| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/26/2004 05:54:38 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Achiral...in another thread you stated that you did NOT think war was an atrocity...if you want, I'll find it, but I would like to know what you mean because that to me seems to be the most crazy statement I have ever heard. Does that relate to the "rapture" in any way?
Originally posted by achiral:
why wouldn't he scream "the US is behind this!" as they were killing him? you think he would just sit quietly watch that happen? hardly. he already had two bad runins with us officials there, so i doubt he would look at them in good light. you people are crazy |
|
i don't think war is an atrocity, you are correct. but that has nothing to do with what i'm trying to say(obviously i haven't explained it clear enough i'm sure)
my point is if berg were surrounded by americans don't you think he would have said something as they were pushing him tothe ground about an american conspiracy? i find it hard to believe that he would just sit there and say nothing while US operatives did this to him |
simple, he didnt know. or they werent american. they could have been russion or german, etc. or he could have been drugged, or dead and a little fancy video editing could give the small movements he did when they were standing behind him.. who knows..
the point is, there are alot of questions and inconsistancies about the whole thing, hence this thread and all the websites and talk. personally, for a government who has assasinated there own president, i wouldnt put it past them. especially considering the post 9/11 US and world attitude. |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 08:26:19 PM · #52 |
This is an aside to the Nick Berg issue...
How is it that you do not consider war an atrocity? I find that statement incredulous! Does this have to do with "the rapture?"
Please explain.
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Achiral...in another thread you stated that you did NOT think war was an atrocity...if you want, I'll find it, but I would like to know what you mean because that to me seems to be the most crazy statement I have ever heard. Does that relate to the "rapture" in any way?
Originally posted by achiral:
why wouldn't he scream "the US is behind this!" as they were killing him? you think he would just sit quietly watch that happen? hardly. he already had two bad runins with us officials there, so i doubt he would look at them in good light. you people are crazy |
|
i don't think war is an atrocity, you are correct. but that has nothing to do with what i'm trying to say(obviously i haven't explained it clear enough i'm sure)
my point is if berg were surrounded by americans don't you think he would have said something as they were pushing him tothe ground about an american conspiracy? i find it hard to believe that he would just sit there and say nothing while US operatives did this to him |
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 08:40:50 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This is an aside to the Nick Berg issue...
How is it that you do not consider war an atrocity? I find that statement incredulous! Does this have to do with "the rapture?"
Please explain. |
War is a lot of things, many of them horrible yes, and some of those things could be labeled as an atrocity. But the war on terror, the fight against alquida or war in general?
a·troc·i·ties
1) The quality of passing all moral bounds:
atrociousness, enormity, heinousness, monstrousness.
2) A monstrous offense or evil:
enormity, monstrosity, outrage.
I just don't think the war on terror or most wars in general (my life time and my grand fathers light time) can be painted in this life. Maybe most closely resembling this could be Vietnam and Korea, but even those were not atrocis, but instead filedd with atrocities.
There is a difference, and I'm pretty sure I've hit this square on the head, but I'm open to debate or other ideas, IF based in logic.
edit: spelling
Message edited by author 2004-05-26 20:44:17.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 08:56:59 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
I'l simply reject anything based on the evils of Bush or the conservative party or any other stupid theories... |
hmm. thats pretty close minded. is that anything like:
"Dont confuse me with the truth, my mind is made up."
? |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 09:07:02 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
hmm. thats pretty close minded. |
No, it's called not being blinded by stupid pathetic hate. Arguing that war is an atrocity because you hate President Bush is not only bankrupt of logic but is steeped is childness!
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
"Dont confuse me with the truth, my mind is made up." |
Isn't that the DNC oath or antham?
Don't always believe what you think!
Message edited by author 2004-05-26 21:17:24.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 10:55:16 PM · #56 |
War is about killingâ€Â¦You don’t find murder abhorrent? You don’t think war passes all moral bounds? You don’t find killing your enemy abhorrent, Or seeing his body shattered to pieces by bullets and bombs horrible? Blood and guts splayed everywhere. You think that because he’s your enemy and that you are justified in fighting a war that killing doesn’t effect you in the negative? You don’t think that maybe the man/woman that was killed in war has a wife, kids, or fiance and was planning a life? Their lives are adversely effected as well. That’s just what we need more of in this already saturated with grief worldâ€Â¦more death, destruction and despair. That surely will not lead to world peace of any kind because the man/enemy you kill today will have a son/daughter someplace and remember that you (or your country) has taken his father/mother from him and may possibly avenge his families loss on your progeny some time in the future. Multiply that a thousand fold and you have a war that could last a thousand years. A lot of good that will do man/womankind.
For myself, I find any kind of killing to be abhorrent and atrociousâ€Â¦even in self defense, or even in as justified a war as you can find (not really sure that exists), war is an atrocity. There’s nothing morally good about war. Innocent people always get killed. The environment is harmed. It takes away resources from other programs that could be used for improving the lot of man/womankind, and nowadays, it doesn’t only affect the immediate warring countries involved, but has the potential to drag into it many other nation states and become a world war. There is also the ever present threat that it will expand to nuclear war which could be the end of civilization as we know it, or even the end of life on this planet.
I think you have been watching too many Arnold Schwarznegger films and have become totally insensitive to what killing is all about.
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This is an aside to the Nick Berg issue...
How is it that you do not consider war an atrocity? I find that statement incredulous! Does this have to do with "the rapture?"
Please explain. |
War is a lot of things, many of them horrible yes, and some of those things could be labeled as an atrocity. But the war on terror, the fight against alquida or war in general?
a·troc·i·ties
1) The quality of passing all moral bounds:
atrociousness, enormity, heinousness, monstrousness.
2) A monstrous offense or evil:
enormity, monstrosity, outrage.
I just don't think the war on terror or most wars in general (my life time and my grand fathers light time) can be painted in this life. Maybe most closely resembling this could be Vietnam and Korea, but even those were not atrocis, but instead filedd with atrocities.
There is a difference, and I'm pretty sure I've hit this square on the head, but I'm open to debate or other ideas, IF based in logic.
edit: spelling |
|
|
|
|
05/27/2004 12:24:20 AM · #57 |
War is about killing... You don't find murder abhorrent?
I don't think it's murder.
You don't find killing your enemy abhorrent
No
You think that because he's your enemy and that you are justified in fighting a war that killing doesn't effect you in the negative?
Of course there are negative side effect., but there are also positive side effects. (also see 1 & 2)
You don't think that maybe the man/woman that was killed in war has a wife, kids, or fiance and was planning a life?
See above, but Osama, Saddam and other terrorists should have thought of this before attacking the US, killing hundrends of thousands or ignoring the UN.
...death, destruction and despair. That surely will not lead to world peace of any kind...
And what will? Giving into the Muslims? Should I commit suicide, be stoned to death or just convert? The media may fight the fact that this is a holy or religious war, but it is, or at least thats what got us here!
I find any kind of killing to be abhorrent and atrocious...even in self defense...
If you try to kill me, I will gladly defend my self. I will feel no sorrow and I will not aologize for my actions, I will also sleep well that night.
There's nothing morally good about war. Innocent people always get killed. The environment is harmed.
Do I really need to go over every war, it's outcome and what the alternative would have been? Come on!!!
It takes away resources from other programs that could be used for improving the lot of man/womankind
Many of the greatest advancements of mankind have come from war or preping for war... You apparently have no idea how many every day items or technologies came about or were improved by the military!
...you have been watching too many Arnold Schwarznegger films...
I think your watching too many Al Gore speaches!!!
Message edited by author 2004-05-27 00:32:58.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 06:54:34 PM · #58 |
| Is anyone else upset about the end of the all volunteer US military and the beginning of a draft system this weeK |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 07:06:51 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
Is anyone else upset about the end of the all volunteer US military and the beginning of a draft system this weeK |
It's still in committee.
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Message edited by author 2004-06-03 19:28:25. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 10:45:33 PM · #60 |
Between the two fronts (Afghanistan and Iraq) they are running out of soldiers. I just heard today that they are barring any enlisted man/woman from leaving the military. This applies to all who have fulfilled their obligations or ready for retirement. They are also pulling the National Guard to go overseas.
Who is that going to leave to help defend the homeland???
These wars were ill conceived, poorly planned and carried out. Not by the foot soldiers, but by the top brass. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 11:31:01 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Between the two fronts (Afghanistan and Iraq) they are running out of soldiers. I just heard today that they are barring any enlisted man/woman from leaving the military. This applies to all who have fulfilled their obligations or ready for retirement. They are also pulling the National Guard to go overseas.
Who is that going to leave to help defend the homeland??? |
That's what the militia is for ... didn't you read the other thread? |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 11:50:25 PM · #62 |
Oh....and I thought the militia was for vigilante groups, lynch mobs, witch hunts and pogroms posing as patriots...my mistake.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Between the two fronts (Afghanistan and Iraq) they are running out of soldiers. I just heard today that they are barring any enlisted man/woman from leaving the military. This applies to all who have fulfilled their obligations or ready for retirement. They are also pulling the National Guard to go overseas.
Who is that going to leave to help defend the homeland??? |
That's what the militia is for ... didn't you read the other thread? |
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 12:17:38 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I just heard today that they are barring any enlisted man/woman from leaving the military. This applies to all who have fulfilled their obligations or ready for retirement. |
You heard wrong ( but that doesn't seem to be unusual ). First of all, it isn't "any enlisted man/woman". It is only those assigned to active Army units with orders for deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan within 90 days or fewer. And they can leave the military, if they are eligible, 90 days after their return to their home base once deployment ends. Exceptions to the stop-loss can be made for individuals with special circumstances.
Secondly, it's not a "new" policy. In fact, every Army unit ordered to Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and even nearby countries has had a similar rule ever since the attacks on 9/11. The only "change" is that the policy is now automatically applied to every unit being deployed - previously it required a separate action for each deployed unit. You can read the Army News Service press release HERE
As usual, the anti-Bush media is playing this up as though it is a new policy, necessitated by some kind of Bush administration failure, when, in fact, it is not. It might have been news in Sept, 2001 but it would have obviously been wasted then - no one would have noticed. This is a slow news week, so the media had to find SOMETHING to twist to imply that Bush is failing. And what better story to follow Memorial Day?
Ron |
|
|
|
06/04/2004 12:34:02 AM · #64 |
Yes Ron, you are right...but as I said, I heard this in passing today and didn't have time to read about it. Still, the fact remains that the military is short of personnel and we have two fronts, really three if you count the homeland to protect. They are transferring over 3,000 troops from Korea and another unit from Louisiana that is responsible for training and has not fought in a war since WWII. Don't we need troops here in the US if we get attacked again?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I just heard today that they are barring any enlisted man/woman from leaving the military. This applies to all who have fulfilled their obligations or ready for retirement. |
You heard wrong ( but that doesn't seem to be unusual ). First of all, it isn't "any enlisted man/woman". It is only those assigned to active Army units with orders for deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan within 90 days or fewer. And they can leave the military, if they are eligible, 90 days after their return to their home base once deployment ends. Exceptions to the stop-loss can be made for individuals with special circumstances.
Secondly, it's not a "new" policy. In fact, every Army unit ordered to Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and even nearby countries has had a similar rule ever since the attacks on 9/11. The only "change" is that the policy is now automatically applied to every unit being deployed - previously it required a separate action for each deployed unit. You can read the Army News Service press release HERE
As usual, the anti-Bush media is playing this up as though it is a new policy, necessitated by some kind of Bush administration failure, when, in fact, it is not. It might have been news in Sept, 2001 but it would have obviously been wasted then - no one would have noticed. This is a slow news week, so the media had to find SOMETHING to twist to imply that Bush is failing. And what better story to follow Memorial Day?
Ron |
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 12:39:52 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
For myself, I find any kind of killing to be abhorrent and atrociousâ€Â¦even in self defense, or even in as justified a war as you can find (not really sure that exists), war is an atrocity. |
This is nosense. Atrocious means "Extremely evil or cruel; monstrous: an atrocious crime.". How can you say that killing in self defense is a monsterous crime? Did you mean that, or do you just not know what the word "atrocious" means? Nobody who is sane WANTS to have to kill somebody else, but that doesn't mean it's wrong if you have to do it to protect yourself or others.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There̢۪s nothing morally good about war. Innocent people always get killed. |
Some wars ARE moral in the eyes of the participants on BOTH sides. Now whether or not each side's "morals" are in agreement with the other's is another question. Sometimes war IS moral believe it or not. Just ask the WWII veterans from many different allied countries if they think that was a moral war. 90% of all people polled feel it was moral.
Nobody likes to see innocent people get killed in war. The US has done a lot to minimize this whenever possible. We have bent over backwards to try to not harm innocents by using percision weapons. Even tho they don't always work as well as we'd like, at least we try. That's a lot different from our current opposition who kill INNOCENTS on PURPOSE with bombs strapped to their bodies, with the hope of meeting 72 virgins in "heaven". And if anyone mentions the US using a nuke in WWII, it's bogus: The entire WORLD is lucky that the USA was able to obtian this weapon before our enemies did or else we would all be speaking German today. Did you know that Germans was just months away from obtaining the "atom bomb" before we did? Now imagine what the World would be like today if that had happened.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The environment is harmed. It takes away resources from other programs... has the potential to drag into it many other nation states and become a world war. |
The risks of war have to be CAREFULLY examined before a nation gets involved because there's so much at stake. Hopefull we've made the right choice in Iraq. It's hard to tell right now, but I'm hoping things will work out. To be honest, I have my doubts at this point. While it's a nice idea on paper to want the people of Iraq to have democracy and the freedoms we have, actually implimenting this on a 7000 year old culture wasn't carefully considered in advance, I think.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There is also the ever present threat that it will expand to nuclear war which could be the end of civilization as we know it, or even the end of life on this planet. |
It's not likely that a nuclear war would end all life since our adversaries would be inialated quickly, and before enough damage could be done to the planet to cause that. And if that ever happens it won't be the US that strikes first. Why do you think we are trying to disarm rouge nations? THEY are causing this risk. If you are concerned, you should support World effort to help stop these nations from producing nuclear weapons, because if this effort fails, there WILL be a horrible nuclear war some day. It's critical to control rouge nations.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think you have been watching too many Arnold Schwarznegger films and have become totally insensitive to what killing is all about. |
I'd agree with this. No matter what anyone says these types of movies (although I love Arnold movies) absolutely do desensitize people to killing in general. But what do you about it? Stop allowing these movies and censor them? Or do you teach your children the difference between RIGHT and WRONG, what is good or bad to watch/idolize?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 01:06:41 AM · #66 |
I consider any act of killing to be extremely evil and cruel and monstrous...even in self-defense. It may be necessary to preserve your life or your family's lives, but it's still a cruel and disgusting act...especially in war since soldiers are pawns of other's "games." My enemy would be taking orders to kill me as I him but in no way would I have something innately against my enemy. I"m not talking about right or wrong here, it's about the act itself, which is disgusting beyond belief. And in war, the weapons of killing are horrible.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
For myself, I find any kind of killing to be abhorrent and atrociousâ€Â¦even in self defense, or even in as justified a war as you can find (not really sure that exists), war is an atrocity. |
This is nosense. Atrocious means "Extremely evil or cruel; monstrous: an atrocious crime.". How can you say that killing in self defense is a monsterous crime? Did you mean that, or do you just not know what the word "atrocious" means? Nobody who is sane WANTS to have to kill somebody else, but that doesn't mean it's wrong if you have to do it to protect yourself or others.
|
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 01:19:18 AM · #67 |
Can't say I agree with you here, Chris...I don't believe the US is "bending over backwards" to not harm innocents. For example, the US is using, and has used in other wars, as well, depleted uranium bullets and shells. This is a nuclear material that is causing many innocents in and out of Iraq to become extremely sick and eventually die. The DU remains in the environment to be inhaled and incorporated into the body causing horrible cancers, especially in the young. Recently a number of GIs came home from Iraq sick from depleted uranium.
I can see but one moral war...our leaders duking it out with our enemies leaders. Sadaam vs Bush...the
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There̢۪s nothing morally good about war. Innocent people always get killed. |
Some wars ARE moral in the eyes of the participants on BOTH sides. Now whether or not each side's "morals" are in agreement with the other's is another question. Sometimes war IS moral believe it or not. Just ask the WWII veterans from many different allied countries if they think that was a moral war. 90% of all people polled feel it was moral.
Nobody likes to see innocent people get killed in war. The US has done a lot to minimize this whenever possible. We have bent over backwards to try to not harm innocents by using percision weapons. Even tho they don't always work as well as we'd like, at least we try. That's a lot different from our current opposition who kill INNOCENTS on PURPOSE with bombs strapped to their bodies, with the hope of meeting 72 virgins in "heaven". And if anyone mentions the US using a nuke in WWII, it's bogus: The entire WORLD is lucky that the USA was able to obtian this weapon before our enemies did or else we would all be speaking German today. Did you know that Germans was just months away from obtaining the "atom bomb" before we did? Now imagine what the World would be like today if that had happened.
|
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 01:21:49 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I consider any act of killing to be extremely evil and cruel and monstrous...even in self-defense. It may be necessary to preserve your life or your family's lives, but it's still a cruel and disgusting act... |
Well I don't know why you would consider killing to protect yourself as "evil", but I guess that's what you believe. "Evil" to me means it's wrong to do. So given that, is it "wrong" to protect yourself? I think the words you are using are too strong because of some experience maybe? I'd agree that killing in self-defense would be awefull to have to do, but not "evil" or "wrong".
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
....especially in war since soldiers are pawns of other's "games." My enemy would be taking orders to kill me as I him but in no way would I have something innately against my enemy. I"m not talking about right or wrong here, it's about the act itself, which is disgusting beyond belief. And in war, the weapons of killing are horrible. |
Yeah, I know what you are saying. Well we just have to trust that what our government is telling us we have to do to protect our country is really the right thing to do. It's hard to do sometimes when there are so many "games" being playing all the time, but what else can you do but question the motives/reasons? I don't think we have any problem with doing that, do you?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 01:26:22 AM · #69 |
Seems like many things weren't given their due consideration because the Bush administration have their own agenda of oil aquisition and imperialism.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The environment is harmed. It takes away resources from other programs... has the potential to drag into it many other nation states and become a world war. |
The risks of war have to be CAREFULLY examined before a nation gets involved because there's so much at stake. Hopefull we've made the right choice in Iraq. It's hard to tell right now, but I'm hoping things will work out. To be honest, I have my doubts at this point. While it's a nice idea on paper to want the people of Iraq to have democracy and the freedoms we have, actually implimenting this on a 7000 year old culture wasn't carefully considered in advance, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 01:36:53 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Seems like many things weren't given their due consideration because the Bush administration have their own agenda of oil aquisition and imperialism. |
Yeah yeah, the imperialist pigs that we are. We are simply protecting the World's oil supply from falling into the hands of terrorists and so that the people of Iraq will actually BENEFIT from a natural resource in THEIR country. Or do you think that Saddam Insane keeping all of the oil profit for HIMSELF was OK?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 01:49:31 AM · #71 |
You're right, Chris, not all life on the planet would be destroyed with nuclear war. Mosses, lichens and protazoan would be left...and probably cochroaches like Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld who have plans of hiding in underground bunkers with stored rations for a very long time and running a shadow govt.
This is mere conjecture, at best, that the US would be able to anihilate another country first...and it's stupid conjecture. You really want the US to test this theory of yours??? And even if it were true, there would such an impact in the health of the planet and it's peoples and on the climate and environemnt that it would most likely effect life on this planet in the negative in ways we can't forsee yet.
Should the US be the only country allowed to own nuclear weapons...many countries already see our imperialistic goals and now intended use of many kinds of weapons, including nuclear, and are scared of the US. Congress has recently ok'd tactical nuclear weapons for use anywhere in the world, and have committed to the star wars missle defense program. This is escalating the arms race and makes for a very unstable situation in the world.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There is also the ever present threat that it will expand to nuclear war which could be the end of civilization as we know it, or even the end of life on this planet. |
It's not likely that a nuclear war would end all life since our adversaries would be inialated quickly, and before enough damage could be done to the planet to cause that. And if that ever happens it won't be the US that strikes first. Why do you think we are trying to disarm rouge nations? THEY are causing this risk. If you are concerned, you should support World effort to help stop these nations from producing nuclear weapons, because if this effort fails, there WILL be a horrible nuclear war some day. It's critical to control rouge nations.
|
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 01:57:17 AM · #72 |
The point is not about the movies, chris. Let's keep the movies and stop GW and his band from destroying life on this planet as we know it. There's nothing morally rightous about this administration. It's funny how we've had good relations with many of these foreign dictators. Donald Rumsfeld met and shook hands with Hussein in 1988 and we sold him WMD's. We knew what he was going to do with these weapons but didn't care. Many of the same people that were involved back then are in power today. We armed Bin Laden and were dealing with the Taliban up till about one month prior to 9/11.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think you have been watching too many Arnold Schwarznegger films and have become totally insensitive to what killing is all about. |
I'd agree with this. No matter what anyone says these types of movies (although I love Arnold movies) absolutely do desensitize people to killing in general. But what do you about it? Stop allowing these movies and censor them? Or do you teach your children the difference between RIGHT and WRONG, what is good or bad to watch/idolize? |
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 02:03:53 AM · #73 |
In a democracy we don't have to trust that our gov't is making the right choices. It's our right as citizens, and our duty to question them...and so far, they have been totally distrustful. There is no reason to trust them since their motives have come into question. There are many things that are secretive about this govt and above all else, they are dismantling The Constitution. That would be the end of our republic as we have known it for the past 200 years.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
....especially in war since soldiers are pawns of other's "games." My enemy would be taking orders to kill me as I him but in no way would I have something innately against my enemy. I"m not talking about right or wrong here, it's about the act itself, which is disgusting beyond belief. And in war, the weapons of killing are horrible. |
Yeah, I know what you are saying. Well we just have to trust that what our government is telling us we have to do to protect our country is really the right thing to do. It's hard to do sometimes when there are so many "games" being playing all the time, but what else can you do but question the motives/reasons? I don't think we have any problem with doing that, do you? |
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 02:08:13 AM · #74 |
Then if that's the reason then Bush should have come out and been honest with the American public as to the real reason behind our invasion instead of couching it in security matters and let the American people decide if that's what they want their country to do.
Sadaam Hussein was the friend of the US until we decided that we want to control Iraqi oil.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Seems like many things weren't given their due consideration because the Bush administration have their own agenda of oil aquisition and imperialism. |
Yeah yeah, the imperialist pigs that we are. We are simply protecting the World's oil supply from falling into the hands of terrorists and so that the people of Iraq will actually BENEFIT from a natural resource in THEIR country. Or do you think that Saddam Insane keeping all of the oil profit for HIMSELF was OK? |
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 02:10:52 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You're right, Chris, not all life on the planet would be destroyed with nuclear war. Mosses, lichens and protazoan would be left...and probably cochroaches like Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld who have plans of hiding in underground bunkers with stored rations for a very long time and running a shadow govt. |
LOL. No offense but you have a grim attitude towards things. I know World events can be depressing but you are focusing on the wrong things. Focus on what you can do to make things better if possible.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This is mere conjecture, at best, that the US would be able to anihilate another country first...and it's stupid conjecture. You really want the US to test this theory of yours??? And even if it were true, there would such an impact in the health of the planet and it's peoples and on the climate and environemnt that it would most likely effect life on this planet in the negative in ways we can't forsee yet. |
I never said I wanted the US to "test this theory". You are the one who suggested that the World would come to an end, and I'm said that's not likely and would not be "the US who tests this theory" per my previous statement.
Agreed there would be effects on the World's life, climate, habitate, all kinds of other things. However it's nothing that the World will not recover from if (God forbid) that ever happens.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Should the US be the only country allowed to own nuclear weapons...many countries already see our imperialistic goals and now intended use of many kinds of weapons, including nuclear, and are scared of the US. |
LOL, I KNEW you were going to ask this question. :) Well Oly, what do YOU think? Assuming you live in the United States and care about this country like I do, would you rather have the US (or your country) have nuclear weapons or, say, North Korea have nuclear weapons? Or say the US or Russia? Who would YOU really trust, and be honest with me. And don't give that BS about other countries who are scared of the USA, it's pure horse crap because we protect, not destroy.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Congress has recently ok'd tactical nuclear weapons for use anywhere in the world, and have committed to the star wars missle defense program. This is escalating the arms race and makes for a very unstable situation in the world. |
Don't worry Oly, we are here to protect you, not hurt you. We always have been but your liberal/socialist friends won't tell you that because they are too busy hating what they can never be. :) I know that may sound arrogant, BUT, it's not meant to be. It's simply the honest truth. Think about it.
Message edited by author 2004-06-04 02:14:03. |
|
