Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on April 18, 2004, 05:34:45 pm
-
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=495179§ion=news
Spain says Ta Ta For Now to Iraq.
-
isn't that wonderful great news everybody?
-
Well, it's waht the Spanish people wanted.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
isn't that wonderful great news everybody?
What's your point caller? :wtf:
-
It IS wonderful news, I know. The thinly veiled charade of a "coalition" just lost a member. Also, its what the Spanish people wanted all along but had a government too dictatorial to do.
-
Rictor, I've been wanting to say this for a while now and have been too nice and forgiving, but I can see now:
You are a dick, it will not get better!
You wouldn't whine and ***** so much if it was really like you try so hard to make us think it is.
The current conditions in Iraq are the results of some power-hungry thugs with personal armies attempting to take power from what will eventually be a Government duely elected by Iraqis.
Nation-Building is a slow and sometimes bloody process, if you'll study history you find that less than 15% of the colonial population supported breaking away England. But a few men with a Divinely Inspired vision led the fight out of the dark oppression and into the Light of Freedom and created a nation the likes of which the world has never seen. And I am sick you bad-mouthing it.
It may not be perfect, and it may stumble from time to time but it is a good nation with basically good people in it. I am sick of seeing people treating what is basically a humanitarian act like it's the second coming of God Damned Mother F---ing Nazi Germany. Knock it off. I won't be as nice next time.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Knock it off. I won't be as nice next time.
Why, what are you going to do? Liberate him?
-
You think your some ****ing Klingon don't you?
-
"...Divinely Inspired..."
you just had to go and make it easy for him
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"...Divinely Inspired..."
Sad thing is....he believes it.
-
He even capitalized it.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
But a few men with a Divinely Inspired vision led the fight out of the dark oppression and into the Light of Freedom and created a nation the likes of which the world has never seen. And I am sick you bad-mouthing it.
Those divinely inspired people were mostly slave traders, and the way to the light of freedom involved the genocide of a native population. Spare us the ****e about how great your nation is, historical facts tell a different story.
-
like I said makeing it easy on them.
-
No need to be nice towards me. If you think all that, by all mean its your right to say so. I don't take it personally just as I would hope (in vain?) that you don't take what I say personally. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. Obviously, thats not much going to change. I'm against being politically correct or whatever. If you've got something to say to me; out with it.
Now:
Originally posted by Liberator
Nation-Building is a slow and sometimes bloody process, if you'll study history you find that less than 15% of the colonial population supported breaking away England. But a few men with a Divinely Inspired vision led the fight out of the dark oppression and into the Light of Freedom and created a nation the likes of which the world has never seen. And I am sick you bad-mouthing it.
I'm not talking about the practical side of "Nation Building". I'm challenging America's right to do so in the first place. If I supported nation-building, the actual nuts and bolts would be secondary. But I don't, so again, whether you succeed (sp?) or fail is irrelevant.
Your views on the American War of Independece are a bit, hmm, romantic. History very, very rarely, if ever, has white knights in shining armour battling the dark forces of evil. As with Iraq and the "war on terror", you try to present America's seccesion from Britain as a struggle of good vs evil. It was not a "nation unlike the world has ever seen", it was in fact very similar to many European nations at the time. This amazing democracy which you claim was created amounted to voting rights for white males. The women and "coloured folk" were left out of the democratic process. Sorry to tell ya, but France had a similar system going several years before. Not to mention ancient Greek democracy, some two thousand years previous.
Originally posted by Liberator
It may not be perfect, and it may stumble from time to time but it is a good nation with basically good people in it. I am sick of seeing people treating what is basically a humanitarian act like it's the second coming of God Damned Mother F---ing Nazi Germany. Knock it off. I won't be as nice next time.
Well, every nation is basically a good one. That is because it is made up of people who are mostly good. I am not criticizing the people to any great extent, I am criticizing the government and rightly so. You can only believe that Iraq (not to mention the various military and economic interventions over the years) as humanitarian if you blindly accept what you are told, despite evidence to the contrary.
I'm not even going to get into the concept of "humanitarian intervention" here, because it is a fairly complex one. What I will say is that, unlike some (not all) Americans, what most of the world sees is that the actions of the US government are taken solely for the benfit of a wealthy, powerful few. This usually (so close to always, it might as well be) causes great suffering and misery. You are naive on such matters becuase you live in America. The reason that the world does not agree with you is that they've seen it and are living it for themselves.
edit: No, I don't think America is anything like Nazi Germany. For one, you've got greater human rights and much more press freedom. For all its flaws, America has some form of democracy. Secondly, the Nazis were reponsible for 6 million innocent deaths over the course of maybe 5 years. Though I think the US may be approaching that number, that is over the course of 60 or so years.
edit2: everyone lay off Liberator. He's got the right to say whatever he wants without being laughed at. "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it"....something like that.
-
Liberator, tone it down a little. Debate the points, don't attack the poster.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Rictor, I've been wanting to say this for a while now and have been too nice and forgiving, but I can see now:
You are a dick, it will not get better!
[color=66ff00]I don't care what the discussion is about but if you can't express yourself or form an argument without falling back on petty attacks like this then you will lose the power to make any argument at all.
[/color]
-
I don't see how anyone could think that us pulling out now would be a good thing, hundreds of thousands would likely die and the rest would probly get put under a theacracy. well the theacracy would likely use the whole great satan thing, so I guess I can see how you'd like that, the oppression of millions is ok if it means you get another talking head proclaiming USA == evil. and now that I think of it, the death and utter chaos that followed our leaveing (far worse than the Chaos there now) would be blamed on us (correctly) so next time we want to do something you'll have another thing "Pinochette, Veitnam and Iraq" ah yes, the rape and torcher of hundreds of thousands is a small price to pay to proveing you'r right. hell for you the absolute wost case scenario would be that after we pull out somehow Iraq settles down and forms into a nice stable government, even here you'd be able to say the second we pulled out Iraq got better. hell the US getting pushed out is nothing but a freaking win | win for all of you.
-
(Speaking personally)
I don't want the Us out of Iraq (actually, I want the UN and proper peacekeppers in, but that's not exclusive). I just didn;t want the troops to go in in the first place. Of course, odds are that it'll be swept under the carpet like Afghanistan has been... or at least the attempt will be made to.
-
you didn't want us in there in the first place, but now that were there we shouldn't cut and run.
that's your position, right?
seems perfictly reasonable to me, but there are a lot of people that want to see us kicked out
-
[q] Of course, odds are that it'll be swept under the carpet like Afghanistan has been[/q]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=512488
Ahem.
[q]
seems perfictly reasonable to me, but there are a lot of people that want to see us kicked out[/q]
And there are those of us who would like to avoid Iraq being the next Indonesia, but hey ;)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I don't see how anyone could think that us pulling out now would be a good thing, hundreds of thousands would likely die and the rest would probly get put under a theacracy. well the theacracy would likely use the whole great satan thing, so I guess I can see how you'd like that, the oppression of millions is ok if it means you get another talking head proclaiming USA == evil. and now that I think of it, the death and utter chaos that followed our leaveing (far worse than the Chaos there now) would be blamed on us (correctly) so next time we want to do something you'll have another thing "Pinochette, Veitnam and Iraq" ah yes, the rape and torcher of hundreds of thousands is a small price to pay to proveing you'r right. hell for you the absolute wost case scenario would be that after we pull out somehow Iraq settles down and forms into a nice stable government, even here you'd be able to say the second we pulled out Iraq got better. hell the US getting pushed out is nothing but a freaking win | win for all of you.
Its "theocracy", but whatever. And no, I don't think that utter chaos would unsue. I think, though I am by no means an authority on the subject (no on here is), that after some minor violence you would have general elections and a mildly religious government would be voted in. That is, if you can keep the Kurds the hell out of it, cause they don't get along with the Shia and Sunnis and if either the Kurds or "Iraqis" tried to take each other's territory there would be civil war. The Kurds have what amounts to an independent nation up in the North. None but them has any influence there. Either, they break off and form Kurdistan, or they become a semi-autonomous province of Iraq and some sort of reconciliation is attempted.
Now, even assuming that civil war would be the result, thats fine by me. While you can force people to live together, you can't force them to like it. They have to work it out for themselves. This has been the case in so many nations which got "de-colonized". You had different and potentially antagonistic factions who were forced to live together under the colonialist boot. Once the colonizing nation withdraws, you get the factions with the same old conflicts and they have to settle them. If this means war, then that is the only permanent solution. Just look at India/Pakistan, or any of the multitude of African colonies, or hell, even Yugoslavia. It was Tito's influence that was holding it all together. The Yugoslvian provnices had lived together by sheer force of the government's will. The problems between these states, they weren't resolved, just ignored and the conflict postponed. Once Tito's uniting force was gone, you had civil war. If thats the way it had to be, so be it. Better that than supressing the conflicts and just going around pretending everything was OK.
Same thing with Iraq. If the Shia dislike the Sunnis, that is their choice. There *are* factions in Iraq who dislike each other, and that has to be resolved. I would much prefer it be done in a peaceful manner, but if that isn't possible, too bad. Its better in the long run. This is all assuming that Iraq would instantly be torn apart by infighting, which I think it would not. You grossly overestimate the level of religous fundamentalism among the general population. Even in big bad Iran, you have a huge reformist faction who would take power if only it were not for the government (clerics) allowing normal elections. They had elections, but the popular reformist candidates were barred from the list, so that most of the reformists did not vote in protest.
edit: Hundreds of thousands would die? :wtf: :wtf:
Get real man. What are you basing this number on, or is it just a sufficiently high number to justify whatever it is you want it to justify.
-
"What are you basing this number on"
bull****
"just a sufficiently high number to justify whatever it is you want it to justify"
prety much
isn't it worth, three or four years to try to get them to live together before letting them fight it out?
-
The Kurds don't get along the Shias, Sunnis and Shiites because they have a working society that is much more integrated than the one that the Shia/Sunni/Shiite warlords like and have had one since before Saddam was removed, many years before in fact.
If Iraq is to govern itself, the Kurds will play a major role because of this. And the Sunni/Shia/Whatevers don't like it.
I apologize to the readers of my outburst, I am just sick of Rictor and complete lack of respect for anything America does. We could send him one of the Olsen's and a check $1,000,000,000 and he would make wiseass complaints about how the USA sucks and should get the hell out of his life.
-
*counts zeros*
woah.
Man, send me the Olsens and that much cash, and I'de shut up about pretty much anything. Now, if only I could get Rupert Murdoch to endorse your solution, I'de be a rich (not to mention very, very happy) man.
PS: The Shia and the Shiites are the same guys. Shia is just the plural of Shiite.
Bob: They've been living together under Saddam for 20 years. Becuase, like Tito, he sidelined religious affairs in favour of unity and stability, thats the reason so many people are jumping on the religion train. They're hungry for religion, after having been more or less denied it under Saddam.
-
Liberator, could you do the rest of us American Patriots a favour and can it? You're becoming embarassing. Fear is just as good, if not better than respect. :rolleyes:
Oh, and I'd be kind of angry if I was sent one of the Olsens myself. Goddamned annoying they are.
-
Maybe if we'd sent good 'ol Saddam the Olsen twins in the first place in exchange for stepping down, we wouldn't be here.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Oh, and I'd be kind of angry if I was sent one of the Olsens myself. Goddamned annoying they are.
I'll take them both, I have many things that I could think to do to them, mostly involving torture.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/18/wirq18.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/18/ixportaltop.html
Looks like the Brits are getting ready to hit the high road if the **** hits the fan in the south. US seems to be copping on to the fact that they cant go into Najaf though
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040419/ts_nm/iraq_dc&cid=564&ncid=1478
Also:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040419/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_hospitals_040419073802&e=5
One was a 70-year-old man killed by shrapnel fragments to his mouth; the other was an unidentified corpse, with bruises and rope burns on the arms and legs, which was dropped off by US troops, said Zawahreh and hospital director Colonel Hisham al-Farrouri.
Not nice.
-
oooh boy, this is rich. (http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2004/04/18/rtr1335645.html)
-
Okay, color me confused. Why would the Saudis bother? It's not like we're simply going to up and stop buying oil just because it's expensive. Why drop the price? Whoopie if **** gets re-elected. No bearing on them if he does (and this won't help).
-
In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" about his new book "Plan of Attack" on the **** administration's preparations for the Iraq war, Woodward, a senior editor at the Washington Post....
We've been over this, the Left hates B.u.s.h. because he isn't an Intellectual like them. This election won't be about any substitive issues, such as the economy or the War on Terror, for them, it will be about B.u.s.h. and how they loathe him for not being a member of their disconnected reality that they live in.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Okay, color me confused. Why would the Saudis bother? It's not like we're simply going to up and stop buying oil just because it's expensive. Why drop the price? Whoopie if **** gets re-elected. No bearing on them if he does (and this won't help).
Two reasons. Firstly, the Saudi Royal family and the ****es are like brothers. They're as close as any two political dynasties are. Huge amounts of business goes on between them, as well as a personal friendship. This is very well documented, so no shouting "Liberal propaganda".
And secondly, ****'s presidency has been very good for the Saudis. As you can imagine, having a personal friend as the Prez is likely to have significant benefits in terms of policy and business. The Saudis prefer Dubya in the seat of power over any Democrat and likely any Republican too.
The significance is that foreign elements are forbidden from interfering in the election process of the States. This means capmaign contributions as well as this sort of thing. The Saudis already supported ****'s campaign in 2000 through various fronts and third-parties, but now they finally come out and say it.
Liberator: thats a convenient excuse. The President should be smarter than average, thats a given. Its dangerous, as we've seen, to have some illiterate hillbilly running the show. ****'s graduation from Harvard is a slap in the face to anyone who believes in the value of actual work instead of political connections. People work their ass off for decades to get a good education, so that their opinions may carry some weight. And along comes **** who's opinions carry weight simply because he's rich and his daddy was the President.
However, this is NOT why "the Left" hates Dubya. It is because of his policies as I've said before. Sure, they dislike him on a personal level, but that is small and irrelevant compared to the damage that his policies have done. Let me say that again, its his polciies not his person that is under attack. Its very convenient for you to dismiss any and all criticism in this manner.
-
I wish there was a different Republican candidate, but better **** than Kerry; in this case he's the lesser of two evils.
On the basis of what **** and Blair said about WMDs, I supported the war. But since their claims were blatant lies at best, the whole thing has become an unjustified farce and should not have happened, and both should be ashamed for sending their soldiers to their deaths in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
I wish there was a different Republican candidate, but better **** than Kerry; in this case he's the lesser of two evils.
Just look at his hair :p
-
I am sick of you people (a few, I know, but still some) treating this like a good vs evil case. Can anyone here tell me of any military/political/economic action in history that was triggered by "good vs evil" sort of way reasons? The reason why there is none is because there is no "evil" or "good" nations. What every nation wants to do is to get better than the others, get more natural resources, more technology, more economic power, more land, etc... mainly whatever brings more power.
Why do you think patriotism only appears in the late 19th beggining of the 20th century? Because the population in general was getting more and more power because of the rise of a democratic society mainly in Europe. That gave the politicions a means to convert the masses more easily and get them to do what they wanted. There are no "good" acts, mearly getting power, influence, etc...
Now to at least say something about the topic. I think Spain did the right thing by leaving mainly because of two reasons. The first one is that it marks the beggining of the end of the foreign ocupation of Iraq, and I'm sure many people in Iraq will see this as a new beggining in their country's history (either good or bad is their choice alone), and the second reason being that the spanish goverment should consider getting the "war on terrorism" back to their own country (ETA :rolleyes: ) and concentrating all of their assets to find and capture all ETA related personal.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Two reasons. Firstly, the Saudi Royal family and the ****es are like brothers. They're as close as any two political dynasties are. Huge amounts of business goes on between them, as well as a personal friendship.
And secondly, ****'s presidency has been very good for the Saudis. As you can imagine, having a personal friend as the Prez is likely to have significant benefits in terms of policy and business. The Saudis prefer Dubya in the seat of power over any Democrat and likely any Republican too.
Okay, that part I've got. But again, of what benefit is it to the Saudis to make overtures that would lower gas prices here? As I stated earlier, it's not like we'll be buying less just because it's more expensive. It just doesn't make sense. You'd think the Saudis would be rubbing their hands together and load up on more bread. It's not like they need us for much else.
It's not like they need any "political" backing from us. Hell, our bases are there by permission only. They know full well no one else can supply the juice.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I am sick of you people (a few, I know, but still some) treating this like a good vs evil case. Can anyone here tell me of any military/political/economic action in history that was triggered by "good vs evil" sort of way reasons? The reason why there is none is because there is no "evil" or "good" nations. What every nation wants to do is to get better than the others, get more natural resources, more technology, more economic power, more land, etc... mainly whatever brings more power.
Why do you think patriotism only appears in the late 19th beggining of the 20th century? Because the population in general was getting more and more power because of the rise of a democratic society mainly in Europe. That gave the politicions a means to convert the masses more easily and get them to do what they wanted. There are no "good" acts, mearly getting power, influence, etc...
That's quite a cynical attitude you've got there, Ghostavo.
The only problem with it is it sets the USA, UK and other nations with a strong moral and ethical code on the same level as N. Korea, Saddam's Iraq, and the other countries in the so-called "Axis of Evil", which lack such a code and is complete BS. Western Nations don't condone Rape Rooms or kill hundreds of thousands of their own citizens with their own military. Evil Nations are those that promote, through action or inaction, or take part in evil acts, such as Rape Rooms or Mass Murder.
-
Ghostavo, 'good' and 'evil' are always variables. There is no absolute for of 'good' or 'evil'. Therefor, some people might see this as a case of good vs. evil. (Note: some people. Not me.)
There are many instances in history in which events were triggered by 'good vs. evil' situations. However, these situations are left open for discussion. Some believe it actually is such a case and others see it as a far more complicated situation (amongst them is myself).
In other words: don't get so pissed off. It's just another way of looking at things. Albeit a very simplified way.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The only problem with it is it sets the USA, UK and other nations with a strong moral and ethical code on the same level as N. Korea, Saddam's Iraq, and the other countries in the so-called "Axis of Evil", which lack such a code and is complete BS. Western Nations don't condone Rape Rooms or kill hundreds of thousands of their own citizens with their own military. Evil Nations are those that promote, through action or inaction, or take part in evil acts, such as Rape Rooms or Mass Murder.
Evil and good is a matter of perspective, what you say doesn't really make what I said invalid, because I didn't say that some countries are better than the others. Some countries just use less... "covert" and more "direct" methods than others. Do not think I don't condone such acts. I mearly understand what is the reasoning behind such acts, as should most of the people here.
Oh, and never say that this country has strong moral and ethical codes while that one doesn't have one. Morals and ethics are somewhat dependable on the subject's opinion, culture and society.
Either way, I apreciate your opinion and I don't quite get it what you find cynical about my opinion. Would you care to develop that opinion? Explain? :confused:
-
Tiara, I don't mean to be rude, but could you please give me at least some of those "instances in history in which events were triggered by 'good vs. evil' situations"?
But you are right about "good" and "evil" being variables and depending on the person who uses them.
Finally please anyone reading what I say don't take it personally/seriously, as it is mearly my opinion. You are not obliged to agree on it... hell, you are not even obliged to read it!! :D But never be afraid to say what you want (as long as it is not an insult without reasoning). I never take what I say very seriously so... :p
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you didn't want us in there in the first place, but now that were there we shouldn't cut and run.
that's your position, right?
ut
Yep. it was a mistake, but you can't run away from your mistakes - you have to go back, and fix them. I was actually kind of hopeful when the war (such as it was) on the Taliban began - because I thought it would be a chance to actually make a difference. The war itself was inevitable, but the aftermath offered an opportunity to make a positive statement.
I.e. after the conflict, plunging billions into rebuilding the country into a thriving, democratic and independent nation - one with a modern infrastructure, high standard of life, and basically what we expect in our own countries (and take for granted). But it didn't happen, and Afghanistan got swept under the rug as soon as another bogeyman came along.
-
The only problem with it is it sets the USA, UK and other nations with a strong moral and ethical code on the same level as N. Korea, Saddam's Iraq, and the other countries in the so-called "Axis of Evil", which lack such a code and is complete BS.
Funny you should say this... If my memory doesnt fail me, wasnt the USA that helped a military coup in Brazil in 64? One wich coused the death of houndreds of people? The disapearing of many more, that caused the brazilian people to lose the right of free-speech? that made many songs be sensored and their authors to be exiled? And do you know why all that happened? Simply becouse the brazilian president at the time (who was legally elected by the people) was more interested in helping the poor people than the American Banks. He was taken down by the army with the help of the CIA simply becouse he was focused on social causes rather than financial ones that would benefit the USA. Also wasnt the CIA who helped take down a bunch of other presidents in south america at the time? for the same reasons? hmmmm..... funny stuff, real funny good people getting tortured thx to your fine government.
Ah e tudo bem Ghostavo, é bom encontrar alguem que fala portugues por aqui :)
-
Another fine example was the US-backed restoration of the Shah of Iran. Protection of the property of the oil companies, IIRC.
-
Originally posted by Acer
funny stuff, real funny good people getting tortured thx to your fine government.
Now now, unless you're Iceland, lets not to talking up our own nation's morality over another.
That is, unless you want to open this discussion up to mass deforestation in the Amazon.
Just a thought.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
That's quite a cynical attitude you've got there, Ghostavo.
The only problem with it is it sets the USA, UK and other nations with a strong moral and ethical code on the same level as N. Korea, Saddam's Iraq, and the other countries in the so-called "Axis of Evil", which lack such a code and is complete BS. Western Nations don't condone Rape Rooms or kill hundreds of thousands of their own citizens with their own military. Evil Nations are those that promote, through action or inaction, or take part in evil acts, such as Rape Rooms or Mass Murder.
Two words for you: Islam Karimov.
Not to mention long, proud history of overthrowing democratic governments in favour of tyranical regimes who make Saddam look like an angel. Chile, Guatemala, San Salvador, Iran. Thats off the top of my head, I know for certain there are many more.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Now now, unless you're Iceland, lets not to talking up our own nation's morality over another.
That is, unless you want to open this discussion up to mass deforestation in the Amazon.
Just a thought.
Thats exactly what Liberator is doing, and your comments in the past have shown the your opinion is: US=good, anyone else=totrture chambers.
Lets talk about one nation's morality over another. America would come out very near the bottom. If you're right, you've got nothing to fear. Its all Liberal lies anyway, so indulge me.
-
Acer, também acho que é bom encontrar finalmente alguém aqui que fale português :) já estava a ficar quase desesperado. :D
:welcome:
I don't remember much of the intro speach which had something to do with vents and stepping back and giving your lunch to Carl if you found him there :nervous:, help!!
[wiki]Acer[/wiki]
[scp][/scp]
Se precisares de alguma informação não tenhas medo de perguntar. ;)
P.S.
Finally my first welcome :D... I hope it wasn't that bad!! :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Thats exactly what Liberator is doing, and your comments in the past have shown the your opinion is: US=good, anyone else=totrture chambers.
Lets talk about one nation's morality over another. America would come out very near the bottom. If you're right, you've got nothing to fear. Its all Liberal lies anyway, so indulge me.
You're mischaracterizing what I said to marginialize me and my point of view, I resent this and it's not a good debate tactic, but it's what Lefties do when they don't have any constructive to say.
What I said was Ghostavo was placing the USA on the same level as N. Korea, Sudan, or China in terms of Human Rights. This is a patent lie and he knows it.
We ain't perfect, we are gonna make mistakes from time to time, but we're going to do our best and make up for mistakes when we make them.
-
.
-
[q]What I said was Ghostavo was placing the USA on the same level as N. Korea, Sudan, or China in terms of Human Rights. This is a patent lie and he knows it.[/q]
Only if you're talking about internal civil rights - anything outside the USA mainland thats under said influence... that's about on a par with China and such.
-
What else would I be talking about? I try to only make comments on things I have knowledge on, God knows I don't always succeed, but I do not to knowingly lie.
-
No, I am placing every nation in the entire planet at the same level... did you even read what I wrote? I said that nations don't act neither on "good" nor "bad" "will" but instead they act according to what they think is the right move in order to gain power, influence or any other characteristic that allows them to do what they want and to "survive". Tell me, where did I say all those thing you are here telling I said? I didn't even mention the USA nor N. Korea, Sudan, China, etc... so please tell me, where did you exactly read those things?
We ain't perfect, we are gonna make mistakes from time to time, but we're going to do our best and make up for mistakes when we make them.
Yes, no one is perfect, but the USA acts like it is supposed to be perfect. It is ok to make mistakes, but to make them and then saying you didn't make them is not anyone's idea of making up for mistakes, especially from one country who is proud to be, and I quote "a christian democracy", it is sure odd that you were (or are, dunno about present day... that is up to them) trying to prevent everybody else you don't like the chance for such a society (is that a bad thing or a good thing?).
Please do not reply by insulting either me or anyone trying to make their stand. Especially with your mistake by not reading my post and then saying to someone else:
You're mischaracterizing what I said to marginialize me and my point of view, I resent this and it's not a good debate tactic, but it's what Lefties do when they don't have any constructive to say.
And no, I'm not a "leftie"! :mad:
-
Yup, thats right. You seem to think that human rights violations perpetrated on a foreign population are somehow less evil than those perpertrated upon the domestic populace. Thats simply not true. The atrocities that happened under US guidance and with US support during the Cold War, they are easily on par with China & Co.
You keep bringing up the point how America may not be perfect but it is more or less good. Now, when you say this, are you reffering to the people or the government. Its an important distinction. The people are more or less "good", sure. The government, however, is not "good". They have brought misery to so many people time and time again, that I can only view it as the rule, not the exception. Would you like me to list off the examples of CIA coups which installed dictatorial, oppressive regimes throughout the world? They're quite numerous.
If a man steals once, I could let it pass. Who knows what circumstances surrounded it. Twice, maybe. But not 15 times, not 20. Same thing with foreign policy.
-
As a member of the foreign office said after ww2, the US is going to do what's best for everyone else - whether they like it or not.
-
"Would you like me to list off the examples of CIA coups which installed dictatorial"
you know I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive list.
-
Dun be silly lads you'd bust HLP's bandwidth allowance for a year...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You keep bringing up the point how America may not be perfect but it is more or less good. Now, when you say this, are you reffering to the people or the government. Its an important distinction.
No, I'm afraid it's not because the government of America is the people.
@Ghostavo
That was more or less directed at Rictor and a few of the other unabashed American Leftists here. I apologize.
-
[q]No, I'm afraid it's not because the government of America is the people.[/q]
Oh ffs...
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No, I'm afraid it's not because the government of America is the people.
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"Would you like me to list off the examples of CIA coups which installed dictatorial"
you know I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive list.
neither have I. I've seen partial lists, but you'de more or less have to go to multiple sources to get the info.
Liberator: that would be the case if the people knew, much less agreed with the government's foreign policy. What percentage of the American people would you guess can name 3 countries where a CIA coup was staged, or 5 countries which are under unilateral US sanctions. Or 10 countries in which American troops are stationed.
As it stands now, Americans are groslly ignorant of their own nation's policies. Those that have even a basic knowledge of the world around them are branded by you as "intellectuals". I look forward to the day when all Americans know enough about politics to be called that, because that is the day that the American empire will crumble.
If you'de like, I could very easily lay the blame at the people's feet. There is part of me that would very much like to. But in truth, the people are guilty of nothing more than ignorance and apathy.
-
"American Empire"?
Could you name one country that the USA has invaded that it has turned over to self-rule after a period of time?
Germany? NUH-UH, selfruling
Japan? Nope, sorry Self-Rule since the middle of the last century
Afganistan? On the verge
Iraq? When the time is right
Any more?
-
Heh.. do I hear a nationalist talking here?
Was Germany ever taken by the USA? or was it ever ruled by USA?
Was Japan?
These countries were fought because the WWII.
But Afganistan and Iraq? Terrorism is one one thing, but political or economical issues should not be the cause to take over a country.
Perhaps the USA, and many of the other countries of the like, should learn the wisdom of the Prime Directive.....
-
Germany: Self rule, you're right.
Japan: Ditto, but there is still a US military presence over there, same as Germany.
Afghanistan: What, you mean Karzai? He was US appointed. His government rules Kabul and not much else. The local warloards have retaken much of Afghanistan. Even so, its a puppet regime.
Iraq: Same thing. Puppet government is a-coming.
Its a nice tactic though. Go after the one part (two words) in my entire post that you could possibly argue, and conveniently ignore the rest. This saves you from having to face the tough arguements.
As I'm so keen at pointing out, the US has military bases in over 130 nations. Are you going to tell me that they are all there by invitation? Furthermore, there are dozens of governments who are subservient to American policy and amount to more or less pupper-regimes. Empire does not necessarily mean having an American running the show. It only means that undue influence is present in regards to the policiies of that nation. Things have evolved a bit since Augustus' times.
-
Absolutly right.
Besides, most countries owe USA money :P
-
Not as such, there is a massive trade deficit between countries like China and Taiwan though. Those countries put gigantic import duties on US goods and the US has almost no import duties to speak of, it's rediculous.
And Rictor, before you go off on that tangent, I believe that American goods should have a fair playing field to compete with foreign goods and then let the quality decide.
-
I agree. But as it stands now, its the subsidies that decide. Some poor shcmuck in, say, Columbia, just can't compete with the heavily subsidised goods that are imported from the US or Britain. So, why don't they just subsidise their own agro-business you ask? Its forbidden under WTO and IMF rules. This is true for most of the third world, at least those that aren't under US sanctions. Apparently, those same rules need not apply for first world countries, they're powerful enough not to have to follow them.
also, I never mentioned anything about free trade. You say I'm going off on a tangent, I think you have it the wrong way around. But whatever, doesn't matter who started it, thats not the topic at hand. Perhaps you'de care to debate some of the other points brought up by myself and others, instead of attacking two words in my post.
BTW, If I recall correctly, the US has a huge international debt as well. The world's largest I think, though don't quote me on that yet.
mrduckman: awesome name.
-
Originally posted by mrduckman
Absolutly right.
Besides, most countries owe USA money :P
Liberators correct, the US has a massive trade deficit owing other countrys 100s of billions of dollars. Some people would tell you this is a sign of economic strength though :doubt:
, I believe that American goods should have a fair playing field to compete with foreign goods and then let the quality decide.
Uh, the US is pretty quick to impose tariffs on imports if they're hurting its own business's, Steel for example.
btw, nother one gone:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040420/wl_nm/iraq_honduras_dc&cid=574&ncid=1480
-
:yes:
-
Why do people keep leaving these vauge remarks which can be interepreted in any way at all. Here I am, writing out mutiple-paragraph replies like and idiot, and you answer with a freaking thumbs up. Who do you think you are and so forth. Anways, kind of hard to know which post, much less which part of which post you are agreeing with. Same with mrduckman. Which, as you might imagine, makes it very hard indeed for me to ridicule and belittle you for you absurd points of view. Try to be more considerate in the future.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
What I said was Ghostavo was placing the USA on the same level as N. Korea, Sudan, or China in terms of Human Rights. This is a patent lie and he knows it.
A lie? I think not. An exaggeration perhaps.
As our good old Prez said:
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. — George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
Our government though, has a nice long history of overthrowing democracies in favor of tyrants to serve its own ends. This was the hallmark of Republican and Democratic administrations at the beginning of this century and it continues to this day.
I mean you can't argue with your own history right? I mean we created the Korean problem, the Vietnamese problem, the Chilean problem, the Iraq AND Iranian problems, and the Afghanistan problem.
Just because we didn't give a signed and engraved orders to create "rape rooms" and "death squads" to the people we either installed or caused to be installed, doesn't mean we get to claim the moral high ground. When, Pinochet did his dirty deeds, that blood was on our hands, because we set it up. North Korea and its current problems are on our hands because we just had to poke our noses into their affairs (and then not even to back the democratically minded!). The Iraqis killed in Iraq by Iraqis with chemical weapons are at our feet, since we supplied the weapons and the training. The Iranians that died from Iraqi deployed chemical weapons are ours too, because we supported the regime that deployed them.
American responsibility gets even worse when you consider the causes behind some US involvement. In at least one case in South America, we supported a rebellion against a democratically elected regime so that American companies could dictate fiscal and trade policies.
You're absolutely right when you say that the government of the United States is its people. Unfortunately for all of us, that means we're the guilty ones, because we allowed our government to make the decisions that led to these debacles.
Liberator, if you give a child a gun and he shoots someone with it, you're an accomplice. You don't get to claim the moral high ground just because your finger didn't pull the trigger. To believe otherwise, is to be delusional at best and outright dishonest at worst.
-
Poor South-American bastards, they've been getting the brunt of it for quite a while. Here is a wealth of information regarding US policy and Latin America.
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/indices/regions/latin.html
-
Hey, don't call me bastard, shmuck ;P
It is said that USA supported many dictatorships around here.
The last Argentinian and Chilean (is it well written?) dictatorships, for example.
Panama's, before USA took over...
And on the weapons stuff, USA never signed the "No nuclear weapons" treaty. AFAIK.
And if George W. Bull said Free nations don't attack each other... I've to say, in a very jewish way, wasn't Irak a free nation?
Wasn't Pakistan a free nation?
Why would USA still be developing weapons of mass destruction? (If it is, no one would really know)
And for you, Rictor, I must have time to write more. I was working, you know? :)
Or would you like something less.. Like our friend ionia23 :rolleyes:
-
When was Pakistan attacked? Musharraf is very pro-US, though its going to cost him the government. But nevermind, there are many other examples.
Don't work, though I'm going to have to start very soon, unless the college's recongnize Monopoly Money as legal tender. Man, that'de be sweet.
-
Pakistan, Afganistan.. Well. Over there :P
And if anywhere would recognize Monopoly money as legal that would be a *FREE* nation.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No, I'm afraid it's not because the government of America is the people.
Even if the majority vote for the other guy? (and this is excluding the strange goings on in with banning voters in Florida.....which some might call electoral fraud)
-
oh, it was a tie already
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Acer, também acho que é bom encontrar finalmente alguém aqui que fale português :) já estava a ficar quase desesperado. :D
You can speak portuguese to me too if you feel desperate. I uderstand it. I just can't write in it :D
-
That is, unless you want to open this discussion up to mass deforestation in the Amazon.
Real clever.. changing the subject completely so you dont have to asnwer me...
But ok lets talk bout the amazon.. Here are some facts for you:
Europe used to be a giant temperated forest, I wonder where the forest went to. The USA also had plenty of forest most of wich are gone, you should be gratefull that we didnt follow the first world contries exemple and took everything down, most of the amazon is still there you know. Also most companies that take down trees in the amazon iligally are amaricans...
Just a thought.
Heres something else to think about:
The USA is wants most contries to disarm themselves especially of nuclear weapons, it wants india and paquistan to get rid of their nukes, and it doesnt want anymore countries to start making them, yet the USA has the largest atomic arsenal in the world and was the only country in history who ever dared to use a nuclear weapon against fellow humans (Iroshima and Nagasaki in japan).
Brigado pela recepção ghostavo, mas eu já frequento aqui e principalmente a volitionwatch a algum tempo, eu simplesmente não postava, gosto de ficar nas sombras :)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Why do people keep leaving these vauge remarks which can be interepreted in any way at all. Here I am, writing out mutiple-paragraph replies like and idiot, and you answer with a freaking thumbs up. Who do you think you are and so forth. Anways, kind of hard to know which post, much less which part of which post you are agreeing with. Same with mrduckman. Which, as you might imagine, makes it very hard indeed for me to ridicule and belittle you for you absurd points of view. Try to be more considerate in the future.
My points don't require multiple paragraphs of explanation because, well, I'm right.
-
Originally posted by Acer
The USA also had plenty of forest most of wich are gone, you should be gratefull that we didnt follow the first world contries exemple and took everything down, most of the amazon is still there you know. Also most companies that take down trees in the amazon iligally are amaricans...
Just a thought.
Heres something else to think about:
The USA has plenty of forest cover that is still there, thanks largely in part to the establishment of national parks. We could do much better though.
And most of the deforestation in the Amazon is done but sustenance farmers, a policy vehemently supported by your government. At the rate you're going, central Brazil will resemble Mars in 15 years. Mark my words, son. One day the slash-and-burns will not go out. You watch.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
My points don't require multiple paragraphs of explanation because, well, I'm right.
:blah::wtf::ick:
-
Originally posted by Acer
The USA is wants most contries to disarm themselves especially of nuclear weapons, it wants india and paquistan to get rid of their nukes, and it doesnt want anymore countries to start making them, yet the USA has the largest atomic arsenal in the world and was the only country in history who ever dared to use a nuclear weapon against fellow humans (Iroshima and Nagasaki in japan).
The word you're looking for is Hiroshima, and I didn't see your sorry little country step up to help in 1945 so don't bag on us for our tactical decisions. Japan started that crap, not the other way around.
And as a nuclear superpower, along with China and Russia, we have a responsibility to control the spread of nuclear weapons. Despite all our tensions, those three nations have proven they have the maturity to handle possession of such weapons (which means, don't ever use them). You think you'd get the same guarantee from Al Quaeda?
-
Alright, now let look at the actual record, not just your claims.
The US has used nuclear weapons in Hirshima and Nagasaki. They supplied biological weapons to Saddam and told him to use it on the Iranians, which amount to the same thing. Also, during the Vietnam war, Agent Orange ****ed up ALOT of people, who are to this day being born with birth defects. I don't know if there are more.
All these nations who you say are not to be trusted, they have NEVER used WMD. Their track record is much better than yours, so you to not get to pass judgement on them.
And if you really thinking that installing a dozen dictators around the world, which resulted in the death and torture of hundreds of thousands of people is the same as clear-cutting a forest, you really have no moral compass to speak of. Besides, it their own forest, they can do with it as they wish.
-
You silly thing. When Japan was trying to take over the world, there weren't any WMD's. We built it first. Saved a heck of a lot of lives on both sides of the equations.
Of course, this led to the cold war and a lingering nuclear threat. Seeing as the creation of the atomic bomb was a scientific inevitabiility, I'm rather glad we found it first than, say, Nazi Germany.
Or Russia.
You're right, though. It's their rainforest to raze as they please. As long as that decision doesn't affect me, who cares.
Oops, almost forgot the "dictator" issue. Fact: They weren't when we backed them, and we can't be blamed for the crap decisions they made later.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
You silly thing. When Japan was trying to take over the world, there weren't any WMD's. We built it first. Saved a heck of a lot of lives on both sides of the equations.
Japan was willing to surrender but only on condition they could retain the emperor. The US did not agree to this and dropped the a-bombs. Then accepted Japans surrender and allowed them to retain the emperor. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were live test ranges, Japan was beaten long before they were nuked, they knew it and the US knew it but they wanted to test their new toys. I suggest you actually learn a bit of history before you shoot your mouth off any more.
Oops, almost forgot the "dictator" issue. Fact: They weren't when we backed them, and we can't be blamed for the crap decisions they made later.
Bull****.
and I didn't see your sorry little country step up to help in 1945 so don't bag on us for our tactical decisions.
Umm Brazil was an ally of the US during ww2, had troops fighting in Italy iirc. An intelligent person would have checked that out before they opened their mouth.
-
Actually, they all were tyranical when you backed them. In South-America in particular, but also Saddam and the Shah. Its a well documented fact, so you don't have to take my word on it.
So what would have happened if Russia got their hands on the A-Bomb first? They would have bombed heavily populated cities with a staggering amount of civilian casualties? Oh wait...
-
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0420/3783682793HM1SCALLY.html
-
Here's one for the own goal section
Oh the irony (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3643151.stm)
Let's hope they were all insurgents :D
-
Umm Brazil was an ally of the US during ww2, had troops fighting in Italy iirc. An intelligent person would have checked that out before they opened their mouth.
Thats right, Brazil had troops fighitng in Italy. The reason we joined the war was that the german subs were sinking civilian cargo ships on the coast of brazil as they were carryng supplies to help the allied nations in the war effort.
Oh and the USA didnt do all the development of the A-bomb most of its design was made in germany, luckely for you einstein though that the nazi regime would use the bomb on the war so he stole the plans, went to the USA and there finished his work... How ironic.
-
Oh yeah i forgot:
"And most of the deforestation in the Amazon is done but sustenance farmers, a policy vehemently supported by your government. At the rate you're going, central Brazil will resemble Mars in 15 years."
The Amazon is in the north not in central brazil, thats were pantanal is... Get your geography straight.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Actually, they all were tyranical when you backed them. In South-America in particular, but also Saddam and the Shah. Its a well documented fact, so you don't have to take my word on it.
So what would have happened if Russia got their hands on the A-Bomb first? They would have bombed heavily populated cities with a staggering amount of civilian casualties? Oh wait...
Simple. There wouldn't have been a series of bombings for surrender concessions, it would have been "payback", and there would have been a lot more of them.
No, you "claim" they were tyrannical because you're leftist. No skin off my back.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Japan was willing to surrender but only on condition they could retain the emperor. The US did not agree to this and dropped the a-bombs. Then accepted Japans surrender and allowed them to retain the emperor. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were live test ranges, Japan was beaten long before they were nuked, they knew it and the US knew it but they wanted to test their new toys. I suggest you actually learn a bit of history before you shoot your mouth off any more.
Umm Brazil was an ally of the US during ww2, had troops fighting in Italy iirc. An intelligent person would have checked that out before they opened their mouth.
You mean your leftist, terorist-backing version of history? Pfft, not with a gun to my head.
Fact, there's no way you could know if the US's secret intentions were to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as mere "tests". You're not that old.
Fact. Japan's surrender had to be "unconditional", period. They weren't willing to do this so they got smacked. I have zero sympathy. It ended the pacific campaign, so I'd suggest YOU learn a bit of history before you shoot off your mouth any more.
-
Originally posted by Acer
Oh yeah i forgot:
"And most of the deforestation in the Amazon is done but sustenance farmers, a policy vehemently supported by your government. At the rate you're going, central Brazil will resemble Mars in 15 years."
The Amazon is in the north not in central brazil, thats were pantanal is... Get your geography straight.
In other words "I'm too chicken to address the point, so I'll settle for petty details". Okay by me.
-
Originally posted by Acer
Thats right, Brazil had troops fighitng in Italy. The reason we joined the war was that the german subs were sinking civilian cargo ships on the coast of brazil as they were carryng supplies to help the allied nations in the war effort.
Oh and the USA didnt do all the development of the A-bomb most of its design was made in germany, luckely for you einstein though that the nazi regime would use the bomb on the war so he stole the plans, went to the USA and there finished his work... How ironic.
I'll give you that on Brazil and WW2.
And, speaking of facts, since you want to nitpick. The "conceptualization" began with a German, sure. We took care of the "building of the thing".
Yeah, how ironic.
-
Acer, you argue like a child.
The reasoning behind the use of atomic weapons(they were atomic not nuclear there is a difference that I'll explain in a minute) is this:
We did ask for a Japanese surrender. They declined and said they would fight until the last.
Analysts determined that there would be over a million American casualties during the invasion of Okinawa and the main islands and at least that many on the Japanese side. President Truman decided that instead of letting so many die when it could be averted was worth the loss of a few hundred thousand. The first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and then we asked for their surrender again. They refused, then came Nagasaki. We asked again for their surrender and they capitulated. In all, something like 100 - 200 thousand died as a result of the inital blast and the resulting destruction and an additional 200,000 due to radiological effects. It wasn't a pretty decision, in fact it was downright horrific. But in the final equation aren't 400,000 deaths(many of which were quick and painless in the heat blast) better than 2,000,000 million deaths during a sustained invasion? Learn history, it will change your outlook on and understanding of both you and the world around you.
BTW, the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atomic bombs. They used an uncontroled fission reaction in a uranium warhead. Most of the weapons in the American and Russian arsenals, and China I would assume I know little about their nuclear capability, are Nuclear weapons. They generate an uncontrolled fusion reaction that almost literally brings the power of the sun down to earth. The largest Atomic weapon ever tested was in the low megaton range. The largest Nuclear weapon ever tested was by the Russians, it yeilded approximately a 57 megaton explosion. By contrast the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were approximately a kiloton yeild each.
The lessons are concluded for the day. Did you enjoy your History and Basic Physics classes? ;)
-
Originally posted by ionia23
No, you "claim" they were tyrannical because you're leftist.
I find it funny that you think a person that wasn't put into power by the majority of the population of a country in an election is not a tyrannical dictator. Very interesting idea you have about that subject...
Oh, also I find it intriguing that you (in general) somehow find China to be "moraly wrong" by your standarts but still let them have WMD. Your excuse is also troubling:
which means, don't ever use them
Right... :rolleyes: buying an extremelly expensive stockpile of WMD but to never use them... :rolleyes:
-
Let's see here....
"A person who wasn't placed into power by the majority of a country is a tyrant".
Such as the current monarchy of England??? They didn't vote for them. So they're tyrants. Um, yeah.
To answer your other question: It's called a "deterrent". We have them, they have them. If either shoots, the other shoots back and everyone dies.
A 10,000 megaton-exchange nuclear war cannot be "won" by anyone. And yes, the mentality is "don't use them". If the three nuclear superpowers were that stupid, we'd already be a minor species, if not an extinct one.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Acer, you argue like a child.
The reasoning behind the use of atomic weapons(they were atomic not nuclear there is a difference that I'll explain in a minute) is this:
(etc..etc..etcc.)
The lessons are concluded for the day. Did you enjoy your History and Basic Physics classes? ;)
:yes: :yes: :yes:
-
ionia23, who rules England? The Prime Minister or the Queen? As far as I know the Queen has more of a P.R. role. But you understood what I was trying to say, you just forgot to put "in an election". :p
Now to continue, you still haven't answered my question. Why have weapons you are not going to use? Your are going to use them sooner or later. Saying you are not going to use them... the "stupidity" in that would be to spend money building that stockpile...
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
ionia23, who rules England? The Prime Minister or the Queen? As far as I know the Queen has more of a P.R. role. But you understood what I was trying to say, you just forgot to put "in an election". :P
Now to continue, you still haven't answered my question. Why have weapons you are not going to use? Your are going to use them sooner or later. Saying you are not going to use them... the "stupidity" in that would be to spend money building that stockpile...
Good point, let me explain.
Nukes are a tough subject for me anyway. I was one of many people over here who saw "Threads" in the mid-1980's: England's answer to America's very watered-down apocalypse film "The Day After". I still have occasional nightmares about it to this day, scared me badly.
In trying to face that fear I studied everything I possibly could about nuclear war. Learned more than I really wanted to. Anyway to answer your question:
What we're living in now is the consequences of yesterday. The point of amassing these huge arsenals of WMD's (might as well call a spade a spade) is the principle of "Mutually Assured Destruction". i.e.: You may be able to destoy us utterly, but we can do likewise. There's no point in fighting a war where everyone loses badly.
Mind you, it's not just the United States with a huge nuclear arsenal, Russia has one too, as well as China. We sort of hold each other at an eternal standoff, though relations are a tad more cordial than they were at the height of the Cuban missle crisis.
There is simply NO WAY to defend a country against a nuclear strike, at least not yet. You might recall Reagan's plan to put a network of missle-killing satellites into orbit which would allow for complete nuclear disarmament of America. We simply wouldn't need the weapons anymore.
Yeah, and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
If we were to begin deploying a satellite network that would render the whole of North America invulnerable to nuclear attack we'd tip the balance of power scales badly, maybe even enough to tempt our counterparts into firing under the principle that they might not get another chance. Or worse, that we'd be able to fire at them with impunity. Not that I think we would, but what I think isn't important.
It's insanity that got out of control over 50 years ago and this is the end result. Sure, some steps have been made to improve relations, reduce arsenals, control the spread of weapons, etc, and that's fine for Russia, China, and the US, but that does nothing for Israel, France, the UK, Pakistan, India, and North Korea.
Just envision it as two people with guns pointed at each other's head with death triggers on. That's what the face of nuclear deterrence is.
A biological bomb is bad, a "dirty radioactive bomb" is really bad, chemical weapons are right up there too, but nothing comes close to the sickening firepower of a 5 megaton detonation.
The largest WMD ever detonated was "Tsar Bomba" by the former Soviet Union. It was intended to have a yield of 100 megatons. Unfortunately, this bomb would have been so filthy it would have raised the background radiation of the entire planet by 10 times. With some adjustments they brought it down to 54 megatons. The shockwave circled the earth three times and the flash was seen in London. The cloud punched a hole into the upper atmosphere. Yes, explosions can be made even bigger.
The Soviet army detemined that was no strategic purpose to a weapon of such destructive force. No point in territory you cannot annex, ya know? besides, it had to be flown on a slow moving cargo plane. Not exactly dextrous.
Anyway, that's why you build them, so your opponents know what they're up against. M.A.D., mutually assured destruction, what a wonderful acronym....
-
Right, so you claim that overthrowing elected officials in a military coup and installing an unelected tyrant is not wrong? Marvelous.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is validity in your statements Liberator. However, the fact remains that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in mainly military deaths, on both sides. Civilians must be protected before soldiers, since they are innocents. It not a black and white issue though, I'll give you that.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Right, so you claim that overthrowing elected officials in a military coup and installing an unelected tyrant is not wrong? Marvelous.
Case by case, and they weren't "tyrants" at the time, and it depends on your definition of "elected". It's possible to be duped (Saddam Hussein, for example).
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Case by case, and they weren't "tyrants" at the time, and it depends on your definition of "elected". It's possible to be duped (Saddam Hussein, for example).
Of course they weren't tyrants at the time. They weren't in power yet! :lol:
YOu can dance around the fact all you like ionia. Kicking out a democratically elected government to put in a dictator is contrary to the principles of democracy American politicians like to go on about.
Sure it's possible to rig an election but unless you can prove that all the elctions in Chile, Iran etc that others on these threads have mentioned were all rigged then you've got to face the fact that America has toppled democracies to put in their own puppets.
-
Perhaps
But can you prove that the President at the time had anything to do with it? As I understand it, such "puppets", as you call them, are usually aided by the CIA or NSA which operates almost completely outside the relevant chain of command.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Acer, you argue like a child.
The reasoning behind the use of atomic weapons(they were atomic not nuclear there is a difference that I'll explain in a minute)
{Snip - Incorrect bit about bombs}
The lessons are concluded for the day. Did you enjoy your History and Basic Physics classes? ;)
Maybe you should save the lessons until you actually understand the basic principles involved. :rolleyes:
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons) as always has the correct version down.
Originally posted by Liberator
But can you prove that the President at the time had anything to do with it? As I understand it, such "puppets", as you call them, are usually aided by the CIA or NSA which operates almost completely outside the relevant chain of command.
1) IIRC Henry Kissinger was involved in what went on in Chile so we aren't just talking about CIA activity. I'm sure someone who remembers their history better than me will be able to provide better proof. However....
2) Who cares anyway? The CIA are still part of America. If they are acting as a rogue agency in your country it's the job of the American president to slap them down after the first time they did it. Not continue to allow them to do it again and again.
-
You're going to sit there and tell me that the President at the time, whoever it happened to be, was unaware that a US agency was planning to stage a coup? Get real.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Sure it's possible to rig an election but unless you can prove that all the elctions in Chile, Iran etc that others on these threads have mentioned were all rigged then you've got to face the fact that America has toppled democracies to put in their own puppets.
Sounds to me like you want to hold the US accountable for Pinochet, Hussein, Amin, Milosevic, and Omar to name a few. I'm assuming there are some shreds of facts to back these up?
I would hardly call toppling Hussein to be for the purpose of placing our own "puppet" government instead. Either you're blind to his actions.....or approve of them.
-
"The word you're looking for is Hiroshima"
you say im settling for petty details.. what you call this?
But really lets forget bout that and focus on the main topic.
Alright Liberator thx for the physics lesson, I did get the two mixed up, but still you should have been able to infer what I meant. But on the history one.... the fact that nukes are used to make possible agressors think twice before they attack you is well know, what you dont realize is that the reason the USA doesnt want anymore countries to aquire nuclear weapons is that by doing so these countries are automatically protected against any possible attackers, also contries with Nuclear weaponry have more bargain power in any international discussion and the US doesnt want to share a bit of its power with anyone else does it? 3 Nuclear superpowers got te be enouth to keep the balance right?
And back to the japan bombing subject, well how would you fill if the city you live in, which is full of peacefull people gets bombed to serve as an example and make a country withdraw from a war? There are rules of conduct in war wich should be followed and one of the rules is the safekeeping of civilians, not their annihilation by atomic weapons. Inocent children were sloughtered for what? Japan was beaten and the US new it.
Also someone said japan wanted to conquer the world... Thats false japan simply decided that instead of subjugating itself to the the powers of the time like many asian countries did it was going to become of the expansionists powers as well, japanese and american interests obviously colided as both wanted control over the pacific islands and so the war begun. Stop trying to show that the US wanted to ''protect the freeworld'' it was by far trying to defend its own personal expansionist agenda.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Sounds to me like you want to hold the US accountable for Pinochet, Hussein, Amin, Milosevic, and Omar to name a few. I'm assuming there are some shreds of facts to back these up?
I would hardly call toppling Hussein to be for the purpose of placing our own "puppet" government instead. Either you're blind to his actions.....or approve of them.
Yes, the US is responsible. They installed them, and supported them. Hence, their actions are America's responsibility. Except Milosevic, don't know what he's doing on that list. He was a bastard and a tyrant, sure, but the US had nothing to do with him.
And what else could you call the current Iraqi government. Hand-picked by the US, and made to answer to them instead of the Iraqi people. After the "handover", the US retains control of the military and other key areas. Also, unchangeable laws have been issued by Paul Bremer, which the new government will be powerless to overturn.
-
[q]Such as the current monarchy of England??? They didn't vote for them. So they're tyrants. Um, yeah.[/q]
Son, it's called UNITED KINGDOM/BRITAIN/THAT ISLAND THAT RULED THE WORLD and if you ever make that mistake again I'll tax your tea so much you'll never drink another drop.
The Queen exists really in a symbolical role - there is no real power behind her in everyday politics but there are _very_ strong feelings of loyalty to the monarchy in the general populous, especially in England.
-
*sigh*, okay here we go..
Originally posted by Acer
"The word you're looking for is Hiroshima"
you say im settling for petty details.. what you call this?
I call it "tit for tat". It's me being immature.
Originally posted by Acer
3 Nuclear superpowers got te be enouth to keep the balance right?
Well, yes. If you think for two seconds North Korea would'nt use it's paltry nuclear arsenal to defend itself if it felt threatened...
And back to the japan bombing subject, well how would you fill if the city you live in, which is full of peacefull people gets bombed to serve as an example and make a country withdraw from a war?
If it were my city that got hit, of course I'd be pissed. But I'd alraedy be pissed at whomever bombed my city because they are the enemy. We didn't drop them to make friends, you know.
While we're at it, nobody told them to attack us in the first place. We had a nice, locked up, non-agression treaty signed up with Japan. America did everything it could to placate people (such as yourself and the other leftists around here) and stay out of it, but nooooo. Just couldn't leave us be. I have no sympathy. You might consider retaliating with "what about the innocents? what about the innocents?". Well, what about a government that puts it's own people in that position? Pfft.
There are rules of conduct in war wich should be followed and one of the rules is the safekeeping of civilians, not their annihilation by atomic weapons. Inocent children were sloughtered for what? Japan was beaten and the US new it.
That's a strong assumption there, pal, about knowing Japan was "beaten". Not by a long shot. They made it clear they would never surrender. They did, just took a bigger hammer to drive the point home.
Also someone said japan wanted to conquer the world... Thats false japan simply decided that instead of subjugating itself to the the powers of the time like many asian countries did it was going to become of the expansionists powers as well, japanese and american interests obviously colided as both wanted control over the pacific islands and so the war begun.
Excrement. I don't even need to address this.
Stop trying to show that the US wanted to ''protect the freeworld'' it was by far trying to defend its own personal expansionist agenda.
Look, if you don't want a war with the United States, don't start one. "expansionist agenda", pfft.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, the US is responsible. They installed them, and supported them. Hence, their actions are America's responsibility. Except Milosevic, don't know what he's doing on that list. He was a bastard and a tyrant, sure, but the US had nothing to do with him.
And what else could you call the current Iraqi government. Hand-picked by the US, and made to answer to them instead of the Iraqi people. After the "handover", the US retains control of the military and other key areas. Also, unchangeable laws have been issued by Paul Bremer, which the new government will be powerless to overturn.
No, we didn't and no, we aren't. But at least we're trying to do something, which is more than I can say for certain other unnamed countries around here. Maybe Iraq will end up a place where you can protest without incarceration. Where disagreeing with the government won't be a crime. (maybe we could learn some of that over here too)
I've read the same facts and conspiracy-theory-cereal-box b.s. stories you have. At least I know which one is which. We didn't create that situation in Chile. However, we didn't do squat to stop it either.
No laws are "unchangeable". That's what "by the people" means.
Spain fell right into the terrorist's hands. "oh, someone blew up our train station. We're so sorry, we'll pull out of Iraq right now." All they've done is open up the gates to more attacks. You watch.
France is next. Such a peaceful, open-minded nation. "The war against Hussein is wrong. Damn those Imperialist Americans! Oh, by the way, wearing Muslim headdresses is now illegal."
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Sounds to me like you want to hold the US accountable for Pinochet, Hussein, Amin, Milosevic, and Omar to name a few. I'm assuming there are some shreds of facts to back these up?
Suppose I was to sell a nuclear weapon to Saddam Hussein. By your logic I wouldn't have a shred of responsibility for what he did with it.
If you're asking for proof that the Americans toppled goverments then you really need to study your history better. It's common knowledge that the Americans armed Hussein and toppled those governements. You only need to read up a little to find that out for yourself.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Suppose I was to sell a nuclear weapon to Saddam Hussein. By your logic I wouldn't have a shred of responsibility for what he did with it.
If you're asking for proof that the Americans toppled goverments then you really need to study your history better. It's common knowledge that the Americans armed Hussein and toppled those governements. You only need to read up a little to find that out for yourself.
crikey, it's like arguing with shredded wheat...
How about any 3 examples of the US "toppling a government for our own benefit" that served absolutely no other purpose than making money? Right.
Okay. "Armed" does not mean "put in power". And we had a common enemy at the time. Obviously we underestimated a few things. We did likewise with Afghanistan. Given, our motives weren't exactly "honorable", those ungrateful sons-of-*****es should have been our allies. but nooooo....too many of us are white and christian. Cleanse the world. Adolf, anyone?
and to address point #1: So I should be able to sue gun makers if someone kills a member of my family with that gun? Hell yes, I can go get paid now. One small point. Firearms have many peacetime applications. Nuclear weapons do not (yet). There's a huge difference between selling someone a gun and selling someone a nuke.
It's about what you know that determines accountability.
-
edit: n.m too late
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I've read the same facts and conspiracy-theory-cereal-box b.s. stories you have. At least I know which one is which. We didn't create that situation in Chile. However, we didn't do squat to stop it either.
Credibility going, going, GONE.
So typical of Liberals to make up **** just to make America look bad. I mean, look at Vietnam. Like I'm gonna belive that actually happened.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Credibility going, going, GONE.
So typical of Liberals to make up **** just to make America look bad. I mean, look at Vietnam. Like I'm gonna belive that actually happened.
Actually, it is. Speaking of gone credibility. Have you got anything to fall back on besides Vietnam and Somalia that wasn't read about on salon.com?
Didn't think so.
-
Well I've read John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, and extrapolated a _few_ _little_ details from Will Hutton's economics books. I can say all the above point to US led intervention where true democracy was rising, and supporting by the US of violent dictatorial or disgustingly exploitative leaders. Ironic that comes from "the land of the free". :)
-
"How about any 3 examples of the US "toppling a government for our own benefit" that served absolutely no other purpose than making money? Right."
I'll start, anyone else come up with others! (just to be fair)
Indonesia
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Actually, it is. Speaking of gone credibility. Have you got anything to fall back on besides Vietnam and Somalia that wasn't read about on salon.com?
Didn't think so.
So this is what you do when you run out of arguements, is it? Deny that the US had anything to do with said event, and challenge me to come up with a source that you could regard as credible, which by definition would agree with you to some extent. I can't believe that I'm even ackowledging this line of thought. The atrocities commited in Vietnam are, what? I figment of my imagintion? Liberal lies? A conspiracy? No one is denying it but you, not even the people who commited them.
Originally posted by vyper
"How about any 3 examples of the US "toppling a government for our own benefit" that served absolutely no other purpose than making money? Right."
I'll start, anyone else come up with others! (just to be fair)
Indonesia
Guatemala.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So this is what you do when you run out of arguements, is it? Deny that the US had anything to do with said event, and challenge me to come up with a source that you could regard as credible, which by definition would agree with you to some extent. I can't believe that I'm even ackowledging this line of thought. The atrocities commited in Vietnam are, what? I figment of my imagintion? Liberal lies? A conspiracy? No one is denying it but you, not even the people who commited them.
Guatemala.
I'd be silly to say the US had nothing to do with Vietnam. That ain't the issue. Blaming every dictator on us that you possibly can IS.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
How about any 3 examples of the US "toppling a government for our own benefit" that served absolutely no other purpose than making money?
And in this very thread...
Originally posted by Acer
Funny you should say this... If my memory doesnt fail me, wasnt the USA that helped a military coup in Brazil in 64? One wich coused the death of houndreds of people? The disapearing of many more, that caused the brazilian people to lose the right of free-speech? that made many songs be sensored and their authors to be exiled? And do you know why all that happened? Simply becouse the brazilian president at the time (who was legally elected by the people) was more interested in helping the poor people than the American Banks. He was taken down by the army with the help of the CIA simply becouse he was focused on social causes rather than financial ones that would benefit the USA.
I'll have another one post another country... I want to see who's next :D
-
Guatemala - The Banana War. I figured that'd have to come up sooner or later, and even that took place 50 freakin' years ago that took ages to recover from. American business interests putting the pressure on, assasinations, murders, oh my.
Indonesia - General Suharto's coup. hundreds of thousands of Indonesians are slaughtered. Again, 50 years ago. And who was our ally in this? Australia. Nice country. Doing a great job of wiping out it's own tribals. Ya.
Brazil - Military coup to take out Preident Goulart. More fear-of-communism bullcrap from our past. Same thing that ushered in the cold war, sanctions against Cuba, the Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam, "and God we trust", blah blah blah.
Vietnam - Stop communism. Right. bad idea. Very bad idea. Pretty much ended the draft and divided this country bitterly between the old and new generations. It's still a hot issue with people like my grandfather.
All of this ocurring in the long wakes of World War II.
Assasination as a means of governmental change was stomped down by President Carter during his administration. We had a few hotheads in power too. Perhaps they wouldn't have been there in the first place if a certain number of European nations hadn't taken it upon themselves to strip-mine Germany after WWI, creating a perfect environment for Hitler to rise. And perhaps a certain Asian nation could have left us the hell alone and not stirred up trouble. Cause-effect, cause-effect.
The whole thing was a big, stupid conflict over communism. It may have made sense then, but it doesn't now. That's hindsight for you. You said these were all greed-money motivators. So was France's motivation for staying out of this round of Iraq (russia's too).
The 50's and 60's are not a time period in American history I look upon with any fondness. There was a crapload of overdue change going on here. So if you want to debate history, lets get out the old Time Machine and go change a few things. Better yet, maybe dragging out the people responsbile for this and prosecuting them in the nations they messed with. Not a bad idea.
As far as being helpless to stand up to America goes, excrement. We did it to England when they were the most powerful country on the planet. I'm dealing with the here and now as much as possible.
-
Er... is it just me or are you justifying these actions?
Never use "fear-of-communism" as an excuse if you don't know what it really means. Hell, you are practically saying we are right when we say these things, like you said:
How about any 3 examples of the US "toppling a government for our own benefit" that served absolutely no other purpose than making money?
What was the opposite idea of communism? :p
Perhaps they wouldn't have been there in the first place if a certain number of European nations hadn't taken it upon themselves to strip-mine Germany after WWI, creating a perfect environment for Hitler to rise. And perhaps a certain Asian nation could have left us the hell alone and not stirred up trouble. Cause-effect, cause-effect.
Go-hit-the-history-books, go-hit-the-history-books... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by ionia23
crikey, it's like arguing with shredded wheat...
(http://mysmilies.ipbfree.com/s/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif)
It took you that long to figure that out?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Er... is it just me or are you justifying these actions?
Never use "fear-of-communism" as an excuse if you don't know what it really means. Hell, you are practically saying we are right when we say these things, like you said:
What was the opposite idea of communism? :p
Go-hit-the-history-books, go-hit-the-history-books... :rolleyes:
Justify? No. understand? Unfortunately.
And I did hit the history books, thanks.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
(http://mysmilies.ipbfree.com/s/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif)
It took you that long to figure that out?
Yeah, no kidding. :rolleyes: Pass the milk and sugar, I'm starved.
-
My brain hurts :(
-
Then you have the 3 countries you asked for... :D
Also, I advise you review your sources on that paragraph I quoted in my previous post because, first of all it wasn't only european nations, second Hitler rising to power was not only a consequence of the conditions Germany passed through with the Treaty of Versalles (sp?) but also because of the "Great Depression". Third that certain asian nation that I believe you are refering to suffered from your actions as you suffered from them. Hell, you provoqued them too you know?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Then you have 4 of the 3 countries you asked for... :D
Also, I advise you review your sources on that paragraph I quoted in my previous post because, first of all it wasn't only european nations, second Hitler rising to power was not only a consequence of the conditions Germany passed through with the Treaty of Versalles (sp?) but also because of the "Great Depression". Third that certain asian nation that I believe you are refering to suffered from your actions as you suffered from them. Hell, you provoqued them too you know?
Fact: Many nations make many shortsighted, stupid decisions. What was done to Germany at the end of WWI was reprehensable, but it was obviously more than made up for the second time around. I think that particular horse has been beaten around enough.
The US actions throughout all kinds of places during the 1950-1970 period amazes me. In some situations, I can pull a "well, it made sense for then" attitude. for others....I don't get it. This was all cold-war crap. "Stop the Reds, blah blah". Idiocy, sure.
If you sat down someone like my grandfather, he'd tell you about how one of the principles of communism is "they eat dead babies".
He's 93, cut him some slack.
Myonly exposure to communism was anti-Red propaganda throughout the 1980's. It was horsecrap. I met one Russian in that time period, an astronomer who was nice to me.
I know enough about my country's action to know that they aren't all bad, or wrong.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
France is next. Such a peaceful, open-minded nation. "The war against Hussein is wrong. Damn those Imperialist Americans! Oh, by the way, wearing Muslim headdresses is now illegal."
Just so you know, the law against headdresses is only for Public institutions, such as school, ministery and the like, and it's called enforcing laïcity. But then, it seems that this word is considered as an insult by a few people on this board :drevil:
-
ionia, the headscarf thing was done to preserve seperation of church and state, and yes I agree its bull****. Its very, very misguided. It makes no sense, but I guess thats policitics for ya.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
ionia, the headscarf thing was done to preserve seperation of church and state, and yes I agree its bull****. Its very, very misguided. It makes no sense, but I guess thats policitics for ya.
Politics is a chess game where people like you and I are fed one by one into the meat grinder, soon to be **** out of the guts of the Wholesome Imperial Wealthy. Politics also fascinates me. Go figure.
I love my country. It's nice to be in a place where I can talk all the crap I want about it and not go to prison, so long as I make no threats. However, those rights have been quite trampled on since, well, yeah.
My government pisses me off and I vote accordingly. I hate being held accountable for it's actions, hence the passion in my arguments. I have the utmost respect for the Office, but no respect for the persons within it. 'ol King George can forget about my vote. He didn't get it last time (not that it mattered, seeing as it was rigged anyway) and he won't get it this November.
Separation of church and state was never meant to deny the practice of a particular religion. What was/is happening in France has already been happening here, and we're fighting it vehemently.
Good christ, I think we just agreed on something.
-
The Cold War, in retrospect, is actually rather funny. The US thought that communism, as personified by the USSR (which was actually a socialist nation), was trying to take over the world. Little did we realize that the communist countries didn't like each other very much (the PRC and the USSR hated each other).
The USSR, meanwhile, was paranoid. They though all the other countries were out to get them. To prevent this, they tried setting up a Marxist buffer between Western Europe and the USSR.
Little did they realize that doing this would cause their paranoia to cease being that, and become justified. Our fear of a worldwide communist plot led us to set out to stamp out any trace of communism we could find. This led to such things as:
-The overthrowing of Iran's democratically elected government and their replacement with the Shah, which led to the rise to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini (sp?) and his theocratic government.
-Giving weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the USSR tried to strike back for what they rightly perceived as an attack on them. This led to things like the Cuba Missile Crisis.
The entire affair was a case of mistaken intentions.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The Cold War, in retrospect, is actually rather funny. The US thought that communism, as personified by the USSR (which was actually a socialist nation), was trying to take over the world. Little did we realize that the communist countries didn't like each other very much (the PRC and the USSR hated each other).
The USSR, meanwhile, was paranoid. They though all the other countries were out to get them. To prevent this, they tried setting up a Marxist buffer between Western Europe and the USSR.
Little did they realize that doing this would cause their paranoia to cease being that, and become justified. Our fear of a worldwide communist plot led us to set out to stamp out any trace of communism we could find. This led to such things as:
-The overthrowing of Iran's democratically elected government and their replacement with the Shah, which led to the rise to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini (sp?) and his theocratic government.
-Giving weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the USSR tried to strike back for what they rightly perceived as an attack on them. This led to things like the Cuba Missile Crisis.
The entire affair was a case of mistaken intentions.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
and to address point #1: So I should be able to sue gun makers if someone kills a member of my family with that gun? Hell yes, I can go get paid now. One small point. Firearms have many peacetime applications. Nuclear weapons do not (yet). There's a huge difference between selling someone a gun and selling someone a nuke.
And there is a big difference between selling a gun to a rational human being and selling one to someone you know is crazy. If you sell a gun to someone who keeps talking to his invisible aunt gerold over his shoulder the entire time then yes you are responsible for everything he does with it.
The same goes when you sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. What did you think he was going to do with them? Use them as a chemical feedstock to make asprin?
When America sold chemical weapons to Hussein they became responsible for their use against Iraqis and Iranians. Unlike guns there are no peaceful uses for nerve gas.
Go ahead. Defend America selling nerve gas to Saddam. This I want to see.
-
As a wise old hermit once said;
"politics is like ice cream. When its cold, its firm, malable, and you can put some decorations on it. When its warm, its runny, messy, and unpleasent."
Yeah...:blah:
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And there is a big difference between selling a gun to a rational human being and selling one to someone you know is crazy. If you sell a gun to someone who keeps talking to his invisible aunt gerold over his shoulder the entire time then yes you are responsible for everything he does with it.
The same goes when you sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. What did you think he was going to do with them? Use them as a chemical feedstock to make asprin?
When America sold chemical weapons to Hussein they became responsible for their use against Iraqis and Iranians. Unlike guns there are no peaceful uses for nerve gas.
Go ahead. Defend America selling nerve gas to Saddam. This I want to see.
Aww, dammit, I was hoping for a challenge. Defend the sale of nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry and/or the facilities to make them? Piece of cake. However....
Let us lay to rest the conspiracy theories about the US, the UK, France, and Russia selling nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and/or the equipment to make them to rest in one easy sweep:
Where are they?
-
It's actually known fact that we sold all sorts of weaponry to Hussein. What happened to them? Probably used quite a bit, and resold the rest to build his palaces.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Let us lay to rest the conspiracy theories about the US, the UK, France, and Russia selling nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and/or the equipment to make them to rest in one easy sweep:
Where are they?
What a load of crap. He used them! Do you think that a whole bunch of Iraqis just lay down one day and pretended to be dead from chemical attacks? :rolleyes:
-
ionia, you seem to think you can ignore inconvient facts by labbeling them conspiracy theories. Just because you have never seen a source yourself, doe not mean they don't exists and that there aren't in fact a ton of sources saying the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
ionia, you seem to think you can ignore inconvient facts by labbeling them conspiracy theories. Just because you have never seen a source yourself, doe not mean they don't exists and that there aren't in fact a ton of sources saying the same thing.
Right, but there are also plenty of places that say Lyndon Johnson was behind the Kennedy assasination, and that we're housing live aliens in Nevada, blah blah blah.
The idea that the US government of the time sold chemical, biological, and nuclear technology to the Iraqs is reprehensable, not an "inconvenient fact". I just don't see anything to back it up. It's easy to say, but prove?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What a load of crap. He used them! Do you think that a whole bunch of Iraqis just lay down one day and pretended to be dead from chemical attacks? :rolleyes:
I think you missed my point. Of course he used chem weapons at one point, I have the National Geographic with the pictures in it. No denying he had them at one point, but how does that prove we specifically sold the product or technology to him?
-
But no one, including the government, is denying it. There is not one person who denies that the US sold Saddam biological and chemical weapons, because that is preposterous to claim. You see it so often, its pointless to quote sources. Its a well established fact, no one is disputing it.
-
Furthermore even after the fact was revealed that Saddam was using chemical weapons the US continued to support him. You can't claim they didn't know he was a tyrant then can you?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But no one, including the government, is denying it. There is not one person who denies that the US sold Saddam biological and chemical weapons, because that is preposterous to claim. You see it so often, its pointless to quote sources. Its a well established fact, no one is disputing it.
When people stop questioning "assumed" facts with no sources because it provides more ammunition for the slandering of a particular government, I get worried. This is the great danger of conspiracy theories.
What is known is we did sell 100 helicopters, trucks, and I forget what else to the Iraqis quite some time ago. Namely because the sale of military equipment was illegal to them, even up to 1983 when Donald Rumsfeld met with then-President Saddam Hussein to solve the "common problem" of Iran. We were still stinging over the hostage incident in 1979.
What is also known is he already had the technology for chemical weapon development at the time.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Furthermore even after the fact was revealed that Saddam was using chemical weapons the US continued to support him. You can't claim they didn't know he was a tyrant then can you?
Yup, and we tried to do something about it as I'm sure you'll recall. Massive financial sanctions, blah blah. Unfortunately, good 'ol American businesses did everything in their power to make sure that the bill to initiate this died before it got to the president. Seems they felt this would only hurt those who trade with Iraq, with little impact on Iraq itself. To a small degree, they were right.
Then he invaded Kuwait. Big mistake. That was the "okay, enough of this, all bleeding hearts get out" moment.
I felt our response was unbelievably weak at the time. I would much rather have seen what's happening right now happen then. Had he been taught earlier on that his actions would have consequences, we wouldn't be there taking crap for what the rest of the world, minus our few allies, seem to be unable, or unwilling to do.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I think you missed my point. Of course he used chem weapons at one point, I have the National Geographic with the pictures in it. No denying he had them at one point, but how does that prove we specifically sold the product or technology to him?
I didn't miss your point. Your comment made a completely different one. You held up the fact that no one has found chemical weapons with a Made in USA sign on them as proof that America didn't sell them to Saddam and I called you on it. If what you say above was your point then you should have said that instead.
-
We also blatently ignored Saddam's use of CW, in the same way we ignore anything that Israel does, as mentioned in the National Security Archive (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/). It's a bit harder to find official government data on the chemical weapons front though.
-
No sources? Ha! There are only too many sources, thats why its assumed. I also assume that WW2 happened, though I have never seen a firsthand source...
Here you go:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
We also blatently ignored Saddam's use of CW, in the same way we ignore anything that Israel does, as mentioned in the National Security Archive (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/). It's a bit harder to find official government data on the chemical weapons front though.
As mentioned earlier, we didn't ignore it. But we sure as hell didn't do anything about it.
Unfortunately, neither did anyone else. It took the invasion of Kuwait to get us off our collective asses.
-
Did you read the part where it mentions that we intentionally blocked a Security Council resolution condemning his use of CW? That seems more like support, as opposed to non-action.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
No sources? Ha! There are only too many sources, thats why its assumed. I also assume that WW2 happened, though I have never seen a firsthand source...
Here you go:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
Now let's not be ludicrous, such as the WWII statement...
This makes for an interesting read. Problem: The sale of antitoxin to Iraq was blocked.
I'll read more of this when I get home. Skimming doesn't seem appropriate.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Did you read the part where it mentions that we intentionally blocked a Security Council resolution condemning his use of CW? That seems more like support, as opposed to non-action.
I am maybe 1/8 of the way through this document. Obviously, I"m not going to put all my faith in one chunk of information, but I'm definately reading the rest of it when I get home.
-
You're obviously not going to put your faith in ANY chunk of information that doesn't agree with your current fantasy of US political history.
Dude, I love my country, and I'm proud to be an American--but that doesn't mean I'm blind to our mistakes. Selling the weapons to Hussein was a mistake. Training his people to use and manufacture them was a mistake. Providing them with logistical and intelligence support was a mistake. This isn't surmise or guesswork or opinion--its the history of the seventies and eighties.
Nicauragua and Panama and Chile and the rest, those are part of our history. Denying them because they're inconvenient or give us a black eye denies us the ability to atone or to head off future mistakes of that sort.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
You mean your leftist, terorist-backing version of history? Pfft, not with a gun to my head.
I'm neither leftist or terrorist supporting, my version of history is based on facts as opposed to your omg we saved the world we're so great hollywood ****e
Originally posted by ionia23
Fact, there's no way you could know if the US's secret intentions were to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as mere "tests". You're not that old.
Oh so unless I was there I couldnt possibly know about it? Bull****, thats the arguement of a three year old. But heres some quotes from people that were there and say it was unnecessary:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
Originally posted by ionia23
Fact. Japan's surrender had to be "unconditional", period. They weren't willing to do this so they got smacked. I have zero sympathy. It ended the pacific campaign, so I'd suggest YOU learn a bit of history before you shoot off your mouth any more.
God you're an idiot, Japans surrender was not unconditional. period. Go learn some history and stop shooting your mouth off about something you obviously know nothing about.
-
Going back ot, another one says byebye to Iraq
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040421/ap_on_re_mi_ea/dominican_iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480
-
Originally posted by Gank
I'm neither leftist or terrorist supporting, my version of history is based on facts as opposed to your omg we saved the world we're so great hollywood ****e
Your version of history is based on whatever you see on the X-Files.
Oh so unless I was there I couldnt possibly know about it? Bull****, thats the arguement of a three year old. But heres some quotes from people that were there and say it was unnecessary:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
Right, and you could easily bring in plenty more from that generation who would say it was.
God you're an idiot, Japans surrender was not unconditional. period. Go learn some history and stop shooting your mouth off about something you obviously know nothing about.
That does it. Go read the surrender documents yourself. I am done with you.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japsurr.html
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You're obviously not going to put your faith in ANY chunk of information that doesn't agree with your current fantasy of US political history.
Dude, I love my country, and I'm proud to be an American--but that doesn't mean I'm blind to our mistakes. Selling the weapons to Hussein was a mistake. Training his people to use and manufacture them was a mistake. Providing them with logistical and intelligence support was a mistake. This isn't surmise or guesswork or opinion--its the history of the seventies and eighties.
Nicauragua and Panama and Chile and the rest, those are part of our history. Denying them because they're inconvenient or give us a black eye denies us the ability to atone or to head off future mistakes of that sort.
It wasn't a mistake then. It was a mistake now. That's hindsight for you.
-
Progression of This Thread:
:p
:mad:
:p
:mad2:
:eek:
:hopping:
:shaking: :shaking: :shaking:
-
Continued...
:mad:
:ha:
:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
:eek2:
:p
:hopping: :hopping:
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Your version of history is based on whatever you see on the X-Files.
Umm, the xfiles is a drama about aliens and the like, theres no actual history in it. Do you know what history is?
Originally posted by ionia23
Right, and you could easily bring in plenty more from that generation who would say it was.
I'm sure you could, but the quotes i the link I posted include the guys who were in charge of fighting the Japanese. You have better than that post it, else stfu.
Originally posted by ionia23
That does it. Go read the surrender documents yourself while you roast marshmallows on the rubble of the world trade center. I am done with you.
The Japanese only surrendered when the US agreed to let them keep the Emperor, thats not an unconditional surrender. Doesnt matter what the piece of paper says, you can call a dog a horse but its still a dog.
As for the I am done with you, thats a great way of arguing your point, how old are you? 12? Are you capable of arguing your point without calling people terrorist supporting left wing conspiricy theorists? It makes you look like a narrowminded fascist racist bigot.
Originally posted by ionia23
It wasn't a mistake then. It was a mistake now. That's hindsight for you.
Arguing like a three year old, we didnt know they were bad when we were supporting them, we only found out they were bad when we got in trouble for supporting them. ****ing pathetic
-
Chill out.... both of you...
Gank, do not insult 12 years old's. :p
Slasher, that was... unusual. :wtf:
Originally posted by ionia23Originally posted by mikhael
You're obviously not going to put your faith in ANY chunk of information that doesn't agree with your current fantasy of US political history.
Dude, I love my country, and I'm proud to be an American--but that doesn't mean I'm blind to our mistakes. Selling the weapons to Hussein was a mistake. Training his people to use and manufacture them was a mistake. Providing them with logistical and intelligence support was a mistake. This isn't surmise or guesswork or opinion--its the history of the seventies and eighties.
Nicauragua and Panama and Chile and the rest, those are part of our history. Denying them because they're inconvenient or give us a black eye denies us the ability to atone or to head off future mistakes of that sort.
It wasn't a mistake then. It was a mistake now. That's hindsight for you.
You mean being shortsighted is an excuse for making a mistake?
*blows up a random desert with a 100 megaton nuclear warhead*
Oops... I didn't know it would leave residual radiation! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Slasher
:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
:eek2:
:p
:hopping: :hopping:
Now I enter the thread laughing my ass off:
:lol:
Earlier in the thread you guys thought you knew all about history and stuff. *buzz* You just scratched the surface :p Unless anyone has majored in history like me please don't to talk like you know how stuff worked and went down. You're making yourself look stupid :p
-
Tiara, you still haven't replied to my question...
Originally posted by me
Tiara, I don't mean to be rude, but could you please give me at least some of those "instances in history in which events were triggered by 'good vs. evil' situations"?
And I (I only can say this for myself) know about history... just not the full totality of it. :nervous: But still, that is impossible.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
It wasn't a mistake then. It was a mistake now. That's hindsight for you.
I'd call abrogating the principles we claim to hold to in favor of political expediance a mistake. That makes it a mistake when it was done, and that makes it a mistake now. If you apply that one very simple test, you don't really need to rely on hindsight to tell you that you screwed up.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Tiara, you still haven't replied to my question...
And I (I only can say this for myself) know about history... just not the full totality of it. :nervous: But still, that is impossible.
Didn't you read my post. ALL instances in history are ultimately based on Good & Evil, Right & Wrong.
It's just that to everyones perspective Good, Evil, Right, Wrong are all different things. Its relative.
Ofcourse there often a deeper mean, but at the very core it's always what the parties involved believe what is Good or Evil, Right or Wrong.
Example;
World War two:
German Nazi's think they are 'Good' and everyone not conforming to them is 'Evil'. They are right, everyone else is wrong. This is the main catalyst for the war.
This is the case with almost ALL conflicts. They do something because they think its the 'Right' thing to do. Hell, even Saddam thought he was doing 'Good' and that America was teh 'Evil'.
But I must say that this is never absolute, this is merely the core. There is no instance in history where this is the ONLY thing that caused anything to happen. It always needs other elements/catalysts.
-
That's somewhat simplistic Tiara. There are plenty of occasions where people have done stuff they knew was evil or wrong because it had favourable results for them.
However if you mean that the general population who actually fought the war thought that they were being good then you're close to the way some soldiers thought. Many however knew that what they were doing was wrong but just felt they had no choice.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
That's somewhat simplistic Tiara. There are plenty of occasions where people have done stuff they knew was evil or wrong because it had favourable results for them.
[/b]
And thus in their terms it was ultimately good. :) The means, in their case, did justify the end.
I know it is somewhat simplistic, thats why I said that this is just the core of things. But explaining those would cost me a few dozen pages :p *remembers the horrors of the essays she had to write in her final year* :shaking:
However if you mean that the general population who actually fought the war thought that they were being good then you're close to the way some soldiers thought. Many however knew that what they were doing was wrong but just felt they had no choice.
I'm talking about the events in history, not the indidvidual person. That's a whole different subject.
-
I am not going to bother to ready the past seven pages becuase I have no time to do so, but just want to say, Leave it to a socialist to make a pact with the Devil.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I am not going to bother to ready the past seven pages becuase I have no time to do so, but just want to say, Leave it to a socialist to make a pact with the Devil.
PHAH!
Show me a "socialist".
We all know such things don't exist, all proof is just conspiracy.
Besides, if they existed - you weren't around when Marx was born, were you? So how can you know!
VIKTORIII
:p
-
Dictatorship all the way...
All you need is an AI programed to do the best for the majority and the innocent...
*adds fuel to the fire* :)
-
This is getting tedious now.
-
hehe, it happens. :p
guess every1 has an opinion yet no way to implements them :p
-Grug
-
Originally posted by Tiara
World War two:
German Nazi's think they are 'Good' and everyone not conforming to them is 'Evil'. They are right, everyone else is wrong. This is the main catalyst for the war.
This is the case with almost ALL conflicts. They do something because they think its the 'Right' thing to do. Hell, even Saddam thought he was doing 'Good' and that America was teh 'Evil'.
But I must say that this is never absolute, this is merely the core. There is no instance in history where this is the ONLY thing that caused anything to happen. It always needs other elements/catalysts.
Right isn't the same thing as good. Example like you have listed above:
In WWII, Germany's government thought that to gain popular support they could blame the jews along with other ethnic groups, because they had much more wealth in general than the "common" german, for the situation Germany was passing through.
Every nation does what they think is the "right" thing to do... for them!! They are trying to gain whatever advantage they want in comparison to other countries.
No country in history (that I remember, like you said, you are the one with the major, not me) did something that was solely based on "good vs evil". By country I mean government. The people governing a country might argue that they did this because it was "good" and their oponents are "evil", etc...
But no matter what they say, ultimatly they are solely trying to get power, nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Right isn't the same thing as good. Example like you have listed above:
In WWII, Germany's government thought that to gain popular support they could blame the jews along with other ethnic groups, because they had much more wealth in general than the "common" german, for the situation Germany was passing through.
Every nation does what they think is the "right" thing to do... for them!! They are trying to gain whatever advantage they want in comparison to other countries.
[/b]
- Right = good. For example: "I 'know I'm right, therefor I'm doing good."
- No, they didn't blame them to gain popular support. It probably did more of the opposite. They blamed them because they litterally saw them as second rate humans (Untermenschen).
- Yes, every nation does what they think is right. And thus they do what is good in THEIR eyes.
But no matter what they say, ultimatly they are solely trying to get power, nothing more.
And they want to get power because they think that is the right thing to do. And as I explained earlier, if they think something is right it is automatically good in their eyes.
-
Not really, no. I mean, when the majority of the world's population agrees on certain "rules" (and they do), then violating those rules can be said to be "bad".
If you were to stack up the people on Earth who are aganst say, murder for profit, and those who aren't, you would see that there is no country who's population condones it by a majority. Nations have to play by the rules that their citizens endorse, and that means they are not free to do whatever they want. For all of American's past and future mistakes, I am fairly certain that were the people to be given a direct choice, with sufficient information to understand the situation, they would choose differently, that is to say they would choose not to perpetrate those crimes. Same for any country really, though not for any time. Thats the "problem of democracy", the people if left to their own devices would almost always choose differently than the politicians who are profiting from it. So, the people must not be allowed to have democracy, or atleast not real democracy, because they would just ruin it all.
As for the Jews, from what I know about history they were used as scapegoats due to their general wealth and well-being compared to other Germans. And yes, they were also regarded as untermenschen, but the two are not mutually exlusive.
-
Again, political debates create an everlasting argument...
-
Aw, shut it Tin Can :p Don't want to participate, then don't. :)
And Rictor, it's quite hard to explain what I mean on a message board cause you seem to misunderstand me. Anyways, just let it be. This is a subject thats easier to teach my students then you guys on a message board :p
-
Originally posted by Janos
PHAH!
Show me a "socialist".
We all know such things don't exist, all proof is just conspiracy.
Besides, if they existed - you weren't around when Marx was born, were you? So how can you know!
VIKTORIII
:p
FINE, he and every other socialist that runs for office is a socialist in label only. They point still stands.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Aw, shut it Tin Can :p Don't want to participate, then don't. :)
And Rictor, it's quite hard to explain what I mean on a message board cause you seem to misunderstand me. Anyways, just let it be. This is a subject thats easier to teach my students then you guys on a message board :p
Every time I DO participate it always ends in flamings... I'm doing you a favor Tiara...
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
*blows up a random desert with a 100 megaton nuclear warhead*
We've been over this, even the Soviets, paranoid or not, could not conceive of a situation that would require such a powerful weapon, so none exist and you would be hunted and killed by every Nuclear capable nation for building and detonating such a device. It's too big for planetary use.
-
"could not conceive of a situation that would require such a powerful weapon"
this'l get them damned roaches :mad:
-
:roflmfao:
-
Liberator, it was just an absurd example...
Now to continue, Tiara, being right is diferent from being good.
Being right is being correct, example 2+2=4... this is "right". Each nation do what they think is correct for achieving a certain goal. But because their choice isn't a simple mathematical calculation it becomes something more complex.
Being good depends on the moral of the person or society involved. It involves the idea of right, although right doesn't involve the idea of good. It is a little hard to explain but I will give you an example.
In my opinion (my moral) what the US did when they blew the hell out of Hiroshima was wrong (not good). But I know that they did the right thing to achieve their goals. It was not good but it was correct.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
We've been over this, even the Soviets, paranoid or not, could not conceive of a situation that would require such a powerful weapon, so none exist and you would be hunted and killed by every Nuclear capable nation for building and detonating such a device. It's too big for planetary use.
Wrong. Tsar Bomba.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwarhead.html
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Liberator, it was just an absurd example...
Now to continue, Tiara, being right is diferent from being good.
Being right is being correct, example 2+2=4... this is "right". Each nation do what they think is correct for achieving a certain goal. But because their choice isn't a simple mathematical calculation it becomes something more complex.
Being good depends on the moral of the person or society involved. It involves the idea of right, although right doesn't involve the idea of good. It is a little hard to explain but I will give you an example.
In my opinion (my moral) what the US did when they blew the hell out of Hiroshima was wrong (not good). But I know that they did the right thing to achieve their goals. It was not good but it was correct.
*deep sigh*
Being right equals good when applied to historic events. Not mathematical problems :doubt:
I'm not going to have a philosophical debate right now. We have visitors here. :p I just came to check my mails. Maybe later.
-
Then we are talking about diferent subjects. :doubt:
Please be more... er... acurate next time :p.
Gank... that is one mother f*****!! :eek2:
-
confucious says: every person alive thinks they're right. If they didn't, they would either change their opinion, or change their perception of right.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Wrong. Tsar Bomba.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwarhead.html
Was never detonated. As the article states, it's useless.
-
Uh-huh. But you were still wrong.
Found this interesting:
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040420154719.soi8dhtt.html
-
Originally posted by Rictor
confucious says: every person alive thinks they're right. If they didn't, they would either change their opinion, or change their perception of right.
Confucious is talking out of his arse.
-
I think not. Whatever you do is by definition right according to you, becuase while there may be pro/con factors, you obviously decide that the pro factors outwiegh the cons, and therefore regiard the decision as "right" in your personal morality scale. Sort of like survival of the fittest. Whoever survives is by defintion the fittest, you can't go counter to that.
-
Thats bull****, I often did things I knew were wrong. For example I used to rob fags when I was younger, I didnt think it was right at the time nor do I know, but I went ahead and did it anyways.
-
You mean as in gay people are is there some other meaning I need to be made aware of? So why did you do it? Either it would be cause you needed the money or whatever it was you were stealing, or cause you thought it was fun. The need/fun factor obviously outweighed the "its wrong" factor, so your moral compass held your need/fun in higher regard, thus making it "right".
Similarly, if I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family, there are 2 factors at at work. My need and the general morality which says that stealing is wrong. In my mind, what I am doing is not wrong becuase the need factor overrides morality.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Uh-huh. But you were still wrong.
Found this interesting:
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040420154719.soi8dhtt.html
No way they're going to bring back the draft. People wouldn't stand for it, and **** (or whoever) would be booted out of office within the week.
-
Rictor, you may be left in situations where there is no "good" choice.
Right (at least the way I use the word "right") hasn't got anything to do with the morals of a person. The "right" choice is the "best" choice.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You mean as in gay people are is there some other meaning I need to be made aware of? So why did you do it? Either it would be cause you needed the money or whatever it was you were stealing, or cause you thought it was fun. The need/fun factor obviously outweighed the "its wrong" factor, so your moral compass held your need/fun in higher regard, thus making it "right".
Similarly, if I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family, there are 2 factors at at work. My need and the general morality which says that stealing is wrong. In my mind, what I am doing is not wrong becuase the need factor overrides morality.
FYI: Fag in the U.K is a cigarette anywhere else. ;)
-
101010: yeah, I knew that, but it didn't make much sense: "rob cigarettes". unless he meant steal...
Ghostavo: "best" is even more subjective than "right".
-
don't mess with Texas (http://www.kpho.com/Global/story.asp?S=1800543&nav=23Ku8Pn1)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You mean as in gay people are is there some other meaning I need to be made aware of? So why did you do it? Either it would be cause you needed the money or whatever it was you were stealing, or cause you thought it was fun. The need/fun factor obviously outweighed the "its wrong" factor, so your moral compass held your need/fun in higher regard, thus making it "right".
Similarly, if I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family, there are 2 factors at at work. My need and the general morality which says that stealing is wrong. In my mind, what I am doing is not wrong becuase the need factor overrides morality.
I didnt do it because I needed the money, nor did I do it because it was "fun" I did it because I could. And I knew it was wrong, all the psychobabble in the world doesnt change that. Sometimes people do things they know arent right, out of spite, hatred, jelousy or just plain boredom, human nature.
Originally posted by Rictor
No way they're going to bring back the draft. People wouldn't stand for it, and **** (or whoever) would be booted out of office within the week.
Booted out by who exactly? And dont kid yourse;lf, if it was brought in the people couldnt do a thing about it, except vote the guy who introduced it out of office, four years later.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Was never detonated. As the article states, it's useless.
Lib, bud, it was detonated but not at it's full yield. I put up a rather hefty post about this a few pages back.
Planned yield was 100mt but it would have been far too filthy to use. With a redesign it was 50-60mt. That's still way too big for strategic use.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I didn't see your sorry little country step up to help in 1945
'Sorry little country'?
Retard.
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
'Sorry little country'?
Retard.
Yes, 'sorry little country', ****face.
-
hmmm... bushface
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
hmmm... bushface
seeing as you wouldn't know, don't presume.
-
Someones having a bad night. ;)
-
Cool it, folks. Take a breather from this thread and come back in an hour if you must continue. Even better, go to sleep...
-
um, was my post misinterpeted, I was makeing a joke about the word filters.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Yes, 'sorry little country', ****face.
That's an appropriate posture, if your goal is to become one of these 'sorry little countries' as soon as possible.
-
I know what you were doing, Bob, and to be honest I thought it was kinda funny. :p I was referring to the posts up above you. National slurs and the like.
-
My brother went to Nagasaki when he was in Japan last year, he said that there are ghosts there, you can't see them, you can't hear them, but there are thousands upon thousands of ghosts, and you can feel them :(
-
eh, that's probly the radiation
-
LOL Well, I guess you never have to worry about your pizza arriving cold ;)
Seriously though, that city still carries a scar from the attack, though I think you have to go there in person to fully feel it, I only have second hand reports.
-
Or having kids.
-
There is still high levels of cancer and birth defects in that area of Japan, yes. Not really all that surprising.
-
there are massacars all over the world, but people rarely seem to 'feel' it unless they know about it before hand
-
Can't answer that one Bob, as I doubt there are many people who don't know about Nagasaki.
I'm not talking about some deep spiritual tapping into life forces or anything like that, and I wasn't there in person, to experience whatever my brother felt :)
Maybe if you went there, you would feel nothing, whose to say?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
There is still high levels of tentacle rape porn and paedophiles in that area of Japan, yes. Not really all that surprising.
Fixed it for you.
-
Well, as amusing as that may be, the fact of the matter that, for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Massacre continues to this day and will continue into the future for a fair amount of time.
-
or people could jst not live there...
but then again, I live in a place were people build homes in a flood plane and get pissed every year when there homes end up 20 feet under water, then rebuild in the exact same place.
-
:yes:
-
Well, I wasn't going to mention that the damage is genetic, and that Japan has a lot lot less room to go round ;)
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE ATOMIC BOMB EXPLOSION
Levelled Area...................6.7 million square meters
Damaged Houses:
Completely Burned ------11,574
Completely Destroyed-----1,326
Badly Damaged------------5,509
Total-------------------18,409
Casualties
Killed------73,884
Injured-----74,909
Total------148,793
(Large numbers of people died in the following years from the effects)
Considering that Japan only has a land area of 375,000 km ^ 2, which is slightly smaller than California for the entire country, that's a pretty weighty chunk contaminated.
-
Well, when you sign up for the wrong team...
Speaking of which.... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.italian/index.html)
Pity we can't just nerve gas the whole lot of 'em. Too many nons in the way.
-
And the wrong team is described as the weaker one, correct? Also, where are the Japanese going to move to exactly? Its an island, and a tiny one at that. But I guess they not only chose the wrong team, but also the wrong home, so they deserve whatever they get.
-
Hmmmm.... I certainly wouldn't want to be any team you supported then, if this is what happens to the crowd when they lose :)
Well, yes, I guess daring to take a snap at world domination means they do deserve to suffer from Cancer, Birth defects etc for decades.... er.... no actually, cos that would mean every country in the world would have them :)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And the wrong team is described as the weaker one, correct?
Incorrect.
The "wrong team" is the team that loses. Or any team that opposes the US, which is usually the same thing, historically.
-
And besides, my statements were about the plight of the people of Nagasaki, I am not inclined in the slightest to point fingers at the US about it, because they did what they felt had to do at the time. I know it's been bandied about that Japan surrendered before the First bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but this isn't entirely correct.
After the first bomb was dropped, Japans' communication network suffered a massive blackout, so, it may have been that Japan tried to transmit a surrender on the day before the Nagasaki bomb, but America never recieved it. Theories abound, but I've not seen any substantiation to that claim.
However, to place the plight of all those people, who happen to be America's allies now, into 'being in the wrong team' is somehow very...... Ionian :)
Edit : While I don't see what happened in 1945 as any kind of 'crime' it would be a crime if we didn't at least try to learn from it.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Edit : While I don't see what happened in 1945 as any kind of 'crime' it would be a crime if we didn't at least try to learn from it.
We obviously haven't. 7 nations currently posses nuclear weapons (that we know of) and three of them have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The effort to prevent further nations from aquiring nukes is wasted, so long as the 7 that already have them do not disarm.
mik: true dat. but nothing lasts forever.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
However, to place the plight of all those people, who happen to be America's allies now, into 'being in the wrong team' is somehow very...... Ionian :)
Nah. The japanese were on the wrong side back then. They're on the right side now. Not because they're with the US, really, but because they're on the side that's not going to be obliterated this time.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Well, when you sign up for the wrong team...
No matter how much I try I can't ever feel that Japan and Germany were the wrong team in WWII. Their human rights records during the war speaks volumes for that.
The allies may not have been shining heroes either. Dropping the bomb on Japan not once but twice will never be a valorous choice in my mind but there is no doubt which side was the more evil in WWII.
-
LOL I guess you are right Mik, though I most sincerely hope that 'this time' no-one get's obliterated. Or the tens of thousands in the wrong team last time died for absolutely nothing :(
-
Sorry to break it to you Flipside, but your're wrong. Depending on how far back you want to define "this time", well over 10,000 civies have died from military action, and many thousands more from economic. If you'de like to count back since 1990 and the end of the Cold War, those number skyrocket.
Its a catch 22 sort of. So long as the people on the "wrong side" keep dieing, their deaths will be in vain. It would take the deaths of many innocents on the "right side" to have an effect on the next conflict, and almost by definition the people on "the right side" tend not to get hit very badly.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Is there a "pure" good side in a war? :doubt:
Of course there is, the American side.
-
Is there a "pure" good side in a war? :doubt:
-
damn, wrong button. sorry.
-
Originally posted by RictorOriginally posted by Ghostavo
Is there a "pure" good side in a war? :doubt:
Of course there is, the American side.
:lol: That is a joke... I hope. :nervous: :wtf:
-
True Rictor, I meant more along the lines of Nuclear destruction as witnessed in Japan though, not conventinal warfare, but the point is well made :) True, other equally horrible weapons have been used in the meantime (Daisy Cutters, Napalm, Agent Orange etc), and some of the genetic ones, in particular are just as terrible as Nuclear Weapons.
I suppose Weapons that kill people are one thing.
Weapons that carry a legacy of damage and deformity generation after generation are a whole other matter, and are 'evil' in my definition, regardless of who is using them. I do not believe any child should be paying for their parents 'crimes' (want a better word really, possibly 'choices' )
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Is there a "pure" good side in a war? :doubt:
No, because there is no such thing as "good" or "evil", only interpretation of cold, objective facts.
I tend to think of the Ayatollahs of Iran as "evil". Why? because they go against my most deeply held opinions. On the other hand, I tend to think of the US as "good", even though they go against some of my deeply held beliefs (they appeal to more of my deeply held beliefs than they go against). Someone else will naturally see things differently, based on their own interpretations of the cold, objective facts.
-
When will people learn that there is very little that is either purely good or purely evil?
-
People won't. Because if everyone realised the facts that stared them in the face every single morning, we would be a race of manic depressives :(
-
Who thinks Napalm as a terrible weapon? I don't, even though I'd rather die in a sudden glow of a thousand suns rather than some burning ooze eating away my precious flesh and making me suffer in horrible agony until melting away.
-
People won't becuase many governments in the world are deeply invested in the good vs evil struggle. If they were to support a deeper analysis among their citizens, things would not go their way at all. So the government and the media continue to support that simple truth in which people can find comfort.
Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan is a perfect example of an oversimplification and romanticization of actual events.
-
No, because there is no such thing as "good" or "evil", only interpretation of cold, objective facts.
:yes:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan is a perfect example of an oversimplification and romanticization of actual events.
And, while I'm at it...
:yes: :yes: :yes:
-
I'm confused, why are you agreeing with him? or are those :yes: causing a sarchasm?
-
probly becase the other couple hundred people over there didn't get a 3 day fanfare when they ware killed.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I'm confused, why are you agreeing with him? or are those :yes: causing a sarchasm?
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. Rictor and I are as polar opposite as one can get, but he's very much right on that.
I don't blame people for grieving over Tillman's death in the sense that he was someone's husband, son, brother, etc. That sucks. Yes, it comes with the job, but it sucks.
To use what was a relatively tiny incident to elevate the guy to the status of martyr or hero is ludicrous. There are no heroes in this war, only casualties.
And this is coming from a genocidal warmonger...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
probly becase the other couple hundred people over there didn't get a 3 day fanfare when they ware killed.
You hit the nail on the head there too.