Whats ur opinion about teh iran shit ?

[The Postman]

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?

[Kosmo]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[RD]

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?

[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?

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

[RD]

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.

[mawibse]

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?

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*

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.

Now show us proof.

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

[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?

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.

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*

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.

[mawibse]

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...

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.

[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...

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.

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.

[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?

it's not worth the risk. a nation who openly makes statements like that shouldn't be given the power to develop and later, threaten us with nuclear weapons.

[⌐■_■]

Agreed with Klein.

Oh, and I have no idea what I'm still doing here! Mabise and Kosmo: succes!

You two deserve each other.

[slicky]

Its not the nations themselves that pose the serious risk where nuclear weapons are involved, the law of large numbers basically safe-guards us against nuclear apocalypse, no large legislative body is going to collectively decide to mutually assure their own destruction with another nation.

In fact nuclear weapons may well have saved millions of lives during the cold war by stabilizing both nations. Similarly for India - Pakistan

The risk is in the individuals. Clearly the USA is not going to arm some splinter faction with a nuclear weapon to go destroy Syria or North Korea.

But Iran, well that's a question isnt it. They support jihaddists, as do the majority of the middle eastern nations (though not nationally.)

Many experts have also speculated that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would spark an arms race in the middle east that would incorporate Saudia Arabia Syria and Egypt into the list of nations with nukes.

I think if that happened we would end up in a very serious situation indeed. No more nuclear proliferation, it's irrelevant who already has weapons.

[JAL]

Whether or not Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the planet, every braincell in my head is saying that people in Iran are not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against another nation.

Iran knows what will happen once they use a nuke (or even attempt to use one) on, let's say Israel.

->

the USA finally gets the green light they've been looking for on the Iran situation and...

*SNAP*

Iran turned into rubble.

I can't imagine how Iran wouldn't see this one coming. Religion can cause war , but attacking another country with nukes is suicide.

I wouldn't know about religion though, I don't believe in shit

[RD]

Hmm i wonder what religion all those suicidebombers came from :roll:

[mawibse]

Hmm i wonder what kind of skin color all those suicidebombers has :roll: