[Hawkeye_a]

News just coming in.....
Iraq accuses the U.S. of posessing Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons and has labeled the U.S. as a viable threat to stability in the region we call earth. This only after we the U.S., as Iraqi officials claim, have sparingly used these weapons in warfare against humans(after all what are weapons meant for in the first place ? peace ? yeah right.)

Saddam Hussein has just drafted a document to the Iraqi cabinet to gain approval to use force if necessary to go into the U.S. and disarm them for good. Iraqi officials are quoted as saying "If the U.N. does not back us , we and our allies, will use force to maintain stability in the region." and "World peace is worth fighting for"....

The Iraqi senate has uninanomusley agreed to back a military operation against the U.S..

(just kidding but imagine if the tables were turned around on us. The point.... can u even imagine the fear the iraqi people are going through right now ?)

(The pretence (of us using weapons of mass destruction) is preety much true, whereas, it isnt true for Iraq (it's only speculation so far).)

[austeros]

dont forget to mention that we used them.


sad thing is, if we ever went bad (as in nazi germany bad), there wouldnt be anyone to stop us.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:


(just kidding but imagine if the tables were turned around on us. The point.... can u even imagine the fear the iraqi people are going through right now ?)

(The pretence (of us using weapons of mass destruction) is preety much true, whereas, it isnt true for Iraq (it's only speculation so far).)

What are you trying to say? That we pose the same sort of threat as Iraq? That we are as likely to use atomic or nuclear weapons outside of a war? Please explain your stance and the point you are trying to convey.

[Mr. Blur]

c'mon....bush may be, well....bush, but he is just not *that* stupid to start firing off nukes. there would have to be in response to something incredibly serious before they'd even remotely consider it....hell, if he was so inclined afghanistan would be non-existent by now.

[Mac Zealot]

Political nuts! Calm down!

[mchladek]

LOL! Good post Hawkeye!

[yield2apple]

...we pose the same sort of threat as Iraq? That we are as likely to use atomic or nuclear weapons outside of a war? Please explain your stance and the point you are trying to convey.

My personal stance is: I believe the USA poses an even greater threat to the security of the world. Not only does the US have all forms of WMD, they've used them. I don't like that you said "outside of a war" because that's a rightwing dodge.. Seems to me that the republicans think they can create a war.. Maybe simply to use those nuclear weapons. Who knows?

They provide technology to countries like Iraq. And even corporations based in the US (especially oil) such as Talisman Energy provide money and other reasources to warlords in countries like Sierra Lionne (sp?) that has fueled a cival war. Oil makes the world turn.

More and more the US is becoming a "dominating force" around the world, and now they have implied that the UN is not relevant in major world affairs. They have said "join us or we'll go it alone."

What happens if/when they say "join us or we're coming for you" ? Citizen spies? War on Terror?.. Oh c'mon that is like SO 1984

[el lindo]

The sad thing about your post, Hawkeye_a, is that if they did launch an attack on us, they'd be way closer to justifying it than we are.

[ink]

Originally posted by austeros:
sad thing is, if we ever went bad (as in nazi germany bad), there wouldnt be anyone to stop us.

Are you kidding? We're not indestructable, and many citizens would lash out against a Nazi-esque empire-building regime in the US (at least I would, and pretty much all of my friends!)

[fulmer]

US got them so the Nazis wouldn't. Then it used 'em to end WWII.

Made more to protect Western Europe and the West from the Soviet threat. We (NATO et al) couldn't beat back a conventional Soviet invasion, so Eisenhower used the nuclear umbrella to protect US allies and interests.

The Cold War was on until 1991. Since then, warhead stockpiles have been drastically reduced, though they remain in the thousands. Russian and the US are making consistent and substantial progress in reductions and continued reduction talks.

[fulmer]

Originally posted by yield2apple:


They provide technology to countries like Iraq. And even corporations based in the US (especially oil) such as Talisman Energy provide money and other reasources to warlords in countries like Sierra Lionne (sp?) that has fueled a cival war. Oil makes the world turn.

If we're talking nuclear tech...
1. the French helped the Israelis.
2. the Russians helped Iran

Countries besides the US are responsible for the proliferation of nuclear technology.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by fulmer:


If we're talking nuclear tech...
1. the French helped the Israelis.
2. the Russians helped Iran

Countries besides the US are responsible for the proliferation of nuclear technology.

But none of them...NOT ONE, no matter how 'rogue' you think they might be, have used these weapons against humanity, except for one.

[fulmer]

I was stating fact, not attempting to sway the debate.

time to sleep. goodnight.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:


But none of them...NOT ONE, no matter how 'rogue' you think they might be, have used these weapons against humanity, except for one.

Think what you want, because you are wrong, but the US using them in W.W.II was a different situation than it is now. It was done to show the mass superiority of our military and make everyone else surrender in fear of it.
Back then a couple dozen countries didn't have the ability to make those kinds of weapons so retaliation was not a real danger. We would never use them now. You citing those events over and over again is stupid. Its not the same time and not the same situation. One country with a stockpile of nuclear weapons isn't just going to fire one they will throw them all out there and so will a few other countries. No one wants that so it probably wont happen. But a country with only one weapon, particularly Iraq, will use it because it will be its last resort and because they have nothing left to lose. And it will most likely be against Israel thus bringing in mass support for the action by fanatic Muslims and maybe allow saddam (if he can escape) to find refuge somewhere in the middle east. I doubt we would nuke them but we'd bomb it back into the stone age with conventional explosives.... and that's is only if we can stop Israel from retaliating.


So yes Iraq with bombs is more dangerous than the US. Because the checks and balances that keep us from using them are not there for Iraq.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by yield2apple:
[...] Oil makes the world turn. [...]

... And that's exactly why everyone should be very interested in finding alternatives to that "primitive", devastatingly polluting (see the private car, for example) oil-based technology: if it weren't for those absurd economical "interests", we probably would have had electrical and solar power almost anywhere for years, by now. IMO, a "clean" and advanced technology, free from irrational "economical" constraints, should really be the way of the future (beginning now!) - of course, this requires some quite substancial changes in the way we live and use energy (for example, more public transportation, etc.)...

[Korv]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:


Think what you want, because you are wrong, but the US using them in W.W.II was a different situation than it is now. It was done to show the mass superiority of our military and make everyone else surrender in fear of it.
Back then a couple dozen countries didn't have the ability to make those kinds of weapons so retaliation was not a real danger. <snip>

That's the friggin' point! When we were safe and cozy with no fear of retaliation, we showed our rutlessness by using nukes on civilians. For a guy with the name "Captain Obvious", you sure missed the obvious on that one.

[nana4]

The two bombs in Japan saved untold lives in the long term, on both the Allied and Japanese sides, by bringing the war to an end.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Korv:
When we were safe and cozy

Somehow, "safe and cozy" and "World War II" don't go together.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Korv:
That's the friggin' point! When we were safe and cozy with no fear of retaliation, we showed our rutlessness by using nukes on civilians. For a guy with the name "Captain Obvious", you sure missed the obvious on that one.

The Japanese were one of the most militaristic and brutal cultures in history. One nuclear weapon wasn't enough to stop them - we had to drop another one. You can debate the merits of that action, but "safe and cozy" was not part of the equation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

This story was in the (London) Independent recently. The "what if's" of this might be something to ponder.

JAPAN WAS DAYS AWAY FROM TEST OF A-BOMB

Independent - Monday, August 5, 2002
By: David McNeill in Tokyo
Edition: FOREIGN
Section: Foreign News
Page: 10


JAPAN'S SECRET plans to build its own atom bomb have resurfaced with the uncovering of a dossier smuggled out of the country at the end of the Second World War.

The papers, containing crude diagrams for a small nuclear weapon, were
part of a six-year effort by military scientists to make the country the world's first nuclear power.

According to yesterday's Asahi newspaper, the American widow of a
Japanese researcher, who fled to the US with the document in 1945, has
returned it to the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, where he worked during the war. The researcher, Kazuo Kuroda, who later became a professor at the University of Arkansas, kept the document secret for half a century until his death in America in April last year.

The liberal-left Asahi, which seems to be the only Japanese media
organisation to have picked up the story, says the military ordered the destruction of the plans the day before Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945. Scientists at the institute, however, thought this was 'a waste' and decided to save at least part of the plans by giving them to Mr Kuroda.

Although suppressed in postwar Japanese education, the race by imperial scientists to develop the bomb has long been the stuff of wartime legend. Scientists at secret bases in Korea worked furiously to make a viable weapon before abandoning the facilities to the advancing Red Army.

Several historians have claimed Japan was days away from testing an
atomic weapon in Nagoya when Hiroshima was obliterated by one American bomb on 6 August 1945.

The discovery of the dossier comes as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was bombed on 9 August, are preparing to commemorate the deaths of more than 250,000 nuclear victims.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by nana4:
The two bombs in Japan saved untold lives in the long term, on both the Allied and Japanese sides, by bringing the war to an end.

Att he expence of Thousands of Japaneeses lives. why are they so much more expendible than Americans ?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by zigzag:


The Japanese were one of the most militaristic and brutal cultures in history. One nuclear weapon wasn't enough to stop them - we had to drop another one. You can debate the merits of that action, but "safe and cozy" was not part of the equation.

Japaneeses were one of the most militant cultured in history ? hehehehe ....in 1945, maybe. BUt Japan in 1945 compared to the U.S. in 2002 ...there's no comparison. hehehehe

[yield2apple]

Originally posted by Sven G:


... And that's exactly why everyone should be very interested in finding alternatives to that "primitive", devastatingly polluting (see the private car, for example) oil-based technology: if it weren't for those absurd economical "interests", we probably would have had electrical and solar power almost anywhere for years, by now. IMO, a "clean" and advanced technology, free from irrational "economical" constraints, should really be the way of the future (beginning now!) - of course, this requires some quite substancial changes in the way we live and use energy (for example, more public transportation, etc.)...

More and better public transportation. In my city, the transportation sucks. it takes two hours to get anywhere remotely far away (think 15 to 20 minutes by car). If we put our minds and resources to it, we could develop a an electric train system that you could use to get anywhere in your city very quickly. I don't think there will ever come a day where the ruling class gives up their private cars and SUV's..

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:


Att he expence of Thousands of Japaneeses lives. why are they so much more expendible than Americans ?

Because at the time, they were the enemy. You know, the country that we were at war with?

--Josh

[fulmer]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:


Att he expence of Thousands of Japaneeses lives. why are they so much more expendible than Americans ?

no, it saved Japanese lives, too. An invasion of the Japanese home islands would have cost MILLIONS of JAPANESE lives, and perhaps ONE MILLION American lives.

[fulmer]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:


Japaneeses were one of the most militant cultured in history ? hehehehe ....in 1945, maybe. BUt Japan in 1945 compared to the U.S. in 2002 ...there's no comparison. hehehehe

And well before 1945. They invaded China, Mongolia, and colonized Korea.
Ever read <The Rape of Nanking>?

Japan today is a peaceful and democratic society.

Why don't you give us a comparison of Japan, early 20th century, to the United States, 2002, since you brought it up? I don't think you can.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by fulmer:


no, it saved Japanese lives, too. An invasion of the Japanese home islands would have cost MILLIONS of JAPANESE lives, and perhaps ONE MILLION American lives.

Well, im sure that if the Japaneese could they would have nuked our soil back to the stoneage(like we did to them), invaded the U.S. and saved millions as well, just like we did. Nothing wrong with that i guess ? eh ?

[Sven G]

Originally posted by yield2apple:


More and better public transportation. In my city, the transportation sucks. it takes two hours to get anywhere remotely far away (think 15 to 20 minutes by car). If we put our minds and resources to it, we could develop a an electric train system that you could use to get anywhere in your city very quickly. I don't think there will ever come a day where the ruling class gives up their private cars and SUV's..

Do you mean this?...:



In this web page - http://www.calgarytransit.com/Routes/lrt_stop.html - it's amazing to see this sentence: The Downtown area is known as a free fare zone in which it is free to ride the LRT, however a fare must be paid if you are traveling outside the downtown area.

You may not yet have a fully developed metro network, but it's certainly a *very* good and socially advanced feature that to have the entire downtown area as a free fare zone! This should be an example for all cities in the world...

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by fulmer:


And well before 1945. They invaded China, Mongolia, and colonized Korea.
Ever read <The Rape of Nanking>?

Japan today is a peaceful and democratic society.

Why don't you give us a comparison of Japan, early 20th century, to the United States, 2002, since you brought it up? I don't think you can.

Japan:
China, Mongolia, Korea....(feel free to add more)

U.S.:
Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Phillipenes, Guatemala, Panama, Iraq, Balkans, Afghanistan, Russia (and most of Eastern Europe).

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:


Japan:
China, Mongolia, Korea...

were conquered and made part of the Japanese empire, along with dozens of other islands of the Pacific

U.S.:
Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Phillipenes, Guatemala, Panama, Iraq, Balkans, Afghanistan, Russia (and most of Eastern Europe).

We never invaded Japan. We bombed them to end a war they started against us, and we don't occupy them now.

Action in Korea was a defensive UN initiative.

Vietam was fought for bad reasons, but none of them were "to conquer Vietnam."

Guilty on the Phillipines, I guess.

Guatemala was a joint action with the exiled government to overthrow the new socialist government that had stolen US assets there.

Panama...that was ugly.

Iraq was defensive war to restore Kuwait.

We were in the Balkans on UN orders.

We are in Afghanistan because they're government sponsored an act of war against us.

I don't even get the Russia / East Europe thing. When the hell did we have troops there?

The point being, yes America has done bad things militarily. But to compare aiding some government against a coup versus conquering nations and enslaving them is a bit ludicrous.

If you want a list of military actions, try over here:

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

--J

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:
I don't even get the Russia / East Europe thing. When the hell did we have troops there?

Well, the US Army did liberate parts of Czechoslovakia in World War II (there's a nice little memorial to the US troops in Karlovy Vary). As for Russia, President Wilson (along with other western powers) did very briefly send troops to Siberia during the Russian Civil War in 1918. But I don't for a minute think that Hawkeye_a knows enough history to think of that obscure little footnote.

[yield2apple]

Originally posted by Sven G:


Do you mean this?...:


In this web page - http://www.calgarytransit.com/Routes/lrt_stop.html - it's amazing to see this sentence: The Downtown area is known as a free fare zone in which it is free to ride the LRT, however a fare must be paid if you are traveling outside the downtown area.

You may not yet have a fully developed metro network, but it's certainly a *very* good and socially advanced feature that to have the entire downtown area as a free fare zone! This should be an example for all cities in the world...

The C-Train is certainly a great service to the City of Calgary. Better than say Ottawa's sister, the O-Train which only has 5 stops and is very slow.

The C-train still cannot get you everywhere in the city. Calgary is, for the most part, a small downtown core surrounded by a hundred or so suburbs. This design for a city is terrible IMO, and it leaves the highways congested almost constantly during the day.

I'm hoping more advancements will be made in all cities in Canada to have public (electric) transportation to everywhere in the city.. Ah **** it, I'm moving to New York

[glideslope]

I often find it amazing as to what individuals post. The actions this nation has taken over the last 50 years are why you even have a forum such as this to post your views. :o

[xi_hyperon]

hawkeye, get your facts about history straight - doing so before posting will give you credibility. Just some friendly advice, have a nice day.

[fulmer]

Gene Jockey is correct.

hawkeye, your consistent misinterpretations of history abd your selective ignorance of it undermine your posts and give zero credibility to what you have to say, which, as with this topic, is usually little more than flame bait. Your knee-jerk rantings got old about 500 posts ago.

[Bushleaguer]

I'm confused as to why we have political discussions here in the first place. The rhetoric of the left wingers on this board is almost always countered by flames and insults by the right and vice versa. Nobody wants or tries to learn anything, and often facts are distorted. I'll even admit that I'm guilty of this too. These political threads are just a waste of time unless we try to understand that we're all from different places, opinions on both sides are just as valid, and we are all friends ( and Mac lovers too )..

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Bushleaguer:
I'm confused as to why we have political discussions here in the first place. The rhetoric of the left wingers on this board is almost always countered by flames and insults by the right and vice versa. Nobody wants or tries to learn anything, and often facts are distorted. I'll even admit that I'm guilty of this too. These political threads are just a waste of time unless we try to understand that we're all from different places, opinions on both sides are just as valid, and we are all friends ( and Mac lovers too )..

I don't think that's necessarily true. There are several people I can think of on these boards whose politics is different from mine but who I respect. They write thoughtful and factually accurate posts that I enjoy reading. And often they have shown me things that I didn't know, or corrected something that I had misunderstood. Just because we differ on the conclusions we draw doesn't mean we can't be friends who enjoy discussing things.

There are a few people who make assertions that are clearly not grounded in any kind of rational or factual basis or who let their biases overcome them. When an argument is just bigoted or factually inaccurate, I don't think it is reasonable to say that it is equally valid. But the number of people who make such arguments is very small.

[fulmer]

small but vocal, and painfully so. Factual inaccuracies and pseudo-reasoning needs to be corrected, lest it influence and corrupt others (goes for both sides, right and left).

[Bushleaguer]

Originally posted by fulmer:
small but vocal, and painfully so. Factual inaccuracies and pseudo-reasoning needs to be corrected, lest it influence and corrupt others (goes for both sides, right and left).

I'm going to pose a question. How do you think these "Factual inaccuracies and pseudo-reasonings" are to be corrected? I'd like to hear your thought on this.

[Hawkeye_a]

I dont deny that i dont know every single detail about war history, and all i know i get from textbooks printed here in the U.S. or in Great Britian. "Facts" as you claim seem to change quite a bit after regims change all over the world. I refuse to base my opinions on world economics and warfare on these facts.
To those right-wingers here.... read my original post again, and try and dispute it.

Fact, 3000 Americans killed on September 11th.
Fact 1,000,000 Iriquis killed by U.S. (you can say U.N. if you want , but lets face the facts)
Fact, Afghanistan was invaded and god-only-knows how many people killed. Fact, over 100,000 balkans killed.
Fact, over 2000 Panamanians killed by U.S. forces during their invasion.
(*Fact , if you watch independent news coverage of the panama invasion(which will never be broadcast on TV), you will hear one Panamanian saying something like "how stupid can Americans be to think we are happy ? we have not been liberated, we have been invaded".)
Fact, American lives are not worth any more than the lives of everyone else. Fact American Interests and not freedom and peace, but rather total control of world markets oil, labour, etc.
Fact, Americans are no more motivated to defend our homeland than others are to defend their own.

[Bushleaguer]

Originally posted by Bushleaguer:


I'm going to pose a question. How do you think these "Factual inaccuracies and pseudo-reasonings" are to be corrected? I'd like to hear your thought on this.

No one is touching this so I'll answer my own question.. "factual inaccuracies and pseudo-reasonings" can be corrected with education from open minded teachers. Anyone can be a teacher, and an open mind can be easily closed.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:


Japaneeses were one of the most militant cultured in history ? hehehehe ....in 1945, maybe. BUt Japan in 1945 compared to the U.S. in 2002 ...there's no comparison. hehehehe

Have you ever considered, I don't know, maybe picking up a history book? I really don't think the Japanese can be so easily dismissed since, you know, they had kicked the crap out of the whole area at that time, and we had to nuke 'em to get them to give up.

And not for nothing, Iraq has used weapons of mass distruction in the recent past, unless gassing Iranians doesn't count. We used them in '45, Iraq used them in the '80;s and 90's against Iran and IT"S OWN CITIZENS. Do what you want, put please spare us the "Iraq is a vicitm of US oil mongering". I am sick of hearing it. And if, Iraq uses any type of weapon of mass distruction against us, Isreal, or ANYONE eles, I want an apology sent BY YOU to the families of the victims. Thank you, carry on.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:


Have you ever considered, I don't know, maybe picking up a history book? I really don't think the Japanese can be so easily dismissed since, you know, they had kicked the crap out of the whole area at that time, and we had to nuke 'em to get them to give up.

And not for nothing, Iraq has used weapons of mass distruction in the recent past, unless gassing Iranians doesn't count. We used them in '45, Iraq used them in the '80;s and 90's against Iran and IT"S OWN CITIZENS. Do what you want, put please spare us the "Iraq is a vicitm of US oil mongering". I am sick of hearing it. And if, Iraq uses any type of weapon of mass distruction against us, Isreal, or ANYONE eles, I want an apology sent BY YOU to the families of the victims. Thank you, carry on.

You want me to apologige for Iraq ? I think i can and should apologize for a leader that my country put into power (Bush), for killing all those Afghan families and Iriaqi families....... but then again, since we are so righteous and God's gift to mankind and defenders of peace n all, i guess killing all those evil people dosent really matter.

Youre right, i have seen the error in my ways, i guess i should join the side of right, and strive to ensure that evil never prevails. And then ..... i guess i wont have to apologize to anyone but myself.

(by the way, this is my last post in this thread, make of it what you will, take from it what you will, i am still against war, and killing, and definately Bush's resolve to solve problems using force.)

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:



(by the way, this is my last post in this thread, make of it what you will, take from it what you will, i am still against war, and killing, and definately Bush's resolve to solve problems using force.)

Thank GOD, I hope you learned from this experience and stop posting moronic threads about things you know almost nothing about. If you want to argue something that's fine just do it in an intelligent manner with a formulated argument instead of spouting gibberish with no thought behind it.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Korv:


That's the friggin' point! When we were safe and cozy with no fear of retaliation, we showed our rutlessness by using nukes on civilians. For a guy with the name "Captain Obvious", you sure missed the obvious on that one.

Yes, those attacks on American vessels and positions going on at the time should have been overlooked as just an "oopsie" - they didn't really mean to shoot at us. They were just trying to get the British and our country just happened to be in between, its a natural mistake to make.

[Bushleaguer]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:


Thank GOD, I hope you learned from this experience and stop posting moronic threads about things you know almost nothing about. If you want to argue something that's fine just do it in an intelligent manner with a formulated argument instead of spouting gibberish with no thought behind it.

[IUJHJSDHE]

Originally posted by Mr. Blur:
c'mon....bush may be, well....bush, but he is just not *that* stupid to start firing off nukes.

I'll bet $100 that he is!