# if Israel, Korea and Pakistan are allowed Nukes, Why not Brazil or Iran? [Archive]

Red Tide2

11-02-2006, 16:52

Because we dont have the military strength to invade them yet :p.

Seriously? Because Iran is a phsycotic, theocratic, dictatorship who supports terrorists. The North Koreans have nukes... because they were so good at keeping it a secret until now, and now that they have nukes(and the capability to deliver them a good distance) we cannot invade them! As for the others, meh, South Africa voluntarily gave up its nukes. The Ukraine, Lithuania(I believe thats its name), and some Central Asian Country did also. As for Brazil and Argentina, I didnt realize they HAD nukes(I know Argentina has a program...).

Begoned

11-02-2006, 16:53

or even Venezuela or South Africa?

Because the NPT prevents them from doing so.

Aryavartha

11-02-2006, 16:55

As for Brazil and Argentina, I didnt realize they HAD nukes(I know Argentina has a program...).

Argentina had one. To counter Brazilian nuke ambitions. Both gave up, under NPT.

Neo Kervoskia

11-02-2006, 16:55

Brazil isn't important enough. At least Iran has name recognition. Brazil has...football.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

11-02-2006, 16:59

Do Venezuala, Brazil or South Africa even want nukes? I think South Africa surrendered theirs, and I don't remember hearing about the others having greate desires in that direction.
And Iran can't have nukes because they're crazy enough to use them.

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 16:59

Do Venezuala, Brazil or South Africa even want nukes? Good question ;)

(Feb. 10, 2006
Brazil poised to join the world's nuclear elite
By Jacky Chang

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - While the world' comunity scrutinises Iran's nuclear plants, Latin America's biggest country is weeks away from taking a controversial step and firing up the region's first major uranium enrichment plant.

That move will make Brazil the ninth country to produce large amounts of enriched uranium, which can be used to generate nuclear energy and, when highly enriched, to make nuclear weapons. )

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 17:02

How nice it would be if (India and Pakistan)Cuba had some nukes with missiles...Oh wait:eek::D parenthesis courtesy of truly yours.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

11-02-2006, 17:06

:D parenthesis courtesy of truly yours.
India and Pakistan need the nukes to keep each other at bay (an uneasy nuclear peace being superior to a conventional war), where as Castro just wants more phallic symbolism.
What? You honestly think that Cuba is any thing more then that man's extended campaign of compensation? Do you really think that the country became internationally known for its cigars by accident?

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

11-02-2006, 17:09

I dont konw, Good question ;)
I fail to see the issue. As far as I know, no one is trying to stop them from having nukes (no sanctions, no noise about invasions).
It is like asking if Bob can buy cigarettes, why can't Suzy. Well, both of them can buy cigarrettes, Suzy just hasn't made it to the convenience store yet.

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 17:10

Because the NPT prevents them from doing so.You mean.. like it prevented Korea?

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 17:13

I fail to see the issue. As far as I know, no one is trying to stop them from having nukes the issue is one simple question.
The question is very easy to understand.. and you can find it at the OP. (look up)

Should they be allowed?
Yes or No.

Drunk commies deleted

11-02-2006, 17:14

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

11-02-2006, 17:15

Should they be allowed?
Yes or No.
Sure, why not?
Based on the way the question is phrased, however, it implies that somehing is preventing them. Nothing is stopping them, and no one seems likely to start stopping them.

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 17:29

Sure, why not?I take that as a YES (let them be)..
So we finally agreed on something (*amazing* :D )

Aryavartha

11-02-2006, 17:30

:D parenthesis courtesy of truly yours.

I resent the clubbing together of India and Pakistan.

We have an exceptional non-proliferation record, better than even the recognised nuclear weapons states of the NPT.

Our nuclear doctrine is also the most benign. We have a declared NFU (No First Use) against all nuke nations and no use against non-nuke nations.

And we are also for global disarmament.

So take your insinuating sh1t elsewhere. I am tired of your threads on this subject.

All your argument boils down to is "well if the cops have gun, why not the rapist" (hyperbole, but you get the point....or rather not).

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 17:35

I resent the clubbing together of India and Pakistan.(on Nuclear issues, they are related) It is not the first time i put them together.. surely not the last time..

(Free advice) Get over it. ;)

Spranten

11-02-2006, 17:36

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 17:46

Ultimately the question is why would they WANT nuclear weapons? this thread Question is "Let them be..YES or NO" (I may even add a Poll.. after there is some replyes)

You are free to add other secondary questions.. But at least try to answer the Main thread Question.

Free Farmers

11-02-2006, 17:51

Ultimately the question is why would they WANT nuclear weapons? I was told that having them is supposed to:
a. stop you being invaded
b. stop you having wars

Given:
a. that a lot of non-nuclear powers, such as Sweden and Switzerland, have not been invaded (are are very unlikely ever to be), yet nuclear deterent did not stop the Falkland Islands being invaded, and
b. that a lot of nuclear powers (including France, the UK, China and the US) seem to have been involved in wars while in possession of them,
I find this hardly a convincing argument. Even those that gave up nuclear weapons (Kazakhstan, Ukraine etc) do not seem to have suffered from any military disadvantage.

It is hard not to consider them to be a very expensive white elephant.
What nuclear weapons really do is:
a) stop your homeland from being invaded. (Territories half way across the world being attacked is one thing, your actual nation being invaded is quite another)
b) stop you from being in wars that can end up with you losing badly just by being beaten conventionally (USA can go to war with ragtag armies and never lose, they do that on there own, nuclear weapons not needed. But you can bet the house on China not declaring open war on the USA because that would get nuclear quick)

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 18:12

What nuclear weapons really do is:
a) stop your homeland from being invaded. (Territories half way across the world being attacked is one thing, your actual nation being invaded is quite another)
b) stop you from being in wars that can end up with you losing badly just by being beaten conventionally (USA can go to war with ragtag armies and never lose, they do that on there own, nuclear weapons not needed. But you can bet the house on China not declaring open war on the USA because that would get nuclear quick)Interesting point..

I wonder..
after Indian and Pkiatean went nuclear..
the "fire exchange" at the borders ..have they increased or decreased?

more or less blood.. more or less casualtues?

Spranten

11-02-2006, 18:13

this thread Question is "Let them be..YES or NO" (I may even add a Poll.. after there is some replyes)

You are free to add other secondary questions.. But at least try to answer the Main thread Question.

Thanks, OceanDrive3. A fair point. Please be patient; I hope all will become clear shortly...

The Helghan Empire

11-02-2006, 18:13

now that they have nukes(and the capability to deliver them a good distance) we cannot invade them!
They can't fire them. Everyone knows that nuclear weapons can affect the environment. Nukes don't just stop at the border.

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 18:15

Thanks, OceanDrive3.No problemo.
your input is apreciated.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

11-02-2006, 18:15

I take that as a YES (let them be)..
So we finally agreed on something (*amazing* :D )
I'm feeling very mellow this morning, and it is making it difficult to become combative about things I don't care about.

Skinny87

11-02-2006, 18:47

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 19:05

Oh, and are you going to respond to Jocabia's many (repeated childish) reasoned arguments in the other thread? Sure.. I will :D
even if he we will keep repeating forever.. and for ever...

Jocaiba: You said the Word "Shit".
Ocean: No I did not.
Jocaiba: Yes you did.
Ocean: Nope.
Jocaiba: Yes you did.
:mad: Ocean: I never said the Word Shit.
:( Jocaiba: Ok, You never said it..But You implied It.
:mad: Ocean: But I never said the word Shit, I neve meant to say the Word "Shit"
:( Jocaiba: But You implied It.
:mad: Ocean: But i never said it.
:( Jocaiba: But You implied It.
.
.
repeat 50 times the same.. back and for.. ad nauseum..

Skinny87

11-02-2006, 19:12

Sure.. I will :D
even if he we will keep repeating forever.. and for ever...

Jocaiba: You said the Word "Shit".
Ocean: No I did not.
Jocaiba: Yes you did.
Ocean: Nope.
Jocaiba: Yes you did.
:mad: Ocean: I never said the Word Shit.
:( Jocaiba: Ok, You never said it..But You implied It.
:mad: Ocean: But I never said the word Shit, I neve meant to say the Word "Shit"
:( Jocaiba: But You implied It.
:mad: Ocean: But i never said it.
:( Jocaiba: But You implied It.
.
.
repeat 50 times the same.. back and for.. ad nauseum..

Well....you did imply a national conspiracy...one only has to look at the title of your thread to see that. However, if you';re going to blithely ignore all the arguments Jocabia placed in front of you and construct feeble excuses all day, then so be it.

The Half-Hidden

11-02-2006, 19:25

if Israel, Korea and Pakistan are allowed Nukes, Why not Brazil or Iran? Or even Venezuela or South Africa?
Israel needs them because it is surrounded by enemies. North Korea really shouldn't have them because their dictator is insane. Pakistan and India seem to need them to keep away from each others' throats.

Iran? They're a theocratic dictatorship. Their government frequently makes it all too clear that if they had the power, they would happily drive Israel into the sea. I don't think that they should have that power.

I have no problem with Brazil having them.

Venezuela? Does Chavez want them? I think he has higher spending priorities.

South Africa definitely has more important spending priorities.

Czar Natovski Romanov

11-02-2006, 19:26

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 19:26

Why blah blah blah.......
Because they are psychos and we fucking said so. Get Iran's cock out of your mouth and open your eyes. Their government is homicidal.

Evil Cantadia

11-02-2006, 19:28

India and Pakistan need the nukes to keep each other at bay (an uneasy nuclear peace being superior to a conventional war),

The only thing about an uneasy nuclear peace is it could turn into a nuclear war. Which would not be superior at all.

Czar Natovski Romanov

11-02-2006, 19:33

Its obvious WHY any country(and by extension the ppl thereof) wouldnt want another nation to have nukes. It makes it much more difficult to safely intervene in their domestic and foreign policy. In addition to that is the risk of accidental loss/firing of nukes especially a concern in developing/third world nations lacking the top of the line equipment to help prevent such incidents.

The only reason those other countries got to have them is that the nations with the power to stop either couldnt at the time due to other problems such as internal strife, foreign wars or a lack of political will to get the job done, didnt know about it, or thought that those countries have nukes might be a good thing.

Santa Barbara

11-02-2006, 19:33

Because they are psychos and we fucking said so. Get Iran's cock out of your mouth and open your eyes. Their government is homicidal.

Wow what a fucking intellectual argument from Man in Black.

I like how anyone who looks for CONSISTENCY in America's foreign nuclear policy has "Iran's cock in their mouth." That's a nice sex fantasy you have, but it doesn't prove anything.

Oceandrive, why the fuck do you want Iran, a theocratic regime that executes homosexuals, women and little girls who's only crime was being raped, and has persecuted and executed Christians, Jews, and Ba'hais? Do you really want to protect such a criminal regime? Why are you dead set on seeing more nuclear weapons in the world, especially in such a volatile region?

I think it's just out of spite. I think you just hate the US and Israel, so anything they're opposed to you think must be good. It's an ignorant, short sighted, and destructive attitude. It's an attitude that will get alot of people killed and spread poverty and oppression. It's an attitude that doesn't win you any respect from me.

Another brilliant argument. Either you want to be the world's policeman regarding nuclear weapons, or you hate the US and Israel. Nice false dichotomy, but it doesn't prove anything except that people like you an MiB there are mostly motivated by a propaganda-induced, mindless hatred of Iran at all costs. You guys are both shills for the Project for a New American Century. And, if I might add, you both have George Bush's cock in your mouth.

Mmm, swish.

Dostanuot Loj

11-02-2006, 19:34

Israel needs them because it is surrounded by enemies.

Um... Jordan and Egypt both have peace treaties with Israel, and they get along fine now. Lebanon I'm not sure about, but I don't think they're very viloent with Israel either. Syria is the only neighbor Israel has to worry about, and Israel could mop the floor with the poor Syrian military any day. So the idea that they're surrounded by enemies isn't a very good one.

A better argument is that they want nukes (not need) to act as a deterrent against anyone else trying to play Hitler.

Drunk commies deleted

11-02-2006, 19:37

Wow what a fucking intellectual argument from Man in Black.

I like how anyone who looks for CONSISTENCY in America's foreign nuclear policy has "Iran's cock in their mouth." That's a nice sex fantasy you have, but it doesn't prove anything.

Another brilliant argument. Either you want to be the world's policeman regarding nuclear weapons, or you hate the US and Israel. Nice false dichotomy, but it doesn't prove anything except that people like you an MiB there are mostly motivated by a propaganda-induced, mindless hatred of Iran at all costs. You guys are both shills for the Project for a New American Century. And, if I might add, you both have George Bush's cock in your mouth.

Mmm, swish.
1) I've voted for Nader and Kerrey. Never for Bush.

2) There is no reason to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. They're a criminal regime. They commit crimes agains humanity with their legal system. We don't let convicted felons buy guns, why let criminal regimes get nukes?

3) You've decided to flame me. Calling me a cocksucker and all isn't very polite. I'm sure that if I flame you back you'll go crying to the mods like a little punk. So be it. I'll be the bigger man and let it slide.

SEO Kingdom

11-02-2006, 19:39

South Africa?

Actually South Africa did have them, but gave them up. :)

Santa Barbara

11-02-2006, 19:42

1) I've voted for Nader and Kerrey. Never for Bush.

But you're working for Bush now.

2) There is no reason to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. They're a criminal regime. They commit crimes agains humanity with their legal system. We don't let convicted felons buy guns, why let criminal regimes get nukes?

And North Korea isn't a criminal regime? Oh that's right, me asking this question makes me hate the US and Israel.

I should remind you that it's the US, not Iran, who's been the only country to bomb innocent civilians with nuclear weapons.

3) You've decided to flame me. Calling me a cocksucker and all isn't very polite. I'm sure that if I flame you back you'll go crying to the mods like a little punk. So be it. I'll be the bigger man and let it slide.

Hey now, MiB flamed pretty much everyone on this thread who disagreed with him and I don't go crying to the mods about it. You may feel morally superior here, but all the while throwing out childish suppositions like "u hate america" as if that's a real argument. I'll be melodramatic and say, "So bet it."

Drunk commies deleted

11-02-2006, 19:47

But you're working for Bush now.

And North Korea isn't a criminal regime? Oh that's right, me asking this question makes me hate the US and Israel.

I should remind you that it's the US, not Iran, who's been the only country to bomb innocent civilians with nuclear weapons.

Hey now, MiB flamed pretty much everyone on this thread who disagreed with him and I don't go crying to the mods about it. You may feel morally superior here, but all the while throwing out childish suppositions like "u hate America" as if that's a real argument. I'll be melodramatic and say, "So bet it."

I'm not working for Bush. I'm working against a regime that thinks nothing of killing anyone who doesn't toe their religious and political line.

Sure N. Korea is a criminal regime. If I were in charge we would have been much more aggressive against them.

The US use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did two things.

1) Utterly destroyed the shipbuilding and weapons production facilities in those cities.

2) Brought a swift end to the war without the need for a US invasion and the long, bloody guerrilla war that would have followed.

Oceandrive has frequently shown through his posts that he hates Israel and that he's hyper-critical of the USA. The accusation I leveled at him is pretty well supported by his own posts throughout the past few months.

Free Farmers

11-02-2006, 19:49

And North Korea isn't a criminal regime? Oh that's right, me asking this question makes me hate the US and Israel.
Neither is a criminal regime. There is no such thing as a criminal regime. ONly ones that others don't like. In this case the US doesn't like Iran and N. Korea so we call them "criminals", really they just have a different political system and our big egos can't deal with the fact that not everyone in the world wants to be exactly like us.

I should remind you that it's the US, not Iran, who's been the only country to bomb innocent civilians with nuclear weapons.
You would have perferred an invasion ending in damn near every Japanese citizen dying? Oh and BTW, our conventional bombs on other cities across the globe during that time caused far more deaths than both nuclear weapons combined. Nuclear weapons saved lives then and they do in this day and age. War is hell and in war there are no rules. That's why we try to stay out of major wars with nuclear deterrence. Which leads us to my stance on the issue. I think that any nation that is strong enough to stand up to the rest of the world and say "Fuck you I'll make nuclear weapons if I want to" and not get destroyed for saying that clearly deserves nuclear protection.

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 19:53

Wow what a fucking intellectual argument from Man in Black.

I'm not going to waste my time with a well thought out, elloquent response to something as stupid as " Pakistan are allowed Nukes, Why not Brazil or Iran?"

The OP gets what he gives.

History lovers

11-02-2006, 19:53

Korea isn't allowed nukes. They built them, and we only let them keep them because with two shots, they could destroy the world economy (Seoul and Tokyo).

Pakistan is allowed nukes to hold off India. Vice versa as well.

I would have no problem with Brazil getting nuclear weaponry.

Iran has openly declared that if they had nuclear weapons, they would destroy the State of Israel, which would be the murder of six million people, not to mention that most of the Palestinians would die, along with many Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians, and Egyptians from radiation.

Israel needs nukes simply because of the previous statement.

Ergo, we should not let Iran have nuclear weaponry.

Secret aj man

11-02-2006, 19:56

Azarbad

11-02-2006, 20:05

Santa Barbara

11-02-2006, 20:35

Neither is a criminal regime. There is no such thing as a criminal regime. ONly ones that others don't like. In this case the US doesn't like Iran and N. Korea so we call them "criminals", really they just have a different political system and our big egos can't deal with the fact that not everyone in the world wants to be exactly like us.

I agree. Frankly, all governments get their hands dirty enforcing immoral laws from time to time. All governments are to some extent criminal.

You would have perferred an invasion ending in damn near every Japanese citizen dying?

I didn't say that. I only said the US is the only country to have nuked innocent civilians.

Actually, the real choice would have been between the Japanese surrendering to the US now or later. With the Soviets invading soon they would have chosen the US, for the same reason many Germans tried to surrender to the Brits and Americans instead of the Russians. The latter didn't really take prisoners and that was well known. But I don't want to argue this subject, I was merely pointing out a fact for reference purposes.

I'm not going to waste my time with a well thought out, elloquent response to something as stupid as " Pakistan are allowed Nukes, Why not Brazil or Iran?"

The OP gets what he gives.

Interesting, I didn't see anything about cock sucking in the original post. Maybe you have homosexual hallucinations?

Don't try to act like your stupid flaming was warranted.

History lovers

11-02-2006, 20:55

Iran needs them to defend its self from 6 million anti Muslim Zionists, and Israel needs them to defend it self anti Jewish muslims (it goes both ways you tools)

You're crazy...Muslim members of the Knesset, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Israeli muslims...Israel is not anti-muslim.

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 21:03

Oceandrive has frequently shown through his posts that he hates Israel and that he's hyper-critical of the USA.(for the record)
Yes I am hyper-critical of BUSH.

...and No I do not hate Israel.

Myuridia

11-02-2006, 21:48

I would be for letting Iran have nuclear technology if it was going to be used for what they actually said it would be, that for nuclear power plants. Given that their President at the moment has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, the Holocaust is a myth, Europe should be the one's to give land for Israel, and that even the UN watchdog IAEA (for some reason I can't remember the initials, but I hope you all know what I'm referring to) can't verify Iran's claims, I don't think they should have the technology.

I don't think N. Korea should have nukes, kinda along the same lines that their leader isn't all together in the head as Iran's leader is in the same category. However, they aren't as provokish, at least in the past year.

Pakistan and India probably wouldn't have nukes if any of the Western intel agencies had done their job. I remember clearly that most everyone in the west was surprised that both had them.

As for Brazil, let them have it. I don't see many conflicts arising in S. America any time soon, either between nations there or with other nations. Brazil also seems like a stable nation, but I don't know much about them at the moment.

OceanDrive3

11-02-2006, 21:57

(does Brazil wants Nukes) Good question ;)

(Feb. 10, 2006
Brazil poised to join the world's nuclear elite
By Jack Chang

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - While the world' comunity scrutinises Iran's nuclear plants, Latin America's biggest country is weeks away from taking a controversial step and firing up the region's first major uranium enrichment plant.

That move will make Brazil the ninth country to produce large amounts of enriched uranium, which can be used to generate nuclear energy and, when highly enriched, to make nuclear weapons. )
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13842944.htm

Bobs Own Pipe

11-02-2006, 22:00

Everybody on the planet should have the ability to use nukes as a deterrent. Personal Atomic Devices for each and every taxpayer on the planet.

Only then will we have World Peace in our time...:rolleyes:

Drunk commies deleted

11-02-2006, 22:23

Super-power

11-02-2006, 22:28

I don't get why Iran's leaders are trying to enrich uranium:
Their leaders are fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists reject technological progress.
Thereforce, they should be rejecting nuclear power, seeing it as heretical*

*But obviously they like to use the 'Kill Westerners, so it's ok' clause.

Imperiux

11-02-2006, 22:40

Brazil and Venezuela aren't allowed nukes because George Bush want them as his playthings. Iran's producing nukes because: a) It's got someone crazy but smart enough to stand up to the US and use them
b) They want the world as their playthings too
Meanwhile the UK PM, our beloved Tony Bliar (yes I know it's Blair but it's a pun, duh!) is considering whether or not to build nuclear power plants, which we should because then we'd emit less carbon emissions. Also we'd probably build fast reactors which would recycle the fuel and then allow us to carry on for longer or build up our Nukes.
Israel, Pakistan and Korea are allowed them because if they weren't the Bush administration/dictatorship would lose what little honest votes they can muster/bribe/blackmail/extort/torture...
China is our next bigges fear as, though they could have voluminous amounts of energy from hydro-electric damns, they're investing in oil, like ussia, from Iran. If Iran cancels oil deals to russia or china, china needs to flood many homes and russia needs to cut offf gas supplies, and if azprom takes over British Gas then Brirtains stuck in the cold ages.

So overall it's those that oppose the Republican Dictatorship who win. xcept those who's leaders like sucking their toes.

CanuckHeaven

11-02-2006, 22:54

And Iran can't have nukes because they're crazy enough to use them.
And you know this as fact how?

Perhaps all they want is what India and Pakistan have?

India and Pakistan need the nukes to keep each other at bay (an uneasy nuclear peace being superior to a conventional war)
Besides, Iran has seen what happens to countries who are on Bush's "Axis of Evil" list, and don't have the means to defend themselves (Iraq).

History lovers

11-02-2006, 23:08

And you know this as fact how?

They have repeatedly said such over the past 20 years, most recently less than a month ago.

Azarbad

11-02-2006, 23:11

You're crazy...Muslim members of the Knesset, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Israeli muslims...Israel is not anti-muslim.

And theres lots of Jews in Iran who are free to worship in their synagoges, or diddnt you know that? So I guess by your definition, iran is not anti jew

Super-power

11-02-2006, 23:16

And theres lots of Jews in Iran who are free to worship in their synagoges, or diddnt you know that? So I guess by your definition, iran is not anti jew
And didn't you know that Iran's government just called for a contest of who could draw the "best" (most insulting) Holocaust cartoons?

Free Farmers

11-02-2006, 23:25

And theres lots of Jews in Iran who are free to worship in their synagoges, or diddnt you know that? So I guess by your definition, iran is not anti jew
I think that both are anti-eachother but the Iranians seem to be more towards the 'WE PWN J00 N TAKE UR LAND' approach while Israel is more like 'Just leave us alone' So the "greater-hater" award goes to Iran. If Israel wanted to wipe the earth clear of her muslim neighbors then it could have already been done. They have the best military in the region by far, and are the only one with nuclear weapons. So I think Israel should be allowed to keep theirs while Iran should be halted from obtaining this technology. But if Iran can fulfill my requirement for a nuclear state (see my previous post for explaination) then they can have it. I just they wouldn't be stupid enough to actually use it.

CanuckHeaven

11-02-2006, 23:48

They have repeatedly said such over the past 20 years, most recently less than a month ago.
Iran has stated that they definitely would use the nukes once they have them?

Could you please provide a credible source for that information?

IDF

12-02-2006, 00:12

(for the record)
Yes I am hyper-critical of BUSH.

...and No I do not hate Israel.
You have advocated the nuking of Israel in previous threads. You continuously make anti-semitic remarks. Almost everyone on this forum realizes you are full of hate towards the Jews and anyone who befriends them.

Sel Appa

12-02-2006, 00:18

Brazil gave up nukes.

The Half-Hidden

12-02-2006, 00:22

Oceandrive has frequently shown through his posts that he hates Israel and that he's hyper-critical of the USA. The accusation I leveled at him is pretty well supported by his own posts throughout the past few months.
This is true. Oceandrive adopts a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude to anything involving George W Bush.

He's generally liberal politically so I'll put this to him:

The Republican government of America thinks that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

The Islamic government of Iran thinks that gays shouldn't be allowed to live.

I don't think I need to say any more than that.

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 00:30

You have advocated the nuking of Israel in previous threads. You continuously make anti-semitic remarks. Almost everyone on this forum realizes you are full of hate towards the Jews and anyone who befriends them.
I have never seen a post by Ocean Drive advocating the nuking of Israel nor have I seen him make any "anti-semitic remarks". If such is the case, can you provide a link that would prove this assertion?

The Half-Hidden

12-02-2006, 00:38

Neither is a criminal regime. There is no such thing as a criminal regime. ONly ones that others don't like. In this case the US doesn't like Iran and N. Korea so we call them "criminals", really they just have a different political system and our big egos can't deal with the fact that not everyone in the world wants to be exactly like us.
Not quite. Both countries commit significant violations of the UN Human Rights Convention.

Iran needs them to defend its self from 6 million anti Muslim Zionists
Even if those Zionists wanted to destroy or take over Iran, they would be significantly outnumbered. But then again, there is no sign that they want to do that.

I don't get why Iran's leaders are trying to enrich uranium:
Their leaders are fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists reject technological progress.
Thereforce, they should be rejecting nuclear power, seeing it as heretical*

*But obviously they like to use the 'Kill Westerners, so it's ok' clause.
The Nazi ideology and the Italian Fascist ideology displayed similar contradictions. Both hearkened back to a mythical, glorious past while driving for progress to serve their agendas.

And you know this as fact how?

Perhaps all they want is what India and Pakistan have?

Besides, Iran has seen what happens to countries who are on Bush's "Axis of Evil" list, and don't have the means to defend themselves (Iraq).
I see you share the "defend anyone as long as Bush doesn't like them" attitude of Oceandrive. Iran has for a long time made it clear that they desire the destruction of Israel. Even if they had nuclear weapons, they could never get the missiles to shoot them all the way to the USA. Israel is their target of choice.

Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons could be one more step to a second Holocaust. Here in Europe at least we as a people have sworn never to let it happen again, and I for one intend to uphold that vow.

Neu Leonstein

12-02-2006, 00:41

AFAIK, South Africa had a few, and gave them up voluntarily, which I admire. I'd hope Britain and France might be the next...although France likes their symbolism (:rolleyes:) - the Force de Frappe costs them 10% of their defence budget.

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 00:45

Because the NPT prevents them from doing so.

I thought that, since their governement was effectively a 'revolutionary' one, the Iranians were considered non-signatories of the NPT?

Free Farmers

12-02-2006, 00:45

Not quite. Both countries commit significant violations of the UN Human Rights Convention.
And that makes them criminals? Spare me the thought of a country doing something as criminal, as despicable, as unheard of as disobeying a U.N. decision :rolleyes: They can join the club of basically every nation in the fucking world

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 00:45

Israel needs them because it is surrounded by enemies. North Korea really shouldn't have them because their dictator is insane. Pakistan and India seem to need them to keep away from each others' throats.

Iran? They're a theocratic dictatorship. Their government frequently makes it all too clear that if they had the power, they would happily drive Israel into the sea. I don't think that they should have that power.

I have no problem with Brazil having them.

Venezuela? Does Chavez want them? I think he has higher spending priorities.

South Africa definitely has more important spending priorities.

So if Iran were surrounded by enemies, they'd be justified in getting nukes?

Oh, wait, whats this? Countries around Iran, lets see, Iraq (occupied by the US, who designated Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" and invaded two middle eastern countries in the past 5 years), Afghanistan (occupied by the US...etc), Turkey and Pakistan (allied to...err...the US).

"Theocratic Dictatorship"? Didn't they have elections recently? Isn't that where their slightly nutjob President came from?

West Pacific

12-02-2006, 00:49

I support Brazil's right to develope enriched uranium for the purpose of producing power (the electrical kind) just as I have no problem with any nation using uranium for nuclear energy, the difference is that Brazil is cooperating with the IAEA and Brazil is not preaching for the destruction of another state and all those of a certain faith. (All Jews are citizens of Israel and can vote in their elections, so calling for the destruction of Israel and her citizens is calling for the genocide of the Jews, again.) Israel would not use their weapons in an offensive nature because they rely heavily on support from the United States, support they would lose if they started a nuclear war. Iran has no support from the outside world so in their eyes they have nothing to lose by bombing Israel, especially since they think they will be rewarded in heaven for doing something so stupid.

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 00:50

Oceandrive, why the fuck do you want Iran, a theocratic regime that executes homosexuals, women and little girls who's only crime was being raped, and has persecuted and executed Christians, Jews, and Ba'hais? Do you really want to protect such a criminal regime? Why are you dead set on seeing more nuclear weapons in the world, especially in such a volatile region?

I think it's just out of spite. I think you just hate the US and Israel, so anything they're opposed to you think must be good. It's an ignorant, short sighted, and destructive attitude. It's an attitude that will get alot of people killed and spread poverty and oppression. It's an attitude that doesn't win you any respect from me.

Come now... one does not have to 'hate the US and Israel' to see that this playing field is NOT level.

We are 'allowing' one Middle East power the right to have nuclear weapons, because they are our ally. We are disallowing Iran from having nuclear weapons, because we are not sympathetic to their situation.

Iran is theocratic... but we have a president who claims he was elected by god, to carry war to the middle-east.

Iran has a desire to see Israel 'defused'... but we have a president who invaded another sovereign nation to depose it's leadership.

Iran MAY be a danger, if they get nuclear devices... but then, the ONLY nation that has thus far used nuclear devices in aggression, IS the US.

Bastard_Squad II

12-02-2006, 00:57

Super-power

12-02-2006, 00:57

I support Brazil's right to develope enriched uranium for the purpose of producing power (the electrical kind)...
That's just it. You don't use enriched uranium for the purposes of electrical power. The only practical use for that stuff is weapons, sadly.

Super-power

12-02-2006, 00:59

Who has actually deployed two of them?
Nice work genius, totally missing the fact that a land invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives.

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 01:00

Nice work genius, totally missing the fact that a land invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives.

Well, a land invasion of Japan just using US forces could well have cost millions of lives. But then, it wasn't lives that was the issue, it was getting Japan to surrender before the Russians could move in on the action.

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:05

Nice work genius, totally missing the fact that a land invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives.

And?

That does not alter the fact that the US is the ONLY power to have actually used nuclear technology as a weapon.

Or - are you saying, it is okay to use nuclear weapons if you might suffer casualties invading someone else?

Because... that would be a curious kind of logic to own, given the platform you SEEM to be arguing from, here.

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 01:07

I see you share the "defend anyone as long as Bush doesn't like them" attitude of Oceandrive.
Actually my attitude is just that....my attitude. I have no need to share anyone elses attitude. As far as Bush is concerned, there is very little that he has done that I believe to be beneficial to mankind. The man is a warmonger. The only time that I had any kind of admiration for Bush, was after 9/11, but he has long since squandered that goodwill.

Iran has for a long time made it clear that they desire the destruction of Israel. Even if they had nuclear weapons, they could never get the missiles to shoot them all the way to the USA. Israel is their target of choice.
However, Iran has never stated publicly that they would nuke Israel? When was the last time invaded a country? Oh, that would be Iraq.....strange huh?

Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons could be one more step to a second Holocaust.
It could also be one step closer to preventing the US from invading them or Israel making a surgical strike against them (as they have threatened). Remember the Israel surgical strike against Iraq in 1981?

Here in Europe at least we as a people have sworn never to let it happen again, and I for one intend to uphold that vow.
Well ya better suit up because it appears that Bushco is somewhat intolerant towards Iran.

Free Farmers

12-02-2006, 01:09

Who has the largest stockpile of nuclear arms in the world?
Who has actually deployed two of them?
Who was going to deploy one every two days until a certain country surrendered?
The US of A. Which is ironic because they are the ones trying to rid the world of them. Shouldn't one lead by example?
You can't just demand other countries not build/start building nuclear weapons if you are the one that has the most of them. This is hypocritical.
We aren't leading, we are ordering.
And it isn't hypocritical. It is protecting oneself. Here's a parallel of this situation:

Uncle Sam: Don't reach for your gun, keep your hands where I can see them.
Iran: I'm going to kill your best friend in the neighborhood as soon as I get my gun!
*Uncle Sam points gun at Iran*
Uncle Sam: Keep your damn hands where I can see them and don't reach for your weapon or I will shoot you.

In this scenerio gun = nuke. See how we can do that?

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:13

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:14

Who has the largest stockpile of nuclear arms in the world?
Who has actually deployed two of them?
Who was going to deploy one every two days until a certain country surrendered?
The US of A. Which is ironic because they are the ones trying to rid the world of them. Shouldn't one lead by example?
You can't just demand other countries not build/start building nuclear weapons if you are the one that has the most of them. This is hypocritical.*Sigh* The same old BS arguments all the time. First of all, do some research; the US doesn't have the largest stockpile, Russia does (it's not a small difference, either, it's 6,000 warheads). Secondly, as has already been said countless times before, using nuclear weapons on Japan saved millions of lives on both sides. And that's not even counting the lives as a result of the future wars. *Sigh* Why the hell do I even bother?

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 01:14

We aren't leading, we are ordering.
And it isn't hypocritical. It is protecting oneself. Here's a parallel of this situation:

Uncle Sam: Don't reach for your gun, keep your hands where I can see them.
Iran: I'm going to kill your best friend in the neighborhood as soon as I get my gun!
*Uncle Sam points gun at Iran*
Uncle Sam: Keep your damn hands where I can see them and don't reach for your weapon or I will shoot you.

In this scenerio gun = nuke. See how we can do that?

Second time i get to quote Bill Hicks this evening:-
"You know, doesn't the way the US keeps on going round the world picking on smaller nations for having weapons we sold them remind you of Jack Palance in 'Shane'?
<does JP voice> 'pick up the gun'
<does scared farmer voice> 'i don't want to pick up the gun mister'
<JP> 'pick up the gun'
<scared farmer> 'mister, i don't want to pick up the gun, you'll shoot me. I only came into town to visit the hardware store. My wife wanted me to pick up some gingham. Got no idea what it is, but she goes through three rolls a week'
<JP> 'pick up the gun'
<mimes scared farmer plucking up courage to reach for the gun then "BOOM">
<JP> 'you all saw him. HE HAD A GUN!'"

So sorry, but the idea of the US setting itself up as moral arbiter when i'm pretty damn sure it's refused to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty itself sticks in my craw. I've got huge problems with the regime in Tehran, just as i had huge problems with the regime in Baghdad. But i have similar problems with the regime in Karachi, and the US doesn't seem to mind them having nukes...

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:15

And?

That does not alter the fact that the US is the ONLY power to have actually used nuclear technology as a weapon.

Or - are you saying, it is okay to use nuclear weapons if you might suffer casualties invading someone else?

Because... that would be a curious kind of logic to own, given the platform you SEEM to be arguing from, here.No, he's saying that it was okay to use nuclear weapons because it saved lives in the long run.

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:16

Well, a land invasion of Japan just using US forces could well have cost millions of lives. But then, it wasn't lives that was the issue, it was getting Japan to surrender before the Russians could move in on the action.Yeah, because it was that little issue of preventing another future war.

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 01:18

Yeah, because it was that little issue of preventing another future war.

Yeah, because another war between the US and European powers would have been bad and wrong, but 50 years of proxy wars in the Third World, a spiralling Nuclear Arms race and overhanging nuclear paranoia, that was a good thing?

Tomasalia

12-02-2006, 01:19

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:21

No, he's saying that it was okay to use nuclear weapons because it saved lives in the long run.

Which is still irrelevent.

The ONLY power that has used the nuclear threat as anything MORE than a threat, is the US.

And, the whole 'it saved lives in the long run' argument is dishonest, in my opinion. If Russia were to release millions of tonnes of Sarin on the US, for example, you COULD argue that it would save lives... it would stop people dying of drug overdoses, or acts of criminal violence, in the NEXT generation, by making sure that generation was never born.

Or, you COULD argue that the US could never have invaded Iraq... so, lives would have been saved there, on both sides.

If you are going to defend the use of nuclear technology, at least be honest about it. The US used nuclear technology for two reasons: one: they wanted to see it in action, rather than on tests, and two: they wanted to make a big gesture.

The number of lives 'saved' was never the reason for dropping nuclear devices on Japan.

Tomasalia

12-02-2006, 01:22

No, he's saying that it was okay to use nuclear weapons because it saved lives in the long run.
So if Iran said that they were going to invade Israel, then nuked it because it saved lives in the long run, that'd be ok would it?

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:23

Actually my attitude is just that....my attitude. I have no need to share anyone elses attitude. As far as Bush is concerned, there is very little that he has done that I believe to be beneficial to mankind. The man is a warmonger. The only time that I had any kind of admiration for Bush, was after 9/11, but he has long since squandered that goodwill.Yeah, Bush is a warmonger, but Ahmadinejad is just looking for peace, right?

However, Iran has never stated publicly that they would nuke Israel? When was the last time invaded a country? Oh, that would be Iraq.....strange huh?The US has never stated publicly that they intend to invade Iran, but that doesn't stop you from saying it's going to happen. Strange, huh?

It could also be one step closer to preventing the US from invading them or Israel making a surgical strike against them (as they have threatened). Remember the Israel surgical strike against Iraq in 1981?But since when has the US said it would invade Iran? Or did you just infer that from something Bush said that wasn't exactly saying 'invade,'
but it was close enough. And that surgical strike you're going on about, that was to destroy nuclear capability. So, if Iran was looking to avoid a surgical strike from Israel, it should be going in the complete opposite direction.

Well ya better suit up because it appears that Bushco is somewhat intolerant towards Iran.Once again, Ahmadinejad is just some nice guy that is constantly demonized and threatened for no reason at all.

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:27

So sorry, but the idea of the US setting itself up as moral arbiter when i'm pretty damn sure it's refused to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty itself sticks in my craw. I've got huge problems with the regime in Tehran, just as i had huge problems with the regime in Baghdad. But i have similar problems with the regime in Karachi, and the US doesn't seem to mind them having nukes...Um, you do know that the US was one of the first to sign the NNPT, don't you. In fact, the NNPT gives the US the right to have nuclear weapons, as long as they don't give them to someone else, just like it gives Russia, China, Britain, and France that same right. Mabey you should do some research before you go off.

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 01:27

But since when has the US said it would invade Iran? Or did you just infer that from something Bush said that wasn't exactly saying 'invade,'
but it was close enough. And that surgical strike you're going on about, that was to destroy nuclear capability. So, if Iran was looking to avoid a surgical strike from Israel, it should be going in the complete opposite direction.

And of course, Bush was never going to invade Iraq, they just had to comply with the UN Arms Inspectors...which they did. So he said "nyer nyer, don't believe you" and invaded.

Thats a potted history of the diplomacy.

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 01:29

Um, you do know that the US was one of the first to sign the NNPT, don't you. In fact, the NNPT gives the US the right to have nuclear weapons, as long as they don't give them to someone else, just like it gives Russia, China, Britain, and France that same right. Mabey you should do some research before you go off.

Ok, my bad. Completely 100% wrong there. It must have been some other all embracing treaty that the US hasn't signed up for, there's enough of them. Hands up in error.

The rest of my point holds though.

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:30

Yeah, because another war between the US and European powers would have been bad and wrong, but 50 years of proxy wars in the Third World, a spiralling Nuclear Arms race and overhanging nuclear paranoia, that was a good thing?Um, you don't know what I'm talking about, do you. I was saying that Japan would be another Proxy war. And the next war (after WWII) would probably be far more dangerous, as not only does the US have more nuclear weapons, but Russia did, too. The Korean War could easily have turned nuclear, as the capabilities of those weapons would still be somewhat of a mystery.

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:30

Yeah, Bush is a warmonger, but Ahmadinejad is just looking for peace, right?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Bush has been flexing his biceps towards Iran for some time, now. The current leadership of Iran is, therefore, merely a scapegoat in this debate.

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:33

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 01:34

Um, you don't know what I'm talking about, do you. I was saying that Japan would be another Proxy war. And the next war (after WWII) would probably be far more dangerous, as not only does the US have more nuclear weapons, but Russia did, too. The Korean War could easily have turned nuclear, as the capabilities of those weapons would still be somewhat of a mystery.

I do know what you are talkin about, completely. Why precisely would Japan have turned into a Proxy war, given that America and Russia were still allies? You've got the timescale a little wrong, it's only in the post war restructure of Europe that the tensions under the surface came out. But the whole point of bombing Japan was to finish them off before the Russians became properly involved because the Americans and Russians were jockeying for position in the post-war order. Fine, as realpolitik i understand completely. But it's hardly the moral issue you painted with your first response.

IDF

12-02-2006, 01:37

Ocean Drive shows his true self.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10243665&postcount=9
Nuke Israel and the whole midle east.

I also recommend doing a search for threads with posts by OceanDrive3 in them. You will find the vast majority of them are anti-Israel or pro-Israel's enemies. OD3 is your typical 21st century version of the anti-semite.

As Thomas Friedman (a liberal BTW) wrote in the NY Times: "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:37

Which is still irrelevent.

The ONLY power that has used the nuclear threat as anything MORE than a threat, is the US.

And, the whole 'it saved lives in the long run' argument is dishonest, in my opinion. If Russia were to release millions of tonnes of Sarin on the US, for example, you COULD argue that it would save lives... it would stop people dying of drug overdoses, or acts of criminal violence, in the NEXT generation, by making sure that generation was never born.

Or, you COULD argue that the US could never have invaded Iraq... so, lives would have been saved there, on both sides.

If you are going to defend the use of nuclear technology, at least be honest about it. The US used nuclear technology for two reasons: one: they wanted to see it in action, rather than on tests, and two: they wanted to make a big gesture.

The number of lives 'saved' was never the reason for dropping nuclear devices on Japan.I really don't know why I bother. Once again, you seem to be ignoring reason. Let me ask you, would you have preffered a conventional invasion, resulting in the loss of millions of lives, the splitting of Japan similiar to Korea, and fighting another proxy war over it (this time with nuclear weapons, because you are so opposed to them being tested and their true power shown), resulting in the loss of milions more? And Russia attacking us with Sarin is a false analogy, because it wouldn't actuallty save any lives, just kill people before they could die themselves. And the war in Iraq actually saved lives the same way dropping nuclear weapons did; it deposed a regime that killed plenty of people and would continue to do so until something stopped it. I'm not saying anything for or against the Iraq war, I'm just putting that out there.

Free Farmers

12-02-2006, 01:38

On the other hand... wouldn't a more 'realistic' scenario, be one where Uncle Sam comes over to Iran's street, and takes over the next door neighbour's bedroom, as a residence for his 'special friend'. Then , of course, Uncle Sam procedes to arm Iran's OTHER next-door neighbour, the next time they have a fight. Then, Uncle Sam attacks THAT next-door neighbour, and takes over his house.

Now, Uncle Sam has provided weapons to the 'installed' neighbour in the first neighbour's house, and has relocated a number of gun-toting friends into house number 2... and is now walking menacingly up Iran's front drive...
No. We aren't arming Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Israel to conquer Iran. We are arming them to defend against Iran. Big difference.
You seem to be missing some major parts in your story. So here is a chonology of Uncle Sam and his friend Moses (Israel):
*Uncle Sam sees that his friend, Moses, is trying to return to his house. But it has been taken over by some people that really hate Moses. Uncle Sam gives Moses a knife in case the house invaders attack him.*
*Moses enters house and the house invaders, plus friends from both houses next door attack Moses. But Moses has a knife so he survives and reclaims his house.*
*Many years go by with tensions between Moses and his neighbors rising. Soon all of Moses' neighbors have knives too and are ready to attack*
*Moses is given a sword by Uncle Sam to defend himself*
*When the neighbors attack Moses defenses himself very, very well with some help from Uncle Sam and some of Uncle Sam's friends*
*The neighbors, although defeated again, are still very mad at Moses*
*The Uncle Sam sees the trouble and gives Moses a gun and tells him he shouldn't use it unless absolutely necessary*
*Many years pass*
*Saddam strike a friend of Uncle Sam (Gasman), and Uncle Sam comes and hurts Saddam badly forcing him back into his own house*
*A decade passes*
*Osama from down the road stabs Uncle Sam in the leg, injuring him*
*After a quick healing Uncle Sam goes to Osama who stabbed him and kills the neighbor, and to stop other bad neighbors from coming in tries to change the house to fit only pro-US people*
*Uncle Sam is still mad about Saddam, not far away, who hurt his friend Gasman. Uncle Sam kills Saddam and starts to try to change the house like he tried with the Osama residence, but part of the house falls on him and hurts him*
*Meanwhile the person between the two houses that Uncle Sam took, Iran, is almost finished making a gun*
*Iran declares that it wants to destroy Moses by any means necessary, including using a gun*
*Uncle Sam sees that using guns would be bad for everyone, so he steps in*
Uncle Sam: Don't you dare build a gun Iran!
Iran: When I finish my gun I will kill Moses!!
*Uncle Sam takes out gun and points it at Iran*
Uncle Sam: I said, DON'T YOU DARE BUILD A GUN!

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 01:39

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:39

So if Iran said that they were going to invade Israel, then nuked it because it saved lives in the long run, that'd be ok would it?So, you want Iran to have nuclear weapons that would allow them to kill milions of people?

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:41

IDF

12-02-2006, 01:41

if he's pro-israel's enemies, why does he advocate nuking the whole middle east?

or do you think he might...gosh...have been being flippant?
That is the only time he has said anything against Israel's enemies. Do a search for his posts and you will see he is a vile anti-semite.

I once again point to Thomas Friedman's quote. "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:41

And of course, Bush was never going to invade Iraq, they just had to comply with the UN Arms Inspectors...which they did. So he said "nyer nyer, don't believe you" and invaded.

Thats a potted history of the diplomacy.Yeah, but did he say he was going to invade Iran, or did you just infer it? The point is that you are saying that Iran never technically said that they would attack Israel, therefore, Iran won't attack Israel.

Mintego

12-02-2006, 01:45

I don't think any country should have them, but of course thats never going to happen.

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:45

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Bush has been flexing his biceps towards Iran for some time, now. The current leadership of Iran is, therefore, merely a scapegoat in this debate.So, just because Bush has been 'flexing his biceps,' Iran's leadership is automatically absolved of responsibility? I'm sure you extend that same courtesy to Israel when Iran threatens it...

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 01:46

Yeah, but did he say he was going to invade Iran, or did you just infer it? The point is that you are saying that Iran never technically said that they would attack Israel, therefore, Iran won't attack Israel.

Nah, i'm not saying anything of the sort. Thats the other posters. I'm saying that Iran won't attack Israel because Israel has nukes, and Israel has a big buddy with more nukes than you can shake a stick at. I'm saying that nuclear weapons are a vile stain on humanity which should be removed, but given the position Iran are in, geopolitically, their desire to acquire some is perfectly understandable. I'm saying that if there's going to be people banned from the nuclear club, then it would probably be wiser to start with two nations who have been fighting an on and off war for the past 50 years, rather than a nation that - under the most extremist leader they've had since the revolution - never invaded anyone, and only became involved in a war when the US's little lapdog in the region (which the US later turned into a big bad scary monster before invading and discovering it was a show poodle) attacked them.

Does that clarify my position?

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:46

You are using speculation, as your logical argument?

We had to drop nuclear devices on Japan, so that the possible scenario of a second Cold Front didn't open up?Huh?:confused:

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:47

I really don't know why I bother. Once again, you seem to be ignoring reason. Let me ask you, would you have preffered a conventional invasion, resulting in the loss of millions of lives, the splitting of Japan similiar to Korea, and fighting another proxy war over it (this time with nuclear weapons, because you are so opposed to them being tested and their true power shown), resulting in the loss of milions more? And Russia attacking us with Sarin is a false analogy, because it wouldn't actuallty save any lives, just kill people before they could die themselves. And the war in Iraq actually saved lives the same way dropping nuclear weapons did; it deposed a regime that killed plenty of people and would continue to do so until something stopped it. I'm not saying anything for or against the Iraq war, I'm just putting that out there.

This is all bullshit, in my opinion.

It comes down to the simple fact that the US did not HAVE TO invade Japan, at all. Indeed, by most accounts, Japan was on the verge of capitulation, anyway.

So, your logic only holds it's paper-thin pretense of truth, so long as you accept the fallacious assumption that an invasion HAD to happen.

And, I'm sorry that you missed the parallel in the Sarin scenario... if you look at murder rates in the US, they are spectacularly high. Thus, a reasonable argument COULD be made that, by using Sarin on this generation, you would be saving lives in the NEXT generation.

Also - by using Sarin on the entire population NOW, you would be saving the lives of any tourist killed by American criminals, every civilian or soldier killed by the American armed forces, etc... until the end of time.

Indeed... by the logic you claim to believe, it would be the best thing to do.

Lastly... the war in Iraq did save lives? Really? Show me. Show me the people that WOULD BE DEAD, if the US hadn't invaded. And, I don't want speculation here... if this is your justifications, I want to see facts.

ANd, if you cannot PROVE that several thousand people that would DEFINITELY have died, have not died... your argument is moot.

Eutrusca

12-02-2006, 01:47

or even Venezuela or South Africa?
Uh ... how about, just because a few children have loaded guns doesn't mean ALL children should have loaded guns?

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:49

Huh?:confused:

You have invented a scenario that did not happen, yes?

And, apparently, you beleive that that 'imagined scenario' justifies the REAL deaths of a huge number of civilians.

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:51

So, just because Bush has been 'flexing his biceps,' Iran's leadership is automatically absolved of responsibility? I'm sure you extend that same courtesy to Israel when Iran threatens it...

Interesting parallel.

I note you haven't mentioned the fact that Israel has declared an effective war on Iran if they continue investigating nuclear technologies.

I'm not sure where you got the whole 'absolved responsibility' thing from... it isn't even alluded to in my post.

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:52

Nah, i'm not saying anything of the sort. Thats the other posters. I'm saying that Iran won't attack Israel because Israel has nukes, and Israel has a big buddy with more nukes than you can shake a stick at. I'm saying that nuclear weapons are a vile stain on humanity which should be removed, but given the position Iran are in, geopolitically, their desire to acquire some is perfectly understandable. I'm saying that if there's going to be people banned from the nuclear club, then it would probably be wiser to start with two nations who have been fighting an on and off war for the past 50 years, rather than a nation that - under the most extremist leader they've had since the revolution - never invaded anyone, and only became involved in a war when the US's little lapdog in the region (which the US later turned into a big bad scary monster before invading and discovering it was a show poodle) attacked them.

Does that clarify my position?Yeah, I guess that does. Let me start by apoligizing for lumping you with the other posters. But, you do know that Iran hasn't invaded anyone because they can't, right? To add to that, their main enemy (Israel) is too far away to do anything about. Their military is in grave disrepair, and they certainly can't reach Israel by conventional means. Nuclear weapons are just what they need to take care of Israel.

Grave_n_idle

12-02-2006, 01:56

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 01:58

Yeah, I guess that does. Let me start by apoligizing for lumping you with the other posters. But, you do know that Iran hasn't invaded anyone because they can't, right? To add to that, their main enemy (Israel) is too far away to do anything about. Their military is in grave disrepair, and they certainly can't reach Israel by conventional means. Nuclear weapons are just what they need to take care of Israel.

Nukes for Iran will just be a combination figleaf for defence, to frighten off the US invasion they fear (whether they are justified in fearing it, we could argue all night, but given the history of American involvement in the region stretching back to - basically - Eisenhower, they are at least acting on evidence) and macho posturing for home consumption (see their presidents constant anti-semitism, if thats not designed entirely to win him the next election, i'm a dutchman. Islamic fundamentalist, Born again Christian, secular Jew, one thing stands out...a politician is a politician is a politician). If it also gets them more respect from the big boys in the international community, bonus. I sincerely doubt that the Iranians - nuclear or otherwise - will initiate a war with anyone. Their nuclear ambitions might precipitate a war, but i find the idea of the US and UK turning up and enforcing non membership of a club that they were founder members of morally dubious to say the least.

100101110

12-02-2006, 01:59

This is all bullshit, in my opinion.

It comes down to the simple fact that the US did not HAVE TO invade Japan, at all. Indeed, by most accounts, Japan was on the verge of capitulation, anyway.

So, your logic only holds it's paper-thin pretense of truth, so long as you accept the fallacious assumption that an invasion HAD to happen.It doesn't matter how close Japan was to surrender, the fact is that the US didn't know that. And if the US leadership didn't know that Japan was surrendering, then the invasion was going to happen.

And, I'm sorry that you missed the parallel in the Sarin scenario... if you look at murder rates in the US, they are spectacularly high. Thus, a reasonable argument COULD be made that, by using Sarin on this generation, you would be saving lives in the NEXT generation.

Also - by using Sarin on the entire population NOW, you would be saving the lives of any tourist killed by American criminals, every civilian or soldier killed by the American armed forces, etc... until the end of time.

Indeed... by the logic you claim to believe, it would be the best thing to do..I'm going to ignore this, because the concept of the 'lesser evil' seems lost on you

Lastly... the war in Iraq did save lives? Really? Show me. Show me the people that WOULD BE DEAD, if the US hadn't invaded. And, I don't want speculation here... if this is your justifications, I want to see facts.

ANd, if you cannot PROVE that several thousand people that would DEFINITELY have died, have not died... your argument is moot.I don't have to prove anything, as it is impossible to prove a negative. If, however, you can prove that Saddam wasn't killing Iraqis, please show it me.

100101110

12-02-2006, 02:01

You have invented a scenario that did not happen, yes?

And, apparently, you beleive that that 'imagined scenario' justifies the REAL deaths of a huge number of civilians.It never happened. And it never happened because the US had the sense to drop nuclear weapons.

100101110

12-02-2006, 02:03

Interesting parallel.

I note you haven't mentioned the fact that Israel has declared an effective war on Iran if they continue investigating nuclear technologies.

I'm not sure where you got the whole 'absolved responsibility' thing from... it isn't even alluded to in my post.I note that you haven't mentioned that Iran has declared an effective war on Israel just for existing. And I got that whole absolved responsibility thing from you're 'merely a scapegoat' thing.

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 02:05

That is the only time he has said anything against Israel's enemies. Do a search for his posts and you will see he is a vile anti-semite.

I once again point to Thomas Friedman's quote. "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

Nah, you do the search and provide us with something a little more solid than a flippant one-liner.

In the flag-burning thread, i mention not caring if someone set fire to the Queen of England. Doesn't make me an arsonist, just somebody making a bad joke.

100101110

12-02-2006, 02:06

Unless you believe Iran has Teleport technology, this argument won't work, either.

If Iran lacks the conventional capacity to attack Israel (if they were going to)... then any nuclear technology they DID invent, would be just as grounded.

Maybe you think they can cause Israel to explode out of sympathy, when they detonate a bomb on their own territory?Wow. Just, wow. You are completely ignorant of Iran's missiles (you know, those things that fly through the air and can hit things far away). If you're so ignorant of the situation, I don't think I'll have anything more to do with you.

Free Farmers

12-02-2006, 02:09

This is all bullshit, in my opinion.

It comes down to the simple fact that the US did not HAVE TO invade Japan, at all. Indeed, by most accounts, Japan was on the verge of capitulation, anyway.

So, your logic only holds it's paper-thin pretense of truth, so long as you accept the fallacious assumption that an invasion HAD to happen.

Either you seriously have almost no knowledge of the cultural and political situation in Japan or you are just being a what-if whore.
I'll work as if the former is true and try to educate you a bit:
Whether or not the US had to invade Japan is a moot point, because someone would have had to invade Japan before it surrendered. The Japanese people at that time, no offense intended, were radical and suicidally so. Probably over 90% of them would die a painful and slow death before even retreating, let alone surrendering. That was just a part of their culture. The only reason they accepted the US soldiers and we didn't end up with every street corner, every house, every port, everywhere being a battleground after US occupied it was because the Emperor himself told them that the war was over and not to fight our soldiers. We were lucky to have attacked with nuclear weapons when we did, because the Japanese brass was getting ready to assassinate the Emperor, and no Emperor means no easy surrender. You don't think the power that was shown in the dropping of two nuclear bombs hurried up his decision a bit? The people who were taking over would have never surrendered either. They were military hard liners, and would tell the sheep (Japanese citizens) to fight the invaders for every inch. That is why the nuclear weapons saved lives, because they made the Emperor surrender pronto. He didn't have a lot of time. And he might not have surrendered at all without those attacks. He very well might have tried to fight to the end like a true Japanese Emperor would.

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 02:11

Either you seriously have almost no knowledge of the cultural and political situation in Japan or you are just being a what-if whore.
I'll work as if the former is true and try to educate you a bit:
Whether or not the US had to invade Japan is a moot point, because someone would have had to invade Japan before it surrendered. The Japanese people at that time, no offense intended, were radical and suicidally so. Probably over 90% of them would die a painful and slow death before even retreating, let alone surrendering. That was just a part of their culture. The only reason they accepted the US soldiers and we didn't end up with every street corner, every house, every port, everywhere being a battleground after US occupied it was because the Emperor himself told them that the war was over and not to fight our soldiers. We were lucky to have attacked with nuclear weapons when we did, because the Japanese brass was getting ready to assassinate the Emperor, and no Emperor means no easy surrender. You don't think the power that was shown in the dropping of two nuclear bombs hurried up his decision a bit? The people who were taking over would have never surrendered either. They were military hard liners, and would tell the sheep (Japanese citizens) to fight the invaders for every inch. That is why the nuclear weapons saved lives, because they made the Emperor surrender pronto. He didn't have a lot of time. And he might not have surrendered at all without those attacks. He very well might have tried to fight to the end like a true Japanese Emperor would.

You forget the fact that peace feelers were put out by the Japanese government after the first bomb was dropped, and dismissed. So, say the logic of the first bomb saving lives holds...why was the second one dropped again?

100101110

12-02-2006, 02:12

Nukes for Iran will just be a combination figleaf for defence, to frighten off the US invasion they fear (whether they are justified in fearing it, we could argue all night, but given the history of American involvement in the region stretching back to - basically - Eisenhower, they are at least acting on evidence) and macho posturing for home consumption (see their presidents constant anti-semitism, if thats not designed entirely to win him the next election, i'm a dutchman. Islamic fundamentalist, Born again Christian, secular Jew, one thing stands out...a politician is a politician is a politician). If it also gets them more respect from the big boys in the international community, bonus. I sincerely doubt that the Iranians - nuclear or otherwise - will initiate a war with anyone. Their nuclear ambitions might precipitate a war, but i find the idea of the US and UK turning up and enforcing non membership of a club that they were founder members of morally dubious to say the least.Well, the thing is that the US and UK having problems with Iran mostly because of it's nuclear program (at least now). So, if a politician is a politician (not arguing on that), and Ahmadinejad's main objective is to stay in power, then some negotiations could clear things right up. And Ahmadinejad wouldn't have to lose face, as he can easily spin it as the Americans are so afraid of Iran that they wanted to negotiate.

100101110

12-02-2006, 02:15

You forget the fact that peace feelers were put out by the Japanese government after the first bomb was dropped, and dismissed. So, say the logic of the first bomb saving lives holds...why was the second one dropped again?Aperently, the US didn't get the message in time. Also, the Japanese leadership may have dissmissed the first bomb because it was only one bomb, and what are the chances of the US having another one.

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 02:16

Well, the thing is that the US and UK having problems with Iran mostly because of it's nuclear program (at least now). So, if a politician is a politician (not arguing on that), and Ahmadinejad's main objective is to stay in power, then some negotiations could clear things right up. And Ahmadinejad wouldn't have to lose face, as he can easily spin it as the Americans are so afraid of Iran that they wanted to negotiate.

True, i accept that. But Iran has talked to various groupings - the EU, for instance...the only problem is, we have two current implacable positions. One says "no one is allowed nuclear weapons (except this list of people here that we like and trust who already have them)"...that positions a little dubious. The other position is "you are all infidel swine, kill the jews, we need nukes to protect ourselves". Large chunks of that position are more than dubious, they are downright wrong. However, the sting in the tale is the final part of the statement does have - at least to muslim eyes - more than a slight ring of truth about it.

If Ahmadinejad was really the threat portrayed, he wouldn't be using stupid, inflammatory language because it plays well in the back streets of Tehran, but instead doing what Hitler did right up to the point where he overstretched...softly softly catchee monkee. You know?

Spranten

12-02-2006, 02:16

It never happened. And it never happened because the US had the sense to drop nuclear weapons.

Can you see how anyone who is proud of their own nation and not from the US could read that last statement as a threat to their own sovreignty? i.e. read that back using the future tense and a different country's name in it and see how it feels. Try it with a country that you feel threatened by.

I find that reading the posts and switching the names of the countries and the verb tenses can really help in understanding the other point of view. Of course, I'm sure that people can use this in an unhelpful way too.

100101110

12-02-2006, 02:20

Can you see how anyone who is proud of their own nation and not from the US could read that last statement as a threat to their own sovreignty? i.e. read that back using the future tense and a different country's name in it and see how it feels. Try it with a country that you feel threatened by.

I find that reading the posts and switching the names of the countries and the verb tenses can really help in understanding the other point of view. Of course, I'm sure that people can use this in an unhelpful way too.I guess that didn't come out right. But I said it in past tense, and I only intended it in past tense. I don't believe that using nuclear weapons today would accomplish anything, but I do believe that it saved many lives and much grief back then.

100101110

12-02-2006, 02:24

True, i accept that. But Iran has talked to various groupings - the EU, for instance...the only problem is, we have two current implacable positions. One says "no one is allowed nuclear weapons (except this list of people here that we like and trust who already have them)"...that positions a little dubious. The other position is "you are all infidel swine, kill the jews, we need nukes to protect ourselves". Large chunks of that position are more than dubious, they are downright wrong. However, the sting in the tale is the final part of the statement does have - at least to muslim eyes - more than a slight ring of truth about it.

If Ahmadinejad was really the threat portrayed, he wouldn't be using stupid, inflammatory language because it plays well in the back streets of Tehran, but instead doing what Hitler did right up to the point where he overstretched...softly softly catchee monkee. You know?Alright, that makes sense. The problem is that it still isn't helping with the Iranian nukes situation.

Spranten

12-02-2006, 02:25

I guess that didn't come out right. But I said it in past tense, and I only intended it in past tense. I don't believe that using nuclear weapons today would accomplish anything, but I do believe that it saved many lives and much grief back then.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Pantygraigwen

12-02-2006, 02:28

Alright, that makes sense. The problem is that it still isn't helping with the Iranian nukes situation.

Personally, i don't think we will need to do anything. Unlike the other posters, i don't think even Bush is insane enough to go into a third Muslim country, especially as a lame duck second term president. I think some sort of compromise will be found which will basically allow Iran to develop nuclear capability as long as they shut up about it. Both sides will claim victory. Rattle the sabres at each other every so often. Iran will go back to funding groups to destabilize the Shi'ite areas of Iraq. America will go back to chasing non-existent Al Quaeda cells in Baltimore.

And meanwhile, the fucker we should all be concentrating on in North Korea will have a brainstorm one day whilst watching "Caddyshack 2" (he has the worlds largest private DVD collection you know) and the insects will inherit the earth.

Novoga

12-02-2006, 02:40

or even Venezuela or South Africa?

Wow, your stupidity is increasing with every post.

Novoga

12-02-2006, 02:42

or even Venezuela or South Africa?

So I suppose you don't mind the US building nuclear bunker busters?

Novoga

12-02-2006, 02:45

North Korea needs nukes. To defend them selves. I'd also say they need high speed, high altitude interceptor's i.e. mig25/31 and SAM's but they cant afford them (to keep yankie spy planes off them) So long as they dont instigate aggressions (and since the korean war, they havnt...) they deserve their Nuclear detterence.

Iran needs them to defend its self from 6 million anti Muslim Zionists, and Israel needs them to defend it self anti Jewish muslims (it goes both ways you tools)

Because afterall North Korea is such a great country, right? Say, you ever read about the Death Camps they have? I would invade North Korea even if they didn't have nukes, just so I could personally beat Kim Jong-Il to death.

Countries are not like people, they aren't all equal.

Uzania

12-02-2006, 02:52

or even Venezuela or South Africa?

Brazil signed the UN protocol (don't want and don't need nukes). But it's quite imoral that some countrys are "allowed" to have nukes and others aren´t.
I mean, USA, Russia, Pakistan, Israel...all very dangerous countrys. Venezuela and South Africa aren't.

Free Farmers

12-02-2006, 02:56

Brazil signed the UN protocol (don't want and don't need nukes). But it's quite imoral that some countrys are "allowed" to have nukes and others aren´t.
I mean, USA, Russia, Pakistan, Israel...all very dangerous countrys. Venezuela and South Africa aren't.
The fact that they are dangerous (militaritarly speaking) is why they should have nukes. Because as we learned in both world wars, when dangerous countries fight each then bad things happen. Nukes make sure dangerous countries don't directly fight each other.

Uzania

12-02-2006, 02:58

Because afterall North Korea is such a great country, right? Say, you ever read about the Death Camps they have? I would invade North Korea even if they didn't have nukes, just so I could personally beat Kim Jong-Il to death.

Countries are not like people, they aren't all equal.

So, you don't belive countrys should be treat equaly under international law, you want to invade a country and beat it's president to death, right? And we must belive that Kim Jong-Il is the dangerous one?
Go and invade Guantanamo Base. It´s also a death camp. Liberate the people, brother.

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 02:58

Yeah, Bush is a warmonger, but Ahmadinejad is just looking for peace, right?
He may very well be looking for peace and may have a better chance of perserving that peace by having his own nuclear devices. Then what you have is a stalemate.

The US has never stated publicly that they intend to invade Iran, but that doesn't stop you from saying it's going to happen. Strange, huh?
Bush declared that Iraq, Iran and North Korea was the "Axis of Evil". The US invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and has warned Iran and North Korea. Do the math.

But since when has the US said it would invade Iran? Or did you just infer that from something Bush said that wasn't exactly saying 'invade,'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43199-2005Feb22.html

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said. "And having said that, all options are on the table."

He said he was "getting good advice from European partners," who agreed with the United States that "it's in our interests for them not to have a nuclear weapon."

Any of this sound familiar? Remember Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

And that surgical strike you're going on about, that was to destroy nuclear capability. So, if Iran was looking to avoid a surgical strike from Israel, it should be going in the complete opposite direction.
What gave Israel the right to launch a surgical attack against Iraq? Why should Iran live in fear of Israel.

Once again, Ahmadinejad is just some nice guy that is constantly demonized and threatened for no reason at all.
Right now, the US is right next door to Iran, kicking the crap out of a defenseless country. It is Ahmadinejad's job to make sure that it doesn't happen to his country, and probably hasn't taken the time to figure out if he is a good guy or not.

Novoga

12-02-2006, 03:12

So, you don't belive countrys should be treat equaly under international law, you want to invade a country and beat it's president to death, right? And we must belive that Kim Jong-Il is the dangerous one?
Go and invade Guantanamo Base. It´s also a death camp. Liberate the people, brother.

Guantanamo Base is no death camp. I believe countries that respect human rights and are democratic should be treated equally under international law, you seem to believe that a country can murder and allow the deaths of millions of it own people without fear of being attacked.

It really is disgusting to see how many people, like yourself, are blinded by their hatred of the United States of America.

100101110

12-02-2006, 03:13

He may very well be looking for peace and may have a better chance of perserving that peace by having his own nuclear devices. Then what you have is a stalemate.

Bush declared that Iraq, Iran and North Korea was the "Axis of Evil". The US invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and has warned Iran and North Korea. Do the math.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43199-2005Feb22.html

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said. "And having said that, all options are on the table."

He said he was "getting good advice from European partners," who agreed with the United States that "it's in our interests for them not to have a nuclear weapon."

Any of this sound familiar? Remember Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.None of those quotes specifically said that we were going to invade Iran, it was just hinting at it. It's funny how you say that the above means that the US will invade Iran, but when someone says that what Ahmadinejad said meant that he was going to use nuclear weapons as soon as he got them, you quickly scramble and throw out that he never specifically said he was going to use them, so he's not a threat.

What gave Israel the right to launch a surgical attack against Iraq? Why should Iran live in fear of Israel.What gave Iraq the right to build nuclear weapons? Israel attacked Iraq because Iraq was building nuclear weapons, and was very hostile to Israel. Tell me something, why should Israel live in fear of Iran or Iraq?

Right now, the US is right next door to Iran, kicking the crap out of a defenseless country. It is Ahmadinejad's job to make sure that it doesn't happen to his country, and probably hasn't taken the time to figure out if he is a good guy or not.Alright, so you've established that you are fine with Iran doing what it needs to do to 'defend' itself. Why is that only one way? Why don't you support Israel's right to defend itself?

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 03:15

Ocean Drive shows his true self.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10243665&postcount=9

I also recommend doing a search for threads with posts by OceanDrive3 in them. You will find the vast majority of them are anti-Israel or pro-Israel's enemies. OD3 is your typical 21st century version of the anti-semite.

As Thomas Friedman (a liberal BTW) wrote in the NY Times: "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."
Ummm, he did not just say Israel. He said:

Nuke Israel and the whole midle east.
And where does that leave you?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10243467&postcount=1

You want to illegal attack Iran and use the latest technology.

Pot kettle black.

100101110

12-02-2006, 03:18

And where does that leave you?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10243467&postcount=1

You want to illegal attack Iran and use the latest technology.

Pot kettle black.Talk about hypocrisy. You denounce an 'illegal' attack in the intrest of self defense, yet you endorse the illegal obtaining of nuclear weapons (quite possibly for offensive purposes). Hmm.

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 03:24

None of those quotes specifically said that we were going to invade Iran, it was just hinting at it. It's funny how you say that the above means that the US will invade Iran,
None of the quotes specifically stated that the US was going to invade Iraq, but they did. Like I said, do the math.

but when someone says that what Ahmadinejad said meant that he was going to use nuclear weapons as soon as he got them, you quickly scramble and throw out that he never specifically said he was going to use them, so he's not a threat.
I never stated that he was not a threat. I stated that he probably wants to protect his country from invasion. Like they say, forewarned is forearmed. He has been warned and now he is arming.

What gave Iraq the right to build nuclear weapons?
What gave Israel the right to build nuclear weapons?

Israel attacked Iraq because Iraq was building nuclear weapons, and was very hostile to Israel.
Israel has the right to build nukes but Iraq doesn't? Why?

Tell me something, why should Israel live in fear of Iran or Iraq?
I asked the question first. You don't answer a question with a question.

Alright, so you've established that you are fine with Iran doing what it needs to do to 'defend' itself. Why is that only one way? Why don't you support Israel's right to defend itself?
I defend both countries rights to defend themselves. See, I am an equal opportunity kinda guy after all. :D

What would be better though is that the entire Middle East be declared a nuclear free zone.

Uzania

12-02-2006, 03:25

The fact that they are dangerous (militaritarly speaking) is why they should have nukes. Because as we learned in both world wars, when dangerous countries fight each then bad things happen. Nukes make sure dangerous countries don't directly fight each other.

And forget about the rest of the world that will be directly involved, right?
Well...Iran has quite an army, better than Pakistan. Maybe they should have Nuclear weapons after all. This way, we will have Iran-Israel/US peace. They will never fight, right?

Free Farmers

12-02-2006, 03:28

And forget about the rest of the world that will be directly involved, right?
Well...Iran has quite an army, better than Pakistan. Maybe they should have Nuclear weapons after all. This way, we will have Iran-Israel/US peace. They will never fight, right?
As I said before, if Iran has the power to say to the nations of the world "Fuck you I'm going to build nuclear weapons and there's not a damn thing you can do about it" and not get their asses handed to them for taking that position then they have the right to nuclear weapons. If not then they will just have to continue being militarily inferior.

100101110

12-02-2006, 03:38

None of the quotes specifically stated that the US was going to invade Iraq, but they did. Like I said, do the math.I did do the math, and the solution is that the only difference between the quotes from Bush and the quotes from Ahmadinejad is that Bush actually had the opportunity to invade Iraq, while Ahmadinejad hasn't had the opportunity to wipe Israel off the map...yet.

I never stated that he was not a threat. I stated that he probably wants to protect his country from invasion. Like they say, forewarned is forearmed. He has been warned and now he is arming.Doesn't Bush want to protect his own country? Of course he does, and he did it by invading Iraq. What makes you think that Ahmadinejad's idea of defending Iran isn't nuking Israel?

What gave Israel the right to build nuclear weapons?I don't know. Mabey, just maybe it may that they are surrounded on all sides by countries that severly out number them and want nothing more than their destruction. Maybe.

Israel has the right to build nukes but Iraq doesn't? Why?Because Israel hasn't been seeking the destruction of anybody, and they haven't started a war unless they were threatened (and, no, they didn't immedeatly attack Iraq. They waited for the international community to do something about it first). The same can't be said for Iraq. Seeing how easily Saddam orderd the gassing of his own people, I'd say I'm glad that Israel took action when nobody else would.

I asked the question first. You don't answer a question with a question.It was a rhetorical question. But, since you can't figure it out yourself, Iran has nothing to fear from Israel if they would just stop threatening Israel with complete annihilation. Now, why does Iran exempt from fear while Israel isn't?

I defend both countries rights to defend themselves. See, I am an equal opportunity kinda guy after all. :D If that's the case, why are you so critical of Israel's nuclear program and openly support Iran's?

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 03:38

Talk about hypocrisy. You denounce an 'illegal' attack in the intrest of self defense, yet you endorse the illegal obtaining of nuclear weapons (quite possibly for offensive purposes). Hmm.
Yeah hypocrisy is exactly what you are trying to sell:

A List of UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS against Israel (http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html)

* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".

http://bitterfact.tripod.com/israel/unresolutions.html

Wake up time.

100101110

12-02-2006, 03:39

Yeah hypocrisy is exactly what you are trying to sellHow so?

OceanDrive3

12-02-2006, 03:44

Isn't it a little dishonest to claim that as anti-Israel sentiment, when it clearly says "Nuke Israel and the whole middle east"?if he's pro-Israel's enemies, why does he advocate nuking the whole middle east?

or do you think he might...gosh...have been being flippant?I was sure every normally intelligent person would figure that I do not really want Nukes to be used on anyone.. But since the likes of IDF "do not get it".. I added the [tags]

Hey IDF... Do I need to add the Tags to this one too?

I, personally, think that you are a member of Hamas. Or maybe Arafat's ghost.I confess... I am his ghost. :Dhttp://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10244283&postcount=28
:D

Uzania

12-02-2006, 03:49

As I said before, if Iran has the power to say to the nations of the world "Fuck you I'm going to build nuclear weapons and there's not a damn thing you can do about it" and not get their asses handed to them for taking that position then they have the right to nuclear weapons. If not then they will just have to continue being militarily inferior.

No ofense, but it's sounds "Get psycho, Get free". Long live King Jong-Il whose nuclear ass is just fine.

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 03:53

I did do the math, and the solution is that the only difference between the quotes from Bush and the quotes from Ahmadinejad is that Bush actually had the opportunity to invade Iraq, while Ahmadinejad hasn't had the opportunity to wipe Israel off the map...yet.
Ahmadinejad's quote came after Bush had US troops invade Iraq and after telling Iran what they could do or not do.

Doesn't Bush want to protect his own country? Of course he does, and he did it by invading Iraq.
That is pure bullshit. Iraq was no threat to the US. What a joke.

What makes you think that Ahmadinejad's idea of defending Iran isn't nuking Israel?
Maybe it is, and then again, maybe it isn't?

Perhaps Bush's idea of defending Israel is to invade/bomb Iran?

I don't know. Mabey, just maybe it may that they are surrounded on all sides by countries that severly out number them and want nothing more than their destruction. Maybe.
And Iran doesn't have the same right to self preservation?

Because Israel hasn't been seeking the destruction of anybody, and they haven't started a war unless they were threatened (and, no, they didn't immedeatly attack Iraq. They waited for the international community to do something about it first). The same can't be said for Iraq. Seeing how easily Saddam orderd the gassing of his own people, I'd say I'm glad that Israel took action when nobody else would.
Aren't you forgetting one small item here? For most of the 80's, the US and Iraq were buddy/buddy. The US gave Iraq all kinds of WMD.

It was a rhetorical question. But, since you can't figure it out yourself, Iran has nothing to fear from Israel if they would just stop threatening Israel with complete annihilation. Now, why does Iran exempt from fear while Israel isn't?
Iran isn't exempt from fear. Bush called Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil".

Please pay attention.

If that's the case, why are you so critical of Israel's nuclear program and openly support Iran's?
Where was I critical of Israel's nuke program? If Israel has them, then Iran should be able to have them. My preference is to have the Middle East declared a nuclear free area. NO NUKES for any state.

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 03:56

How so?
Just read the links, and then you might have a better understanding?

100101110

12-02-2006, 04:13

Ahmadinejad's quote came after Bush had US troops invade Iraq and after telling Iran what they could do or not do.That doesn't change the fact that he said it.

That is pure bullshit. Iraq was no threat to the US. What a joke.Since you don't have much in the way of reading comprehension, I'll spell it out for you. Bush's idea of defending his country was to invade Iraq. Ahmadinejad's idea of defending his country could well be nuking Israel. After all, Bush said that Iraq was a threat, and he did something about it. What would stop Ahmadinejad from attacking Israel?

Maybe it is, and then again, maybe it isn't?Given his recent quotes, I'd say it is.

Perhaps Bush's idea of defending Israel is to invade/bomb Iran?Perhaps it is. What's your point?

And Iran doesn't have the same right to self preservation?Of course it does. The problem is that saying you will wipe another country off the face of the Earth and then saying you need nuclear weapons for self defense isn't very convincing.

Aren't you forgetting one small item here? For most of the 80's, the US and Iraq were buddy/buddy. The US gave Iraq all kinds of WMD. So? What's your point?

Iran isn't exempt from fear. Bush called Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil".

Please pay attention.By exempt from fear, I meant that they should be exempt from threat. Therefore, my statement should have been understood as 'Why should Iran exempt from living in fear while Israel isn't?'.

Where was I critical of Israel's nuke program? If Israel has them, then Iran should be able to have them. My preference is to have the Middle East declared a nuclear free area. NO NUKES for any state.What gave Israel the right to build nuclear weapons?That is just one of many examples. You constantly praise Iran's attempts to obtain nuclear weapons, and constantly criticize Israel's nuclear program.

100101110

12-02-2006, 04:14

Just read the links, and then you might have a better understanding?I have read the links. What's your point?

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 05:00

I have read the links. What's your point?
You want to paint Iran as the bad guy here when it is a well known fact that Israel has been accused of tons of atrocities. I don't think that two wrongs make a right but something has got to stop this Middle East nonsense, and it won't be accomplished by the US invading or bombing the piss out of Iran.

IMHO, Bush doesn't want peace, and is looking for any excuse to walk into Iran. The Project for a New American Century is unfolding before your eyes and yet you cannot see it?

Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The
American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America
defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.

All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense
contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for
arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media
will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the
stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the
administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon
laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their
dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at
gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from
the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire
planet.

Coffee time!!

100101110

12-02-2006, 05:12

You want to paint Iran as the bad guy here when it is a well known fact that Israel has been accused of tons of atrocities. I don't think that two wrongs make a right but something has got to stop this Middle East nonsense, and it won't be accomplished by the US invading or bombing the piss out of Iran.True, Israel has been accused of tons of atrocities, but the fact is that it's mostly BS. Can you point out to me one UN resolution regarding Israel not accusing it of this or that? No, and if you can, then you have really done your research, because they're really hard to find. The thing with the UN is that they just plain hate Israel. Don't believe me? Here's an example:http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=142(see, I can post links, too.) So don't give me that 'Israel is teh evil!!11!' bullcrap. And note that in your post, you don't even mention the atrocities done by Iran. But this is completely irrelevent to the topic, which is...um...do you remember what the topic is?

OceanDrive3

12-02-2006, 05:37

Since you don't have much in the way of reading comprehension, I'll spell it out for you...
...
Bush said that Iraq was a threat, and he did something about it. What would stop Ahmadinejad from attacking Israel?China and Russia are also a threat.. but Bush would never dare to attack them.. Iran would not attack a nuclear Israel and Viceversa.

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 05:42

True, Israel has been accused of tons of atrocities, but the fact is that it's mostly BS. Can you point out to me one UN resolution regarding Israel not accusing it of this or that? No, and if you can, then you have really done your research, because they're really hard to find. The thing with the UN is that they just plain hate Israel. Don't believe me? Here's an example:http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=142(see, I can post links, too.) So don't give me that 'Israel is teh evil!!11!' bullcrap. And note that in your post, you don't even mention the atrocities done by Iran. But this is completely irrelevent to the topic, which is...um...do you remember what the topic is?
Ahhhh, a propaganda link.....well done. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should have done a little more research on:

International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/palestinian/)

Which links to this important document:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/312/75/IMG/NR031275.pdf?OpenElement

And this one:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/IMG/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement

And explained by this text:

In resolution 59/29 of 1 December 2004, the Assembly requested the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division for Palestinian Rights, as part of the observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29 November, to continue to organize an annual exhibit on Palestinian rights in cooperation with the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations. It also encouraged Member States to continue to give the widest support and publicity to the observance of the Day of Solidarity.

Perhaps if the Palestinian Resolution had been satisfied a long time ago, there would be no talk about Israeli nukes and problems with Iran and Iraq, etc?

CanuckHeaven

12-02-2006, 05:49

The thing with the UN is that they just plain hate Israel.
Ahhh, the old worn out excuse that the UN hates Israel crap. Get serious.

But this is completely irrelevent to the topic, which is...um...do you remember what the topic is?
Yeah, it is:

if Israel, Korea and Pakistan are allowed Nukes, Why not Brazil or Iran?

And if you had read the rest of my post and responded to it, ya just might have realized that it was very on topic.

Heikoku

12-02-2006, 21:47

Brazilian constitution prevents the use of nuclear energy for war. We also have a clause that states that we'll only declare war in case of foreign agression. We never had any nuclear ambitions, except, maybe, from those idiots from PRONA, but they have the support of about 1% of the population. Also, as I said, our Constitution prevents it. In short, the UN or the US don't prevent Brazil from having nukes: Brazil prevents Brazil from having nukes.

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 01:55

It doesn't matter how close Japan was to surrender, the fact is that the US didn't know that. And if the US leadership didn't know that Japan was surrendering, then the invasion was going to happen.

Then, by the same argument, NOBODY would have been killed in the invasion... because the US didn't KNOW that Japan was surrendering, but they WOULD have found out once they invaded, no?

I'm going to ignore this, because the concept of the 'lesser evil' seems lost on you

Not at all... however, your 'lesser evil' is not the same 'lesser evil' I see. The US released the first and only nuclear devices to be used in aggression thus far. To claim it as the 'better' alternative to an American invasion of Japan is ridiculous, since the US need not have done either.

That's like me threatening to stab you (painfully, maybe fatally) in the stomach, but then shooting you in the knee as a 'better alternative'

I don't have to prove anything, as it is impossible to prove a negative. If, however, you can prove that Saddam wasn't killing Iraqis, please show it me.

Wouldn't that ALSO be a negative?

And, of course, the fact that there still ARE Iraqis MUST mean that Saddam hadn't killed some...

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 01:58

It never happened. And it never happened because the US had the sense to drop nuclear weapons.

And yet, despite this ^^^ dishonest prevarication, you still ahve to admit that your 'justification' relies on events that are 'imagined', not historical?

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 02:05

I note that you haven't mentioned that Iran has declared an effective war on Israel just for existing. And I got that whole absolved responsibility thing from you're 'merely a scapegoat' thing.

Iran has not declared war. The US is also 'not at war' in Iraq.

'War' is a specific state between two powers.

If you read my posts carefully, you'd see that the 'scape goat' comment details the fact that the current LEADERSHIP cannot be at the ROOT of American/Iranian bad feeling, because the new leadership is newer than the conflict.

I mentioned nothing about absolution.

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 02:08

Wow. Just, wow. You are completely ignorant of Iran's missiles (you know, those things that fly through the air and can hit things far away). If you're so ignorant of the situation, I don't think I'll have anything more to do with you.

Actually, friend, I was using your OWN argument as my basis.

Let me refresh your memory about what you said...:

"To add to that, their main enemy (Israel) is too far away to do anything about. Their military is in grave disrepair, and they certainly can't reach Israel by conventional means.

Your own words, friend. You are hoist by your own petard.

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 02:13

Either you seriously have almost no knowledge of the cultural and political situation in Japan or you are just being a what-if whore.
I'll work as if the former is true and try to educate you a bit:
Whether or not the US had to invade Japan is a moot point, because someone would have had to invade Japan before it surrendered. The Japanese people at that time, no offense intended, were radical and suicidally so. Probably over 90% of them would die a painful and slow death before even retreating, let alone surrendering. That was just a part of their culture. The only reason they accepted the US soldiers and we didn't end up with every street corner, every house, every port, everywhere being a battleground after US occupied it was because the Emperor himself told them that the war was over and not to fight our soldiers. We were lucky to have attacked with nuclear weapons when we did, because the Japanese brass was getting ready to assassinate the Emperor, and no Emperor means no easy surrender. You don't think the power that was shown in the dropping of two nuclear bombs hurried up his decision a bit? The people who were taking over would have never surrendered either. They were military hard liners, and would tell the sheep (Japanese citizens) to fight the invaders for every inch. That is why the nuclear weapons saved lives, because they made the Emperor surrender pronto. He didn't have a lot of time. And he might not have surrendered at all without those attacks. He very well might have tried to fight to the end like a true Japanese Emperor would.

Don't patronise me.

You said it yourself, the war was over, when the Emperor said it was over.

The Emperor was not assassinated, so to use that as a basis is purest speculation. Also - if you talk about understanding the culture, you are not following your own advice is you believe that usurper politicians would have been the same as an Emperor in the minds of the citizens.

Your speculation about 'true' Japanese Emperors is also speculative, and a little ridiculous. If one accepts what you appear to be peddling as the model of a 'true' Emperor, then Japan must never have been a problem, because there can have been no 'on/off' war between Japan and China for so much of recorded history...

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 02:16

Personally, i don't think we will need to do anything. Unlike the other posters, i don't think even Bush is insane enough to go into a third Muslim country, especially as a lame duck second term president. I think some sort of compromise will be found which will basically allow Iran to develop nuclear capability as long as they shut up about it. Both sides will claim victory. Rattle the sabres at each other every so often. Iran will go back to funding groups to destabilize the Shi'ite areas of Iraq. America will go back to chasing non-existent Al Quaeda cells in Baltimore.

And meanwhile, the fucker we should all be concentrating on in North Korea will have a brainstorm one day whilst watching "Caddyshack 2" (he has the worlds largest private DVD collection you know) and the insects will inherit the earth.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that keeps a party in power BETTER than a war. If Bush DOES start a war in Iran in the next year or so, it is GOOD for the Republican Party, since people do not like to 'change horses in the middle of a stream'.

Whether or not the people like the war, or support Bush... if he can get a war started in the next two years, he might be able to guarantee another term (at least) for Republicans in the White House.

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 02:18

He may very well be looking for peace and may have a better chance of perserving that peace by having his own nuclear devices. Then what you have is a stalemate.

Bush declared that Iraq, Iran and North Korea was the "Axis of Evil". The US invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and has warned Iran and North Korea. Do the math.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43199-2005Feb22.html

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said. "And having said that, all options are on the table."

He said he was "getting good advice from European partners," who agreed with the United States that "it's in our interests for them not to have a nuclear weapon."

Any of this sound familiar? Remember Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

What gave Israel the right to launch a surgical attack against Iraq? Why should Iran live in fear of Israel.

Right now, the US is right next door to Iran, kicking the crap out of a defenseless country. It is Ahmadinejad's job to make sure that it doesn't happen to his country, and probably hasn't taken the time to figure out if he is a good guy or not.

Excellent post. Worth repeating.

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 02:19

Tell me something, why should Israel live in fear of Iran or Iraq?

Tell me something, why should Iran live in fear of America or Israel?

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 02:22

Talk about hypocrisy. You denounce an 'illegal' attack in the intrest of self defense, yet you endorse the illegal obtaining of nuclear weapons (quite possibly for offensive purposes). Hmm.

Not true, my friend.

There is nothing 'illegal' about Iran researching nuclear technology.

Firstly, because, they claim that it is for peaceful use, but also

Secondly, because the CURRENT government (being a 'revolutionary' government) is NOT a signatory of the NPT. Thus, they are free to do as they please, 'legally'.

Grave_n_idle

13-02-2006, 02:23

As I said before, if Iran has the power to say to the nations of the world "Fuck you I'm going to build nuclear weapons and there's not a damn thing you can do about it" and not get their asses handed to them for taking that position then they have the right to nuclear weapons. If not then they will just have to continue being militarily inferior.

So - your justifaction for nuclear armament, is being able to militarily dismantle your opponents if they disagree?

Gothland Hippies

13-02-2006, 02:30

we, instead of waisting billions of dollars building nukes, we should spend that money building missiles that can destroy them in mid air.

If a crazy nation like N korea were to launch nukes at the US, we would be powerless to stop them. The only thing that we would be able to do is obliterate them before their nukes land on our soil.

We just keep making bigger and bigger weapons but no one is building a shield. We've had missiles that are supposed to do this for years, but they couldn't stop Iraqi scuds in Desert Storm and they are hardly better today. The fact is, the world would respond to a nuclear war today the same as it would have 20 years ago. At least with a shield someone would survive, until the global radiation is carried to them by the winds. :(

The point is that we should be trying to get rid of nukes all together.

Europa Maxima

13-02-2006, 02:32

Because the NPT prevents them from doing so.
Why is SA limited from doing so? :confused:

Gothland Hippies

13-02-2006, 02:35

Not true, my friend.

There is nothing 'illegal' about Iran researching nuclear technology.

Firstly, because, they claim that it is for peaceful use, but also

Secondly, because the CURRENT government (being a 'revolutionary' government) is NOT a signatory of the NPT. Thus, they are free to do as they please, 'legally'.

also, if they actually had nukes, what would make them use them.

To this date, the US is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons in war. The only reason that Iran would use a nuke is if they were attacked, and if they are invaded than they have every right to defend themselves with whatever means necissary.

Aryavartha

13-02-2006, 02:57

N.Korean and Pakistani nukes..

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=19&issue_id=671&article_id=4720
Neither Pakistan nor, to an even greater extent, North Korea, can lay claim to having anything but the most rudimentary indigenous technological base. The domain of Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf has as yet proved unable to design and manufacture a truly local high speed lathe, let alone a tractor, while North Korea has not exceeded bicycle manufacturing. Yet both countries have succeeded in "developing" nuclear devices as well as sophisticated missiles that can reach over a thousand kilometers carrying a weapons payload. How such technologically backward countries could reach "university" status without having been able to pass "high-school" is a question rarely heard in discussions of their respective strategic weapons capabilities. Yet that query is essential to understanding the reality behind the current nuclear status of these failed (Pyongyang) and failing (Islamabad) economies.

Both Pakistan and North Korea are examples of what may be termed "proxy" nuclear weapons powers. That is, they are countries that have deliberately been provided with nuclear devices and missiles systems by an advanced country, the People's Republic of China (through agencies directly or otherwise linked to it). It is no accident that Pyongyang acts as a geopolitical pressure point on Japan, as Pakistan does on India. Japan and India, after all, are Beijing's two primary rivals in Asia. As nuclear capable, missile producing states, North Korea and Pakistan--the two proxies--demand the attention of Japan and India, thus lowering the attention that they can pay to China, the source of the proxies' technology.

The above piece is true about the technological prowess of Pak and NK. NK recently got technology transfer of bicycle manufacturing from China.

As of late 90s Pakistan was unable to make a crankshaft. This is even mentioned in Stephen Cohen's book, "The idea of Pakistan". The technological prowess of Pakistan can be seen in this exhibit.
http://habibmotorcars.com/main.html

Now you know what the Chinese mean by "peaceful rise". Rise of China is at the cost of other countries's peace.

OceanDrive3

13-02-2006, 03:22

NationStates Jolt Archive

# if Israel, Korea and Pakistan are allowed Nukes, Why not Brazil or Iran?