Iran: Nukes, good; e-cigs, bad

[Frankie]

These days, nations respond better to action than to words.

I believe Chengis Khan was among the first to voice this brilliant idea.

 

[Reign]

The media was all up on Obama being the First Black president not for which party he represents, He Won so the media won , but in your eyes because he is BLACK then America lost, now that blatant Racism to me, maybe i was getting close to a nerve.....

Actually the media wasnt that fixated reporting-wise about him being the first black president. You didnt hear too much of that flying around as a matter of fact.

The media(which caters to democrats) was supporting his party and constantly either bashing republicans, or ignoring them altogether.

As an Illinois resident years back, I voted for Obama in the senate race. His campaign was great and had alot of fresh ideas. During his time in the senate...he did very very little. Then running for president, I supported him as I did not know too much of McCain other than his POW status. After months of campaigning, and hearing very little specifics on what kind of "CHANGE" Obama was going to bring into his office, it started to sound more and more like his senate run.

Now that he has been voted in, he is breaking out with some specifics that even people who voted for him are kicking themselves for. On top of that, he's putting people into advisor positions that he recently had called "ignorant" and "incompetant".

So if not liking a candidate based on the agendas at hand is racist, then color me guilty. Otherwise, you made an extremely assuming and ignorant post about things you know nothing about. Had I voted for him ONLY because he was black would have been wrong too. What difference does it matter what color he is when he proves to be worthless in the position?

 

[ApOsTle51]

Actually the media wasnt that fixated reporting-wise about him being the first black president. You didnt hear too much of that flying around as a matter of fact.

Maybe not your side of the pond but over here from what i saw it was all about the possibility of the US having it's first black President.

The media(which caters to democrats) was supporting his party and constantly either bashing republicans, or ignoring them altogether.

As an Illinois resident years back, I voted for Obama in the senate race. His campaign was great and had alot of fresh ideas. During his time in the senate...he did very very little. Then running for president, I supported him as I did not know too much of McCain other than his POW status. After months of campaigning, and hearing very little specifics on what kind of "CHANGE" Obama was going to bring into his office, it started to sound more and more like his senate run.

Now that he has been voted in, he is breaking out with some specifics that even people who voted for him are kicking themselves for. On top of that, he's putting people into advisor positions that he recently had called "ignorant" and "incompetant".

So if not liking a candidate based on the agendas at hand is racist, then color me guilty. Otherwise, you made an extremely assuming and ignorant post about things you know nothing about. Had I voted for him ONLY because he was black would have been wrong too. What difference does it matter what color he is when he proves to be worthless in the position?

how the hell i was supposed to get all that from:

Sure they are...Obama was elected. Media won. Americans lost.

i'll never know.

still , i've finished playing with the forum troll now i don't want to say something i later regret.

 

[Reign]

Maybe not your side of the pond but over here from what i saw it was all about the possibility of the US having it's first black President.


how the hell i was supposed to get all that from:

i'll never know.

still , i've finished playing with the forum troll now i don't want to say something i later regret.

You shouldn't have needed to get anything from my comment other than I voted for McCain and think Obama was a bad choice...you went ahead and made the assumptions which showed your flawed thinking on the subject.

 

[deewal]

Getting back to Iran and Nukes it is no secret that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and Israeli intelligence estimates that Iran could be two years away from having a nuclear weapon. When the leader of a sovereign nation makes unequivocal statements without domestic opposition, those statements serve as the basis of national policy. It is critical to note that Ahmadinejad's statements go beyond opposition to Israeli policies, he is speaking of Israel's very existence.

So Ahmadinejad is only kidding is he?

The USA won't Nuke Iran. The Jewish Nation will never forget The Holocaust and will not allow it to happen again. If they are threatened with being wiped off the map they will make sure that their enemies are too no matter what the West think or want.
US Presidents ? .....cats when compared with Hitler and Stalin.

If Britain had got the Bomb first Churchill would have dropped as many as possible on Berlin without a second thought.
The people of Britain were dancing in the streets when they were told the Atom Bomb had been dropped on Japan.

 

[trog100]

give a monkey a machine gun and sooner or later he will shoot some bugger..

give a human a bomb and sooner or later he will bomb some bugger.. which dont say lot about monkeys or us lot does it..

and when it does happen i recon both a few monkeys and humans will be dancing in the street which also dont say a lot for either species..

monkeys with a brain.. end result kaboooom.. sooner or later...

moslem monkeys or christian monkeys a monkey is still a monkey.. and the cleverer he gets the more dangerous he gets.. kahbooooom... he he

trog

ps... and for whats its worth it has been said the real reason those bombs were dropped on japan was to show the russians exactly what would happen to them if they didnt behave.. a simple demonstration of american power..

 

[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.

As for saying that the media is "liberal" and "democrat-run," that's just a plain fallacy; one that seems to be repeated more times than it should. The fact is, all major media outlets are owned by major conglomerate corporations. Like any power struggle, there will be differences in opinion and some in-fighting, but the major goal is always the same; democrats and republicans alike.

 

[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?

 

[trog100]

its also been said certain people claimed we are fighting the wrong side during WW11...

pattern i think wanted to carry on and wipe the ruskies out there and then.. a few years later a lot more would have agreed..

very interesting alternative "truths".. but its the winners who get to hold the war crime trials and write the history books.. which is why i dont believe a word of it.. he he

none of us know for sure thow do we.. we as a race tend to pick the truths that suit us..

trog

 

[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 ?

 

[Dr. Russell Fell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.