Nuclear War?! Right now? [Archive]

Remote

March 15th, 2002, 05:02

Originally posted by 2fast4u

dont be silly dude. once the first nuke is dropped the story is over. there is russia, india, pakistan (!), india (!!) and more. i cant c why u think nukes r save in the us with this news right before ur eyes. bush is fucking insane if he only thinks about using them.

Who is being silly? Only two nuclear bombs has ever been used in war, first and last time. The # is probaly a lot higher for testing but lets face facts - more incidents have occured with nuclear power plants...Do you recognize the frase... It is so unlikely that it never happened... If you do, good for you, and if you don't... Nuclear weapons are used to demonstrate power, they were constructed for use in war but after they destroyed Hiroshima, Japan in 1964...

Correction in 1945 their destructive powers were shown to the world. All countires and goverments are aware of the threat, but they do not intend to use them against each other. The only problem with nuclear weapons is that wanna-be super nations, I am very confident in the fact that you can all figure out who they are, try to show thier powers by developing nuclear weapons.

American president Gerorge Bush is not saying that he is going to use nuclear weapons, the congress would newer give him a go on that one, it would probaly be neccesary with a unamyous vote - all in favor, for him to send a tiny missil anywhere. The US has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, a lot bigger then the russian counterpart which is second biggest. The reaming countries have small nuclear arsenals and should there for not be taken as a real threat, with Iraq being the capital exception. War today isn't the same it was fifty years ago, they fought with guns, we fight with money.

If country A ensists on developing and keeping nuclear weapons country B is going to make sure that they can't countinue to do so. With the risk of insulting others, Iraq, India, Pakistan, North Corea and China have no reason to keep a nuclear arsenal, and should not be trusted to keep them. India and China have the largest population in the world but are a very small part of cunsumption, 10 % of all people consume 80 % of all merchendise. They are not a economical super powers nor warfare ones... Iraq, Pakistan have their own problems and should take care of thier people instead of spending billions of dollars on research, imagine how many camels they could buy for the enormous amount of money the have spent on nuclear weapons.

And not to mention the threat they impose if they were to come in the hands of terrorists, which all come from a certain point of the world and all have one thing in common - religion... The only country I would trust my life to is the US, Russia is very close to being safe on me scale, they other countries do not have the security needed for safe keeping.

If something were to go off, Houston, we have a problem...

2fast4u

March 15th, 2002, 05:16

josep: fully agree dude. but we r getting off-topic. but azi is absolutely right. the war is a way to get elected, no doubt there. that is a reason why the war is going on so long. however the us of nuclear bombs is something no one can even IMAGINE! whoever would support that, he or she must be insane or just not aware wot that means to ppl!

2fast4u

March 15th, 2002, 05:35

If you do, good for you, and if you don't... Nuclear weapons are used to demonstrate power, they were constructed for use in war but after they destroyed Hiroshima, Japan in 1964...

Correction in 1945 their destructive powers were shown to the world. All countires and goverments are aware of the threat, but they do not intend to use them against each other. The only problem with nuclear weapons is that wanna-be super nations, I am very confident in the fact that you can all figure out who they are, try to show thier powers by developing nuclear weapons.

do u believe in santa too? it seems like the awarness how destructive nukes are has been fading rapidly since the cold war if over. they were not build only to demonstrate power, do u think the cold war was just about impressing?

btw hiroshima was in 1945, not 64 ...

American president Gerorge Bush is not saying that he is going to use nuclear weapons, the congress would newer give him a go on that one, it would probaly be neccesary with a unamyous vote

bush has treatened to bomb these countries with nuclear weapons. do i need to say more? congress has approved every instance of this imperialistic war and plus he doesnt even need the approval anymore since he is already granted all powers.

With the risk of insulting others, Iraq, India, Pakistan, North Corea and China have no reason to keep a nuclear arsenal, and should not be trusted to keep them

hear hear, then tell me: who - in ur opinion - HAS a reason to keep nuclear weapons?? :pissed: <zyn>the usa bcoz they need to defend themselves against all the evil countries in the world he fight against freedom and democracy??</zyn> :pissed: sorry but thats bullshit royale. there is no way any country could justify bearing any weapons of mass destruction.

imagine how many camels they could buy for the enormous amount of money the have spent on nuclear weapons

ill take that as a joke and ignore it

The only country I would trust my life to is the US

every day u find more reasons to trust the us, eh?? :plain2: open ur eyes.

concluding i have a feeling u r taking this threat way too easily. the danger that is coming from nuclear warfare is not to imagine and may never, ever be underestimated. u shouldnt be blind against wot a country that calls itself good is doing. so far, my thoughts.

pj64er

March 15th, 2002, 08:09

the us may hav the largest stockpile of it, but 20 is the most you ll need to bring most nations (i would imagine the us would fall under this catergory) to its knees. radiation from that 20 would be able to take out even more. that being said, even china has enough to enter a nuke war, and enough to devastate a superpower.

2fast4u

March 15th, 2002, 08:10

Originally posted by pj64er
the us may hav the largest stockpile of it, but 20 is the most you ll need to bring most nations (i would imagine the us would fall under this catergory) to its knees. radiation from that 20 would be able to take out even more. that being said, even china has enough to enter a nuke war, and enough to devastate a superpower.

that all wont matter, if 2 nuclear powers would be fighting each other, they would BOTH be wiped out.

pj64er

March 15th, 2002, 08:24

Originally posted by 2fast4u

that all wont matter, if 2 nuclear powers would be fighting each other, they would BOTH be wiped out.

not necessaraily. a us vs pakistan war (just an example guys) would result in pakistan completely removed from the face of the earth, while the us probably losing a few major cities. nukes are extremely powerful, but think of them as large-city-and-surrounding-area removers.

but thats not my point. some people (like good old dubya bush) seem to feel that the us is invincible behind their large stockpile of nukes.

2fast4u

March 15th, 2002, 08:31

Originally posted by pj64er

not necessaraily. a us vs pakistan war (just an example guys) would result in pakistan completely removed from the face of the earth, while the us probably losing a few major cities. nukes are extremely powerful, but think of them as large-city-and-surrounding-area removers.

but thats not my point. some people (like good old dubya bush) seem to feel that the us is invincible behind their large stockpile of nukes.

true. i was thinking of major nuclear powers like (gulp!) the us and russia. the thought alone gives me the creeps :cry: ... the us with its insane politics has gotta be stopped!!

pj64er

March 15th, 2002, 08:38

Originally posted by 2fast4u

true. i was thinking of major nuclear powers like (gulp!) the us and russia. the thought alone gives me the creeps :cry: ... the us with its insane politics has gotta be stopped!!

u've gotta point. if the us so much as move a nuke out of its own airspace, russia will be down its throat faster than u can say 'Hiroshima'.

RatTrap

March 15th, 2002, 08:53

You know who is to blame though for all the countries with nukes?.. SONY!!!.. PS2 is the DEVIL!!!.. it's how the cheapest missile guiding system in the world.. and it should be bannd.. only i should have one.. bcoz we all know i'm such a nice and thoughtfull guy :D..

:inlove: love n peace!..

flow``

March 15th, 2002, 08:56

sort of an ironic topic.. seeings how we just had a little classroom debate in world civ about WWII and the nuclear warheads, and a little breifing about the cold war.

anyway.. personally, i would love to see clinton back in office. just from looking at bush, you can tell he's a laid back cowboy in a nice suite with all his advisors kissing his ass. i think clinton had much more sense of what needs to be done, and how to do it.

as far as any use of nukes.. i see it highly unlikely, but not impossible. sure, the us might be "the strongest country in the world", but that means BS when a nuke takes out DC and the country is in havoc. one country dropping 1 nuke would create worldwide chaos, mass gathering of allied countries, and overnight have WW3 on our hands. surely politicians aren't that stupid, and i find their "oh, we can nuke you if we have justified reasons" shit as just a politcal bluff to get their way.

i feel the UN needs to step into play somewhere and tell bush to slow his role, since he's literlally turning into a dictator and using the "War on terror" as some coverup for other little schemes he probably has going on the flip side.

2fast4u

March 15th, 2002, 09:08

i feel the UN needs to step into play somewhere and tell bush to slow his role, since he's literlally turning into a dictator and using the "War on terror" as some coverup for other little schemes he probably has going on the flip side.

the country preaches freedom and democracy without practicing it (reminds me of skool ;)) ... its really ironic. everyone living in the us should be able to confirm wot u just wrote. however, the un needs to give up its solidarity with the usa and form a front against the imperialistic plans of bush and his henchmen. its obvious that he is willing to use EVERYthing possible to reach his goals.

DuDe

March 15th, 2002, 11:14

I don`t see the whole point of the debate. Any country that has nukes (and that`s about half of Europe`s countries), has a nuclear "hitlist", it`s obvious. The problem is, that some asshole from the US security offices was dumb enough to leak the US list out. There`s probably a lot of beheading going on now at the Pentagon.

Slougi

March 15th, 2002, 12:24

Hmm I have not seen this anywhere yet, could someone point me to it?

vampireuk

March 15th, 2002, 18:24

I think Blair should grow a pair of balls and draw the line here instead of kissing bushes ass still. If the US want to threaten to use Nukes they can fuck off and stop trying to drag us into their mess

Just my 2 cents:)

Remote

March 15th, 2002, 18:30

Originally posted by 2fast4u

do u believe in santa too? it seems like the awarness how destructive nukes are has been fading rapidly since the cold war if over. they were not build only to demonstrate power, do u think the cold war was just about impressing?

btw hiroshima was in 1945, not 64 ...

No, not really but I enjoy spending christmas with friends and family, I am certain that you share the same belief. Christmas isn't about religion or Santa Claus, it's about having a good time.

Nuclear weapons were discovered by mistake, and the capital reason for why the allies developed nuclear weapons was to beat the Nazi's to it. Adolf Hitler, not him personally, started the research on nuclear power and weapons long before the allies did, however most of the scientist involved in the project exchanged their freedom agaist their knowledge.

The cold war was a political, techical and economical war, it had nothing to do with them actually beating the crap out of eachother. Sovjet, which later on became Russia were at that time a superpower, still is in some aspects, with a political belief - communism most people don't share. Decades after WWII America and Russia were the only true superpowers, which is good for balance, good - evil, yin - yang..., but bad for overall influence. Someone discovered that they could force the Commis and Russia to poverty by fooling them into believing that the Americans had more weapons and tecnology in construction then they did, and it worked. You are a fool if you truly believe that poeple and goverments are taking the threat of nuclear war less serious now compared to twenty years ago, if no one fears them, why have them...

Most of the tecnology used in our everyday products, i.e computers, are a direct result from the cold war. There was a need for it, and it was developed for other purposes then letting some communist kid showing his stupidity to the world online.

It amuses me that people on a Nintendo 64 oriantated forum can't see the humor in the following quote...Just because it doesn't have the obligatory :p...

Originally posted by Remote[b]
...destroyed Hiroshima, Japan in 1964... Correction in 1945...

bush has treatened to bomb these countries with nuclear weapons. do i need to say more? congress has approved every instance of this imperialistic war and plus he doesnt even need the approval anymore since he is already granted all powers.

They have granted him free hands against terrorism, I am not sure but I have a feeling that it doesn't include the use of nuclear weapons.

hear hear, then tell me: who - in ur opinion - HAS a reason to keep nuclear weapons?? :pissed: <zyn>the usa bcoz they need to defend themselves against all the evil countries in the world he fight against freedom and democracy??</zyn> :pissed: sorry but thats bullshit royale. there is no way any country could justify bearing any weapons of mass destruction.

The United states of America has cleary a need for nuclear weapons, since religions idiots in other countries insists on having them. If the US doesn't need weapons, please do tell me which country out of the following that does...

Iraq, so that they can ignore their own population, two million children has died since it became known that Iraq had access to nuclear weapons. Well, you might say that the US is responsible for their deaths. Because they are the ones counterworking Iraq's attempts to trade.

If Iraq were to destory or give upp their nuclear weapons the trade block would be liften or atleast modified, the same goes for Pakistan, India, China, Corea...

ill take that as a joke and ignore it

It was a joke, but the meaning behind it is still true, they are spending their people's money on warfare tecnology neglecting their peoples needs....

every day u find more reasons to trust the us, eh?? :plain2: open ur eyes.

I can't, I glued them together the other day when I was bored...

concluding i have a feeling u r taking this threat way too easily. the danger that is coming from nuclear warfare is not to imagine and may never, ever be underestimated. u shouldnt be blind against wot a country that calls itself good is doing. so far, my thoughts.

There isn't a threat, just because President Bush likes his...well cooked...I fail to see the reason for why he should microwave an entire country, not to say an entire continent. And once again, nuclear weapons are used to give a deeper meanings to threats... If you were to threaten me, real life that is, I would probaly lay down on the floor lauging...But if you had a couple of friends with you the threat would be taken much more seriously from my side... And how can any of you estimate how many nuclear missiles it would take to destory a country or a continent... Do you have any facts to back that up?

Slougi

March 15th, 2002, 19:01

Umm since when does Iraq have nuclear weapons?! They don't, although they do have chemical and biological weapons. They may be researching nuclear weapons, but i am sure they don't have access to any. (yet)

Remote

March 15th, 2002, 19:11

Originally posted by Slougi
Umm since when does Iraq have nuclear weapons?! They don't, although they do have chemical and biological weapons. They may be researching nuclear weapons, but i am sure they don't have access to any. (yet)

...they have nuclear weapons, even a small country as Sweden has the tecnology needed to develop nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be surprised if that also goes for Finland, but both countries lacks use and motive, and more importantly support from the people, for nuclear weapons.

sk8bloke22

March 15th, 2002, 19:55

the effects of a nuclear war will be devasting. bush adminstration has started something ridiculous. even the mention of attacking iraq is so dangerous, imagine wat sadam is preparing to counter, i doubt he's gonna sit and the usa bomb the fuck out of him. instead of going on this rampage, why doesnt bush intervene with israeli/palestinian crisis...something which is presently out of control, rather than starting a new violent crisis. i know one reason...oil. the usa wont intervene, as the middle-east is rich in oil, and the USA dont want to ruin there links there, as that means money will be lost. when it comes down to it, these wars are all about oil...look at the gulf, a pointless crisis, in which millions died over oil. of course there are other factors, but im finding it real scary how Bush wants to start another cold war. its great to know our lives are in safe hands ??? :hrm:

pj64er

March 15th, 2002, 19:56

Originally posted by Slougi
Umm since when does Iraq have nuclear weapons?! They don't, although they do have chemical and biological weapons. They may be researching nuclear weapons, but i am sure they don't have access to any. (yet)

more countries hav nukes than u think. officially, there are only around 5-10 nuclear powers. since USSR's fall, many of its nukes have been smuggled to other countries. And if u think that at one point in the Cold War, even Canada had nukes, it is very possible that many countries that are "researching" or "hav tech to build but didnt make" do hav their own secret stockpile.

sk8bloke22

March 15th, 2002, 19:57

Originally posted by flow``
sort of an ironic topic.. seeings how we just had a little classroom debate in world civ about WWII and the nuclear warheads, and a little breifing about the cold war.

anyway.. personally, i would love to see clinton back in office. just from looking at bush, you can tell he's a laid back cowboy in a nice suite with all his advisors kissing his ass. i think clinton had much more sense of what needs to be done, and how to do it.

although im not a huge clinton fan, i definitely agree with u. at least he knew wat he was doing, or at least looked like he knew wat he was doing (especially with Momica Lewinski :) ) - bush is just ridiculous.

vampireuk

March 15th, 2002, 20:02

I was all for the "war against terrorism" but if he takes this too far I hope someone wrings his little neck

Josep

March 16th, 2002, 03:58

Damn, almost losing the thread i started;) The bush admin. is complete b.s. though, and sadly not many people know reasons of why. Anyone know what the kyoto protocol is? Off the top of your heads, i doubt anyone in here knows, and hence reflects how much people know about the Bush Admin. Its a sad and vicious loop and sadly everyone that isn't involved in some big business, or if they are not in the Government for the U.S., then they are screwed(I.E. Everyone reading this most likely:)) WHY DID i want Nadar to win!? hehe, however you spell his name, because he was all for the E.P.A., environmental protection agency. This actually ties in with the whole Nuclear weapons thing, sadly if i kept explaining it, it would make less and less sense to everyone that does not understand the environmental problems that the world is in right now, but hell if anyone does know, feel free to cue in;)

sk8bloke22

March 16th, 2002, 06:18

how can u say that...the bush adminstration does loads for the environment....look at son of star wars ;)

i say we vote in for a pretzel to replace bush.

Josep

March 16th, 2002, 10:23

Originally posted by sk8bloke22
how can u say that...the bush adminstration does loads for the environment....look at son of star wars ;)

i say we vote in for a pretzel to replace bush.

my point exactly;)

Azimer

March 16th, 2002, 11:00

Originally posted by Josep
Anyone know what the kyoto protocol is?

This might give people an little idea what you are talking about.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html

Sounds like a pollution control agreement to limit climate change from pollution. We definately wouldn't need to worry about this if we had nukes dropped on us.

zorbid

March 16th, 2002, 13:31

The Kyoto protocol is an agreement between almost all countries in the world to reduce the production of CO2. This agreement is a very bad thing for the texan petrol societies, that financed Bush's campain. So the first descision he took as president was to refuse to apply the protocol.

It has nothing to do with th current nuke bomb storry...

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 17:59

Originally posted by flow``

anyway.. personally, i would love to see clinton back in office. just from looking at bush, you can tell he's a laid back cowboy in a nice suite with all his advisors kissing his ass. i think clinton had much more sense of what needs to be done, and how to do it.

like sending 75 cruise missiles to "stop the bin laden threat" which killed about 3 civilians and a dog...

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 18:06

Originally posted by Josep
Damn, almost losing the thread i started;) The bush admin. is complete b.s. though, and sadly not many people know reasons of why. Anyone know what the kyoto protocol is?

it was the koyoto agreement which was essentially a set of sanctions that would financially cripple the usa, completley rationing their use of oil and at a time when the country needed investment (ie the country was entering a recession around the dot com crash), he simply could not afford to risk the livleyhood of his people to make some greenpeace representatives happy

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 18:10

Originally posted by Azimer
Bush just wants to start wars, because that might be the only way he will get re-elected. Are politicians so corrupt they would resort to senselessly wrecking the lives of innocent people? Bush... yes. Perhaps others also?

i higyly doubt that, simply because he took some action against people who threatened his peoples livley hood (need i remember you of all the bomb threats that were given after sept 11?), does not make him someone who want sto start wars! i agree he is a little on the arrogant side, and should consider the consequences of his actions more

Slougi

March 16th, 2002, 18:11

It's not about making a few greenpeace representatives happy, it's about saving the planet......

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 18:12

Originally posted by Josep
they can't hide behind the whole "fight on terrorism"

im sick of people saying that, god damnit, did you not notice 6000 people who were at work loose their lives? and you condemn the acton to prevent this... who moral it is i don't care, if you can stop that happening again you have my support, especially if youre not sending 75 cruise missles in the middle of nowhere in the hope of stopping bin laden and you dont kill one member of the al queada (*cough* clinton *cough*)

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 18:16

Originally posted by pj64er

u've gotta point. if the us so much as move a nuke out of its own airspace, russia will be down its throat faster than u can say 'Hiroshima'.

i think you over estimate the contention between these two countries, vladimir putin has a nasty streak, this fella knows how to get what he wants, and right now he does NOT want a war with the usa, why do you think he agreed to stop the supply of arms to arganistan? in return media coverage of the war in chenchenya died off... coincidence?

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 18:17

Originally posted by 2fast4u
the problem is that in a nuclear war, there are no winners - believe me here (u too, sy! ;)).

i dont doubt that, howveer i do doubt the idea that bush will use nukes, hell people thought the usa and or russia were gonna send a nuke any day for about 20 years, and they never did... war is as much about polotics and money than it is violence, if not more

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 18:19

Originally posted by Slougi
It's not about making a few greenpeace representatives happy, it's about saving the planet......

im sorry but CO2 is not gonna kill the planet in the next 10 years, nevermind the next 100 years... hell we're coming out of an ice age... when we come out of ice ages the planet gets warmer and CO2 emitions go up, thought u environmentalists would know that, or would you rather just blame a head figure who doesnt do what you want? i mean cmon... before we entered the last ice age there are fossils that show britain had tropical forrests!!!!

2fast4u

March 16th, 2002, 21:06

Originally posted by sytaylor

im sick of people saying that, god damnit, did you not notice 6000 people who were at work loose their lives? and you condemn the acton to prevent this... who moral it is i don't care, if you can stop that happening again you have my support, especially if youre not sending 75 cruise missles in the middle of nowhere in the hope of stopping bin laden and you dont kill one member of the al queada (*cough* clinton *cough*)

sy, stop the fuck about the cruise missles, we all know that clinton did that but --- THATS NO EXCUSE FOR BUSH TO EVEN OR WORSE! u got that?? if i would say the earth's history has always been fucked up, so why try to change it is the same thing! this is just plain bullshit!

2fast4u

March 16th, 2002, 21:11

Originally posted by sytaylor

i dont doubt that, howveer i do doubt the idea that bush will use nukes, hell people thought the usa and or russia were gonna send a nuke any day for about 20 years, and they never did... war is as much about polotics and money than it is violence, if not more

jesus, read cold war history again. u probably have no idea how close they were to send away those missles. berlin, 1954 -- cuba, 1961 -- berlin / the wall, 1969 -- only to name a few. u probably totally underestimate the power of nuclear weapons as well. newest nuclear weapons make hiroshima look like a firecracker, just u know.

2fast4u

March 16th, 2002, 21:11

Originally posted by sytaylor

im sorry but CO2 is not gonna kill the planet in the next 10 years, nevermind the next 100 years... hell we're coming out of an ice age... when we come out of ice ages the planet gets warmer and CO2 emitions go up, thought u environmentalists would know that, or would you rather just blame a head figure who doesnt do what you want? i mean cmon... before we entered the last ice age there are fossils that show britain had tropical forrests!!!!

ur point?

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 22:26

my point about the cruise missles was that what bush isnt doing isnt telling bin laden to talk to the hand cos the face aint listening, he's doing something about it... and are you gonna accept that nasty things happen on this planet or what?

as for your second point, you seriously think the cold war was NOT about polotics and money? then im afriad you are misguided, true they came close to sending missiles, possibly very close... and for the record assuming underestimation simply for disagreement is a grave misjudgement.

my point about co2 is pretty damn obvious, wheres the sense in crippling yourself to make little or no difference to a changing environment:blush:

Remote

March 16th, 2002, 22:38

Originally posted by sytaylor
my point about the cruise missles was that what bush isnt doing isnt telling bin laden to talk to the hand cos the face aint listening, he's doing something about it... and are you gonna accept that nasty things happen on this planet or what?

as for your second point, you seriously think the cold war was NOT about polotics and money? then im afriad you are misguided, true they came close to sending missiles, possibly very close... and for the record assuming underestimation simply for disagreement is a grave misjudgement.

my point about co2 is pretty damn obvious, wheres the sense in crippling yourself to make little or no difference to a changing environment:blush:

Exactly, there are no real proof that mankind is the reason for the global heating, perhaps we are increasing it by a very, very small percentage... Also, a or the reason for why they still are bombing Afganistan is oil. Russia wants to draw pipelines through the Aganistan desert to avoid problems with other countries in the nearby area... By looking on a map I am sure you are able to find out which countries I am refering to...

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 22:40

also a volcanic eruption releases more co2 into the air than 1 million cars in 1 million years... ;)

Derek

March 16th, 2002, 22:54

"I don't know how long this has been going on, but just a few days ago i heard about how many countries America has been threatening that are considered at threat to the America, Anyone know what I am talking about?"

"yup, bush has treatened china, north corea, iraq, etc. to use nuclear warfare against them. holy shit, i feel a controversial topic coming up but this is absolutely INCREDIBLE !! it shows that the usa is willing to use any way possible if it helps its goals. the problem is that in a nuclear war, there are no winners - believe me here (u too, sy! ). if this wont be stopped we have stepped nearer to the end of the world as we know it."

wow, the false information here is amazing. he never threatened to use it, it's just been revealed that there are contingency plans laid out in case something escalates to the point where they have to use it. countries prepare for this kind of thing all the times, that doesn't mean they plan to, want to, or think they will use it. that just means if the worse case scenario comes up, they are prepared.

and you can be sure, russia, china, et al have laid out strategic plans as well.

nobody was threatened.

Derek

March 16th, 2002, 22:59

oh, and btw, i can't stand bush.

Jakob

March 16th, 2002, 23:07

This thread is yet more proof that emutalk is a mental wasteland. I have nothing more to say about it.

sytaylor

March 16th, 2002, 23:10

Originally posted by dabods
wow, the false information here is amazing. he never threatened to use it, it's just been revealed that there are contingency plans laid out in case something escalates to the point where they have to use it. countries prepare for this kind of thing all the times, that doesn't mean they plan to, want to, or think they will use it. that just means if the worse case scenario comes up, they are prepared.

and you can be sure, russia, china, et al have laid out strategic plans as well.

nobody was threatened.

and thus we see some sense :) see people hit the panick button and blame the guy in charge the whole time... bleh

2fast4u

March 16th, 2002, 23:10

wow, the false information here is amazing. he never threatened to use it, it's just been revealed that there are contingency plans laid out in case something escalates to the point where they have to use it. countries prepare for this kind of thing all the times, that doesn't mean they plan to, want to, or think they will use it. that just means if the worse case scenario comes up, they are prepared.

...which practically says wot i posted.

2fast4u

March 16th, 2002, 23:15

'nuff said.

2fast4u

March 16th, 2002, 23:17

i like this thinking that some ppl here think, global warming will strike anyway, so we might as well make it worse. but this thread is again losing its focus, the topic was nuclear war...:blush:

Derek

March 16th, 2002, 23:28

"...which practically says wot i posted."

actually you posted:
"bush has treatened to bomb these countries with nuclear weapons. do i need to say more? congress has approved every instance of this imperialistic war and plus he doesnt even need the approval anymore since he is already granted all powers. "

once again, need i say it one more time that he never threatened to use them?

and actually, the president cannot declare war. and the use of nuclear weapons would certainly be a step from a 'conflict' (re: vietnam) to declaring war.

2fast4u

March 16th, 2002, 23:33

Originally posted by dabods

once again, need i say it one more time that he never threatened to use them?

once again, do i need to say that this more or less means he would use them? please, i am sick of splitting hair.

Josep

March 16th, 2002, 23:34

ME=ENRAGED, ok i didn't think this thread would keep going, and thankfull it did and you guys have followed through with not recognizing any problems by reading that story Azimer found;)

Sounds like a pollution control agreement to limit climate change from pollution. We definately wouldn't need to worry about this if we had nukes dropped on us.

Sounds LIKE!? JEez...

It has nothing to do with th current nuke bomb storry...

hehe, wow, you guys are that dense

it was the koyoto agreement which was essentially a set of sanctions that would financially cripple the usa

well it looks like sy has feel into the lovely propoganda that the usa wants us to believe;)

my point about co2 is pretty damn obvious, wheres the sense in crippling yourself to make little or no difference to a changing environment

EXACTLY! You guys DON'T know anything about the environmental crisis, you read one little story from Azimer cause you really had no idea what i was talking about, and you guys obviously have no backaround information on environmental pollution today;)

Crippling YOUR NATION?! CUTTING back 500 million(might have been billion) From the E.P.A., WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT IS GOING? CRIPPLING YOUR NATION FOR MORE WAR in denying the kyoto protocol, and greedy little bush admin. with big businesses

Why do you think over 2,500 scientist in Kyoto, Japan agreed that C02 emissions from America alone is destroying our environmental protection? Not to mention the 1,000's of American scientists that believe this as well, YOU KNOW WHAT SCIENTISTS didn't agree on this?! The big oil companies and and automobile companie's Scientists, YES and all of you conforming leads these big businesses into depleting this non-renewable resources (not renewable within our liftime) AND not to mention covering up the crisis with our ozone and the greenhouse effect, none of you believe in this and thats EXACTLY what big businesses and the Bush Admin. want you to believe, they profit temporarily, we suffer enivronmental damages, you guys wanna here the statistics of how screwed we are? cause i know you all don't know, wait for Azimer to post another story so you all can just base it off one source.

Derek

March 16th, 2002, 23:37

"once again, do i need to say that this more or less means he would use them? please, i am sick of splitting hair."

no, not at all. it means he is PREPARED to use them. not that he would. when you are the president of a country, with enemies across the world, who you know are currently producing weapons of mass destruction, it would be assinine not to have a plan on what course of action you should take if things escalate to that point.

maybe you're ignorant, i dunno. but you can't seem to grasp the point.

2fast4u

March 16th, 2002, 23:37

i thank josep for this. excellent points, dude.:thumbsup: too bad this has all been said already but these ppl dont get it. :innocent:

Josep

March 16th, 2002, 23:39

i haven't been able to keep up dammit;) i was basing most of that stuff from the last page

2fast4u

March 16th, 2002, 23:41

Originally posted by dabods

no, not at all. it means he is PREPARED to use them. not that he would. when you are the president of a country, with enemies across the world, who you know are currently producing weapons of mass destruction, it would be assinine not to have a plan on what course of action you should take if things escalate to that point.

stop! the protocoll that was revealed did not say that the usa would be prepared to use nukes, thats clear anyway. it specifically revealed a LIST OF NATIONS that should be attacked. so much for arrogance. plus, again: is the us the only nation authorized to have weapons of mass destruction (besides the obvious reason that its bullshit in general) ?? russia, china (they were on the list) is not -- or wot is ur point? sorry, this is simply blind. if u trust the usa blind, grow up.

Derek

March 16th, 2002, 23:48

"stop! the protocoll that was revealed did not say that the usa would be prepared to use nukes, thats clear anyway. it specifically revealed a LIST OF NATIONS that should be attacked. so much for arrogance. plus, again: is the us the only nation authorized to have weapons of mass destruction (besides the obvious reason that its bullshit in general) ?? russia, china (they were on the list) is not -- or wot is ur point? sorry, this is simply blind. if u trust the usa blind, grow up."

actually, maybe you need to go back and read up. the list of nations was a list of countries the united states had plans of ways nuclear weapons could be used. once again, contingency plans if things escalated to that point. never did it have a list of nations that should be attacked. not only are you incapable of reading my posts, but you are also incapable of comprehending what you read elsewhere.

and actually the 'rules' are that there should be no more producing of weapons of mass destruction, and that countries (specifically us and russia) should begin disposing of the weapons. not that nobody is allowed to have the previously made warheads.

you are blind to anti-us propoganda if you think the united states thinks it's in anyones best intent to use nuclear weapons. if you feel that way, you seriously need to get your head examined.

Josep

March 16th, 2002, 23:53

DUDE, just got done reading the rest;) Thank the lord there is someone else that agrees with me(2fast4u), read that little comic, its basically whats happening, the other evil thing behind it is that in not doing anything about it big businesses and bush admin. get extra money, cause hey, this is the loop, in basic terms: Bush Admin. kills the kyoto protocol--->Big businesses don't have to comply with any pollution standards=more money for them--->Who's going to help influence a second term??:) well...;) B.B. and what does that stand for?:)

Josep

March 16th, 2002, 23:57

Originally posted by dabods

and actually the 'rules' are that there should be no more producing of weapons of mass destruction, and that countries (specifically us and russia) should begin disposing of the weapons. not that nobody is allowed to have the previously made warheads.

and you believe this? what 'rules' are you talking about? and no i haven't read any of your previous posts, explain yourself, because what your explaining is "lets make a 'rule' (as you said) that clearly makes us look defenseless" Please explain, i haven't heard of that rule

Josep

March 16th, 2002, 23:58

Originally posted by dabods
oh, and btw, i can't stand bush.

I like you already:) now i'm reading your previous posts;)

Josep

March 16th, 2002, 23:59

just making everyone sees this pic on this page;) ain't it the truth?

Derek

March 17th, 2002, 00:01

most of the nations in the un have signed a ban treaty on the production of weapons of mass destruction. i'm not sure what the exact name of the treaty is, but i know most developed countries have signed this.

and who knows who's following it and who isn't. it wouldn't shock me if the us, china or russia still produce them. that wasn't the point of what i said.

2fast4u

March 17th, 2002, 00:01

dabobs, concluding im about to conclude that u believe just about everything ur gov't sez. dont forget that war has no 'rules'. we see that on the way the us is handling the whole war on terror, they broke just about every international agreement. 'nuff said.

Josep

March 17th, 2002, 00:02

Originally posted by pAsSiVe
This thread is yet more proof that emutalk is a mental wasteland. I have nothing more to say about it.

I know i shouldn't be dignifying this with an answer, but you guys, we have one cool citizen that has just donated more than 2 cents;)

Josep

March 17th, 2002, 00:05

Originally posted by dabods
most of the nations in the un have signed a ban treaty on the production of weapons of mass destruction. i'm not sure what the exact name of the treaty is, but i know most developed countries have signed this.

and who knows who's following it and who isn't. it wouldn't shock me if the us, china or russia still produce them. that wasn't the point of what i said.

And you believe this? btw, what was your point? i don't see it;) other than some treaty...

Derek

March 17th, 2002, 00:05

"dabobs, concluding im about to conclude that u believe just about everything ur gov't sez"

actually you're the one who it seems like believes every bit of anti-american propoganda you hear. even sy is on my side, and he's a brit. i'm telling you what has been reported, by the united states and national media, about what was in those statements. i can't believe your hatred of the united states makes you think they think countries should be attacked, and with nuclear weapons no less. you're incredibly naive.

and exactly what 'rules' have they broken on their war against the taliban. please, tell me mister expert.

Derek

March 17th, 2002, 00:07

"And you believe this? btw, what was your point? i don't see it other than some treaty..."

the guy asked why it was ok for the us to produce weapons of mass destruction and not china, russia, et al.

and i responded that it isn't ok for anyone to produce them, and came back with the treaty.

i never said it is being followed by everyone. if anyone finds out for a fact that anyone (us, russia, china, pakistan, india) is producing these weapons sanctions should be taken against them.

now i gotta head out, if you want to continue to be naive i'll argue with you later.

Josep

March 17th, 2002, 00:10

Originally posted by dabods
"dabobs, concluding im about to conclude that u believe just about everything ur gov't sez"

actually you're the one who it seems like believes every bit of anti-american propoganda you hear. even sy is on my side, and he's a brit. i'm telling you what has been reported, by the united states and national media, about what was in those statements. i can't believe your hatred of the united states makes you think they think countries should be attacked, and with nuclear weapons no less. you're incredibly naive.

and exactly what 'rules' have they broken on their war against the taliban. please, tell me mister expert.

theres that word 'rules' again, your being extremely indecisive. First off its not a war, yet, Second, united states and national media, eeer sadly we've gone over this in another thread but given your posts i doubt you were here for that. Hatred for the U.S.? hmmmm...people RUNNING it maybe;)

Josep

March 17th, 2002, 00:13

Originally posted by dabods

now i gotta head out, if you want to continue to be naive i'll argue with you later.

:D THUMBS UP:D SOME MYSTERIOUS TREATY, lets make sure we don't play this naive and keep talking about those treaties that everyone just knows about, you know, those ones that everyone keeps talking about, Ya know?:)

2fast4u

March 17th, 2002, 00:17

dabods:

3 words: L O L ! that probably means that criticizing the american gov't is considered anti-american propaganda? sorry, thats ridiculous.

and exactly what 'rules' have they broken on their war against the taliban. please, tell me mister expert.

read the thread about the war on terrorism.

now i gotta head out, if you want to continue to be naive i'll argue with you later.

rather not, i prefer to discuss with people who arent as naive as j00, sir.

Derek

March 17th, 2002, 00:21

Josep: first of all, i wasn't calling you naive, 2fast4u is the on who can't comprehend what he reads.

and he's the one who brought up the 'rules' the united states is breaking. that's why i asked him about the 'rules'. he's the one you should be asking about the use of the term, not me.

and there is an anti-nuclear weapons ban treaty. if you have the time, go look it up, at this time i don't have the spare time to look for it.

"3 words: L O L ! that probably means that criticizing the american gov't is considered anti-american propaganda? sorry, thats ridiculous. "

actually not. i hate bush. i voted for gore. i could think of a million things to criticize him for, including his handling of the atmosphere and his pro-big business stance on things. but having a contingency plan to attack other nations if things got desparate is not one of them. every country in the world is prepared, as they should be.

Josep

March 17th, 2002, 00:25

Noo! NADAR!!!!:) however you spell that cool guy's name, gore would have sucked TOO;) every country in the world is prepared...to blow the shit outta of each other, good deal;) can we get a 2 for 1 deal on table 3?

but having a contingency plan to attack other nations if things got desparate is not one of them,
every country in the world is prepared, as they should be.

UH?! whaa? contradiction in a half!

Josep

March 17th, 2002, 00:27

o yea, i do have the time to look up this mysterious treaty, im doing hw right now, on a saturday, but i gotta go to the beach tommorow! i HAVE TO;)

Derek

March 17th, 2002, 00:34

josep: that's not a contradiction at all. go back and re-read.

and i'm sure you've heard of the nuclear test ban treaty. there are tons of treaties on the use and production of nuclear weapons. have yourself a field day.

for years the us has known that russia has plans akin to what was released now. for years russia has known that we have plans. what's different now? the media knows.

2fast4u

March 17th, 2002, 00:38

Originally posted by dabods
what's different now? the media knows.

...and thats y we should ignore the problem. :satisfied :innocent:

Josep

March 17th, 2002, 00:41

True, very true, couldn't agree more, BUT what i guess i'm still confused about is your opinion:

but having a contingency plan to attack other nations if things got desparate is not one of them,
every country in the world is prepared, as they should be.

ok, first sentence, translated a bit more, um, obvious i guess you could say:)

don't be prepared to attack, but lets make it look like we are prepared attack.

isn't that what you mean?

Josep

March 17th, 2002, 01:16

just for the record:

http://www.brookscole.com/biology/member/student/millerlite/chapter/index.html

Derek

March 17th, 2002, 02:36

2fast: it isn't a problem. it's the way diplomacy and military strategy is. you never want to be unprepared.

josep: when i first got into this debate, people were saying that bush had given a list of nations that should be attacked, like he was ready to do it. i argued that he has a plan to attack countries if necessary.

that's my stance. all i ever said was it wasn't something he wanted to do, which 2fast seems to think. just that if the worst possible scenario became true, the us would be prepared. and that's something i would hope for out of a government.

sytaylor

March 17th, 2002, 19:48

Originally posted by Josep

And you believe this? btw, what was your point? i don't see it;) other than some treaty...

i know lets react to every point somebody makes with a question... thats debate... surley

sytaylor

March 17th, 2002, 19:51

Originally posted by dabods

actually you're the one who it seems like believes every bit of anti-american propoganda you hear. even sy is on my side, and he's a brit. i'm telling you what has been reported, by the united states and national media, about what was in those statements. i can't believe your hatred of the united states makes you think they think countries should be attacked, and with nuclear weapons no less. you're incredibly naive.

preciseley, there seems to be people out there who choose to take the anti american views simply because america are america... and its frustrating to see them negate sense to do so... the idea that america are a trigger happy war loving nation is simply riddiculous and somewhat prejudice

Azimer

March 17th, 2002, 20:54

okokok.... This is offtopic, but a bit annoying. Why must some of you post 2+ times to reply to every other poster. It would make more sense to put it in one post. Personally, I skip some people's responses completely, and curious what other people have to say on a topic. Just a consideration. I don't know if others feel the same. If you disagree with me... fine. Keep it to yourself because I don't plan on responding anyway. Just allowing some people a chance to consider being more considerate.

2fast4u

March 17th, 2002, 21:00

i know lets react to every point somebody makes with a question... thats debate... surley

y r u writing this? does it have any purpose besides distracting ppl from the topic? after all were all alike i guess. ;)

preciseley, there seems to be people out there who choose to take the anti american views simply because america are america... and its frustrating to see them negate sense to do so... the idea that america are a trigger happy war loving nation is simply riddiculous and somewhat prejudice

thats probably what u wanna make urself believe, but i judge the usa by what it is actually doing. the other way around i can see u condone just about everything they do, but im not concluding that u do that because america is america. if u look back on previous posts in this and other threads u will see that we and u guys are ppl who can make points and know what they are talking about it. so i suppose the point u r writing this is to kill the (struggling) debate. way to go.

2fast4u

March 17th, 2002, 21:08

ok ppl, did some more research heres what i just found out: there is actually an agreement between the usa and china not to aim nukes at each other. well, the us-plan suggests that in case taiwan and china will be confronted, the us will use nuclear weapons. so its not only immoral but also illegal. ;)

sytaylor

March 17th, 2002, 23:29

y r u writing this? does it have any purpose besides distracting ppl from the topic? after all were all alike i guess.

a simple observation of how others do exactly what you explained just then

thats probably what u wanna make urself believe

ignorance, sheer ignorance, i want to make myself believe? cmon, give me a lil more respect than that, i have views not dillusions

2fast4u

March 17th, 2002, 23:55

Originally posted by sytaylor
ignorance, sheer ignorance, i want to make myself believe? cmon, give me a lil more respect than that, i have views not dillusions

dont get on my balls for this shit dude. besides wasnt it u who said i was blindfolded by anti-american propaganda?

preciseley, there seems to be people out there who choose to take the anti american views simply because america are america... and its frustrating to see them negate sense to do so... the idea that america are a trigger happy war loving nation is simply riddiculous and somewhat prejudice

thats what u said, isnt it? do i whine? no!

sytaylor

March 18th, 2002, 02:46

and where in that quote do i say you ae blindfolded? or is there something im missing

2fast4u

March 18th, 2002, 02:52

Originally posted by sytaylor
and where in that quote do i say you ae blindfolded? or is there something im missing

JESUS! do u pretend to be dumb or wot?? of course u didnt say that as a quote! :pissed: u said ...

preciseley, there seems to be people out there who choose to take the anti american views simply because america are america... and its frustrating to see them negate sense to do so... the idea that america are a trigger happy war loving nation is simply riddiculous and somewhat prejudice

which basically means "u just think america is evil bcoz its america" (if it means something else which i doubt then let me know) and dabods said before i was believing/spreading anti-american propaganda. u cry for being respected but u dont the fuck know how to debate!! :pissed: stop pretending to silly godamnit!!

im done with this, this is just fucked up. so long.

sytaylor

March 18th, 2002, 02:59

well enjoy your anger, but i was simply suggesting how you seem to come across... my point was actually the way that any decision involving war, amourment or such like is subjected to scruitiny to the nth degree by you and your buddie joseph, as if america are trying to destroy the world! and as i stated the very notion that america want to end the world is irrational, and yet you claim im the irrational one?!

Josep

March 18th, 2002, 05:33

Originally posted by sytaylor

i know lets react to every point somebody makes with a question... thats debate... surley

Thus proving why i agree with 2fast in not debating any more with you, maybe where you live there is a different form of debate where people make statements and never question any thing, sounds good on another planet...
wow, maybe if you understood the english language you would know what debate, better yet, if you ever even took the time to look up in the dictionary what debate is, in english btw

you and your buddie joseph, as if america are trying to destroy the world! and as i stated the very notion that america want to end the world is irrational, and yet you claim im the irrational one?!

Irrational? i'm not going to call you that, i don't care if 2fast4u called you that, your plainly an idiot because you haven't read any of my posts, IF you would like to question me on my views of America i suggest you take it up with me, not blabber on thinking you know my views and know what i know, because i know you don't, you would have read my previous posts, and WTF do you know anyway?! Your not living in America now, you don't take classes in America, you don't have discussions in your classes about what is currently happening in America, i know you don't, and if you are, your learning shit that probably happened years ago. Do yourself a favor and take like 5-10 mins tops, and just read a few posts, if not, then just plainly ask me how I view America's decisions lately, other than that, you have Absolutly no place to talk, not a bit.

sytaylor

March 18th, 2002, 17:54

Originally posted by Josep

Thus proving why i agree with 2fast in not debating any more with you, maybe where you live there is a different form of debate where people make statements and never question any thing, sounds good on another planet...
wow, maybe if you understood the english language you would know what debate, better yet, if you ever even took the time to look up in the dictionary what debate is, in english btw

you and your buddie joseph, as if america are trying to destroy the world! and as i stated the very notion that america want to end the world is irrational, and yet you claim im the irrational one?!

Irrational? i'm not going to call you that, i don't care if 2fast4u called you that, your plainly an idiot because you haven't read any of my posts, IF you would like to question me on my views of America i suggest you take it up with me, not blabber on thinking you know my views and know what i know, because i know you don't, you would have read my previous posts, and WTF do you know anyway?! Your not living in America now, you don't take classes in America, you don't have discussions in your classes about what is currently happening in America, i know you don't, and if you are, your learning shit that probably happened years ago. Do yourself a favor and take like 5-10 mins tops, and just read a few posts, if not, then just plainly ask me how I view America's decisions lately, other than that, you have Absolutly no place to talk, not a bit.

well thanks for telling me what i can and can't do but, fyi i have read your posts, but the fact of the mater is my rescent replies have been to 2fast... unlike you he doesnt just question everything the american government does, he offers alternatives... of which i disagree with many

oh and as for your consistant insults on my english... i believe you will find debate is a discussion of subject matter in which people offer their views, give reason and listen to others... they don't just give their views then question the views of others...