Ghet, I Dont Believe I Have Seen This Answer Out Of You Yet...So I Ask..

Discussion in 'Audio Emcee Hook Ups' started by Phantom, Nov 4, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rakuseki

    Rakuseki The Disgruntled Negro

    Nov 11, 2003
    Why is it a horrible policy to tell the rest of the world that we don't want them to have the most powerful weapon ever devised? It's only logical.
  2. Ghet-Ghet

    Ghet-Ghet Guest

    It was either that or extend the war or another 4 years allying with Russia to invade Japan, in which there would be a North and South Japan.

    I can think in terms of deploying a nuclear weapon as a GOOD THING because had Japan been Communized, it's ability to contribute to the growing world of technology would be shakey.

    However, liberals always think the nuke is the badest thing ever, and forget that it was their party that deployed it... twice.

    The Uranium Barrier.

    Giving every Indian a gun would have changed the shape of North America.

    The Chinese did launch preemptive campaigns on any nation attempting to gain it for themselves! Read a history book!

    There was a time when almost everyone in the world had a gun. And still, humanity flourished. A single bullet doesn't leave a 1/2 mile wide crater and shoot anti-particle annihilation chains into the atmosphere.

    A horrible policy?

    And this is why liberals are dead: they think nuclear weapon ownership is a basic human right.

    Just go AWOL. People who think like that do not belong in the military.
  3. Ghet-Ghet

    Ghet-Ghet Guest

    Yes, the Emporer will return to purge the world of Americans with their diabolical plot to infest our nations with anime so that we can all attack Pearl Harbor again!


    Wasn't that a South Park episode?

    Bias? It's his plan towards education for the NEXT 4 years. If I state a plan, it isn't bias. It's my plan!

    Egad. Knee-jerk reactions everywhere.
  4. R3flex

    R3flex Smackin Ya Manses

    Nov 27, 2002
    wow!! Good debate. No childish name-calling, and good points from either side. Carry on, gentlemen.
  5. Just Wrong

    Just Wrong J Dot

    May 11, 2004

    where was he THE LAST FOUR YEARS

    this last 4 weeks i saw the president pull issues out of his ass to avoid the war in iraq and our economy just so he could beat a real leader.... someone who can get this country out of debt, educate our youth so they dont get brainwashed by the wool bush pulls over our eyes
  6. Phantom

    Phantom T'is I, Ray Ocean

    Oct 30, 2000
    thanks for completely avoiding answering. so ill say it for you. of course you concur that Bush and any republican for that matter would have deployed it. i know why it was deployed, you keep mentioning that the only way to win that war was to do so. youre so back an forth. it doesnt matter if a democrat or republican did it. anyone in their right mind would have done for the simple fact of ending the war.

    No it wouldnt, it only would have been bloodier than it already was. the indians would be in the exact same position as they are now.

    you missed the point. they didnt go around the world forcing their own ideals on the rest of the world under the guise of making the world a better place by keeping nations from gaining it.

    Everyone KNOWS what a nuclear weapon will do. you act like if everyone gets them , theres gonna be a detonation party for the hell of it. Humanity will flourish regardless.

    yes a HORRIBLE policy. youve convinced yourself that what youve read is sound and correct, yet you have no idea the makeup of the modern military or whos in it. and if you wanted everyone that thought like me AWOL, you wouldnt have a military. theres a huge difference in disagreeing with policy and following orders. that is which you have no experience in. and you couldnt begin to compare disagreeing with your boss to disagreeing with a Lt Colonel about who to shoot when your life is on the line.

    its not nuclear ownership, its human innovation. god forbid anyone with the brain power to develop anything america disagrees with, live outside of america.

    and if the leader you place so much faith in was really concerned about preventing nations from gaining it and who MIGHT actually use it, we sure as hell wouldnt be in Iraq.
  7. David Cadence

    David Cadence wake me up be4 you go go!

    Sep 17, 2004


  8. Ghet-Ghet

    Ghet-Ghet Guest

    The answer wasn't avoided, it was expounded. Liberals consistantly refer to the US using the nukes as "evil, imperialism" I believe it was a necessary step to stop the spread of Communism (IE extremist liberalism).

    Indians would actually be able to invade British colonies from the 1700s to today as if they were French, and that would have changed everything.


    Taiwan, Vietnam, Mongolia...

    They're simply catching up!

    If humanity was on more then one planet and had unlimited expansion capabilities, I'd be all for every human in existance to have their own personal nuclear weapons to hang over the fireplace... BUT NOT WHILE WE ARE ON ONE FUCKING PLANET!

    I question your professionalism on how long you can keep orders and opinion seperated.

    You really don't get it, do you? You really think the liberal ideals of human rights and sensory-perception over everything else is universal? You think nations wouldn't nuke each other out of the concepts of honor!? Wars that cost hundreds of thousands of people have been started FOR LESS!

    You've greatly miscalculated how the human works... which explains why Democrats are no longer in powe.

    Then where would be be? Pick a nation and explain why China is okay with it.
  9. Phantom

    Phantom T'is I, Ray Ocean

    Oct 30, 2000
    really? because i have never heard it referred to as evil or imperialistic, not by anyone i know, not by any professor ive had, not by anything ive ever seen or heard. im sure youll reply with some random, obscure quote though. doesnt matter cuz i simply disagree with it just like anyone i associate with or engage in discussion with.

    again, no it wouldnt, i dont care what they could have called themselves or flag they invaded under, they would still be in the same exact position. covered centuries worth of.....what?

    nothing because what i stated DID NOT take place.

    tell me this, if we didnt invent it first and say the Russians did. what do you think our policy would have been then?

    you keep assuming that just because someone has it that they just cant wait to lock and load and aim right for Ghets computer room. please.

    and come on guy, the first "galactic" war will be when we populate Mar because people wanna bring weapons their and big brother Earth wont want that to happen. youre drifting further and further into irrelevance with that point.

    really? i graduated basic training as the Soldier of the Cycle (training period) for my platoon, company and battalion.

    i graduated advanced individual training on the Commandants list.

    ive been in the top 1 percentile on every physical training test since starting basic training.

    i enlisted into the Army as an E1/Private, the lowest of the low and made E5/Sergeant last month in just over 2 years and 10 months, the fastest promotion track in my units history.

    You couldnt last a day with me when it comes to professionalism. ive never relinquished my ability to THINK while serving.

    youre in no position to question mine nor any soldiers professionalism and if you did, youd be severly disappointed. the ones with brains such as myself who actually had an option besides being forced to take the position of human bullet stopper in the infantry think like me, overwhelmingly.

    No, nations would NOT nuke each other for the fun of it as you put it. this isnt tribal warfare with bows and arrows and swords. you doubt human ability to think of the consequence.

    North Korea is where we SHOULD be.

    China's a paper bully. one dimensional force. im not concerned with them.

    and i am not able to disclose why i know and feel that way.
  10. Ghet-Ghet

    Ghet-Ghet Guest

    I'm from New Jersey. In the section of the United States that overwhelmingly voted for Kerry, the following things occur as permanent rules:

    1.) The word 'Hilter' will leave the mouth of at least one college student once per hour per day.

    2.) U.S. Nuclear Arm usage in Japan can never be justified.

    By having a different weapon, your technique of offense/defense changes as well. Mobility, order of command, and resources all change and so does the military force operating.

    It would have been drastically different.

    China invasion of Tibet: 1950
    China invasion of Vietnam: 1979
    China forcing Taiwan (largest creditor holder in the world) back into it's folds: TODAY

    Not to mention the total desctruction of cultural history forced on by it's own government!


    How many civilizations are you willing to gamble on the rationalization of human beings?

    Drop your Western Universalism.

    Time and pressure will mold a different story.

    They are rapidily mobilizing into an economic force of reckoning who will outperform the combined GDP of all Western powers. I beg you to repremand your sources.
  11. Phantom

    Phantom T'is I, Ray Ocean

    Oct 30, 2000
    so am i, Jersey City, down in Journal Square.

    youre talking about college kids, who the majority voted for Kerry. the majority of college aged people will always lean to the left. comes from education and the ability to break free from mommy and daddys cold war conservative view.

    No again, it would NOT have been different. if all the Indians were running around with guns they still would have been met with an overwhelming force of pissed off French and English. and theyd be controlling casinos still.

    soo....gunpowder, my original point by the way, was invented in 1949? so THATS why they invaded Tibet the next year??? shit all makes sense now....


    youre gambling it right now!!!

    TRANSLATION: "Im impressed"~Ghet

    lets see....already fought for 11 months and 17 days, was deployed a total of 474....hmmm.....there supposed to be something about pressure in there.....

    its just not coming to me.

    oh thats right, now i remember. whatever youve designated as pressure ive already performed, operated, and excelled under it since day 1. all you had to say was, you thought wrong.

    yes because our own loans providing funding for the brilliant War On Terror is from China!!

    which is why bankrupting America is how you defeat America. and you mentioned 30 countries GDP's. thats good and fun if that were the case. America 90% of monetary costs my friend.

    but ill be sure to let my superiors know the Great Ghetalion of New Jersey is more informed than all foreign intelligence gatherers....

    come to think of it, you just may be right.

    be back later, gonna go play with Saddams WMD program....
  12. Ghet-Ghet

    Ghet-Ghet Guest

    I was always under the impression they thought that way because they don't pay mortgage... or raise a family... or do anything that requires an unfaltering responsibility.

    They would have efficiently pushed off foreign religious colonies. That's why the Puritians didn't migrate to Turkey.. or China.

    Well shit, if we are talking antiquity...

    Warring States period, Yellow Turban Rebellion, Qing Dynasty's expansion to Tibet, Mongolia, and Xinjiang?

    China was not China until the easy 1700s. Before that, it was warring states going back and force, trying to influence each other with all of it's technological and imperial might.

    Come on, man.. this is ANTIQUITY!

    Not at all. The West's definition of stability has to fall in order for a new stability to rise. It is the process.

    Look, you have my unlimited respect for serving the military and putting yourself in the position that others bittery refuse to join.

    However, time and pressure are the ultimate factors.

    Really? Then why is there an Islamic-Sino alliance?
  13. Phantom

    Phantom T'is I, Ray Ocean

    Oct 30, 2000
    thats a good point, but explain to me why the college educated youth of today is NOTHING like their parents when it comes to politics.

    responsibility doesnt bring an automatic shift in ones beliefs. isnt that Bush's platform?? sticking with your beliefs regardless of popularity, responsibility or trend?

    i really wish my brother could debate with you, hes more liberal and far more educated then myself and is a wealth of historical fact and knowledge like yourself. hed be perfect for that statement of yours i just quoted...

    wait wait wait....youre telling me if i gave the rifle of yesteryear to the Indians, they would have fought off every element of foreignor pouring onto American shores in that day and time??

    absolutely not.

    i guess youre basing that on the fact that they wouldnt be living the lifestyle in the conditions they did simply because they had a boomstick. they still would have been crushed. even if they had it, they wouldnt waged war as the British and French did.

    see now youre drifting again. my statement was that China did not wage war to prevent others from gaining gun powder under the guise of spreading freedom and peace to the rest of the world.

    which is a gamble. 50/50 correct?

    sounds like Vegas to me.

    Thank you but yet another gamble.

    You lost me here.....whats "Sino"
  14. So. IL.L


    Sep 25, 2002
    Two things... 1. Using war to dictate a country is pointless and only costs us our freedoms and our money.. It is not our job to liberate Iraq.. Nor was that ever the intention of the invasion of Iraq.. at least not until the initial supplied reasons were proven false or inconclusive...

    2. These so called technological advances that are being made thanks to corporate tax breaks only cost americans their jobs.. What the fuck do you want.. a world dominated by A.I.?

    Liberals want and need technology as bad as anyone.. they just realize that you can't gain technology at the expense of human life.. there are no acceptable losses when the particular technology being developed is of no immediate or pressing use. There has to be a balance. You can't rely on only technology. There has to be morals in polotics. There has to be a line that cannot be crossed. Technology defeats the purpose when it costs lives and jobs.. This is a world for the people.. not the robots who take over their jobs.. there won't be anyone left to save with all of this technology by the time Ghet's "end of the game" scenario takes effect.

    World peace isn't unrealistic.. your perspective of what we intend world peace to be is distorted.. You think we expect that we can accomplish a world peace utopia where all of our recourses were plentifull.. obviously that's not the case seeing as how limited resources is what keeps world peace from being possible.. not unrealistic expectations of world peace.. and that's because of greed.. which is the power supply to the republican party.. Greed is why we can't have world peace.. and we all know who the greedy ones are..

    You're so extreme that you can no longer be objective about anything of this matter. You don't seem to have any kind of concern what so ever in regaurds to what is actually best for this country when it matters. By the time your world saving technology gets here.. we won't need it..

    Technology must be included.. just not above all else and/or at any cost short of saving the world or human life.. When it kills more than it saves tho.. that's a problem..

    fuck it
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)