VigilVirus Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 yes you are so right I'm a hypcrite. The US attacked the taliban out of revenge not to be noble and safe the Afghan people.Exactly, cause think about it - no one cares about those people really, just like they don't care about us.
VigilVirus Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 the apathy in this room is apalling. I cannot believe that I stand alone on this issue.I see a dictator obtaining nuclear arsenal as intolerable. i stand alone on this, and i am literally shocked. what has happend to humanity? The world is literally running, as if in a race, to a nuclear holocaust. It is stunning the apathy in here.I agree with you, dude. I just don't agree that other people can't have their opinions about this topic.
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 Dark Assasin: your words are like a fountain spring of cool water in the Sahara Desert of Eastern Nigeria. I dont mind ppl having their opinions. But their opnions are shocking and very disturbing.
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 The US attacked the taliban out of revenge not to be noble and safe the Afghan people. yet the Afghan people were saved because of it. And now you want to take it back and push them back into slavery and oppression? You now wish that the US and its ALLIES never liberated Afghanistan? Tell that to the face of an Afghani woman who was beaten routinely and then come back in here and tell me you condemn the liberation of Afghanistan. You are sick to me, NaMpIgAi, if that is what you are saying.
nampigai Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 but please qoute me emprworm just where do I say I support the taliban, I said that bombing everyone doesn't solve the problems of this world it will just make it worse, ohh now I see it sorry you're right.
Anathema Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 The fact is that had'nt the two planes been steered into WTC nothing would have been done to the taliban, the world would have turned the blind eye as we have done for ages. WELL IT ***SHOULDNT*** turn a blind eye! What will it take to finally wake the world up so that it no longer tolerates this kind of thing? I dont care WHAT BUSH MOTIVES WERE. The RIGHT THING was finally done. And Clinton wouldn't have acted if it happened in his term? Come on.
SurlyPIG Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 Emp I'd trust the FAS Nuke monitors long before I'd trust biased washington media.Who's to say what NK is going to do with any nukes it may have or may create? Who's to say what the US is going to do with theirs, for that matter? Give me one example of a dictator using nukes. One. And how many Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a result of the a-bombs dropped by your immaculate democratic government? History is written by the victors, my friend.On the whole, dictatorships are bad, but in some cases they are preferable to democracies. The NK dictatorship is not one of those cases, that's for sure, but before you go off saying the US should bomb nuke plants, maybe you should consider the millions of lives at stake. If you set off a modern reactor while it's in its most volitile state, the results would be catastrophic.Look at most of "democratic" Africa. Sierra Leone, Congo, Sudan, etc. They suck. It's a total basket case. That region was not ready for modern democracy. Don't always assume democracy = good, dictatorship = bad, though that's almost always the case. For instance, take a look at the former Yugoslavia. A warzone between two superpowers. It included Serbians, Croatians, Albanians, and Macedonians and mixed amongst all of them, Muslims and Christians. It was a massacre waiting to happen. But a fellow named Josip Broz Tito ruled the country for 35 years with an iron fist. History would consider him a tyrant. But he knew...he had foresight to the inevitable warzone Yugoslavia would become, and after his death in 1980, tensions resurfaced, different factions declared independance and a violent and sadistic war broke out costing millions of military and civilian lives. The UN peacekeeping attempt was a dismal failure. The fighting continued until NATO intervened and bombed away the armies. And the same happened more recently in Kosovo.My belief about nukes is the same as my belief about all weapons of murder - NOBODY should have them. Whether it's Bush or Kim Jong, nobody should have control of a human-slaughtering-machine.
VigilVirus Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 Ace, if the world gets rid of its weapons, then one person possessing a weapon can hold everyone hostage.In the kingdom of the blind - the one-eyed man is the king ;D
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 Give me one example of a dictator using nukes. One. you people are all blind. there are no examples because there are no dictators that have had nukes...yet. I have historical proof that the "hitler' argument is a morally bereft argument. "Well who's to say they will do anything bad? Let the poor little dictator have his nukes." Many people had this disgustingly reprehensible attitude regarding Hilter. And 12 million people were slaughtered. You would think that this stupid world would some day get the hint that dictators should NOT be given car blanche permission by the world to garner mass destructive capability. Bush has no control at all over nuclear weapons. No democracy on earth has control over nuclear weapons given to one man. yet you give one man (Hitler) all the weapons he wants. All you people are, in my eyes, as bad as nazi's. i honestly see no difference. Kim Jong = hitler. And you dont care about giving Kim Jong (hitler) a nuclear arsenal, you are a Nazi living in 1940 to me. You are handing Kim Jong (Hitler) Power on a silver platter. You people are disgusting. Maybe one day, your dream of a nuclear holocaust will come true. Continue to give dictators nukes and it will probably happen. And if you are REALLY lucky, maybe that Mushroom cloud will be within range of your vision, perhaps you might even get to SEE ONE...wow that would be cool. dont forget film for your camera!
TMA_1 Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 I would not so quickly compare people to following hitler. It is your way of bringing emotion into a debate. I personally know I wouldnt have followed hitler. Sometimes though you cant make the big difference. That is why many people of nations controlled by the axis powers formed undergrounds. If they couldnt take out the nazi power completely, they might as well cripple some of his plans. You are too zealous and that leads to a narrowminded path. Just because I see things differently from you doesnt make me wrong. You live in a world of black and white. Often though shades are present. If you lived in poland during the second world war and a black suited s.s. solder broke into your house and wanted to take away your freedom as well as yourfamilies because you were catholic or jewish or a sympothetic christian, what would you do? The heroics spoken by you are just words. You have never acted on those heroics. Its an insult to all of those who have been in the position of politics or war. You spout out ideals of western control of nations you deem wrong. What makes you right though? statistics and mass opinion isnt always the way to correct thinking. its a little deeper than that. you just skim the surface.
Anathema Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 there are no examples because there are no dictators that have had nukes...yet. Wait...so Stalin was not a dictator? And neither was Mao Zedong?
VigilVirus Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 Hehe, Stalin did use the nukes - if you count the nuclear tests.
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 Stalin died in 1953. Russias first nuclear test was in 1949. There was not enough time for Russia to develop a nuclear arsenal while Stalin was alive. It wasn't until after Stalin's death did Russia have any real nuclear funcionality. These were the earliest of nuclear testing and research before people really knew how to make them or produce weapons-grade plutonium. Heck they didn't even have such a thing as "weapons grade plutonium" back then. Now days, there is little need for tests. North Korean dictators already have access to this material and knowledge to build the devices. Nulcear holocaust is coming, and none of you seem to care.
VigilVirus Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 Actually during Stalin's life - the first thermonuclear bomb was tested - in 1951. It was quite fully functional. There were planes capable of delivering it anywhere (bombers).
SurlyPIG Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 You are handing Kim Jong (Hitler) Power on a silver platter. You people are disgusting. Maybe one day, your dream of a nuclear holocaust will come true. Continue to give dictators nukes and it will probably happen. And if you are REALLY lucky, maybe that Mushroom cloud will be within range of your vision, perhaps you might even get to SEE ONE...wow that would be cool. dont forget film for your camera!Lies. Did I ever even say that ANYONE should have nukes? No. In fact, I said the opposite. Of course I wouldn't trust Kim Jong with nukes. I don't trust Bush with them either. He's an ignorant moron. Thank goodness the "congressional safety net" will protect the rest of the world. You were once enfuriated when I accidentally misquoted me, but to say I'm a dictator-supporting Nazi is a total lie. You're putting words in my mouth. It's rather Nav-ish of you.You seem to have a problem with a dictator having access to weapons of inhumane, mass slaughter. Well, I have a problem with ANYONE having access to such weapons. I mean, if you didn't intend to use them, why have them? And your rather naive idea of democracy = good, dictatorship = bad, though almost always true, is rather closed-minded.In some rare cases, an opressive dictator is BETTER than the alternative. Just look at Yugoslavia. Tito ruled that country for 35 years after WWII with an iron fist. Then he died. Then what happened? Different factions declared independance and made their own borders. A cruel and bloody war broke out. Millions died. I'll bet the civillians that were killed in that war didn't mind the fact Tito had power and a sizeable army.I don't get why you're singling out NK. Sure it's a dictatorship but what about China? They're not even close to a democracy...What about India and Pakistan?How hypocritical it is to say that its okay for you to have 50,000 nukes, when YOU HAVE USED THEM TO SLAUGHTER MILLIONS, and nobody else can have not even one. If the world wasn't so ass-backwards nobody would have them.
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 i know it was funcitonal, but there wasn't enough time for him to need to use one. He was already pretty much a corpse by that point. Do you think that if he had nukes 10 years earlier that even for a second he wouldn't have used them? And trying to use that as justification that Kim Jong (i.e. Hitler) should be allowed to have nukes is more than a bad argument. It is completely bereft of reason.
VigilVirus Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 Hehe, emprworm, everyone knows that nuclear holocaust is coming. It's just a matter of time. We can't prevent it, because as humans, each one of us is fallible and fallible creatures can press that button and launch those nukes.
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 nice try Ace, but Bush has access to no nuclear weapons. You just dont get it do you? You try to tell me you dont want North Korea to have nukes? Bogus. Then where is your outrage? As far as I can tell, you honestly dont mind at all. To you: since US has nukes, o well, let the dictator have them too. If you truly didn't want Kim Jong having nukes, you would be supporting the push that the US is making right now to disarm him. Do you want him disarmed Ace or are you content to let him be?Answer that.
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 We can't prevent it, because as humans, each one of us is fallible and fallible creatures can press that button and launch those nukes.i know its a matter of time, but I can't help but be disgusted by people in here that are content to just let Kim Jong conjure up a nuclear arsenal. That is deplorable and I guess these people just can't wait to see a mushroom cloud! Well their dream might come true.
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 and, btw, I already said earlier in this thread (you dont listen) that I am fine with democracies having limited nuclear weapons. but you seem to be content to let dictators have them. As long as those big bad USA imperialists have nukes, we should let every Ackmad Fahad Muhammad Atta have one too! COOL! :Yippeee! HUrray! Give them all nukes! The big bad US has nukes.....THEREFORE, arm the entire world with nukes! YES! YES! WOO HOOO!!!
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 You seem to have a problem with a dictator having access to weapons of inhumane, mass slaughter. Well, I have a problem with ANYONE having access to such weapons. I mean, if you didn't intend to use them, why have them? And your rather naive idea of democracy = good, dictatorship = bad, though almost always true, is rather closed-minded.its rather absolutely correct. What human being supports the idea of having another human being be his master? Slavery is bad. PERIOD. that you are "open minded" to human subversion, persecution and slavery is utterly deplorable. where, o where, Ace are your moral values? Aren't you the same guy that was against discrimination? And here you are now saying that dictatorship could = good? Give one man absolute power and Acelethal says that is not necessarily bad???? What the??
exatreide Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 Give me one example of a dictator using nukes. One. you people are all blind. there are no examples because there are no dictators that have had nukes...yet. I have historical proof that the "hitler' argument is a morally bereft argument. "Well who's to say they will do anything bad? Let the poor little dictator have his nukes." Many people had this disgustingly reprehensible attitude regarding Hilter. And 12 million people were slaughtered. You would think that this stupid world would some day get the hint that dictators should NOT be given car blanche permission by the world to garner mass destructive capability. Bush has no control at all over nuclear weapons. No democracy on earth has control over nuclear weapons given to one man. yet you give one man (Hitler) all the weapons he wants. All you people are, in my eyes, as bad as nazi's. i honestly see no difference. Kim Jong = hitler. And you dont care about giving Kim Jong (hitler) a nuclear arsenal, you are a Nazi living in 1940 to me. You are handing Kim Jong (Hitler) Power on a silver platter. You people are disgusting. Maybe one day, your dream of a nuclear holocaust will come true. Continue to give dictators nukes and it will probably happen. And if you are REALLY lucky, maybe that Mushroom cloud will be within range of your vision, perhaps you might even get to SEE ONE...wow that would be cool. dont forget film for your camera!pakistan has nukes. and its president is a dictator....but oh its fine for him to have nukes ::)
SurlyPIG Posted December 25, 2002 Posted December 25, 2002 nice try Ace, but Bush has access to no nuclear weapons. You just dont get it do you? You try to tell me you dont want North Korea to have nukes? Bogus. Then where is your outrage? As far as I can tell, you honestly dont mind at all. To you: since US has nukes, o well, let the dictator have them too. If you truly didn't want Kim Jong having nukes, you would be supporting the push that the US is making right now to disarm him. Do you want him disarmed Ace or are you content to let him be?What part of "I don't think ANYONE should have nukes" do you not understand? Disarm NK, China, Pakistan, India, Russia, France, Britain, and before you're finished, disarm yourselves. There's no point in having a weapon designed to murder millions of people unless you plan on murdering millions of people! All or nothing emp. I only point out that it's hypocritical for you to want to disarm NK while the US has tens of thousands of nukes at its disposal. And it's inhumane and arrogant that you expect innocent North Koreans to suffer a horrible death because poor little USA doesn't feel "safe" with Kim Jong having nukes. If you want to destroy it, get some espionage in first. In 1981 the Israeli air force took down a nuclear reactor in Iraq without incident because intelligence told them when it would be in its non-volatile state. This isn't Red Alert 2. Nuclear reactors don't automatically create a mushroom cloud when they're destroyed.
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Posted December 25, 2002 its not fine for pakistan to have nukes. it should have never happened. problem is that they now have about 30 or so nukes and since no one stopped them, trying to do so now would be catastrophe. Of course, you now use this as justification to LET YET ANOTHER REGIME develop a nuclear arsenal? We CAN STOP THIS ONE if we do it now...before it is too late. But using all the crappy logic in this room, since the Big Bad US has nukes, we should let everyone get as many nukes as they want. HEck, let civillians make them too. Sell them for cheap so that everyone can have their own nuke. Nuclear holocaust is coming and i bet you just cant wait.
Recommended Posts