Dunenewt Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 But would you rather have Saddam or the USA in charge of your goverment?In my opinion Iran can be left alone and Prince Charles has even visited Iran and the people in charge there so I think its reasonably safe there.
Leto le Juste Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 As far as I am concerned, I would be able to go in Iran today but Gunwound has to admit that the thing his government today have been made by his government...But would you rather have Saddam or the USA in charge of your goverment?I don't understand.
leo Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 It is the same for Chili, the Vietnam... The list is huge... USA has no legacy to impose the government it prefer! >:(French history is much better, right?
Wolf Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Hey, didn't the United States send troops in after the French pulled out of the nation that was their former-colony? What about all those African nations France has conquered, then pulled out of, and has left in shambles? I'm sorry, but the argument that there is a history of putting poor leaders into power doesn't mean that all there is to do is to do nothing, if anything, it means we should rectify past mistakes. If, by your logic, putting Saddam in power was a mistake, then keeping him power is also a mistake, by that same logic? Since its Saddam who was the dictator, was he not? Furthermore, no one put anyone else in power in Vietnam, or in Korea. Those were battlegrounds of East vs. West -- battles that France largely supported, but had not the military power to commit to. Not truly interventions. When America simply repalces a government through covert means, as some people said we should do in Iraq, that often causes more problems than good. But to say that America has no right to attempt to undo what they did because they did it in the first place is somewhat flawed.
Leto le Juste Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Ok, I have to explain my view. French history is much better, right?I never say that. France made mistakes in the past and we have to apologize ourselves. But it is the past and you have to learn from the past. What about all those African nations France has conquered, then pulled out of, and has left in shambles? That 's correct but after the wars for independance of those countries (Algeria, Indochine,..) the people of those countries stopped their relationships with France and we too. It is understandable. After 40 years, we comes back to them in order to purpose our help. I'm sorry, but the argument that there is a history of putting poor leaders into power doesn't mean that all there is to do is to do nothing, if anything, it means we should rectify past mistakes. If, by your logic, putting Saddam in power was a mistake, then keeping him power is also a mistake, by that same logic? I didn't say that (or I wouldn't). Sure you have to correct past mistakes. But the problem is that USA changed those government without asking people if they agree. For instance in Vietnam, people want to change their way of life. Did USA take care of it. Those were battlegrounds of East vs. West -- battles that France largely supported, but had not the military power to commit to. Not truly interventions. De Gaulle was against the Vietnam war (read the Phnom-Penh discours: http://www.de-gaulle-edu.net/approfondir/textes/ciscours/1966_09_01.htm)According to him the USA have to leave because it was a civil war. But to say that America has no right to attempt to undo what they did because they did it in the first place is somewhat flawed.I agree, they can correct their mistakes but they have to recognize their mistakes and not to play those who forget what they do.
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 20, 2004 Author Posted March 20, 2004 Okay I think that it's stupid for any country to develop nuclear weapons and of course other countries are going to be extremely uneasy and scared if only one country has nukes - no wonder people are concerned about the US if they want to be not only the sole owner of nuclear weapons, but having them en masse too.
Dante Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 So what's wrong with another country having nukes? We've got 'em.
leo Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 So what's wrong with another country having nukes? We've got 'em. This country's leadership got radical views. And please, don't start preaching me that USA and Israel are as good as Iran.
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 20, 2004 Author Posted March 20, 2004 So what's wrong with another country having nukes? We've got 'em. I get tired of this question.... its ok for USA and its allies to have nukes.... but not their enemies... does that make sense?It does NOT make any sense to allow rogue nations who support terrorism and who absolutely HATE you to develop a nuclear weapons program... use some strategical common sense....My OWN personal safety as well as my country's comes before ANY other nation's sovereignty.....
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 20, 2004 Author Posted March 20, 2004 Its bad enoough we let N. Korea have them.... I just hope tensions get high and we end up bombing their silos... their Silos are no where near as developed as ours...Our silos can withstand a nuclear blast itself...and then launch....while theirs can be destroyed while still underground...
Dante Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 I'm not saying everyone should have them. I'm saying nobody should have them.
ordos45 Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Wolfwiz it was Hiroo Onada. They even brought his own brother in to tell him to surrender, and he refused. It took a young Japanese student that found his former commanding officer, who then went to the island and ordered him to surrender, that caused him to surrender. Amazing loyalty and devotion...My own view on the whole "Who should have nukes" situation is slightly different. Nuclear weapons are the balance of power and terror. No one dares to use them after knowing what happened in WW2. And those two bombs are pale comparisons to today's modern nuclear armanents. The more countries have them, the less likely a chance of using them (except for groups like Al Quaeda with no set base nation). I think we all abide by the unwritten rule of 'use the nukes and get nuked by everyone else'.
leo Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 I'm not saying everyone should have them. I'm saying nobody should have them. I agree, but as for today, before we gonna talk about disarming the countries that already have these weapons, we need to prevent from other countries obtaining such weapons. I believe it's the best answer for your question.
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 20, 2004 Author Posted March 20, 2004 Let me refine my view even more....A country needs to have an extremely secure facility as well.. if they plan on developing nuclear weapons....we dont need run down facilities trying to make nukes where terroroists can just walk in the back door throw one in a shopping cart and wheel off with it...Problems arise
VigilVirus Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 Gunwounds, your logical is a complete fallacy of overgeneralization. You have no tolerance for muslims at all, because you view them all as terrorists - you view Middle east arab nations as a bunch of terrorists. With a view like that inherent in you and many other quite average americans who would be suprised that those people that you hate so much hate you too? Stop seeing people are being friends or enemies, with no grey in between. Even if something is your enemy, it doesn't give you the right to blow up his country or base or whatever. US has no authority to bomb North Korea's factories and missile silos or whatever just because they don't like NK and what it might stand for. North Korea never committed aggression towards the US, except in the attacks of the Korean war - but US chose to be there and therefore took the whole responsibility. Btw, did you notice that you speak of USSR in present tense? Wake up. And where the hell did they scatter them? Where did you get this information, american movies...Peacekeeper with Morgan Freeman and George Clooney? ::)US proved it can responsibly maintain nuclear weapons? Through bombing of Japan you mean? Oh yes, that does prove they are responsible...*sigh* Such ignorance...
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 21, 2004 Author Posted March 21, 2004 Gunwounds, your logical is a complete fallacy of overgeneralization. You have no tolerance for muslims at all, because you view them all as terrorists - you view Middle east arab nations as a bunch of terrorists. With a view like that inherent in you and many other quite average americans who would be suprised that those people that you hate so much hate you tooYou dont know me you moron...you dont know what my race is or what my religion is or what my ancestry is..
Anathema Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 I disagree with the statement that Japan was ready to surrender in World War II. I believe that, even if the Japanese surrenderd by order of their officers, their fanatical devotion to a warrior culture would have continued the fighting and made reconstruction impossible. More people, perhaps, would have died of starvation and a lack of medical care as a Japan that did not fear the United States was a Japan that would not let the United States repair its bombed-out infastructure.Furthermore, I would like to see specific evidence as to why the Japanese government was "willing to surrender". Because I believe that the United States performed a little experiment that proved that the Japanese would not surrender to any terms unless they faced total annihilation. Hiroshima was obliterated in seconds. The entire city. And yet Japan did not surrender. Then, Nagasaki was destroyed in a matter of seconds, and finally, when Japan realized that, unless they surrendered, America would systematically destroy every city on their island, they surrendered. I do not think Japan was truly willing to surrender unless they faced this situation.In addition, I would like to see a copy of these "terms" that the Americans rejected. I believe that, in addition to having the Emperor in power, it also allowed for Japan to keep its military. I may be wrong, but if I'm not, you can see that America had a legitimate reason for dropping the bomb, because after Nanking, no Chinese citizen is ever going to accept those terms, and after Pearl Harbor, no American citizen is ever going to accept those terms, and after Manilla and the Bataan Death March, no Filipino is ever going to accept those terms.If the atomic bombs weren't available, the US would have had 2 options: large scale invasion or isolating Japan to effectively cripple them. The first would have been considered unacceptable because of the enormous casualty rates for both sides. So they'd take the second one- in the end millions of Japanese (many more then died in the atomic blasts) would have died of starvation before they would finally surrender.There's also a very important justification for the second atomic bomb. After the first was dropped, Stalin immediately declared war on Japan and began seizing its possesions in Asia. The Japanese surrendered quickly after the second bomb, so the Russians halted their advance- right where the border between South and North Korea lies at this time. The state of South Korea wouldn't have existed without the second bomb, there would only have been one single Korea under tyranical rule.
Warskum Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 You guys forget something, the bom might have saved many lives back THEN, but dont forget that untill now, there are a lots of kids beeing born dead becuase of the bom, or beeing born with cancer and many other deseases, and this will keep up a long time, eventually those boms will cost milloins of lives.The second one was not nessacary, japan was considering surrender, but didnt get the chance to it since the 2e was dropped to soon after the 1e. I read somwere that Japan could have been taken with 50000 soldiers if done properly. I cant believe that people are actaully trying to justify the boms, hell Osama's attack was nothing compared to those attacks, neither was Saddams terror. Becuase untill now kids are beeing born with mutaties, those kids cannot have a normail live because of the boms.
Anathema Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 Warskum that's true but at that time nobody knew about the harmful effects that would occur after an atomic blast. Besides, how can you ask from a country that already lost so many people to sacrifice even more for the sake of his enemy?
VigilVirus Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 Gunwounds, stop diluding yourself. Has North Korea sold nukes to anyone yet? NO. Will it? Maybe, but how can you assume something like that? Just because you think it will is not a good enough reason for an attack. If you try to destroy NK's nuclear weapons with force, it will launch those nukes at US and many people will die."Don't talk about something you don't know anything about""Your just a silly teenager who thinks he knows what he is talking about but you dont have a clue... do you even have your own opinion or do you only know how to mimic the liberal media......"Well, aren't you just a god damn hypocrite? Ah..gotta love that idiocy with my morning tea. I don't even belong to any group on the liberal media. Simply because our opinions cross doesn't signify agreement. You, however, are pretty much emprworm's little copycat. I'm not a democrat, not a republican, not a socialist, not a communist. If anything, I'd be closer to an anarchist.
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 21, 2004 Author Posted March 21, 2004 Gunwounds, stop diluding yourself. Has North Korea sold nukes to anyone yet? NO. Will it? Maybe, but how can you assume something like that? Just because you think it will is not a good enough reason for an attack. If you try to destroy NK's nuclear weapons with force, it will launch those nukes at US and many people will die.OMG FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !!!
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 21, 2004 Author Posted March 21, 2004 Why do you even participate in these discussion when you have no clue... at all.... Devil advocate...
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 21, 2004 Author Posted March 21, 2004 Also thats how N. Korea makes most of its money you fool... is by selling missiles and weapons to other countries... man .. keep going.. keep going .. your just showing your lack of knowledge on the topic...*Got to love the ignorance with my morning coffee*
VigilVirus Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 So, they wanted to sell nukes to another country? I don't remember any laws against that. As long as those nukes are not blown up within the continental US, I don't see why I should give a shit.
VigilVirus Posted March 21, 2004 Posted March 21, 2004 A lot of countries make their money by selling weapons. So what? If the best you can come up with are ad hominem attacks to prove your point then you need to work on your debating skills.
Recommended Posts