So would you say having one country in control of the world would be bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Printable View
So would you say having one country in control of the world would be bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Actually, the only really sovereign countries today are the countries that posses nuclear weapons. Aside from that, the probably see nuclear weapons as the only means of protecting themselves from outside intrusions, influences and control from the US and NATO. They do not have the military power that can match that of the US. So the only way to insure that they can govern themselves is to have the weapons, and maybe than others (US and NATO) will be affraid to try and pull something like in Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo etc. etc.
And, thay want to stop oil export in order to hurt the US, opposed to all other embargos the US has imposed on other countries in order to help them.
But wouldnt you say that Iran is not a sovereign nation?
So instead of a typical Cold War we have countries that just want some kind of nuclear capabilities as their way of saying "I am a powerful country and you need to give me what I want?"
Well yes, for now. But if the US continues its pattern, Iran and Korea are likely to go through the same thing as Iraq and Afganistan. Military action, and after that they install a US friendly government. A lot of countries were allready subject to that pattern, and you have to options, either sell out, or face a military invasion and forcefull change of government.
And they dont want nukes so thay can say "I am a powerful country and you need to give me what I want", they're saying "I am a powerful country and I dont want what you want".
And whats wrong with that? :lol: jk. ;)Quote:
have to options, either sell out, or face a military invasion and forcefull change of government.
I think Iran and Iraq are a bit different since they control the worlds oil. Any countries that have control over the world like that have to be dealt with in a particular way as to be fair for the rest of the world. No one country should control the world like that. Democratic countries are not controlled by a dictator but controlled by its people. This makes for a mature responsible country that can interact with the rest of the world in a professional mannor and not all "death and nukes to all that dont let us do whatever the hell we want to who ever the hell we want".
I agree that Iraq and Iran are a special case, because of their strict religion and because of the oil, but if you set that asside, there are other numerous cases where the US (or NATO influenced by th US) interviened for it's own personal reasons.
Our own personal reasons = spread freedom and I supose that is a bad thing?
Spread freedom? You are kidding, right?
Was thinking the same thing lmao!Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Whos getting virgins?
[ignorance]somthing they belive i'm no expert but they get 13 virgins if they kill somone.[/ignorance]
Then they cant add as it should be 78 virgins.
Who gets 13 virgins for killing who? In any case, how come they didnt run out of virgins 30 years ago? :)
It took over 100,000 people to develop the first atomic weapon and most of those were natural born U.S, citizens. The bomb developers came from all walks of life, different cultures, countries of origin and religion. They had one thing in common: they believed in the righteousness of the U.S. and it’s task to defeat the enemy.Quote:
Well, all the scientists that invented it were foreigners
Today Iran wants to develop those same weapons, but you will not find many outside of Iran and the radical Islamo-Fascist world who believe in the righteousness of its nuclear weapons program.
One major difference between Iran and the U.S. is that Iran openly supports terrorism (the purposeful targeting of unarmed civilians to achieve your goal) and the U.S. is fighting terrorism.
Even for power generation? why would that be? It's the cleanest most abundant form of energy there is.Quote:
Well, I am all against using nuclear power in any way
Plenty of countries are able to peacefully govern themselves without nuclear weapons. Irans goal is not simply to govern themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
Correct, as is why the countries of NATO must do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from attaining nukes, PERIOD!Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Have you ever seen Iraqi women? It is understandable that there are a never ending supply of virgins. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
:lol:
So is that why the have to wear vails too?
The veils are to protect them from the smell of a freshly exploded martyr. This brings up another question that has been laying heavy on my mind. If a suicide bomber blows himself up with a pair of c4 packed underpants, what good will 70 something virgins do him if hid bits and pieces are blown off. :confused:
It's the same reason people drown their laptops. To make sure that you get a replacement rather then trying to fix it.
It is interesting that these Islamic fundamentalists decry our decadent western society where girls can do as they please, they force their women to dress in as unprovocative and controlled a fashion as they can...and then lure their "martyrs" to join the cause with the promise of plenty of nookie in the afterlife.
Mohammed promised all kinds of luxuries to recruit people that had nothing. Virgins, young boys, water, wine, riches, and fruit. Everything they wanted to hear, they were told.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
Brainwashing.
Being born into it, it's hard not to believe it. What seems obsurd to us only appears that way because we have a clean slate to really give our own opinion of it. There's beliefs we have in our country that are obsurd to other people (God's son was the son of a carpenter? 9/10 religions, depicting a God on the same level as us is blasphemy in the least).
The only real truth is that beliefs are dangerous; regardless of region or religion.
I agree whole-heartedly. Fanatics are those who believe their idealogy is the "gosphel-truth" and try to impose it on others by force.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
Its not limited to religion either. Communism and facism were also full of murderous fanatics.
I wish more people would be skeptical and question more. Demand proof and question the hypocrisy and contradictions found in many idealogies.
People need to listen to Bruce Lee's philosophy. If you watch his "Lost Interviews" you'll know what I'm refering to.
Then there would be no religion or other matters of faith. Fine with me, but some people feel they need that in their lives and don't want to question things too deeply.Quote:
I wish more people would be skeptical and question more. Demand proof and question the hypocrisy and contradictions found in many idealogies.
These are people that are insecure with themselves and their lives as if you are confident you usually dont have to believe that something else will get you out of your situation.
Stiff upper lip people and stop killing youselves for hopes of "prizes" in the afterlife. :rolleyes:
[south park]
Welcome to Muslim sensitivity training!
It is important for us to understand why the Muslims feel the way they do, and why we can never show an image of Muhamed.
Lets all look at why Muslims are upset. First of all, in the Muslim religion you're not allowed to have what?..... SEX, good. There's no sex until marriage in the Muslim world.
Now this would be fine except that in the Muslim religion you also can't..... Anybody?.... JACK OFF. Ok, jacking it is strictly forbidden in the Muslim religion. And what do we know about the places Muslims live? They live in...... Good! SAND. Now put yourslef in the shoes of a Muslim. It's friday night, but you can't have sex AND you can't jack off, there's sand in your eyes and probably in the crack of your ass and then some cartoon comes along from a country where people are getting laid and mocks your prophet! Well you know what, I'd be pretty pissed off too!
[/south park]
RD, you might find it interesting to read Julius Ceasar's Conquest of Gaul. Though he wrote it several centuries BC, it reads very close to what you have been saying in this thread. Of course, the Gauls didn't have nukes, but otherwise, the reasons and arguments used are VERY similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Now I don't mention this to suggest that America is attempting an empire, I don't think the question really matters. The point is, that we attacked Iraq for reasons very similar to why Ceasar created salad...I mean....why Ceasar fought various fights in Gaul. Though the stakes seem higher, the result is the same: Roman might is just a memory, so will be America. What we are doing is important to us now, and seems to have an importance that will last through the ages, but that is unlikely. If there are people a thousand years from now, Americas actions will not be seen as good or bad, it will just be seen as a country exercising its power to make the world a safer place for itself. We aren't the first, though we might manage to be the last.
Mainly, because the US and Russia have built thousands of them and never used them. This shows considerable self-control.Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
If you want to see why most other countries should not have them, keep an eye on India and Pakistan. It's going to be like Spy vs Spy.
As for France -- don't you think that if Germany began to develop its own nukes, France would sell them the machinery to do it and then fire off a couple before the Germans were finished?
I think you may be forgetting a couple of instances there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moon Pie
Thank you, Mr. Pessimism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
How about Bush sneaking over there last night. Basically getting in Al Queda's face saying that now that Al Zarquawi is dead he will have his way or such.
As one news reporter put it.
[paraphrase]
The Iraqi president was summoned to Saddam Husseins Palace, now the American Embassy, by George Bush. The American president stood and smiled at the cameras. The Iraqi president stood and bore it.
[/paraphrase]
In otherwords there's no doubt who's really in charge (of the government if not the country).
:lol: Thats right. He did look a bit pissed.
He probably had a nasty flashback when a soldier told him he had to go to Saddams palace. :)
Any time.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Frankly, the similarity between what Julius Ceasar wrote, and what we are doing in the world today is striking. The scale is different, and the weapons are different, but the similarity is there. We hope that we are making a difference, but there is no reason to believe that we have shifted the strange attractor about which humanity revolves. There is no proof against our extinction, and we are no more than one wave in the sea.
However, it isn't pessimism. It's not that I don't believe that we can make the world a better place, it's just that I don't think that we are trying to. Some individuals are trying, but most are starting from the assumption that their individual goals are a viable surrogate for the benefit of all, an assumption that I would dispute.
I'm impressed that you're privy to the individual goals of "most". That's quite a feat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
And, you seek proof for something that hasn't, and given the ingenuity of man, won't happen. Our extinction? Give me a break!! Laughably unargueable.
[edit]
Just to add, the individual goals of one hell of a lot of people are to see you, your family, and all of your friends dead. There's the extinction you speak of. Defeatist attitudes like yours pave the way. It scares me to death to imagine what will have to happen before you people step out of your fantasy world and realize what's going on.[/edit]
If i remember my history correct. The USA are the only ones responsible for inventing and using nuclear weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Back to the main subject. I think the display of this guys body in public and the active condemnation of his death, saying it was a "victory" and a "good day" is dispicable. There has been very little in the way of success where Iraq is concerned.
It just goes to show that the so called "good guys" are just as bad if not worse than the ones they are trying to fight. I wonder when the world (eerrr, I mean western world) will wake up.