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

Nuclear Weapons Options · View
Guest
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:22:02 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 651,817
No, we're much too politically correct and have perfected double speak. We've become too well practiced in covert ops to get caught being so forward.

BTW, St. George?
Guest
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:27:51 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 651,817
I used to sleep next to one when I was in the Navy!
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:12:17 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 651,817
Israel could destroy Iran but doesn’t want to? Puh-lease! What fantasy world are you living in?! Of course, Israel wants to destroy Iran. They’ve been enemies for god knows how long. If Israel could, they would. But they can’t.

Why?

Because if they tried to, the rest of the East would come down on them like a tonne of bricks. Now I don’t mean Saudi Arabia and the UAE and all those ‘puppet’ leaders who are sitting there, propped up by the US. I mean the leaders who actually have the minds and guts to say ‘No’. Russia and China, would definitely be in there, maybe Pakistan would find its tongue, India of course, all these countries who are more than happy to snap up Iran’s excess oil. Their ‘friends’ for want of a better term. Israel would not stand a chance and if the US were still backing them, WW3 would probably break out. It seems to me as if the West just wants to control everything. We’ve seen the downfall of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya and now Syria is hanging on for dear life. Is President Assad a ‘bad’ man? I don’t think so. I saw an article last week which was mocking him for talking to his father-in-law about the crisis in his country. Why the hell is talking to your father-in-law a bad thing? In my eyes, it makes him more human. He’s a man, not a ruthless conqueror. Not an outsider who supplies reckless rebels with guns and weapons. Only problem is, he doesn’t want to do as the US dictates. And why should he? He saw what happened to Colonel Gaddafi.

Libya had pretty much been under French control until Gaddafi came along. And he changed it. He made it so that Libya’s oil and water (the best in the world apparently) was owned by Libya and not by foreigners. And this clearly wasn’t what the West wanted. All of a sudden, these riots just start, ‘the Arab spring’ they call it (orchestrated by the West in my opinion) and Gaddafi’s overthrown. His biggest mistake? Inviting the West to come and have a look around to make sure there were no WOMD back when Saddam Hussein was under attack. Tony Blair went in there had a good look around and BAM, ten years later, Gaddafi’s dead, Libya’s a broken country and there’s a phony puppet government stood there.

For some nonsensical reason, the West feels the need to be in control. They seem to think that all the Arab countries aren’t good enough to stand on their own feet. Yes, I understand that Sharia low governs many of these places but is it such a bad thing to have punishments for stealing, adultery, and murder? If people don’t like it, they can leave. Back in the 1960’s homosexuals would be admitted to mental hospitals right here in Britain. That’s just 50 years ago. Change will come to all of these places but it’s not right to do it by force. That’s a whole different point though, because human rights is NOT what concerns the US and the UK. They want oil and control. It’s like they have this desire to just own everything, people, countries, everyone needs to do as they say. I know it sounds extreme but on a larger scale it’s like we’re going back 200 years, back to the slave trade where white people were ‘better’ than other colours, and there was a belief that they were superior in intelligence and all that crap.

Open your eyes people, and see the world for what it is. Don’t blindly follow what the media says. Yes, we all have different views but never believe a politician. Only the very basic parts of their statements are true. The rest is absolute bullshit. Do you really think that David Cameron gives a shit about the human rights situation in Syria? Do you think he honestly cares about the orphans in Afghanistan, the children who have been disabled by bombs? The Taliban hasn’t demolished that country. Why would they want to harm their own people? We all know who the real culprits are and it’s just a matter of time before the world stands up to them.

MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:00:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 550
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/04/07/why-did-so-many-muslims-seem-to-celebrate-911



[youtube width=420 height=315]http://www.youtube.com/embed/Rmo64fcvKs0[/youtube]
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:03:41 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
angelica wrote:
Israel could destroy Iran but doesn’t want to? Puh-lease! What fantasy world are you living in?! Of course, Israel wants to destroy Iran. They’ve been enemies for god knows how long. If Israel could, they would. But they can’t.

Why?

Because if they tried to, the rest of the East would come down on them like a tonne of bricks. Now I don’t mean Saudi Arabia and the UAE and all those ‘puppet’ leaders who are sitting there, propped up by the US. I mean the leaders who actually have the minds and guts to say ‘No’. Russia and China, would definitely be in there, maybe Pakistan would find its tongue, India of course, all these countries who are more than happy to snap up Iran’s excess oil. Their ‘friends’ for want of a better term. Israel would not stand a chance and if the US were still backing them, WW3 would probably break out. It seems to me as if the West just wants to control everything. We’ve seen the downfall of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya and now Syria is hanging on for dear life. Is President Assad a ‘bad’ man? I don’t think so. I saw an article last week which was mocking him for talking to his father-in-law about the crisis in his country. Why the hell is talking to your father-in-law a bad thing? In my eyes, it makes him more human. He’s a man, not a ruthless conqueror. Not an outsider who supplies reckless rebels with guns and weapons. Only problem is, he doesn’t want to do as the US dictates. And why should he? He saw what happened to Colonel Gaddafi.

Libya had pretty much been under French control until Gaddafi came along. And he changed it. He made it so that Libya’s oil and water (the best in the world apparently) was owned by Libya and not by foreigners. And this clearly wasn’t what the West wanted. All of a sudden, these riots just start, ‘the Arab spring’ they call it (orchestrated by the West in my opinion) and Gaddafi’s overthrown. His biggest mistake? Inviting the West to come and have a look around to make sure there were no WOMD back when Saddam Hussein was under attack. Tony Blair went in there had a good look around and BAM, ten years later, Gaddafi’s dead, Libya’s a broken country and there’s a phony puppet government stood there.

For some nonsensical reason, the West feels the need to be in control. They seem to think that all the Arab countries aren’t good enough to stand on their own feet. Yes, I understand that Sharia low governs many of these places but is it such a bad thing to have punishments for stealing, adultery, and murder? If people don’t like it, they can leave. Back in the 1960’s homosexuals would be admitted to mental hospitals right here in Britain. That’s just 50 years ago. Change will come to all of these places but it’s not right to do it by force. That’s a whole different point though, because human rights is NOT what concerns the US and the UK. They want oil and control. It’s like they have this desire to just own everything, people, countries, everyone needs to do as they say. I know it sounds extreme but on a larger scale it’s like we’re going back 200 years, back to the slave trade where white people were ‘better’ than other colours, and there was a belief that they were superior in intelligence and all that crap.

Open your eyes people, and see the world for what it is. Don’t blindly follow what the media says. Yes, we all have different views but never believe a politician. Only the very basic parts of their statements are true. The rest is absolute bullshit. Do you really think that David Cameron gives a shit about the human rights situation in Syria? Do you think he honestly cares about the orphans in Afghanistan, the children who have been disabled by bombs? The Taliban hasn’t demolished that country. Why would they want to harm their own people? We all know who the real culprits are and it’s just a matter of time before the world stands up to them.



So, to recap, your beliefs are as follows:

1) The 'Arab Spring', which saw the populist overthrow of despotic dictators in Tunisia and Egypt were orchestrated by 'the West', and this is unfortunate, because despotic dictators that horde wealth while millions suffer are preferred. I think it's very insulting to the citizens of those countries to assume, as you seem to, that they don't have the power or the sense to do this on their own. But at least they have the comfort of knowing you're wrong. Let's go down this road for a moment: if the 'West' orchestrated the overthrow of Mubarak, do you really think that those dastardly lovers of liberal culture would've allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to gain majority control of their parliament? Do you think the ultra-theocratic Salafi party would've been permitted to have a strong minority presence? No way, not if those burqa-burning power-mongers from the West had anything to do with it! You're aware that Mubarak was the most consistent ally that 'the West' had in the entire region, right?

2) Bashar al-Assad's actually a pretty good guy, and this whole brutal crackdown and genocide thing's been blown all out of proportion. How dare 'the West' argue that ruthless mass murder in order to maintain total power is a character flaw? I mean, he talks to his father in law, for god's sakes! Isn't that all the proof you need of his good moral fiber?


3) Muammar Qaddafi was a good guy, too, and a fair and just leader whose brutal crackdowns and theft of national wealth are totally fabricated by the evil 'West'. He didn't really lose control of the eastern section of Libya because traditionally it's always been at cultural, economic, and tribal odds with the West, which is where Qaddafi and the capital are. No, it happened because 'the West' talked them into rioting. Again, how insulting is this line of thinking to the average citizen in Libya, willing to give his or her life for a marginally more just government and better way of life? Also, you're aware that the insurgency within Libya happened as Qaddafi was enjoying his best ever relationship with 'the West', right?

4) If people don't like Sharia law they can leave. Sure, because it's that easy, right? We shouldn't criticize or speak out against those who oppress, we should just suggest that those who are oppressed simply pick up and leave. And go where, exactly? But maybe you're right. I mean, how could it be any harder than the West covertly overthrowing several governments at once?

5) Populist uprisings against dictators, and opposition to Islamic fascism on human rights grounds = slavery

6) The Taliban has neither set their country back, nor harms it's people.
If you really believe this, then you're either a) a fundamentalist Muslim who is sympathetic to the Taliban, or b) are so blinded by your hatred of military intervention that you fail to see murderers, barbarians, brutal sexists, and oppressive theocratic rule for what they are. A third option would be a mental handicap of some sort, but clearly you're bright enough to put these, albeit thoroughly biased, thoughts together.


If I seem more than a bit sarcastic, it's because I'm somewhat taken aback that you really believe everything you typed out. Now don't get me wrong, I know that the abundance of natural resources complicate that region, to say the least. And yes, 'the West' has made many, many mistakes that we can all name in the space of an hour, but not everything that occurs over there is the invisible hand of evil, meddlesome capitalists. It's insultingly colonialist to believe otherwise.

I'm no conservative, but I suspect you're drinking an awful lot of leftist Kool-Aid and little else. Your advice about not believing everything you hear, especially if it comes from a politician, is good. I think you'd do well to follow it as well as the rest of us would.
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:05:42 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 550
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
You make excellent points LadyX. I thank you for making an educated and intelligent post on the subject.


If Gaddafi was such a hero in Libya why did his own people violently overthrow his dictatorial regime and kill him?

If Assad is such a great leader in Syria then why are huge throngs of young people in the streets screaming for freedom and revolting against the government there? Why is Assad no longer supported by The Arab League?

Why would any sane female defend The Taliban. The Taliban does not allow female children to go to school and learn to read. The Taliban will stone an adulterous female to death but do not punish the man. I will go so far as to say Angelica, that as a woman I cannot respect another woman who defends the Taliban. What would be next to take away women's voting rights and abolish abortion?
SITTING
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:23:07 AM

Rank: Wilful Wallflower
Moderator

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 848
Location: In the library, Leeds, United Kingdom
Defending dictators is going a LITTLE far...OK a LOT far. By all means, oppose military intervention but come on! Gaddafi was a good guy?! You can't honestly believe that!

Stalker, ballet dancer, obsession...
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 7:48:02 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 651,817
Qaddafi and al-Assad were/are tyrants. But they were/are able to use the "mistakes" of the west to sway opinion to their favour in the eyes of their people. Then crack pots like bin Laden can take those mistakes, along with a dash of Allah, and make it into what they desire, POWER. Our own "powers that be" can't take it that far since they have to keep the guise of democracy and allow US citizens to keep their presumed control over their government.

Control is in the hands of the leaders, we just pick the ones that will whip us. As for allegiances, those come and go as long as its mutually beneficial.

Our separation of powers (military v. political) was a great set up. Our military leaders can hate and kill while politicians and citizenry can stand in judgment or look down on such measures such as the use of Nuclear Weapons, and call for reason. Yes, extremists on all sides probably do want to launch, but in the end they both realize that they will not have anything to be in power of, if they do. No matter belief, all sides love the here and now far too much.

It's just hypocritical to see either of these sides having merit in the use of or having the idea of using WMD's. We actually did "the dirty" (I like that one), and that does give lefties a reason to cry foul. Hind sight is no excuse for morality, it just brings things into focus even though that focus is now blinded by pure hatred.

We should have never used such knowledge for such stupidity.

ArtMan
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:16:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 654
Location: South Florida, United States
Yes the USA used atomic weapons and as an American I say no apologies. We did not start that war. Japan brought that one upon themselves. The use of those 2 bombs saved at least one million lives that would have been lost. But that is history. Would the people of Japan like to go back and live under a autocratic military government bent on world domination as they had then or rather live in a democratic free society that they have now?

I completely believe that when Iran gets a nuclear bomb that the technology will end up in terrorists hands and many people will die.

"Our powers that be" are under a constitution with checks and balances that holds them up to the judgment of the citizens. And besides that fact I don't think Obama is chomping at the bit to launch a nuclear attach on anyone. I don't think Bush was either, he just wanted control of the oil fields. Currently Obama is doing his best diplomatically to deal with the mid east crisis. He has not escalated anything and is trying to slowly scale back toward total withdrawal without leaving the Afghan people to be butchered like animals under The Taliban like they were before.

Iran on the other hand is ruled by a small group of right-winged religious fanatics with no checks and balances to their authoritarian rule, who continuously talk about "jihad" against the western world. They call for the eradication of Israel. The current Iranian government has funded terrorist activity and most likely will again. The world has had to deal with that type before.

What would the world have been like if someone had gone in and taken Hitler and the Nazis out in 1935?

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

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 2:50:50 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 651,817
Rembacher wrote:
If the US really wants people to stop using nuclear weapons, it should destroy its own first.


I concur.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:59:35 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,425
Location: Cakeland, United States
eviotis wrote:
Then crack pots like bin Laden can take those mistakes, along with a dash of Allah, and make it into what they desire, POWER. Our own "powers that be" can't take it that far since they have to keep the guise of democracy and allow US citizens to keep their presumed control over their government.

Control is in the hands of the leaders, we just pick the ones that will whip us. As for allegiances, those come and go as long as its mutually beneficial.

We should have never used such knowledge for such stupidity.


Dude...

Bin Laden was and always had been a CIA asset. From day one until he died in a cave in 2001. The US Navy SEALs did not take him out in a blaze of glory last May. His whole family have been friends of certain families, ahem... the Bush clan (since way back into the 1970s).

Osama Bin Laden had zero to do with 9/11. He had as much to do with it as did Saddam Hussein. And both of those two guys were big recipients of US weaponry when they could be used as tools for the CIA and the USA.

Come'on man... give up the kool aid.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
standingbear
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:16:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/27/2010
Posts: 195
Location: the twilight zone
Buz wrote:
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.


The higher the number of countries having nuclear weapons increases the chances of one or more of those weapons falling into the hands of terrorists as well. Countries like Iran and North Korea which are ruled by ideological madmen present an even higher probability of terrorist groups getting both bombs and nuclear material which they can use to make dirty bombs. Countries with unstable governments are very dangerous too, as well as governments ruled by people with known ties to terrorists, such as Pakistan.

Having rouge nations with nuclear weapons also helps provide cover for "black flag" operations. Of course anyone wanting to blame Iran for a nuclear explosion could probably come up with evidence that they had weapons or the material to make them, like the yellow cake Iraq supposedly bought during the lead up to the Iraq war.

Also, WellMadeMale is right. Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset and the Bin Laden and Bush families are very intertwined financially. Who really profited from the 911 attacks? Oil interests and the military industrial complex, especially Hailburton. Why did a company with such close ties to Dick Cheney get so many contracts and profit so much from the war? If you ask who profits from disasters and terrorism the answer keeps coming back to Haliburton and the corporations who profit off the war and high gas prices.



"Happiness is doing it rotten your own way."Isaac Asimov (1994)
SITTING
Posted: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:52:51 AM

Rank: Wilful Wallflower
Moderator

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 848
Location: In the library, Leeds, United Kingdom
WellMadeMale wrote:


Dude...

Bin Laden was and always had been a CIA asset. From day one until he died in a cave in 2001. The US Navy SEALs did not take him out in a blaze of glory last May. His whole family have been friends of certain families, ahem... the Bush clan (since way back into the 1970s).

Osama Bin Laden had zero to do with 9/11. He had as much to do with it as did Saddam Hussein. And both of those two guys were big recipients of US weaponry when they could be used as tools for the CIA and the USA.

Come'on man... give up the kool aid.


Wow, wow, wow. It just amazes me as to how many theories there are flying around out there. I did think it was heavily suspicious that Bin Laden was tossed into the sea after he died... but i've gotta say, it was better than seeing those horrendous pics of a bloodstained Gadaffi all over the news.

Stalker, ballet dancer, obsession...
Guest
Posted: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:44:02 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 651,817
It's not just a theory.

Read, investigate more, before excusing it as just another theory. Mind you, I only gave a few moments to googling to find this lit little trinket.

One thing leads to another.
SIL50
Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:10:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/3/2009
Posts: 62
Location: Alabama
Here's one problem noone has mentioned In the days of Mutually Assured Destruction, goverenments were actually afraid of using them because of the consequences. Now that the major holders of nukes are reducing their stockpiles, the consequences are deminishing it is only a matter of time till some rogue group pulls the trigger. Fortunately the US and Russia have been responsible with theirs, although there are reports some are missing. I do not believe everyone/nation should have them unless their governments are stable and demonstrate a willingness to operate within international guidelines.
Kitanica
Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:47:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 881
Location: The Sprawl, United States
@buz in your first reply you talked about reasons. It was also due to Truman wanting to avoid a mainland invasion. the civilians were given propaganda by the military that the us soldiers would rape them and such. They were trainees to fight with spears and such to the last man so Truman knew he had to drop the bomb or invade and cause a bloodbath.

as for the topic of the op. it's because were developed nations. I dont see why everyone is so afraid of Iran. it's not like they could do anything.. They're barely making 20% enrichment. You need 90 for a single bomb. And if they push 40-50 I bet Israel would say that's it for them and invade. Irans government is stupid to be honest. all the sanctions and problems for a peaceful nuclear reactor? they're losing money by doing this and no reactor would make that up in electricity ever. so it's obvious they're making a bomb, but still it's Iran. I remember seeing the Iranian patrol boats, lmao 6 guys with small arms going in circles around destroyers. I'd really like to see them close the straights that would last about 10 seconds before they get wiped out.
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.