RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

popeye1250 -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/13/2007 10:11:05 PM)

I think we're all safe from the government spying on us.
This "government" can't even secure our borders!
If you've ever thought about becomming a Bank Robber, this may be the time!



thompsonx -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/13/2007 11:17:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I think we're all safe from the government spying on us.
This "government" can't even secure our borders!
If you've ever thought about becomming a Bank Robber, this may be the time!


popeye1250:
Why rob a bank...all they have there are credit card reciepts and federal reserve notes....bush & co. know where the real wealth is....oil,tin,tungsten...look where there are boots on the ground  and you will find the wealth.
thompson



meatcleaver -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 1:48:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

No. I am in no way advocating a "strike first every time" policy. I am, however, maintaining the right – and even the moral duty – to strike first in the case of an obvious and known threat. Say, a bunch of religious nutcases who want to kill us getting their hands on nuclear weapons. I ask again, if you could prevent a city from going up in nuclear flames, and you can prevent it with a pre-emptive strike, and don’t, where is the morality in that?


Striking at a country or group that is preparing a military strike is not striking first.

Invading a country because.......well, we are still guessing but if you follow the money etc. etc. and for not other readon, that is striking first.

This is why the US is flooding the world with anti-Iranian propaganda, so it can say Iran was preparing a strike when it clearly isn't. The problem for the US post Iraq, is that no one believes its propaganda anymore. Not that anyone believe its propaganda over Iraq. I don't believe Blair believed US propaganda, which was why I believe he felt it necessary to lie to the British people but I can't explain why he joined in.



farglebargle -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 5:10:27 AM)

quote:


Striking at a country or group that is preparing a military strike is not striking first.


PREPARING???

So, when the Rooskies PREPARED for nuclear war, we could have struck first?

By extension, when the US PREPARED for war against Iraq by stationing 40,000 troops on her borders, Iraq could have struck first, and been justified?




meatcleaver -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 5:36:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

PREPARING???

So, when the Rooskies PREPARED for nuclear war, we could have struck first?

By extension, when the US PREPARED for war against Iraq by stationing 40,000 troops on her borders, Iraq could have struck first, and been justified?




I was thinking more in terms of the Japanese fleet sailing towards Haiwii but point taken.



thompsonx -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 7:15:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

PREPARING???

So, when the Rooskies PREPARED for nuclear war, we could have struck first?

By extension, when the US PREPARED for war against Iraq by stationing 40,000 troops on her borders, Iraq could have struck first, and been justified?




I was thinking more in terms of the Japanese fleet sailing towards Haiwii but point taken.

meatcleaver:
I should have thought the U.S, attacking Japan via the AVG would have been sufficient provocation for the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor.  Of course the fact that we knew they were comming and why and did nothing to stop them made it easy to whip up support for entry into WWII
thompson
thompson



Sanity -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 7:32:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

PREPARING???

So, when the Rooskies PREPARED for nuclear war, we could have struck first?


Of course we could have. And think of all those millions and millions who perished in Soviet gulags who might have been saved, too. All the people who died when the USSR attacked Afghanistan, all the Eastern Europeans who perished trying to reach freedom... all the Cubans who are still prisoners on their own island...

And with the memories of what had happened after we allowed Hitler to prepare for war fresh in everyones' minds, not that many would have objected back then, either. In fact, it's almost curious that we didn't. I think that the USA is so meek and so nice and so gentle that there's never been a superpower who's spent this much time examining its own belly button rather than acting in its own self-interest in the history of the planet. Think of the money too, that was wasted in the arms race... had we acted more rationally and smited them before it got started, the planet could have been a much nicer place, though all the technology developed in the arms race would never have been found until much later than it was.

quote:


By extension, when the US PREPARED for war against Iraq by stationing 40,000 troops on her borders, Iraq could have struck first, and been justified?


Of course they could have, and I am sure that our forces were watching for it, too. Would they have been justified? That would all depend on your perspective. You know it's coming, what are you going to do. Saddam could have just surrendered, but apparently he thought he had enough WMDs to kick our ass. Why else did he choose the path he did?



meatcleaver -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 7:44:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

meatcleaver:
I should have thought the U.S, attacking Japan via the AVG would have been sufficient provocation for the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor.  Of course the fact that we knew they were comming and why and did nothing to stop them made it easy to whip up support for entry into WWII
thompson
thompson


Point taken. I'm actually dtruggling to think of an example of where a first strike is justified. I'm sure there is one but I'm damned if my brain is up to it at the moment.



farglebargle -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 8:08:11 AM)

quote:

Saddam could have just surrendered, but apparently he thought he had enough WMDs to kick our ass


This makes no sense, given Hussein's declaration to the UN in 2003 to be in compliance.

Of course, that declaration was denounced as false, but history shows that, at least in that instance, Hussein was being forthcoming.




farglebargle -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 8:09:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

meatcleaver:
I should have thought the U.S, attacking Japan via the AVG would have been sufficient provocation for the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor. Of course the fact that we knew they were comming and why and did nothing to stop them made it easy to whip up support for entry into WWII
thompson
thompson


Point taken. I'm actually dtruggling to think of an example of where a first strike is justified. I'm sure there is one but I'm damned if my brain is up to it at the moment.


If you're the "Good Guys", it isn't.




Marc2b -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 10:43:01 AM)

I do plan on getting back to you but I am still trying to translate what you wrote.  I'm still trying to figure out how the post office and Ebay figure into all of this.



Marc2b -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 10:45:55 AM)

quote:

Even with your creative editing of my post to answer the questions I pose you dance just like Ginger Rogers....backwards.  Maybe you can cheat at age of mythology....but here you are on your own...there are no cheat codes.


Lighten up, will ya?



Marc2b -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 10:55:04 AM)

quote:

Striking at a country or group that is preparing a military strike is not striking first.

BINGO!

Now, my only question is: why do people assume that because I agree with the above statement I somehow justify or support Bush’s invasion of Iraq? I don’t see how you get from A to B (actually I do – people are following the scripts). The real irony is that this all started having nothing to do with pre-emptive strikes. It’s about whether or not it would be a good idea if the United States disarmed itself of nuclear weapons. Once again, I think that would be utterly stupid, especially in light of the fact that nations, hostile to the United States are actively seeking nuclear weapons.



Marc2b -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 10:57:02 AM)

quote:

So, when the Rooskies PREPARED for nuclear war, we could have struck first?


If they were preparing to launch their missles, you're God damned right we could (and should) have.



meatcleaver -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 12:31:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Once again, I think that would be utterly stupid, especially in light of the fact that nations, hostile to the United States are actively seeking nuclear weapons.


You have it the wrong way round. Countries the US is hostile towards want nukes to checkmate the USA.



Marc2b -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 1:07:25 PM)

quote:

You have it the wrong way round. Countries the US is hostile towards want nukes to checkmate the USA.


Oh.  So they're strictly for defensive purposes?  So if the Iranians develop a nuclear weapon they won't hand one of to one of the terroist groups they fund to smuggle into the U.S.A.?  Well if that's what they're saying then we should take them at their word.  After all, religious fanatics (and communists as well) do have a one hundred percent track record of honesty.



Sinergy -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 1:31:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

PREPARING???

So, when the Rooskies PREPARED for nuclear war, we could have struck first?

By extension, when the US PREPARED for war against Iraq by stationing 40,000 troops on her borders, Iraq could have struck first, and been justified?




I was thinking more in terms of the Japanese fleet sailing towards Haiwii but point taken.

meatcleaver:
I should have thought the U.S, attacking Japan via the AVG would have been sufficient provocation for the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor.  Of course the fact that we knew they were comming and why and did nothing to stop them made it easy to whip up support for entry into WWII
thompson
thompson


Saying we did nothing is incorrect.

The US Naval Command moved the carrier fleets out to open ocean to keep them safe.

Battleships were not relevant to the coming war with Japan, so the Naval command kept them tied up at the dock
without even bothering to alert them to the possibility of attack.  They also did not bother to mention that the Japanese had been training with a shallow water plane-born torpedo that would work quite well in a harbor setting.

Sinergy



ferryman777 -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 1:54:29 PM)

Please, don't bother,  The post office, advertises for EBay, am I not correct? Why?  What about other businesses, less importatant than EBay or Disney et al. The recent hike in postage. Why?

Well, sir,  enquiring minds wanted to know, so I asked......answers, (plural here).....The Bush regime instituted a law, which required the Postal system to keep, at all times, in escrow, a surplus of, something like  or  billion dollars, which the postal system cannot use whatsoever. The appropriations of those surplus funds can only be accessed by congress or by presidential order, at any time without any accountability of it's usage. In effect, it is a 'hidden tax'.
The P.O. passed on the extra expense onto the public; and they are desparately seeking funds to operate, since a large number of advert revenues and the like,  which would have otherwise been stamped and mailed are now being conducted through the internet system. Ebay is a thriving business which is based upon the mail, delivery system.

Now, to set your mind at ease, I mentioned this only to enquire of you ....why? Since you are a never ending pool of  absolute intelligence, of incalcuable knowledge on all matters. Now, I simply thought, (dumb me); that you could enlighten me on these mundain matters.



ferryman777 -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 2:08:40 PM)

Sorry, but mark2b believes the propaganda, is convinced we are all wrong.

Given the current war situation, and Bush's pre-emptive strike......the world is now on guard.....arming themselves against some other unlawful pre-emptive strike against them.

So, what the Bush legacy is......he has brought the threat of a third world war to a reality.

something which mark2b agrees, is alright.



thompsonx -> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites (3/14/2007 2:50:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

So, when the Rooskies PREPARED for nuclear war, we could have struck first?


If they were preparing to launch their missles, you're God damned right we could (and should) have.

Mark2b:
Let me see if I understand you corectly.  Russia who had nuclear missiles aimed and targeted at the U.S. gets a pass on a preemptive strike unless they are actually preparing to launch.  Iran is next in line for a preemptive strike because they are doing nuclear research that may lead to building nuclear missiles.  Did I miss anything?
thompson



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875