|
On June 13 2010 07:27 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 07:12 ArKaDo wrote:On June 13 2010 07:04 Jibba wrote:On June 13 2010 07:00 Miss_Cleo wrote:On June 13 2010 06:53 Jibba wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 07:10 Jibba wrote: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. I don't really know what are you talking about: Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:27 Jibba wrote:On June 13 2010 06:21 angelicfolly wrote:On June 13 2010 06:16 cwc)DeRan( wrote:On June 13 2010 06:09 angelicfolly wrote:On June 13 2010 06:05 cwc)DeRan( wrote: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.
I'm not a pacifist as I said, so I think there are some wars that are necessary so i must agree with you. I even think that peace is just a value made by bourgeois to assure that the low grades don't move from their shitty position. I just think that the WW2 is a bad exemple, because it is too complicated. There has been no war in europe since WW2, yes, because of what the europeans build since then (europe and the ties between germany & france for exemple). The events that leads to WW2 needs to be understood trought a long history, way way before WW1 in fact. It's so easy to say: "you must fight evil nazis!" and then just switch names to "you must fight evil iranian!".
Iran is a pretty beautiful country, with an amazing culture. There are many jews living there peacefully without any problems. (Well it's not a beautiful democratie i must agree). It's just the beginning of the clash between the arabic world and the occidental world, by picturing them as "evil" and only defending the idea that the only answer to the problem between our civilisation is war, it will only lead to another WW2. That's the difference between attack and defense. See the cold war, nobody risked to attack and now russia & us relation are pretty cool.
|
On June 13 2010 08:04 -Desu- wrote:
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.
"No nukes is better" doesn't entail "lesser number of nukes is better". "Lesser number of nukes is better" entails "no nukes is better". Moreover, it is probably safe to say that nukes prevent an all-out-war between USSR and USA. In this sense, I recognize that nukes have not been all bad and that maybe only a lesser number of nukes is good.
A) So you agree that US would only use nukes in situations they didn't start. Good.
B) Yup, they nuked Japan.
C) Yup, with nukes comes political power.
Ps. I didn't say I'm for attacking Iran. I don't think Iran should have nukes, but I'm not sure if military intervention is the answer.
|
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.
Hello,
I don't want to be mean here, but this is the exact mentality why a lot of the countries hate America. Some "hate" them in a harmless way (e.g: Europe, Canada, etc...), but other times with more disastrous consequences such as the events happening in China (flexing its military muscles), India/Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.
I'm not sure how you can justify America (or any country for that matter) to "deserve" having nuclear arms...
Now I didn't come here to bash America (and I'm actually usually pro-American when debating with others elsewhere in the world), but I think we have to understand why countries such as Iran are developing nuclear arms. Iran will finish its nuclear development because it is a matter of survival. Militarily they are ever-more pressed by enemies in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Israel. They are being squeezed heavily by the embargo and the regime will be ousted from the inside if they fail to develop a nuclear weapon. Having it is political bargain chips, propaganda publicity of Iran's might and deters its enemies from attacking.
How do they justify developing one? "America has it too...in the thousands".
That is why you won't have much moral qualm within the Iranian people. Their mentality is "why shouldn't we develop one? Why should America have thousands and not us?"
As long as the United States have a massive stockpile of nukes, other countries will continue to pursue for one.
On a last sidenote, I'm not blaming America, but we have to understand why all this is happening. None of the countries (Iran, Israel or America) are in the wrong side, but one of these countries have to compromise on something else this will escalate into something pretty disastrous.
Just my 2 cents.
|
Yes but you don't want them to have the nuke because you picture them as "evil". Unlike Israel.
I consider Israel much more likely to use the nuke than Iran. (talking to Squeegy).
|
On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash 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. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America?
Are you refering to the country that droped two nukes on civilian targets?
Is that responsible to you?
The road to world disarm must be lead by the ones holding the guns (The only undeniable road to a safer world). That is not the case.
So, however sad, it's reasonable that small and unestables regions are trying to get nukes of their own.
|
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?
Nazi Germany wasn't about this evil genius to create a superior race.
It was their belief that if the Jewish race was singled out of Germany, the German "race" would eventually become extinct within a few hundred years. That was their most basic belief in which they actually devouted much resources in science/philosophy/research into trying to prove this.
What we mistake with Nazi Germany is to say "they did what they did because they are evil". They weren't evil; they massively ignorant. They believed in the wrong things; in things that weren't true. Germany was a paranoid country in the verge of economic collapse, absolute civil war and complete disintegration. The sad truth is that Hitler became that glue. The basic premise of his ideas being: "Spend A LOT to re-establish the economy, get the money back through war and stomp on all Communists to prevent German civil war".
That of course doesn't excuse of the things he did. However, we have to understand what happened with Nazi Germany wasn't evil, but stupidity & ignorance. This same stupidity & ignorance is something EVERY country (U.S, U.K, Canadian, Iran, Israel, etc...) is vulnerable to. Each of these countries have strong motives of the things they are doing now.
|
On June 13 2010 07:36 Squeegy wrote:
Wouldn't you want to control someone's reach to a weapon if you couldn't trust him to behave well with it?
Sure (kinda like bullying) but US soldier ones said to Russian that there is no reason to hate each other just because we play for different teams. Fair play is the best control 
|
On June 13 2010 08:18 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 07:05 Squeegy wrote:On June 13 2010 06:59 ArKaDo wrote:On June 13 2010 06:55 Squeegy wrote: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. 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)? On June 13 2010 06:59 Jibba wrote:On June 13 2010 06:55 Squeegy wrote: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? Wrong answer! Here's a hint: pre-emptive attack has absolutely nothing to do with what Angelicfolly said. On June 13 2010 07:02 ArKaDo wrote: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. I'm not a pacifist as I said, so I think there are some wars that are necessary so i must agree with you. I think that peace is just a value made by bourgeois to assure that the low grades don't move from their shitty position. I just think that the WW2 is a bad exemple, because it is too complicated. There has been no war in europe since WW2, yes, because of what the europeans build since then (europe and the ties between germany & france for exemple). The events that leads to WW2 needs to be understood trought a long history, way way before WW1 in fact. It's so easy to say: "you must fight evil nazis!" and then just switch names to "you must fight evil iranian!". Iran is a pretty beautiful country, with an amazing culture. There are many jews living there peacefully without any problems. (Well it's not a beautiful democratie i must agree). It's just the beginning of the clash between the arabic world and the occidental world, by picturing them as "evil" and only defending the idea that the only answer to the problem between our civilisation is war, it will only lead to another WW2.
Yes, it indeed is very complicated. This is why I think "war leads to war" is simplistic. War does lead to war in the sense that there will probably always be wars. So a war is always followed by a war (with varying time periods in-between). But, as I think you noted, WW2 was not caused directly by WW1 but by the events that followed WW1. Fighting a war against Germany in WW2 was necessary and good because it stopped the atrocities that Germany was commiting. The wars that followed were partially caused by the war itself but mostly because of other reasons. Of course sometimes war does directly cause war. When Israeli plane drops a bomb that kills a child's family, the child may very well live the rest of their live looking for revenge.
Iran is a different subject altogether. What should be done with Iran, I don't know. And I didn't see Angelicfolly say we should be wage a war against them either. Maybe he thinks this, I don't know, but when he said that war can be good, he wasn't referring to a war against Iran. He was simply contesting a claim made by someone else (that war is always bad).
Ps. I really have no special bond with Jews, so you don't have to mention them everytime. And I know that there are Jews in Iran. Many of them in good terms with Ahmadinejad even!
|
On June 13 2010 08:37 gREIFOCs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash 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. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Are you refering to the country that droped two nukes on civilian targets? Is that responsible to you? The road to world disarm must be lead by the ones holding the guns (The only undeniable road to a safer world). That is not the case. So, however sad, it's reasonable that small and unestables regions are trying to get nukes of their own.
The Atomic Bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty justifiable.
You either risk the war to prolong by months or years.
Every month, you have a hundred thousand Chinese dying under Japanese occupation and you have 20,000 Koreans dying too.
Every month, you have Americans, British and Canadian soldiers dying from captvity or from combat.
What is the alternative to nuking Japan? Air Bombing? Famine (from shipping blockades?)
Is that any more morally correct?
You rather have millions of Japanese dying from conventional bombing & famine than have a few hundred thousands die from the Atomic Bomb?
Hiroshima/Nagasaki is very dear to me, if ever you want to debate, e-mail at ShcShc11@gmail.com (I don't visit TL that often lol).
Anyway, cheers.
|
On June 13 2010 08:06 kryto wrote:
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!!!
Is this some kind of ironic rant or does your brain actually work like this?
|
On June 13 2010 08:30 ArKaDo wrote:
Yes but you don't want them to have the nuke because you picture them as "evil". Unlike Israel.
I consider Israel much more likely to use the nuke than Iran. (talking to Squeegy).
No. You should really stop putting words in my mouth. It's not nice and it makes me see constructive posts as useless.
I said I consider Iran unlikely to use nukes. I said I don't want them to have nukes because it would destabilize the area even further. And because sometimes wars end up happening although neither side wants them to happen. In other words, although I believe nukes aren't completely a bad thing, the more we have nukes. Or rather, the more factions that have nukes, the more likely it is that they are used. I'd rather no faction get nukes anymore and that the factions with existing nukes would get rid of theirs. Or at least the majority of their nukes.
To put it simply, I don't want Iran to get nukes because I don't see anything good coming out of it.
|
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.
You didn't do shit, your ancestors or whatever did it. History means nothing, only what happens right now. Just putting this in here.
|
On June 13 2010 08:37 gREIFOCs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash 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. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Are you refering to the country that droped two nukes on civilian targets? Is that responsible to you? The road to world disarm must be lead by the ones holding the guns (The only undeniable road to a safer world). That is not the case. So, however sad, it's reasonable that small and unestables regions are trying to get nukes of their own.
Pretty much everything you said was wrong.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major military industrial cities and while this topic shouldn't devolve into a debate on this, there are clearly reasonable and "responsible" reasons for having used them when they were used.
The US and Russia just took apart hundreds upon hundreds of nukes in an attempt to be the leader. England recently revealed new information on their arms and how many they have. America, as well as other nuclear powers, have, and continue to, take steps towards lowering nuke numbers significantly.
The reason I trust Iran less than Israel is that Israel hasn't dedicated itself to the destruction of a race or state. The mere existance of Jihad is enough to make me want to keep nukes out of the hands of every Islamic state that we can. I agree with what someone said in the gaza ship thread which somewhat relates. "If you disarm the Palestines you will have peace in Israel and there will be a Palestinian state. If you disarm Israel there will be genocide." That's simply the way the dichotomy is set up atm.
|
On June 13 2010 02:33 Tomnki wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:31 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash 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. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Not North Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started? How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
iran leader never said anythink like that....thats just bullshit propaganda because u dont understand iranisch or what they are speaking
|
I don't think Israel bombing Iran is in the best interest of it's public relations within the Arab world/world in general at the moment. Would make more sense for the US to do it, from it's Iraqi bases.
|
On June 13 2010 08:51 Mereel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:33 Tomnki wrote:On June 13 2010 02:31 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash 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. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Not North Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started? How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran? iran leader never said anythink like that....thats just bullshit propaganda because u dont understand iranisch or what they are speaking
Iran doesn't continue to arm Hamas for fun you know.
|
ShcShc wrote: Hiroshima/Nagasaki is very dear to me, if ever you want to debate, e-mail at ShcShc11@gmail.com (I don't visit TL that often lol).
I'd like to quote a brilliant man on the subject.
Jon Stewart once said in a debate, with someone who's name I can't remember, on the Daily Show, that the responsible thing would have been to drop one off shore and go: "The next one will hit you." Then give them a chance to surrender.
Also he said:
Jon Stewart said:
"I'm saying that war is by definition temporary insanity"
|
On June 13 2010 08:58 Jayve wrote:Show nested quote +ShcShc wrote: Hiroshima/Nagasaki is very dear to me, if ever you want to debate, e-mail at ShcShc11@gmail.com (I don't visit TL that often lol). I'd like to quote a brilliant man on the subject. Jon Stewart once said in a debate, with someone who's name I can't remember, on the Daily Show, that the responsible thing would have been to drop one off shore and go: "The next one will hit you." Then give them a chance to surrender. Also he said:
Japan was trying to surrender practically the entire summer of 1945, the US just wouldn't let them. The atomic bombs had nothing to do with ending the war, it was a display of strength to scare Stalin since the war-time alliance was now over.
|
Agreed. Anyone who thinks the nuclear bombs where needed are brainwashed and probably also stupid.
Remember: history belongs to the victors.
|
ITT: a lot of people who didn't attend their history classes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
