Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
When will America drop its next WMD? What do you think will cause such an event to take place? People dying is always bad but sometimes big ass bombs do lots of talking.
depends on your definition of WMD. Do you mean a nuke? I don't see us dropping a nuke anywhere, unless the shit really hits the fan. NOBODY wants to use nukes, which is why its so silly for countries including us to have hundreds of them. Hell it only takes a handful of them to wipe out an entire continent.
Countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons. They claim the the threat of MAD is the reason. But what would happen if so revolutionary party took power and didn't care about MAD in acheiving it's goals. Imagine the situation they would cause. You say that wouldn't happen in your country but it can. They can ride to power on some campain promises and if they slip in with majority and have their party all vote for a certain bill.
Commando no. 448 Countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons. They claim the the threat of MAD is the reason. But what would happen if so revolutionary party took power and didn't care about MAD in acheiving it's goals. Imagine the situation they would cause. You say that wouldn't happen in your country but it can. They can ride to power on some campain promises and if they slip in with majority and have their party all vote for a certain bill. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) does keep all of the nuclear powers (like America, Russia, etc.) from blowing each other up. Both sides know that if they launch missiles our way, we'll launch ours at them. What keeps the smaller countries from attacking with nukes? The assurance that they will be completely wiped out by the powers if they do, and that most of them don't have weapons that could reach us. "You say that wouldn't happen in your country but it can." Well, actually it can't happen in my country, because the President cannot declare war, that's Congress.
"You say that wouldn't happen in your country but it can." Well, actually it can't happen in my country, because the President cannot declare war, that's Congress.[/quote] Plus the President does not have complete control of the country. If the president isnt doing a good job we can get rid of him. The military won't listen to him and neither will congress or anyone else if he is bad. There is no way that can happen here.
I said if a party took majority. What if the party's congress members stood united in their stance and declared the use of them. The controllers are trained to obey the order to launch if the order seems authentic. They don't have much say in the matter. Even if but 2 controllers in one facilty deem the order valid and decide to go through with it then MAD is almost assured. Only 1 missile would have the world freaking out. Then when retaliatory strikes begin then the other controllers are pretty much forced to follow a MAD order.
Commando no. 448 I said if a party took majority. What if the party's congress members stood united in their stance and declared the use of them. The controllers are trained to obey the order to launch if the order seems authentic. They don't have much say in the matter. Even if but 2 controllers in one facilty deem the order valid and decide to go through with it then MAD is almost assured. Only 1 missile would have the world freaking out. Then when retaliatory strikes begin then the other controllers are pretty much forced to follow a MAD order. Well someone who would do that wouldnt have been elected in the first place.
Commando no. 448 I said if a party took majority. What if the party's congress members stood united in their stance and declared the use of them. The controllers are trained to obey the order to launch if the order seems authentic. They don't have much say in the matter. Even if but 2 controllers in one facilty deem the order valid and decide to go through with it then MAD is almost assured. Only 1 missile would have the world freaking out. Then when retaliatory strikes begin then the other controllers are pretty much forced to follow a MAD order. Looks like someone has no clue what the hell they're talking about. There are several people in completely different locations that have to authorize it before the two inside of the control room can launch the ICBM from a silo (which both have individual keys that have to be turned on opposite sides of the room)
Actually, all it would involve is interrupting the periodic burst-transmissions that are sent to the Ohio-class Trident subs when they come close enough to the surface. If they don't recieive that critical transmission, they dive, try one more time, then fire off half of the U.S. nuclear arsenal at whatever target they want. Feel safe? :twisted:
-Tech- Actually, all it would involve is interrupting the periodic burst-transmissions that are sent to the Ohio-class Trident subs when they come close enough to the surface. If they don't recieive that critical transmission, they dive, try one more time, then fire off half of the U.S. nuclear arsenal at whatever target they want. Feel safe? :twisted: 1. They wouldn't risk the end of the world like that, they wouldn't just launch their weapons if they didn't receive a radio signal every so often. 2. One sub doesn't carry "half of the U.S. nuclear arsenal". They carry about 20 or so nuclear missiles in their vertical tubes, and probably some more in storage or as torpedo launched cruise missiles. (Even if you're talking about all of the U.S's subs collectively (somewhere around 10-15 or so), there isn't enough nuclear weapons there to come close to equaling half of the U.S's arsenal.)
yeah...there was a report a while ago explaining how many nuclear weapons there are in the US. What was it...like enough to destroy the world 20 times over?
Anything over once is excessive............
Well, In development are new "battlefeild" nukes, small and concentrated enough to destroy a underground bunker without affecting the surface. You are right, larger weapons are not of much use now, and the ability to destroy the world 7 times over is not nessesary anymore.
anort893 Well, In development are new "battlefeild" nukes, small and concentrated enough to destroy a underground bunker without affecting the surface. You are right, larger weapons are not of much use now, and the ability to destroy the world 7 times over is not nessesary anymore. It never was. And battlefield nukes already exist.
KIRBY098 anort893 Well, In development are new "battlefeild" nukes, small and concentrated enough to destroy a underground bunker without affecting the surface. You are right, larger weapons are not of much use now, and the ability to destroy the world 7 times over is not nessesary anymore. It never was. And battlefield nukes already exist. The proper name for them are "Tactical Nukes".
anort893 Well, In development are new "battlefeild" nukes, small and concentrated enough to destroy a underground bunker without affecting the surface. You are right, larger weapons are not of much use now, and the ability to destroy the world 7 times over is not nessesary anymore. You're about 20-30 years late. Small nuclear weapons have been around for quite some time. And what do you mean 'anymore'? The ability to destroy the world any times over was never necessary. And nuclear weapons of any size would effect the surface if detonated underground, the EMP sent out by the blast would damage electronics, and the radioactive crap would eventually make it's way to the surface.
The last time we used a WMD was to end probably the gretest war we will ever see. That was used against the Epire of Japan. I dobt we will ever see WWIII in our lifetime. Even then WMD's would be our last resort as was with WWII.
The ability to destroy the world several times over was a nessesity, because of the fear that about 90% of our nukes would get destroyed by the other side before they could get launched. The idea was that we could still launch a counterattack if most of our nukes got wiped out by a Soviet first stike. Yes, battlefeild nukes are not new, but 5- kiloton ones that can takes out a bunker and leave most of the surface intact are. Current "battlefield" nukes are 20 kilotons, the size of the Hiroshima bomb, and in reality too lagre for tactical use.[/i]
Wild1 The last time we used a WMD was to end probably the gretest war we will ever see. That was used against the Epire of Japan. I dobt we will ever see WWIII in our lifetime. Even then WMD's would be our last resort as was with WWII. bombing Hiroshima was not a "last resort" which is why it remains a contraversial subject to this day. Japan was already near surrendering, not to mention the Red Army was gonna land in Japan a few days later and the US would have been a few months later. I personally think we shouldn't have attacked Hiroshima which had a large civilian population...but it doesn't matter. The fact that we dropped the bomb was basically to show Russia that the US was a force to be reckoned with...and in doing so we probably saved thousands more lives by averting a war between the US and Russia...but dispite all these things...it still wasn't a last resort...
Duke of Nukes Wild1 The last time we used a WMD was to end probably the gretest war we will ever see. That was used against the Epire of Japan. I dobt we will ever see WWIII in our lifetime. Even then WMD's would be our last resort as was with WWII. bombing Hiroshima was not a "last resort" which is why it remains a contraversial subject to this day. Japan was already near surrendering, not to mention the Red Army was gonna land in Japan a few days later and the US would have been a few months later. I personally think we shouldn't have attacked Hiroshima which had a large civilian population...but it doesn't matter. The fact that we dropped the bomb was basically to show Russia that the US was a force to be reckoned with...and in doing so we probably saved thousands more lives by averting a war between the US and Russia...but dispite all these things...it still wasn't a last resort... There was two choices to end the war with Japan... Using a huge invasion force to invade Japan, or drop the bomb. Invading Japan would have killed more then just dropping the bomb. If the Japanese fought so hard and viciously for Midway and Okanowa(sp?), what would they fight like to defend their home?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have dropped the bomb...I'm saying it wasn't a last resort. A last resort is when you have NO other choices...and since we could have invaded and maybe even lost less lives there, it's (it's pointless argueing what could have happened because neither of us knows how quickly Japan would have surrendered and how many civilians would have died)
Duke of Nukes I'm not saying we shouldn't have dropped the bomb...I'm saying it wasn't a last resort. I'll agree with that because it wasn't meant as a last resort. It wasn't a matter of bomb or invasion. The invasion was coming anyway, the bombs were dropped as part of the war, it really wasn't expected to end it, so it couldn't be a last resort. The bombs did help end the war, which was a little unexpected. Japan didn't even realize what had happened to Hiroshima at first and the military said they would continue fighting anyway. It was a cross between the bombs and the imminent invasion from the Soviet Union that made Japan surrender.
And there is still the point that you (US) could have used the bombs on military targets rather then civilian massed ones. Why not bomb one of their heavily fortified island bases? I am sure it still would have scared the crap out of them. We argued the same points about the bombing of Japan before in a topic titled eggmac the pacifist (which might I say was in all a disgusting witch hunt).
Hirosima was as military target. It was one huge factory town dedicated to making war material. Same for Nagasaki. These were not innocent little residential targets, they were part of the Japanese war machine.
they had 2 drop that bomb if they would have made a ground invasion there would have benn just as much death but for americans instead of the japenese so they had 2 make that choice, it was either them or us. and we did expect that 2 win the war becuase we scared the crap out of them by saying we had another bomb ready 2 go but we didnt, so they surrendured
Afromn96 and we did expect that 2 win the war becuase we scared the crap out of them by saying we had another bomb ready 2 go but we didnt, so they surrendured Excuse me, but we dropped TWO atomic bombs on Japan. One over Hiroshima ("Little Boy" Which was 12.5 kt), and the one over Nagasaki ("Fat Man" Which was 21kt).
Duke of Nukes Wild1 The last time we used a WMD was to end probably the gretest war we will ever see. That was used against the Epire of Japan. I dobt we will ever see WWIII in our lifetime. Even then WMD's would be our last resort as was with WWII. bombing Hiroshima was not a "last resort" which is why it remains a contraversial subject to this day. Japan was already near surrendering, not to mention the Red Army was gonna land in Japan a few days later and the US would have been a few months later. they were so close to giving up we had to drop two of them..
anort893 Hirosima was as military target. It was one huge factory town dedicated to making war material. Same for Nagasaki. These were not innocent little residential targets, they were part of the Japanese war machine. oh...ok...so how many civilians died because of one factory? Hiroshima was a huge city and I find it hard to justify slaughtering thousands of innocents because of one companies mistakes...if that were the case...how would you feel when your local Ford plant was nuked because they gave materials to Nazi Germany to build tanks during WWII?
[sg the0ne]they were so close to giving up we had to drop two of them.. I believe I read somewhere actually that they surrendered after the first...but word took too long to get to America that the second bomb was dropped by then...we needed a longer buffer period...we just got impatient
Duke of Nukes [sg the0ne]they were so close to giving up we had to drop two of them.. I believe I read somewhere actually that they surrendered after the first...but word took too long to get to America that the second bomb was dropped by then...we needed a longer buffer period...we just got impatient I sincerely doubt that, considering we were monitoring thier communications, and had cracked thier coding before the war ever began.
perhaps not...I'm not really sure about that but it seems like I did read it somewhere. Anyways...I just think we should have attacked larger military targets at the least
I suspect that they were targeted maily due to the fact that they were producing the parts to make the kamikaze planes, which at the time, were the only real threat to the largest armada ever assembled. Kamikaze attacks were doing far more damage than the Japanese Navy ever could have incurred, and given the distance to get replacements in, and the impending invasion which would need them, I reason that the targets picked were plane factories, and the technicians used to build them.
Duke of Nukes I believe I read somewhere actually that they surrendered after the first...but word took too long to get to America that the second bomb was dropped by then...we needed a longer buffer period...we just got impatient They didn't even want to surrender after the second, but the emperor decided enough was enough and called for surrender. Part of the military tried to overthrow the emperor to prevent the surrender, but the emperor was able to thwart the coup long enough to address the nation and tell the people to surrender.
It wasn't that there was a factory in the town, it was that the town istelf was a war factorty, with the overwhelming majortiy of civilians producing vital Japanese war materials. Also, the inhabitants of the city really wern't civilians, because they were armed by the Japanese government, and prepare to fight to repel an invasion.
Duke of Nukes anort893 Hirosima was as military target. It was one huge factory town dedicated to making war material. Same for Nagasaki. These were not innocent little residential targets, they were part of the Japanese war machine. oh...ok...so how many civilians died because of one factory? Hiroshima was a huge city and I find it hard to justify slaughtering thousands of innocents because of one companies mistakes...if that were the case...how would you feel when your local Ford plant was nuked because they gave materials to Nazi Germany to build tanks during WWII? I don't know if this was emphasized enough in the past replies to this thread, but HIROSHIMA WAS MAINLY A DAMN INDUSTRIAL TOWN DEDICATED TO MANUFACTURING WEAPONS AND SUCH FOR JAPAN'S WAR EFFORT. It wasn't just one factory you mentally challenged child. Ford didn't manufacture tanks for Germany dumbass. And Ford wasn't an entire city who was manufacturing weapons and planes and whatever for our enemy.
Ford supplied parts for German tanks during WWII. A town dedicated to building weapons for Japans war efforts my ass. There were a few factories...the entire city wasn't just one big factory...that's like saying any major city is just a big paintball arena
All of you really need to give supporting documents to backup your claims. This source lends validity to some claims by both parties. Do RESEARCH before spouting off people....... http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html
NHJ BV http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jimlup/hiroshima.95.html Interesting reading. Thank you.
Duke of Nukes perhaps not...I'm not really sure about that but it seems like I did read it somewhere. Anyways...I just think we should have attacked larger military targets at the least Japan did not surrender after the first bomb. Japan didn't even belive that one bomb could do that damage.
" Quote: The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction." Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches and Statements of the President April 12 to December 31, 1945 (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1961) page 212. The full text also was published in the New York Times, August 10, 1945, page 12. just thought that you all might want to hear the words from the mouth of Truman himself. Truman clearly states Hiroshima as a military base, and I agree with this assesment, as Hiroshima was one of the few remaining armorys for what was left of the Japanese war machine.
Man like 70% of Americans would truly agree with Bush if he said let's invade russia one of the last nuclear powers that can oppose us. Of course he would have to use his nice little propeganda. You see you Americans need to start disagreeing with your president more. Because beleive it or not your president can act like an idiot.
Commando no. 448 You see you Americans need to start disagreeing with your president more. Because beleive it or not your president can act like an idiot. I'll disagree with Bush if I see reason to, but if he agrees with my point of view why should I? While I'm sure there's some lemmings out there that do whatever the president says (whoever the president is at the time), I'm not one of them. I've believed we needed to overthrow Saddam ever since I started thinking about stuff like that. That was 5 or 6 years ago. Bush did what I wanted him to do, I didn't just sit back and nod my head because he said so. I really annoys me when I debate the war in Iraq and someone says I'm just blindly following the president. If anything, he's blindly following what I want him to do.
I'm with NeoSaber on this one. I am not blindly following the will of any President, but simply looking at their views and statements and deciding if I agree with them. I agree with Truman about the dropping of the bomb, and I agree with Bush about the invasion of Iraq. I do not blindly follow Bush, because I disagree with him on some other points, like his refusal to do anything about the flood of illegal immigrents flooding into the contry and my home state of California.
I live in CALI 2 and i also agree with u, what part do u live in
I meant the country as a whole. There are many that aren't like what you claim to be. And I how can you disagree with something he hasn't done? You want him to stop the flood of immigrants as he hasn't. That isn't quite disagreeing.
I disagree with Bush on his decision to not take action, as well as his decision to push an illegal immigrent "amnesty" program that would allow all illegals to apply for and get legal residence. It disturs me that neither side of the ailse seems to care about this. And afroman, i actually live in the Bay Area, close to SF but thankfully not in that city.
anort893 I disagree with Bush on his decision to not take action, as well as his decision to push an illegal immigrent "amnesty" program that would allow all illegals to apply for and get legal residence. It disturs me that neither side of the ailse seems to care about this. And afroman, i actually live in the Bay Area, close to SF but thankfully not in that city. What's the problem, really? You don't think other people not fortunate enough to have been born in America should be able to find a better life?
No, i think that amnesty encourages immigrents to skip the part where they apply for legal residence, get tested for disease, etc before they are allowed in the country.
anort893 I agree with Truman about the dropping of the bomb stop bringing up WWII before everyone stops paying attention to you. Only someone with an IQ of 60 would say WWII is the same as the war in Iraq. They cannot be compared so dont act like they're the same thing.
Duke of Nukes Only someone with an IQ of 60 would say WWII is the same as the war in Iraq. They cannot be compared so dont act like they're the same thing. They can be compared. There are plenty of parallels between Hitler and Saddam. I've found it strange how if you take what Hitler wanted to do, and change the word 'German' to 'Arab', you basically get what Saddam wanted to do. The main difference between the two of them is we were able to stop Saddam before he got very far in his mission to conquer his region of the world.
well then Bush can easily be compared to Hitler as well
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Now that is a stretch even for you. Was Hitler ever held accountable to the people he governed? I didn't think so. Was Hitler elected? No. Was Saadaam elected in a democratic way? No. He cooerced through threats, and ballot stuffing to give him 100% of the vote. Do you know any other democratic country where any official gets 100% of the vote unopposed?
Duke of Nukes well then Bush can easily be compared to Hitler as well Well, I could compare you to Hitler too. It would make just as little sense as comparing Bush to Hitler. Saddam and Hitler have a lot in common. Their reasons for attacking other nations and committing genocide are nearly identical. KIRBY098 Was Hitler elected? No. Actually he was. Hitler spent years campaigning, mostly trying to get the Nazis to be elected the majority party in Germany. Once they were, he got the government, now mostly under Nazi control, to elect him chancellor. He then immediately began to dismantle the democratic government of Germany, giving himself all the power.
You are, of course, correct. What I should have specified was the fact that during the atrocities they commited, both had removed the democratic processes that elected them both. In fact Hitler's brown shirt party was defeated in the initial run for election.
Duke of Nukes well then Bush can easily be compared to Hitler as well This post shows that you have a third world education. You make a comment, yet you don't back it up. Give your comments some backbone. How in the world can you compare Bush to Hittler? I would really like to know where you came up with that one.
The reason that i talk about WW2 is that this post is about the WMD's owned by the U.S., and WW2 is the only war that saw a nuke used. It's not that far a strech of the imagination. By the way, Saddam's real inspiration for his police state came from Hitler and Stalin themselves. Diddn't know if you were aware of that.
K9Trooper Duke of Nukes well then Bush can easily be compared to Hitler as well This post shows that you have a third world education. You make a comment, yet you don't back it up. Give your comments some backbone. How in the world can you compare Bush to Hittler? I would really like to know where you came up with that one. :rolleyes: I didn't need to explain because a smart person could figure it out for them selves, obviously NeoSaber got it
Duke of Nukes K9Trooper Duke of Nukes well then Bush can easily be compared to Hitler as well This post shows that you have a third world education. You make a comment, yet you don't back it up. Give your comments some backbone. How in the world can you compare Bush to Hittler? I would really like to know where you came up with that one. :rolleyes: I didn't need to explain because a smart person could figure it out for them selves, obviously NeoSaber got it Obviously you can't read... NeoSaber Well, I could compare you to Hitler too. It would make just as little sense as comparing Bush to Hitler. Saddam and Hitler have a lot in common. Their reasons for attacking other nations and committing genocide are nearly identical. You said in comparing Bush to Hitler, they're similar ("well then Bush can easily be compared to Hitler as well"), NeoSaber said that it doesn't make sense, and that they have nothing in common and they cannot be compared, no more then he can compare you with Saddam. Both K9Trooper and NeoSaber said that it doesn't make sense.
Bush wants to govern the entire world, just like Hitler did. There's my fucking evidence
Quote: Bush wants to govern the entire world, just like Hitler did. There's my fucking evidence And what is your evidence of this? Did Bush call you up and tell you? Are you telepathic? Is there some kind of Bush "Mein Kampf" floating around that I do not know about? Please tell me.
Duke of Nukes Bush wants to govern the entire world, just like Hitler did. There's my fucking evidence Haha. That's funny. It was interesting reading all your other post actully having decent opinions. But aww man, you ruined it there. One last ditch effort to hold strong in your "opinion" was shit. Hah. "bush wants to govern the world". Yeah, yeah he does, me and him talked about it over the phone back in January. Comeon, Bush isn't all evil. The way I see it now you can do either 1 of 3 things: 1)Move to America and maybe, just maybe you'll start to understand our evil ways. 2)Go preach about America's wrong doing to your neighbors, start up a "revolt", and come over and attack us. 3)Shut up.
Duke of Nukes Bush wants to govern the entire world, just like Hitler did. There's my fucking evidence We could start an entire "Stupid Comments That Retards Make" site off of you. Human's have a right to be stupid once in a while, but you just abuse the privilege every chance you get. Your ignorance and stupidity isn't evidence.
Sir Phoenixx Duke of Nukes Bush wants to govern the entire world, just like Hitler did. There's my fucking evidence We could start an entire "Stupid Comments That Retards Make" site off of you. Human's have a right to be stupid once in a while, but you just abuse the privilege every chance you get. Your ignorance and stupidity isn't evidence. True,True.
yeah, he just goes around, telling France, Germany, basically all his allies AND all his enemies what to do. You're right though, he's not trying to control any other country...he's only taken over 2 countries in the past 2 years...god...what was I thinking
Duke of Nukes yeah, he just goes around, telling France, Germany, basically all his allies AND all his enemies what to do. You're right though, he's not trying to control any other country...he's only taken over 2 countries in the past 2 years...god...what was I thinking you weren't thinking, that's the problem. he doesn't tell any of his allies what to do. he asks them to do what he wants and sometimes tries to buy their vote. this is what all countries do. sometimes it works, sometimes not. the 2 countries he "took over" were at war with us. taliban as rulers of afghanistan was only recognized by 1 country in the entire world. they supported and protected al queda. therefore, when al queda attacked, afghanistan was responsible. iraq has been at war with us since they broke the ceasefire agreement(about 11 1/2 years ago) we finally had a president who wasn't gonna take saddam's crap anymore. bush is using diplomacy where we can and force when necessary... a nice balance that i wish all presidents would use.
Duke of Nukes yeah, he just goes around, telling France, Germany, basically all his allies AND all his enemies what to do. You're right though, he's not trying to control any other country...he's only taken over 2 countries in the past 2 years...god...what was I thinking This might come as a surprise to you--since you have a sub 6th grade English/Reading level--but there is a difference between TELLING and REQUESTING. He can request and or persuade that the allies help us, he can request and or persuade our enemies to comply, but he can't really TELL our allies or enemies what to do. Since when has taking out the government in two countries trying to take over the world? I can see how he's trying to "govern the world" by taking out the dangerous governments of 2 countries. :rolleyes: Oh, to answer your last question... What you are usually thinking, NOTHING AT ALL.
every single one of these threads you proceed to do nothing but pile insults on me. I did not honor either of your posts by reading them. if you want people to listen to you, dont make fun of them every chance you get.
Quote: every single one of these threads you proceed to do nothing but pile insults on me. I did not honor either of your posts by reading them. if you want people to listen to you, dont make fun of them every chance you get. well if you want us to be nice, i reccomemd you be a little less caustic in your posts, and think about your posts for a few minutes before putting them up. The more calm and thoughtful your posts, the less insults get flung your way.
Duke of Nukes every single one of these threads you proceed to do nothing but pile insults on me. I did not honor either of your posts by reading them. if you want people to listen to you, dont make fun of them every chance you get. u are the one calling our president Hitler.
Duke of Nukes every single one of these threads you proceed to do nothing but pile insults on me. I did not honor either of your posts by reading them. if you want people to listen to you, dont make fun of them every chance you get. Hmmm, maybe if you wouldn't act so damn stupid and at least try to back up your lame posts with even the slightest bit of fact, we wouldn't need to make fun of your obviously low intelligence. I don't make fun of people every chance I get, only those special little children (Like you.) that throw insults this way FIRST and have nothing to back them up.
And everyone against the war...everyone that cares about humanity and hasn't had their soul burned out of them. Afromn96 Duke of Nukes every single one of these threads you proceed to do nothing but pile insults on me. I did not honor either of your posts by reading them. if you want people to listen to you, dont make fun of them every chance you get. u are the one calling our president Hitler. I never once called the president Hitler...I was making a comment about the idiocy of how people today compare absolutely everything to Nazi Germany. You used to constantly hear about the forum Nazis and the chat Nazis. Might as well call God a Nazi because he's not gonna save all religions...maybe he'll only allow Catholics in. He's against the Jews...or maybe he's against everyone else...so he must be a Nazi...right?
Duke of Nukes And everyone against the war...everyone that cares about humanity and hasn't had their soul burned out of them. Not even close my mentally retarded little child. If said person has made stupid comments(Example: You), threw insults over here first (Example: You), can't back up their stupid comments (Example: You) than yes I would make fun of said person. But not everyone who is against the war is as stupid as you, so no, I don't make fun of everyone who is against the war. Your complete ignorance is quite humorous.
as is yours...considering your side of the arguement threw the first flame. I've backed up my arguements just as well as you have...you're just ignorant and arrogant enough to not pay any attention and assume I was shot down when you dont actually pay any attention to the other side of the arguement.
Duke of Nukes as is yours...considering your side of the arguement threw the first flame. I've backed up my arguements just as well as you have...you're just ignorant and arrogant enough to not pay any attention and assume I was shot down when you dont actually pay any attention to the other side of the arguement. Our side? Wait, who's the one who ignorantly said that our president is nothing more than Hitler? Without ANY form of evidence, fact, or anything else at all to back it up. You haven't backed up your arguments at all, saying that our president is nothing more than Hitler because he's removed two dangerous governments and demands things from allies/enemies (which he can't, and doesn't, he can only recommend, request, persuade, etc.) isn't backing it up, all you are doing is providing stupid reasons that are completely irrevlavent to Bush being "Hitler". Who are you trying to say is ignorant and arrogant? You are so ignorant that you don't even bother to actually look something up, to find the real facts, or to actually read the other side's post to make sure you aren't misunderstanding it. Arrogant? You think you are so high that you are completely correct, you're never wrong, but when proven wrong, and when everyone else knows you are wrong, you can't even admit that you are wrong about any part of a discussion even though you've been proven wrong.
bla bla bla. I explained my reasoning for saying he could be compared to Hitler dispite the fact that I shouldn't have had to to begin with. You can compare anyone to Hitler if you try hard enough...as the people of these boards have proven continously
Duke of Nukes bla bla bla. I explained my reasoning for saying he could be compared to Hitler dispite the fact that I shouldn't have had to to begin with. You can compare anyone to Hitler if you try hard enough...as the people of these boards have proven continously Which was our point exactly, dumbass. If you try hard enough, you can compare someone to anyone. It doesn't mean the comparison is valid. Yours was not, and that's why no one agrees with you. There is something more dense than a black hole, after all.......... :rolleyes:
and my point is comparing Saddam to Hitler isn't valid either. Did Saddam set up detention camps where he killed thousands of people simply because he didn't like what religion they followed? Did he try a global conquest of Earth? Did he ever take over any country besides Kuwait?
KIRBY098 There is something more dense than a black hole, after all.......... :rolleyes: Kirby, you can't really mean that. A black hole retains what it takes in. Logic is repelled off of Duke. They are opposites.
Duke of Nukes and my point is comparing Saddam to Hitler isn't valid either. Did Saddam set up detention camps where he killed thousands of people simply because he didn't like what religion they followed? Did he try a global conquest of Earth? Did he ever take over any country besides Kuwait? Ummmm, have you heard of the eight year Iran/ IRAQ war?
Duke of Nukes Did Saddam set up detention camps where he killed thousands of people simply because he didn't like what religion they followed? http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraq051603.htm Yes dumbass, he did.
I could prove every single one of your posts wrong...but what would be the point? You'd just turn around and call me a name and discredit my source. Maybe I shall when you mature a little bit.
If you are so "adult" then it should be nothing to overcome my "childish" dicredidation of you pathetic sources. Prove away, kid. :rolleyes:
Duke of Nukes and my point is comparing Saddam to Hitler isn't valid either. Did Saddam set up detention camps where he killed thousands of people simply because he didn't like what religion they followed? Did he try a global conquest of Earth? Did he ever take over any country besides Kuwait? 1. Hitler didn't kill thousands of people, he killed MILLIONS of people. 2. No, he skipped the middle man and killed them without putting them in concentration camps. 3. Yes he did murder ALOT of people because they were different, ever heard of the Kurds? 4. Niether tried a "global conquest of Earth". He tried to take over Europe, which--this may come as a surpise to you--isn't "global". Let's recap. Both Hitler and Saddam were dangerous "dictators". Both Hitler and Saddam killed ALOT of people because they were different than them. Both tried to take out the countries surrounding it. The only difference? Saddam had enemies that were MUCH MORE powerful and technologically advanced to easily stop him before he could get more than Kuwait. (And Hitler had that stupid salute and mustache)
Sir Phoenixx Duke of Nukes and my point is comparing Saddam to Hitler isn't valid either. Did Saddam set up detention camps where he killed thousands of people simply because he didn't like what religion they followed? Did he try a global conquest of Earth? Did he ever take over any country besides Kuwait? 1. Hitler didn't kill thousands of people, he killed MILLIONS of people. 2. No, he skipped the middle man and killed them without putting them in concentration camps. 3. Yes he did murder ALOT of people because they were different, ever heard of the Kurds? 4. Niether tried a "global conquest of Earth". He tried to take over Europe, which--this may come as a surpise to you--isn't "global". Let's recap. Both Hitler and Saddam were dangerous "dictators". Both Hitler and Saddam killed ALOT of people because they were different than them. Both tried to take out the countries surrounding it. The only difference? Saddam had enemies that were MUCH MORE powerful and technologically advanced to easily stop him before he could get more than Kuwait. (And Hitler had that stupid salute and mustache) Bravo.
North Korea is a country we should worry about, they are close to getting Nukes, and recently ran a test on one of the missile platforms, sending a dummy missile into the ocean near Japan, the are absolutely out of there gord over there and i believe if they feel threatened enough, they would use nuclear Missiles, we have to tread lightly over there, but by the same token keep a military presence in South Korea so they know we mean business. TG
Hitler didn't killed anyone , his army/secret police did, same as for Saddam. Just my two cents . *you can always call them murderers for ordering their army and bla bla bla to kill people*
those people were killing in the name of Hitler, he had all the power and killed those who opposed him, make no mistake hitler is the one who ordered all the killing, not the other way around.
Aprime Hitler didn't killed anyone , his army/secret police did, same as for Saddam. Just my two cents . *you can always call them murderers for ordering their army and bla bla bla to kill people* When you pay someone to murder another, you the conspirator can be charged for the murder. With their money and orders to execute, Hitler and Saddam did murder millions of people.
Quote: Aprime wrote: Hitler didn't killed anyone , his army/secret police did, same as for Saddam. Just my two cents . *you can always call them murderers for ordering their army and bla bla bla to kill people* When you pay someone to murder another, you the conspirator can be charged for the murder. With their money and orders to execute, Hitler and Saddam did murder millions of people. \ Hitler did kill someone himself and his wife. :rolleyes:
Meh, nobody has a prove of it, they haven't found his body, he's maybe still alive you know.
Aprime Meh, nobody has a prove of it, they haven't found his body, he's maybe still alive you know. That would be nearly impossible. He was 56 when he commited suicide (or supposedly), in 1945, it is 2003, if he was alive today he would have to be over a hundred years old, nearing his 115th birthday.
Quote: depends on your definition of WMD. Do you mean a nuke? I don't see us dropping a nuke anywhere, unless the shit really hits the fan. NOBODY wants to use nukes, which is why its so silly for countries including us to have hundreds of them. Hell it only takes a handful of them to wipe out an entire continent. Agreed.