Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Nuclear Weapons Options · View
SITTING
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:06:50 AM

Rank: Wilful Wallflower
Moderator

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 887
Location: In the library, Leeds, United Kingdom
OK, so Israel and the US are under the impression that Iran is having a secret nuclear weapons programme. They may be right, they may not be. I can understand Israel’s concerns due to the fact that they and Iran have never exactly been best buddies.

But my point is this;

Why is it OK for Western countries, such as the US and the UK, to have nuclear weapons, but it’s not OK for countries like Iran to have them?

Personally, I’m against nuclear weapons altogether. I can’t understand why someone would want to develop something that can have such terrible effects on humanity but I find it all a little hypocritical.

In an ideal world, NO ONE would have WOMD and we’d all be happy and peaceful etc. But I just feel that the West is trying to keep control over the other countries by sort of saying, ‘We have the atomic bombs so you’d better do what we say.’ And they don’t want anyone else to have that twisted type of power.

Even if Iran does have a secret nuclear programme, I highly doubt they’re just going to start dropping bombs on all their enemies; they seem responsible enough. It was the West who did the dirty on Japan back in WW2.

So the Iranians are banned from Nuclear Weapons, the Afghans had their country torn apart in a supposed ‘search’ for Nuclear Weapons but my own country sits back with a multi-million pound investment in the stuff. I find it almost embarrassing to be part of an establishment that does stuff like this.

So what are your opinions?

Do you think Iran should match the West and have WOMD?

Do you think it’s ever OK for countries to be attacked by nuclear means?

And what do you think about the West almost ‘patrolling’ the nuclear scene?


Stalker, ballet dancer, obsession...
Buz
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:49:59 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,841
Location: Atlanta, United States
If Iran has nuclear weapons your chances f dying increase immensely. Iran is a nation that massively funds and supports terrorism and its leaders have let it known that they hate the 'western' way of life. That most definitely includes the UK, USA, all of western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.

How many terrorists bombs have gone off in the UK in recent years? Can you imagine if they were nuclear?

Its about survival.

(Your statement that "The west did Japan dirty back in WW2" shows that you have very little understanding of history. You should read up on WWII. The Empire of Japan attacked the United States in a well planned and unprovoked military attack designed to destroy the US Navy. Japan did this surprise attack without a declaration of war. The reason was so that Japan could create a massive Asian & Pacific Empire and knew that the USA was the only nation that would have a chance at stopping their plans. Japan thought that US forces would surrender within 6 months. Japan was the staunch ally of Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany and japan committed atrocities against civilians that numbered in the millions in China, Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and throughout southeast Asia. By using the atomic bombs which killed almost 200,00 people, nearly ALL historians agree that anywhere from 600,00 to well over a million lives were saved. The Empire of Japan was ruled by a Fascist Military Council that also held extreme racist beliefs.)

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 6:10:00 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,679
Location: Your dirty fantasy
Iran will not attack the USA unless they are provoked. Hating the 'western way of life' does not cause a nation to get up one morning and decide to drop a nuclear bomb on someone.

Here's how I see it:
Iran is the enemy of Israel.
Israel would like to have their enemy demolished.
Who has the military to demolish it? - the USA
** enter phase of whispers of weapons of mass destruction, and the terrors of nuclear weapon potential **
*** increase this phase by psyching up the public into believing that Iranians are all terrorists-in-waiting ***
Finally - bam - the American public eventually believes they are in imminent danger and must attack Iran.
Of course - this process can be sped up quickly if Israel goes in and starts light bombing first, which will force Iran to respond, and therefore forces the USA to get involved asap.

Sorry - I'm not in favour of more war for no reason. Iran would never, ever attack the West unprovoked. Just because they have nuclear weapons doesn't mean they are itching to use them. As Sitting pointed out - many countries have 'the technology'. The only country that has dropped them so far has been the USA.

My last feeling is... this should not even be on the table for discussion. Trillions in debt, a war in two countries that will never be finished, a military that is spread thin and an economy that is in the gutter? Sorry - not a great time to declare war against yet another country with no provocation other than whispers about weapons of mass destruction. Hmm... doesn't that sound familiar?

Buz
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 6:34:55 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,841
Location: Atlanta, United States
I do not think Iran would directly attack any other nation with a nuclear bomb. They know such an attack would result in their total destruction. They are not suicidal. Anything they do would be an indirect attack done through terrorists. Iran absolutely does have a long track record of massively funding terrorist activity.

I myself do not support any new war involving the USA. In fact, I feel that we should pull our troops out of Afghanistan immediately. We should have never attacked Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein actually was an offsetting stabilizing factor against the radicalism of Iran. Iran and Iraq were after all ,arch enemies, who had somewhat recently been at war, and the bulk of their military forces aimed at each other on their border.

The real danger of Iran developing a nuclear bomb is the very good chance that they give the technology to terrorists. Their leaders have openly stated that they would like to see the destruction of Israel. Israel is the nation most at danger when Iran perfects their nuclear technology. But anyone living in western society is at danger of this technology falling into terrorists hands.

Remember that Iran is a nation that greatly suppresses women, freedom of speech and is a government run by a religion.

All I am saying is that beware of Iran, which has the technology to create a nuclear weapon, and is one of the most dangerous places on earth for such technology to exist.

As far as the USA, I want to see US military forces abandon all foreign bases, including Germany and Japan. I support a much more isolationist attitude. Stay the hell out of other countries and massively reduce military spending.

littlemissbitch
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 6:41:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/6/2011
Posts: 776
Location: the land of enchantment, United States
Buz wrote:
They know such an attack would result in their total destruction. They are not suicidal.


i disagree though. i dont think they would care if they killed their own people and themselves if they felt justified in attacking us or anyone else. i think they would be entirely capable of using their woefully misguided sense of Jihad as a justification. thats the part that scares me.



littlemissbitch ~ professional face ripper offer, at your service..
LadyX
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:44:31 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
SITTING wrote:

Do you think Iran should match the West and have WOMD?


I don't, for two reasons.

1) As Buz mentioned, it's not necessarily that they'll actually use nuclear warheads against others, it's that they've proven themselves to be highly unscrupulous, and therefore not even close to 'responsible enough', in their dealings with other nations. They'll sell nuclear weapons technology to whoever wishes to buy it, without a second thought.

2) They might actually use one. On multiple occasions, they've stated that their primary goal is the complete and utter destruction of Israel. Given this reality, Israel is justifiably panicked about the prospect of Iran attaining nuclear weapons. It may be unlikely, but can you imagine the bitter hindsight moment after Iran launches a couple of nuclear-tipped Tomahawk missiles, wiping Tel-Aviv off the planet and tipping off World War 3? "Gosh...maybe we should've done those airstrikes after all..."

I realize that attacking Iran might start a big war too; all I'm saying is that the military option against Iran is not just preposterous warmongering.

SITTING wrote:

Do you think it’s ever OK for countries to be attacked by nuclear means?


No, I find this highly immoral from a humanistic standpoint. War is hell, and the 'big ones' in Japan ended things immediately, possibly saving far more lives than it took, but still...it's just ghastly to see what nuclear radiation and detonation do in their wake.

SITTING wrote:

And what do you think about the West almost ‘patrolling’ the nuclear scene?


I think the West, as a loosely affiliated group of economic and military powers, isn't perfect by any means, but the facts is that if everyone is simply left to their own devices (in this case, literally) with no coalitions providing push-back against roguish regimes, then we'll be reaping what we sow. This is not to say that 'world police' role that the US/UK/France et.al. plays is always effective and never backfires (far from it!).

I should also add that the Obama Administration is doing everything it can to talk Israel off the ledge, in case there's any confusion about who wants war/aggression here. It's Israel, not the US, UK, or anyone else, that is squarely in the Islamic cross-hairs. They just expect to have the backing of 'the West' should things escalate, and due to that obligation, 'the West' is very, very nervous about this crisis.
SITTING
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:20:51 AM

Rank: Wilful Wallflower
Moderator

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 887
Location: In the library, Leeds, United Kingdom
'On multiple occasions, they've stated that their primary goal is the complete and utter destruction of Israel.'

Wow, i wasn't aware of this. In this instance i've got to agree that, yes, Iran shouldn't have WOMD.

Stalker, ballet dancer, obsession...
LadyX
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:40:53 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Iran will not attack the USA unless they are provoked. Hating the 'western way of life' does not cause a nation to get up one morning and decide to drop a nuclear bomb on someone.

Here's how I see it:
Iran is the enemy of Israel.
Israel would like to have their enemy demolished.
Who has the military to demolish it? - the USA



Israel wouldn't have much of an opinion about Iran at all if Iran hadn't on multiple times called for Israel's destruction, as well as funding terrorist groups that constantly attack it. The only way the US is of real military (other than intelligence) use to Israel is if there's a full-scale ground invasion, which isn't even on the table. Israel's air power is just as, if not more, powerful and capable of handling an air attack as any of it's Western allies.

It's just the inevitable dominoes that follow that have all world powers freaked out about this.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:45:43 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
SITTING wrote:
'On multiple occasions, they've stated that their primary goal is the complete and utter destruction of Israel.'

Wow, i wasn't aware of this. In this instance i've got to agree that, yes, Iran shouldn't have WOMD.


These are just a few. And each link refers to separate calls on behalf of Iran, for Israel's destruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelnuclearterrorism500710.html

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=44676

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1186

http://www.jspace.com/news/articles/former-iranian-politician-calls-for-destruction-of-israel/7475
1curiouscat
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 12:28:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
You guys are forgeting one point. Isreal is located on "holy" land for all three sides of the argument - christian, jewish and muslim. I seriously doubt they would drop an A-bomb on isreal and be responsible for the destruction of such worshiped land.

Iran's problem with isreal and the west is ideological and political. A consequence of, what ahmadinejad believes to be, zionistic bullying and outright theft of this so called "holy" land.

I hope i see the day when all nuclear warheads are dismantled and retired.



Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
LadyX
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 12:32:47 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
That only means they wouldn't bomb holy sites. The areas with most population, aside from Jerusalem, are separate from sacred locations and artifacts. A well-defined plutonium rocket can vaporize the coast while leaving the Dome of the Rock unscathed.
1curiouscat
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 12:43:19 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
I guess i need to brush up on my a-bomb details. Lol. Still the idea of exploding one of the biggest, most devastating bombs on holy lane doesnt sound to coherent.

Your point makes sense though, the concept of holy land hasnt stoped any of them so far.



Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:05:36 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
If we're going to base who should and should not have nuclear weapons based on who might use them, and who might provide them to 3rd parties who would use them; let's not forget the first and only country to actually use nuclear bombs, which also happens to have a history of selling arms to insurgents/terrorists. (cold war efforts in Afghanistan and Latin America)

If the US really wants people to stop using nuclear weapons, it should destroy its own first. Until then, countries will feel the need to keep their own for defensive purposes.
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 6:52:39 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 688,700
Do you think Iran should match the West and have WOMD?

If they, as Christians believe, truly have learned from what is written and should love their fellow men, then no. However, the hypocrisy exercised on many levels by Christians allows for hypocrisy to their own beliefs.

Do you think it’s ever OK for countries to be attacked by nuclear means?

No. "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- Oppenheimer. And, the US should be eternally sorry, if you are of that ilk. The U.S. brought it, and delivered it, and now a presumed sanctimonious stance, and reverent view on what it means for the world, or Jerusalem? Of course, now everyone should fear since a non-rational entity possesses such wrath.

And what do you think about the West almost ‘patrolling’ the nuclear scene?

Hypocritical, on many counts.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:54:50 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 688,700
I think it should be mentioned that while Islamic extremists are the most hyped up in the media, a very small percentage of all terrorist attacks are actually carried out by these so called Muslims. If Iran has any sense, it will know not to undermine Muslims by selling WOMD to the crazy terrorists. I feel Israel are just as aggressive as Iran, only without the weapons, and that's why they've got the US backing them up. Iran are simply united with Palestine, against the atrocities carried out by the Israelis.
Don't take the media as truth. There are very different stories told by the Russian press. You have to find your own opinion by balancing the two. Iran is not a bad country, but if they are pushed, they may become bitter. Look at what happened to Russia and China. They would have been powerful allies to the US but now they are supporting Pakistan and Syria. The US need to work carefully.
ArtMan
Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2012 12:16:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 661
Location: South Florida, United States
Israel has had nuclear weapons for at least two decades or more. They do not announce it.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

FantasyFiction
Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:36:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 282
Location: the Swamps of Jersey
israel can destroy iran but doesn't want to.
iran wants to destroy israel but can't.

Success is doing what you love, and doing it so well that someone will pay you for it.
http://www.lushstories.com/fantasyfiction
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:29:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 552
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
FantasyFiction wrote:
israel can destroy iran but doesn't want to.
iran wants to destroy israel but can't.


I think that's about right, but it's on the verge of changing. So are we about to see all hell break loose? The entire wold is going to face a very precarious situation. Someone has to police nuclear proliferation or millions, maybe billions will die.

I remember the millions of moslems that celebrated in the streets of the major cities of the mideastern moslem world when 911 happened, so all this talk about the terrorists just being a small minority is total bullshit!!!!!!!
Rembacher
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:53:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
MissyLuvsYa wrote:

I remember the millions of moslems that celebrated in the streets of the major cities of the mideastern moslem world when 911 happened, so all this talk about the terrorists just being a small minority is total bullshit!!!!!!!


Funny, I don't remember anything like that. What countries are we talking about? Wikipedia has this to say about the reactions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks
Quote:

Islamic world

Most Muslim political and religious leaders condemned the attacks. The leaders vehemently denouncing the attacks included the Presidents of Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Syria, Iran and Pakistan.[5][16] The sole exception was Iraq, when the then-president Saddam Hussein, said of the attacks that "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity".[17] Saddam would later offer sympathy to the Americans killed in the attacks.[18]

Leader of Palestine Yasser Arafat strongly condemned the attacks and stated that he was "disgusted by such violent acts" and that in no way did they receive the support of the Palestinian people.[citation needed]

Renowned Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi denounced the attacks and the unprovoked killings of thousands of American civilians as a "heinous crime" and urged Muslims to donate blood to the victims. He did however criticise the United States' "biased policy towards Israel" and also called on Muslims to "concentrate on facing the occupying enemy directly", inside the Palestinian territories.[19] The alleged Hezbollah "spiritual mentor" and Lebanese Shia cleric Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah condemned the attacks.

Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, said he was not interested in exporting such attacks to the United States, however he criticized the "unfair American position".[20]

Afghanistan's Taliban rulers condemned the attacks and also vehemently rejected suggestions that Osama bin Laden, who had been given asylum in Afghanistan, could be behind them.[20]

Huge crowds attended candlelit vigils in Iran, and 60,000 spectators observed a minute's silence at Tehran football stadium.[21][22]

[edit] Alleged Palestinian celebrations

A number of Palestinians danced in the street in celebration of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the deaths of Americans. Fox News reported that in Ein el-Hilweh, Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp, revelers fired weapons in the air, with similar celebratory gunfire heard at the Rashidiyeh camp near the southern city of Tyre as well.[20] The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) condemned the attacks and attempted to censure and discredit broadcasts and other news reports. [20] with many newspapers, magazines, Web sites and wire services running photographs.[23][24] The PNA claimed such celebrations were not representative of the sentiments of the Palestinian people, and the Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said the PNA would not allow "a few kids" to "smear the real face of the Palestinians". In an attempt to quash further reporting, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat's Cabinet secretary, said the Palestinian Authority could not "guarantee the life" of an Associated Press (AP) cameraman if footage he filmed of post-9/11 celebrations in Nablus was broadcast. Rahman's statement prompted a formal protest from the AP bureau chief, Dan Perry.[25][24]

Annette Krüger Spitta of the ARD's (German public broadcasting) TV magazine Panorama states that footage not aired shows that the street surrounding the celebration in Jerusalem is quiet. Furthermore, she states that a man in a white T-shirt incited the children and gathered people together for the shot. The Panorama report, dated September 20, 2001, quotes Communications Professor Martin Löffelholz explaining that in the images one sees jubilant Palestinian children and several adults but there is no indication that their pleasure is related to the attack. The woman seen cheering (Nawal Abdel Fatah) stated afterwards that she was offered cake if she celebrated on camera, and was frightened when she saw the pictures on television afterward.[26]

There was also rumour that the footage of some Palestinians celebrating the attacks was stock footage of Palestinian reactions to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.[27] This rumour was proven false shortly afterwards,[28] and CNN issued a statement to that effect.[29]
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:54:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 552
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
Well I remember it!!!!

Wikipedia? Really? LOL
Rembacher
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2012 10:50:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
MissyLuvsYa wrote:
Well I remember it!!!!

Wikipedia? Really? LOL


Yes, Wikipedia. It's a sourced reference and saves me the time of putting together a collection of articles and doing hours of search to show you how misinformed you are. This isn't a thesis paper, so I don't need to use academic sources to back my argument. If you can find a hole in the information presented, do so, otherwise I will take your laughing at the source used as proof you can't beat my argument and have taken to attacking the messenger rather than the message. Sadly, it's a rather common tactic in western politics these days.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:28:34 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 688,700
angelica wrote:
I think it should be mentioned that while Islamic extremists are the most hyped up in the media, a very small percentage of all terrorist attacks are actually carried out by these so called Muslims. If Iran has any sense, it will know not to undermine Muslims by selling WOMD to the crazy terrorists. I feel Israel are just as aggressive as Iran, only without the weapons, and that's why they've got the US backing them up. Iran are simply united with Palestine, against the atrocities carried out by the Israelis.
Don't take the media as truth. There are very different stories told by the Russian press. You have to find your own opinion by balancing the two. Iran is not a bad country, but if they are pushed, they may become bitter. Look at what happened to Russia and China. They would have been powerful allies to the US but now they are supporting Pakistan and Syria. The US need to work carefully.


I hate quoting, but in this case, well stated, and more even-keeled than my usual approach. Welcome aboard.
ArtMan
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:32:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 661
Location: South Florida, United States
Iran has rarely shown any restraint. The majority of Iranians do not have a voice at all in their country's dictates and the ruling elite are very radical Islamic extremists. One only has to look at their negative stance on women's rights, free speech, free press, etc. to see what they think of world opinion. Worse as has been previously stated above in this thread, Iran's' leaders have long track record of funding and enabling terrorist organizations. Everyone should be very concerned about Iran developing the technology for a nuclear weapon. As we all know Muslim extremists are never lacking for someone to volunteer to be a suicide bomber. A small nuclear weapon can be contained in a suitcase. That should give all of you something to worry about. The vast majority of Lush members live in countries that would be terroristic targets. And as LadyX has stated, Iran on many occasions that they would like to see Israel destroyed.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

LadyX
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:05:24 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Quote:

Well I remember it!!!!

Wikipedia? Really? LOL

Quote:

Yes, Wikipedia. It's a sourced reference and saves me the time of putting together a collection of articles and doing hours of search to show you how misinformed you are. This isn't a thesis paper, so I don't need to use academic sources to back my argument. If you can find a hole in the information presented, do so, otherwise I will take your laughing at the source used as proof you can't beat my argument and have taken to attacking the messenger rather than the message. Sadly, it's a rather common tactic in western politics these days.


Yes, people cheered that day, by the thousands, probably. And yes, even though we can claim ambiguity, more than likely they were cheering the attack on the US. This is because thousands would like to see us all die. This is nothing new, but it also has nothing to do with followers of Islam as a whole. It's truly a miniscule percentage of Muslims who root for our death and failures; to imply otherwise is just furthering xenophobia and right-wing myths needlessly.

I know that geopolitics and religion create a complicated scenario over there, but it's not like all the major Arab cities held ticker-tape parades on 9/11, nor is the US completely faultless for the hard feelings toward America in general. Islamic governments have their own set of troublesome issues, but when it comes to everyday people of faith, it's unfair to paint with a broad brush. There are extremists everywhere, opposing nearly every cause. Let's not smear a giant worldwide faith because of the relative handful of crazy-club members who hijack Islam's mission for their own radical purposes.

There are many Muslims who will tell you that these radicals and terrorists aren't Muslim at all, much like Christians would aggressively disown terrorists who claimed Christ's mission in the name of death.
Guest
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:54:47 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 688,700
MissyLuvsYa wrote:


I think that's about right, but it's on the verge of changing. So are we about to see all hell break loose? The entire wold is going to face a very precarious situation. Someone has to police nuclear proliferation or millions, maybe billions will die.

I remember the millions of moslems that celebrated in the streets of the major cities of the mideastern moslem world when 911 happened, so all this talk about the terrorists just being a small minority is total bullshit!!!!!!!


Bullshit? Seriously, Muslims in the UK were just as shocked as the rest of the world. You can't just shove all people into one group. Nobody celebrates death and atrocities. If the US Govt had a better attitude, they'd be a LOT better off.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:19:32 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
angelica wrote:


If the US Govt had a better attitude, they'd be a LOT better off.


Which government are you referring to? The one that left office four years ago?

For all their faults, I find the Obama administration to be very sensitive and sensible when it comes to foreign affairs, especially given what he inherited. I know they aren't perfect, but are you lumping every past mistake into the current President's folder? Or maybe you would care to elaborate.
Guest
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 5:05:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 688,700
The most dangerous game of one ups manship our world has faced. May saner minds prevale and god save us from the fanatic!
Guest
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 6:06:50 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 688,700
Just a quick side note from me. I think that nuclear weapons are terrible things that cause sadness and destruction, yet were neccessary when used in WWII. The United States did not "do the dirty on Japan". I agree with Buz. When Buz said that hundreds of thousands to possibly a million lives would have been lost had the bombs not been dropped, he was correct. My grandfather was training to invade Japan. Had the bombs NOT been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most likely I wouldn't be here today, so perhaps I am biased. Whistle As for today? The west is more responsible with their capabilities; whereas if Iran had nuclear capabilities, they would likely be used by terrorist groups ON the west and Israel themselves. If the government of Iran was stable, and terrorists groups as well as threats of violence were not so prevalent, this wouldn't be an issue. The west shouldn't be blamed for hypocricy, it should be Iran blamed for the threats of their citizens.
Buz
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 7:33:19 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,841
Location: Atlanta, United States
Anyone with a triple digit IQ can understand that the more countries that have nuclear bombs increases the risk of one being used and increases the risk of nuclear proliferation. Iran does not hide the fact that they hate and despise the western world. Yes that's you! Canadians, Americans, British, French, Italians, Germans, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Norwegians, Spanish, Mexicans, Australians, Czechs, Japanese and especially Israel.

Guest
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 7:33:36 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 688,700
Why is it inappropriate for Iran to have nuclear weapons??? Two words.... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Look at the crap that comes out of his mouth. If he had a WMD he would use it in a heart beat. Never once do you hear Obama, or any other American President or British Prime Minister say..."We hate our enemies and we want to destroy them."
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.