Warmonger Thread

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The acronym MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is no accidental acronym, and this whole pathetic dog and pony show that insists that the U.S. only want to protect the world from imprudent nuclear war is absolute MADNESS!

There is no courage or bravery in stockpiling the largest cache of nuclear weapons in the world. Real courage and bravery will only be evident when the United States finally accepts their responsibility for opening this goddamned Pandora's box and putting an end to their own nuclear arsenal first, then, and only then, will any war rhetoric about Iran's nuclear ambitions have any weight and moral force.

edit on 16-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

Isn't that a classic example of the prisoner's dilemma though? We give up our nukes and expect everyone else to follow suit - but their only logical course of action would be to keep them and gain a significant advantage over us?

Seems to be the reason why no one wants to give them up. It would be nice, though I wonder how long it would be 'till the next WMD is developed (space based, lasers?).

reply to post by David_Reale


African nations don't have the infrastructure to support any nuclear.

And yeah - France - Someone needs to drill their leaders one in the face. Repeatedly. This isn't exactly their only mistake on this front.

Originally posted by Aeons

I think both should be called terrorists. But then I'm pretty internally consistent. If you like, I could start calling call of them "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" just to make them seem more cuddly.

Using your Consistency then , the USA was founded by Terrorist.
Therefore a Terrorist Nation.
What is your Consistent plan to remedy that.

reply to post by SyphonX


That's the difference between you and I

I can agree and acknowledge that but you can't acknowledge the fact that Iran has their own Skeletons and do deserve to be scrutinized.

reply to post by Aeons


You're missing my point, or I have a feeling you do. Maybe I failed to explain it properly.

Let me put it like this. There's the old adage that all is fair in love and war. There are no rules when it comes to conflict and war. War is dirty, that's a fact. And if my enemy moved from using swords to using guns, I'd acquire the same technology myself as well, naturally, because there are no rules in war, and there is no reason whatsoever for me not to. You cannot whine about an enemy of your country developing weapons technology that equals your own in destructive power. The mere idea is ridiculous, and uttering it out loud in clear language would make the United States the laughingstock of the rest of the world, or at least it should.

So... Put boots on the ground, or build a missile shield. But don't just whine about it, because there are no rules in times of war. That's the message I'm trying to convey. And the above can be applied to France's handing over of the tech, as well as Iran's developing of the tech.

Originally posted by David_Reale
reply to post by Aeons

 

You're missing my point, or I have a feeling you do.

Let me put it like this. There's the old adage that all is fair in love and war. There are no rules when it comes to conflict and war. War is dirty, that's a fact. And if my enemy moved from using swords to using guns, I'd acquire the same technology myself as well, naturally, because there are no rules in war, and there is no reason whatsoever for me not to. You cannot whine about an enemy of your country developing weapons technology that equals your own in destructive power. The mere idea is ridiculous, and uttering it out loud in clear language would make the United States the laughingstock of the rest of the world, or at least it should.

So... Put boots on the ground, or build a missile shield. But don't just whine about it, because there are no rules in times of war. That's the message I'm trying to convey. And the above can be applied to France's handing over of the tech, as well as Iran's developing of the tech.

edit on 17-1-2012 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)

So your argument is that the West should only engage if they tie one hand behind their back and blindfold themselves.

Let me be clear. I don't believe in a fair fight. Actually, I believe that if you are about to do something bad that will be very bad for me, and you aren't responding to my attempts to tone you down, that if I have the ability to do so I should immediately incapacitate you and for good measure kick you in the head a couple of times to make sure that you don't get up while I walk away.

Does that clarify anything for you?

reply to post by Aeons

Does that clarify anything for you?

Well, it certainly clarified for me that you've absolutely drank the Kool-Aid, and you seem to have about as solid a grasp on the situation as you do with the general muslim/jew relationship...

In my humble opinion, disagreeing with both inarguable history as well as modern intelligence experts, energy analysts, and national intelligence estimates puts you squarely in "Wrong-and-buying-into-propaganda" territory.

Originally posted by SLAYER69


I can agree and acknowledge that but you can't acknowledge the fact that Iran has their own Skeletons and do deserve to be scrutinized.

Scrutiny is fine, hell , Scrut away.
What I and others don't want is tomorrow's headline to read:

150 Cruise Missles launched at valued targets.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by SyphonX

 

That's the difference between you and I

I can agree and acknowledge that but you can't acknowledge the fact that Iran has their own Skeletons and do deserve to be scrutinized.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I never once said Iran shouldn't be "scrutinized" or that Iran doesn't have skeletons as it were. This is the "warmonger" thread after all, not the "scrutinizer" thread.

Most of, if not all the responses in this thread is now a debate over military action in Iran. As everyone else, and myself included have already gone into with rabid detail, the total outcome to Iran not 'complying' to the United States every whim is a solution met by force. Plain obvious.

We do inspect and scrutinize Iran, they meet all guidelines. They follow the treaty. The US wants more, and is overstepping her bounds, creating unnecessary tension in the region. (Again, more tension in the middle-east from the US. How possible, over.) I don't think it's in America's best interests to continue the pressure with Iran with the threat of military action.

The clear distinction between the West and Iran, in this situation, is that Iran is not going to be invading any countries anytime soon. Not launching any nukes for that matter, either. They don't have the resources to invade or 'attack', and any ballistics attack will be met with full obliteration.

Every country has skeletons (lots), some countries have more than others, and some countries have very obvious motives with very powerful assets.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Inalienable rights have to be protected. While I would love it if they existed without it, it just doesn't happen in reality.

So long as you continue to have demand, people (and illegal goods) will come across to fuel it. Unless you have some sort of super-energy-sheild that envelopes your nation all around and underground, demand will create supply.

Unalienable rights most certainly need to be jealously guarded and zealously defended. Why you would entrust such jealous guarding and zealous protection to a state is beyond me.

Your claim that some sort of "super-energy-shield" is needed in order to protect the United States border is just more empty rhetoric designed to defend the violation of individual rights who caused no harm and simply just hired some person, or persons.

reply to post by seabag


so what do you want? more sanctions? then iran will stop alot of oil flowing..... what after america crying because oil too daam high (haha) ? then after all that its war i assume and why is it war young billy "because they didnt listen to us"

iran cant have nukes because they dont like us, most of the world doesnt like america its not like they are throwing nukes at you are they? i just love double standards dont you?

i mean what country will america allow to have nukes? the ones that sell them stuff for cheap or the ones that go and start/back up wars for them? less chanting death to america then talk about peace while bombing the # out of countries they dont like maybe then iran might be able to have nukes? am not sure what america wants to be honest all i know is peace is not top 5 on their list

reply to post by Aeons


I'm not talking about a fair fight here. I'm telling you, if the US doesn't like the fact Iran is about to acquire nuclear weapons, they should invade the country, instead of whining about the fact their enemies should not have nukes. It seems the US hasn't fully grasped the concept of war, because they are trying to tell the world that their enemy in the game of politics do not have the right to attempt to even the odds in a coming fight. In essence, the US is telling the world her enemy doesn't have the right to prepare for war against the US.

If America don't want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, she should invade and put an end to it before it happens. She has her chance. Instead, all she's done so far is whine about it, put sanctions on the country, and all around trying her best to provoke Iran. If you don't want a fair fight, invade the country instead of whining to the rest of the world about the odds turning into said fair fight. It's war and there are no rules, including when it comes to nukes. If you don't want Iran to develop them, strike first and strike hard.

But don't pretend that the United States have a right to have nuclear weapons, and Iran somehow doesn't. Don't pretend that's what this is about, because what it is about is, simply put, politics, nothing else.

Well, this link is interesting news
I dont think this will stop them, as their minds are made up. If they do invade iran, then
then we can expect ww3 possibly. And all because of what? People who say its got nothing
to do with oil and putting in a puppet government are talking rubbish.

Control the middle east, you control the oil, its as simple as that. Say in 10/20 years time when
everyone is fighting for oil. Who is going to be better off. Countries like china, russia etc, or countries
who have put these middle east puppet governments together?

Why is it so hard for you people to see this? Are you that brainwashed by your governments?

Originally posted by seabag
Anyone who believes the world should reject Iran’s pursuit for nuclear weapons should explain why they feel that way here on this thread.

I’ll go first…..

Iran’s leaders want DEATH TO AMERICA.
People who celebrate DEATH TO AMERICA DAY should not possess a nuclear weapon. Period!

Any country whose leader (Ali Khamenei in this case) encourages people to say DEATH TO AMERICA so they “will never forget the presence of SATAN” (which he believes is US) should not have a nuclear weapon.

Any country whose leaders are proposing a new law that could see the death sentence imposed on internet bloggers who post offensive material on the web should not have a nuclear weapon.


Any country whose leader threatens to wipe an entire race of people off the planet should not have nuclear weapons.


A country whose leaders use cartoons to teach children to become suicide bombers should not have nuclear weapons.

Okay....I'll bite. I don't have much time so I'll make this short and sweet for ya.

You say anyone who thinks the WORLD should reject Irans wanting nuclear weapons should speak up, then you go on to post all those videos of Iran calling AMERICA names. What's it goona be bubba? Are they against the world or are they against us? Or, in your way of thinking, is America the world?

If that's you in your avatar and you've seen action overseas, I would think that you of all people should know better that America doesn't speak for the world. The last time I checked the majority of the world turns a deaf ear to what we (our leaders that is) say. And why? Because the rest of the world doesn't like us (our leaders) too much right now. And rightfully so IMO. As a matter of fact, neither does the average American citizen. Seen the news lately? 84% of Americans dissapprove of Congress. the same Congress that the POTUS has to go through to authorize military (police) actions overseas.

Iran may be crazy but they're not stupid enough to take on the whole world. Or even us for that matter. Don't you think they would've done it by now if they were that serious?

Quote "Any country whose leader threatens to wipe an entire race of people off the planet should not have nuclear weapons."

Like what we did to the Native Americans for example?

People like you don't learn from history and think your shiite doesn't stink.

You're right, you're not a warmonger. You're a glorified policeman who thinks you speak for America. YOU give America a bad name and it's people like you who cause the rest of the world to dislike us.

You have any idea how safe we would be from the rest of the world if we put every ounce of our arsenal around the perimeters of our country and left everyone else alone? Do you have any idea how much more prosperous we would be at the same time? Look at Japan. That's exactly what they do and they're the third most powerful economy in the world. Just 60 years after we nearly obliterated them.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
Well, this link is interesting news
I dont think this will stop them, as their minds are made up.

Nice try , derailing this thread with the truth.
The Warmongers have gotten along for 36 pages without the truth, no place now for it.

Star 4 u

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


Isolationism won't save you. I know you guys love this idea, but you'd kill your beloved country so fast it would be like you never existed.

reply to post by Aeons



It take more strength to stop a fight then to start one,

my personal vision of freedom and liberty and justice for all, is needing to know what is going on in the world at all times and being able to control that world via my big brother, but i really like minimal government.

In a world without armies, with agreeable peace, lets imagine this exists, tomorrow... ( also lets consider the united states economic crisis effecting real individuals and the nation as a whole) so the qudrillion billion dollars that have been spent in the past however many years, tax payers money, money that could be used by the individual to purchase food and shelter... that money has paid for military compounds, bases, bunkers, undisclosed programs, the meals of every military member, all the weapons, planes, all the vehicles, and the salary of military members, if there were no war all that money would be used for productive, not destructive endeavors... now the world is at harmony... imagine every single member of the military at once having to mingle back into civilian day to day not killing # life, what would then happen to the unemployment rate... so that is probably the only reason we as a modern civil society practice war, as a means of subtle yet not sacrifice, and to allow our country to have stable systems, while reaping and meddling with other countries systems and resources..

reply to post by ImaFungi


I like fantasies too, but I have to live here.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Jay-morris
Well, this link is interesting news
I dont think this will stop them, as their minds are made up.

Nice try , derailing this thread with the truth.
The Warmongers have gotten along for 36 pages without the truth, no place now for it.

Star 4 u

If all of that was science and not opinion and politics I'd find it more believable.

I'd have to say on first blush, it seems to intentionally be missing addressing the concept of dirty bombs which don't require the same refinement. He focuses only on the threat with missiles, which certainly isn't the whole story. He makes a claim about fake drawings, which I don't see backed up.

Iran's problem with their economy they are creating themselves.

This is an appeal to authority, without much substance to it.

reply to post by Aeons

Isolationism won't save you. I know you guys love this idea, but you'd kill your beloved country so fast it would be like you never existed.

And completely irrational fear and overreaction won't keep you from dying someday - it will only add to everyone else's suffering while we're here together. And if we fail to act according to the faith and fearlessness that made this nation great, then we've already killed it anyway in addition to having betrayed our own souls.

reply to post by Aeons

Pretty much the same places everybody else.
It´s about questioning that information.

So...

Where do YOU get yours from?