I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S
Active member
people have all these names for wars... eg WWI, WWII, Gulf War, War in iraq, but if you think about it WWI never ended, we are still fighting and struggling over all the same issues...
The never ending war
Grumpy_monkey
Active member
true to a metaphorical extent, however, i dont think WW1 Germany was accused of posesing weapons of mass destruction, and breaking trade sanctions 
GuyontheRight
Active member
Well if their was a "definition" of WMD back then, Im sure Germany's Chem and Bio programs would of qualified them...
All the names for the wars could be as well "War for money and power". This is what war is only about. Even if the politics give reasons like possesing weapon of mass destruction the reason is still only money and power. After all USA has got weapons of mass destruction as well, they probably got biological weapons as well. USA doesen't allow other countries to product such powerfull weapons because they want to stay in power. In case of "war in iraq" there comes oil as well. The prize of oil goes up all the time. By ocuping Iraq USA gains control over their oil. More oil means more money. Well that is my image of reasons for war.
Redneck
Active member
Spyfly said:
I love hearing arguments like this one. When was the last time we (the United States) used such a weapon irresponsibly or wrongly (or at all, outside of tests)? Saddam's Iraq had proven itself more than willing to use such of these weapons as it possessed not only against its own citizens in the form of the northern Kurds, but also in the Iran-Iraq War. It is the same thing as trying to force the police to not use firearms because they do not want the criminals to have such weapons.
Welcome to the forum, by the way. :lol:
Any use of such powerfull weapons as atom bombs is iressponsible. USA is the only country that has ever used an atom bomb against different country. Many innocent died and powerfull diseases were spread around the areas were the atom bomb was droped. Iraq never used atom bombs...thread is not the same. And i think that you shouldn't compare Iraq to USA. After all USA is far more civilised and advance. I do agree with you on that possesion of atom bomb in power of Iraq is far more dangerous than in USAs. I think that all atom bombs should be destroyed no matter who posses them. What is the point of making those if you do not intend to use them ever?
Redneck
Active member
They act as a deterrent, to keep other nations from using their own weapons out of fear of our own retaliation. I entirely agree with you that it would be wonderful if ALL of these weapons could be destroyed, but the fact is is that the first nation to do so puts itself at such great risk and military inequality to its possible enemies as to prevent anyone from ever making any such unilateral move, and arms treaties and mutual reductions do not appear to be an option with some of these countries (namely North Korea).
And although we may be more advanced militarily and in other technical aspects, I believe that it is extremely insulting to the Iraqi people to claim that they are not as "civilised" as we are.
On another note, our use of atomic weapons to end WWII was not, in my mind, an irresponsible use of such power. Any invasion of the Japanese mainland, based off of our fighting in Okinawa, and reinforced by reports we got in Japan itself after the war, would have created enormous ammounts of allied casualties, as well as virtually wiping out the civilian population of Japan (which had been instructed by the Emperor to fight to the death). It was terrible, but neccesary.
And although we may be more advanced militarily and in other technical aspects, I believe that it is extremely insulting to the Iraqi people to claim that they are not as "civilised" as we are.
On another note, our use of atomic weapons to end WWII was not, in my mind, an irresponsible use of such power. Any invasion of the Japanese mainland, based off of our fighting in Okinawa, and reinforced by reports we got in Japan itself after the war, would have created enormous ammounts of allied casualties, as well as virtually wiping out the civilian population of Japan (which had been instructed by the Emperor to fight to the death). It was terrible, but neccesary.
You are completely right about the risk of a country that will destroy their atom bombs first. Especially if that would be USA, afterall if USA would do so i think that many countries would attack. Perhaps the attack on Japan did end the war with less casualties if you count soldiers but don't forget that such a bomb is also causing a huge disturbence in nature. I think that there had to be a better way to solve WWII.
It might be a slight insult what i said about Iraq people but i really think that they are less civilised. It is of course because they do not have opportunities like we do. Most of the people did not attend to schools. I think that USA should concentrate mostly on that right now. Iraq needs a good leader now so that USA can leave Iraq.
It might be a slight insult what i said about Iraq people but i really think that they are less civilised. It is of course because they do not have opportunities like we do. Most of the people did not attend to schools. I think that USA should concentrate mostly on that right now. Iraq needs a good leader now so that USA can leave Iraq.
Spyfly said:
Your right about that that...
But I think we are straying just a tiny bit
fftopic: now...I seem to remember that the topic was "WW1: The never ending war" or something like that..
You are free to start a new topic about Nuclear weapons, but lets stay on track here from now on... please...