If America is an evil country, why doesn't the world stop it?

[Mayer]

A rail gun would be the next step in the evolution of artillery, shooting projectiles with much higher velocity and kinetic energy. If China successfully developed a rail gun, they would have a tremendous advantage.

[Just answer the question]

The perp was tried and convicted for his crimes.

That's not the point! The point is, if they weren't there then that little girl would have still been alive!

And if the world actually grew some balls and taught you and them a lesson, then maybe things like this wouldn't happen again!

[Prodromos]

That's not the point! The point is, if they weren't there then that little girl would have still been alive!

Proof? That's quite a claim. Saddam on average killed 50-100K Iraqis per year during his reign. Massacres, rebellions, wars, genocides, plus just random rapes and killings for the fun of it.

https://billingsgazette.com/news/loc...51dde0418.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/w...in-killed.html

Living in Iraq under Saddam was "like being in prison with a death sentence and not knowing the execution date," she said.

"Saddam destroyed the personality of Iraqis," she said. "You couldn't walk with your head up and feel human. You had to watch yourself 24 hours a day."

Each day was a struggle to stay alive and out of jail. People could be arrested for off-handed remarks or casual jokes.

"It was torture to live under Saddam, but impossible to resist," she said.

After one story circulated around Baghdad, even parents' relationships with their children were no longer sacred.

According to the account, during a visit to a residential neighborhood, Saddam was approached by a 6-year-old child who said that he knew the leader. When Saddam asked the child why he recognized the leader, the child said that every time Saddam was on television, his father spit at it.

The entire family, including the child and his father, were summarily executed in front of their neighbors.

After that, parents praised Saddam in front of their young children to protect the family, LaMotte said.

Only when the children were older and understood the consequences of a stray comment could parents reveal their true feelings about Saddam.

Fear was so widespread that Iraqis only trusted members of their immediate families. They didn't speak openly in front of cousins, uncles, other extended family members and friends because those people might be informants.

One of LaMotte's brothers couldn't make enough to feed his family even though he worked as an engineer. In 1992, he left Iraq for Jordan, hoping to move on to another Middle East country to make a better life for his family.

Before he could leave, he was shot by Iraqi operatives in front of his family.

When the second Gulf War started, many Iraqis were ready for the bombing and even the possibility of people dying if it meant getting rid of Saddam.

"Under Saddam, we already were facing death," she said.

Getting rid of Saddam, no matter what followed, meant that the next generation would have a chance for a better life.

[Mayer]

Saddam did... is not an excuse for war of aggression on false pretenses.
Otherwise i could claim Hitler was justified in invading the USSR because Stalin killed some people, or vice versa.

War of aggresion is always wrong and a violation of international law, Iraq did not suddenly become a western democracy because Saddam was gone.

[Prodromos]

Saddam did... is not an excuse for war of aggression on false pretenses.
Otherwise i could claim Hitler was justified in invading the USSR because Stalin killed some people, or vice versa.

War of aggresion is always wrong and a violation of international law, Iraq did not suddenly become a western democracy because Saddam was gone.

There was no war of aggression; Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Ceasefire and lots of other agreements -- they were just finally being enforced. Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam than with him.

[Just answer the question]

Saddam on average killed 50-100K Iraqis per year during his reign

Enough already! And that is a fallacy right there! "Oh I have no defense, quick, I'll reveal my neighbors crimes to exonerate myself."

So just because they do it it's okay for others to do it is that what you are saying?

Plus:
Iraq isn't the topic here,
Germany isn't the topic here,
China isn't the topic here,
WW2 isn't the topic here,
Russia isn't the topic here,
Europe isn't the topic here,
Australia isn't the topic here,
Indonesia isn't the topic here,
X, Y, and Z aren't the topic here!

If you want to make those as topics, then go ahead but do it on your own threads!

[Mayer]

There was no war of aggression; Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Ceasefire and lots of other agreements -- they were just finally being enforced.

Did the US and its "Coalition of the Willing" have an UN mandate for invading Iraq? No. Did the other members of the UN security council believe that Iraq was not complying with UN resolutions? No.
It was a war of aggression, because the US wanted to overthrow a government which it did not like, and with a big lie about non-existing WMDs as justification.

Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam than with him.

Replacing a secular arab nationalist with genocidal islamic terrorists is better for the world, because?

[95thrifleman]

Enough already! And that is a fallacy right there! "Oh I have no defense, quick, I'll reveal my neighbors crimes to exonerate myself."

So just because they do it it's okay for others to do it is that what you are saying?

Plus:
Iraq isn't the topic here,
Germany isn't the topic here,
China isn't the topic here,
WW2 isn't the topic here,
Russia isn't the topic here,
Europe isn't the topic here,
Australia isn't the topic here,
Indonesia isn't the topic here,
X, Y, and Z aren't the topic here!

If you want to make those as topics, then go ahead but do it on your own threads!

How is it not the topic? You are demanding that merica be held to a higher standard than any other nation and punished. That is hypocrisy.

[Mayer]

America placed itself on a pedestal of higher standard by pretending they are the morally righteous ones who punish the wicked.
But when you scrutinize their conduct, you will see that they are not better than any other imperialist who came before.
The americans never say they want to expand their influence, gain military bases or oil. They'll say they bring freedom to the people. That is hypocrisy.

[conon394]

A rail gun would be the next step in the evolution of artillery, shooting projectiles with much higher velocity and kinetic energy. If China successfully developed a rail gun, they would have a tremendous advantage.

I doubt it. Too expensive to much energy, the projectile is rather limited to just being kinetic, no guidance, range that is pointless. China has been on a run of copying US pentagon expensive loony ideals for some reason. For example actually implementing apparently a version of the ludicrous XM-29 - You end up with an under powered grenade launcher and over heavy gun.

[Mayer]

A rail-gun is all about the kinetic energy, dumb projectiles with an impressive penetration power. Electronics can't take it, but if you want guidance and long range, you better use a missile. The Heckler & Koch XM-29 is basically the lightweight german G36 with a 20mm grenade launcher on top.

[Ludicus]

Maybe not to its people and allies.

I'm very critical of American expansionism/imperialism.BUT governments are transitory things...
As an example, FDR's greatness lies in his defeat of one of the greatest threats to the civilized world: fascist Germany. And more, much more...Roosevelt withdrew marines from Haiti, gave the country back its national bank. The US abrogated the Cuban constitution's hated Platt Amendment, which had turned the island into a vassal state, and tolerated a degree of economic nationalism in Latin America, including Mexico's expropriation of the holdings of Standard Oil. Good Neighbor Policy - Office of the Historian

And of course, let's praise a brilliant mind and kind soul. She said: "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one".

[conon394]

A rail-gun is all about the kinetic energy, dumb projectiles with an impressive penetration power.

Again the problem is energy needed and were on the system (the rail/bore) Also hey look we took a hit and electricity is down - guess no shooty shot back. You can achieve a fair amount of the same with HVP fired from standard guns. Also consider the problem with a HVP w/o guidance its not much use out of visual range or the range of on board sensors. Modern ships don't have armor the projectile likely would just pass through and not deliver its potential energy. They are not built like tanks where the same weapon can be devastating. Not much use for fire support either where the explosion and shrapnel of shell is far more useful. Its tech for tech sake chasing a mission.

you better use a missile

Exactly

The Heckler & Koch XM-29 is basically the lightweight german G36 with a 20mm grenade launcher on top.

Yep and put together it way to heavy to inflict on a Grunt. But worse the super high tech 20mm grenade loaded with electronics produced a warhead that was too small to be really effective and requires batteries to work. The Chinese would do better to copy the Marine Rifle Squad developments after 18 years of the forever war on global terror. The whole squad we be carrying the M27 (essentially all have a squad automatic weapon) with 1 designated marksman with a specialized gun and 3 dedicated grenadiers with the M320 40mm grenade launcher. Everyone knows their job and can focus on one weapon. Its notable the choice of M320 was based on the side loading, allowing smart rounds to be larger than standard NATO rounds. Thus not trading smart for actual 'warhead' size. When all the batteries run dry I think I would prefer a specialist who can lob a grenade by skill not pushing buttons or GPS from satellites that both sides shot down on day 1.

[Mayer]

They are not built like tanks where the same weapon can be devastating.

Then maybe we should use rail-guns against tanks? I was just thinking about a rail-gun melting the armor of an M1 Abrams, and then selling it to Iran!

[conon394]

Then maybe we should use rail-guns against tanks? I was just thinking about a rail-gun melting the armor of an M1 Abrams, and then selling it to Iran!

Not rising to the bait but again power requirement. Tank main guns are perfectly fine doing their job now. Fitting that much power generation on a tank would be beyond stupid and impractical if not impossible unless what a land ship. If Iraq wants to blow up M1A1s then they can buy the kit on the market from Russia and you know actually train a competent army that is not riddled with corruption. Oh wait its Iraq.

[95thrifleman]

Then maybe we should use rail-guns against tanks? I was just thinking about a rail-gun melting the armor of an M1 Abrams, and then selling it to Iran!

You don't need a railgun to take out an M1.

Both Chinese and American research in this area are decades away from anything other than a naval mount.

[Just answer the question]

Saddam did... is not an excuse for war of aggression on false pretenses.
Otherwise i could claim Hitler was justified in invading the USSR because Stalin killed some people, or vice versa.

Or it was okay for Bin Laden to throw planes at buildings and kill 3000 people because America killed some people, or vice versa.

Or it was okay to bomb a bunch of buses and trains and kill 56 people because the UK killed some people, or vice versa.

[Just answer the question]

You are demanding that merica be held to a higher standard than any other nation and punished.

No, quite the contrary, I am demanding that they put to the same standards as any other nation.

And explain to me why it is okay to punish Venezuela?

Explain to me why it is okay to punish North Korea?

Explain to me why it is okay to punish Iran?

Or any of these countries:

Ah because these countries are poor and don't serve anything so it is okay but America, you see America is powerful and has $ so it okay if it does these:

Bombing list:

• Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
• Guatemala 1954
• Indonesia 1958
• Cuba 1959-1961
• Guatemala 1960
• Congo 1964
• Laos 1964-73
• Vietnam 1961-73
• Cambodia 1969-70
• Guatemala 1967-69
• Grenada 1983
• Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
• Libya 1986
• El Salvador 1980s
• Nicaragua 1980s
• Iran 1987
• Panama 1989
• Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
• Kuwait 1991
• Somalia 1993
• Bosnia 1994, 1995
• Sudan 1998
• Afghanistan 1998
• Yugoslavia 1999
• Yemen 2002
• Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
• Iraq 2003-2015
• Afghanistan 2001-2015
• Pakistan 2007-2015
• Somalia 2007-8, 2011
• Yemen 2009, 2011
• Libya 2011, 2015
• Syria 2014-2015

[Just answer the question]

America placed itself on a pedestal of higher standard

No, it's not. It's just rich and powerful, that's the only difference. Luck is what put it at its place.

If it didn't have the power, it would have been punished severely, a long time ago.

[Prodromos]

Did the US and its "Coalition of the Willing" have an UN mandate for invading Iraq? No. Did the other members of the UN security council believe that Iraq was not complying with UN resolutions? No.
It was a war of aggression, because the US wanted to overthrow a government which it did not like, and with a big lie about non-existing WMDs as justification.

Replacing a secular arab nationalist with genocidal islamic terrorists is better for the world, because?

No I don't think the US needs the UN's permission before defending itself or its allies. That's plain silly.

Iraq under Saddam wasn't "secular"; starting in the 1980s Saddam understood the value of Islamism and began to install sharia law. Adulterers, gays and others were systematically tortured and executed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Criminal Code of 1969, enacted by the Ba'athist party, only criminalized sexual behavior in cases of adultery, incest, rape, prostitution, public acts or cases involving fraud or someone unable to give consent due to age or mental defect. Homosexuality per se was not a crime, but could be justification for government discrimination and harassment under laws designed to protect national security and public morality.

In addition to the Criminal Code, the Ba'athist regime would issue additional resolutions on specific topics. Sodomy was re-criminalized by a 1988 resolution, but only when it involved prostitution. [Combating Prostitution Law No. 8 of 1988].

It was during this same period that organized attacks on LGBT people began to increase.

In the United Nations, the Iraqi delegation cited religion at the time as their reasoning for opposing efforts to have the international body support gay rights, challenging the widely held view of Saddam as a secularist.[9]

In 2001, the IRCC Resolution 234 of 2001 was enacted that established the death penalty for adultery, being involved with prostitution, and anyone who, "Commits the crime of sodomy with a male or female or who violates the honor of a male or female without his or her consent and under the threat of arm or by force in a way that the life of the victim (male or female) is threatened."[10]

Approximately 3,000 people were tortured from 1991 to 2003 by Saddam Hussein’s security forces for expressing their sexuality.[11]

In addition, Saddam was a leading sponsor of Islamist organizations and terrorist groups abroad. Even after Saddam's fall Baathist goons were well-represented in ISIL and the Sunni insurgency. Iraq today is actually less Islamist than when Saddam was running the show.

Iraq also isn't run by ISIS. Not sure where you're getting that.