Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Should we have fought Iran instead of Iraq? It just seems that Iran is doing what ever it wants in the persute of nuclear weapons...

Like I said before, Bush mistoke Iraq for Iran

Among the numerous reasons for why America (Bush Co.) went into Iraq, Iran was one of them. Either Bush and Co. thought that rolling over Saddam would scare Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs into submission and/or they figured when the USA/Iran fight starts, America would have a perfect staging ground, Iraq itself.

Iran was a definite bonus for a possible war against Iran, but we went in there for other reasons, Saddam was a tyrannical madman, he did, and was trying to get WMD's. Plus we needed more Allies in the region, no Hostile Governments, Iraq is slowly but surely becoming Secure, and is going to become a Major Player in coming events

Whos side is Russia in anyways? Heard they have been helping Iran, with there nukes...

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Iran was a definite bonus for a possible war against Iran, but we went in there for other reasons, Saddam was a tyrannical madman, he did, and was trying to get WMD's. Plus we needed more Allies in the region, no Hostile Governments, Iraq is slowly but surely becoming Secure, and is going to become a Major Player in coming events

Come on now, you seriously do not think that Bush and Co. were already looking ahead at Iran when the war propaganda machine rolled out for an Iraq invasion? I do not share your sentiments about Iraq's stability either, they are on the brink of civil war every other week, can't have stability when there's civil war. Maybe someday in the future, but for the time being Iraq will remain a mess.

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Whos side is Russia in anyways? Heard they have been helping Iran, with there nukes...

Russia is opportunistic and they'll do what suits their interest best. But if I have to pick a side, I'd say Russia is friendlier with Iran than with America.

Originally posted by Robtard
Russia is opportunistic and they'll do what suits their interest best. But if I have to pick a side, I'd say Russia is friendlier with Iran than with America. Id tend to agree. They will do just about anything to rebuild to their former glory.

Originally posted by MJOILNIR
Id tend to agree. They will do just about anything to rebuild to their former glory. Should America put Russia on the hit list?

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on now, you seriously do not think that Bush and Co. were already looking ahead at Iran when the war propaganda machine rolled out for an Iraq invasion? I do not share your sentiments about Iraq's stability either, they are on the brink of civil war every other week, can't have stability when there's civil war. Maybe someday in the future, but for the time being Iraq will remain a mess.

Considering Iran didn't announce Nuke Production until after the Iraq War, yes, I do think that, they wern't a big threat back then. The Military is building up quickly, it won'tbe long, 2-3 Years tops before our Troops being to leave Iraq, and they'll be able to put down the Terrorists, Civil War won't happen, our Military can prevent it until Iraqi's take over, and then everything will start to repair, they trust their own Soldiers more

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Considering Iran didn't announce Nuke Production until after the Iraq War, yes, I do think that, they wern't a big threat back then. The Military is building up quickly, it won'tbe long, 2-3 Years tops before our Troops being to leave Iraq, and they'll be able to put down the Terrorists, Civil War won't happen, our Military can prevent it until Iraqi's take over, and then everything will start to repair, they trust their own Soldiers more

I do not think that Iran decided to research nuclear power/armament on a whim, I am certain plans for this had been going on behind the scenes long before it was officially announced. I would like to have your positive views, but I do not think Iraq will have peace until there is a civil war and a decisive victor is clear.

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Should America put Russia on the hit list?
I dont know about the hit list but I would be somewhat wary of them . I would keep tabs on them if you know what I mean

Originally posted by Robtard
I do not think that Iran decided to research nuclear power/armament on a whim, I am certain plans for this had been going on behind the scenes long before it was officially announced. I would like to have your positive views, but I do not think Iraq will have peace until there is a civil war and a decisive victor is clear.

The current Iraqi President jump-started that, the last President actually favored our occupation of Iraq, they wern't a threat then, but then the new Wackjob of a President wants to blow Israel off the map.


One may start, but the US Military will stop it quickly, it's mostly because of the lack of Saddam, religious factions want a new leader for their respective beliefs, once the Iraqi Army is fully deployed, they'll be able to handle it.

China's siding with Iran.

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
China's siding with Iran.

They're playing both of us, China supplies them with the Nuclear Technology, yet don't want to be the bad guy, so they Support us from the Background

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The current Iraqi President jump-started that, the last President actually favored our occupation of Iraq, they wern't a threat then, but then the new Wackjob of a President wants to blow Israel off the map.


One may start, but the US Military will stop it quickly, it's mostly because of the lack of Saddam, religious factions want a new leader for their respective beliefs, once the Iraqi Army is fully deployed, they'll be able to handle it.

Iran's President isn't the countries true power, Iran for all technical purposes is a Theocracy, the clergy has ruled that country and called the shots ever since the Shah was usurped and that clergy has hated America since then.

I'm not doubting that the American troops can keep a civil war at bay, but I do not think that peace will reign in Iraq until there is one and a clear victor is the outcome.

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Should we have fought Iran instead of Iraq? It just seems that Iran is doing what ever it wants in the persute of nuclear weapons...

And we all know that sooner or later, Bush will wager war on Iran. Or will he be too scared of the big, bad, nukes?

Originally posted by Nichole
And we all know that sooner or later, Bush will wager war on Iran. Or will he be too scared of the big, bad, nukes?

Actually assuming Iran is stupid enough to declare war on us in the next 2 Years, Bush will wipe out their Nuclear/Military Capabilities, they don't want to mess with Bush, since they'll have to make the first move, but they're going to be watching our next election, vote wisely

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Should we have fought Iran instead of Iraq? It just seems that Iran is doing what ever it wants in the persute of nuclear weapons...

Some random redneck: "Yeeeeah! Let's kill us some Persians! Yeeeehaw!"

Nah, they just have to wait until the next terrorist activity, then blame Iran and they have all they need to invade.

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Should we have fought Iran instead of Iraq? It just seems that Iran is doing what ever it wants in the persute of nuclear weapons...

So is China. So is Pakistan. So is India. So is Korea.

Lets bomb da world, yo!

Sorry all, I couldn't help it.


http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/84/invhc1.jpg

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Sorry all, I couldn't help it.


http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/84/invhc1.jpg

Thanks for posting, I love it!

Bush's Reason: Because We Can

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So is China. So is Pakistan. So is India. So is Korea.

Lets bomb da world, yo!


I am so down sista, just push the button and lets roll.





Seriously Queiro the thought of you saying that makes me laugh.

Persians and Arabs. Thats like two birds with one stone!Originally posted by Soleran
I am so down sista, just push the button and lets roll.





Seriously Queiro the thought of you saying that makes me laugh.

Preach it! Lets wipe the slate clean and start again!

Iran's government is the pinicle of corruption and evil.

Heck they are going to have anyone who isnt a muslim wear a badge soon.

Kind of reminds you of some other evil group eh

Im not suprised the commuinst govs are siding with our enemy.

Probobly because of how badly Regan kicked the crap out of them

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Some random redneck: "Yeeeeah! Let's kill us some Persians! Yeeeehaw!"

pretty much. only that random redneck is actually dubya

Reagan sucks.

People who think communist governments are evil suck.

The people of Iran for the most part dont agree with their facist government.

So we dont need to go to war with the country, we just need to take out the facist government that is supporting terrorism and planning plans that are almost a mirror to what the Nazis did.

We can either stop them now or let the massacere happen.

Originally posted by Alliance
Reagan sucks.

People who think communist governments are evil suck.



Yeah because they dont opress freedom and kill innocent people right

Because Stalin didnt have death camps.

and the tienamen square massacere didnt happen.

Stop ignoring the truth, communists are evil

Originally posted by Grimm22
The people of Iran for the most part dont agree with their facist government.

So we dont need to go to war with the country, we just need to take out the facist government that is supporting terrorism and planning plans that are almost a mirror to what the Nazis did.

We can either stop them now or let the massacere happen.
Dont be foolish. Iran is not facist...its fundamentalist...kind of like the US's government right no.

The US has bastardized that nation, we basically put the Islamic revolution in place....why?...because we repeatedly f*cked with their government.

so....lets do it again?

Originally posted by Grimm22


Yeah because they dont opress freedom and kill innocent people right

Because Stalin didnt have death camps.

and the tienamen square massacere didnt happen.

Stop ignoring the truth, communists are evil

You're twisted...go back to the 50's.

The US didn't have concentration camps?

Was there actually EVER a full fleged communism?

Does stalin represent communist ideology?

Are you calling me evil? (although socialims I lean more towards)

Originally posted by Alliance
Dont be foolish. Iran is not facist...its fundamentalist...kind of like the US's government right no.

The US has bastardized that nation, we basically put the Islamic revolution in place....why?...because we repeatedly f*cked with their government.

so....lets do it again?

Oh my god

Wow, your not ignoring the facts or anything.

Iran has been supporting terrorism since the begining.

They are lead by Islamic facists.

Yes lil...all commies are evil because they eat babies and hurt people because thats what Bobby and Jenny told me on TV 40 years ago during the propoganda war.

Originally posted by Alliance
You're twisted...go back to the 50's.

The US didn't have concentration camps?

Was there actually EVER a full fleged communism?

Does stalin represent communist ideology?

Well put.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Are you calling me evil? (although socialims I lean more towards)

If you support communism then yes I am

Originally posted by Grimm22
Oh my god

Wow, your not ignoring the facts or anything.

Iran has been supporting terrorism since the begining.

They are lead by Islamic facists.

Wow...do you even know what facism is? Since when is Amadenijad a facist? Since when are the Ayatollahs facists? They're doing the same thing the US is doing. THE SAME.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Like I said before, Bush mistoke Iraq for Iran OMG, I just cant belive im living here.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well put.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Alliance
You're twisted...go back to the 50's.

The US didn't have concentration camps?

Was there actually EVER a full fleged communism?

Does stalin represent communist ideology?

The japanese camps in WWII were not concentration camps

Were they wrong? Yes, but you cannot compare them to what Communist camps are.

Communist governements are evil and repress the rights of the people.

Its apparent that you are only hearing what you want to hear.

There is nothing good about communsim. It is dead

Originally posted by Grimm22
If you support communism then yes I am

And what do you base your assumption on?

As Allience put it nicelly, has there ever been a full flagged communism? I cannot recall so...

Ugh, its no use.

I thought that there were some modereates on these boards but apparently I was wrong.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Communist governements are evil and repress the rights of the people.

Uh those camps did repress US citizen rights.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And what do you base your assumption on?

As Allience put it nicelly, has there ever been a full flagged communism?

Full fleged "communsim" is anarchism

When you give complete power to the government they arent going to give it back.

Power corrupts. No man or group of people should EVER have absolute power

HAH. I never knew tolerance was not a form of moderatism...

I beleive that EXTREMEIST views like yours that cast the world into black and white are considered extremeist.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And what do you base your assumption on?

As Allience put it nicelly, has there ever been a full flagged communism? I cannot recall so...


There really has never been one pure system put in action. They tend to look good on paper and deny people the very thing that they are, human and not perfect "thoughts."

Originally posted by Grimm22
Full fleged "communsim" is anarchism

When you give complete power to the government they arent going to give it back.

Power corrupts. No man or group of people should EVER have absolute power

The US president has more power than any other leader of a democratic nation in the world can ever dream of.

Originally posted by Soleran
There really has never been one pure system put in action. They tend to look good on paper and deny people the very thing that they are, human and not perfect "thoughts."

Exactly. EVERY form of government is like this.

Originally posted by Alliance
Exactly. EVERY form of government is like this.

Absolutely true for all government systems. They all look better on paper than in practice.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Full fleged "communsim" is anarchism

When you give complete power to the government they arent going to give it back.

Power corrupts. No man or group of people should EVER have absolute power

Dude, what are you talking about?

Anarchism and Communism are complete oppsite of each other. Anarchism is a complete dissorder, and communism is a complete order.

How can Communism be Anarchism?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How can Communism be Anarchism?


Serioulsy, this is a trick question and I know the answer. They both have an ism in them.

(What did I win?)

Yey, you win! Have Capitalism as a prise! Its the same as Communism and Anarchism!

Originally posted by Grimm22
If you support communism then yes I am

explain why communism, as an ideal, is evil.
keep in mind that 'communist' russia was nothing more than a dictatorship. (or ignore this which im sure you will, because if not you have nothing to say and you'll just have to shut your hole)

I saw a t.v. program just recently, on communism in Cuba. It focused on kids in elementary school. To my amazement , it showed teachers telling these kids straight up lies about America. They were teaching the kids on how Cuba had defeated the mighty USA, in war. Also these innocent looking kids after class , were taught on how to fire a rifle, and throw a grenade. Also all the kids were marching, military style in perfect formation. IMO, that is a bit extreme.

In Venezuela, there's a '' supposed '' election going on. Those who don't vote for Chavez will have their bank accounts closed, and lose there house. Businesses of those how don't vote for Chavez will be closed, and seized by the state. Extreme?




Thank God we live in America!!!!!!!usaflag

I really do hate the concept of communism ; Communism has separated many families, including my own. So lil bitchiness, Alliance I don't know if you guys are wanna be commies or just hiding behind the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech, but both of you should try living under a communist system for a couple of years... I guarantee you'll be whistling Dixie when you get back to America...

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
In Venezuela, there's a '' supposed '' election going on. Those who don't vote for Chavez will have their bank accounts closed, and lose there house. Businesses of those how don't vote for Chavez will be closed, and seized by the state. Extreme?




Thank God we live in America!!!!!!!usaflag True to the very last part but still dosent mean the US is better

Anyways, yea Chavez is an idiot. He has many on his side to help him with that type of stuff and now all of South america is against him since Chavez tryed to get them all to side with but fails and now making more enemies as he is threatning other countries, including the US.

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
I really do hate the concept of communism ; Communism has separated many families, including my own. So lil bitchiness, Alliance I don't know if you guys are wanna be commies or just hiding behind the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech, but both of you should try living under a communist system for a couple of years... I guarantee you'll be whistling Dixie when you get back to America...

Communists states aren't the way that Communism is supposed to be... Communism itself is a brilliant idea, its just hasn't been executed right (yet)

Originally posted by Fishy
Communists states aren't the way that Communism is supposed to be... Communism itself is a brilliant idea, its just hasn't been executed right (yet) I just fell sorry for all those people that are victims of inproper execution.

Originally posted by Fishy
Communists states aren't the way that Communism is supposed to be... Communism itself is a brilliant idea, its just hasn't been executed right (yet)

True Communism has one huge flaw, greed, it's part of our nature. The 'wolves' will always want and expect more than others. I do not think it will ever work the way it is supposed too because of that.

Originally posted by Alliance
Does stalin represent communist ideology?

Doesn't he?

He's the epitome of commies.

Originally posted by Robtard
True Communism has one huge flaw, greed, it's part of our nature. The 'wolves' will always want and expect more than others. I do not think it will ever work the way it is supposed too because of that.


Precisely

On Paper, Communism is the PERFECT Government structure, but it can't work

Originally posted by Robtard
True Communism has one huge flaw, greed, it's part of our nature. The 'wolves' will always want and expect more than others. I do not think it will ever work the way it is supposed too because of that.

Never said it would work, but the idea is perfect...



No he isn't, far from it.. He just used the idea's to become a dictator.



Sucks for them, but the fault of that is in the execution of the idea not the idea itself.

Originally posted by Fishy
No he isn't, far from it.. He just used the idea's to become a dictator.

And he wasn't the only one.

Communism seems to be a how-to-guide on becoming a dictator and killing millions.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And he wasn't the only one.

Communism seems to be a how-to-guide on becoming a dictator and killing millions.

Having absolute control requires all people to give up their freedom, even if the mayority of the people want too there are always those that don't. It's a part of humanity, a lot of people will never give up their priveledged possitions to help others, so those will always have to be dealt with, downside of Communism.. It would require all people to want it to work before it could really work...

Originally posted by Fishy
Never said it would work, but the idea is perfect...

It isn't perfect then is it?

Originally posted by Fishy
Having absolute control requires all people to give up their freedom, even if the mayority of the people want too there are always those that don't. It's a part of humanity, a lot of people will never give up their priveledged possitions to help others, so those will always have to be dealt with, downside of Communism.. It would require all people to want it to work before it could really work...

Another flaw, you need a leader or a governing body right? That leader(s) will have by nature more than others, be more privileged than the rest.

Originally posted by Robtard
It isn't perfect then is it?

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill

I think that quote pretty much says enough...

Democracy is the best that has been tried because it at least gives some rights to the people, but its far from perfect.

Communism required the people to do what the state wanted and people didn't want to do that, so no the execution of the idea could never be perfect, but it's pretty much the only form of government I know that could actually produce a Utopia

Originally posted by Fishy
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill

I think that quote pretty much says enough...

Democracy is the best that has been tried because it at least gives some rights to the people, but its far from perfect.

Communism required the people to do what the state wanted and people didn't want to do that, so no the execution of the idea could never be perfect, but it's pretty much the only form of government I know that could actually produce a Utopia

Funny you bring up Democracy, true Democracy doesn't really exist, just as true Communism has never existed. A true Democracy would be in all effect 'mob rule', what we (America) have is closer to a Representative Republic, we vote in leaders that we hope will carry our thoughts, ideals and wishes into effect.

But on the point of Communism being a perfect idea. It can never work logically thinking, so even the idea isn't perfect. Maybe in Gene Roddenberry's idea of the future, but we are far from that.

Democracy wasn't invented to make the mob rule, it was invented to make the mob choose who would rule, that alway's been the idea of a democracy... Actually letting people decide was never part of the grand design....

True democracy's have existed plenty of times...

Originally posted by Fishy
Democracy wasn't invented to make the mob rule, it was invented to make the mob choose who would rule, that alway's been the idea of a democracy... Actually letting people decide was never part of the grand design....

True democracy's have existed plenty of times...

Would you mind pointing them out? I love to learn.

Democracy:a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

I can't think of any governmet where "the people" had/have "supreme power".

communism and socialism are ideals which are impractical. it assumes that man is a rational being and that nobody will exploit such a vulnerable system. its intensely naive, i think people are foolish for believing in it, but its not an evil ideal. in fact perhaps its the most virtuous. like i said though, it is presently impossible for such a system to take place. maybe 1000 years from now we'll be communists and the world will be perfect.

however the real idiots of this thread are the ones who equate dictators who called themselves 'communists' to the ideal of communism.

Originally posted by Robtard
Among the numerous reasons for why America (Bush Co.) went into Iraq, Iran was one of them. Either Bush and Co. thought that rolling over Saddam would scare Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs into submission and/or they figured when the USA/Iran fight starts, America would have a perfect staging ground, Iraq itself. Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Iran was a definite bonus for a possible war against Iran, but we went in there for other reasons, Saddam was a tyrannical madman, he did, and was trying to get WMD's. Plus we needed more Allies in the region, no Hostile Governments, Iraq is slowly but surely becoming Secure, and is going to become a Major Player in coming events
Good points. Iraq is also smack in the middle of all the rogue states in the area. Iraq also separates Syria and Iran. It's a very strategic location. I will admit that I wasn't for the war in Iraq at first.

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast.htm

Grimm seems a little ignorant, well put responses Alliance

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Should we have fought Iran instead of Iraq? It just seems that Iran is doing what ever it wants in the persute of nuclear weapons...

Technically neither should have been attacked for the official reasons given prior to the Iraqi was. Unless the US has become some sort of saving angel seeking out all human suffering then neither Iran or Iraq should have been attacked as they weren't attacking the US. War without actual provecation, or for claimed strategic purposes is a dangerous trend.

And it is hypocritical in the saving angel scenario - considering the amount of suffering in the world ignored, places of greater suffering, the suffering caused by the War in Iraq, and the suffering that exists in the US itself.

Originally posted by PVS
communism and socialism are ideals which are impractical. it assumes that man is a rational being and that nobody will exploit such a vulnerable system. its intensely naive, i think people are foolish for believing in it, but its not an evil ideal. in fact perhaps its the most virtuous. like i said though, it is presently impossible for such a system to take place. maybe 1000 years from now we'll be communists and the world will be perfect.

however the real idiots of this thread are the ones who equate dictators who called themselves 'communists' to the ideal of communism.

"True Communism has one huge flaw, greed, it's part of our nature. The 'wolves' will always want and expect more than others. I do not think it will ever work the way it is supposed too because of that."

&

"But on the point of Communism being a perfect idea. It can never work logically thinking, so even the idea isn't perfect. Maybe in Gene Roddenberry's idea of the future, but we are far from that."


See PVS, even two hard-heads like us can agree on certain issues.

Agreement is possible betwen almost all people on at least SOMETHING.

Originally posted by crazy
Grimm seems a little ignorant, well put responses Alliance

Thank You

Anyone ever stop to think about what lies exactly between Iraq and Afghanastan?

Originally posted by ESP07
Anyone ever stop to think about what lies exactly between Iraq and Afghanastan?

....sand?

Oil.

Very clever

Hah. You think I'm joking?

I think America should attack Iran. The Iranians are a much bigger threat than the Iraqis ever were.

Originally posted by ESP07
Anyone ever stop to think about what lies exactly between Iraq and Afghanastan?


We will, USA should invade Iran next of course.

Originally posted by Soleran
We will, USA should invade Iran next of course. Actually it looks like North Korea will be first.

I don't think we'll invade North Korea. Not unless they're some sort of political unrest or we have the backing of China or another powerful asian state. They're too much of a threat. Invading Iran, however, I can see.

Originally posted by Moderator
Actually it looks like North Korea will be first.


Good

Originally posted by Moderator
Actually it looks like North Korea will be first.

Actually there is no sign of such a thing.

Bush WILL press the Nuke button , it's only a matter of time .
Then while I'm laying back thinking of england England will pop in an 'inadvertently' deal with both American AND the ME.

Causing Jolly old england to rear it's head again as a World Super Power.
































.......In my dreams

And your dreams would be the only place that would happen.

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Whos side is Russia in anyways? Heard they have been helping Iran, with there nukes...

This is why we didn't attack Iran.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
I think America should attack Iran. The Iranians are a much bigger threat than the Iraqis ever were.

That depends on their oil stock

Bump

Anyone ever stop to think about what lies exactly between Iraq and Afghanastan?
"and"?

That aside, we may not have to attack Iran...someone else may do that.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Anarchism and Communism are complete oppsite of each other. Anarchism is a complete dissorder, and communism is a complete order.

How can Communism be Anarchism?

The final goal of a communist government is to not need a government at all

A country without a government is Anarchism

I hope we don't have to fight Iran

I know most of the citizens don't share the beliefs of their evil leader

Hopefully we can just assassinate him before he attacks Israel and starts the next World War

edited

Recently, it seems that Bush's drum of war has begun to increase its tempo again. Iran is now "definitely", "100%", "undeniably" sending EFPs (Explosively Formed Projectiles) into Iraq - it must be true, all the big guns are saying it...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Oh, we're talking about Bush pushing the world into a situation that could escalate towards nuclear war? Oh...

Ha.

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Should we have fought Iran instead of Iraq? It just seems that Iran is doing what ever it wants in the persute of nuclear weapons...

Just like USA.

Why can USA have nukes and Iran can't?

Just wait...Some fool will come in here and say: "Because the USA are peace-keepers! They have them as a deterrent!".

Teehehe.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Recently, it seems that Bush's drum of war has begun to increase its tempo again. Iran is now "definitely", "100%", "undeniably" sending EFPs (Explosively Formed Projectiles) into Iraq - it must be true, all the big guns are saying it...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Oh, we're talking about Bush pushing the world into a situation that could escalate towards nuclear war? Oh...

Ha.

News just in!

Ooo, Bush says "there are no contradictions" in this case. Apparently.

Despite the fact that he says the Quds force are part of the Iranian government, but he "doesn't know if they have been ordered by Ahmadinejad yet...Even though the Iranian government would know what they are doing.

Hehehe, it's so funny.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Like I said before, Bush mistoke Iraq for Iran Well he hit Afghanistan first...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Just like USA.

Why can USA have nukes and Iran can't?

Frankly, though, the answer to that question is bleedin' obvious.

Iran is many, many times more likely to use them

No matter how unfair nuclear non-proliferation is, it is absolutely and manifestly the preferable option to the alternative.

Iran may be likely to use them in the future but USA has already used them, so the likleyhood of them using it again, may be greater than that of Iran. Usa has more nukes than anyone else in the world - if we stand in America's way, we should all be equaly scared then if we stand in the way of Iran.

Iran's likelyhood of using nukes, cannot be different to those of China, or Israel, but USA is not on their asses about it.

Besides, USA are self appointed police of the world, noone asked America to keep peace anywhere. Especially in countries which show no threat to America and cannot hope to show any threat for another 100 years, at least.

Iraq did not presented a threat to America, as Afghanistan could never hope to do so, espeically after being bombed back to the stone age.
So, if America is truly concered about Nukes, it should get on China, N. Korea, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel.

Not Afghanistan, Iraq and other small countries not capable of defending themselves against American agression.

P.S What does everyone think on belief that Israel has nukes? Threat? Good thing?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Besides, USA are self appointed police of the world, noone asked America to keep peace anywhere. Especially in countries which show no threat to America and cannot hope to show any threat for another 100 years, at least.

So you are saying that no one asks for help from the USA or asks for us to step in? That's very interesting.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Iran may be likely to use them in the future but USA has already used them, so the likleyhood of them using it again, may be greater than that of Iran. Usa has more nukes than anyone else in the world - if we stand in America's way, we should all be equaly scared then if we stand in the way of Iran.

Iran's likelyhood of using nukes, cannot be different to those of China, or Israel, but USA is not on their asses about it.

Besides, USA are self appointed police of the world, noone asked America to keep peace anywhere. Especially in countries which show no threat to America and cannot hope to show any threat for another 100 years, at least.

Iraq did not presented a threat to America, as Afghanistan could never hope to do so, espeically after being bombed back to the stone age.
So, if America is truly concered about Nukes, it should get on China, N. Korea, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel.

Not Afghanistan, Iraq and other small countries not capable of defending themselves against American agression.


Wowsa...

First of all, to say that the US is more likely to use nuclear weapons than a nuclear armed Iran is... well, by any reasonable standard, completely wrong. Looking at Iran's culture and previous record, I cannot see any rational person thinking otherwise. Besides, ANY extra possibility of nuclear use should be vigorously opposed by the global community.

Secondly, better self-appointed police that can do something than other sorts of police who cannot.

Thirdly, the threat posed by those countries is debateable, but in any case is irrelevant to the nuclear issue.

Fourthly- with most of those other countries, too late. You cannot turn back the clock. Like I said, non-proliferation is unfair, but the best option going. And I will remind you that the nuclear question with Iran is being opposed by ALL Western countries, and quite a few others, not just the US.

To quote The West Wing- a bastion of American liberal politics- "Iran does not get the bomb." Simple as that. Military invasion of Iran is in every conceivable way preferable to a nuclear armed Iran, and the civilised world will pay if Iran gets the bomb.

I agree that the US is NOT likely to use nukes again, there is so much debate about how we failed the last time we used them. Nukes should be defensive weapons only and never used.

Why is the USA the international police force? Simply because it can. Is it always right? No. In fact, we have a spectacular record on sticking our grubby fingers in and bringing great leaders to power...like the Shaw, Saddam, the Taliban, Suharto...do I even need to get started on Latin America? And where would North Korea be without the nuclear reactor we sold them?

Before lil goes screaming off about the US, other countries are complicit in the US "policing" of the world. The US won't be able to achieve much if other nations aren't behind it...a trend I feel we may see more of as a result of current circumstances. Orgs like the UN would loose a significant portion of their power, if not most of it, if the US withdrew.

Is US policing a questionable policy? Yes, but it has its benefit.

I remember in 1998, when India and Pakistan announced they had the bomb, and everyone flipped out because (basically) a non-UN security nation had a bomb. Can we really trust non-liberal democracies, even non-democracies to not use the bomb?

I don't think the civilized would would pay if Iran got the bomb and I think the current US policy is in favor of Ahmadinejad who, otherwise, would be experiencing a strong pressure from the Iranian moderates.

Besides, if the US clearly cared about Iran going nuclear, they us should have accepted Mohammad Khatami's (a moderate) offer to negotiate. Personally, I think that makes it right that Bush is stuck with Ahmadinejad. Iran is not a threat, its Bush's War of the Day. Nuclear power works the same way as a world's tallest building in Malaysia or the UAE, a way of showing achievement.

Originally posted by Alliance
I agree that the US is NOT likely to use nukes again, there is so much debate about how we failed the last time we used them. Nukes should be defensive weapons only and never used.

How can a nuke possibly be defencive? Threatening?

Originally posted by Alliance
Orgs like the UN would loose a significant portion of their power, if not most of it, if the US withdrew.
USA does not listen to UN anyway. Remeber the ''war on kosovo''? USA went against UN decision.

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't think the civilized would would pay if Iran got the bomb

Can you please elaborate here. ''Civilized''?

Ushgarak, I don`t think that possibility of Iran using the nuclear bomb is high, the Ayatollahs in power are not suidical, they want the bomb to improve their position. But I can`t deny that it exists.

On the other hand, you have to admit that invading Iran will be a much bigger disaster than Iraq. And so far Iraq was better under Hussein that with this terrible civil war and sectarian violence developing, which means that no one can be safe. Iran`s population is currently in favor of reforms, USA attack would only bring much more hatred into the region. It would greatly increase the power of fundamentalists.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How can a nuke possibly be defencive? Threatening?

See: Cold War, mutually assured destruction.

A nuke basically says, "Don't attack us, because we will kill your population." A nuke protects you from other states. It doesn't protect you from your own state, rebellions, or terrorists (nationalist and super-national alike)


Originally posted by lil bitchiness
USA does not listen to UN anyway. Remeber the ''war on kosovo''? USA went against UN decision.

I totally agree. My point was that without the US's power (whether deserved or not, it has it) other nations would not liste to the UN.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Can you please elaborate here. ''Civilized''? I was simply using Ush's terminology. I should have quoted it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Frankly, though, the answer to that question is bleedin' obvious.

Iran is many, many times more likely to use them

No matter how unfair nuclear non-proliferation is, it is absolutely and manifestly the preferable option to the alternative.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Just wait...Some fool will come in here and say: "Because the USA are peace-keepers! They have them as a deterrent!".

Teehehe.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a...BINGO!

Really, how naive can you be?

(In your case, the answer would be 'very').

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a...BINGO!

Because you are correct about what someone would say on this forum does not mean that you are correct on the subject of this thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because you are correct about what someone would say on this forum does not mean that you are correct on the subject of this thread.

Obviously, my prediction relates to my opinion; the situation with nuclear proliferation is a perfect example of double-standards.

Did I really need to explain that?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Obviously, my prediction relates to my opinion; the situation with nuclear proliferation is a perfect example of double-standards.

Did I really need to explain that?

The one does not prove the other.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The one does not prove the other. It does to him. shrug

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The one does not prove the other.

Opinions are generally based on facts, but aren't dependent on proof.

Who am I talking to? A high-school kid?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Opinions are generally based on facts, but aren't dependent on proof.

Who am I talking to? A high-school kid?

So, you don't understand what I'm talking about so you insult me.

No. My 'BINGO' post was related to a specific post from another member, so it would appear that it is you who is suffering from a misconception.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
No. My 'BINGO' post was related to a specific post from another member, so it would appear that it is you who is suffering from a misconception.

But you would still resort to insulting someone who did not insult you.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Just wait...Some fool will come in here and say: "Because the USA are peace-keepers! They have them as a deterrent!".

Teehehe.

People with different opinions are fools?

Who is the the high school kid again?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
People with different opinions are fools?

Who is the the high school kid again?

Cute post, but there's a point when an opinion becomes a fallacy due to it being smothered in ignorance and naivety.

Originally posted by Faceman
Whos side is Russia in anyways? Heard they have been helping Iran, with there nukes...

Russia is not really on anyone's side per se. Putin is most interested in resurrecting his country's economy. They have no more debt, period. So he is looking to stimulate the Russian economy however he can, even if it means selling supplies to Iranians.

Originally posted by Soleran
Serioulsy, this is a trick question and I know the answer. They both have an ism in them.

(What did I win?)

Originally posted by BobbyD
Russia is not really on anyone's side per se. Putin is most interested in resurrecting his country's economy. They have no more debt, period. So he is looking to stimulate the Russian economy however he can, even if it means selling supplies to Iranians.
good point. i have a buddy who lives in russia. fortunately for him, he is rich as hell, so he lives a nice life. but he says poverty is rampant there.

America used nuclear weapons 70 years ago against a state it was at war with. That state used our POWs for slave labor, to peform death marches, killed indiscriminately, tortured our men, raped civilian women, maimed enemies and just generally killed a lot of people. Now, does that justify dropping an A bomb on one of their cities? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue. We already have them. The question is, just because we have them, does that mean we equip everyone with the means to end the world?

That's what you should be asking.

Originally posted by Kinneary
America used nuclear weapons 70 years ago against a state it was at war with. That state used our POWs for slave labor, to peform death marches, killed indiscriminately, tortured our men, raped civilian women, maimed enemies and just generally killed a lot of people.

Poor POWs. Do you know how many civilians lost there lives when the US used their bombs to specifically target cities that would result in the most casualties? Right...

Originally posted by Kinneary
Now, does that justify dropping an A bomb on one of their cities? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue. We already have them. The question is, just because we have them, does that mean we equip everyone with the means to end the world?

Well, let's see...The US has proven that it is willing to kill innocent civilians on a large-scale, so if they can, why can't the rest of the world?

That's the question you should be asking.

Here, I'll quote what I said again. Maybe you were so busy foaming at the mouth that you forgot to read it.

"Now, does that justify dropping an A bomb on one of their cities? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue."


So if Japan showed it was willing to torture our POWs, does that mean it's okay for everyone to torture POWs?

I'm not following your logic. You're taking someone that happened 70 years ago and comparing it to today. 70 years ago we also segregated blacks on the bus. Does that mean America has no right to intervene when we find human traffiking circles? Your argument makes no sense.

IMO, Bush should frickin push the nuke button and destroy Iraq.

You're fired. Stop talking.

^You had buttsecks. Your fired.

As I was saying, drop the A-Bomb...TWICE on Iraq.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Here, I'll quote what I said again. Maybe you were so busy foaming at the mouth that you forgot to read it.

"Now, does that justify dropping an A bomb on one of their cities? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue."

That's nice, but you see, your opinion is implicated by you referring to what happened to the POWs; you were trying to equate your argument despite the "maybe, maybe not" redundancy.

Originally posted by Kinneary
So if Japan showed it was willing to torture our POWs, does that mean it's okay for everyone to torture POWs?

I'm not following your logic. You're taking someone that happened 70 years ago and comparing it to today. 70 years ago we also segregated blacks on the bus. Does that mean America has no right to intervene when we find human traffiking circles? Your argument makes no sense.

Oh dear, have you forgotten who originally referred to WWII?

*GNASH, GNASH, GARGLE, GARGLE*

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Poor POWs. Do you know how many civilians lost there lives when the US used their bombs to specifically target cities that would result in the most casualties? Right...
Not as many civilians as China lost Also, most of the people who were around when the bomb was dropped are dead, or of extremely old age.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
That's nice, but you see, your opinion is implicated by you referring to what happened to the POWs; you were trying to equate your argument despite the "maybe, maybe not" redundancy.
No, however when someone supporting one side of an argument tries to move away from a topic being debated, it's pretty much taken as an admission that they can't defend that position. Which is why I said what I said. You should know message board politics.




Which has what to do with what?


?

The US never needed to nuke Japan. It was a pointless ploy when many politicians thought a diplomatic deal could have been reached. Japan was clearly going to lose The war.

And people who insult The ages of others and don't list their own age are complete asswipes.

Originally posted by Alliance
The US never needed to nuke Japan. It was a pointless ploy when many politicians thought a diplomatic deal could have been reached. Japan was clearly going to lose The war.

And people who insult The ages of others and don't list their own age are complete asswipes. *Shrug* If I could end a war without throwing waves of my troops to the Japanese while simultaneously showing off my new big bomb, I would've done it too.

Originally posted by Kinneary
No, however when someone supporting one side of an argument tries to move away from a topic being debated, it's pretty much taken as an admission that they can't defend that position. Which is why I said what I said. You should know message board politics.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? I responded to your post in the context of the debate by highlighting the redundancy of your comparison. Anyway, regardless of this, a debate is organic in nature.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Which has what to do with what?

Are you sitting comfortably? OK, I shall begin...Once upon a time, Kinneary referenced what happened in Japan during WWII. He used something which happened 70 years ago, and compared it today. He knew that black people were segregated on the buses 70 years ago, too. Then, he accused the handsome Ya Krunk'd Floo of making no sense when he (YKF) did the same. The End.

Originally posted by Kinneary
?

*SLURP, SLURP, GNOSH, GNOSH*

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? I responded to your post in the context of the debate by highlighting the redundancy of your comparison. Anyway, regardless of this, a debate is organic in nature.
You responded by keeping the argument about whether it was right or wrong to use nukes going.


My turn. Kinneary was getting tired of people saying the US had no right to say that others can't use nukes since they had used them before. So he offered a reason for the use of them, stated that it didn't matter since it wasn't the point of this thread, and Ya Krunk'd Floo decided to keep going with it despite Kinneary's statement that it didn't matter.


Well, when you put it that way, it makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Nuke had devestating effects on the people who were born generations on, including now. Are you talking about the world as a whole or the people who lived in the regions of the nuclear strikes?

If it's the latter, that number still hasn't outnumbered the amount of people that would've been lost in a ground invasion of Japan, and in China.


Originally posted by xmarksthespot
On topic, attacking Iran is logistically implausible.

Originally posted by Kinneary
You responded by keeping the argument about whether it was right or wrong to use nukes going.

Come on, dear boy! I showed the fallacy of your comparison! Did you really not know that?

Originally posted by Kinneary
My turn. Kinneary was getting tired of people saying the US had no right to say that others can't use nukes since they had used them before. So he offered a reason for the use of them, stated that it didn't matter since it wasn't the point of this thread, and Ya Krunk'd Floo decided to keep going with it despite Kinneary's statement that it didn't matter.

This is the same 'point' as your previous one. Your 'reason' was garbage, and I explained how.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Well, when you put it that way, it makes perfect sense.

See! I knew I was speaking your language!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Come on, dear boy! I showed the fallacy of your comparison! Did you really not know that?
... Do you just post because you like to see your post count go up? That's the only reason I can see that you keep saying things that don't make sense.


The reasoning that what happened 60 years ago has no bearing on what happens today? When have I ever contradicted that statement? Please, point it out.


Your sharp wit is amazing. How anyone can listen to you and not double over in laughter is incomprehensible.

Originally posted by Kinneary
... Do you just post because you like to see your post count go up? That's the only reason I can see that you keep saying things that don't make sense.

The silly people who say silly things like that are generally the silly people who think that a silly post count means something other than...you've posted a lot.

It doesn't.

Go you!

Originally posted by Kinneary
The reasoning that what happened 60 years ago has no bearing on what happens today? When have I ever contradicted that statement? Please, point it out.

That's funny. Your original post was completely based on using it as a comparison to the current situation! See, here you are:

Originally posted by Kinneary
America used nuclear weapons 70 years ago against a state it was at war with. That state used our POWs for slave labor, to peform death marches, killed indiscriminately, tortured our men, raped civilian women, maimed enemies and just generally killed a lot of people. Now, does that justify dropping an A bomb on one of their cities? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue. We already have them. The question is, just because we have them, does that mean we equip everyone with the means to end the world?

So, basically you came in here with a redundant point, and have continued to personify your original post.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Your sharp wit is amazing. How anyone can listen to you and not double over in laughter is incomprehensible.

Finally, I agree with you.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Which is of course a false pretext. How?

I have pretty much given up debating this issue (USA vs middle east) for a some time now if only for the general ignorance and blindness that is exhibited by many members such as in this post from early on in this discussion.

Considering Iran didn't announce Nuke Production until after the Iraq War, yes, I do think that, they wern't a big threat back then. The Military is building up quickly, it won'tbe long, 2-3 Years tops before our Troops being to leave Iraq, and they'll be able to put down the Terrorists, Civil War won't happen, our Military can prevent it until Iraqi's take over, and then everything will start to repair, they trust their own Soldiers more

If it weren't for Ya Krunk'd Floo's witty deconstruction of the arguments of others, I probably would have stopped reading this thread a while ago.

I'm kinda surprised we're putting so much attention on Iran. I thought Saudi Arabia would be next after Iraq.