|
I would like to respond to some of the posts on the first couple of pages about the nukes and etc.
The person who said if America has nuclear bombs every country in the world has the privilege to have the same thing. That is very unintelligent of that person. The United States of America has done a lot of things for this world. Like it or not. Ill point out in WWII the United States didn't want to get into the war at all. Sure they aided allies with equipment but never engaged into any battles before hand. The Empire of Japan though then attack us because we were putting sanctions on their oil. They had to attack to hopefully get some kind of oil.
Without the United States I personally believe that the Axis nations could have won the war and then turned most of Europe and Asia into complete hell holes filled with camps of tortured people and slaves.
On the Nuclear subject we only used the bomb on Japan for 1 reason. We would rather kill 100 Japanese people then 100 Americans. And I'm sure it could go the other way for Japan people as well. But if we invaded Japan like we planned to the United States casualties would have hovered around 1,000,000 people dead. This does not include Japan personal or civilians that only is the number of American Marines,Air Force, Army,Navy personal that would have died or been injured. so we used the Nukes. Which killed around 200,000 people in a couple days but had effects in the future.
( I suggest you all look up the documentary The World Without Us)
Now onto Saudi Arabia and etc.
I think that Saudi Arabia is in a position of confusing. They aren't going to bomb Iran them selves but will allow Israel to do it. This allows Saudi to be looked at as a friendly nation that isn't about to go Jew killing but instead is more worried about what country has Nuclear power which is Iran. Iran with that president of theirs will probably use nukes if possible. And I'm sure that Iran would love to kill everyone in Israel and die themselves because they would think they would have helped the Muslim world. But their causing more hell in the area. And to all out there. If you believe in the bible Israel cannot be defeated and will prosper. I think..Lol
And also if Iran posses nuclear capabilities they will fund terrorist groups which they will try to use on every country that isn't Muslim or supports the Middle Eastern Conflict. We cannot just look at this problem in 2D we need to look in 3D and at every perspective. Because this is very dangerous to our current world. And that president in Iran lies so who knows what the hell he can do and wont do. He has no morals when he lies to the whole world and even rigs the elections. The SOB needs imo to be taken out with force my its people because even they know he lies.
Just my thoughts thanks for reading TL:DR lol
So GO AMERICA,SAUDI ARABIA,ISRAEL!
|
holy McJesus there's a lot of bans in this thread. I fear I might get banned for even mentioning how many people got banned. It's almost like it's a stand off between the posters and the mods and the second someone opens their mouths the mods quickly reach out for their hammers and BAN. TL imo needs to set up a new system where it's easier to know what justifies as a ban and what doesn't, and at the same time, I don't think that every single decision to ban someone was correct in this thread.
And getting on topic, I hope that Israel doesn't enter any large war because I used to live in that country when i was little. It's a really beautiful country and it would be a shame if it would be turned into a large pile of steaming rocks.
|
On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. wait wait wait, what the FU$%? "If America has nukes, EVERYONE GETS NUKES"????? You are either a teenager that doesn't understand world politics, or else a , god i can't say it without it getting deleted. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of giving a DOOMSDAY DEVICE to someone like a highschool bully. WHILE HE IS STILL IN HIGHSCHOOL! You are either an Iranian praying for America's downfall or else completely noob and retarded at world relations. We WORKED to get where we are in this world. We Americans, through fu$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism, and discovered the most deadly weapon in the history of EVERYTHING on the way. Thats like winning a starcraft game, and then saying, bah, im too greedy, i should give the guy all my minerals and 3 hours to build while i go look at porn and lose. Just handing that treasure over to third world countries and such would result in EVERYONE DYING. Nigeria-"Hm, those neighbors we have, the Nigers, are stealing water from our well. NUKE THE FUCKERS!" Niger- "Oh SHIT! RETALIATE!" the REST OF AFRICA-"NUKES ARE FLYING! SHIT! EVERYONE RETALIATE!" Thats just a TASTE of something that could happen. No matter how good you are anyone deems you at computer games, world political relations takes more than "pro starcraft apm" to master and think about correctly. User was temp banned for this post.
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world.
|
I am from Pakistan and i personally think that IRAN should not be allowed to have nukes due to the various reasons people have posted here. Pakistan only have nukes because of its neighbour India(the US gave it to them, if you ask why? there is no answer or valid reason about it yet). Pakistan showed off its nuke after India did.
But if you look from Iran's prospective they should have them because others do have them as well.
None of us know how the world politics works unless some of us work with that topic so its better to close this discussion.
And ofcourse it is a dick move by neighbour countries to ally with the US (specially if they dont have nukes / or cant get them), but then again they will think of their own national interest.Its a security matter in the middle east and the superpower which is the US is trying to control it and i dont see any problem with it cause something like this will create more problems in the world.
Someone posted about wars that America started, I wont say much about it but they claimed the same thing about Iraq which they coudlnt find but in case of Iran its very strongly possible that they have them.
An Ideal world would be a world without any nukes
|
Israel has had nukes since 1963, this has been confirmed by bilderberg.
|
On June 14 2010 07:26 tryummm wrote:
Israel has had nukes since 1963, this has been confirmed by bilderberg.
Yap and they tried to sell some to S.A(Apartheid)
|
On June 14 2010 03:20 L wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 16:17 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 16:09 L wrote:On June 13 2010 15:57 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 15:54 L wrote:On June 13 2010 13:06 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 12:34 L wrote:
I can see plenty good coming out of it. A secular Muslim country being able to counterbalance Israel will force the US's hand and will probably force them to pull aid from Israel which will force Israel to make concessions which will probably relieve Islamic/western tensions in general.
Most people are more worried because if Iran can get nukes, can't everyone? Until it hits that point, its pretty irrelevant. Dude... are you actually calling Iran a secular country? Yes. Amazing, I know. Aside from the fact that their laws and culture obviously say otherwise, how can you describe a country as being both secular and Muslim at the same time? The united states is largely a secular protestant nation. The structure of government institutions is what differentiates between a secular nation and a theocratic one. The Iranian supreme leader is appointed by the council of experts, who themselves are elected officials. If the public really wanted to vote someone new in, they could to the greatest extent that a representational system of government allows. If you want to argue that there's been institutional capture in Iran, the exact same can be said of nearly every representational democracy, and not just those in the traditional west either. The Supreme Leader is elected by a "Council of Experts", which is essentially a group of Muslim scholars. These Muslim scholars are elected from a government-screened list of candidates. The elected President must be approved by this Supreme Leader who is elected by a group of Muslim scholars who are elected by the people from a list of government-screened candidates. Do you see where I'm going with this here? A Muslim must be approved by a Muslim elected by a group of Muslims from a list pre-screened by a Muslim government. All leading to laws which stem from Islamic law and are enforced upon the population. What part of this is secular again? Throw in the fact that the Irani constitution specifically states that being a Muslim and keeping to Islamic principles is a prerequisite for these positions and I don't see how Iran is not a theocracy despite it's democratic process of electing leaders. The United States despite having a large Protestant population is hardly a Protestant nation... We have an enforced separation of church and state in this nation that ensures that we are not. Can you say anything remotely similar about Iran's government? Sure I can, because the vast majority of your statements are incredibly simplistic. If I oppose abortion rights in the name of a secular cause, but do it because of my religious values, does that make the action secular or does that make it religious in nature? In the States there are a huge amount of secular political power which is simply masked religious power exerting itself through secular institutions. That Iran is honest enough to call a spade a spade doesn't change the fact that at their core the institutions still run on the foundation of political accountability via elections which is a fundamentally secular concept. Power there comes from the people, it doesn't come as a divine ordinance from god. The second philosophical structure is the hallmark of theocracies. The first is not. Whether or not that plays out practically is somewhat irrelevant to our level of discussion because there is no government in the western tradition that has it play out perfectly. That means we're now stuck talking about issues of scale and magnitudes of varying degrees which needs a nuanced approach which pretty much no one on this board has enough information to make.
I think you're getting yourself hung up on semantics here. In the USA, we don't have a clause in our constitution that states that the President of the USA must be a Protestant and uphold Protestant values. Our laws while they may certainly reflect Christian principles to an extent, are not specifically based on Biblical law nor do we have an official national religion whose tenets are enforced upon the population. Religion in the USA for the most part is separate from politics with the exception of its influence on politicians.
Iran, however, is a completely different story. Islam and Islamic law are directly tied into the government of Iran not only by its influence on its followers, but within the Constitution of Iran itself. Your argument that it is not a theocracy because the power is in the hands of the people despite the fact that the Supreme Leader (above the president) can only be elected by Muslim scholars pre-screened by the government before they can be elected to that position is something that I can't help but disagree with. By that logic, a military dictatorship would be a Democracy so long as the people are allowed to vote their leader into power, even if there is only a single political party allowed to run for office and a single candidate for that political party that people are forced to vote for. In both scenarios, while the power is in the hands of the people on paper, it's really not in practice. There are plenty of things in this world that may technically be one thing on paper, but are something completely different in reality. So when you look at these things, do you define them by what they are on paper or what they are when practically applied? I prefer to do the latter because that's what matters in the end.
Perhaps Iran may not fit into your dictionary definition of a theocracy, but in practice, that's pretty much what it is. It is a state governmed by specifically by religious authorities with laws taken straight out of their religious scripture. While the voting system makes it democratic, it doesn't change the fact that religion is the ultimate basis of their government as written into their constitution. It's simply the modern version of a theocratic government, much like the Puritan communities that existed in early America. Those communities didn't have a leader with divine ordinance either, but they would arrest you for not attending church on Sunday... When religion becomes government, it's a theocracy. That's what Iran is today.
|
On June 14 2010 07:16 mkchoi0801 wrote:
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world.
Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support?
Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle.
tl;dr
We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support.
|
On June 14 2010 08:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 07:16 mkchoi0801 wrote:
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world. Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support? Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle. tl;dr We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support.
lmao, you were funding the 2 sides the allies and the axis... or you dont know that ?:D
|
On June 14 2010 09:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 08:52 Half wrote:On June 14 2010 07:16 mkchoi0801 wrote:
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world. Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support? Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle. tl;dr We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support. lmao, you were funding the 2 sides the allies and the axis... or you dont know that ?:D
Your kidding me right? technically we had to engage in trade with both sides due to the treaties like the neutrality acts of 1930.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_1930s
In actuality the amount we gave to germany was small while the overwhelming majority went towards Britain, including the Transfer of 50 destroyers for basically nothing.
The main source of arms trade throughout WW2 was done through the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_and_carry_(World_War_II)
and the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
policy, an agreement which was only ever opened with allied nations.
The vast majority of companies did not trade with Germany after WW2 started. Some companies continued to, like Ford motors and some banks (not even close to all) but the overall level was incomparable to the amount we traded with Britain.
Prior to Pearl Harbor a source condemning US trade with Nazi Germany estimates a total of 450 million dollars.
http://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2
This is certainly significant, and detestable. But if we compare this to the amount we funded Britain in throughout the war, it is completely incomparable. Our investment into Britain throughout WW2 was 50 billion dollars.
Then theirs the vast majority of that 300million pounds was done through illegal channels and not sanctioned by the government. Many of the conspirators involved were tried during Nuremburg.
Are you being ignorant on purpose?
|
On June 14 2010 09:15 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 09:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On June 14 2010 08:52 Half wrote:On June 14 2010 07:16 mkchoi0801 wrote:
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world. Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support? Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle. tl;dr We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support. lmao, you were funding the 2 sides the allies and the axis... or you dont know that ?:D Your kidding me right? technically we had to engage in trade with both sides due to the treaties like the neutrality acts of 1930. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_1930sIn actuality the amount we gave to germany was small while the overwhelming majority went towards Britain, including the Transfer of 50 destroyers for basically nothing. The main source of arms trade throughout WW2 was done through the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_and_carry_(World_War_II)and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Leasepolicy, an agreement which was only ever opened with allied nations. The vast majority of companies did not trade with Germany after WW2 started. Some companies continued to, like Ford motors and some banks (not even close to all) but the overall level was incomparable to the amount we traded with Britain. Prior to Pearl Harbor a source condemning US trade with Nazi Germany estimates a total of 300 million pounds. http://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2This is certainly significant, and detestable. But if we compare this to the amount we funded Britain in a SINGLE AGREEMENT, it is just totally incomparable. From the previously mentioned Lend Lease agreement, we supplied 1.075 billion pounds. Thats from a single agreement, among many. Even then, the vast majority of that 300million pounds was done through illegal channels and not sanctioned by the government. Many of the conspirators involved were tried during Nuremburg. Are you being ignorant on purpose?
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
have fun my american friend, i have little pacience to ad hominem argumentation, and to argue with virtual people
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I'm convinced you're trying to troll me (Especially considering all you've don is post idiotic one liners). What you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with what we were previously argueing. And at no point did I try to Ad-hominem you
I'm not trying to portray America as "teh perfect nation". In fact, I'll readily admit American companies like General Electric helped fund Hitlers militarization of germany. Your article states that Bushes grandfather funded Hitler at several points prior to the war. Ok.
But that doesn't change the fact that America was responsible for Allied victory, and not just "a little bit". We dispensed 50 billion in direct aid to Britain, with total trade in the hundreds of billions.
We also engaged in trade with Nazi Germany at several points prior, and even during the War. But the amount we gave them is largely insignificant, even the most wild estimates do not apply more then 600 million to Hitlers germany.
600 million even with the most liberal sources to the undebatable amouunt of trade in excess of
Hundreds of billions of dollars. Its clear that the amount we traded with Nazi germany on behalf of private multi-national corporations was dwarfed by our national support of Britain in the form of hundreds of billions of Dollars.
You can blindly hate America all you want. But the fact remains that without significant American aid towards allied powers, the allies could not have possibly won the War.
Did our investment in the Allies secure us a prominent role in Post-War politics? Of course it did. Thats what happens when you invest in the winning side. Are you suggesting it was wrong we invested in the allies?
Also I'm a citizen of mainland China. Greencard residence here in America. Stop using Ad-hominemin. You know nothing about me and that IP address label there has nothing to do with my argument.
Get a clue.
I know its hip to hate America. Its what the kool kids are doing. And you can hate America all you want. But it doesn't change the fact that America was among those primarily responsible for Allied victory in WW2, rivaling Russia. (And that Portugal was a facistic pro-nazi state...sorry about that.).
|
Mods are going to have a field day when they see where this thread has gone.
On point, it still stands that we should always try to minimize the amount of nukes in the world to minimize the chance of one being used.
|
On June 14 2010 10:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Mods are going to have a field day when they see where this thread has gone.
On point, it still stands that we should always try to minimize the amount of nukes in the world to minimize the chance of one being used.
Indeed, a nuclear weapon free world would be perfect.
Back to the topic:
I dont think Iran is going to be attacked anytime soon, if they are attacked kiss world economy good bye.
|
I honestly think to know the true meaning behind a countries reasoning such as in WWII and Indea getting Nuclear weapons from the US can only be understand by professional analyist and people who are top rank in the United States military and government. Our attempts to understand the ins and outs of these is probably a worthless attempt. (Even though I even tried to figure it out myself)
But I also still stand firm with Half on his belief that without the United States WWII would of went down the tube quicker and easier. Considering the ONLY European nation to not be taken over by Germany other then Germanys allies was Britian if I remember.
And The USA does take pride in the fact that we helped the world in WWII because its mostly true in most peoples opinions I think. And as Americans we like showing our power. Sometimes forcefully. We are cocky at times but that is a small flaw with what we have done.
And no more posts about wars weve started please..Because it the documentary The World Without US. Their are interviews with people in past conflicts that WANTEd the United States to interfer but we didn't because we thought if we did we would just get pissed on by the rest of the world. But when we don't interfer people get pissed off because since were such a power that they think its our duty to do this. So either way all those wars that we started are either Bull shit or were in a pickle where if we dont were screwed if we do were screwed.
And let me add there are good things that come with Nuclear weapons..They deter enemies from attacking and can lead to technology advancement.
|
On June 14 2010 10:23 TopJet[95] wrote:
And no more posts about wars weve started please..Because it the documentary The World Without US. Their are interviews with people in past conflicts that WANTEd the United States to interfer but we didn't because we thought if we did we would just get pissed on by the rest of the world. But when we don't interfer people get pissed off because since were such a power that they think its our duty to do this. So either way all those wars that we started are either Bull shit or were in a pickle where if we dont were screwed if we do were screwed.
Grayscale, dude. Grayscale.
First of all people need to realise that usa, just as any other nation would, primarily acts for it's own interests and benefits. There are conflicts where U.S. involvment has been extremely questionable, and there are others where the consensus is that USA has acted in a manner that is beneficial to most of the world.
And yeah, it could be argued that USA could have helped put an early end to the whole ww2 conflict if they didn't stay out of it up until a point where it was virtually impossible to remain neutral.
|
These days, having a nuke is just a form of deterrence. Nobody wants to start a nuclear war as it does not benefit anyone in this world.
|
On June 14 2010 10:13 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 10:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Mods are going to have a field day when they see where this thread has gone.
On point, it still stands that we should always try to minimize the amount of nukes in the world to minimize the chance of one being used. Indeed, a nuclear weapon free world would be perfect.
If by perfect you mean set us up for World War 3 then yes, it would be.
|
On June 14 2010 08:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 07:16 mkchoi0801 wrote:
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world. Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support? Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle. tl;dr We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support.
USSR would have won it anyway but then more than half of the world would have been communist (which, under Staline, wasn't particularly cool  )
Anyway to stay on topic of course it's a bad thing than Iran gets the nuke but this kind of raids also motivates the harsh feelings towards the west among the arab and overall muslim world. I mean if I was them I'd be pissed off. My country is considered as a menace to world peace and on the other hand we have Israel, who has screwed over so many UN resolutions nobody pays attention anymore and gets away with having a load of nukes and fucking around with it's military every two month.
|
On June 15 2010 02:09 DJhozy wrote:
These days, having a nuke is just a form of deterrence. Nobody wants to start a nuclear war as it does not benefit anyone in this world.
this is probably in the wrong line of thinking, what you could say is that No one wants to start a nuclear war without haveing sufficient counter measures for both the initial shitstorm and the side effects.
Similar to how radar jamming / scrambling was not used untill the end of ww2 even though both parties had the technology to do so, they had no counter measure. Scared shitless of the enemy developing a counter measure they hid the tech only to use in the last stages of the war.
My country is considered as a menace to world peace and on the other hand we have Israel, who has screwed over so many UN resolutions nobody pays attention anymore and gets away with having a load of nukes and fucking around with it's military every two month
its either that or sharia law, hostile front towards the west and our infidelity, if you ask me Israel is the lesser evil and id rather have a mad dog with nukes but on our side than a solidified Islam unified by a caliphate.
If by perfect you mean set us up for World War 3 then yes, it would be.
as much as we want it, with each passing year the possibility of ww3 declines. Because of cross nation trade no country can efficiently wage a large scale war, nor does there exist incentive to wage one for the bigger countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
