Signals.Cpl

So? What is the point? Does this absolve Germany in any way? Their entire senior leadership was in one way or another instrumental in this atrocity so the time that the death camps started up and which arm of the national government conducted it is irrelevant... at the end of the day the German nation is responsible...

So trucks delivering rifles to Rebels is James Bond type of thing, but Saddam moving his entire arsenal of WMD across a border and under the noses of the mighty United States is all too plausible? Where is the proof? Or is this one of those scenarios where you can assume without having proof while support for Syrian rebels requires rock solid proof...

Why didn't the US deal with the threat in 1991? They had the intelligence at the time right? Why wait 15+ years to bring it up? And where are the WMDs anyway?

Relying on decades old intelligence is great, relying on nations historic actions is bullshit...right? Talk about seeing what you want to see... Where are the death camps in Germany? We have pictures of those... they are from the early 1940's but they should be good enough for an invasion right?

There is no James Bond scenario, its just NATO dropping off a few truckloads of weapons and ammo in a refugee camp and telling them to help themselves. The US spun so many lies in order to go to Iraq so forgive me if dropping some rifles of with the rebels in Syria suddenly doesn't seem so far fetched... and for the life of me I could not see a good reason why the NATO nations in Eastern Europe went to War in Iraq when the majority of NATO nations in the west sat on the sidelines but they did go in so once again not too much of a stretch to sell or donate weapons if the US should come knocking. You mean like Iraq? The US went to great lengths to create evidence overlooking the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq...

What do they get? I don't know what did they get to go to Iraq?

so we went from this: To this: There might have been a shortage of Russian made weapons, depending on how the government of Syria controlled the weapons, there might have been 10,000,000 AKs in Syria before but if the government had 99.999% of the weapons in their hands or at least in the hands of supporters then the argument that there were plenty of weapons in Syria does not necessarily mean that those weapons were available to anyone other than the government and their most loyal supporters.

double post.

Not fool, they are giving weapons that the recipients can effectively use without outside training required, also those weapons use the same ammunition as the Government forces which means that once ammunition is captured it could be reused against the government rather than thrown out. How would it make sense to arm the rebels with weapons that would have use different ammunition than the government forces? But your argument was that NATO had no access to the weapons so now we are changing the tune... NATO has access and it only makes sense to give the rebels weapons that they could use or train to use without too much NATO support, as well any captured ammunition can be immediately turned on the government forces... Because the rebels might not have the best logistics in town, capturing weapons, ammunition and spare parts increases their stock of weapons while using western weapons means that NATO has to supply them and they have to supply their individual units down to the fighter, easier to gather the ammunition from the local area then to get it from the border of Turkey. What did NATO get from Libya? What did the US get from the Iraq War? Why are Iraqi forces still using predominantly Russian weapons when the US occupied them for over 7 years? Was it not enough time to train and arm them with M-16s? It has taken them now almost 10 years for Iraq to switch to M-16s even though for 7 of those years the US was occupying Iraq... What about Afghanistan? The Afghan Army only started phasing them out since 2008 years after the initial invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, why didn't they switch immediately? You are right, the simple solution is to arm the rebels with weapons they know how to use and can get the ammunition locally, arming them with western weapons that rely on supply from turkey means one push from the government in their supply lines could crush the rebels...

I never said that there were few Russian made weapons in Syria before, I ams stating that your argument being based on no NATO weapons in Syria means no NATO support is flawed simply because NATO has access to the weapons. Another thing is that Syria has had access to Russian made weapons, and since I believe that they have conscription many of the rebels are trained on Russian made weapons and weapon systems, thus sending M-16s to supply the rebels will not be too helpful because many of them had no access to training so they have to be trained by NATO troops, also seems a little cheaper arming them with Russian weapons since they are fighting an enemy with the same weapons and using the same ammunition and thus capturing a base or supply depot means they now have more weapons and ammunition rather than having weapons and ammunition that are not compatible with their weapons.

Those nations have close relations with the US, they are also receiving support in training and equipping their forces as well as different forms of aid or trade advantages, the new members from Easter Europe are proportionally more willing to support the US than many of the more established NATO members. The advantages they receive could be anywhere from economic, trade or plain old military aid and in this case it doesn't matter which one it is all that matters is that NATO has the means to get and deploy the weapons to Syrian rebels, what smaller nations in NATO are getting out of it is irrelevant, it could be new equipment or it could be the US buying the weapons thus they make money on equipment that might have had to destroy at some point down the road.

The way I see it the point is to get models that are dangerously underweight away from the spot light rather then discriminating against the fit... There is a difference between an women who is fit and a model who starves herself, promoting healthy images in the media is a positive thing and showing young girls and women an achievable goal that is also healthy is beneficial all around. The BMI measurements might not be the ideal method but it is a starting place.

I don't think the two situations are that similar, and also just because they are not receiving Western equipment does not mean that they are not receiving aid from NATO as almost 50% of NATO has known stockpiles of Soviet era weapons. The argument you presented was that they were not receiving NATO weapons and that was your proof which incidentally means that you have no proof to support your position other than personal beliefs.

There are at least 13 NATO members with access to Russian made weapons or copies of said weapons and most of those nations are currently using or have recently switched and have thousands if not millions of those weapons in storage.

Just to point out something, there are factories in NATO countries in eastern Europe that have the right to build copies of the AK family of weapons as well as a number of other Russian weapon systems. As well a number of NATO members being former Warsaw pact members have substantial number of Soviet-era weapon systems that are in storage which means that NATO has access to the weapons... I am not arguing as to wether NATO is supporting the rebels or not, but I am stating that NATO has the means to support the rebels with Russian weapon systems.

Yes, either way the man is dead but you still used false information to garner some sort of reaction... If I die and my father's friend was PM Harper does that make me the PM? And people are not supposed to rape and murder each other but they do and even though their actions are criminal many get let off so what does that say about us as a civilization when we let the rapists and murderers run free? Police officers are let off for various reasons but it is hardly a surprise that some of them would be bad apples just look at the total number of police officers in the US(706,886), what you are saying is that the actions of a few dozen or even a few hundred police officers is indicative as to the qualities and loyalties of the other 700,000 or more officers in the US. There is no comparison between the actions of a very small % of the total police force that are contrary to the law and government direction vs. the actions of a police force which has the government and law to support their position. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do?dvsc=9 Unless you have some evidence to substantiate that "many" police departments are corrupt and cover up this kind of thing I would stay away from labelling 700,000 people with the crimes of a few dozen or a few hundred of their colleagues. How many? Do tell, and please refrain from the unsubstantiated and very vague condemnation of hundreds of thousands of people without providing any sort of evidence that "many" are and/or were involved in crimes of any sort. What it widespread? Are we talking about 500,000 officers beating people in the streets or are we talking about the actions of a few who beat people in the street... Not everyone who has cried wolf has actually seen a wolf...

Although what you said is true, girls are bombarded with images from every angle and every media outlet and as a result there is also plenty of pressure to conform to a standard that is virtually unattainable at least not in a healthy manner. Education is key but you need to put in overwhelming effort just to break even when we compare to the weight that media of all sorts plays in the minds and lives of young children. Same way as you combat smoking in children, you try to eradicate it in the media and educate at the same time and you might get some positive results while leaving commercials directed at showing how the cool guy/girl smokes and how its cool to smoke etc... will ultimately wipe out any attempt to neutralize it through education.

So I came across this bit of information, a new law is coming to Israel which requires that models be above a certain BMI to be part of fashion shows, tv advertisements and other media outlets. From what I understand the concept here is to limit the exposure to less than healthy role models for teens in particular but also to prevent companies from using photoshop to touch up models without informing the public thus creating an unattainable image for young people to aspire to. http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=297980 My personal opinion is that this is a good thing as young girls will not be bombarded at the same level no matter where they are and what they do, right now many young girls and young women are starving themselves in order to live up to a standard set up that in most cases is unattainable and and exceptionally unhealthy. My question is do you guys think that this law or a similar example can be set up in the west and most important do you agree with it and does it feel like it could solve the problem?

You go in at the first sign of a nation having weapons they should not have or you don't go at all. At this point the barn door is already wide open and we are waiting for the horse to get out in order to close the door and secure the horse that is not there anymore. If Assad or the rebels want to kill more Syrians then who are we to stop them?They have been slaughtering each other for almost 2 years now, and suddenly we start carrying because of the method of the killing rather then the killing itself.

Yeah but now that they are saying what he wants to hear it must be right...

1) I don't think the guy is vet, so I don't know where you got that piece of misinformation 2) The police officers involved were not acting on the orders and directions of their superiors but were acting on their own. 3) Comparing the death of a mentally ill homeless men beaten by some idiots who happened to be in uniform to the organized and government sanctioned executions of people who have committed no crime other than be themselves is sad... The difference is that one group commits atrocities in an organized way while the other (the US in this case) has isolated cases which are then dealt with individually and according to the law.

Watching too many movies are we? At this point in time we are far from having mass produced and functioning machines as those you prescribe for the CF and we can't wait 50 or 100 years to get them. And why is every other nation using pilots if this AI is in existence? You want me to research the theory of AI's? Because as it is this is what it really is, someone experimenting and you believing that it is anywhere near operational. Nice job googling. And when do you think that will be available for combat systems? Arguing with you when your position is that in a few decades we MIGHT have this to work with is futile, we don't have access to something that works outside the lab and is better than a human at this point and waiting for that day is not an option.

You know all about hypocrisy don't you?

Because we need them thats why either we buy them now when we don't need them yet or sooner or later we pay many times the cost to restart the program from the ground up. This is not a car where you can postpone the purchase for as long as you want until you need the car, for this you need it there when you need it, can't suddenly start building up the infrastructure and manpower from the ground up the moment you realize you badly need it. This is insurance, for the next 30-40 years we will have the fighters and the infrastructure if we need them, we can always skip on the insurance and then pray that nothing, not a single incident happens in our airspace...ever. I don't like paying for insurance any more then the next guy but I do because I know its too late to buy insurance after you are in an accident.

So you think that the creators of the ai will come up with 100% of all eventualities possible? If something happens that they did not think of the AI is gone while the pilot has a chance to come up with an idea or at least attempt something. Within the bounds of its programming, insufficient direction means no action or inadequate action. I am asking you to explain your comment... And a machine is only as good as its programming, at this stage in the game i would wager a computer cannot beat a pilot in air to air combat, maybe in a few years yes but at this point not so. A computer is only as good as its instructions. Looking at examples from history, during the cold war both NORAD and the Soviet union had close calls when early warning sensors mass launch of weapons and if an AI had been in command the situation might have deteriorated quickly in to World War 3, but since on this occasions it was a human being in command they decided to investigate further to determine whether or not it really was a launch. And war is not all about effectiveness, having killer robots wether in the air or on the means an order is obeyed without feelings or emotions while an order is given to a human that person can make a judgement call on the scene as to wether to proceed or not. Wars bring the best and worst out of people, having a pilot in the pilot seat and a soldier on the ground means people think once or twice before they go to war, having machines in the stead of humans on the front lines wars become cheaper and more popular. They might exist but they exist in a primitive form, one that is not in a position to do as you suggest. And most of those systems have a human being as the final yay or nay. In a real war anything goes for the other side, the west is bound by the Geneva convention wether our enemy is or is not. You really need to review your posts before you spread this BS since if "anything goes" the US wouldn't be prosecuting and punishing the idiots who commit essentially war crimes in one degree or another, the US prosecutes their soldiers with vigour when they find out their soldiers have been committing those crimes and so do Canadians.