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.