Whats ur opinion about teh iran shit ?

They're not as significant, they do count.

Quote from Urban

I get it.. Stockpiles of nukes don't count...

After six thousand nuclear weapons hit your country... they don't count.

But interesting numbers none the less, this begs for a question, why doesn't USA do something about Russia's nuclear arsenal? How is Russia so safe and sound? What guarantees that they don't use them in any point?

Afterall, they are at war right now.

I want to ask to all who really oppose Iran having nuclear weapons, why is it so different for them to have nuclear arsenal from USA or Pakistan? Is the matter more on that no one should have nuclear weapons or just Iran?

Example, the rumor says that one of Osamas hiding places might be in the border of Pakistan, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, they openly accused India for funding the Afghan drug lords that arm militant tribes in Pakistan, so how are they so much better than Iran? Is it because Pakistans main target is India and not Israel or USA, is that it? We don't care about that because they aren't a threat to USA or their lapdog Israel?

like I already said about five million times in this thread. The irani government openly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. That's enough reasoning to me.

Quote

But interesting numbers none the less, this begs for a question, why doesn't USA do something about Russia's nuclear arsenal? How is Russia so safe and sound? What guarantees that they don't use them in any point?

anti proliferation treaty's? I'mpretty sure we've been tryign to clean up both of our missiles. And when a country openly states that there was no holocaust and that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want them playing with large toys.

Quote from von*ferret

And when a country openly states that there was no holocaust and that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want them playing with large toys.

And when a country goes in to a war to hunt a handful of people and to usher their laws on other countries, rather peaceful countries I might add, you would give them a bundle of toys large and small?

Quote from kleinluka

like I already said about five million times in this thread. The irani government openly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. That's enough reasoning to me.

Same as above.

You call HAMAS and his followers 'rather peacefull'?

hah

'I might add' that Israel is a rather peacefull country. Why?

In Israel, people of all religions can live together, and are allowed to interact and live in peace. An arab can come to Israel any time and find work, a place to live. An Israeli isn't even allowed to go into Egypt. Why? Because he/she is supposed to be a Jew.

In Israel, arab children can come to the hospital for medical treatment, get all sorts of help. For free! Israel has been attacked several times in it's short existance, yet has only used their superiroir military power to defend their own borders! Yes, Israel has nukes, but how can you say that's unjustified when all four nabouring countries have showed hostility in the past century? When Presidents (!) are saying they want to drown the entire nation in their own blood?

This all is just so incredibly unjust, it makes me wan't to smash a table...

Quote from killertomato

You call HAMAS and his followers 'rather peacefull'?

Well I didn't say anything about Hamas

I was speaking of USA campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, both countries that didn't have open war against other country, I know there were and still are militant tribes in Afghanistan and Taliban is no nice organization, but you can look in any country in that area and find some sort of militant organization or tribe.

And I know your views on how peaceful and idyllic you think Israeli people are so we don't have to go there.

Quote from killertomato

, yet has only used their superiroir military power to defend their own borders!

1956: Israel with help of French and British forces attacked Egypt.

1967: Israel attacks Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

1981: Israel bombs a nuclear reactor in Baghdad.

1982: Israel invades Lebanon.

And I'm not going to mention all the later "skirmishes" where Israel forces goes into Lebanon and such to find opposition.

All these can off course be said to be done in self defense, just as USA's current occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are self defense.

But then, how can you tell if not all attacks is "pre emptive attacks" and in self defense?

Quote from killertomato

Yes, Israel has nukes, but how can you say that's unjustified when all four nabouring countries have showed hostility in the past century?

If you judge how justified to have nukes a country is by if neighboring countries shows any hostility then...

Quote from killertomato

This all is just so incredibly unjust, it makes me want to smash a table...

Or perhaps nuke a country? We should give killertomato a nuke as well Kosmo, for balance sakes don't you think?

Quote from Kosmo

I was speaking of USA campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, both countries that didn't have open war against other country

Yes of all countries in the world I think Afghanistan and Iraq being referred to as "rather peaceful countries" is dead on. Like ketchup in coffee and hot dog with mustard gas.

Mmmmm.. mustard gas *drool*

Quote from Kosmo

And I know your views on how peaceful and idyllic you think Israeli people are so we don't have to go there.

It's the anti-Israeli tendency what bothers me, I have no illusions on how Israeli people are better then the rest. Since I have visited Israel several times, I can say in all honesty that Israeli's are a peacefull nation.

Don't try to belittle the people who you are discussing with.

Quote from mawibse

1956: Israel with help of French and British forces attacked Egypt.

1967: Israel attacks Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

1981: Israel bombs a nuclear reactor in Baghdad.

1982: Israel invades Lebanon.

1956

In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955:

Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.

These "heroes" were Arab terrorists, or fedayeen, trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to engage in hostile action on the border and infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder. The fedayeen operated mainly from bases in Jordan, so that Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation, which inevitably followed. The terrorist attacks violated the armistice agreement provision that prohibited the initiation of hostilities by paramilitary forces; nevertheless, it was Israel that was condemned by the UN Security Council for its counterattacks.

http://%7boption%7d

1967

Arabs massed to attack, Israel attack was preemptive and saved the lives of millions of innoncent men, children and women.

http://%7boption%7d

1981

Bagdhad had said they would use a nuclear bomb against Israel. This was pure self-defense. Rather blaim France for giving them a reactor!

http://%7boption%7d

1982

PLO was firing rockets to Israel from lebannon. The PLO was a terrorist organisation, and was attacking Israeli civilians. You say this attack was unjustified.

http://%7boption%7d

What really bothers me mabise, is how you try to manipulate facts to make your point. That, dear sir, is just unethical and very annoying.

Next time, try to be a little more subtle while trying to deform the truth. Thx.

Now show us proof; Like a WIKI or some webpage. Sources are important for such "facts" (both Mawibse and KT).

Quote from kleinluka

like I already said about five million times in this thread. The irani government openly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. That's enough reasoning to me.

Like I said though, Klein, they won't because they can't. It'd be suicidal for them to. Not to mention it'd destroy their monuments and religiously significant areas as well. What muslim nation would support Iran's actions after they nuked the Dome of the Rock?

Quote from mawibse

Or perhaps nuke a country? We should give killertomato a nuke as well Kosmo, for balance sakes don't you think?

Or take nukes away from everyone, that is balance too you know :roll:

Quote from mawibse

Yes of all countries in the world I think Afghanistan and Iraq being referred to as "rather peaceful countries" is dead on. Like ketchup in coffee and hot dog with mustard gas.

Didn't I say that "rather peaceful" it's different from "absolutely peaceful and kind", of course I admit that both of the countries were full of nutjobs that could explode any minute, but then again, USA has had them as long as any other country and you don't see Russia or China going in there and going all ChucK Norris on them.

Quote from killertomato

It's the anti-Israeli tendency what bothers me, I have no illusions on how Israeli people are better then the rest. Since I have visited Israel several times, I can say in all honesty that Israeli's are a peacefull nation.

Don't try to belittle the people who you are discussing with.

I'm not trying to belittle you, I agree totally, the over all civilian population in Israel are great people, just like the major Muslim population.

But you romaticizing their actions and their goverment doesn't paint that clear of a picture.

That is the point I'm trying to drive through here, it's great and good that the goverment and few bad apples are like that, but if you take a normal Palestinean guy, all he wants is the stupid war to end and have a normal life to raise a family and such, just the same as the Isreali bloke, and the Iranian bloke, and the Danish bloke and all the people in the world.

But what the message coming through from all of your posts is that all muslims, with no exception are evil mother fuckers trying to rape our babies and kill our women, or some immature shit like that.

Quote from Kosmo

But what the message coming through from all of your posts is that all muslims, with no exception are evil mother fuckers trying to rape our babies and kill our women, or some immature shit like that.

Where does he say that?

Quote from RD

Where does he say that?

I didn't mean his posts, I ment that in general all of your posts.

Its an optical illusion Kosmo.

The truth is criticism of Islam is always considered ignorance, but its not ignorance, its just refusing to look at the world like muslims do.

Quote from Kosmo

Or take nukes away from everyone, that is balance too you know :roll:

Usually one refers to balance as forces canceling each other out. Not the absence of forces. But that’s not the main issue, so.. if you want to get rid of all nukes why allow Iran to have them? One would think that would be counterproductive to your agenda?

Quote from Kosmo

USA has had them as long as any other country and you don't see Russia or China going in there and going all ChucK Norris on them.

Pleeaase say that again about Russia not "going all ChucK Norris" on Afghanistan, it gives me Goosebumps. *pops in RamboIII in DVDplayer*

Quote from killertomato

What really bothers me mabise, is how you try to manipulate facts to make your point. That, dear sir, is just unethical and very annoying. Next time, try to be a little more subtle while trying to deform the truth. Thx.

Derogatory comments like "dear sir" and "Thx" really helps your case.

What I posted was irrefutable truths which you nicely collaborated in your post.

However you added some additional information clearly containing strong bias towards one party, words like terrorists and pre emptive strikes like, duh, gave it away.

And you say that I manipulate facts to make my point?

I think you just did my point.

Quote from st0lve

Now show us proof.

You kidding me? Go read a history book or google it, geez!

Quote from mawibse

Usually one refers to balance as forces canceling each other out. Not the absence of forces. But that’s not the main issue, so.. if you want to get rid of all nukes why allow Iran to have them? One would think that would be counterproductive to your agenda?

So you would say a scale is off balance when there is nothing in it? Interesting, you might want to dabble in to some physics for that one.

And I didn't say that Iran should definedly have nukes, I said that USA is not qualified to decide who to have nukes since they have nukes, the power is unbalanced and if USA isn't going to lose their nukes, then I'm afraid that countries that oppose USA's foreign policy should get some too, just to keep them in check. Only thing keeping countries from using nukes is because many countries have them, they would have to risk a retaliation in same kind, and I would love the situation to be just this, so I don't have to fear USA or any other for that matter, nuking anyone.

Quote from mawibse

Pleeaase say that again about Russia not "going all ChucK Norris" on Afghanistan, it gives me Goosebumps. *pops in RamboIII in DVDplayer*

It's difficult for me to repeat something I didn't even say :roll:

You might want to check out what I wrote again, there seems to be a fault in your logic.

Quote from Kosmo

So you would say a scale is off balance when there is nothing in it? Interesting, you might want to dabble in to some physics for that one.

Your sidetracking but I'll humor you; We where talking about the balance of Nukes in the absence of nukes, not the balance of the scale they where measured with.

Would you say that the "nothing" that was on the scale in your example was in balance? Scientists don't and neither do I.

And to steer it in a slightly more on topic direction, even with the fairy tale dream of a world without nukes, the balance of war technology would still heavily tip in favor for USA so...

Quote from Kosmo

It's difficult for me to repeat something I didn't even say :roll:You might want to check out what I wrote again, there seems to be a fault in your logic.

Ahh my mistake. I thought the plural "them" was referring to Afghanistan and Iraq not to USA. My bad, sorry.

The notion that the only thing keeping countries from using nukes is that other countries have them is of course extremely oversimplified.

If USA had nuked Afghanistan no one would have nuked USA for it.

Quote from mawibse

Your sidetracking but I'll humor you; We where talking about the balance of Nukes in the absence of nukes, not the balance of the scale they where measured with.

Would you say that the "nothing" that was on the scale in your example was in balance? Scientists don't and neither do I.

And to steer it in a slightly more on topic direction, even with the fairy tale dream of a world without nukes, the balance of war technology would still heavily tip in favor for USA so...

Correction, I am not talking about balance of nukes, I'm talking about balance of power, attacking power to be precise. True, USA has military action power with bundles, but nuke is something to tip the scales, that what created the whole problem to begin with, if Iran doesn't have nuke, he worst they can do is try to invade Israel, but with nukes they can obliterate them without much effort.

Quote from mawibse

The notion that the only thing keeping countries from using nukes is that other countries have them is of course extremely oversimplified.If USA had nuked Afghanistan no one would have nuked USA for it.

Well Afghanistan doesn't have nukes so their retaliation wouldn't happen, BUT I'm almost positive that IF USA had used nukes in Afghanista, without a doubt in my mind they would have gotten a retaliation, Pakistan is a good candidate for that.

And there are no confirmation wether such countries as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran have the ability to build one or even having actual nuclear weapon, so if USA used their nuclear weapons, they would most definedly launch a chain reaction that escaladed in to a full blown World War.