Irans Nukes.Follow

See, I knew-- knew --even before I pressed "Submit" that you'd come back with that argument. Regardless of the fact that the United States/your father has not been "**** drunk" so-to-speak and killing innocents with our Minuteman SUVs, your argument still does not excuse giving the keys to that SUV to you, the 9 year old. Just because Dad were to go out and kill people does not mean that the son now has license to go do the same thing.

This highlights precisely my earlier point: you do not have the wherewithall or mental accumen to discuss this issue with me, your intellectual superior. By immediately going to the "Oh yeah? Your dad is a drunk driver careening all over the road in his SUV" card, you negate any argument you could have come back with, ie. no one should have nuclear weapons, strict international oversight is necessary for all atomic users, or even that some nations should be given the opportunity to prove their trustworthiness. But no, you went right for the nice and moist piece of cheese I placed so enticingly in the middle of a debater's rat trap.

Congratulations, feelz, you're just the latest rodent pelt that I'll throw onto my garbage pile. Hone those reasoning and debating skills and have a go at me again in a few months.

Totem

I believe we have done just that, Mr. Tequila. Our "niking" of the Middle East is partly to blame for the antipathy so many feel towards us.

Totem

I always knew you had Communist sympathies, you drunken Lord, you.

Totem

/shrugs
Why should I be concerned with Israel having nuclear weapons? Given the opportunity, Israel would gladly become a non-threatening neighbor and good friend to the hostile Muslim countries that surround her. It's the crazies of the world vowing to wipe them from the map that give Israel legitimate reason to retain WMDs. It's not like they are ever going to engage in a war of aggression and empire-- they are strictly reactive in terms of warfare. It's only when an emminent threat appears that they are proactive (with conventional weapons).

As for Pakistan, it'd have been much better if they and their neighbor, India, if they didn't have nukes, but they do and that's that. Hopefully, the political situation will sort itself out over there and the Taliban sympathizers won't attain power. This is truely a potentially dangerous area of concern. Fortunately, it appears that nobody will willingly hand the reins of power to an extremist in Pakistan, despite their coddling of them, but again, we'll just have to see how things play out.

Placing these two countries together in the same context demonstrates feelz' lack of depth when discussing global issues-- at least when it comes to nuclear arms. His entire sorry argument is summed up by describing the US as the drunken father mowing down pedestrians while piloting an SUV. It's patently silly-- and shame on me for even giving as much time on this board responding to such nonsense. It's the utter futilty of making explanations of quite simple international relations to chuckleheads like him that keep me away from this site as of late. The sheer stupidity of the posters like him and their shockingly blatent idiocy gets to be overwhelming after a while. I feel like I need to talk slower and louder for these people. Who invited these numbskulls from the sandbox over here anyways?

Totem

I only used the drunk dad's argument to follow up on your own analogy. Of course a 9 years old shouldn't be given the keys to the suv but my point is that the dad in my analogy is not the best person to take any kind of moral high ground on the subject cause he's a dangerous idiot himself.

Iran shouldn't have any nukes but not because they are Iranians, because nobody should have nukes. I find it hypocrite that the one nation who clearly showed that they can't be trusted with nukes is the one trying to stop everybody else from acquiring them.

Iran doesn't want nukes cause they are a bunch of evil bastards who wants to blow up the world. They want nukes cause they feel threatened and see nuclear capabilities as the only way to avoid the faith of country like Iraq and maybe get the same kind of conciliatory agreement North Korea got.

Make no mistake, we'll eventually see another nuclear bomb go off at some point in the foreseeable future but it will surely come from your country again because of arrogant ******* like you who thinks they have a god given right to do whatever they want to advance they own interest no matter how detrimental it is to the rest of the world.

Agreed

Simpleton

Not that Uncle Sam wouldn't ever play world cop (FUck Yeah!), but I have greater concerns about rogue states (Mugabe or Chavez would push the button given the chance) or one of the many networks of anti-American nutjobs.

Never mind Ahmedinnajacket restarting his weapons programme, there are plenty of ingredients floating round from the former soviet satellites and unaccounted for.

Palpitus, you're a dolt.

1. My 2 examples of rogue states were not exclusive. I'd include Palestine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Chechnya, California, Uzbekistan and a bunch of others were it not for my desire to speak to people with branes. Do try to keep up.

2. Musharaff was elected after his 1st term. "Free & Fair"? Not specially, but less blatantly corrupt than 2004 in USA.

Yes, USA has demonstrated its track-record of selectively ignoring international law (Or at best 'Interpreting' it to allow a free hand in subverting states who are different, or torturing brown people in Albanian dungeons)

Seems apposite to quote Alby Einstein "The 4th world war will be fought with Bows and Arrows"

Now where's my "Elven crafted Yew Bow of pwnage"?

If only there were a way to make good or collect on a bet that I'd lay every last red cent in my 401k, savings accounts, and company retirement plan on. My hard earned cash would be that the United States will never be the first country/rogue state/entity to light off a nuclear weapon in anger.

Never. Never, ever, ever, ever. Ever-never. Never-ever.

It just won't happen before some other country/rogue state/entity does it first. However, God help the country/rogue state/entity that does use a nuclear weapon against the US, because they will in one fashion or another cease to exist in their present state. This not to say we would launch our own nukes in response, but the form of retribution we would take would utterly devastate that enemy.

However, feelz, by your posts it is quite evident that you believe there is no circumstance or situation where the use of nuclear weapons is appropriate. Once again, I point to that as evidence of your naivete'. Must be nice to live such an insular and blissfully blind existence.

Totem

Sorry guys,

But 100% of the people in this thread are pathetic, yes including me for commenting. 10% of you actually have valid points that hold water, and the other 90% are just letting their stupid show. Even more pathetic is the 10% with valid points allow themselves to fall to the level of others just for conversations sake.

To the creator of the topic: I have no idea what your intention was, good or bad, but you cannot bring topics like this to the public. This is also the reason media should never be allowed in to military conflicts, because the public does not posses the intelligence to critically view ANYTHING without first washing it through their flawed, weak, feel good logic.

Does our current administration in the United States have problems? Oh hell yes, they have tons of problems. Would any imaginable combination of alternate presidential candidates and administrative officials be any less flawed in the view of the people in this situation? Doubtful in any logical process, but totally irrelevant. And on another note, playing slave to the public poles in times of war only goes to prove how weak a leader's ability is, and on this note Bush, regardless of his many many faults ,including his inability to make a coherent sentence...., is doing quite an admirable job.

Many of you talk for pages and pages and say absolutely NOTHING, and some of you talk and say things that are just outright insane whether or not you truly believe them. Please stop and read your comments before you post them. If you read something that you know is your own personal isolated opinion and cannot in any day and age ever be proven or even reasoned, please do not post it as if you claim it to be the truth from some almighty being.... It is just plain sad.

Take care.....

Just to add to what Feelz said.

One of the main arguments for keeping nukes is exactly what you're talking about, Totem. Nuclear deterrent. All the nuclear nations have the same discourse when it comes to nukes: "We will never use them first, but if anyone attacks us we will annihilate them."

But nukes as a deterrent are rendered completely useless when the attacker isn't a nation state. What is the US gonna do if AQ launches a successful terrorist attack with a dirty bomb? Who are they gonna nuke? And if the goal of AQ is to plunge the world into WWIII, wouldn't nuclear retaliation be playing exactly into their hands? This is what we need to remember. Nukes are becoming more and more useless as deterrents, because the ennemies we are facing are not "states" anymore, but ideologies. And you can't nuke ideologies.

That's why the freaking system needs to be changed. Nukes are not only becoming much more common and easily obtainable, they are also becoming much less of a deterrent for those that possess them. In other words, the cost/benefit ratio of nukes, for us Western nations, is constantly decreasing, and this trend shows no sign of abatting.

This is why it's even more urgent than before to reduce the availibility of material. And the only way to do that is through a concept you Pubbies hate, an international effort, through the UN.

200,000 to 500,000 SOLDIERS is a pretty rough estimate eh. We lost thousands in a day in Germany. It was no biggy eh.

Instead we killed hundreds of thousands of women, children and civilians. Destroyed entire cities and left a cancer laden population to continue on.

Lame excuse for an unexcusable act on our part.

Btw, I think we just lost a few nuclear war heads didn't we...so, I'd say yeah, we can be as irresponsible with our nukes as the next guy.

We're humans first, Americans second.

edited for accuracy...

Edited, Dec 10th 2007 5:32pm by Elinda

You dont use nukes nowadays because you might get some back.

Also lying about intelligence and a economy gone half to **** weakens world image more strongly then the unwillingness to pick fights.