lord_casek Posted November 18, 2007 Author Share Posted November 18, 2007 so i don't get "called out" p.s.: i think they also have started with those mini tactical nukes as well as some (other) interesting ordinance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 Well I've already pointed out that it would be hypocritical to support terrorism in Iraq. *Iran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted November 18, 2007 Author Share Posted November 18, 2007 *Iran you did see that new yorker article right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 Don't wave your dick around and I won't have to wave mine. dude, it has nothing to do with dickwaving. it has to do with poorly thought out arguments recognizing half (if that of an issue). the US presence in iraq is not an invading force, our role there is currently deemed a peace keeping operation. as peace keepers the iraqi civilians have NO recognized rights to kill us. I wish this situation were as simply explained as imperialism, it isn't. I'm not going to defend the integrity of my government's intentions, i do however have great appreciation for our military and the folk that serve in it. if they've the right to kill American soldiers than they also have the right to off every military present, french, australian, british, etc. a foreign military's presence in a nation is not a justification for attacking them. If greenland and new zealand were in the US as a means of keeping peace due to some sort of political upheaval, maintaining our economic structure/stability, etc i would have no right to attack them as a CIVILIAN on this land. If their intentions were to take this land, then yes, i would. and regarding the intentions of those serving: yes, the majority is middle class white males. most that i know are here for the opportunities offered by the GI BILL, Loan Repayment and similar programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALIgula Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 See this is why I started to talk in this thread The Iranians are going to blow up the world and cause ww3 and ultimate doom. Where are you getting this shit from? Iran don't even have one yet but in a few years they might so lets attack them? Give me a fucking break, do you not remember the last four years? Swap the N with a Q and its the exact same scenario of pure bullshit. How are you actually buying into this? We could argue about the sources of this supposed bomb making all we want but lets go with it for this scenario and say they actually are, so what? 1. The US have sent a clear message to everyone. If you have nuclear weapons we probably won't attack you. 2. Iran are not allowed nuclear weapons by the UN charter... I think we can agree all rational people would like to a see a nuclear weapon free world BUT if the US have several thousand (and attack who they like with conventional armies), Israel have several hundred, Pakistan, India, NK and a couple others have some why the fuck should Iran not have one....maybe....in several years....? It is completely hypocritical. What is hard to understand about this? Please explain it to me because I have explained my position several times now, it is very clear. Maybe its something in the water where you are or maybe its the ignorant cultural conditioning you have under gone since birth which makes people from other nations a little less human than you. I will say it once again because it is so fucking simple a child can understand it SPECIFICALLY IRAQIS, that is NOT foreign muslims or anyone else, HAVE THE RIGHT BOTH ETHICALLY, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND BY EVERY CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO KILL US SOLDIERS. Which would either be 1. Exactly the same as the oppressive regime already around or 2. Probably a lot better Irony given that you think you are showing some kind of dissent when you are confirming to the party line about having to attack Iran.... oh yeah and not understanding very basic principles of international law 1.I never said Iran is going to "blow up the world and start ww3"...i said Iran is funding Hezbollah...which will attack Israel causing other countries to join in Israel's defense...causing more middle eastern countries to join in and form allies with other middle eastern countries..and could escalate to another world war....meanwhile...its important to stop iran from having a nuc weapons program..b/c once that shit escalates to a certain point...iran will not hesitate for a second to use their nucs on israel or any other nonmuslim country for that matter (including but not limited to european countries). 2.you say, "Iran don't even have one yet but in a few years they might so lets attack them?" attack them???...when the fuck did i say this???...now you are really twisting my words.. i said FUND the PROPER groups (that are pro-west) to take out the govt. through a REVOLUTION.... then you say, "Give me a fucking break, do you not remember the last four years? Swap the N with a Q and its the exact same scenario of pure bullshit. How are you actually buying into this?" no its not the same thing as Iraq....why???....because we arent going into the country with shock and awe....we wont even have to set a single american foot in iranian soil.... if we do decided to stop the nuc facilities...it will be an air strike...or even more plausible...an attack on targets from the persian gulf...but see....heres the problem...iran will retaliate if the nuc facilities are hit....and with what....hundreds of thousands of soldiers...more than our already stretched thin army...so the only solution is to fund and support an organization that is pro-west....bottom line is a majority of iranians are already fed up with their govt....so the fire is there...so the funding acts as the fuel... 3.this is the statement that proves you have no idea what you are talking about: "I think we can agree all rational people would like to a see a nuclear weapon free world BUT if the US have several thousand (and attack who they like with conventional armies), Israel have several hundred, Pakistan, India, NK and a couple others have some why the fuck should Iran not have one....maybe....in several years....? It is completely hypocritical." why???....why???.....i'll tell you why....b/c their leaders are irrational people...provincial narrowminded people who dont care who dies as long as its in the name of Islam.... they are shiites... yes...other countries have nuc weapons....but do other countries govt. leaders (ahmadinejad) make statements like "israel should be wiped off the map"....come on now...youre comparing us to them?....our govt does not hold the same beliefs as they do.. 4.you said " We are assuming that the US government give a fuck about the free people of the world and genuinely want to stop the 'crazy Muslim leaders of Iran' from building a bomb. Which we all know is a joke backed up by several decades of economic imperialism." what are you talking about....the us is trying to stop further acts of terrorism...from a country known for harboring as well as funding terrorists groups...there isnt much financial gain here....its more about national and more importantly world security.. 5. then you said... SPECIFICALLY IRAQIS, that is NOT foreign muslims or anyone else, HAVE THE RIGHT BOTH ETHICALLY, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND BY EVERY CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO KILL US SOLDIERS. ethics?????....human rights????....have the right????????...to kill american soldiers??????.what the fuck are you talking about??...whats so ethical about killing people who came to save you from a brutal regime/dictatorship......you know sadaam killed his own people....fuck....hitler didnt even kill his own people...the american soldiers care more about the iraqis than sadaam ever did....this is so obvious when you look at the amount of poverty in the country ...while sadaam has gold toilets and like 30 sports cars and like 13 or 14 royal palaces. wow man....you really are a fucking idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 not really outlandish.....yeah...it sounded outlandish when bush said it... but actually it could really happen. lets just say...hypothetically... hezbollah in lebanon was to bomb northern Israel...again... and Israel was to retaliate...again.. and Syria became involved...and Iran decided to join.. then the U.S. would Join.. then Britain would join.. this is just the begining of an escalation...that could in fact cause another world war.. you would say...well this was started by lebanon.. but hezbollah are funded by the iranians.. dont read the rest of my post....i dont care....like i said....i knew i was gonna catch a lot of shit...why? cause i think realistically... people act like ww3 can't ever happen... but wast WW1 labeled "the war to end all wars".....yeah....people thought a second world war would never happen too....but guess what...it did. hahaha my god you think you're smart because you made up a hypothetical situation in which Iran is involved. Any idiot with half a brain could make a hundred stupid scenarios in which the USA starts world war 3 but is a blind man like yourself going to step up and sa we should start terrorist attacks and regime change on it? honestly do you have the intelligence to grasp the undisputable fact that the chances of the United States starting world war 3 are infinitely greater than that of Iran doing the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 dude, it has nothing to do with dickwaving. it has to do with poorly thought out arguments recognizing half (if that of an issue). the US presence in iraq is not an invading force Are you fucking retarded? The US INVADED IRAQ in 2003, that is the number one international crime ABOVE all other crimes, there is term for it stupid its called THE SUPREME CRIME OF AGGRESSION our role there is currently deemed a peace keeping operation. No, it isn't. as peace keepers the iraqi civilians have NO recognized rights to kill us. You are not peace keepers, you are a foreign occupying army according to all international laws. It takes a fairly brainwashed mind to even try to claim this. I wish this situation were as simply explained as imperialism, it isn't. I'm not going to defend the integrity of my government's intentions, i do however have great appreciation for our military and the folk that serve in it. The US military have continuously been used to kill innocent people but that is a side issue and one probably way out of your league if you think invading a country and breaking the number one international law is 'peace keeping' if they've the right to kill American soldiers than they also have the right to off every military present, french, australian, british, etc. Yes they do and I already said that. a foreign military's presence in a nation is not a justification for attacking them. When they invade and then occupy your country breaking international law, yes it is. If greenland and new zealand were in the US as a means of keeping peace due to some sort of political upheaval, maintaining our economic structure/stability, etc i would have no right to attack them as a CIVILIAN on this land. If their intentions were to take this land, then yes, i would. The US are not peace keeping and maintaining economic stability if you think this you are stupid. I am not even saying it lightly as an after thought light hearted insult. I mean you are an absolute fucking moron with no understanding of the world around you. The US invaded and occupied Iraq and still do. This is the number one international crime and the Iraqi people are free to kill all foreign troops who participated in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 1.I never said Iran is going to "blow up the world and start ww3"...i said Iran is funding Hezbollah...which will attack Israel causing other countries to join in Israel's defense...causing more middle eastern countries to join in and form allies with other middle eastern countries..and could escalate to another world war....meanwhile...its important to stop iran from having a nuc weapons program..b/c once that shit escalates to a certain point...iran will not hesitate for a second to use their nucs on israel or any other nonmuslim country for that matter (including but not limited to european countries). Says who? Nobody except your government and news outlets. You find me 5 academics across any field who agree on that Iran would launch a nuclear missile the moment they got one and maybe I will start to take your gibberish seriously. I'm willing to bet even Alan Dershowitz wouldn't say something that outlandish and hes about as Zionist as they come. 2.you say, "Iran don't even have one yet but in a few years they might so lets attack them?" attack them???...when the fuck did i say this???...now you are really twisting my words.. i said FUND the PROPER groups (that are pro-west) to take out the govt. through a REVOLUTION.... Fund pro-western (and this by the way can only mean pro-US) groups to over turn the Iran government. I tell you what, do a google search on the history of Nicaragua for me. then you say, "Give me a fucking break, do you not remember the last four years? Swap the N with a Q and its the exact same scenario of pure bullshit. How are you actually buying into this?" no its not the same thing as Iraq....why???....because we arent going into the country with shock and awe....we wont even have to set a single american foot in iranian soil.... Your government has said all this year "all options are on the table" that is virtually a declaration of war. Its none of your business what Iran do which is something you don't seem to get. You are not the world police and it isn't your place to "fund the proper groups", that is terrorism. if we do decided to stop the nuc facilities...it will be an air strike...or even more plausible...an attack on targets from the persian gulf...but see....heres the problem...iran will retaliate if the nuc facilities are hit....and with what....hundreds of thousands of soldiers...more than our already stretched thin army...so the only solution is to fund and support an organization that is pro-west....bottom line is a majority of iranians are already fed up with their govt....so the fire is there...so the funding acts as the fuel... If you decide to stop the nuclear facilities, without the approval of virtually the entire global community, then that is an act of terrorism. 3.this is the statement that proves you have no idea what you are talking about: No this is the part where you cannot apply very child like moral principles to international relations, namely the principle of universality. "I think we can agree all rational people would like to a see a nuclear weapon free world BUT if the US have several thousand (and attack who they like with conventional armies), Israel have several hundred, Pakistan, India, NK and a couple others have some why the fuck should Iran not have one....maybe....in several years....? It is completely hypocritical." why???....why???.....i'll tell you why....b/c their leaders are irrational people...provincial narrowminded people who dont care who dies as long as its in the name of Islam.... they are shiites... The leaders of the US government are irrational people... narrow minded people who don't care about who dies as long as its in the name of neo-conservative economics. Yet you guys have several thousand. yes...other countries have nuc weapons....but do other countries govt. leaders (ahmadinejad) make statements like "israel should be wiped off the map".... That is not what he said and it is very easily researchable. I suggest you look up what was actually said in that speech instead of watching your television. come on now...youre comparing us to them?....our govt does not hold the same beliefs as they do.. Its sad you don't know the history of your country but aside from that if we are to go on this century alone you have invaded two countries and killed hundreds of thousands of people... Iran haven't... 4.you said " We are assuming that the US government give a fuck about the free people of the world and genuinely want to stop the 'crazy Muslim leaders of Iran' from building a bomb. Which we all know is a joke backed up by several decades of economic imperialism." what are you talking about....the us is trying to stop further acts of terrorism.. Its almost pathetic how stupid some graff writers are from a country known for harboring as well as funding terrorists groups... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles Shoosh. there isnt much financial gain here....its more about national and more importantly world security.. No it isn't. Your understanding about how the world operates is incredibly naive. 5. then you said... SPECIFICALLY IRAQIS, that is NOT foreign muslims or anyone else, HAVE THE RIGHT BOTH ETHICALLY, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND BY EVERY CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO KILL US SOLDIERS. ethics?????....human rights????....have the right????????...to kill american soldiers??????.what the fuck are you talking about??... I am talking about very basic moral principles and INTERNATIONAL LAW like I have said about a million times retard. I will say it more slowly so you understand IIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNN TTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRR NNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA TIIIOOOOOOONNN ALLLLLLLL - LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Not to mention the Nuremberg Principles. whats so ethical about killing people who came to save you from a brutal regime/dictatorship..... That is not why you invaded Iraq and again this is testament to how little you understand about the world. you know sadaam killed his own people... Yes he did and the entire time the US were friends with him. They gave him millions of dollars and weapons. They trained his scientists. They gave him the ingredients for nuclear weapons. this is so obvious when you look at the amount of poverty in the country ...while sadaam has gold toilets and like 30 sports cars and like 13 or 14 royal palaces. Again you highlight how much of a fucking moron you are. Despite US sanctions which are ESTIMATED TO HAVE KILLED BETWEEN HALF A MILLION AND ONE MILLION CHILDREN Iraq was still a borderline first world country before you invaded it. wow man....you really are a fucking idiot. Lets make a list 1. You don't know the most basic of international laws 2. You don't seem to know what morals and ethics are 3. You haven't the slightest fucking education on the history of the United States 3. You don't know anything about harboring terrorists 4. You still think Iraq was invaded to stop saddam, enough said. Shoosh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 Fund pro-western (and this by the way can only mean pro-US) groups to over turn the Iran government. I tell you what, do a google search on the history of Nicaragua for me. I thought you said you liked the MEK, but you don’t like the US and Israel bank rolling their operations (which is what they are doing right now)? You expect a bunch of kids to overthrow the Iranian regime on their own? I suggest you look up what was actually said in that speech instead of watching your television. Good point right there man. He actually called for them to “vanish from the page of time”, which is totally different.... even if you don’t have dyslexia you can see the massive differences between vanishing from time and vanishing from the map. The US INVADED IRAQ in 2003 Yeah, in 2003. That was a few years ago, so the “invasion” portion is just about finished. SUPREME CRIMES OF PASSIVE AGRRESSION OMFGLOL DANCE N GRAPH. You are not peace keepers, you are a foreign occupying army according to all international laws. The UN security council are the ones who established multi-national forces’ mandate of Iraq. The UN would be the people who make international law. Or by "international law" do you mean stuff you just made up? DaNcIn N GrApH, you should try to be less of a tool. Despite US sanctions which are ESTIMATED TO HAVE KILLED BETWEEN HALF A MILLION AND ONE MILLION CHILDREN Iraq was still a borderline first world country before you invaded it. Its funny how you people only have like 5 talking points that you repeat ad naseum, regardless of what is be discussed. OMG US SANCTIONS IN IRAQ!11!! BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF TEH DEAD BABIEZ!!.11!1 They were UN sanctions. United Nations. Remember the “international law” shit your always incoherently babbling about, yeah thats them? Suicide is your only viable option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 I thought you said you liked the MEK, but you don’t like the US and Israel bank rolling their operations (which is what they are doing right now)? You expect a bunch of kids to overthrow the Iranian regime on their own? I didn't say I liked them, again you can't read. Good point right there man. He actually called for them to “vanish from the page of time”, which is totally different.... even if you don’t have dyslexia you can see the massive differences between vanishing from time and vanishing from the map. 1. He was quoting 2. It was about Zionist occupation of Jerusalem Yeah, in 2003. That was a few years ago, so the “invasion” portion is just about finished. SUPREME CRIMES OF PASSIVE AGRRESSION OMFGLOL DANCE N GRAPH. The occupation is part and parcel of this but you act like a child so it is no surprise you have made an attempt at semantics The UN security council are the ones who established multi-national forces’ mandate of Iraq. Which says nothing of the original and continued crime. The UN would be the people who make international law. Or by "international law" do you mean stuff you just made up? DaNcIn N GrApH, you should try to be less of a tool. No I mean any war that is not in self-defense or sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter Its funny how you people only have like 5 talking points that you repeat ad naseum, regardless of what is be discussed. OMG US SANCTIONS IN IRAQ!11!! BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF TEH DEAD BABIEZ!!.11!1 They were UN sanctions. United Nations. Remember the “international law” shit your always incoherently babbling about, yeah thats them? They were not UN sanctions they were US sanctions and this highlights your lack of understanding about how the power relationship between the US and the UN security council works. Suicide is your only viable option. You have been "owned" in this argument. Please stop crying small boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALIgula Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 hahaha my god you think you're smart because you made up a hypothetical situation in which Iran is involved. Any idiot with half a brain could make a hundred stupid scenarios in which the USA starts world war 3 but is a blind man like yourself going to step up and sa we should start terrorist attacks and regime change on it? honestly do you have the intelligence to grasp the undisputable fact that the chances of the United States starting world war 3 are infinitely greater than that of Iran doing the same? no....i agree the us could possibly start ww3....but definately not greater than iran...see we have this shit called checks and balances here...leading to rational decisions....they are irrational there... and as for my hypothetical situation....its not as far fetched as you make it seem...fact:iran funds hezbollah in lebanon....fact: they have attacked northern israel before and they can easily do it again..fact: israel will retaliate...they did it before and theyll do it again.... the only thing it will take from that point on is other middle eastern countries such as syria to jump in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALIgula Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 purple mushroom...what country do you live in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted November 18, 2007 Author Share Posted November 18, 2007 no....i agree the us could possibly start ww3....but definately not greater than iran...see we have this shit called checks and balances here...leading to rational decisions....they are irrational there... and as for my hypothetical situation....its not as far fetched as you make it seem...fact:iran funds hezbollah in lebanon....fact: they have attacked northern israel before and they can easily do it again..fact: israel will retaliate...they did it before and theyll do it again.... the only thing it will take from that point on is other middle eastern countries such as syria to jump in. perhaps you would enjoy these articles? Do the U.S.and Israel Feed a World of Terror? http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/07/a_war_everywhere.html Dobbs: Not so smart when it comes to the Middle East http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/18/dobbs.july19/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibZ Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 the most fucked up country in the world and their majorly fucked up population is on the move again... hurray! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 word, my brain functions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted November 18, 2007 Author Share Posted November 18, 2007 bush and co. aid pakistan in keeping nuclear arms http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 ^ I think that’s a good thing, its not like we are giving them more bombs we are trying to help keep the ones they aleady have secure. Next best step to taking their (and India's) nukes away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted November 18, 2007 Author Share Posted November 18, 2007 ^ I think that’s a good thing, its not like we are giving them more bombs we are trying to help keep the ones they aleady have secure. Next best step to taking their (and India's) nukes away. you forget that pakistan instituted martial law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 So, shrooms user...... “I didn't say I liked them, again you can't read.” Your exact quote is that you “support most of what they do.” So let me rephrase my original question- you support most of what the MEK does, but you don’t like the US bankrolling or enabling them to do it? Also do you expect kids to overpower the revolutionary guard, savak, etc on their own? Maybe spiderman can help them instead of the great satan or zionist jew scum. ”They were not UN sanctions they were US sanctions” They were UN economic sanctions, re-read that wikipedia article, or have someone literate read it to you. You understand what the UN is, and the security council, their power to sanction and how that process works, right? ”Which says nothing of the original and continued crime.” No it says a lot. The UN has had a mission in iraq (which the freedom fighting resistance leader zarqawi bombed, which is his right with all international laws to resist the foreigners of course), and the UN established the mandate for the MNF-I occupation (which you apparently don’t understand the meaning of). You can’t just say everything that pops into your head is international law and then ignore or deny what the actual international law is/what the UN does (even if the UN doesn’t have the benefit of being as smart and awesome as you). Wait, actually you can, because you're an slow witted guy also afflicted with a nasty case of the dyslexia, compounded with being totally ignorant of seemingly everything you talk about. Its ok though, I wouldn’t expect you to admit you’re wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 You have been "owned" in this argument. Please stop crying small boy. OH SNAP DAWG!!!! I GOT HELLA 0WN3D!11!!!!!!!11! PWNeD NOOBZ OMFGLOLZ!!11!1111oneone11!!11 Seriously, are you 14? Are you going to challenge me to a game of pogs next to settle our differences? Maybe trade some pokemon cards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 you forget that pakistan instituted martial law? I don’t see your point....do you mean we should we walk away and leave their nukes vulnerable because of this? Or is the martial law supposed to make them more secure? The army and ISI are infested with Taliban and al qaeda members, and if the Pakistani govt collapses their arsenal would be completely up for grabs. Its smart for us to have systems on the bombs where they cannot be detonated without codes, and our possible capability to "turn them off" remotely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 don't bother with these fools purple mushroom you've made your point. PS Casek i'm surprised you don;t get more vocal in topics like this considering you are strongly supportive of a candidate who advocates no foreign wars and no nation building Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 stereotype i personally agree with you in that i would feel a lot better about Pakistan not having any nukes, but just out of genuine curiosity do you have any justification for why the United States/Israel/Britain/France should be allowed to possess nukes and any other country shouldn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 stereotype i personally agree with you in that i would feel a lot better about Pakistan not having any nukes, but just out of genuine curiosity do you have any justification for why the United States/Israel/Britain/France should be allowed to possess nukes and any other country shouldn't? No I don’t. Nuclear weapons are too much power for humans to be entrusted with, not just wars but also accidents or miscalculations, look at “able archer” during the 80s and the soviets putting their finger on the button. All of the “super power” countries do have them at this point though so I think it is necessary as a deterrent of a possible war... whereas a country like Iran is more likely to cause a war by trying to obtain nukes than prevent one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted November 18, 2007 Author Share Posted November 18, 2007 stereotype: i'm saying we are supporting a bad govt. with bad intentions. yum: i don't want to get involved in this discussion. i just put the topic out there. i'm reading the thread, though. and you are right, i don't support foreign wars either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 No I don’t. Nuclear weapons are too much power for humans to be entrusted with, not just wars but also accidents or miscalculations, look at “able archer” during the 80s and the soviets putting their finger on the button. All of the “super power” countries do have them at this point though so I think it is necessary as a deterrent of a possible war... whereas a country like Iran is more likely to cause a war by trying to obtain nukes than prevent one. truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 although the US doesn't use nukes to prevent wars per se rather uses them as a deterrant so other countries don't escalate wars that the US starts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted November 19, 2007 Author Share Posted November 19, 2007 although the US doesn't use nukes to prevent wars per se rather uses them as a deterrant so other countries don't escalate wars that the US starts tactical nukes. oh and israel uses lots of illegal weapons against people. white phsophorous/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOLA Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 you know car bombings in iran is bad... probably the start of world war three but as long as the car bombings stay out of the us i will be ok, its when someone starts the thread that is titled "fox news guy calls for car bombings in new york: or any major us city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 you know car bombings in iran is bad... probably the start of world war three but as long as the car bombings stay out of the us i will be ok, its when someone starts the thread that is titled "fox news guy calls for car bombings in new york: or any major us city. did you learn nothing from Luke Skywalker's heartfelt plea to Han Solo to stop just thinking about himself and start thinking of all the peoples of the intergalactic republic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.