[News] NUKES!!!

[inky]

what is nuclear bomb for?

Something we put inside of you.

But really...
Code: Select all

[Foilin]

uhhhhg... NK is being dumb and threatening with war... they are truly retarded.

[TOloseGT]

NO U'R ALL WRONG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!111

[Sharp324]

Gotta love their new release, talking about putting up defences if the sanctions clear. They are trying to act strong yet cry when about to be sanctioned. Though kim is insane enough to try something. But most of the world powers, if not all, are against them on this. But they keep going...

[Ilyas]

As sarcastic as you sound, you're actually right. The US is really the only country that can be trusted to handle nukes. I shudder to think of what kind of world it might be if it was run exclusively by some country irresponsible as Iran or China...

A country that dropped 2nuclear bombs in civilians is sure to be trusted to have nukes....

[Ilyas]

You guys are way overreacting and scared
its just like that
Show the stick that u wont use,in another way they just show their nuclear shit so others will be scared

[EvGa]

A country that dropped 2nuclear bombs in civilians is sure to be trusted to have nukes....

It ended the war and saved millions of lives that would have been lost, allies and axis alike. At the time we didn't know the effects it would have on people and the environment. (radiation). MILLIONS of lives would have been lost if an invasion of Japan would have taken place instead of the bombings.

Another missile this morning.

[Jstar1]

A country that dropped 2nuclear bombs in civilians is sure to be trusted to have nukes....

dont be ignorant, if america didn't drop the a-bomb in japan and instead do a d-day style invasion, more people would have died because japan was crazy enough to go as far as train middle school girls how to stab people with bamboo spears. It would have been a genocide if you had all these women and children running at american soldiers with spears when they are facing machine guns and tanks..

[iGoddess]

Code: Select all

[Ilyas]

A country that dropped 2nuclear bombs in civilians is sure to be trusted to have nukes....

It ended the war and saved millions of lives that would have been lost, allies and axis alike. At the time we didn't know the effects it would have on people and the environment. (radiation). MILLIONS of lives would have been lost if an invasion of Japan would have taken place instead of the bombings.

Another missile this morning.

why on CIVILIANS?THEY ARE INNOCENT I DONT CARE IF THEY LOOSE MILLIONS OF BILLIONS OF TRILLIONS THOSE CIVILIANS DID NOTHING THEY WERE JUST LIVING LIKE EVERYONE ELSE AND WHY IN FIRST TIME BOTHERING DOING DDAY ON JAPAN?THEY DESTROYED THEY FLEET AND ITS ENOUGH ISNT IT?America is just greedy they should never be trust since they said we support 100% Georgia when russia came there they dropped georgia down their interest is only oil the pipeline in georgia..

[Ilyas]

A country that dropped 2nuclear bombs in civilians is sure to be trusted to have nukes....

dont be ignorant, if america didn't drop the a-bomb in japan and instead do a d-day style invasion, more people would have died because japan was crazy enough to go as far as train middle school girls how to stab people with bamboo spears. It would have been a genocide if you had all these women and children running at american soldiers with spears when they are facing machine guns and tanks..

how about they get the **** out of japan and just live in peace and sign a peace treaty?lets say they drop a nuke on your city and as excuse they say so we dont lose more ppl?why in first time would they send ppl there ?wth dude get some sense

[EvGa]

You are ignorant.

Had we not used the atomic bombs there would have been an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Millions of people would have died, civilians and soldiers. You say, "but why civilians". So millions of soldiers don't count? They are less important? The Japanese were ruthless in their war tactics like Jstar said, there would have been greater civilian lose with an invasion.

You argue we should have dropped it on a military installation? Wouldn't have had the same impact (not literal impact) as it did on civilians. I dare say had they destroyed two military sites with them instead of civilian centers Japan wouldn't have surrendered.

JMO.

EDIT: Sign a peace treaty with Japan during WWII?? What? Go read some history books, you obviously don't know anything about WWII.

[cpinney]

back on topic please

[inky]

how about they get the **** out of japan and just live in peace and sign a peace treaty?lets say they drop a nuke on your city and as excuse they say so we dont lose more ppl?why in first time would they send ppl there ?wth dude get some sense

You obviously need to read your history books again. Allegiances aside, although the decision to drop the bomb on civilian areas was indeed a terrible decision and there are some "evidence" floating around which shows Japan was going to surrender in a matter of weeks which we were either unsure or unaware of during that time, it still would've been a bad idea to gamble with our own people's lives. Besides, the Japanese government wasn't exactly "peaceful" at that time - I was born in the Philippines and there's a monument near my hometown called the "Death March Monument" (go google it) so I'm very much aware of Japanese foreign policy during those days. In addition to that, the majority of the Japanese population were very loyal to their government - loyal enough that nearly every civilian - men, women, and even children - were taking combat lessons in the case that the Americans attempted a full scale D-Day style invasion. They were ready and eager to kill Allied forces and everyone else who are not under the Axis powers. It takes both sides to sign a peace treaty and not every war can be solved by an sudden armistice.

Spoiler!

[XemnasXD]

its war, people die. If the US hadn't dropped the bomb an invasion would have probably been unnecessary. Japan is an island with very little resources. By the time we dropped the bomb we had just about cut off all of its naval support and import support. We basically could have waited it out and watch them crumble from within.

The bomb was a display of power, plain and simple. They could've dropped it on a military base or a less populated area and it probably would've had the same effect, Japan didn't quit fighting because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were KEY cities in the war effort, it stopped fighting because it saw a display of power. Why when we decided to display that power we killed thousands of civilian lives, i dunno. It's no better than terrorism imo, attacking civilian locales to scare the population instead of attacking military installations to do some real damage....

You can't justify the dropping of the bomb on those cities, there's just way to many things wrong with the picture...

[DumboDii]

back on topic please

Sorry for ignoring this but I have to say that America is not the only country that should be trusted with nuclear weapons. Obviously those who said so are from America and the stereotype of americans is that you worship your country little too much (I don't say it's bad and I have nothing against you but that's how it is).

[TOloseGT]

You can't justify the dropping of the bomb on those cities, there's just way to many things wrong with the picture...

Agreed.

but still, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEE!!!!11

[Mr.Ganji]

What makes the US anymore responsible with nukes than China? Aside from throwing around its weight in tibet and at home it hasn't done anything as irresponsible as start a war in the middle east under false pretenses diverting precious military resources away from fighting the real enemy who now have become so powerful in so many countries they may soon has access to nuclear weapons....Not to mention that both the real enemy and the fake one where enemies we trained and put into power....

Historically the US has been the most irresponsible nation of the 20th century aiding and causing the rise of more dictators, warlords, and arms races than probably any other country. Not to mention that with its wailing global and economic power the US is getting its back pushed further and further against the wall. What are we going to do when China won't let us take out anymore loans to finance our massive military, probably the same thing we do to any nation that tries to deny us whatever it is we want....

No nation can be trusted with nuclear weapons. The only nation that could be trusted with them is the nation that wouldn't retaliate with a nuke in response to a nuke. Only a nation that would rather spare the earth and its people from assured mutual destruction could possibly be trusted with such a weapon and such a nation that has nuclear capabilities does not exist which is why we are in such the crap shoot that we're in now....

N.K having the bomb is no different than other other country having the bomb, all it means is one more nation is added to the already too long list of nations that could trigger an event that would destroy all mankind....It's a weapon that has no other purpose right now than to ensure all of our destruction and it should never have been created in the first place so there's no point and saying "thank god ____ nation has the bomb, its so much better than ___ nation having the bomb" because if just one goes off over either nation the result will be the same, annihilation....

Ha. You paint the USA as an evil, conspiring empire whose sole objective is to conquer the world.

<<Historically the US has been the most irresponsible nation of the 20th century aiding and causing the rise of more dictators, warlords, and arms races than probably any other country. Not to mention that with its wailing global and economic power the US is getting its back pushed further and further against the wall.>>

True, but you forget to mention the status quo of the 20th century. Back then, imperialism was the norm - sure, it certainly wasn't exactly ethical, but all Western nations engaged in it anyway. Blaming the US for using its power to fight proxy wars against the USSR is no more right than blaming the USSR itself.

The pathetic economy can be attributed as far back as Clinton Administration, but it was the Bush years that really screwed things up. Judging the US on the past 8 years wouldn't be fair.

<<N.K having the bomb is no different than other other country having the bomb>>

Answer this question: Would the US nuke the shit out of enemy countries to gain attention/eliminate an enemy nation? No. Comparing the US to having nukes to NK having nukes are two totally different things - one country will use its power to protect others, the other not quite so.

<<It's a weapon that has no other purpose right now than to ensure all of our destruction and it should never have been created in the first place>>

Its ignorant to believe that nukes will actually signal the destruction of mankind. What would result would possibly be a great loss of life, but no end to anything. Even during the Cold War, when the possibility of using nukes was at its highest, only two nations could have ever been hit - the US and USSR. Do you really think that now or even back then, just because a nuclear war started that countries in Europe or the Middle East or Asia would have been a target? Of course Farking not. The US and Soviet Union would have only aimed their missiles/bombs at each other. Its the same way today - it would only be a confrontation between two nations if a nuclear war were ever to start. Its an overstatement and pure fear mongering to believe that it would "ensure all of our destruction". Maybe you should research the benefits nuclear technology has given mankind before blaming it.

<<What makes the US anymore responsible with nukes than China? Aside from throwing around its weight in tibet and at home it hasn't done anything as irresponsible as start a war in the middle east under false pretenses>>

I was talking in a more ethical sense. And again, you're making arguments based solely off of the wrongdoings of the Bush Administration, whose mistakes somehow vaporize America's past, and present, achievements.

China has no respect for its people, environment, or honesty. Corruption is rampant. Waste is unregulated. Remember the SARS crisis? China was so full of pride that it failed to alert the international community of a possibly dangerous virus and only when it spiraled out of control that China finally decided to do the right thing. But by then of course, it was too late, and dozens of people died. China doesn't enforce copyright laws. Oh wait, they don't have any. The government actually ENCOURAGES the production of counterfeit products.

Do these sound like minor issues? They are, but they reveal the true nature of China and its government. Think about having such a country as the sole superpower...especially in the 90s after the Cold War. How about before the Cold War? America came to within a hair's breadth of launching attacks on the Soviet Union - I'm sure China would have had the values and level mindedness to avoid such a disaster.

[Reise]

You can't justify the dropping of the bomb on those cities, there's just way to many things wrong with the picture...

I think it's safe to say that Japan would be a very different place today if we had just gone in and completely destroyed every last one of them. They made it clear that it was our only other choice. You still act like people didn't bother to weigh the outcomes and just said "F*ck it we have the bomb lets use it."

[XemnasXD]

True, but you forget to mention the status quo of the 20th century. Back then, imperialism was the norm - sure, it certainly wasn't exactly ethical, but all Western nations engaged in it anyway. Blaming the US for using its power to fight proxy wars against the USSR is no more right than blaming the USSR itself.

The pathetic economy can be attributed as far back as Clinton Administration, but it was the Bush years that really screwed things up. Judging the US on the past 8 years wouldn't be fair.

No that was the U.S's MO for the 20th century, most european powers spent the 20th century giving up its imperialistic properties as evident in India, Hong Kong, most of Africa, and several Pacific properties. Also my point with that economic remark is that the US is losing its global economic position. It would be stupid to ignore the past 8 years, im not talking about history when im talking about this issue im talking about the present to the future. Nothing Obama or anyone can do can erase or even make a large dent in the massive debt we owe, and its only getting bigger. Do you think that this will suddenly solve itself in the next 15 years when it hasn't for the past 8 years. Bush's role in the economy is a irrelevant in this text, im talking about the effects not the causes.

Answer this question: Would the US nuke the shit out of enemy countries to gain attention/eliminate an enemy nation? No. Comparing the US to having nukes to NK having nukes are two totally different things - one country will use its power to protect others, the other not quite so.

You are talking about a country that started a war to fight the wrong enemy so it could gain access to its resources. Would we nuke a country, thats ify, but we would and have certainly bombed the shit out of countries we don't like on the vague grounds that "they're a threat" we certainly have no qualms with blowing up anything we don't like. The US uses its power to further the goals and aims of US interest, not protect others, the war in Iraq has cost more American lives than it has saved. Don't be naive....

Its ignorant to believe that nukes will actually signal the destruction of mankind. What would result would possibly be a great loss of life, but no end to anything. Even during the Cold War, when the possibility of using nukes was at its highest, only two nations could have ever been hit - the US and USSR. Do you really think that now or even back then, just because a nuclear war started that countries in Europe or the Middle East or Asia would have been a target? Of course Farking not. The US and Soviet Union would have only aimed their missiles/bombs at each other. Its the same way today - it would only be a confrontation between two nations if a nuclear war were ever to start. Its an overstatement and pure fear mongering to believe that it would "ensure all of our destruction". Maybe you should research the benefits nuclear technology has given mankind before blaming it.

You don't know much about nuclear weapons do you. The amount of nuclear damage that would cover and destroy 2 of the largest countries on earth would have dire consequences for the entire planet. Fallout would infect the atlantic and pacific oceans as well as every country around the US and Russia which would mean China would get a healthy dose of poison as well killing billions of lives. Thanks to ocean currents and wind you would most likely lose most if not all of the northern hemisphere with that much nuclear damage and most coastal life of the americas. Not to mention that atmospheric temperatures would skyrocket causing major climate change all over the world. So yeah, one way or another it would kill billions of humans lives and cause sever planetary damage that would take thousands of years to recover from if at all...

Also here's a fun question. Why does the US stockpiles enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire planet several times over? I mean even in the worst scenario if the entire world turned on us we would only need to do a once over yet we have enough to ensure that everything on the planet would die and die some more....

I was talking in a more ethical sense. And again, you're making arguments based solely off of the wrongdoings of the Bush Administration, whose mistakes somehow vaporize America's past, and present, achievements.

China has no respect for its people, environment, or honesty. Corruption is rampant. Waste is unregulated. Remember the SARS crisis? China was so full of pride that it failed to alert the international community of a possibly dangerous virus and only when it spiraled out of control that China finally decided to do the right thing. But by then of course, it was too late, and dozens of people died. China doesn't enforce copyright laws. Oh wait, they don't have any. The government actually ENCOURAGES the production of counterfeit products.

Do these sound like minor issues? They are, but they reveal the true nature of China and its government. Think about having such a country as the sole superpower...especially in the 90s after the Cold War. How about before the Cold War? America came to within a hair's breadth of launching attacks on the Soviet Union - I'm sure China would have had the values and level mindedness to avoid such a disaster.

You sound like a tool ganji. Admittedly i must sound like a conspiracy nut but its like you are ignoring everything the US has done for the past 60 years.
[url]
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html[/url]
That is just the tip of the iceberg, not only is there more to underhanded unethical business of the US but thats just the stuff we know about. If that's all that we know can you imagine how much we don't. Its insane. Alot of the coup's overturned democratically elected gov'ts. That means the people elected their officials and the US didn't like them so it killed them and started a war. Most of those countries were put into a state of turmoil for decades afterwards that cost millions of lives. We created the Viet Cong. We created Al-Queda. We supported the Taliban. We funded Castro(he's not a bad guy really). We helped put Sadam into power. That oppressed gov't in Iraq where he was committing genocide and we were all "thats bad somebody should stop him", WE put him into office. You're painting the US as a sort of paragon nation, a model example of how all gov'ts should behave when thats far from the truth.

The US has a large history of unethical environmental practices that are on-going still. Look at the list of the nations that produce the most pollution, we're not much better than China. The FDA is notorious for playing to the pharmaceutical companies and propagating a medical industry bent on expensive treatment and addiction rather than cures. And OMG THEY'RE MAKING FAKE IPODS! That really shows a countries moral fiber despite the fact that they do have copyright laws and despite the the fact that alot of people in china make a living of making the originals in the first place. So china is supporting an illegal industry that it makes no profit off of while supporting the production of the devices that the illegal industry is profiting off of? huh?

China has been pretty level headed for the most part of the 20th century, its kept to itself and its surroundings and out of most international business that couldn't directly affect them. Im not saying China is the greatest country in the world but if you going to compare ethics i'd say China is just as bad/good as the US and right now they have more to gain through peace than war. If the US bombs china we don't have to pay that massive debt, if china bombs the US they have no one to pay them the money we owed. Now which side stands to gain more by destroying the other side....exactly...

[Reise]

You are talking about a country that started a war to fight the wrong enemy so it could gain access to its resources.

lol Like no other country has ever done that in the history of mankind.

I love how other nations see what we do and shit all over us like they aren't guilty of their own bullshit.

China isn't gonna do shit. We aren't gonna do shit to China.

[TheDrop]

You are talking about a country that started a war to fight the wrong enemy so it could gain access to its resources.

lol Like no other country has ever done that in the history of mankind.

I love how other nations see what we do and shit all over us like they aren't guilty of their own bullshit.

Yeah but some people here seem to say the US is the peacemaking guardian of the world or something.

Darcia= win

[Reise]

Yeah but some people here seem to say the US is the peacemaking guardian of the world or something.

Darcia= win

Well if we didn't give weapons to the fools in the middle east back in the cold war (something Xem considers bad) it could all be part of Soviet Russia right now, and they would be in control of it instead of us. Personally I'd rather it was us doing the "peacekeeping" instead of the former Soviets, as much as I like them now. It's a big ol' chess game and the winner is always the one with the most pieces.

[XemnasXD]

People seem to have it in their minds that the US is the good guys and _______ are the bad guys. My point in all of this is saying that the US is just as bad as ______ if not worse. If you think you can solve a problem by making another one you are wrong. The Taliban are closing in on pakistan now, a country that has nuclear weapons which means they may soon have access to nuclear weapons. I don't see how helping them in the first place was a viable long term solution. It was us using smaller countries and their problems like pawns so we could hurt our rival without caring about those smaller countries and their problems at all and look wheres its got us. Maybe you think screwing over millions of people to get your goal across regardless of the consequences is a good thing but im a little more broad minded than that and anyone, including US intelligence could have seen the consequences of such actions(and they did). Actions have consequences reise and in the long term its the consequences that are more important than the action taken.

[Reise]

Well you're missing the part about where it would be the Soviets making the decisions instead of the US, who despite their evil plans, are still part of NATO and the UN. I think it was the lesser of the two evils. Not every decision can be a 100% good decision.

[XemnasXD]

Reise nothing of value was defended in that area. The only thing lost was lives. If they soviet had taken those areas nothing would have changed, those countries have no strategic, political, or military value. They would most likely be in the same state that are now at the expense of much less lives. You're talking from a US cold war perspective. Do you really think the people in those areas considered the Taliban any better than the Russians, trading one military threat for another. What makes the US the lesser evil here. Name one country we occupied in the 20th century or supported with military firepower that isn't still third world or in some kind of war right now....go us. It wouldn't even be that bad if we had only done it once but look at that list i posted. We are responsible for most of the civil wars and current poverty of those nations and again and again we use the same tactics to cause division and further US goals at the expense of those nations. This isn't a lesser of two evils. Its two evils period. They are dicks and we are dicks plain and simple. If you actually cared about the states of those nations you would be against this kind of treatment but you don't. You, like the US just see them as stepping stones for something else. A battleground to wage war on on who you think is the bigger enemy. So stop pretending like they would have been worse off with russia cause they'd probably be in the same shitty state they're in now....

[Ilyas]

Ok ok but dont say usa have to be trusted with nuclear weapons, i dont believe in america im not in the side of anyone and about the guy that called China unsure that cant handle it responsabilities how is that? you know that whitout china america would have gone bankrupt right? or ur just joking out?

[Reise]

Reise nothing of value was defended in that area. The only thing lost was lives. If they soviet had taken those areas nothing would have changed, those countries have no strategic, political, or military value. They would most likely be in the same state that are now at the expense of much less lives.

Something was defended. Land. Had the US not intervened, the Mujahadeen would have been crushed by the Soviets and they would have another staging point for whatever further expansion they may decide to undergo. Their chess piece would have been placed in the middle east before ours, and they would be the ones enjoying the resources. Yes they might have been in the same state they're at now, but in those times the Cold War still could have turned hot at any moment.

You're talking from a US cold war perspective. Do you really think the people in those areas considered the Taliban any better than the Russians, trading one military threat for another. What makes the US the lesser evil here. Name one country we occupied in the 20th century or supported with military firepower that isn't still third world or in some kind of war right now....go us. It wouldn't even be that bad if we had only done it once but look at that list i posted. We are responsible for most of the civil wars and current poverty of those nations and again and again we use the same tactics to cause division and further US goals at the expense of those nations. This isn't a lesser of two evils. Its two evils period. They are dicks and we are dicks plain and simple.

A Cold War perspective is necessary when you're looking at what caused things to be the way they are now and why. Yes we (the US and Russia) are both dicks, but we also have the biggest ones in the world. Stepping on other nations is part of being a world superpower. If one of the nations in the middle east or Asia or wherever else was a superpower instead of us, then you can bet your ass the US and other 2nd and 3rd world nations would be the ones being stepped on.

If you actually cared about the states of those nations you would be against this kind of treatment but you don't. You, like the US just see them as stepping stones for something else. A battleground to wage war on on who you think is the bigger enemy. So stop pretending like they would have been worse off with russia cause they'd probably be in the same shitty state they're in now....

Of course I'm against it. It doesn't mean I don't think it's necessary. The Cold War is only now claiming its casualties, years after its been over. In the US's perspective Afghanistan and the "free" world would have been worse off had they succeeded. Nobody wants Ivan making any moves on our playing field. That's just the way shit is.

(Edit: Gotta work on your walls of text too, buddy lol)

[XemnasXD]

Something was defended. Land. Had the US not intervened, the Mujahadeen would have been crushed by the Soviets and they would have another staging point for whatever further expansion they may decide to undergo. Their chess piece would have been placed in the middle east before ours, and they would be the ones enjoying the resources. Yes they might have been in the same state they're at now, but in those times the Cold War still could have turned hot at any moment.

That land is the worthless thing i was talking about. Look at it now, its alot of nothing having been racked by civil war and other conflicts for decades. Even if the Russians gained it what would have happened. It would be like if Canada invaded and conquered montana, nothing of value was lost. Yeah they're a little bigger on a map, but the people aren't going to listen to them and there's nothing there anyway.

As far as our chess pieces, we still don't have any in that area. The only chess piece we have is Israel. The rest of the area is either anti-US gov't or falling to radical muslim influence. Wheres the tactical advantage we gained, i can't find it.

A Cold War perspective is necessary when you're looking at what caused things to be the way they are now and why. Yes we (the US and Russia) are both dicks, but we also have the biggest ones in the world. Stepping on other nations is part of being a world superpower. If one of the nations in the middle east or Asia or wherever else was a superpower instead of us, then you can bet your ass the US and other 2nd and 3rd world nations would be the ones being stepped on.

My point is being a dick didn't solve anything. Russia is still shit, the areas around russia are shit. We lost vietnam. We lost korea. We ended up starting the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11. We helped another terrorist organization grow so large that now we are losing even more lives fighting them while they spread largely unchecked. You can sit there and say "Eff yeah america had to step up to the plate" but it didn't get us anything then and its only made things worse now. Maybe if we hadn't treated 2nd or 3rd world countries like shit the world wouldn't be in the state its in now. Maybe if we treated the situation with respect instead of using them as stepping stones we might have some allies now instead of enemies.

Of course I'm against it. It doesn't mean I don't think it's necessary. The Cold War is only now claiming its casualties, years after its been over. In the US's perspective Afghanistan and the "free" world would have been worse off had they succeeded. Nobody wants Ivan making any moves on our playing field. That's just the way shit is.

Its been claiming lives since it started. There's no way you can say Afganistan being controlled by a terrorist organization is better than it being controlled by a stable nation we can negotiate with. The "free" world is largely not free at all, its gotten worse since the cold war began. "Our playing field" is that imperialistic attitude that has brought the world nothing but misery and war, literally, not in some metaphoric way. Our idea of bringing freedom to countries has had nothing terrible results and we keep doing it and people keep thinking its the right thing for some reason.


The US is/was no better than Russia for the rest of world then or now. The US is/was better than Russia for the US, but thats as far as it goes....

[Reise]

That land is the worthless thing i was talking about. Look at it now, its alot of nothing having been racked by civil war and other conflicts for decades. Even if the Russians gained it what would have happened. It would be like if Canada invaded and conquered montana, nothing of value was lost. Yeah they're a little bigger on a map, but the people aren't going to listen to them and there's nothing there anyway.

The point is access, spots to set up missile bases, control over the area, a different front to launch from in case the SHTF, etc. Don't talk like people would just "let" Montana be invaded and be fine with it. That's ridiculous and you know it.

As far as our chess pieces, we still don't have any in that area. The only chess piece we have is Israel. The rest of the area is either anti-US gov't or falling to radical muslim influence. Wheres the tactical advantage we gained, i can't find it.

We wouldn't have had one in Afghanistan anyway. The point of the whole shebang was to keep Russia from placing theirs, while also bleeding them financially. The Afghan government wanted the Soviets to root out its rebels and were already showing no resistance of their own to the reds. I'm sure we all needed another Soviet nation to deal with.

My point is being a dick didn't solve anything. Russia is still shit, the areas around russia are shit. We lost vietnam. We lost korea. We ended up starting the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11. We helped another terrorist organization grow so large that now we are losing even more lives fighting them while they spread largely unchecked. You can sit there and say "Eff yeah america had to step up to the plate" but it didn't get us anything then and its only made things worse now. Maybe if we hadn't treated 2nd or 3rd world countries like shit the world wouldn't be in the state its in now. Maybe if we treated the situation with respect instead of using them as stepping stones we might have some allies now instead of enemies.

Russia still being shit means we did something right. The fact they aren't the Soviet Union anymore means we did something right. It's funny how basically the year following Russia's withdrawal from Afghanistan the wall came down, isn't it? The Vietnam and Korean wars are unrelated to the middle east entirely. As for Osama, it could have been anyone who started al-Qaeda. And really, the whole goal of al-Qaeda is the complete destruction of anything not Muslim, not just the US. If it wasn't formed because of the US it would have been formed because of Russia's occupation.

Its been claiming lives since it started. There's no way you can say Afganistan being controlled by a terrorist organization is better than it being controlled by a stable nation we can negotiate with. The "free" world is largely not free at all, its gotten worse since the cold war began. "Our playing field" is that imperialistic attitude that has brought the world nothing but misery and war, literally, not in some metaphoric way. Our idea of bringing freedom to countries has had nothing terrible results and we keep doing it and people keep thinking its the right thing for some reason.

It's not controlled by terrorists. We have troops there now working with the Afghan government to get rid of what's left of them. Cleaning up the mess maybe? As for Russia being in control, if they had been left alone we would probably still be at each other's necks like we were 20+ years ago. The only nation we have intentionally "brought freedom" to is Iraq, and you can thank Dubya for that. You could also say though that there may not be a South Korea to defend today without our hands in things either.

The US is/was no better than Russia for the rest of world then or now. The US is/was better than Russia for the US, but thats as far as it goes....

And IMO that's as far as it needs to go.