Pages: 1 2 3

 

2006-12-20 19:04:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina

weamo8 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

Why does anyone need nukes?
Why does anyone need a gun?
I own several guns.  I have them because I would use them to defend myself and my family against "bad" people.  I can specifically target those who would do me harm and attempt to defeat them.

Nukes will kill all kinds of people.  Innocents and enemies and they will taint the ground for years and years to come.

There was a time and a place for nukes, and I would argue that the two that were used did achieve a greater good, but we are past that.

All of the "civilized" nations that the U.N. has decided can have nukes should all decide to scrap them in my opinion.  If the U.N. took a stand against nukes in all forms and in all hands, because of their indiscriminate and devastating potential, confronting unstable seeming countries like Iran would be much easier.

I have read several interviews with Iran's president, and he is not half as crazy as everyone thinks.  The 5 members of the U.N. security council are complete hypocrites.  Why should they all have nukes, and then decide who else can and cannot have them?
Good points.  It is hypocrisy indeed.

Besides, Ahmadinejad is a temporary problem.  He will most likely lose the next election by a landslide, and even with the Ayatollah being a dumbass as usual, the people of Iran will probably elect a moderate next time.

It's too bad Khatami isn't still in power.
2006-12-20 19:07:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Because someone has something destructive it should not dictate everyone should. It does not seem logical to draw moral equivalences with someone who has threatened time and time again to wipe the earth clean from the west. We can talk hypothetically and say yes no one should have said weapons, but unfortunately we are confined to reality and we must deal with the circumstances at hand.

I have a question. Do you think Iran supports Hezzbolah? What do you think they would like to do with a nuke?
Iran undoubtedly supports Hezbollah, but they will likely support them a lot less when a new president enters office in Iran.  Once again, Ahmadinejad is now a lame duck after the recent election.  This just means he will quack louder while the rest of Iran laughs at him.

The Iranian people are too smart to attack Israel.  They know such a thing would be senseless.  Only their extremists would do such a thing, and they are limited in their power.
2006-12-20 19:09:49
weamo8
Member
+50|6461|USA

Kmarion wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


Why does anyone need a gun?
I own several guns.  I have them because I would use them to defend myself and my family against "bad" people.  I can specifically target those who would do me harm and attempt to defeat them.

Nukes will kill all kinds of people.  Innocents and enemies and they will taint the ground for years and years to come.

There was a time and a place for nukes, and I would argue that the two that were used did achieve a greater good, but we are past that.

All of the "civilized" nations that the U.N. has decided can have nukes should all decide to scrap them in my opinion.  If the U.N. took a stand against nukes in all forms and in all hands, because of their indiscriminate and devastating potential, confronting unstable seeming countries like Iran would be much easier.

I have read several interviews with Iran's president, and he is not half as crazy as everyone thinks.  The 5 members of the U.N. security council are complete hypocrites.  Why should they all have nukes, and then decide who else can and cannot have them?

Answering my question with another question usmarine2007 was a little pointless.  Do you really not see the difference between a gun and a nuke?  Michael Moore tries to make the same argument in Bowling For Columbine.  Are you as knuckle-headed as him?
Because someone has something destructive it should not dictate everyone should. It does not seem logical to draw moral equivalences with someone who has threatened time and time again to wipe the earth clean from the west. We can talk hypothetically and say yes no one should have said weapons, but unfortunately we are confined to reality and we must deal with the circumstances at hand.

I have a question. Do you think Iran supports Hezzbolah? What do you think they would like to do with a nuke?
This is all hypothetical Kmarion.  We are not making any decisions here.

To answer your question; Iran supports Hizbollah and Hamas.  There is no question about it.  I do not want Iran to have nukes.  I can not imagine where they would end up.  Probably Tel Aviv and NYC. 

I have a question for you.  Do you think the U.N.'s voice would be stronger if it wasn't so hypocritical and condescending?
2006-12-20 19:16:31
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6405

weamo8 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

weamo8 wrote:


I own several guns.  I have them because I would use them to defend myself and my family against "bad" people.  I can specifically target those who would do me harm and attempt to defeat them.

Nukes will kill all kinds of people.  Innocents and enemies and they will taint the ground for years and years to come.

There was a time and a place for nukes, and I would argue that the two that were used did achieve a greater good, but we are past that.

All of the "civilized" nations that the U.N. has decided can have nukes should all decide to scrap them in my opinion.  If the U.N. took a stand against nukes in all forms and in all hands, because of their indiscriminate and devastating potential, confronting unstable seeming countries like Iran would be much easier.

I have read several interviews with Iran's president, and he is not half as crazy as everyone thinks.  The 5 members of the U.N. security council are complete hypocrites.  Why should they all have nukes, and then decide who else can and cannot have them?

Answering my question with another question usmarine2007 was a little pointless.  Do you really not see the difference between a gun and a nuke?  Michael Moore tries to make the same argument in Bowling For Columbine.  Are you as knuckle-headed as him?
Because someone has something destructive it should not dictate everyone should. It does not seem logical to draw moral equivalences with someone who has threatened time and time again to wipe the earth clean from the west. We can talk hypothetically and say yes no one should have said weapons, but unfortunately we are confined to reality and we must deal with the circumstances at hand.

I have a question. Do you think Iran supports Hezzbolah? What do you think they would like to do with a nuke?
This is all hypothetical Kmarion.  We are not making any decisions here.

To answer your question; Iran supports Hizbollah and Hamas.  There is no question about it.  I do not want Iran to have nukes.  I can not imagine where they would end up.  Probably Tel Aviv and NYC. 

I have a question for you.  Do you think the U.N.'s voice would be stronger if it wasn't so hypocritical and condescending?
No, the UN just isnt work a shit.
2006-12-20 19:21:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina

weamo8 wrote:

This is all hypothetical Kmarion.  We are not making any decisions here.

To answer your question; Iran supports Hizbollah and Hamas.  There is no question about it.  I do not want Iran to have nukes.  I can not imagine where they would end up.  Probably Tel Aviv and NYC. 

I have a question for you.  Do you think the U.N.'s voice would be stronger if it wasn't so hypocritical and condescending?
I'm actually ok with Iran having nukes.  I think it is inevitable that they will develop them, and honestly, I can't blame them for it.  They are currently surrounded by American forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so I can see why they might be a bit paranoid.

The fact that Pakistan has nukes is a lot more disturbing to me.  Iran has a stable government, but Pakistan does not.  If anyone should fear a country would allow nukes to fall into the hands of extremists, that country should be Pakistan.

Keep in mind that Pakistan has over double the people of Iran, and they've had nukes for quite a few years now.
2006-12-20 19:24:32
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6619|132 and Bush

weamo8 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

I own several guns.  I have them because I would use them to defend myself and my family against "bad" people.  I can specifically target those who would do me harm and attempt to defeat them.

Nukes will kill all kinds of people.  Innocents and enemies and they will taint the ground for years and years to come.

There was a time and a place for nukes, and I would argue that the two that were used did achieve a greater good, but we are past that.

All of the "civilized" nations that the U.N. has decided can have nukes should all decide to scrap them in my opinion.  If the U.N. took a stand against nukes in all forms and in all hands, because of their indiscriminate and devastating potential, confronting unstable seeming countries like Iran would be much easier.

I have read several interviews with Iran's president, and he is not half as crazy as everyone thinks.  The 5 members of the U.N. security council are complete hypocrites.  Why should they all have nukes, and then decide who else can and cannot have them?

Answering my question with another question usmarine2007 was a little pointless.  Do you really not see the difference between a gun and a nuke?  Michael Moore tries to make the same argument in Bowling For Columbine.  Are you as knuckle-headed as him?
Because someone has something destructive it should not dictate everyone should. It does not seem logical to draw moral equivalences with someone who has threatened time and time again to wipe the earth clean from the west. We can talk hypothetically and say yes no one should have said weapons, but unfortunately we are confined to reality and we must deal with the circumstances at hand.

I have a question. Do you think Iran supports Hezzbolah? What do you think they would like to do with a nuke?
This is all hypothetical Kmarion.  We are not making any decisions here.

To answer your question; Iran supports Hizbollah and Hamas.  There is no question about it.  I do not want Iran to have nukes.  I can not imagine where they would end up.  Probably Tel Aviv and NYC. 

I have a question for you.  Do you think the U.N.'s voice would be stronger if it wasn't so hypocritical and condescending?
Of course it would be. But the UN has now established for what ever reason a history of not enforcing it's resolutions. Is the UN hypocritical? You better believe it.

Turquoise wrote:

I'm actually ok with Iran having nukes.  I think it is inevitable that they will develop them, and honestly, I can't blame them for it.  They are currently surrounded by American forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so I can see why they might be a bit paranoid.

The fact that Pakistan has nukes is a lot more disturbing to me.  Iran has a stable government, but Pakistan does not.  If anyone should fear a country would allow nukes to fall into the hands of extremists, that country should be Pakistan.

Keep in mind that Pakistan has over double the people of Iran, and they've had nukes for quite a few years now.
Can you see where this is leading Turquoise?

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-20 19:26:03)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-20 19:25:50
weamo8
Member
+50|6461|USA

Commie Killer wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

I have a question for you.  Do you think the U.N.'s voice would be stronger if it wasn't so hypocritical and condescending?
No, the UN just isnt work a shit.
Good point.
2006-12-20 19:28:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm actually ok with Iran having nukes.  I think it is inevitable that they will develop them, and honestly, I can't blame them for it.  They are currently surrounded by American forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so I can see why they might be a bit paranoid.

The fact that Pakistan has nukes is a lot more disturbing to me.  Iran has a stable government, but Pakistan does not.  If anyone should fear a country would allow nukes to fall into the hands of extremists, that country should be Pakistan.

Keep in mind that Pakistan has over double the people of Iran, and they've had nukes for quite a few years now.
Can you see where this is leading Turquoise?
Yes, I think Iran will develop nukes as a last line of defense against an American invasion.  Once this is established, they will feel a lot less endangered and will likely be less antagonistic.

I think Pakistan is going in a far more negative direction.  Musharraf will probably be ousted or assassinated soon without our help in maintaining some sense of order over there.
2006-12-20 19:33:17
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6619|132 and Bush

Given the amount of conflict in that region I see it like this.

Imagine two people in a fist fight. These two people believe that the reason for their existence is to crush their enemy. I just don't think it's a good idea to toss a gun in the middle of the fight. What it comes down to is me not trusting the situation and not the person.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-20 19:34:07
weamo8
Member
+50|6461|USA

Kmarion wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

I have a question for you.  Do you think the U.N.'s voice would be stronger if it wasn't so hypocritical and condescending?
Of course it would be. But the UN has now established for what ever reason a history of not enforcing it's resolutions. Is the UN hypocritical? You better believe it.
Agreed.  I just think they could change and be more effective (hypothetically speaking of course).

Last edited by weamo8 (2006-12-20 19:36:00)

2006-12-20 19:36:17
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Given the amount of conflict in that region I see it like this.

Imagine two people in a fist fight. These two people believe that the reason for their existence is to crush their enemy. I just don't think it's a good idea to toss a gun in the middle of the fight. What it comes down to is me not trusting the situation and not the person.
Well, you can't expect Iran to give up its nuclear program without a fight.  We'd probably have to invade them before they'd give up the program.  I don't want that to happen.

Invading Pakistan would make more sense, but that would still be a bad idea as well.
2006-12-20 19:43:13
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6619|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Given the amount of conflict in that region I see it like this.

Imagine two people in a fist fight. These two people believe that the reason for their existence is to crush their enemy. I just don't think it's a good idea to toss a gun in the middle of the fight. What it comes down to is me not trusting the situation and not the person.
Well, you can't expect Iran to give up its nuclear program without a fight.  We'd probably have to invade them before they'd give up the program.  I don't want that to happen.

Invading Pakistan would make more sense, but that would still be a bad idea as well.
If they hadn't kicked the monitors out I'm sure it would be much harder to endorse actions against them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-20 19:51:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Given the amount of conflict in that region I see it like this.

Imagine two people in a fist fight. These two people believe that the reason for their existence is to crush their enemy. I just don't think it's a good idea to toss a gun in the middle of the fight. What it comes down to is me not trusting the situation and not the person.
Well, you can't expect Iran to give up its nuclear program without a fight.  We'd probably have to invade them before they'd give up the program.  I don't want that to happen.

Invading Pakistan would make more sense, but that would still be a bad idea as well.
If they hadn't kicked the monitors out I'm sure it would be much harder to endorse actions against them.
Agreed...  It's just that I don't think America can afford another invasion, and the rest of the world certainly doesn't want to do it.

Granted, if we take the route of invasion, we'll need to focus on minimizing collateral damage and maximizing surgical strikes on military targets and eliminating all of the extremist clerics with ties to the government.  The Ayatollah will need to be executed publicly to send the message home.
2006-12-20 20:06:36
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6556|Long Island, New York
Well, for one, they've threatened to totally annihilate israel many times, and Ahmamanaiaanneneiejad is just a crazy son of a bitch for his comments and...everything.

Even though a nuke in Israel would mean fallout in: Lebanon, Palestinean areas, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt. If Iran does nuke Israel, I'll actually probably laugh at the inpending doom they'll face.

And... the wiping out of Jerusalem which would piss off 1) The world 2) The world's major religions (judaism, christianity and islam) since they all call it home.
2006-12-20 20:11:16
weamo8
Member
+50|6461|USA

Poseidon wrote:

Well, for one, they've threatened to totally annihilate israel many times, and Ahmamanaiaanneneiejad is just a crazy son of a bitch for his comments and...everything.

Even though a nuke in Israel would mean fallout in: Lebanon, Palestinean areas, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt. If Iran does nuke Israel, I'll actually probably laugh at the inpending doom they'll face.

And... the wiping out of Jerusalem which would piss off 1) The world 2) The world's major religions (judaism, christianity and islam) since they all call it home.
It surprises me that everyone thinks "Ahmamanaiaanneneiejad is just a crazy son of a bitch."  Has no one ever read his interviews and such?  He is intelligent, and surprisingly logical for a radical Palesitinian.  He is crazy, crazy like a fox (name that movie), and if I were Iranian, I would probably follow him happily.
2006-12-20 20:15:09
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6619|132 and Bush

weamo8 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Well, for one, they've threatened to totally annihilate israel many times, and Ahmamanaiaanneneiejad is just a crazy son of a bitch for his comments and...everything.

Even though a nuke in Israel would mean fallout in: Lebanon, Palestinean areas, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt. If Iran does nuke Israel, I'll actually probably laugh at the inpending doom they'll face.

And... the wiping out of Jerusalem which would piss off 1) The world 2) The world's major religions (judaism, christianity and islam) since they all call it home.
It surprises me that everyone thinks "Ahmamanaiaanneneiejad is just a crazy son of a bitch."  Has no one ever read his interviews and such?  He is intelligent, and surprisingly logical for a radical Palesitinian.  He is crazy, crazy like a fox (name that movie), and if I were Iranian, I would probably follow him happily.
Your gonna love this comment..lol
Hitler was intelligent.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-20 20:15:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina

weamo8 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Well, for one, they've threatened to totally annihilate israel many times, and Ahmamanaiaanneneiejad is just a crazy son of a bitch for his comments and...everything.

Even though a nuke in Israel would mean fallout in: Lebanon, Palestinean areas, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt. If Iran does nuke Israel, I'll actually probably laugh at the inpending doom they'll face.

And... the wiping out of Jerusalem which would piss off 1) The world 2) The world's major religions (judaism, christianity and islam) since they all call it home.
It surprises me that everyone thinks "Ahmamanaiaanneneiejad is just a crazy son of a bitch."  Has no one ever read his interviews and such?  He is intelligent, and surprisingly logical for a radical Palesitinian.  He is crazy, crazy like a fox (name that movie), and if I were Iranian, I would probably follow him happily.
Well, most Iranians think Ahmadinejad is an idiot.  He's the Bush of Iran, essentially.

Ahmadinejad rose to power at a time when anti-American sentiments were running high due to the invasion of Iraq.  Shortly afterwards, the Iranian people woke up and realized that he's just a blowhard.

The only problem is that Americans seem to take him seriously, and they don't realize how much of a weak monkey of a man this guy really is.  He doesn't have the ability to nuke Israel, because his people wouldn't approve of it.  Even the Ayatollah is smart enough to block such a move.
2006-12-20 21:02:30
jonsimon
Member
+224|6514

Turquoise wrote:

Well, most Iranians think Ahmadinejad is an idiot.  He's the Bush of Iran, essentially.
Stats?
2006-12-20 21:46:27
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, most Iranians think Ahmadinejad is an idiot.  He's the Bush of Iran, essentially.
Stats?
Look up the results of the recent Iranian election.  You'll notice the vast majority of Ahmadinejad supporters were voted out of office in favor of moderate conservatives (most of whom oppose Ahmadinejad's "needless antagonizing of the West").  The Iranian people don't want to mess with the West anymore than the West wants to mess with them.  It's just a case of the American government and the Iranian government yelling at each other.

Ahmadinejad is someone who intentionally capitalized on the anti-American sentiment in his country and promised his nation's poor that he would help them.  His tactics are remarkably similar to Hugo Chavez's, and not surprisingly, his lack of results are much the same as well.

Ahmadinejad resembles Bush in how he's now a lame duck, and in how he mobilized initially lukewarm support into an electoral majority by creating an "us vs. them" mentality among his people against America.  Bush did the same thing, but he used Iraq instead.

Also like Bush, Ahmadinejad's people have started to see through his ruse, mostly demonstrated by neutering his support in the legislature.  Once Ahmadinejad is out of office, a lot of this nuke issue will subside, because I doubt their next president will be so blatantly Anti-Semitic.  (By the way, Iranians aren't Semitic people, because Iranians aren't Arabs -- they're Persian.)  Iranians, in general, have leaned toward the reformist side in recent years, but the Ayatollah and the Council of Guardians have made it difficult for reformists to run for office.

By extension, most Iranians (as demonstrated by this recent election) aren't too fond of what Ahmadinejad has done in the last year and a half.  Instead of fulfilling his promises of aiding the poor, he's mostly just been antagonizing the West and making stupid remarks about Israel.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-12-20 21:56:05)

2006-12-20 22:05:04
Fen321
Member
+54|6516|Singularity
Yo check it.... IAEA reports that any kind of nuclear tech (weapons grade) is at least 10 years out...why must you people act as if they have the bombs already. North Korea on the other hand has the bombs...what do we do SANCTIONS..DIPLOMACY....lol honestly an invasion of Iran is something the US military would shit itself trying. Lets compare the recent invasion of Iraq...you see 25 million people minus 600,000 killed hmmkay now we have a situation there which we can't even control. Now lets look at Iran.... 70 million people a country that is at least 4 times the size of Iraq...IE infrastructure all over the place. Good look with the invasion you will need it. I repeat you will need lady luck to shit out some sort of device that will prevent the US from getting its nuts chopped for being an aggressor for the third time this century.

But Fen the US LUVS everyone we just want to be friends...


P.S.

May i remind you when the IAEA caught congress excagerating accounts in its reports....

Last edited by Fen321 (2006-12-20 22:06:42)

2006-12-20 22:19:26
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6693|Canberra, AUS

weamo8 wrote:

I have read several interviews with Iran's president, and he is not half as crazy as everyone thinks.  The 5 members of the U.N. security council are complete hypocrites.  Why should they all have nukes, and then decide who else can and cannot have them?
In reality, he's very clever. He has a very good understanding of language and communication, and has the ability to say things in exactly the right way.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-12-20 22:19:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina
Why even sanction Iran for having nukes?  The Iranians have a great amount of pride in their developing nuclear technology.  Moving forward with this program is one of the few things that both reformists and the conservatives agree on.  It's also an issue that Ahmadinejad still gets support on from his people.

As long as the West pressures Iran to end its nuclear program, Ahmadinejad will be able to manipulate some of his people into thinking the West is evil.  If we back off, then the slow progress of Westernizing Iran can continue as the people embrace the decadence and freedom of Western life.
2006-12-20 22:22:37
jax
Member
+12|6786

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Iran wanting to wipeout Israel and the "aggressive" remarks Amajahdiugya (sp?) has made to Israel makes them look like they want nuclear power for more than energy.

As far as aggressive America having the nuke, we set the precedent. You attack us on our land, (Japan WW2)we're liable to melt your face. And its a stereotype that we are logical when it comes to our nukes. Where Iran looks more fanatic than logical.

I have a question. Is it ok to teamswitch and crash your jet into 4 teammates because you were owned?
i have a question for americans: why do you have enought nukes to destroy the world 10x over, it's a bit over the top and pointless is it not
2006-12-20 22:26:10
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina

jax wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Iran wanting to wipeout Israel and the "aggressive" remarks Amajahdiugya (sp?) has made to Israel makes them look like they want nuclear power for more than energy.

As far as aggressive America having the nuke, we set the precedent. You attack us on our land, (Japan WW2)we're liable to melt your face. And its a stereotype that we are logical when it comes to our nukes. Where Iran looks more fanatic than logical.

I have a question. Is it ok to teamswitch and crash your jet into 4 teammates because you were owned?
i have a question for americans: why do you have enought nukes to destroy the world 10x over, it's a bit over the top and pointless is it not
It happened because Reagan got us into an arms race with the Soviets in the 80s.  The U.S.S.R. probably had enough nukes to destroy the world 5x over at one point.  Of course, they sold most of them to us and various other countries after the fall of the Soviet Union.
2006-12-20 22:30:38
Fen321
Member
+54|6516|Singularity

jax wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Iran wanting to wipe out Israel and the "aggressive" remarks Amajahdiugya (sp?) has made to Israel makes them look like they want nuclear power for more than energy.

As far as aggressive America having the nuke, we set the precedent. You attack us on our land, (Japan WW2)we're liable to melt your face. And its a stereotype that we are logical when it comes to our nukes. Where Iran looks more fanatic than logical.

I have a question. Is it ok to teamswitch and crash your jet into 4 teammates because you were owned?
i have a question for americans: why do you have enought nukes to destroy the world 10x over, it's a bit over the top and pointless is it not
OVER THE TOP! NO WAY SIR!

We need at least a few more nukes just in case someone gets out of line and decides they want us to end the world for them!

YOU SIR, Need to realize that AMERICA stands for freedom...freedom to blow you up with Nuclear bombs. <^>(O_O)<^>

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard