|
On October 24 2011 08:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 08:17 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 24 2011 08:03 Sovern wrote:On October 24 2011 03:52 tjosan wrote:On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote:
Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government. What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation. And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is. You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action. The terrorists were Osama/Saddam/and all of the terrorist groups and Iraq was a terrible place to live in before the war. I know someone that used to live there and he told me that laws were basically non existent in most areas and they still followed the eye for an eye concept quite literally. America basically turned Iraq into a modern day democracy by invading and helped get rid of a lot of the members of terrorist groups. If you honestly think that the world would be a better place with Osama and Saddam still alive and without us invading Iraq then you're lying to yourself. Nice try at trying to insult me by the way, I wont step down to your level with the country insults. Saddam wasn't a terrorist. Bin Laden hated him. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until the U.S. invaded and gave them all the recruitment ammo they could ever dream of. Iraq wasn't a great place to live, but we sure contributed to that with the sanctions and bombings throughout the '90s. It's silly to think that we came riding in on a shining horse bearing democracy for the eager and grateful Iraqi masses. That comment of his was so terribly inaccurate, I thought I was in a fan fic thread for a second. Especially the part about terrorists in Iraq (the country that fought a war against Islamic extremism), Iraq being a good place to live now and terrible before (quite the opposite in reality hahahaha if anything. Now it's complete shit lol and worse off than countries it used to give aid to), and particularly the "democracy" part. Lol. Widespread suppression, election fraud, making the election null because the ruling party lost, and banning most of the candidates is very democratic  . Speaking of religious fanaticism, political fanaticism is just as funny and delusional . In fact, the fact he still believes the myth about the "Al Qaeda links in Iraq" which was pure bogus and has been admitted as such (along with the WMDs hoax) shows how lost he is on the matter, although nearly everything else stated does that as well  . I don't get it. Are people so terribly jingoistic as to justify horrifically twisted and destructive actions and then make them out to be some great successful utopian experiment? It's frightening that people would even think of doing something like that.
We've always been at war with Eurasia 
|
lol This is good news if it stays true, I guess.
|
On October 24 2011 08:10 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action. Seriously...? You're going to try to argue the point that Muslim extremists > Christian extremists? Do you NOT remember what happened in Norway? Does the KKK and other extreme radical groups (including christian based cults) not count under Christian extremists? (Answer, yes they do). You can bet your ass that if a Christian nation was invaded and then taken over by an Islamic nation bad shit would be going down FAST with regards to Christian extremists going crazy. Last time that happened we had a little thing called the Crusades and Inquisition.
Which is why I said currently......whens the last time that you heard about Christians hijacking airplanes and blowing themselves up to kill innocent people? As for a lot of the people saying in this thread that we shouldn't have invaded the way that I see it is that we have no other choice.
How are we going to unite as a whole if we have country's that are living 500+ years in the past being raised by religious extremists that brainwash them to believe in 2,000 year old fairy tales and that all people that don't follow that religion are infidels that deserve to be blown up. The world is a much safer place with all of the country's on this planet modernized and free of religion.
On October 24 2011 08:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 08:17 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 24 2011 08:03 Sovern wrote:On October 24 2011 03:52 tjosan wrote:On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote:
Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government. What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation. And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is. You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action. The terrorists were Osama/Saddam/and all of the terrorist groups and Iraq was a terrible place to live in before the war. I know someone that used to live there and he told me that laws were basically non existent in most areas and they still followed the eye for an eye concept quite literally. America basically turned Iraq into a modern day democracy by invading and helped get rid of a lot of the members of terrorist groups. If you honestly think that the world would be a better place with Osama and Saddam still alive and without us invading Iraq then you're lying to yourself. Nice try at trying to insult me by the way, I wont step down to your level with the country insults. Saddam wasn't a terrorist. Bin Laden hated him. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until the U.S. invaded and gave them all the recruitment ammo they could ever dream of. Iraq wasn't a great place to live, but we sure contributed to that with the sanctions and bombings throughout the '90s. It's silly to think that we came riding in on a shining horse bearing democracy for the eager and grateful Iraqi masses. That comment of his was so terribly inaccurate, I thought I was in a fan fic thread for a second. Especially the part about terrorists in Iraq (the country that fought a war against Islamic extremism), Iraq being a good place to live now and terrible before (quite the opposite in reality hahahaha if anything. Now it's complete shit lol and worse off than countries it used to give aid to), and particularly the "democracy" part. Lol. Widespread suppression, election fraud, making the election null because the ruling party lost, and banning most of the candidates is very democratic . Speaking of religious fanaticism, political fanaticism is just as funny and delusional . In fact, the fact he still believes the myth about the "Al Qaeda links in Iraq" which was pure bogus and has been admitted as such (along with the WMDs hoax) shows how lost he is on the matter, although nearly everything else stated does that as well . I don't get it. Are people so terribly jingoistic as to justify horrifically twisted and destructive actions and then make them out to be some great successful utopian experiment? It's frightening that people would even think of doing something like that.
Yea, I'm glad that our country isn't being ran with the mindset that you have. In your view it would be better if we just left a country alone that hates ours and will go to extreme measures to kill Americans because we are infidels and are evil. I definitely would rather live in Iraq now by the way. At least the country is starting to get some order and is being modernized. I don't believe in any Al Quida myths by the way, all that I said were that terrorism was widespread in that country and we're doing a good job of fixing that. To think that cowards like yourself think that its okay for terrorists to be left a lone to fly planes into our buildings is sickening. That in itself was an act of terrorism. We have to set some country's straight or else the world is going to remain a scary place.
Anyways, it seems like you're trolling to me, you keep bringing up all of the bad things but none of the good. Sounds like you're a terrorist yourself.
|
On October 24 2011 10:09 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 08:10 chaoser wrote:You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action. Seriously...? You're going to try to argue the point that Muslim extremists > Christian extremists? Do you NOT remember what happened in Norway? Does the KKK and other extreme radical groups (including christian based cults) not count under Christian extremists? (Answer, yes they do). You can bet your ass that if a Christian nation was invaded and then taken over by an Islamic nation bad shit would be going down FAST with regards to Christian extremists going crazy. Last time that happened we had a little thing called the Crusades and Inquisition. Which is why I said currently......whens the last time that you heard about Christians hijacking airplanes and blowing themselves up to kill innocent people? As for a lot of the people saying in this thread that we shouldn't have invaded the way that I see it is that we have no other choice. How are we going to unite as a whole if we have country's that are living 500+ years in the past being raised by religious extremists that brainwash them to believe in 2,000 year old fairy tales and that all people that don't follow that religion are infidels that deserve to be blown up. The world is a much safer place with all of the country's on this planet modernized and free of religion. Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 08:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On October 24 2011 08:17 Senorcuidado wrote:On October 24 2011 08:03 Sovern wrote:On October 24 2011 03:52 tjosan wrote:On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote:
Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam.
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government. What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation. And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is. You're delusional and/or blind if you think that current Muslim extremists as a whole are worst then current Christian extremists. I agree that each religion has its own version of extremists but as a whole I think that we can agree that the Muslim ones take the most action. The terrorists were Osama/Saddam/and all of the terrorist groups and Iraq was a terrible place to live in before the war. I know someone that used to live there and he told me that laws were basically non existent in most areas and they still followed the eye for an eye concept quite literally. America basically turned Iraq into a modern day democracy by invading and helped get rid of a lot of the members of terrorist groups. If you honestly think that the world would be a better place with Osama and Saddam still alive and without us invading Iraq then you're lying to yourself. Nice try at trying to insult me by the way, I wont step down to your level with the country insults. Saddam wasn't a terrorist. Bin Laden hated him. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until the U.S. invaded and gave them all the recruitment ammo they could ever dream of. Iraq wasn't a great place to live, but we sure contributed to that with the sanctions and bombings throughout the '90s. It's silly to think that we came riding in on a shining horse bearing democracy for the eager and grateful Iraqi masses. That comment of his was so terribly inaccurate, I thought I was in a fan fic thread for a second. Especially the part about terrorists in Iraq (the country that fought a war against Islamic extremism), Iraq being a good place to live now and terrible before (quite the opposite in reality hahahaha if anything. Now it's complete shit lol and worse off than countries it used to give aid to), and particularly the "democracy" part. Lol. Widespread suppression, election fraud, making the election null because the ruling party lost, and banning most of the candidates is very democratic . Speaking of religious fanaticism, political fanaticism is just as funny and delusional . In fact, the fact he still believes the myth about the "Al Qaeda links in Iraq" which was pure bogus and has been admitted as such (along with the WMDs hoax) shows how lost he is on the matter, although nearly everything else stated does that as well . I don't get it. Are people so terribly jingoistic as to justify horrifically twisted and destructive actions and then make them out to be some great successful utopian experiment? It's frightening that people would even think of doing something like that. Yea, I'm glad that our country isn't being ran with the mindset that you have. In your view it would be better if we just left a country alone that hates ours and will go to extreme measures to kill Americans because we are infidels and are evil. I definitely would rather live in Iraq now by the way. At least the country is starting to get some order and is being modernized. I don't believe in any Al Quida myths by the way, all that I said were that terrorism was widespread in that country and we're doing a good job of fixing that. To think that cowards like yourself think that its okay for terrorists to be left a lone to fly planes into our buildings is sickening. That in itself was an act of terrorism. We have to set some country's straight or else the world is going to remain a scary place. Anyways, it seems like you're trolling to me, you keep bringing up all of the bad things but none of the good. Sounds like you're a terrorist yourself.
[sarcasm]
Yeah, it's absolutely a terrible thing when people use reason, logic, and intelligence rather than outlandish, wild support of hoaxes already stated by their original propagators to be false and other things that are just terribly incorrect, absurd, and in every manner wrong. Yeah, let's all advocate and support destruction and death and then make up fictional stories that now the affected country is better in every manner, despite being set back about 50 years in reality.
Let's also continue to support hoaxes that they are responsible for 9/11, even though even the US government doesn't even use those hoaxes anymore. This is very intelligent.
[/sarcasm]
Oh wait....
I mean, now that you're trying to defend your previous assertions that devastating Iraq was a good thing and has incredibly benefited them and Iraq was the biggest supporter of terrorism in the mideast, etc. etc., I really can't see you having any credibility at all.
Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq before the US came in. They came in after the US invaded, and in your last post, you said AQ was already in there before, among some other very bizarre things. Continuing to promote hoaxes to try and make your ultranationalistic point, eh? Lol I like this new hoax of yours that Iraqis were going to kill us. Yes, Iraq had to be invaded before they somehow kill off the whole American population, which they were obviously conspiring to do and had the means to do as well /sarcasm. Dude, are you off your rocker?
Allow me to further demonstrate how desperate you are to try and make a point. I never say a single thing concerning 9/11, and now you're able to say quite decisively that somewhere I claimed that terrorism is okay. Only people who are at that height of delusional thinking and nationalistic fanaticism can speak like you are at this very moment. It's not only scary that people can have such a mentality (just as bad as religious extremists), but it's a bit frustrating because I have to suffer from the ridicule of Americans by the rest of the world because of folks like yourself. My warm-hearted suggestion is that you stop thinking and talking like that. It is terribly inhumane and foolish, and shows nothing but a hateful, cowardly, and frightening personality. Sure your pals who have similarly fucked up ideals may be fine with it, but to the average intelligent human being, what you're saying is really screwed up, fictional, and irrational.
Also, Iraq had nothing to do with AQ or 9/11, so your argument in this post is entirely invalid.
Stop trying to dig yourself out of that indefinitely deep trench you're in. Stating continuously more absurd things isn't going to help.
And then you call me a terrorist. This was the best part of all. I guess my last post defeated your poorly thought-out, mythology-based, irrational post so hard, that you couldn't take it. Now you're angry as hell and decide to resort to calling people terrorists and whatnot. Dude, do you even see what you write? lol. And then you say I'm trolling? It's always nice when a troll calls someone out for trolling because the troll gets easily countered by common sense and intelligence. This is rich. Oh man. No, you can't be trolling, because you're still sticking with your beliefs. Had you been trolling, you would have dropped them when you saw that people didn't get trolled xd. You should have at least claimed you were trolling, so that way you could still possibly save some face and credibility :S.
|
Damn, no green jokes for this one in the first page. :|
|
Woohoo! Now its just Afghanistan to go...
|
|
|
Yeah... well
Lemme give you a brief rant,
When I was a ideallistic tennage I used to read a shitload of news about the americans, the bush administration infuriated me with their stupidity.
Now older and wiser, I gotta say I dont give a damn about what the US does, the US will be the US.
They will not fight the wars the world wants them to fight, because like every country god put on this earth, they have their own agenda.
Now I just aknowledge that not all countries agenda's will go hand in hand with the US agenda, and when doing military foreign power, the question anyone should ask themselves first is, how would we fare against a US invasion, honestly, the way things are going, I wouldnt be surprised if the next republican nutjob starts WWIII
No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.
My advice for all teens outthere, the US imperialism will go on with or without you, support your own country and world peace and call it a day.
|
Fun how you can just "declare" Peace/End of the occupation while the country lies in shambles... What glory day.. Nice job.
|
Now i just hope it was all worth it.. same with Afghanistan in 2014-2015(?).
|
>>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<<
This does not sound wiser! ;<
|
and how many private companys will remain
thats the biggest story imo
|
On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote:
>>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<<
This does not sound wiser! ;<
When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes
|
I don't consider the "war in Iraq over" until we pull out completely. We still have 4000 troops there and other peoples totaling 16k-17k.
I love the "we are leaving" BS.
|
FREEAGLELAND26782 Posts
|
On December 15 2011 22:50 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote:
>>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<<
This does not sound wiser! ;< When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes
Except that gaining nuclear weapons is a long-term process, which is highly vulnerable to a wide array of preventative measures with international justification thanks to the NPT. Example: Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear research facility in 1981.
The second problem is that while getting nukes (and the wide array of infrastructure necessary to ensure you can fire back if you are attacked, a huge upkeep cost) provides a deterrent, it also makes every minor dispute a crisis, and any mistake leads to catastrophic costs.
|
On December 15 2011 22:59 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 22:50 D10 wrote:On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote:
>>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<<
This does not sound wiser! ;< When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes Except that gaining nuclear weapons is a long-term process, which is highly vulnerable to a wide array of preventative measures with international justification thanks to the NPT. Example: Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear research facility in 1981. The second problem is that while getting nukes (and the wide array of infrastructure necessary to ensure you can fire back if you are attacked, a huge upkeep cost) provides a deterrent, it also makes every minor dispute a crisis, and any mistake leads to catastrophic costs.
Tell that to north korea.
And Iran soon
edit: point being, american cant bully you once you got them nukes, and theres china and russia, other guys with nukes that will trade with those countries even if they are out of the commonwealth or w/e
Israel probably has or can assemble nukes in less than a month, same with Brazil and argentina, you dont have a voice in the international stage until you can explode the world with a button.
|
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote:
Fucking finally, you had no business there
Thank you for starting discussion on this news topic on such a high note. Please, don't blatantly try to start an America bash thread the moment it opens... at least have the decency to hide behind a well reasoned argument or a post 10-20 pages along in the thread...
On October 22 2011 02:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Finally; Those people will be able to finally see their families and live a normal life. I'm glad this finally happened.
That's what we HOPE to be saying in around ten years from now about Iraq.... thinking that American soldier LEAVING Iraq solves anything for the average Iraqi citizen is horribly ignorant...
As an American... I know this is the right choice... I just don't know if it's the right time for said right choice.
The remark that America should have just gotten the fuck out as fast as possible because it never should have been there in the first place is ignores the socio-political turmoil in the daily life of an Iraqi citizen... We HAD to stay, if only to prevent civil war and genocide that we might have caused... I still don't know if leaving at the end of 2011 is the right decision for the people of Iraq.
I'm happy no more of my brothers and uncles and cousins (lol, PC time, sisters and aunts too) will have to die on that foreign soil... but sometimes I wonder if their spilt blood would be best spent just a little longer for the mission they thought they'd subscribed to.
|
On December 15 2011 23:06 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 22:59 Dfgj wrote:On December 15 2011 22:50 D10 wrote:On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote:
>>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<<
This does not sound wiser! ;< When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes Except that gaining nuclear weapons is a long-term process, which is highly vulnerable to a wide array of preventative measures with international justification thanks to the NPT. Example: Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear research facility in 1981. The second problem is that while getting nukes (and the wide array of infrastructure necessary to ensure you can fire back if you are attacked, a huge upkeep cost) provides a deterrent, it also makes every minor dispute a crisis, and any mistake leads to catastrophic costs. Tell that to north korea. And Iran soon edit: point being, american cant bully you once you got them nukes, and theres china and russia, other guys with nukes that will trade with those countries even if they are out of the commonwealth or w/e Israel probably has or can assemble nukes in less than a month, same with Brazil and argentina, you dont have a voice in the international stage until you can explode the world with a button.
That is a thoroughly ignorant remark. Nuclear weapons do not work as war deterrents in small scale warfare (as in non-total war scenarios) and America, and the rest of the global community, can easily bully the SHIT out of nations with nuclear capability. Even the threat of using nuclear weaponry burns away at geopolitical capital at an alarming rate...
Simply put, you can't bully or anti-bully with nuclear weapons, because the moment you use them the entire global community sees you (you refers to the nation that used the nuclear weaponry) as an existential threat. If this wasn't true, and nuclear weapons could be used as a political tool so easily, then why AREN'T they used more frequently... it'd be like the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card...
North Korea is grasping at straws to keep its people fed and only exists because South Korea refuses to use its great political clout and standing for fear of destabilizing its markets and market opportunities... Korea has the second largest number of MNC's on Earth, so even the spectre of war would seriously damage markets.
Iran will be mashed into the ground if it uses nuclear weaponry, of that is completely certain. Do you seriously think Iran would be able to use nuclear weapons as a political gimme with Israel and the entire of NATO breathing down it's neck, BEGGING for it to be THAT stupid?
EDIT: We bully the hell out of Pakistan all the time and they have nuclear weaponry. China is at constant war with India via border skirmishes and THEY both have stockpiles of nuclear weaponry. North Korea shot down a South Korean frigate and Korea's existence hinges on the United State's military presence... The United States has Nuclear weapons. Please, if you're really THAT ignorant of normal world politics please don't post with such provocative statements.
|
On December 15 2011 23:06 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 22:59 Dfgj wrote:On December 15 2011 22:50 D10 wrote:On December 15 2011 22:39 Gescom wrote:
>>No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US.<<
This does not sound wiser! ;< When a country with nukes gets bothered by some other country with nukes please inform me, until then, having nukes is like 100% assurance of peace against other countries with nukes Except that gaining nuclear weapons is a long-term process, which is highly vulnerable to a wide array of preventative measures with international justification thanks to the NPT. Example: Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear research facility in 1981. The second problem is that while getting nukes (and the wide array of infrastructure necessary to ensure you can fire back if you are attacked, a huge upkeep cost) provides a deterrent, it also makes every minor dispute a crisis, and any mistake leads to catastrophic costs. Tell that to north korea. And Iran soon edit: point being, american cant bully you once you got them nukes, and theres china and russia, other guys with nukes that will trade with those countries even if they are out of the commonwealth or w/e Israel probably has or can assemble nukes in less than a month, same with Brazil and argentina, you dont have a voice in the international stage until you can explode the world with a button.
If you don't think there's already massive global attention on Iran for trying, and a ton of theorizing of what to do if they actively begin proliferating nuclear weapons, then you're delusional. Iran is already under major international containment, but fortunately for them they have the support of China/Russia, which means they get knowledge/material + a possibility of military support against any operations.
Again, nuclear weapons don't exist in a vacuum. You need to be able to shoot back after an attack to provide deterrence (second-strike capability). Even if Iran (or another country) had weapons, they need multiple launching platforms with the range to damage a potential aggressor. Simply having a nuclear weapon is not enough, and is quite likely to make you more at risk without the appropriate infrastructure. There is a lot of work produced as to why increased proliferation is a bad thing for parties involved (and, to be fair, for the other view as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
