Interventionism in the East.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

da fuk...?

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.

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?

Peace is achieved and maintained when countries dominate their enemies.

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.

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

Oh so you are a country now?

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.

On January 23 2012 15:24 tomson wrote: I know LP has a lot of smart dudes with opinions on this matter.

+ Show Spoiler +

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

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.

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

stunned

On January 24 2012 02:38 D_smart_S wrote: stunned

You live stunned. Sadly, although I encourage your 'individual train of thought', you're so hooked on it that you absolutely refuse to embrace reality for the most part - and as such your views are, for the majority of the time, fucking retarded.

I still think you're 84offsuit or whatever his name was from the past

so you share the idea that individuals=countries? Or that by "countries" I mean "individuals"?

I am actually Baal, but you were close.

On January 24 2012 02:29 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

why nitpick on the definition of "biggest", obviously soldier number wise China is bigger, but the american army is the most advanced, most powerful and fearsome army in the world.

What im trying to say is that the US does more damage to the world because of the huge unbalanced military powers than middle east with nukes would create.

Also you think middle eastern government as crazy and irresponsible so you are afraid of a random nuclear attack however, its unargable that the craziest government in the entire world is North Korea, and they still havent dared to use nuclear weapons, why? Because they are perfectly aware that if they do, their entire country would be a smoldering crater the next week, and Iran would do the same, except that it wouldnt be a target for invasion anymore as it is today.

wait so d smart really is baal?

omg how did i not see this hahaha

+ Show Spoiler +

On January 24 2012 03:24 D_smart_S wrote: I am actually Baal, but you were close.

I would just like to point this cause I thought it might be helpful to OT: all the members of the NATO (including countries like Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Iceland, not only the US) share a certain amount of nuclear weapons for defense purposes and whether or not Iran and North Korea are to be allowed to posses some of their own is more of a question of their ongoing political rhetorics for the last decades than a question of morality.

No country that states "We want to wipe (place name of a country here) off the face of the Earth" should be allowed to posses nuclear arms.

No that idea is even more retarded, proliferation of nuclear weapons on the same alliance... why should nato have nukes and others dont?

You say that people who threaten to wipe countries out of earth shouldnt have nukes, what about countries who are actually wiping them and not just threatening like Israel and USA... your logic is absurd and doesnt change the status quo at all.. giving Iceland nukes changes absolutely nothing

For example Israel just bombed facilities in Iran killing nuclear scientists that were working on normal nuclear power (not weapon grade)...just in case, do you think that a country that illegally bombs another to kill scientists should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

From the far left:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet

From the far right:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/

Analyzing the extremes should make for an interesting paper. I wouldn't use Ron Paul, his position is automatically libertarian on every issue. Even if you agree with his foreign policy views you won't find arguments from him that are any different than your regular joe.

On January 24 2012 02:26 spets1 wrote: Just use Chomsky for everything - most quoted person of our lifetime. The guy has brains and is really good at putting words together.

qft! If there was one man i would get my info from it would be him, i just read this article of his, it points out the big reason to intervene in the ME is to prevent democracy http://www.alternet.org/story/150697/...contours_of_global_order/?page=entire

Hell yes we can tell Iran they cant have nukes, because there is still the fear that enough radical muslims exist in positions of power that they may disregard their own lives to assure destruction of yours. When one side does not fear death it changes the rules considerably. Mutually assured destruction only works so long as both parties desire to live. But with the present state of radical Islam there is simply too many people willing to die for their cause. You dont allow a country like Iran to have nuclear weapons any more than you would allow a serial killer pedophile to hang out in the park with a trenchcoat full of knives. Women's rights and freedom of expression are not cultural issues, they are inalienable rights which should be given to everyone no matter where you are from. When Iran joins the 21st century and proves they can behave rationally then they can be allowed to pursue whatever they want like the rest of the civilized world.

You are an amazing idiot as usual, "when Iran behaves rationally they can puruse..." your country has raped the rest of the world for over 50 years for their personal gain, you have waged illegal wars, set up countless coup d'etats, are currently fighting two wars, one of them for 10 fucking years.

And im not thrilled about religious idiots having stronger weaponery, but if you really want to witness injustice and suffering in the world, simply concentrate the power in one country as it is today.


Also you didnt refute my argument that the craziest nation in the world (north korea) has nukes and havent done anything with them yet, yet you still claim that crazy ppl in power will use them even if they sacrifice their entire country, while there is no empirical evidence of this ever happening in any way before.

If as you said they would give away their lives and countries to destroy their enemies there would be no Israel and you would have a 9/11 every weekend

Saying the USA has raped the world with repeated wars is like saying the police are constantly killing people. The USA has never made an outright attempt to mass murder civilians and destroy a country simply because they dont like their neighbor. However that is exactly what Iran has threatened to do. No country that isnt already a piece of shit is actually afraid the US is going to attack them. Which country do you prefer having nukes, NK or the USA? NK has its issues, but as you mentioned earlier they are in no position to destroy themselves. You will not be finding 9/11 hijackers of NK descent, that is simply not their thing. However there is a sect of the muslim world which WOULD produce a 9/11 every day if given the means and opportunity. It's simply too risky to allow nukes to proliferate in that region of the world.

The United States is seen as a rational war mongerer. They have their own best interests at heart when causing shit, which is more than we can say for the middle east. Iran? Afghanistan? There are too many fucking lunatics who would crack the planet in half if they could and do so laughing hysterically all the way. It's like giving a handgun to a child. You just dont do it until they've proven themselves responsible enough to hold it.

NewbSaibot America is the Fourth Reich.

On January 29 2012 22:35 NewbSaibot wrote: Saying the USA has raped the world with repeated wars is like saying the police are constantly killing people. The USA has never made an outright attempt to mass murder civilians and destroy a country simply because they dont like their neighbor. However that is exactly what Iran has threatened to do. No country that isnt already a piece of shit is actually afraid the US is going to attack them. Which country do you prefer having nukes, NK or the USA? NK has its issues, but as you mentioned earlier they are in no position to destroy themselves. You will not be finding 9/11 hijackers of NK descent, that is simply not their thing. However there is a sect of the muslim world which WOULD produce a 9/11 every day if given the means and opportunity. It's simply too risky to allow nukes to proliferate in that region of the world. The United States is seen as a rational war mongerer. They have their own best interests at heart when causing shit, which is more than we can say for the middle east. Iran? Afghanistan? There are too many fucking lunatics who would crack the planet in half if they could and do so laughing hysterically all the way. It's like giving a handgun to a child. You just dont do it until they've proven themselves responsible enough to hold it.

You are the kind of guy who gives too much credit to said and heard things and too little to done things. You think of Afghanistan, NK, Iraq and Iran as radical fanatical assholes. Would you please go back in time and pinpoint how you formed that opinion. Which wars exactly have made them radical and fanatical not caring about other people's lives? Yes, you are struggling to remember. Your answer would probably be "everybody knows muslims are fucking radical kamikadzes ready to die for 40 virgins." Let's compare the "civilized" nations like USA, England, France, Italy, Russia and Germany to the radical fanatics of the Middle East. England was one huge fucking Empire, having conquered countries in all parts of the world even as far as India. Everyone knows of the Roman Empire conquering foreign lands and how they treated their slaves and gladiators like animals. France - the crazy midget Napoleon wanting everything in the world. Germany - Hitler, genocide of unthinkable quantities, experimenting on humans like lab rats, trying to find his perfect Arian race. Russia - Lenin, Stalin. Great guys, right? USA - well, they probably have fought more wars than the number of years they've existed as a nation lol. Now let's compare this to the wars and cruelty of the fanatic Middle East. Not that I am some expert on Middle Eastern history but I am having difficulty thinking of anything even remotly comparable to the genocides and emperialistic attitudes of the Civilized Western Nations. Of course, there were local genocides in the Middle East too but the mere fact that it's something that most people wouldn't know or remember and at the same time having this opinion of them being fanatical careless monster should give rise to the question - how do we form our opinion?

Answer - News, TV shows, movies, talking to friends who have formed their opinion the same way and trying to be part of the group mentality, sharing the same views as to "we are the good guys, those are the crazy fanatic guys''.

I have not watched one Hollywood movie in which the Arabs are not portrayed as fanatic sheikhs seeking death to all that do not share their views. They are always the terrorists, always the bad guys. The comedy shows are full of such jokes so that we can take them and use them in real life, continuing the negative propaganda. And we watch those shows since little kids not realizing that we are being brainwashed into thinking that we are given real life perspective on how the world works. And when USA invades a Middle Eastern country all the brainwash kicks in and we don't give much of a fuck about the millions of innocent people who die because we label in our minds as "terrorists''.

I like USA but your government is shit. Continue to rule the world please but kill your leaders so the world will be cool again.

Oh I'm not disputing that all major 1st world nations have been guilty of atrocities, but that was in the past. I wouldnt have given Germany/Spain/France/England/North America nuclear weapons 500 years ago either. The difference is we (the aforementioned nations) have grown since then and the rest of the world trusts us with these devices. The middle east is where we were back in the 1600's. If it werent for the dumb luck of living on top of the most important natural resource in the world they'd still be living in huts and riding animals to work. It'd be like allowing Zimbabwe to own nukes. They just arent ready for this level of responsibility yet. As long as women arent allowed to drive a car, or wear a bikini to the pool, or 2 people allowed to kiss in public, or someone allowed to decry Islam and claim belief in another god without fear of being imprisoned for the rest of their life, stoned to death, or worse, then they will not be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.

I'm sorry but this whole "every nation is equal, no nation is better than another" is garbage. The USA is better than Iran lol.

On January 30 2012 09:45 NewbSaibot wrote: Oh I'm not disputing that all major 1st world nations have been guilty of atrocities, but that was in the past

rofl

lol answer the question, who do you feel safer having nuclear weapons, the USA or Iran? Where would you rather live, USA or Iran?

On January 30 2012 11:27 NewbSaibot wrote: lol answer the question, who do you feel safer having nuclear weapons, the USA or Iran? Where would you rather live, USA or Iran?

Honestly, I don't want to live in either country. Iran, however, is a very beautiful country and I would like to visit it if I had a chance (not right now obv ). USA, on the other hand, is not the country for me. I am too anti-government and things happen to people like me. There was a tourist couple that just got arrested coming into the USA because they had posted on twitter stg along the lines "dudes, it's gonna be awesome, we going to destroy USA". Ofc they meant partying and wtf is going on with FBI watching twitter and facebook. It's a fascist government. They create mass-popular corporations and social networks monitoring everyone and shitting in the mouths of anti-government people. The media is there to give it a shiny look, that's all. It's just not my type of country ya know. There some awesome things in the USA, but many people are being raped by the gov and you don't hear it on the news.

On the nuclear weapons - if I could choose USA or Iran, obviously, I would choose Iran. They aren't an internationally violent country. They hate the Zionism and Imperialism and they know very well that Israel and USA want a WW3 to complete their plan which goes through Iran. They've known it for many years just like the geopolitical experts that have written books with accurate predictions. That's why they hate them and want to destroy them and I would be happy if by a stroke of luck Iran kills all the bankers and Zionists(my wet fantasy). What violence have you seen from Iran except from saying they want to destroy Israel? What wars have they fought? What have they done and compare it to USA (Hiroshima anyone?). Did you see pictures of their nuclear weapons ready to be built? How does the USA know they are building them? Maybe they heard a rumour? Is that enough for a war? Why don't they show pictures of the weapons they are building? You just believe blindly that the headlines are true, that's the magic of Fox News. Fucks News as I call them.

On January 24 2012 03:46 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 24 2012 02:29 devon06atX wrote:   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. why nitpick on the definition of "biggest", obviously soldier number wise China is bigger, but the american army is the most advanced, most powerful and fearsome army in the world. What im trying to say is that the US does more damage to the world because of the huge unbalanced military powers than middle east with nukes would create. Also you think middle eastern government as crazy and irresponsible so you are afraid of a random nuclear attack however, its unargable that the craziest government in the entire world is North Korea, and they still havent dared to use nuclear weapons, why? Because they are perfectly aware that if they do, their entire country would be a smoldering crater the next week, and Iran would do the same, except that it wouldnt be a target for invasion anymore as it is today.

The US also provided computers, internet, GPS (for free), Solar cells, satellites, silicon chips and a myriad of other inventions and services to the world. Remember those too, when you tally up the "damages".

lol d smart would rather live in Iran that U.S.

d_smart_s have you ever visited the states?

I just wish we'd break the oil addiction and all this becomes a non issue

need to invent an alternative fuel source

BHO tried and got owned by Solyndra

I consider myself a pure capitalist but with respect to health care and energy I am willing to make exceptions.

On January 30 2012 14:53 casinocasino wrote: d_smart_s have you ever visited the states?

no and I won't. It's a $1000 ticket and I don't like traveling that much. I love my town and comfy home and feel nostalgic when I am away even for a few days.

On January 30 2012 16:01 D_smart_S wrote: Show nested quote + On January 30 2012 14:53 casinocasino wrote: d_smart_s have you ever visited the states? no and I won't. It's a $1000 ticket and I don't like traveling that much. I love my town and comfy home and feel nostalgic when I am away even for a few days.

This explains a lots of things. I guess you consider browsing the net as traveling.

On January 30 2012 16:01 D_smart_S wrote: Show nested quote + On January 30 2012 14:53 casinocasino wrote: d_smart_s have you ever visited the states? I don't like traveling that much.

On January 30 2012 13:10 D_smart_S wrote: On the nuclear weapons - if I could choose USA or Iran, obviously, I would choose Iran. They aren't an internationally violent country. They hate the Zionism and Imperialism and they know very well that Israel and USA want a WW3 to complete their plan which goes through Iran. They've known it for many years just like the geopolitical experts that have written books with accurate predictions. That's why they hate them and want to destroy them and I would be happy if by a stroke of luck Iran kills all the bankers and Zionists(my wet fantasy). What violence have you seen from Iran except from saying they want to destroy Israel? What wars have they fought? What have they done and compare it to USA (Hiroshima anyone?). Did you see pictures of their nuclear weapons ready to be built? How does the USA know they are building them? Maybe they heard a rumour? Is that enough for a war? Why don't they show pictures of the weapons they are building? You just believe blindly that the headlines are true, that's the magic of Fox News. Fucks News as I call them.

If WW3 happens I'll just play GG Allin's music full blast

On January 30 2012 16:50 Roald wrote: Show nested quote + On January 30 2012 16:01 D_smart_S wrote:   On January 30 2012 14:53 casinocasino wrote: d_smart_s have you ever visited the states? I don't like traveling that much.

lol spot on :D

Whats up with the RT (Russia Today) video clips? fucking low grade journalism wtf. Not only that, but it has michel chossudovsky in it? lolwtf conspiracy theorists taking over the world?

Geopolitic experts sounds better. Politics=the false story. Geopolitics=the true story. Politics=Iraq has weapons of mass destructions. Geopolitics=USA needs oil. Politics=Bin Laden outsmarted the US military from the cave. Geopolitics=We needed a reason to attack a few countries so we created a reason. Whenever you hear geopolitics you should sharpen your ears. Whenever you hear a politician speak, you know that all you gonna hear is "blaaa bla blaa bla blaa bla bla bla (did I confuse and bored you already?) bla bla".

On January 30 2012 13:10 D_smart_S wrote: USA, on the other hand, is not the country for me. I am too anti-government and things happen to people like me.

That's a pretty heavy dose of self-importance + paranoia you have there. I wonder if you've ever been tested for having any personality disorders

I sure hope Bulgaria doesnt have nukes

On January 29 2012 22:35 NewbSaibot wrote: Saying the USA has raped the world with repeated wars is like saying the police are constantly killing people. The USA has never made an outright attempt to mass murder civilians and destroy a country simply because they dont like their neighbor. However that is exactly what Iran has threatened to do. No country that isnt already a piece of shit is actually afraid the US is going to attack them. Which country do you prefer having nukes, NK or the USA? NK has its issues, but as you mentioned earlier they are in no position to destroy themselves. You will not be finding 9/11 hijackers of NK descent, that is simply not their thing. However there is a sect of the muslim world which WOULD produce a 9/11 every day if given the means and opportunity. It's simply too risky to allow nukes to proliferate in that region of the world. The United States is seen as a rational war mongerer. They have their own best interests at heart when causing shit, which is more than we can say for the middle east. Iran? Afghanistan? There are too many fucking lunatics who would crack the planet in half if they could and do so laughing hysterically all the way. It's like giving a handgun to a child. You just dont do it until they've proven themselves responsible enough to hold it.

except that the US is not the world police, if such thing exists is the UN, so you are not a police arresting people, you are just a civilian with a big gun taking whatever it needs from anyone through violence, so again if this is somehow not clear to you yet, the US is not the world police.

You cant say shit about Irans intention for genocide unless you openly oppose Israel, they have the same religious genocidal tendencies, except that they are actually doing it and not just threatening, you chose to ignore this again, how convenient.

Its obvious that you are not familiar with NK, they are far crazier and more radical than any muslim nation by far, there is no government in this world that would casually use a nuclear weapon as i said its an entire country suicide and if NK hasnt done it yet, nobody else would, i dare you to name one country leader who is crazier than the "Kims"

Its amazing how childish your view of the world is, you see things black and white and you are so naive that you think that the US has the peoples best interest in wars rofl.

If giving nuclear weapons to Iran is like giving a gun to a child, then giving nukes to USA is like giving a gun to the school bully

On January 30 2012 23:22 Baalim wrote: except that the US is not the world police, if such thing exists is the UN, so you are not a police arresting people, you are just a civilian with a big gun taking whatever it needs from anyone through violence, so again if this is somehow not clear to you yet, the US is not the world police. You cant say shit about Irans intention for genocide unless you openly oppose Israel, they have the same religious genocidal tendencies, except that they are actually doing it and not just threatening, you chose to ignore this again, how convenient. Its obvious that you are not familiar with NK, they are far crazier and more radical than any muslim nation by far, there is no government in this world that would casually use a nuclear weapon as i said its an entire country suicide and if NK hasnt done it yet, nobody else would, i dare you to name one country leader who is crazier than the "Kims" Its amazing how childish your view of the world is, you see things black and white and you are so naive that you think that the US has the peoples best interest in wars rofl. If giving nuclear weapons to Iran is like giving a gun to a child, then giving nukes to USA is like giving a gun to the school bully

Of course the US shouldnt be a world police, but they have thrust themselves into this position because we now have too many enemies, and a general intolerance for a lot of bullshit that goes on in the world. We're more like corrupt police, we do some good on occasion, and the bad we do goes under the radar.

I do oppose Israel, I think they're fucking retarded and need to stfu. I am well aware of the suffering they have caused to the palestinian world, but thats beside the point, because now sects of that world hate us due to our support of Israel, and their style of retaliation involves randomly killing civilians and plots to destroy America, so fuck them anyway. Israel is willing to tolerate a muslim presence, but muslims are not willing to do the same.

The Kim family would never blow themselves up in a car bomb to take out a foe. However there are too many muslims right now willing to do just that. If given a nuclear weapon they would be happy to destroy their own country if it meant destroying ours. From their point of view it's win/win since their religious beliefs are far more realistic to them than any other nations. Like I said, you cant play fair vs an enemy who doesnt give a shit. NK has ambition. The Taliban just wants to see the world burn.

And I never said the US has the peoples best interest at heart, I said they have their own best interests at heart, meaning for example invading a country for oil revenue. At least there was a fucking goal somewhere in there. If the U.S. is a bully, they've at least reached puberty and recognize picking unwinnable fights is useless.

You have too many enemies because you have been bulling the world for decades, obviously many countries would like to watch you burn, and rightfuly so.

Also you dont do good, sure Hussein was a sick guy but every single poll after the war says that Iranians say they are worse now than they were before, so no, your media creates the illusion of good and people justify this shit on "collateral good" well its not remotely as good you think it is, the wrong you do far outweights any good.

Well its good you oppose Israel at least you are slightly congruent that fundamentalist violent countries shouldnt have nukes, however you are wrong that muslims are less tolerant than israelites, they are both equally insane, in Israel you see kids signing boms to kill palestinians, they are both irrational rabid dogs.

No country leader is willing to do that, sure many random guys would do it, but not somebody in the lead of a country because they have a lot to lose, tell me exactly one country leader in the middle east that you think would be willing to destory his country to harm USA.

An evil intelligent and goal oriented mind is far more dangerous than a irrational chaotic one, that being side you would be too naive to think the leaders of those nations ultimate goal was that irrational, obviously they are just seeking to increase their personal wealth and power through religios bullshit, thats what they preach, not what they seek just as in the US.

Also you dont do good, sure Hussein was a sick guy but every single poll after the war says that Iranians say they are worse now than they were before, so no, your media creates the illusion of good and people justify this shit on "collateral good" well its not remotely as good you think it is, the wrong you do far outweights any good.

i assume u meant iraqis? Confused why a poll on Iran has to do with Saddam since iranian well being has more to do with internal politics and economics then saddam removal. But that is an incorrect statement about iraqis.

Looking back at the removal of Saddam in 2003, Iraqis are easily the most enthusiastic about it, with 74 percent saying it was the right decision. At the same time, 75 percent believe that it has increased the risk of terrorist attacks around the world.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/incl/printable_version.php?pnt=172

In the first rigorous, scientifically conducted sampling of public sentiment in Iraq, residents of the country's capital say -- by a 2-to-1 margin -- that the ousting of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they might have personally suffered since the U.S. and British-led invasion (62% yes, 30% no).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9334/ousti...hardships-endured-since-invasion.aspx

The US government has long maintained its involvement there is with the support of the Iraqi people, but in 2005 when asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace was opposed to the US occupation and wanted US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis supported attacking US troops. However, in the same poll 77% of Iraqis said that ousting Saddam Hussein had been worth the hardships brought on by the war.[7]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War

The Taliban just wants to see the world burn.

Also that took bout 5 mins with my phone during my lunchbreak to find 3 opinion polls. If I had an actual computer Id go back and find the last time I found polls that backed up what Nmnasty said and Baals immediate response was "polls dont prove anything". Either well conducted polls show evidence of public opinion or they r all worthless, u (baal) cant just dismiss evidence repeatedly b/c it doesnt fit with ur opinion of the world

If you are killed by a guy on the street would you like his interrogation to be conducted by his father and be judged in court by his mother? Wouldn't be biased at all, right?

As usual, people feel the need to have really strong opinions on topics they've hardly researched or thought about. Palak is the only exception. I disagree with many of the things he says, but I have mad respect for the guy just because he is able to back them up with actual evidence, and he is capable of changing his mind when the evidence isn't what he thought it was.

"he is capable of changing his mind when the evidence isn't what he thought it was" so correct I jizzed my pants.