http://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland latinoamerica Iceland    Contact            Users: 181 Active, 18 Logged in - Time: 19:36
Poker News










LP Pokerstars Avatars:



Interventionism in the East.

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > General
 1 
  2 
  3 
  4 
  > 
  Last 
  All 
tomson    Poland. Jan 23 2012 15:24. Posts 1956

I'm writing a short paper for an elective about modern interventionism in the East.

Yesterday I watched a clip of Ron Paul (who from what I observed has gained quite a following in the past couple of months) saying he feels Iran shouldn't be sanctioned and has a right to nuclear arms just as any country (which surprised me given how reasonable I've heard he is in comparison to other U.S. politicians).

Christopher Hitchens, a great debater who recently passed away, was a strong proponent of the war in Iraq and interventionism in the East in general. However I had trouble finding a video/article of his where he would strictly focus on why interventionism in general is in his view necessary.

I know LP has a lot of smart dudes with opinions on this matter. I would love to hear your thoughts about the pros and cons.

Peace of mind cant be bought. 

D_smart_S   Bulgaria. Jan 23 2012 16:00. Posts 688

Well, ofcourse it is necessary to "intervene" the East. They have all the oil and the economy is oil-based. They need to kill millions for oil and other reasons. I mean, from you post I get the feel that you don't really know if it's a good or bad thing to kill millions of people..? USA has nukes and they say "you can't have nukes". Who the fuck gives them the right? It's reaaaaly simple things covered in a load of lies and shit. Dive in the shit and find the truth.

Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speechLast edit: 23/01/2012 16:06

tomson    Poland. Jan 23 2012 16:23. Posts 1956


  On January 23 2012 16:00 D_smart_S wrote:
Well, ofcourse it is necessary to "intervene" the East. They have all the oil and the economy is oil-based. They need to kill millions for oil and other reasons. I mean, from you post I get the feel that you don't really know if it's a good or bad thing to kill millions of people..? USA has nukes and they say "you can't have nukes". Who the fuck gives them the right? It's reaaaaly simple things covered in a load of lies and shit. Dive in the shit and find the truth.


I don't think anyone is going to argue that oil is a huge motivational factor of U.S. involvement. The question is would it be the lesser of two evils to invade those countries if they didn't have oil.

I also don't think it's only the U.S. that are opposed to further nuclear proliferation. If I understand correctly you don't believe that others should dictate whether a country can have nuclear arms. Would it be fair to say you therefore believe that every country in the world should have the right to have nuclear weapons if they wish so?

Peace of mind cant be bought. 

D_smart_S   Bulgaria. Jan 23 2012 16:35. Posts 688

If a country doesn't want the planet to be nuked, they should disarm all their nukes. I am for all disarmament of every country and living in peace. If even one country however has nuclear weapons, then other countries have the right to defend themselves in the same manner. There are no lesser countries or people in terms of value. What USA and Israel want is others to be empty handed while they have all the nukes. If you are about to fight someone and you both have a knife do you think it would be more fair that the other guy throws away his knife. Makes no sense. Of course, in reality there is too much brainwashing that Iran is evil when in reality USA is the only country to use a mass-destructive bomb on another country. Every heard of Iran dropping such a bomb anywhere? Ever saw the bombs they are said to be building? Ever looked through the documented proofs and reports of Iran building a bomb? I am sure all your answers would be No, just like mine and anybody else's. BUT, you press the green button on the remote and it's "Iran are building a nuclear bomb, they are evil." 24/7 Just headlines, no proof=brainwashing.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda master of Hitler.

Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speechLast edit: 23/01/2012 16:38

soberstone   United States. Jan 23 2012 16:57. Posts 895


  On January 23 2012 16:35 D_smart_S wrote:
If a country doesn't want the planet to be nuked, they should disarm all their nukes. I am for all disarmament of every country and living in peace. If even one country however has nuclear weapons, then other countries have the right to defend themselves in the same manner. There are no lesser countries or people in terms of value. What USA and Israel want is others to be empty handed while they have all the nukes. If you are about to fight someone and you both have a knife do you think it would be more fair that the other guy throws away his knife. Makes no sense. Of course, in reality there is too much brainwashing that Iran is evil when in reality USA is the only country to use a mass-destructive bomb on another country. Every heard of Iran dropping such a bomb anywhere? Ever saw the bombs they are said to be building? Ever looked through the documented proofs and reports of Iran building a bomb? I am sure all your answers would be No, just like mine and anybody else's. BUT, you press the green button on the remote and it's "Iran are building a nuclear bomb, they are evil." 24/7 Just headlines, no proof=brainwashing.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda master of Hitler.



Yah, let's just throw away all of our nukes, I'm sure if we do that Iran will too and the world will have peace! Sick logic....Iran, who has has openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map - will simply put theirs away too. You seriously believe that "Ever looked through the documented proofs and reports of Iran building a bomb?"... I understand that you don't want to believe everything you read but really you either have to trust at least some of what the UN is saying, or trust none of it at all and than there is no point to any of this.


taco   Iceland. Jan 23 2012 17:01. Posts 1761


  On January 23 2012 15:24 tomson wrote:
Christopher Hitchens, a great debater who recently passed away, was a strong proponent of the war in Iraq and interventionism in the East in general. However I had trouble finding a video/article of his where he would strictly focus on why interventionism in general is in his view necessary.



There was a video of him at a book signing where he point by point went over
how Iraq fit every criterion possible to have their sovereignty taken away from them in his view.

Genocide et cetera.


D_smart_S   Bulgaria. Jan 23 2012 17:09. Posts 688


  On January 23 2012 16:57 soberstone wrote:
Yah, let's just throw away all of our nukes, I'm sure if we do that Iran will too and the world will have peace! Sick logic....Iran, who has has openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map - will simply put theirs away too. You seriously believe that "Ever looked through the documented proofs and reports of Iran building a bomb?"... I understand that you don't want to believe everything you read but really you either have to trust at least some of what the UN is saying, or trust none of it at all and than there is no point to any of this.



lol I didn't say that it will go like this. There can be peace treaties, was it that difficult to think of it first rather than "Yah, let's just throw away all of our nukes, I'm sure if we do that Iran will too and the world will have peace! Sick logic..."

Sick intellect.

Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech 

Critterer   United Kingdom. Jan 23 2012 17:35. Posts 5337

USA and russia have been scaling back their nuclear arsenals for years

They cant just throw away all the nukes it doesnt work quite like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START

The problem imo is in 25 years nuclear technology will be widespread enough for almost any country to possess weapons. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable by moving in on countries trying to develop them. There is no way USA et al can continue to police all development of nuclear weapons.

LudaHid: dam.ned dam.ned dam.ned. LudaHid: dam.ned northwooden as..hole 

NewbSaibot   United States. Jan 23 2012 17:54. Posts 4291


  On January 23 2012 16:35 D_smart_S wrote:If even one country however has nuclear weapons, then other countries have the right to defend themselves in the same manner. There are no lesser countries or people in terms of value.

By this logic I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.

listening to edzwoo has made u a nit... *sigh* - Zalfor 

c4rnage   . Jan 23 2012 20:33. Posts 408

lol people, stop going to extremes, USA doesnt have the right (neither any country) to tell other country what the fuck they can or cant have, period.


"USA has nukes and they say "you can't have nukes"

This reminds me about another image that was on 9gag about SOPA

"Tells China not to censor internet... creates a law to censor internet" scumbag USA


LikeASet   United States. Jan 23 2012 21:14. Posts 1993

Yeah shame on U.S. Let Iran, North Korea, etc. have their nukes.

da fuk...?


LikeASet   United States. Jan 23 2012 21:30. Posts 1993

developed nations that trade with each other can have nukes no problem because any developed nation knows that starting a nuclear war would screw themselves over too, not so sure about undeveloped nations with shit economies and radical leaders.


Baalim   Mexico. Jan 23 2012 21:46. Posts 29055


  On January 23 2012 15:24 tomson wrote:
I'm writing a short paper for an elective about modern interventionism in the East.

Yesterday I watched a clip of Ron Paul (who from what I observed has gained quite a following in the past couple of months) saying he feels Iran shouldn't be sanctioned and has a right to nuclear arms just as any country (which surprised me given how reasonable I've heard he is in comparison to other U.S. politicians).

Christopher Hitchens, a great debater who recently passed away, was a strong proponent of the war in Iraq and interventionism in the East in general. However I had trouble finding a video/article of his where he would strictly focus on why interventionism in general is in his view necessary.

I know LP has a lot of smart dudes with opinions on this matter. I would love to hear your thoughts about the pros and cons.



Hs stance is the only logical and moral stance.

The us gets all the nukes and nobody else can develop their own?, the US has the bigges army in the planet and has more wars and killings than any other since what.. at least 50 years? Maybe if Iran or Afghanistan had nukes they wouldnt have their countries destroyed by the US.

Also lol @ idiots saying that they cant have nukes cuz they said they want to eliminate Israel... well Israel has nukes and they have been destroying palestine for decades, but yeah i guess that is fair right?


SleepyHead   . Jan 23 2012 21:52. Posts 687

Peace is achieved and maintained when countries dominate their enemies.

How do you have a full house wtf - traxamillion 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. Jan 23 2012 22:11. Posts 2924

I don't really think US or Iran should be allowed nukes, or any country. But if US has nukes, iran should be able to have some to defend themselves.

how can people stand the hypocritical stance that US has.

i drink ur milkshake 

Baalim   Mexico. Jan 23 2012 23:42. Posts 29055


  On January 23 2012 17:54 NewbSaibot wrote:
Show nested quote +

By this logic I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.


Oh so you are a country now?


traxamillion   United States. Jan 24 2012 00:30. Posts 6896

The problem is that the USA has actually been trying to gain first strike capabilities through the use of a missile defense shield (US launches preemptively at all russian (or w/e would prob have to be a couple more countries as well) silos/ targets ... russia can only respond with a limited yet still devastating attack from submarines mainly and some icbm sites. USA missile defense shield shoots down enemy bombs en route to the mainland) for the last 2 decades+. since the nixon stars wars stuff and Bush took it to the next level.

If Mutually Assured Destruction becomes imbalanced the world becomes a far more dangerous place.


Achoo   Canada. Jan 24 2012 01:51. Posts 1452


  On January 23 2012 15:24 tomson wrote:

I know LP has a lot of smart dudes with opinions on this matter.



+ Show Spoiler +

Odds are exactly 50%: it either happens or not 

spets1   Australia. Jan 24 2012 02:26. Posts 1941

Just use Chomsky for everything - most quoted person of our lifetime. The guy has brains and is really good at putting words together.

bubble butt 

devon06atX   Canada. Jan 24 2012 02:29. Posts 4726


  On January 23 2012 21:46 Baalim wrote:
the US has the bigges army in the planet

i'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. numbers wise that is.


 
 1 
  2 
  3 
  4 
  > 
  Last 
  All 




Copyright © 2014. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap DonkeyTest