I don't feel quite so mad at Bush anymore.

Post Reply New Topic

It looks like he just might come through on main campaign promise I voted for him twice for after all. Actually, I heard about the planning of this in November 2001 (I might be full of crap, I might not).

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050911/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nuclear_doctrine

Japan had a suicidal detemination to defeat America and look at how nukes took the fight out of them.

Last edited by Sean on 11 Sep 2005, 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Pacified? You cannot really mean what you've just wrote.

His willingness to use nuclear force really was a factor in my decision to vote for him. This is no joke.

i believe Till is referring to the use of the word "pacified", sean, which is an insensitive way of describing things, given all the people who died as a result of the attacks.

please could you reconsider using the term, as it will offensive to many people.

thank you.

Vivi
(as Moderator).

Okay, but please keep in mind that this topic is more about winning a war than the casualties.

thank you for editing the post, sean.

What can I say Sean, I give up trying to make you see reason!! !!

Keep trying, it'd be worth it.

Sorry to rain on your parade, Sean, but nuclear weapons would be pretty ineffective against Islamic terrorism. The terrorists are not people with a nation, government, or secular system to protect. They are not concerned with their own lives or those of a nation's. They are deluded into believing that they are killing in the name of God.

While there are nations like Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia that give them support, they don't give a damn about those nations, and if they were destroyed, the terrorists would just get support from somewhere else.

They set up cells everywhere, including, as we well know, in the USA. Where do you drop the bombs? Paterson, NJ?

Fortunately for us, 1945's Japan was a country at war with us. Because of American imperialism, the war we are in now is against terrorists in all areas of the globe. Are you suggesting you would want Bush to use nuclear weapons against neutral countries simply on suspicion of resident terrorists? I believe that would incite virtually every peace-loving citizen outside the United States to take up arms against us. Then would we be forced to wipe out the rest of the world? After we were all alone, I think we might have to get to work on most of the United States, too. New England is pretty expendable, considering the number of Democrats...

The USA couldnt wipe out my arse after i've taken a dump never mind the rest of the world.

The potential use of nuclear weapons as a pre-emptive tool is a very dangerous precent to be setting.

If we nuke somebody off in the middle east becasue of what "they might want to do to us", what's to stop china from doing the same to US. Afterall, they have missles now that can reach the US thanks to Mr. Clinton.

But, in the end, nukes are just another weapon. Hirshoma and Nakagshi have long since rebuilt, and ground zero there is again teeming with people. Horrible events, yes, but I would be more concerned with the very doctrine of Pre-emptive attack. We attack because we "think" that someone else may harm us. I don't see justification in that.

As has been stated by at least one other person here, how are nuclear weapons going to help deal with small terrorist cells planted in our allied nations??? To combat the threat we need better espionage, allies in the Islamic world (which maybe, just maybe, Iraq might become but I feel very doubtful on that count), and better security in our cities (How the terrorists almost got a 2nd London attack the week after and only failed because of their OWN incompetence, I just don't understand)

But they were surgical attacks with relatively small weapons. I fear that the next use of atomic weaponry would have far more devastating long-term effects.

You attack when you have a good level of certainty that someone else will attack you. This is a function of intelligence. If you are right, you are justified and have acted prudently. We attacked Japan, not only because they wouldn't surrender, but also because we had reason to believe that they would attack China.

George W Bush is the most dangerous person in the world right now.

Nuclear weapons are sick and I believe the world needs to be developing atomic electricity generation and not atomic DEATH.
The United States as a nation is in a precarious position right now, not unlike early 19th century France or the Roman empire.