Iran worried US is building 8,500th nuke

WaveRyder

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-w ... r-w,27325/

its about time someone said this.

StillHere

WaveRyder wrote:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-w ... r-w,27325/

its about time someone said this.

i don't like the idea of weapons of mass destruction
particularly those of the nuclear variety
and i do think that the US is policing the rest of the world
while continuing to do all of the things that we will not allow the rest of the world to do
those in the "axis of evil" or whatever

i know that this is not the popular opinion here
and i know that you all will say that the US needs to have long range nuclear capability and even though i hate to admit it
you might be right
and i think that it is precisely because of our meddling in other's affairs and \
being the big bully on the block
that makes all this necessary

so there ya go...
say what you will

WaveRyder

i dont want to police the world and i find it pathetically gross that we cry bloody murder when other countries pursue nuclear energy on the off chance they'll build a weapon. its not our place.

StillHere

WaveRyder wrote:

i dont want to police the world and i find it pathetically gross that we cry bloody murder when other countries pursue nuclear energy on the off chance they'll build a weapon. its not our place.

i guessed that you and i agree, since you posted this to begin with

peacefrompaul

WaveRyder wrote:

i dont want to police the world and i find it pathetically gross that we cry bloody murder when other countries pursue nuclear energy on the off chance they'll build a weapon. its not our place.

I agree

MayDay Malone

WaveRyder wrote:

i dont want to police the world and i find it pathetically gross that we cry bloody murder when other countries pursue nuclear energy on the off chance they'll build a weapon. its not our place.

Are you suggesting that there is ONLY an "off-chance" that Iran would weaponize the technology?

I would say there's enough evidence to suggest it is "probable", at this point...

WaveRyder

MayDay Malone wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

i dont want to police the world and i find it pathetically gross that we cry bloody murder when other countries pursue nuclear energy on the off chance they'll build a weapon. its not our place.

Are you suggesting that there is ONLY an "off-chance" that Iran would weaponize the technology?

I would say there's enough evidence to suggest it is "probable", at this point...

it was probable that Hussein had WMD too. We shouldnt go to war on probability either

keeponrockin

MayDay Malone wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

i dont want to police the world and i find it pathetically gross that we cry bloody murder when other countries pursue nuclear energy on the off chance they'll build a weapon. its not our place.

Are you suggesting that there is ONLY an "off-chance" that Iran would weaponize the technology?

I would say there's enough evidence to suggest it is "probable", at this point...

If we have the right to strike them for possessing WMD's, they have the right to strike us.

Scary world.

WaveRyder

nuclear weapons create a perpetual standoff, which is a good thing for all. But the US is the only one seeming to violate that unspoken truce.

pjhawks

WaveRyder wrote:

i dont want to police the world and i find it pathetically gross that we cry bloody murder when other countries pursue nuclear energy on the off chance they'll build a weapon. its not our place.

actually in a lot of ways it is our place. weather other countries like it or not we are the world's big brother and the responsibility to protect many countries does fall onto our shoulders. when the shit hits the fan in other countries, whether it be unrest, natural disasters, etc., the world looks to the US for support. we get criticized for getting involved, but also criticized when we don't get involved.

that being said our military and military budget is unbelievably bloated and needs to be cut back.

Johnny Abruzzo

That was good. Now all the self-righteous replies from all my country-mates...

polaris_x

StillHere wrote:

i know that this is not the popular opinion here
and i know that you all will say that the US needs to have long range nuclear capability and even though i hate to admit it
you might be right
and i think that it is precisely because of our meddling in other's affairs and \
being the big bully on the block
that makes all this necessary

this would be the popular opinion here!! ...

MayDay Malone

WaveRyder wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

i dont want to police the world and i find it pathetically gross that we cry bloody murder when other countries pursue nuclear energy on the off chance they'll build a weapon. its not our place.

Are you suggesting that there is ONLY an "off-chance" that Iran would weaponize the technology?

I would say there's enough evidence to suggest it is "probable", at this point...

it was probable that Hussein had WMD too. We shouldnt go to war on probability either

They say that we know Saddam had the WMD, because we have the receipts!

Defected Col in Iraqi AF said they shipped it out to Syria under the guise of Earthquake relief.

Now Assad is contemplating usig Chem weapons vs Syrian population.

Either way, look up Halabja Massacre on youtube, and see the effects of Saddam's Vx, Sarin, Soman, and blood agents on human beings.

Saddam had to go... we're just fucking up the endgame like usual...

With Iran, all of this is moot- b/c Israel is just about done waiting anyway...

Johnny Abruzzo

MayDay Malone wrote:

They say that we know Saddam had the WMD, because we have the receipts!

Ha, that was funny.

Jason P

WaveRyder wrote:

nuclear weapons create a perpetual standoff, which is a good thing for all. But the US is the only one seeming to violate that unspoken truce.

There can't be a standoff / truce when only one entity possesses the technology.

WaveRyder

Jason P wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

nuclear weapons create a perpetual standoff, which is a good thing for all. But the US is the only one seeming to violate that unspoken truce.

There can't be a standoff / truce when only one entity possesses the technology.

what do you mean?

India, china, russia, pakistan, isreal and a lot of other countries have nuclear weapons

Jason P

WaveRyder wrote:

Jason P wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

nuclear weapons create a perpetual standoff, which is a good thing for all. But the US is the only one seeming to violate that unspoken truce.

There can't be a standoff / truce when only one entity possesses the technology.

what do you mean?

India, china, russia, pakistan, isreal and a lot of other countries have nuclear weapons

I took your post to imply that the US has violated the truce by using nuclear weapons during a conflict. If that isn't what you have implied, what has been violated?

WaveRyder

Jason P wrote:

India, china, russia, pakistan, isreal and a lot of other countries have nuclear weapons

I took your post to imply that the US has violated the truce by using nuclear weapons during a conflict. If that isn't what you have implied, what has been violated?[/quote]

i guess i meant that the US doesnt care who else has nuclear weapons. We still do whatever the fuck we want. Sending ground troops into Pakistan is one example i was thinking of.

StillHere

we do what we want
everyone else has to do what we say
we are like the mean evil step-father of the world

JonnyPistachio

MayDay Malone wrote:

Saddam had to go... we're just fucking up the endgame like usual...

you mean 2003-2011?
that's a long end game.

pjhawks

StillHere wrote:

we so what we want
everyone else has to do what we say
we are like the mean evil step-father of the world

sometimes the evil step-father has your best interests at heart even if you don't believe so at the time.

MookiesLaw

pjhawks wrote:

StillHere wrote:

we so what we want
everyone else has to do what we say
we are like the mean evil step-father of the world

sometimes the evil step-father has your best interests at heart even if you don't believe so at the time.

Not in our best interests. The American power elites best interests.

pjhawks

MookiesLaw wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

StillHere wrote:

we so what we want
everyone else has to do what we say
we are like the mean evil step-father of the world

sometimes the evil step-father has your best interests at heart even if you don't believe so at the time.

Not in our best interests. The American power elites best interests.

no doubt our motives are often sketchy at best but as i said before, we are the world's big brother and the responsibility for protecting the weak falls to us. it's a bigger burden than we are given credit for.

StillHere

pjhawks wrote:

MookiesLaw wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

sometimes the evil step-father has your best interests at heart even if you don't believe so at the time.

Not in our best interests. The American power elites best interests.

no doubt our motives are often sketchy at best but as i said before, we are the world's big brother and the responsibility for protecting the weak falls to us. it's a bigger burden than we are given credit for.

sorry hawks but this reminds me of the all-enabling mother to the mean and evil stepfather
as in
"kids...your father means well....."

peacefrompaul

pjhawks wrote:

we are the world's big brother and the responsibility for protecting the weak falls to us.

That's pretty debatable based on your political beliefs.

Do we need to intervene in others affairs? Sometimes people need to take a stand for themselves.

pjhawks

StillHere wrote:

sorry hawks but this reminds me of the all-enabling mother to the mean and evil stepfather
as in
"kids...your father means well....."

but when the children that the evil stepfather was protecting by his own methods grow up to be healtlhy thriving adults didn't the ends justify the means?

"he was guiding me love his own way"

again not defending all our actions in the world, not by a long shot, but fact is the world would be worse off if we sat idly by.

and often our interests are in the world's best interests especially in economic terms.

StillHere

pjhawks wrote:

StillHere wrote:

sorry hawks but this reminds me of the all-enabling mother to the mean and evil stepfather
as in
"kids...your father means well....."

but when the children that the evil stepfather was protecting by his own methods grow up to be healtlhy thriving adults didn't the ends justify the means?

"he was guiding me love his own way"

again not defending all our actions in the world, not by a long shot, but fact is the world would be worse off if we sat idly by.

and often our interests are in the world's best interests especially in economic terms.

the question then is
how do we pick and choose which we help/intervene?
and which we sit idly by and watch struggle and suffer?
which do we allow to propagate weapons of war and which do we forbid?
the answer is: we help the ones who's outcome will be in our own best interest
and we interfere in those which will be in our way
that's what i'm saying
IMHO we (the US) do NOT have the best interest of the world's children at hand
merely the best interest of a self-serving step-parent...our own interests that is

pjhawks

StillHere wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

StillHere wrote:

sorry hawks but this reminds me of the all-enabling mother to the mean and evil stepfather
as in
"kids...your father means well....."

but when the children that the evil stepfather was protecting by his own methods grow up to be healtlhy thriving adults didn't the ends justify the means?

"he was guiding me love his own way"

again not defending all our actions in the world, not by a long shot, but fact is the world would be worse off if we sat idly by.

and often our interests are in the world's best interests especially in economic terms.

the question then is
how do we pick and choose which we help/intervene?
and which we sit idly by and watch struggle and suffer?
which do we allow to propagate weapons of war and which do we forbid?
the answer is: we help the ones who's outcome will be in our own best interest
and we interfere in those which will be in our way
that's what i'm saying
IMHO we (the US) do NOT have the best interest of the world's children at hand
merely the best interest of a self-serving step-parent...our own interests that is

thanks for proving my point about being damned if we damned if we don't. you complain about us being involved then in the next sentence complain because we aren't involved enough because we pick and choose. a no win situation for us as you've shown.

StillHere

pjhawks wrote:

StillHere wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

but when the children that the evil stepfather was protecting by his own methods grow up to be healtlhy thriving adults didn't the ends justify the means?

"he was guiding me love his own way"

again not defending all our actions in the world, not by a long shot, but fact is the world would be worse off if we sat idly by.

and often our interests are in the world's best interests especially in economic terms.

the question then is
how do we pick and choose which we help/intervene?
and which we sit idly by and watch struggle and suffer?
which do we allow to propagate weapons of war and which do we forbid?
the answer is: we help the ones who's outcome will be in our own best interest
and we interfere in those which will be in our way
that's what i'm saying
IMHO we (the US) do NOT have the best interest of the world's children at hand
merely the best interest of a self-serving step-parent...our own interests that is

thanks for proving my point about being damned if we damned if we don't. you complain about us being involved then in the next sentence complain because we aren't involved enough because we pick and choose. a no win situation for us as you've shown.

well, what i'm saying is there should be no picking and choosing
first of all i don't see who made us boss...i guess we did
but as the philosophy of it all goes,
if we are going to forbid something...then forbid it
if we are going to help those who suffer, then help them all...or none
i don't think its our place to forbid ANYONE from doing anything
especially when we go ahead and do the same things or worse
i do, however, believe we should offer our help in humanitarian efforts
as you would help your neighbor so should we help ours
but do you forbid your neighbor from possessing the same things that you feel you have a right to yourself?
and by "you" i most certainly don't mean "you" personally

i am not offering an answer....i certainly don't have one
there are only more questions

polaris_x

the reality and history is this:

us foreign policy has been dictated primarily by $$$ and "economic opportunity" ... the US is not the police force for the world - the UN is ... something the US only cares to acknowledge when they can exploit it but for the most part ignore the decisions of member states ...

sure, there is money that ends up doing good elsewhere but the bad far outweighs the good by a huge margin right now ...

JonnyPistachio

pjhawks wrote:

again not defending all our actions in the world, not by a long shot, but fact is the world would be worse off if we sat idly by.

I agree with you on most you said, but I dont think its appropriate to say "the fact is the world would be worse off" Thats hard to say. As far as Saddam -- was he an evil piece of shit? Yes. Was it worth a million Iraqi deaths, 3,000 US military lives, and 3 trillion dollars? The world is better off?

pjhawks wrote:

and often our interests are in the world's best interests especially in economic terms.

But firstly the US priority is on itself...whatever is in OUR best interest, economically, first and foremost.

btw, this was kinda interesting
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... sts-a-bomb