M.Dancer Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 That something may be the Oshkosh M-ATV:http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/defense/products~matv~home.cfm This vehicle addresses the most common IED hazards to personnel (blast penetration, shrapnel, and acceleration) with an armored "V frame" hull. Suspension is fine tuned for Afghanistan terrain, unlike a MBT. Its turret is sub par... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 Its turret is sub par... True, but the hull's shape and laminate armor directly address the most common IED threat. We are learning the right defensive designs in almost real time. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) I think they are the solution, until something better comes along....Tanks form the very piont of the spear, be it in defensive or offensive operations. if there was any wpns system we should be putting money into it's tanks....expensive compared to what...lives i guess this equipment plays a key role into saving lives....and giving soldiers the edge to defeat any of our countries enemies here or overseas.... I'll agree with your need for tanks as part of a military force for Canadians overseas but not "here" (Canada), our country is much too big and our population much too small for tanks to be of any use defending us...we cannot not defend our country vs any that has the muscle to do so, not that any would attack us, the USA is our only potential enemy and that is unlikely to happen... Edited September 29, 2009 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Jerry J. Fortin Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 Its turret is sub par... What turret? It looks like an amored Hummer.... Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 What turret? It looks like an amored Hummer.... That was my point...BC link was in reference to MBTs (or recce assault vehicles)... I think it sounds good....but we can't lose sight that a tank comes with a lot of motivational tools. Specifically a smooth bore canon. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Jerry J. Fortin Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 That was my point...BC link was in reference to MBTs (or recce assault vehicles)...I think it sounds good....but we can't lose sight that a tank comes with a lot of motivational tools. Specifically a smooth bore canon. MBT's are Main Battle Tanks. There a lots of them to choose from, and we could use more of them than we have. Deployment is a bitch with those things but the are damned effective as a deterrent and as protection for troops in place. Of course a hand held anti tank missle can cause a lot of grief, but that is another matter. Quote
waldo Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 Yet there it remains. 1441. Serious comsequences and your inability to show that it was necessary to add further resoluition.Dancer - non-stop dancing! Buddy, I'm typing reeeealllll slow, just for you... we can finish this quite easily; really, we can:just state: - that the co-sponsors of 1441, U.S./UK Ambassador's Negroponte/Greenstock, lied in their statements to other UNSC members about 1441 containing no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. just state: - why 1441 verbiage was changed from the original "all necessary means" phrasing to the subsequent "face serious consequences" phrasing. just state: - why, after notice from 1441 was given, U.S./UK Ambassador's Negroponte/Greenstock unsuccessfully peddled that second resolution before the UNSC, the 'draft resolution', seeking force authorization. Why bother with the second resolution you say wasn't needed? Why? just state: - what the second resolution, the 'draft resolution' was for. c'mon Dancer - you can do it... just state the above - you'll feel better for it... I know you will! so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. I see no point in refuting irrelevancies. This is contract law, not whose out of work pundit opinion makes me feel nice.Come up with the contract that says otherwise....while your throwing sophomoronic coed slogans around, find the resolution calling it illegal. I say you can't, for the same reason you can't abrogate the contract called 1441 well I can see why you would call them "irrelevancies" when they go to the heart of the need for a second force authorizing resolution... and you can't/won't answer them since you'd have to finally accept/admit that your dance is a farce. well Dancer... do you deem the following quotes also "irrelevant"... are they also "sophomoric coed slogans". re: U.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29 Resolution... Whereas United Nations Security Resolution 1441 (2002) does not authorize the use of force but instead stipulates that the Security Council will convene immediately to consider any failure on the part of Iraq to comply with the Resolution; Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— ... (4) before initiating any offensive military operation in Iraq to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), the United States should seek a specific authorization for the use of force from the United Nations Security Council; so, of course, following the event timeline, shortly after this U.S. Senate Resolution 28 is passed, we have the Colin Powell WMD dog-and-pony show before the UNSC and the beginnings of efforts by U.S./UK Ambassador's Negroponte/Greenstock towards securing, unsuccessfully, that second resolution, the 'draft resolution', seeking force authorization. so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. as before Dancer, you need to know when to fold em' - just gracefully accept you are wrong and you've been flogging a dead horse all along! Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 well I can see why you would call them "irrelevancies" when they go to the heart of the need for a second force authorizing resolution... and you can't/won't answer them since you'd have to finally accept/admit that your dance is a farce.well Dancer... do you deem the following quotes also "irrelevant"... are they also "sophomoric coed slogans". re: U.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29 so, of course, following the event timeline, shortly after this U.S. Senate Resolution 28 is passed, we have the Colin Powell WMD dog-and-pony show before the UNSC and the beginnings of efforts by U.S./UK Ambassador's Negroponte/Greenstock towards securing, unsuccessfully, that second resolution, the 'draft resolution', seeking force authorization. so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. as before Dancer, you need to know when to fold em' - just gracefully accept you are wrong and you've been flogging a dead horse all along! So now you are saying they didn't convene and seek a new resolution? Gee....I think you are wrong.... Have you found any resolutiom or even an international court ruling calling it illegal or are you going to continue to parrot slogans like a premenstrul coed flush with teen angst and a sexy Poli Sci prof? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 well I can see why you would call them "irrelevancies" when they go to the heart of the need for a second force authorizing resolution... and you can't/won't answer them since you'd have to finally accept/admit that your dance is a farce.well Dancer... do you deem the following quotes also "irrelevant"... are they also "sophomoric coed slogans". re: U.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29 Resolution... Whereas United Nations Security Resolution 1441 (2002) does not authorize the use of force but instead stipulates that the Security Council will convene immediately to consider any failure on the part of Iraq to comply with the Resolution; Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— ... (4) before initiating any offensive military operation in Iraq to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), the United States should seek a specific authorization for the use of force from the United Nations Security Council; so, of course, following the event timeline, shortly after this U.S. Senate Resolution 28 is passed, we have the Colin Powell WMD dog-and-pony show before the UNSC and the beginnings of efforts by U.S./UK Ambassador's Negroponte/Greenstock towards securing, unsuccessfully, that second resolution, the 'draft resolution', seeking force authorization. so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. as before Dancer, you need to know when to fold em' - just gracefully accept you are wrong and you've been flogging a dead horse all along! So now you are saying they didn't convene and seek a new resolution? Gee....I think you are wrong....Have you found any resolutiom or even an international court ruling calling it illegal or are you going to continue to parrot slogans like a premenstrul coed flush with teen angst and a sexy Poli Sci prof? you can read - right Dancer?... what does that U.S. Senate Resolution 28 say about your farcical assertion that 1441 has force authorization? (why, I guess you'll next say the U.S. Senate has incorrectly interpreted UNSC Resolution 1441... are you warming up with that one next, Dancer?) so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 you can read - right Dancer?... what does that U.S. Senate Resolution 28 say about your farcical assertion that 1441 has force authorization? (why, I guess you'll next say the U.S. Senate has incorrectly interpreted UNSC Resolution 1441... are you warming up with that one next, Dancer?)so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. It says they should seek....they sought.... Now lets move on to your school girlish opinion that the war was illegal. You are aware I hope that it was US law to effect regime change in Iraq? Have you had anymore luck finding a ruling on the legality? How about finding the clause that stipulated that Serious consequences meant nothing and that they weren't really serious? Run along now.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 you can read - right Dancer?... what does that U.S. Senate Resolution 28 say about your farcical assertion that 1441 has force authorization? (why, I guess you'll next say the U.S. Senate has incorrectly interpreted UNSC Resolution 1441... are you warming up with that one next, Dancer?)so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. It says they should seek....they sought.... It says a little bit more than that... right Dancer? It blows away your false assertion about UNSC Resolution 1441 containing force authorization... doesn't it Dancer? re: U.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29 Resolution... Whereas United Nations Security Resolution 1441 (2002) does not authorize the use of force but instead stipulates that the Security Council will convene immediately to consider any failure on the part of Iraq to comply with the Resolution; Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— ... (4) before initiating any offensive military operation in Iraq to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), the United States should seek a specific authorization for the use of force from the United Nations Security Council; oh... so now... apparently you want to move on - wonder why, now? Ok, ok... I accept your unconditional surrender so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution. Other great mind differ...1441 was enough. Are you going to validate your illegal allegation or simple repeat ad nauseum like a brainless parrot? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 Other great mind differ...1441 was enough. oh... apparently... you won't go softly, after all... those minds of the U.S. Senate didn't agree with your assertion that 1441 contains force authorization... what's up with that? How did they get it sooooooooo wrong, Dancer? re: U.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29 Resolution... Whereas United Nations Security Resolution 1441 (2002) does not authorize the use of force but instead stipulates that the Security Council will convene immediately to consider any failure on the part of Iraq to comply with the Resolution; Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— ... (4) before initiating any offensive military operation in Iraq to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), the United States should seek a specific authorization for the use of force from the United Nations Security Council; once you acknowledge that your assertion about 1441 is incorrect, we can certainly move on to bigger/better - just say it, Dancer! Sure you can... Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 once you acknowledge that your assertion about 1441 is incorrect, we can certainly move on to bigger/better - just say it, Dancer! Sure you can... Do you want a cracker? Heres a task for you....give the date when U.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29 ...became law. Do that and I will give you another cracker. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 Heres a task for you....give the date whenU.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29 ...became law. ahhh, sweet! Dancer’s in scramble mode… are you (now) attempting to negate the effect/impact/significance of that U.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29? You do know that was a Republican dominated Senate - right? Do you actually know the intent of Senate Resolutions? ... Apparently... not! ok… let’s add the U.S. Senate to the long and growing list of persons/bodies that didn't/don’t agree with Dancer’s assertion that Resolution 1441 contains force authorization against Iraq? Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 29, 2009 Report Posted September 29, 2009 ...became law.ahhh, sweet! Dancer’s in scramble mode… are you (now) attempting to negate the effect/impact/significance of that U.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29? You do know that was a Republican dominated Senate - right? Do you actually know the intent of Senate Resolutions? ... Apparently... not! ok… let’s add the U.S. Senate to the long and growing list of persons/bodies that didn't/don’t agree with Dancer’s assertion that Resolution 1441 contains force authorization against Iraq? So you are saying that it didn't become law? Sweet. Kind of like the draft resolution that never went for a vote. ...seems like 1441 was all they really needed Hows that Illegal thingy working our for you? You find a ruling or is the opinion of some hot poli sci prof good enough for you? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 ....Hows that Illegal thingy working our for you? You find a ruling or is the opinion of some hot poli sci prof good enough for you? He never will.....Resolutions 678 & 1441 guarantees that. That's how Clinton and Blair could attack Iraq with impunity...and legally. Accordingly, so could Bush. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) ahhh, sweet! Dancer’s in scramble mode… are you (now) attempting to negate the effect/impact/significance of that U.S. Senate Resolution 28 - passed 2003/01/29? You do know that was a Republican dominated Senate - right? Do you actually know the intent of Senate Resolutions? ... Apparently... not! ok… let’s add the U.S. Senate to the long and growing list of persons/bodies that didn't/don’t agree with Dancer’s assertion that Resolution 1441 contains force authorization against Iraq? So you are saying that it didn't become law?Sweet. Kind of like the draft resolution that never went for a vote. ...seems like 1441 was all they really needed hey brainiac… now that you’ve established you don’t know or recognize the intent of U.S. Senate resolutions. so you’ve now blown off the previous statements by the co-sponsors of resolution 1441 – that it contained no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. You’ve blown off all the statements from the UNSC members who voted for resolution 1441 – that it contained no authorization for the use of force. You’ve blown off the subsequent attempt to secure force authorization with a second ‘draft’ resolution… and you’ve now blown off the U.S. Senate resolution that states resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of force. all this blowing off Dancer – to what end? Really… buddy… it was a fait accompli – the Bush-Blair fix was in, regardless of the lack of force authorization within resolution 1441, or the inability to secure force authorization through the second ‘draft’ resolution. Confidential memo reveals US plan to provoke an invasion of Iraq A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution , will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein. The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action. care to blow off the existence/contents of the Bush-Blair memo, Dancer? Edited September 30, 2009 by waldo Quote
DogOnPorch Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 No wonder the UN is ineffective... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Army Guy Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 That was my point...BC link was in reference to MBTs (or recce assault vehicles)... I think it sounds good....but we can't lose sight that a tank comes with a lot of motivational tools. Specifically a smooth bore canon. One of those motivational tools is the wieght , it will shake the very ground your standing on, i don't now how many times we've seen the Taliban dug in, and ready for a long fire fight....but the minute those leo's showed up, they where off running....like scared rabits....nothing stikes fear into any soldier to hear , and feel tanks coming from as far away as 500 meters.... and when they finally do show up, the thing is just huge....well 70 tonnes of steel and extra armour will do that, get it traveling at over 70 km a hour and it's awesome.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
M.Dancer Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 hey brainiac… now that you’ve established you don’t know or recognize the intent of U.S. Senate resolutions. No law eh? Well....that was pointless.... care to blow off the existence/contents of the Bush-Blair memo, Dancer? Is a memo law? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 Hows that Illegal thingy working our for you? You find a ruling or is the opinion of some hot poli sci prof good enough for you?He never will.....Resolutions 678 & 1441 guarantees that. That's how Clinton and Blair could attack Iraq with impunity...and legally. Accordingly, so could Bush. Dancer, buddy – how does it feel to have your legs cut out from under you… by the biggest Bush toady on MLW... Bush_Cheney2004! Ya see, ole Bush_Cheney2004 parrots one of the alternate scenarios many of the Bush apologists fall back on… fall back on since the U.S./UK were unsuccessful in securing UNSC support for the actual (what would have been legitimate) resolution, the second ‘draft’ resolution that would have provided the force authorization for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Dancer, you guys need to get your talking points sorted out… the farcical position being put forward by Bush_Cheney2004 is that Resolution 678 provides the required force authorization, while 1441 provides notice of “material breach of it’s obligations”. You’ll note 678 contains that catchy diplomatic phrase, “all necessary means”… you remember Dancer… I schooled you on the proper distinction between the phrases “face serious consequences” and “all necessary means”… you remember that, right Dancer? By the way, Bush_Cheney2004… don’t you respect Dancer’s dance around the “contract authority” of 1441 providing the force authorization? C'mon guys... which is it, 678 or 1441? Since 678, at least, has the appropriate UN diplomatic phrasing used to convey force authorization, I guess this must be the final nail in Dancer's dance claiming 1441 provided the force authorization. Right Dancer? Resolution 678, as a “we got dick all else” fallback, is a natural go-to for Bush Jr apologists… since it was good enough for his daddy, Bush Sr, to use to legitimize the 1990 Gulf War over the Iraq occupation of Kuwait. Yup – that’s right… those Bush Jr. apologists grab onto 678, with desperation, stating it was still in effect in 2003. You bet… they seek to legitimize the 2003 Invasion of Iraq with Resolution 678 of the 1990 Gulf War era. And… they make that desperate grab with a straight face – a disgraceful, utterly pathetic attempt to legitimize the 2003 invasion of Iraq. So sad. As for the real lack of legitimacy to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan was very precise when he stated the 2003 invasion of Iraq lacked the authority of any of the Chapter 7 articles (39, 41, 42, 51) within the UN Charter… and stated, accordingly, that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 By the way, Bush_Cheney2004… don’t you respect Dancer’s dance around the “contract authority” of 1441 providing the force authorization? C'mon guys... which is it, 678 or 1441? Since 678, at least, has the appropriate UN diplomatic phrasing used to convey force authorization, I guess this must be the final nail in Dancer's dance claiming 1441 provided the force authorization. You should know by now that I don't care about UN resolution masturbation by you or anyone else; I only care about Saddam getting screwed for real....and he was...for 12 years. You can watch from the UN peanut gallery like all the rest and cry "foul"....or just cry. You bet… they seek to legitimize the 2003 Invasion of Iraq with Resolution 678 of the 1990 Gulf War era. And… they make that desperate grab with a straight face – a disgraceful, utterly pathetic attempt to legitimize the 2003 invasion of Iraq. So sad. The UN has legitmized the invasion with post invasion (and yet more) resolutions, as if that mattered in the least. As for the real lack of legitimacy to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan was very precise when he stated the 2003 invasion of Iraq lacked the authority of any of the Chapter 7 articles (39, 41, 42, 51) within the UN Charter… and stated, accordingly, that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal. Kofi Who ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 Kofi Who ? Just some guy on par with Roger Ebert, whose opinion carries exactly same legal weight. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 Just some guy on par with Roger Ebert, whose opinion carries exactly same legal weight. Oh...that Kofi...the same guy who was taken off General Dallaire's Xmas card mailing list. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.