Page 1 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Sean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

11 Sep 2005, 2:24 am

It looks like he just might come through on main campaign promise I voted for him twice for after all. :D Actually, I heard about the planning of this in November 2001 (I might be full of crap, I might not).

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050911/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nuclear_doctrine

Japan had a suicidal detemination to defeat America and look at how nukes took the fight out of them.



Last edited by Sean on 11 Sep 2005, 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Till
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 12
Location: Germany

11 Sep 2005, 3:11 am

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Pacified? You cannot really mean what you've just wrote.



Sean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

11 Sep 2005, 3:32 am

His willingness to use nuclear force really was a factor in my decision to vote for him. This is no joke.



vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

11 Sep 2005, 3:36 am

i believe Till is referring to the use of the word "pacified", sean, which is an insensitive way of describing things, given all the people who died as a result of the attacks.

please could you reconsider using the term, as it will offensive to many people.

thank you.

Vivi
(as Moderator).



Sean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

11 Sep 2005, 4:23 am

vetivert wrote:
i believe Till is referring to the use of the word "pacified", sean, which is an insensitive way of describing things, given all the people who died as a result of the attacks.

please could you reconsider using the term, as it will offensive to many people.

thank you.

Vivi
(as Moderator).

Okay, but please keep in mind that this topic is more about winning a war than the casualties.



vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

11 Sep 2005, 4:56 am

thank you for editing the post, sean.



RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

11 Sep 2005, 6:27 am

What can I say Sean, I give up trying to make you see reason!! !! :|



thatrsdude
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,178
Location: SA, Australia

11 Sep 2005, 7:31 am

Keep trying, it'd be worth it.


_________________
255 characters max. Type your signature with HTML coding


Litguy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 649
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2005, 7:59 am

Sorry to rain on your parade, Sean, but nuclear weapons would be pretty ineffective against Islamic terrorism. The terrorists are not people with a nation, government, or secular system to protect. They are not concerned with their own lives or those of a nation's. They are deluded into believing that they are killing in the name of God.

While there are nations like Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia that give them support, they don't give a damn about those nations, and if they were destroyed, the terrorists would just get support from somewhere else.

They set up cells everywhere, including, as we well know, in the USA. Where do you drop the bombs? Paterson, NJ?



ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

11 Sep 2005, 12:15 pm

Sean wrote:
Japan had a suicidal detemination to defeat America and look at how nukes took the fight out of them.

Fortunately for us, 1945's Japan was a country at war with us. Because of American imperialism, the war we are in now is against terrorists in all areas of the globe. Are you suggesting you would want Bush to use nuclear weapons against neutral countries simply on suspicion of resident terrorists? I believe that would incite virtually every peace-loving citizen outside the United States to take up arms against us. Then would we be forced to wipe out the rest of the world? After we were all alone, I think we might have to get to work on most of the United States, too. New England is pretty expendable, considering the number of Democrats...



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

11 Sep 2005, 1:24 pm

The USA couldnt wipe out my arse after i've taken a dump never mind the rest of the world.



Scoots5012
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,397
Location: Cedar Rapids Iowa

11 Sep 2005, 3:25 pm

The potential use of nuclear weapons as a pre-emptive tool is a very dangerous precent to be setting.

If we nuke somebody off in the middle east becasue of what "they might want to do to us", what's to stop china from doing the same to US. Afterall, they have missles now that can reach the US thanks to Mr. Clinton.


_________________
I live my life to prove wrong those who said I couldn't make it in life...


Prometheus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,506
Location: Through the plexiglass

11 Sep 2005, 3:37 pm

Quote:
The potential use of nuclear weapons as a pre-emptive tool is a very dangerous precent to be setting.


But, in the end, nukes are just another weapon. Hirshoma and Nakagshi have long since rebuilt, and ground zero there is again teeming with people. Horrible events, yes, but I would be more concerned with the very doctrine of Pre-emptive attack. We attack because we "think" that someone else may harm us. I don't see justification in that.


_________________
All your bass are belong to us.


AbominableSnoCone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,685
Location: Jersey

11 Sep 2005, 4:34 pm

As has been stated by at least one other person here, how are nuclear weapons going to help deal with small terrorist cells planted in our allied nations??? To combat the threat we need better espionage, allies in the Islamic world (which maybe, just maybe, Iraq might become but I feel very doubtful on that count), and better security in our cities (How the terrorists almost got a 2nd London attack the week after and only failed because of their OWN incompetence, I just don't understand)



Litguy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 649
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2005, 5:50 pm

Prometheus wrote:
But, in the end, nukes are just another weapon. Hirshoma and Nakagshi have long since rebuilt, and ground zero there is again teeming with people. Horrible events, yes, but I would be more concerned with the very doctrine of Pre-emptive attack..


But they were surgical attacks with relatively small weapons. I fear that the next use of atomic weaponry would have far more devastating long-term effects.

Prometheus wrote:
We attack because we "think" that someone else may harm us. I don't see justification in that.
You attack when you have a good level of certainty that someone else will attack you. This is a function of intelligence. If you are right, you are justified and have acted prudently. We attacked Japan, not only because they wouldn't surrender, but also because we had reason to believe that they would attack China.



Absolute_Zero
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 643
Location: New Brunswick, Canada

12 Sep 2005, 3:54 am

George W Bush is the most dangerous person in the world right now.

Nuclear weapons are sick and I believe the world needs to be developing atomic electricity generation and not atomic DEATH.
The United States as a nation is in a precarious position right now, not unlike early 19th century France or the Roman empire.