11 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is the whole point, TO YOU they were dropped because the US was so good. That is the propaganda they fed us in the 50's and 60's but the real reason we used the bomb was to send a message to the Soviet Union. And it didn't work, all it led to was thousands more bombs, enough to fry the entire planet a hundred times over. And now countries like North Korea and Iran and Pakistan and Israel and India and China and Russia have them or soon will.
Well, I am not up on all the details of that period. But I was never taught that the USA dropped the atomic bombs for the purpose of sending a signal to the Soviet Union. If so, it does not appear to have worked.
To me, it seems more logical that the bombs were dropped to save the lives of American soldiers and bring the war to closer. This is what I h ...[text shortened]... hetic with so-called historians coming long after the fact and attempting to revise the history.
What a blow for peace. And the fact there are hundreds of Soviet bombs missing means it will only be a matter of time before some city, probably in the US, will get nuked by terrorists.
11 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouse...but the bomb is good, they say.
That is the whole point, TO YOU they were dropped because the US was so good. That is the propaganda they fed us in the 50's and 60's but the real reason we used the bomb was to send a message to the Soviet Union. And it didn't work, all it led to was thousands more bombs, enough to fry the entire planet a hundred times over. And now countries like North Ko ...[text shortened]... ill only be a matter of time before some city, probably in the US, will get nuked by terrorists.
12 Apr 14
2 edits
Fabian,
Having nuclear weapons is not what makes people evil. People are evil already unless God changes them by Christ Jesus according to the bible. The people of the United States are included in the evil people as God sees it unless Christ changes them spiritually. Even then, God does not take away the human sin nature on this earth from believers.
King James Version
==============
Romans 3: 9
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by KingOnPointWhere did I say that the american people is evil?
Fabian,
Having nuclear weapons is not what makes people evil. People are evil already unless God changes them by Christ Jesus according to the bible. The people of the United States are included in the evil people as God sees it unless Christ changes them spiritually. Even then, God does not take away the human sin nature on this earth from believers ...[text shortened]... ? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Have I ever said that the Iranian people is evile, the north Korean people, the Israeli, the whatever people is evel just they happen to have their specific nationality?
Have I really said that? Anywhere? Please tell me where.
Perhaps you just read in things, not fromme, but from your own mind? Perhaps you are the one dividing people in good people from America and evil people from elsewhere?
12 Apr 14
2 edits
Fabian,
You Typed
---------------
Atomic bombs are evil. It kills innocent people. And this is against one of your commandments. I don't care if the innocents are japanese people or the american people, it is as evil in both cases.
---------------
If nuclear weapons are evil, then doesn't mean that the people who create them and use them are evil? Isn't that what you were saying above?
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseThe USA has never been able to control other countries bombs. We have enough trouble controlling our own. The USA has been talking about preventing Iran from getting the big bomb, but it appears the Obama administration does not really give a rat's ass. But how is it that it is America's fault that the Russians can't account for some of their bombs?
That is the whole point, TO YOU they were dropped because the US was so good. That is the propaganda they fed us in the 50's and 60's but the real reason we used the bomb was to send a message to the Soviet Union. And it didn't work, all it led to was thousands more bombs, enough to fry the entire planet a hundred times over. And now countries like North Ko ...[text shortened]... ill only be a matter of time before some city, probably in the US, will get nuked by terrorists.
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWhere did I ever mention it was supposed to be the fault of the US that bombs are missing? We won, the Soviets lost, end of story, except for those missing bombs which no doubt are in the hands of terrorists and if they get half a chance they WILL set one off in the US, probably NYC.
The USA has never been able to control other countries bombs. We have enough trouble controlling our own. The USA has been talking about preventing Iran from getting the big bomb, but it appears the Obama administration does not really give a rat's ass. But how is it that it is America's fault that the Russians can't account for some of their bombs?
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseThe problem with the USA winning is that they give back the spoils of war with interest. That is what I call stupid. Where is all that Irag oil the USA was supposed to get for all the money the war cost?
Where did I ever mention it was supposed to be the fault of the US that bombs are missing? We won, the Soviets lost, end of story, except for those missing bombs which no doubt are in the hands of terrorists and if they get half a chance they WILL set one off in the US, probably NYC.
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat you are witnessing is the decline of the US, partially brought about by the obsession with ancient Egyptian mythology.
The problem with the USA winning is that they give back the spoils of war with interest. That is what I call stupid. Where is all that Irag oil the USA was supposed to get for all the money the war cost?
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMF
I was just waiting to see if you have your tongue in your cheek. Seems you don't. Oh well. If you followed the international news, you'd know that whenever the USA is trying to bend some part of the world to its will and bumps up against relatively weak states ~ more often than not, non-nuclear states ~ it is invariably asked if it will rule out the use o ...[text shortened]... ever they want, into any trouble spot, regardless of whether the "opponent" has nuclear weapons.
If you followed the international news, you'd know that whenever the USA is trying to bend some part of the world to its will and bumps up against relatively weak states ~ more often than not, non-nuclear states ~ it is invariably asked if it will rule out the use of nuclear weapons, and ~ every bit as invariably ~ it always declines to do so and says that all its military capabilities are 'in play' or 'on the table'.
The notion that because the US does not say it would rule out the use of nuclear weapons... means that it would, especially against weaker states (which is just about everybody) is ludicrous. I may not like a lot of what the US does in its foreign policy but it is not a nuclear bully.
What you are saying is... If I asked you what you would do if I punched you in the nose, I think at least 'I would punch you back'. I would not expect you to say 'well I won't go and get my shotgun and pump you full of lead'. Do you see what I am getting at?
Because the US does not answer such a question with regards to nuclear weapons is because it is not answering a dumbass question. Media are the agitators, and IMO are the ones that spread around fear, disharmony, misinformation, etc. and... It is they who are asking these questions.
Non-nuclear states are also unable to do what the USA does frequently: fly or sail nuclear armed planes, ships or subs ~ or combinations thereof ~ wherever they want, whenever they want, into any trouble spot, regardless of whether the "opponent" has nuclear weapons.
Any US warships going to a region where there is an issue, are carrying nuclear weapons by default., usually these are aircraft carriers or destroyers. It does not mean there is intent to use or bully, it is tool in the toolbox. If I were a betting man, I would say any other nuclear country is doing the same.
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by yoctobyteBut the USA does answer the question, though. That's the point. It explicitly refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons. In other words it retains them as one of its options/threats ~ or as you yourself put it,"it is [a] tool in the toolbox".
Because the US does not answer such a question with regards to nuclear weapons is because it is not answering a dumbass question.