450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 38 of 46
Quote:
Finn wrote:
And nuclear technology is banned. It is classified as “restricted,” and requires special privileges regardless of your pay grade or clearance. It’s proliferation is banned by international treaty.
Banned by who? "Restricted" by who?
Are you saying that if the U.N. bans something, EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD must follow that ban, regardless of whether they voted in favor of it? And if they DON'T obey the U.N., they should be invaded, or nuked?
Also, are you saying that international treaties bind even nations who didn't sign them. I'll alert Kyoto...
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Really? And of course there’s nothing Bullshit about trying to equate a handful of anti-abortion nuts with Hezbollah.
Actually, I was comparing them to Al Qaeda. And no, it's not bullshit to compare murderous religious zealots to murderous religious zealots. They have the same goals (killing as many as possible to get attention for the "cause"), and they use the same tactics. And in both cases, the actions of a few zealots are having an impact.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The US, Canada, Australia and the UK for starters. Nuclear technology is classified Restricted in all these countries.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Banned by who? "Restricted" by who?
Quote:Yeah, okay. Let me know when the anti-abortions nuts run a jetliner into a skyscraper or blow a 60 foot hole in a US Destroyer.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Actually, I was comparing them to Al Qaeda. And no, it's not bullshit to compare murderous religious zealots to murderous religious zealots. They have the same goals (killing as many as possible to get attention for the "cause"), and they use the same tactics. And in both cases, the actions of a few zealots are having an impact.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hawaii is also an excellent example of this,
I'm not sure about Hawaii, the annexation to a territory was made by vote rather than conflict wasn't it? I believe the legality is questioned, because the vote only took place in the US Government, so it could just be the case that the US voted to annex Hawaii, then when they turned up in Hawaii to tell the natives they just shrugged their shoulders and said whatever.
http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/history/liliuokalani.html
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I think you are misinterpreting some things. First, part of the reason why the bombs were dropped at the end of WWII is because the casualties for invading Japan were assessed to be in the millions. As many as 1 to 2 million US casualties and many millions of Japanese. The bombs as abhorrent as they were, resulted in only about 200,000 casualties, making them far less abhorrent the alternative. Given the same circumstances most reasonable people, even today, would choose 200,000 casualties over many millions. And nuclear technology is banned. It is classified as “restricted,” and requires special privileges regardless of your pay grade or clearance. It’s proliferation is banned by international treaty. And attempts to dissuade its development by other nations, like Iran and North Korea, is a further a part of the gravity with which the restrictions on nuclear technology are taken.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't think your analogy is a good one. Slavery and segregation have been banned. You still have a stockpile of nuclear weapons. The mind set around use of nuclear weapons hasn't really changed at all. Most people would consider it to have been necessary to drop the bomb to end WW2, and that the US has the right to own, and if necessary use, nuclear weapons in similar circumstances. On the other hand, most people find slavery abhorrent.
It's interesting how you feel the need to justify the bombing of Japan, when I have not criticised it on this thread. I've taken a neutral stance to that action, yet you interpret it as negative.
You have clearly stated, if similar circumstances were to happen today, then similar action would probably take place. That is what I have said. You have argued yourself into agreement.
I don't agree with what you have said about nuclear technology. Nuclear technology is indeed widely available, for both energy purposes and for weapons. The US has not even ratified the complete ban on nuclear testing and has not disarmed itself. The only UN treaty that stands is one prohibiting those countries without weapons from obtaining them, a treaty which could be seen as serving the interests of maintaining the power of those nations with nuclear capacity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit, I won't repost your excellent long post. I guess I agree with most of it, but do think US modern expansion has also been about resources, oil and other fossil fuels would be one example, but also about opening new markets, as you infer.
I also think that Britain did leave its stamp of culture on its colonies. India has a whole era of Raj architecture, particularly the administrative buildings which is very British. You introduced English as the administrative language and language of the educated to most of your colonies. Aspiring classes adopted British manners, fashions and accent, even sending their kids away to British schools to be more British.
Australia prior to WW2 would have considered itself British, people would talk about 'going home' when they visited England.
NB Sorry to any Americans for the Empire insult. Didn't realise etc etc.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. But that has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, that was the point I was trying to make. It’s simply a desire reduce casualties. We do the same thing with conventional weapons. For instance, we don’t use carpet bombing like we used to. Instead we use guided missiles, because they help to reduce casualties, which is the same reason we used nuclear weapons at the end of WWII.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You have clearly stated, if similar circumstances were to happen today, then similar action would probably take place. That is what I have said. You have argued yourself into agreement.
Quote:Let me ask you this, do you thin the US should completely eliminate nuclear weapons from its arsenal? And if we did, do you think it would make the US safer?
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't agree with what you have said about nuclear technology. Nuclear technology is indeed widely available, for both energy purposes and for weapons. The US has not even ratified the complete ban on nuclear testing and has not disarmed itself. The only UN treaty that stands is one prohibiting those countries without weapons from obtaining them, a treaty which could be seen as serving the interests of maintaining the power of those nations with nuclear capacity.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let me ask you this, do you thin the US should completely eliminate nuclear weapons from its arsenal? And if we did, do you think it would make the US safer?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Again you read some neutral statements and do a lot of assuming about my views.
I would love to see a world where there was no nuclear weapons, but I also know that once that genie was let out the bottle there was no going back. I'm not sure how useful it has to have WMD at this point in time, seeing as though the current major threats to the US don't come from countries, but factions that are without a stable base or government. In other words, in times of threat who do you threaten to nuke? In recent decades, military technology has moved away from development of weapons of mass destruction to more technologically advanced weapons of combat.
I also did not want Iraq to have WMD, but thought it was a pretty thin excuse to go to war (particularly as there weren't any)
I might add, Osama Bin laden anyone? Never understood how the post 9/11 response was to invade Iraq.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So you recognize that we can’t undo the existence of nuclear weapons. We are stuck with the threat, whether we possess or not. If we disarm our nuclear arsenal, all we do is put ourselves at the feet of nations who continue to possess them. We don’t want these weapons in the hands of nations like Iran or North Korea, because we have good reason to be leery that these nations will use those weapons responsibly.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I would love to see a world where there was no nuclear weapons, but I also know that once that genie was let out the bottle there was no going back. I'm not sure how useful it has to have WMD at this point in time, seeing as though the current major threats to the US don't come from countries, but factions that are without a stable base or government. In other words, in times of threat who do you threaten to nuke? In recent decades, military technology has moved away from development of weapons of mass destruction to more technologically advanced weapons of combat.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, and, obviously not.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Let me ask you this, do you thin the US should completely eliminate nuclear weapons from its arsenal? And if we did, do you think it would make the US safer?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME