View Full Version : War is on the Horizon..............

27th October 2002, 08:47 PM
America going to war with Iraq is going to be a very bad thing. Korea will revolt against us and the gas economy will most likely go down. all countries will turn in disgust and anger against America. This might cause war with everyone, a
World War 3

I fear i may not be able to have kids..............or a wife

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :evil:

27th October 2002, 10:22 PM
sigh, i could write an essay here about how frustrated I am about USA´s actions worldwide and politics. I wont.. as I dont know if any of you find what I might say offending or if you even feel that this forum isnt the right place for it.

28th October 2002, 03:52 AM
.. all countries will turn in disgust and anger against America. This might cause war with everyone, a World War 3

I fear i may not be able to have kids..............or a wife

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :evil:

well ma b not ALL of america. II dont think ppl'll have anything 2say about
south america or even central america!! 8)

and feisar, u'll b a'right man! :wink:

Hybrid Divide
28th October 2002, 07:29 AM
I for one am disgusted at how our government runs things. Everything we do takes too much time and money to do, and even then it's usually half-assed. Our president (and his father) is an idiot, who plunges us head first into war without giving a damn about what it will do to all of us in the long run. Odds are, if there wasn't so much oil in the middle east, our fighting over there would be so much more lax than it is. We're as a whole a VERY greedy country and we don't like to negotiate with anyone, it's our way or death.

I admit I'm lucky to live here, but my pride for my nation couldn't be much lower.

There's much more I could add to this rant, but I'm too stressed to think about it.

Forgive me if I offend anyone here..... :(

Vagrant Logic OUT

28th October 2002, 08:37 AM
Woody Harrelson puts it nicely...


DJ Techno
28th October 2002, 04:13 PM
America going to war with Iraq is going to be a very bad thing. Korea will revolt against us and the gas economy will most likely go down. all countries will turn in disgust and anger against America. This might cause war with everyone, a
World War 3

I fear i may not be able to have kids..............or a wife

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :evil:

Yes were going to war with the Iraq
for the second time
the second time in a row from the first...
Bush 1989-1990
Bush 2002-when ever it ends

I am lucky that I was able to get out of the armed services(Marines) and join the National Guard before all this starts.
Really I love serving my country and fighting in a war and becoming a War Hero!

Feisar you will be able to have kids don't worrie to much
It's not to late
hell look at me... I am 18 and enjoying the rest of my years.
Korea will not revolt I don't think so
but they still won't to become a whole nation again
All nation will not disgust and hate america
we have done so much for the world that if they hate on this country
it will hurt the rest of the world to.
Its good the gas economy will go down... wait a minute
if gas slows prices go up... thats bad.

28th October 2002, 07:40 PM
Infox: I agree with woody.

i think real world politics are beyond the scope of this board since the more politics people talk, usually the more they end up hating each other.

but i'll say that i'm also with David Bowie on this one, and I'm afraid of Americans.

28th October 2002, 07:54 PM
I agree. I've got very strong political ideas but I don't think this is the place to discuss them. Appart from, maybe, me being Catalan and all that stuff :roll: :lol: :P


28th October 2002, 09:58 PM
If there is actual legit proof that sadam has supported these terrorist groups, he most certainly should be "torn a new one". I'm not up for another 3000 or more dying because he drops a suitcase bomb in NYC. ONly a few people know if there is real proof of this however. But is anyone going to deny that if he had one of these bombs he would use it on the United States or Israel. I would suggest instead of the war one bullet between his eyes.

28th October 2002, 11:05 PM
surely our wipeoutzone group of highly informed and infallible political analysts can come up with practical solutions to all the world's struggles for economic and political dominance?
i'm confident. really

29th October 2002, 01:17 AM
As the Maxim editors put it best.
"Bugs Bunny is able to run and play freely now because Elmer Fudd is in the White House"

As Vagrant Logic wrote:

We're as a whole a VERY greedy country and we don't like to negotiate with anyone, it's our way or death.

My father told me when he was a millionaire in Texas that the whole state fortune was based upon oil and oil drilling.Texas was was flooded with money he said, and that ment good buisness for him (my father was a very large corporation building Contractor).
Then he said the Arabians (Iraq) started selling oil but at a high price so everyone bought from Texas. But then Iraq got the big picture and lowered there oil prices and Texas kept theres at the same price, so everyone bought from Iraq; leaving Texas oil industry to wither away.
It was our greed that lead us to this. Sure Texas would have run out of oil, but at least it would have slowed it.

DJ Techno
29th October 2002, 12:24 PM
but i'll say that i'm also with David Bowie on this one, and I'm afraid of Americans.

your afraid of us


29th October 2002, 01:08 PM
your afraid of us

Well one, because America is the most powerful unrestrained nation on earth. If America feels like doing anything, they can almost always get away with it. And two, America almost always serves only it's own interests - i mean, why not if you're the most powerful nation on earth? And that makes me afraid.

I'm afraid of Americans. I'm afraid of the words. I'm afraid I can't help it. I'm afraid I can't.

29th October 2002, 03:56 PM
what i'm afraid of are international corporations which try to run the world governments just as they have here in the U.S.
many of these corporations got their start in the u.s. because the political climate favoured their development, but now they are worldwide and have been joined by european and asian business conglomerates as well.

[irrelevant note: have you ever noticed how in this default (Arial) (no relation to wipEout) Windows typeface, r and n when combined next to each other as in the word 'government', look just like m? [ i'm using 1280 x 1024 screen resolution at unit magnification, like none] perhaps Mac users get another typeface that works better]

DJ Techno
29th October 2002, 06:35 PM

Made in America is not really made in America

Dodge, Ford, Harley Davidson's

almost all the motor automobile plants are not factored here in the US

Everything made in Europe isn't really made 100% euro
there's atleast a little 10% of american or tawain in everything

29th October 2002, 06:39 PM
Rats, and there's me thinking my Chrysler was 100% American too. ;)

Well, that darn car can forget all about the engine tuning and big ass tyres I promised it!

DJ Techno
29th October 2002, 06:56 PM
Why would you want to customize your chrysler that much?

In the States you can get the whole packed deal
a chrysler with rims
a not a grill but a cage front and back

and if your lucky euro lights.

29th October 2002, 07:10 PM
not everyone has the same tastes in customisation that you do

he doesn't live in the ''states''

DJ Techno
31st October 2002, 06:24 PM
"back on the subject"

America is going to war against Iraq. Again!

But,who or which side "do we all think" is going to win?
American/allied nations or Iraq ?

31st October 2002, 06:31 PM
If you need that question answered.... :lol:

DJ Techno
31st October 2002, 06:37 PM
but you have to think about

very carefully :-?
WE have the most fire power known to mankind
of course we could just send Suddam and his boys/girls to kingdom come

So could he. :-?

31st October 2002, 09:07 PM
No one 'wins' anything in war.

Furthermore no-one has said anything firm about America's plans for war against Iraq to go forward. DJ Techno please stop running around shouting 'America is going to war with Iraq!' like a chicken with it's head cut off. You're just promoting fear and misunderstanding.

In fact, this has nothing to do with wipeout; so maybe you should just move this whole thing over to the foums at cnn.com.

31st October 2002, 09:38 PM
as auslander said, no one wins wars, you just get a load of death and suffering, with a dollop of depression :cry:

i really hope war doesnt break out, but seriously it looks that way if america and iraq carry on the way they are going.....

31st October 2002, 09:52 PM
Certainly noone should be saying we are going to war, but this is the general discussion and anything should be able to be talked about within reason I would think. I'm not going to give my opinion on this in order to not start an argument.

1st November 2002, 01:54 AM
war is for odd........
maybe not a war in the perspective of bombs and death. but war as in society itself.
we compete in wars everyday, whether they be from not liking the price of gas, to telling some guy off at your school/work.

War is a everyday thing, but to the magnitude of death........brings a whole new ball game. War & death should only be together under a "have-to" bases.
If war is the only option then so be it,(ill fight), but to do it just for kicks........is a little messed up. (i wont)

1st November 2002, 08:38 AM
No one 'wins' anything in war.There are a whole bunch of people in Europe who would disagree with that on the basis that their countries haven't been the United States of Deutschland for the last 60 years.

I agree that for the most part, war is macho posturing by politicians based far from the frontline, but occasionally there are things worth fighting for - even if it does mean resorting to military action.

1st November 2002, 02:08 PM
Interesting topic. On the site I write columns for I wrote a small column about America and how the world views Americans.

I think it's simply too much black/white-vision that plagues people all around the globe. People dislike George W. Bush but most of them fail to realise that it's people like Rumsfeld, Cheny and Ashcroft who are responsible for his policies. The man himself is an embodiment of the cliché Texan oil cowboy, and as such people become blinded by his symbolical value.

I think Americans as a people are nice people. I'm not afraid of them.

I agree with a lot of criticism that has been delivered here concerning the international policies of the US. But ponder about this: supposed that the EU was strong enough to have one international policy (and not three or four, all of which are ineffective :roll:), do you think that they wouldn't seize the opportunity to get their hands on the Iraqi oil?

Sure, Saddam Hussein deserves to disappear. But what next? The "hawks" are not in favour of nation-building. So what will happen? I'm afraid the eventual loser in this conflict will be the Iraqi people. Besides, war is bad for economy :D.


1st November 2002, 10:16 PM
war simply solves nothing.

fighting for peace is like f_cking for virginity - once you did it things will never be the same. i disagree to any kind of war

3rd November 2002, 02:56 PM
So if an oppressive dictator marches their army across the borders of another country they should just lay down and take it rather than fight - because war is bad?! :o

I'm all cool with the hippy, peace bro' vibe, but to sit on an ivory tower and say that war solves nothing is taking a rather simplistic view of it.

It's all very easy for you to sit in your country, speaking your language and dismiss war and those who fought in them without even thinking of those who laid their lives down just to safeguard the way of life you enjoy today.

My late grandfather fought in WW2 along with countless other individuals, many of whom never returned from where they fell on the soil of a place far from the home they were trying to protect. You try telling any of those who lived through that time that war is ****ing pointless and I can 100% guarantee your words will not be met kindly.

Yeah - fighting is **** - yeah, innocents get killed. But the world isn't always black and white, wrong or right, and it's certainly not a place where some problems are peacefully solved. Occasionally we get very bad ****ers who do nothing but laugh in the face of peaceful negotiation.

For the most part I am a coward - I've only been in three or four fights in my life and come out the worst in all of them. I avoid violence and trouble at all costs. But let an oppressive army march into my back yard and tell me how I should live? Let them wipe out my way of life?

Give me a ****ing gun instead - I'd rather go out all guns blazing than take that. :evil:

3rd November 2002, 06:17 PM
Ho Infox, I don't think that was what AmigoJack meant.

I've been in a lot of political discussions with foreigners about war and peace, and WW2 is a topic that perpetually returns in these conversations. I don't think, however, you can compare Hitler with Saddam. Sure, they are both evil dictators and deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth (or wiped out, ha ha), but Hitler was far more dangerous.

And believe it or not, when a war is being fought there are always ulterior motives.

Yes, of course one should defend oneself when oppressed or attacked. I think not to do so is stupidity rather than pacifism. But if the more powerful countries in the world should be morally obliged to defend oppressed nations and/or peoples (which most of them claim they are doing), then why isn't it happening? Why precisely and only Iraq? Because Saddam's easy to demonise. Because there's oil in the ground.


4th November 2002, 04:05 AM
I agree with Vasudeva, and apologize for being oversimplistic in my original statement.

I agree that defending your borders is a very worthwhile cause and i'm very proud of the Canadians and other allied troops who faught and laid down their lives for the sake of freeing Europe.

The problem is over-agression and starting wars. War is a terrible and grave thing and shouldn't be used to serve a political point. Like bombing Serbia a few years back. Yes Serbia was annexing and possibly brutalizing Kosovo and it's people but is it right to drop a few hundred tons of munitions on innocent Serbs guarding powerplants and destroy roads that farmers need to bring crops to market? Or should you look really hard into other means of dealing with problems. (but yes! Do *deal* with problems!)

Sun Tsu recounted a similar point almost 2500 years ago, when he was a General wandering the country looking for a employer to hire him for his abilities when he came upon the King of the State of Wu. Sun told him about his knowledge of warfare and how he could be useful to the King (since the King was planning an assult on a Neighbouring State) but the King said he needed proof. To truely show what he was capable of, the King commanded Sun to train 180 of the King's maids to be ready for battle. If he could train them, he could train anybody.

Sun agreed and gathered the girls and explained to them that they absolutely must follow his commands with efficiency and precision. If they failed they would be punsihed. He then commanded them to March in line, To Face Left, To Face Right and so on ... but the girls just stood there and giggled. He told them again, restated the orders and they giggled some more.

He then selected out two pretty girls from the group, and had them beheaded in front of everyone (much to the King's chagrin).

He then reissued the same orders to the rest of the girls, and this time they marched in perfect order.

Now the point of the story is two fold, obviously the first point is that fear is a great motivational tool. But more importantly he was trying to prove that War is a very serious undertaking that you don't play around with. You don't say that you want to prepare a group of little girls for battle as a bit of a joke. You must be absolutely sure that it's what you want to do. War is death.

And wasting lives shouldn't be the past-times of bored Presidents who feel that a puppet government in Iraq would be easier to ring more Oil out of.


DJ Techno
4th November 2002, 04:19 PM
No one 'wins' anything in war.
DJ Techno please stop running around shouting 'America is going to war with Iraq!'
In fact, this has nothing to do with wipeout; so maybe you should just move this whole thing over to the foums at cnn.com.

Sorry man (auslander), War is on the Horizon, and who is going to war?
that answers itself.
I'll stop shouting out America going to war with Iraq....

But Your right, No one "wins" anything in war
War solves nothing
War creates...well it can create something just good and bad
War is the ultimate destruction of mankind and all life that exist
The creation of the Atom Bomb im Los Alamos, New Mexico was a great example of American technology, but it should not have been used as a weapon of mass destruction.
Biologial Weapons was a governments/Military/Scientist worst ever mistake to ever think about creating such things.

4th November 2002, 04:21 PM
thats what i meant - like the aussie said it. war and protection are two different things. and war is always STARTED, while protection is sth that is triggered by WAR. if infox want to keep his garden clean i have no problems with him when he surrounds his garden with a river of piranhas and installs self-shooting guns etc.

fact is that war is made by naive and agressive ppl, sometimes intellectuals too. and like ausländer said - its only aim is death - so its everything but ok (of course). starting a war is the bad thing - nothing else. if someone attacks you / your country you should defend yourself, because this is nothing wrong. i never started a battle, i always do react on a battle (or simply ignore it when its not hurting). so defending or protecting is a peaceful answer, rather than also "going into war". fight back, but only on your own ground.

of course its easy to say that i want to act like gandhi everytime trouble starts - but you can stay intelligent and keen by just keeping what you have. if nobody would be profit-orientated by producing weapons, gaining oil sources or territoria no war would find partners. this also counts on fights between religions. how can they fight against each other rather than accepting each other? is the world full of idioty?

to stick it clearly: id never touch a weapon. when war should start in my country id prefer the suicide, because id never excuse my country's choice of starting a war (again - for the third time) - and thats also serious!

DJ Techno
4th November 2002, 04:27 PM
Why suicide?

I see what your saying, that you would not want to pick a weapon and use it on another human being.
But I just can't see why people want to kill them selves to prove a point.

The choice I made to join the military, use weapons to defend my country, don't use weapons and use tools or whatever to save lifes, I think about that everyday.
I like to think about people who commit suicide and wonder why they give there life away, and sometimes. If shows or gives no meaning.

But, tell us why sucide?

4th November 2002, 06:28 PM
the world is full of fools able to see evil in others and not in themselves. overestimating one's own rightness is the great human sin

to believe that there is only one right way, that all others must conform to that way, there is the big error of all belief systems.

supposedly the Romans persecuted only one religion, the Christians. even though the Romans tolerated and even embraced other people's cultures including their religions [this was why Rome was a major power for so long]. i suspect that if it is true that they disallowed only that one religion, it was because the 'christian' faith was the only one of its time that was itself so intolerant and absolutist that it could not live with the others. civilised tolerant people dislike being constantly told that they are evil. being worked against, even if the workers regard it as working 'for', brings forth the desire to defend against and eliminate the threat to peace and harmony.

we see this arrogant belief in one's own rightness combined with the desire for personal and financial gain and the desire for 'civic' pride [the desire to feel great by the power of someone else's accomplishments] and the tribalism that seems to be a genetic disposition of humans, to produce the 'us against them' mentality. you see this in the pitting of one city's sports teams against another. you see it in war. you see it in absolutist religions. you see it in partisan politics.

[end of my quite possibly wrong rant]

DJ Techno
4th November 2002, 06:36 PM
possibly true

in some parts about the Romans and the Christians
but I am not going to go any further, it goes way to deep into religion.

4th November 2002, 07:14 PM
Winning a war is defined by the ability of the beholder to view that a critieria has been met by completing the objective. In modern warfare, this would normally take the position of being a localised or regional political victory (i.e. more votes for the victor).

At the end of any war there is a winner and there is a loser. The winner is the one with electorial power, and the loser is the one that has been "dethroned".

You can also throw into the equation wars that are fought over economic, religeous and cultural facts.

I hate to put myself in this position, but you have to look at war as a cold hard method of natural selection. Group A believes that it is more "worthy" than Group "B", and vica versa. But I don't think that such wars really exist any more. Modern warfare is nothing more than terrorism... the only difference being that one group tells the other that they're gonna terrorise them.

Taking a purely balanced view of war, you could feasibly state that war doesn't equal death... it can also be defined as "more life". This kind of argument is similar to the methods employed by marketing during the post-Christmas sales. People will spend alot of money buying stuff they wouldn't normally buy, and when they get home, they say "I saved £300", whilst others will say "I spend £100". The difference is that the currency has changed to that of humans. :(

The fact that people die is irrelevant to the powers that be, as there main objective has now been shifted to that of marketing the spin placed on the deaths.

On the topic of weapon development, and the landmarks reached by the development of rockets, aircraft, nuclear arms, etc, you have to look at the other side of the argument also. These were developed for a reason, yet they were not developed as single self-thinking entities. Someone somewhere has to activate, arm, and fire these weapons. The fact that a certain type of weapon exists is secondary to the objective and usage of the weapon. The atomic bomb was used, whereas the hydrogen bomb was not (fortunately, as it's power was x-fold more lethal).

The other thing that someone has mentioned is "secondary objectives"... these objectives do not exist... all objectives are primary. War is a final situation, as we have all found out/learnt from the great wars (WW1/2). The fact that you have oil in the ground isn't gonna be much use when you don't have the tools to get it out of the ground, you don't have the people to operate the tools, you don't have the refinery methods, or you don't have a marketplace in which to sell the oil.

War is bad, but people are worse. :)

4th November 2002, 10:55 PM
i wanna be a Minority Report :oops: :oops: :oops: :roll:

DJ Techno
6th November 2002, 07:04 PM
"War is bad, but people are worse." Dscaper

People, human beings created war for a purpose, a reason to solve problems.
See, think about it, what would you do to resolve a problem?
A. Fight
B. Talk and come to a conclusion (Peace)
C. Nothing

Take a pole...
which is the highest
your probably going to get fighting more, than peace.

Human Beings are aggressive, like animals, but were civilized beings capable thinking, understanding, making deciesons, etc. Something animals can not do.
People make mistakes, people are not perfect, if they were then nothing good would really be created.

6th November 2002, 07:32 PM
i would vote to do Nothing. America just stay to itself and ignore every other country, that would be great.

good thing we dont have it, or else europe would have lost the war (WW2)
Moe (the bartender) - "we saved your ass is World War 2!"
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :P

DJ Techno
6th November 2002, 07:38 PM
Other countries need help, we give it to them.
what kind of graditude do we get?

What if, America just let the war in Europe go bye, and England and Russia had to fight on there own?

What kind of history would come out of that?

9th November 2002, 10:20 AM
DJ Techno, I've heard this "we saved your butts back in '45" a zillion times :D.

Here's my reply. If Europe had never existed, there would be no United States of America, and if there would be one, they'd definitely not be descendants from European immigrants. So... what's the deal? :lol:


9th November 2002, 11:12 AM
The USA got involved in WW2 because they became a target of the axis, not as some sort of favour!

9th November 2002, 12:58 PM
to tell you the truth, heres what i learned........

Truman (president during the war) stayed out of helping any country in the war, he was just saying to to everything and not giving a damn.
Then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and he retaliated, first we took care of Japan by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But we realized that the war was still not going to go away, and Truman ordered we help the Allies beat the Nazis.
The Landing of D Day came and we were kickin arse! along with the british and good ol' Churchhill :D

My theroy is, if Germany stayed to itself and didnt try to capture any other country (except Austria), that by the 1950's they could have been a very powerful country. One that would take many years (and bombs) to defeat.

But hey! what do i know? im just an American school boy! :P

9th November 2002, 02:14 PM
the thing is, sometimes you can't talk your way out of trouble.

i also do everything i can to avoid violence, and thankfully it works (thankfully because i last had afight when i was 12 and i don't think i'd be all that good at fisticuffs.). but sometimes you have to defend yourself, or other people, or what you think is right.

t be honest i'm confused about the whole saddam hussein issue. i certainly don't trust bush to go in there shooting everything in sight to sort it out. then again saddam hussein scares me witless.

9th November 2002, 03:45 PM
Feisar, you need to go back and read those books again; Truman did not become President till near the end of the war. Franklin Roosevelt was President when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, and was the one to make, with the necessary approval of Congress, the declaration of war. however, even long before this happened, Roosevelt had been sending thousands of Grant and Sherman tanks, and other weapons, and other forms of aid to Britain. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed with ''atom bombs'' till just before the end of the war in 1945. Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941. possibly you might want to rethink the analyses and theories ;)

9th November 2002, 04:52 PM
ok, my middle school teachers need to go back to college!!


9th November 2002, 05:44 PM
i'm suuuure it was all their fault

10th November 2002, 03:15 AM
Anyone who supports an "allied" invasion of Iraq should be able to say why "collateral damage" (dismembered kids) is a lesser evil than other possible ways of dealing with Saddam.

Most people will have heard the line "War is an extension of diplomacy." This war is the death of diplomacy, and an extension of capitalism.

Saddam poses no proven threat to either of the countries who support an invasion. Infact if you add up the death toll in this conflict, which has been in progress since Gulf War 1, it would come out something like: Britain/USA 235. Iraq 1.5 million. It does beg the question of who is the greater threat to who, and how valuable is an Arab life compared to a European/American life?

When the bombing starts there will be" mistakes"..... I`ve got kids. Iraqi parents, who love their kids as much as I love mine, will hear bombs fall and wake up to find their children with missing limbs, or heads. Or the children will wake to find they have no parents, and then they`ll starve or die of their injuries. These sorts of things have happened in every recent "allied military action" and will happen in this one. If anyone wishes to support a war in Iraq they should be able to explain why this is acceptable, and why "collateral damage" is a lesser evil than any other course of action.

You can`t call these things "accidents" when you know that they will happen.

Asking for justification of a course of action that will lead to innocent deaths seems to me like very basic morality. I`m an atheist, but Blair and Bush, who both claim to be Christians, seem to be unable to attempt any justification of the very unchristian act of killing children.

This isn`t necessarily an argument against war on Iraq, but I think it raises some questions that "hawks" like Blair and Bush ought to attempt to answer. They never will of course, as its not exactly great PR to mention dead children.

When its all over we`ll be paying more for our petrol for a while, and then the same as we are now, while oil companies who fund President Bush`s campaigns make huge profits on the spoils of war. Arms manufacturers will make equally spectacular profits, and like the oil companies will continue to provide well-paid jobs and consultancies for the political elite, in between, before and after their periods of office. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be dead or dying from the effects of British and American weapons. North Korea, which possess more proven "weapons of mass destruction" than Iraq, will stay exactly as it is now. I think these are the facts, make of them what you will.

10th November 2002, 03:30 AM
If we wanted Iraqi oil so much, why aren't we taking over the country right now. ask yourself this. if saddam had a nuclear bomb, would he use it on the USA or Israel--answer-yes. So I believe if he doesn't allow inspectors in everywhere this is a neccessity. if he does let them in, leave them alone. if it's found out he gave money to the terrorists, take him out.

10th November 2002, 05:06 AM
Zoo, do you really think if Saddam had a nuclear weapon he'd attack first?

Who do you think he would attack? And where would he go a few hours later when America's nuclear B2's fly into Iraq and nuclear tipped ICBM's come plummeting down from the heavens above?

And 'take him out' is a silly thing to say, like hasn't the US been trying to 'take out' a little Spanish guy in the Gulf of Mexico for about 30 years?

Besides that, I thought assassination was illegal in America, but i guess legalities come second to blowing stuff up. Just ask the scortch mark in Yemen that used to be 6 former terrorists. Funny, i didn't think execution was *supposed* to come before trial and conviction.


10th November 2002, 07:30 PM
my thereoy is you have to be responsible when using mass destruction weapons.

Say you gave a idiot 100 nuclear bombs and he was against the world in a War.
He would bomb everything he could bomb, including major citys and farmlands.
This would sorta render the world useless since the wide spread radiation and damage of a nuclear bomb (s) can cause.

In a war, the U.S. would only use a nuclear bomb under a Have - to bases. in the begining we were nieve and bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. killing all those people and causing wide spread radiation. But i think were smart enough now to be Responsible :D

So remember,

Please Recycle You Animals

10th November 2002, 07:49 PM
the people who ordered the creation of the 'atom bomb' and the use of it on the two japanese cities were very aware of what it would do. it was not done out of ignorance, but from knowledge. if anything, the use of those two bombs probably saved a lot of lives both japanese and american. many more than were killed or wounded by the bombs themselves. a more conventional continuance of the war would have gone on far longer and required the invasion of japan against fierce resistance. a much more destructive scenario than what actually occurred.

intelligence has no direct connection to responsibility. many creators of war and destruction are very intelligent, ''smart''.


DJ Techno
25th November 2002, 10:32 PM
I'm just naming the person who were involved with creating the Atomic Bomb
Manhattan Project
Albert Einstein
Los Alamos, new Mexico
Prof. Oppenheimer
Enrico Fermi
Edward Teller
several others
If it wasn't for scientist then we would not having to be so worried about Nuclear war.
-It was a race to create the A-bomb before the Japanese and Germans could
-After world war II THE COLD WAR
-The two super powers were suppose to disarm all nuclear weapons
Ok, my sources are from my research projects I did back in High school and the history channel

25th November 2002, 11:13 PM
-After that, all Nuclear arms were to be disarmed
Aren't you a bit naive? :-?


25th November 2002, 11:56 PM
mike, what does that have to do with anything? i said the people who ORDERED the creation of the bomb and the use of it, NOT the people who actually CREATED it. i was referring to politicians and military generals, not scientists


as i implied through the technique of sarcasm in my first post after this topic started, while we members of the wipeoutzone may be good at playing videogames, we do not have the sources of information and the experience of direct participation in high-level international politics that would give us the ability to make valid judgements as to what military actions would or would not be justified. this whole topic has just been idle twitching of the typing fingers expressing uninformed opinions. [and that includes my own fingertwitching]