peace can only be maintained with superior fire power

[trillobyite]

Re: RE: Re: RE: peace can only be maintained with superior f

Yeah! We did not know that the Shi'ites would win! We have no way of making them our political puppet!

Oh, please.

Come on....you honestly think the American government should have the resposibility of "taming" dissenting Sunnis? They rallied behind Zarqawi, they decided to fight against voters, THEY brought their fate upon themselves. When the Shiites are the group that supports the U.S. more, naturally it is their duty to play the part in the new government. "Political puppet" would be the right term if America covertly installed the government specifically to cause a particular group of Muslims to have American ambitions fulfilled by the use of them. But the Shiites, themselves, chose to fight against the Zarqawi supporters who would commit homicide bombings just to kill voters.

Pfft: The term "nuclear war" might as well be referred to as "apocalypse". Nuclear war should never, ever, be allowed to take hold.

[navyseal101]

Woah..that was freaky PFFF. Only a mother could love those faces ehh? (lol)

I think we shouldn't worry about nuclear weapons because nobody is going to use them. Korea made it very clear that they intend to have them just for defensive purposes. Terrorists can have them too, because they don't have the technology to launch them. You can't just throw a nuke across the ocean and hit the U.S. You need highly advanced satillite technology. Considering osama is running around from cave to cave, I don't think he has this material avalible to him.

And just to put a perspective on this hole thing, America should be the first one on the list for disarment because we have enough nukes to blow up the world 10 times over. In the history of the planet, we are the only people that have used nukes anyway.

[QreepyBORIS]

Re: RE: Re: RE: peace can only be maintained with superior f

i think it depends on what kind of war, after watching a 2 minute flash movie, it changed my mind about all nuclear warfare. Beware, this movie shows the effects of nuclear things (lol i dont know the name) on humans, do not watch if you have a weak stomach or have fear of nuclear weapons. Also, this might freak you out a little if you watch it, but youve been warned. http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funny/...eduranium.html

So now how do you feel about nuclear war?

That site's reputation is spurious at best.

Especially since you'll notice that none of the pictures are of Arab people affected by the radiation. =/

And that I don't think DU is very hard at all.

And a whole slew of other things.



And trillobyte, I did NOT say that we should have the responsibility of taming the Shi'ites. And I find it unfortunate how easy it is for the US to bend the wills of their secular leaders, as well.

[trillobyite]

Woah..that was freaky PFFF. Only a mother could love those faces ehh? (lol)

I think we shouldn't worry about nuclear weapons because nobody is going to use them. Korea made it very clear that they intend to have them just for defensive purposes. Terrorists can have them too, because they don't have the technology to launch them. You can't just throw a nuke across the ocean and hit the U.S. You need highly advanced satillite technology. Considering osama is running around from cave to cave, I don't think he has this material avalible to him.

And just to put a perspective on this hole thing, America should be the first one on the list for disarment because we have enough nukes to blow up the world 10 times over. In the history of the planet, we are the only people that have used nukes anyway.

There are much more terrorist leaders than Osama, and they have the ability to get money from corrupt Arab governments (usually stealing UN aid). Their obtaining of such technology is a possibility, and it must be prevented. The U.S. cannot allow them to use it.

America used nukes back in World War II. There was no knowledge of radiation after-effects, and the horrific destruction of the bomb had reached proportions beyond the calculation of American scientists. Furthermore, the reason the bomb was used was because U.S. soldiers were suffering such incredibly massive casualities on the pacific front that the bomb would be the only solution to the immediate end of the war, and an end to what probably would have been even more deaths than what the bomb brought.

Qreepy: You stated that the shiites' sole purpose was as a political tool of the U.S. I was explaining that it was primarily free will.

[pfff]

Re: RE: Re: RE: peace can only be maintained with superior f

Yeah! We did not know that the Shi'ites would win! We have no way of making them our political puppet!

Oh, please.

Come on....you honestly think the American government should have the resposibility of "taming" dissenting Sunnis? They rallied behind Zarqawi, they decided to fight against voters, THEY brought their fate upon themselves. When the Shiites are the group that supports the U.S. more, naturally it is their duty to play the part in the new government. "Political puppet" would be the right term if America covertly installed the government specifically to cause a particular group of Muslims to have American ambitions fulfilled by the use of them. But the Shiites, themselves, chose to fight against the Zarqawi supporters who would commit homicide bombings just to kill voters.

Pfft: The term "nuclear war" might as well be referred to as "apocalypse". Nuclear war should never, ever, be allowed to take hold.

actualy you know when we bombed japan? atomic bombs are nuclear

:EDIT: woops, sorry, i missed ur last post, nvm

[navyseal101]

OMG....there is some crazy s h i t on this site. Thanks for the website PFFF, I love how they make the anti-bush videos so dramatic with the backround music and the screches and stuff. I don't think I'll get any sleep now though. lol

[themanwithsauce]

America used nukes back in World War II. There was no knowledge of radiation after-effects, and the horrific destruction of the bomb had reached proportions beyond the calculation of American scientists. Furthermore, the reason the bomb was used was because U.S. soldiers were suffering such incredibly massive casualities on the pacific front that the bomb would be the only solution to the immediate end of the war, and an end to what probably would have been even more deaths than what the bomb brought.

A little known test performed after WWII- the U.S. detonated an atomic warhead in the desert with its own troops nearby. Purposely trying to see what happens to soldiers that survive the initial blast. Out of the 2,500 that were tested on in 1950 (I think), only three were alive
in 1985.

And as far as a nuclear war goes- as of now, fear kept us and russia from launching nukes at each other but against these small terrorist groups with nothing to lose, one nuke will set off a chain reaction that will kill us all.

[trillobyite]

America used nukes back in World War II. There was no knowledge of radiation after-effects, and the horrific destruction of the bomb had reached proportions beyond the calculation of American scientists. Furthermore, the reason the bomb was used was because U.S. soldiers were suffering such incredibly massive casualities on the pacific front that the bomb would be the only solution to the immediate end of the war, and an end to what probably would have been even more deaths than what the bomb brought.

A little known test performed after WWII- the U.S. detonated an atomic warhead in the desert with its own troops nearby. Purposely trying to see what happens to soldiers that survive the initial blast. Out of the 2,500 that were tested on in 1950 (I think), only three were alive
in 1985.

And as far as a nuclear war goes- as of now, fear kept us and russia from launching nukes at each other but against these small terrorist groups with nothing to lose, one nuke will set off a chain reaction that will kill us all.

But that experiment proves exactly what I am saying, not until after the bombs were fired at Japan was the knowledge of radiation after-effects obtained. Though it is disgusting that the troops were sacrificed like that.

One nuke fired by the U.S. will lead to fury by every terrorist, every terrorist sympathizer, every liberal, and even a portion of conservatives. It also will not end anything, because new guerilla groups can always reassemble. The age we live in is an age where conventional warfare has become practically extinct.

One nuke fired by the terrorists will bring hope into more terrorists, who will use the incident as a precedent to methods of gaining technology and money to fire more nukes, and a chain reaction will be set off. The world cannot allow that to happen, and "the pleasure" of using a nuke to destroy terrorists is non-existent. The only way terrorists can be repelled is (imo)
A. A total overhaul of military tactics: That includes a need for genuine, fully operating missile defense systems as well as special combat platoons given professional training for urban warfare, repelling guerilla attacks, and mental training to be able to shoot at that young woman (or stop her in the least harmful way) who has the ability to kill a whole squad of men (I know I sound sadistic but the "basic morals" of our day have to be put aside in some of these extremely special cases. The prime example is Saddam's child soldiers).
B. Total dissolving of corruption within Middle Eastern governments. This operation can be done covertly, though the CIA would probably not be an effective intelligence agency to fully carry this out. The U.S. will have to look to all its allies for a unification and plan of operation (Prime example is the Israeli Mossad). There should be an end to propoganda administered by the Saddams of the world, and a hefty aid program intended ONLY to aid (this must be ensured; so many times had the money for aid been stolen to buy weaponry) that should be carried out by a group whose agenda is to carry out specifically those orders. The U.N's increasing rates of corruption show that they are not the best people to rely on for such a program.

[Mindfields]

crazy s h i t

Don't write that. Especially not in Critical Thinking, where you critically think, instead of critically curse.

Nuclear war is stupid. I mean, look at the relationship between America and Japan now: Honda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Suzuki, Samsung, etc.
It's almost as if they forgot about what we did and decided to sell crap to us.

[QreepyBORIS]

Qreepy: You stated that the shiites' sole purpose was as a political tool of the U.S. I was explaining that it was primarily free will.

Oh, they voted by free will alright, but the people we let them put on the ballot were US sympathizers. Well, much more than that, we could probably control many of the interim president's actions, if not almost all of them!

Sure, the Shi'ites voted another Shi'ite into office. But the person they voted in was basically one of ours.




And I thought of more really simple proof that the Depleted Uranium stuff is crap, but I don't feel like posting it unless someone says they are interested.

[trillobyite]

Qreepy: You stated that the shiites' sole purpose was as a political tool of the U.S. I was explaining that it was primarily free will.

Oh, they voted by free will alright, but the people we let them put on the ballot were US sympathizers. Well, much more than that, we could probably control many of the interim president's actions, if not almost all of them!

Sure, the Shi'ites voted another Shi'ite into office. But the person they voted in was basically one of ours.

Even some of the Sunnis are beginning to protest against these insurgents. Their persistance of killing any Muslim who even slightly supports democracy is astounding. The turn against the Saddam supporters by the common Iraqi populace was not forced by America; it is becoming apparent that their own free will, instinct, and plain open eyes show them that these "freedom fighters" are nothing more than bloodthirsty killers.

[MythamX]

To all of you democrats reading this, don't critisize me because of my political view. Some of my best friends (Alden) are democrat/liberals, and that's never mattered to me. I think it's important to have both sides of an arguement expressed in CT topics, so that people can actually learn something about both views. Well, in most cases I find it best to just place the post, 'No comment.' on topics dealing with things as such, as not to gain/lose any favor by fellow players who disagree with my point of view. However, I also think it's important to share my point of view, so people can agree or argue, hence; Critical Thinking. So here goes:

I'm republican. I honestly think that Iraq would go into some intense mayhem without our troops keeping citizens in line, especially with the election going on. Iraq is our ally, and that's why we're still there, to protect, not invade.

[trillobyite]

To all of you democrats reading this, don't critisize me because of my political view. Some of my best friends (Alden) are democrat/liberals, and that's never mattered to me. I think it's important to have both sides of an arguement expressed in CT topics, so that people can actually learn something about both views. Well, in most cases I find it best to just place the post, 'No comment.' on topics dealing with things as such, as not to gain/lose any favor by fellow players who disagree with my point of view. However, I also think it's important to share my point of view, so people can agree or argue, hence; Critical Thinking. So here goes:

I'm republican. I honestly think that Iraq would go into some intense mayhem without our troops keeping citizens in line, especially with the election going on. Iraq is our ally, and that's why we're still there, to protect, not invade.

I agree. Pulling out the troops in the current circumstances would lead to death, anarchy, and pure chaos. Yeah, I mourn for those dead soldiers, but to think that their current deployment in Iraq is in vain would be defiling their memory. They have to stabilize the country, and they cannot pull out midway.

[t_montana]

Just to let y'all know,I'm IN Iraq right now ,serving in the Army. It's sooooooooooo not about us right now , it's ridiculous.They are having enough problems enacting their political transitions that the provincial council approved, and getting the people who are in effect, not in command any more to leave. The coalition forces are here to observe at this point . I'm in the middle of a potentilly very hostile environment,and you don't see the coalition running around telling people where to go and what to do. It's up to the Iraqi police and National Guard, and we're letting them handle it themselves as much as possible.

[Mindfields]

[quote="MythamX"] Some of my best friends (Alden) are democrat/liberals, and that's never mattered to me.quote]

Eyh! I'm not a liberal!
Conservative Independent to the grave, yo.