Pakistan to fence, mine Afghan border

[dnpmakkah]

Pakistan has previously suggested a fence but Afghanistan, which does not recognize the British-drawn border, said doing so would unfairly divide ethnic Pashtun communities straddling the largely unmarked frontier. Pakistan strongly opposes a similar move by India to fence the disputed frontier with Kashmir to block Kashmiri separatists it says are backed by Pakistan.
LINK HERE

What is it with these nations trying to grab land by building fences? It's like the domino effect, one does then they all want to try and get away with it.

[tcwest10]

There are those who think we ought to fence off portions of Fairfax, and cut the power supply.
Who knows what they're thinking?

[UK Skins Fan]

Yeah, I remember the good old days, when we used to turn up with a ship full of conscripts, stick a flag on the beach, and claim a place for the Empire.

Nations these days just have no class.

[dnpmakkah]

If a country wants to build a wall on their own land and on their side of the border then that is their choice. The problem arises when a nation wants to build a wall on opposing land. This land does not belong to them thus making it illegal. Some people don't grasp this concept because they are too dumb to understand it but unfortunetly it is a stark reality of life.

Many nations are using this method as a means to expand thier borders under the guise as a 'fence'. War does not work anymore. Superpowers can't just go and take control of a country like in the past. Recent event show that even a super power like the U.S. can be defeated thus they have to use sneaky methods like walls. That is what Pakistan is doing as well as ummmm some other nations.

[ATV]

Recent event show that even a super power like the U.S. can be defeated

Again, this occupation has nothing to do with being defeated. The Iraqi army was eliminated. This about the American people realizing that it isn't worth the cost. If the American people willed it, we could eliminate every man woman and child in Iraq and the Iraqi's couldn't do a thing to stop us. Of course, only irrational people would want to do this. My point is that you're severely over-generalizing to make your argument.

[dnpmakkah]

^I still doubt it. The only way they can do it is to nuke Iraq, which isn't beyond the American mentality so I wouldn't be surprised if they did so. They have done it before and they could do it again.

Any other way would be a failure. Military wise...yes America is stronger but as far as heart goes I don't think America has the stomach to face such a challenge.

All super powers fall eventually. Don't underestimate the little man. Remember David and that other guy? Romans, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Mongols, Russians, Nazi's..etc----all have come and gone. America's power is not above theirs. It is David and Goalith all over again.

[ATV]

The only way they can do it is to nuke Iraq

I never suggested that. They could simply and methodically go door-to door, of course. I'm not suggesting they should, either.

You also need to get off of the whole "USA is evil because they're the only nation to use a nuclear weapon". History demonstrates that these bombs, while horrible, surely saved American AND Japanese lives.

[tcwest10]

...and made pretty shadow people on walls, too.

[dnpmakkah]

You also need to get off of the whole "USA is evil because they're the only nation to use a nuclear weapon".

Hmmm...and I always thought using a nuclear bomb on innocent people 'was' evil. I guess not. So obtaining a nuclear weapon is evil...but using it is not? I'm confused here. Tell me again why killing thousands of innocent people with WMD is not evil? BTW...America IS the ONLY nation to have EVER used a nuclear bomb, unless you know something I don't.

History demonstrates that these bombs, while horrible, surely saved American AND Japanese lives.

History also demonstrates that a lot of innocent lives were lost using these bombs.

[ATV]

I always thought using a nuclear bomb on innocent people 'was' evil.

Why bring Good and Evil into this? Is that what the discussion is about?

So obtaining a nuclear weapon is evil...but using it is not?

I never attempted to make a distinction. Again, what does this have to do with the discussion?

Tell me again why killing thousands of innocent people with WMD is not evil?

We were nations at war. Was killing these civillians less evil than would have killing twice, three times, who knows how many more Japanese - via conventional warfare?

BTW...America IS the ONLY nation to have EVER used a nuclear bomb, unless you know something I don't.

You mean the only nation to use one during war. Yes, who doesn't know this?

History also demonstrates that a lot of innocent lives were lost using these bombs.

Well, yea, duh. History also demonstrates that the U.S. Fire Bombed (using conventional weapons) over fifty Japanese cities before the first bomb was ever dropped on Hiroshima. In fact one night of bombing on Tokyo, using conventional weapons, killed more people then either the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. In sum, the casualties from the two nuclear weapons were DWARFED by the sum of the Fire Bombings.

So, the use of our nuclear weaponry, after months and months of horrific fire bombing, finally persuaded the Japanese government to surrender. The nuclear bombs actually SAVED lives. I personally, feel that saving lives is not evil.

[tcwest10]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are generally considered payback for Pearl Harbor, no?

...and couldn't we classify Kamikaze pilots as a WMD if the payload is something other than the usual?

[ATV]

The Japanese were horrible. They rarely followed the Geneva Convention (Battan Death March anyone?). Ironically, our soldiers (ours, not everyone's) were better treated by the Germans, who usually applied the Geneva Convention. I'm not arguing this as justification, but yea - That was an ugly brutal war, and this was surely part of the equation for why the atomic bombs were used. That is, to put an end to it.

[Chris Luva Luva]

I bet the US knows a thing or two about acquiring land...

[DESkins]

I already tried explaining the atom bombs to D"hates America" once, ATV. Wasting your breath (or at least your typing effort). The fact is, he's going to hate on everything that America does, even though he lives here, and that's his right, but at least he should try to look at things accurately.

[ATV]

Well, I actually agree with much of what he writes, but it bothers me when he throws things out like this. It's clear he's passionate about these issues but no matter the argument I always like to see the facts straightened.

So, I concur that this nation has done plenty of evil or wrong things, but the atomic bombing of Japan wasn't one of them.

[Irn-Bru]

So, I concur that this nation has done plenty of evil or wrong things, but the atomic bombing of Japan wasn't one of them.

Your main argument for this seemed to be that (a) it saved the two nations from losing more soldiers -- as opposed to innocents, and (b) that it wasn't as bad as the fire-bombing that happened in the months before the atomic bomb. Even if] these arguments are sound by your own standards (and I have my doubts about that), how does any 'lesser of two evils' approach absolve the 'less evil' action from being evil?

The Japanese soldiers don't respect the Geneva conventions, and that softens the blame on us for destroying two entire cities?

The Americans "had" to pursue a land war with Japan -- not other strategy was viable? -- so wiping out all those men, women, and children was a necessity?

If those are the only arguments offered to explain the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the massive economic destruction of two cities, and the secondary effects (such as deformities and radiation) that have lasted yet another generation, I don't see how the nuclear bombing of a city could ever be viewed as anything less than the most grave of evils.



Edit:

I usually don't rely on anecdotal evidence or emotional responses but I have to pass on one perspective on the atomic bombs that I don't think ever really makes it to the surface of the discussion.

Nagasaki was one area of Japan where Christianity was most able to take root, despite severe persecution from political figures (it was a capital crime to be a Christian for centuries). Yet, despite persecution, the pre-atomic bomb Nagasaki had one of the most concentrated populations of Catholics in all of Japan. When the west opened up trade with Japan in the 19th century, it was thought that there were no more Christians there because of the previous persecution. Instead, they found that Christians had survived for centuries in an underground existence. The natives went on to build the largest cathedral in the east in Nagasaki, and Catholics were able to worship openly.

Then, as one commentator wrote: "And what the Japanese Imperial government could not do in over 200 years of persecution, American Christians did in 9 seconds. The entire worshipping community of Nagasaki was wiped out."

[thaiphoon]

Yeah, I remember the good old days, when we used to turn up with a ship full of conscripts, stick a flag on the beach, and claim a place for the Empire.

Nations these days just have no class.

ROFLMAO ... UK have you ever seen Eddie Izzard's stand-up?

He does a bit about this and it goes somethign like this...

Brit : <thrusts a flag in the ground so its stands proudly> "With this flag, I claim this land in the name of the Queen !!!"

Native: "But... but... we were here first...its our land."

Brit: "Well... do you have a flag ??!!!"

[KazooSkinsFan]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are generally considered payback for Pearl Harbor, no?

No

[UK Skins Fan]

Yeah, I remember the good old days, when we used to turn up with a ship full of conscripts, stick a flag on the beach, and claim a place for the Empire.

Nations these days just have no class.

ROFLMAO ... UK have you ever seen Eddie Izzard's stand-up?

He does a bit about this and it goes somethign like this...

Brit : <thrusts a flag in the ground so its stands proudly> "With this flag, I claim this land in the name of the Queen !!!"

Native: "But... but... we were here first...its our land."

Brit: "Well... do you have a flag ??!!!"

Eddie Izzard=Funny guy.

Welcome back, thai.