The world famous unmoderated thread

lolwtfanarchy

Now that thats out of the way, I think that I'm becoming more conservative which is scary because I was raised by a very liberal family. Its also kind of scary because of the idiot we have running the country is the one representing the republican party.

 

That means you're developing morals....


But seriously. Lets start this.....

What do you guys think of Iran? I believe they will eventually develop nukes. they are acquiring technology to develop weapons grade plutonium so will stop them from continuing on. Do you guys think its inevitable that this will not be resolved in a diplomatic way?

 

Unlike Iraq, Iran (and North Korea for that matter) actually do have WMDs. I always thought the argument of going into Iraq because Saddam had WMDs was a ridiculous one, because when faced with invasion and defeat by a foreign power, even a sane leader would be contemplating the use of WMDs, let alone a psycho like Saddam.

The sole purpose of Iran's nuclear programme is to give Iran some kind of credible clout against the US. They may of not liked Saddam, but its fellow Muslims who are being killed next door and they know without nuclear weapons, they'll be next. Bush has already included them in the Axis of Evil and look where that got Iraq. To be honest, the Iranian nuclear programme seems a reasonable move for self defence given the current circumstances.

 

I honestly don't give a shit if any country has nukes. As long as one country is allowed them, then every other country should be too. It's like going to war and telling one side they aren't allowed to use guns...
On the other other hand, I do believe that are absolutely a bad thing, but I understand that there is no chance of persuading any other country to diarm whilst more powerful countries are armed. Put simply, if you are iran right now, and you know that the US has nukes, you're gonna make sure as hell that you have them yourself.

 

Because it gives Iran a bargaining chip, well that is what some people believe including Iran. The US doesn't not want that, as well as Israel and other current superpowers. Especially Israel because then someone in their neighborhood has the ability to wipe them out if they see fit, something all the other arab governments would like to see even though they won't openly admit it. That's exactly why N. Korea is also developing nukes, it will give them a bargaining chip and set examples to other rogue nations that if you have a nuke, you can now have your way amongst the world. US, GB, etc. do not want that because that bring about instability and even more terrorism in the world as well as lose global economic power.

As for Iraq. Well the US is keen on succeding there and as long as the next leadership recognizes the importance of making Iraq a stable democratic country in that region, they will still have a military presence around the region.

As for N. Korea. Well I have a relative stationed in Thailand where the US Government is doing wargames simulating an invasion against N. Korea....

 

You have to remeber Isreal has nukes too. Thus all the other countries in the region have been attempting to aquire them for years.

 

Right, but the issue here is different. This guy wants to start a war.

Pretty clear what he wants. :fresh:

 

Yep. They do want a fight, but they want us to make the first move. They want Israel to shoot off a missle to attack one of their nuclear power plants, thus giving them a black eye in the public relations department and makes them look like selfish jews. They want the US to strike first so that we look like we are about to repeat the whole Iraq scenario again, which is going in and finding no nukes, etc.

These people have planned this through and through. They know which buttons to push. Russia and China continue helping them out by selling them the stuff they need, especially China.

 

There's no way a tiny little country like Iran would be stupid enough to attack any western nuclear power, especially the United States. They know we have enough firepower to turn thier whole country into glass. The reason they want nukes so bad is as a deterrant against US, and as an international bargaining chip when it comes to infulence in the region. You can't even really make the arguement that terrorists would aquire them through rouge nations either, especially since any nuclear attack by a terrorist would result in the same destruction visited on the supporting nation (of course, terrorists aren't much to think rationaly about these things, and the danger of a terrorist group stealing nuclear technology is very real. But as for a country giving it away on purpose, no way.) It's kind of a no-win situation for Iran, if they continue to try and aquire the bomb they run the risk of American (and Isreali) invasion, if they give up their nuclear program they continue to be overshadowed by a global nuclear superpower and run the risk of invasion.

 

http://religionandpolitics.ytmnd.com/

 

it really doesn't take that many nukes to destroy a city or even a country

having a single modern nuke today (arent they like 100x more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb?) would be enough to cause devastation to even the mightiest of countries, including the US

 

Well a megaton bomb like what you're talking about is rather large and would need to be launched in a missile or hidden in a cargo container or something, and generally isn't the kind of thing that goes missing from a nation's arsnel without somebody noticing. The danger you hear everyone talking about is from small "suitcase nukes" (by which they mean a bomb that is transportable by a few people.) However a bomb like that is an extremely sophisticated peice of machinery, it's highly unlikely a few guys in a cave with no equipment could make one. So there's a chance that some terrorist group might either steal one or buy one from the cash starved Russians; at one point the guards at various nuclear sites in Russia were working for free.

But as far as some non-nuclear power developing a bomb like this, it can't be done without our knowledge. Nukes have to be tested, and there's no way to hide that. Be it satillites or underwater microphones or whatever our governments (by this I mean the United States and the United Kingdom) are well aware whenever a nuclear explosion occurs anywhere on Earth, know exactly where it happened and how large it is. They are also well aware of the locations of all fissible materials on Earth, who controls them, and who's trying to buy them (which makes the whole Iraqui Uranimum Yellowcake story that much more bullshit, but that's a topic for another time.)

What isn't accounted for is nuclear waste, that's why its much more likely that a WMD in the hands of a terrorist would come in the form of a Dirty Bomb. Toxic waste goes missing all the time, which is really scary. But once again you have to think of the deterrance factor. Terrorists may be crazy but they're not stupid, they know that if a dirty bomb went off in New York the reaction would turn the middle east into a radioactive wasteland.

 

"They know we have enough firepower to turn thier whole country into glass."

"Terrorists may be crazy but they're not stupid, they know that if a dirty bomb went off in New York the reaction would turn the middle east into a radioactive wasteland."

Oh we definitely have the firepower. It's the willpower I'm concerned about. If a dirty bomb did go off in NYC I wonder what the reaction would be. I would like to think that we would go after them hardcore, but seeing how quickly people have turned on the war on terror I just don't know.

 

It is funny how one country's killings are for liberation, and the opposite side is considered terorrism. Last time I checked, Iraq and Afghanistan were quite far away from the US mainland, posing no danger at all to the people of the States.

The simplest answer is usualy the correct one, and the answer is oil.

EDIT: The US would not assume a patriarchic role for the world if not for some benefit nevertheless ;-) It's not like anyone has deeds of property over the planet or anything. Men are born free to roam and do whatever the hell they want historically, much more specially within their own country without them being harrassed by outsiders that have no business in striking "balances".

Nuclear arms should not be used anyway, but I don't see why the US could/did use them without being accountable to anyone on Japan and other countries can't (especially considering that their neighbours, India, Pakistan, and Israel) all have similar firepower.

 

Most of this is part of the larger issue which deals with technology increasing to the point where smaller nations and groups can now create more powerful weapons. It's the same whether it's terrorists, insurgents, Iran, North Korea, etc. As of today the world has absolutely no way to deal with the destructive capabilities of small groups of people. Conventional weapons don't apply anymore. That's what we're trying to come to terms with.

The old rules are still in play so we're seeing a country like Iran get through the newly created loopholes. Before they didn't have the technology to make nukes so the question was moot. Now they do and they're using the rules to their advantage.

As for Iran's motives, I personally think they're trying for nukes. They've supported terrorists in Lebanon for years. They're a theocracy and let's just say that groups like that like to keep a hold on their power. They've made numerous statements about destroying all of Israel. I don't beleive that they would be so close to getting nukes then choose not to develop them. It's illogical given their past actions.

I also don't think all countries should be treated equally in terms of nukes. Simply saying that one has them so everyone should have them is breaking the issue down into such a simple concept that it doesn't really even apply to this specific situation anymore. I can't imagine Western nations would let rogue states get nukes under some kind of concept of being fair. And as a citizen of one of those countries I'm expecting my government to do whatever it takes to make sure that that doesn't happen.

 

Do you agree with manslaughter vs. murder laws? Manslaughter is when you're talking on your cell phone while driving and you accidentally hit and kill someone. Murder is when you pick up a gun and shoot someone on purpose. Both involved homicide, but I think people see those situations differently and do not condemn each equally, and neither does the law.

That being said, I hope you aren't confused about a group of men who put a bomb in a market to kill inncoents and another group of men who are engaged in combat and create collateral damage. I think almost everyone sees the difference but some pretend that there is no difference because they are letting politics and opinion cloud their statements.

Well 9/11 should have shown that countries like Afghanistan, although far away, can provide training, equipment, money, and protection to those who are more than willing to come to the US to do harm. This isn't WWII where the US is safe as long as Afghanistan can't transport an army to our shores.

Also, just about every nation that is a threat to any other nation is a threat to America. Whether it's in Kuwait (ME), Kosovo (Europe), Somalia (Africa), Korea (Asia) ,etc, it's always American troops and resourses that do 90%+ of the workload. Containing a problem is a direct benefit to the US.

Check out the list of dead from any UN sponosred war starting with the Korean War. At the top of the list you'll see American troops. Americans are the first ones in and the last ones out. And there is no country that America can fall back on to pick up the slack if there ever is a need to use force as other countries can do with America. If the world underestimates a threat, odds are it will cause more death to Americans than any other foreign group.

 

I think he was pointing out that when it's war, the guys on the other side with guns are terrorists, but our boys are doing the Right Thing and murder's ok. To these terrorists, we're dictatorial oppressors and they're freedom fighters; that's propaganda, it's necessary to encourage young adults from one country to pick up guns and shoot at other young adults from another. It all serves the higher political aims of each side. Collateral damage (I prefer the slightly more honest "accidental killing of innocent civilians and destruction of their homes" myself, never was one for hiding painful truths behind obscure militaristic jargon) is an unfortunate by-product of any armed conflict - which is one of a never-ending list of reasons why such conflict should be avoided wherever possible.

You might question why America is so interested in all the goings on of the middle east; is enforcing democracy on abusive dictatorships that important? Certainly got your work cut out for you in China, then - I assume the bombing will commence soon?

For the record, invading countries because there might be people there that hate you is a really good way of making sure that a lot of people really do; see the influx of Al-Qaeda volunteers into Iraq since the war. If your problem is small-scale terrorism then razing a country to the ground, leaving hundreds of thousands homeless and with dead family members, isn't going to eliminate the appeal of terrorism, it's going to multiply it. The fact is that any nutter with enough drive can let off a bomb in a city, and bombing the shit out of Iraq just increased the number of people who want to do that.

I'm sure the SUVs are worth it, though.

 

The difference between manslaughter and murder, legaly, is the intent to do harm. As a law student I understand the reason for such a difference, as one who kills with intent to do so (or cause grevious bodily harm) is more blameworthy than someone who was just "reasonably" careless or negligent. That said, do not underestimate manslaughter, because the sentece can be a LIFE sentence , just like murder. The different label just gives manslaughter more degrees of punishment unlike the "clear-cut" and simple murder cases were evidence is enough and the process is speedy to throw someone for life in jail.

I am not confused about people who kill innocent people and people in combat. But that said, only recently on the news (here in europe at least) american troops abused their power and killed families because they were "pissed off". And you know what they got? Well, they got a slap on the hand , nothing more. The official excuse was that if a soldier subjectively feels that he has to shoot someone and kill them, its ok.


I dont support either group, but being a super-power like the US means doing alot of bullying around. Would 9/11 have happened if the criminals who did it didn't have a sufficiently good reason? I think not. No one gets suicidal over-night to arrange such a dangerous and risky deed for himself and so many innocent people without a reason. No man is born evil. I'm just disgusted by how far some people go to satisfy their economic benefits. The 9/11 strike although shameful and outrageous, wasn't done for economical purposes, unlike the war in Iraq (As if sadam had nukes) or Afghanistan. We all know that the Middle-East is a rich place and everyone likes a piece of it, so having been there I can tell you that they do have reasons to be pissed-off at the Americans. Who put Sadam in his place in the first place?

This cruel man tortured his own and trashed his country, but the Americans only thought it rational to invade Iraq when their own benefit was at risk. Even with his removal from power, the 24/7 un-accountable policing that goes on in Iraq is something that the US troops have no reason to do.

I don't blame the troops, and they re usualy under some command (unless they go berserk as many have, and start commiting war crimes), but the US's agenda is a dirty one so far and its more than to "protect" the US from outsiders. If they hadn't provoked people in the first place and irritated them so much (having your country in ruin because US planted Sadam, and then US invading and flattening everything) they would'nt have got a 9/11 in the first place.

As for Kosovo, I ve spoken to eye witnesses. The things that happened there are nothing compared to 9/11. 9/11 was a joke compared to the attrocities commited in Kosovo by the troops, whether under official command or personal malbehaviour.

To give you a visual image of an example, there were people, including americans, that paid the soldiers to take them hunting. Hunting for what you might ask? People. How would anyone like to be game? That's innocent people, women and children.

And all this about training camps is a tad far-fetched. It does go on, of course, but there are military systems in place to locate activities like that, and the army is reasonably capable of doing so. Or are they just bullshiting us? Either way.

And if indeed so, why is Chechenia still not invaded by anyone? They ve got Muslim extremists actively and openly training terrorists (take a look at what happened in Russia and the Ex Soviet Union countries some years ago) and you dont hear them being a threat to the US, do you? Any "Muslim_extremist_terrorist_bad_boy" could go do his academic training in Chechenia, they don't have to go to Iraq my friend, or Afghanistan.

As for Afghanistan.. they re a poor country with not a pillar standing anymore. Not much of a threat. Lots of angry and sad people, but no real threat, sorry.

It's all politics and it's like marketing. If it sounds convincing, feed it to the masses and cover up your dirty deeds and intents.