Iran worried US is building 8,500th nuke

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

brianlux

I know this is a complicated subject and my answer is overly simplified but, damn it:

NO MORE NUKES!

Jason P

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Was it worth a million Iraqi deaths, 3,000 US military lives, and 3 trillion dollars? The world is better off?

Not to downplay someone's death, but I'm skeptical of the 1M death toll. How come one agency does a poll and it's gospel to those that are anti-war? Why are we not seeing any further evidence to support a poll that surveyed less then 2000 households?

Wouldn't anti-war investigative teams have proof of this by now that major news organizations could review and give credibility by now?

JonnyPistachio

Jason P wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Was it worth a million Iraqi deaths, 3,000 US military lives, and 3 trillion dollars? The world is better off?

Not to downplay someone's death, but I'm skeptical of the 1M death toll. How come one agency does a poll and it's gospel to those that are anti-war? Why are we not seeing any further evidence to support a poll that surveyed less then 2000 households?

Wouldn't anti-war investigative teams have proof of this by now that major news organizations could review and give credibility by now?

I've heard many different numbers...ok, even if its 200,000...does that change anything? to me, not really.
btw, i assume you were speaking generally, but i'm not anti-war. I'm anti Iraq war...afghanistan on the other hand...

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

I know this is a complicated subject and my answer is overly simplified but, damn it:

NO MORE NUKES!

That would be the ideal situation. It's sad it will never happen.... Well probably

brandon10

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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

And is Iraq really any better off?

Is the world better off with Iraq the way it is now? So Saddam is dead, does it really make any difference?

Kim Jong Ill is dead now. Is North Korea any different?

If you think about these answers it really shines a light on what a waste of money and lives the Iraq war was.

WaveRyder

brandon10 wrote:

And is Iraq really any better off?

Is the world better off with Iraq the way it is now? So Saddam is dead, does it really make any difference?

Kim Jong Ill is dead now. Is North Korea any different?

If you think about these answers it really shines a light on what a waste of money and lives the Iraq war was.

id would go as far to say Iraq is way worse now. Saddam was despised by extremists because he didnt rule with Islamic law. christians used to be safe in iraq, now, they're killed.