Iraq

[ZecalZwack]

I just wanna know your oppinoins on the war.

[Dreadlock]

This thread is political. Yes.

We should've never gone there, we should've let the people handle their own business. It's Vietnam all over again.

Once again we are seen as fussy, invading demons.

Thanks Mr. President.

[LSF]

One word. 'Oil'.
And it's a bad thing because starting the war just gave the bloody terrorists an excuse to keep doing what they're doing. Not to mention giving Iran and the likes an incentive to join the ride.

[Solstis]

Before someone mentions that oil prices haven't gone down, I'd like to mention that politicians don't care about that. If the war was for oil, the US invaded Iraq to stablize the region, which hasn't happened yet, but could.

Not to mention that Halliburton is making craploads of cash off of the war. So is Dubai. Good for some, bad for most.

[Dangerous55]

I would advise changing the poll around, I agree with the war...but don't think it is good. If you know what I mean.

[KaFKa]

On 2006-03-20 15:31, Dreadlock wrote:
This thread is political. Yes.

We should've never gone there, we should've let the people handle their own business. It's Vietnam all over again.

Once again we are seen as fussy, invading demons.

Thanks Mr. President.


Yes, because we should have sat twiddling our thumbs after 9/11. That makes perfect sense for the world's superpower to do when blatantly attacked.

IF we were in Iraq solely for the oil, we would have colonized the country and be owning it by now. Job would have been done and gas would have gone back down to a buck a gallon or whatever.

[EJ]

I agree with the war but at the same time I'm wondering why not just send in some special forces team to kill Bin laden and the whole terriost group.

I know the government have those type of task force, just use them, not everything has to be know if it's for the greater good of getting rid of Bin Ladena nd group.

[Wyndham]

I don't think the war was not about oil, Bush, or anything like that. The war was about extending the number of countries run the way America sees fit.

[Blitzkommando]

Somehow, I think that it was better off getting rid of a mass murderer than leaving him in power to kill. The man killed his own sons for his benefit. If anything this should've happened years ago when the first bloody resolution was broken. But instead UN, including the United States, pussyfooted around the subject for ten years and created that horribly corrupt Oil for Food program.

That said, there are a number of countries that pose even larger threats to multiple nations, such as North Korea. The problem is that unlike Iraq, North Korea has a very organized (compared to the suicide bombers of Iraq) military. Not only that they have the facilities, resources, and parts to produce nuclear weapons. Heck, they have the weapons. The main target this time would be Japan who has been scared to death of something happening there for the past fifty years. I feel Iraq was a good step, but I also feel it was just that, a step towards eventually taking on larger fish to fry.

Based on what I have heard from persons who were actually over in Iraq, with the people there, I can safely say that the results of this are a good thing. War is never a good thing, but diplomacy can only go so far. For how it has been handled considering the situation it's pretty amazing how well things have gone. With such large defense cuts during the 1990s, and so many cuts within the military personnel it has had some rather unfortunate effects on the military. The most notable is that we have had to resort to our reserves and a reduced active duty force. But really, it is congress that approves budget and military spending and whatnot, so if anyone is to blame for the piss poor situation it is them.

[Rubius-sama]

One good thing came out of the war..the fall of Saddam. But if you're going to tell me the WAR was a good thing?! Then you need help.

Most Americans now think the war was wrong, but this is only after they have seen their own blood shed, not after seeing Iraqi blood shed, and not even after no WMDs were found. So I think it is safe to say most Americans care little about other human beings...just a little something that this war proved.

The war was not to topple a tyrant, the only good thing that came out of this war. What about all the other tyrants in the middle east? Kings of Egypt, Arabia, Jordan, and more...they're all tyrants who torture their own people. They're all evil. Only reason they will never be toppled is because they're puppets of America.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rubius-sama on 2006-03-20 20:50 ]</font>

[GrumblyStuff]

On 2006-03-20 20:24, Norvekh wrote:
War is never a good thing, but diplomacy can only go so far.
It should be noted, Bush did jump the gun. We invaded under the pretenses that Saddam had or was making WMDs. UN weapon inspectors were doing their job up until Bush declared that Saddam had 48 hours to get the hell out of dodge (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html).


On 2006-03-20 18:11, KaFKa wrote:
Yes, because we should have sat twiddling our thumbs after 9/11. That makes perfect sense for the world's superpower to do when blatantly attacked.
Yes, because we were attacked by Iraq. That makes perfect sense so long as you ignore the facts. Dur-hur.

[edit]
As for my opinion, it fucking sucks. To do an immediate pullout would be a disaster. But what would is sitting over there with our thumbs up our butt trying to stop them from having a war?

You can't help anyone who won't help themselves, right?

I say, announce that we're tried of their shit and we're out in nine months. If things get worse, make it six. If things are looking up, make it a year with the possibility of further extentions.

This is all fucking ridiculous. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_frown.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrumblyStuff on 2006-03-21 02:52 ]</font>

[Blitzkommando]

On 2006-03-21 02:45, GrumblyStuff wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-03-20 20:24, Norvekh wrote:
War is never a good thing, but diplomacy can only go so far.
It should be noted, Bush did jump the gun. We invaded under the pretenses that Saddam had or was making WMDs. UN weapon inspectors were doing their job up until Bush declared that Saddam had 48 hours to get the hell out of dodge (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html).



The man had over ten years to 'get out of the dodge' but he refused to do so. It had been stated those ten years prior that he was at the end of the line but again he ignored that. And the UN was so enthralled in its own politics it wasn't willing to do the job that was stated to be done. The man had ten years to prove that he didn't have anything to hide, that he was willing to cooperate. He didn't.

[Solstis]

If Saddam admitted to not having weapons, he would have looked powerless in front of the other nations in the region (not to mention to the rebels and other factions). It was a gamble. Bush had two choices: back down and show that he was full of hot air, or to invade and prove his mettle. He invaded.

Well, the CIA could probably have taken Saddam out a long time ago, though. Probably would have ended up with another dictator in Iraq.

[Charmander02]

War is good, as long as its for a good cause, though the war in Iraq doesnt seem to be for any good reason at all.

[GreenArcher]

On 2006-03-21 13:00, Charmander02 wrote:
War is good, as long as its for a good cause, though the war in Iraq doesnt seem to be for any good reason at all.



Explain to me how mankind slaughtering themselves on a large scale is good? I agree that war is necessary, but it's not good (some country is bombing you, and you give them peace talks; just doesn't work like that).

If every single person on this planet could accept, or tolerate other human being's differences, and realizes there is an alternate path to desire other than killing, 99.9% of wars would be stopped.

P.S. I know that's beating a dead horse, the odds of that happening are like winning the lottery twice.

[GreenArcher]

>_> double post

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Green_Archer3 on 2006-03-21 16:36 ]</font>

[BogusKun]

I was waiting for a topic like this for this long, as hot for this long.

It's true we shouldnt't have gone, and most people know me for being direct with military officers.

PSO-World. I been here in America for a while and the secret is out. I will be in Iraq from June2006 to May2007.

Ooh-Rah!

[Link5]

Like several have said already, war is never a good thing, but is necessary in some instances. In the situation with Iraq, people love to point the finger at Bush, accuse the war being primarily for oil, and question whether Saddam Hussein really had
‘weapons of mass destruction.’ The facts have been out for quite a while, but is scarcely known, that before the initial Gulf war, America sold biological and chemical agents which were used as weapons, to aid Iraq in their war with Iran. The U.S. knew Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction because we armed Iraq with them.
When your enemy is hiding weapons they’ve been told to reveal, and continues to be hostile and support terrorism, that’s good incentive to end it.

In my opinion, Saddam Hussein should have been taken care of back in the first Gulf war. It would have saved America a lot of headache in the future. That was The United States plan in the first place, but that was just it, America didn’t want to have to stay and govern over Iraq and take care of stabilizing the country after removing it’s leader, so the decision was made to pull out. Then Clinton didn’t take much initiative in the situation with Iraq. In a sense, Bush is just finishing what his father started.

[EphekZ]

War is good for freedom and for things that will benefit the world. I used to think this war was solely fo oil but I think differently now. If you guys do not recall but America put saddam in power. That means if sadam fucks up(which he has been basically doing while he was in power) it is America's fault. There are still sadam extremists which is obvious but the main citizens are living a better life.

edit: Good luck Boguskun.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkgunner on 2006-03-21 16:48 ]</font>

[GrumblyStuff]

On 2006-03-21 12:10, Norvekh wrote:
The man had over ten years to 'get out of the dodge' but he refused to do so. It had been stated those ten years prior that he was at the end of the line but again he ignored that. .... The man had ten years to prove that he didn't have anything to hide, that he was willing to cooperate. He didn't.
So what, he had to prove the absence of weapons? Well, ain't that quite the double standard to assume he was guilty then and now putting him on trial (why bother since, you know, he's guitly? that's rhetorical question btw).

I'll be honest. I'm certain my knowledge is lacking in this area with much of the First Gulf War and early '90s dominated by other memories (Mario and legos and all that, what with being born in '84). But I'm always willing to learn so please, enlighten me.

And pardon me for being skeptical so backup up anything with relevant webpages.

(/b/-chan? or /b/tard? i see what you did there)

[KaFKa]

On 2006-03-21 02:45, GrumblyStuff wrote:
Yes, because we were attacked by Iraq. That makes perfect sense so long as you ignore the facts. Dur-hur.

Your obviously ignorant of what the political arena is like outside the US. There are something like 58 seperate countries that are openly hostile to the US. (not exact numbers, but its in that ballpark) If the US didn't respond in any way to 9/11, it would have happened again a year later, or even sooner, since we're nothing but pussies that wont fight back

Starting to get through to you?

[GrumblyStuff]

We DID respond, you stupid git. Does Afghanistan ring a bell? You know, the country that housed OSAMA BIN LADEN? The man who supposedly mastermind 9/11? The man Bush said we'd get DEAD OR ALIVE?

Your ignorance is quite obvious as well, Sir.

[Saiffy]

ogod a topic like this ._.

Although this isn't exactly my own thoughts on the matter, I agree with a lot of it. What does it matter why the US is in Iraq? Retaliation? Oil? Does it really matter? US is the biggest super power in the world, so what does it matter if you guys are just there for oil? Or to take over? Ancient Rome was considered a great empire, and what did they do?

I'm not pro war, but I'm pro let countries do whatever the fuck they want(I know this is going to be taken out of context so badly)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saiffy on 2006-03-21 18:50 ]</font>

[Parn]

On 2006-03-21 18:27, GrumblyStuff wrote:
We DID respond, you stupid git. Does Afghanistan ring a bell? You know, the country that housed OSAMA BIN LADEN? The man who supposedly mastermind 9/11? The man Bush said we'd get DEAD OR ALIVE?
Which makes our invasion of Iraq irrelevant, how? I take it you haven't read up on Salman Pak, Samarra, and Ramadi. Google those locations and discover the wonderful world of terrorist training camps within Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm)!

Anyone in this thread who associated the Iraqi conflict with Vietnam or mentioned our reason for going in being oil is dumb. Sorry, there's no nice way of going about it. You're ignorant, and you're stupid. Go do some reading on your own instead of regurgitating the crap you watched your local politician spew on CNN or Fox News as if you thought it up on your own. Democrats and Republicans are all morons concerned about their own political agenda instead of just being honest, and the news media just follows suit. The internet is a boon of information at your fingertips. Do some research and come up with your own reasonable conclusions instead of listening to that garbage.

[Jehosaphaty]

I love when people say we should "be the bigger man", "We should have waited for the U.N.'s blessing". Let's wait around, turn the other cheek, play by the 'rules' and then get shot in the back. [again]





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jehosaphaty on 2006-03-21 20:21 ]</font>

[Dhylec]

Let's help keep this topic civilized & away from the flames shall we?

[GrumblyStuff]

On 2006-03-21 19:41, Parn wrote:
Which makes our invasion of Iraq irrelevant, how? I take it you haven't read up on Salman Pak, Samarra, and Ramadi. Google those locations and discover the wonderful world of terrorist training camps within Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm)!
Who said it was irrelevant? I'm pissed over how it's going and how it started. Yes, Saddam is a bad guy. Yes, it's good to remove him from power. But we helped put him there. We gave him WMDs. That should never have happened. Hence, what's happening now shouldn't be happening either.

I'm pissed when people say we're fighting terrorists over there so we don't fight them here. That's real fucking fair for Iraqis.

More and more I'm simply pissed because I don't know what to believe.



On 2006-03-21 19:41, Parn wrote:
Democrats and Republicans are all morons concerned about their own political agenda....
It's worse than you think. Democrats will take your sword; Republicans will take your pen. What good will your voice be when they come for you? What good will your gun be when you don't know who to fight for?


On 2006-03-21 19:41, Parn wrote:Do some research and come up with your own reasonable conclusions instead of listening to that garbage.
That's the other half of the trouble. Where O where to get the straight facts, unbiased, untouched? Common media (TV, newspapers, magizines, radio etc.) are getting united under a decreasing number of companies while uncommon media (flyers, internet, etc.) are easily corruptable and full of 'he says, she says.'

Fucking hell ignorance is bliss.

Now then, what to do... go drink, read 1984, or both?

[Parn]

On 2006-03-21 21:07, GrumblyStuff wrote:
That's the other half of the trouble. Where O where to get the straight facts, unbiased, untouched? Common media (TV, newspapers, magizines, radio etc.) are getting united under a decreasing number of companies while uncommon media (flyers, internet, etc.) are easily corruptable and full of 'he says, she says.'
That's why you go and research things for yourself. Have you honestly made any attempt to do so? You can tell when an article is concise and unbiased, a prime example being the one that I linked in my previous post. Most people will never read it though, because they watch Fox News and CNN and can't be bothered to go look for the information themselves, but think their opinions on the subject matter are somehow valid.

Even if an article is biased, you compare it with multiple other sources to see what information is accurate and what has been embellished. Being informed isn't that difficult... it's a question of whether you want to be or not.

[InfinityXXX]

Well I don't like the war but as much as I hate to say it, we obviously cannot just up and leave Iraq.(I think yesterday our president had a conference in which he adressed how he still feels about withdrawing our troops)

To be honest(thats like my favorite phrase,lol), I do think there is something shady behind the war. I mean, when 9/11 first happened it was Bin Ladin this, Bin Ladin that but somehow Bin ladin turned into Sadam.

The terrorist situation turned into the whole Weapons of Mass destruction(which we never found). But doesn't Korea(North or south, don't really know) have weapons of mass destruction?

Haven't they been bragging about it and threating.(I've been seeing them on the news, along with their soldiers doing that CREEPY march) Why aren't we bothering them if we were so worried of dangerous weapons? If there is a reason we won't mess with Korea couldn't the same reason be with Iraq?

So I believe that some of the reason we went their was on suspicion on dangerous weapons but there was something else. Oil? Did Lil Bush have beef with Sadam over his spat with his daddy a few years ago? I dunno but we went their for a reason greater than that of trying to find weapons of mass destruction.

As for war itself. I think a long time ago, it was not a good thing but it was necessary for certain situations.(like the american revolution) but NOW, I don't think war is really necessary.

I would say we're more intelligent and wiser than those in the past and that we should be smart enough to settle things through words but there may be rare cases where we may just need war.(like if theres another Rawanda or aparthied or Holocaust) but for the most part war isn't really necessay such in the Iraq case.

*sigh* I dunno, I wish we could just snap our fingers and it can be over.

Also, for those that disagree, please don't flame me, just disagree. We can agree to disagree.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: InfinityXXX on 2006-03-23 12:50 ]</font>

[Rainbowlemon]

Why should America be the only one with nuclear weapons? In fact, if I could choose 1 country to remove weapons of mass destruction from, it would be the US - they're the only ones that are using nuclear weapons.

The war is nothing other than racial conflict, and profit over people - Its baffling how any one leader can think if they use weapons they'll bring peace to the world. How can you fight terror with terror? It's just...nonsense. I'd love to see Bush going over there himself and saying sorry, and trying to make peace with them all. Calling a truce. But of course, we all know that's not going to happen.

[Charmander02]

On 2006-03-21 13:48, Green_Archer3 wrote:


On 2006-03-21 13:00, Charmander02 wrote:
War is good, as long as its for a good cause, though the war in Iraq doesnt seem to be for any good reason at all.



Explain to me how mankind slaughtering themselves on a large scale is good? I agree that war is necessary, but it's not good (some country is bombing you, and you give them peace talks; just doesn't work like that).

If every single person on this planet could accept, or tolerate other human being's differences, and realizes there is an alternate path to desire other than killing, 99.9% of wars would be stopped.

P.S. I know that's beating a dead horse, the odds of that happening are like winning the lottery twice.



Hehe...that's what i meant by good, neccecary.

[Shattered_weasel]

On 2006-03-22 14:58, Antimony wrote:
How can you fight terror with terror?


An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.



I'd love to see Bush going over there himself and saying sorry, and trying to make peace with them all.


The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.

Thank you Gandhi

[Jehosaphaty]

On 2006-03-22 14:58, Antimony wrote:
...I'd love to see Bush going over there himself and saying sorry...




Because this is all the President's fault. every.last.bit.of.this.war. To say nothing of the countless people who surround him giving him their best advice? Kill the messenger. Yes, he is obviously for the war, but he has weighed and taken into account the advice of the some of the most knowledgeable people in the country. You want an apology? Try rounding up the entirety of the White House and then shipping them over to Iraq. Find me a blameless person amoung them.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, regardless of who would be the President at the moment, to blame the entire thing on Bush is asinine.

[GrumblyStuff]

On 2006-03-22 14:58, Antimony wrote:
Why should America be the only one with nuclear weapons? .... they're the only ones that are using nuclear weapons.
It's a party of five: US, France, Britain, Russia, and China. At least it was.

We have (had) a treaty call the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/) (NPT) where the nuclear powers that be (party of five, yo) agree to "not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state."

Pakistan and India have nukes. North Korea supposedly does too. Iran is supposedly working on theirs. (The 'supposedly's are just there because who the hell really knows?) Israel is thought to have some.

Bush kinda scrapped the whole damn thing by making a deal with India (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4764826.stm). I can't find anything about whether or not India will sign (a little help?) but under the deal, 8 of 22 reactors will be military oriented and will not be inspected.

It should be noted that France made a similar deal last month.

Now then, just what nuclear weapons have the US been using, Antimony?

[DevinTre]

We shouldn't have gone there.

And I'm tired of Bush making yet more excuses and finding ways to try to justify the war and everything in the name of national security, and anyone who goes up against him about it gets 9/11 shoved in their face and made out to be unpatriotic.

And try speaking out against the Dubai ports deal. He then acts like if we don't show trust, we will get none in return. But hello? What was this about national security again?

Also, as previously mentioned, his trip to India. Yes we need allies, but ... don't we have more important issues at hand than ... India?

Democrat, Republican, conserative, liberal, moderate ... it boils down to none of these categories. It's no less than business, politics, and the man in charge refusing to admit he is WRONG. And since he has made Iraq our problem, unless its new government can contain the unrest and violence, it will remain our problem indefinitely ... in so many more ways than one.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DevinTre on 2006-03-22 16:42 ]</font>

[Parn]

On 2006-03-22 16:41, DevinTre wrote:
And try speaking out against the Dubai ports deal. He then acts like if we don't show trust, we will get none in return. But hello? What was this about national security again?
So wouldn't this technically make you as hypocritical as our president, whom didn't even know about it initially anyways (which is freaking hilarious)? The real question is, are you against the ports deal for a valid reason, or are you against the ports deal because President Bush is for it? What is your justification for being against it?

While we're at it, WHY are you against the war? I'm expecting something along the lines of "Bush lied about WMDs and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" like most political dogs bark out, but by all means, surprise me.

[DevinTre]

On 2006-03-22 19:27, Parn wrote:

On 2006-03-22 16:41, DevinTre wrote:
And try speaking out against the Dubai ports deal. He then acts like if we don't show trust, we will get none in return. But hello? What was this about national security again?
So wouldn't this technically make you as hypocritical as our president, whom didn't even know about it initially anyways (which is freaking hilarious)? The real question is, are you against the ports deal for a valid reason, or are you against the ports deal because President Bush is for it? What is your justification for being against it?

While we're at it, WHY are you against the war? I'm expecting something along the lines of "Bush lied about WMDs and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" like most political dogs bark out, but by all means, surprise me.



You make me sound like a watchdog group or something. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif You can call me what you will, but everyone is entitled to their opinions.
The truth is, I had friends and relatives in the war, a close friend who was nearly killed in a mess hall explosion. Luckily, he survived. So yes, maybe this is too personal for me. I would never say his fight along with all the other soldiers is or was in vain, but unless bin Laden and his men were in Iraq, I see no reason why we were/are there. And I think the Dubai ports are all about money, no more, no less.

[Parn]

On 2006-03-22 19:45, DevinTre wrote:
unless bin Laden and his men were in Iraq, I see no reason why we were/are there.
Chalk up another one whom has never read the article I linked to earlier. Once again, people can't be bothered to research on their own, even when someone provides them the means to get started.

I'll try this one more time. Type Salman Pak in your Google search instead of videogames, anime pics, free mp3s, or whatever else you regularly search for. You might discover something important!


And I think the Dubai ports are all about money, no more, no less.
...and? What else would selling ports be about? So in other words, you are against the concept of making money. I guess this is supposed to make some kind of sense?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Parn on 2006-03-23 02:15 ]</font>

[Rainbowlemon]

On 2006-03-22 16:02, GrumblyStuff wrote:
It's a party of five: US, France, Britain, Russia, and China. At least it was.

We have (had) a treaty call the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/) (NPT) where the nuclear powers that be (party of five, yo) agree to "not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state."

Pakistan and India have nukes. North Korea supposedly does too. Iran is supposedly working on theirs. (The 'supposedly's are just there because who the hell really knows?) Israel is thought to have some.

Bush kinda scrapped the whole damn thing by making a deal with India (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4764826.stm). I can't find anything about whether or not India will sign (a little help?) but under the deal, 8 of 22 reactors will be military oriented and will not be inspected.

It should be noted that France made a similar deal last month.

Now then, just what nuclear weapons have the US been using, Antimony?



Hiroshima? Nagasaki? ...The only nuclear bombs to be dropped with intent to kill was by the United States.

Countries all over the world are now investing in nuclear technology...but that doesn't mean they'll ever use them, it means they're requiring protection from the bigger foe...

Jehosaphaty: Sure, the members of the white house are all responsible for letting such actions even take place...but who voices the actions? Who is *really* in control? The final decision goes to the president - there is no democratics.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Antimony on 2006-03-23 08:05 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-03-23 08:05, Antimony wrote:


Hiroshima? Nagasaki? ...The only nuclear bombs to be dropped with intent to kill was by the United States.




They saved so many more lives then they took.


Don't bring that up to make the US sound evil, remember we were fighting the Japanese everyone from this site seems to think are amazing. If I remember correctly the Japanese were responsible for some of the most brutal acts of WW2.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2006-03-23 08:34 ]</font>

[GrumblyStuff]

On 2006-03-23 08:05, Antimony wrote:
Hiroshima? Nagasaki? ...The only nuclear bombs to be dropped with intent to kill was by the United States.
You say that like the rest of war was less than, well, war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-bombing_of_Tokyo

Nukes are quite the pandora's box but biological weapons (germ warfare) and nuclear accidents (Chernobyl) rate a bit higher on my "I just shat myself" list.

[Solstis]

1) Parn's right about the Dubai ports. You don't SELL something unless you want to make money.

2) I'd have to agree with Dangerous (gasp) on the nukes. Though I still hate the idea that the US used them, a land invasion was out of the question. Firebombing might have done the trick, though, and with probably less radiation (then again, we didn't know much about radiation...).

Some of the things that the Japanese did would have impressed the Nazis. Putting a person in a centrifuge?

[Rainbowlemon]

On 2006-03-23 08:51, GrumblyStuff wrote:


On 2006-03-23 08:05, Antimony wrote:
Hiroshima? Nagasaki? ...The only nuclear bombs to be dropped with intent to kill was by the United States.
You say that like the rest of war was less than, well, war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-bombing_of_Tokyo

Nukes are quite the pandora's box but biological weapons (germ warfare) and nuclear accidents (Chernobyl) rate a bit higher on my "I just shat myself" list.



Biological warfare does not always result in death. Being caught in the blast wave of a nuke kind of does. In all honesty, I would prefer to suffer a year of being extremely ill then carry on living, than to just out-right die.

Then again, that's your opinion, so...yeah.

The point I'm trying to make is, even if the whole world gets blown the hell out of by biological weapons, there will still be people alive to find a cure to the ailments that result from them. If the whole world nuked itself, which is seems we are drawing ever-closer to...we hardly have a chance, do we?



On 2006-03-23 08:29, Dangerous55 wrote:


On 2006-03-23 08:05, Antimony wrote:


Hiroshima? Nagasaki? ...The only nuclear bombs to be dropped with intent to kill was by the United States.



They saved so many more lives then they took.

Don't bring that up to make the US sound evil, remember we were fighting the Japanese everyone from this site seems to think are amazing. If I remember correctly the Japanese were responsible for some of the most brutal acts of WW2.



That's only 1 view to the situation - specifically, an american's point of view. Many people feel the Japanese were in the process of responding to Truman's requests, but nobody thought to wait and find out - nuke or be nuked, I suppose. S'not exactly what I'd prefer the outlook on life to be...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Antimony on 2006-03-23 09:57 ]</font>

[GrumblyStuff]

On 2006-03-23 09:53, Antimony wrote:
Biological warfare does not always result in death. Being caught in the blast wave of a nuke kind of does. In all honesty, I would prefer to suffer a year of being extremely ill then carry on living, than to just out-right die.

Then again, that's your opinion, so...yeah.
You assume they would be non-fatal? That anti-biotics would work?

Generally, weapons produced are designed to kill. Anthrax has 80% mortalitiy rate but is non-infectous (it doesn't spread like the flu or colds). Imagine if it was designed to spread. The Ebola virus ranges from 50%-90% mortality and spreads rapidly (bodily fluids are very infectous) but kills so quickly, it basically "burns" itself out of viable hosts. They simply die before they can spread it. Imagine if it had a gestation period of months or years before it killed the host.

Lastly, nuclear weapons are a significant investment. They can be detected. They are large. Uranium 235 isn't exactly easy to buy nor is Plutonium (although ex-Soviet states don't really have the money to secure those and other radioactive materials). Making nuclear weapons is a task of itself (but again, the legacy the USSR has left large numbers of specialists with that kind of expertise unemployed and, well, U-235 weapons aren't that complicated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy)).

30 people intentionally infected with Ebola riding on the subway or on a plane is practically a WMD. Once the virus or bacteria is created, all you need to do is spread a bit around and it'll fester, grow, and spread as the dying and scared dense urban centers. Out here in the western US, the large distances between population centers would help contain any biological attack but the East Coast is particularly vulnerable.

Nukes don't particularly scare me. If you're dead in a flash, you're dead. But Springfield, Oregon isn't exactly a strategic target. It'll be the fallout that fucks everything up. (But again, long distances between population centers means more time for fallout to diffuse and weaken into not so fatal levels and 'raised cancer rates' levels

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrumblyStuff on 2006-03-23 10:32 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-03-23 09:53, Antimony wrote:

That's only 1 view to the situation - specifically, an american's point of view. Many people feel the Japanese were in the process of responding to Truman's requests, but nobody thought to wait and find out - nuke or be nuked, I suppose. S'not exactly what I'd prefer the outlook on life to be...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Antimony on 2006-03-23 09:57 ]</font>



I doubt it, but I was not part of the Imperial Court. Something tells me we would have invaded, or worse, let the Russians do it. I think it ended the best for everyone, everyone knew what nukes could do. Imagine if everyone had them but nobody used one yet, I bet in Korea a few years down the line they would been dropping like leaves.

Anyway the point is that us dropping it does not make us evil or anything. Someone was going to do it, hell we re-built the damn country I think that shows good will. Think Japan would be what it is today without us? Or if Russia occupied them?

[DevinTre]

On 2006-03-23 02:14, Parn wrote:

On 2006-03-22 19:45, DevinTre wrote:
unless bin Laden and his men were in Iraq, I see no reason why we were/are there.
Chalk up another one whom has never read the article I linked to earlier. Once again, people can't be bothered to research on their own, even when someone provides them the means to get started.

I'll try this one more time. Type Salman Pak in your Google search instead of videogames, anime pics, free mp3s, or whatever else you regularly search for. You might discover something important!


And I think the Dubai ports are all about money, no more, no less.
...and? What else would selling ports be about? So in other words, you are against the concept of making money. I guess this is supposed to make some kind of sense?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Parn on 2006-03-23 02:15 ]</font>

I don't appreciate your personal attacks. I simply made my opinion. Whether you think it's right or not is up to you. I won't pretend I know everything, and I'm not going to resort to name calling and ignorance tactics.
I'm not trying to attack Bush's character. As a person, he seems hard-working, diligent, and I respect the fact he sticks to his guns. But I just don't see eye-to-eye with his policies.
But what is the point, you guys are just going to shoot me down no matter what I say. *shrugs*

[Parn]

No, I'm going to shoot you down because you can't defend your point of view properly. As if tagging "it's just my opinion" somehow validates everything you say. As if I'm somehow preventing you from having an opinion. As if my statements regarding your opinion don't qualify as an opinion as well. Apparently I'm not as privileged as you are.

And why are you blabbing on about Bush's character? I don't care if you dislike the president. Hell, I don't agree with half of his choices. I simply take issue with many of your statements. Stating that you're against the war because you have close friends and relatives involved is completely valid. Stating that you're against the war because it supposedly has nothing to do with terrorists when there's easily accessed information on terrorist training camps in Iraq is not valid.

[Rainbowlemon]

On 2006-03-23 10:29, Dangerous55 wrote:
I doubt it, but I was not part of the Imperial Court. Something tells me we would have invaded, or worse, let the Russians do it. I think it ended the best for everyone, everyone knew what nukes could do. Imagine if everyone had them but nobody used one yet, I bet in Korea a few years down the line they would been dropping like leaves.

Anyway the point is that us dropping it does not make us evil or anything. Someone was going to do it, hell we re-built the damn country I think that shows good will. Think Japan would be what it is today without us? Or if Russia occupied them?



The bombs in Japan resulted in a combined mortality rate of ~500,000 civilian deaths. People who didn't really care too much about politics, and were happy living their own little lives. How can you say anything with such a high death rate is justified? If that had happened to America, you can guarantee they would've retalliated, resulting in another possible war that they could've avoided.



On 2006-03-23 10:24, GrumblyStuff wrote:
Generally, weapons produced are designed to kill. Anthrax has 80% mortalitiy rate but is non-infectous (it doesn't spread like the flu or colds). Imagine if it was designed to spread. The Ebola virus ranges from 50%-90% mortality and spreads rapidly (bodily fluids are very infectous) but kills so quickly, it basically "burns" itself out of viable hosts. They simply die before they can spread it. Imagine if it had a gestation period of months or years before it killed the host.


Give me a break! Check your figures first - Anthrax has an estimated mortality rate if left untreated of 5-20%. And who in their right mind would actively not go get treatment if they knew a bomb containing Anthrax had hit?

Ebola is a different story. With a mortality rate of up to 90%, it's quite potent as a weapon...but has yet to reach mortality rates anywhere near as high as 500,000, and has yet to be used on large scale with intent to kill. I'll give you that though...Some airborne viruses are nasty...lucky for us people are working round the clock to provide vaccines to all these things.



Lastly, nuclear weapons are a significant investment. They can be detected. They are large. Uranium 235 isn't exactly easy to buy nor is Plutonium (although ex-Soviet states don't really have the money to secure those and other radioactive materials). Making nuclear weapons is a task of itself (but again, the legacy the USSR has left large numbers of specialists with that kind of expertise unemployed and, well, U-235 weapons aren't that complicated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy)).


In any case, I was reading into the gulf war the other day, and found something that I was oblivious of until now - the US scattered Uranium remains over Iraq, via bombs, causing extreme illnesses and deaths in patients. It also caused thousands of crops to mutate, making them worthless.
As a final coup de grace, they ensured that nothing remotely related to the creation of nukes would be sent to them (as supplies/aid). That includes pencils (graphite), *medical supplies*, and methods of treating cancer...

To this day this act has resulted in higly risen cases of cancer (which at the time couldn't be treated) and child abnormalities at birth.

But yet, the US are hot on their heels when ANY country thinks about persuing nuclear power, always the first to jump in and tell them 'uhh, I don't think so'...even though they have yet to set an example by reducing the number of their own warheads. And if you didn't know, the US is the only country to have missiles outside its own borders.

It's hardly an easing thought, all this...not to add the fact that my girlfriend kept me up half the night expressing her dislike for war in general. *sigh*

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Antimony on 2006-03-24 00:49 ]</font>

[GrumblyStuff]

Erm hrm. People might not realize some bomb wasn't meant to destroy stuff as so much as a way to spread anthrax. And yes, untreated, it has a high death rate. However, it doesn't need to be part of a bomb to be spread around as the anthrax attacks via mail proved.


On 2006-03-24 00:47, Antimony wrote:
In any case, I was reading into the gulf war the other day, and found something that I was oblivious of until now - the US scattered Uranium remains over Iraq, via bombs, causing extreme illnesses and deaths in patients. It also caused thousands of crops to mutate, making them worthless.
As a final coup de grace, they ensured that nothing remotely related to the creation of nukes would be sent to them (as supplies/aid). That includes pencils (graphite), *medical supplies*, and methods of treating cancer...

To this day this act has resulted in higly risen cases of cancer (which at the time couldn't be treated) and child abnormalities at birth.

But yet, the US are hot on their heels when ANY country thinks about persuing nuclear power, always the first to jump in and tell them 'uhh, I don't think so'...even though they have yet to set an example by reducing the number of their own warheads. And if you didn't know, the US is the only country to have missiles outside its own borders.
You must mean Depleted Uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium). The problems associated with it seem to be based on it being a heavy metal far more than it being radioactive. Afterall, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, it doesn't put out that much radiation. The quicker an element decays, the more radiation. But yes, it's used as a weapon because it's 70% denser than lead making it effective as anti-armor and incinderary (fine particles of it will combust in the presence of air).

Please, backup your claims or at least elaborate on who we aren't sending dual-use material and supplies to.

Yes, it would be nice if the US could be held to the standard it holds to other countries but you know, America, fuck yeah and all that.

There are other countries with missile subs. The US isn't the only one to have a couple surprises lurking mid-ocean. Or do you mean actual ICBM bases in the ground? We had some before but the ones that I know of were removed (in Europe) during the Cuban Missile Crisis as a consession to the Soviets for removing missiles from Cuba.

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-03-24 00:47, Antimony wrote:


The bombs in Japan resulted in a combined mortality rate of ~500,000 civilian deaths. People who didn't really care too much about politics, and were happy living their own little lives. How can you say anything with such a high death rate is justified?






Those 500,000 would have charged American landing parties on the beach or plains of Japan. Guarntee it with an invasion. Except that it would have been millions of civilians instead of just the 2 cities.

It was justified because it...saved lives! Look at the alternatives, there were few. Would an invasion been justified just because it wouldnt kill millions as fast?




If that had happened to America, you can guarantee they would've retalliated, resulting in another possible war that they could've avoided.

I can't gather what you mean. If the roles were reversed? If America was the one seeking an Empire and attacked a foreign power to try to knock them out but underestimated them, and eventually lost all but the homeland all while comitting war crime after war crime I think I would expect the enemy to use every weapon they have. Nothing really weird about this, attacking major cities was the norm in WW2. Like it or not it was a hell of a good tactic and everyone did it. We just so happened to have one bomb that could do what a whole Bomber Group had to do to Tokyo.


I don't know what you are trying to prove. Looks to me you are just another foolish America hater jumping on the bandwagon. So you bitch about 2 bombings that are arguable at best while overlooking rapes of entire countries that Japan has yet to apologize or even acknowledge. Here is a tip guy, if America was a nuke using war lover you think it is we could have pressed the button countless times before. Believe it or not, the US government has a conscious.

[Rainbowlemon]

I'm not sure how on earth to approach this from another angle, so I'll just sit back and "admit defeat" and pretend blowing the crap out of things helps, just like everyone else.

Like I've said, a lot of this topic is based on opinions - is it right, is it wrong? Of course, I feel that what I say is right, but I'm not going to rule out anyone else's opinions on this.

Grumbly, I forgot the name of the book, I'll see if I can nick it back off my girlfriend and give you some direct quotes, if it helps. Indeed, the US isn't the only ones up to naughty things, and I appear to have targeted them a bit directly - England followed suit, and the EU were sniffing both of their behinds suspisciously. Its just the fact that (please correct me if I'm wrong) it *appears* only the US are the ones to be stepping in to other governments' regimes and telling them not to do this and that, or they'll take action.

Dangerous...Yeah, I'm being a whiney little bitch. But I'm expressing my whiney, bitchy opinion, which is - The US has no right to be bullying countries into following what they request. Sure, if you kept a tight enough eye on it all, it might just slot into place, but when did you ever get into people's good books by pushing others around? I see it (note - in my own opinion) as just another recipe to piss off some more countries.

And jumping on the bandwagon would require me not to give a damn, I would think. I am simply voicing how I feel - that the world would be much nicer if there wasn't these ongoing power struggles, and everyone co-operated.

(*EDIT* - I found this essay about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which expresses to a 'T' how I feel. http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/f1/lmy277.shtml . And yes, Japan "raped" many countries in the war, as you put it...but this is what war is; everyone did the same to everyone else. [bar dropping a nuke or two.])

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Antimony on 2006-03-24 08:37 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-03-24 08:25, Antimony wrote:
I'm not sure how on earth to approach this from another angle, so I'll just sit back and "admit defeat" and pretend blowing the crap out of things helps, just like everyone else.

Like I've said, a lot of this topic is based on opinions - is it right, is it wrong? Of course, I feel that what I say is right, but I'm not going to rule out anyone else's opinions on this.

Grumbly, I forgot the name of the book, I'll see if I can nick it back off my girlfriend and give you some direct quotes, if it helps. Indeed, the US isn't the only ones up to naughty things, and I appear to have targeted them a bit directly - England followed suit, and the EU were sniffing both of their behinds suspisciously. Its just the fact that (please correct me if I'm wrong) it *appears* only the US are the ones to be stepping in to other governments' regimes and telling them not to do this and that, or they'll take action.

Dangerous...Yeah, I'm being a whiney little bitch. But I'm expressing my whiney, bitchy opinion, which is - The US has no right to be bullying countries into following what they request. Sure, if you kept a tight enough eye on it all, it might just slot into place, but when did you ever get into people's good books by pushing others around? I see it (note - in my own opinion) as just another recipe to piss off some more countries.

And jumping on the bandwagon would require me not to give a damn, I would think. I am simply voicing how I feel - that the world would be much nicer if there wasn't these ongoing power struggles, and everyone co-operated.

(*EDIT* - I found this essay about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which expresses to a 'T' how I feel. http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/f1/lmy277.shtml . And yes, Japan "raped" many countries in the war, as you put it...but this is what war is; everyone did the same to everyone else. [bar dropping a nuke or two.])

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Antimony on 2006-03-24 08:37 ]</font>


We never came close to doing the things Japan or Germany did in WW2. Either did England or Canada or Australia or South Africa. The controversial(all your getting) droppings of the A-Bombs were a drop in the bucket compared to what the Axis did, and the Soviets.


Blowing things up is needed if someone is intent on blowing you up. Else you die. Dying is not good.


Of course the world would be nicer if there were no power struggles or wars or facists. But there is and it is not America's fault.


Dropping bombs on Japan was not "bullying" them into a surrender. That's ridiculous.


It was war, but our side was right, I have no doubt about that. Dropping the bomb ended the war sooner and cleaner then what Truman, the Allies, and alot of others believed would have had to happen, Operation Downfall.

You can complain all you want(if we lost you wouldnt be), I just don't like how you're demonizing the my friggin country. I agree nukes are bad news, but if you can drop them in a tame way, we did it. We re-built the fucking country, who else would have did that?

America is not evil.

[Rainbowlemon]

Your country. Stands to reason that you will defend it, but of course. However, there is no denying the fact that dropping a nuke on a country that was already on the brink of surrender was far over the top of what was required. Truman himself was even unsure whether or not it was the right thing to do.

But, whatever. I'd be happy to let this thread die now I have voiced my opinion. Evidently, patriotism is a more powerful stigma than I thought.

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-03-24 13:09, Antimony wrote:
Your country. Stands to reason that you will defend it, but of course. However, there is no denying the fact that dropping a nuke on a country that was already on the brink of surrender was far over the top of what was required. Truman himself was even unsure whether or not it was the right thing to do.

But, whatever. I'd be happy to let this thread die now I have voiced my opinion. Evidently, patriotism is a more powerful stigma than I thought.




No shit Truman would be. Nobody wants to go to the slaughterhouse before they have a hamburger.

Yes I am denying it, brink of surrender? Bull. It would have taken at least a month for them to surrender. At least a month. All that time the war would still be raging. Russians and Japanese would be slaughtering each other by the hundreds of thousands, we would still be conventionally firebombing cities. Do you also know how close the Emperor was to become overthrown? Hardcore Japanese wanted to continue the war forever. How many would have died if we blockaded their island for months?

Alright, this thread can die. Patriotism and common sense are different. I have both I guess. i guess you're just a regular American hating pacifist who sees a world that will probably never happen. Get real man. I love how alot of people just let other countries off the hook for things they did in the past. It seems there is a stigma that people just think "Well that is xxx country for you, they were cruel and are coming around". Now people go through everything we do and critize and demonize us. They go through our history, and everything going on currently to make us look evil to knock us down a peg. I don't understand it and I really hate it.

Like I said again, we are not evil. I don't blame the Japanese nation today or Germans for what they did in the past. What they did was blatantly evil, but nobody should hold that against them today(unless punks bring controversial things we did first). Sorry, just sick of people hating America, Bush, anyone because it is cool or different.

[Allos]

On 2006-03-24 13:26, Dangerous55 wrote:


On 2006-03-24 13:09, Antimony wrote:
Your country. Stands to reason that you will defend it, but of course. However, there is no denying the fact that dropping a nuke on a country that was already on the brink of surrender was far over the top of what was required. Truman himself was even unsure whether or not it was the right thing to do.

But, whatever. I'd be happy to let this thread die now I have voiced my opinion. Evidently, patriotism is a more powerful stigma than I thought.




No shit Truman would be. Nobody wants to go to the slaughterhouse before they have a hamburger.

Yes I am denying it, brink of surrender? Bull. It would have taken at least a month for them to surrender. At least a month. All that time the war would still be raging. Russians and Japanese would be slaughtering each other by the hundreds of thousands, we would still be conventionally firebombing cities. Do you also know how close the Emperor was to become overthrown? Hardcore Japanese wanted to continue the war forever. How many would have died if we blockaded their island for months?



Couldn't have said it better D55.

[Dhylec]

Well, looks like this topic won't get any better, so it's time for it to go to rest. We can all agree that we disagree, yeah? ;]