American POW vids

[Giton]

Two things. The hydrogen fuel cell has apparently irreconcileable scale-up problems having to do with purity of the fuel and gradual degredation of the cell. I'm at a tech institute, and none of the professors here have any confidence in the concept becoming practical anytime soon. 2) Where do you think we're going to get the hydrogen from? Distilling it from the air at the purity we need takes more energy than we'd get back from the fuel. There is one good source of H2, though.

Yeah, you got a point. There are several techniques to power cars with hydrogen, but either they depend on that unstable fuel cell or on gaining hydrogen directly from oil.

At the moment the only reasonable source for H2 is oil. And in the process of cracking oil accures also CO2.
So it doen't matter if you burn the oil directly or first transform it into H2 and CO2, as long as your conventional engine is good enough.

BTW: You can't distill the air, cause there's no H2 in it. You have to split water electrolytically.

Biodisel isn't also an option. As for Germany, you'd have to cover 90% of the land with rape (the best plant here to win biodisel from) to cover the oil consumption of industry and households.
Think it's similar in the US.

The best solutions for the energy problem for the next few years (the oil resources will at least last for 50 years if we use them in the same way as we do now - that means: no advance in alternative anergy sources and no developement in third world countries) is simply 1) to save energy, 2) to gradually introduce new techniques and to 3) use a mixture of existing solutions.

Biodiesel is a good solution for rural economy, you can use photo termic installations to heat water, use low energy sodium ligthing in streets or simply unplug all electronical devices when not used, and so on...


Back at war:

I think this would have ended in a war sooner or later anyways. But if George W. Bush would have waited for the "later", It'd have better.
There was the possibility of solving this peacefully and it was a great step forward to get saddam to cooperate.
The question is now, if Saddam would have pulled that through, but president Bush thwarted to see the outcome of the diplomatical solution.
The offer to leave the country was ridiculous, as Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to loose.

and if your so pro war, go join the army right now, yes right now and go to Iraq.

I agree with that. Many people who are pro war would probably pee their trousers if they got personally involved.

Actually one can't be really pro or against this war. Of course there are many bad things like killed civilians, POW, the US's intention behind this war, but on the other side it's a way to remove Saddam and his friends once and for ever.
It's up to you which side you choose, but always remember there's another side that is also right...

The only bad thing about this war, now that it has started, could be that American troop losses are too harsh and they decide to retreat...

I have yet to see a single realistic alternative to war in order to remove Saddam. It's not that I'm refusing to listen, I just keep getting told that "there are better alternatives" but I'm never told what they are. PLEASE tell me an alternative that will actually work. Saddam ignored UN resolutions for 12 years, why would he pay attention to them now? If all you're saying is that the UN shoulda done this instead of us, then we're just doing what the UN wouldn't, and fighting a fight they should be fighting. I'm not really sure why it matters, US troops make up the majority of any UN force anyway.

The only compareable and as effective solution would've been a civic war.
But the fact that the whole population (except some ethnic minorities) stands behind saddam and his government makes this very improbable.
That leads to another question: What will be after the war? A democracy like Bush said? Certainly not regarding that all surrounding countries are ruled by kings and other dictators a democracy in Iraq would be very unstable.

[Dannywilson]

And now for the military view.

War is hell. There is no way around it. I joined, and yes, I'm willing to die for my country. That being said, there are some things you should know. Saddam Hussein has killed more of his countries' citizens in the last 20 odd years than we could kill by wiping out all of Baghdad at once. And before you take that statement out of context, I am not advocating carpet bombing, mass slaughter, or ethnic cleansing. I am stating facts. You know how he tested those chemical weapons? On over 1 MILLION Kurdish rebels. Do you know what chemical weapons do to the human body? Well to explain it, there are four types of Chemical agents: Blood, Blister, Choking, and Nerve. Blood agents act on the human bloodstream, making it reject oxygen from the lungs, so you slowly asphyxiate without ever knowing what's wrong. Blister agents cause massive skin lesions resembling burn blisters, but on an exponential scale. Imagine Golf balls of fluid, hanging off your arms, legs, torso, and even your genitals. Choking agents restrict the airways and lungs, so you, once again, asphyxiate. Painfully this time. Nerve agents are the most deadly of the lot. They cause the normal impulses from the brain act in abnormal ways. You begin to drool, or feel numbness in your extremities. Then you begin to twitch uncontrollably. Then the twitches turn to full blown spasms. By this point you are most likely unconcious from the sheer amount of pain caused my misfiring synapses and thrashing muscles. Then the misfiring's effect your heart and lungs. Only then do you die. Imagine all of San Antonio dieing this way. Thats how many he killed as proving grounds for these "non-existant" weapons.

Oh, he's not attempting to build nuclear arms? Explain the REPEATED attempts to buy machined metal parts essential to the creation of enriched uranium from spent nuclear reactor rods? He left a paper-trail boys and girls.

Oh, and the "assasination" solution? Let me tell you about his son. Back in the early 90's, a noted anti-regime figure spoke out against the current power. He was shot, chopped into quarter sized pieces, and mailed to his wife. You want that sick fuck to fill the void?

Now on to the captured soldiers. They were soldiers, and willing to die for their country just like me. But they weren't Marine Recon, they weren't Rangers. They were maintenance troops that took a wrong turn and ended up dieing. In the structure of the dogs of war, some of us are terriers, fixing the machines, and others are pitbulls, fighting the fight, in the mud and the sand. They did not deserve to be tortured and they did not deserve to watch their comrades get shot in the head, others throats slashed, and the suvivors gutted.

It's not right.

[MCWagner]

BTW: You can't distill the air, cause there's no H2 in it. You have to split water electrolytically.

Garrr. Shoulda realized that. (There is some H2, but in such minute amounts it's not worth trying for.) Of course, splitting water electrolytically takes power, more power than you get by burning hydrogen...round and round we go.

Back at war:

I think this would have ended in a war sooner or later anyways. But if George W. Bush would have waited for the "later", It'd have better.
There was the possibility of solving this peacefully and it was a great step forward to get saddam to cooperate.

I'm curious why you think it would have been better later rather than sooner. I don't think there was any real way of ending this peacefully, as every indication I saw looked like Saddam had no intention of ever leaving or changing...or even giving the inspectors reasonable cooperation.

I agree with that. Many people who are pro war would probably pee their trousers if they got personally involved.

That doesn't really render their opinions illegitimate though. A person presented with enough evidence might agree that someone needs surgery, without having the steady hand or cool disposition necessary to cut into a patient.

The only compareable and as effective solution would've been a civic war.
But the fact that the whole population (except some ethnic minorities) stands behind saddam and his government makes this very improbable.

Problem is that we (the US) did encourage a civil war during the first Gulf War. There was a Kurdish and civillian uprising against Saddam's regime. But we left them high and dry by not going in and killing Saddam 12 years ago. There was a massive string of "vengance killings" of those who rebelled against Saddam out of sight of the UN inspectors, which went a long way towards cowing any opposition.

That leads to another question: What will be after the war? A democracy like Bush said? Certainly not regarding that all surrounding countries are ruled by kings and other dictators a democracy in Iraq would be very unstable.

Instability is no reason to not try...

DWilson: Yeah, one of Saddam's sons beat a man to death in the street when an errant tennisball struck his parked car. Afterwards the dead man's parents came to Uday (the son) and apologized for their dead son offending him so. If anything, Saddam's sons seem more sadistic than him

[jonmartensen]

Wow Danny, that was a well thought out, and informed post. I don't care if posts like that are in agreement or disagreement with me, I want to see more posts like that.

[buddykiller]

Would you stop shoving more stereotypes into WV? Seriously, shut the hell up.

o_O the problem is they arn't stereotypes it's the truth... i have yet to hear anybody from wv (including me) use proper english o_O

anyways, somebody said something about the missles and bombs and shit being precise, so thats why we just bombed a fucking bus???

[Giton]

Maybe because military announcements are all lies today?
I guess nobody believes the media anymore since gulf war I and the Kosovo conflict.
These statements about "precise weapons", "no civillian kills", etc. are all propaganda, would've been better if they told the truth because this "psycological warfare" is nothing but a joke. Saddam does much better in it, just look at the POWs (as sad at it may be).
You're quite lucky things aren't like in WW II, German POWs were mass slaughtered by Russian troops back then.

I'm curious why you think it would have been better later rather than sooner. I don't think there was any real way of ending this peacefully, as every indication I saw looked like Saddam had no intention of ever leaving or changing...or even giving the inspectors reasonable cooperation.

By later I mean 2-4 weeks.
The situation was very complicated and there was the chance for saddam to end this peacefully. But you can't convince an evil dictator to give up in a month, do you?
The crisis about this war isn't that Iraq is attacked, it's beacuse Bush disgusted Americas allies. The UN appointed an ultimatum for saddam for April the 17th, so 4 weeks after the ultimatum Bush wanted.
Those four weeks would have been enough for Saddam to show his true intentions and leave the inspectors more time to reveal illegal weapon factories. The US government's evidence on Saddams actions seemed a little bit improvisational or turned out as false.
And as we call our world "civilised" we have to adhere to "in dubio pro rei" and just watch saddams action until a proof is found.
With Bush's rash declaration of war he not only skated over the UN, but also the US constitution.
And to risk something serious just for a few weeks is IMHO idiotic.
This all isn't about indications, it's about facts and chances.
These four weeks would have also been crucial to ensure help for the Iraqi civilians during and after the war.
Predictions are, that the main catastrophe will appear after the war, when electricity and water supply is destroyed.
Gladfully US military didn't attack those facilities yet...not yet.

What makes me even more angry is the fact that people, and especially the US looked away from Saddam and let him do as he pleased.
And now, all of a sudden Saddam is the bad guy again and has to be stopped IMMEDIATELY. After such a long time of waiting?

Problem is that we (the US) did encourage a civil war during the first Gulf War. There was a Kurdish and civillian uprising against Saddam's regime. But we left them high and dry by not going in and killing Saddam 12 years ago. There was a massive string of "vengance killings" of those who rebelled against Saddam out of sight of the UN inspectors, which went a long way towards cowing any opposition.

Thats the minority problem I mentioned, and if you read my statement closely, you would've recognized that I mentioned this isn't really an option.

DWilson: Yeah, one of Saddam's sons beat a man to death in the street when an errant tennisball struck his parked car. Afterwards the dead man's parents came to Uday (the son) and apologized for their dead son offending him so. If anything, Saddam's sons seem more sadistic than him

If gulf war I tought us one thing, it is not to believe any single stories.
Remember the big big lie about Iraqi soldiers killing babies in Kuwait, that caused the US senate to agree to the war?
Maybe this one is true, but maybe it's set up. Who knows?

War is hell. There is no way around it. I joined, and yes, I'm willing to die for my country

Hey, congrats! You're the first pro war guy who can explain this point of view. Although I think 1 Million rebels is exaggerated (I heared of 10000-20000) it's still a crime that shouldn't have been commited.

Now that the war has already has begun, it shoud be brought to a proper end. Guess stopping it now would even claim more deaths.


Ah and buddykiller, there are two heads missing in your banner.
President Vladimir Putin himself and that president of Zaire - naw, just joking, the last one gets executed every year by the other party at a time

[MistyCaldwell]

.....

I was referring to the laws we have about murder and killing in self defense. If you are in a situation where someone is holding a gun to your head, you may very well kill them if given the chance. And for the most part, you won't be held responsible for murder, just self defense. On a war field, tell me if they are going to look up the rules in a life or death situation

[MistyCaldwell]

What about the hydrogen car idea everyone is raving about?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: forget hydrogen.

Perhaps I should include sarcasm warnings with my posts The reason I mentioned the hydrogen car, is because it is on the agenda for the bush administration. I guess if none of you knew that then you wouldn't get the context I meant against all the oil talk.

[fyrtenheimer]

Would you stop shoving more stereotypes into WV? Seriously, shut the hell up.

o_O the problem is they arn't stereotypes it's the truth... i have yet to hear anybody from wv (including me) use proper english o_O

there are TONS who don't have the "accent", get a clue. maybe it's just ur family and ur bisexual wife.

STOP MULTIPLYING UR OWN FAMILY.

[jonmartensen]

.....

I was referring to the laws we have about murder and killing in self defense. If you are in a situation where someone is holding a gun to your head, you may very well kill them if given the chance. And for the most part, you won't be held responsible for murder, just self defense. On a war field, tell me if they are going to look up the rules in a life or death situation

Yes, in the field, when actively combating your "enemy", killing someone is not murder. What was done, though, was captured soldiers were executed after capture with a single shot to the head. And for some sick reason, some of them had their pants pulled down, as can plainlly be seen in the footage taken of them.

The Geneva Convention does not allow executions in that manner (without any kind of trial), public humiliation, or video to be taken of them explicitly showing their faces after they have been executed. At least they stopped short of video taping the soldiers execution.