Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: heretic on January 16, 2003, 12:20:29 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/index.html
:o
-
Correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't America sell weapons to Iraq when they were figihting Iran?
And also... empty warheads? Hmm... what about full warheads?
-
it still violates the disclosure sent to the UN last month.
(http://matthew.digital7.com/OT/Allyoursand.jpg)
-
...So?
Unless they found something in that "other" warhead, this means nothing. I have an empty gas lighter in my house. Now, am I an arsonist, or a smoker?
It's no news that he had MDWs. And, undoubetdly, Saddam's going to claim this was from back then. There's no real way to prove to the contrary, unless it's a new model or something.
At any rate, Bush is gonna invade anyway- there's absolutely no question of that. You're waving goodbye long after the cowboy has ridden into the sunset, gone on to marry, settle down, have kids, get a job as an investment banker, suffer a stroke, die, and decay into dust. The only question remaining in the Iraq deal is whether a revolution forms, and Bush helps it along, or whether he just has the Army go in and kill everybody in sight.
EDIT: And it doesn't necessarily violate the disclosure, if there's nothing in them. Spent bullet casings and evacuated shells do not qualify as munitions, no matter how crazy or gung-ho warmongering you are.
-
They found 10 empty, short-range warheads in a bunker that hasn't been used, and probably hasn't even been opened, since 1990.
If they'd known they were there, they'd have shipped them out ages ago.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
At any rate, Bush is gonna invade anyway- there's absolutely no question of that. You're waving goodbye long after the cowboy has ridden into the sunset, gone on to marry, settle down, have kids, get a job as an investment banker, suffer a stroke, die, and decay into dust. The only question remaining in the Iraq deal is whether a revolution forms, and Bush helps it along, or whether he just has the Army go in and kill everybody in sight.
Right (sadly). I hate war but this is inevitable.
-
Ah, well. I just hope Saddam does not go quietly. I'd be laughing my ass off at Bush if he started another Vietnam.
-
I'd love it if, knowing he's a dead man anyway, he smuggled himself into America or Britain and let himself be captured outside Parliament or the Whitehouse.
If I was a marked man, I know that's what I'd do.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
...So?
Unless they found something in that "other" warhead, this means nothing. I have an empty gas lighter in my house. Now, am I an arsonist, or a smoker?
[color=66ff00]*looks to the guys in the suits* Step up surveiliance on this one guys, looks like we have a probable arsonist...
[/color]
Originally posted by StrykeIX
Ah, well. I just hope Saddam does not go quietly. I'd be laughing my ass off at Bush if he started another Vietnam.
[color=66ff00] I'm pretty sure all the americans in the crowd will not agree with you. :wtf:
[/color]
-
It doesn't matter whether they're full or not. This will be blown up, screwed around with and then eventually rereleased as "UN Weapons inspectors finally found something, let's attack". Even if it isn't, Strykes right - he'll attack anyway. This would just be one of many potential catalysts.
There are sooooo many things that piss me off about this whole Bush and Iraq thing.
For one thing, he's acting pretty much without evidence. What he has on Iraq is essentially a circumstantial case - murderers are let off when there is no solid evidence, but Bush is willing to go to war in a similar situation. He keeps saying how America will only attack if Iraq disarms, when, for all he knows, Iraq may well have nothing to disarm, nothing to get rid of.
Second of all - what right does he have to say "Weapons are bad" when the Americans probably have the biggest stockpile of active nukes on the entire planet.
I don't condone Saddam, or agree with his ideologies or whatever, but I still think Bush is a moron for pushing this stupid war.
Heh, as for humour, I'd personally like to see Saddam just say - OK, I give up. and had over 50 nukes and a couple of dozen biological weapons, and throw open all the construction plants and ****. That'd F$#@ Bush right up.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
For one thing, he's acting pretty much without evidence. What he has on Iraq is essentially a circumstantial case - murderers are let off when there is no solid evidence, but Bush is willing to go to war in a similar situation.
Undeclared chemical warheads is, say it with me now, A VIOLATION OF UN RESOLUTIONS. It doesn't matter if they're filled with anything or not (although they're examining a 12th more thorougly). It's not like these are rusted out casings. They're in excellent condition and undeclared which is indicative of an ongoing banned chemical weapons program in Iraq.
-
If we're going to start enforcing UN Resolutions, isn't there an outstanding one regarding Israel?
-
sometimes I'm ashamed that Hans Blix is a swede.
oh, and UN is a pile of crap.
I meant Hans, not Erik. I messed him up with some reporter guy...
-
Here we go. 3 UN resolutions telling Israel and Palestine to withdraw and stop being little *****es:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s516961.htm
-
Originally posted by heretic
Undeclared chemical warheads is, say it with me now, A VIOLATION OF UN RESOLUTIONS. It doesn't matter if they're filled with anything or not (although they're examining a 12th more thorougly). It's not like these are rusted out casings. They're in excellent condition and undeclared which is indicative of an ongoing banned chemical weapons program in Iraq.
True, but the primary thrust of Bush's pro-war arguments up until now has been that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, not that they have undeclared warheads. While this does break UN resolutions, empty warheads do not constitute weapons of mass destruction. Plus these don;t represent a 'weapons program' at all, the represent purely what they are - old casings that have probably been in Iraq for 20 years. Keep in mind that A - Any sort of valuable stuff is kept in secure conditions (where it will not rust away or break down from wear) and B - the countries pretty damn dry as it is.
Essentially there's zero evidence that these are new, zero evidnce that they were intended for mass destruction, and zero evidence that they were ever full of anything. They are not a justification for War.
-
The UN and the weapons inspectors now have to declare Saddam in violation and let America whoop his ass, because no matter what the UN say America is going in.
America is ****ing certain to attack and if the UN say Saddam shouldn't be attacked and order them to stop or try and force them to stop, they'll completely ignore the UN exposing it as no better than the failed League Of Nations and end up collapsing it. And this, kids, will bring about yet another sign of the apocalypse as prophecide in the Bible.
-
so what's so wrong to live at the end of the world? now, there's something to tell your grandchildren about...
and yeah. US is prolly going in anyway. methinks they should either a) stop meddling with stuff they have nothing to do with
or b) solve the issue between israel and palestina and the korea thing, instead of warmongering.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]*[color=66ff00] I'm pretty sure all the americans in the crowd will not agree with you. :wtf:
[/color]
Well, I'm one, and I know there are several others that would like to see Bush thoroughly ****ed, so that's at least four, by my count... and three of those are of that small percentage who get on the news a lot. Not bad, by my reckoning.
Yes, I suppose there is some of that pacifist pussyfooting that has soiled the name of the Left out here. "Oh, we don't mind war, but if PEOPLE GET KILLED... *gasp*". Or, better yet: " We don't mind war, but if AMERICANS get killed..."
The way I see it, any American deaths in Iraq would be deaths for the Revolution. It's really too bad that many of the soldiers there likely aren't willing to die, or even fight, but that's what's known as collateral damage, and it's inevitable in a war environment. And no, this isn't just some abstract pontificating done without taking into account the unpleasantness death will be to people. If my death could aid to any noticeable degree the coming of the Revolution, and its glorious victory, I wouldn't hesitate a second, and I've thought that through.
-
*yawns*
what Revolution are you talking about?
-
Just because the USSR is down doesn't mean we are- they were really just fascists in disguise, anyway. Except for Kruzchev. Gotta respect a guy who bangs his shoe on a table in a public tantrum in front of the leaders of the world.
-
That is probably his big Anarchist Revolution™ to dismantle the US government. :D :D
I don't think that there will be any real fighting for at least some months; this whole weapon inspections charade will impede things for quite some time, and they are going to keep asking for more time over and over again. (after all, how they are supposed to find anything? these warheads can be hidden just about anywhere - e.g. drawers, trucks, bathrooms, etc. - and searching the whole nation for these would take decades) Good thing that none of this is actually needed for a war. :D
Well, I'm one, and I know there are several others that would like to see Bush thoroughly ****ed, so that's at least four, by my count... and three of those are of that small percentage who get on the news a lot. Not bad, by my reckoning.
The majority of Americans are actually quite supportive of this Iraq thing. :D
Essentially there's zero evidence that these are new, zero evidnce that they were intended for mass destruction, and zero evidence that they were ever full of anything. They are not a justification for War.
Actually, I think the best justification is the Iraqi post-9/11 statement. This is probably why, more than anything else, the US government decided to going after Iraq next; as I have said here countless times before, it basically indicates that they are ready to show hostilities in the open, which makes them potentially dangerous. (no other nation, not even Afghanistan, issued an official supportive statement, regardless of whatever they actually thought) They may or may not have any "weapons of mass destruction," but if they do not, it just makes them all the easier to deal with, right? :D Remember, it is simply a case of our terrorists against their terrorists, so may the best terrorist win. :D
oh, and UN is a pile of crap.
Yes, I agree there. They don't have the power to enforce anything they say, so basically all they do is talk. In this particular case it is much more so than usual, since without US support they are completely powerless, so they are in a sense US controlled.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The UN and the weapons inspectors now have to declare Saddam in violation and let America whoop his ass, because no matter what the UN say America is going in.
America is ****ing certain to attack and if the UN say Saddam shouldn't be attacked and order them to stop or try and force them to stop, they'll completely ignore the UN exposing it as no better than the failed League Of Nations and end up collapsing it. And this, kids, will bring about yet another sign of the apocalypse as prophecide in the Bible.
The UN is already a failure. The U.S. will only abide by the decisions of NATO, and nothing else. The reason the US has waited is because we wanted them to be exposed to the rest of the country.
to the morons that don't watch the news: the UN declaration sent by Iraq LAST MONTH included an inventory of ALL weapons and munitions (among other things) regardless if they were warming up in a missile silo or sitting in a dusty room. And according to that document (which took Iraq 2 months to put together), the weapons found today did not exist.
The US would have still invaded, remember, the war never ended, there was only a cease-fire signed. Over the past 10 years the US/GB/etc have had patrol planes fired upon in the NFZ, not to mention Iraq warplanes in the NFZ. Those themselves were BLATENT violations of the cease-fire agreement.
As to the "well, they were empty, so why does it matter?" comments, I quote this:
You would not keep the chemical agent stored in a warhead unless you planned on using them. And how long does it really take to fill a chemical warhead? Less than 24 hours for the total operation.
Oh yeah for the people that want to question my expertise
Sergeant Christopher Bracken
Nuclear/Biological/Chemical NCO
-
Luke 21:
20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written. 23 Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; 24 they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25 "And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." 29
Israel is screwed, they think the Sun is doing funky stuff, weather patterns are getting screwy, and 26-27 sounds eerily like a nuke to me.
Yey, us! We're screwed.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
Just because the USSR is down doesn't mean we are- they were really just fascists in disguise, anyway. Except for Kruzchev. Gotta respect a guy who bangs his shoe on a table in a public tantrum in front of the leaders of the world.
oh, you mean that Revolution...
Honestly, I don't think we'll be seeing socialism in practise any time soon. sorry. for the time being, I'm vouching for democrasy. I hope that a country will change to that rule of government soon.
-
Frankly, we know its about getting a foothold in the middle east. We know why. Anyone with a strategic eye would appreciate why. Its just unfortunate the yanks can't be subtle.
-
There we go. :D I think they are doing a pretty good job at subtlety compared to most others throughout history though, as they do at least have most of their own population convinced. The whole idea of this is to do anything that has any chance of disrupting future 9/11-like operations, and in this particular case there is almost nothing to lose, so it's an easy choice. (of course, there will likely still be such things and they cannot be avoided, but they can be delayed)
-
kode: Socialism's already in place over much of Wester Europe. But that's NOT what I'm talking about, anyway.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
kode: Socialism's already in place over much of Wester Europe. But that's NOT what I'm talking about, anyway.
no. socialism is not in place over much of western europe. it's the right wing parties that are in position here. the socialist democratic workers party (hear the name!) in sweden would be right wing, if they wouldn't lose support from the union if they said it out loud.
and USSR never was a communist state. the term itself is self-contradicting.
-
Originally posted by an0n
If we're going to start enforcing UN Resolutions, isn't there an outstanding one regarding Israel?
BECAUSE, the Israel resolutions come under a totally different system, which arent actually enforced resolutions.
-
Kode: do you know what socialism IS???
It doesn't matter what party gets the vote. The form of government in, at the very least, the three major Western European countries (England, France, and Spain; possibly Italy, too) are most certainly socialist. It's not a political party, it's not a name, it's a form of economy.
-
Anyone here believes the US has declared all of their own weapons to the UN as they're asking from Iraq? As CP says, it's just a matter of who has the bigger stick. The problem is, sometimes even the guy with the bigger stick can get his nose bloodied before he finishes the other guy off. And then we'll see the reaction of the US citizens.
Now, I only hope they transmit the whole war live on TV, and we get some good close-up, extremely gory, shots, preferrably of soldiers from both sides.
-
I just think it's funny how apparently the rest of the world can't be trusted to be responsible with nukes, and yet not only does the US have enough to destroy the world many times over (a bit overkill), but is the only country ever to have used any- on an unarmed civilian city, no less, and what's more never regretting the slaughter.:D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The majority of Americans are actually quite supportive of this Iraq thing. :D
[color=66ff00]
I mean't that I didn't think too many americans would be happy if it turned into another vietnam...
Who wants to go die in a foreign country just so some politican can say 'whoops that wasn't such a great idea, oh well better luck next time.'
[/color]
-
Who wants to die in a foreign country just so that some politician can claim the cause of death (the war) was justified for [reason], [reason] being no reason at all, aside from a childish personal grudge and the need to distract from a failing economy and series of domestic programs?
Never mind that, nowadays, there would be no "next time", much less any luck at all, for a politician who mired us in another bloody, unwinnable war where we got our asses kicked by civilians with quarter-century-old weapory.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
I just think it's funny how apparently the rest of the world can't be trusted to be responsible with nukes, and yet not only does the US have enough to destroy the world many times over (a bit overkill), but is the only country ever to have used any- on an unarmed civilian city, no less, and what's more never regretting the slaughter.:D
The US dropped the bombs to end the war. The Island campaign killed hundreds of thousands, and the eventual fight on Japanese soil was too grim to not consider it.
also, the US does not go around violating other country's soverengty (sp?), or make terroristic threats. Not to mention being the only superpower :rolleyes:
and before anyone says, we don't think the US should police the world, etc... you say that until your country gets invaded, or has a civil war, or needs aid. In fact, every country recognized by the UN gets AT LEAST 1M from us in aid/assistance every year. even the god damned Taliban controlled Afghanastan got 8 Billion in aid in 2000.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
Who wants to die in a foreign country just so that some politician can claim the cause of death (the war) was justified for [reason], [reason] being no reason at all, aside from a childish personal grudge and the need to distract from a failing economy and series of domestic programs?
*bangs head on wall*
god damn dude, you're worse than die-hard war fanatics!! You spout all this crap, and when someone responds giving VALID REASONS for this, you simply chose to ignore it, and go on about it.
Let's sit on our ass and wait for Saddam to gain more power. Hell, it worked with germany after WWI, right? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
I just think it's funny how apparently the rest of the world can't be trusted to be responsible with nukes, and yet not only does the US have enough to destroy the world many times over (a bit overkill), but is the only country ever to have used any- on an unarmed civilian city, no less, and what's more never regretting the slaughter.:D
Oh, there are countries that supposedly can be trusted with them, namely those friendly to the US or those too big to be forced to disarm. Not that this represents ideal policy or absolute truth as to who can and cannot be trusted, but in today's political climate that's how things fall out (no pun intended). And as for the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing, your assertion disregards a lot. First, when those weapons were deployed, no one really knew the long-term effects nukes had. They were just REALLY big bombs. The devestation of Hiroshima was comparable to saturation bombing of an urban area, something that every modern nation involved totally in a national conflict has done with regularity. The decision to use them on civilian targets was perhaps a mistake, but given the way the Japanese fought for every square inch of their Pacific island possessions, invading the Japanese mainland would have cost millions of lives, military and civilian. You can't say that America had no regrets, but acting on limited knowledge and with the intent of bring a swift resolution to the inevitable course of the war I don't think it was a bad decision, or that I, or you, or anyone else would have made it any differently given what was known at the time and nothing more.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a jingoist and I think this war with Iraq is being poorly executed. I don't think it's wholly bad, but I think Bush is going about it in much too political a manner. He needs to sit back and wait for some inevitable credible and concrete evidence, the so called "smoking gun," to turn up, and I honestly think that it will, instead of rushing in headlong so that he can be a war President in an election year.
EDIT: And here is the biggest mistake Bush has made: exploring restarting the draft. Not that he'll do it necessarily, but if there is one thing that will cause support for war to fall really quickly, this is it. No one wants their family (and this means sons of American families) to be broken up just so some politician can stay in power. If more of a deal had been made about the initial comments, then the necessity of the war in public opinion would have fallen really quickly.
-
Originally posted by heretic
The US dropped the bombs to end the war. The Island campaign killed hundreds of thousands, and the eventual fight on Japanese soil was too grim to not consider it.
That's the official bull**** line. Doesn't explain why a military target couldn't have been chosen, or some place highly visible but unpopulated. And since all available evidence suggests that, counter to what US politicians said at the time, Japan was on the verge of surrender and we knew it, I don't buy it.
also, the US does not go around violating other country's soverengty (sp?), or make terroristic threats. Not to mention being the only superpower
The first part of this is so silly I don't even feel the need to respond to it. It's what the government is doing as this post is typed. As for the "terroristic threats", I suppose that depends on the definition of "terroristic". We DO make a ****load of demands from a good many countries, with the threat of invasion implied in many cases.
and before anyone says, we don't think the US should police the world, etc... you say that until your country gets invaded, or has a civil war, or needs aid. In fact, every country recognized by the UN gets AT LEAST 1M from us in aid/assistance every year.
...Except that the UN is basically a USA fanclub, where the members have to do more or less as we say. Only this year has the UN not gone along with EVERYTHING the US wants, and it's a mild protest now, at that. I think, in light of that, a little pocket change is only fair.
Besides which, if we took the time to rein in our corporations or helped most of the poorer nations in genuinely useful ways, instead of just giving empty monetary gestures, we could keep those millions. Which, as I said, on a national scale are pocket change. It takes a million dollars for a politician to take a ****, practically.
even the god damned Taliban controlled Afghanastan got 8 Billion in aid in 2000.
Sign of the efficacy of our aid program, don't you think? We prop the governments up and let them slaighter civilians until we decide we need to go invadin', then, all of a sudden, they're terrorist rogue nations who torture their populace. Policing the world, indeed.
StratComm: True. There wasn't much of a way TO know, at that point. But it was still kinda low, and after we found out the government coulda at least felt bad...
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
Kode: do you know what socialism IS???
do you know what socialism is? marxist utopian socialism, that is.
socialism is a form of government. the real idea of parlamentarical socialist parties is to in a democratical way change the rule to socialism, where revolutionary parties wants force to be used. the goal is the same, the ways to reach it is different.
-
Sort of- that's awfully simplistic. Socialism is the halfway mark between capitalism and communism. A golden mean, to some. Basically, the economy is heavily, but not completely, regulated to give some job security and market stability, and you give the government a lot of your money in taxes (but not all), and in turn the government uses the money to pay for good healthcare and the like. England in particular is a socialist state, in action if not in name. The US is sliiightly socialist, but very much more capitalist than Commie, in that the market is controlled only minimally and your taxes go more to missiles than schools- and there aren't so many of them.
And there's no such thing as "Marxist socialism". Marx was a communist. C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-T. He thought Socialism was a handy halfway point for the communist revolution, but nothing more. He certainly didn't say much about how it should be.
-
that is market economics, ffs! the middle road between capitalism and monopoly.
socialism (by my means of defenition) is the first step after revolution towards real communism.
-
Nope. Read your Marx. That's the dictatorship stage- communism as applied today. After that (eventually) comes what's better described as an "anarchy".
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
That's the official bull**** line. Doesn't explain why a military target couldn't have been chosen, or some place highly visible but unpopulated. And since all available evidence suggests that, counter to what US politicians said at the time, Japan was on the verge of surrender and we knew it, I don't buy it.
Unpopulated? in Japan? :tard:
Every hear of..****, I believe it's Bikini island- they fired off several hundred, in the Pacific rim. they DID do it in a highly visible place.
The first part of this is so silly I don't even feel the need to respond to it. It's what the government is doing as this post is typed.
it's silly they invaded another country? were you not old enough to remember Kuwait? :tard:
As for the "terroristic threats", I suppose that depends on the definition of "terroristic". We DO make a ****load of demands from a good many countries, with the threat of invasion implied in many cases.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Since when have we threatened to invade a country other than Iraq when the UN Security Council has no deemed it? please, give me one. :rolleyes:
...Except that the UN is basically a USA fanclub, where the members have to do more or less as we say. Only this year has the UN not gone along with EVERYTHING the US wants, and it's a mild protest now, at that. I think, in light of that, a little pocket change is only fair.
A little pocket change? ~1 Trillion is hardly pocket change... and then you type this:
Besides which, if we took the time to rein in our corporations or helped most of the poorer nations in genuinely useful ways, instead of just giving empty monetary gestures, we could keep those millions. Which, as I said, on a national scale are pocket change. It takes a million dollars for a politician to take a ****, practically.
You first say that giving all this aid is "pocket change" then say we should devote all money to internal issues?? pick a side then get back to me
kthxbye!
Sign of the efficacy of our aid program, don't you think? We prop the governments up and let them slaighter civilians until we decide we need to go invadin', then, all of a sudden, they're terrorist rogue nations who torture their populace. Policing the world, indeed.
sorry, didn't see this part. Repeat what you said here, then think of Iraq. We're doing what you just said- being proactive. Saddam has had plenty of time to cooperate with UN resolutions and has spat in their face. The Inspectors were kicked out in the 90's which right then was cause for war, but the US blew it off and didn't give a damn. Now we're holding him accountable for his actions.
I can't debate this with you, because you're so full of contradictions and going back on yourself it's pathetic.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
That's the official bull**** line. Doesn't explain why a military target couldn't have been chosen, or some place highly visible but unpopulated. And since all available evidence suggests that, counter to what US politicians said at the time, Japan was on the verge of surrender and we knew it, I don't buy it.
[/B]
We didn't know that at the time, and all the evidence pointed to the Japanese fighting to the last man when the decision was made. Look at Iwo Jima, for instance; the Japanese there committed suicide (troops and civilians) when they couldn't fight any longer rather than being captured. How does that evidence suggest that Japan was on the verge of surrender? Remember that we weren't flying high-altitude survalence missions 24/7 and we had no satelites to monitor Japan's capabilities. For all we knew, they had issued assault rifles to every citizen of their country and were preparing to go out in a bang. That was sixty years ago, after all. Also, a military target large enough to warrent a weapon equivalent to 500 tons of TNT simply wasn't present in Japan, only a medium-sized city would justify that much force to destroy. It was an attack to tell Japan to surrender or else, and to demonstrate that the United States would win no matter what Japan did. Giving the order to deploy the bomb was the hardest call Truman ever had to make.
StratComm: True. There wasn't much of a way TO know, at that point. But it was still kinda low, and after we found out the government coulda at least felt bad...
That's just it, the government did try to make amends. We had troops in there in a matter of days after the surrender to try to help the survivors. And in all honesty, it went over pretty well with Japan. After all, next to South Korea, thay are one of our closest allies in the Far East.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
Nope. Read your Marx. That's the dictatorship stage- communism as applied today. After that (eventually) comes what's better described as an "anarchy".
anarchism. not anarchy. big friggin difference.
-
Originally posted by heretic
Every hear of..****, I believe it's Bikini island- they fired off several hundred, in the Pacific rim. they DID do it in a highly visible place.
oh yes... but wasn't those nuclear tests made in the 50's? along with those several hundreds in nevada?
-
kode: No. But I don't really care to split hairs anymore. Suffice it to say, no communist theorist has EVER called it that, to my knowledge, and in fact I seriously doubt that word exists beyond misspellings and your own personal dictionary. No offence, I could be wrong, but anarchy is what it is, plain and simple- no government, no regulations, just the people ruling themselves.
StratComm: Why would you need to "justify" a target though? The explosions would be as big and impressive no matter where they were.
Heretic: You're not even talking rationally, you're spouting crap without reading and insulting me. Ignore list.
Ass.
-
Hey, that "ignore list" thing is actually pretty cool. I was wondering if it just blocked PMs, or made messages invisible, or what...
-
Concerning Ignore lists:
Guide to the INTERWEB chapter 3, paragraph 2.1: you know you lost an argument when you put your hands over your ears and hum loudly.
:o
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
StratComm: Why would you need to "justify" a target though? The explosions would be as big and impressive no matter where they were.
The targets of the nuclear drops in WWII were chosen specifically because they hadn't been bombed before (I'd imagine most bases had) because the US did want to send a message to the Japanese. We had these things, and we chose a target to demonstrate their destructive capability. The explosion itself wasn't that important (after all, the only film made of those bombs going off was taken from American planes) since no one close to the Emporer would have necessarily seen it, it was the destruction that it left behind that had to convince them.
-
(by that rule, the most effective debaters and smartest people in the world are just the ones who are so ****ing annoying nobody cares what they think they have to say)
StratComm: Fine. But I still don't think there's much justification for wiping out a whole city of people, much less two. Isn't that the sort of thing that's regularly featured in action movie bad guys?
Oh, wait, they're freelancers. That IS evil.
-
Originally posted by heretic
Unpopulated? in Japan? :tard:
it's silly they invaded another country? were you not old enough to remember Kuwait? :tard:
[color=66ff00]I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, I'm not 100% sure what :tard: means so please explain it to me. I sincerely hope it isn't some childish way of saying 'retard', that would make your argument a little petulant sounding.
[/color]
-
actually, anarchism is a form of socialism.
socialism is an ideology that mainly can be divided into libertarian socialism (anarchism and syndicalism, for example), and authoritarian socialism (maoism, marxism, leninism, etc)
or, for that matter, into libertarian anarchosyndicalism, revolutionary communism, and reformarian socialism.
oh, here's some link that basically says the same thing that the lines above that I translated from swedish for your ignorant american mind: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
-
*quietly takes over world while everyone else is arguing*
-
Non-commies sure like to label Communism, don't they? :D
Sorry, I jsut wasn't familiar with those terms. I learned my communism from the Communists, who never used them. Either way's legitimate, since the Commies aren't the most objective observers, generally, but I just like to find out the how and the why from people "on the inside", as it were.
-
Originally posted by heretic
Concerning Ignore lists:
Guide to the INTERWEB chapter 3, paragraph 2.1: you know you lost an argument when you put your hands over your ears and hum loudly.
:o [/B]
heh... besides the fact that I'm having an argument with him and still oppose your opinion somewhat, that is funnay.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, I'm not 100% sure what :tard: means so please explain it to me. I sincerely hope it isn't some childish way of saying 'retard', that would make your argument a little petulant sounding.
[/color]
If you don't know what :tard: means, then you're on the wrong forum.
-
Originally posted by heretic
If you don't know what :tard: means, then you're on the wrong forum.
[color=33ff00]I'll take that as a yes.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
Non-commies sure like to label Communism, don't they? :D
Sorry, I jsut wasn't familiar with those terms. I learned my communism from the Communists, who never used them. Either way's legitimate, since the Commies aren't the most objective observers, generally, but I just like to find out the how and the why from people "on the inside", as it were.
oh... I learned these terms from my friends in the leninist-marxist communist party (revolutionarys), KPLM(R), the biggest communist party in sweden... but I guess they know dick about communism then, do they?
pardon me for saying so, but you don't really sound like you know what you're talking about. dying aint funnay, and death never changes anything, whether it was done for "a good cause" or not.
-
Hmm, coming in after this was closed, I must say I'm dissapointed I missed it. ;)
Anyhow, one point I wish to make, directed at Thunder.
Originally posted by Thunder
Correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't America sell weapons to Iraq when they were figihting Iran?
This point is not particularly relevant..... I suppose you're trying to imply that the rockets were supplied at some point in the past by US, or the technology to build them was supplied by the US. Incorrect.
122mm is not a US (or even to my knowledge NATO) caliber, it is in fact of Russian origin. As you may know, Russians have long supplied ME countries with weapons, rockets (which really are quite simple to build) would have been supplied to Iraq and then almost certainly built (at least ammo for them) domestically.
Anyhow, this serves no other purpose. :p