Bush again.

[Hillslam]

What?  Whilst America was sitting back to leave Europe to its fate..Only when Pearl Harbour was attacked did you come [wading] into the war.

We started fighting back after someone attacked us? Oh how silly of us.

 

How silly of us to use a new weapon to end it to. Not like anyone else would've.

 

But don't worry - we learned our lesson: we learned that the world complains when we do nothing and changed our doctrine. Oh wait, they complain when we do something. No wait, they complain when we do nothing. No wait....

[visionviper]

meh, Bush still sucks. I don't care if he saves a little child from getting he by a car, Bush sucks.

[KierO]

We started fighting back after someone attacked us? Oh how silly of us.

 

How silly of us to use a new weapon to end it to. Not like anyone else would've.

 

But don't worry - we learned our lesson: we learned that the world complains when we do nothing and changed our doctrine. Oh wait, they complain when we do something. No wait, they complain when we do nothing. No wait....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I'm saying that it just shows a lack of willing to help out, unless in it's own direct interests.

 

In other words selfish. Lacking in forward thought or planning.

 

At the end of the day the last modern war fought by any major country that had LOW civi casualties, was the falklands war in the 1980's.

 

EVERY war that amaerica has every fought in has had high casualties for civilians. You have invented a new style of warfare, UTTER DEVESTATION. Not something to be proud of mate....

 

edit: Really bad spelling and grammar.

[Hillslam]

You might say they have learned their lesson?  I for one don't trust the US to do the right thing any more than I do the Iranians.  The US is the ultimate rogue state, rampaging their way around the world with a religious fundamentalism at its lead.

Yeah - don't trust one of the two countries that couldv'e ended all life on the planet for the past 50 years not to do the right thing. The one of two countries that voluntarily stepped back from those armament levels of their own free will (because sure as heck nobody was forcing us to). That makes sense.

 

We've got no experience with maintaining nuclear self-control at all. Nope.

 

You're right. Nukes for everyone. We'll all be much safer.

[Sledge]

Ah, the ultimate dumbass debating technique: refute a point the other guy never made.

 

[KierO]

Yeah - don't trust one of the two countries that couldv'e ended all life on the planet for the past 50 years not to do the right thing. The one of two countries that voluntarily stepped back from those armament levels of their own free will (because sure as heck nobody was forcing us to). That makes sense.

 

We've got no experience with maintaining nuclear self-control at all. Nope.

 

You're right. Nukes for everyone. We'll all be much safer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because we have a choice between two countries, it might not be a choice we like....

[Hillslam]

No I'm saying that it just shows a lack of willing to help out, unless in it's own direct interests.

 

In other words selfish.  Lacking in forward thought or planning.

 

At the end of the day the last modern war fought by any major country that had LOW civi casualties, was the falklands war in the 1980's.

 

EVERY war that amaerica has every fought in has had high casualties for civilians.  You have invented a new style of warfare, UTTER DEVESTATION. Not something to be proud of mate....

We didn't invent total war. We've never fought a war of total annihilation. And we've always rebuilt and then returned sovereignty to whoever's lost to us.

 

And you need to go back and check your facts. All of them.

 

Stop swallowing media soundbites without chewing.

[Robot 2000]

What ###### me off is that British soldiers continue to die for George Bush's family feud with Saddam Hussein and that more will inevitably die if Chimpy decides to attack Iran, which actually has, you know, an ARMY with, like, RIFLES. If there were a general election tomorrow and Blair lost, the first thing I'd expect a new Prime Minister to do would be pull our guys out of America's wars.

[Basho]

Ah, the ultimate dumbass debating technique: refute a point the other guy never made.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Aye "The Strawman" : Classic. Next will be threats. I'm afraid I have already compaired the subject to Hitler... hmm whats left?

 

Oh Yeah, might for right and God'did'it! Then nothing but "this thread sucks" images and lockage!

 

Ahhh Arnies, you have to just love it!

 

 

Roll on!

[Hillslam]

Ah, the ultimate dumbass debating technique: refute a point the other guy never made.

Whats this refer to?

[KierO]

We didn't invent total war. We've never fought a war of total annihilation. And we've always rebuilt and then returned sovereignty to whoever's lost to us.

 

And you need to go back and check your facts. All of them.

 

Stop swallowing media soundbites without chewing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe not "total annihilation" but you debate the fact that a majority of your wars have had unusally high number of civilian casualties??

 

Edit: UTTER DEVASTATION and TOTAL ANNIHILATION are two different things my friend.

[Sledge]

Whats this refer to?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. Nukes for everyone. We'll all be much safer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see, by implying your opponent suggested everyone should have nukes, you demean the points he actually made. Kinda like me pointing out that you're so right in saying Bush should be allowed to bugger small children for fun. You didn't say it, but the casual reader probably won't check up, so it makes you look cruel, thus undermining any points you make.

 

[Robot 2000]

We didn't invent total war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Total war = turning over all available industrial capacity to the production of war arms and materiel. Not very relevant

[Basho]

Total war = turning over all available industrial capacity to the production of war arms and materiel. Not very relevant 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

ER teh OIL FIELDS !

[Robot 2000]

Don't give Hillslam more ammunition, please.

[Hissing_Sid]

You're right. Nukes for everyone. We'll all be much safer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet that does seem to be American policy over guns. How bizarre.

[Hillslam]

Edit: UTTER DEVASTATION and TOTAL ANNIHILATION are two different things my friend.

I don't know this pithy technical difference between one and the other. Please explain.

 

Also - I'd like to know where you're drawing your "unusually high" conclusion. Do you have data on all conflicts from everone in the past 60 odd years with numbers on troops involved on both sides, weapons used, collateral damage, armed force and civilian casualties? Or are you just kowtowing in line with fashion?

 

And how does this relate to Iran getting nukes?

 

So lets cut to the core question: do you want Iran to have nukes?

 

You see, by implying your opponent suggested everyone should have nukes, you demean the points he actually made. Kinda like me pointing out that you're so right in saying Bush should be allowed to bugger small children for fun. You didn't say it, but the casual reader probably won't check up, so it makes you look cruel, thus undermining any points you make.

You're right. That was a debate tactic. Not to be used in a discussion. But I'm up for a debate tussle this morning because I'm bored at work before my next meeting. And because of the misinformation being flung about by all quarters.

 

IMO debating = fencing. Its not a discussion. Thrust and parry. Listening not involved. Deflect and attack.

 

FYI - ATM, I was debating. Until I get bored or have to work or we hurt each others feelings.

 

So lets cut to a DISCUSSION: Should Iran have nuclear weapons?

[Hissing_Sid]

So lets cut to a DISCUSSION: Should Iran have nuclear weapons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, given that Iran has never threatened to wipe out Scotland, I could care less.

 

I'm sure your average Israeli must be nervous.

In much the same way that your average Afghan was nervous when Dubya announced that the Afghanistan was in for a whupping.

[Chimpy]

What ###### me off is that British soldiers continue to die for George Bush's family feud with Saddam Hussein and that more will inevitably die if Chimpy decides to attack Iran, which actually has, you know, an ARMY with, like, RIFLES. If there were a general election tomorrow and Blair lost, the first thing I'd expect a new Prime Minister to do would be pull our guys out of America's wars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey I'm not attacking Iran anytime soon!

 

I'd rather double standards than a nuke, dirty bomb or similar up my bottom.

[Connery]

Bush sucks, who cares. He'll be out of office soon enough anyway, so shut up, we all know you hate him. Hell, I don't like the bugger either, but it's not like Kerry was a better choice, now was he? Neither was the inventor of the Internet in 2000.

[evilhippy]

After many failings and errors?  I guess you could say the only country to be mad enough to use nukes could have been said to be in error?  FFS.  All *fruitcage* countries are just as bad as each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yup, very true, but the use of that one bomb stopped Japan in their tracks, with the exceptions of those nutters who were left in the jungle and still thought the war was on in 1995

 

Considering this determination and the fact that there would undoubtedly be a continuous war involving great casualties (likely equalling 180,000 if the war drew out for another few years) on all sides, it could be said to be a creatively decisive choice, overall, and in hindsight.

 

Consider that without the horrific knowledge of what these atomic weapons could really do it could easily have been the case that some other power made a much larger one and used it to end a bigger conflict - perhaps killing all life on earth if they got their sums just little wrong.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

Seeing as we have sensibly swung this thread back to Iran wanting nukes; I say no because of their policy of destroying another country based mainly on their religion (occupation of land is arguably an equal factor, but its mostly hate driving this conflict nowadays).

 

Also their new leader denied the holocaust. Who else does that ????

 

Edit:spelly

[Agent47]

on all the Bush bashing not relevant to the Iran discussion -

 

he's probably not the brightest bulb on the tree, rather the apple that fell the furthest.

 

But you can't say he sucks, even if he does SOME good (which to you, I know, is debatable).

 

Like whoever said before like "oooh if Bush saved some kid I think he still sucks," come on.

 

You'd feel buggered if someone insulted you after you've saved someone's life - sure, Bush is quite the yobbo these days tarnishing American image, but he is no baby-eating demon as Basho would probably think.

 

He'd only be that demon if he didn't save that kid from Michael Jackson in a truck.

 

There's a difference between a dogma and a religion, dogma, kinda like what some on the left call it (now I'm going out on a limb), is like our ideals for the war on terror, go all out, aggressive, dunno, whatever, but a dogma can't inspire so much faith as religion, as we have seen in the past, as religion can be very powerful in inspiring people forward - hell more people have been killed in the name of God than anywhere else...and SOME people think the US is controlled by some religious fanatical group (other than the stem cells and abortion and same sex marraige)...

 

Hell, if Ann Coulter or Limbarfgh were running the country, THEN we'd be under some slightly religious fanatical dictatorship.

 

And enough with the OMFG BU$HITLER quotes....he's nowhere near Hitler - why?

 

why am I still here rather than in a concentration camp? why am I still here going on about how Bush is still a yobbo? why didn't I get hauled off by the OMFG Gestapo CIA useful idiots?

 

cheezus.

[squarepusher]

You'd feel buggered if someone insulted you after you've saved someone's life - sure, Bush is quite the yobbo these days tarnishing American image, but he is no baby-eating demon as Basho would probably think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What the *fruitcage*!?

 

That's almost the crappiest most irrelevant post I've ever read.

Do you have ANY values? Can you put priority on anything!? Any idea what is important!?

[snorkelman]

well as its double standards and unfair that countries without nukes cant get them we could always restore the fairness balance by removing the nukes from the countries that have them.

 

as i understand it weapons grade material is a by product of material required for nuclear power so we could go even further and offer fuel rods to any country looking to go nuclear for a power pov without them getting into the whole messy business of creating their own with all the nasty byproducts that might get put to other uses (low level dirty bombs excepted)

 

another one of those threads where some folks assume that bashing a countries govt = bashing a countries population Ive nothing against US citizens its their govt and its policies Im not keen on (given how little influence the ballot box really has in what counts as modern day 'democracy' cant really blame the population of X Y or Z for what their great n good choose to do once in power when the elections themselves are little more than a hobsons choice between one group of *fruitcage*wits and another)

 

stevie

[evilhippy]

In case anyone missed the little episode of Iran's new leadership denying the holocaust and murder of 7 million jews ever happened, here's a shameless plug with the link in it Apparently it is all an engineered ploy to steal their land. Riiiiiight.......

 

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/inde...howentry&eid=92