Obama's dangerous plan for dealing with Iran.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="AnObscureName"][QUOTE="gobo212"] But I never said I supported any countries policies. In fact I'm an anarchist.gobo212You support the idea of no goverments anywhere? That would lead to something roughly equivalent to the dark ages. There'd be no power, who would work the machines? Companies? But with no governments there would be no recognised currency so why would anyone bother to work? I'm for massive decentralization. I think that nations as they exist now are too large to sufficiently represent its population's views. I am also against capitalism. I am for the creation of an egalitarian society on a small scale but that in no way means I am against any organization. States where everyone is equal are fine in theory but in practice do not work. There are always some to have to be in charge. Even in nature, in tribal situations you always have an alpha male or pairing or matriarch of some sort.
[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="AnObscureName"] You support the idea of no goverments anywhere? That would lead to something roughly equivalent to the dark ages. There'd be no power, who would work the machines? Companies? But with no governments there would be no recognised currency so why would anyone bother to work?AnObscureNameI'm for massive decentralization. I think that nations as they exist now are too large to sufficiently represent its population's views. I am also against capitalism. I am for the creation of an egalitarian society on a small scale but that in no way means I am against any organization. States where everyone is equal are fine in theory but in practice do not work. There are always some to have to be in charge. Even in nature, in tribal situations you always have an alpha male or pairing or matriarch of some sort. He's not talking about communism mate.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]How would bombing Iran in retaliation of Israel getting bombed galvanize a world war?Franklinstein
Honestly, I agree with you. I'm sure people said the same thing for if we attacked Afghanistan, or if we attacked Vietnam, or if we attacked Iraq, or if we attack Korea, or etc, etc, etc.
Pretty much. Like a great GS moderator once said,It is the world of sound bites. Pick your sound bite and make it say what you want it to. a great GS moderator
[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="sonicare"] I believe that genocide is not in accordance with international law . . . . . . .sonicareHmm, go on... I'm just saying that if you're going to call one nation out, you may as well call them all out. I'm not going to argue that for the past 60 years the US's foreign policy has often been one sided, but it's kind of silly to just focus on them when so many others have done the same thing.
-sighs heavily- Your first quote (Vietnam, france, etc) was riddled with inaccuracies. One example being we DID send troops in the 50's (albeit brass and not grunts) to train and help equip the French...but the whole point is what you're missing. NEVER before has our stated policy been one of pre-emption. NEVER. We can trade events and factors that led to said events but we'd be here all week.
OF COURSE the CIA has indulged in many clandestine (and some not so covert) operations to topple regimes, I'm not saying differently...but I'm a little tired of repeating myself so please take the time to understand the faulty ground you've been arguing from. The policy from the Bush administration is vastly different from any we have ever had before. Yes, I'm aware I just repeated myself...but apparently I have to. :P
Now, for this last idea you had of comparing the US role in the world with other countries: We are the lone superpower (though that is changing) and as such our responsibility and influence is distinctly unique. Since we exert said influence in so many ways, we are therefore more responsible for the state of world affairs. Whether you agree with the position we put ourselves in or not, WE put ourselves there. Complaining about the lack of leadership by other countries isn't comparable because they aren't in the same position the US is.
We are on unique footing and because of this, we get more of the praise (not lately) and more of the criticism. It's intellectually soft to excuse the US's actions in the past by comparing our behavior with most other nations...we're not Libya. We have the power to do so much good, thusly we are rightly held to account when our policies do not match our potential.
Holy Hell, This is NOT the place for intellectuallism or historical facts apparently...we were in a better position in WWII??? Unemployment then was almost 33%! We were in the midst of the Great Depression...besides that little tidbit of history, I agree that we're in a terrible position abroad and at home. A lot of "mending" needs to be done before we can even think of exerting our military might. We're stretched to the breaking point already...
Leostatic
Actually at the start of the war it was at 17%, and I mostly meant before WWI, although my post said WWI, and WWII, because we were obviously not isolated if we were in those wars.
I dont hate Muslims, but the rational Muslims are few and far between. Most of the decent ones live in the US imo lol.
As for other muslims, and muslim theocracies, I really am sick and tired of them. I used to think "oh, we should tolerate them" and stuff like that but I am so past that now.
They need to get with the program, or shut the hell up. The world does not need or warrant this kind of mentality anymore. If they attack Israel based on religion, then they deserve to get wiped off the map. Sorry, but two wrongs sometimes make a right.
[QUOTE="Leostatic"]Holy Hell, This is NOT the place for intellectuallism or historical facts apparently...we were in a better position in WWII??? Unemployment then was almost 33%! We were in the midst of the Great Depression...besides that little tidbit of history, I agree that we're in a terrible position abroad and at home. A lot of "mending" needs to be done before we can even think of exerting our military might. We're stretched to the breaking point already...
Franklinstein
Actually at the start of the war it was at 17%, and I mostly meant before WWI, although my post said WWI, and WWII, because we were obviously not isolated if we were in those wars.
http://arnoldkling.com/econ/macro/unemp.html
33% at it's worst, but yes by 1939 it was down to around 18%...as for isolationism, that was the policy Woodrow Wilson campaigned and won on. His administration argued that position up until the decision to get involved in WWI. The voice of isolationism returned post WWI pre-WWII, but one can argue we did not fully follow the pledged policies of the politicians of the time.(embargos, trade of supplies to countries at war, etc...)
How would bombing Iran in retaliation of Israel getting bombed galvanize a world war?LikeHateradeit wouldn't. Iran has no allies that want to go at it with us. Russia is our ally and China would be killing its own economy by fighting with us. Iran would be all alone. Getting vaporized. And not a soul would help them.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]How would bombing Iran in retaliation of Israel getting bombed galvanize a world war?Dreams-Visionsit wouldn't. Iran has no allies that want to go at it with us. Russia is our ally and China would be killing its own economy by fighting with us. Iran would be all alone. Getting vaporized. And not a soul would help them.
except muslim fundamentalists but, hey, theyre already messing with the civilized world already so what difference would that make.
Russia might rattle some sabers, but we'd be like "Hey Russia, lets split the oil" and they'd be like "OK"
it wouldn't. Iran has no allies that want to go at it with us. Russia is our ally and China would be killing its own economy by fighting with us. Iran would be all alone. Getting vaporized. And not a soul would help them.[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]How would bombing Iran in retaliation of Israel getting bombed galvanize a world war?mrbojangles25
except muslim fundamentalists but, hey, theyre already messing with the civilized world already so what difference would that make.
Russia might rattle some sabers, but we'd be like "Hey Russia, lets split the oil" and they'd be like "OK"
I doubt Russia will get involved in this, they've got enough oil as it isI don't know but the middle east is so ****** up its unreal. It may just be for the best to just nuke the whole middle east thats against the US and what not and start a new. I know not everyone is a bad guy over there but it is taking quite some time to change things over there with just troops. To be honest I say the world would be a better place without them.
What the whole situation reminds me of is that movie navy seals where its like 5 or 6 people going against 500 hundred or more that happen to be in the area which just isn't a fair fight so lets make it fair. I don't like how they have sneaky tactics for taking out our troops who just happen to be passing through town. I don't play that **** and I would nuke in a heart beat after how many times screwed us with that. I tell you one thing though once one bomb drops I guarantee they will straighten their **** up real quick and we will find out who really wants to **** around.
I know the UN is all for peace but I don't see everyone else in the UN over there with troops either. I know some of the UN may not agree with it but its absurd to think that part of the world is even remotely normal.
-sighs heavily- Your first quote (Vietnam, france, etc) was riddled with inaccuracies. One example being we DID send troops in the 50's (albeit brass and not grunts) to train and help equip the French...but the whole point is what you're missing. NEVER before has our stated policy been one of pre-emption. NEVER. We can trade events and factors that led to said events but we'd be here all week.
Leostatic
I seem to remember this thing called the Bush Doctrine was a policy of pre-emption... Then again, I shouldn't expect you to know that, considering a certain former Vice Presidential candidate didn't know that either...
[QUOTE="Leostatic"]-sighs heavily- Your first quote (Vietnam, france, etc) was riddled with inaccuracies. One example being we DID send troops in the 50's (albeit brass and not grunts) to train and help equip the French...but the whole point is what you're missing. NEVER before has our stated policy been one of pre-emption. NEVER. We can trade events and factors that led to said events but we'd be here all week.
pyroistheone
I seem to remember this thing called the Bush Doctrine was a policy of pre-emption... Then again, I shouldn't expect you to know that, considering a certain former Vice Presidential candidate didn't know that either...
...uh, go back and re-read the posts. That was precisely the point.
I dont hate Muslims, but the rational Muslims are few and far between. Most of the decent ones live in the US imo lol.
As for other muslims, and muslim theocracies, I really am sick and tired of them. I used to think "oh, we should tolerate them" and stuff like that but I am so past that now.
They need to get with the program, or shut the hell up. The world does not need or warrant this kind of mentality anymore. If they attack Israel based on religion, then they deserve to get wiped off the map. Sorry, but two wrongs sometimes make a right.
you are right, what a bunch of primitive ppl... if they were educated like the ppl of America they would simply make up some BS about how Israel has WMDs and start a war which leads to the death of hundreds of thousands of ppl..... oh wait...I don't know but the middle east is so ****** up its unreal. It may just be for the best to just nuke the whole middle east thats against the US and what not and start a new. I know not everyone is a bad guy over there but it is taking quite some time to change things over there with just troops. To be honest I say the world would be a better place without them.
What the whole situation reminds me of is that movie navy seals where its like 5 or 6 people going against 500 hundred or more that happen to be in the area which just isn't a fair fight so lets make it fair. I don't like how they have sneaky tactics for taking out our troops who just happen to be passing through town. I don't play that **** and I would nuke in a heart beat after how many times screwed us with that. I tell you one thing though once one bomb drops I guarantee they will straighten their **** up real quick and we will find out who really wants to **** around.
I know the UN is all for peace but I don't see everyone else in the UN over there with troops either. I know some of the UN may not agree with it but its absurd to think that part of the world is even remotely normal.
really? really? just so u know Iraq = Middle East... i know how hard that must be to understand....[QUOTE="odin2019"]really? really? just so u know Iraq = Middle East... i know how hard that must be to understand....I don't know but the middle east is so ****** up its unreal. It may just be for the best to just nuke the whole middle east thats against the US and what not and start a new. I know not everyone is a bad guy over there but it is taking quite some time to change things over there with just troops. To be honest I say the world would be a better place without them.
What the whole situation reminds me of is that movie navy seals where its like 5 or 6 people going against 500 hundred or more that happen to be in the area which just isn't a fair fight so lets make it fair. I don't like how they have sneaky tactics for taking out our troops who just happen to be passing through town. I don't play that **** and I would nuke in a heart beat after how many times screwed us with that. I tell you one thing though once one bomb drops I guarantee they will straighten their **** up real quick and we will find out who really wants to **** around.
I know the UN is all for peace but I don't see everyone else in the UN over there with troops either. I know some of the UN may not agree with it but its absurd to think that part of the world is even remotely normal.
killtactics
You don't have to bomb the whole middle east it would just one bomb in one place and thats all it would take and I know how hard that must be for you to understand after what happend with US and *** back in WW2...I say would after that bomb was dropped less than probably 10 US troops died after that over in Japan.
And to perfectly honest with you United Nations wouldn't exist if we didn't help people during WW2.
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]you are right, what a bunch of primitive ppl... if they were educated like the ppl of America they would simply make up some BS about how Israel has WMDs and start a war which leads to the death of hundreds of thousands of ppl..... oh wait...I dont hate Muslims, but the rational Muslims are few and far between. Most of the decent ones live in the US imo lol.
As for other muslims, and muslim theocracies, I really am sick and tired of them. I used to think "oh, we should tolerate them" and stuff like that but I am so past that now.
They need to get with the program, or shut the hell up. The world does not need or warrant this kind of mentality anymore. If they attack Israel based on religion, then they deserve to get wiped off the map. Sorry, but two wrongs sometimes make a right.
killtactics
rofl
How old are you?I don't know but the middle east is so ****** up its unreal. It may just be for the best to just nuke the whole middle east thats against the US and what not and start a new. I know not everyone is a bad guy over there but it is taking quite some time to change things over there with just troops. To be honest I say the world would be a better place without them.
What the whole situation reminds me of is that movie navy seals where its like 5 or 6 people going against 500 hundred or more that happen to be in the area which just isn't a fair fight so lets make it fair. I don't like how they have sneaky tactics for taking out our troops who just happen to be passing through town. I don't play that **** and I would nuke in a heart beat after how many times screwed us with that. I tell you one thing though once one bomb drops I guarantee they will straighten their **** up real quick and we will find out who really wants to **** around.
I know the UN is all for peace but I don't see everyone else in the UN over there with troops either. I know some of the UN may not agree with it but its absurd to think that part of the world is even remotely normal.
odin2019
[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="odin2019"]really? really? just so u know Iraq = Middle East... i know how hard that must be to understand....I don't know but the middle east is so ****** up its unreal. It may just be for the best to just nuke the whole middle east thats against the US and what not and start a new. I know not everyone is a bad guy over there but it is taking quite some time to change things over there with just troops. To be honest I say the world would be a better place without them.
What the whole situation reminds me of is that movie navy seals where its like 5 or 6 people going against 500 hundred or more that happen to be in the area which just isn't a fair fight so lets make it fair. I don't like how they have sneaky tactics for taking out our troops who just happen to be passing through town. I don't play that **** and I would nuke in a heart beat after how many times screwed us with that. I tell you one thing though once one bomb drops I guarantee they will straighten their **** up real quick and we will find out who really wants to **** around.
I know the UN is all for peace but I don't see everyone else in the UN over there with troops either. I know some of the UN may not agree with it but its absurd to think that part of the world is even remotely normal.
odin2019
You don't have to bomb the whole middle east it would just one bomb in one place and thats all it would take and I know how hard that must be for you to understand after what happend with US and *** back in WW2...I say would after that bomb was dropped less than probably 10 US troops died after that over in Japan.
And to perfectly honest with you United Nations wouldn't exist if we didn't help people during WW2.
Are you comparing the Iraq war to WWII? Ok lets say America dropped a bomb on the Middle East, where would you want the bomb to be? What about Pakistan which has Nukes too? Do you think killing hundreds of thousands of Innocent Muslims will result in a retaliation of some kind?[QUOTE="odin2019"][QUOTE="killtactics"]really? really? just so u know Iraq = Middle East... i know how hard that must be to understand....killtactics
You don't have to bomb the whole middle east it would just one bomb in one place and thats all it would take and I know how hard that must be for you to understand after what happend with US and *** back in WW2...I say would after that bomb was dropped less than probably 10 US troops died after that over in Japan.
And to perfectly honest with you United Nations wouldn't exist if we didn't help people during WW2.
Are you comparing the Iraq war to WWII? Ok lets say America dropped a bomb on the Middle East, where would you want the bomb to be? What about Pakistan which has Nukes too? Do you think killing hundreds of thousands of Innocent Muslims will result in a retaliation of some kind?The only lesson that we need to take from WWII and Japan is that nukes are terrible and should never be used.
Never.
[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="odin2019"]Are you comparing the Iraq war to WWII? Ok lets say America dropped a bomb on the Middle East, where would you want the bomb to be? What about Pakistan which has Nukes too? Do you think killing hundreds of thousands of Innocent Muslims will result in a retaliation of some kind?You don't have to bomb the whole middle east it would just one bomb in one place and thats all it would take and I know how hard that must be for you to understand after what happend with US and *** back in WW2...I say would after that bomb was dropped less than probably 10 US troops died after that over in Japan.
And to perfectly honest with you United Nations wouldn't exist if we didn't help people during WW2.
mrbojangles25
The only lesson that we need to take from WWII and Japan is that nukes are terrible and should never be used.
Never.
Good call.So you are basically proposinga nuclear strike on Iran, for something they haven't done? If this is how you think then , I assume, that if you have info that a man might kill, you will try to eliminate that man(regardless of wether he has killed or no)???? How thoughtful.............
And do you think that Iran's entire population wants to nuke Israel? It's the people in the government. And if for this, you thought that the entire nation should be subjected to the terrors of a nuclear blast, then I pity you.
[QUOTE="Leostatic"]-sighs heavily- Your first quote (Vietnam, france, etc) was riddled with inaccuracies. One example being we DID send troops in the 50's (albeit brass and not grunts) to train and help equip the French...but the whole point is what you're missing. NEVER before has our stated policy been one of pre-emption. NEVER. We can trade events and factors that led to said events but we'd be here all week.
pyroistheone
I seem to remember this thing called the Bush Doctrine was a policy of pre-emption... Then again, I shouldn't expect you to know that, considering a certain former Vice Presidential candidate didn't know that either...
That's worked quite well hasn't it.... :roll:
[QUOTE="odin2019"] How old are you?jointed[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="odin2019"]
I don't know but the middle east is so ****** up its unreal. It may just be for the best to just nuke the whole middle east thats against the US and what not and start a new. I know not everyone is a bad guy over there but it is taking quite some time to change things over there with just troops. To be honest I say the world would be a better place without them.
What the whole situation reminds me of is that movie navy seals where its like 5 or 6 people going against 500 hundred or more that happen to be in the area which just isn't a fair fight so lets make it fair. I don't like how they have sneaky tactics for taking out our troops who just happen to be passing through town. I don't play that **** and I would nuke in a heart beat after how many times screwed us with that. I tell you one thing though once one bomb drops I guarantee they will straighten their **** up real quick and we will find out who really wants to **** around.
I know the UN is all for peace but I don't see everyone else in the UN over there with troops either. I know some of the UN may not agree with it but its absurd to think that part of the world is even remotely normal.
How old are you? Jointed, please be respectful. This is George Bush's account.I don't know but the middle east is so ****** up its unreal. It may just be for the best to just nuke the whole middle east thats against the US and what not and start a new. I know not everyone is a bad guy over there but it is taking quite some time to change things over there with just troops. To be honest I say the world would be a better place without them.
What the whole situation reminds me of is that movie navy seals where its like 5 or 6 people going against 500 hundred or more that happen to be in the area which just isn't a fair fight so lets make it fair. I don't like how they have sneaky tactics for taking out our troops who just happen to be passing through town. I don't play that **** and I would nuke in a heart beat after how many times screwed us with that. I tell you one thing though once one bomb drops I guarantee they will straighten their **** up real quick and we will find out who really wants to **** around.
I know the UN is all for peace but I don't see everyone else in the UN over there with troops either. I know some of the UN may not agree with it but its absurd to think that part of the world is even remotely normal.
How old are you? Jointed, please be respectful. This is George Bush's account. I lol'd so very, very hard.[QUOTE="odin2019"][QUOTE="killtactics"]really? really? just so u know Iraq = Middle East... i know how hard that must be to understand....killtactics
You don't have to bomb the whole middle east it would just one bomb in one place and thats all it would take and I know how hard that must be for you to understand after what happend with US and *** back in WW2...I say would after that bomb was dropped less than probably 10 US troops died after that over in Japan.
And to perfectly honest with you United Nations wouldn't exist if we didn't help people during WW2.
Are you comparing the Iraq war to WWII? Ok lets say America dropped a bomb on the Middle East, where would you want the bomb to be? What about Pakistan which has Nukes too? Do you think killing hundreds of thousands of Innocent Muslims will result in a retaliation of some kind?Where would I want the bomb to be well I would tell them to drop the bomb where the last place was that I sent a fair amount of troops into and they were randomly attacked. I don't know if I would exactly drop a nuke but it would be a fairly good size bomb to get the point across to not do it again. And as for Pakistan well they better hope to god they don't get involved afterwards. There is a big difference between having nukes and having nukes that can touch down on foreign soil. The US has and should realize not to allow these countries to gain any form of resepctable power within the future because doing so could cause threat to our existence. Due to places like Russia willing to sell biological warfare weapons to whoever can afford them it is of concern to take care of the matter at hand before even bigger threats arise. Sitting back and waiting 50 years for things to just go so so isn't the best plan.
[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="odin2019"]Are you comparing the Iraq war to WWII? Ok lets say America dropped a bomb on the Middle East, where would you want the bomb to be? What about Pakistan which has Nukes too? Do you think killing hundreds of thousands of Innocent Muslims will result in a retaliation of some kind?You don't have to bomb the whole middle east it would just one bomb in one place and thats all it would take and I know how hard that must be for you to understand after what happend with US and *** back in WW2...I say would after that bomb was dropped less than probably 10 US troops died after that over in Japan.
And to perfectly honest with you United Nations wouldn't exist if we didn't help people during WW2.
odin2019
Where would I want the bomb to be well I would tell them to drop the bomb where the last place was that I sent a fair amount of troops into and they were randomly attacked. I don't know if I would exactly drop a nuke but it would be a fairly good size bomb to get the point across to not do it again. And as for Pakistan well they better hope to god they don't get involved aftewards. There is a big difference between having nukes and having nukes that can touch down on foreign soil. The US has and should realize not to allow these countries to gain any form of resepctable power within the future because doing so could cause threat to our existence. Due to places like Russia willing to sell biological warfare weapons to whoever can afford them it is of concern to take of the matter at hand before even bigger threats arise. Sitting back and waiting 50 years for things to just go so so isn't the best plan.
Why should the US decide who is allowed to have nuclear weapons? So far the USA is the only country to use one in warfare, so if any country should not have them, it would be the USA. Would it not?[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]How would bombing Iran in retaliation of Israel getting bombed galvanize a world war?Dreams-Visionsit wouldn't. Iran has no allies that want to go at it with us. Russia is our ally and China would be killing its own economy by fighting with us. Iran would be all alone. Getting vaporized. And not a soul would help them. That's what first came to mind when I read the TC's original post. Typical fear mongering.
[QUOTE="odin2019"][QUOTE="killtactics"]Are you comparing the Iraq war to WWII? Ok lets say America dropped a bomb on the Middle East, where would you want the bomb to be? What about Pakistan which has Nukes too? Do you think killing hundreds of thousands of Innocent Muslims will result in a retaliation of some kind?AnObscureName
Where would I want the bomb to be well I would tell them to drop the bomb where the last place was that I sent a fair amount of troops into and they were randomly attacked. I don't know if I would exactly drop a nuke but it would be a fairly good size bomb to get the point across to not do it again. And as for Pakistan well they better hope to god they don't get involved aftewards. There is a big difference between having nukes and having nukes that can touch down on foreign soil. The US has and should realize not to allow these countries to gain any form of resepctable power within the future because doing so could cause threat to our existence. Due to places like Russia willing to sell biological warfare weapons to whoever can afford them it is of concern to take of the matter at hand before even bigger threats arise. Sitting back and waiting 50 years for things to just go so so isn't the best plan.
Why should the US decide who is allowed to have nuclear weapons? So far the USA is the only country to use one in warfare, so if any country should not have them, it would be the USA. Would it not?The US should be allowed to have weapons because the US has allowed the world up to this point to exist since while having them. Meanwhile other countries may not have done the same for example germany of WW2. The US has the best intelligence community of the world and it should remain that way. The US ended the war with Japan by dropping the nuke. Some say it was not the best thing but none the less it ended the war. The Japanese army was willing to die to the last man due to them thinking that once the US had invaded Japan and taken over that we were going to rape their women and their children like what some other countries in Asia were doing at the time around WW2.
The only way to deal with them and bring them civilisation is to invade them, simple as there is no other option unless a Civil War takes place but personally I would rather the US & UK invade so we get to give our men as much battlefield experience as possible.lucky326The only way we can be sure any country won't attack us is if we invade. And bring them "Civilization?" I thought we left that kind of thinking behind after we completely raped America and Africa under that guise.
[QUOTE="lucky326"]The only way to deal with them and bring them civilisation is to invade them, simple as there is no other option unless a Civil War takes place but personally I would rather the US & UK invade so we get to give our men as much battlefield experience as possible.gobo212The only way we can be sure any country won't attack us is if we invade. And bring them "Civilization?" I thought we left that kind of thinking behind after we completely raped America and Africa under that guise. I don't think so, invading them and putting the British Flag over there governmental buildings is what they need asap.
[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="lucky326"]The only way to deal with them and bring them civilisation is to invade them, simple as there is no other option unless a Civil War takes place but personally I would rather the US & UK invade so we get to give our men as much battlefield experience as possible.lucky326The only way we can be sure any country won't attack us is if we invade. And bring them "Civilization?" I thought we left that kind of thinking behind after we completely raped America and Africa under that guise. I don't think so, invading them and putting the British Flag over there governmental buildings is what they need asap. Imperialism is a horrible, horrible thing.
[QUOTE="lucky326"][QUOTE="gobo212"] The only way we can be sure any country won't attack us is if we invade. And bring them "Civilization?" I thought we left that kind of thinking behind after we completely raped America and Africa under that guise.gobo212I don't think so, invading them and putting the British Flag over there governmental buildings is what they need asap. Imperialism is a horrible, horrible thing. No No the fall of Imperialism was a horrible, horrible thing.
[QUOTE="AnObscureName"] Why should the US decide who is allowed to have nuclear weapons? So far the USA is the only country to use one in warfare, so if any country should not have them, it would be the USA. Would it not?odin2019
The US should be allowed to have weapons because the US has allowed the world up to this point to exist since while having them. Meanwhile other countries may not have done the same for example germany of WW2. The US has the best intelligence community of the world and it should remain that way. The US ended the war with Japan by dropping the nuke. Some say it was not the best thing but none the less it ended the war. The Japanese army was willing to die to the last man due to them thinking that once the US had invaded Japan and taken over that we were going to rape their women and their children like what some other countries in Asia were doing at the time around WW2.
Nukes would not destroy the world. The world will keep on spinning no matter what we do to it. Also why would Germany have nuked anywhere? They were invading places they wanted to populate. Comment about best intelligence community in the world...ok, whatever you think.
Also I don't many countries in the Far East were doing much raping and killing except Japan.
[QUOTE="odin2019"][QUOTE="AnObscureName"] Why should the US decide who is allowed to have nuclear weapons? So far the USA is the only country to use one in warfare, so if any country should not have them, it would be the USA. Would it not?AnObscureName
The US should be allowed to have weapons because the US has allowed the world up to this point to exist since while having them. Meanwhile other countries may not have done the same for example germany of WW2. The US has the best intelligence community of the world and it should remain that way. The US ended the war with Japan by dropping the nuke. Some say it was not the best thing but none the less it ended the war. The Japanese army was willing to die to the last man due to them thinking that once the US had invaded Japan and taken over that we were going to rape their women and their children like what some other countries in Asia were doing at the time around WW2.
Nukes would not destroy the world. The world will keep on spinning no matter what we do to it. Also why would Germany have nuked anywhere? They were invading places they wanted to populate. Comment about best intelligence community in the world...ok, whatever you think.
Also I don't many countries in the Far East were doing much raping and killing except Japan.
The world may keep on spinning but lots of people living on it won't keep on living. Germany would of eventually used the nukes when their numbers would of started to fall due to the on going war with everyone else they didn't want just more land they wanted the world.
Your nuts if you really think Germany wouldn't have started nuking places the way they were going about things. They had a massive air force from what I recall and they did go about using it.
[QUOTE="AnObscureName"][QUOTE="odin2019"]The US should be allowed to have weapons because the US has allowed the world up to this point to exist since while having them. Meanwhile other countries may not have done the same for example germany of WW2. The US has the best intelligence community of the world and it should remain that way. The US ended the war with Japan by dropping the nuke. Some say it was not the best thing but none the less it ended the war. The Japanese army was willing to die to the last man due to them thinking that once the US had invaded Japan and taken over that we were going to rape their women and their children like what some other countries in Asia were doing at the time around WW2.odin2019
Nukes would not destroy the world. The world will keep on spinning no matter what we do to it. Also why would Germany have nuked anywhere? They were invading places they wanted to populate. Comment about best intelligence community in the world...ok, whatever you think.
Also I don't many countries in the Far East were doing much raping and killing except Japan.
The world may keep on spinning but lots of people living on it won't keep on living. Germany would of eventually used the nukes when their numbers would of started to fall due to the on going war with everyone else they didn't want just more land they wanted the world.
Your nuts if you really think Germany wouldn't have started nuking places the way they were going about things.
Guess I'm nuts then...[QUOTE="lucky326"][QUOTE="gobo212"] The only way we can be sure any country won't attack us is if we invade. And bring them "Civilization?" I thought we left that kind of thinking behind after we completely raped America and Africa under that guise.gobo212I don't think so, invading them and putting the British Flag over there governmental buildings is what they need asap. Imperialism is a horrible, horrible thing. So is a treacherous mindset.
[QUOTE="superheromonkey"][QUOTE="gobo212"]I am totally against any support for Israel.sonicareso we shouldn't respect and protect the sovereignty of nations? Did we respect the sovereignty of Palestine? Palestine was created in the time of the Romans (called Palestine since the Jews' enemies were the Phillistines of old) so they could convert Jews to paganism. After the fall of the Roman empire, Palestine became a desolate area owned by Arabs who themselves did not live their. Jewish immigrants purchased the land at inflated prices and made it prosper. Soon, poor Arab peasants migrated to Palestine to work for the Jewis. Additionally, other ethnicities migrated to Palestine for work, making it a country of many peoples. After WWI, Churchill took 77 percent of what was supposed to be a Jewish state and gave the 77 percent to Palestinian Arabs, which became the country Trans-Jordan (Jordan). So 23 percent of the land went to the Palestinian Jews' Israel and 77 percent to the Palestinian Arabs' Trans-Jordan. Israel became a state in 1948 (after the War for Independence) where nearly 600,000 Palestinian Arabs fled so other Muslim countries could wipe out Israel, upon which the Palestinian Arabs could return. However, the 600,000 Palestinian Arabs were never to be assimilated into neighboring Muslim states, and the Arab states have yet to wipe Israel off the map. In conclusion, Palestine was never an Arab populated country, but rather a mixture of many ethnicities and religions, and it's the Arab states' fault that there are now Palestinian refugees. What you normally hear is due to Arab propoganda, since they pay a large sum of money to Western media industries.
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"] so we shouldn't respect and protect the sovereignty of nations?Commando195Did we respect the sovereignty of Palestine? Palestine was created in the time of the Romans (called Palestine since the Jews' enemies were the Phillistines of old) so they could convert Jews to paganism. After the fall of the Roman empire, Palestine became a desolate area owned by Arabs who themselves did not live their. Jewish immigrants purchased the land at inflated prices and made it prosper. Soon, poor Arab peasants migrated to Palestine to work for the Jewis. Additionally, other ethnicities migrated to Palestine for work, making it a country of many peoples. After WWI, Churchill took 77 percent of what was supposed to be a Jewish state and gave the 77 percent to Palestinian Arabs, which became the country Trans-Jordan (Jordan). So 23 percent of the land went to the Palestinian Jews' Israel and 77 percent to the Palestinian Arabs' Trans-Jordan. Israel became a state in 1948 (after the War for Independence) where nearly 600,000 Palestinian Arabs fled so other Muslim countries could wipe out Israel, upon which the Palestinian Arabs could return. However, the 600,000 Palestinian Arabs were never to be assimilated into neighboring Muslim states, and the Arab states have yet to wipe Israel off the map. In conclusion, Palestine was never an Arab populated country, but rather a mixture of many ethnicities and religions, and it's the Arab states' fault that there are now Palestinian refugees. What you normally hear is due to Arab propoganda, since they pay a large sum of money to Western media industries. Sarcasm? right? please be sarcasm.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment