ProudAmerican
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,694
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
ashurbanipal said:If any country is allowed nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran be allowed them?
ashurbanipal said:If any country is allowed nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran be allowed them?
ashurbanipal said:Whereas we invade countries we don't like after denouncing them...so I'm afraid either point has little merit.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Yeah, we sure nuked a lot of the so-and-so's in Iraq!
Seriously, I wish you were joking, but you're not - are you?
You cannot possibly, even in the strangest hallucinatory dream imaginable, equate a government of religous fanatics and radical Islamist mullahs with their triggers on the nuclear button with the decision making process of any nation with a representative form of government. And don't bother with that horse-poop about Iran having an elected government; the world knows the deal with that.
ashurbanipal said:If any country is allowed nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran be allowed them?
ashurbanipal said:No, I would expect, given the record of our actions recently (aren't actions supposed to speak louder than words? I'm sure I've heard that somewhere), their decision making process to be rather more reasonable than ours.
ashurbanipal said:Whereas we invade countries we don't like after denouncing them...so I'm afraid either point has little merit.
ashurbanipal said:Whereas we invade countries we don't like after denouncing them...so I'm afraid either point has little merit.
ashurbanipal said:I see no evidence of any Reductios being used in this thread, so I'm not sure what you mean.
No, we did not nuke anyone in Iraq. We are using depeleted Uranium ammo there, though it's probably fair to say that the average commander in Iraq isn't aware of the potential consequences of doing so.
No, I am not joking.
No, I would expect, given the record of our actions recently (aren't actions supposed to speak louder than words? I'm sure I've heard that somewhere), their decision making process to be rather more reasonable than ours. But let's not stop there:
1) I'm not sure why a fundamentalist Muslim is any worse than a fundamentalist Christian. Just because G.W.B. is surrounded by 50 million other Christians in this country who more or less agree with his views doesn't make him any less reactionary, fundamentalist, or extreme.
2) Just what is the deal with Iran having an elected government? I'm unaware of the "deal the world knows with that," to paraphrase.
3) Ahmadinejiad is on record as having said that Israel should be wiped off the map. I don't think we should go that far, though I do think Israel has much to answer for in their treatment of the Palestinians. But Israeli rhetoric falls little short of that from time to time, as does ours. The whole "axis of evil" bit surely made a few people nervous.
4) In actual point of fact, our history over the last 50 years is far more bloody than Iran's, even per capita.
5) The point is bigger than that anyway: we have our way of looking at things, our friends in the world and our enemies. No one should claim that the United States, or any other country that currently possesses nuclear weapons, is the perfect judge of anyone or anything. So why should we few possess the means to singlehandedly destroy life on the planet?
Whose decision making is more reasonable than ours?
The decision making that cheered in the streets following 9/11?
The bin Laden fatwa?
The Iranian support of various terrorist organizations/activities?
And various other little things. Yep, I would agree that actions do speak louder than words.
Whereas, to wisely get to the root of and destroy the evolutionally retarded ideology of the trouble makers in the Middle East, America deposes a two-bit petty dictator and uses his ground as a base to do it.
So your comparing removing a murdering dictator to nuclear destruction.
considering you feel that killing civilians in terrorist attacks is warranted, this post doesn't surprise me
Why are you comparing DU which is essentially harmless (thats why it's caled "depleted". My understanding is the radoactive isotope is removed leaving its virtually harmless. And you again make an absurd comparison to this and detonating a nuclear weapon.
ashurbanipal said:If any country is allowed nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran be allowed them?
ashurbanipal said:No, I made no such comparison. I said that we had committed considerable evil by the indiscriminate killing of civilians by conventional means, whereas Iran hasn't invaded any countries recently and killed any civilians.
ashurbanipal said:It's warranted in very extreme circumstances. We turn out to be living in times where those circumstances obtain. I wish that weren't the case.
ashurbanipal said:DU turns out not the be entirely harmless (in ways other than the obvious--that is, I mean it causes more harm than that caused by the kinetic act of hurling it towards a target at great speeds). It isn't completely non-radioactive, and we've used so much of it that low levels of radioactivity are endemic to certain parts of Iraq. It poisons the water, causes crops to fail, and makes people and animals sick.
ashurbanipal said:I did not mean to compare this to detonating a nuclear weapon per se; I did mean to suggest that we're causing great harm to Iraqi civilians needlessly. I further mean to suggest that in the final analysis, we'll have turned out to have killed far more innocent civilians than detonating a nuclear bomb will do.
ashurbanipal said:That said, I hope a nuclear bomb is not detonated. I hope that people will come to their senses and stop killing each other. I just don't think that's likely to happen.
Across the street is a man who has threatened to kill your neighbor and threatens you because you defend him. By all means...do the right thing and hand him a gun. After all, everyopne else has a gun...why shouldn't he?
Another individual opting to choose what is right and wrong over what is necessary.
It's simple...it's us or them.
History is all about nations that have done what they feel they must to protect their citizens or lands.
It's called survival and these instincts are very much alive today.
Our country doesn't thrive on accident and it doesn't thrive by handing our enemies the means in which to destroy us.
Be thankful stronger men are in charge of your security and protection.
Calm2Chaos said:Because I don't want tem ending up on my back porch..... That alone is a good enough reason for Iran not to have nuclear weapons
Saboteur said:You are a total *****.
ashurbanipal said:The situation isn't precisely analogous. Add in that the neighbor you're defending, and you yourself, have done something to earn the ire of the threatening neighbor. Like, for instance, burned his house down and killed one of his children. Should a fourth, objective party fail to recognize that he has a right to a gun? This, especially if you and your neighbor have them and continually remind him that if he tries to do anything about what's already happened to him, you'll use your guns to kill him, his wife, his brother, and his other children?
ashurbanipal said:If everyone did what is right, what is necessary would have been a lot less bloody.
ashurbanipal said:Not necessarily, even now. What's really at stake is our lifestyle and our position of power. Even if Iran built all the nuclear bombs it could afford, it could not destroy America.
But of course, quite a lot of harm would be inflicted. The thing I'm asking people to recognize is that we created this situation by choosing what was easy over what was right. By choosing power over mutual respect. The only way out of it is to start choosing right over convenience.
ashurbanipal said:Our country thrives on the blood of other countries. We could have had a decent lifestyle and a simple, peaceful existence. We chose an extravagant lifestyle and a war-like existence. In the end, all the electronic whiz-bangs and huge SUVs we reward ourselves with for the killing and impoverishment of others are the devil's currency. There are things worse than death. For myself, I believe in honor. Death is inevitable; life is not. We will all be leaving this life; how many of us will do so with souls that truly shine? We've traded a chance at something meaningful and worthwhile for an existence of acquiring stuff through murder and mayhem and the constant denial of any fellowship or bond of fraternity. The result is that, right before the end, we will see that it was not worthwhile.
ashurbanipal said:I've fought (and run, ducked, rolled, dodged, etc.) for my life more than once, and I expect that I may have to again before much longer. I'd prefer that those men who call what they do protecting me would wise up and realize it's far better to not give someone a reason for aggression. It's far better to accept less for yourself if doing otherwise means others get nothing. It is not always strength to kill and torture and burn; it is not strength to grow angry, to hate, to remain impervious to sense. It is strength to do what is right and refrain from what is wrong.
icky said:OK... Let's imagine that GySgt (or whoever) is head of his/her own country. For fun, let's assume that they were elected through some democratic process... Let's also assume that the US doesn't really like them for some reason or another... maybe it's their wacky fundamentalist religious posture...
Now... GySgt, it seems to me that it would be your DUTY to Protect your country and its' interests. Seems to me that the best way to do this is to get your self a seat at the "Big Peoples Table". Just showing up and ringing doorbells probably won't get you much satisfaction and does NOTHING to protect you from your enemies.
Seems to me that IF you had the ability to make a nuclear weapon or two that you not only would have the RIGHT to do so, but you'd have the Obligation! IF you DIDN'T persue nuclear weapons you might be considered incompetent and criminally negligent! Your people deserve the BEST you can provide.
Notice, the most powerful countries in the world (G-8) are alllllll Nuclear Countries.
It seems hypocritical to me that we should have nuclear weapons but nobody else can - because they might use them! Well... we DID use them!
Perhaps, if everybody had them, then it just might force the US and other countries to realize that we are "all in this together" and that we need to find non-nuclear ways to solve our problems. It might just FORCE us to be diplomatic instead of being the 800 pound gorilla.
ashurbanipal said:I'm not sure what to make of the phrase "evolutionally retarded." Do you mean that people in the middle east are so retarded that they can't understand the theory of evolution? Or do you mean that evolution is slower in the middle east? Or that evolution has led to an abnormal concentration of retarded people in the middle east? Or something else? Clear that up, and I'll respond at more length.
ashurbanipal said:In the meantime, I will simply say that you ignore the very real human cost of what we've done, and the injustice of it. We were not justified in invading Iraq or, it turns out, Afganistan.
Calm2Chaos said:I'm trying to figure out how to take that.. So why don't you expand on your observation so I can make a better determination.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?