Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pentagon to use directed energy weapons in iraq!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
By the way I was wondering if a shield made out of mesh would help to guard against the MW radiation. I bet it would. And the antenna of that active denial would make a sizeable target for any kind of weapon Iraqi happened to have.




posted on Sep, 16 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I support the war against terrorists. I support the troops fighting the war in Iraq (and their right not to be killed be fanatics). I do not agree with the war in Iraq. I do not believe that we should have started the war in Iraq. If the people there wanted their freedom, they should have been willing to fight for it themselves. None of our business. Now that we have started it, I support finishing it. Won't do us any good to leave the mess the way it is. I don't support people like you who bury their heads in the sand and think the muslim zealots deserve any pity or decency in battle.



posted on Sep, 16 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
By the way I was wondering if a shield made out of mesh would help to guard against the MW radiation. I bet it would. And the antenna of that active denial would make a sizeable target for any kind of weapon Iraqi happened to have.


So evryone is going to start wearing mesh

Any vehicle is a target on Iraq, whether or not it has an antenna, it makes absolutely no difference.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   
To all the treehuggin liberals who like to take the high ground in morals
Have you ever heard of preemptive strike or do you want to get burned before you realize your to close to the fire.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I wonder what other tech will appear over the coming months and what we will start taking for granted instead of thinking of as sci-fi.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr No One
Exactly why should the US allow international law or the Geneva conventions to deter us from fighting an enemy that has NEVER respected either?

because the us agreed to do just that when it entered the GC, and in all the alterations/additions afterwards



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Mr No One
Exactly why should the US allow international law or the Geneva conventions to deter us from fighting an enemy that has NEVER respected either?

because the us agreed to do just that when it entered the GC, and in all the alterations/additions afterwards


The Geneva Convention only applies if both parties are signitories to it.
Besides, how ridiculous is the notion of having rules for war, look at what war is.



posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
The Geneva Convention only applies if both parties are signitories to it.

Hmm, going to have to look into that, tho I do recall hearing that Taliban Afghanistan was party to it. Since they don't have a uniformed armed forces tho, don't see how the could be, but I'll have to check this out.


Besides, how ridiculous is the notion of having rules for war, look at what war is.


Prohibiting mass murder of civilians, forbiding chemical and biological agents, and prohibiting torture and public display of pows is a bad thing?



posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Prohibiting mass murder of civilians, forbiding chemical and biological agents, and prohibiting torture and public display of pows is a bad thing?


Well CBW comes under the CBW convention not the Geneva convention. Since when has the GC prevented torture and mass killing in war ? NEVER.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Well CBW comes under the CBW convention not the Geneva convention.

didn't say it did. My response was to 'how ridiculous is the notion of rules for war', not the geneva convention in particular.
Also, I just want to be clear that I said mass killings of 'civillians', not in general.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist


The Geneva Convention only applies if both parties are signitories to it.
Besides, how ridiculous is the notion of having rules for war, look at what war is.

no the geneva confention works if one side does it,just cause the other side didnt it doesnt give you an exscuse to break it.
also rules to war i think rules to war are essential other wise thier just murderers. would you gun down a young 9 year old then threaten to do the same to his brother to get thier father to come out ?
read about the japanese in ww2 thats what happens to POW's when there are no rules.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

no the geneva confention works if one side does it,just cause the other side didnt it doesnt give you an exscuse to break it.


Erm, OK where's your link if your sure this is fact ? I'm fairly sure your wrong. It doesn't make much sense does it if one side has to abide by the rules and the other doesn't ?

AHA, here we are :


General Provisions
Article 2


Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.


[edit on 19-9-2004 by mad scientist]



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist


Erm, OK where's your link if your sure this is fact ? I'm fairly sure your wrong. It doesn't make much sense does it if one side has to abide by the rules and the other doesn't ?

under the geneva confention both contries are bound to obey this law.
geneva convention concerning civies
now if one side doesnt then the other party can get the UN to act or place sanctions on the other side.
one thing i never said they were allowed to break it just that if they did it doesnt give you an exscuse.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Did you even bother to read it ? I posted the relevant part for you.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
did you read it?
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."
meaning that the side that has joing cannot break the law.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
did you read it?
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."
meaning that the side that has joing cannot break the law.


Yes you idiot, it says the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
OK, I'll make this simple.
If their are 3 countries A,B,C
Countries A and B have signed and Country C has not.
SO they are all at war. Countries A and B have to abide by it with regards to each ( 'mutual relations') other but neither does with country C unless country C accepts the conditions of the GC.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
To hell with treaties, when you are fighting an enemy who signs up to the treaty then adhere to it, if they are not signed up then use what u want. They will.



Hell yes!!! Let this new tank show them who their messing with! America isn't going to sit back and let her self be hit once again! This new weapon reminds me of the weapon that the Aliens on "War of the Worlds" used against us.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
devilwasp...

do you have some kind of childish vendeta against Mad Scientist.. you seem to follow him from thread to thread trying to be contradictory to his statements.. I have witnessed you do this.. try to be less juvenile and back up your contradictory statement or I will have to send a letter home to your parents/guardians.

No offence intended..



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RATT

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
To hell with treaties, when you are fighting an enemy who signs up to the treaty then adhere to it, if they are not signed up then use what u want. They will.



Hell yes!!! Let this new tank show them who their messing with! America isn't going to sit back and let her self be hit once again! This new weapon reminds me of the weapon that the Aliens on "War of the Worlds" used against us.


The funniest thing is that this device is non lethal, they don't have the tech yet to boost the power enough to actually melt tanks. Look at the Airbourne Laser, it would just slightly warm a tank and the thing is almost as big as a 747.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Yes you idiot, it says the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
OK, I'll make this simple.
If their are 3 countries A,B,C
Countries A and B have signed and Country C has not.
SO they are all at war. Countries A and B have to abide by it with regards to each ( 'mutual relations') other but neither does with country C unless country C accepts the conditions of the GC.

yeah you got me there BUT the countries still will obey to the UN international law conserning human rights wich run along side it.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
that rules out POWand civie torute,but thats in the geneva convention.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join