Nuclear weapons option for Australia

[asklepios]

asklepios... you should be ashamed. Haven't you had any History in school yet?

Do you even know what agent orange does?? ROFL... Hahahahaha. I apologize, because you are almost certainly just a young kid. But as you will learn in History, Chemical weapons have been used in nearly every conflict for the past hundred years, and Agent Orange is by far one of the most pleasant.

okay as u said...i will be ashamed but i don't understand on what thing should i be ashamed.
anyways, i feel that you wanted to laugh and you found a way out. well good for you but i guess i m young enough that i never studied any history and you are so old that you can't even read a line that is written on your monitor.
lets review the thing that i said and this time i will make it a bit bigger for you...
to use chemical weapons on another country -- Agent Orange, Vietnam (SUCCES!!!)
i never talked about war...or use of chemical weapons on soldiers but was referring to citizens!!!!!!!! thats one thing that only US can do! now lets see what your enormous knowledge of history has got for us. lets see if you can give us a single example where a country is suffering from the effects of a chemical weapon for more that 30 years now.
hey i know you will be very quick to give an answer of that question...after all...you have just a vast knowledge but please help me once more. do tell me that what will happen if u r sprayed by lots of Agent Orange. i guess it won't effect you...after all it is so pleasant.
about Japan...well thanx for telling me what kind of thoughts you have. i can see what kind of views you have regarding killing thousands of people.

And being the only superpower of the world comes with the responsibility to protect yourself from countries who pose a threat.

and which are those countries? world (minus) US...right?

Mr. C...i don't understand what was hogwash in the thing that i wrote? i have great respect for you and i feel that you are one of the few people who know how to use google effectively and productively. anyways here are a few things for you to read.

http://www.house.gov/bernie/publications/articles/2000-04-25-ao-globe.html

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030414/030414-10.html

http://www.va.gov/agentorange/

[Webgraph]

oh yeah i forgot he canadian eh. thats ok then, cause all the people near him in canada are mentally incapable of making decisions and knowing anything, so they wont mind if we make their homes glow a bit

Would it hurt for me to ask if you and everyone else here would not discriminate any country falsely around here? I do not know what is your problem, but with comments discriminating an entire country, you might be insulting other members here that are also Canadian. I did not sign up on this or any other forum to be discriminated and victimized at this magnitude. I came here to ask the odd tech-related question and to help other forum members in a civilized manner. I don't go around vicimizing other forum members, so why would you go around victimizing me? Don't you all remember the famous biblical verse to do unto others the way you have them do unto you? Now if it's possible, I demand a serious apology from you all for all this BS going on.

[Mr. C]

Thank you for your kind words asklepios.

I replied to the words in your statement, as they were clear in their meaning.
Perhaps, not what you had intended the meaning to be, nonetheless the meaning was clear.

I won't deny the USA did, has and will use chemical agents. That is a proven fact. Numerous accounts and records exist of chemical agents being tested on unwitting citizens of their own country.

an interesting read; http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4809/gov.html
Just the bare-bones there, further searching will produce more details, I'm sure.

That said, the USA was not "first" to use chemical weapons on another country.
For that, I believe you will have to look back to World War I. Both the German and British government carried out numerous chemical attacks on enemy troops. Intensive research and development was conducted by both governments.

I'm not here to "blindly" defend the United States.
I have no delusions of all the previous nor the current administration's being "squeaky clean". Fact is, I can throw a politician a lot further than I would ever trust one.

Let me make a few points clear as to where I stand.

Nuclear weapons - heinous things. Let us be honest though, the cat is out of the bag - it is, has been and will be a part of the world in which we live. Much as we might wish it, they are not going away in the foreseeable future.

The use of nuclear weapons by the USA on the country of Japan.
Truly a sad thing. Have you ever seen the anime, "Grave Of The Fireflies"? I did, it made me cry.
A horrible thing.
That said, the Imperial Government of Japan had the opportunity to prevent the attack on Hiroshima. After which attack, again they had the opportunity to prevent further hostile activity.
Again, they refused.
I will not apologize for the actions of my country - nor will I offer a personal apology. Countless numbers of United States citizen's lives were spared by the use of atomic weapons. A horrible thing, but not without great benefit.
A worst nightmare unleashed that allowed dreams to come true.
Life is seldom as simple as "Black & White", more often it is varying shades of gray.
I don't wish to hear any apologies for Pearl Harbor. In return, I won't offer any for Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Fair enough? Because that is as good as you are going to get from me on that topic.

Let's face it, governments are self-centered and motivated by only their assured continuance. To maintain that continuance, they will stop at nothing. Evil in it's purest form is commonplace in order to achieve that goal.

I am opposed to wanton slaughter, evil and government.

Get the picture?
I am an anarchist - one who is opposed to all forms of government.
Now, I'm not one of those classic-type turn-of-the-century throwing-bombs-in-passing-carriages anarchists.
I'm a peaceful anarchist. The type that refuses to participate in the free-election process, because that would only serve to condone the malicious activity that governments pursue.

The United States at every opportunity flatly refused to offer irrefutable proof for the reasons they gave for attacking Iraq.
Truth is, they had a hard-on for Sadam Hussein and his regime.
Not exactly an ennobled thing to do, not by a long shot.

So, for the reasons they gave for removing his regime, they were flat out wrong - the burden of proof was on the United States and they clearly never met that obligation.

That said, I don't miss the ******* Hussein one iota.
I think the whole affair is going to bite the United States in the butt really hard one day.
Until then, I'll just chalk it up as a job well done. Good move.

Any government they can get rid of is a score for my beliefs.

You folks here are my friends, we help each other. We exchange ideas, we argue and we laugh together.
Guys and gals from all over, it's great.

This here internet is about the closest thing to Nirvana that I will likely ever have the priveledge to experience.

I like this here ol' forum just the way it is, thanks for helping keep it that way.


: peace2:

[Beefy]

Now if it's possible, I demand a serious apology from you all for all this BS going on.

Demanding things now? Ahahahaa....

[Mr. C]

Request denied!
Resubmit in 30 days for final disapproval.
:rofl:

[zeradul]

about Japan...well thanx for telling me what kind of thoughts you have. i can see what kind of views you have regarding killing thousands of people.

Thousands are better than millions in my book. And when you're dealing with a country that exhibits little regard for the lives of their own citizens, theres but only a few methods of reasoning with them.

As for the rest of your post, if you seriously think we knew the long term effects of agent orage during Vietnam, then why would we let it come in contact with our own troops. It was a weapon of war, and as with any weapon, it came with risks. The Vietcong planted millions of land mines throughout the battlefields, and most will agree that they are continueing to do more damage today than Agent Orange. And your absurd insinuation that we were attempting to chemically attack and elimate an entire country? If we were trying to do that they why didn't we use a chemical or weapon that actually got the job done.

[asklepios]

Mr. C
that was the most honest approach i have ever read on this topic.
i feel that we all have agreed to disagree and no matter what we do or say, we can't change each other's views or even of ourselves for that matter. so i guess i will keep shut on this topic now, as the more we discuss it we will have more misunderstandings and mud slinging and nothing else.

Mr. zeradul...thanx again for making me sure of what i was thinking.

: peace2: : peace:

[asklepios]

Now if it's possible, I demand a serious apology from you all for all this BS going on.

though being critical to a whole country was wrong and i feel that is what bridkiller did there but start reviewing your own posts in various threads and you will be able to know the reasons behind why you getting such treatment.

[Birdkiller]

thats right, i bagged canada eh, and i'd do it again if it wasnt for them kids, and their pesky dog too. eh.

lighten up, thats the good thing about ours countries, we have freedom of speech, if youre country looks down on free speech then maybe its time you overthrew them and procliamed yerself king webby of canada eh.

and the way i see it canadians still owe the world a huge apology for bryan adams, not to mention celine dion. them 2 class as weapons of mass destruction

[Beefy]

plus we are a lot more laid back than most countries, eh. we don't get too uptight aboot stuff, eh. we pick on each other for fun. eh. :)

[Mr. C]

.........if you seriously think we knew the long term effects of agent orage during Vietnam, then why would we let it come in contact with our own troops. It was a weapon of war, and as with any weapon, it came with risks.

If you would please allow me to make one thing clear?

As a member of the military you are "Government Property". The government has the right to do with their property as they see fit. If a program of defoliation should involve exposing troops to possible side-effects, so be it.
Defoliation was the goal - and let the consequences be what they may, defoliation will proceed.
Whether the government knew of any long range effects or not, defoliation will proceed as it was the course of action decided upon.
If you should be exposed to a harmful environment in the course of your military duties - to bad, so sad. Apply for disability and hope for the best.
If you should allow yourself to become snowblind on a skiing trip while you are on active duty and are unable to perform your duties - you just willfully destroyed government property, and there will be compensation made to the government, no if's, and's or but's about it.

You see, the Geneva convention concerns how warfare is conducted and the treatment of opposing forces. Other than a few "moral" clauses concerning orders given to troops, there is little said as to how a government is required to treat their own "property".

If you think the United States had any real concern as to how defoliation may affect their own troops, I think you are mistaken. Defoliation was the priority.

Should it be deemed to have merit in future, bet the farm that defoliation will proceed again.

asklepios
An exchange of views is a fine thing.
I'm not trying to change anyones views. Everyone is free to express their opinion.
I am also open to having my opinion changed through an educated discourse of ideas.

I don't claim to know everything. But I'm always willing to share an opinion - fact is, I have an opinion on many things.

Those who have suffered my presence within this forum for a while are well aware that I'm always up for a good exchange :)

[zeradul]

I agree, you simply expanded on what I just said.

Let me clarify one thing though. You are insinuating a de-humanized view of military service. Any armed forces definatly combine to form a military force in which a government uses to persue a goal. But with that said, a government isn't out to inflict casualties on itself. There will be made an extreme attempt to reduce any weapon's risks, and therefore, knowledge of the side effects of agent orange would have spurred use of more protective gear.

asklepios, I'm glad you came away with something. :thumb: :thumb: I applaud your ability to reason with the facts on the table, despite previous biases.

[Mr. C]

It certainly seems that you have served in the military more recently than I have.
During the time I was in, the mission was the priority.

But, much has changed in the world since then.

[Webgraph]

thats right, i bagged canada eh, and i'd do it again if it wasnt for them kids, and their pesky dog too. eh.

lighten up, thats the good thing about ours countries, we have freedom of speech, if youre country looks down on free speech then maybe its time you overthrew them and procliamed yerself king webby of canada eh.

and the way i see it canadians still owe the world a huge apology for bryan adams, not to mention celine dion. them 2 class as weapons of mass destruction

To tell ya the truth, Canada highly respects freedom of speech and I don't plan on causing any overthrows. Yes, I'm disappointed that Paul Martin is definitely Jean Chretien's successor, but that's who the people in the Liberal party believe will do the best. That's freedom of speech, right? Also, there are a few infamous Canadians in this world, but the world has their share of this crap. In the United States, I can identify Harry Truman and George W Bush as being infamous Americans. In Great Britain, how many times do magazines comment on bad things conerning Prince William? It's not up to any of us to change their destinies, but it's up to us to not do the same stupid things that they did!

[zeradul]

During the time I was in, the mission was the priority.

Of course it is, all I am saying is that every feasable precaution is being taken to protect our troops. And luckily today, military service is completely voluntary, and so the slight risk that does exist is given to those enlisting to decide.

And no, this has not always been the case in the past.