US news weapon-electomagnetic cannon

[DogOnPorch]

Agreed....but if he insists, the date would be September 11, 2001.

April 6th, 1917...Dec 7th, 1941...June 25th, 1950...etc.

[Wilber]

Yes, in a similar way that only those who have been hung knows what it "means" to hang. Although the rest of us see the outcome, which also has meaning. Likely more communicable meaning that the person that was hung right?

The rest of us see the outcome on TV or read about it in the papers or on the net. Only those who have experienced it first hand know what it really means. After years of talking to vets who have seen combat, that's about the only thing I know about it for sure. No matter how hard I try, I will never really understand what it means.

[GostHacked]

As a nerdy geeky kind of guy, this kind of stuff fascinates me. However, knowing what it will eventually be used for is bitter sweet. Rail guns are nothing new, but this one set a record for speed.

[Shwa]

What I said is "sometimes one is forced into war," which is a pretty all-inclusive statement. That you choose to make it singularly about "the US" is a direction I don't care to go. Sorry.

That you choose to take an example, that you are likley more familiar with, as a cause for defensiveness over some abstract about singularity is not my problem. When was the last time China or Japan was 'forced' into war?

[Shwa]

Agreed....but if he insists, the date would be September 11, 2001.

If you insist, give a date as a reason. However, it will hardly do. If you are unable to articulate a reason, that is fine as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you insist, give a date as a reason. However, it will hardly do. If you are unable to articulate a reason, that is fine as well.

If you need obvious details on the reason, your purpose is only harassment.

[Shwa]

If you need obvious details on the reason, your purpose is only harassment.

Inelegant face-planting dodge. Next time you want to walk on the ice don't wear your ballet slippers tinkerkbell.

You either have the chops or your don't. So far you don't.

[bush_cheney2004]

Inelegant face-planting dodge. Next time you want to walk on the ice don't wear your ballet slippers tinkerkbell.

You either have the chops or your don't. So far you don't.

Do you really want to waste my time and others interest detailing the obvious stated and unstated reasons for American and NATO actions? Are you trying to make a political point that is devoid of any substance (again)?

[Shwa]

Do you really want to waste my time and others interest detailing the obvious stated and unstated reasons for American and NATO actions? Are you trying to make a political point that is devoid of any substance (again)?

Jeepers creepers tinkerbell, you got your pink tutu in a knot today? You either have the chops or you don't. So far you don't. But wait, I've already said that. So... you don't.

Again.

[bush_cheney2004]

Jeepers creepers tinkerbell, you got your pink tutu in a knot today? You either have the chops or you don't. So far you don't. But wait, I've already said that. So... you don't.

Again.

If you say so...looking foolish is nothing to be ashamed of. Again.

[GostHacked]

If you say so...looking foolish is nothing to be ashamed of. Again.

I feel like I am watching a video game .. come on BC FINISH HIM !!!

[Shwa]

If you say so...looking foolish is nothing to be ashamed of. Again.

You're the one without the chops tinkerbell. Again.

Perhaps you may wish to stick to the basics. Here is some video for you. They might help to keep you on your feet when you got nothing to say. At least you'll be something to look at.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're the one without the chops tinkerbell. Again.

Perhaps you may wish to stick to the basics. Here is some video for you. They might help to keep you on your feet when you got nothing to say. At least you'll be something to look at.

Stop whining...you made an ass of yourself for reasons only you understand. Hell, your own nation is fighting the same goddamn war.

[Moonlight Graham]

ya, ya, certainly... big stick diplomacy has been the cornerstone of asserting American self-interests world-wide.

The classic "Speak softly and carry a big stick" theory has to be one the greatest and simplest foreign policy philosophies in modern history. It's beautiful.

Unfortunately, yes the US has gone of the wagon in this front with the Bush admin. Canada has also trailed off our traditionally "soft-speaking" ways under Harper, but of course we have the greatest big stick of all - the US! And its free, wooo!

[waldo]

And what leads to being willing to sit down to diplomacy and negotiation? Generally, getting one's ass whooped.

ya, ya, certainly... big stick diplomacy has been the cornerstone of asserting American self-interests world-wide.

feel free to add your favourite acknowledgment to your conditional preface to, "sitting down to diplomacy and negotiation"... I'm kinda partial to the Shrub's, "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace"... which, of course, flies in the face of the 'Bush Doctrine' on pre-emptive war... where targets don't even get sweet-talked ahead of time.

Sometimes one is forced into war, just as one is forced to defend himself/herself when attacked -- or just stand there and be beat to a pulp.

uhhh... what? No caveat to cover the U.S. Iraq war exception? You know... that absolute imperative "forced" need based upon the overwhelming... lack of an... impending threat Iraq presented to the U.S.

[bush_cheney2004]

uhhh... what? No caveat to cover the U.S. Iraq war exception? You know... that absolute imperative "forced" need based upon the overwhelming... lack of an... impending threat Iraq presented to the U.S.

Sometimes the USA just decides to do as it pleases....the UK, Australia, and Poland agreed. Sorry, Canada was largely irrelevant either way. Canuck permission is not required!

[waldo]

ya, ya, certainly... big stick diplomacy has been the cornerstone of asserting American self-interests world-wide.

feel free to add your favourite acknowledgment to your conditional preface to, "sitting down to diplomacy and negotiation"... I'm kinda partial to the Shrub's, "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace"... which, of course, flies in the face of the 'Bush Doctrine' on pre-emptive war... where targets don't even get sweet-talked ahead of time.

The classic "Speak softly and carry a big stick" theory has to be one the greatest and simplest foreign policy philosophies in modern history. It's beautiful.

Unfortunately, yes the US has gone of the wagon in this front with the Bush admin. Canada has also trailed off our traditionally "soft-speaking" ways under Harper, but of course we have the greatest big stick of all - the US! And its free, wooo!

of course... Harper Conservatives are doing their best to mask the free big stick... e.g. see unnecessary and/or "tailored" F-35 purchase.

[charter.rights]

Do you really want to waste my time and others interest detailing the obvious stated and unstated reasons for American and NATO actions? Are you trying to make a political point that is devoid of any substance (again)?

I'm betting you really don't know the reason but will be quick to parrot George Bush's "They have weapons of mass destruction!"

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm betting you really don't know the reason but will be quick to parrot George Bush's "They have weapons of mass destruction!"

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. Your own nation (that would be Canada) is fighting a war in the latter, and Canada was never even attacked...a common circumstance for Canada in wars over the past 120 years, but I digress.

[charter.rights]

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. Your own nation (that would be Canada) is fighting a war in the latter, and Canada was never even attacked...a common circumstance for Canada in wars over the past 120 years, but I digress.

Do you know who is growing poppies for drug production in Afghanistan?

You have no reason for the US getting involved in Iraq or Afghanistan...or at least any valid one. Do you want some ice for that chin.Planting two times in a row has got to hurt.

[Topaz]

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. Your own nation (that would be Canada) is fighting a war in the latter, and Canada was never even attacked...a common circumstance for Canada in wars over the past 120 years, but I digress.

You are right about Canadians in that war but I would think that there are Americans who are just as much against the war as there are Canadians. The reason for going into Afghanistan was to get OBL but he left that country years ago, so why are we still there? Nothing is going to change and after NATO is gone, it will probably go back to the way it was BEFORE Bush went in.

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you know who is growing poppies for drug production in Afghanistan?

No, I am not into drugs.

You have no reason for the US getting involved in Iraq or Afghanistan...or at least any valid one. Do you want some ice for that chin.Planting two times in a row has got to hurt.

This tangent from electromagnetic impulsed projectiles is now officially absurd. We have Canadian nationals questioning why the United States and NATO engaged the Taliban in Afghanistan, even as their own country participates (and was never attacked). Funnier still, these same Canadians championed the cause in Afghanistan as a most noble effort compared to the invasion of Iraq, only to find themselves upside down in the hurt locker.

Valid reasons? I have about 3000 of them.

Edited December 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[charter.rights]

You are right about Canadians in that war but I would think that there are Americans who are just as much against the war as there are Canadians. The reason for going into Afghanistan was to get OBL but he left that country years ago, so why are we still there? Nothing is going to change and after NATO is gone, it will probably go back to the way it was BEFORE Bush went in.

Nope. That's not the reason. OBL is a Saudi and his parents and uncles were good friends of the Bushes.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are right about Canadians in that war

Thank you...of course I am right.

but I would think that there are Americans who are just as much against the war as there are Canadians. The reason for going into Afghanistan was to get OBL but he left that country years ago, so why are we still there? Nothing is going to change and after NATO is gone, it will probably go back to the way it was BEFORE Bush went in.

Maybe....have Germany or Japan or Italy "gone back"?

[charter.rights]

No, I am not into drugs.

This tangent from electromagnetic impulsed projectiles is now officially absurd. We have Canadian nationals questioning why the United States and NATO engaged the Taliban in Afghanistan, even as their own country participates (and was never attacked). Funnier still, these same Canadians championed the cause in Afghanistan as a most noble effort compared to the invasion of Iraq, only to find themselves upside down in the hurt locker.

Valid reasons? I have about 3000 of them.

I doubt it but humour me and list the first 50.

You do understand that the Taliban never attacked the US, right?

Edited December 12, 2010 by charter.rights