Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Nuclear weapons option for Australia




  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeradul
    Things aren't always what they seem. Nuclear subs have and do keep the peace like no other device in the history of the world. And I assure you, you are glad that the US has the most potential in this department.
    I can understand their use as a deterrant, but I wouldn't exactly call the Cold War and it's products a massive race towards peace... and assuring me that the United States has the most potential in the nuclear submarine market isn't very comforting.

    [b]
    I know you're trying to be funny, however, comparing the government infrastructures of the countries in question is absurd. While politicians as we know them are not always perfect citizens, they are a FAR CRY from the governments of Korea or ex-Iraq.
    Are you really so sure of that? From my perspective, the only countries initiating possibly needless hostilities are the US, ritain and Australia

    [b]
    It is always wise to 'be prepared' to defend one's self. If you can't defend yourself, your enemies will know it and treat you accordingly. If they think you can and will defend yourself, you've leveled the table.
    No problem with that... just that the US-led coalition's idea of 'defending themselves' seems to be killing a whole lot of civilians overseas...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    I wouldn't exactly call the Cold War and it's products a massive race towards peace...
    Was anyone nuked?

    SUCCESS!!!

    From my perspective, the only countries initiating possibly needless hostilities are the US, ritain and Australia
    Sitting by and NOT acting on strong intelligence of a world threat would be the mistake here. Acting on it, being wrong, but at the same time doing the world and a favor, is like trying to kill two birds with one stone, and just getting one bird. Positive net gain.

    just that the US-led coalition's idea of 'defending themselves' seems to be killing a whole lot of civilians overseas...
    Oh come one now. Saddam's administration AVERAGED 2,500 - 4,000 Innocent Civilian deaths PER MONTH for FIFTEEN Years. EVEN Iraq's Minister of (Bull****) Information was ONLY claiming 800 civilian casualties. And compare that with his other claims, the truth is almost for certain under 100. Compare 2500 with 100, and our military action in Iraq was their BEST MONTH in over a DECADE!!!
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeradul
    Was anyone nuked?

    SUCCESS!!!
    If your definition of success is simply just not killing tens of thousands, then I think you need to look at your goals. The Cold War pushed a massive arms race which led to both sides developing weapons as fast as they could - then selling those weapons to their favored nation states.

    A lot of those states are now using those weapons to kill innocents, to protect corrupt governments, and the like. Face it, where do you think Iraq got most of their weapons from?


    [b]
    Sitting by and NOT acting on strong intelligence of a world threat would be the mistake here. Acting on it, being wrong, but at the same time doing the world and a favor, is like trying to kill two birds with one stone, and just getting one bird. Positive net gain.
    The end justifies the means? I think that calling any of the intelligence that the 'coalition of the willing' used to justify their case for war 'strong' is a misnoma. As was calling Iraq a 'world threat'.

    [b]
    Oh come one now. Saddam's administration AVERAGED 2,500 - 4,000 Innocent Civilian deaths PER MONTH for FIFTEEN Years. EVEN Iraq's Minister of (Bull****) Information was ONLY claiming 800 civilian casualties. And compare that with his other claims, the truth is almost for certain under 100. Compare 2500 with 100, and our military action in Iraq was their BEST MONTH in over a DECADE!!!
    I don't deny that Saddam was not a nice man. He had a cruel regime that persecuted innocents. But were the 2,500-4,000 civilian deaths a month under his administration really his fault? The US's enforced trade sanctions denied the civil populace much needed medicines and foodstuffs, which some estimate has resulted in the death of 500,000 children in Iraq. Half a million.

    Plus there's deaths from contaminated drinking water, as practically none of Iraq's water treatment plants are still standing. Why? Because the US has been bombing the nation of Iraq constantly for over a decade. 365 days a year.

    I think the fall of Saddam was probably a good thing. But justifying the war against Iraq by exaggerating intelligence reports which most know are sketchy, hypocritically claiming humanitarian concerns while doing the very things Saddam was accused of, and instigating a scare campaign about weapons of mass destruction is, to me, not acceptable for a government.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    caves of bedrock
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeradul
    Was anyone nuked?

    SUCCESS!!!
    you are not serious right?
    i thought sucess for US meant...killing thousands of people. :confused:

    US should be ashamed when it talks about death of 2500-4000 people per month when it has blood of tens of thousands of innocent citizens on it hands. US is the only country to nuke another country (SUCCESS!!!) and to use chemical weapons on another country -- Agent Orange, Vietnam (SUCCES!!!).
    that is what "SUCCESS!!!" means for US...so lets not talk about intelligence and DOING FAVORS on world. US has already done lot of FAVORS to this world and we can do without any more.
    Latest Microsoft Security Updates.
    Last Updated:
    10th MARCH


    If you are a security freak: Use Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (NT/2000/XP/2003)
    ======================
    icq : 203189004
    jabber : asklepios20@jabber.org
    =======================
    Linux user since: April 24, 2003 312478
    yabaa dabaa doo...
    Customized for 1024x768

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asklepios
    i thought sucess for US meant...killing thousands of people. :confused:
    Well, look on the bright side: if you think the earth is getting over populated, wouldn't that do a splendid job of curtailing the problem. (I'm being an ass, okay)

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    But were the 2,500-4,000 civilian deaths a month under his administration really his fault?
    Yes they were his fault. These are just the numbers of the people he executed.

    The US's enforced trade sanctions denied the civil populace much needed medicines and foodstuffs, which some estimate has resulted in the death of 500,000 children in Iraq. Half a million.
    Really? And if you think any other policy would have made a difference, then explain why troops found 800 million dollars in cash hidden in high ranking officials homes? This was money that was STILL IN THE BOXES that were exchanged as a part of the "Oil for Food" program. It was believed this program was helping the Iraqi people, but instead, Saddam's regime was working the system for their own gains. NO Programs of any kind could have reversed the deaths of the Iraqi's you site in your example. The only program that could have worked, and is working is the removal of that regime.

    Plus there's deaths from contaminated drinking water, as practically none of Iraq's water treatment plants are still standing. Why? Because the US has been bombing the nation of Iraq constantly for over a decade. 365 days a year.
    Do you actually believe that? The Iraqi infrastructure has been neglected by Saddam's regime. On no instance have ANY water treatment plants been destroyed, and I challenge you to find proof to the contrary.

    But justifying the war against Iraq by exaggerating intelligence reports which most know are sketchy
    I assure you, NOT acting on such intelligence would be the mistake here. Underestimate your enemy and you've been beaten.

    hypocritically claiming humanitarian concerns while doing the very things Saddam was accused of
    More nonsense. Please post links to anything proving this point.

    ==========

    asklepios... you should be ashamed. Haven't you had any History in school yet?

    US is the only country to nuke another country (SUCCESS!!!)
    You're right. And it was a success, because after the Potsdam declaration, the Japanese had fair warning as to EXACTLY what was coming. And they had over a week to avoid the first, and then another week to avoid the second. The Japanese were in a state of religious conquest. They were forcing all children 8 and up to work 14 hour days in factories. Kamikazes best illustrate my point. A religious duty to die for the cause, in a futile attempt that was less than 3% effective. This was the lunacy their government was endorsing! Luckily the nuclear bombs got through to them, because nothing else did or would have. It would have been years before we had achieved victory without the Nukes. It saved Millions of lives.

    US is the only country to use chemical weapons on another country -- Agent Orange, Vietnam (SUCCES!!!).
    Do you even know what agent orange does?? ROFL... Hahahahaha. I apologize, because you are almost certainly just a young kid. But as you will learn in History, Chemical weapons have been used in nearly every conflict for the past hundred years, and Agent Orange is by far one of the most pleasant.

    US has already done lot of FAVORS to this world
    You are right about this! If it hadn't been for us, all of Europe and much of Africa would be a Nazi state, and every Jew in the area would have been exterminated by Hitler. Most of Eastern Asia would be under Japanese control, and the constant warring between the Japanese and the Nazi's would have caused 2 Billion deaths by now. Whether they know it or not, the Pacifist world is lucky they have someone looking out for them.
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    US is the only country to use chemical weapons on another country -- Agent Orange, Vietnam (SUCCES!!!).
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pardon me, but where exactly are you getting this hogwash?
    Seek other sources please, for everyone's sake. There is not a single kernel of truth in that statement.
    The reason a diamond shines so brightly is because it has many facets which reflect light.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeradul
    Yes they were his fault. These are just the numbers of the people he executed.
    Do you have any evidence/reports to back this up? That's a lot of people to be executing - 83 a day at a minimum. I would be a lot more ready to accept that those deaths were sickness and disease-related.

    [b] Really? And if you think any other policy would have made a difference, then explain why troops found 800 million dollars in cash hidden in high ranking officials homes? This was money that was STILL IN THE BOXES that were exchanged as a part of the "Oil for Food" program. It was believed this program was helping the Iraqi people, but instead, Saddam's regime was working the system for their own gains.
    If you can possibly find a way to justify the effective killing of 500,000 children by enforcing an immoral trade embargo, then I would be interested to hear it. Though, Madeline Allbright seems to think it's okay - to quote;


    Journalist: Is the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of our trade sanctions justified?

    Allbright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it.


    It might also interest you to know that the previous two administrators of the US-backed trade sanctions have resigned. One, Denis Halliday, said he could no longer administer 'an immoral and illegal' policy.

    [b]Do you actually believe that? The Iraqi infrastructure has been neglected by Saddam's regime. On no instance have ANY water treatment plants been destroyed, and I challenge you to find proof to the contrary.
    I can assure you that on numerous occasions, civilian targets have been repeatedly hit by the decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq. These include water treatment plants, and, to quote a senior Pentagon official; "We're down to our last outhouse."

    There are also suggestions that the US staged a deliberate attack on the sanitation of Iraq, with a lot of the proof coming from documents released by the government themselves. Read

    http://sydney.indymedia.org:8081//fr...&group=webcast

    For more.

    [b] I assure you, NOT acting on such intelligence would be the mistake here. Underestimate your enemy and you've been beaten.
    Not taking drastic action on unreliable, unproven, and 'sexed-up' reports is a mistake? The intelligence agencies responsible for delivering information to the governments they serve seem to be suffering from 'Yes-man' syndrome, providing their superiors with the intelligence that they want to hear. Not that that has prevented the governments of these countries from futher exaggerating and falsely portraying these reports.

    Take this example: during his State of the Union address, George Bush cited intelligence reports "proving" that Iraq was attempting to buy "significant quantities of uranium" from an African country.

    A few weeks ago, the truth came out. The government knew the report was inaccurate. A former US ambassador, Joseph Wilson, said that;

    "... when they were referring to uranium sales from Africa to Iraq, ... that information was erroneous and ... they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British white paper and the president's State of the Union address."
    More recently, CIA director George Tenet had this to say about the issue:

    "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
    This methodology of using scaremongering to gain public backing grows even more apparent when we look at some of the "President's" statements concerning weapons of mass destruction;

    "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

    United Nations address, September 12, 2002

    "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

    "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

    Radio address, October 5, 2002

    "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

    "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

    "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

    "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

    Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

    "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

    State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

    "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
    To date, how many weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq? None. There has not even been any substantial proof that there has even been research into weapons of mass destruction. You would think that 500 tons of nerve agent would be hard to hide.


    [b]More nonsense. Please post links to anything proving this point.
    The fact that the US has been citing 'humanitarian concerns' to justify the war is definately one of the biggest lies ever told. In fact, the US didn't even use this excuse until their previous justification, the possible presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, started to fail to find ground with public opinion.

    If the US was really concerned about Iraq's population, it would lift their crippling trade embargo, stop bombing their cities, and ask for more than a measly billion dollar from Congress to assist in the rebuilding of a country they have thoroughly destroyed.

    In any case, having the US preach about any humanitarian issue - including their 'war on terror' - is ridiculous.

    In the history of the World Court, there has only ever been one instance of a country being convicted of terrorism. The culprit? The United States of America, when, in 1989, the CIA detonated a car bomb outside a mosque in Tehran. Over 80 civilians were killed, while the intended target, a religious leader speaking out against the United States, was not even in the vicinity at the time of detonation.

    ==========

    [b] You're right. And it was a success, because after the Potsdam declaration, the Japanese had fair warning as to EXACTLY what was coming. And they had over a week to avoid the first, and then another week to avoid the second. The Japanese were in a state of religious conquest. They were forcing all children 8 and up to work 14 hour days in factories. Kamikazes best illustrate my point. A religious duty to die for the cause, in a futile attempt that was less than 3% effective. This was the lunacy their government was endorsing! Luckily the nuclear bombs got through to them, because nothing else did or would have. It would have been years before we had achieved victory without the Nukes. It saved Millions of lives.
    The Hiroshima / Nagasaki debate is a tricky one. Undoubtedly, the Japanese surrendering did prevent the deaths of thousands of soldiers in any land battle that would ensue. But killing that many civilians can't really be justified in my opinion when other options like a non-fatal demonstration or a military strike weren't even really considered.

    [b] Do you even know what agent orange does?? ROFL... Hahahahaha. I apologize, because you are almost certainly just a young kid. But as you will learn in History, Chemical weapons have been used in nearly every conflict for the past hundred years, and Agent Orange is by far one of the most pleasant.
    The last thing I would call Agent Orange is 'pleasant', but I agree that it's not really a relevant topic to this discussion. Agent Orange (which had other-colored counterparts, eg Agent Blue, Green, Red) was a defoliation agent used by the US in Vietnam. It wasn't meant to be used as an anti-personnel chemical weapon, merely to defoliate large areas of jungle. Studies are coming out now that suggest that soldiers exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam are now suffering from various diseases.

    I also definately concur that chemical weapons have been part of warfare for quite a while - both sides used it during World War I, Russia reportedly used it against the Czechs and Saddam Hussein used them against his Kurdish population.

    [b] You are right about this! If it hadn't been for us, all of Europe and much of Africa would be a Nazi state, and every Jew in the area would have been exterminated by Hitler. Most of Eastern Asia would be under Japanese control, and the constant warring between the Japanese and the Nazi's would have caused 2 Billion deaths by now. Whether they know it or not, the Pacifist world is lucky they have someone looking out for them.
    The military might of the United States is something that cannot be denied. Their intervention in both World Wars (even though it was only when their own interests were threatened) certainly assisted in turning the tides in favour of the Allies.

    To go as far as you have done and suggest that without American intervention, the Nazis and the Japanese would have taken over the world is fairly ridiculous. No one can predict events on such a huge scale with so many variables and expect to be even vaguely accurate.

    Your last sentence seems to sum up a common American attitude - that the US is the world's protector and that it is fighting for 'truth, justice and liberty for all'. What this horribly arrogant attitude doesn't take into account is the possibility that the United States isn't the only country in the world that matters. It doesn't take into account that other countries want to govern themselves without being dictated to by anyone - yes, that includes dictators and tyrants - but also the US.

    The strong American belief in their own unilateral action, with total disregard for multilateral organisations, such as the United Nations, is one fueled by power.

    The United States is led by an ignorant man who wasn't even really elected in the first place, controlled by Fortune 500 companies and fueled by the Almighty Dollar.

    Please don't take my attitudes and opinions as racist - it's not the American people that I detest, only the governmental attitude that controls them - and most of the world. The United States have brought some wonderful things to the world, but also some of the most horrid.


    In the ideal world, they would concentrate more on their sitcoms than their nuclear arsenal, but that's a reality that's far from realised.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Fincastle, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asklepios
    Agent Orange, Vietnam (SUCCES!!!).
    That WAS NOT success, we wre defeated in that war

    Now 500,000 children deaths, couldve been helped, YES, but ya know what, now that we've taken over Iraq, all those nubers shall go down.

    For the nukes we used, NO, we definately shouldnt of used too, but one was okay.

    I think Iraq got all of its weapons etc. from Russia, while it was the Soviet Union, and so on.

    Now, our Trade Embargo we had on Iraq, I DONT think that cause all the deaths, as they still had some great sums of money they could've used to buy food from other countries, but since they didn't, you cannot go blaming all the deaths on the USA, I mean look, 400yrs ago or so, They're wasnt nearly as much overseas trading, and it wasnt much of a problem. But I know populations has like tripled since then, but I do think you can still live without needing the USA. Look at all of the regime leaders, they all looked like they ate quite healthily IMO, so I wouldnt place the blame on the Embargo, because obviously Saddam had access to food he couldv'e gotten for his people, while he was in charge.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Do you have any evidence/reports to back this up? That's a lot of people to be executing - 83 a day at a minimum.
    Yes, roughly half of the total number happened all at once after the 1991 War, when Saddam tried to eliminate all individuals who opposed him in the war. We just recently found these mass graves, on land that was illegal for any Iraqi citizen to trespass on. The wallets and identification of these individuals is being given back to relatives. The remaining of the estimated numbers are experts estimates of how many people that were tortured and executed on a daily / weekly basis. The extensive torture chambers they found coated with blood, combined with the swarm of citizens approaching the jails/torture chambers asking if their relatives were inside, is proof enough for me. Remember that this is how Saddam stayed in power, constantly crushing any hint of uprising or disobediance. Doing this country wide costs alot of lives.

    If you can possibly find a way to justify the effective killing of 500,000 children by enforcing an immoral trade embargo, then I would be interested to hear it.
    Well, I don't know where you heard that quote (of Albright's), but I don't believe any change in policy would have changed what Saddam was doing. The only solution that could have saved those children was removing Saddam. If the Iraqi regime cared at all, they easily could have stopped these deaths themselves.

    I can assure you that on numerous occasions, civilian targets have been repeatedly hit by the decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq. These include water treatment plants, and, to quote a senior Pentagon official; "We're down to our last outhouse."
    First of all that link earns a Pagerank of 0, and the single link they back up their info with looks fishy. But even if it is legit, please consider how anyone could have survived if Iraq was truely down to their last out-house. There would have been FAR more deaths and massive wide spread diseases. Also consider why the Iraqis spent a week running around saying things like "I am American!" and "Thank you George Bush" and simply the act of desecrating every Saddam monument and painting. These are not the actions of a people disgruntled with their liberators.

    Not taking drastic action on unreliable, unproven, and 'sexed-up' reports is a mistake?
    Yes. Because when the best intelligence agency in the world believes a threat exists, you act on it. An interview of the man who was the Head of the Iraqi Nuclear program in 1990 said that he was being forced to make a nuke, and that he was delaying as much as possible, and once the gulf war started, he thought he would have only been able to hold out for 4 more months. This is how close Iraq was to having a Nuke in 1991. This guy escaped and now lives in the US.

    To date, how many weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq? None.
    That is not entirely true. We did find multple radar trucks that acted as missle guidance, and behind a false wall in these radar trucks there is extensive robotic equiptment for the mixing and production of chemical agents, which would then be put in chemical warheads. There is simply no other use for these facilities. We also found 8 examples of weapons that Iraq claimed they did not have, and each of these 8 types went against direct regulations of the UN. We even found some brand new French made weapons that went agains UN regulations. So while the French are claiming the US needs to follow UN suggestions, they are breaking any law they want under the table. But that is a different issue.

    You would think that 500 tons of nerve agent would be hard to hide.
    The UN admits that they know Iraq had this in 1998. Who knows where it is buried, or more likely what country it was shipped to.

    it would lift their crippling trade embargo
    Done.
    stop bombing their cities
    Done.
    and ask for more than a measly billion dollar from Congress to assist in the rebuilding of a country they have thoroughly destroyed.
    Ok, didn't you watch the coverage? Everything is in tact, military tactical analysts are finding our weapons were MORE accurate that previously thought. 2 Billion dollars is a hell of a gift. It is more than the GDP of the great majority of the countries in the world. Any other countries willing to anti up some dough would be appreciated. Maybe France and Germany could donate some of the millions they illegally made through shady deals with Iraq.

    In the history of the World Court, there has only ever been one instance of a country being convicted of terrorism. The culprit? The United States of America, when, in 1989, the CIA detonated a car bomb outside a mosque in Tehran.
    What is your point? Clearly your example is the only terrorism that has ever occured in the world.

    The last thing I would call Agent Orange is 'pleasant'
    When compared with the array of chemical weapons of the world, Agent Orange is extremely pleasant.

    The military might of the United States is something that cannot be denied. Their intervention in both World Wars (even though it was only when their own interests were threatened) certainly assisted in turning the tides in favour of the Allies.
    Try not to get mad, but I am going to point out a Huge Hypocritical aspect of your stance on US affairs. Your entire paragraph thus far has been citing reasons and logic as to why the US should have NOT gotten involved. And then you say THIS COMMENT, which clearly indicates that you think we should be MORE INVOLVED. Make up your mind. It completely dissolves your arguement, because you can sum it all up as "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" No matter what, people with your stance will ***** and complain about how it was wrong or horrible.

    To go as far as you have done and suggest that without American intervention, the Nazis and the Japanese would have taken over the world is fairly ridiculous.
    It may be, however the Nazis would have had control of ALL of Europe very soon, and very soon after that every Jew would have been eliminated. No one disagrees with this. Britian was on its last leg, and Russia was in retreat, and most of the rest of Europe was already conquered.

    The strong American belief in their own unilateral action, with total disregard for multilateral organisations, such as the United Nations, is one fueled by power.
    Like it or not, when the little corrupt nations of the world are not willing to take action in a prompt fashion, simply because their illegal dealings would be exposed if such action happens, then we are left with no other choice but to go it alone.

    The United States is led by an ignorant man who wasn't even really elected in the first place, controlled by Fortune 500 companies and fueled by the Almighty Dollar.
    Actually he was, and if you really believe he is ignorant, you are a fool. Simply stating that he is really shines a light on your lack of ability to be open minded and form opinions free of political bias. He is extremely intelligent, and yes, we are a Capitalistic country, and companies are the workhorses of any successful economy. Show me a weak economy, and I'll show you a government abusing its companies.

    The United States have brought some wonderful things to the world, but also some of the most horrid.
    If the worst of our actions ranked as the most horrid of all time, what a wonderful world this would be. It really stuns me when you say things like this.

    In the ideal world, they would concentrate more on their sitcoms than their nuclear arsenal,
    In the ideal world, there would be no nuclear weapons. BUT THERE ARE. And being the only superpower of the world comes with the responsibility to protect yourself from countries who pose a threat.
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •