Of course, war and death are so much better than peace.You know, the same idealists that when they make a wish, wish for world peace. That type.
Fuck Israel
Really? Amazing that only stuff that is reported by the media ever sees the light of day around the world. Especially in a world of 24/7 media coverage and they blow everything out of all proportion for ratings.Dilbert_X wrote:
It isn't the media, its the treaties you've signed up to.Hard to win a war when the media is who dictates what is right and wrong.
Because there are negative consequences to using nukes like nuclear winter, radiation poisoning etc. Also, the retaliation would be a bitch. Likely to do more harm to yourself than good using nukes.Dilbert_X wrote:
So why not just nuke anywhere that seems mildly annoying?No. That's bedwetter mentality. If you're going to fight someone you make sure they are defeated forever.
Just don't blub when it happens to you.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Did I say I prefer war? But I am a realist above all else.Dilbert_X wrote:
Of course, war and death are so much better than peace.You know, the same idealists that when they make a wish, wish for world peace. That type.
"Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means of attaining them."
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You're right, only stuff reported in the media is reported in the mediaReally? Amazing that only stuff that is reported by the media ever sees the light of day around the world. Especially in a world of 24/7 media coverage and they blow everything out of all proportion for ratings.
Thank god the media exists though.
Not for the user there aren't, anyway, I thought defeating your enemy permanently would be worth the cost.Because there are negative consequences to using nukes like nuclear winter, radiation poisoning etc.
Then what are you saying, that wishing for peace is dumb?Did I say I prefer war? But I am a realist above all else.
Seems your position is neither realistic nor intelligent - wishing for peace through total war, compared with wishing for peace without war.
Fuck Israel
You're purposely misrepresenting what I said. There is a very real difference between being a person that wishes for peace and a pacifist. I shit on pacifists.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're right, only stuff reported in the media is reported in the mediaReally? Amazing that only stuff that is reported by the media ever sees the light of day around the world. Especially in a world of 24/7 media coverage and they blow everything out of all proportion for ratings.
Thank god the media exists though.Not for the user there aren't, anyway, I thought defeating your enemy permanently would be worth the cost.Because there are negative consequences to using nukes like nuclear winter, radiation poisoning etc.Then what are you saying, that wishing for peace is dumb?Did I say I prefer war? But I am a realist above all else.
Seems your position is neither realistic nor intelligent - wishing for peace through total war, compared with wishing for peace without war.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Peace at the cost of our standard of living, sovereignty, etc. doesn't sound like a wish but more of a nightmare.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're right, only stuff reported in the media is reported in the mediaReally? Amazing that only stuff that is reported by the media ever sees the light of day around the world. Especially in a world of 24/7 media coverage and they blow everything out of all proportion for ratings.
Thank god the media exists though.Not for the user there aren't, anyway, I thought defeating your enemy permanently would be worth the cost.Because there are negative consequences to using nukes like nuclear winter, radiation poisoning etc.Then what are you saying, that wishing for peace is dumb?Did I say I prefer war? But I am a realist above all else.
Seems your position is neither realistic nor intelligent - wishing for peace through total war, compared with wishing for peace without war.
Who has called for that exactly?Macbeth wrote:
Peace at the cost of our standard of living, sovereignty, etc. doesn't sound like a wish but more of a nightmare.
Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X wrote:
Who has called for that exactly?Macbeth wrote:
Peace at the cost of our standard of living, sovereignty, etc. doesn't sound like a wish but more of a nightmare.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
How so?JohnG@lt wrote:
You're purposely misrepresenting what I said.
And there is a difference between someone who wishes for peace and someone who enjoys imposing dominance over someone else through violence.There is a very real difference between being a person that wishes for peace and a pacifist. I shit on pacifists.
Fuck Israel
Not sure what you mean, the US doesn't have sovereignty outside its borders.JohnG@lt wrote:
http://www.admin.uio.no/fa/felles/count … europe.jpgDilbert_X wrote:
Who has called for that exactly?Macbeth wrote:
Peace at the cost of our standard of living, sovereignty, etc. doesn't sound like a wish but more of a nightmare.
Seems fighting two pointless wars has pretty fucked your standard of living.
PS You might remember Britain and Spain joined the US in its war of terror, apart from France the remainder had no real input.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-12 20:18:20)
Fuck Israel
When did I say that war is anything but a last resort? But, if you're going to go to war it needs to be total. 'Police action' shouldn't even be in the global lexicon.Dilbert_X wrote:
How so?JohnG@lt wrote:
You're purposely misrepresenting what I said.And there is a difference between someone who wishes for peace and someone who enjoys imposing dominance over someone else through violence.There is a very real difference between being a person that wishes for peace and a pacifist. I shit on pacifists.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Why exactly? Its usually the political leaders who are the problem, not the individual troops or civilians.But, if you're going to go to war it needs to be total.
There's no reason to wipe out an entire country just because a Hitler or Bush achieved power.
Or are you in favour, at a conceptual level, of the Islamofascist 'total war' on the West?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-12 20:23:03)
Fuck Israel
Then the proxy wars of the Cold War period should actually have been a full scale nuclear war?JohnG@lt wrote:
When did I say that war is anything but a last resort? But, if you're going to go to war it needs to be total.
Total in the conventional sense. Using nuclear weapons would damage your own country with the fallout and nuclear winters and stuffAussieReaper wrote:
Then the proxy wars of the Cold War period should actually have been a full scale nuclear war?JohnG@lt wrote:
When did I say that war is anything but a last resort? But, if you're going to go to war it needs to be total.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah? The leader is the representative of the people. If they don't want to go to war they should rise up and topple their leader to prevent it. Iraq could've and should've done this to Saddam. The Afghanis should've done it against the Taliban. Would've prevented many deaths.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why exactly? Its usually the political leaders who are the problem, not the individual troops or civilians.But, if you're going to go to war it needs to be total.
There's no reason to wipe out an entire country just because a Hitler or Bush achieved power.
Or are you in favour, at a conceptual level, of the Islamofascist 'total war' on the West?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Neutron bombs seem pretty effective in that regard, same for nerve weapons.Total in the conventional sense. Using nuclear weapons would damage your own country with the fallout and nuclear winters and stuff
Why not just use them and be done?
(Hint - You have to accept your enemy could use them any time THEY wanted)
Fuck Israel
Have you not noticed how much nuclear testing is/was done in the Nevada desert?JohnG@lt wrote:
Total in the conventional sense. Using nuclear weapons would damage your own country with the fallout and nuclear winters and stuffAussieReaper wrote:
Then the proxy wars of the Cold War period should actually have been a full scale nuclear war?JohnG@lt wrote:
When did I say that war is anything but a last resort? But, if you're going to go to war it needs to be total.
Its not so easy in practice, although its not as if they never tried.Yeah? The leader is the representative of the people. If they don't want to go to war they should rise up and topple their leader to prevent it. Iraq could've and should've done this to Saddam. The Afghanis should've done it against the Taliban. Would've prevented many deaths.
Suggest you have a look around the world and see how many unpopular dictators are in power and aren't leaving any time soon.
Why didn't the US rise up and topple Bush?
Would've prevented many deaths.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-12 20:39:57)
Fuck Israel
Exactly. Why escalate it beyond what is reasonable or beyond what your current enemy is doing? To tie your own hands in a concrete set of restrictions like the Geneva Convention is asinine. To expect wars to be fought as diplomats would like them to be fought is equally asinine.Dilbert_X wrote:
Neutron bombs seem pretty effective in that regard, same for nerve weapons.Total in the conventional sense. Using nuclear weapons would damage your own country with the fallout and nuclear winters and stuff
Why not just use them and be done?
(Hint - You have to accept your enemy could use them any time THEY wanted)
In the case we're arguing about you're asking Americans to politely jail their captives while our enemies behead any POW they capture. Double standards are ridiculous.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
This is getting stupid.Dilbert_X wrote:
Neutron bombs seem pretty effective in that regard, same for nerve weapons.Total in the conventional sense. Using nuclear weapons would damage your own country with the fallout and nuclear winters and stuff
Why not just use them and be done?
(Hint - You have to accept your enemy could use them any time THEY wanted)
Nuclear Weapons aren't actually designed to be used in a war they are designed to make a country not want to attack you but in theory killing every living thing in the relative area. The fallout from a USSR-US launch would be enough to kill every thing on this planet.
As for the Nevada desert, most of those were underground and in the middle of nowhere with Nuclear weapons that were hundreds of time weaker than what exist today.
A full launch between the USSR and the US, would have thousands going in several different directions all at once.
Like I said before, this is getting stupid.
And what exactly would be achieved if Americans beheaded POWs they capture?
Just trying to be as bad as the enemy to achieve nothing is moronic.
Just trying to be as bad as the enemy to achieve nothing is moronic.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-12 20:42:59)
Fuck Israel
They were and they have been, you just don't like the idea other people have them.Macbeth wrote:
Nuclear Weapons aren't actually designed to be used in a war
Fuck Israel
I'm not saying we should behead our prisoners. But using mild torture is a far cry from taking a persons life. People need to get this in perspective.Dilbert_X wrote:
And what exactly would be achieved if Americans beheaded POWs they capture?
Just trying to be as bad as the enemy to achieve nothing is moronic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I thought high-yield bombs were only deployed in like the 60's and 70's?As for the Nevada desert, most of those were underground and in the middle of nowhere with Nuclear weapons that were hundreds of time weaker than what exist today.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The idea of Nuclear weapons in this age is so that if you can field enough to make your enemy not want to attack you the better your chances of not having somebody attempt to invade you.Dilbert_X wrote:
They were and they have been, you just don't like the idea other people have them.Macbeth wrote:
Nuclear Weapons aren't actually designed to be used in a war
You're right, I don't like the idea of other people being able to challenge my dominance. I'm honest, it goes back to the whole "I rather be the bad guy than have everything I love destroyed or taken from me" if you don't understand that or it seems barbaric, your insane.