President Bush - about bush

clark · 2002-12-12 17:02:26

Not if you like to keep secrets

soph · 2002-12-12 17:08:26

bah. i dont want a convicted war criminal in charge of rebuilding Manhattan.

clark · 2002-12-12 17:14:38

It was sarcasm, I agree.

soph · 2002-12-12 17:15:49

ah, ok

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-13 15:55:18

Attacking North Korea would be stupid. better to simply let them starve themselves back to the stone age. It is an unfortunate choice for the people of N. Korea, but there is little to be gained by going in there.
I agree with you assesment Josh on Chinese and n. korea relations- n.korea means nothin to china, they will sell them down the river.

What do you mean? ANYONE with a nuclear weapon has quite a bit of bargaining power in the international arena. We need to disarm them before they get a better nuclear warhead and a missile to carry it to the west coast.

And I know this example has many different factors than this situation, but if the US were transposed with China's world role, how would you feel if China marched a 250,000 man army complete with a mass of ships, and invaded, say, Puerto Rico, or Greenland, or Mexico? I for one wouldn't want the world superpower setting up shop next door to me. Even if you aren't buddy-buddy with someone doesn't mean you won't get involved in your hemisphere's affairs.

soph · 2002-12-13 16:10:16

you just contradicted yourself within the same post. you said we should disarm them, yet we cant because china is next door.

who are we to say? when are we going to disarm some of our thousands of warheads? when is russia going to do so? the way our president is handling the situation of nuclear weapons is terrible-refusing to disarm a single american weapon, arbitrarily selecting nations that "threaten" us, and ignoring others.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-13 16:14:20

No! The nuclear bomb was the greatest innovation of the 20th century. Think of how many lives it has saved. How many times has a US-Russian war been averted with the possession of this one weapon? It has only become a bad thing now that rogue nations and possibly terrorists posess it.

soph · 2002-12-13 16:24:33

I wouldnt say the greatest, but it has had beneficial effects, yes.

Palomar · 2002-12-13 17:01:35

No! The nuclear bomb was the greatest innovation of the 20th century. Think of how many lives it has saved. How many times has a US-Russian war been averted with the possession of this one weapon? It has only become a bad thing now that rogue nations and possibly terrorists posess it.

--We interrupt this thread to bring you the following message--:

Well, I absolutely disagree with you.

I was thinking of nuclear weapons the other day, in the context of wondering how the 18th-century philosophers I enjoy reading about would view such a monster. I can imagine Jean-Jacques Rousseau shrieking, "I told you so! I told you so! Technology will destroy civilization!" before keeling over from pure terror. Voltaire would most likely weep at the implications of it all, and Denis Diderot would be both fascinated and repelled by it.

--Now back to our regularly scheduled programming--

--Cindy

soph · 2002-12-13 17:07:45

or einstein, much closer to our time. he would be crushed.

AltToWar · 2002-12-13 17:10:48

Henry's resigned from the 911 independant investigation.

He did not want to reveal who pays him to work his political influence in washington. Law says you have to.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-13 17:12:20

Heh, I saw that AltToWar. Funny.

Some people I know suggested this would happen. I agreed with them. Just goes to show you.

soph · 2002-12-13 17:38:17

wouldnt bush know this beforehand? this seems to be the result of some silly errors in planning.

AltToWar · 2002-12-13 19:24:39

The bush admin was in the process of snowballing those calling for Kissinger to reveal his clients.

I would gather that Kissinger gat some heat from his clients about the possability of getting exposed, and decided to jump ship.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-14 17:53:00

--We interrupt this thread to bring you the following message--:
Well, I absolutely disagree with you.
I was thinking of nuclear weapons the other day, in the context of wondering how the 18th-century philosophers I enjoy reading about would view such a monster. I can imagine Jean-Jacques Rousseau shrieking, "I told you so! I told you so! Technology will destroy civilization!" before keeling over from pure terror. Voltaire would most likely weep at the implications of it all, and Denis Diderot would be both fascinated and repelled by it.
--Now back to our regularly scheduled programming--
--Cindy

HAS this technology destroyed civilization yet? No. We used it to end one of the longest and most brutal wars this planet has ever seen. The use of that on weapon, on two targets, saved the lives of millions of GI's that would have had to invade the island of Japan. And don't say I only care about American lives, because it saved Japanese lives too. Those GI's would have had to go door-to-door killing every armed farmer along the way to conquer the island, whereas the destruction of two cities saved literally millions of lives on both sides.

It has only been recently, when groups without a nation, without a national language, and without a border, got a hold of these weapons that we have had to fear them. Only one nation has to sell one nuclear weapon to one terrorist group to destroy and entire city; most likely in America, rather than abroad. ???

The nuclear weapon, without a doubt, was the savior of civilization in the 20th century.

soph · 2002-12-14 17:56:41

Those GI's would have had to go door-to-door killing every armed farmer along the way to conquer the island, whereas the destruction of two cities saved literally millions of lives on both sides.

the war was ending anyway. we just wanted to speed it up. an invasion wasnt necessary.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-14 18:04:32

the war was ending anyway. we just wanted to speed it up. an invasion wasnt necessary.

What do you mean? The entire Japanese way of life was based on not surrenderring! To surrender was to dishonor your family and country. The incinerary bombing of the cities wasn't doing anything, and the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man if we invaded. It would have taken years of siege warfare to isolate Japan's resupply routes to a point of surrender.

soph · 2002-12-14 21:03:10

and we could have afforded it. all it would have taken was leaving our ships off the coast. where are the casualties in that?

AltToWar · 2002-12-14 22:36:50

this is well documented from accounts from both sides of the war.

Japan had been looking for a way to surrender for the entire last year of the war.

Japan believed that a condition to surrender would be the removal of the emperor from the throne.

Japan would have accepted any terms or conditions that allowed them to keep their emperor.

America wanted unconditional surrender, and did not want to have any terms from japan.

America nuked a civilian population.

America did not demand the removal of the emperor as a condition of surrender.

Even McCarthy said the nukes were grusome overkill.

History books are full of history-book-history.

soph · 2002-12-14 22:48:41

the first one i can understand, the second one was.

alt, i think youre a little overboard on your accusations of american "murder."

let's talk about the japanese rape of nanking. or their treatment of prisoners. in many ways, they treated prisoners worse than the nazis.

Palomar · 2002-12-14 23:03:49

--We interrupt this thread to bring you the following message--:
Well, I absolutely disagree with you.
I was thinking of nuclear weapons the other day, in the context of wondering how the 18th-century philosophers I enjoy reading about would view such a monster. I can imagine Jean-Jacques Rousseau shrieking, "I told you so! I told you so! Technology will destroy civilization!" before keeling over from pure terror. Voltaire would most likely weep at the implications of it all, and Denis Diderot would be both fascinated and repelled by it.
--Now back to our regularly scheduled programming--
--Cindy
HAS this technology destroyed civilization yet?

*Obviously not, as we're both posting messages here.

No, nuclear weapons haven't destroyed us...yet [and besides, I was referring to what Rousseau's reaction would probably be].

As for the nuclear bomb being the "savior of the 20th century," I beg to differ. Especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the blackmarket buying of nuclear components, "recipes," and etc. by all these little nasty rogue nations, thanks in great part to Russia. Hell, I can't believe I actually somewhat fondly recall when only the Soviet Union and USA were armed to the teeth! By comparison, it's a much more dangerous world today.

You're young, Cal. Print out and re-read your post in 20 years, and see if there's a difference in how you think from now to then. I sincerely hope you allow your views to possibly change with time...but, of course, always be true to what you believe regardless.

Well, folks, I'm signing off the Mars Society message boards for an unknown amount of time. If anyone needs to reach me for whatever reason, I'm at ecrasez_l_infame@yahoo.com

Have a great holiday season!

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-15 07:15:38

Whatever you're doing, wherever you're going ... I hope all goes well.

Looking forward to your return!

George H · 2002-12-15 12:42:32

Well, folks, I'm signing off the Mars Society message boards for an unknown amount of time. If anyone needs to reach me for whatever reason, I'm at ecrasez_l_infame@yahoo.com
Have a great holiday season!
--Cindy

I know a girl who's tough but sweet
She's so fine, she can't be beat
She's got everything that I desire
Sets the summer sun on fire

I want candy
I want candy

@-}------ Hope you come back quick !!!

GH

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-15 19:31:28

As for the nuclear bomb being the "savior of the 20th century," I beg to differ. Especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the blackmarket buying of nuclear components, "recipes," and etc. by all these little nasty rogue nations, thanks in great part to Russia. Hell, I can't believe I actually somewhat fondly recall when only the Soviet Union and USA were armed to the teeth! By comparison, it's a much more dangerous world today.

My point exactly. When the US and Russia were able to annihilate each other (and the rest of the world, several times over for that matter) no major world wars broke out. The major wars of the 20th century were based on the US fighting communism (Korean, Vietnam) and liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi control. It has only been since rogue nations gained them that nuclear weapons have been a problem.

When a country has a border, a heritage, and a population to lose, nuclear weapons have been the greatest deterrent ever. But when a group of individuals have nothing to lose, the nuclear weapon becomes our greatest fear.

And the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings weren't brutal muder, they were the only ways to viably and safely end the war. The Japanese would have leaped at the chance to annhilate Los Angeles or New York, so don't make us out to be the evil Americans.

I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the consequences of placing your forces and production centers near civilians.

And how would you feel, after seeing the footage of D-Day in France a while back, and be sitting on a transport waiting to wade ashore on a Japanese beach. I'd have wanted the US to nuke those cities too.

soph · 2002-12-15 20:38:54

And the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings weren't brutal muder, they were the only ways to viably and safely end the war.

no. like ive said, all we had to do was wait off the coast of Japan. they surrendered in the end anyway, didnt they? the japanese were already discussing surrender before hiroshima. get your facts right.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2002-12-12 17:02:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#202 2002-12-12 17:08:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#203 2002-12-12 17:14:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#204 2002-12-12 17:15:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#205 2002-12-13 15:55:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#206 2002-12-13 16:10:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#207 2002-12-13 16:14:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#208 2002-12-13 16:24:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#209 2002-12-13 17:01:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#210 2002-12-13 17:07:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#211 2002-12-13 17:10:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#212 2002-12-13 17:12:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#213 2002-12-13 17:38:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#214 2002-12-13 19:24:39

Re: President Bush - about bush

#215 2002-12-14 17:53:00

Re: President Bush - about bush

#216 2002-12-14 17:56:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#217 2002-12-14 18:04:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#218 2002-12-14 21:03:10

Re: President Bush - about bush

#219 2002-12-14 22:36:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#220 2002-12-14 22:48:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#221 2002-12-14 23:03:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#222 2002-12-15 07:15:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#223 2002-12-15 12:42:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#224 2002-12-15 19:31:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#225 2002-12-15 20:38:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer