Mmissing Nerve Gas, Anthraz, Nuke Bomb Parts - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-20-2002, 04:02 PM   #16
War Child
 
Cow of the Seas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Njosnavelin
Posts: 834
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


A good understanding of 20th century history will help you answer this question.
you know, if you have read any of my posts, you would realize that i enjoy learning my history. i believe it is fair to say i know a great deal of it too.

what a nice, smart ass remark from a loving conservative. dont you have any christmas fundraisers to attend and help raise funds for your wealthy politicians?

sula got you BANG ON. your comment is both ignorant and arrogant. extremely arrogant. yet another example of why people outside of the united states cant stand your countries policies.
__________________

__________________
those evil natured robots
theyre programed to destroy us
she gotta be strong to fight them
so shes taking lots of vitamins
cause she knows that
it be tragic
if those evil robots win
Cow of the Seas is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 04:04 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4


Which part of 20th Century history would you be referring to? From my studies, I seem to recall that only one nation has unleashed nuclear holocaust upon another. Is it possible that the U.S. is practicing the age old maxim, "Do as I say, not as I do" ?
And I thank goodness the President made the right decision to use them. It was a wise choice. It saved American lives.

Last I knew, the Japanese started with a sneak attack on us.

If Chemical, Biological, or Nukes are used against us, our allies, I expect this President to act with the same intesity.

Do as I say not as I do? Saddam lost a war that he started and has not complied with the treaty.


Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 04:11 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Sula,

Its unfortunate that anyone had to be subjected to the A-bomb in 1945, but if the USA had not used the A-bomb to force Japan to surrender, tens of millions of Japanese citizens would have been killed in the continueing bombing that would have gone on into 1946 followed by a US military invasion of the Island. In this particular case the A-bomb saved far more lives than it took.

Hi Biased,

Its important to realize that Mujahadeen does not equal the Taliban. Those were two different groups. If there is anyone group that is clearly the descendent of the Mujahadeen its the Northern Alliance that opposed the Taliban.

The article you posted is similar to the liberal trash that was everywhere before the first Gulf War. None of it was so, the articles speculations of what would be the results of the first Gulf War never happened. You'd think by now they would be a little more informed and objective.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 04:20 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Cow of the Seas


what a nice, smart ass remark from a loving conservative. dont you have any christmas fundraisers to attend and help raise funds for your wealthy politicians?

NB Fundraiser at my house. It will go to the "Nuke the Gay Whales for Jesus Fund"

Why is that smart ass? I am really curious. To take WWII and the use of Nuke's today is a reasonable response? I am sincere in my curiosity of your beliefs that this is a reasonable comparison.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 04:31 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Sting2, in all honesty that argument only adds up to so much rhetoric in my book. And I'm sure it is little comfort to the innocent civilians who were killed or maimed nor to the generations that will continue to suffer from the genetic effects. Nor does it explain the salient point - that of the U.S.'s assumption of the right to monitor weapons of mass destruction when their track record for usage of such weapons is less than stellar. If we are expecting to lead the world by example, then what sort of example has been set in the past and is being set now?
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 04:36 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Cow,

Ensuring the security and stability of the region and the planet by disarming Saddam is not wrong. Just like when the police arrest people in your neigborhood for violations of certain laws is not wrong. Police often have to use deadly force to ensure that the safety of the community. Saddam agreed with the international community 12 years ago to give up all his Weapons of Mass Destruction with the understanding that if he did not, he would be disarmed with military force is necessary.

If you don't care about international law or the United Nations, fine. The need to disarm Iraq can be made simply on the grounds of national and international security. Saddam's invasions and attacks on four different countries in the past 20 years combined with his pursuit of WMD programs threaten the world to such a degree that he must be disarmed. It is wrong to allow threats to materialize and kill thousands of people!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 04:47 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
Nor does it explain the salient point - that of the U.S.'s assumption of the right to monitor weapons of mass destruction when their track record for usage of such weapons is less than stellar. If we are expecting to lead the world by example, then what sort of example has been set in the past and is being set now?
I do believe, the United Nations is monitoring the WMD. As for enforcing the resolutions, it seems we are looked upon to supply the bulk of the resourses for every MAJOR conflict around the globe.

It is obvious that you do not believe that the United States was justified in their use of nuclear weapons in WWII. I am certain that there is nothing that can be said here to convince you otherwise.

That leads me to the SALIENT issue. Would you prefer that Saddam have the technology? This is a man that launched missle ten years ago into a country that had committed no act of agression against them. Do you believe that nothing should be done?

I am not putting words into your mouth, I am asking questions. On another thread it was said that the we should not be using WWII to talk about how much the US has done for the world. Well, I would say the same applies here. In my mind, your WWII argument lends more support to the fact that this man needs to be disarmed. I believe he will use them.....

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 05:00 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Sula,

That fact that the war did not continue beyond August of 1945 and kill millions more Japanese citizens and US soldiers is not rhetoric but fact. It is easy to take the suffering of a particular group of people and use that to justify that action A or B was wrong and not offer any alternative solution. The decision to use the A-Bomb was not an easy one and was done to stop the war quickly there by saving millions of lives. Your solution would have been I assume to obviously not use the A-Bomb there by killing millions more people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what would you have done if you were President Truman?

If you properly understood the context in which the Atom Bomb was used back in 1945, you would see that it does not conflict with US policy today. It is in the interest of the international community and the USA that weapons of mass destruction be monitored. Most countries on the planet agree with this. The USA has every right to defend itself, and the monitoring of such weapons and preventing violations of agreed to international treaties helps the USA defend itself and other nations from these threats. The USA has set an excellant example about how to conduct one's self on the international stage over the past 60 years and is one of the main reasons why the world has not destroyed itself or is dominated by worldwide communist dictatorships.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 05:18 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:00 AM
So many things to reply to in this thread.

Firstly, I completely agree with sula's point that it's hard for the US to claim to lead by example when it's the only country in the world ever to have used nuclear weapons. I also agree that their use in Japan was wholly unjustified.

Secondly, people very frequently refer to Saddam's acts of aggression against other countries, and yet neglect to mention the most agressive country in the region - Israel which has not only invaded, but also occupied other countries. Why is there no condemnation of Israel from the United States? Why is that every President of the United States declares his support for Israel? And, don't forget that not only does Israel posess nuclear weapons, but it also continues to imprison Mordechai Vanunu for no crime than to tell people of Israel's nuclear weapons programme - how can anyone defend that?

STING2 -from what I've read there are very clear links between the Mujahedeen and the Taliban, far more so than to the Northern Alliance. I'd be interested in any info you have on that subject though. Also, I disagree that people's concerns prior to the 1991 Gulf War were "liberal trash" - if I recall correctly many writers predicted horrific consequences for the Iraqi people, and considering that 100,000 Iraqi citizens were killed I think those predictions were accurate.

Finally, just a point that someone mentioned to me a few days back - if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't the surest way to provoke Saddam into using them be to threaten him with war? After all, it's been made fairly clear that any war on Iraq would be likely to kill Saddam himself, so if he has nothing left to lose, wouldn't that make him more likely to use any weapons he has access to? I'd like to hear what other people think on the subject.

*Fizz
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 05:23 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:00 PM


Fizzing-
did Kuwait threaten Saddam to use their tanks against them in 1991?

i can see Liberals are starting their predictable dance..

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 08:06 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Fizzing,

I'd be interested in your explanation as to why you think the use of the Atomic Bomb was wholly unjustified. What would you have done if you had been President of the USA at that time?

Israel is far from being the most aggressive country in the region. Israel was ATTACKED on the first day of its independence and has since that day been faced with extermination by the numberous Arab countries that surround it. Israel is a country that has acted only in its self defense. Acting in its self defense has in the past required it to act before other countries did to prevent it from being overrun and its population slaughtered by Arab armies. It has taken land in order to better defend itself and will give that land back once a peace agreement is hammered out. Until recently this past year, most Arab governments were against Israel's right to even exist. It should be obvious why the USA supports Israel. The Arabs could of had peace back in 1948 but they chose war. Israel is a democracy and its actions are light years away from Saddam and his dictatorship in Iraq. There is no comparison.

First I'd say the Mujahadeen as it was in the 1980s has little to do with either the Taliban or Northern Alliance. The Mujahadeen existed before the USA began providing 1/3 of their funding along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan providing the rest. The USA pulled out of the region entirely when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan in 1989. The Taliban came to power in 1996 from schools in Pakistan along the border. Military equipment purchased during the 1980s had mostly long since been used and was no longer around when the Taliban came in. The primary leader of the Mujahadeen during the 1980s(sorry I can't remember the name at the moment) was the leader of the Northern Alliance. He was murdered by terrorist from Bin Ladin posing as TV reporters trying to interview him on Sept. 10, 2001.

In regards to the Gulf War, it is estimated that 100,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in action. Civilian losses are far less because civilians were not targeted. In Baghdad Saddam himself hid in Civilian area's during the Gulf War as well as stationing tanks and other military equipment in schools and hospitals to prevent them from being destroyed by Coalition aircraft. Most of the liberal writers predicted that Baghdad and other cities would be leveled to the ground like we saw often in World War II. The USA certainly had the capability to this, but the USA was able through advancements in technology to target with pinpoint accuracy a large number of military targets in and around Baghdad without damaging civilian areas. That does not mean that there was not any damage to civilian area's, but the level of damage was less than 1% of what liberal writers had predicted.

Saddam has already crossed the line of using weapons of mass destruction. By attacking we will have a better capability of controlling where he uses such weapons and the ability of preventing him from using the weapons in a quantity and level that would be very destructive to civilian populations. Thats a far better situation than waiting for Saddam to use his Mass Destruction weapons in planned and prepared way that covers up that he is behind the terrorist action to begin with.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 11:57 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cow of the Seas


what a nice, smart ass remark from a loving conservative.
Seeing DEATHBEAR call someone else a smart ass is about as ridiculous as me putting on a Batman costume and running through a crowded, busy shopping mall on Christmas Eve slapping shoppers on the ass.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 12-21-2002, 01:05 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 05:00 AM
fuck this bullshit:

where I come from, if a kid in the playground comes up and kicks you in the balls, you break his nose, to ensure he never does that to you, or anyone else, again.

japan attacked us first, and I'm am truly sorry and sad that so many innocent japanese were killed and maimed in the attacks on hiroshima and nagasaki, and they did not deserve that fate; I hope they are at peace in the heavens; but it ended the war that potentially could have lasted another 10 years, and japan could have avoided the tragic fates of those cities IF THEY HAD NOT BOMBED US IN THE FIRST PLACE.

why did we go to war in afghanistan?

oh yeah...because the taliban were haboring al-queda...WHO DESTROYED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND ATTACKED THE PENTAGON.

now, iraq cannot account for some of their biological/ and or chemical weapons........

hmmm....maybe saddam sent it to santa clause in the holiday spirit.....
or maybe ben laden is taking stock of it right now.

whatever the case, I was not convinced of the case against iraq until the u.n. itself said that iraq "missed an opportunity" for peace.

everyone continue to argue the point, because in the end, the world is a better place without saddam, and I'm sure the u.s. will be hit again by another terrorist attack.


I'm going to watch south park.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 12-21-2002, 01:17 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JOFO

I'm going to watch south park.
Ahhhhhh... Therapy
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-21-2002, 01:52 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 11:00 PM

That was avery good post, JOFO. I do not know what else to say.

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com