Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2006-10-11 09:43:20
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6568|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
If someone has posted this topic, sorry but does anyone else find these two stories extremely hypocritical

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 77,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 95611.html (The comments by Tony Blair)

And it seems the Times agrees with me?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2397621.html

So how can anyone from a nuclear power condemn N.Korea?  I just don't get it and please don't give me the "but we're the good guys" routine as one man's hero is another man's villain. 

Bush's reaction is the worst though in my opinion seeing as the US are the only country to use and kill 100,000 people with nuclear weapons and yet Bush seems to be the most vocal when it come to condemnation (and please don't say that it saved more lives than it killed because everyone knows that is a placebonic excuse to ease to guilt of using such a horrific weapon).
2006-10-11 09:52:49
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6567|Southeastern USA
so you wouldn't mind if we gave them to Japan and SoKo? odd how the people that condemn existing powers for being nuke capable are practically cheering lil kim on, i thought we were supposed to be trying to stop nuke proliferation, not encourage it, after all, aren't the US and USSR also the only two countries to have ever dismantled nukes (plz correct me on that point if necessary, regardless you get the point)?  the main point is that yes we won the race to open pandora's box before hitler, but we also seem to be the only ones concerned with closing it back, isn't that what you want?


and they saved more lives than they killed, I miss placebo, they were a one hit wonder over here, rather unique sound
2006-10-11 09:56:20
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6508|Northern California
No, you're right.  This nuclear hypocracy knows no bounds.  Who determines who is the good guys?  Has north korea attacked other countries lately?  Is it responding to threats of attacks by hastening it's nuclear arsenal (possibly even bluffing out of fear)?  On the other hand, has England attacked other countries? 

So who to give nuclear power too??  Aggressors or pascifists?  Offensive countries or defensive countries?

I believe nobody should have nukes, but trusting nations to police themselves is not possible.  So what then?  HOLD every nation to a non-proliferation treaty?  Allow fully transparent government access to police this treaty? 

I dunno.  After India and Pakistan became nuclear, that makes it "ok" for any nation to develop nukes and any asshole nation that says you can't, has no right to say so if they didn't oppose the indo-pak nuke development.  This goes for iran and NK..who in my opinion have great need for nuclear technology for energy.

Whatever..this is such a lost cause.
2006-10-11 10:02:18
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6578
What a bunch of idiots. Weak minded souls that have been brainwashed by the east.
2006-10-11 10:08:58
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6663

IRONCHEF wrote:

No, you're right.  This nuclear hypocracy knows no bounds.  Who determines who is the good guys?  Has north korea attacked other countries lately?  Is it responding to threats of attacks by hastening it's nuclear arsenal (possibly even bluffing out of fear)?  On the other hand, has England attacked other countries?
Except North Korea sells weapons to terrorists. And, once their nuclear technology becomes weaponized, it is quite possible that it, too, will be sold to terrorists, who will not hesitate to use them. Additioanally, it is also a possibility that this will trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. I've seen you post a lot of stupid things on this forum, IRONCHEF, but here you are actually trying to defended North Korea's stance? Learn something before you speak.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-10-11 10:27:57)

2006-10-11 10:12:45
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6753|Salt Lake City

Well, you have to admit that we are being somewhat hypocritical about nuclear weapons, when just not that long ago we wanted to start our program back up again to test "Bunker Busters".  Yes, they are extremely small yield, but they are nuclear weapons none the less.
2006-10-11 10:15:51
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6567|Southeastern USA
what was that about "we don't need star wars"?
2006-10-11 10:23:59
samfink
Member
+31|6573
right. if a country wants a deterrent, then why do they need the ability to produce nuclear weapons? just buy the damn things whole. and Iran is mainly as issue as it has signed the NPT. if it wasn't a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, then it would be the same as for Israel. plus the rhetoric that the president has been spilling out....... lets just say that the min concern is to avoid countries allowing terrorists to get a nuclear weapon,and North Korea has sold missile technology before...............
2006-10-11 10:25:27
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6663

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Bush's reaction is the worst though in my opinion seeing as the US are the only country to use and kill 100,000 people with nuclear weapons and yet Bush seems to be the most vocal when it come to condemnation (and please don't say that it saved more lives than it killed because everyone knows that is a placebonic excuse to ease to guilt of using such a horrific weapon).
Blah blah blah. I hate Bush! I hate the US!

We've all heard it before, buddy. Also, I think you could benefit from a history lesson.
2006-10-11 10:26:44
Snipedya14
Dont tread on me
+77|6712|Mountains of West Virginia

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

No, you're right.  This nuclear hypocracy knows no bounds.  Who determines who is the good guys?  Has north korea attacked other countries lately?  Is it responding to threats of attacks by hastening it's nuclear arsenal (possibly even bluffing out of fear)?  On the other hand, has England attacked other countries?
Except North Korea sells weapons to terrorists. And, once their nuclear technology becomes weaponized, it is quite possible that it, too, will be sold to terrorists, who will not hesitate to use them. I've seen you post a lot of stupid things on this forum, IRONCHEF, but here you are actually trying to defended North Korea's stance? Learn something before you speak.
I for once agree with fancy.

We need to cut the bullshit and realize this is a matter of national, no, world security. NK wants to have an army? Ok. They want to build Nuclear Power plants, eh maybe. They want to posses (and maybe use) Nuclear Arms, no.

I dont want to hear "well you are a hypocrite, you fucking American" I dont really care, there is a time and a place for putting ourself in that state of mind. Not now. I want  the world to be safe.
2006-10-11 10:29:10
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6508|Northern California

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

No, you're right.  This nuclear hypocracy knows no bounds.  Who determines who is the good guys?  Has north korea attacked other countries lately?  Is it responding to threats of attacks by hastening it's nuclear arsenal (possibly even bluffing out of fear)?  On the other hand, has England attacked other countries?
Except North Korea sells weapons to terrorists. And, once their nuclear technology becomes weaponized, it is quite possible that it, too, will be sold to terrorists, who will not hesitate to use them. I've seen you post a lot of stupid things on this forum, IRONCHEF, but here you are actually trying to defended North Korea's stance? Learn something before you speak.
I'm sorry, I didn't read any articles lately saying that North Korea actually sold weapons or technology to anyone.  Did you read that or something?  or do you also not know what you're talking about?

Also, would you or I have to worry about NK having nukes if this president hadn't threatened them?  Do you actually blame NK for hastening their nuke development?

How bout not insulting me and try being mature and debating?  I know it would be a first for you, but I'm patient enough to wait.

Oh yeah, who is a terrorist and what makes them terrorists?  Does it occur to you that our country, who undoubtedly has the greatest nuclear arsenal, who invades countries without international legal authorization or even constitutional authorization may actually be terrorist in nature?  Do you live at the end of US aggression?
2006-10-11 10:31:26
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6508|Northern California

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Bush's reaction is the worst though in my opinion seeing as the US are the only country to use and kill 100,000 people with nuclear weapons and yet Bush seems to be the most vocal when it come to condemnation (and please don't say that it saved more lives than it killed because everyone knows that is a placebonic excuse to ease to guilt of using such a horrific weapon).
Blah blah blah. I hate Bush! I hate the US!

We've all heard it before, buddy. Also, I think you could benefit from a history lesson.
Blah blah blah!  Insult insult insult!

Also, WHAT HISTORY LESSON do we need to know?  If you're soooo friggen smart about this, how about giving us the much needed history lesson we need?  Honestly, for ONCE, put your money where your mouth is.  I'm honestly and constructively waiting to see if you do have something to add other than insults.  Who knows, maybe I'll learn something from you because I, unlike you, am humble enough to learn still.
2006-10-11 10:32:22
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6663

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't read any articles lately saying that North Korea actually sold weapons or technology to anyone.  Did you read that or something?  or do you also not know what you're talking about?
Quote of the day.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Also, WHAT HISTORY LESSON do we need to know?  If you're soooo friggen smart about this, how about giving us the much needed history lesson we need?  Honestly, for ONCE, put your money where your mouth is.  I'm honestly and constructively waiting to see if you do have something to add other than insults.  Who knows, maybe I'll learn something from you because I, unlike you, am humble enough to learn still.
For you specifically? See above.

In the context original post? Several things need to be taken into account to understand the justification of the US's use of nukes. First, although Japan, at this point, was losing the war (World War II), they would not surrender. This left the U.S. with two options. The first was a land invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in over a million deaths on both sides. The second was use of the nuclear bomb.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-10-11 10:41:34)

2006-10-11 10:33:44
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6508|Northern California
Again, as usual, you have NOTHING to input on these boards as you are again just here to insult and not contribute a thing.

You are a textbook troll.  You are asked sincerely to put up or shut up and  you haven't the decency or maturity to put up, so now you get to stfu.
2006-10-11 10:37:40
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6663

IRONCHEF wrote:

Again, as usual, you have NOTHING to input on these boards as you are again just here to insult and not contribute a thing.

You are a textbook troll.  You are asked sincerely to put up or shut up and  you haven't the decency or maturity to put up, so now you get to stfu.

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't read any articles lately saying that North Korea actually sold weapons or technology to anyone.  Did you read that or something?  or do you also not know what you're talking about?
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1546

As early as 1989, North Korea sold Scud-B and C missiles to Iran. In 1993, Teheran received the delivery of the first North Korean medium-range ballistic missile, the Nodong 1. In Iran, this missile became known as the Shehab 3. With a range of 1350-1500 km, it can theoretically hit Israel with a payload of 1,200 kilograms of explosives. A few years later, Libya acquired missile components from North Korea, although there is no evidence that it possesses complete Nodongs.

What do you mean by I have nothing to input? You're supplying conjecture. I'm supplying fact.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-10-11 10:38:39)

2006-10-11 10:39:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6618|132 and Bush

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

If someone has posted this topic, sorry but does anyone else find these two stories extremely hypocritical

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 77,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 95611.html (The comments by Tony Blair)

And it seems the Times agrees with me?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2397621.html

So how can anyone from a nuclear power condemn N.Korea?  I just don't get it and please don't give me the "but we're the good guys" routine as one man's hero is another man's villain. 

Bush's reaction is the worst though in my opinion seeing as the US are the only country to use and kill 100,000 people with nuclear weapons and yet Bush seems to be the most vocal when it come to condemnation (and please don't say that it saved more lives than it killed because everyone knows that is a placebonic excuse to ease to guilt of using such a horrific weapon).
So you think it's a good idea that NK has nuclear weapons? It's not just the US condemning them if you haven't noticed. The people of NK are starving and they spend most of their resources on bombs and missiles. Drawing moral equivalence with Kim jong is just not smart. Not everyone in this world should have a gun even if the police do.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-10-11 10:51:52
N.A.T.O
The People’s Champion
+59|6457|A drop house

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

The US are the only country to use and kill 100,000 people with nuclear weapons and yet Bush seems to be the most vocal when it come to condemnation (and please don't say that it saved more lives than it killed because everyone knows that is a placebonic excuse to ease to guilt of using such a horrific weapon).
I know this is off topic but I feel this statement needs to be argued.

Operation Downfall was the planned invasion of Japan scheduled for early 1946.
Courtesy Wikipedia.

Estimated casualties for Downfall
Given the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance, the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers, and the large number of Japanese troops to be faced, high casualties were seen to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes—which included advocating for and against the invasion—afterwards, they were reused to argue for and against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though in the Battle of Okinawa kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot, and the troop transports off Kyushu would be much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days. The Battle of Okinawa caused 72,000 casualties, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing over about 82 days. Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether because of wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.
2006-10-11 10:52:13
norge
J-10 and a coke please
+18|6487

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Bush's reaction is the worst though in my opinion seeing as the US are the only country to use and kill 100,000 people with nuclear weapons and yet Bush seems to be the most vocal when it come to condemnation (and please don't say that it saved more lives than it killed because everyone knows that is a placebonic excuse to ease to guilt of using such a horrific weapon).
Let me get this straight, you dont think that killing those 140,000 lives in hiroshima was better than a land invasion on japan?  A land invasion would have cost JAPAN more lives. At the time we dropped the bombs, japan was preparing to be invaded by the US by giving arms to EVERYONE.  Had the US invaded, 6million would have faought and died for their country. and estimates for the US (however widely debated) would be in the hundreds of thousands.  Now tell me what we did was wrong? Yeah, it was wrong to kill 140k people in the blink of an eye. BUT 1) it saved a helluva lot more lives 2) we did everything in our power to help cleanup the aftermath and help rebuild japan.  Why do u think japan LOVES americans.  we bombed them and they love us, we did NOTHING to the fucking islamist extremists and they hate us.  anyone see the dilemma here?  Kim Jun Il needs to be replaced before they have the capability to do something stupid.
2006-10-11 10:54:55
norge
J-10 and a coke please
+18|6487

N.A.T.O. wrote:

1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
just to emphasize my post above

Last edited by norge (2006-10-11 10:55:35)

2006-10-11 10:55:51
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6568|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

kr@cker wrote:

so you wouldn't mind if we gave them to Japan and SoKo? odd how the people that condemn existing powers for being nuke capable are practically cheering lil kim on, i thought we were supposed to be trying to stop nuke proliferation, not encourage it, after all, aren't the US and USSR also the only two countries to have ever dismantled nukes (plz correct me on that point if necessary, regardless you get the point)?  the main point is that yes we won the race to open pandora's box before hitler, but we also seem to be the only ones concerned with closing it back, isn't that what you want?
1)  I'm not cheering N.Korea on, I'm saying no one should have nukes and if you have got them, don't go critisising others for wanting them (people who live in glass houses....), especially after being named an "Axis of Evil" by the US who have already invaded one of the countries in that list.

2)  The US may have dismantled old nukes but if you think some of your tax money isn't being spent on keeping the current stock piles up to date you've got another think coming.
2006-10-11 10:57:47
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6618|132 and Bush

I think I'll give my 5 year old nephew a case of beer, since I have one.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-10-11 10:59:08
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6568|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't read any articles lately saying that North Korea actually sold weapons or technology to anyone.  Did you read that or something?  or do you also not know what you're talking about?
Quote of the day.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Also, WHAT HISTORY LESSON do we need to know?  If you're soooo friggen smart about this, how about giving us the much needed history lesson we need?  Honestly, for ONCE, put your money where your mouth is.  I'm honestly and constructively waiting to see if you do have something to add other than insults.  Who knows, maybe I'll learn something from you because I, unlike you, am humble enough to learn still.
For you specifically? See above.

In the context original post? Several things need to be taken into account to understand the justification of the US's use of nukes. First, although Japan, at this point, was losing the war (World War II), they would not surrender. This left the U.S. with two options. The first was a land invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in over a million deaths on both sides. The second was use of the nuclear bomb.
Pure speculation that can never be proven

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2006-10-11 10:59:20)

2006-10-11 10:59:26
Deuceman
Member
+1|6714
It isn't just the US that is talking about this though.  Thought the rest of the world was worried about it.  I mean the guy starves his own people for the military.  Hmm I could think of a better place for that money to go.  Even China is against them, you know the country that helped in the Korean War?
2006-10-11 11:00:55
samhornby
Bo'Selecta!
+14|6569
Talking about the Nuke Dropped on Hiroshima..The US gave about 4 days warning..telling the japanese to disarm or stand down, or am I mistaken?

  Also..kim jong il is a complete Psycho.

If you dont agree with his Regime he will torture and or kill you and most of his population is starving to death..while he's playing the best round of golf ever. Aparantly he got 11 holes in one and finished of -37 under par. Wow!
2006-10-11 11:01:40
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6559|Texas - Bigger than France

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't read any articles lately saying that North Korea actually sold weapons or technology to anyone.  Did you read that or something?  or do you also not know what you're talking about?

Also, would you or I have to worry about NK having nukes if this president hadn't threatened them?  Do you actually blame NK for hastening their nuke development?

How bout not insulting me and try being mature and debating?  I know it would be a first for you, but I'm patient enough to wait.

Oh yeah, who is a terrorist and what makes them terrorists?  Does it occur to you that our country, who undoubtedly has the greatest nuclear arsenal, who invades countries without international legal authorization or even constitutional authorization may actually be terrorist in nature?  Do you live at the end of US aggression?
I'll take up for Fancy here.  Japan, China & Austraila have condemmed the action as well.  Because of this, we will now see an arms race in the region for no purpose.  NK has no allies in the region, so military spending will increase.  In addition, the US will have more military in the region to support its allies.

NK has sold military tech to countries who are blacklisted internationally.  So what's to prevent them from doing so elsewhere?  And what's to prevent arms races occurring where these go?  Do you believe that everyone should have a nuke?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard