General discussion


America too is resposible for WHAT is on !!

By Straight View ·
As far as I remember during the Cold war America and USSR turned afgan land into war grpound. America created OSAMA !! . Even laden thanked the then govt. Why ?? Why america helped them not for PEACE! but only to get ahead of USSR.Does it sound unfair? If NO then 9/11 also shouldn't be unfair. Other chapter on "Saddam". Do America really want to get the dictator out of that country so that the Iraqi people can live in peace. Surely not.
1). If it would have been so then many African coutries still are in bondage of dictator ship even in a democratic framework.
2). They didn't have United Nations when they attacked still it goes on. Why ??
India,China Korea, etc they can't make Nuclear bombs. But America has 10000 Nuclear Warheads ready at any point of time. What's this !!
I firmy believe that America is a Powerful country people are good and really if they want they can do good to the world as far as PEACE is concerned.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Who is responsible

by Black Panther In reply to America too is resposibl ...

Who is responsible for voting in the Governence??

Collapse -

???? - Your point is What ????

by SkipperUSN In reply to America too is resposibl ...

Yes you are correct - and we had the Shaw of Iran - and Philpines - and many other locations in the world ... Those who were once your friend become your emeny... Your a great Monday morning Quarter Back - Gee I bet you could even tell me who won world war II..

Look - we backed Osama - because he was fighting the russians - then because we changed leaders - and they abandoned him he got a little pissed at the US ... Same with the Shaw - Oh lets not forget we help Saddam with his war in Iran...

So your point is what - Americans screwed a few things up - Yepper we sure did - England, France, Germany, Italy and anyother country you can think of has made the same mistakes at some point in their history ...

So again you point is What?

Collapse -

I think the pont is...

by Oz_Media In reply to ???? - Your point is What ...

I could be wrong, but lets see if I can gat part of the reason .

The point is, YES every country has mad mistakes in their past and they admit them, they realize them and they don't repeat them.

America makes mistakes and blames the world for not doing anythig about it. They then go to war to resove their own issues and again blame the world for not supporting them. Then they say how horrible others may be that they want to arms thei countries, in the case of NK, it was that they wren't allowed to bild nukes, the NK government said F-U, we will build nukes for defense against America. No different than the Cuban missile crisis, if YOU can have nukes pointed at people, why can't anyone else?

It is a double standard, America is allowed to have nukes because america is a peaceful country that wouldn't wage unneccsessary wars and possibly use nukes offensively.

A country that America feels is a threat to the world or may use the weapons irresponsibly and ofensively is NOT allowed to have buclear warheads.

Then you go and start the most controversial invasion of another country sice the late 60's. That was YOUR effort too wasn't it?

But you STILL expect other countries to believe that you are the most responsible nation and YOU should have nukes but nobody else can.

Now I can actually see your point this time very clearly, if I was in a fight, I would rather have all the baseball bats and refuse to let the other guy have anything. Personally though, I refuse to fight a one sided fight, I will not let my friends jump in if I lose or anything else. Man on man, no guns no weapons just one on one. This is fair play, may the best man win and the loser buys the beers.

I can have wepaons and you can't? Well now you're just asking for it.

I think that's basically what the point was.

For Straigh View, sorry for stepin gin but I didn't know if you would respnd to these guys after reading their other overly defensive rants.

Collapse -

We're not quite alone

by ProtiusX In reply to I think the pont is...

Here's some background on this issue:
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.
It is the UN that is attempting to curtail the ability of more nations to manufacture nuclear weapons.
By the way hats' off to South Africa which is the only country in the world who had a nuclear arsinal and disposed of it.

Collapse -

Canada also has a massive microwave aresenal as opposed to nuclear power.

by Oz_Media In reply to We're not quite alone

Well when you consider Canada's size, it's hard to believe that the Canadian army has so much power, but in these modern days of battle, power is available near the front line and they can use microwave technology to reheat food and hopefully remove some of the hair from their opponents if they choose to look through the little glass window.

So when a formidable enemy is faced, we have the capability to line up the microwaves and run them at power 10 for 5 minutes, some of them even have old faulty door seals and leak microwzves.

Vancouver is a uclear free zone, even the nuclear powered US destroyer was made to wait out in national waters while other non-nuclear US war ships docked in Vancouver harbour for a few days, while the sailors made idiots of themselves drinking Canadian beer in the locals. When Americans come to Vancouver en mass like that, it sure leaves a bad impression of your military.

Many end up in hospital or causing problems in pubs as they just can't deal with the beer up here and get into trouble. It's quite a scene to say the least.

Vancouver has always been a nuclear free zone, what do we need nukes for??

Collapse -

When you see only men for a 3 or 4 months even Canadian women look great

by JimHM In reply to Canada also has a massive ...

Hey after months at sea - and only looking at men any women looks great - and after a half dozen of those Canadian beers - even a bear looks good to these guys.

Now Oz - your going to tell me that you canadians sailors act proper when they enter a foriegn port - after being at sea for 4 months - Right - sure - OK - Hey and the Pope is Islamic fundamentlist also..

You're making a **** of alote of generalizations there Ozzie - Just like - I could say all Canadian women are ugly and hairy - an I've only met 3 ... But in reality - the majority of Canadian women are beautiful women -

So don't generalize all because your speaking of the country you hate - and as you said before - Don't believe everything Oz says about America...

Collapse -

A different topic all together

by ProtiusX In reply to Canada also has a massive ...

My wife is a nuclear health physicist. Perhaps when you'd like to debate the benefits of a clean safe energy source you will let me know. If you are affraid of nuclear power then you are either ingorant or you have an agenda. Now before you go off half-cocked and spout anti-American rubbish let me just point out that the UK and France have a larger and more productive nuclear power infrastructure than the US does. I guess in this instance my hats off to the frogs and the brits! (By the way my wifes French too. ;o)

Collapse -

Canada and Nuclear Power

by JamesRL In reply to A different topic all tog ...

I used to work for the Canadian Company(Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a crown corporation - run like a business, shareholder is the gov't) which sold Candu Reactors all over the world(Canada, Korea, China, Argentina, India). My province is 1/3 powered by Candus.

Eighty Five percent of the world's radioactive medical isotopes(radiation therapy, radioactive imaging etc) are produced at an AECL facility. Next time you suggest that Bush threaten Canada, think about that. Most of those isotopes have a short shelf life - if trade becomes more hassle, some of them won't be able to be exported to the US.

And despite Canada's not having developed nuclear weapons itself(which as a partner in the Manhattan project it could have done), its not like we have always been non-nuclear. Canada stationed nuclear anti aircraft Bomarc missles on our soil as part of our committment to NORAD. And our ships used to carry nuclear depth charges. It would be silly for Canada to have its own nuclear program when the US (as part of NORAD agreement) considers any strike on Canada as a strike on the US - I think the US has enough missles left over for that.

Personally I think we should reduce the number of warheads, but not reduce the number of reactors. If we reduced reactors, whatever alternative would involve burning of fossil fuels and pollution. Solar and wind power aren't ready for anything the size of replacing a reactor. If you doubt it, calculate how many wind turbines you'd have to put in to replace a nuclear reactor, then calculate how much land you'd need to site those turbines.


Related Discussions

Related Forums