Statue made in honor US Soldiers

[kroner]

Nukes are in some ways good. (this is partly just me playing devils advocate) With nuclear weapons, major powers will never start another war against each other. There will never be another real World War (or if there is, it will be the last, but I trust the people in charge not to be that stupid). I mean, take the Cold War for instance. Without the realization of mutual destruction, there probably would have been a lot of bloody fighting.

[rklenseth]

Nukes have also led to nulcear power. Now only if we can harness fusion nuclear energy and we would be good. No more need for oil, or other natural gasses. Fission energy just sucks though.

I don't have fusion and fission mixed up right? Just want to make sure.

[Pirog]

kroner>

Yeah, but still most other countries have some reflections over their own military might. The Americans and the British are allies, but still about 60 % of the British population consider Bush to be a threat to the world peace...and face it, when it comes to statistics over use of nuclear weapons USA doesn't look very good

Not here...>

Different leadership? Well, Donald Rumsfeld is still around, isn't he?
Don't you understand that USA doesn't really give a crap about how the Iraqis feel, and if they live or die? How come the current government doesn't lift a finger to save all the African nations suffering under brutal dictators? I think that the reason is black and rather sticky...
And I'm not blaming you personally, but I myself find it scary that you have a war fetischist as president and a population that has never seen a modern war in their own backyard...because if you had you would never again be so quick to involve yourself in other countries business.

It is also rather undemocratic to force democracy onto people...have you ever though about that?

[kroner]

Yeah, but still most other countries have some reflections over their own military might. The Americans and the British are allies, but still about 60 % of the British population consider Bush to be a threat to the world peace...and face it, when it comes to statistics over use of nuclear weapons USA doesn't look very good

Of course Bush is a threat to the world. But do you think that he or anyone else directly in charge of the US nuclear arms supply is going to admit that?

[Pirog]

kroner>

Well...so far it has worked. But if the day comes when two countries start a nuclear war on a large scale we will probably see the end of mankind.

Do I have to mention the Cuba crisis to point out that it is in no way a guarantee of peace?

Not Here...>

Yes, almost every technology there is has come from inventions of war.
But to find that as an excuse to keep waging war is kind of close to the Nazis ideas about how to breed a perfect race...

[Pirog]

kroner>

Well, no. But it would be a really pleasent surprise
But amongst the American people there doesn't seem to be much discussion about your very violent role in modern history...or is it just me who missed it?

[rklenseth]

kroner>

Yeah, but still most other countries have some reflections over their own military might. The Americans and the British are allies, but still about 60 % of the British population consider Bush to be a threat to the world peace...and face it, when it comes to statistics over use of nuclear weapons USA doesn't look very good

Not here...>

Different leadership? Well, Donald Rumsfeld is still around, isn't he?
Don't you understand that USA doesn't really give a crap about how the Iraqis feel, and if they live or die? How come the current government doesn't lift a finger to save all the African nations suffering under brutal dictators? I think that the reason is black and rather sticky...
And I'm not blaming you personally, but I myself find it scary that you have a war fetischist as president and a population that has never seen a modern war in their own backyard...because if you had you would never again be so quick to involve yourself in other countries business.

It is also rather undemocratic to force democracy onto people...have you ever though about that?

Donald Rumsfield is still around but he is not an elected official and at the time he was carrying out the orders of another elected official that happens to be not an elected official anymore.

I disagree. If we didn't care about them then we wouldn't go out of our way not to kill them.

I agree with you on the point about African nations.

Its not really undemocractic since the people didn't choose the current leadership in the first place. At least now they can choose the leadership and we will have to live with what leadership they choose as long as that leadership doesn't become a dictatorship.

[rklenseth]

kroner>

Well, no. But it would be a really pleasent surprise
But amongst the American people there doesn't seem to be much discussion about your very violent role in modern history...or is it just me who missed it?

Oh, there are definitely discussions. There are many people who don't agree with Bush and are very loud and clear about it too. It might not be reported in your media.

[Pirog]

Not Here...>

I disagree. If we didn't care about them then we wouldn't go out of our way not to kill them.

Isn't that a bit naive? No country would get away with brutally bombing civilians to hell...even Hitler had to hide his concentration camps.

I agree with you on the point about African nations.

But do you agree about the reason for USA not caring about the African nations? Or do you just think it is a coincidence that your government keeps worrying about the countries with large natural resources?

Its not really undemocractic since the people didn't choose the current leadership in the first place. At least now they can choose the leadership and we will have to live with what leadership they choose as long as that leadership doesn't become a dictatorship.

But do you really think that Bush would go along with whatever choice the Iraqis make for themselves? If an anti-American wins the election, do you think the Americans will just pack up their stuff and leave Iraq in the hands of a new enemy?

[kroner]

They can do whatever they want as long as it's what we tell them.

[Pirog]

Oh, there are definitely discussions. There are many people who don't agree with Bush and are very loud and clear about it too. It might not be reported in your media.

Well, that much I know...but I was refering to thoughts about the righteousness of being a super-power that keeps meddling with other countries internal business when you know you would never allow the opposite.
I liked Clinton much better than Bush, but even he had little problems with throwing of a couple of missiles against a third world country when he needed a distraction from internal affairs...

[Pirog]

kroner>

They can do whatever they want as long as it's what we tell them.

Well, I don't know if you meant is as a joke or not...but that is how it works. The people that USA has put in the interim government in Iraq isn't a bunch of nice people working for making Iraq into a happy democracy...they all owe USA for their positions.
One of the USA-elected Iraqis was hacked to death by an angry mob when he showed his face on the streets...that doesn't sound as a person with the support of his people, right?

It's the same as in Afghanistan, where USA was quick to ally themselves with warlords as brutal as the talibans they were fighting...just because it surved their purposes.

[kroner]

Yes, I meant it as a joke; the truth behind the rederict of freedom for Iraqis; what the US is really telling them.

[Mavsfan911]

if only it was that simple...

[Mavsfan911]

*blinks* sorry, that didnt make much sense...