Iran: Nukes, good; e-cigs, bad

[Dr. Russell Fell]

Originally Posted by Reign

The difference from what you said and from what Trog said is he mentioned something that had been theorized. You say it as if it 100% fact as if you were there and advised the president on what to do, how to do it and why. Only a fool talks in absolutes.


I will say its definitely plausible that part of the dropping of the bomb was to show capability to our other foes, but to say it had nothing to do with "saving american lives" is absolutely rediculous.

You probrably also beleive the levies were detonated in New Orleans and we shot a missile into the world trade center dont you?

You do realize that you've been talking in absolutes this whole time regarding US foreign policy and America's right to pre-emptive wars or did you just completely miss that by chance?

It's not plausible, it's fact. And yes, it had nothing to do with saving American lives. If history has taught us anything, most governments or highly concentrated forms of hierarchical power could care less about their own soldiers. They are expendable, just like the weapons and ammunition they carry. Every major war involving the US has shown that US soldiers are merely chess pieces in a large scale tug-o-war game between opposing super powers. Of course, if said form of power didn't constantly pat you on the shoulder, tell you you're doing a fine job, that everything is all in good intention and as long as they continue to feed you what you want to hear, wipe your mouth and tell you you're special - if none of that happened, you would become what they call a conscientious opposer of war. And that's not what any governments like to hear.

No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. There's a clear difference between a conspiracy plot and basic, unadulterated planning. Or lack of planning in some cases.

And yes, it's abominable that the US sided with Stalin; a man that killed more people than Hitler ever did.

[trog100]

Originally Posted by deewal

You never know trog. It might have actually happened in one of the alternate universe's all around us.
btw Did you know there is a conspiracy theory that Patton was killed by a O.S.S operative because he wanted to carry on and take out the Russians sooner than later and that too many people agreed with him including Churchill ?

the term conspiracy theory is used to discredit any theory that certain people do not like.. pretty much like u are using it.. wink wink...

but conspiracies do exist and i believe there is at least some truth in some of them... i know one thing i never ever take anything i read or hear at face value..

i always look for the hidden agenda there always is one.. all "news" is propaganda its purpose is to manipulate us one way or another..

its a kind of hobby of mine.. reading between and behind the lines.. its now second nature.. what i do find very interesting is my favourite american conspiracy sites link more and more to the BBC and Daily Telegraph..

something i find very amusing.. conspiracy sites linking to "respectable" british media.. it seems the only way an american can get even a sanitized idea of whats going on in the world or even their own country is from the british media.. whats conservative to some is conspiracy to others..

bloody odd cos the telegraph isnt something i would normally read.. repeatably finding it on the end of american conspiracy site links is disconcerting... he he

trog..

ps.. for what its worth i tend to take the view that people simply react to whats going on around them.. thats how i can live with what is being and has been done.. things just happen.. whoever is there at the time simply gets carried along with flow.. hitler.. churchill.. stalin.. the times make the people not the other way around..

[Taelon]

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

but what should we expect from a country that thinks making nuclear bombs is okay

If nukes is the only way to stop the U.S. from stealing Oil...

[Reign]

Originally Posted by Dr. Russell Fell

You do realize that you've been talking in absolutes this whole time regarding US foreign policy and America's right to pre-emptive wars or did you just completely miss that by chance?

It's not plausible, it's fact. And yes, it had nothing to do with saving American lives. If history has taught us anything, most governments or highly concentrated forms of hierarchical power could care less about their own soldiers. They are expendable, just like the weapons and ammunition they carry. Every major war involving the US has shown that US soldiers are merely chess pieces in a large scale tug-o-war game between opposing super powers. Of course, if said form of power didn't constantly pat you on the shoulder, tell you you're doing a fine job, that everything is all in good intention and as long as they continue to feed you what you want to hear, wipe your mouth and tell you you're special - if none of that happened, you would become what they call a conscientious opposer of war. And that's not what any governments like to hear.

No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. There's a clear difference between a conspiracy plot and basic, unadulterated planning. Or lack of planning in some cases.

And yes, it's abominable that the US sided with Stalin; a man that killed more people than Hitler ever did.

Glad you can admit that you are a fool. So I am to believe that you were involved in the decision to drop the bombs and you care less about your soldiers? Stating it as absolute fact means you must have been there first hand and been a deciding factor on it. Otherwise you are just another anti-government crybaby too scared to fight a war and too scared to fight against it except on an e-smoking forum. If you know all the answers, maybe you should share it with the rest of the world who is obviously too dumb to grasp what you seem to have been born knowing.

[leaford]

Originally Posted by Kate

... maybe I am, there's not much good to be said about gun culture.

No? How about freedom and democracy? Historically, guns have been necessary to secure them.

In the US, we remember very well that the first thing the British tried to do when the revolution began stirring was to try to seize colonists guns. Our guns secured our liberty, and our guns are the constant threat at the government's throat, the ultimate defense against tyranny.

[leaford]

Originally Posted by Frankie

I do not think any country, including Iran (excluding USA), is willing to attack others with nukes. The problem with nuclear weapons in Iran is, that the Big Bully would not be able to attack it, because the much smaller boy would have a big stick to defend himself with. Like Nothern Korea.

Since first used, nuclear weapons always served as a powerful deterrent against wannabe invaders.

Sorry, but North Korea is the victim of a bully? I suppose that's the US? Yeah, we're just bullying them. Nothing to do with defending South Korea. Nothing to do with the fact that Kim Jong Il is one of the worst dictators in the world. Nothing to do with him being willing to maintain a million man army, at the cost of starving his own people. We're just bullies pushing them around for no reason but that we can.

It is to laugh.

[Frankie]

I think people in Texas believed this. In Waco, to be precise.
Do you really believe individually owned guns can really protect you from your government taking your freedom? Oh, come on...

Taking your Magnum against a helicopter gunship or a tank brigade might be a grand gesture, but no freedom will be gained.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by leaford

No? How about freedom and democracy? Historically, guns have been necessary to secure them.

In the US, we remember very well that the first thing the British tried to do when the revolution began stirring was to try to seize colonists guns. Our guns secured our liberty, and our guns are the constant threat at the government's throat, the ultimate defense against tyranny.

No, I don't see the necessity, it's time we evolved into a civilised society that doesn't see violence as a quick fix to difficult problems.

Among my biggest heros are Martin Luther King JR, Gandhi, suffragettes, the Dalai Lama and early trade unionists.

Civil disobedience is a much better long term strategy in my opinion than killing.

I've lived with killing Leaford and I can tell you it's very hard to find forgiveness and reconciliation after the boys have finished shooting.

No gun will ensure your freedom if someone wants to take it away, there will always be someone with more firepower than you. You'll find that out the hard way when terrorists start using nukes.

[leaford]

Originally Posted by Dr. Russell Fell

Yes Trogg, the dropping of the A bomb had little to nothing to do about "saving American lives" from the war. It was just a gesture to remind the rest of the world who the world super power was now.

Revisionist theorizing. The historical documents show the discussions at the time focused on the war effort, and the US lives that would be lost in an invasion.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by leaford

Sorry, but North Korea is the victim of a bully?

It is not. Guess why.
A) The US decided it´s a nice country really and decided to leave it alone and invade Afghanistan and Iraq instead,
B) The US used too much of their bomb stockpile killing people in Yugoslavia and did not have enough to kill the Korean Commies.
C) The US love dictatorships of the Cambodian type so they do not intervene; or
D) Korea is too well armed to be attacked without the losses being too high.

That was my point. Si vis pacem, para bellum. You want peace, prepare for war. Korea did. Lives in peace. Yes, Commie mess, but no war in foreseeable future. Also beacause of their first A-bomb tests.