Got a list of world leaders who feel Iran should have nukes? Judging by Aimster's posts everyone else is fine with that arrangement with the US being the only dissenter.
You fear you will be nuked because violence is your answer to everything. A problem with the insane is that they are often so very literal. You are ridged with fear.
fleshconsumed
Diamond Member
- Feb 21, 2002
- 6,486
- 2,363
- 136
Not really.
I didn't expect you to be able to answer the question in a way that supported your opinion, thanks for not disappointing.
The figure is widely available, if you want to know you cn find it just as easily.
I just find it funny that people are so concerned about the plight of the average Iraqi after we toppled Saddam, but cared less when far more died under his rule during sanctions.
Would you disagree that most against the war before it happened thought that sanctions and inspections were the answer? That was their ONLY arguement against taking action, more revisionist hisory FTW....
Hopefully once the monkey boy Bush is gone the majority of the incredibly biased morons will fade away.
Why is that hypocritical, I have my own reasons why I feel they should not have nukes. You were the one who stated they should not be prevented from obtaining them, why?
9/11 and Iraq were not connected, I had made my mind up about Iraq long before that tragic event. I still think we should have finished Saddam in the first gulf war, leaving him in power just added a decade of misery for the average Iraqi citizen.
fleshconsumed
Diamond Member
- Feb 21, 2002
- 6,486
- 2,363
- 136
I'm having trouble looking for the figure. If it's so widely available and if it can be found so easily, why don't you take couple of minutes and post a link to the source?
Show that what you claim is true. You stated a figure, now back it up.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Why do I think they should not have nukes? Because I can't think of a reason for them not to. I mean, if they want them.
Maybe you can share your opinions of why they don't have the right to have them? And how are you going to prevent them from obtaining them?
Because they have not been honest in their intent. I have no problem with them having/utilizing the knowledge of nuclear power, which they claim is their only purpose. I just don't buy that in light of the evidence.
They are fundamentalist regime full of zealots that embrace and support terrorism. They are unstable at best, and even if they showed the restraint required of a nuclear power there is no guarantee the next regime will do the same. They have called for the destruction of Israel.
I don't worry about them supplying nuclear material to terrorist organizations, they know it would be traced back to Iran. I don't worry about a premptive nuclear strike against Israel.
We can't prevent them from obtaining them unfortunately. Even with strikes on their facilities they will be able to rebuild and resume, they are too well built/located. We can slow them down maybe 5 years, which would do nothing but further destabilize the situation. I think if anyone will strike their production capability it will be Israel, but that will not be a final solution.
They are fundamentalist regime full of zealots that embrace and support terrorism. They are unstable at best, and even if they showed the restraint required of a nuclear power there is no guarantee the next regime will do the same. They have called for the destruction of Israel.
I don't worry about them supplying nuclear material to terrorist organizations, they know it would be traced back to Iran. I don't worry about a premptive nuclear strike against Israel.
We can't prevent them from obtaining them unfortunately. Even with strikes on their facilities they will be able to rebuild and resume, they are too well built/located. We can slow them down maybe 5 years, which would do nothing but further destabilize the situation. I think if anyone will strike their production capability it will be Israel, but that will not be a final solution.
Death toll during sanctions? How in 25 minutes could you not find what is readily availble in seconds? Where did you look, in the fridge? I did the basic search for you, find another source if you think the random one I chose is biased:
http://www.google.com/search?h...tions+%22death+toll%22
Here is one sampling:
http://infowars.net/articles/m...07/270307Iraq_toll.htm
Denis Halliday, United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, resigned after a 34 year career with the UN, declaring, ?I don?t want to administer a program that satisfies the definition of genocide.? Halliday?s successor, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned in disgust, as did Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq. All told, 1.5 million Iraqis died as a direct result of the sanctions.
Prett sure you can handle the math from here fleshconsumed.
Infowars? Are you serious? As suggested, I clicked another link from your search. Here's an excerpt:Source
And even if your figures are correct, which is highly suspect at best, those numbers were caused by the freaking UN, not So Damn Insane. So by your logic, we should have attacked all the UN countries enforcing sanctions against Iraq (including the US) instead of disposing their leader and invading their country. Any help the Iraqi people have received from our invasion is merely a side effect of our interest in their oil and our strategic needs in the region. Quit fooling yourself. We are not in Iraq for any sort of humanitarian reasons.
The numbers are close, those work out to @ 12,500 a month which is in line with the average. Abnormally high numbers of children, lovely story.
You don't understand the entire scope and purpose of the sanctions, Saddam's self accepted responsibility, or the UN's designated role.
We did not have to remove Saddam just to get Iraqi oil on the global market. *Then we would not be doing humanitarian projects, are we?
You agree that nations who possess WMD and have given those WMDs to terrorist states should NOT be allowed to possess WMD?
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,858
- 10,169
- 136
When confronted with force, it takes force to stop the assailant. This is a fairly obvious natural trait you presume yourself superior to. Of course, I have to question your resolve if you get mugged on the street. Do you allow your own throat slit without so much as lifting a finger, or do you realize all your bs of passiveness means nothing?
Imagine, if we took your ideology to heart in prior wars. If we didn?t lift a finger in WW2 because we might, heaven forbid, use violence to stop violence. Or imagine this ideology used throughout law enforcement. We'd let criminals run the street because otherwise we might harm them.
Now Moonbeam, are you going to continue to flat out lie regarding nuking? I think so, all you have are lies and personal attacks. You derailed this so very far from my original post on:
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
You keep calling Iran an "assailant." Why?
Your logic is deeply flawed here.
[/quote]
See, there is the word, "assailant," again.
If we use force to stop Iran from obtaining nukes, we are the "assailant," not Iran.
The US is a great nation when it leads the world by example, but the US is nothing short of an international tyrant when it tries to lead by force.
J: Didn?t realize the topic was about me Moonbeam, I?m flattered.
You shouldn't be. You are just one rather good example of the kind of insanity that perpetuates violence in the world, a handy exemplar of mental illness.
J: I?m still waiting for that quote of me.
*twiddles thumbs
M: You fear you will be nuked because violence is your answer to everything. A problem with the insane is that they are often so very literal. You are ridged with fear.
J: When confronted with force, it takes force to stop the assailant.
M: I said that's exactly how you think.
J: This is a fairly obvious natural trait you presume yourself superior to.
M: It's all you know and you can't imagine anything else. You assume those who can do what you cannot are somehow superior. I guess so.
J: Of course, I have to question your resolve if you get mugged on the street. Do you allow your own throat slit without so much as lifting a finger, or do you realize all your bs of passiveness means nothing?
M: Your mind is limited in its grasp of possibilities and you think inside a box. None of how you see things has anything to do with anything.
J: Imagine, if we took your ideology to heart in prior wars.
M: You can't imagine because you are insane and can only see things from an insane point of view.
J: If we didn?t lift a finger in WW2 because we might, heaven forbid, use violence to stop violence. Or imagine this ideology used throughout law enforcement. We'd let criminals run the street because otherwise we might harm them.
M: And is it any wonder you are so afraid. You live inside the head of a delusional paranoid.
J: Now Moonbeam, are you going to continue to flat out lie regarding nuking? I think so, all you have are lies and personal attacks. You derailed this so very far from my original post on:
Yes, I am going to continue to lie. I am going to continue to insist you haven't the mental flexibility to rationally understand what I said.
J: It leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of us who recognize the Islamic Supremacist threat, as taught to us by September 11th.
M: No such threat was taught to anybody but nut cases like you.
J: Yet, Bush?s folly has also countered that lesson by giving us a glimpse at our actions failing to produce results in our favor.
M: He was the best hope of fools like you.
J: The two lessons contradict each other. We need to deal with Iran, but we should not deal with them in a manner that is unfavorable to us.
M: We should not deal with them in any manner that you can imagine because you are crazy.
You shouldn't be. You are just one rather good example of the kind of insanity that perpetuates violence in the world, a handy exemplar of mental illness.
J: I?m still waiting for that quote of me.
*twiddles thumbs
M: You fear you will be nuked because violence is your answer to everything. A problem with the insane is that they are often so very literal. You are ridged with fear.
J: When confronted with force, it takes force to stop the assailant.
M: I said that's exactly how you think.
J: This is a fairly obvious natural trait you presume yourself superior to.
M: It's all you know and you can't imagine anything else. You assume those who can do what you cannot are somehow superior. I guess so.
J: Of course, I have to question your resolve if you get mugged on the street. Do you allow your own throat slit without so much as lifting a finger, or do you realize all your bs of passiveness means nothing?
M: Your mind is limited in its grasp of possibilities and you think inside a box. None of how you see things has anything to do with anything.
J: Imagine, if we took your ideology to heart in prior wars.
M: You can't imagine because you are insane and can only see things from an insane point of view.
J: If we didn?t lift a finger in WW2 because we might, heaven forbid, use violence to stop violence. Or imagine this ideology used throughout law enforcement. We'd let criminals run the street because otherwise we might harm them.
M: And is it any wonder you are so afraid. You live inside the head of a delusional paranoid.
J: Now Moonbeam, are you going to continue to flat out lie regarding nuking? I think so, all you have are lies and personal attacks. You derailed this so very far from my original post on:
Yes, I am going to continue to lie. I am going to continue to insist you haven't the mental flexibility to rationally understand what I said.
J: It leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of us who recognize the Islamic Supremacist threat, as taught to us by September 11th.
M: No such threat was taught to anybody but nut cases like you.
J: Yet, Bush?s folly has also countered that lesson by giving us a glimpse at our actions failing to produce results in our favor.
M: He was the best hope of fools like you.
J: The two lessons contradict each other. We need to deal with Iran, but we should not deal with them in a manner that is unfavorable to us.
M: We should not deal with them in any manner that you can imagine because you are crazy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter