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?
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.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Thread progression: Saudi's give Israel clear skys Some justify this and say "well... they might have nukes" Turns into a justification for american nukes Turns into a justification for ww2 & 1 Turns into a justification for the holocaust. Turns into a justification for taking out 'a jihad'
On June 13 2010 07:01 cursor wrote: 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 natrual they would support anything Isreal wanted to do. 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 missle'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.
And people living in the states are gonna state the same tired argument on why the US has to be the global police force.
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.
But a lot of other things cause war too. And I did ask you a question. What do you suggest people do other than fight (against Nazi-Germany)?
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?
Wrong answer! Here's a hint: pre-emptive attack has absolutely nothing to do with what Angelicfolly said.
Saudi Arabia denies it will allow Israel to use its airspace
LoLmao you REALLY only read israeli's newspaper. Funny.
Great news by the way. This could only lead to more bad event.
I knew posting it would only encourage you. However, this may shock you, but I'm not a Jew nor can I speak Hebrew. Even the link I found from another site.
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?
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.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
A rational human fucking being does not systematically kill off 6 million Jews because he thinks he's doing his country a favor.
On June 13 2010 06:15 angelicfolly wrote: It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Squeegy, what do you get out of the term "pro-active"? Because clearly we have different interpretations of his post.
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?
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.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Well, they have a limited rationality (it's an economic concept made by Simons & such). The problem with the "limited part" is that people are usually pushed to stop their choice to the first solution (an not the most optimal solution) who gave them a minimal source of satisfaction. Saying a tyrant is rational is misleading: he doesn't have all the card in the hands and he can think that he have less cards in the hand that he actually have. It's very possible for anyone in some precise context to launch the bomb, rational or not. The Ayatollah can think that they are going to be attacked and respond by launching an Abomb.
Amadinejad (don't really care about how the name is actually written) said in an interview that "1 bomb against 20000" is useless. It's interesting to understand their state of mind (which is the exact same state of mind as the Israeli by the way): they think are alone against the world, against the big USA and all the occidentals. Rationaly, they can think that launching the bomb is their only way to survive in one exact context.
But a lot of other things cause war too. And I did ask you a question. What do you suggest people do other than fight (against Nazi-Germany)?
Defend themselves. That's what they did. I'm not a pro pacifist, I'm just saying attacking someone only leads to more war.
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?
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.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Well, they have a limited rationality (it's an economic concept made by Simons & such). The problem with the "limited part" is that people are usually pushed to stop their choice to the first solution (an not the most optimal solution) who gave them a minimal source of satisfaction. Saying a tyrant is rational is misleading: he doesn't have all the card in the hands and he can think that he have less cards in the hand that he actually have. It's very possible for anyone in some precise context to launch the bomb, rational or not. The Ayatollah can think that they are going to be attacked and respond by launching an Abomb.
Amadinejad (don't really care about how the name is actually written) said in an interview that "1 bomb against 20000" is useless. It's interesting to understand their state of mind (which is the exact same state of mind as the Israeli by the way): they think are alone against the world, against the big USA and all the occidentals. Rationaly, they can think that launching the bomb is their only way to survive in one exact context.
It's a defense to protect themselves from being attacked. There is no survival once their own is used. Again, deterrence is about response. You only attack first when you believe you have the capability of winning, which is why Israel would attack first. Iran, however, would not.
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?
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.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Well, they have a limited rationality (it's an economic concept made by Simons & such). The problem with the "limited part" is that people are usually pushed to stop their choice to the first solution (an not the most optimal solution) who gave them a minimal source of satisfaction. Saying a tyrant is rational is misleading: he doesn't have all the card in the hands and he can think that he have less cards in the hand that he actually have. It's very possible for anyone in some precise context to launch the bomb, rational or not. The Ayatollah can think that they are going to be attacked and respond by launching an Abomb.
Amadinejad (don't really care about how the name is actually written) said in an interview that "1 bomb against 20000" is useless. It's interesting to understand their state of mind (which is the exact same state of mind as the Israeli by the way): they think are alone against the world, against the big USA and all the occidentals. Rationaly, they can think that launching the bomb is their only way to survive in one exact context.
It's a defense to protect themselves from being attacked. There is no survival once their own is used. Again, deterrence is about response.
Yeah I agree for that, but I'm pretty sure that having the bomb will not give them peace. The battlefield will change: palestine, irak. There is always possibilities for them to think they are in a corner and use the bomb. Well I'm saying that just to argue a bit with you, since I think like you that letting them have the bomb is not a problem, Iran is not a belligerant country, just fancy.
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.
You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America?
people seem to forget that America is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon against another country.
First of all, I felt like including this so you might hopefully learn SOMETHING about the situation in Iran:
The population isn't bad, the government is retarded.
SpartiK1S.. wow..
=Dozle: Lol, America saving the world. What textbooks did you read in school?
Ones approved by the Texas board of education I'm sure.
=ranyhin: Iran is NOT a stable country, and has a corrupt/religiously based government (which is always bad).
Iran is not stable, and it is corrupt. But really you seem oblivious to the corruption of your own country.
Yours caused a global financial meltdown.
=Squeegy: How many wars has USA fought in? How many chances did they have to use nukes? How many times did they? This is why people consider USA responsible.
Actually every single war the US has fought has been to "liberate" the country they invade. It's hard to pitch that angle if you nuke the place making it inhabitable for all human life, so that's why they don't nuke.
=Squeegy: Iran has made it clear that they don't want Israel to exist in its current state.
You believe Ahmadinejad is the voice of his people? He's not.
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?
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.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Well, they have a limited rationality (it's an economic concept made by Simons & such). The problem with the "limited part" is that people are usually pushed to stop their choice to the first solution (an not the most optimal solution) who gave them a minimal source of satisfaction. Saying a tyrant is rational is misleading: he doesn't have all the card in the hands and he can think that he have less cards in the hand that he actually have. It's very possible for anyone in some precise context to launch the bomb, rational or not. The Ayatollah can think that they are going to be attacked and respond by launching an Abomb.
Amadinejad (don't really care about how the name is actually written) said in an interview that "1 bomb against 20000" is useless. It's interesting to understand their state of mind (which is the exact same state of mind as the Israeli by the way): they think are alone against the world, against the big USA and all the occidentals. Rationaly, they can think that launching the bomb is their only way to survive in one exact context.
But a lot of other things cause war too. And I did ask you a question. What do you suggest people do other than fight (against Nazi-Germany)?
Defend themselves. That's what they did. I'm not a pro pacifist, I'm just saying attacking someone only leads to more war.
Well, Germany has been strangely peaceful ever since WW2. Of course we've had more wars, but I don't think fighting against Germany (and I mean just that) has been that big of a cause. But that is just me thinking that "attacking someone only leads to more war" is simplistic. The point Angelicfolly was making is that WW2 was good because it prevented Nazis from getting what they wanted. Because that was unacceptable. In that sense WW2 was a good war. I prefer to call it (and other wars that could be deemed good by this logic) a necessary war. Because it had to be fought.
In other words, Angelicfolly claims (as do I) that some wars need to be fought. Ghandi would have ended up as paint for tank tracks.
On June 13 2010 06:15 angelicfolly wrote: It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Squeegy, what do you get out of the term "pro-active"? Because clearly we have different interpretations of his post.
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
I'm glad at least one person thinks the same as me. Weapons, violence and war won't ever cause anything good or related with peace (fight war to get peace is so ironical, ignorantly blind to believe such things). However sadly this is only a wish and dream of mine, though i believe time will come and revolution will bring true changes
In order to have peace in ww2 you had to fight. The direct result of fighting saved MANY lives in concentration camps.
These a saying that if your not willing to fight for your beliefs then those beliefs are not worth having.
but who determines if those beliefs are right or wrong? The US government? (expect ww2, which of course was something completely different than nowadays issues) The US government aren't policemen or the court of the world, they don't fight wars and impose sanctions to bring peace and safety, they do it for selfish profit, like everything or everyone is based on profit.
Wither your beliefs are right or wrong wasn't the issue with the saying, If those beliefs are not important enough to defend them then they where not that important anyway (Good/bad beliefs are not the issue). WW2 is a exact example of why war can be good.
I'm not debating the merits of US interest not the point of the saying.
Entering a war and pre-emptive war are two different things. WW1 was a case of countries entering war for the sake of being the first one to enter the war, and it was the worst mess of the 20th century.
All 3 countries are rational actors, and it's extremely unlikely that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon in that fashion. There's plenty of other reasons to strive for nuclear weapons besides actually expecting to use them. Saudi Arabia is concerned about their own stability and role in the region.
And that AIPAC book is awful. Mearsheimer and Walt were totally out of their element.
Interesting that almost everyone wants to control Iran and no one trusts em. One great philosopher ones said - "Only slaves are forbidden to have weapons!"
On June 13 2010 07:27 Hazard wrote: Interesting that almost everyone wants to control Iran and no one trusts em. One great philosopher ones said - "Only slaves are forbidden to have weapons!"
Just my 2 cents.
Wouldn't you want to control someone's reach to a weapon if you couldn't trust him to behave well with it?
It's interesting that this thread started out as a discussion on a news topic, and has turned into an arguement about Who should be allowed what.
The way I see the current situation, is that both sides are igniting public suspicion toward the other side. The simplest way of saying this, is that in places such as the US and UK, both the government and the media are taking the fact that Iran has been enriching uranium, and turning it into "They are going to turn around and destroy the world" The same is true for Iran, where they are basicly taking the caution that the west if having towards them, and turning it into "They are trying to turn this situation into an excuse to destroy us."
The truth about the current situation, is that neither side is being completely open with each over. The west is proclaiming that Iran is secretly trying to build nuclear weapons, which could be a threat to security. Whereas Iran is trying to keep all foreign interest away from the situation, since (at least as far as they are telling it), it is a harmless operation focused towards power. This creates a point of anxiety, where both sides begin accusing each other of being the "bad guys".
Currently, the way I see it, both sides are being completely irrational! On one side, Iran has turned down several offers from foreign powers, to provide the matierals, to allow Iran to build Nuclear Power Plants, without giving them the matierals for Nukes. Since Iran essentially declined this, howelse could they have expected people to react, other than to assume they are aiming for Nukes. On the other side, the US seems to believe that as soon as any more nukes are created, its going to be shoved up their asses. This also, doesnt make sense, considering the current notion of Mutually assured desctruction.
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?
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.
I invoke Godwin's law. This thread must hereby die.
Squeegy on the run again, ignoring things that would prevent him from advocating Israel and United States.
-I am really suprised reading posts advocating "Lesser number of nukes is better." When ideal should be "No nukes is better." Even it's not the reality, I as a human being think that I am obligated to protest nuke for every situation, and advocate no nukes for nobody."
-Squeegy asked about how many times U.S. had a chance to use nukes but didn't and sth about talking german, a: most of those situtations were because of U.S.' policies, many situations are raised because of U.S., don't worry U.S. wouldn't use nukes for the situtations they started in the first place. b: I don't recognize U.S. nuking Nazi Germany, but I remember nuking Japan (twice) (may be U.S. thought that if they had not nuke Japan, we would be speaking Japan now.) c: I don't think U.S. being responsible with nukes worked for world peace after WW2, they used their power to intimidate many countries, blocked many nations' rising economy, and made those different world economies bound to U.S. and so on, when a country wanted to raise her head to have power of her own and make her citizens live in better conditions, there, there were U.S. with nukes, -emposing bound economy, -having military bases in the country(this is very intimidating in practice).
I think U.S. had her profit a lot of this so called "responsible wielding of nukes" in a bad way.
Ppl's ideology here is "if my ally holds nukes, I would ignore things, because he is my ally in the first place, but if my enemy/or a country which is unfriendly to me holds nukes there is "always" a risk that he can use it and that is enough justification to act necessarily against him"
It is so sad to see ppl defending nukes "in responsible hands".
Believe me friends, today, if you have nukes, you are right. Ppl will eventually listen to you, even if you don't use your nukes.
Using / abusing the power of holding a nuke in every aspect of world relations is no better than using nukes for me. Defending U.S. to have nukes because of her "non-violent" history is another biggy, since if you count the nukes used in history and how many of them was used by U.S., it's very interesting.
No America isn't the only nation who should have nukes. And we aren't.
No, third world countries (especially the ones who have a history of violence and unrest) should not have nukes. (Especailly those who have huge amounts to gain by nuking a current or past enemy)
No, noone but Terran should have nukes. Think of Zerg with nukes. How awful would that be? Iran is the Zerg. America is Terran. Imagine the implications!!!
It's interesting how quick people are to harp out that America is the only country to use nukes against another country like it's some trump card to prove that the US is least responsible with it's nuclear arsenal. In the context of the era, would it really be any different if they just firebombed hiroshima and nagasaaki and killed just as many civillians? Kind of like saying it's less responsible to use 1 bomb instead of 1000 bombs even though they do the same damage. Any single country involved in ww2 would have instantly used nuclear weapons if they were the first to obtain them, so inventing them is almost synonymous with being the only country to use them.
EPT
