Barihawk Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Why is everyone talking about how stupid America is? The original poster was talking about the violence in Lebanon, which deals with Israel and Iran starting a nuclear war. America didn't start the war in Lebanon, nor are we fighting in it. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Why is everyone talking about how stupid America is? The original poster was talking about the violence in Lebanon, which deals with Israel and Iran starting a nuclear war. America didn't start the war in Lebanon, nor are we fighting in it. Yet oddly, it is our job to stop it. :uhh: The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
____ Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Yet oddly, it is our job to stop it. :uhh:They'd have better luck flipping a coin for keeps of the other country. Save having another cease-fire that lasts less than a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Why is everyone talking about how stupid America is? The original poster was talking about the violence in Lebanon, which deals with Israel and Iran starting a nuclear war. America didn't start the war in Lebanon, nor are we fighting in it. Yet oddly, it is our job to stop it. :uhh: Last time I checked, we were supporting a diplomatic solution, and our only military action has been to evacuate US citizens and provide food and supplies to the people of Lebanon. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megakiller32 Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 i hope i forget this soo.... Hey look a penny! Quit Runescape 30th May 2006.Thanks to Hawkxs for my signature :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Why is everyone talking about how stupid America is? The original poster was talking about the violence in Lebanon, which deals with Israel and Iran starting a nuclear war. America didn't start the war in Lebanon, nor are we fighting in it. Yet oddly, it is our job to stop it. :uhh: Last time I checked, we were supporting a diplomatic solution, and our only military action has been to evacuate US citizens and provide food and supplies to the people of Lebanon. Indeed we are. And it's always our job to solve other countries BS because they're too wrapped up in their religious fanatic crap to just say "Hey, uhhh...we're killing a lot of people who don't need to be killed...We should jsut stop this..." Nay, nay, the US and the UN and blah blah blah all have to come in, solve it, donate money to fix crap we didn't even ruin, and then the morons have the audacity to call us "zionist terrorists". The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redserpent4 Posted August 13, 2006 Author Share Posted August 13, 2006 Why is everyone talking about how stupid America is? The original poster was talking about the violence in Lebanon, which deals with Israel and Iran starting a nuclear war. America didn't start the war in Lebanon, nor are we fighting in it. Yet oddly, it is our job to stop it. :uhh: Actually, the best outcome if Iran did attack Israel would be for America to not get too involved - that would de stabilise the entire region The only reason I specifically mentioned America is because an Iranian minister has described America and Israel as The great and the Little Satan respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Probably with the fact America seems to think they can shape the world by enforcing "democracy" where they see fit. Hypocrites. This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Probably with the fact America seems to think they can shape the world by enforcing "democracy" where they see fit. Hypocrites. There is nothing democratic about forcing it on people. Yea, Saddam killed some people, but have we not killed MORE? The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCHughes Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 MAD only applies to nuclear warfare...something Iran doesn't posses yet. And only the most conservative of Muslims believe in the concept of global jihad. Even then, they believe that the final confrontation with the Infidelic Armies can only happen when the original Islamic Crescent is reunited (which means having Spain, North Africa, ALL of the Mid-East [plus Israel], South Asia and Indonesia be under Islamic domination). So, my analysis is, there's no threat. the russians are the best! Hands down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katha610 Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 but why this year ( not date) anyway. if the iran launches any nuke.... it will be its last one in a long long time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct101 Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 ....at least i'm safe, who's going to bomb a bunch of corn fields, waste of a bomb :anxious: :pray: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmw Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 What the heck is this topic about? It seems like anything having the least bit to do with War always turns into an "America sucks" discussion :boohoo: Correct me if I'm wrong, but M.A.D. was the term first used in the Cold War by McNamara, to describe the series of events that would unfold if a certain country (being Russia) attacked America will full fledged nuclear force. What nuclear capabilities does Iran, or any Islamic-dominant nation for that matter, have? True, Iran has been supposeldy conducting nuclear tests for over a decade now, but there still is zero evidence suggesting that Iran currently owns a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, the arguement "Kim Jong Il will sell Iran a nuclear weapon" seems kind of stupid to me. North Korea hasn't even (reportedly) done tests on their own nuclear weapons, yet alone begin selling them to Iran. Let's say, magically, Iran did have a nuclear weapon. Would their first target really be the United States? They simply don't have that sort of technology to send a nuclear armed weapon across the Pacific, to hit the US. No, North Korea doesn't have a working weapon which can do that either. Israel is and has always been their main target, and in addition, Israel is a neighbouring country. A strike of that magnitude would be on Israel, not the US. (I don't know about the effects of the radiation, nor the geographic diameter...so don't flame me if attacking Israel would cause health problems in Iran). So all of this MAD talk is just useless garbage and propaganda, used by conspiracists and pessimists to instill fear into our minds. Anyone care to place a $1 000 bet (reasonable amount) on the fact that no nuclear weapon will be used in August? We could probably even bet on no nuclear weapon being used in the next year. After that I'm not sure, Kim Jong Il is pretty crazy. :lol: But are you seeing my point? To discuss MAD occuring anytime soon, yet alone in forthcoming days, is just stupid. :-# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 What nuclear capabilities does Iran, or any Islamic-dominant nation for that matter, have? True, Iran has been supposeldy conducting nuclear tests for over a decade now, but there still is zero evidence suggesting that Iran currently owns a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, the arguement "Kim Jong Il will sell Iran a nuclear weapon" seems kind of stupid to me. North Korea hasn't even (reportedly) done tests on their own nuclear weapons, yet alone begin selling them to Iran. No, but you see. If the technologies are combined, they can create the apocalypse! Say sand-tech's ability to launch missiles via camel is used with the city-tech's (as pronounced by Tuong Lu Kim) nuclear capability, that would be one hell of a force to reckon with. Not even the combined forces of special ops from NATO can stop that. :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 my sisters birthday idk idc meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 Probably with the fact America seems to think they can shape the world by enforcing "democracy" where they see fit. Hypocrites. There is nothing democratic about forcing it on people. Yea, Saddam killed some people, but have we not killed MORE? No. Next question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 Probably with the fact America seems to think they can shape the world by enforcing "democracy" where they see fit. Hypocrites. There is nothing democratic about forcing it on people. Yea, Saddam killed some people, but have we not killed MORE? No. Next question? We haven't? My mistake. I thought 30,000 more civilian deaths was indeed more deaths. But somehow, in your alternate reality, it is indeed NOT more. =; Next. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 Probably with the fact America seems to think they can shape the world by enforcing "democracy" where they see fit. Hypocrites. There is nothing democratic about forcing it on people. Yea, Saddam killed some people, but have we not killed MORE? No. Next question? We haven't? My mistake. I thought 30,000 more civilian deaths was indeed more deaths. But somehow, in your alternate reality, it is indeed NOT more. =; Next. Did American soldiers actually kill those 30,000 people? No. Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, those numbers include civilians killed by the insurgents as well. You do know that in one Shia uprising, Saddam Hussein's army killed 30,000 people there and then, right? Here's a quote from Andrew Sullivan: Bush's state visit to Britain VI: "Afghanistan? We have just seen a new constitution unveiled which both embraces Islam and protects religious minorities and women. If it weren't for Bush, the Taliban would still be in power. Iraq? One of the worst tyrants in history has been toppled, 300,000 mass graves discovered, the marshlands of Southern Iraq are coming back to life, the Kurds and Shia can plan democratic futures, and Bush's policy is still declared a disaster because a few thousand remnants of the old regime, combined with other regional terrorists, are still fighting! The notion that this policy has already failed relies on so raising the bar of success that only a miracle would pass muster. Come back in five years - the only reasonable time period by which to judge Iraq's reconstruction - and we'll talk. Meanwhile, some $20 billion of aid money is coming from American pockets to rebuild a country devastated by totalitarianism. And the architect of this astonishing act of humanitarianism is compared to Hitler in the streets of London. It makes no sense. None. ... If Bush is an incompetent, so was Truman. And so was Eisenhower. The difference, of course, is that the invasion and occupation of two vast countries thousands of miles away from the United States, and the beginnings of the reconstruction of a terrorized country of 23 million - all this has been accomplished with a speed and efficiency unheard of in human history. Every casualty is a tragedy. But in broad military terms, the Iraq war and occupation has resulted in around 300 combat deaths. That's mercifully, unprecedentedly low, however awful any single loss of life is. To call that military achievement and the painful path to progress in Iraq a disaster, a crisis or a quagmire simply stretches the English language into meaninglessness." :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 *Bashes head against a wall* What do you guys not get? We went in and killed more people. Period. End of story. How can you EVEN argue that? I'm well aware Saddam killed lots of people, but to go in and kill more and then call it "the price of Democracy" is laughable. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 *Bashes head against a wall* What do you guys not get? We went in and killed more people. Period. End of story. How can you EVEN argue that? I'm well aware Saddam killed lots of people, but to go in and kill more and then call it "the price of Democracy" is laughable. Well the way you worded it it seemed like you were saying that the US military killed more Iraqis than Saddam killed. I was going to argue the point with you but then I realised I was not sure what you meant when we killed more people. Now I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 *Bashes head against a wall* What do you guys not get? We went in and killed more people. Period. End of story. How can you EVEN argue that? I'm well aware Saddam killed lots of people, but to go in and kill more and then call it "the price of Democracy" is laughable. Ah. You mean "more" as in: "we killed people in addition to the people Saddam killed." I thought you meant it as in: "we killed a larger number of people than Saddam." The former is accurate, the latter is not. So we're square. Here's my question I guess. Since your point is that we can't push democracy on people, and especially not by killing people, what do you think about the American Revolution? When the colonies revolted, it was a minority of people who wanted to revolt. The majority of civillians wanted to just sit back and let the Crown do what they wanted. And then, of all things - the rebel colonies KILLED people. They caused civillians to be killed. All in the name of Democracy! How dare they! Maybe you don't think America should force democracy on another country. That's your opinion and I don't want to argue about that. But the value of Democracy surely isn't negated by the deaths it takes to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 *Bashes head against a wall* What do you guys not get? We went in and killed more people. Period. End of story. How can you EVEN argue that? I'm well aware Saddam killed lots of people, but to go in and kill more and then call it "the price of Democracy" is laughable. I'm sorry to break this to you, but every war has its casualties. IMO, this war is even more reasonable than the First World War. :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangeresque Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 lol my birthday is august 22nd.....its not gonna happen thou....or will it? : lol jk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azntemplar_00 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The only country that can compete with the US currently in nuclear arms is russia. At the moment no other country has significant number of Atomic weapons to compete so the chance of M.A.D occuring is very small in my opinion at the momment. With that all said, I plan on living in a hobbit hole stocked with bottled water and beef jerky when I buy a place. It doesn't matter how many nuclear arms a country has - one has enough. If you have a group of people who all have guns pointed at each other, it doesn't matter how good your gun is or how much ammo you have. Once someone shoots, everyone else gets scared (for good reason too) and starts shooting too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 *Bashes head against a wall* What do you guys not get? We went in and killed more people. Period. End of story. How can you EVEN argue that? I'm well aware Saddam killed lots of people, but to go in and kill more and then call it "the price of Democracy" is laughable. I'm sorry to break this to you, but every war has its casualties. IMO, this war is even more reasonable than the First World War. Iraw had nothing to do with 9/11. We just decided to Liberate Iraqi's because we found out we had nothing better to do over there, i.e. why we went there in the first place...WMD's. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now