Pakistan may become a nuclear threat to the United States - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 03:33 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
No need to back them up. If Obama told you the same thing to your face, you would say it wasn't so, so why bother?
Can't do it huh? I thought so. Think before you speak next time.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 06:42 PM
Designo_E320
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
They helped Iran. Pakistan and Iran are close allies.
CORRECTION: Actually Pakistan and Iran hate each other and are not allies but Pakistan did help Iran with the nukes for the sake of helping a fellow Islamic country.
post #23 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 06:54 PM
~BANNED~
 
deathrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Designo_E320
CORRECTION: Actually Pakistan and Iran hate each other and are not allies but Pakistan did help Iran with the nukes for the sake of helping a fellow Islamic country.

deathrattle is offline  
post #24 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 08:29 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
How would you suggest forcing a nuke nation to disarm? Send Obama to negotiate?
I was thinking more like Corbin Dallas...

Qubes is offline  
post #25 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-10-2007, 10:03 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
How would you suggest forcing a nuke nation to disarm? Send Obama to negotiate?
One would generally inform them that they would be annihilated if they didn't. That is really that hard a question for you? Answers are easy when your fucking bully-boy leaders are beating up on some essentially unarmed nation, but when it comes to fighting a real war, you guys are fucking pussies.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #26 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-11-2007, 07:05 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
A264172's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: 1967 Irish/ Pole
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so fucking mean and goddamed low that every shit sure person (with any) common fucking sense and a half assed character detests and despises it. {para.} -George Washington

-Marty


"...pour out of one vessel into another; and as those old Romans robbed all the cities in the world, we skim the cream of other men's wits, pick the choice flowers of their tilled gardens to set our own sterile plots."
-a Richard Burton
A264172 is offline  
post #27 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-11-2007, 11:15 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
theboss's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: 560 SEL Euro
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Nuclear armed pakistan is any way a threat world wide. Its an unnatural state being held unified by force of government either in form of outright dictator ship or millitary backed PMs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Designo_E320
CORRECTION: Actually Pakistan and Iran hate each other and are not allies but Pakistan did help Iran with the nukes for the sake of helping a fellow Islamic country.
They were friends for benefit until Iran disclosed that they bought nukes from Paki scientist network and then outright enemies. The sense of true friendship or alliance never existed. Pakistan needed the cash being already under heavy sanction and Iran + Libya needed the nukes.

Fuel economy!! whats that??

Last edited by theboss; 08-11-2007 at 11:20 AM.
theboss is offline  
post #28 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-11-2007, 11:35 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
One would generally inform them that they would be annihilated if they didn't. That is really that hard a question for you? Answers are easy when your fucking bully-boy leaders are beating up on some essentially unarmed nation, but when it comes to fighting a real war, you guys are fucking pussies.
Seriously FTL? And they wouldn't call it bluff?

"W.A.M.P. Technician: "General Slime sir."
General Slime (Steve Forrest): "Yes sergeant?"
W.A.M.P. Technician: "It's a collect call from Pakistan for Mr Ruby. A Mr Fitz-Hume."
Mr Ruby: "(Spits up his coffee) What?"
Milbarge: "Ah folks sorry uh we'll just be another minute. Thank you for your patience."
W.A.M.P. Technician: "It's person to person sir collect. They said their contacts tried to kill them and they don't know what they should do."
Mr Keyes: "And they told you this over a public phone."
W.A.M.P. Technician: "No sir, the AT&T operator told our operator."
maine_coon is offline  
post #29 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-11-2007, 12:08 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
theboss's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: 560 SEL Euro
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But US of A mydear is already a threat not once but twice

Video:
LiveLeak.com - Hiroshima-DroppinG The NuKe

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda

* 13:46 21 July 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Rob Edwards

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

"He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species," says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. "It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."

According to the official US version of history, an A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, and another on Nagasaki three days later, to force Japan to surrender. The destruction was necessary to bring a rapid end to the war without the need for a costly US invasion.

But this is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US. They are presenting their evidence at a meeting in London on Thursday organised by Greenpeace and others to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the bombings.
Looking for peace

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.

Kuznick and Selden's arguments, however, were dismissed as "discredited" by Lawrence Freedman, a war expert from King's College London, UK. He says that Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima was "understandable in the circumstances".

Truman's main aim had been to end the war with Japan, Freedman says, but adds that, with the wisdom of hindsight, the bombing may not have been militarily justified. Some people assumed that the US always had "a malicious and nasty motive", he says, "but it ain't necessarily so."
Related Articles

* The A-bomb: 60 years on, is the world any safer?
* The A-bomb: 60 years on, is the world any safer? - opinion - 16 July 2005 - New Scientist
* 16 July 2005
* Nuclear test fall-out killed thousands in US
* Nuclear test fall-out killed thousands in US - 01 March 2002 - New Scientist
* 01 March 2002
* Careful with that nuke
* Careful with that nuke - 30 June 2001 - New Scientist
* 30 June 2001

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[50] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[50] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. "The problem now [13 August] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."[50]
What they hell they were running a production line of WMD. Manufacture and bomb until Japan is annihilated from face of earth. The fear of such retaliation still haunts america I guess. no seriously, the first can be regarded as mistake but second and plans to carry out further?? totally satanic I say!!

Fuel economy!! whats that??

Last edited by theboss; 08-11-2007 at 12:35 PM.
theboss is offline  
post #30 of 41 (permalink) Old 08-11-2007, 01:57 PM
M44
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2007
Vehicle: 1993 300CE
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by theboss
But US of A mydear is already a threat not once but twice

Video:
LiveLeak.com - Hiroshima-DroppinG The NuKe

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda

* 13:46 21 July 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Rob Edwards

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

"He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species," says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. "It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."

According to the official US version of history, an A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, and another on Nagasaki three days later, to force Japan to surrender. The destruction was necessary to bring a rapid end to the war without the need for a costly US invasion.

But this is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US. They are presenting their evidence at a meeting in London on Thursday organised by Greenpeace and others to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the bombings.
Looking for peace

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.

Kuznick and Selden's arguments, however, were dismissed as "discredited" by Lawrence Freedman, a war expert from King's College London, UK. He says that Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima was "understandable in the circumstances".

Truman's main aim had been to end the war with Japan, Freedman says, but adds that, with the wisdom of hindsight, the bombing may not have been militarily justified. Some people assumed that the US always had "a malicious and nasty motive", he says, "but it ain't necessarily so."
Related Articles

* The A-bomb: 60 years on, is the world any safer?
* The A-bomb: 60 years on, is the world any safer? - opinion - 16 July 2005 - New Scientist
What a bunch of bullcrap. People have a hard time understanding that there are actually people out there that want to kill us. There always will be. In WWII we had the Japanese, now we have the Muslim extremists. Japanese citizens were being armed with sharpened bamboo pole and told to kill at least 10 Americans to please the Emperor. The US invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, both in the initial invasion and months leading after the invasion. The terrain of Japan would have made it difficult to get around, and Japanese peasants who knew their farms like the back of their hand would have been able to find the perfect ambush spot, this would have happened thousands of times over, bleeding American forces to death.

87 300E, 163,000 miles SOLD
Current, 93 300CE coupe, 227,000 miles
98 Subaru Forester, 250,000 miles
M44 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    F/S United States/Canada Navigation CD Set W220S500 W220 S-Class 5 05-29-2006 02:54 PM
    F/S United States/Canada Navigation CD Set W220S500 For Sale/Wanted/Trade/Giveaway 1 05-08-2006 11:35 AM
    The World According to The United States firstmb Off-Topic 15 02-13-2006 10:41 AM
    Exporting out of the United States LanceShetrompf General Mercedes-Benz 3 06-12-2005 01:12 AM
    The United States is #1! Chuck V Off-Topic 31 07-25-2004 06:40 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome