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.
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.
*SLURP, SLURP, GNOSH, GNOSH*
Originally posted by lil bitchinessAre you talking about the world as a whole or the people who lived in the regions of the nuclear strikes?
Nuke had devestating effects on the people who were born generations on, including now.
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!
Question: Does anyone actually believe that Iran has the explicit intention of developing nuclear weapons to be used as anything other than political leverage and deterrent against attack and/or invasion? I.e. Does anyone believe that Iran intends to launch an opening nuclear salvo and if so upon what is this opinion based?
Originally posted by §uffer§noopyWhich is of course a false pretext.
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 Ya Krunk'd Floo
[B]Come on, dear boy! I showed the fallacy of your comparison! Did you really not know that?
This is the same 'point' as your previous one. Your 'reason' was garbage, and I explained how.
See! I knew I was speaking your language!
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 [b]everyone with the means to end the world?[/B]
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.
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.
Originally posted by §uffer§noopyI can't be bothered rehashing the subject.
How?
Originally posted by AngryManatee
I'm kinda surprised we're putting so much attention on Iran. I thought Saudi Arabia would be next after Iraq.
Why would the US go after its main ally in the Middle East? USA and Saudi Arabia are buddy-buddy, the Saudis provide the US with Oil and the US provide the Saudis with military so they can maintain power in their country. The US would never go to war with Saudi Arabia, if you believe that you must be ignorant.
Originally posted by Rade
Why would the US go after its main ally in the Middle East? USA and Saudi Arabia are buddy-buddy, the Saudis provide the US with Oil and the US provide the Saudis with military so they can maintain power in their country. The US would never go to war with Saudi Arabia, if you believe that you must be ignorant.
I'm gonna describe two countries, Country A and Country B. You tell me which one's America's ally and which is not.
Country A helped the US defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and replace it with a pro-US elected alliance of moderate muslims. Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections. Country A's women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated in the work force. On 9/11, residents of Country A were among the few in the muslim world to hold pro-US demonstrations. Country A has a strategic interest in the success of a pro-US, Shiite-led Iraqi government. Country A has respected the christian and jewish communities living within its borders. Country A's brand of Islam respects women and rejects Al Qaeda's nihilism.
Country B gave us 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Country B does not allow its women to drive, vote, or run for office. It is illegal in Country B to build a church, synagogue, or Hindu temple. Country B's private charities help sustain Al Qaeda. Men from Country B's mosques are regularly recruited for suicide bombings. While country B's leaders are pro-US, polls show that many of its people are hostile to America, and many of them celebrated on 9/11.Country B's brand of Islam is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths.
Saudi Arabia and Iran: Which country is country A, and which is Country B?
I can't get over the fact certain people actually believe that we have a chance in Iraq. That we will "win the war on terror" by defeating the insurgents in Iraq.
At best. All we could do is liberate Iraq, even if we pushed all the insurgents out. Then what? What would we do then? Would we set up an American post there permanently? Yeah right? It would be blown up before we knew what hit us.
Rule number one. America can not take over Iraq. It can not even create a stable Iraq.
Never in history, has one country been "saved" by another country, without the people of that country taking care of the core issues for themselves.
In other words, no country ever became free, unless it was the people of THAT country itself that decided it wanted it that way.
Britain got it's ass wooped by Scottland and Ireland. lol. Back in the day. Why? Because Scottland and Ireland said, "we're taking matters into our own hands."
They didn't need another country to come in and "save the day". Nobody did anyways.
We will never win the "war on terror", because it can't be won militarily or politicly. There is no way to win a "war on terror", when you have no real enemy to defeat. That war could go on for ages (it won't it will only last for another 3-4 years or so due to Mother Nature interfering), but if she didn't, I guarantee you that this war would never end. EVER. If the Controllers had it their way, we would be suckered into fighting the war on "terror" for thousands upon thousands of years.
And they would have hoped to eliminate most of the World's population as well.
These people are sick, twisted, and they have an agenda that will never work for them. They truly believe that they are on the verge of achieving total dominance. They are wrong. lol. They are on the verge of watching all that dissapear, they just don't know it yet.
It's funny to watch all of this stuff from the outside looking in. You can see it all clearly that way.
Whatever you do folks, don't let yourself get dragged into the illusion of it all. Once you get pulled into it, you can't see clearly in one direction or the other. No, you need to remain outside of it all, observing, and then you can see what's really going on here.
It has everything to do with The Coming Pole Shift.
Global Warming isn't whats truly coming. The Pole Shift is right around the corner.
Again, when I said "These people" are "sick and twisted", I wasn't speaking only about the "terrorists", which by the way, is a label that you can put on just about anyone you desire. No I was also speaking about the people in our own country and abroad who are attempting to weaken, and then totally dominate, the citizens of the United States of America.
And that very label...."terrorist"... is why we will never win the war on "terrorism", because as long as we decide who gets the label, than the label will never die. And neither will all of the people who we've given it to.
You can't win peace by waging war. You can't have true World peace by killing and murdering.
Have we learned nothing from Mahatma Gandhi ? It may have taken the man 20 years to liberate his people from Britain, but my God, he achieved his goal anyways.
I believe that Defense is the best Offense. Do you really think that it is because of our "security" that we haven't had an attack on our soil since 9-11? Is that really what you believe it is? lol. Because of Bush doing a good job of protecting our country? lol. Yeah right.
Has he done a single thing to secure our border with Mexico?
If you were a bad guy from another land - would you use Mexico as your entry point into our country?
Sadly enough, he will have failed to protect the US in the event of such a tragedy. In haring off after Saddam Hussein under dubious, if not outright false, pretenses, he and his administration took their eye off the ball.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda have been free to make a resurgence into Afghanistan, after assets that could have been used to secure that country were pulled into Iraq. Before going into Iraq, the world stood beside America and the Bush administration in pursuit of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Now the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq has become the "coalition of the leaving". The credibility of the office of the POTUS is in tatters, given the causus belli for invading Iraq was proven false and the evidence is mounting that President Bush and his administration cherry-picked, spun and fabricated from whole cloth, the rationale for war. America's ports, nuclear and chemical facilities lie as unprotected now as they were the day before 9/11. FEMA has been effectively gutted, and our response to disasters, whether man-made or natural has been severely blunted. American military readiness stands at its lowest point in decades.
Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress "You're either with us, or for the terrorists."...A tactic straight from Hermann Goering's play book. It is bullshit and you know it.
So, when terror strikes America again, no one will smile or gloat. We will shake our heads sadly, say "We told you so.", roll up our sleeves and clean up the mess, making sure it never happens again. And it will be done the right way.
The only ones blind to any threat here are those who continue to support Chimpy and Co in their messianic, manichean vision. They are blind to the very real threat this Administration poses, not only to the very foundation of the Republic, but the world as a whole. They threaten the very fabric of the Constitution, which they SWORE to uphold and defend. They threaten to further destabilize the middle east and, in doing so, the peace of the world as a whole.
I guarantee you that we will have World peace on this planet very soon. With the coming Shift of the Poles, which will cause the end of WAR for a millenium, due to the fact that for the first time in a very long time every single country on the World will have to pull itself together in order to help it's people who will be in great need of love, courage, empathy, food, water, clothes, and hope. All of the basic essentials for Human Beings to survive.
Not brutality, guns, smoke, ashes, flags, pride, graves, sickness, and death that come along with War.
The World will have taken a 360 degree turn in terms of the way our consciousness will have changed.
We will no longer look for WAR as the answer to peace. That entire concept will soon be coming to an end.
USA vs IRAN 😄
Originally posted by NuclearWinter
It has everything to do with The Coming Pole Shift.Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress "You're either with us, or for the terrorists."...A tactic straight from Hermann Goering's play book. It is bullshit and you know it.
Sounds like good ol' McCarthyism.
Question: What's this about a pole shift?
If you are seriously interested....
Why not check out the Conspiracy forum in a short while (couple days-weeks or so) because I plan on going in depth as far as what I know on the subject and trying my best to provide the evidence for what I believe is coming.
In the World War 3 - New World Order - Pole Shift - Age of Peace (2006-2012) thread.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
[B]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!
That's funny. Your original post was completely based on using it as a comparison to the current situation! See, here you are:
Back to the entire point of my original post:
The question is, just because we have them, does that mean we equip everyone with the means to end the world?