NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok now, I dont trust Iran but doesent every country in the world have a right to develop these weapons? America and Britian and all the other big nations do. But when someone else does they wont allow it?

So the UK attacks Iran over their want for a Nuke! trying to stop the making of Nukes when the UK has many Nukes them selfs!

The UK isn't going to sell its nuclear technology to terrorists or use it on other nations unprovoked. That's the difference; Iran is a rogue regime and supporter of terrorism motivated by hatred of those different from its narrow beliefs. That's why they shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Yes, but is their evedence that the Goverments are considering? If their was they would be puting sanctions on Iran not just telling them to stop making bombs!

Yes, but is their evedence that the Goverments are considering? If their was they would be puting sanctions on Iran not just telling them to stop making bombs!

We don't know for sure; the safest bet is to warn them, and investigate, and if they still don't stop or act within guidelines, then we impose more sanctions. We can't punish them economically and then realize it was a mistake and just act like it's no big deal.

However, there already are some sanctions, imposed after the Revolution.

... isn't going to sell its nuclear technology to terrorists.how-bout Russia?isn't going to..use it on other nations . Only one country has been barbaric enough to use them.

how-bout Russia?

Russia wouldn't have any if it wern't for the Cold War. It's too late to fix that problem, only limit the damages.

Only one country has been barbaric enough to use them.

We had little choice in the matter. It was either that or a devastating slaughter on both sides and a totally ruined nation.

We had little choice in the matter. It was either that or a devastating slaughter on both sides and a totally ruined nation.

Well,I would rather a hard war then a few million civilians dead! What if they where americans? Thats one thing america can never repay japan and the world for! By the world I meen by bringing that terrible weapon into the world! Which will lead to its distruction in the future!

Well,I would rather a hard war then a few million civilians dead! What if they where americans? Thats one thing america can never repay japan and the world for! By the world I meen by bringing that terrible weapon into the world! Which will lead to its distruction in the future!

The bombs killed 140,000.

In 1925, 20 years before the bombs, the population of Japan was 59,737,000; if we had fought them on the mainland, a huge portion of that population would have died and the land totally devastated. Instead of 140,000 dead, there would have been 20 or 30 million, easily. In addition to that, some 1 million or more US troops would have been killed. It was a necessary evil to avert a greater one.

And, if the US hadn't developed the bomb, others would have. Germany's was almost complete along with Japan. Multiple nations were working simulatneously.

yea we used nukes on japan. fine. but think how many lives we saved.

EVERY japanese citizen fighting to the death? kids acting as suicide bombers? over a MILLION american deaths, and an estimated 3 million+ japanese. Think about it.


and i dont trust iran. But i also dont think that ANYONE should have weapons that can destroy the world. All someone needs to do is hack into a millitary computer, use a number generator to find the key numbers, and then pick a target and fire. It's that simple. who's to say that someone cant do that?
or someone manages to take the nuclear football away from the president and launch a nuke. somehow i dont care what the odds are. If there's a 1 in a million chance, it's still possible. think of the environmental risks. ever hear of nuclear winter? imagine a new ice-age that 60-75% of the human race would not survive. If any nukes exist, it's not a question of if they will be used. it's a question of when.

Germany and japan were the only other nations. Germany was gotten without nukes and them geting one. Japan ok well u got me their! America Geries and Japs were the only ones who know. so they all should of distroyed them and how to make one before the russians got one!

Germany and japan were the only other nations. Germany was gotten without nukes and them geting one. Japan ok well u got me their! America Geries and Japs were the only ones who know. so they all should of distroyed them and how to make one before the russians got one!

...that made no sense what so ever. take some english courses or type better if you want to get your point across.

Germany and japan were the only other nations. Germany was gotten without nukes and them geting one. Japan ok well u got me their! America Geries and Japs were the only ones who know. so they all should of distroyed them and how to make one before the russians got one!

The technology was already known; Einstein had already developed his equatione=mc^2, which meant that all scientists had to do was find the right material to weaponize that energy. Unless you want to undo the work of Einstein (which would destroy almost all major technology developed past the early 1920's), there's nothing that could have been done.

yea we used nukes on japan. fine. but think how many lives we saved.

EVERY japanese citizen fighting to the death? kids acting as suicide bombers? over a MILLION american deaths, and an estimated 3 million+ japanese. Think about it.

Thought about. Realised irrelevant. Realises stupid yanks always use this excuse to justify their evil. Realised yanks are stupid. Realised that they voted for BUSH twice, so this makes them twice as stupid.

One inescapable fact...The US is the only country to have used them. The reason is unimportant, the fact is you did it WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING the potential effect. Your gov't had some idea, but you lot didn't even know how bad it could have been. But you did it anyway. This speaks volumes...

And now they try to take the moral high ground...how ridiculous. Anybody who doesn't see how ridiculous this is, is just lying to themselves.

Well,I would rather a hard war then a few million civilians dead! What if they where americans? Thats one thing america can never repay japan and the world for! By the world I meen by bringing that terrible weapon into the world! Which will lead to its distruction in the future!

Either way there would have been tremendous civlian casuaties, since you obviously have never studied WW2 you wouldnt know that the japanese goverment told thier civilians that if the Allies( i say allies because for the invasion to even work you would need British and Russian troops too) invaded that they should alll fight to the death, and if you dont believe how fanatical the japenese were just look up Iwo Jima in a history book.

And about the big bad Americans bringing the A-bomb into existance, just think about this the Nazi's, were working on the exact same program, and in most probably when the russians came to berlin, they would have probably borrowed the technology and we would have had Joseph Stalin to be the first person to launch an atomic strike....

America repaying japan...no comment, not gona talk about the war crimes, nor the death march not gona talk about...my advice go read a high school history book.

...that made no sense what so ever. take some english courses or type better if you want to get your point across.

Well, seem like everyone else understood ye dolly mum.

Thought about. Realised irrelevant. Realises stupid yanks always use this excuse to justify their evil. Realised yanks are stupid. Realised that they voted for BUSH twice, so this makes them twice as stupid.

One inescapable fact...The US is the only country to have used them. The reason is unimportant, the fact is you did it WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING the potential effect. Your gov't had some idea, but you lot didn't even know how bad it could have been. But you did it anyway. This speaks volumes...

And now they try to take the moral high ground...how ridiculous. Anybody who doesn't see how ridiculous this is, is just lying to themselves.

Yes, all Americans are stupid. That's why we have more Nobel prize winners, the most total and most varied technological innovations, a stronger economy, and most of the best research institutions and universities in the world. Because we're stupid.

We are the only country to use them, correct. We did it because we had no other option. It was a lot better to drop the bomb than engage in a costly, time consuming, and ultimately horrendously deadly invasion of Japan. It was the most pragmatic option for us and Japan.

Either way there would have been tremendous civlian casuaties, since you obviously have never studied WW2 you wouldnt know that the japanese goverment told thier civilians that if the Allies( i say allies because for the invasion to even work you would need British and Russian troops too) invaded that they should alll fight to the death, and if you dont believe how fanatical the japenese were just look up Iwo Jima in a history book.

And about the big bad Americans bringing the A-bomb into existance, just think about this the Nazi's, were working on the exact same program, and in most probably when the russians came to berlin, they would have probably borrowed the technology and we would have had Joseph Stalin to be the first person to launch an atomic strike....

America repaying japan...no comment, not gona talk about the war crimes, nor the death march not gona talk about...my advice go read a high school history book.

You are 100% percent right! What the japs did to American and british troops was appaling! And lets not even talk about hitler!

Either way there would have been tremendous civlian casuaties, since you obviously have never studied WW2 you wouldnt know that the japanese goverment told thier civilians that if the Allies( i say allies because for the invasion to even work you would need British and Russian troops too) invaded that they should alll fight to the death, and if you dont believe how fanatical the japenese were just look up Iwo Jima in a history book.

And about the big bad Americans bringing the A-bomb into existance, just think about this the Nazi's, were working on the exact same program, and in most probably when the russians came to berlin, they would have probably borrowed the technology and we would have had Joseph Stalin to be the first person to launch an atomic strike....

America repaying japan...no comment, not gona talk about the war crimes, nor the death march not gona talk about...my advice go read a high school history book.

While invading Japan would have been stupid, there were other options than bombing a major city. If the bomb was demonstrated to the Japanese in an uninhabited area it would have shown them the threat their continued resistance would pose, and they would have surrendored. Read the Frank Report.

While invading Japan would have been stupid, there were other options than bombing a major city. If the bomb was demonstrated to the Japanese in an uninhabited area it would have shown them the threat their continued resistance would pose, and they would have surrendored. Read the Frank Report.

Given the cost and time it took to build the bomb, they wanted to be 100% sure of it working, and to be sure that people see it happen. Vaporizing an entire city does that quite effectively.

While invading Japan would have been stupid, there were other options than bombing a major city. If the bomb was demonstrated to the Japanese in an uninhabited area it would have shown them the threat their continued resistance would pose, and they would have surrendored. Read the Frank Report.

actually america was smart bombing small citys instead of tokyo.

It was the most pragmatic option for us and Japan.

Justification, justification. Fine, if it help's you not feel too guilty, then have it your way. We don't want to cause too much mental anguish now, do we?

It's a war crime, no matter how you look at it. And let's not worry about how many would have died via scenario A or scenario B, that's just dumb. The fact is the A-Bomb targetted civilians, because it targets such a wide area it HAS to target civilians. For a supposed "democratic" nation to behave in this way is completely beyond the pale. Nothing more to say.

if you really want to get technical even detonating a nuclear device is using it, which means lots of people have used it, were just the only people who used it in a war, and even then they didnt understand the totall destructive power of it, its like when making sparkler bombs you cant tell what one will do when close to a car if you detonate it in a field

actually america was smart bombing small citys instead of tokyo.

Rubbish. It was out of self interest that Tokyo wasn't bombed. They wanted to use it afterwards. LOL!

if you really want to get technical even detonating a nuclear device is using it, which means lots of people have used it...

HAHA!! True :)

You know what I meant...dammit. ;)

Justification, justification. Fine, if it help's you not feel too guilty, then have it your way. We don't want to cause too much mental anguish now, do we?

It's a war crime, no matter how you look at it. And let's not worry about how many would have died via scenario A or scenario B, that's just dumb. The fact is the A-Bomb targetted civilians, because it targets such a wide area it HAS to target civilians. For a supposed "democratic" nation to behave in this way is completely beyond the pale. Nothing more to say.
Some of us don't feel guilty at all. They were just repaying the favor for my Philipino countrymen, the Chinese peasants and the islanders of the Pacific.

Rubbish. It was out of self interest that Tokyo wasn't bombed. They wanted to use it afterwards. LOL!

Ya for all the wonderfull sony products and game boys! lol

Some of us don't feel guilty at all. They were just repaying the favor for my Philipino countrymen, the Chinese peasants and the islanders of the Pacific.

Well, if you think vapourising schoolchildren is a form of "repayment", then good for you.

This isn't an argument about whether the Japanese Military were bad or not...I think that's been established by evidence, so it's a moot point.

Ya for all the wonderfull sony products and game boys! lol

YYEAAAHH!! Where would all us geeks be without the Japs huh! Answer me that...! ;)

Anyway, I've got a footy game to get to. CARRRNNNN THE TIGERS!!!!!! :D

YYEAAAHH!! Where would all us geeks be without the Japs huh! Answer me that...! ;)

No manga, norHentai, no Nintendo, no Sega, we could lose Sony fine though.

Anyway, I've got a footy game to get to. CARRRNNNN THE TIGERS!!!!!! :D

its morning their right? only 3am here. I am up late! lol

Well, if you think vapourising schoolchildren is a form of "repayment", then good for you.

This isn't an argument about whether the Japanese Military were bad or not...I think that's been established by evidence, so it's a moot point.

Of course the argument is important we didn't exactly see mass protest in Japan about what their military was doing. If the citizens don't think its worth their time or worse approve of it then in my mind they are just as guilty. When the military commits bad acts three groups of people are held responsible. The military itself, the people who gave the orders and weapons and means to do it and the people who just calmly watched it happen knowing that it was not right. Personally if a bunch of so called innocent people can grin and watch as their military uses babies for gun shot practice I think they deserve more then just being vapourized.

Well, if you think vapourising schoolchildren is a form of "repayment", then good for you.

This isn't an argument about whether the Japanese Military were bad or not...I think that's been established by evidence, so it's a moot point.Yeah bayoneting/starving/shooting/burning/lynching them is so much better. I'm glad I know now. Ruling out revenge as factor for war is naive. The moral justification for war or Acts of War itself is uneeded. It's like trying to justify the morals of a storm.

You guys are going off topic.

Fadester: Whether you think so or not, America saved alot more people by using the Bomb, then invading. I don't know what incredible Liberal Hippy views you have, but they would have gotten millions more killed with your stupidity.

And I am a Canadian, before you say anything else.

As for Iran, Nuclear Energy is one thing, but still, they are not to be trusted with Nukes. They do not have a reputation worthy of keeping it for defense from its neighbours only.

Normally I would say something hippy-like and say we should give them a chance but considering a chance could equal them selling off nuclear missles to terriorists before we catch them I'm afriad I'm not such a saint that I can honestly give them a chance when I know whats a stake.

You guys are going off topic.

Fadester: Whether you think so or not, America saved alot more people by using the Bomb, then invading. I don't know what incredible Liberal Hippy views you have, but they would have gotten millions more killed with your stupidity.

And I am a Canadian, before you say anything else.aren't you Jewish?

BTW....Iran has as much rights as Israel.

aren't you Jewish?

BTW....Iran has as much rights as Israel.

Uh I don't think Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons either...

aren't you Jewish?

BTW....Iran has as much rights as Israel.

1. Yes i'm Jewish...what does that have to do with me also being Canadian?

2. i) I hope you don't mean civil rights.
ii) If you mean rights to build a nuke...then HELL NO. Israel, only needs them to defend against its neighbours who want to wipe them off the face of the planet. Iran wants them so they can nuke Israel off the face of the map..and America...and anyone else that's not a Fundamentalist Shiite.

Well the government does anyways. And that's all what counts right now.

Uh I don't think Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons either...

No-one knows if Israel has nukes or not...only the governments of the world do. And they're not disclosing the fact either.

And even so, who said they're not allowed?

Uh I don't think Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons either...Iran and other Muslim countries want nukes because Israel has them.

Iran and other Muslim countries want nukes because Israel has them.

Oh really in that case I'll support them as long as they allow America to check them out for a certain amount of time and if they haven't breached any type of agreement let them do what they want... I don't think favoritism should exist

If you mean rights to build a nuke...then HELL NO.Iran has as much rigths as Israel.

you can say HELL NO as much as you want...

Oh really in that case I'll support them as long as they allow America to check them out for a certain amount of time and if they haven't breached any type of agreement let them do what they want... I don't think favoritism should existneither do I

:sniper: I think nobody but me should have nuclear weapons!!!!!!!!!! lol

No one should have them period .

No one should have them period .

Blame the cold war for that hahahha

No one should have them period .
Iran would agree to that in a second...

Iran has as much rigths as Israel.

you can say HELL NO as much as you want...

Really? I would like to see you justify Iran having nukes.

Where one needs it to defend itself, and the other to cause havoc on the world.

For you to even consider such a thing, is just stupid.

Really? I would like to see you justify Iran having nukes..I already did....just read my posts...I said "Iran has as much Rights as Israel"

Ok, let my try to spell it out for you:

If Israel is allowed to keep nukes...then we cant tell Iran "these toys are forbidden only for you".

Really? I would like to see you justify Iran having nukes.

Where one needs it to defend itself, and the other to cause havoc on the world.

For you to even consider such a thing, is just stupid.

Personally we can't know who's attacking and defending. Israel first was allowed a home despite the fact they were only 1/3 of the population and pretty much all the Muslims got kicked out. Naturally the Muslims pissed attacked Israel and got there butts handed to them. Afterwards however, when it was a few years after the incident Israel was the one who restarted the conflict by attack Egypt for trying to declare independence from British and French rule. You have to understand their is no right and wrong in the world everyone has different views. However, I do think there are some things that are undisputedly evil such as raping and yadadayadayada

I already did....If Israel is allowed to keep nukes...then we cant tell Iran "these toys are forbidden only for you".

Oh of course...so by logic, we can give convicted felons guns to go around and play with. Right? That is your logic isn't it? Doesn't matter what your mentality is...every psycho on the street can own their own Ak-47, and blast people off the street. Hurray for great thinkers like you! :rolleyes:


Personally we can't know who's attacking and defending. Israel first was allowed a home despite the fact they were only 1/3 of the population and pretty much all the Muslims got kicked out. Naturally the Muslims pissed attacked Israel and got there butts handed to them. Afterwards however, when it was a few years after the incident Israel was the one who restarted the conflict by attack Egypt for trying to declare independence from British and French rule. You have to understand their is no right and wrong in the world everyone has different views. However, I do think there are some things that are undisputedly evil such as raping and yadadayadayada

1. The Muslims were not kicked out...they ran out. The Arab armies told them to go away so they would only kill the Jews and not them. Only problem was the armies lost, and the Arabs didn't return.

2. Are you talking about the '56 Suez war? Israel declared war, because Egypt was blocking off the Red Sea passage from them. So they joined France and the UK, from blocking the sea passage.

Iran shouldnt have nuclear power or weapons because it is a fundamentalist, corrupt, Islamicist nation that WILL use them to attack others, namely Israel. I'm not sure, but didnt Iran once say that it is imperative for arab nations to unite and wipe the Jews from Israel. Surely their acquisition of nuclear weapons will enable this to progress.

Oh of course...so by logic, we can give convicted felons guns to go around and play with. Right? That is your logic isn't it? Doesn't matter what your mentality is...every psycho on the street can own their own Ak-47, and blast people off the street. Hurray for great thinkers like you! :rolleyes:




1. The Muslims were not kicked out...they ran out. The Arab armies told them to go away so they would only kill the Jews and not them. Only problem was the armies lost, and the Arabs didn't return.

2. Are you talking about the '56 Suez war? Israel declared war, because Egypt was blocking off the Red Sea passage from them. So they joined France and the UK, from blocking the sea passage.

1. Not true the European states felt bad about the holocaust and the Jews said they wanted the state in the middle east because thats where their ancestors had lived because of that the Europeans and America kind of kicked everyone except the Jews out and vola Israel was created

2. I'm not quite sure about this one however I know for a fact that they were not planning on blocking France and the UK because of the fact that most of the money they get from tolls comes from those guys. Israel they may have blocked but the real reason the nations got involved was because they had taken control of that canal that was Egyptian built might I add. They were trying to protect one of their money creators.

....That is your logic isn't it? Doesn't matter what your mentality is...every psycho on the street can own their own Ak-47, and blast people off the street. Hurray for great thinkers like you! :rolleyes: .The Laws have to be fair for everyone...

EITHER EVERYONE IS ALLOWED HIS AK-47....OR NO-ONE.

I prefer No-one of course...But
If My Neighbor gets his AK-47...you bet your ass I will get one too.

The Laws have to be fair for everyone...

EITHER EVERYONE IS ALLOWED AK-47....OR NO-ONE.

I prefer No-one of course...But
If My Neighbor gets his AK-47...you bet your ass I will get one too.

Not true people are paranoid you wouldn't get an Ak-47 you would get a missle launcher and then he would get a small jeep with a machine gun and then you would get a tank and so on :D

Not true people are paranoid you wouldn't get an Ak-47 you would get a missle launcher and then he would get a small jeep with a machine gun and then you would get a tank and so on :DThats why its a bad Idea to allow Israel to keep its Nukes.

Iran shouldnt have nuclear power or weapons because it is a fundamentalist, corrupt, Islamicist nation that WILL use them to attack others, namely Israel. I'm not sure, but didnt Iran once say that it is imperative for arab nations to unite and wipe the Jews from Israel. Surely their acquisition of nuclear weapons will enable this to progress.

True. Although the people may feel somewhat differerntly, the government is opposed to their existence.

1. Not true the European states felt bad about the holocaust and the Jews said they wanted the state in the middle east because thats were their ancestors had lived because of that the Europeans and America kind of kicked everyone except the Jews out and vola Israel was created
No...Muslims were not kicked out. They partioned the land, to where heavy Jewish areas where. Sure some Muslims got kicked out, just like some Jew's were kicked out. But the refugee problem was created by the invading arab armies.


2. I'm not quite sure about this one however I know for a fact that they were not planning on blocking France and the UK because of the fact that most of the money they get from tolls comes from those guys. Israel they may have blocked but the real reason the nations got involved was because they had taken control of that canal that was Egyptian built might I add. They were trying to protect one of their money creators.

You know what....i can see where your going with this, if this was true, it would just end up being an Israel-Egyptian war. But it must have affected them both in some way, for them to get involved. I mean they could have easily supplied Israel with weapons, if they were afraid for their safety.

The Laws have to be fair for everyone...

EITHER EVERYONE IS ALLOWED AK-47....OR NO-ONE.

I prefer No-one of course...But
If My Neighbor gets his AK-47...you bet your ass I will get one too.

Ah yes...and what if your neighbour only got one, because all the neighbours threaten to kill him all the time? And you are one of those threatening neighbours. Of course you feel justified...only because you want to kill the guy in the first place!

You are the most weirdest person i have ever talked to on this issue.

Thats why its a bad Idea to allow Israel to keep its Nukes.

To be truthful I think nukes are only good for intimidation and moral boasts. I mean to be truthful not even North Korea would be dumb enough to fire one and get raped by every other nation out there. Even America wouldn't have the balls to use them. I'm just afraid that some evil dicator might one day declare a war, get his butt kicked and fire nuclear missles before he dies as a last attack sort of thing.

Well,I would rather a hard war then a few million civilians dead! What if they where americans? Thats one thing america can never repay japan and the world for! By the world I meen by bringing that terrible weapon into the world! Which will lead to its distruction in the future!

Repay Japan? Oh, I think we repaid them all right, assuming you are talking about Pearl Harbor.

The United States did the right thing with Japan. For ourselves, and ultimately for Japan too.

We should have the same kind of character in our leaders now.

As for creating atomic weapons, how deep do you have to bury your head in the sand to pretend that the Europe and Russia weren't right behind us in developing them and would have done so either way. That's just an asinine and idiotic statement.

Best of all, it comes from someone who speaks English instead of German because of the sacrifices the U.S. made in WW2. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=MuhOre]
You know what....i can see where your going with this, if this was true, it would just end up being an Israel-Egyptian war. But it must have affected them both in some way, for them to get involved. I mean they could have easily supplied Israel with weapons, if they were afraid for their safety.
[QUOTE]
Not at all but they did make quite a bit of money off the canals...don't be too aggressive trust me I like Israel a lot more then the Arab countries and I do believe they deserve a home but I think its right that history should be revealed too

:D may I politely ask where I'm going with this?

Ah yes...and what if your neighbour only got one, because all the neighbours threaten to kill him all the time? And you are one of those threatening neighbours. Of course you feel justified...only because you want to kill the guy in the first place!.I would say that AK-totting neighbor is a Bloody Jew.

He thinks he must be allowed to have Big weapons...and at the same time his enemies cannot arm themselves accordingly. That Crazy neighbor gotta be a Jew. :D

The Laws have to be fair for everyone...

Sorry, but history doesn't show that at all.

EITHER EVERYONE IS ALLOWED HIS AK-47....OR NO-ONE.

Again, you are basing your argument on a false assumption. The correct answer is the first person to get an AK-47 (in your scenario) can very EASILY determine who else in the neighborhood is allowed to have one.

I prefer No-one of course...

OF COURSE!!! :p

But If My Neighbor gets his AK-47...you bet your ass I will get one too.

Well, in spite of my harrassment, I'm sure I'd feel the same way. But if the guy with the AK-47 also was able to use that AK-47 to keep you from getting one, you'd just have to learn to live with it, and hope he was a reasonable guy and didn't go firing it at his neighbors very often.

One good thing, in your scenario, is that more than one neighbor owns and AK-47 and the other neighbors are very uptight about ANYONE using their AK-47's so it is unlikely that any one of them will misuse it, for fear of the other neighbors ganging up on him and taking away his AK-47.

And besides, surely you know some people in your neighborhood that just shouldn't have an AK-47, right? Iran is that neighbor...

:D may I politely ask where I'm going with this?
No, but you may ask rudely. ;p


You know what i forget....either way. Even without France and the UK.

Egypt did start the conflict with Israel in '56, by blocking the route.

I would say that AK-totting neighbor is a Bloody Jew.

He thinks he must be allowed to have Big weapons...and at the same time his enemies cannot arm themselves accordingly. That Crazy neighbor gotta be a Jew. :D


That is a borderline insult.

I ask that you apologize for the first line in your post.

Justification, justification. Fine, if it help's you not feel too guilty, then have it your way. We don't want to cause too much mental anguish now, do we?

It's a war crime, no matter how you look at it. And let's not worry about how many would have died via scenario A or scenario B, that's just dumb. The fact is the A-Bomb targetted civilians, because it targets such a wide area it HAS to target civilians. For a supposed "democratic" nation to behave in this way is completely beyond the pale. Nothing more to say.

Oh FFS, how many times have we gone over this before? Both cities were viable military targets, IIRC it was Hiroshima that was the HQ for the southern defense forces, the ones that would be defending against an American invasion that would've been more costly for the Japanese then both bombings combined.

No, but you may ask rudely. ;p


You know what i forget....either way. Even without France and the UK.

Egypt did start the conflict with Israel in '56, by blocking the route.

awww but I really wanted to know :(
Well whatever I never was good at history I'm just stating the facts that I remember... or I think I remember

Oh FFS, how many times have we gone over this before? Both cities were viable military targets, IIRC it was Hiroshima that was the HQ for the southern defense forces, the ones that would be defending against an American invasion that would've been more costly for the Japanese then both bombings combined.

Yes and if we had aimed at Tokyo which was a bigger threat we would have killed even more people we were just trying to intimidate them into surrendering if we really wanted to do damage we could have easily just crushed their capital and a few other critical areas.

Hawkintom']
Again, you are basing your argument on a false assumption. The correct answer is the first person to get an AK-47 (in your scenario) can very EASILY determine who else in the neighborhood is allowed to have one....the first country to get AK-47(Nukes) was the US?...

and what happened? Russia and China rushed to get its own big guns...Even France did.

What happened when India was about to get Nukes....Pakistan scrambled to get some...

Get yourself big Guns...and the guys the other side of the court will get some...sooner or later...one way or another...Its human nature.

mark my words.

awww but I really wanted to know :(
Well whatever I never was good at history I'm just stating the facts that I remember... or I think I remember

Ok...lemme try to remember what i was thinking at the time.

1. You stated that Israel intiated war with Egypt.
2. I said "Do you mean the '56 war?"
3. You respond with yea, ..
4. I forgot what i was thinking. All i know is, that France and the UK were obviously affected by the closing of the red sea. Or the Suez or something...

Sorry...it's a Quarter to 12 AM here. I probably thought you typed something else out. Sorry to get your hopes up.

the first country to get AK-47(Nukes) was the US?...

and what happened? Russia and China rushed to get its own big guns...Even France did.

What happened when India was about to get Nukes....Pakinstan scrambled to get some...

Get your yourself a big Gun...and the guys the other side of the court will get some...sooner or later...one way or another...

mark my words.

There difference is that instead of getting big guns people are obssessed with getting bigger ones instead of similar ones :( thats why we'll never be free from war

That is a borderline insult.

I ask that you apologize for the first line in your post.I wont.

Yes and if we had aimed at Tokyo which was a bigger threat we would have killed even more people we were just trying to intimidate them into surrendering if we really wanted to do damage we could have easily just crushed their capital and a few other critical areas.

But Tokyo had already been bombed before, and the US wanted an accurate measurement of the bomb's capabilities on an acutal city. That and Tokyo has a far larger population then Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you'd have even more dead civilians.

I wont.

GASP here comes an insult war :eek:

But Tokyo had already been bombed before, and the US wanted an accurate measurement of the bomb's capabilities on an acutal city. That and Tokyo has a far larger population then Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you'd have even more dead civilians.

True thats why I'm saying it could have been worse
Personally I have no sympathy for a bunch of citizens who just watched as their military tortured other people. In my eyes we were very soft considering they constructed mass rape camps and would do human experiments.

Oh FFS, how many times have we gone over this before? Both cities were viable military targets, IIRC it was Hiroshima that was the HQ for the southern defense forces,

And who even cares? I do not understand the world we live in today. Japan started a war with us unprovoked. At that point, they gave up all sense of "fair play." The United States was obligated under the laws of SURVIVAL to fight back in any way that it felt would resolve the situation in the best way possible for ITSELF.


the ones that would be defending against an American invasion that would've been more costly for the Japanese then both bombings combined.

That is the ultimate test. We saved AMERICAN LIVES by using atomic weapons on Japan. Lots of American lives were saved. That is all I need. Civilians ARE ultimately responsible for what their country does.

You could argue that historians also believe that the use of atomic weapons actually saved Japan, as they would have fought to the death otherwise, but the overwhelming impact that the atomic weapons had allowed them to overcome their cultural beliefs and surrender. But you don't need to.

It is simple, if you pick a fight, you don't get to make the terms of that fight.

Present day Japan is a great ally (which further proves we did the right thing) but our country did the absolute thing in WW2 by ultimately meeting Pearl Harbor with an overwhelming and disproportionate response. That is the way you should always respond to aggression. It tends to stop future attacks.

Being wishy washy and trying to tip-toe into a fight is a sure way to have more fights as the other bullies see that you are not willing to stand up for yourself.

Hawkintom']
Present day Japan is a great ally


Ally OOO you mean our lapdog
I hate the fact that they make it a point to worship war criminals in their national temple.... there not sorry about what they did, there sorry that they got there butts kicked. I lost feeling for them after taking a trip to Japan and watching little kids pray and bow down to people who opened rape camps and held head chopping contest

the first country to get AK-47(Nukes) was the US?...

and what happened? Russia and China rushed to get its own big guns...Even France did.

You need to study your history.

http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/abomb/race.htm


Germany and Japan both had WWII programs to build an atomic bomb. While German efforts are well documented in the Farm Hall transcripts, Japan's work and progress is still a closely guarded secret.
Had either of these two nations succeeded, the world would be a different place.

If Iran can't have nukes, neither should Israel :p

its morning their right? only 3am here. I am up late! lol

I think it was just after midday when I posted that...

Of course the argument is important we didn't exactly see mass protest in Japan about what their military was doing. If the citizens don't think its worth their time or worse approve of it then in my mind they are just as guilty. When the military commits bad acts three groups of people are held responsible. The military itself, the people who gave the orders and weapons and means to do it and the people who just calmly watched it happen knowing that it was not right. Personally if a bunch of so called innocent people can grin and watch as their military uses babies for gun shot practice I think they deserve more then just being vapourized.

Righteeeooooo. I hope you also agree with the people who commit terrorists acts against America. Because you lot were just sitting CALMLY BY while the Middle East was being messed up. In the opinion of those wacko terrorist, that's gives them jusifications for things like 9/11. Pleased to see you agree with their actions, and their logic.

Fadester: Whether you think so or not, America saved alot more people by using the Bomb, then invading. I don't know what incredible Liberal Hippy views you have, but they would have gotten millions more killed with your stupidity.

People who express views like that always believe that killing two people is worse than killing one. It's not - it's the same.

Using a weapon, when you have no idea of it's actual potential effect, is just wrong on so many levels. The Japanese citizens were used as guinea pigs just for the US to test out its brand spanking new weapon, and to show the rest of the world how powerful they were. Nothing more. I'm almost ashamed that my country has benefitted as much as any other from this shameful act.

As for being a Liberal Hippie...ROFL. I'd rather bash a treehugger than shake it's hand...that's how much of a Liberal Hippie I am...BWAAHAHAHAH!!! Can't stop laughing at how far off themark you are. I'm not a Hippie, I'm just not a fan of mass extermination of innocent civilians. How wrong I am!!!!

Really? I would like to see you justify Iran having nukes.

Where one needs it to defend itself, and the other to cause havoc on the world.

For you to even consider such a thing, is just stupid.

Justify America having nukes. Especially after their track record, I'll think you'll find it quite impossible!!! lol...

Hawkintom']That is the ultimate test. We saved AMERICAN LIVES by using atomic weapons on Japan. Lots of American lives were saved. That is all I need. Civilians ARE ultimately responsible for what their country does.


Of course, an American life is worth more than a slitty eyed bastard from the other side of the world? Strange as it might seem, I think all humans are equal. STRANGE. I must be fucking insane or something.

Presumably, Americans are responsible for the acts of their current government. I hope you applaud when a lot of AMERICAN LIVES are wiped out when Los Angeles gets smashed up in the next terrorist attack. I think that was the latest target named on the latest Al-Qaeda video. Anyway, I want you to be the first person to applaud...otherwise I'll be forced to call you a bit of a hypocrite... :cool:

People who express views like that always believe that killing two people is worse than killing one. It's not - it's the same.
And you would know this because obviously you were there with me running patrols around Manilla looking for RPG-2 manufacturing huts?

Fucking civilian moral rhetoric. Trust me, the numbers matter.

I think Iran should have nukes if it wants them I mean its not like they have used or even paraded any of its WMD'S look at those "missing" Russian suitcase nukes one of them going off in downtown Washington would certainly change the worlds policy's on the middle east

also if Pakistan and India can have nukes I certainly think Iran would be okay

Oh and Eisenhower warned the U.S that using nukes on Japan would cause a cold war and guess what it did (although WWIII might of broken out)

Hawkintom']Repay Japan? Oh, I think we repaid them all right, assuming you are talking about Pearl Harbor.

The United States did the right thing with Japan. For ourselves, and ultimately for Japan too.

We should have the same kind of character in our leaders now.

As for creating atomic weapons, how deep do you have to bury your head in the sand to pretend that the Europe and Russia weren't right behind us in developing them and would have done so either way. That's just an asinine and idiotic statement.

Best of all, it comes from someone who speaks English instead of German because of the sacrifices the U.S. made in WW2. :rolleyes:


Its always abou you americans! We brits sacrified more in that war then america! Way more! Our citys blown to pieces! We were in it for 5 bloody years! :rolls eyes:

Its always abou you americans! We brits sacrified more in that war then america! Way more! Our citys blown to pieces! We were in it for 5 bloody years! :rolls eyes:I don't recall the British being attacked by the Japanese.

Of course, an American life is worth more than a slitty eyed bastard from the other side of the world? Strange as it might seem, I think all humans are equal. STRANGE. I must be fucking insane or something.


You'd have a point, except you seem to be conveniently forgetting the part where the Japanese attacked America unprovoked. :rolleyes:

People like you are why I'm glad GWB is in office. You can rant and rave all you want, but deep down inside, you know that America will defend itself and seriously punish anyone who messes with us. Even terrorists, which are extremely difficult to fight because of their methods and lack of attachment to any real authority or country, are being hunted down because of the refusal of our President and people to take it lying down.


Presumably, Americans are responsible for the acts of their current government.


Yes, ultimately we are.


I hope you applaud when a lot of AMERICAN LIVES are wiped out when Los Angeles gets smashed up in the next terrorist attack. I think that was the latest target named on the latest Al-Qaeda video.


I'll save my applause for our response to any such attack. If terrorists continue to attack United States soil, eventually we will tire of playing "police investigation" with the terrorists and decide to really declare WAR on the terrorists. That will be an "interesting" time.


Anyway, I want you to be the first person to applaud...otherwise I'll be forced to call you a bit of a hypocrite... :cool:

Please, not that. Don't call me NAMES!!!

P.S. Melbourne was on the list too... Don't worry though, we consider your countrymen and women to be allies and we'll be there to help if it happens.

The UK isn't going to sell its nuclear technology to terrorists or use it on other nations unprovoked. That's the difference; Iran is a rogue regime and supporter of terrorism motivated by hatred of those different from its narrow beliefs. That's why they shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
I thought that was Pakistan?

Justify America having nukes. Especially after their track record, I'll think you'll find it quite impossible!!! lol...

Well, to the best of my knowledge we have only used them in one war, two times, and after the second use the other country, which had attacked us without provocation, surrendered completely. I mean completely. They don't even have an armed force today they surrendered so completely.

And how did America treat them afterwards? We built an alliance with them, traded with them, let them buy (instead of bomb) half our country and considering just how different our cultures are, get along with them pretty well.

Besides, it doesn't really matter. We got them first, and we are not among the nations that get to try and control who gets them now. We won't succeed in every case, like N Korea. But we get some say-so now and we certainly get to keep ours. Does that irritate you? I hope so. :)

Righteeeooooo. I hope you also agree with the people who commit terrorists acts against America. Because you lot were just sitting CALMLY BY while the Middle East was being messed up. In the opinion of those wacko terrorist, that's gives them jusifications for things like 9/11. Pleased to see you agree with their actions, and their logic.

Not at all when people screw up there own country I really don't care but if they involve mine of course I jump up. I'm not a saint I can't willingly say I care about someone elses country before my own and if you haven't noticed pretty much everyone has that attitude. The world isn't perfect and its human nature not to care about anything but your own nation. Not only that but there is one fatal flaw in your argument. The Middle east is not my country and again I really am not a saint and have no responsibility for it. Japan was the japanese's country it was there responsibility and they didn't care about it. Sooooooo your argument is flawed and while I may be called heartless I perfer to call it human. To be truthful if Japan had started rape camps in its own country I wouldn't really give a damn they can screw up there own nation but when they start conquering other nations then its my responsibility since they're no longer just involving themselves.

Its always abou you americans! We brits sacrified more in that war then america! Way more! Our citys blown to pieces! We were in it for 5 bloody years! :rolls eyes:

Lol sorry brits *raises imaginary glass of wine* I give a toast to the brits who were forced to sacrifice their city and more importanty there huge secret store room of sacred tea leaves :D

Using a weapon, when you have no idea of it's actual potential effect, is just wrong on so many levels. The Japanese citizens were used as guinea pigs just for the US to test out its brand spanking new weapon, and to show the rest of the world how powerful they were. Nothing more. I'm almost ashamed that my country has benefitted as much as any other from this shameful act.


Yeah we tested a weapon on them that wiped them out so fast half of them died within seconds while they were asses and did human experimentals, they would chop people's arms off and connect it with other human beings, they would load people up with so many chemicals that their bodies would destroy itself, they dumped plague chemicals all over the chinese. I'm half chinese and half american. Trust me America was more and more than justified to use any type of weapon against them and personally you have no respect for what the chinese went through you just go on and on about how were wrong we were without looking on the other side.

Hawkintom']You'd have a point, except you seem to be conveniently forgetting the part where the Japanese attacked America unprovoked. :rolleyes:

Of course, it didn't suit my argument to bring that up. I'm not going to argue from your side as well as mine! PH was a recognised military establishment though. I don't think a reasonably large city can be called a recognised military establishment, even if the Jap army had a base there. Also, the Japs didn't detonate a weapon which wiped out the entire joint...I don't think it's quite on the same level.

Hawkintom']People like you are why I'm glad GWB is in office. You can rant and rave all you want, but deep down inside, you know that America will defend itself and seriously punish anyone who messes with us. Even terrorists, which are extremely difficult to fight because of their methods and lack of attachment to any real authority or country, are being hunted down because of the refusal of our President and people to take it lying down.

One may just as easily argue that GWB causes as many problems as he fixes with respect to terrorists and terrorism. I'm glad you feel safer though, because in the end perception is all that matters. Until you get your head blown off of course, but thats just a minor technicality.

Hawkintom']I'll save my applause for our response to any such attack. If terrorists continue to attack United States soil, eventually we will tire of playing "police investigation" with the terrorists and decide to really declare WAR on the terrorists. That will be an "interesting" time.

Well, applaud however you want. The question is, do you recognise their right to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians? If each individual is responsible for the war in Iraq, or for the occupation of Saudi Arabia, or for supporting Israel, or whatever they are whinging about today, then you must also accept that they have a right to target you (and me - we're allies after all) personally. Well, I don't recognise their right to do this. Your pal GWB doesn't recognise their right to do this. You're probably the only non-terrorist who recognises their right to do this. I admire your open-mindedness, or perverse logic. One or the other - i admire it...

Hawkintom']Please, not that. Don't call me NAMES!!!

Yeh I know. Names. Ouchie. Sorry. :)

Hawkintom']P.S. Melbourne was on the list too... Don't worry though, we consider your countrymen and women to be allies and we'll be there to help if it happens.

Yes, I realise that... :(

Hawkintom']Does that irritate you? I hope so. :)

Not at all...I just think that the events that occurred were wrong. Nothing more.

As for the way you treated them afterwards...amazing what a guilty conscience can do. At least the people in power felt guilty enough...even if you don't. ;)

Yeah we tested a weapon on them that wiped them out so fast half of them died within seconds while they were asses and did human experimentals, they would chop people's arms off and connect it with other human beings, they would load people up with so many chemicals that their bodies would destroy itself, they dumped plague chemicals all over the chinese. I'm half chinese and half american. Trust me America was more and more than justified to use any type of weapon against them and personally you have no respect for what the chinese went through you just go on and on about how were wrong we were without looking on the other side.

Here's the oldest refutation in the book, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone (or some group) commits a vile act, it doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with the people that happen to be born in the same country as he (they) was (were) and are completely unconnected with the events. And ease up on the nationalism a bit huh? We're all humans...

I respect what the Chinese went through as much as I respect what a lot of other nations went through at the hands of the Japanese. Clearly, you just care about China...well good for you...I'm pleased to see you actually know stuff besides what your parents indoctrinated you with.

I care equally about the loss of innocent life everywhere. Obviously I realise that loss of civilian life in a war is inevitable...but I think that the H-bomb went a bit further than just accidental loss of civilian life.

Sometime I wish the US would have let Japan invade Austrailia :rolleyes:


Thought about. Realised irrelevant. Realises stupid yanks always use this excuse to justify their evil. Realised yanks are stupid. Realised that they voted for BUSH twice, so this makes them twice as stupid.

One inescapable fact...The US is the only country to have used them. The reason is unimportant, the fact is you did it WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING the potential effect. Your gov't had some idea, but you lot didn't even know how bad it could have been. But you did it anyway. This speaks volumes...

And now they try to take the moral high ground...how ridiculous. Anybody who doesn't see how ridiculous this is, is just lying to themselves.

Hasent someone nuked america yet? They deserve it!

Hasent someone nuked america yet? They deserve it!

Nobody deserves a nuclear attack of any scale, my friendly little troll.

Nobody deserves a nuclear attack of any scale, my friendly little troll.

Considering what ameirca has done to the world in its existence, why dont we make an exeption?

Nobody deserves a nuclear attack of any scale, my friendly little troll.With the exeption of Schoolchildren in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1st off it was an A-bomb not an H-bomb second the Bomb saved many times more lives than it took.


Here's the oldest refutation in the book, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone (or some group) commits a vile act, it doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with the people that happen to be born in the same country as he (they) was (were) and are completely unconnected with the events. And ease up on the nationalism a bit huh? We're all humans...

I respect what the Chinese went through as much as I respect what a lot of other nations went through at the hands of the Japanese. Clearly, you just care about China...well good for you...I'm pleased to see you actually know stuff besides what your parents indoctrinated you with.

I care equally about the loss of innocent life everywhere. Obviously I realise that loss of civilian life in a war is inevitable...but I think that the H-bomb went a bit further than just accidental loss of civilian life.

Hmm, Nuclear power yes, just no enrichment plants that can make more than fuel grade uranium, and no fast breeder reactors.

Although quite why people get in a huff about "weapons grade plutonium" is beyond me, Plutonium bombs are a DAMN sight more complex than uranium ones, I seriously doubt that even if they got enough of the stuff that terrorists could make a pultonium bomb.

U-253 is a different story, all you have to do is get enough of it in one place.

Now, I wont go into detail as "How to make nukes in ten easy steps" is A) Contrary to the views in this discussion and B) Probably illegal.


I am a very big supporter of nuclear power. However, if Iran do sell nuclear weapons to terrorists then I think a bloody big retribution would be in order. But punishing people before the crime is a bit wrong.

Of course I dont think the UN will end up stopping Iran even if they do flog the damn things.

So it could get iffy. And I dont think seeing the middle east get glassed by Iran/Israils retaliation/the west having a go too is in ANYONES best interests.

A difficult subject indeed. So, only sell them equipment that can make standard PWR reactors and not more.

I don't recall the British being attacked by the Japanese.

We lost a good few ships in the pacific aiding the US advance. And who was fighting in Burma when the japanese expansion really got underway? Thank you.

The UK isn't going to sell its nuclear technology to terrorists or use it on other nations unprovoked. That's the difference; Iran is a rogue regime and supporter of terrorism motivated by hatred of those different from its narrow beliefs. That's why they shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

seconded

seconded

LOLZORZ!!!!1!1

Calling a legal republic, with better civil rights than america a terrorist regime?!

Look at your own country, punk!

Considering what ameirca has done to the world in its existence, why dont we make an exeption?It would be a crime vs Humanity...

Nuking is barbaric...carpet bombing civilean areas is barbaric...

It would be a crime vs Humanity...

Nuking is barbaric...carpet bombing civilean areas is barbaric...

Nuking and carpet bombing isnt barbaric if its being done to america!

Nuking and carpet bombing isnt barbaric if its being done to america!

you attack the country that wishes to kill terrorists and spread freedom to oppressed people?

what kind of person are you?

i can understand Europe's love for Saddam (why else would they voice such hatred for President Bush?) but cripes, at least they're not wishing the US to be attacked...

so... wherefore art thou hostile? Are you a terrorist? Are US guns aimed at you?

Nuking and carpet bombing isnt barbaric if its being done to america!

Dont you mean you mean "BY America" ?

what kind of person are you?he is the "pissed off" Kind...

Please. The fact that you are comparing the human rights records of Iran and The US is laughable. While Iran is a legal republic, it has an apalling record on both human rights and sponsorship of terrorism. There was a glimmer of hope at normalizing relations for a while until the last election and the Iranian hardliners took power. Besides Isreal will nuke Iran long before the opposite could happen.


LOLZORZ!!!!1!1

Calling a legal republic, with better civil rights than america a terrorist regime?!

Look at your own country, punk!

you attack the country that wishes to kill terrorists and spread freedom to oppressed people?

i wouldnt call it "Freedom", Democracy tends not to end up with that, especially in a nation such as iraq where people do not know any other way of life.



i can understand Europe's love for Saddam (why else would they voice such hatred for President Bush?) but cripes, at least they're not wishing the US to be attacked...


Bush.....Isn't a very nice chap. He lacks style, bombing the hell out of anywhere that disaproves of your nation wont work, if only because poeple will dissaprove of the bombing.

you attack the country that wishes to kill terrorists and spread freedom to oppressed people?

what kind of person are you?

i can understand Europe's love for Saddam (why else would they voice such hatred for President Bush?) but cripes, at least they're not wishing the US to be attacked...

so... wherefore art thou hostile? Ar you a terrorist? Are US guns aimed at you?

You know Frangland, it's posts like this that make me wonder how you haven't been banned as a troll yet.

Please. The fact that you are comparing the human rights records of Iran and The US is laughable. While Iran is a legal republic, it has an apalling record on both human rights and sponsorship of terrorism. There was a glimmer of hope at normalizing relations for a while until the last election and the Iranian hardliners took power. Besides Isreal will nuke Iran long before the opposite could happen.

It sponsors freedom fighters to rid the world of the great oppressor, the american people! While I am athiest, I truly wish every freedom fighter that gives their life for the cause is given a hjigh place in their heaven.

It sponsors freedom fighters to rid the world of the great oppressor, the american people! While I am athiest, I truly wish every freedom fighter that gives their life for the cause is given a hjigh place in their heaven.

Caribel, shut up. You were an asshole last time and yu're worse now.

Caribel, shut up. You were an asshole last time and yu're worse now.

Oh come on, hes taking the piss to see how may people he can piss off, dont worry about it.

what kind of person are you?

He's called a troll. They're quite like gremlins, only it doesn't matter what time it is when you feed them.

Caribel, shut up. You were an asshole last time and yu're worse now.


FUCK YOU!!!!

What have we done? Helped the Brits and Russians defeat Hilter, defeated Imperial Japan, invented damn near every major product of the 19th an 20th century, fought the Cold War to stop the spread of Communism, Put a MAN ON THE FRIGGIN MOON. Yeah all excellent reasons to nuke the US. Idiot! :upyours:





Considering what ameirca has done to the world in its existence, why dont we make an exeption?

What a thoughtful and intelligent responce, did that take you long to come up with, or did you let fly from the top of your head?


FUCK YOU!!!!

somebody had an extra big helping of Jideheo's the Islamist "breakfast of martyrs" today :rolleyes:

It sponsors freedom fighters to rid the world of the great oppressor, the american people! While I am athiest, I truly wish every freedom fighter that gives their life for the cause is given a hjigh place in their heaven.

i wouldnt call it "Freedom", Democracy tends not to end up with that, especially in a nation such as iraq where people do not know any other way of life.




Bush.....Isn't a very nice chap. He lacks style, bombing the hell out of anywhere that disaproves of your nation wont work, if only because poeple will dissaprove of the bombing.

part 1: true, anytime you give people a free vote you are possibly opening up pandora's box. they could, for instance, vote in another dictator. hehe

part 2: i don't think, for him, it's about bombing people who don't agree with his policy... if such were the case he'd want to bomb europe (which won't happen, honestly, don't worry). I think he got into iraq to finish his dad's job, and now that we're there he won't pull the US forces out... which is good if you consider the main goal... a free (or freer, at least) iraq... if we left things might really disintegrate, with insurgents actually taking over.. which would be horrible for the other 90% of iraqis who aren't insurgents or who don't support the insurgency.

In terms of objectives, we were going there to take down saddam and find WOMD. we haven't found WOMD yet, which of course is not proof that Saddam didn't have them (he did)... iraq is a large place with many hiding spots.

But we have managed to take down Saddam, with the help of some friends, chiefly the Brits.

We have helped those people get a vote.

i'm blabbing. Afghanistan was to destroy the Taliban.

If people disapprove of the US/Bush because we bomb other countries, then we need to explain to them why we're conducting said bombing.

if such were the case he'd want to bomb europe (which won't happen, honestly, don't worry).

Some argue that the only reason he doesn't is due the fact that Europe is the largest market on the planet, thus important to the American economy, and can actually defend itself pretty well... ;)

Some argue that the only reason he doesn't is due the fact that Europe is the largest market on the planet, thus important to the American economy, and can actually defend itself pretty well... ;)

Actually, if GWB/USA wanted to take over any real estate on the planet, all they have to do is use the dreaded nuclear bomb. A few nuclear flashes would have nations bending over for us, without having to send one soldier anywhere.

But we don't---if we are so evil, barbaric, imperialistic, why not?

Why don't we have civilian detention camps? Why don't we round up anyone who looks vaguely Arab? Why isn't the loud-mouthed opposition party worried about disappearing in the middle of the night?

We have a huge illegal immigration problem, why not nuke Mexico?

Not getting along with Russia? Nuke 'em before they nuke us.

China? We form the Sino-American Alliance, terraform a whole new galaxy of earths, and keep Serenity on the run. ;)

And why do we send money and other aid to ailing countries in Africa? After all, isn't GWB an evil racist loon? Why help anyone outside the US?


Who knows? Maybe we are just not that evil? :confused:

Actually, if GWB/USA wanted to take over any real estate on the planet, all they have to do is use the dreaded nuclear bomb. A few nuclear flashes would have nations bending over for us, without having to send one soldier anywhere.

But we don't---if we are so evil, barbaric, imperialistic, why not?

Why don't we have civilian detention camps? Why don't we round up anyone who looks vaguely Arab? Why isn't the loud-mouthed opposition party worried about disappearing in the middle of the night?

We have a huge illegal immigration problem, why not nuke Mexico?

Not getting along with Russia? Nuke 'em before they nuke us.

China? We form the Sino-American Alliance, terraform a whole new galaxy of earths, and keep Serenity on the run. ;)

And why do we send money and other aid to ailing countries in Africa? After all, isn't GWB an evil racist loon? Why help anyone outside the US?


Who knows? Maybe we are just not that evil? :confused:

Come on! You know as well as I know that if the US uses a single atomic anywhere they will lose the support of every single country in the world. And that's something you don't want.

Oh, by the way, there's more money to the weapons manufacturers in a "soldier vs soldier war" than in a "nuke them, now let's go get what's left kind of war".

No country has the right to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear development is a must. But that's just a personal opinion.

However, Iran has said that they only have a civil programme. All they want to do is develop their own fuel cycles, that would help them do that. The UK/US/EU demands are unreasonable. When it drills down to it, Iran is a sovereign state and not a protectorate or puppet of the West.

And if they do want nukes, they're the ones wasting their taxes on it, not me.

Come on! You know as well as I know that if the US uses a single atomic anywhere they will lose the support of every single country in the world. And that's something you don't want.

Oh, by the way, there's more money to the weapons manufacturers in a "soldier vs soldier war" than in a "nuke them, now let's go get what's left kind of war".

And if we were evil, why should we care about support? After all, the next step would be declaring GWB "King of the World," right?

As for money to be made, just give each mega-corporation its own country... :eek:

And when Isreal attacks them they have only themselves to blame.


No country has the right to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear development is a must. But that's just a personal opinion.

However, Iran has said that they only have a civil programme. All they want to do is develop their own fuel cycles, that would help them do that. The UK/US/EU demands are unreasonable. When it drills down to it, Iran is a sovereign state and not a protectorate or puppet of the West.

And if they do want nukes, they're the ones wasting their taxes on it, not me.

And if we were evil, why should we care about support? After all, the next step would be declaring GWB "King of the World," right?

As for money to be made, just give each mega-corporation its own country... :eek:

I had this same discussion with a friend of mine from Kentucky not more than a year ago.

I DO NOT THINK US IS EVIL (I MAY THINK I DON'T LIKE SOME THINGS YOUR PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE).

GWB I think he has already declared King of the World, or he would have not attacked Irak (remember he doesn't have any single way to show us there were massive destruction weapons). And, as a matter of fact, he should had wait till the UN agreed with him about that. Now, don't come and tell me he shouldn't because if he didn't why do you bother in sending your representative to the UN if you just don't respect the institution.

About the money: every single corporation (and a lot of people representing them9 think it's better to remain in the shadows then in public control.

Oh, I almost forgot!

Don't tell me GWB attacked Irak to put that miserable Saddam out and give freedom to that people. I'm not saying he wasn't a dictator, but, from the moment US declares himself owner of the only truth, you became exactly what you are fighting.

As a matter of fact, every single country can now make war to another declaring they are putting away a dictator and bringing justicy and liberty.

Sorry to interrupt the pro/anti US trenches (I'm sure I'll join in at some later point!)....

The point that Iran is trying to argue is that they do not want nuclear weapons, only a civil programme. Now this is clearly rubbish as nearly (but not all) every country would like them if thye could get away with it. Iran knows that it would find this very hard to do - One of the best points made earlier was that Israel would, of course, launch a pre-emptive attack. I believe that they have already threatened to use conventional bombs and missiles against enrichment facilities.

The key to holding the spread of nuclear weapons is the NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY. At least this is all we have at the moment. If I remember rightly, it is a compromise trade-off: The few powers with nukes can justify restricting them as they cannot now destroy the technology & they promise (hmm) not to use them as anything other than a deterrent.

The other carrot is that any nation should be entitled to civilian nuclear technology as long as the can prove that they are not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. In this sense Iran are claiming that they are being deprived of their right to the technology & therefore will not allow the nuclear countries to dictate to them according to only 1 side of the bargain.

I personally would find it very hard to trust Iran with this attitude. But then again thy do have a point & I also believe that they may well be telling the truth as they probably wouldn't fancy a war with Israel (who have a lot more to lose than the US) & be sure, little secrets like nukes tend to leak out (again see Israeli history).

Obviously Bush has been trying to wreck the NPT for some time now, but the rest of the world wants to defend it & has so far managed to do so. Can we really deny Iran the civilian technology if we are allowed to keep track of it? (Oh, btw I also seem to remember that not only are the nuclear countries supposed to help build the plants, but they should also permit unranium enrichment plants for fuel so as to prevent the non-nuclear states becoming dependent on them for fuel. Hmmm)

Hey I'm rambling again. Not even sure which side of this debate I'm on. But I can tell that several people might not like the idea of having to conform to international treaties now that their country is, at least temporarily, the only superpower :-)

We are telling Iran that they have to live up to verification but not reap the benefits (why not give them a quick chance & then flunk them?!). This is based solely on military and economic power and not the law/treaties widely agreed on. Makes sense for the "realists" in foreign policy, but others among us end to think that skirting international law and opinion tends to come back and bite you in the ass eventually.

the first country to get AK-47(Nukes) was the US?...

and what happened? Russia and China rushed to get its own big guns...Even France did.

What happened when India was about to get Nukes....Pakistan scrambled to get some...

Get yourself big Guns...and the guys the other side of the court will get some...sooner or later...one way or another...Its human nature.

mark my words.

I am not commenting on proliferation by others.

But in the sub-continent, it was Pakistan which first weaponised nukes. They acquired test validated designs from China in early 90s (and allegedly a Plutonium based bomb) and they also acquired missiles from N.Korea which were already tested for mating with the Chinese designs.

We were the ones who scrambled to test our designs. P.V.Narasimha Rao, the then PM of India scheduled tests on 1995 but had to drop them after arm-twisting and assurances by the US. When Pakistan did not give up blackmailing and upped the ante in Kashmir, we had to openly test and we did so in 1998.

And then Pakistan had to demonstrate their parity to their population, so they also "tested" their nukes within 10 days or so. The Pu based bomb that they exploded is definitely Chinese since Pakistan did not have Pu material and tech at that time.

Going back, it was Chinese strategic alliance with Pakistan in late 60s and the subsequent gifting of the shaksgam valley (4853 sq. km just north of Siachen glacier) of Kashmir by Pakistan to China, which indicated that eventually nukes will be transferred by the Chinese to the Pakis to ensure parity. This forced India to take the nuclear path (a crude nuclear -non weaponised- detonation in 1974). Although India is still for global disarmament of nukes, we had to nuclearise given that both our hostile neighbors, China and Pakistan were already nuclearised.

So there.


Regarding Iran, I have a couple of questions for both sides

For those who see have no problems with a nuclear Iran

What about the proliferation threat from Iran to non-state actors like Hamas and Hizbullah? How and what will be the dynamics of a nuke deterrance of Iran?

For those who are against a nuclear Iran,

How can you argue against a nuclear Iran, when you are on the same vein, tolerating a nuclear Pakistan?

Is not Pakistan the epicentre of global salafi terrorism? Have they not proliferated nukes and nuke tech (in varying degrees) to N.Korea, Iran, Libya and possibly AQ (designs were given, that much is proven and open source)?

So tell me again, on the backdrop of the above, why is a nuclear Pakistan tolerated but a nuclear Iran cannot?

So tell me again, on the backdrop of the above, why is a nuclear Pakistan tolerated but a nuclear Iran cannot?


Because we can't threaten Pakistan any more now that they have nukes? :eek:
(possibly the same reason we were terrified of NK for quite some time.)

You know we can only attack 3rd world nations crippled by sanctions or with no viable central state at all. Are you mad?!
:D