2,321 Forum Posts by "Musician"
At 12/20/07 09:08 PM, Memorize wrote:At 12/20/07 06:29 PM, Musician wrote:I know that we can't withdraw completely, however you make it sound as if Hilary had no plan to withdraw from Iraq, which she obviously does.Not really.
It's more of a sped up version of what Bush is doing.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Bush has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq during his presidency.
Mike HuckabeeSo far you've only stated he doesn't believe in evolution, not the "household wife". Which, despite what you may think, provides greatly for a family unit and helps them stay together.
uh the one and only evolution, the one that has been proven to occur. The theory of evolution is just a theory of how evolution shaped our world.I'm no biologist, but I evenknow you're just talking shit.
I'd also like to add that the missiles supposedly being shot down are SCUDs (a very slow missile), not the ICBMs that would be used to deliver a nuclear warhead.
No cellardoor, the hit rate was not 70% to 40%, the "success" rate was. A study was conducted later on "successful" SCUD deflection and it was found that the actual hit rate was negligible.
"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)
But hey, it's fine cellardoor, you can ignore the facts. You're still wrong though.
As far as the new assessment for operation Iraqi freedom. I think it's bullshit. The first clue being the report itself never says that any of the missiles actually hit their target, but rather that the targets were "engaged" or that they " were observed by enough other sensors to conservatively declare them successes". That doesn't mean that the missiles we're shot down, It's just worded to seem like that happened.
And as I've shown, the military's definition of success has been proven to be questionable in the past. But don't take my word for it:
We're the patriot missiles really successful in OIF? I'd say no, you'd say yes.
But you can't prove me wrong, and the evidence is on my side.
as for the multiple videos you linked me to (trying to make some sort of point I assume), anything is possible under ideal moderated conditions, that doesn't mean in a real life scenario these missiles are reliable.
shush, the adults are talking now.
haha I still remember putt putt goes to the moon.
At 12/20/07 04:57 PM, Memorize wrote: ... First you disagree with me, then you agree with me, and now you're disagreeing with me again.
I know that we can't withdraw completely, however you make it sound as if Hilary had no plan to withdraw from Iraq, which she obviously does.
Who does?
Mike Huckabee
That's the problem.
Which evolution are you talking about?
uh the one and only evolution, the one that has been proven to occur. The theory of evolution is just a theory of how evolution shaped our world.
The theory of evolution is different than evolution?
yep
What if he were responding to the "theory of evolution"?
he wasn't
Don't try to make sense of the bible
your head will explode
At 12/20/07 05:02 PM, TheMason wrote: Also Musician; you make a valid point about shooting a bullet with a bullet. It is damn near impossible. However, if you use a shot gun loaded with shot your chances of hitting the bullet increase. That is what is behind modern anti-missile missiles:
1) They do not "hit" the incoming missile rather they detonate via a proximity fuse showing the missile with shrapnel that shreds the incoming missile. If hit soon enough, the incoming missile will either blow-up at altitude where any chemical or biological or radiological threat will be too disperse to pose a threat...or the shredded remains will burn-up on re-entry.
So I've heard. but even though that increases the chances of a hit, the chances of hitting are still very low, as illustrated by the events of the gulf war and desert strike. It's not like I think the concept of the patriot missile is completely invalid, I just don't think the theory behind it can ever be dependable, especially when we're talking about nuclear war.
At 12/20/07 03:55 PM, Tomsan wrote: Still musician dude is not completly right, missiles can be shot out of the sky, but cellardoor isnt completly right either by impliying its a good working effective system.
no it's certainly possible, it's just practically impossible. It's like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. Oh yeah and those 10 tests with THAAD (the ones that failed 8/10 times), none of those were realistic scenarios.
Your inability to read my link is laughable.
"A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate."
so incase you can't understand that, initially the military claimed the patriot missile had a very high success rate, then there was an investigation and they found the hit rate was actually incredibly low. The reason for this was because the military considered the interceptions a "success" even when they didn't successfully hit the SCUD missile.
"Eight of these engagements were observed by enough other sensors to conservatively declare them successes". I really doubt the patriot missile's (predominately PAC-2) accuracy has increased from much less than 10% to possibly 100% in the last 3 years.
What does that even mean anyways? all it says is that the missiles were "obseved by enough sensors to be considered a success". This is the same annoying rhetoric they used in the gulf war, they never say in that report whether or not any missiles were actually intercepted.
At 12/20/07 03:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 12/20/07 03:25 AM, Musician wrote: Cellardoor find me irrefutable evidence that proves that the majority of interceptor missile launches actually hit their target.Find me irrefutable evidence that the tests were fixed, that the missiles don't work.
you see the beauty of this is, I don't have to, because you're the one claiming that we have a highly successful missile defense system.
and I'm not talking about just recently I mean "all throughout history".For fuck sake, there have been anti-ballistic missile systems for decades.
Yes. and for decades they have been EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE.
but I know I'm not a liar and I know my relatives aren't liars either. I also trust a former weapons engineer over the rantings of some early 20's raving conservative gun-nut any day.You'd rather perpetuate your lie instead of accepting the fact you have no clue what you're talking about and cellardoor6, someone who actually studied military science in college proved you wrong yet again.
I don't care what you studied, you're so delusional you'd fight to save an argument that you know is wrong. Missile defense systems just aren't there yet. Why do you think we even NEED to develop the Boeing defense planes? because our current system ISN'T WORKING.
So back your shit cellardoorLol, the funny thing is not already have I proved you wrong, but you haven't backed up what you've said.
Meanwhile:
The Patriot role in OIF was defense against tactical ballistic missiles; it had no
assigned air defense role, but it did have a self-defense role against anti-radiation
missiles. The Patriot deployment was substantial, involving up to 40 U.S. fire units and
22 fire units from four coalition nations. Two types of Patriot interceptor missiles were
used: the improved PAC-2 missile, which is the traditional Patriot interceptor; and a new
hit-to-kill missile, the PAC-3. Both were used with success in OIF, with the bulk of the
engagements falling to the PAC-2. All nine enemy tactical ballistic missiles that
threatened areas designated for Patriot defense were engaged. Eight of these
engagements were observed by enough other sensors to conservatively declare them
successes; the ninth engagement is judged to be a probable success. None of the
attacking tactical ballistic missiles caused any damage or loss of life to the coalition
forces.
--------
That's potentially a 100% success rate. That was during the recent Iraq war.
During the Gulf War it was a little bit worse because there were software problems and the missiles weren't upgraded yet, but the missiles still managed to successfully intercept 70% of those fired at Saudi Arabia, and 40% of those fired at Israel.
The reason the success rate was lower for Israel is because the SCUD missiles were intercepted at the end of their trajectory and were fired at civilian areas, so although the hit rate was probably the same, some of the incoming missiles still ended up doing damage to civilian areas even after they were hit and were therefore were not considered a success.
lies lies lies
These patriot missiles are a pile of ass and failure. The government likes to pretend that we have a real missile defense system.But it's a piece of shit
They also have a thing for shooting down friendly aircraft
The government likes to lie and come up with incredibly embellished statistics but the bottom line is the patriot missile system is ineffective.
Cellardoor find me irrefutable evidence that proves that the majority of interceptor missile launches actually hit their target. and I'm not talking about just recently I mean "all throughout history". You want to call me a liar? fine. but I know I'm not a liar and I know my relatives aren't liars either. I also trust a former weapons engineer over the rantings of some early 20's raving conservative gun-nut any day.
So back your shit cellardoor
At 12/20/07 02:35 AM, Memorize wrote:Actually Obama has been doing better recently. I'm not so sure she'll win the nominationShe's still leading by close to 20 pts in the national polls.
17 pts to be exact according to RealClearPolitics.
so she's leading nationally, but lately in the individual states they have been debating in the polls have shifted. Things could be turning around. Reason enough to be hopeful in my opinion.
Yeah she's definently full of shit, but between her and Huckabee? lesser of two evils by far.Is that honestly the best line people can come up with for voting?
would you prefer the greater evil? Not all choices in life are painted in black and white.
But as for all intents and purposes our occupation of Iraq will be over.Our occupation of Iraq is almost over already. By the time a new President comes into office, our prescense will go from 160,000 to 100,000.
Our withdraw is already happening based on how well the Iraqi forces can perform.
not really
The point is: You said we were going to withdraw our troops from Iraq (which we're already doing). I said she wasn't going to withdrawl all the troops and you said I wasn't too bright so I showed you otherwise.
no you said "she will not get us out of iraq" which is a lie. She (and all the other democrats) intend to withdraw from Iraq. Perhaps not immediatly, but the Bush administration has NO intention of withdrawing from Iraq, a definite step forward.
It seems to me like you're just nitpicking and attempting to salvage what small argument you have left.
Prove that they are fundamentalist christians who believe the bible is the exact word of god AND that evolution doesn't occur (a belief that Huckabee holds)Now you're just picking straws.
no you are. you told me that if asked hilary clinton would say that she believes everything in the bible in a literal sense. are the 3 leading dems religous? yes. Do they believe that the role of the wife is to "graciously submit" to the will of their husband?
Either way: It is still only your OPINION that he is a fundamentalist.
Just like it's my opinion that he's a fucking nutjob. a correct opinion by the way.
Also: How can you claim that the Bible is the word of God and that you believe it fully WHILE believing in evolution?
evolution is a proven fact, the theory of evolution is different from evolution. The fact that Huckabee believes evolution doesn't exist mirrors his stupidity.
Evolution and faith shouldn't even be a matter in politics anyway. Neither of which provide any real backing for claims of intelligence or how well to run a country. I seem to remember many democrats who claimed having an affair while fully knowing it would embarrass the nation "...doesn't tell how well someone can perform their job..."
Actually I think religion does influence someone's job as the president. It shows what kind of values and beliefs they hold.
Once again, you are playing a double standard.
I personally do not deny evolution simpley because the theory "evolves" with each passing year and there are too many holes in the theory for me to consider it to even be credible.
Simpley saying "it's the best we have" does not equate to "It's the best we're going to get".
But... I also do not deny evolution because of the first part of biblical text which says that God came to the earth and the earth was formless in shape.
How am I supposed to know what went on before (speaking as if God exists) God got there? Especially with the universe being billions of years old (which dating also has some problems as well) and how huge the universe is in the first place.
The reason why I said "How can you follow the bible and believe in evolution at the same time" is because people like you would usually call someone out on that if they claimed to follow both at the same time.
For people who believe in Seperation of Church and State, you sure do like bringing it up to attention quite a bit.
Seperation of Church and state doesn't mean I can't judge a candidate based on his religion.
former secretary of defense Robert S. McNamara talks about it in the documentary "the fog of war"
fixed*
At 12/20/07 02:24 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: WOW.
A multi-billion dollar false sense of security huh?
Interesting.
It's a dream alright
Interesting concept.
Nevermind, you know... the dozens of successful tests of missiles that did JUST THAT. Never mind that the US has Patriot Missile batteries that have been deployed and have been used successfully for decades. Nevermind the THAAD defense system under development that has also been successful thus far.
Oh, what's this I have here, it's a video of a missile getting hit by another missile, as part of our national missile defense system tests. Ooh... and here's another one.
Oh, and here's the THAAD doing it too.
These are just tests, they have the trajectory beforehand and close to ideal conditions. Can you guarantee ideal conditions? can you obtain the trajectory of the missile that's being launched from another country? and even if you can the chances of a missile on missile collision are extremely low. I bet if you took a look at the number of times they successfully conducted those tests in those videos as opposed to the times they missed you would be surprised.
It's just not possible.lol... um... actually it is, and it happens all the time.
Most of the time you can't even calculate the missiles trajectory.Interesting, because... you actually CAN calculate the missile's trajectory.
I wonder what the AN/TPS-59 Tactical Missile Defense Radar is for.
It doesn't always work. in fact according to my Uncle, it regularly doesn't work. This isn't reliable technology.
Oh and by the way, it's made by Lockheed Martin... the country your grandpa supposedly worked for.
1) lockheed martin isn't a country
2) it was my uncle that worked at lockheed, not my grandpa
3) lockheed martin, like any business, will move to where there is a market. If the US wants a missle defense system, they'll certainly try to build something. But the technology just isn't there yet.
Ultimately there really is no defense against a tactical missileAll you're doing is embarrassing yourself.
Missile defense systems have been employed successfully for decades.
No they havn't. Missile defense systems are incredibly unreliable, even former secretary of defense Robert S. McNamara talks about it. Why do you think deterrence was such a huge concept during the cold war? it was all we had.
At 12/20/07 01:49 AM, Memorize wrote:At 12/20/07 01:35 AM, Musician wrote:because being a senator for 6 years doesn't count as experience right?"...not much real political experience..."
She's been first lady longer than she has been Senator.
what's your point? being a senator is political experience regardless. she has plenty of "real" experience.
you just haven't been lookingExplain her recent fiasco on illegals?
Did she fall in the polls nationally? No. Do you know why? Because of American mentality that she's the sure win for the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
Actually Obama has been doing better recently. I'm not so sure she'll win the nomination
It's the same with Rudy always falling back on 9/11.
With her it's "look at my husband".
Yeah she's definently full of shit, but between her and Huckabee? lesser of two evils by far.
you're not too bright are you?Apparently... bright enough
Those are 2 seperate links by the way.
In summary: There are phases of combat that we're going through inside of Iraq. Right now we're fighting along side of Iraqi's attempting to curb violence long enough for the Iraqi police and military to handle things on their own while all we do is train them.
Basically, during that phase, although our military prescense will not be as strong, it will still, undoubtably, be there.
to about the extent that we are in South Korea and Afganistan. Obviously we can't pull COMPLETELY out of Iraq. If all hell does break loose after we leave we need to have some sort of military influence. But as for all intents and purposes our occupation of Iraq will be over.
hey, why don't you go and find some links proving it. and not just for Hilary, for "every democrat" since you seem so confident you're right.Are not John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Obama religous?
Yes they are.
Prove that they are fundamentalist christians who believe the bible is the exact word of god AND that evolution doesn't occur (a belief that Huckabee holds)
At least Hilary is competent and NOT a religious fanatic. She wouldn't be my first vote, but she's leagues ahead of any republican candidate.So it is the double standard.
Hm... you know what? I think i'll act normal and not go for the troll award next year. It's actually quite fun to throw facts at your opponent with sources.
At 12/20/07 01:47 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yeah, that's what our missile shield is for. The ground-based interceptors, as well as the sea-based interceptors on AEGIS ships.
The ground-based interceptor missile shield system is already mostly operational.
We also have airplanes being developed that can shoot down missiles with fucking laser beams.
That program is coming along quite nicely. Video.
I think your little fantasy about the US being destroyed is just that... fantasy.
laser beams, bitch, laser beams.
haha man I really wish it was all true. I REALLY do. patriot missiles, "interceptors". It's all a load of bullshit to give you a false sense of security. My grampa on my dad's side was a weapons scientist back in the day, my uncle on my dad's side is a contract engineer who formerly worked for lockheed martin. They both told me the same thing when I asked about the threat of nuclear warfare. It's fucking impossible to hit a missile with another missile.
It's just not possible. Most of the time you can't even calculate the missiles trajectory. There are just too many factors.
as far as the Boeings, those are still being tested and are certainly not in effect, but even when they are set up there's no guarantee that one will be within range of the missile to shoot it down.
Ultimately there really is no defense against a tactical missile
And for the record, I don't like Hilary Clinton compared to the other dems. But you're making outright ridiculous, uneducated, and unsupported claims.
At 12/20/07 01:17 AM, Memorize wrote:At 12/19/07 09:34 PM, Musician wrote:what a joke, the fact that people still support him shows how idiotic the vast majority of the republican party is.And may I ask of Hillary Clinton?
She has next to none real political experience other than being the first lady.
because being a senator for 6 years doesn't count as experience right?
She hasn't organized her campaign very well other than "I'm a sure win".
you just haven't been looking
She will not get us out of Iraq (as you would like), nor will any of the other democratic candidates.
you're not too bright are you?
And as with Huckabee, if you asked her (or any other democrat) she will also say "I believe everything in this book" regarding the Bible.
hey, why don't you go and find some links proving it. and not just for Hilary, for "every democrat" since you seem so confident you're right.
Now tell me, are you playing a double standard or do you believe the democrats are idiots too for what may become her being nominated as the democratic presidential candidate?
At least Hilary is competent and NOT a religious fanatic. She wouldn't be my first vote, but she's leagues ahead of any republican candidate.
At 12/20/07 12:37 AM, jitterman wrote: its the best show ive seen on sci-fi channle for a while.
not like that's saying much
I have one sentence to describe this show: grown men shouting at NOTHING
The guy trips on his own foot then tries to blame it on a ghost. Then he spends the next two minutes on the floor pissing and moaning. What a baby
How can anyone buy into this? How can this even be on the air for gods sake? It's so laughably fake.
At 12/19/07 08:57 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: guess who his running mate is? Jesus Christ.
No seriously, Jesus Christ. No jokes.
what a joke, the fact that people still support him shows how idiotic the vast majority of the republican party is.
in common recreational drugs?
Heroin easily.
At 12/19/07 01:46 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Your point holds no water. Because having economic woes wouldn't negate our already substantial advantage in military infrastructure and know-how.
so once the american economy crumbles and we're living in a third world country. who signs the military's fat paycheck? nobody
At 12/19/07 06:01 PM, AshfordGivens wrote:At 12/19/07 05:57 PM, SlithVampir wrote: I think a starting post should have enough content to start a discussion. Elaborate, my friend.well i see a lot of peoples lives bettered after finding god and i think that maybe if they found god soonier they wouldn't get into as much trouble or end up in jail.
having it schools would save a lot of lives.
and I've seen a lot of lives ruined and destroyed after finding god
see isreal and palestine
At 12/18/07 06:54 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: That's wonderful, except you would hate having me use that as an excuse to continue any of george bush' national and domestic policies; unless your a big fan of his....
There are plenty of GWB's laws that have been agreed upon, that didn't stop a massive grudge against them and a general acceptance of 'the law'
because it's our moral duty to not lower ourselves to the level of our enemy. The geneva convention was basically us saying "Hey, we're officially moving out of the dark ages. no more mistreatment of enemy combatants". Maybe the enemy is doing what we're not, but we can't fight fire with fire.
Rock Band > Guitar Hero 3
there is no debate
At 12/18/07 02:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Seeing that the US is not torturing prisoners and our enemies are, there's little debate that we are better.
ignorance is bliss aint it WolvenBear?
the troops = hired killers
where's the honor in that?
