| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
Comments:
<0> It won't be then end of the world, even if Iran gets nukes
<1> ++C: that was the UN's job, in which they failed
<1> Saddam was therefore not containable.
<2> jhicks: then the region will all need nukes
<0> N Korea has nukes. The world didn't end.
<2> its an escalation
<0> feh
<0> so the turd world bombs each other
<2> they are not as stable as the nations that have nukes now.
<2> they want to bomb us, though
<1> UN was not containing Saddam, hence he was "not containable" in practice.
<2> they don't like western civ
<0> tortus: yes they do
<3> yeah, US-Male, the US and british were containing saddam
<0> tortus: they don't like our policies in their neighborhood
<2> impostioin of sharia is not exactly offering an olive branch
<4> Too bad, Iran's not going to be allowed to have nukes.
<5> US-Male: If by that you mean could we effectively maintain UN sanctions with anything like the severity they were intended, then no. But the central point was that he was militarily in check, and didn't have the breathing space to effectively resume any type of WMD program, though he put up appearances as if he had the potential.
<2> the new president of iran is anitsemite, and has made som caustic statements
<1> walstib well no, nobody succeeded in making Saddam account for his known WMD from the Gulf War.
<0> Pickle: I'm not sure it can be totally prevented in the long run anyway
<4> Perhaps there are logical arguments for leaving Iran have nukes, but the fact remains: Most people don't want Iran to have nukes.
<2> he thinks they should bring on armegeddon
<0> Pickle: We tried to keep Pakistan from getting them
<3> US-Male: but we kept him out of kurdistan,
<0> and N Korea
<3> and to a lesser extent, souther iraq
<1> the WMD which were recorded previously, were not accounted for -- a failure
<0> Iran will probably get them in the long run
<3> a buffer to kuwait
<4> jhicks: In the long run Iran may not want nuclear weapons or may not represent such a threat to the globe if they get them (ie after a regime change).
<2> israel wil not tolerate nukes in iran
<6> Walter Cronkite has decided to pull our troops out of Iraq. What a maroon!
<4> jhicks: Lots of stuff may happen in the long run, but in the short run Iran's not going to be permitted to develop nukes.
<1> anyway, now people are talking about Iran and it's the same game all over
<3> thank you, capt. obvious
<1> this time, let's let him go wild
<0> Pickle: I don't believe it can be prevented
<0> Iran isn't Iraq.
<5> Pickle: but where's the regime change going to come from in Iran, at least until someone internal to that country manages to get the upper hand on the religious fundamentalists
<4> jhicks: The current regime can and will be prevented from developing nukes.
<0> By a long shot.
<3> jhicks: yeah, iran is a cream puff compared to iraq
<0> Pickle: we couldn't stop khan
<1> let Iran have nukes. We have bigger ones.
<0> US-Male: that's right
<1> they can only threaten people who fail to help us
<4> jhicks: No, Iran's easier since you don't have three roughly equal minority groups, you have a cohesive people somewhat versed in democracy already.
<0> US-Male: and lots more of them too
<1> Iran will be a threat to people who have refused to help
<3> at least iraq had somewhat of a standing army
<1> not so much us
<2> the new president of iran is a fundamentalist also, but, he is thought to be not corrupted like the mullahs
<3> iran in gonna be all intel
<0> Pickle: If they really want them they can get them
<3> and ducats
<2> that is not much to hang on to
<2> if you live in nyc
<4> jhicks: Yes, but the current regime cannot. They will be overthrown before being allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
<6> Iran will not get nukes, it would be like asking a cat to watch the fish
<0> Anyway, scalar weapons are going to make nukes obsolete
<5> US-Male: but can we use our nukes? Iran's threat in owning them is really that if anyone tries to intervene in their control of the country, they'll go nuclear on them.
<3> blah
<4> jhicks: Future regimes may indeed aquire them, but this one won't.
<1> ++C: sure, we can launch anytime we have to
<2> the us doesn't need to use nukes
<3> in the 1950's, we built over the horizon
<0> Pickle: and then the pendulum will swing back, etc
<3> in the 60's, ballistic
<1> ++C: let Iran **** with Europe
<1> EU is within range
<3> and we had silos in turkey
<5> US-Male: preemptively with nukes? When we didn't do that in 1962 vs. Russia over the Cuban Missle crisis?
<4> jhicks: I'm not concerned with a stable democracy developing nukes.
<1> ++C: preemptively what ?
<2> did persia ever attack europe?
<1> ++C: I'm saying, ;et them develop nukes. Not our problem
<1> it's Europe's problem
<2> yeah.
<3> LA96-C is my favorite Nike site
<3> hippies in san fran just smoke pot up there
<3> pricks
<0> Pickle: A stable democracy has been known to use nukes on civilians ;)
<0> twice
<2> twice in one week
<0> that's right
<2> not since
<0> yeah
<5> US-Male: ok. Something else we should put in our more active worry-basket in-box is what would happen with Pakistan if Gen Sharrif gets overthrown by fundamentalist elements, and they get control over Pakistan's nukes.
<0> but it's our only statistical sample :)
<3> the abomb was just the felling blow
<4> jhicks: Those "nukes" don't even compare to the conventional bombs of today. No one has used "nukes" as they currently exist.
<7> it's also israel's problem, you surely wouldn't let anything bad happen to them, would you /
<3> lemay was setting all of japan on fire
<3> it didn't stop them then
<1> I'm not worried much about Pakistan, I think Musharref has already allowed the US to secure his nukes
<0> US-Male: hahahaha
<2> jhicks: but ist more intellectually honest to say it was done once
<0> that was a good one
<1> also, India is there as a balance
<0> tortus: two bombs
<2> one event
<5> US-Male: what basis do you have for saying that the "US has secured Pak's nukes", other than Musharrif's possible word?
<0> two cities
<4> jhicks: And while they might, stable democracies are highly unlikely to ever want to develop such weapons, let alone use them. Most have not expressed such a desire.
<2> one war
<5> that they won't be used?
<1> ++C: what basis do you have to say otherwise ?
<0> Pickle: things change, new regimes inherit power
<4> jhicks: And no stable democracy has used such weapons against another such democracy.
<0> Are there no tyrants anymore?
<1> Musharref doens't trust the loony Islamists either
<5> US-Male: you're the one making the ***ertion that the US has achieved some definite measure of security over Pak's nukes. So it's your proposition to prove and support, not mine.
<4> jhicks: No, there are tyrants... Such as the current regime in Iran. That's why we're concerned about them having nukes.
<1> ++C: not at all. If you claim otherwise, it;s up to you to prove it.
<0> Pickle: I'm worried about everybody having nukes.
<1> ++C: I've said 100 different things in the last hour, I don't have any responsibility to prove them just because I say them.
<0> Pickle: But I don't believe technology can be suppressed forever in the long run
<4> jhicks: Sure, but there are certain regimes we really, really don't want to get nukes, to the point that we'll replace the regime before allowing it to happen.
<1> once you challenge it, then it's a controversy. Now you made the claim
<2> i think there are worse weapons than nukes. the thing that makes the nukes nightmarish is that they may be in the hands of irrational men
<4> jhicks: Such will happen with Iran.
<0> I don't think it matters what we want.
<6> jhicks - The US having them is fine by me, Iran MUST NOT have them
<2> course, all high drama weapons are in the hands of irrational men
<5> US-Male: We were all created at 10pm yesterday evening with memories intact and with the illusion of starlight from light-years away hurtling toward and blanketing the night sky, instead of being set up to look that way. Same with dinosaur bones. Now it's up to you to prove THAT's not true.
<0> BoogyMan: I didn't trust Bill Clinton with nukes, did you?
<4> jhicks: The current regime in Iran will discover how much it matters, should they fail to back off of nuclear weapons development.
<0> BoogyMan: Hillary?
<1> ++C: no, it's not. I didn't claim otherwise.
<4> jhicks: Because they will be replaced.
<1> ++C: show me where I said that was false
<2> if they have the weapons, they are irrational
<6> jhicks - Bill Clinton is not the issue
<3> oh lord,
<2> that is just common sense
<3> analytical geometry
<0> Pickle: well, that's our intent. It was also our intent for Castro.
<0> Pickle: we don't always get our way
<8> lol fox news poll
<4> jhicks: Castro enjoys far more popularity with the Cuban people than do the Ayatollahs.
<3> jhicks: because we weren't dedicated
<3> Lincoln would have taken Cuba
<0> walstib: riiiight
<6> jhicks - The US isnt going to nuke a neighbor for some presumptive snub of beliefs. Iran would!
<3> well, it is Lincoln's words, not mine
<0> BoogyMan: uh huh
<5> US-Male: you're the one who said something "otherwise" about Pakistan's nukes. If I claim that both: a) pakistan's nukes are not in the control of the US and b) that they are, is it now up to you to prove which one is wrong? Or must you accept both as true? That's the kind of twisted ridiculous illogic you're using here.
<3> i know it's hard to understand the concept of naval power these days
<0> navel power!
<1> ++C: no, you contradicted what I said "I think ____"
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#beginner
Fun with janes dick
#computers
#computers
#politics
tubesteak connection
xbox memory cards in linux
#beginner
#dsl
#computers
|
|