Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 8:48:13 PM   
domiguy


Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

CORRECT. When Clinton committed the crime of perjury, no-one died.

When Bush committed the crime of Consipracy to Defraud the United States, 500,000 people died.



Got a link that  proves that 500.000 people have died due the U.S. government? Or are you just using the typical "moveon" talking points?

You guys love to blame 3000 military deaths on Bush, yet turn a blind eye to the 7500 that died on Clinton's watch...

Hypocracy, thy name is Liberal
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/WWT.PDF

Here is a link to deaths under Clinton....Count how many were casualties of war subrob?  The problem with your argument is do you really want to start counting the wounded?...You should think a little harder...because not everyone dies....According to the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wounded/la-na-wounded-series,0,936394.special the number is over 17,000 as of 3/3/07.  This doesn't count the number of service men treated for mental issues.

Why is anyone defending this action? Clinton stared into a camera and lied everyone who defends him dismisses this "one' little detail.....Everyone who defends Bush has become the same person that they despised  who defended Clinton......Welcome to the "club of hypocrisy."....The guy gets a 31% approval rating from the masses...At least you are in good company.

< Message edited by domiguy -- 3/4/2007 9:01:46 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 8:52:57 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

I am so glad that you have labeled me with a political bias of being left-wing. Anyone on these boards will tell you that politically I really have little interest in the left or the right, my interest lies in what I think it is we as a Nation should do.

I am neither left or right, I ask a fair question and leave it open for debate.


I tend to think I have a similar bent as you, Gauge.

I dont really care what a particular political bent is, I simply want things fair and equitable for everybody.

But it never ceases to amaze me how one gets attacked for saying something when, as opposed to what one is saying being attacked, when people who demand to disagree with what you are saying really cannot.

I suppose it is easier for them to shoot the messenger than respond to the message.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy

p.s. I have often said how amazed I am that some people can live in a mind that small.

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Gauge)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:02:08 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Ok, How many people have died since The US Occupation of Iraq began?




You made the statement, the burden of proof is on you.

The question you should ask, is, how many Iraqis died before the U.S. invaded? Then how many Iraqis died due to Iraqi on Iraqi deaths?


Since the US isn't responsible for the deaths in Iraq before the occupation, that number is irrelevant. As a data point, Saddam Hussein was executed for the deaths of how many, 148 people?

The US Government, and by extension The People *are* responsible for any deaths caused since the occupation began.

We broke it, We bought it. And there wasn't a Civil War going on when we rolled in, either.

Based the current lack of infrastructure, we own all the dead children and dead babies from things like cholera, too.

I think given the range in the Johns Hopkins/MIT study of 300,000 - 900,000 is, despite the elapsed time, and the consequent increase in the numbers since it's publication, appropriate for consideration.

quote:


Only you folks on the left.


I wonder why any disagreement with Bush translates into "Lefty"? That kind of prejudice undercuts your credibility, as I am a Traditional Conservative.

Bush is, despite his claims, NOT a Traditional Conservative. You can tell by the Fiscal Irresponsibility and the creation of the largest government payroll ever.

REAL CONSERVATIVES have always hated Bush. The Neocon Party Whores however do support him, but they're not Conservatives, but rather some sort of Bastard Republican.

The complete and total failure of his leadership *is* something the Left does understand, however. It is that clear and obvious that even they get it.

"My hero Clinton"... It's hilarious the depths your blind hatred of the libtards has brough you to. Get over it. Grow up and start acting like a REAL CONSERVATIVE, and not a Neocon Party Whore.



< Message edited by farglebargle -- 3/4/2007 9:04:24 PM >


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:05:29 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

You want to know what it appears like to me, MC? Apparently you think anyone that participates in a war is committing a war crime. For some reason people have trouble understanding that in a war...PEOPLE DIE! Lots of people die! You can try to be as careful as you can, but no matter what innocent people are going to die. Does that mean it is a war crime? Nope. It's considered "collateral damage." It is only a war crime when the people are specifically targetted.

Japan attacked the United States where nearly 2,500 people died. That is an act of war. America won the war and Japan paid the price. So dont try to twist and rewrite history to serve your own anti-America agenda. If Japan didn't attack America, they would not have been nuked. And Europe would have lost to Germany.


I have no problem with people going to war when they are attacked and people die but if we are going down the road of justification, it was the USA that forced Japan to open up its ports in what is known in Japan as the humiliation of the unequal treaties. The USA told them what the consequences would be if they didn't in no uncertain terms. The reason for Japan's militarisation and modernisation was to prevent itself becoming a colony of the west. So it was America who interfered first, the USA's history with Japan didn't start at Pearl Harbour! However, the slaughter of 200,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just that, slaughter, it wasn't militarily necessary.  But let's get back to thje OP, it is about America's hypocrisy. Many Americans seem to find it incomprehensible that some other country might want nukes as a defence against the US and the west, just look at the west record! The west is mad! Just step out of your American shoes for one moment, take off your blinkers and look at America's behaviour from an objective point of view.


Most historians disagree with you completely. They agree that the atomic bombs were necessary.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:08:19 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Since the US isn't responsible for the deaths in Iraq before the occupation, that number is irrelevant. As a data point, Saddam Hussein was executed for the deaths of how many, 148 people?

The US Government, and by extension The People *are* responsible for any deaths caused since the occupation began.



You are starting to sound like a fool. The United States went in there and allowed the Iraqi people to set up their own government. That is what has occured. There is a legit Iraqi government choosen by the people in place. But the insurgency is trying to pull this government down. And it is the insurgency that is creating the current bloodshed in Iraq. Not the United States.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:12:18 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

Just in case anyone missed the headline: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/new_warheads

We don't want North Korea to have nukes and we are on the brink of expanding our war into Iran but the good old USA once again shows how inept it's leadership is and decide that now is a good time to replace our nuclear warheads. Pray tell where is this money to replace them coming from? What kind of message does this send around the world? Obviously the USA is not interested in dismantling it's arsenal. I am terribly confused by all of this. I think that it is hypocritical to say one thing and do another but this isn't really a shock coming from George W and his cronies.

Bush may well go down in history as the worst president that this country has ever had. I am not really into politics but this headline disturbed me.


Did you take the time to read the article ? Or did you just read the headline?
The USA is a nuclear power. You may resent this but its a fact.
Its always good to try and make a safer weapon. All mechanical systems fail in time. Its only prudent to replace older systems with newer ones.
We will, according to the article be able to reduce the number of weapons with the newer model.  So it will reduce the stockpile.

Preventing nuclear proliferation is not just an american policy its an international policy ( BTW  N Korea signed and broke this treaty )
Would you care to hazard a guess as to how many treaties the U.S. has signed and subsequently broken?

Iran's pursuit of this technology is scary as to their primary religious fervor for strapping bombs to themselves. If they have no qualms using conventional explosives to attack civilians while blowing themselves up, what makes you think they'd resist using nukes?
I have not heard of the Iranians strapping bombs to themselves...but then there is a lot going on in the world and I may have missed it durring a drug induced stupor.
thompson




(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:23:42 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

Just in case anyone missed the headline: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/new_warheads

We don't want North Korea to have nukes and we are on the brink of expanding our war into Iran but the good old USA once again shows how inept it's leadership is and decide that now is a good time to replace our nuclear warheads. Pray tell where is this money to replace them coming from? What kind of message does this send around the world? Obviously the USA is not interested in dismantling it's arsenal. I am terribly confused by all of this. I think that it is hypocritical to say one thing and do another but this isn't really a shock coming from George W and his cronies.

Bush may well go down in history as the worst president that this country has ever had. I am not really into politics but this headline disturbed me.


Did you take the time to read the article ? Or did you just read the headline?
The USA is a nuclear power. You may resent this but its a fact.
Its always good to try and make a safer weapon. All mechanical systems fail in time. Its only prudent to replace older systems with newer ones.
We will, according to the article be able to reduce the number of weapons with the newer model.  So it will reduce the stockpile.

Preventing nuclear proliferation is not just an american policy its an international policy ( BTW  N Korea signed and broke this treaty )
Would you care to hazard a guess as to how many treaties the U.S. has signed and subsequently broken?

Iran's pursuit of this technology is scary as to their primary religious fervor for strapping bombs to themselves. If they have no qualms using conventional explosives to attack civilians while blowing themselves up, what makes you think they'd resist using nukes?
I have not heard of the Iranians strapping bombs to themselves...but then there is a lot going on in the world and I may have missed it durring a drug induced stupor.
thompson







America's founding fathers did not want the US to be part of foreign treaties.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it."
-George Washington

Washington also said to stay clear of "entangling aliances." One of the first things Washington did when he took office in 1790, was dissolve the US alliance with France.

Thomas Jefferson also chimed in on this debate by saying the US should sign "few, if any, treaties."

So the US breaking treaties is something that goes back to 1790. It is always been the policy of the United States government that no treaty should ever be considered permanent. And our founding fathers made it difficult to even ratify a treaty. The president must sign it, and it must be accepted by 2/3rds of the Senate. Kyoto failed 99-0 in the Senate. The International Criminal Court failed 95-0 in the Senate. Treaties dont get accepted much by the US. That's just how our government does and always has done business.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:29:24 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Since the US isn't responsible for the deaths in Iraq before the occupation, that number is irrelevant. As a data point, Saddam Hussein was executed for the deaths of how many, 148 people?

The US Government, and by extension The People *are* responsible for any deaths caused since the occupation began.



You are starting to sound like a fool. The United States went in there and allowed the Iraqi people to set up their own government. That is what has occured. There is a legit Iraqi government choosen by the people in place. But the insurgency is trying to pull this government down. And it is the insurgency that is creating the current bloodshed in Iraq. Not the United States.


I wonder if you understand the consequences of the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat to the United States. All the deaths in Iraq were not the responsibility of the United States.

Phase 1: The Invasion.

We started killing Iraqis. Displaced Government, and Destroying Infrastructure, leading to dead babies via cholera, etc. We are responsible for those dead babies.

Phase 2: The Occupation ( Paul Bremer )

So, Paul Bremer waltzes in, and fucks everything up, setting us up for...

Phase 3: The Elections

If Iraq is Unified, why has an Independent Kurdistan formed? Sounds like the election and it's results were a sham, mostly because there ISN'T a unified Iraq. It DID let Bremer get the hell out of there. The Occupation Continues.

Phase 4: The Iraqi Civil War.

So, all of Bremer's fuckups, and the meaningless elections lead to a free-for-all. Shia v. Sunni. And US Troops in the middle trying to keep the peace. I guess they SHOULD be there, considering we set up the Civil War.

And in the meantime babies are still dying of cholera.

One of the more powerful depictions of the true costs of our wars I've found is from the novel T2: The Future War by S. M. Stirling.


p. 115
------

The next patient was an elderly woman with a very high fever, nausea, and very bad diarrhea. She complained of pains in her joints and headache as well. Dr. Ramsingh had gone to the HQ to talk to the captain about this. Two patients was hardly an epidemic, but these suggestive symptoms couldn't be ignored.

The old lady looked up at her with fever-bright eyes when Mary put the thermometer under her tongue.

"Don' wann be a burthen," she said.

"You're not," Mary assured her. "You'll be fine soon."

She certainly hoped so. That there might be cholera in this camp was inexcusable.


p. 116
------

There was a commotion at the head of the ward and Mary looked up.

"This is a the hospital ward," the matron was explaining. "You have to take them to the clinic."

"Don't tell us to take them somewhere else," a man was saying, shouting, actually. "Can't you see they're sick?"

"Help up!" the woman beside him said desperately.

Mary headed toward them. Oh God, she thought, *it's children*. One of them a babe in arms, the other about the size of a four year-old. Her gut went cold. Cholera was very hard on the very young and the very old. Her eyes met the matrons' and they made a mutual executive decision.

"If one of you will stay with Matron and help her fill out a chart, I'll help the other put these children to bed." Mary put the tray on the desk and held out her arms.

The man and woman glanced at each other, then the man held out the child he was carrying; a boy, Mary saw. She took him and led the woman down the ward toward a pair of cribs that Mary now thought insanely optimistic of whoever had put this place together. *Just two*, she thought sadly.

"What are their symptoms?" she asked the mother. She didn't need to be told "fever"; she could feel it burning through the blanket. *Ice*, she thought, *where are we going to get ice?*

"Diarrhea," the mother said, her voice shaking. "It just won't stop."

It was the symptom Mary had most dreaded hearing. She efficiently stripped and cleaned the little boy and put a Pampers on him. *These aren't going to last long,* she thought bitterly.


p. 117
------

She listened to the near-panicked mother as she started listing the symptoms all over again. Mary gave the woman a second look, noted the hectic flush, the too-bright eyes. *Help!* she thought, as short and desperate a prayer as she'd ever prayed.

Mary brought a chair over and sat the mother down. "Conserve your strength," she cautioned. "You're going to need it." Then she went to the supply cabinet and came back with some bottles of water boosted with vitamins and electrolytes. "Get them top drink as much of these as possible," she instructed. "I know they're sick to their stomachs and won't want it, but they need it, so get it down them." She put a couple of facecloths and a bottle of alcohol down on a bedside table. "When they get too hot, wipe them down with this. I'll be back shortly."



p. 128
------

Mary held the Stratzman baby, Sonya, rocking her gently. The poor little
thing was no longer able to drink on her own the only sound was the tiny
labored breathing and the creak of the canvas camp chair beneath her.

*And I don't think the IV is doing any good.*

Sonya's fever was a hundred and six the last time it had been checked and it
felt hotter by the moment; her face was withered and thin, like a tiny
grandmother's. Mary no longer noticed the smell; it was all-pervasive through
the clinic now.

Sonya's four-year-old brother was doing a bit better that she was, but not
much. He lay in the next cot, eyes half-shut; they were dull and sunken in a
hollow-cheeked face. The lids barely flickered as one of the volunteers
changed the soiled pad under his hips and rolled him to one side to straighten
the bedclothes beneath; there were bedsores where the bones of his pelvis and
shoulder were wearing through the skin.

Mrs. Stratzman had labored over her children to the point of exhaustion,
leaving her with little in reserve when she came down with cholera. She'd
died this morning. Her husband was delirious, but he was the most likely to
survive. Through with this kind of fever, there were no guarantees.

Mary herself was very tired, that limbs-filled-with-wet-sand, burning-eyed,
hard-to-talk exhaustion that almost made her want to weep.

*As if I didn't have enough reasons to cry,* she thought. And then: *You're
healthy, you've got no one to lose anymore, you're young enough to probably
throw off the infection if you do get it.*

Right now if felt as though she was stealing this time from other patients, but
babies responded better if they were held occasionally. And it gave the
nurses, both professional and volunteer, a chance to sit down.

She opened her eyes slowly and realized that she'd dropped off for a moment.
It could only have been a few seconds because Matron was still with the same
patient, in much the same posture as she had been. Mary yawned, then looked
down at little Sonya. The baby's eyes were half-open and her mouth was slack.
A spear of anxiety shot through her and she quickly checked the baby's pulse.
The infant's skin was already cooling, and where the pulse had been far too
rapid, now it was utterly gone.

She sighed. *At least someone was holding her when she died; she didn't go
alone in her crib.*

Yet Mary regretted that she hadn't noticed. Not that there would have been
anything she could have done about it.

Nurse Mary Shea rose and took the baby's chart off her crib, carrying it and
the small body outside. Beside the clinic was a large tent where the bodies
were stored prior to being buried. She handed Sonya to a soldier wearing a
hazard suit and respirator; he glanced at Mary and she could see the misery in
his eyes through the bug-like lenses of his mask. She shook her head and
shrugged and he nodded; sadly, she thought. Then Mary made a note on the
chart of the child's time of death and gave him the paper.

She returned to the clinic only for a moment, just long enough to inform the
head nurse of little Sonya Stratzman's death. Matron looked her over.

"Take a break," she said. "Don't come back for twenty minutes of so. We
won't fall to pieces."

"Thank you, " Mary said, from the heart.

She turned and walked away grabbing her jacket on the way out. Outside the
clinic she paused, but not for long. *I've got to get away form the smell of
this place,* she thought, and headed for the gate. She just had to get
somewhere that didn't stink of death and disease.


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:34:49 PM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

Just in case anyone missed the headline: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/new_warheads

We don't want North Korea to have nukes and we are on the brink of expanding our war into Iran but the good old USA once again shows how inept it's leadership is and decide that now is a good time to replace our nuclear warheads. Pray tell where is this money to replace them coming from? What kind of message does this send around the world? Obviously the USA is not interested in dismantling it's arsenal. I am terribly confused by all of this. I think that it is hypocritical to say one thing and do another but this isn't really a shock coming from George W and his cronies.

Bush may well go down in history as the worst president that this country has ever had. I am not really into politics but this headline disturbed me.


Did you take the time to read the article ? Or did you just read the headline?
The USA is a nuclear power. You may resent this but its a fact.
Its always good to try and make a safer weapon. All mechanical systems fail in time. Its only prudent to replace older systems with newer ones.
We will, according to the article be able to reduce the number of weapons with the newer model.  So it will reduce the stockpile.

Preventing nuclear proliferation is not just an american policy its an international policy ( BTW  N Korea signed and broke this treaty )
Would you care to hazard a guess as to how many treaties the U.S. has signed and subsequently broken?

Iran's pursuit of this technology is scary as to their primary religious fervor for strapping bombs to themselves. If they have no qualms using conventional explosives to attack civilians while blowing themselves up, what makes you think they'd resist using nukes?
I have not heard of the Iranians strapping bombs to themselves...but then there is a lot going on in the world and I may have missed it durring a drug induced stupor.
thompson





Clear the haze then....
Iran suicide bombers ‘ready to hit Britain’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article706132.ece

We would also be a target.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:50:49 PM   
Gauge


Posts: 5689
Joined: 6/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

I am so glad that you have labeled me with a political bias of being left-wing. Anyone on these boards will tell you that politically I really have little interest in the left or the right, my interest lies in what I think it is we as a Nation should do.

I am neither left or right, I ask a fair question and leave it open for debate.


I tend to think I have a similar bent as you, Gauge.

I dont really care what a particular political bent is, I simply want things fair and equitable for everybody.

But it never ceases to amaze me how one gets attacked for saying something when, as opposed to what one is saying being attacked, when people who demand to disagree with what you are saying really cannot.

I suppose it is easier for them to shoot the messenger than respond to the message.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy

p.s. I have often said how amazed I am that some people can live in a mind that small.


I am not worried if I am attacked for saying something that I really feel strongly about. If people make assumptions based on what I say it is all the more telling about those making the comments.

I have no real political interest. It is interesting to me how venomous some can get when talking about something as touchy as this.

I really wish that people could just objectively debate the topic.

_____________________________

"For there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men." Herman Melville - Moby Dick

I'm wearing my chicken suit and humming La Marseillaise.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:51:03 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
"In a tape recording heard by The Sunday Times,"

I'm not sure that's what I'd call "Credible", or if I'd be proud to admit that was the source of my story. An unsourced, unverified, unattributed tape recording.

And who uses tape these days?



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/4/2007 9:53:28 PM   
LotusSong


Posts: 6334
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Domme Emeritus
Status: offline
My husband and I moved from NE Ohio to Arizona because the unemployment  where we lived was 25%.
 
Seems the Reagan era thumbed it's nose at unions causing them to be all but extinct  (at least in AZ)
 
And gee.. weren't the interest rates great for home buyers?  14%
 
Gotta love "convenient memories".

_____________________________

Life Lesson #1

I'm not your type.
I'm not inflatable.


(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/5/2007 12:09:02 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Most historians disagree with you completely. They agree that the atomic bombs were necessary.


Conservative American historians? I've read Americans that beg to differ and there are many other respected historians that do too. The bombs weren't necessary. The USA government spun the line it would take 1 million men to take mainlind Japan. Meanwhile it had taken them 50,000 to get to Japan and Japan was wanting peace. It doesn't add up. The bombs were dropped for Russia's benefit and Japanese civilians paid the price.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/5/2007 12:15:50 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

Clear the haze then....
Iran suicide bombers ‘ready to hit Britain’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article706132.ece

We would also be a target.


This is not news, it took no great reporting skills to write this article. Iran announced that if it was attacked by the USA it would respond any place anywhere and in any way it could. It knows fighting the American military head on is futile, it just doesn't possess the military technology and hardware. Asymetrical warfare is its only option at getting at its enemy so it's announced it will go down that route. Targeting Britain would be of no great surprise since we are the USA'a lapdog.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/5/2007 8:21:02 PM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

Clear the haze then....
Iran suicide bombers ‘ready to hit Britain’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article706132.ece

We would also be a target.


This is not news, it took no great reporting skills to write this article. Iran announced that if it was attacked by the USA it would respond any place anywhere and in any way it could. It knows fighting the American military head on is futile, it just doesn't possess the military technology and hardware. Asymetrical warfare is its only option at getting at its enemy so it's announced it will go down that route. Targeting Britain would be of no great surprise since we are the USA'a lapdog.


I was pointing out for Sinergy that Iran had intentions of using suicide bombers. I agree that Iran does not have advanced military weapons. I do think that using children for this task is beyond the pale. It runs against all  military combat laws and treaty's as well.
Nevermind their affinity for targeting civilians.
But hey maybe we should allow them to develope nukes, I'm sure the fact that  we would respond in kind if they would use them  would deter the Iranians... lol

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/5/2007 8:33:24 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
Well, except for the fact that as "martyrs" any Muslim extremists who had nuked us would expect that, after we nuked them back, they would each recieve twenty four mansions, and in each mansion there would be twenty four rooms, and in each room would be twenty four virgins...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

But hey maybe we should allow them to develope nukes, I'm sure the fact that  we would respond in kind if they would use them  would deter the Iranians... lol

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/5/2007 9:59:37 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
Just to re-focus, my issue is with how we justify telling others what to do when we do not do the same thing.

I have a basic problem with a double standard that we hold others accountable while we basically go unchecked. Who watches the watchers?


Not to justify it, only to understand it ...
 
If you study history very closely, you rapidly come to the conclusion that powereful nations stay powerful, when they write rules, enforce them on other people, but choose to break them themselves. Sad but true ... most of the time, when powerful nations start holding themselves to the standards they hold other to, they have signed their own death warrent. Playing fair and malevolent leadership, has more often made a power look weak to her enemies, rather than respected by her friends. In our case, our supposed friends are few and highly fickle.
 
Question back to you ... forget about right, wrong and fairness, since the world has never really been any of these things. Ask yourself the question from the standpoint of practicality. We build these 2,000 modern warheads to replace 6,000 older ones, and everyone raises a stink. Does that really matter, in the long term? What real result will this bring?
 
I think if you look at this honestly, you will say "no" and "none."

(in reply to Gauge)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/6/2007 4:23:19 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I do think that using children for this task is beyond the pale. It runs against all military combat laws and treaty's as well.


Did it offend you when the Colonials sniped from behind trees, instead of forming up into ranks on the battlefield like civilized nations do?

War has changed. War always changes. When you invade a nation, the *civilians* fight back. Don't want the Iranian Civilians to attack, respect their Sovereignty and stop trying to start a war.

Iranians are NOT YOUR SLAVES, and you're not an Iranian, so while you get to *have* an opinion, your opinion doesn't matter much.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/6/2007 4:26:36 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Well, except for the fact that as "martyrs" any Muslim extremists who had nuked us would expect that, after we nuked them back, they would each recieve twenty four mansions, and in each mansion there would be twenty four rooms, and in each room would be twenty four virgins...



Tim McViegh didn't have any promises like that, but he still completed the mission.

It's all about the training, and you don't need to be a Muslim to be trained properly.





_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 3/6/2007 4:34:19 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
Just to re-focus, my issue is with how we justify telling others what to do when we do not do the same thing.

I have a basic problem with a double standard that we hold others accountable while we basically go unchecked. Who watches the watchers?


Not to justify it, only to understand it ...

If you study history very closely, you rapidly come to the conclusion that powereful nations stay powerful, when they write rules, enforce them on other people, but choose to break them themselves. Sad but true ... most of the time, when powerful nations start holding themselves to the standards they hold other to, they have signed their own death warrent. Playing fair and malevolent leadership, has more often made a power look weak to her enemies, rather than respected by her friends. In our case, our supposed friends are few and highly fickle.

Question back to you ... forget about right, wrong and fairness, since the world has never really been any of these things. Ask yourself the question from the standpoint of practicality. We build these 2,000 modern warheads to replace 6,000 older ones, and everyone raises a stink. Does that really matter, in the long term? What real result will this bring?

I think if you look at this honestly, you will say "no" and "none."


Since the NPT reads:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

It is a clear violation, as the development of new warheads is not evidence of GOOD FAITH in executing their responsibilities.

If the US will Lie about their commitments under the NPT, what Treaty can the be trusted to comply with?

If the US violates the NPT, should anyone bother complying with THEIR obligations?

If the US cannot be trusted negotiate and act in Good Faith, why bother pretending to negotiate?


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.125