Subject:
|
Re: Vote against/for...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:25:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2615 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > > > > John, "responsible" is not the word I would use - name me a country that
> > > > > > has a worse record with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?
>
> > > > > The former USSR.
>
> > > > Has it dropped "the bomb", has it used biological and chemical weapons the
> > > > way the USA has? I think not.
>
> > > The USSR denotated plenty of nuclear bombs.
>
> > As did the USA, France and the UK. So why is the USSR worse than the USA?
>
> I was thinking in terms of nuclear accidents-- part of the responsibility for
> utilizing nuclear technology is controlling it. And what of nuclear
> waste? Somehow I think the USSR didn't care as much for the environment as we
> did in this regard.
I said "weapons".
>
> > > Or did you mean killing people at
> > > the same time?
>
> > You are being obtuse again.
>
> Or maybe you are being imprecise.
Nope.
>
> > > Yeah, we dropped 2 nukes (tiny by today's standards), but
> > > reluctantly. Had we a cache of bombs we would most certainly have provided a
> > > little demonstration to the Japanese leaders of their fate if they didn't
> > > surrender immediately-- unfortunately we had only 2. And it is not as if we
> > > didn't give them ample warning to avoid the attacks anyway.
>
> > All that's debateble. General Dwight D. Eisenhower:
> > "Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of
> > 'face'? It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
>
> Well, "Japan" wasn't all of one mind-- some wanted to surrender and others
> didn't.
OK, Eisenhower was wrong.
>
> > > But as long as we are talking about the USSR as some sort of twisted model
> > > for the US to follow-- Stalin alone butchered more of his *own* citizens
> > > than we ever did with nukes or the like combined.
>
> > That is ugly, but is not part of this debate.
>
> I'm curious: why is dying from a nuclear bomb so much more objectionable than a
> good old-fashioned mass execution?
The debate is about WOMD.
>
> > > BTW, in what way are you insinuating the US used bio and chem weapons?
>
> > lol Ever heard of "agent orange"?
>
> Was he CIA or KGB? Agent orange was not a chemical weapon per se, unless you
> had a beef with a rubber tree. It was a defoliant.
>
> > Who gave Iraq its WOMD? Whose anthrax was spread about the USA last year?
>
> ?? *We* never used anthrax on anyone. If you are insinuating that the anthrax
> was produced here but stolen or something, are you then going to blame us for
> its release on us?
I'll blame the US for giving it to Iraq, and having poor bio-secuity.
> Got any blame left for the people who actually did the
> releasing?
Sure.
>
> > > > > You go, spin doctor. The cold war was a battle of idealogies-- Communism
> > > > > vs Capitalism. We won.
>
> > > > Not quite right, but does the means justify the end?
>
> > > Why don't you ask that question of the Palestinian extremists?
>
> > I have. Answer my question.
>
> You tire me with your vague assertions-- I thought you were being rhetoerical.
> What means, what ends?
LOL
>
> > > > > As far as Israel goes, that is your POV and not fact; we just see things
> > > > > differently.
>
> > > > No john, it's a fact. You know. I know it. It's a fact.
>
> > > Give me a break. I know NO such thing; it's NOT fact, so just drop it.
>
> > Have I touched a nerve? Who pays for the bombs the IDF use to kill women and
> > children to hold land which does not belong to them in defiance of
> > international law? Is it you John? Is it?
>
> No, but I doubled checked my last VISA statement just to make sure.
Check your tax bill.
>
> I simply haven't the time or inclination to go down this road with you again--
> it is pointless.
Indeed.
I'll have to ask you again: name me a country that has a worse record with
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?
Scott A
>
> -John
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Vote against/for...
|
| (...) I was thinking in terms of nuclear accidents-- part of the responsibility for utilizing nuclear technology is controlling it. And what of nuclear waste? Somehow I think the USSR didn't care as much for the environment as we did in this regard. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
