|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:45 pm
Ubriacone and they are an even bigger shithole now. We should have done it right. We should have dropped an H-Bomb on them That's right. A country is governed by a corrupt administration, and the people suffer from poor living conditions therefore everybody in it should be killed, political implications be damned. Who are you? Ra's al-Ghul?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:48 pm
Foetus In Fetu zach61092 Well, if Iran had as many nukes as us, Goodbye Isreal..Atleast were less corrupt then them. I don't know. There's been a debate recently about the renewal of Britain's nuclear deterrent and whether if we decide to renew instead of cutting the number of nuclear arms we can really lobby for other countries to do the same. On the one hand we need to feel safe and consider "possible threats" from other countries over the next twenty years or so; on the other hand, we need to do our bit to make the rest of the world a safer place. And on a third hand, Iran just kidnapped fifteen British servicemen and came out of it looking surprisingly good. On principle I feel like any country that does not make efforts to reduce their own arms shouldn't tell other countries what to do with their own arms systems. But there are principles, and then there's the fact that the situation in real life is complicated by "corrupt" governments and international tensions. Tit for tat like that is the way things like the Cold War got started. We are only trying to ensure peace and our own saftey. What would Iran need with nuclear weapons anyways?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:49 pm
Foetus In Fetu Ubriacone and they are an even bigger shithole now. We should have done it right. We should have dropped an H-Bomb on them That's right. A country is governed by a corrupt administration, and the people suffer from poor living conditions therefore everybody in it should be killed, political implications be damned. Who are you? Ra's al-Ghul? I'm pretty sure if we droped an H-Bomb we would've saved money. And besides we'd get Osama for sure and probably wipe out a nice chunk of participants in terrorist organizations. the ends would justify the means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:49 pm
zach61092 We are only trying to ensure peace and our own saftey. What would Iran need with nuclear weapons anyways? What would America need with nuclear weapons? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:50 pm
Foetus In Fetu Ubriacone and they are an even bigger shithole now. We should have done it right. We should have dropped an H-Bomb on them That's right. A country is governed by a corrupt administration, and the people suffer from poor living conditions therefore everybody in it should be killed, political implications be damned. Who are you? Ra's al-Ghul? Yes, nuclear weapons should only be used as a last resort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:51 pm
Foetus In Fetu zach61092 We are only trying to ensure peace and our own saftey. What would Iran need with nuclear weapons anyways? What would America need with nuclear weapons? neutral To keep peace and make us safe..It's our advantage over countries that want to attack us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:53 pm
Ubriacone I'm pretty sure if we droped an H-Bomb we would've saved money. And besides we'd get Osama for sure and probably wipe out a nice chunk of participants in terrorist organizations. the ends would justify the means. Let's flip it around. Say Osama bin Laden were suspected of hiding out in your town, but nobody could find him. You'd be okay with someone nuking it without warning and killing Thousands If Not Millions of innocent people including yourself? The ends don't justify the means if the means involves the intentional killing of civillians. It sets a dangeous precedent for the future. Especially if those ends include "saving money" and capturing a man who is completely impotent without the network on which he relied to commit his crimes in the first place. Not to mention that Osama bin Laden should be put on trial, not killed on sight, if it can be helped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:53 pm
zach61092 Foetus In Fetu zach61092 We are only trying to ensure peace and our own saftey. What would Iran need with nuclear weapons anyways? What would America need with nuclear weapons? neutral To keep peace and make us safe..It's our advantage over countries that want to attack us. Thats what diplomats are for. Those who have nukes have power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:53 pm
zach61092 Foetus In Fetu zach61092 We are only trying to ensure peace and our own saftey. What would Iran need with nuclear weapons anyways? What would America need with nuclear weapons? neutral To keep peace and make us safe..It's our advantage over countries that want to attack us. I'm sure that's how many people in Iran feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 pm
Foetus In Fetu Ubriacone I'm pretty sure if we droped an H-Bomb we would've saved money. And besides we'd get Osama for sure and probably wipe out a nice chunk of participants in terrorist organizations. the ends would justify the means. Let's flip it around. Say Osama bin Laden were suspected of hiding out in your town, but nobody could find him. You'd be okay with someone nuking it without warning and killing Thousands If Not Millions of innocent people including yourself? The ends don't justify the means if the means involves the intentional killing of civillians. It sets a dangeous precedent for the future. Especially if those ends include "saving money" and capturing a man who is completely impotent without the network on which he relied to commit his crimes in the first place. Not to mention that Osama bin Laden should be put on trial, not killed on sight, if it can be helped. If it would make the world a safer place I would be glad to die like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:56 pm
Ubriacone zach61092 Foetus In Fetu zach61092 We are only trying to ensure peace and our own saftey. What would Iran need with nuclear weapons anyways? What would America need with nuclear weapons? neutral To keep peace and make us safe..It's our advantage over countries that want to attack us. Thats what diplomats are for. Those who have nukes have power. Nuclear Weapons are scarier though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:58 pm
Foetus In Fetu zach61092 Foetus In Fetu zach61092 We are only trying to ensure peace and our own saftey. What would Iran need with nuclear weapons anyways? What would America need with nuclear weapons? neutral To keep peace and make us safe..It's our advantage over countries that want to attack us. I'm sure that's how many people in Iran feel. How would they feel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:59 pm
Ubriacone If it would make the world a safer place I would be glad to die like that. Would everyone else in your leafy little hamlet, whose lives you are so willing to cut short? I wonder. Besides, capturing Osama bin Laden probably wouldn't make the world a safer place now. He can't act from where he is, wherever that is, if he's even alive: it would be a victory for justice alone, or revenge. I'm sure you're also familiar with this quote from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:00 pm
Ubriacone Foetus In Fetu Ubriacone I'm pretty sure if we droped an H-Bomb we would've saved money. And besides we'd get Osama for sure and probably wipe out a nice chunk of participants in terrorist organizations. the ends would justify the means. Let's flip it around. Say Osama bin Laden were suspected of hiding out in your town, but nobody could find him. You'd be okay with someone nuking it without warning and killing Thousands If Not Millions of innocent people including yourself? The ends don't justify the means if the means involves the intentional killing of civillians. It sets a dangeous precedent for the future. Especially if those ends include "saving money" and capturing a man who is completely impotent without the network on which he relied to commit his crimes in the first place. Not to mention that Osama bin Laden should be put on trial, not killed on sight, if it can be helped. If it would make the world a safer place I would be glad to die like that. Saving money and killing Bin laden does not justify killing millions of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:00 pm
That nuclear weapons are their defence against aggressors. And, sadly, I think the "aggressors" in their minds would be Britain or America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
