North American Torture Organization

[Ethiopian-Fat-Camp]

"When the Nato bombs started to fall on Pancevo's petro-chemical factory, 10 miles east of Belgrade next to the Danube in Serbia, the locals thought it must be a mistake. Surely, even in war, no one would risk releasing deadly chemicals less than two miles from a city."
"But, as the attacks continued, it was clear that they were being aimed at storage tanks that contained the raw materials for PVC."

"As the air strikes continued, heroic efforts were made to load them into rail tankers to save the civilian population. But it was all in vain - 80,000 people were exposed to a dose of one chemical 10,500 times above the safe limit."

Full Story: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0515-01.htm

[shorbe]

All's fair in love and war.

If those people didn't support Milosevic, there wouldn't be a problem.

My solution to the Balkans problem is to arm them all to the teeth and make it last man standing. They'll never resolve their problems through intelligent, civilised means because they're all primitives and savages who haven't progressed from the dark ages.

shorbe

[Ethiopian-Fat-Camp]

At 5/25/01 09:51 PM, shorbe wrote: All's fair in love and war.

If those people didn't support Milosevic, there wouldn't be a problem.

My solution to the Balkans problem is to arm them all to the teeth and make it last man standing. They'll never resolve their problems through intelligent, civilised means because they're all primitives and savages who haven't progressed from the dark ages.

shorbe

Shorbe, shut the fuck up. And for once, back up your point with some legitimate information other than 'they are just savages, lets arm them, all is fair in love and war.' First off, they are not savages, they are just poor. They know what's going on. Second, all is fair in love and war, hmmmm, who told you that one? probably someone who has never been in combat. Any veteran knows good and well that NOTHING is fair in love and war. In war, its not an individual 'may the best man win.' If that experianced leutenant gets shot by a rookie private, thats tuff. Nothing is fair in love and war.
That's beside the point tho. Cus there is no WAR in this, it was just a bombing. A 100 workers: 80,000 people ratio. very unbalanced sacrafice, esp. if it's nothing but a political move to bomb the place, not milateristic.

[Perdix]

At 5/29/01 07:27 AM, Crystal_Chrome wrote:

At 5/25/01 09:51 PM, shorbe wrote: All's fair in love and war.

If those people didn't support Milosevic, there wouldn't be a problem.

My solution to the Balkans problem is to arm them all to the teeth and make it last man standing. They'll never resolve their problems through intelligent, civilised means because they're all primitives and savages who haven't progressed from the dark ages.

shorbe

Shorbe, shut the fuck up. And for once, back up your point with some legitimate information other than 'they are just savages, lets arm them, all is fair in love and war.' First off, they are not savages, they are just poor. They know what's going on. Second, all is fair in love and war, hmmmm, who told you that one? probably someone who has never been in combat. Any veteran knows good and well that NOTHING is fair in love and war. In war, its not an individual 'may the best man win.' If that experianced leutenant gets shot by a rookie private, thats tuff. Nothing is fair in love and war.
That's beside the point tho. Cus there is no WAR in this, it was just a bombing. A 100 workers: 80,000 people ratio. very unbalanced sacrafice, esp. if it's nothing but a political move to bomb the place, not milateristic.

You fail to understand the meaning of "All fair in love and war" What that means is this, nothing is forbidden, you take every advantage to win, and that is the way war is. Because war is not a game, if you fight, fight to win.
By the way, there is no such thing as a "experienced" Lieutenant, most lieutenants have been in the military for only a few years, it is the lowest officer rank.
So you suggest that it is better to send ground troops so more people will become dead or wounded, for the illustrious reason of being "fair", it seems you place a low value on human life.
The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved hundreds of thousands lives.

[Ethiopian-Fat-Camp]

At 5/29/01 11:27 AM, Perdix wrote:

At 5/29/01 07:27 AM, Crystal_Chrome wrote:

At 5/25/01 09:51 PM, shorbe wrote: All's fair in love and war.

If those people didn't support Milosevic, there wouldn't be a problem.

My solution to the Balkans problem is to arm them all to the teeth and make it last man standing. They'll never resolve their problems through intelligent, civilised means because they're all primitives and savages who haven't progressed from the dark ages.

shorbe

Shorbe, shut the fuck up. And for once, back up your point with some legitimate information other than 'they are just savages, lets arm them, all is fair in love and war.' First off, they are not savages, they are just poor. They know what's going on. Second, all is fair in love and war, hmmmm, who told you that one? probably someone who has never been in combat. Any veteran knows good and well that NOTHING is fair in love and war. In war, its not an individual 'may the best man win.' If that experianced leutenant gets shot by a rookie private, thats tuff. Nothing is fair in love and war.
That's beside the point tho. Cus there is no WAR in this, it was just a bombing. A 100 workers: 80,000 people ratio. very unbalanced sacrafice, esp. if it's nothing but a political move to bomb the place, not milateristic.

You fail to understand the meaning of "All fair in love and war" What that means is this, nothing is forbidden, you take every advantage to win, and that is the way war is. Because war is not a game, if you fight, fight to win.
By the way, there is no such thing as a "experienced" Lieutenant, most lieutenants have been in the military for only a few years, it is the lowest officer rank.
So you suggest that it is better to send ground troops so more people will become dead or wounded, for the illustrious reason of being "fair", it seems you place a low value on human life.
The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved hundreds of thousands lives.

Perdix, Did i mention ANYTHING AT ALL about ground troops. No. What I did say is to go after the source. Melosovic. Shoot him in the fucking head. From what I see, most people wouldn't mind that TOO much. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, might of saved 100's of thousands of lives, at the expense andother '100's of thousand' innocent lives. I'm sure the life of one corrupt, not innocent, would be a good way of saving your '100's of thousands'

[Perdix]

At 5/29/01 05:52 PM, Crystal_Chrome wrote:

At 5/29/01 11:27 AM, Perdix wrote:

At 5/29/01 07:27 AM, Crystal_Chrome wrote:

At 5/25/01 09:51 PM, shorbe wrote: All's fair in love and war.

If those people didn't support Milosevic, there wouldn't be a problem.

My solution to the Balkans problem is to arm them all to the teeth and make it last man standing. They'll never resolve their problems through intelligent, civilised means because they're all primitives and savages who haven't progressed from the dark ages.

shorbe

Shorbe, shut the fuck up. And for once, back up your point with some legitimate information other than 'they are just savages, lets arm them, all is fair in love and war.' First off, they are not savages, they are just poor. They know what's going on. Second, all is fair in love and war, hmmmm, who told you that one? probably someone who has never been in combat. Any veteran knows good and well that NOTHING is fair in love and war. In war, its not an individual 'may the best man win.' If that experianced leutenant gets shot by a rookie private, thats tuff. Nothing is fair in love and war.
That's beside the point tho. Cus there is no WAR in this, it was just a bombing. A 100 workers: 80,000 people ratio. very unbalanced sacrafice, esp. if it's nothing but a political move to bomb the place, not milateristic.

You fail to understand the meaning of "All fair in love and war" What that means is this, nothing is forbidden, you take every advantage to win, and that is the way war is. Because war is not a game, if you fight, fight to win.
By the way, there is no such thing as a "experienced" Lieutenant, most lieutenants have been in the military for only a few years, it is the lowest officer rank.
So you suggest that it is better to send ground troops so more people will become dead or wounded, for the illustrious reason of being "fair", it seems you place a low value on human life.
The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved hundreds of thousands lives.

Perdix, Did i mention ANYTHING AT ALL about ground troops. No. What I did say is to go after the source. Melosovic. Shoot him in the fucking head. From what I see, most people wouldn't mind that TOO much. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, might of saved 100's of thousands of lives, at the expense andother '100's of thousand' innocent lives. I'm sure the life of one corrupt, not innocent, would be a good way of saving your '100's of thousands'

Your points would be better considered if you were not so beligerant about them.

So you are suggesting we decide for another country what is best for them?

You obviously don't know anything about the Battle of the Pacific if you think the lives lost in the bombing come anywhere near what would have been lost in an invasion.

[Ethiopian-Fat-Camp]

At 5/30/01 12:20 AM, Perdix wrote:

At 5/29/01 05:52 PM, Crystal_Chrome wrote:

At 5/29/01 11:27 AM, Perdix wrote:

At 5/29/01 07:27 AM, Crystal_Chrome wrote:

At 5/25/01 09:51 PM, shorbe wrote: All's fair in love and war.

If those people didn't support Milosevic, there wouldn't be a problem.

My solution to the Balkans problem is to arm them all to the teeth and make it last man standing. They'll never resolve their problems through intelligent, civilised means because they're all primitives and savages who haven't progressed from the dark ages.

shorbe

Shorbe, shut the fuck up. And for once, back up your point with some legitimate information other than 'they are just savages, lets arm them, all is fair in love and war.' First off, they are not savages, they are just poor. They know what's going on. Second, all is fair in love and war, hmmmm, who told you that one? probably someone who has never been in combat. Any veteran knows good and well that NOTHING is fair in love and war. In war, its not an individual 'may the best man win.' If that experianced leutenant gets shot by a rookie private, thats tuff. Nothing is fair in love and war.
That's beside the point tho. Cus there is no WAR in this, it was just a bombing. A 100 workers: 80,000 people ratio. very unbalanced sacrafice, esp. if it's nothing but a political move to bomb the place, not milateristic.

You fail to understand the meaning of "All fair in love and war" What that means is this, nothing is forbidden, you take every advantage to win, and that is the way war is. Because war is not a game, if you fight, fight to win.
By the way, there is no such thing as a "experienced" Lieutenant, most lieutenants have been in the military for only a few years, it is the lowest officer rank.
So you suggest that it is better to send ground troops so more people will become dead or wounded, for the illustrious reason of being "fair", it seems you place a low value on human life.
The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved hundreds of thousands lives.

Perdix, Did i mention ANYTHING AT ALL about ground troops. No. What I did say is to go after the source. Melosovic. Shoot him in the fucking head. From what I see, most people wouldn't mind that TOO much. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, might of saved 100's of thousands of lives, at the expense andother '100's of thousand' innocent lives. I'm sure the life of one corrupt, not innocent, would be a good way of saving your '100's of thousands'

Your points would be better considered if you were not so beligerant about them.

So you are suggesting we decide for another country what is best for them?

You obviously don't know anything about the Battle of the Pacific if you think the lives lost in the bombing come anywhere near what would have been lost in an invasion.

I admit when I have a weakness, and I was pretty hostile about this subject in the first place. Sorry to shorbe, thank you to Perdix. I have no fear in making public apologies.
One thing to Perdix, Im sure that the bombing was better than an invasion, but thats not the case in this. It's just a power plant, which happens to hurt people near the blast zone. And weather we shoot Molosovic in the head or not, there are still better alternatives in bombing than near 80,000 innocents. Agree?

[Perdix]

At 5/30/01 07:49 AM, Crystal_Chrome wrote:
I admit when I have a weakness, and I was pretty hostile about this subject in the first place. Sorry to shorbe, thank you to Perdix. I have no fear in making public apologies.
One thing to Perdix, Im sure that the bombing was better than an invasion, but thats not the case in this. It's just a power plant, which happens to hurt people near the blast zone. And weather we shoot Molosovic in the head or not, there are still better alternatives in bombing than near 80,000 innocents. Agree?

Point taken

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 5/24/01 09:27 PM, Crystal_Chrome wrote: "When the Nato bombs started to fall on Pancevo's petro-chemical factory, 10 miles east of Belgrade next to the Danube in Serbia, the locals thought it must be a mistake. Surely, even in war, no one would risk releasing deadly chemicals less than two miles from a city."

That's the thing... we never bomb military targets. I remember we bombed a TV station in Kosovo during are little feud with Milosovic. The US and NATO should just mind there own business (and try not to bomb any more Chinesse embassies).