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 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.
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.
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 bitchinessI was simply using Ush's terminology. I should have quoted it.
Can you please elaborate here. ''Civilized''?
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 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?