Bhutto Assassinated

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^the US still uses depleted uranium ammunition in iraq and afghanistan. bush does support israel because of the fact that he is a fundi, as do most other evangelical private foundations and churches{sending tens of billions in funding every year} and the bush regime takes ABSOLUTELY no notice of all the TERRORISM israel dishes out which is far more than all muslim terrorists of the region combined. and no, the us does NOT support egypt at ALL. it just doesnt mess with them much because of its position geographically and politically, just like it doesnt mess with north korea much irrespective of how bad they actually can be. and PLEASE think of a better muslim example than friggin TURKEY, its basically a secular conutry who wud do anything, even kiss the E.U's ass to get accepted in the E.U. the only other american ally that i know of wud be saudi arabia, not because the american government loves em, but because of all the oil and business relations. plus the nearly 8% contribution to american economy and letting america use their soil and the gulf for attacks and military presence.

And depleted Uranium ammunition and a nuclear bomb are pretty much the same thing right?

Turkey is still a Muslim country. An extremist would not deal with Turkey because it's filled with Muslims. Bush does give aid to Egypt, or at least the US does he deals with Muslims there. He does deal with Saudi Arabia, who are Muslims. The US has supported Israel for a long time even before Bush and that had absolutely nothing to do with Christian ideals. Or should I remind you that is the Christians who tried to wipe out the Jews several times and came for closer to doing it then the Muslims ever did. Christians however learned to accept that perhaps we were wrong on that regard, while Muslims aren't quite there yet.

do not BULLSHIT YOURSELF about christian extremism, it is every bit as arrogant and harmful to the world as muslim extremism and has compareable, if not greater, political power than muslim extremism. and yes, he is doing exactly that, although not perfect;y

Again Christian extremists although assholes and idiots are not yet ready to blow up Mecca or destroy Muslim nations. Well some might be but they aren't in power. If they were, we would have no middle east. Just oil drilling platforms and a lot of sand claimed in the name of the US.

as for the second part, no it wasnt completely different circumstances, they were innocent civilians and a city, not a military target. the affect of nuclear weapons was QUITE well known, dont be ridiculous, as was teh affect of radiation, plus the yield of the bomb was known. do not forget that nukes were tested BEFORE ever being dropped on japan. even the crew of the enola gay was told that the wepon in question would crack the very crust of the earth itself, they knew DAMN well what they were droppiong so dont pull that shit. and just to impress the fact even more that america didnt give a SHIT then what got killed int he process. BEFORE teh nukes were dropped, the two major cities were napalm bombed which killed MORE people than the nukes later. it is no justification to say that this sort of thing was NORMAL then. it is still just as WRONG. and it doesn change the fact that america is still the only country EVER in history to have used nukes against people and civilians. not to mention it still RETAINS the biggest arsenal of nukes in the world so really i say that the world has more reason to be worried abotu CHRISTIAN fundies doing such a thing than muslim, or atleast equally worry abotu both{apparently you are SEVERELY misjusdging the level of fundamentalism found in the christian south of america}

You can't read. America hasn't dropped a bomb since Japan. America was not fully aware of the effects otherwise they would not have send their own troops in. America was fully aware that it would destroy the city, they knew that. But America, Canada, England, France, Germany, Russia they all blew up dozens of city's in World War II through whatever way they could. America just thought this bomb would send a larger message and it did.

Now again, America according to you is ruled by fundamentalists. Who still deal with Muslims and still don't use Nukes to destroy the Muslim way of life. They don't forbid the Koran they don't stop Muslims from praying and they don't burn down every Mosque that arises. They don't arrest people for being Muslim or praying towards Mecca. Several Muslim nations however do just that. They hate our way of life and want to destroy it. That just makes them a bit more dangerous.

as for the destroying israel comment. israel is equally motivated and taking PRACTICAL steps to distroy israel/lebona etc to take ovve rthe enitre new canaan region which they beleive belongs to them. israel also kills hundreds of times more people{not to mention tortures millions} than muslim terrorists kill in israel. as for the iraq comment, 2.5 % of the entire population of iraq is officially dead and unofficially, the figures normally rise about 8 to 10 times that amount as seen by experts. so your last argument is not true.

Israel isn't a nice country but they could have taken over all those other country's already if they would have wanted to. Just like the US. It's the fact that they don't want to or the unrest in other nations would be to big that prevents them from doing that. Two things that Muslim Extremists like the one's in Al-Qaeda don't notice. That they don't care about.

And my last comment still stands, if Israel would have wanted to they could have bombed their enemy's to shit. Blown up entire city's. The US could have used nuclear weapons and if they really wanted to Baghdad could have been nothing more then a smoking pile of dust right now. Filled perhaps with some American soldiers patrolling the rubble that covered what were once streets and shooting anybody still moving. They have that power, they have the weapons to do it. They aren't doing it. That means that they don't want to and can thus be easier trusted with those weapons then people who do want to do that only to Washington instead of Baghdad.

Originally posted by SoylentBlue
Glad we're all talkin' about Bhutto's death and not more Christian-Muslim Extremism/WMD Crap here....

Well in my defense, this debate did start when I mentioned the possible negative side effects of her death.

Originally posted by Fishy

Again Christian extremists although assholes and idiots are not yet ready to blow up Mecca or destroy Muslim nations. Well some might be but they aren't in power.

You can't read. America hasn't dropped a bomb since Japan.

Now again, America according to you is ruled by fundamentalists. Who still deal with Muslims and still don't use Nukes to destroy the Muslim way of life. They don't forbid the Koran they don't stop Muslims from praying and they don't burn down every Mosque that arises. They don't arrest people for being Muslim or praying towards Mecca. Several Muslim nations however do just that. They hate our way of life and want to destroy it. That just makes them a bit more dangerous.

Israel isn't a nice country but they could have taken over all those other country's already if they would have wanted to. Just like the US.

And my last comment still stands, if Israel would have wanted to they could have bombed their enemy's to shit. Blown up entire city's.

All of this shows a complete misunderstanding for how "realpolitik" works.

sometimes you gotta take a step back and say it is better to cower now so you can live another day. i havent read every single thing about this bhutto incident but i believe her ppl was telling her to chill cuz its getting real hectic and she refused becuz she wanted to put on a brave face for her supporters, admirable though it may have been look where its gotten her. the same thing with MLK... he knew they were gonna get him but, he refused to lay low for a little bit, and look how that worked out.
😄

Originally posted by chithappens
All of this shows a complete misunderstanding for how "realpolitik" works.

No it shows that you are a complete idiot who does not understand the difference between a nation filled with people that just want to survive and a nation filled or at least lead by people whose primary goal it is to destroy that way of life.

The first one can have nuclear weapons preferably not but it's not that big a deal. The second one creates a huge and imminent danger to the world.

I understand that you hate the US and want to think all their enemy's are justified in their believes. But that doesn't mean you can stop looking at what does enemy's could and likely would use to accomplish this goal or the effects that would have on your own way of life.

Originally posted by manjaro
sometimes you gotta take a step back and say it is better to cower now so you can live another day. i havent read every single thing about this bhutto incident but i believe her ppl was telling her to chill cuz its getting real hectic and she refused becuz she wanted to put on a brave face for her supporters, admirable though it may have been look where its gotten her. the same thing with MLK... he knew they were gonna get him but, he refused to lay low for a little bit, and look how that worked out.
😄

Cowering would not have been an option, she was strong and powerful now. Her ability to change things would have been hugely compromised if she would have stepped back because of a risk to her own life. Nothing would have changed and in the end if she would have returned a later date it would not have made the same impact it did now. She made the right decision in staying, at least if she was willing to die for what she believed in and I honestly think she was willing to do just that, if it would have really meant something.

Let's just hope for the people that supported her that her death did mean something and that something will change in Pakistan, at least in the way they wanted it.

Do you honestly believe all of the "insurgents" are extremists? How about a bunch of these groups got more folks to work with them because this was an unjust war and they did go in and kill people's families and homes. All this "happy for democracy" crap is funny. I would be on the lines with a gun if they blew up all my shit and my family. Does anyone realize that for all the talk of reconstruction there is no discussion on how to help particular individuals who had all their stuff blown up?

You are brainwashed. You can't even coin another phrase other than that "destroy our way of life" crap.

I don't hate the U.S. I hate the habitually contradictory policies of the U.S. There is a very fundamental difference. Being a "patriot" does not mean walking the line blindly. You should be critically and not simply accept every answer given without looking at it carefully simply because you are a part of said country. U.S. history has shown loads of corruption and propaganda and puppet governments. To say otherwise is to be completely blind. This particular situation is no different.

Originally posted by chithappens
Do you honestly believe all of the "insurgents" are extremists? How about a bunch of these groups got more folks to work with them because this was an unjust war and they did go in and kill people's families and homes. All this "happy for democracy" crap is funny. I would be on the lines with a gun if they blew up all my shit and my family. Does anyone realize that for all the talk of reconstruction there is no discussion on how to help particular individuals who had all their stuff blown up?

And whose orders do those people follow? Not that of some hippy flower guy but of an Islamic Extremists who joined the Taliban and or Al-Qaeda years ago. Not somebody who will stop once the US is out of the country but who will want to get back at the US. And Al-Qaeda has a strong presence in Pakistan. Pakistan also has nuclear weapons.

You just don't see it do you, it doesn't matter if 95% of them will stop once the US leaves Afghanistan, 5% won't. And I very much doubt it's that little. They will want power they will want revenge, and with nuclear missiles in Pakistan they can get it. Better then ever. They didn't attacked the US in 2001 not because they were attacked recently but because of things that happened years earlier. Now those things may have justified an attack or a war, but certainly not the killing of innocent civilians, and what happened then is nothing compared to what the US has done to them directly now. The retaliation would be far larger, if they get the chance. I'm just saying don't give them the chance.

You seem to think that I believe every Muslim is an extremists everybody in Afghanistan or Pakistan want the western world to be destroyed. I don't. I just don't want the few that do to get their hands on the most terrible and powerful weapons mankind has ever developed and if you do then you really are an idiot.

You are brainwashed. You can't even coin another phrase other than that "destroy our way of life" crap.

What was the purpose of 9/11 except to destroy our lives? What was the purpose of the train bombing in Madrid, the Subway bombings in London and the more recent but failed attacks there, what was the point in blowing up that Disco in Bali? It was to hurt us, to make us believe that we are not safe that we are not secure that they can and will strike and it was an attempt to destroy our way of life. It's that simple. Give them nuclear weapons and destroying that way of life would become a hell of lot easier for them.

I don't hate the U.S. I hate the habitually contradictory policies of the U.S. There is a very fundamental difference. Being a "patriot" does not mean walking the line blindly. You should be critically and not simply accept every answer given without looking at it carefully simply because you are a part of said country. U.S. history has shown loads of corruption and propaganda and puppet governments. To say otherwise is to be completely blind. This particular situation is no different.

And I'm not contradicting that. I never did contradict that the US handled things badly, did things wrong and made huge perhaps even unforgivable mistakes. I never said that I do not understand why the terrorists did what they did. Although I think that is just as wrong as what the US did. I'm just saying give them the chance and they will do more. Give them nuclear weapons and they will do more. Personally I don't really want to see that happen. No matter what the cost I would not want to see that happen, even if it means a full scale attack on Pakistan. Which is highly unlikely and I am hoping that the government in power is either that of Bhutto her party or that of the current president because in both cases we won't have a lot of trouble from them.

So the question then becomes this: How much is too much? Where do you stop? (by this I mean doing things like knocking countries over for "harboring terrorists" as if they can't move to the next border; besides we fund plenty of foul regions but that's another issue).

I just don't see the ending point to this. It's an "all means necessary" mentality.

Originally posted by chithappens
So the question then becomes this: How much is too much? Where do you stop? (by this I mean doing things like knocking countries over for "harboring terrorists" as if they can't move to the next border; besides we fund plenty of foul regions but that's another issue).

I just don't see the ending point to this. It's an "all means necessary" mentality.

Afghanistan was somewhat understandable. Iraq was a huge mistake, we should never do things like that again.

However, if people who want to destroy us are close to getting their hands on nuclear weapons then even a full blown war is not something that I would stop at. Id rather blow my enemy to bits and worry about possible retaliation without nukes later then have a nuclear missile on my head in the first place.

Luckily there are probably easier ways, the current government would probably not like to see those weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists, the Pakistani military probably wouldn't like it either. A coupe might be a solution and if not that then moving the nuclear weapons to another country. China, India some western country I don't care. As long as they stay away from those extremists.

To answer the rest of your question, we shouldn't attack a country unless we have a good reason. With Afghanistan the reason was good enough, with Iraq it was not. With nuclear weapons at stake the reason is good enough. And these weapons are verified, so it's different then in Iraq where they were heavily debated even before the war and most people didn't believe they were there.

once Nuclearing testing begins in other country's however, like for instance Iran and they can not be persuaded to stop then an attack on Iran would even be justified. The same would go for North Korea by the way. Who were persuaded to drop their nuclear program and who were less likely to use them in the first place.

The next question would be, "Who is not an extremists to their own views? (does not mean religious, just means to whatever stance any nation-state chooses to take.)

Originally posted by chithappens
The next question would be, "Who is not an extremists to their own views? (does not mean religious, just means to whatever stance any nation-state chooses to take.)

Simply put: People who want to destroy another nation/way of life/group of people no matter what the cost. And consider it their duty either to God their nation or whatever else to carry out that mission even if they have to pay for it with their own lives or that of many other innocent people.

Al-Qaeda would definitely qualify.

In your mind, were either the Soviet Union or the U.S. extremists during the Cold War?

Originally posted by chithappens
In your mind, were either the Soviet Union or the U.S. extremists during the Cold War?

Yes, but not in the same way these people are. Neither one of those sides wanted a war. Both of them knew the consequences and both of them wanted to avoid it at all cost. I believe Al-Qaeda has already shown that they don't care about the consequences. They have attacked a nation that's more powerful then them with the ability to destroy them. Neither the US or the Soviet Union wanted to take that risk.

And depleted Uranium ammunition and a nuclear bomb are pretty much the same thing right?

yea, considering both leave radioactive isotopes with extremely long half lives which cause all the radiation based damage outside the initial desruction. everyt third round of ammo fired by american gunships or heavey artillery contains depleted uranium in irq and afghanistan.

Turkey is still a Muslim country. An extremist would not deal with Turkey because it's filled with Muslims. Bush does give aid to Egypt, or at least the US does he deals with Muslims there. He does deal with Saudi Arabia, who are Muslims. The US has supported Israel for a long time even before Bush and that had absolutely nothing to do with Christian ideals. Or should I remind you that is the Christians who tried to wipe out the Jews several times and came for closer to doing it then the Muslims ever did. Christians however learned to accept that perhaps we were wrong on that regard, while Muslims aren't quite there yet.

Again Christian extremists although assholes and idiots are not yet ready to blow up Mecca or destroy Muslim nations. Well some might be but they aren't in power. If they were, we would have no middle east. Just oil drilling platforms and a lot of sand claimed in the name of the US.

yes they are, many of them, just like they are ready to pass laws to enslave or not legally protect the individual rights of gays. but you also have to understand that they arent EVERYBODY and america does have to follow SUM laws and look like SUM form of a stable nation and it DOES need oil. and again, most muslims are gaainst even recognising israel and many have the power to destroy it if they stick together, yet israel remains. am i to assume then that muslims are NOT ready to blow up israel???? utter nonesense.

You can't read. America hasn't dropped a bomb since Japan. America was not fully aware of the effects otherwise they would not have send their own troops in. America was fully aware that it would destroy the city, they knew that. But America, Canada, England, France, Germany, Russia they all blew up dozens of city's in World War II through whatever way they could. America just thought this bomb would send a larger message and it did.

oh my GOD, america hasnt dropped a nuke since then??? well guess what, NEITHER HAS ANY1 ELSE!!!!! and america has dropped more NORMAL bombs and directly killed more civilians since then in wars outside itse own land, than any other force since that time. america did fully understand the affects, radioactivity and its affects, as well as the remnant number of isotopes were well understood at the time.plus, as i said, they tested the nuke before, you are forgetting it, they had the data. and the last statement just proves my point that america did not CARE at the time{as it doesnt now even in today's more civilised world} about the livelyhoods of others, as long as THE AMERICAN WAY wasnt threatened by lowly bigots and cavement who dont deserve to be called HUMANS or are anything more thna savages, compared to the obviously superior and SIGNIFICANT american way.

[QUUOTE]
Now again, America according to you is ruled by fundamentalists. Who still deal with Muslims and still don't use Nukes to destroy the Muslim way of life. They don't forbid the Koran they don't stop Muslims from praying and they don't burn down every Mosque that arises. They don't arrest people for being Muslim or praying towards Mecca. Several Muslim nations however do just that. They hate our way of life and want to destroy it. That just makes them a bit more dangerous. [/QUOTE]

no according to me, nearlt the entire right wing is fundamentalist. and if the above are examples of the FAVOURS america is doing to muslims{as you make basic rights seem} then most muslim countries are not doing it either. doesnt change the fact that america IS doing a lot of things against the muslims like bombing them to hell, killing 2.5% - 25% of the population of iraq etc etc etc. not to mention rampant propaganda and arresting and torturing people{mostly MUSLIMS} in guantanamo bay on no pretext or trial.

and PLEASE stop with the "our way of life" crap. it makes you sound unbeleiveably like people are "full of your own crap" . and that isnt true, they are not more dangerous than america.

Israel isn't a nice country but they could have taken over all those other country's already if they would have wanted to. Just like the US. It's the fact that they don't want to or the unrest in other nations would be to big that prevents them from doing that. Two things that Muslim Extremists like the one's in Al-Qaeda don't notice. That they don't care about.

And my last comment still stands, if Israel would have wanted to they could have bombed their enemy's to shit. Blown up entire city's. The US could have used nuclear weapons and if they really wanted to Baghdad could have been nothing more then a smoking pile of dust right now. Filled perhaps with some American soldiers patrolling the rubble that covered what were once streets and shooting anybody still moving. They have that power, they have the weapons to do it. They aren't doing it. That means that they don't want to and can thus be easier trusted with those weapons then people who do want to do that only to Washington instead of Baghdad.

THEY DID! destroyed much of the infrastructure of lebonan. using nukes on the other hand in the current world is like suicide, that is why no1 uses them.{ever heard of mutually assured destruction?}, plus, can you imagine how the entire world would boycott america if they started using nukes, that is why it does all that it CAN. and again, 2.5-25 % of the entire population of iraq is dead. this isnt terminater were talking about, please do not give such ridiculous examples .

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yea, considering both leave radioactive isotopes with extremely long half lives which cause all the radiation based damage outside the initial desruction. everyt third round of ammo fired by american gunships or heavey artillery contains depleted uranium in irq and afghanistan.

Seriously, some bullets are as bad as a nuclear bomb? A bullet fired into somebody is not nearly as bad as an atomic bomb falling on a city. The effects are not even comparable. Besides show me some prove that depleted Uranium is still used in bullets. I thought that was stopped years ago.

turkey is a muslim country pondeering BANNING the hijaab, with open alcohol, women in miniskirts{again not saying it is a BAD thing, i just happen to know that it damn well is against islamic laws and scriptures} and absolutely NO shariah laws. it doesnt count as a muslim country at all. the us gives SOME aid t egypt due to certain technical reason which ISNT directed towards strnegthening the government. saudia arabia i have already explained well enough. for nearly as long as israel has existed, it has been helped by christians and specially evangelicals. and even before bush, america being the DEMOCRATIC country it is, has to listen to over 40% of its screaming population, not to mention people in the parties. bush's CURRENT policy towards israel has a LOT to do with christian ideals. i am not defending the muslims here, i am just saying that as far as prophecy goes and common interests, jeews and fundy christians are friends{as can be seen by them even having common shurch sessions now as far as reclaiming the new canaan area goes and the rebuilding of the temple of solomon etc over the muslim dome of the rock. it is christian beleif that the land DOES divinely belong to jews}

An extremists Christian would not deal with Muslims. An Extremist Christian would not deal with Jews. Christians have been trying to kill Jews for century's. Okay that changed now but WWII wasn't the first time Christians tried to wipe out all of the Jews.

Now again, America isn't helping Israel because it's Jewish. America is helping Israel because Israel is an ally in a very important region of the world, where America needs all the power it can get. That's why it helps Egypt Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey. Three of which are Muslim country's.

Both Israel and America have the power to destroy all those nations easily, and yet they don't. Osama Bin Laden does not have that kind of power and yet he desperately seeks to destroy the Western World. That alone should tell you enough.

yes they are, many of them, just like they are ready to pass laws to enslave or not legally protect the individual rights of gays. but you also have to understand that they arent EVERYBODY and america does have to follow SUM laws and look like SUM form of a stable nation and it DOES need oil. and again, most muslims are gaainst even recognising israel and many have the power to destroy it if they stick together, yet israel remains. am i to assume then that muslims are NOT ready to blow up israel???? utter nonesense.

You are to assume just that. The last time the United Arab nations decided to attack Israel they lost. Then Israel got support from the US a nuclear power which they can not stand up against knowing what will happen. These people however are nation leaders they may be extreme but they are not willing to destroy their own land to take down another. Al-Qaeda is. That was there entire goal of the 9/11 attacks.

Not to mention Israel itself probably has Nuclear Missiles. Not a smart thing to attack a country with nukes if you want to survive. And the leaders of Iran do want to survive. Al-Qaeda members just prefer being alive, but not being alive probably isn't that big a deal for them with the whole 72 virgins and all.

oh my GOD, america hasnt dropped a nuke since then??? well guess what, NEITHER HAS ANY1 ELSE!!!!!

And what of those powers were ruled by Extremists wanting to blow up the Western world again? Oh yeah that's right, none of them.

and america has dropped more NORMAL bombs and directly killed more civilians since then in wars outside itse own land, than any other force since that time.

And yet still that's completely irrelevant. America did not use it's nuclear weapons. America doesn't want to destroy other country's above all else, they aren't willing to destroy themselves to stop Islam from spreading. Islamic extremists are willing to destroy themselves to stop the Western world from spreading.

america did fully understand the affects, radioactivity and its affects, as well as the remnant number of isotopes were well understood at the time.plus, as i said, they tested the nuke before, you are forgetting it, they had the data. and the last statement just proves my point that america did not CARE at the time{as it doesnt now even in today's more civilised world} about the livelyhoods of others, as long as THE AMERICAN WAY wasnt threatened by lowly bigots and cavement who dont deserve to be called HUMANS or are anything more thna savages, compared to the obviously superior and SIGNIFICANT american way.

Show me prove of the first statement, which you won't be able to. The effects of radiation were not known. They just thought they created a super bomb. In a time where nations were readily blowing up other city's just to make their enemy crumble a super bomb was a brilliant weapon. No more nuclear weapons were used by the US since then. They aren't blowing up entire city's anymore either. Baghdad isn't being bombed by B-52 bombers. Although if the US would have done so this entire war would likely have been over already.

no according to me, nearlt the entire right wing is fundamentalist. and if the above are examples of the FAVOURS america is doing to muslims{as you make basic rights seem} then most muslim countries are not doing it either. doesnt change the fact that america IS doing a lot of things against the muslims like bombing them to hell, killing 2.5% - 25% of the population of iraq etc etc etc. not to mention rampant propaganda and arresting and torturing people{mostly MUSLIMS} in guantanamo bay on no pretext or trial.

Any nation following the Sharia isn't. According to you Islamic nations are not Islamic until they follow these laws. You said so yourself with Turkey. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan before the war and Iran for instance all follow these laws. And they are all dangerous country. Surprisingly enough Saddam Hussein and Iraq did not.

and PLEASE stop with the "our way of life" crap. it makes you sound unbeleiveably like people are "full of your own crap" . and that isnt true, they are not more dangerous than america.

I live in a western country, so it is my way of life I'm talking about here. And you are right they aren't more dangerous then America, because they don't have the arsenal America has. They are however far more likely to use whatever they have and if they get even half the power America does then we are screwed.

It's like comparing a tank to a hand gun. A tank would blow up a building in one shot, but if the tank driver does not want to do that then it just has power and isn't using it. A handgun would take far more shots and then still it would only kill the people inside the house. Yet if it's used it's still dangerous. And somebody shown to be willing to use that handgun even if the cops kill him for it shouldn't be given a tank.

no they cudnt have, they lost in lebonan as they have lost in other places. israel has always been beaten at gurilla warfare. same with the US, atleast after world war 2.

You seem to think the population of those country's would need to survive in order to take them over? They wouldn't.

THEY DID! destroyed much of the infrastructure of lebonan. using nukes on the other hand in the current world is like suicide, that is why no1 uses them.{ever heard of mutually assured destruction?}, plus, can you imagine how the entire world would boycott america if they started using nukes, that is why it does all that it CAN. and again, 2.5-25 % of the entire population of iraq is dead. this isnt terminater were talking about, please do not give such ridiculous examples .

They used conventional weak weapons and tried to keep as much in tact as possible. And you are right they aren't using Nuclear weapons because of the effect it would have amongst others on the rest of the world. Do you think Al-Qaeda gives a damn about that? Do you think Al-Qaeda gives a damn about being destroyed. They lured the US into Afghanistan that was their goal in the first place. Their entire idea was to defeat them there, that there own country would be destroyed in the process would be a sacrifice worth making. Giving them Nuclear weapons is not a good idea. Mutual destruction won't bother them.

BTW: None of America's enemy's in the Middle east have nuclear weapons. Nobody there does with the exception of Israel. They can blow them up without worries about their own destruction through nuclear weapons. They would piss off the rest of the world, but nobody is going to attack a country shown to be willing to use nuclear weapons.

And let's be honest here, a lot of people in Iraq that died since the war started died because of their own country men. They have killed more then the Americans have. Now you can blame America for starting the whole thing, but American soldiers aren't blowing themselves up in markets.

The Thing is nearly every country has a nuclear weapon and they dont use it or they will wipe out earth for good. USA dident know how much impact the atom bomb will make untill they tried it.

Why cant we have world peace ??

Originally posted by Fishy
Seriously, some bullets are as bad as a nuclear bomb? A bullet fired into somebody is not nearly as bad as an atomic bomb falling on a city. The effects are not even comparable. Besides show me some prove that depleted Uranium is still used in bullets. I thought that was stopped years ago.

I apologize to anyone this offends.

The dangers of depleted uranium exposure are minimal at the very worst. leonheartmm, it would appear that you are victim to false propaganda. The dangers of depleted uranium are no radiological in origin, but rather toxicological. Damage that can occur would be things like chromosomal translocation which basically locates bits of chromosomes onto other chromosomes. The carcinogenic effects are still debatable. One could still argue that the studies done that clearly show the carcinogenic effects of DU exposure are suppressed by western military. That is a logical perspective to take right after reading my statements but plenty of studies have been done from all over the world to debunk that myth to the point to where holders of such a perspective look ridiculous at best. DU rounds are heavier than lead rounds and have great military application. It can also be used as armor. The argument about DU being inhumane or in violation of UN treaties is null. There are plenty of other things that are more serious to both a soldier's and civilians health to debate "humane use" about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I apologize to anyone this offends.

The dangers of depleted uranium exposure are minimal at the very worst. leonheartmm, it would appear that you are victim to false propaganda. The dangers of depleted uranium are no radiological in origin, but rather toxicological. Damage that can occur would be things like chromosomal translocation which basically locates bits of chromosomes onto other chromosomes. The carcinogenic effects are still debatable. One could still argue that the studies done that clearly show the carcinogenic effects of DU exposure are suppressed by western military. That is a logical perspective to take right after reading my statements but plenty of studies have been done from all over the world to debunk that myth to the point to where holders of such a perspective look ridiculous at best. DU rounds are heavier than lead rounds and have great military application. It can also be used as armor. The argument about DU being inhumane or in violation of UN treaties is null. There are plenty of other things that are more serious to both a soldier's and civilians health to debate "humane use" about.

untrue. the gulf war syndrom has been atributed to DU rounds. it is the US MILITARY'S stance{which no1 finds surprising cause they use this stuff in bulk} that it isnt harmful, however, there is TONS of contrary views which clearly state that the shattering particles and glass particles generated are extremely carcinogenic in nature and can be inhaled easily over long distances and have lonog half lives, containing numerous alpha/beta/gama emittors.

also, if they are as harmful as tehy are claimed to be then why are they stored with eavy plastic caps when being handled for loading and storage or by personel around????? depleted uranium is still radioactive and ganderous. i agree that its heavier but then, you can always find alternatives in the types of rounds used. just being better at military applications does not make the rounds any more jutsified for use. ofcourse, there is the fact that DU rounds can potentially COOK every1 in armoured vehiecles. doesnt matter, they are inhumane and it is wrong to use em.

Originally posted by Fishy
Stop being an idiot.

Watch your tongue, or you might wake up dead one day.