By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - BREAKING NEWS! North Korea Launch Rocket!!

akuma587 on 06 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
I think its pretty funny that the U.S. tries to act like it is the authority on who should or shouldn't have nuclear weapons when it is the only country who has ever used a nuclear weapon on another country. And two of them at that! We even sort of offered under the table some nukes to France during the Vietnam War era in kind of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more kind of way.

And I also think it is funny that some of the same people who are saying that other countries should have no nukes or less nukes are also advocating that the U.S. increase its nuclear arsenal.

Its this kind of talk that makes the rest of the world think we are hypocrites.

Every country tries to bend the world to there views. Every country.

The only ones who can, are the most powerful. People can hate the US all they want, but they are just hating us because we are no better or worse then any other country.

Well, we are no better with respect to trying to shape the world into our image. I think our image is better then most.

 

So we should be allowed to have nuclear weapons while other countries should not because we think our image is better than their image?  I just don't see that as a strong rationalization for our behavior.

And technically Iran is allowed to pursue civilian uses of nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  We signed that agreement with a whole bunch of countries.  If we were that worried about rogue states getting their hands on nuclear weapons, that was a stupid fucking decision to sign that treaty.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 06 April 2009
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
I think its pretty funny that the U.S. tries to act like it is the authority on who should or shouldn't have nuclear weapons when it is the only country who has ever used a nuclear weapon on another country. And two of them at that! We even sort of offered under the table some nukes to France during the Vietnam War era in kind of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more kind of way.

And I also think it is funny that some of the same people who are saying that other countries should have no nukes or less nukes are also advocating that the U.S. increase its nuclear arsenal.

Its this kind of talk that makes the rest of the world think we are hypocrites.

So you think it's funny that people think that mentally unstable people prone to sporadic violent rage shoudn't be aloud to have metal forks and knives but that everyone else should be able to?

You do realize this is the equivlent to what you're argueing right?

 

 

Has any other country used a nuclear weapon?  Even Russia, headed by one of the most insane people to ever live, Joseph Stalin, didn't use one.  I guess Stalin had a bit more self-restraint than U.S. leaders.

And I would like for you to explain to me how the U.S. is not prone to "sporadic and violent rage."

 

You want me to prove a negative?

That's awful lazy of you.

Why don't you first prove that Obama IS prone to sporadic and violent rages.

Also Stalin never used a nuclear weapon because Stalins main motivater was fear.

You think he didn't consider nuclear strikes on the US?  He just knew that we'd fire back if he did.  Had we not had nuclear weapons like Japan didn't... he would of nuked us.  Are you trying to aruge otherwise?

Stalin did however have more self restraint then some western world Leaders such as FDR and Winston Churchill... as can be seen by the fact that Churchill wanted to shoot every Nazi above the title of Major and FDR wanted to castrate the german people so they couldn't reproduce.

FDR and Churchill shouldn't have been allowed to have Nuclear Weapons either.

Consdiering the press is no longer the presidents lap dog we'll never elect another FDR again.

The closest we've had his Bush... and he didn't fire off any nukes.  If somehow a crazy enough president got elected and fired off some nukes... he'd be impeached and arrested faster then you could say 24 hour news networks.



TheRealMafoo on 06 April 2009
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
I think its pretty funny that the U.S. tries to act like it is the authority on who should or shouldn't have nuclear weapons when it is the only country who has ever used a nuclear weapon on another country. And two of them at that! We even sort of offered under the table some nukes to France during the Vietnam War era in kind of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more kind of way.

And I also think it is funny that some of the same people who are saying that other countries should have no nukes or less nukes are also advocating that the U.S. increase its nuclear arsenal.

Its this kind of talk that makes the rest of the world think we are hypocrites.

Every country tries to bend the world to there views. Every country.

The only ones who can, are the most powerful. People can hate the US all they want, but they are just hating us because we are no better or worse then any other country.

Well, we are no better with respect to trying to shape the world into our image. I think our image is better then most.

 

So we should be allowed to have nuclear weapons while other countries should not because we think our image is better than their image? I just don't see that as a strong rationalization for our behavior.

And technically Iran is allowed to pursue civilian uses of nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We signed that agreement with a whole bunch of countries. If we were that worried about rogue states getting their hands on nuclear weapons, that was a stupid fucking decision to sign that treaty.

 

 

No, we should be allowed to have nuclear weapons and other can't because we can enforce what we want to enforce.

The world is filled with a bunch of bullies. We just happen to be the biggest bully, so we set the rules.

If Afghanistan was the biggest country, they could try and make the world there view (they try now, just with less success).

I am not saying it's right or wrong, it's just how it is. If you want humans to act differently, build a different human.



Kasz216 on 06 April 2009

Also Akuma your ignoring the fact that the US nuclear attacks on Japan actually saved lives both American and Japanese as a US invasion would of killed a lot more soldiers on both sides...

While the other option... a bombing and blockade campaign agaisnt japan would of caused mass famine that would of rapidly depopulated Japan by up to as much as 75-80% since Japan imported most of it's food... and in addition it's food production was very centralized.

During WW2 nuclear weapons were the most humane option for all sides involved.

There was nothing "crazy" about it.

Why you make such silly arguements that I know you can't even believe in i'm not sure.



TheRealMafoo on 06 April 2009
Kasz216 said:

Also Akuma your ignoring the fact that the US nuclear attacks on Japan actually saved lives both American and Japanese as a US invasion would of killed a lot more soldiers on both sides...

While the other option... a bombing and blockade campaign agaisnt japan would of caused mass famine that would of rapidly depopulated Japan by up to as much as 75-80% since Japan imported most of it's food... and in addition it's food production was very centralized.

During WW2 nuclear weapons were the most humane option for all sides involved.

There was nothing "crazy" about it.

Why you make such silly arguements that I know you can't even believe in i'm not sure.

 

Sorry Kasz, but that line of thinking is bullshit.

It's akin to saying "We could lose 100 men, and kill 100 of there men, or we could just start executing there wives until they give up. Yes, let's do that, it's more humane".

You don't bomb civilian targets to force military action, even if it means less lose of life. There is always a better way.



Around the Network
akuma587 on 06 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

Has any other country used a nuclear weapon?  Even Russia, headed by one of the most insane people to ever live, Joseph Stalin, didn't use one.  I guess Stalin had a bit more self-restraint than U.S. leaders.

And I would like for you to explain to me how the U.S. is not prone to "sporadic and violent rage."

 

You want me to prove a negative?

That's awful lazy of you.

Why don't you first prove that Obama IS prone to sporadic and violent rages.

Also Stalin never used a nuclear weapon because Stalins main motivater was fear.

You think he didn't consider nuclear strikes on the US?  He just knew that we'd fire back if he did.  Had we not had nuclear weapons like Japan didn't... he would of nuked us.  Are you trying to aruge otherwise?

Stalin did however have more self restraint then some western world Leaders such as FDR and Winston Churchill... as can be seen by the fact that Churchill wanted to shoot every Nazi above the title of Major and FDR wanted to castrate the german people so they couldn't reproduce.

FDR and Churchill shouldn't have been allowed to have Nuclear Weapons either.

Consdiering the press is no longer the presidents lap dog we'll never elect another FDR again.

The closest we've had his Bush... and he didn't fire off any nukes.  If somehow a crazy enough president got elected and fired off some nukes... he'd be impeached and arrested faster then you could say 24 hour news networks.

I didn't say, Obama, I said the U.S.  Obama can only be President for 8 years.  And I think you just proved my point with your FDR and Winston Churchhill comments.

The U.S. has engaged in military action on a daily basis for close to the last 20 years, maybe longer.  Our actions can't even be called sporadic.  We are consistently engaged in violent conflict.  That's even worse!

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 on 06 April 2009
Kasz216 said:

Also Akuma your ignoring the fact that the US nuclear attacks on Japan actually saved lives both American and Japanese as a US invasion would of killed a lot more soldiers on both sides...

While the other option... a bombing and blockade campaign agaisnt japan would of caused mass famine that would of rapidly depopulated Japan by up to as much as 75-80% since Japan imported most of it's food... and in addition it's food production was very centralized.

During WW2 nuclear weapons were the most humane option for all sides involved.

There was nothing "crazy" about it.

Why you make such silly arguements that I know you can't even believe in i'm not sure.

Come on dude, that's the bullshit they sell you in high school.  You know better than that.

Go ask the Japanese back then and today if nuclear weapons were the most humane option the U.S. could have used.  I don't even know if you will find much more than 50-60% of Americans who agree with that statement today. 

Its easy to call something humane when the other person is the one who has to suffer for it.  The Spanish Inquisition thought they were pretty humane saving people's souls by torturing them to death.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

halogamer1989 on 06 April 2009
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

Also Akuma your ignoring the fact that the US nuclear attacks on Japan actually saved lives both American and Japanese as a US invasion would of killed a lot more soldiers on both sides...

While the other option... a bombing and blockade campaign agaisnt japan would of caused mass famine that would of rapidly depopulated Japan by up to as much as 75-80% since Japan imported most of it's food... and in addition it's food production was very centralized.

During WW2 nuclear weapons were the most humane option for all sides involved.

There was nothing "crazy" about it.

Why you make such silly arguements that I know you can't even believe in i'm not sure.

Come on dude, that's the bullshit they sell you in high school.  You know better than that.

Go ask the Japanese back then and today if nuclear weapons were the most humane option the U.S. could have used.  I don't even know if you will find much more than 50-60% of Americans who agree with that statement today. 

Its easy to call something humane when the other person is the one who has to suffer for it.  The Spanish Inquisition thought they were pretty humane saving people's souls by torturing them to death.

 

Ask a more qualified source than the granchildren of the enemy, say WWII vets for example.  How can you live with yourself after mowing down children armed with bamboo spears, fighting in areas that would have been bombarded by battlefield nukes (which was in the X-Day Strategy), living with constant fear on ambush every bend, and more?  The fact is the generations tend to forget these details.  I thank God for the men on the Enola Gay and would make the decision to bomb again to save 1 American life over that of a drawn out WWII that would have gone on until the mid 1950s.

 



akuma587 on 06 April 2009

How about the grandchildren who are deformed because of residual radiation?



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Coca-Cola on 06 April 2009

I think N. Korea does these things so that the rest of world would give them more money - simple as that. We react that way all the time.
Maybe Akuma is right, we may just give them money and let them do whatever they want to do - have all the countries have nuclear weapons and see what will happen.

Besides, we are all equally good and bad, right?