Yea I dont get why people call for an ened to WMD's and then say its okay for Iran and North Korea to have them to create a balance in their respective regions. As long as our enemies pursue WMD's we will have Nukes to ensure our survival.Commie Killer wrote:
People are idiots, the world has become to nice and is only gonna get nicer, gotta learn to accept the fact that the population of the uninformed and just plain stupid is gonna go up.arabeater wrote:
Hmm...let me think, Iran having nukes and then selling them to terror groups for use or US having nukes and not selling them to terror groups for use. Thats a hard decision. I cant decide, can you?Ottomania wrote:
you have nukes, others can have too. remove yours first before flaming others
Poll
Should the U.S. sit and a let it happen or start bombing now?
| U.S. shouldn't say anything about others nukes | 31% | 31% - 40 | ||||
| The U.N. should provide warheads to those who want them | 2% | 2% - 3 | ||||
| We should just nuke them now. | 25% | 25% - 33 | ||||
| We should cease all foreign aid and fund Star Wars | 40% | 40% - 51 | ||||
| Total: 127 | ||||||
Well, here's the thing... I'm sort of an erstwhile isolationist. Ideally, we'd stay out of most conflicts, but the military industrial complex won't let that happen. WW2 is often used as a justification for entering war, but I think it's a bad example. We don't live in that day and age anymore. Now, most war is restricted to smaller areas and is guerilla in nature. Fighting terror requires a different mindset than the one we've mistakenly promoted in recent years.Commie Killer wrote:
The only things I hate are stupid people, in effcientness that wastes time, money, resources and people. I believe in helping people out from under a repressive regime but when they support a goverement that is hostile towards the United States of America. I dont condone the killing of civilians and our military does NOT do that ever on purpose since WWII.
Also you haven't really gave me and reason to think you are isolationist until you posted it here. But think about it. When the country is isolationist it starts wars, major wars, like WWII and WWI. Want that to happen again? Then throw in some nukes? Might just be me but I like the idea of living and fighting for something I believe in. A person who thinks nothing worth fighting for is scum, is nothing in my eyes, and is ONLY kept alive by better men and woman who fight for him.
The easiest way I can explain this is that, in order to fight terrorists, you don't negotiate with the enemy -- you negotiate with the relevant government. This is how we're fighting terror in Saudi Arabia.
If we're serious about fighting terror in a country like Iran, basically, we need to give them incentives for working with us. We could tell Ahmadinejad, "Hey, if you want us off of your back about the nukes, then work with us on removing your Hezbollah supporters." The appropriate officials would assemble the right plan to remove these terrorists, and they'd have less pressure on them about nuclear power.
As annoying as Ahmadinejad is, he's not stupid. If he sees an opportunity where we can work together rather than fight each other, he'll take it. He gains nothing from the Hezbollah supporters in his country, and even though he says stupid shit like "death to Israel", it's mostly for show. He'd shut the hell up about Israel, if we made it in his best interests to eliminate Hezbollah.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-04 13:16:54)
The only defense is a good offense is a very true saying still, but when you can destroy a entire country in 30min and you can do almost nothing to stop it right now that is not good. I believe that there should be a ICBM defense system that is capable of stopping at least 1,000 ICBM launched within a 1 hour time frame. After that and your country is still intact you can think of a good offense.CameronPoe wrote:
Don't be silly. If you concentrate on defence rather than attack then you don't use so many bullets, guns, and vehicles. As such - military industry takes a nosedive.Commie Killer wrote:
What do you mean our military industrial complex wont let that happen? Stop foreign aid=more money to spend on other things=more money for military=more money for businesses that supply the military.Turquoise wrote:
Many Republicans and Libertarians would agree with you. I do as well, but I know that our military industrial complex won't let that happen.....
This reminds me of a particularly cruel and capitalistic friend of a friend who upon witnessing the towers get hit on 9/11 on TV texted my friend the following: 'Buy defence shares NOW'
Yea it wasnt a hard decision to make either. Lets see here we could drop a few nukes and suffer 0 casualties to end the war or invade with ground forces and lose anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 troops to end the war. That doesnt seem like a difficult choice to me. Also we kinda saved Japan from total destruction by not invading. Granted it was very sad having killed all of those innocent civilians but it wouldve been much worse if we didnt use nukes to make a quick and decisive end to the war.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
as far as i know, only one country as actually used nukes to attack another country.... and it wasn't N.K. or iran
Countries such as Iran and Syria can not stand Israel and they will do almost anything to destroy it, even if that includes there entire country turned into a glass parking lot.Turquoise wrote:
Well, here's the thing... I'm sort of an erstwhile isolationist. Ideally, we'd stay out of most conflicts, but the military industrial complex won't let that happen. WW2 is often used as a justification for entering war, but I think it's a bad example. We don't live in that day and age anymore. Now, most war is restricted to smaller areas and is guerilla in nature. Fighting terror requires a different mindset than the one we've mistakenly promoted in recent years.Commie Killer wrote:
The only things I hate are stupid people, in effcientness that wastes time, money, resources and people. I believe in helping people out from under a repressive regime but when they support a goverement that is hostile towards the United States of America. I dont condone the killing of civilians and our military does NOT do that ever on purpose since WWII.
Also you haven't really gave me and reason to think you are isolationist until you posted it here. But think about it. When the country is isolationist it starts wars, major wars, like WWII and WWI. Want that to happen again? Then throw in some nukes? Might just be me but I like the idea of living and fighting for something I believe in. A person who thinks nothing worth fighting for is scum, is nothing in my eyes, and is ONLY kept alive by better men and woman who fight for him.
The easiest way I can explain this is that, in order to fight terrorists, you don't negotiate with the enemy -- you negotiate with the relevant government. This is how we're fighting terror in Saudi Arabia.
If we're serious about fighting terror in a country like Iran, basically, we need to give them incentives for working with us. We could tell Ahmadinejad, "Hey, if you want us off of your back about the nukes, then work with us on removing your Hezbollah supporters." The appropriate officials would assemble the right plan to remove these terrorists, and they'd have less pressure on them about nuclear power.
As annoying as Ahmadinejad is, he's not stupid. If he sees an opportunity where we can work together rather than fight each other, he'll take it. He gains nothing from the Hezbollah supporters in his country, and even though he says stupid shit like "death to Israel", it's mostly for show. He'd shut the hell up about Israel, if we made it in his best interests to eliminate them.
If we would have invaded it would of been a massacre, the actual projections were supposed to be around 1,000,000 deaths for the US, and it would of been 10s of millions of Japanese deaths. And we STILL have extra purple hearts that were left over from WWII that were ordered in preparation for the invasion.arabeater wrote:
Yea it wasnt a hard decision to make either. Lets see here we could drop a few nukes and suffer 0 casualties to end the war or invade with ground forces and lose anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 troops to end the war. That doesnt seem like a difficult choice to me. Also we kinda saved Japan from total destruction by not invading. Granted it was very sad having killed all of those innocent civilians but it wouldve been much worse if we didnt use nukes to make a quick and decisive end to the war.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
as far as i know, only one country as actually used nukes to attack another country.... and it wasn't N.K. or iran
Well, I agree with Cameron. Industries that make it profitable to engage in war would prefer us to continue doing it, and thus, they promote war.Commie Killer wrote:
The only defense is a good offense is a very true saying still, but when you can destroy a entire country in 30min and you can do almost nothing to stop it right now that is not good. I believe that there should be a ICBM defense system that is capable of stopping at least 1,000 ICBM launched within a 1 hour time frame. After that and your country is still intact you can think of a good offense.CameronPoe wrote:
Don't be silly. If you concentrate on defence rather than attack then you don't use so many bullets, guns, and vehicles. As such - military industry takes a nosedive.Commie Killer wrote:
What do you mean our military industrial complex wont let that happen? Stop foreign aid=more money to spend on other things=more money for military=more money for businesses that supply the military.
This reminds me of a particularly cruel and capitalistic friend of a friend who upon witnessing the towers get hit on 9/11 on TV texted my friend the following: 'Buy defence shares NOW'
Add to this the fact that the Bush family is heavily connected to defense industries, and yeah, you have a recipe for continual war. Hopefully, the next presidency won't be so connected to war.
Yea I would think that most people can see my point. Lose 1,000,000 troops by not using nukes or use them and save 1,000,000 lives and also saving millions of Japanese lives? I choose to use them 10/10 times.Commie Killer wrote:
If we would have invaded it would of been a massacre, the actual projections were supposed to be around 1,000,000 deaths for the US, and it would of been 10s of millions of Japanese deaths. And we STILL have extra purple hearts that were left over from WWII that were ordered in preparation for the invasion.arabeater wrote:
Yea it wasnt a hard decision to make either. Lets see here we could drop a few nukes and suffer 0 casualties to end the war or invade with ground forces and lose anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 troops to end the war. That doesnt seem like a difficult choice to me. Also we kinda saved Japan from total destruction by not invading. Granted it was very sad having killed all of those innocent civilians but it wouldve been much worse if we didnt use nukes to make a quick and decisive end to the war.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
as far as i know, only one country as actually used nukes to attack another country.... and it wasn't N.K. or iran
you see... thats my point, you think that it is all fine and dandy for you to have them, and use them, but no other country has the right. yes i know N.K. will most probably use them for attack or the blackmail of attack. and i dont agree with them having them, but at the same time i dont agree with the u.s. having or using them.
Suicide bombers think that way, but I don't see Ahmadinejad being suicidal. Most Islamic leaders are like any other leader. They want to stay in power. They have no desire to die at the hands of a more powerful country. They will negotiate if pressed to it by a serious military threat. They saw what we did to Iraq.Commie Killer wrote:
Countries such as Iran and Syria can not stand Israel and they will do almost anything to destroy it, even if that includes there entire country turned into a glass parking lot.
About the only good that came of Iraq was that we proved we were willing to fight someone regardless of how much our friends told us not to. That makes us a frightening country, but sometimes, that fear is useful. However, we don't want to make that mistake again. We can only afford one Iraq.
Still, in doing so, Ahmadinejad should now realize that we're far more willing to attack than any other country, so if we give him an indefensible situation, he has to give in. If we tell him to stop his nuclear program, he can just fall back on the excuse that it won't be used for weapons. If we tell him that we will back off if he helps us apprehend terrorists, then that's an offer he can't refuse. That benefits both us AND him, because he can take credit for fighting terror as well.
Where is the nuke Israel option?
So your saying that the US using the nukes against Japan to save millions of lives was the wrong decision? Did you even read my post? I'll say it to you again. The US wouldve lost upwards of 1,000,000 troops and the Japs wouldve lost maybe 5-10 million troops and civilians by not using nukes and by using them only 500,000 japs died and 0 US casualites were suffered. Oh and dont forget that we didnt level the entire country by not invading.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
you see... thats my point, you think that it is all fine and dandy for you to have them, and use them, but no other country has the right. yes i know N.K. will most probably use them for attack or the blackmail of attack. and i dont agree with them having them, but at the same time i dont agree with the u.s. having or using them.
Its not a hard decision to make.
If that does happen then that region would be fucked from nuclear fallout for years. However I wouldnt be surprised if it happened, by some idiotic radical islamic fucked up jihadist retard group. But if they did do it then maybe they would accidentally kill themselves in the process which would be sweet.PRiMACORD wrote:
Where is the nuke Israel option?
Last edited by arabeater (2006-11-04 13:42:19)
And how is it racist or a discriminatory generalization? We know who the terrorists are. We know what race they are. Not that ALL middle Eastern people are terrorists but %95 of terrorists are Middle Eastern. Stop being so PC.jonsimon wrote:
Once again more unfounded racist and discriminatory generalizations about muslims from ATG.ATG wrote:
I suspect more there would be dancing in the muslim street.
But...if we let them have it sooner or later the world will find out what it means to let Islamofacist have a nuke.
The problem with these people as the see a nuclear doomsday scenario as something they want.
Malloy must go
I think you meant not all Muslims are terrorists, but 95% of terrorists are Muslims...hmm but even that is wrong.deeznutz1245 wrote:
And how is it racist or a discriminatory generalization? We know who the terrorists are. We know what race they are. Not that ALL middle Eastern people are terrorists but %95 of terrorists are Middle Eastern. Stop being so PC.jonsimon wrote:
Once again more unfounded racist and discriminatory generalizations about muslims from ATG.ATG wrote:
I suspect more there would be dancing in the muslim street.
But...if we let them have it sooner or later the world will find out what it means to let Islamofacist have a nuke.
The problem with these people as the see a nuclear doomsday scenario as something they want.
Maybe you should get rid of that whole sentence
How is it wrong? Im talking about terrorism towards the west. I dont mean that %95 of all the organized terrorists in the world are from the middle east. A huge portion of terrorists who target Americans are from that region.Iron_Sentinel wrote:
I think you meant not all Muslims are terrorists, but 95% of terrorists are Muslims...hmm but even that is wrong.deeznutz1245 wrote:
And how is it racist or a discriminatory generalization? We know who the terrorists are. We know what race they are. Not that ALL middle Eastern people are terrorists but %95 of terrorists are Middle Eastern. Stop being so PC.jonsimon wrote:
Once again more unfounded racist and discriminatory generalizations about muslims from ATG.
Maybe you should get rid of that whole sentence
Malloy must go
OK, so the meaning of what you are saying has been completely changed now. Congratulations, you now have a generally correct statement.deeznutz1245 wrote:
How is it wrong? Im talking about terrorism towards the west. I dont mean that %95 of all the organized terrorists in the world are from the middle east. A huge portion of terrorists who target Americans are from that region.Iron_Sentinel wrote:
I think you meant not all Muslims are terrorists, but 95% of terrorists are Muslims...hmm but even that is wrong.deeznutz1245 wrote:
And how is it racist or a discriminatory generalization? We know who the terrorists are. We know what race they are. Not that ALL middle Eastern people are terrorists but %95 of terrorists are Middle Eastern. Stop being so PC.
Maybe you should get rid of that whole sentence
I said it wrong, but you get what Im saying.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2006-11-04 14:16:50)
Malloy must go
WW1=Getting a lot of money from Eu...you guys sold them bombs and weaponsnorge wrote:
and we had just lots fucking tons of soldiers in WW2, then another 480,000 soldiers in the korean war ended in 1950, and we were starting to engage in the vietnam war. did any of those countries have oil? no so stfunorge wrote:
whenever we try to do something good, people like u fucking get all bitchy. were doing our fucking best to police the world. it would be FUCKING GREAT if someone else STOOD UP AND PROTECTED THE WORLDvenom6 wrote:
Im sorry to say the following but why does america think that they are leading the world ?
That they can do anything ?
Only they can have nukes nobody else ?
Wtf ?
Usa should stop thinking like we are the worlds leadership or something like this...get rid of this and forget it.
Dont make more conflicts likea llways.
Assault on Iraq yeah ofc fighting against the dictator Saddam...yeah yeah and why ? Because there is something what the leadership wants...its called black gold (oil)
If america is the best and the justice and helps everyone why didnt they helped Hungary in 1956 when the nation was fighting for his freedom against the communists ??
America or the whole europe just said: good luck and no help...why ?
There was nothing what useful or good for them...if Hungary had Oil i bet Usa would help us in 1956.
After the revolution fail because 200.000 russian soldiers and more then 2000 russian tanks fighted against us in Budapest the communist dictator killed thousands...
A lot of Hungarians emigrated to other countrys like the Usa.
So sorry again but this is a fact..
WW2=Same thing happend again...money and again money
VIETNAM=Testing new weapons and it was during the cold war...enemy was Russia
IRAQ=Usa needs Oil what means money and thats the only thing why they attacked iraq in 2003.Mass destructive weapons...where are they ? Lies all lies...it was a fake reason to start war for OIL...
So stfu..
And dont be dumb....Terror is ALLWAYS for a REASON.
Terrorists never blow up things for fun.It has a reason.Why does Iraq making terror actions ? They want that the us troops get the fuck away thats why.
Just imagine that Iraq would move into the great USA and telling to stfu and they will leading your country because the prezident is a dictator....just think about it..omg
Terrorists never blow up things for fun.It has a reason.Why does Iraq making terror actions ? They want that the us troops get the fuck away thats why.
Just imagine that Iraq would move into the great USA and telling to stfu and they will leading your country because the prezident is a dictator....just think about it..omg
as a very devout Christian. i sure as hell hope it doesnt happen.arabeater wrote:
If that does happen then that region would be fucked from nuclear fallout for years. However I wouldnt be surprised if it happened, by some idiotic radical islamic fucked up jihadist retard group. But if they did do it then maybe they would accidentally kill themselves in the process which would be sweet.PRiMACORD wrote:
Where is the nuke Israel option?
though im sure isreal would stomp ass if it were not a nuke and they didnt get headshotted.
as they have done all the times they have been engaged.
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
First of all there was no EU in WW1. Germany vs. rest of Europe.venom6 wrote:
WW1=Getting a lot of money from Eu...you guys sold them bombs and weaponsnorge wrote:
and we had just lots fucking tons of soldiers in WW2, then another 480,000 soldiers in the korean war ended in 1950, and we were starting to engage in the vietnam war. did any of those countries have oil? no so stfunorge wrote:
whenever we try to do something good, people like u fucking get all bitchy. were doing our fucking best to police the world. it would be FUCKING GREAT if someone else STOOD UP AND PROTECTED THE WORLD
WW2=Same thing happend again...money and again money
VIETNAM=Testing new weapons and it was during the cold war...enemy was Russia
IRAQ=Usa needs Oil what means money and thats the only thing why they attacked iraq in 2003.Mass destructive weapons...where are they ? Lies all lies...it was a fake reason to start war for OIL...
So stfu..
Next, we gave weapons and supplies to England (who BTW was our ally) at a very low cost. How did we profit in WW2 at all. We were fighting all over the world spending millions of dollars and then were nice enough to help rebuild the countries we had destroyed.
Vietnam was fought to help stop the spreading of communism and stop the VC from killing innocent civilians in S. Vietnam.
Last but not least Iraq. Show me where we have taken any of the oil from Iraq. We buy the oil from Iraq. We do not steal it. I have personally guarded these oil fields in Iraq and can tell you the only people that were taking it were Kuwaiti oil companies that purchased it from Iraq and Iraqi oil compnanies that were taking it to be refined so it could be sold to the US. We have found WMD's in Iraq you twit but for some reason nobody has made a big deal about it. I'll even give you some links. So stfu!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006 … _5547.html
Yea in any conventional war Israel would stomp the shit outta the arabs. The only way the arabs can beat Israel is to nuke them off the face of the earth, in which case the land would be inhabitable for some time kinda negating the reason for wanting to get rid of Israel.Des.Kmal wrote:
as a very devout Christian. i sure as hell hope it doesnt happen.arabeater wrote:
If that does happen then that region would be fucked from nuclear fallout for years. However I wouldnt be surprised if it happened, by some idiotic radical islamic fucked up jihadist retard group. But if they did do it then maybe they would accidentally kill themselves in the process which would be sweet.PRiMACORD wrote:
Where is the nuke Israel option?
though im sure isreal would stomp ass if it were not a nuke and they didnt get headshotted.
as they have done all the times they have been engaged.
Sorry to burst your bubble Arabeater but America made huge financial gain from WWII:arabeater wrote:
First of all there was no EU in WW1. Germany vs. rest of Europe.venom6 wrote:
WW1=Getting a lot of money from Eu...you guys sold them bombs and weaponsnorge wrote:
and we had just lots fucking tons of soldiers in WW2, then another 480,000 soldiers in the korean war ended in 1950, and we were starting to engage in the vietnam war. did any of those countries have oil? no so stfu
WW2=Same thing happend again...money and again money
VIETNAM=Testing new weapons and it was during the cold war...enemy was Russia
IRAQ=Usa needs Oil what means money and thats the only thing why they attacked iraq in 2003.Mass destructive weapons...where are they ? Lies all lies...it was a fake reason to start war for OIL...
So stfu..
Next, we gave weapons and supplies to England (who BTW was our ally) at a very low cost. How did we profit in WW2 at all. We were fighting all over the world spending millions of dollars and then were nice enough to help rebuild the countries we had destroyed.
Vietnam was fought to help stop the spreading of communism and stop the VC from killing innocent civilians in S. Vietnam.
Last but not least Iraq. Show me where we have taken any of the oil from Iraq. We buy the oil from Iraq. We do not steal it. I have personally guarded these oil fields in Iraq and can tell you the only people that were taking it were Kuwaiti oil companies that purchased it from Iraq and Iraqi oil compnanies that were taking it to be refined so it could be sold to the US. We have found WMD's in Iraq you twit but for some reason nobody has made a big deal about it. I'll even give you some links. So stfu!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006 … _5547.html
1. It lead to huge industrialisation of America, turning it into the rich country it is today.
2. England just paid off our debt from WWII this year. Other countries have yet to do so.
Those "WMD's" found were old shells mainly from the first Gulf war that were tipped with depleted uranium and mustard gas bombs that were also from the first Gulf war, it was all over the British news because Blair tried to claim they were WMD's.
Blair and Bush invaded on the basis that Iraq had WMD's that could hit Europain countries which was a complete and utter lie.
Last edited by Vilham (2006-11-04 15:12:35)
well if they do just remotely as well as iraq did (they launched an intercontinental weapon made up of 4 squd missiles (pretty easy to get your hands on)) if they make this weapon with help from old iraqi scientist's then they will be a global treat.