Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 43 of 43
  1. #41
    Aikido is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005


    interesting opinion cricket. fairly mature for a 13 year old. your argument could be strengthened if you included some links to articles that would back up the facts to your allegations. While I find that I more or less agree with you, how do you address the following concern:

    Regardless of what should or should not have been done, the fact remains that we are in Iraq, and are attempting to set up some sort of democracy. Is this the right thing to do? What happens if we just pack up and go at this point in the game?

    Criticize the past, fine, but live in the present and plan for the future.

  2. #42
    shautieh's Avatar
    shautieh is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2005


    it was stupid to invade irak, but it would be even more stupid if the usa withdraw from irak....
    everyone should assume their mistakes, and make everything possible to repair them..

    unfortunately, i don't think bush is humble enough to ask help from other nations and UN publicly, because he ignored them and treated them like shit because they didn't agree with him at the time...
    and that's too bad because bush needs international support and recognition in this war to save his countrimen asses.... (but does he care ?)

  3. #43
    Valleyman is offline Senior Member Well Known
    Join Date
    May 2005


    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko1234
    Ok, let me see if I can rebutt this.
    The US does have 10,000 nukes, but half of them are decomissioned and waiting to be destroyed. As far as nukes go, this means almost nothing. Remember, Russia has more that us, but we really don't need all our nukes, what we have now is overkill. We can depopulate the earth with our arsenal, it is true, but so can 16 other countries that have nuclear weapons, or are suspected of having them. We can do little to threaten other countries with our nuclear devices, when theirs can do just as much damage. The old "scorched earth" scenario where no one wins, which keeps people from exploiting nuclear weapons, and one of the reasons for countries to keep nuclear weapons themselves as long as other countries still have nuclear weapons, using nuclear weapons as a deterrent against other nuclear weapons, if you will. Also, remember that nuclear devices are not the only type of WMD's. Really, all that a nuclear bomb is, is a very powerful stick of dynamite, you could say. It has much greater damage potential than conventional explosives, but is concentrated in a mid sized area. We never used nuclear weapons on another country, we used atomic weapons, an entirely different kind of weapon, as different as a slingshot is from a crossbow(and I do not agree with our use of atomic weapons, we could have easily blasted an uninhabited island, without having loss of life). Also, US firebombings in Japan killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it is really important to remember that how something is used is just as important as what is used. Chemical and bioogical weapons have the potential to deal death over a larger area, and kill much more people than nuclear weaponry, the only reason that nuclear weaponry is given so much credence is that we are more able to see the results of a nuclear blast. In the hands of a man like Sadaam, the potential for death was unimaginable if he truly had WMD's.

    P.S. - I also feel that there will be a civil war in the US within the next 50 years. I see it that society is becoming increasingly liberal, and at some point or another, some people will decide that they have had enough, and fight back. I do not necessarily want this to happen, but see it as the unavoidable outcome of the rift that is widening between mainstream US and more traditional conservative values.
    Your right it was atomic weapons that we dropped on Japan, not nuclear weapons and there is a large difference so I should have been more specific. However, I think that my point remains valid, what right does a nation that has often used WMD's including atomic bombs on other nations have to dictate who can and cannot have such weapons.

    P.S Isn't it funny that I think there will be a civil war because of how conservative society is and you think there will be a civil war because of how liberal society is.

    P.P.S Unless I'm mistaken I thought the U.S had a ten to one ratio of nuclear weapons over Russia.


Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBulletin Skin by:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2015 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79