll.
You might consider THAT while you demean the US for its "foreign policy"...
The US did not take the step forward to volunteer to play "policeman" to the world... everyone else took the step back. Left to ourselves, THAT is what we have sought... to be LEFT to ourselves. Isolationism was our intent before we got drug into wars to defend and protect YOU. Even tho we were reluctant to fight, we (as a nation) were painfully taught that we MUST take the stand, EARLY ON, or we will again get drug into another global war, one in which we do not want to fight, but could end this world.
Continue to demean US, but without US - AND our "foreign policy" which so offends your gentle sensitivities - your petty little life would end...
It begins with your refusal to arm yourselves on a personal and individual basis, and it leads to your inability to defend yourselves on a national basis.
Reality IS a "mutha-f3cka", ain't it? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 24-02-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
Again, have YOU read THIS linked article?
Have YOU considered the implications? ... the consequences? ...the fact that is is not only the US which has been involved in conflict with Muslim extremists? ...that without our current US 'foreign policy" you might not awaken from your delusions of "if we just play nice EVERYBODY ccould just get along" soon enough to EVER wake up again?
You say it is the US that is saving the world, but you do not stop to consider that, without US foreign policy, there would be nothing it needed saving from.
You make the usual inaccurate historical references concerning WW2. Statistics prove (I will find and quote these if you desire) that Allied Bomber Command's attacks on Germany during WW2 did little to damage military industrial output, and in fact served to increase German morale.
You point out that it was Japan that attacked the US, but I remind you that, even after this, the cowardly isolationist US showed no interest in intervening in Europe: it was only Hitler's rather bizarre declaration of war that induced the grudging US to do this.
And of course you make the standard attack on the fact that we're not so uncivilised that we feel the need to carry guns around with us. I know this debate has raged on for some while, but that doesn't need to be the case. All you need to do is realise that anyone who feels the need to carry a gun has some severe psychological problems. I am proud to live in a society in which guns are not commonplace, and to live on a continent that has, on the whole, rejected the idea that war will solve anything.
You dont think thats a slightly large assumption on your part? Its not as though muslim extremism has been a problem in the past is it? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> . If the US wasnt present in the middle east then the area would be in even more dire straights than today.
Diesel, the very idea that the US will use nuclear weapons in the middle east is so laughable its not even funny.
Severe psychological problem? Is that how you refer to reality?
Continent that has "rejected war"? Prima facie case concerning your delusions...
>>>edit<<< My compliments to your handler... you have been indoctrinated well.
Your "pride" you boast of is none other than the self-possessed arrogance and ignorance of youth...
"Cowardly" United States??? rotflmfao! Is that bin Laden I hear calling to you? Quick! There is still time to enlist, just like jihad johnnie. Or are you the "courageous" idealist who will meet the enemy with the power of his mouth?
[ 24-02-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: Squinty ]
Ah, it's all so simple in your eyes, isn't it? Rejected the idea that war will solve anything?
Tell that to the children in Northern Ireland. Tell that to the Indians BUTCHERED by the British. Tell that to the Jews killed less than 50 years ago. Tell that to the Serbs, the Croatians, the Czechs...
You're a clueless twit restating things that were said in the 1920s. And they were wrong too.
War has always solved things. The fact that you are young and foolish enough to not recognise that fact does not change it, only shows that you are looking at the world with blinders on.
Civilised? There is the great claim of the British. But are they, really? The only indications of it are in their literature, but they don't bother to learn the lessons there, either.
Mycenaens, using bronze, were defeated by the Dorians, using iron. Was iron really the reason for the demise of the Mycenaens? It's hard to be certain. The period brought in by the Dorians is generally known as the Greek Dark Ages. However, it is important to note that this is the generally accepted theory (yes, yes, I know conventional wisdom is not always correct).
I would suspect that any civilization living in close proximity to another that had advanced to the bronze/iron age while it was still in the stone/bronze age, would experience a fate similar to the Mycenaens. However, I am no expert, this is just a semi-educated guess.
I suppose you have a valid point depending on your definition of new. Though I feel fairly confident that I could find an instance where new technology did win a war based on your definition of new. Sure, not all new technology is going to win wars. But every now and then somethign comes along that will. Of course, in the instance where the difference between the advanced technologies of the two civilizations is great (USA and Iraq), the marginal utility of ANY new technology is going to be minuscule.
Maybe someone here knows, would it be possible for Iraq to shootdown B52's using AA installations and fighter planes? If so, I think the advantage and efficiencies of using a stealth bomber are apparent.
I am just using Iraq as an example to refute Vox populi, vox Dei's generalization. I really don't know enough about America's situation with Iraq to comment.