GUNWOUNDS Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 We have been beating the Iraqi disarmament and liberation topic to death....Lets talk about Iran now... seems they have lots of nuclear violations, they are a hot-bed for muslim extremism, and Bush said they were part of an AXIS of EVIL...So we now have 20/20 hindsight from the Iraq war... so should the US get aggressive or have a loose policy like they do with N.Korea and Syria?Since Iran doesnt have nukes yet.. there is potential for us to go in there and disarm them before they get too far....What do you guys think?
VigilVirus Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 I think it's because of people like you that a lot of people hate US. Iran should be free to develop nukes...why the hell not? It's extremely hypocritical for US, the only countries that ever used nuclear weapons for the purposes of war, to tell others not to build them.Oh, and the Axis of Evil thing...that's a really moronic concept.
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 17, 2004 Author Posted March 17, 2004 I think it's because of people like you that a lot of people hate US. Iran should be free to develop nukes...why the hell not? It's extremely hypocritical for US, the only countries that ever used nuclear weapons for the purposes of war, to tell others not to build them.Oh, and the Axis of Evil thing...that's a really moronic concept.true we are the only ones who have used nukes.. but we are the only ones who have proven ourselves worthy of having nukes...Look at WWI and WWII .... who had to save all the silly european countries from getting annihilated?.. USA baby.
emprworm Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 I think it's because of people like you that a lot of people hate US. Iran should be free to develop nukes...why the hell not? It's extremely hypocritical for US, the only countries that ever used nuclear weapons for the purposes of war, to tell others not to build them.Oh, and the Axis of Evil thing...that's a really moronic concept.i kind of hope, in a sick way, that pacifists like this guy who hate humanity so much, get the pleasure and honor to see a mushroom clound on CNN during this lifetime.
emprworm Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 I think it's because of people like you that a lot of people hate US. Iran should be free to develop nukes...why the hell not? It's extremely hypocritical for US, the only countries that ever used nuclear weapons for the purposes of war, to tell others not to build them.Oh, and the Axis of Evil thing...that's a really moronic concept.LOL! Gotta love this logic. Check it out.If USA gets nukes, its NOT FAIR (waah!! waah!) that other people can't. You know what I'm thinking Gunwounds? We should ALL get nukes. Every world citizen should have a right to own a personal nuke for self defense, of course. Since its not fair that a terrorist cell gets a nuke and I dont, I think that nukes should be freely produced by all countries, and made available on the open market.Seriously. A nuke should be available to anyone. sell one ebay even. I like Devils Lunatic's logic
emprworm Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 of course!!its not fair that the US gets them and other's dont, according to Devil's Lunatic.I agree! Its so unjust that some people get thermo-nuclear weapons and other's dont! Its like giving one kid a sucker and ignoring the other kid. If Al-Qaida starts developing nuclear weapons, its hypocritical for the US to stop them.If the IRA starts making them, it would be hypocritical of the UN to try and stop them. All should be allowed to freely, and openly mass produce nuclear weapons. I agree with Devil Lunatic. I like where he is going here. With his vision, every world citizen will get his/her own nuke soon!!!yay!!! :D :D
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 20, 2004 Author Posted March 20, 2004 agreed .. humanity does NOT have a god-given right to own nukes... that is up to the global community (read: USA) to decide... ;)
Anathema Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 I'd actually support even military action against Iran should they come close to making a nuclear weapon. It's not as if we don't have enough crazy WMD weilding dictatures already.Especially concerning dictatures like Iran- we can sufficiently trust say, China or Russia (wich though technicly is not a dictuture, isn't particulary democratic either) to posses nukes because they don't support terrorism and play the game by "the rules". The same cannot be said about Iran.
danielsh Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Gunwounds, your fanatical nationalism doesn't make any sense. We proved ourselves worthy of having atomic weapons by using them? World War II was on the verge of ending when we destroyed Hiroshima, and we certainly didn't need to go on to Nagasaki to expedite the process. Japan was ready to surrender, but they had one condition: that the Emperor be kept in place, as a figurehead. We were unwilling to accept that, so we killed hundreds of thousands of people. But it made us strong, so it was okay, right?I don't agree that everyone should be allowed to develop atomic weapons equally. However, I also don't agree with war---under any circumstances. Maybe if certain countries stopped undermining the power of the UN, there would be a way to solve these problems peacefully.
filecore Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Since Iran doesnt have nukes yet.. there is potential for us to go in there and disarm them before they get too far....Okay I think that it's stupid for any country to develop nuclear weapons and of course other countries are going to be extremely uneasy and scared if only one country has nukes - no wonder people are concerned about the US if they want to be not only the sole owner of nuclear weapons, but having them en masse too. If I was a country on America's "bad list" and I was aware that America had nukes, I'd be damned frightened too. And that's the sort of thing that leads to arms races. If the world's going to get more stable, then we need to ban nuclear weapons - and that means the USA, too.Anyway I just found your comment really silly Gunwounds - I like the oh-so-American concept of "they haven't got anything for us to disarm yet, but let's go in and disarm them anyway". You can't preemptively remove something that isn't there. That's like cutting off my leg "just in case" it gets a tumour. I agree that the capability should be UNIVERSALLY removed for nuclear warfare, but it cannot and should not be used as a pretext for invasion.Found Saddam's WMDs yet?
VigilVirus Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 i kind of hope, in a sick way, that pacifists like this guy who hate humanity so much, get the pleasure and honor to see a mushroom clound on CNN during this lifetime.I'm afraid you do not know me at all. I'm not a pacifist, I'm just against US imperialism. You are right though, I dispise humanity with a passion and would enjoy a mushroom cloud on CNN. The reason I don't like humanity is because I met so many people like you - ultra nationalistic narrow minded fanatics, who don't listen to what others have to say and simply present their bigoted views. I think I prefer Islamic radicals to Republican radicals. And Gunwounds, don't give US so much credit in the World wars. It didn't earn the right to nukes or anything, and in none of them did US actually save my own country. They nuked Japan to prevent millions of their own casualties that would result from an invasion - no doubt, given the decision I would do the same (maybe more than 2 nukes though...), but that doesn't excuse what they did. Nuclear weapons is a stage of development, just like any other weapon. It signifies the technological progress of a country. It's a switch from cavalry, to tank, to nuke. Are you saying that only US has the right to improve its technology?
Warskum Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 I agree that nukes must be removed and i would start with USA, its the only country that used them, it wasnt nessacary but USA needed to test it. And with a morron like Bush on the top, i wouldnt be suprised if he would use them again.
VigilVirus Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Bush: Ready all nuclear weapons! Let's blow up all the terrorists on the moon for the safety of our children!
Dunenewt Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Well personally the country I see that has the highest chance of using them is Russia, on Chechnya, or China on Taiwan but luckily Bush is taking steps to prevent that last one happening.
Inoculator9 Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Dunenewt, your are EXTREMELY mistaken about your former example. Russia is holding onto Chechnya because it's a major industrial center. Nuking it would mean the destruction of the new found industry that is starting up there, which Russia's economy is depending on for growth. So, before Russia would destroy everything, they'd at least pull out and try and trade.Taiwan also is relatively secure in my opinion. Doing anything to Taiwan would result in a unilateral invasion of China :P China has the most UN human rights violations in the world, more so than Iraq by hundreds of times, and Taiwan is an ally of numerous major powers. China would get beaten into the ground if they so much as suggested that.Regarding Iran... I think if we go by the same logic we used to justify attacking Iraq, would be doing the same in Iran.
Cyborg Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Why not just smuggle some biological weapons into Iran, and then attack them because they suddenly are "supposed" to have biological weapons? :P
Dunenewt Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Dunenewt, your are EXTREMELY mistaken about your former example. Russia is holding onto Chechnya because it's a major industrial center. Nuking it would mean the destruction of the new found industry that is starting up there, which Russia's economy is depending on for growth. So, before Russia would destroy everything, they'd at least pull out and try and trade.Guess I've seen the Sum of all fears too many times lol.
Wolf Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 I disagree with the statement that Japan was ready to surrender in World War II. I believe that, even if the Japanese surrenderd by order of their officers, their fanatical devotion to a warrior culture would have continued the fighting and made reconstruction impossible. More people, perhaps, would have died of starvation and a lack of medical care as a Japan that did not fear the United States was a Japan that would not let the United States repair its bombed-out infastructure.Furthermore, I would like to see specific evidence as to why the Japanese government was "willing to surrender". Because I believe that the United States performed a little experiment that proved that the Japanese would not surrender to any terms unless they faced total annihilation. Hiroshima was obliterated in seconds. The entire city. And yet Japan did not surrender. Then, Nagasaki was destroyed in a matter of seconds, and finally, when Japan realized that, unless they surrendered, America would systematically destroy every city on their island, they surrendered. I do not think Japan was truly willing to surrender unless they faced this situation.In addition, I would like to see a copy of these "terms" that the Americans rejected. I believe that, in addition to having the Emperor in power, it also allowed for Japan to keep its military. I may be wrong, but if I'm not, you can see that America had a legitimate reason for dropping the bomb, because after Nanking, no Chinese citizen is ever going to accept those terms, and after Pearl Harbor, no American citizen is ever going to accept those terms, and after Manilla and the Bataan Death March, no Filipino is ever going to accept those terms.
Dunenewt Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 And after Singapore and Burma, no Brit would except it.There were Japanese troops still fighting until the 70's in the jungles.
Wolf Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Yeah, I remember that, Newt. There was this one guy who was on this island up until 1972, I think. They found him, and they tried to get him out, but he shot at the rescuers. So, they contacted his family, and they found out who his commanding officers were. So, they got this one sho-sa, dragged him out to the middle of the ocean to the island, and had him order the man to surrender. And only after that. did this guy get out of his cave and rejoin his family, after almost 30 years.
Leto le Juste Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 Gunwound, do you know who help the radical islamists to catch the power in Iran? ... USA baby.They believed that the Emperor of Iran was too close with the USSR (and it wasn't) and too dangerous cause of he decided to be independant of USA by nationalise oil companies in order to help his country. That was not in the view of the US president....So, USA are guilty of the current situation...
Leto le Juste Posted March 20, 2004 Posted March 20, 2004 It is the same for Chili, the Vietnam... The list is huge... USA has no legacy to impose the government it prefer! >:(
Recommended Posts