N Korea test Nuke

Yeah, you prove it.

What a pretentious thing to say.


No. The aim is to is to satisfy your interests (territory, ressources, security, ideoloy...). The other guy's army being disabled may be a necessary step towards it, but it's not the object.


That's wrong again. Especially in our times (you know, some 130 years after Ulysses Grant left office), when a country can wage war on the other side of the world from it's own territory. Just look at the 1st Gulf War, the US citizens had nothing to fear, it was pin-point and rigourously planned targetting. It worked, both military and civilian casualties were low. Now compare it with the savage and violent strategy used in 2003...


There has never been a thing like "total destruction" as a result from a war. And a war never ends unless there is a long term post-war plan.

The meaning of war goes way beyond how it should be waged.


Ponrauil

Big difference there, dude. You've proven you're ignorance for a very basic concept, so let me explain. Japan attacking the US with their own military (not some ****ty insurgent militia) AND formally declaring war (along with Germany) against the US is a ****ing big difference than a bunch of ****tards in Lebanon launching missiles. We were thrown into WWII against our own will, and blantantly attacked by a hostile government. We fought them back to their own mainland, and had a choice...
A. Land invasion that would cost millions of Japanese civilian, Japanese military, and American military lives, billions of dollars on both sides, etc
B. Nuke, cost a fraction of the lives (all civilian) and hope the Japanese surrender.
What would you do? Quit being such a tool and look into things a little more than what you're spoonfed by the media.

Do explain. You're just like the Democrats trying to get elected. All talk, no action or plan.

When the Bush Admin is all action, no plan or talk...

Ponrauil

What I meant was, some what ironically, that today we consider what we're doing in Iraq to be a war. We're not fighting to preserve our way of life or defend our nation (which are possibly the only valid reasons to wage war), we're building a nation malleable (sp?) to our suggestions, while occupying the country and fighting off a guerrilla movement. It is, IMO, more a police action at this point than a war - if we wanted, we COULD (for the most part) clear Bagdhad of "insurgents." All we'd need to do is do to it what we did to Japanese cities in World War 2: firebomb the whole thing. That's not to say we SHOULD.

I consider this splitting hairs. I can think of no war where satisfying your interests and destroying the opposing army are not intertwined.

And we shouldn't have been in the Gulf War. We faced no threat. We should only go to war when we face an immediate, dangerous threat. I don't believe that every time the military gets used or cruise missiles get lobbed that action is automatically deserving of the title of a war. If it is, we've been at "war" for decades prior to Sept. 11 or any other recent date. We've had small military actions in dozens of small countries around the world, and unless you're fighting a clear and present threat to your own nation, you shouldn't be fighting.

You're right - we've never faced being wiped from the map. Perhaps "total destruction" was too harsh a term. "Massive attacks of military and civilian installations" is probably a better term to use.

Adrian

HAHAHAHA, this thread reaks of ignorance and brainwashing. Remember those plans Bush made when he first got elected, you know the ones about giving more money to be people to boost the economy back up. If I'm not mistaken the DOW Jones just set record highs. How about this one: when Bush was re-elected in 2004 he planned to have the deficit to be cut in half by the time he left office. Well, as of yesterday that has already happened. Many other plans have worked successfully under Bush, contrary to what your media wants you to believe up north. The Iraq conflict was planned out for sometime, and the initial operation was a complete success with the ousting of Saddam's regime. The majority of causalties have been caused by rebels and terrorists. All in all, you fail with you're witty comment. Try again.

There isn't just one kind of war, but dozens. The one in Iraq is a real war, one of the most difficult to fight too.


Then consider your own example of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The Japanese Army was never destroyed the US forces. But yes, means and goals are always linked. Knowing which is which however is not splitting hairs, it's essential if you want to succeed and never have to wage the same war twice.



Unless you believe in a certain ideal of solidarity. The one that lead to the creation of NATO and the UN for example. As unefficient as these two organisations may seem, I believe they have contributed to limiting the number of wars and casualties in the last 50 years, even if only by dissasive geopolitical strategies.
Also a country can be threatened in many more ways than just the "physical" threat. Iraq's invasion of Kuweit in 1991 was a heavy threat on the world's economy.


Ponrauil

Sorry I forgot that japanese are animals, the civils that died in the nuclear attack are just shit near you.

I can't answer that, I know that there are lots of people in US that don't think like you.

Please quote me where I said the Japanese are animals. Go ahead, I'm waiting. Oh that's right, I never said anything like that. I guess you're so brainwashed you can't fathom that invading Japan by land WOULD HAVE KILLED MORE civilians than dropping the bomb, not to mention the millions of Japanese and American serviceman. You're just another one of the countless tools I've shot down saying that.


Actually, most Americans agree with me. Don't give me any partisan BS either, because last time I checked a Democrat was in office when the bomb was dropped. Better for the survival of many and sacrifice a few, as much as it pains me to say that. Then again, we were attacked by the Japanese government, and you can blame them for the bombs being dropped.

EDIT: Wait, you're from Brazil, and just said you know there are a lot of people in the US that disagree with me. Wow, how about you come live here for 19 years and THEN you can talk.