What gives?

Anyone bother to ask the Iraqi people if they are now happy with what has happened to their country? The situation about election and democracy is rubbish! Overall, no one is better off. Civil war is now widespread. I wonder how long before the invaders will leave with tails between their legs. Not to add how much money they have spent with no tangible result.

Remember Vietnam?

So now the "bush" does not want to talk to Hamas! Great, really adults behaving like children. Is this "carrying on" going to be benificial? Being "over bearing" will only make what is a bad situation worse.

I was once told to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Maybe I was misled.

Your last sentence is sound advice! Bush is rather a frightening phenomenon. Fredrik

Hands up those who want a militant islamic state to have nuclear weapons?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Hands up those who want a militant islamic state to have nuclear weapons?

Hands up anyone who wants a militant christian state to have nuclear weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Hands up those who want a militant islamic state to have nuclear weapons?

It doesn't make it okay for the western world to arm themselves with everything going and storm any country they like in the name of "maintaining world peace".
If there was an easy answer, we would have sorted it by now. That certainly rules out force then, 'cos we've tried that and it hasn't worked. We need to learn from that.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Hands up those who want a militant islamic state to have nuclear weapons?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hands up those who are happy with a Christian fundamentalist psychopath throwing his weight around the world and increasing the chance of terrorist attacks from those who feel aggrieved.

Hand up who still think that nuclear weapons are still an answer.

America should blame itself.
They started the rush.

You guys ever watched the movie "Team America"

No, i did not.
Do you suggest it?

Team America.

A poor film that struggles to maintain any real impact. It has some short spells of satirical excellence and humour. It neutralises these by overstatement and dumbing down.

Any extremist or fundamentalist regardless of religion is bad news. With a nuclear arsenal, very bad news.

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
Hand up who still think that nuclear weapons are still an answer.

America should blame itself.
They started the rush.

Is it not a little harsh? Had the US not done it, another country would have.

On credibility alone, it is hard for another country like Iran to accept that they should not pursue or develop nuclear power/weapons when it comes from a source like the UN which is heavilly dominated by those countries who have it. It is all I am trying to say.

Nuclear weapon is destructive not to say the obvious, especially the current stock pile if set off will end our current enjoyment of music and life completely. Hence I am not supportive of Iran. However if the approach is to aid and befriend Iran to get what they desire, maybe there is a chance for some control, however indirect. Friendly influence always goes further than confrontation. Case in point, US on Britain in Irag. Would Britain have gone to war with Irag without the US, perhaps not.

Will the world ever be free of nuclear weapons or power? I cannot see it in our life time. We depend too much on nuclear power for energy for starters, and the demand is increasing, 800 billion kWh in 2004 US. Unless we conserve or find another source of power which is not electricity based.

What about natural resources apart from petroleum? Hydro, wind and thermal are starters but it is only confined to a few countries. Building of dams for hydroelectricity like the 3 gorges in China has been faced with corruption etc. When completed in 2009, it can only produce 80 billion kWh, it will be well short of what is needed for the new econoic giant with its 20% of the world population.

Because of these alone, nuclaer is going to stay whether we like it or not. Might as well use it wisely. Help those who want it with the knowledge already available and not condem those who try to get it. It will be safer in the long run. Maybe. Ahhh the sceptic in me or is it dogma?

I just hope that common sence will prevail and we can continue to live like we have been the last 60 years.

Hi i think Tesla had some interesting ideas for getting electricity from cleaner souces than both coal and nuclear sources . Maybe one of our children might work out some good ideas on this .
Israel and India both have nuclear weapons and would be both capable of using them unfortunately .I wish people would give up killing .
The americans are the only ones to have ever used a nuke in war and continue to use dangerous substances like depleted uranium both in Afganistan and Iraq causing birth defects and other problems ,I,m ashamed of our politcians not protesting this abuse in the strongest possible way world leaders pah .

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
Is it not a little harsh? Had the US not done it, another country would have.

They destroied two japanese cities while Japan was in knees and ready to surrender.
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/nuclear_war/nuclear_war.htm
Not a gentleman behaviour.
Anyway i think that Iran can have its nuclear power for energy like any other country can.
If they tell me that Iran muslims are hardliner i do answer that even israeli nuclear weapons are in hardliners' hands just like the american are in the neocon ones.
Again they're tryin to make me believe that we're the "best" part in the contest and that we have more rights than others.

Cheers
Gianluigi

With no respect even to their own boys.

American soldiers during nuclear strike exercise:

Gianluigi

Japan was bombed because the UK and America wanted the war over with as soon as possible with no more allied lives being lost. Everyone wanted peace as soon as possible.

The nuclear deterrent has worked well but it needs to be in the hands of stable regimes.

If Iran does not comply then they are going to face serious consequences just as the Japanese did.

Regards

Mick

Yes.
Arms of mass destruction on civilians is a good way to make it over soon.

The nuclear deterrent didn't work at all:
Corea,cold war, Vietnam, two Gulf wars and a lot of other stuff spread around on the globe don't let me think about a peaceful world, do they?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
They destroied two japanese cities while Japan was in knees and ready to surrender.

Anyway i think that Iran can have its nuclear power for energy like any other country can.
If they tell me that Iran muslims are hardliner i do answer that even israeli nuclear weapons are in hardliners' hands just like the american are in the neocon ones.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Good points. Japan was, indeed, ready to surrender but was nuked to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that the U.S. had the bomb and was willing to use it, so Stalin had better stick to his Eastern empire. Churchill was not so keen to end the war in Italy, he kept thousands of British troops stationed there after Germany surrendered in fear of the Italian partisans, who had liberated every Italian city except Rome.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
Good points. Japan was, indeed, ready to surrender but was nuked to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that the U.S. had the bomb and was willing to use it, so Stalin had better stick to his Eastern empire.

Exactly Malky.
They knew that Japan was down, but a couple of nuclear bombs could cold down Stalin.
The tale about the allied diyn is only the same old tearful story.

quote:

Churchill was not so keen to end the war in Italy, he kept thousands of British troops stationed there after Germany surrendered in fear of the Italian partisans, who had liberated every Italian city except Rome.

Because of the red danger.
History tell us that italian partisans were all red, but this is not true.
Anyway there was the real possibility that the soviet army could try to invade Italy from the balcan area passing by the Trieste door.
This danger has been considered a strong possibility for about 40 years.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Gianluigi


[QUOTE]Everyone wanted peace as soon as possible.

Everyone? Aparently not. Japan wanted to continue.

quote:

The nuclear deterrent has worked well but it needs to be in the hands of stable regimes.

But only an unstable country would ever use nuclear weapons. Ginaluigi is correct when he says the Israel is not stable. Nor is India.

quote:

If Iran does not comply then they are going to face serious consequences just as the Japanese did.

Comply with what? How many UN resolutions have the Nazi Israelis ignored?

The bombing of Japan was a war crime without paralell in the history of mankind. The Japanese are still suffering the consequences. It is only a matter of time before the Americans suffer the consequences of their actions too.

You can't fight war by waging war.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by erik scothron:
You can't fight war by waging war.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

A bit like f****** for virginity.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:

Japan was, indeed, ready to surrender but was nuked to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that the U.S. had the bomb and was willing to use it, so Stalin had better stick to his Eastern empire.

I would more or less agree with that. Let's say the message of the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to all parties was "Japan is ours and ours alone!".
Russia declared and started war on Japan about 12 hours before the second atomic bomb and in the weeks that followed they grabbed as much as they could as fast as possible. They only stopped when they encountered the americans.

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Gianluigi


[QUOTE]Everyone wanted peace as soon as possible.

Everyone? Aparently not. Japan wanted to continue.

[QUOTE]

I don't think it works that way. If a party doesn't accept anything less than unconditional surrender, that doesn't really indicate a desire for peace. Some alternatives: "settling for half is such a mess", or "why settle for half if you can have it all" or "if we don't take it another one will".

Bush the first settled for half.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Hands up those who want a militant islamic state to have nuclear weapons?

Hands up anyone who wants george w bush to have nuclear weapons?

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Anyway, Nukes worked. WW2 ended earlier than it would have done

Hi Mike!
I have a terrible suspect.
That WW2 did not end in the year we find on school's books.

Cheers
Gianluigi