NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I always knew these guys were up to no good. This is the perfect reason to strike at Iran first. Read this story and tell me this isn't the real deal.

www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/memri_iran_attack.php3 (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/memri_iran_attack.php3)

OMFG let's nuke the bastards.
I heard Ossama Ben Laden hides in Iran, of course it doesn't surprise me since Al Qaeda IS Iran. Anyway the people of Iran are just waiting to be nuked, they want it and they will all thank us for nuking them. They will give us flower and kisses.

OMFG We must nuke the bastards.
I heard Ossama Ben Laden hides in Iran, of course it doesn't surprise me since Al Qaeda IS Iran.


This is what I have been telling people forever!

OMG Teh EVOL islamocommienazis are coming!!! :rolleyes:

We must invade their country to find and secure all the weapons of mass---

Hold on, let's play it safe here.

We must invade their country to ensure democracy, whether or not they have any weapons of mass destruction.

Let no one say we don't learn from mistakes.

This has the same credibility and balance as me posting a story from MoveOn or Democracy Now about an Israeli plot to use America as pawns in a Middle East land grab.

This has the same credibility and balance as me posting a story from MoveOn or Democracy Now about an Israeli plot to use America as pawns in a Middle East land grab.


MoveON.org and the Democratic party get heavy contributions from muslim countries. Its damn obvious dont you think?

They just hate freedom. They want our freedom. Only when we nuke democracy on them will they understand that western bombs are superior.

just another excuse for america to attack some poor small country and make it in to another state of america

It sounds familiar to the 'threats' that Saddam Hussein's information minister used to make against the US!!!

just another excuse for america to attack some poor small country and make it in to another state of america


It's the only excuse I would need. What do you want? Another plane flying into grandmas house? Wake up.

Originally Posted by Psylos
OMFG We must nuke the bastards.
I heard Ossama Ben Laden hides in Iran, of course it doesn't surprise me since Al Qaeda IS Iran

This is what I have been telling people forever!

You obviously haven't heard of sarcasm.

Originally posted by TinFoilHat
MoveON.org and the Democratic party get heavy contributions from muslim countries.

And so Muslim = terrorist? Grow up. Just because they are one it doesn't mean they're the other.

It strikes me that the American government are constantly warning of threats to their security. From what I can pick up, 9/11 changed nothing regarding the probability of an attack, so why make such a fuss now? Because people are easier to control when they're confronted with an un-named and unpredictable threat, and then given someone who sounds like they know what they're doing. It's a sheep mentality and it's awful. The shepherds really shouldn't do it.

You obviously haven't heard of sarcasm.
Psylos is being sarcastic too.

That's what I meant.

Iran is responsible for the genocide of Hitler. Don't forget the aryans come from Persia. How can you defend those bastards?
Also Mohammed Khatami bombed Iraq in 1997. Iraq is a democratic country. They bombed it because they hate freedom.

That's what I meant.


Sorry I meant TinFoilHat is being sarcastic too

so iran might try to blow something up.
americas responce "nuke them"
america says no weapons of mass destruction but their first responce is to say nuke them (nukes are weapons of mass destruction)
if you have to fight them do it on even tearms not like cowards nukes and cruise missiles are for cowards, what ever happened to the days when you could look your enemy in the eyes while you stabbed him to death?

Well I always knew these guys were up to no good. This is the perfect reason to strike at Iran first. Read this story and tell me this isn't the real deal.

www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/memri_iran_attack.php3 (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/memri_iran_attack.php3)

Sorry, but I don't consider a page that calls "jewishworldreview" to be objective ...

so iran might try to blow something up.
americas responce "nuke them"
america says no weapons of mass destruction but their first responce is to say nuke them (nukes are weapons of mass destruction)
if you have to fight them do it on even tearms not like cowards nukes and cruise missiles are for cowards, what ever happened to the days when you could look your enemy in the eyes while you stabbed him to death?
WHAT?
Because you think the terrorists who killed themselves into our building were not cowards? They were fucking cowards. If they had some courage, they would have come to a military base with big knifes and they would have fighted us like men and died like men.

Originally posted by Trilateral Commission
Sorry I meant TinFoilHat is being sarcastic too

Prove it.

Originally posted by Vaughans_air_force
what ever happened to the days when you could look your enemy in the eyes while you stabbed him to death?

*applauds*

Originally posted by Psylos
WHAT?
Because you think the terrorists who killed themselves into our building were not cowards? They were fucking cowards. If they had some courage, they would have come to a military base with big knifes and they would have fighted us like men.
And you would have gunned them down before they got there, like men? Because Americans are allowed to break the rules when it comes to such things, of course. :rolleyes:

And you would have gunned them down before they got there, like men? Because Americans are allowed to break the rules when it comes to such things, of course. :rolleyes:
Of course they are terrorists. Terrorists must die. What are you? Ossama Ben Laden? You would be happy if they killed our soldiers don't you? Those unpatriotic liberal freacks make me sick.

WHAT?
Because you think the terrorists who killed themselves into our building were not cowards? They were fucking cowards. If they had some courage, they would have come to a military base with big knifes and they would have fighted us like men and died like men.
So courage=stupidity?

And I'm not saying they have any courage.

No, I'm not. But I do, of course, like all liberals *frowns at the horrible political label* send regular donations to Al-Qa'eda (if that's how you spell it).

And also, Nelson Mandela was at one point considered a terrorist. Would you shoot him?

Originally posted by Psylos
You would be happy if they killed our soldiers don't you?

No. I would be happy if your soldiers weren't around in the first place. You see, I'd rather no one got killed, and America sticking her nose in everywhere really doesn't help matters.

Prove it.

you catch that he is just kidding from his over-the-top tone, and the fact that all his previous posts consisted of jokes about political conspiracies by various forces, including the illuminati and alien invasions. plus his name is tinfoilhat... probably a gimmick account

Of course they are terrorists. Terrorists must die. What are you? Ossama Ben Laden? You would be happy if they killed our soldiers don't you? Those unpatriotic liberal freacks make me sick.

The problem comes when it turns into a witch hunt, where you call anyone "terrorist" just cop out of giving them due process or on a more personal scale, to conveniently dispose of them because they stand in your way or annoy you.

dont take this the wrong way but Iran could attack us calling it a prempitive strike. I cant think of anyone else doing that........

oops

MacCarthy Witch Hunt, anyone? It's gone on to a global scale.

Originally posted by Trilateral Commission
you catch that he is just kidding from his over-the-top tone, and the fact that all his previous posts consisted of jokes about political conspiracies by various forces, including the illuminati and alien invasions. plus his name is tinfoilhat... probably a gimmick account

I take your point about the name, sorry I'm new to these boards. But the over the top tone does nothing either way. I've seen plenty of people use that tone and be serious about it.

Everyone one here is totally ridiculous that actually believes this garbage. I have heard time and time again that there is a threat here and a threat there. This is truly starting to become ridiculous. I am ashamed of my government as it is, this would just make it worse. I'm so tired of the racist stereotype that all people of the Middle East are terrorists. Everyone who thinks that should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Why don't you go join the KKK there while you're at it Hitler? Just because President Nimrod and his yes men say something is a threat does not make it a threat. We were told that Iraq had WMD and did we find even one? Of course not. So, to make ourselves not look like genocide spreading idiots we changed our cause.

Were we not told by our first president, and only truly good president, to stay out of foreign affairs? Our involvement in everyone’s business but our own is what's causing the hatred from other countries. Look at the economy, gas prices, unemployment, poverty, and everything else wrong with America. Fix what is broken here and then move on to something else. With the billions of dollars we are throwing away in Iraq we could be funding research for cures of diseases, helping the homeless, or give it to social security. I never supported war with Iraq and I most definitely won't support it now, and I will never support an unjust war with Iran. All of you who support this cause are warmongers and that’s all there is to it.

so iran might try to blow something up.
americas responce "nuke them"
america says no weapons of mass destruction but their first responce is to say nuke them (nukes are weapons of mass destruction)
if you have to fight them do it on even tearms not like cowards nukes and cruise missiles are for cowards, what ever happened to the days when you could look your enemy in the eyes while you stabbed him to death?

It was a lot more messy and killed a lot less people in the process. Inefficient. If we did that today, we'd have overpopulation.

And yes, that was sarcasm.

Sorry, but I don't consider a page that calls "jewishworldreview" to be objective ...
Quit being anti-semitic. :mad:

MacCarthy Witch Hunt, anyone? It's gone on to a global scale.



I take your point about the name, sorry I'm new to these boards. But the over the top tone does nothing either way. I've seen plenty of people use that tone and be serious about it.
True, I've seen crazies like that too, but most likely TinFoilHat's tone is mocking those people for whom Osama is the media authorized boogeyman and who are always paying attention to those color coded warnings

such madness

Quit being anti-semitic. :mad:

It's not entirely untrue though. Israel has a vested interest in keeping the Middle East a political mess, as they're currently doing whatever they feel to the Palestinians and pretty much getting away with it. I doubt they'll want that state of affairs to stop, and will therefore do some serious rumour-mongering.

I must agree with Dark Roux, and many others it appears, that this is truly a ludicrous and absurd article. It truly is a witch-hunt now and every person of Middle Eastern decent should fear for their lives. I have a great idea, why don't we just put every Arab person in concentration camps and wait for them all to die (that was sarcasm). We are already lead by a man that resembles Hitler and Joseph Stalin (that was not sarcasm). Who's next Syria, then Saudi Arabia, followed by Jerusalem? Everything about this witch-hunt is ridiculous.

Oh by the way I did compare Bush to Hitler, so one else did to.


http://users.utu.fi/~vepeke/jakorasia/Muut/bush_hitler.jpg

Quit being anti-semitic. :mad:

Sarcasm, I hope?

Oh and here's one more for you guys.

http://www.informationwar.org/wars%20gallery/Al-qaeda-Iraq-link.jpg

Oh and here's one more for you guys.

http://www.informationwar.org/wars%20gallery/Al-qaeda-Iraq-link.jpg
IRA
IRAq
IRAn

All terrorists.

Here we go again :rolleyes: ... look at all the ploys used here.....
- the "your with us or against us"
- if your not with us your a terrorist.. or worse less american :rolleyes:
- mentioning 11/9 to rally support (this one i hate... like america is the only country to be attacked *cought* Irland *cought*)

common people change the tune.
Hmm will we have to call this one gulf war III?

This website is the basis of an ideology comparable to Mein Kampf. The idiots who put their name on there instantly lose all credibility they will ever have in whole lives when talking politics.

They are warmongers, party to Defense contracts.

Even comparing Moveon.org to this drivvel is an outrage, and people who think like that should be locked up so the rest of us can enjoy our freedom without worry of terror and war.

"Iran is responsible for the genocide of Hitler. Don't forget the aryans come from Persia. How can you defend those bastards?
Also Mohammed Khatami bombed Iraq in 1997. Iraq is a democratic country. They bombed it because they hate freedom."

Isnt the reason now given that the US invaded Iraq to remove a tyrant? Sorry I just really think all these gung-ho idiots and the religious nuts should all be taken up to Mars, and then they can wage war up there.

IRA
IRAq
IRAn

All terrorists.

You realize that one could play this game the other way around too, right?

UFF
UDA
USA

all terrorists...

Not particularly a bright argument in the first place, no?

For those who don't know, the first two used to be Protestant terror groups in Northern Ireland (yes, such existed, it wasn't only the bad bad IRA who stirred up the shit). I'm not sure if they still exist, but since the IRA still exists it's likely those are still around as well.

And well, the original IRA was considered to be patriots (sounds a bit like those weirdos who threw tea into a harbor somewhere in northern America in the 18th century, no?)


Btw, who's "Ossama Ben Laden"? I only know "Juda ben Hur" (from the movie Ben Hur). At least spell his name right, ok?

And well, when I look at this website, that jewishworldreview-thing, well, I'd never have thought there was a worse news agency than CNN (the news network that brought us headlines like "Columbia travelled 18 times the speed of light" or "Specialists believe Osama bin Laden is either dead or alive" (who'd have thought!!!)). Guess I was wrong.

Just another ridiculous discussion about america's foreign politics. I only wish that next time a plane chrashes on American soil it will land soft, somewhere on Bush and Rice.

The source which is quoted earlier isn't reliable: Israel, the state of the jews, big friend of Uncle Sam and a jewishnewslink? It is probable that they talk tough, like someone said Iraq did it also, but THEY didn't had any massdestruction weaponry. They know they can't take on the US, they just say they can so they won't look weak in front of their own people. And that people want to hear such things because they fear the US.

About fighting honourbly: the US were the first and the last country to use A-bombs on civilian targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nagasaki was an accident for it wasn't even the original target, which they couldn't see because of rain, so they dropped it on their way back. Talking about talking innocent lives: US: 200 000, Muslim: some thousands (including Madrid and WTC). And an other thing didn't the glorious US army develop some kind of über-weapon? A ray-weapon which makes the one on the wrong side endure intense and mass pain? Talking about a fair fight: who can hold a gun when it looks like their entire body is burning? All hail freedom and democracy and those we can kill in the name of these.

"Enola gay , you should have staid home yesterday..."

spas

typical yanks jumping to conclusions

Sarcasm, I hope?
Of course. It seems that whenever anything "jewish" or isreali is critized the allegations of anti-semitism are just around the corner.

Of course. It seems that whenever anything "jewish" or isreali is critized the allegations of anti-semitism are just around the corner.

Anti-Semitism. The old standby copout for Israel Apologists. I swear Johnny Cochran played the race card less times than them.

...and coming from a Zionist paper, that doesn't make it at all biased does it? Idiot.

what ever happened to the days when you could look your enemy in the eyes while you stabbed him to death?

sorry for answering this one a bit late,but god damn guys...you really think that all of our soldiers out there are cowards because they are using technology to protect themselves?thats war...survival of the fittest. also,id like to see mr vaughan actually come by the chanceof stabbing his 'enemy' to death,while looking in his eyes...sick bastard

Actually, it really wouldn't surprise me if there were plans drafted by the Iran Government on how to attack the US should they ever decide they needed to do so...

That doesn't constitute terrorism though, unless the means to attack the US is thru terrorist means.

If you're going to suggest that having "plans of war" against another country constitutes terrorism then the US is probably the biggest offender of them all. Don't tell me that in some deep, dark vault there are plans made by US strategists on how to invade any country that could potentially pose a threat to the US... heck, I wouldn't be surprised to find plans on countries the US considers friendly.

I'm not attacking the US either... I'd consider it a fairly smart move. Why would you wait until someone is actually attacking you to gather information on their strengths & weaknesses?

Funny how Osama Bin Laden is for some Americans the perfect scapegoat to blame, when they flatten another sovereign nation and bomb them back into the stoneage.

First Osama had ties with Hussein (lies) now Al Qaeda is Iranian (not true). Next the 9/11 highjackers were Germans because they happened to live here for a bit. Ridiculous. :headbang:

Ein Deutscher']Next the 9/11 highjackers were Germans because they happened to live here for a bit. Ridiculous. :headbang:

Just wait. We'll get our share of the "liberation" yet. They'll start bombing just after they finish with Syria.

sorry for answering this one a bit late,but god damn guys...you really think that all of our soldiers out there are cowards because they are using technology to protect themselves?thats war...survival of the fittest. also,id like to see mr vaughan actually come by the chanceof stabbing his 'enemy' to death,while looking in his eyes...sick bastard

and terrorist are cowards for using the technology they have (ie planes) to attack other people??? :confused: :confused: :confused:

OMFG let's nuke the bastards.
I heard Ossama Ben Laden hides in Iran, of course it doesn't surprise me since Al Qaeda IS Iran. Anyway the people of Iran are just waiting to be nuked, they want it and they will all thank us for nuking them. They will give us flower and kisses.

Sadly this is how the common American thinks. You guys suck up way to much propaganda. If I said Bin Lardin was in Canada you guys would go and bomb the hell out of them. Oh well RULE BRITANNIA, BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVE, BRITAIN WILL NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, DEFEND THE US!

What's funny is how they plan to bring on the collapse of Anglo-Saxon and Western civilization by attacking 29 strategic spots. I never realized that Western civilization was that sensible.

"Damn! There goes another Starbucks!"
"Quick, Martha! Get the kids in the bunker!"
* Crashing sound of civilization collapsing *

The article at the least is bound to hold a biased opinion seeing how its posted on 'jewishworldreview.com', but in any case it could easily have been fabricated by people with a certain agenda.

Sorry I just really think all these gung-ho idiots and the religious nuts should all be taken up to Mars, and then they can wage war up there.


Dude, No.

Us independants have been building a starship for the last twenty years to get away from this crap, you send them to our first stop and I swear, we will nuke Earth into a pretty glass ball.

K?

Keep your problems on Earth, cause we are getting the hell out of dodge. :)

Whether it's true, or not, we still need to do something about Iran. Not war, though. Instead, we should stage a coup d'etat and bring Reza Pahlavi II to power, making him the new Shah.

Ein Deutscher']First Osama had ties with Hussein (lies) now Al Qaeda is Iranian (not true). Next the 9/11 highjackers were Germans because they happened to live here for a bit. Ridiculous. :headbang:

Well some of them also lived in the USA for a while so obviously Al Quaida is a USAnian organisation. :D

I think the nation we really need to watch out for is Luxembourg. i'm sure they're going to send out a massive army to crush democracy the world over. I would know, the army used to be mine until they stole it from me.

I think the nation we really need to watch out for is Luxembourg. i'm sure they're going to send out a massive army to crush democracy the world over. I would know, the army used to be mine until they stole it from me.

And Switzerland. Those people and their neutrality really make me angry. What makes a [good] man turn neutral? Something horrible, I suspect.

I think the nation we really need to watch out for is Luxembourg. i'm sure they're going to send out a massive army to crush democracy the world over. I would know, the army used to be mine until they stole it from me.

Fool! That's what the enemy wants you to believe! Liechtenstein is the real enemy, man! We must. invade. Liechtenstein!!! :D

I suggest building a massive all all the way around America. Anyone that doesn't mind being "attacked" by all the friendly folks in South America, Europe, Canada, Africa, the Middle East and Oceania can get free houses and so on and then because of the wall, America (read "Everyone else") will be safe from Terrorists (read "raving loonies in charge of the worlds most powerful army")

Problem sorted :)

What makes a [good] man turn neutral? Something horrible, I suspect.
Usually if you attack a few random peasants you can get your alignment points down.

Whoops, Switzerland isn't playing D&D, is it?

Iran is responsible for the genocide of Hitler. Don't forget the aryans come from Persia. How can you defend those bastards?
Also Mohammed Khatami bombed Iraq in 1997. Iraq is a democratic country. They bombed it because they hate freedom.


?? Iraq democratic ?? :sniper: :mp5:

?? Iraq democratic ?? :sniper: :mp5:

Woe unto he who doth not foresee the Almighty Sarcasm Chasm. WOE!

I say we bomb the crap out of Iran, arm those who don't agree with the current regime and let them sort out their own regime change.

At least USA isn't planning an attack on Iran?

If they would WE should bomb them!

(With "we" I mean Europeans, Democrats and other anti-American terrorists...)

Have you ever noticed that Bush pronounces "terrorists" kinda funny, like "terroriStS"? Is that dude from Sweden or what?

Have you ever noticed that Bush pronounces "terrorists" kinda funny, like "terroriStS"? Is that dude from Sweden or what?
Umm, I don't understand...
Why would someone not pronounce the "S"?

OMFG let's nuke the bastards.
I heard Ossama Ben Laden hides in Iran, of course it doesn't surprise me since Al Qaeda IS Iran. Anyway the people of Iran are just waiting to be nuked, they want it and they will all thank us for nuking them. They will give us flower and kisses.


oh deary me. oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

you would have thought they'd have learned not to mess with determined people by now. The battle of hurtgen forest (WW2) - shed loads of dead and yet they still thought they could win so they threw more and more innocent young lads into the meat grinder. Vietnam - shed loads of dead and yet they still thought they could win so they threw more and more innocent young lads into the meat grinder. Iraq, outcome to be decided, but hey, we already know in our hearts what it's going to be, don't we?

And now Iran. Possibly. Iran IS fundamentalism. Leave well alone and continue through diplomatic routes. America's leaders could well get seal the fate of the planet :( and our Junta's leader is Tony Blair, lapdog of Bush...

I live in fear of the time when America nukes anyone.

And Switzerland. Those people and their neutrality really make me angry. What makes a [good] man turn neutral? Something horrible, I suspect.

Don't forget the mighty armies of Andorra, Malta and the great army of Monaco

I suggest building a massive all all the way around America. Anyone that doesn't mind being "attacked" by all the friendly folks in South America, Europe, Canada, Africa, the Middle East and Oceania can get free houses and so on and then because of the wall, America (read "Everyone else") will be safe from Terrorists (read "raving loonies in charge of the worlds most powerful army")

Problem sorted :)
You'll have to build a roof too, otherwise they could jump over the wall or be catapulted or something. There it is, missile shield and invation barrier all in one.

oh deary me. oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

you would have thought they'd have learned not to mess with determined people by now. The battle of hurtgen forest (WW2) - shed loads of dead and yet they still thought they could win so they threw more and more innocent young lads into the meat grinder. Vietnam - shed loads of dead and yet they still thought they could win so they threw more and more innocent young lads into the meat grinder. Iraq, outcome to be decided, but hey, we already know in our hearts what it's going to be, don't we?

And now Iran. Possibly. Iran IS fundamentalism. Leave well alone and continue through diplomatic routes. America's leaders could well get seal the fate of the planet :( and our Junta's leader is Tony Blair, lapdog of Bush...

I live in fear of the time when America nukes anyone.
Yes, diplomacy never fails. Diplomacy has completely disarmed N. Korea. They've given up their nuclear ambitions and will never use nuclear weapons to blackmail other nations or sell nuclear technology to fund their corrupt regime. If it worked so well in N. Korea it's bound to work with reasonable people like the Iranian Mullahs.

oh I live in fear of the time when America nukes anyone.

I guess you didn't pass history class.

Check August 1945.

Yes, diplomacy never fails. Diplomacy has completely disarmed N. Korea. They've given up their nuclear ambitions and will never use nuclear weapons to blackmail other nations or sell nuclear technology to fund their corrupt regime. If it worked so well in N. Korea it's bound to work with reasonable people like the Iranian Mullahs.

Dude, the only reason they are persuing their nuclear weapons program is because our war on Iraq showed that W.M.D. are the only way to ensure their Soverignty, Iraq let in the weapons inspectors, U.S. says they lie, boom, invade, no W.M.D.

What reason would ANY country disarm for? What incentive? If they disarm, the U.S. will still invade them!

Negotiating didn't make them build the weapons, war mongering did.

I say we bomb the crap out of Iran, arm those who don't agree with the current regime and let them sort out their own regime change.

That's how Saddam and Bin Ladin got so powerful in the first place.

We've overthrown legally soverign governments and replaced them with dictators time and time again. You know what happened? 9/11, blame the deaths of those civilians not on the terrorists, but on those who armed them, the anti-communist god fearing anti-democratic anti-international law government of the United States

What makes you think it would not happen again?

That's how Saddam and Bin Ladin got so powerful in the first place.

We've overthrown legally soverign governments and replaced them with dictators time and time again. You know what happened? 9/11, blame the deaths of those civilians not on the terrorists, but on those who armed them, the anti-communist god fearing anti-democratic anti-international law government of the United States

What makes you think it would not happen again?
Because the reformers in Iran know what it's like to live in a repressive muslim theocracy and they don't want to live that way anymore. They want democracy. If we bomb the hell out of Iran's military assets and the buildings housing their intelligence services an armed revolution by the liberal elements in Iranian society can overthrow the mullahs and establish a free and democratic nation.

Uhuh...

Try opening a freakin' history book once in awhile.

Just because Bush says it's going to happen dosen't mean it isn't going to go down the same way it has every time in history, period.

Dude, the only reason they are persuing their nuclear weapons program is because our war on Iraq showed that W.M.D. are the only way to ensure their Soverignty, Iraq let in the weapons inspectors, U.S. says they lie, boom, invade, no W.M.D.

What reason would ANY country disarm for? What incentive? If they disarm, the U.S. will still invade them!

Negotiating didn't make them build the weapons, war mongering did.
Bullshit. They started working on nuclear weapons long before the Iraq war was even hinted at.

You are proving my point. If we want to disarm a nation with nuclear ambitions diplomacy won't do it. Force is necessary. Using force against Iran and N. Korea will cost lives, but waiting until they build a huge nuclear arsenal will cost us many more lives.

Uhuh...

Try opening a freakin' history book once in awhile.

Just because Bush says it's going to happen dosen't mean it isn't going to go down the same way it has every time in history, period.
What's Bush got to do with it? I'm not basing any of my opinions on what that idiot says.

What makes you so certain they are going to use nuclear weapons?

The only country ever to use a nuclear weapon was the United States, I think that says we shouldn't be trusted with them either.

So hopefully some big alien civilization will invade us, take our nuclear weapons to make sure we don't use the nukes on them and then everything will be alright.

Sure, it will cost human lives, and destroy a planet full of soverign nations, but as long as the alien civilization feels safe, right?

It's not a secret that Iran has been trying to develop ICBMs for years.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/missile.htm

Still not done, though.

It's not a secret that Iran has been trying to develop nuclear weapons for years.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

Still not done, though.

If they finish, and if they really do plan to hit the US, they have to contend with a few items.

The US has the ability to destroy Iran. I'm sure that if the US were struck by many nuclear weapons by any Islamic state, you could kiss Mecca (and any "suspect" Islamic nations and their populations) goodbye.

The only country ever to use a nuclear weapon was the United States, I think that says we shouldn't be trusted with them either.


*laughs*
wrong...Russia has definitely used a nuke...just not against another nation...they still used it tho...it went BOOM
Also...the bombs the U.S. used on Japan...they werent even nukes...they were atomic bombs...significantly less powerful...

The US has the ability to destroy Iran. I'm sure that if the US were struck by many nuclear weapons by any Islamic state, you could kiss Mecca (and any "suspect" Islamic nations and their populations) goodbye.
I don't think that Iran wants to attack the US. Maybe Israel, but not the US. They'd rather the US leave them alone and stop throwing crap their way. Of course, Iran should do the same too.

Anyway, perhaps Iran is justified what with Iraq being invaded and Pakistan and Afghanistan going over to the enemy's side, Israel and Pakistan with atomic weapons and then those crazy Russians that you never know what they're going to do next. So perhaps having an atomic weapon available would be a good deterrant. I mean, governments and nations have the right to defend themselved, don't they?

*laughs*
wrong...Russia has definitely used a nuke...just not against another nation...they still used it tho...it went BOOM
Also...the bombs the U.S. used on Japan...they werent even nukes...they were atomic bombs...significantly less powerful...
They're the same thing. Perhaps you mean A-bomb and H-bomb, or fission and fussion bombs, or nuclear and thermo-nuclear. But for most purposes atomic and nuclear is the same (the energy is released from the atomic nucleous in any case).

*laughs*
wrong...Russia has definitely used a nuke...just not against another nation...they still used it tho...it went BOOM
Also...the bombs the U.S. used on Japan...they werent even nukes...they were atomic bombs...significantly less powerful...

Darkstalkers, while I appreciate your interest in our discussion and thank you for taking the time to reply directly for me. Please at least show a little restraint when you are broaching a subject which is obviously new to you.

An atomic weapon uses nuclear fission and fusion to create it's destructive energy potential, hence, it's a nuke.

Second, the United States was the only country to use a nuclear weapon or nuke, as we've now established as a buzzword for them, as a weapon in August of 1945, destroying two Japanese cities and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Russia, India, France, Britain and many other countries have test fired nuclear weapons, detonating them harmlessly (not to the enviroment but human populations) many times.

So, let's establish: 1.) Atomic weapons, even the low grade, primitive low yield bombs dropped by the United States use Nuclear Fission and Fusion, are therefor established as Nuclear Weapons, hence, nukes.

2.) A nuclear test is NOT using it, by using it we mean in a strategic or tactical enviroment causing loss of life.

3.) Please, while I respect opinions that differ from me, even arrogant opinions (as I am arrogant, I must, unless I am myself a hypocrite) do not openly laugh and assume you know more then me.

For my entire life has been dedicated to the worship of military technology. I would like to think I know a thing or two.

Okay?

I don't think that Iran wants to attack the US. Maybe Israel, but not the US. They'd rather the US leave them alone and stop throwing crap their way. Of course, Iran should do the same too.

Anyway, perhaps Iran is justified what with Iraq being invaded and Pakistan and Afghanistan going over to the enemy's side, Israel and Pakistan with atomic weapons and then those crazy Russians that you never know what they're going to do next. So perhaps having an atomic weapon available would be a good deterrant. I mean, governments and nations have the right to defend themselved, don't they?

I think that's why they haven't really gotten an ICBM that can reach beyond Europe yet.

But Israel doesn't pose a threat to Iran. So, why would they attack Israel, if not for some anti-Jewish reason?

I think the US would be justified in annihilating the entire Iranian population if a single Iranian nuke goes off over US forces or US soil.

You'll have to build a roof too, otherwise they could jump over the wall or be catapulted or something. There it is, missile shield and invation barrier all in one.

and then fill it up with water and let all those inside drown, worlds problems solved :)

But Israel doesn't pose a threat to Iran. So, why would they attack Israel, if not for some anti-Jewish reason?

Of course, mostly for propagandistic effect or something. I don't think they would since the Mullahs (especially the new ones) are not as hell bent on Islamic domination. Some of the old ones are crazy enough, but they can be restrained.


I think the US would be justified in annihilating the entire Iranian population if a single Iranian nuke goes off over US forces or US soil.

No, it wouldn't. See? Now you're going to start twisting the Geneva conventions again to make it seem like an appropiate response. The US would be justified to repel the attack and destroy the Iranian capability to launch another one, but not to annihilate its population.

What? Is the Middle East entitled to annihilate the entire US population over Iraq? Are the Japanese justified to kill every US citizen over Hiroshima? Are the Mexicans over 1848?

What makes you so certain they are going to use nuclear weapons?

The only country ever to use a nuclear weapon was the United States, I think that says we shouldn't be trusted with them either.

So hopefully some big alien civilization will invade us, take our nuclear weapons to make sure we don't use the nukes on them and then everything will be alright.

Sure, it will cost human lives, and destroy a planet full of soverign nations, but as long as the alien civilization feels safe, right?
Iran will use nuclear weapons, but not directly. They will transfer the technology to Hezbollah and use it to strike at US and Israeli homeland and interests.

Notice that when the US recieved a vicious and unporovoked attack on it's civilian population, and found out that Afghanistan was aiding and protecting those responsible, the US didn't use nuclear weapons? I think that shows we're trustworthy.

Of course, mostly for propagandistic effect or something. I don't think they would since the Mullahs (especially the new ones) are not as hell bent on Islamic domination. Some of the old ones are crazy enough, but they can be restrained.


No, it wouldn't. See? Now you're going to start twisting the Geneva conventions again to make it seem like an appropiate response. The US would be justified to repel the attack and destroy the Iranian capability to launch another one, but not to annihilate its population.

What? Is the Middle East entitled to annihilate the entire US population over Iraq? Are the Japanese justified to kill every US citizen over Hiroshima? Are the Mexicans over 1848?

Oh, so the US and USSR plans during the Cold War aren't appropriate?

I thought MAD was acceptable.

I don't think that Iran wants to attack the US. Maybe Israel, but not the US. They'd rather the US leave them alone and stop throwing crap their way. Of course, Iran should do the same too.

Anyway, perhaps Iran is justified what with Iraq being invaded and Pakistan and Afghanistan going over to the enemy's side, Israel and Pakistan with atomic weapons and then those crazy Russians that you never know what they're going to do next. So perhaps having an atomic weapon available would be a good deterrant. I mean, governments and nations have the right to defend themselved, don't they?
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons for defense. Israel does. When have US or Israeli forces invaded Iran? Never. The US supported the Shah, but never invaded. Even when Iran held US hostages and blew up a bunch of US Marines in Lebanon. Meanwhile Israel's neighbors have tried to invade several times.

I think that's why they haven't really gotten an ICBM that can reach beyond Europe yet.

But Israel doesn't pose a threat to Iran. So, why would they attack Israel, if not for some anti-Jewish reason?

I think the US would be justified in annihilating the entire Iranian population if a single Iranian nuke goes off over US forces or US soil.
I agree. The penalty for using nuclear weapons against the USA should be complete destruction of the enemy nation's population. The US should state that clearly and repeatedly in order to make sure nobody gets any stupid ideas.

Iran wouldn't use nukes on US. The would for certain would love to drop one on Israel though. But again that would mean a retalitory strike on Iran by several nations I'm sure.

I agree. The penalty for using nuclear weapons against the USA should be complete destruction of the enemy nation's population. The US should state that clearly and repeatedly in order to make sure nobody gets any stupid ideas.

I can understand that you would want retribution but have you noticed that in your own country there are people that dissagree with what the government is doing, do you think that happens only in america? I think not.
So you basicly are saying kill lots of innocent men, women and children because of some politicians and make the place uninhabitable for many generations and poison its neighbours with nuclear fallout.

Iran wouldn't use nukes on US. The would for certain would love to drop one on Israel though. But again that would mean a retalitory strike on Iran by several nations I'm sure.
What makes you so sure Hezbollah wouldn't be equpped with nuclear weapons? Some of their cells have been found operating in the USA. Iran has anti-Americanism as a second state religion.

I can understand that you would want retribution but have you noticed that in your own country there are people that dissagree with what the government is doing, do you think that happens only in america? I think not.
So you basicly are saying kill lots of innocent men, women and children because of some politicians and make the place uninhabitable for many generations and poison its neighbours with nuclear fallout.
That's exactly what I'm saying. The penalty for attacking the USA with WMD must be so horrible that nobody would consider it.

I can understand that you would want retribution but have you noticed that in your own country there are people that dissagree with what the government is doing, do you think that happens only in america? I think not.
So you basicly are saying kill lots of innocent men, women and children because of some politicians and make the place uninhabitable for many generations and poison its neighbours with nuclear fallout.

It was both US and USSR official policy from 1948 to 1991.

Want to try again?

Besides, at least with US bombs, if they all do the airburst thing, and don't groundburst, there isn't any fallout worth worrying about.

Now, if there's a groundburst, or they use one of the warheads with fallout enhancement, well...

downwind will be a 6000-rad per hour plume that will even kill the cockroaches... for hundreds of miles...

That's exactly what I'm saying. The penalty for attacking the USA with WMD must be so horrible that nobody would consider it.

You responded yes to killing innocent people including children, that makes you just as bad as a terrorest, if all americans have the same beliefs as you then that explains why the world is sick of america

Oh, so the US and USSR plans during the Cold War aren't appropriate?

I thought MAD was acceptable.
What!? If you really think that MAD was acceptable, then you are certainly mad. It was mutually assured destruction, that's why they never threw missiles at each other, because they knew that would end in each other's annihilation in an escalating series of attacks, and that is unacceptable.

And not only unacceptable for them, but unacceptable to the whole world. In the same regards, if Iran attacks the US with an atomic weapon, total annihilation of that country is unacceptable. Quick and swift invasion and destruction of their war machinery and replacement of their government would be acceptable, but no civilized nation would condone total annihilation.

You responded yes to killing innocent people including children, that makes you just as bad as a terrorest, if all americans have the same beliefs as you then that explains why the world is sick of america
The funny thing about nuclear weapons is that they're less likely to be used when people are more willing to use them. If the US is going to allow another nation to hit us with nuclear weapons and not retaliate in kind then idiots like Lil' Kim and the Iranian Mullahs will be tempted to nuke us. If we make it clear that using nukes against us ensures a complete genocide for one's people they'll think twice.

Indeed. This is exactly why I get so agitated, despite what people may think, I'm not anti-American, I'm not anti-Military and I'm certainly not anti-Nuclear Weapons.

I get angry when he hypocritically try to spread "democracy" by giving power to corrupt dictators who fight then communists, then us with our own weapons.

I get angry when we some people try to use terrorism as the justification to launch nuclear attacks on an innocent civillian population.

Okay, so they killed our innocent people, so lets kill some more innocent people, so everyone feels better, is that it?

COME ON PEOPLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW DESTRUCTIVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON IS? IF WE LAUNCHED AN ATTACK ON THE MIDDLE EAST, SOONER OR LATER THE RADIATION WOULD POSION OUR FOOD SUPPLIES, AN ENTIRE HEMISPHERE AWAY.

Remember how bad Chernobyl was? That was just a run away granite reactor. Think much, much worse.

Pretty pictures from the 1960s do NOT do our current weapons system justice.

Anyone who uses nuclear weapons will be signing there own death warrant, the United States included.

Thats why it's STUPID TO BELIEVE NUKES ARE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS.

Isreal: We need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves, because uhh, if we get invaded, we can nuke them and stuff. We'll be fine, even though they border us, and like, there military will be on our soil, so we'll just be like, killing their civillians, and stuff, but that's like, okay, cuz they are terrorists.

What!? If you really think that MAD was acceptable, then you are certainly mad. It was mutually assured destruction, that's why they never threw missiles at each other, because they knew that would end in each other's annihilation in an escalating series of attacks, and that is unacceptable.

And not only unacceptable for them, but unacceptable to the whole world. In the same regards, if Iran attacks the US with an atomic weapon, total annihilation of that country is unacceptable. Quick and swift invasion and destruction of their war machinery and replacement of their government would be acceptable, but no civilized nation would condone total annihilation.
MAD prevented another world war that would have ravaged Europe. MAD kept the peace between the two most deadly nations the world has ever seen. Without the will to use nuclear weapons all of Europe would have been a battlefield, and most of it's population would be dead.

The funny thing about nuclear weapons is that they're less likely to be used when people are more willing to use them. If the US is going to allow another nation to hit us with nuclear weapons and not retaliate in kind then idiots like Lil' Kim and the Iranian Mullahs will be tempted to nuke us. If we make it clear that using nukes against us ensures a complete genocide for one's people they'll think twice.

You just said it yourself, if the N. Koreans and Iranians have nuclear weapons, everyone will be alot less likely to use them.

It's called M.A.D., mutually assured destruction, and it dosen't work when your enemy dosen't have them.

Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons for defense. Israel does. When have US or Israeli forces invaded Iran? Never. The US supported the Shah, but never invaded. Even when Iran held US hostages and blew up a bunch of US Marines in Lebanon. Meanwhile Israel's neighbors have tried to invade several times.
The US was concerned with getting the Soviets involved. But they fought a war by proxy using Iraq as the attacking party. Certainly Israel needs defensive weapons, but Iran is in no means safe, the US has put them in the Axis of Evil(TM) and the Russians still want an exit to warm water; Pakistan and Afghanistan are not the most stable of naions, and the first one has atomic weapons.

Now, if only attacked nations need weapons, what does that mean for the US? They have only been attacked three times in the last century, and two of those were by a gang of people just looking to upset them. Only once by an organized army.

I agree. The penalty for using nuclear weapons against the USA should be complete destruction of the enemy nation's population. The US should state that clearly and repeatedly in order to make sure nobody gets any stupid ideas.
So, you would agree in principle that the enemies of Islam should be vanquished?

Indeed. This is exactly why I get so agitated, despite what people may think, I'm not anti-American, I'm not anti-Military and I'm certainly not anti-Nuclear Weapons.

I get angry when he hypocritically try to spread "democracy" by giving power to corrupt dictators who fight then communists, then us with our own weapons.

I get angry when we some people try to use terrorism as the justification to launch nuclear attacks on an innocent civillian population.

Okay, so they killed our innocent people, so lets kill some more innocent people, so everyone feels better, is that it?

COME ON PEOPLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW DESTRUCTIVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON IS? IF WE LAUNCHED AN ATTACK ON THE MIDDLE EAST, SOONER OR LATER THE RADIATION WOULD POSION OUR FOOD SUPPLIES, AN ENTIRE HEMISPHERE AWAY.

Remember how bad Chernobyl was? That was just a run away granite reactor. Think much, much worse.

Pretty pictures from the 1960s do NOT do our current weapons system justice.

Anyone who uses nuclear weapons will be signing there own death warrant, the United States included.

Thats why it's STUPID TO BELIEVE NUKES ARE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS.

Isreal: We need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves, because uhh, if we get invaded, we can nuke them and stuff. We'll be fine, even though they border us, and like, there military will be on our soil, so we'll just be like, killing their civillians, and stuff, but that's like, okay, cuz they are terrorists.
Ok, I didn't advocate using nuclear weapons in any capacity except for defense.

Some people think nuclear weapons would be a great offensive weapon. These people have no regard for their own lives or the lives of civilians. They answer to what they think is a higher cause. They are Islamist terrorists.

Israel is surrounded by enemies. Israel's enemies have sworn to exterminate it's population. They have tried to do so several times. If anyone needs nuclear weapons to ensure their safety it's Israel.

The radiation from modern nuclear weapons isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be. The majority of the fallout will be comprised of isotopes with shorter half-lives than the isotopes that came out of Chernobyl. Also, Chernobyl had more radioactive material in it than any nuclear weapon ever invented.

You just said it yourself, if the N. Koreans and Iranians have nuclear weapons, everyone will be alot less likely to use them.

It's called M.A.D., mutually assured destruction, and it dosen't work when your enemy dosen't have them.
No, N. Korea will sell them to anyone who can pay. That includes nations and non-state actors. That's a serious threat to the whole world.

Iran is likely to transfer nuclear weapons to Hezbollah. Iran would deny any involvement while cities in Israel and the USA were destroyed.

MAD prevented another world war that would have ravaged Europe. MAD kept the peace between the two most deadly nations the world has ever seen. Without the will to use nuclear weapons all of Europe would have been a battlefield, and most of it's population would be dead.
So you're saying that all countries should be allowed to have enough nuclear weapons to totally destroy their enemies and in that way no one will destroy anyone?

The US was concerned with getting the Soviets involved. But they fought a war by proxy using Iraq as the attacking party. Certainly Israel needs defensive weapons, but Iran is in no means safe, the US has put them in the Axis of Evil(TM) and the Russians still want an exit to warm water; Pakistan and Afghanistan are not the most stable of naions, and the first one has atomic weapons.

Now, if only attacked nations need weapons, what does that mean for the US? They have only been attacked three times in the last century, and two of those were by a gang of people just looking to upset them. Only once by an organized army.
Iran's conventional forces are enough to prevent occupation by Pakistan. Afghanistan doesn't have a military capable of projecting force within it's borders, much less accross them. Russia is trying to be a good member of the world community, and as such it won't try to annex sovereign nations. And Iran is only in the Axis of Evil because they are trying to build nuclear weapons that they don't need for defense.

So, you would agree in principle that the enemies of Islam should be vanquished?
How does that follow from any of my statements?

Before, I didnt really understand why they hated us so much. Sure it was over our freedom, but why?


I started playing NationStates and made a country with no rights. My friend made a country with all rights. Her country started to do better than mine, I wanted to prove that all rights isnt the way to go. It eventually worked out that her country died a bit, I went over her head, she instated a few laws, and now she is once again doing better than me. I don't care now, because now it is ruled properly.

But when she had all those rights and was doing better than me, my friends and me were conspiring to start a war on her if a feature was ever introduced. I sat back and thought, What am I doing? I am attacking her because she has more freedom than me, and my country wasnt working out? That's insain! I see no reasoning, but in the game of life, it is easy to slip in that mindset.

So you're saying that all countries should be allowed to have enough nuclear weapons to totally destroy their enemies and in that way no one will destroy anyone?
I have no problem with stable countries who don't support terrorism having nuclear weapons. N. Korea isn't stable. It's so broke it has resorted to becomming the largest methamphetamine dealer in East Asia for cash. It will most certainly sell nuclear technology. Iran isn't stable. The mullahs disqualify popular reform candidates before elections. Nations that have those kinds of things going on are ripe for revolution. Plus it has known ties to terrorist organizations. I'm not trying to tell France to disarm. I'm just trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who absolutely can't be trusted with them.

Iran's conventional forces are enough to prevent occupation by Pakistan.

Unless they want to use Teheran as test ground for the nuclear missiles. See? That's enough reason to build a nuclear weapon, one of your neighbors and a potentially threatening one at that, has them.


Afghanistan doesn't have a military capable of projecting force within it's borders, much less accross them.

Not now, but that doesn't mean they'll stay that way forever. And since they are being reared by the US, you really don't want to wait 20 years and then have another war with a puppet state.


Russia is trying to be a good member of the world community, and as such it won't try to annex sovereign nations.

Ah! Russia is trying... but all that's necessry is some silly pretext, like "Iran is breathing my air" and then you have tanks rolling into Teheran. Better be prepared I say.


And Iran is only in the Axis of Evil because they are trying to build nuclear weapons that they don't need for defense.
How does the US know what Iran needs for defense? Does the US ask the international community how to conduct its army and the defense of its own country? No, right? Then why should they be the ones to determine how Iran can or can not defend themselves?

So you're saying that all countries should be allowed to have enough nuclear weapons to totally destroy their enemies and in that way no one will destroy anyone?

You will notice that concept worked PERFECTLY from 1948 to 1991.

WHAT?
Because you think the terrorists who killed themselves into our building were not cowards? They were fucking cowards. If they had some courage, they would have come to a military base with big knifes and they would have fighted us like men and died like men.

killed themselves into our building?

they would have fighted us like men?

first off, go back to middle school. second off, just because a group of a dozen or so extremists who misinterpret islam for the benefit of a few crazy fuckers hiding out in caves do some cowardly shit doesn't mean that we should, too. they're tools, we're the united fucking states! we (used to) command respect!

How does that follow from any of my statements?
"Anyone who attacks the US should be annihilated"
"Anyone who attacks Islam shoud be annihilated"
Gee, I can't see any similarity!

You will notice that concept worked PERFECTLY from 1948 to 1991.
Then let all countries have nuclear weapons. Heck, let everybody have nuclear weapons, according to your Constitution that's a fundamental right.

Unless they want to use Teheran as test ground for the nuclear missiles. See? That's enough reason to build a nuclear weapon, one of your neighbors and a potentially threatening one at that, has them.


Not now, but that doesn't mean they'll stay that way forever. And since they are being reared by the US, you really don't want to wait 20 years and then have another war with a puppet state.


Ah! Russia is trying... but all that's necessry is some silly pretext, like "Iran is breathing my air" and then you have tanks rolling into Teheran. Better be prepared I say.


How does the US know what Iran needs for defense? Does the US ask the international community how to conduct its army and the defense of its own country? No, right? Then why should they be the ones to determine how Iran can or can not defend themselves?
Look, I gave my explanation, and you gave your weak rebuttal. Your counterarguments aren't convincing to me at all. We're not going to convince each other, but there is one thing you can't argue with. When the USA makes up it's mind to deny a nation of WMD you can bet that that nation will be disarmed. In the end relations between nations are like relations between inmates in the prison yard. The biggest guys in the strongest gangs make the rules.

"Anyone who attacks the US should be annihilated"
"Anyone who attacks Islam shoud be annihilated"
Gee, I can't see any similarity!
Who's attacked Islam? Oh, and which Islam are we talking about here? The Islamofascist interpretation favored by the terrorists or the mainstream Islam that is growing into a modern and peaceful religion?

Against the Islamofascists I say bring it on. Let's see who's on top when it's all over. To the mainstream ones, I have no problem with them.

I have no problem with stable countries who don't support terrorism having nuclear weapons. N. Korea isn't stable. It's so broke it has resorted to becomming the largest methamphetamine dealer in East Asia for cash. It will most certainly sell nuclear technology. Iran isn't stable. The mullahs disqualify popular reform candidates before elections. Nations that have those kinds of things going on are ripe for revolution. Plus it has known ties to terrorist organizations. I'm not trying to tell France to disarm. I'm just trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who absolutely can't be trusted with them.
I agree that NK isn't stable, they're in the hands of a lunatic. But the nuclear weapons still have to make it out of NK and into somewhere to be of use for the terrorists.

But Iran IS stable. What it's not is a western democracy (although there's some democracy). There's a difference, though. Terrorist ties are more of a concern, though, but again, the nuclear weapons have to make it out of Iran. And, at least in this case, they have agreed to regular inspections by international authorities.

Hey, if the Iranians want a piece of us, they better get a move on. Sitting here, looking out my window, it looks like the Micks have beaten them to the invasion punch.

Hey, if the Iranians want a piece of us, they better get a move on. Sitting here, looking out my window, it looks like the Micks have beaten them to the invasion punch.

uh FLAME ALERT

America attacking Iran is in the best interest of Israel. America's first priority is Iraq and not Iran (I'm sure everyone can agree on that). Besides, when Bush calls Iran an "Axis of evil", and now blames Iran as a threat to peace, it is a natural (political) reaction for Iran to verbally retaliate ("America will be destroyed" and so on, it's all a bluff). The U.S now occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, look where Iran is on the map, and through recruitment, U.S forces will be increased, and add that with Iran being a threat to peace. In my opinion, that article is bias, and there's prejudice in it. It claims American Iranians and Arabs are a time bomb, just waiting to explode. Arabs and Iranians came to America not to cause trouble (or I'm sure they wouldn't brought along their families.) They came to America because they saw their countries being led by ruthless dictators or religious fanatics. If you easily buy into this article, then understand this, every American Italian is a Mafioso, Irish American is a drunk, French American is a pussy and a whiner, American German is a brainless Nazi and American Jews are money hungry. I know for sure the last statment I just typed is false just like the article.

uh FLAME ALERT

What on earth are you talking about?

What on earth are you talking about?

you're funny.

Look, I gave my explanation, and you gave your weak rebuttal. Your counterarguments aren't convincing to me at all. We're not going to convince each other, but there is one thing you can't argue with. When the USA makes up it's mind to deny a nation of WMD you can bet that that nation will be disarmed. In the end relations between nations are like relations between inmates in the prison yard. The biggest guys in the strongest gangs make the rules.
So stop making up excuses and coming up with second-rate justifications. Simply say "no other country can have nuclear weapons because we don't want them to". And remember that the biggest guy can kick your ass in prison, but he sure as hell will get scratched and have his eyes poked; he also shouldn't be surprised if the little ones gang up on him one day or just attack him from behind , or simply suddenly somebody else gets bigger.

Maan! You just justified 9/11 and anything the US might have coming!

Congrats! You win the debate!

It claims American Iranians and Arabs are a time bomb, just waiting to explode. .
Iran is the main state sponsor of Hezbollah. Iran is virulently anti-American. Hezbollah cells have been found in the USA. Some Iranians in the USA are a timebomb. It's simple math. 1+1+1=3

Who's attacked Islam? Oh, and which Islam are we talking about here? The Islamofascist interpretation favored by the terrorists or the mainstream Islam that is growing into a modern and peaceful religion?

Against the Islamofascists I say bring it on. Let's see who's on top when it's all over. To the mainstream ones, I have no problem with them.
So, now it's not all of Iran, just the Islamofacist ones? Can you please make up your mind?

In some muslims minds supporting Israel is an attack against Islam, going against Islamis tradition as stated in the Koran is against Islam, supporting leaders that don't follow Islamis tradition is against Islam.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support such line of thought. But I also don't support that an attack carried out by a hostile government or a terrorist groups is an attack carried out by the entire population or ideological group; and therefore worthy of total annihilation.

So stop making up excuses and coming up with second-rate justifications. Simply say "no other country can have nuclear weapons because we don't want them to". And remember that the biggest guy can kick your ass in prison, but he sure as hell will get scratched and have his eyes poked; he also shouldn't be surprised if the little ones gang up on him one day or just attack him from behind , or simply suddenly somebody else gets bigger.

Maan! You just justified 9/11 and anything the US might have coming!

Congrats! You win the debate!
No, I gave rational reasons why it's in the world's best interests to limit nuclear proliferation. I also explained how the real world works. You are just blinded by your hatred of the USA and too bound to your own preconcieved notions to understand my argument. Your last statement reveals your bias.

So, now it's not all of Iran, just the Islamofacist ones? Can you please make up your mind?

In some muslims minds supporting Israel is an attack against Islam, going against Islamis tradition as stated in the Koran is against Islam, supporting leaders that don't follow Islamis tradition is against Islam.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support such line of thought. But I also don't support that an attack carried out by a hostile government or a terrorist groups is an attack carried out by the entire population or ideological group; and therefore worthy of total annihilation.
1 If Iran as a nation attacks the USA via nuclear weapons, Iran as a nation must be destroyed.

2 The USA has taken no aggressive action against Islam. Only against the Islamofascists and a couple of horrible regimes (although we could have avoided war with Saddam)

3 Nowhere in the Koran or Hadith is support of Jews considered an attack on Islam. According to your statement though, the USA proved it's friendship to Islam by taking out Saddam.

No, I gave rational reasons why it's in the world's best interests to limit nuclear proliferation. I also explained how the real world works. You are just blinded by your hatred of the USA and too bound to your own preconcieved notions to understand my argument. Your last statement reveals your bias.
Please, find me one sentence, just one sentence, where I say that I hate the US. All I'm advocating is Iran's right to build weapons for their own defense. You know what's better than nuclear proliferation? If no one had nuclear weapons. But there are nuclear weapons and the most armed don't want to disarm.

And my last statement is not something I say, it's something YOU said. Yup, your obtuse way of thinking is exactly the same obtuse way of thinking that is used to attack the US or Israel or other countries. The "we are right, you are wrong" and "might is right". Ironically, by claiming that the US is justified to do whatever it wants, you are giving the means to the enemies of the US to justify their own actions.

Seems to me you really don't love the US, you just go through the motions.

Please, find me one sentence, just one sentence, where I say that I hate the US. All I'm advocating is Iran's right to build weapons for their own defense. You know what's better than nuclear proliferation? If no one had nuclear weapons. But there are nuclear weapons and the most armed don't want to disarm.

And my last statement is not something I say, it's something YOU said. Yup, your obtuse way of thinking is exactly the same obtuse way of thinking that is used to attack the US or Israel or other countries. The "we are right, you are wrong" and "might is right". Ironically, by claiming that the US is justified to do whatever it wants, you are giving the means to the enemies of the US to justify their own actions.

Seems to me you really don't love the US, you just go through the motions.

I don't have a problem with them building the weapons. They just have to accept whatever consequences the US lays on them if they use them against the US or its forces first.

The consequences being complete annihilation.

Please, find me one sentence, just one sentence, where I say that I hate the US. All I'm advocating is Iran's right to build weapons for their own defense. You know what's better than nuclear proliferation? If no one had nuclear weapons. But there are nuclear weapons and the most armed don't want to disarm.

And my last statement is not something I say, it's something YOU said. Yup, your obtuse way of thinking is exactly the same obtuse way of thinking that is used to attack the US or Israel or other countries. The "we are right, you are wrong" and "might is right". Ironically, by claiming that the US is justified to do whatever it wants, you are giving the means to the enemies of the US to justify their own actions.

Seems to me you really don't love the US, you just go through the motions."you just justified 9/11 and anything else the US has comming"

Clearly that reveals your hatred of the USA. I find people like you hide behind a fascade that says there is no black and white, everything's shades of gray, meanwhile in your heart you see the US as blacker than night, and anyone who opposes us as a force for good. I think you're a fraud in that regard.

I do love the USA. Patriotism is my religion.

1 If Iran as a nation attacks the USA via nuclear weapons, Iran as a nation must be destroyed.

2 The USA has taken no aggressive action against Islam. Only against the Islamofascists and a couple of horrible regimes (although we could have avoided war with Saddam)

3 Nowhere in the Koran or Hadith is support of Jews considered an attack on Islam. According to your statement though, the USA proved it's friendship to Islam by taking out Saddam.
No, but going against Islamic tradition is, two separate things. And some make up justifications for the other thing. I mean, justifications are a penny a dozen. And you can make as many justifications to support the islamofacist point of view as you can make to support the US-facist point of view. Or US-liberal point of view. And not one of them would necessarily be right.

That's why there must be rules regulating ALL countries, without exception. And that includes the US. So, if the US can build atomic weapons for its own defense, why can't Iran?

No, but going against Islamic tradition is, two separate things. And some make up justifications for the other thing. I mean, justifications are a penny a dozen. And you can make as many justifications to support the islamofacist point of view as you can make to support the US-facist point of view. Or US-liberal point of view. And not one of them would necessarily be right.

That's why there must be rules regulating ALL countries, without exception. And that includes the US. So, if the US can build atomic weapons for its own defense, why can't Iran?
How many ways can I say it? The US can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Iran can't.

Oh come on.

To me this sounds exactly like what was going down right before the Iraq war. Remember? When the Bush administration was claiming that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, and ties with Al-Qaeda (sp?)? For a good half a year before the initial invasion 'ole Dubyah was on the air almost every night, scaring the shit out of the populace of the world. Rice and Powell were in on it, too, as well as Rummy. They spun quite a tale, didn't they? Anyone else remember the "Iraq is trying to make nuclear weapons" fiasco? The one that resulted in the US going to war a week later?

Well, you went and invaded 'em, and guess what? There were no nukes, no chemical weapons, no weapons of mass destruction, no weapons PERIOD - other than the ones the CIA sold them. To figh Iran. Heh heh... whoops.

Now that I mention it, that sounds a bit familiar, too, doesn't it? Finding weapons on the enemy that we sold them? When else did that happen? Oh yea... those terrorists that attacked on September 11th were all trained by the CIA, which was paid for by US tax dollars. Whoops again.

So now we have some more "insider" information on how Iran is going to attack us. Funny, that - just as the US is starting to slide into an oil crisis that would throw the nation into a depression the likes of which have never been seen before, we start finding out that all those countries that have lots of oil are plotting against us! Convenient, that we get to go and "liberate" them, and their oil.

But then again, those nations plotting against us isn't that unlikely, is it? I mean, we haven't exactly been nice to the Middle East. Sure we "liberate" them when they're in trouble, but only if they have oil. Look at the first Gulf War. Woohoo! We liberated Kuwait! USA! USA! Oh... erm... nevermind that we deposed their democractically-elected leader and instated the dictator they had before the Gulf War. Whoops. Oh well, we get their oil.

We should also fail to mention all those other nations who's democratically elected leaders we've removed... or assassinated... or have just killed along with hundreds of thousands of innocents in coups that we've started. Chile, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, whoops, whoops, whoops, whoops. Shove them under the carpet. Because in the end, "Operation Liberty Shield" only shields the liberty of US citizens - the liberty to drive big, gas-guzzling SUVs. Mmhmm, married, two cars in the garage, 2.5 kids, and a white picketed fence in suburbia: the American Dream.

I suppose the question that this raises is, who's next? We've got a lot of oil up here in Canada, and we're only giving 50% of it to you. Are we next? Or what about Saudi Arabia? They have a ton of oil... oh wait, they have two trillion dollars in the American economy right now. Better leave them alone. For now.

Because despite how much we all want it to, this age of oil isn't going to last. And when we run out finally, what will we do? Hydrogen fuel cells? Hydrogen isn't even fuel, people. And besides, it takes more energy to make the "fuel" cells than is provided by them. Scratch that. Well, what about electric cars? They only need a little oil to run - oh wait, OPEC is sitting on all the patents on electric cars. Whoops. How about hydroelectric energy? Well, that's great - for people near a dam. Solar energy is fine, but even with a panel on every house we'd still need another source of energy. Wind power only works when - you guessed it - it's windy. Double whoops.

This is just another desperate attempt to keep everyone's mind off the fact that we are quickly running out of oil and we don't have a solution. Fuck the war, fuck the environmental issues, fuck sports, fuck popular music, fuck EVERYTHING - it's all a trick, an illusion. It's a sleight of hand, misdirection. Wipe the caul from your eyes. This isn't about liberty, stopping terrorism, defending religion, or revenge. It's about OIL.

I don't have a problem with them building the weapons. They just have to accept whatever consequences the US lays on them if they use them against the US or its forces first.

The consequences being complete annihilation.
Of course, or against any other country. I just don't think that total annihilation is called for. Sure, the nuking of Teheran and the total dismantlement of their government and military industry will be a given, but total annihilation meaning the killing of each and every Iranian is a bit much in my eyes.

Oh come on.

To me this sounds exactly like what was going down right before the Iraq war. Remember? When the Bush administration was claiming that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, and ties with Al-Qaeda (sp?)? For a good half a year before the initial invasion 'ole Dubyah was on the air almost every night, scaring the shit out of the populace of the world. Rice and Powell were in on it, too, as well as Rummy. They spun quite a tale, didn't they? Anyone else remember the "Iraq is trying to make nuclear weapons" fiasco? The one that resulted in the US going to war a week later?

Well, you went and invaded 'em, and guess what? There were no nukes, no chemical weapons, no weapons of mass destruction, no weapons PERIOD - other than the ones the CIA sold them. To figh Iran. Heh heh... whoops.

Now that I mention it, that sounds a bit familiar, too, doesn't it? Finding weapons on the enemy that we sold them? When else did that happen? Oh yea... those terrorists that attacked on September 11th were all trained by the CIA, which was paid for by US tax dollars. Whoops again.

So now we have some more "insider" information on how Iran is going to attack us. Funny, that - just as the US is starting to slide into an oil crisis that would throw the nation into a depression the likes of which have never been seen before, we start finding out that all those countries that have lots of oil are plotting against us! Convenient, that we get to go and "liberate" them, and their oil.

But then again, those nations plotting against us isn't that unlikely, is it? I mean, we haven't exactly been nice to the Middle East. Sure we "liberate" them when they're in trouble, but only if they have oil. Look at the first Gulf War. Woohoo! We liberated Kuwait! USA! USA! Oh... erm... nevermind that we deposed their democractically-elected leader and instated the dictator they had before the Gulf War. Whoops. Oh well, we get their oil.

We should also fail to mention all those other nations who's democratically elected leaders we've removed... or assassinated... or have just killed along with hundreds of thousands of innocents in coups that we've started. Chile, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, whoops, whoops, whoops, whoops. Shove them under the carpet. Because in the end, "Operation Liberty Shield" only shields the liberty of US citizens - the liberty to drive big, gas-guzzling SUVs. Mmhmm, married, two cars in the garage, 2.5 kids, and a white picketed fence in suburbia: the American Dream.

I suppose the question that this raises is, who's next? We've got a lot of oil up here in Canada, and we're only giving 50% of it to you. Are we next? Or what about Saudi Arabia? They have a ton of oil... oh wait, they have two trillion dollars in the American economy right now. Better leave them alone. For now.

Because despite how much we all want it to, this age of oil isn't going to last. And when we run out finally, what will we do? Hydrogen fuel cells? Hydrogen isn't even fuel, people. And besides, it takes more energy to make the "fuel" cells than is provided by them. Scratch that. Well, what about electric cars? They only need a little oil to run - oh wait, OPEC is sitting on all the patents on electric cars. Whoops. How about hydroelectric energy? Well, that's great - for people near a dam. Solar energy is fine, but even with a panel on every house we'd still need another source of energy. Wind power only works when - you guessed it - it's windy. Double whoops.

This is just another desperate attempt to keep everyone's mind off the fact that we are quickly running out of oil and we don't have a solution. Fuck the war, fuck the environmental issues, fuck sports, fuck popular music, fuck EVERYTHING - it's all a trick, an illusion. It's a sleight of hand, misdirection. Wipe the caul from your eyes. This isn't about liberty, stopping terrorism, defending religion, or revenge. It's about OIL.
Ok, error number one: The 9/11 hijackers weren't trained by the CIA.

Number two: Comparing Iraq, which had no ties to terrorists who attacked the USA with Iran which has well known ties to Hezbollah.

Number 3: A war on Iran for oil? Nope, Iran doesn't have enough oil to justify it, and if Iraq was a war for oil, we lost. The oil profits from all of Iraq's production for several years won't cover the cost of the war. It would take all of Iraq's oil production capacity for decades to cover the war costs plus interest.

number 4: Kuaitis never elected Saddam.

"you just justified 9/11 and anything else the US has comming"

How does this mean I hate the US? If you notice the subject of the sentence is "YOU", that is Temporary nations. It is you, through your line of though who justifies whatever actions are taken against the US. How?

Well, you say that "real life" is like prison. The big guy has the right to bully the little ones, but in prison, the little ones have the right to gang up on the big guy and do things covertly or overtly against him. Since it's you proposing the analogy, this would mean that in "real life" smaller countries tired of the US bullying would have to right to gang up against it or in conducting overt or covert actions against it. That's you, not me, who defends this line of thought.

In my line of thought, countries need to abide by clear and specific rules previously agreed, that say what they can or can't do to each other. Agreed, many countries like NK and groups will resist abiding by them, but this should not justify other countries like the US to not follow them. It's a bit of a Catch-22, but it's the only way we will eventually get a peaceful, workable world.


Clearly that reveals your hatred of the USA. I find people like you hide behind a fascade that says there is no black and white, everything's shades of gray, meanwhile in your heart you see the US as blacker than night, and anyone who opposes us as a force for good. I think you're a fraud in that regard.

I see that things are black and white, but the US is not all white and Iran is not all black. Mind you, the US is a lot whiter than Iran, but that should not be a justification to impose your will on them.


I do love the USA. Patriotism is my religion.
Uhm, that explains a lot.

you all are being absolutely ridiculous! has any one of you thought that there could possibly be a bunch of students on a similar website in iran saying "the us is building nukes, so why can't we?" or "we should just bomb them all and then that would put an end to their tyranny all over the rest of the world." each and everyone of you don't understand how nuclear weapons work. it's mass destruction. and i hate to break it to you but the "bad guys" aren't concentrated in one area out in the middle of nowhere so we can't just go and kill them. and even if they were, what gives us the right to do so? just because we don't agree with them and their practices? i can't believe how much crap islam has gotten for their practices of jihad. aren't we basically doing the same thing in the middle east, except instead of claiming it is for a religious purpose, we claim that it is better for them. them?! yes, murdering thousands of innocent people to impose democracy on them is exactly what they want. george w. should have stuck with what he went into iraq for in the first place: to rid them of weapons of mass destruction. before the war, when did bush EVER say that the reason for going to war was to "liberate" them? NEVER. his reasoning was that we must rid them of wmd so that we could be safe. however, we have the same wmd and we are appalled when someone even mentions the fact that we have them. how is it fair that we can have wmd and control the rest of the world by using the threat of ours to rid them of theirs? i am so sick of america, i'm moving to canada!

How many ways can I say it? The US can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Iran can't.
Says who? Maybe the US hasn't used another atomic weapon just because of all their conventional military might, they may use it in the future. Bush says that he's keeping all his options open against Iran and NK. Somehow that makes me nervous.

The way I see it, no one and no government can be trusted with atomic weapons. Better that everyone just disarms, but no one wants to be the first.

They just hate freedom. They want our freedom. Only when we nuke democracy on them will they understand that western bombs are superior.


If there were a hell you should be rotting in it right now, and you other imperialist fuckers

If there were a hell you should be rotting in it right now, and you other imperialist fuckers

If you don't know that Psylos is being sarcastic, you need to reach down and pull your head out of your ass. Psylos is the last person I'd be calling an "imperialist fucker".

Please reserve that term for me.

Says who? Maybe the US hasn't used another atomic weapon just because of all their conventional military might, they may use it in the future. Bush says that he's keeping all his options open against Iran and NK. Somehow that makes me nervous.

The way I see it, no one and no government can be trusted with atomic weapons. Better that everyone just disarms, but no one wants to be the first.
What's the only nation ever to offer to completely eliminate it's nuclear weapons? Oh yeah, the USA at one of the US/USSR summits in Rejkiavik. Too bad the Soviets didn't take us up on the offer.

Reading the comments on this site makes me cringe, I thought that it was only the governments in the world that thought like this (and worse) but to see that some people in the world think like them makes me want to give up hoping.

I am a kurd and for many years I hated arabs and iraqis, iranians, turks and islam but nothing works like this. I supported the war in Iraq because our race is being captured, tortured, raped, murdered daily and yes saddam and co may have been put there by the same people that got rid of them but no one else was going to do anything about it. Yes it was Englands' government which divided Kurdistan and shared it amongst iraqis, iranians, turks and syrians but today I live in England and they provide me with opportunity which I wouldn't have if I was over there and for that I am eternally grateful and in debt to them. And if I am asked do you support England or America? Then I would have to say yes, I may not agree with certain governments or specific things but on the whole I support them.
Back to my main point: Generalisations are the worst form of ignorance, you cannot judge a nation and its' population based on the acts committed by the government and the few that follow and support that government.
Yeah your civilisations may have been massacred but to swear revenge no matter what is the worst response, my race has been persecuted and tortured for decades by all our neighbours and when I read these stories it makes me wish they all died horrible and painful deaths but when you meet those same people outside of that country and that life they are actually not that bad people, yes some still are but thats the consequence of living in those countries for so many generations. I am not trying to justify any crimes committed by any of these nations, all I am saying is that we should go into every disagreement and face all our hates individually.
It seems as though the people of the world are in disagreement with themselves, most have deep issues with themselves and everyone around them. We're going through rough times where most are selfish and greedy, it's like we're at a time when we must fight and solve our inner "demons" before we are ready to unite and act as one and actually make the world a better place.

I wish you all the best in your lives and that some day we are unified as brothers and sisters, all equal as another.

Check out my nation, search for "day-dreamers"

hmm i doubt if iran has the capacity to send missiles all the way to the u.s but if they fought man to man women to women child to child, and if
my sources are correct ...iran has an aprox population of 70mil and the u.s has an approx population of 300mil...therefore 1 iranian would need to kill 4.28 americans

they would need to all learn how to shot well but an ak47 doesnt jam like the m15 so they could do it if they all tried there hardest. :D

oh teh noes ! wat eva r wes gonig toos does? :p

How fast are u guys learning? Nukes and other weapons of mass destruction serve only one purpose: killing as much people as possible. This can't be good in the hands of anyone, this includes the USA.

And how can you attack a country because "they got nukes" when you enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the world 30 times over?

If the USA thinks it's reason enough to destroy a country if it's rumoured that they have weapons of mass destruction (not even factual evidence), they should first of all give a good example and start disarming.

Ow, you really think that the moment the USA got no nukes they will be simulatiously invaded by 30 muslim countries... than you're probably too *** to reason with :eek:

[/blow of frustration from reading all the stupid comments on this tread]

Herke

Temporary nations was a puppet nation of Drunk Commies, who was secretly Jesussaves.

I believe he was banned again. :)

DUH DUH DUNNNNNNNN.


Most of the annoying guys on these forums are turning out to be the same people.

How fast are u guys learning? Nukes and other weapons of mass destruction serve only one purpose: killing as much people as possible. This can't be good in the hands of anyone, this includes the USA.

And how can you attack a country because "they got nukes" when you enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the world 30 times over?

If the USA thinks it's reason enough to destroy a country if it's rumoured that they have weapons of mass destruction (not even factual evidence), they should first of all give a good example and start disarming.

Ow, you really think that the moment the USA got no nukes they will be simulatiously invaded by 30 muslim countries... than you're probably too *** to reason with :eek:

[/blow of frustration from reading all the stupid comments on this tread]

Herke

hmm was'nt saying they would...was just saying how hard they would have to try if they did....... :D

oh and i agree with the FACT that the u.s will NEVER disarm their nukes...a nation of guns...wonder how many guns there are per person there?

Yes, diplomacy never fails. Diplomacy has completely disarmed N. Korea. They've given up their nuclear ambitions and will never use nuclear weapons to blackmail other nations or sell nuclear technology to fund their corrupt regime. If it worked so well in N. Korea it's bound to work with reasonable people like the Iranian Mullahs.

and pacifying and occupying a country works? if that's right, i'm off to irag for my summer hols...

I guess you didn't pass history class.

Check August 1945.


er did u? or are u an american who thinks world war 2 was an american war only... what about great britain, your ally? i live in fear when america acts alone and nukes any 1...

hmm was'nt saying they would...was just saying how hard they would have to try if they did....... :D

oh and i agree with the FACT that the u.s will NEVER disarm their nukes...a nation of guns...wonder how many guns there are per person there?

Enough to make you people in other Nations "wonder"... :p

To US, that's a good thing! :D

Regards,
Gaar

Once again your ignorence astounds me.

The only "reason" you attack arab nations is because they are sitting on a very very large amout of oil, which the USA will need in order to continue its "kill the world with pollutants" plan. If these countrys remain independat and keep the oil thats on THEIR land then they will be able to put more pressure on the US than Nukes ever could.

Once again your ignorence astounds me.

The only "reason" you attack arab nations is because they are sitting on a very very large amout of oil, which the USA will need in order to continue its "kill the world with pollutants" plan. If these countrys remain independat and keep the oil thats on THEIR land then they will be able to put more pressure on the US than Nukes ever could.

Really?!?!

I think they would be doing us a FAVOR...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

Regards,
Gaar

Maybe Irans plans are centred around America's aggression hmmmmmmmm!

er did u? or are u an american who thinks world war 2 was an american war only... what about great britain, your ally? i live in fear when america acts alone and nukes any 1...

No, I don't think WW 2 was only an American war.

You're saying that you fear when America nukes anyone. And I'm pointing out that America has nuked before.

We're just cleaning up the messes we made - we made Afghanistan a mess when creating rebels to fight the Soviets. We made Saddam. So we're cleaning up our mess.

Great Britain created most of the Middle East mess by creating most of the nations that exist there by drawing lines on a map, and telling which Arab families who would be in charge. At least the UK is helping us clean up Iraq.

But I don't see other European nations cleaning up the mess they created with colonialism - except for France - and the rest of Europe just sits on their collective ass.

We're trying to do something - trying to clean up our mess. It doesn't mean we're going to attack everyone else - we didn't create the North Korean mess - that was the UN.

Technically, we created the Iranian mess when we screwed with Iran during the Cold War. It's debatable whether or not it's still a mess - they managed to get their own government going despite our stupidity under Carter.

European nations that are not engaged in cleaning up the messes they created (and Africa is a big fucking mess) need to either do something or STFU.

It sounds familiar to the 'threats' that Saddam Hussein's information minister used to make against the US!!!

C'mon, Baghdad Bob ruled! It was like they were doing comedy on CNN!

No, I don't think WW 2 was only an American war.

You're saying that you fear when America nukes anyone. And I'm pointing out that America has nuked before.

We're just cleaning up the messes we made - we made Afghanistan a mess when creating rebels to fight the Soviets. We made Saddam. So we're cleaning up our mess.

Great Britain created most of the Middle East mess by creating most of the nations that exist there by drawing lines on a map, and telling which Arab families who would be in charge. At least the UK is helping us clean up Iraq.

But I don't see other European nations cleaning up the mess they created with colonialism - except for France - and the rest of Europe just sits on their collective ass.

We're trying to do something - trying to clean up our mess. It doesn't mean we're going to attack everyone else - we didn't create the North Korean mess - that was the UN.

Technically, we created the Iranian mess when we screwed with Iran during the Cold War. It's debatable whether or not it's still a mess - they managed to get their own government going despite our stupidity under Carter.

European nations that are not engaged in cleaning up the messes they created (and Africa is a big fucking mess) need to either do something or STFU.


right, i accept that but your sabre rattling president's rhetoric is alarming to those that wish to see old age. until we, as a planet, have a common ground to unite us (say alien invaision etc), we are too different to all get along. America should stop acting as the world's policeman; by doing so it is stirring up yet more bother for itself and her allies. Whatever happened to Detente (dodgy spelling i think)....
And colonialism did have its benefits to those who were ruled. I think africa is different topic altogether and should not come into this debate.

Colonialism/Imperialism, whatever it might have accomplished, was a big bloody mess Europe made (England, France, Spain, Portugal, you name it), but bringing that up now is like the old Hitler argument. It's over.

Americans have to learn that the mistakes of someone else are a thing to be learned from, not a justification for repeating them.

Nuke Em Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly. Iran on US? The US military would crush them if they invaded on American soil. If they attack Iraq, they may have a better chance. But their chnaces of victory are very slim.

Honestly. Iran on US? The US military would crush them if they invaded on American soil. If they attack Iraq, they may have a better chance. But their chnaces of victory are very slim.

:p

what? like they "crushed" the VC & NVA in vietnam/ and like they are "crushing" the iraqis?

:confused:

:p

what? like they "crushed" the VC & NVA in vietnam/ and like they are "crushing" the iraqis?

:confused:

Don't get me wrong. I am completely against the Iraqi war and President Bush, but the chances of America winning are simply higher.