|
On June 13 2010 06:00 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 05:49 ArKaDo wrote:
Every times there is a post about Israel, you see the exact same faces.
I agree with you BeJe77 but saying that China is communist is a bit... well ^^
Israel is a "reponsible" country, killing thousands of civilian, breaking international law as they please and kidnapping people in the sea.
Don't mess USA & Israel please...
edit: lol Ghost[Shield] how you fear to be called antisemitic... don't worry you are not on TV. You're so neutral, your mom calls you a wikipedia article.
My mom calls me David 
Switzerland calls me too neutral
|
On June 13 2010 06:33 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:30 angelicfolly wrote:
Arkado,
What? I can't understand half of that.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
|
On June 13 2010 06:33 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." That's one of the most moronic statement I have ever see. It must come from the bible or the coran, I'm sure of it.
Edmund Burke actually, and it makes sense to me.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 13 2010 06:32 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi. He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently? He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone?
You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections.
His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government.
I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.
It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending.
|
On June 13 2010 06:40 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:32 angelicfolly wrote:Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi. He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently? He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone? You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections. His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government. I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending.
If it was terrible, it was so because it wasn't an analogy at all. It was an example.
|
On June 13 2010 02:53 Dozle wrote:
Are you saying that you are PROUD you invented the nuke?
Kind of off topic, but yes. Why shouldn't a nation be proud for being the first ones to master nuclear fission. I'm not proud we used it.
|
On June 13 2010 06:37 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:33 ArKaDo wrote:On June 13 2010 06:30 angelicfolly wrote:
Arkado,
What? I can't understand half of that.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute. But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said? Here let me help you guys: Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad.
What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 13 2010 06:43 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:40 Jibba wrote:On June 13 2010 06:32 angelicfolly wrote:Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi. He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently? He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone? You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections. His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government. I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending. If it was terrible, it was so because it wasn't an analogy at all. It was an example.
Boy, you got me there! Another valuable contribution by Squeegy!
|
If I were the Saudi's, I'd be pretty pissed off that Americans risked their national security to ease tensions in Gaza...
If the Saudi's confirm this, it pretty much means Iran would feel threatened and justified in retaliation against Saudi Arabia.
This is a pretty dick move, imho.
|
I'm happy that the United States got the nuke first because if Germany, the USSR, or Japan had gotten the nuke first things would have gotten pret-ty dicey.
Well, it might be okay if the USSR got it.
|
On June 13 2010 05:41 BeJe77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S wrote: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. First off am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power. Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons? I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it? O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
So many things wrong with this post - where do I start? These "break-troughs" as you call them has the potential to destroy civilization. So I will not give my props to them. Purifying uranium isn't a guarded secret, I'm pretty sure you can find a manual online if you looked hard enough.
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
Oh and by the way the head researcher for the Manhattan Project was an American. Also, there were over 130,000 who worked on the project, so it's safe to say it was a collective achievement, not just German scientists who escaped from the Nazis.
|
So, basically is the main topic of this thread whether or not every country should be able to have nukes because America has them or something?
Damn TL...just damn.
It's not America who is saying "DONT HAVE NUKES LOL" it's common freaking sense. Don't give the guy who denies the holocaust and wants to eradicate an entire country in any means possible the strongest weapon in history openly.
|
On June 13 2010 06:49 Fruscainte wrote:
So, basically is the main topic of this thread whether or not every country should be able to have nukes because America has them or something?
Damn TL...just damn.
The question is more: who should punish Iran for trying to get the ABomb ? USA who don't say shit about Israel having it ? Israel, who already have it while they should not ?
Launching bomb on Iran will not make them understand that the bomb is a bad thing.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 13 2010 06:48 Miss_Cleo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 05:41 BeJe77 wrote:On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S wrote: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. First off am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power. Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons? I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it? O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ? If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities. What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
Again, acquiring nuclear weapons is generally a good thing for any country (until they're used.) Technological advancement which helps other industries, pride, decrease in military size, etc. In a statist world, it makes sense to go for them.
|
On June 13 2010 06:44 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:37 Squeegy wrote:On June 13 2010 06:33 ArKaDo wrote:On June 13 2010 06:30 angelicfolly wrote:
Arkado,
What? I can't understand half of that.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute. But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said? Here let me help you guys: Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now. Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay!
But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight?
|
On June 13 2010 06:55 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:44 ArKaDo wrote:On June 13 2010 06:37 Squeegy wrote:On June 13 2010 06:33 ArKaDo wrote:On June 13 2010 06:30 angelicfolly wrote:
Arkado,
What? I can't understand half of that.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute. But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said? Here let me help you guys: Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now. Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows. WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay! But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight?
You don't understand... War cause War. That's all there is to understand.
Attack Iran now, get 200 years of jihad.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 13 2010 06:55 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:44 ArKaDo wrote:On June 13 2010 06:37 Squeegy wrote:On June 13 2010 06:33 ArKaDo wrote:On June 13 2010 06:30 angelicfolly wrote:
Arkado,
What? I can't understand half of that.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute. But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said? Here let me help you guys: Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now. Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows. WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay! But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight? So we should have attacked them before they moved into Czechoslovakia? Just like we should have laid waste to the Soviet Union?
If there is a right way to conduct war, it's through brutal retaliation. Not pre-emptive destruction.
|
|
|
On June 13 2010 06:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:48 Miss_Cleo wrote:On June 13 2010 05:41 BeJe77 wrote:On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S wrote: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. First off am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power. Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons? I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it? O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ? If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities. What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational. Show nested quote +Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes.
And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
|
Saudi Arabia's un-democratic government has been allies with the US for years. It's been theorized that part of the reason we are so obsessed with Iraq is to curb their production to make more money for our "friends" the Saudies. (by "our" I mean our leaders)
So it's only natural they would support anything Isreal wanted to do, being that its practically a US state. The actions of the government in that country have nothing to do with what the people want.
As far as the nuclear issue... why does it seem that there is some general assumption that the us is such a benign country when it comes to Aggression? The US was one of the most aggressive countries of the 20th century and is shaping up to be the same in the 21st. The only reason we dont "use nukes" is because we dont have to. We can launch cruise missile's from the coast, drop bombs from 30,000 feet and just plain invade countries. We have invaded more countries, killed FAR more civilians, and dropped far more bombs that Iran has in the last 20 years. In fact, by many many thousand fold.
Where does this assumption come from that the US so kind? Anyone outside the US is going to have many examples of our aggression across the globe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
