Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Spelca · 09-10-2002, 06:02 AM

There's an election (parliament) soon here in Sweden, and when they were interviewing the leaders of the parties, they wanted them to chose between leaders of countries. One of these groups was; Bush or Castro? Some leaders of parties didn't know which one to chose, and one chose Castro. I know that those not being able to decide which was the Green Party, and the one that chose Castro was, I think, the Left Party. I'm not sure about that, so Swedes please correct me if I'm wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I don't think it's so strange with some people in the Arabic countries saying Bush is worse than Hussein. For them Bush is what Hussein is for Americans. It's all about from which point of view you look at them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I admit it, I don't know much about Iraq and the wars... I know what I learnt in history in highschool, though that wasn't that much since it wasn't that far away from that time. And I know what I read about it now. So I won't go into who's wrong and who's right.
All I know is that if you want to help the people (This is what the US wants to do, right? Or at least that's how I understood it...) you help them and not bomb them. I don't see how bombing a country would help the people living there. You can't say there won't be any civilian victims.

And like some others said in their posts, it would just make them angrier.

About the nuclear bomb... So they're saying he's developing one? I know, that's really bad (strange word to use, heh). I'm against nuclear bombs... But what I don't understand is why are other countries 'allowed' to have them and not them? USA has them. Russia has them. France has them (they tested them, right?). Pakistan and India have them (I think). I bet some other countries have them too. I understand that Iraq is dangerous to the countries around it, but won't attacking them provoke them to make one even more? If they feel threatened of course they'll make one. Because then the people threatening them will think about attacking... Well, that's what I think at least.
Oh, and lots of other countries have the ability to make a nuke. Sweden is one of them. The ability to do it doesn't mean you will. (Though Iraq probably will build one if provoked... I don't know about using it though... I hope nobody is stupid enough to use it, because it would mean death to yourself.)

Edit - I just wanted to say that I'm not defending Iraq. When it comes to the nuclear bomb I see all countries that have it the same because you build bombs to destroy things. You don't have a bomb if you don't have an intention to use it.

[ 09-10-2002, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

09-10-2002, 06:02 AM	#19
Spelca Emerald Dragon Join Date: January 3, 2002 Location: From Slovenia, in Sweden Age: 43 Posts: 931	There's an election (parliament) soon here in Sweden, and when they were interviewing the leaders of the parties, they wanted them to chose between leaders of countries. One of these groups was; Bush or Castro? Some leaders of parties didn't know which one to chose, and one chose Castro. I know that those not being able to decide which was the Green Party, and the one that chose Castro was, I think, the Left Party. I'm not sure about that, so Swedes please correct me if I'm wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img] I don't think it's so strange with some people in the Arabic countries saying Bush is worse than Hussein. For them Bush is what Hussein is for Americans. It's all about from which point of view you look at them. [img]smile.gif[/img] I admit it, I don't know much about Iraq and the wars... I know what I learnt in history in highschool, though that wasn't that much since it wasn't that far away from that time. And I know what I read about it now. So I won't go into who's wrong and who's right. All I know is that if you want to help the people (This is what the US wants to do, right? Or at least that's how I understood it...) you help them and not bomb them. I don't see how bombing a country would help the people living there. You can't say there won't be any civilian victims. And like some others said in their posts, it would just make them angrier. About the nuclear bomb... So they're saying he's developing one? I know, that's really bad (strange word to use, heh). I'm against nuclear bombs... But what I don't understand is why are other countries 'allowed' to have them and not them? USA has them. Russia has them. France has them (they tested them, right?). Pakistan and India have them (I think). I bet some other countries have them too. I understand that Iraq is dangerous to the countries around it, but won't attacking them provoke them to make one even more? If they feel threatened of course they'll make one. Because then the people threatening them will think about attacking... Well, that's what I think at least. Oh, and lots of other countries have the ability to make a nuke. Sweden is one of them. The ability to do it doesn't mean you will. (Though Iraq probably will build one if provoked... I don't know about using it though... I hope nobody is stupid enough to use it, because it would mean death to yourself.) Edit - I just wanted to say that I'm not defending Iraq. When it comes to the nuclear bomb I see all countries that have it the same because you build bombs to destroy things. You don't have a bomb if you don't have an intention to use it. [ 09-10-2002, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ] __________________ At one time or another there will be a choice: you or the wall. (J. Winterson)