ForumGarden

Posted by spot

You know, I'd never looked it up. I remember the first Indian test in the mid-1970s and I'd just assumed all this time that there was a matching Pakistan bomb for the last 20 years to balance it. To be honest, I still suspect that there was, and the first and very late test they made was a demonstration rather than any indication of when one went into their arsenal. Still, first test 1998, a quarter century after India's. It shows it doesn't pay to rely on memory and faulty assumptions.


Making useable atomic weapons is not that easy, neither is making biological weapons.

It also doesn't pay to forget that the vast majority of the world is neither american or european and our concerns are irrelevant to them.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish ... _801.shtml

At least the indians and the chinese seem less likely to go to war nowadays.

There are 20 million muslims on china.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 656180.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 343535.stm

stumbles across this site thought it was quite interesting, never actrually lookad at any of the arab sites before.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/

read everything make up your own mind.

Diuretic wrote: Then why haven't they done it already?


So far those who would haven’t had the chance.

That they don’t pause for a moment to consider if they kill Moslems in the attacks that they do make clearly shows that it is simply a lack of the means, not the lack of will, that is involved.

Diuretic wrote: Then why haven't they done it already?


I guess you are unfamiliar with the attacks on 9/11.

Lon wrote:

That's right!!! Just as we must suffer the sins of our government so must other countries suffer the sins of their government.


This is the exact diplomatic BS that keeps us from ever seeing peace through-out the world. No one should ever have to suffer the "sins" of anyone else no matter what it is.

spot wrote: Do go back and read what I wrote - of course I don't. It's generally reckoned, and I'd agree, that Germany could have been taken down in 1936 by a combined attack from France, Poland and Czechoslovakia. That was the Polish proposal.


Fine as long as someone has the "balls" to step up and prevent it, im not the least bit biased when it comes to who, as long as it gets done.

But the arguement I was responding to illustrated that people dont have the right to police the world even when they are looking to advance their military prowess. I beg to differ, as we all know what that lead to in WW2.

spot wrote:

We're talking deterence, not victory. We're talking about a weapon that has absolutely no offensive value whatever, but deters invasion and national destruction very effectively.


Everybody knows the best defense is offense.

Your personally guaranteeing that they will never use it other than to deter enemy forces?

spot wrote: Two points, then - firstly, nobody is pretending that Iran is ever going to have delivery systems capable of reaching the USA.


Anyone with any knowledge of nuclear weapons knows that Iranian nuclear weapons couldnt reach the US. Thats not the problem. The problem is having a region with a history of warfare stockpiling and/or wanting to stockpile their nuclear capabilities. Paving the way for chaos that will inevitably affect the entire world. Am I wrong?

K.Snyder wrote: I guess you are unfamiliar with the attacks on 9/11.Maybe you can't unthread strands of conversation. This comment was in relation to "I've heard of the Islamic bomb in relation to Pakistan's adventures with nuclear weapons development but surely they haven't invented one that will take out everyone else but leave Arabs nice and safe?". It's too easy to read whatever you want into "they" rather than to context-check.

spot wrote: Maybe you can't unthread strands of conversation. This comment was in relation to "I've heard of the Islamic bomb in relation to Pakistan's adventures with nuclear weapons development but surely they haven't invented one that will take out everyone else but leave Arabs nice and safe?". It's too easy to read whatever you want into "they" rather than to context-check.


Then leave the word Islamic out of it. Or was the attackers on 9/11 not Islamic?

K.Snyder wrote: Everybody knows the best defense is offense.

Your personally guaranteeing that they will never use it other than to deter enemy forces?So many centuries of defining Just War, and limiting barbarity, and restricting the grounds for initiating conflict, and the Americans suddenly wipe clean the entire slate of history and start again afresh from a principle of "Everybody knows the best defense is offense." - maybe next we'll get "he does it so I can".

I have beside me Ann and John Tusa's "The Nuremberg Trial", open at page 491, where I find Francis Biddle, Roosevelt's Attorney General and the primary American judge at the Trial, writing to President Truman that the Nuremberg Tribunal could not prevent war but it could help men to "learn a little better to detest it". "Aggressive war was once romantic, now it is criminal".

Everybody knows the best defense is offense? I thought everybody already knew offense without very specific preconditions was a war crime, and even with some of those conditions is nonetheless (I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war ) an offense against God.

K.Snyder wrote: Then leave the word Islamic out of it. Or was the attackers on 9/11 not Islamic?How can one "leave the word Islamic" out of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and why would one choose to do so? Or, conversely, and I quite like the idea, why include the word "Islamic" in anything to do with 21st century conflict? Goodness knows enough Christian warriors have died with calls to God on their lips, without thinking that their motive for fighting was religious.

K.Snyder wrote: Then leave the word Islamic out of it. Or was the attackers on 9/11 not Islamic?
The factor that is so often missed in the ‘harm other Moslems’ argument is that should a Moslem die as a result of at attack that is justified in Islam that Moslem is instantly a martyr and so goes straight to paradise. They believe.

The implications to this include that even if another Moslem is killed as an incidental to an attack in the name of and under the justification (or even direction of Islam) they ARE safe, safe in Paradise.

There are a very great many people pontificating on the ‘sanctity’ of islam and how islam is a ‘religion of peace’ who know very little about Islam as it really is amongst the dedicated true believers.

To have lived amongst people who follow the Islamic reality, to know them, to learn what they believe and why, to be able to speak the same language, to listen to the arguments and study the Qur’an and learn from the Hadiths, the examples of how The Prophet acted and related his acts to the Qur’anic verses, these things let you see the world in a much closer way to how the dedicated true Moslem does than by sitting in some academic Ivory Tower with a very shallow and very limited knowledge let alone understanding of what is involved.

If more people really understood Islam and what it involves, how it is NOT just another religion but rather an ideology that instils many different values from those embraced by the largely secular Western nations, how a devout Moslem lives in a very different reality that a non-Moslem, how life is a thing that must be endured rather than enjoyed, and so much more then people would be horrified at what is staring them in the face.

K.Snyder wrote: Anyone with any knowledge of nuclear weapons knows that Iranian nuclear weapons couldnt reach the US. Thats not the problem. The problem is having a region with a history of warfare stockpiling and/or wanting to stockpile their nuclear capabilities. Paving the way for chaos that will inevitably affect the entire world. Am I wrong?There's so many ways of approaching that question. The USA has involved itself in a war against Iraq and proposed war against Iran and yet you say there's no danger to the US Homeland if they had stood aside and watched events from their own part of their own continent? Israel deploys 400 nuclear warheads in the region for the last twenty years and you identify the problem as "a region... wanting to stockpile their nuclear capabilities" while ignoring who introduced the nuclear card in the first place?

Here are the key facts. Firing a single warhead anywhere in the Middle East isn't going to destroy a country. Firing a single warhead anywhere in the Middle East is going to invoke immediate nuclear retaliation from any number of interested parties. Were I the president of Iran I would quite reasonably want to own such a device. Knowing that the only occasion I would set it loose would be after I had been destroyed militarily, I would rightly consider it a deterrent against my military destruction. This is the underpinning of the use of nuclear weapons since the second country on the planet deployed one fifty five years ago. It has been a very stable scenario.

spot wrote:

Everybody knows the best defense is offense? I thought everybody already knew offense without very specific preconditions was a war crime, and even with some of those conditions is nonetheless (I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war ) an offense against God.


But then this falls under the category of "when is the right time to use pre-emptive warfare, to limit the otherwise higher number of casualties, and which is interpreted into offense, when we all know that a "true" provocation of pre-emptive warfare is defensive, meaning the people you are aggressing are the real aggressors"?

golem wrote: The factor that is so often missed in the ‘harm other Moslems’ argument is that should a Moslem die as a result of at attack that is justified in Islam that Moslem is instantly a martyr and so goes straight to paradise. They believe.

The implications to this include that even if another Moslem is killed as an incidental to an attack in the name of and under the justification (or even direction of Islam) they ARE safe, safe in Paradise.

There are a very great many people pontificating on the ‘sanctity’ of islam and how islam is a ‘religion of peace’ who know very little about Islam as it really is amongst the dedicated true believers.




Ok, what Im understanding of this, is that they put themselves ahead of everyone else even if everyone else is as moraly just as they are, no matter what religion. What gives them the right to judge people as being true moslem, People who are born muslim? what if they kill someone who has the purist of hearts, he does not get to go to "paradise" because he happens to not be muslim??

The sooner they realize that "paradise" is the freedom from religion, speech and oppression, the sooner they will realize you dont have to kill or be killed to get there.

golem wrote:

To have lived amongst people who follow the Islamic reality, to know them, to learn what they believe and why, to be able to speak the same language, to listen to the arguments and study the Qur’an and learn from the Hadiths, the examples of how The Prophet acted and related his acts to the Qur’anic verses, these things let you see the world in a much closer way to how the dedicated true Moslem does than by sitting in some academic Ivory Tower with a very shallow and very limited knowledge let alone understanding of what is involved.

If more people really understood Islam and what it involves, how it is NOT just another religion but rather an ideology that instils many different values from those embraced by the largely secular Western nations, how a devout Moslem lives in a very different reality that a non-Moslem, how life is a thing that must be endured rather than enjoyed, and so much more then people would be horrified at what is staring them in the face.


Im sorry, this logic just seems nutz if you ask me. Live and let live.

spot wrote: There's so many ways of approaching that question. The USA has involved itself in a war against Iraq and proposed war against Iran and yet you say there's no danger to the US Homeland if they had stood aside and watched events from their own part of their own continent? Israel deploys 400 nuclear warheads in the region for the last twenty years and you identify the problem as "a region... wanting to stockpile their nuclear capabilities" while ignoring who introduced the nuclear card in the first place?




If im not mistaken Germany was on the brink of creating this weapon as well, we just happened to beat them.(right?) Not to mention other countries trying to create it, yet this seems to imply that attempting it and being successfull with it is different?

spot wrote:

Were I the president of Iran I would quite reasonably want to own such a device. Knowing that the only occasion I would set it loose would be after I had been destroyed militarily.


And this is inevitable, which adds to the provocation that Iran will use nuclear weapons.

And one nuclear weapon may not destroy the country, but it will deffinetly have an affect on its economy, inducing a state of chaos that no one needs. Then if you say that they would only use it on an opposing army away from civilization, I would have to say I dont trust that.

Are you suggesting that if you strip the nuclear weapons from the countries that have them, then the desire to be nuclear sufficient will subside. I dont really think so.

K.Snyder wrote: But then this falls under the category of "when is the right time to use pre-emptive warfare, to limit the otherwise higher number of casualties, and which is interpreted into offense, when we all know that a "true" provocation of pre-emptive warfare is defensive, meaning the people you are aggressing are the real aggressors"?It's all down to motive. "to limit the otherwise higher number of casualties"? Whose casualties? In general you're talking about wars that would never happen if they weren't triggered by some pre-emptive doctrine in the first place. What possible mechanism can you construct that would have involved Iraq in a fighting war with the USA had the USA not shipped its armed forces up against Iraq's border and proceeded to Shock and Awe the bejesus out of them? Whose "otherwise higher number of casualties" were limited by that? What else was going to involve a six-figure number of collateral dead, if the US had stayed home and nurtured its economic wellbeing instead?

K.Snyder wrote: Ok, what Im understanding of this, is that they put themselves ahead of everyone else even if everyone else is as moraly just as they are, no matter what religion. What gives them the right to judge people as being true moslem, People who are born muslim? what if they kill someone who has the purist of hearts, he does not get to go to "paradise" because he happens to not be muslim??

The sooner they realize that "paradise" is the freedom from religion, speech and oppression, the sooner they will realize you dont have to kill or be killed to get there.


The Qur’an caters for this as the Surras state that on death everybody gets to stand before Allah. What translates to “The Virtuous Infadel” is permitted to enter Paradise. The deciding factor is if you lived rightly by the moral laws of Islam. Interestingly enough these seem to for the most part to be plagurised from the Torah.

As long as you lived on the whole better than not – you get The Key otherwise you’d better like the smell and feel of molten sulphur.



So they say!

K.Snyder wrote: And this is inevitable, which adds to the provocation that Iran will use nuclear weapons.

And one nuclear weapon may not destroy the country, but it will deffinetly have an affect on its economy, inducing a state of chaos that no one needs. Then if you say that they would only use it on an opposing army away from civilization, I would have to say I dont trust that.

Are you suggesting that if you strip the nuclear weapons from the countries that have them, then the desire to be nuclear sufficient will subside. I dont really think so.And neither do I, but I do see these weapons as very effective deterrents against armed attack, and I do have a lot of 20th century history supporting that position.

You say that the destruction of Iran by military means is inevitable? Then may whoever brings it about perish in the process. Why on earth would anyone wish to destroy Iran by military means? It is a cultured and tolerant people with much to be justifiably proud of. Last week ForumGarden walked round the British Museum's rooms filled with historical evidence of their artistic achievements. And you want to see the destruction of Iran by military means?

golem wrote: The Qur’an caters for this as the Surras state that on death everybody gets to stand before Allah. What translates to “The Virtuous Infadel” is permitted to enter Paradise. The deciding factor is if you lived rightly by the moral laws of Islam. Interestingly enough these seem to for the most part to be plagurised from the Torah.

As long as you lived on the whole better than not – you get The Key otherwise you’d better like the smell and feel of molten sulphur.



So they say!


As long as the people they are fighting are evil fine.

spot wrote: And neither do I, but I do see these weapons as very effective deterrents against armed attack, and I do have a lot of 20th century history supporting that position.

You say that the destruction of Iran by military means is inevitable? Then may whoever brings it about perish in the process. Why on earth would anyone wish to destroy Iran by military means? It is a cultured and tolerant people with much to be justifiably proud of. Last week ForumGarden walked round the British Museum's rooms filled with historical evidence of their artistic achievements. And you want to see the destruction of Iran by military means?


I didnt mean inevitable as in justifiable, rather given a reasonable hypothetical scenario.

spot wrote: It's all down to motive. "to limit the otherwise higher number of casualties"? Whose casualties? In general you're talking about wars that would never happen if they weren't triggered by some pre-emptive doctrine in the first place. What possible mechanism can you construct that would have involved Iraq in a fighting war with the USA had the USA not shipped its armed forces up against Iraq's border and proceeded to Shock and Awe the bejesus out of them? Whose "otherwise higher number of casualties" were limited by that? What else was going to involve a six-figure number of collateral dead, if the US had stayed home and nurtured its economic wellbeing instead?


would you have asked this in '90. Suddam invaded Kuwait, what makes you think he wouldnt have done it again?? Suddams regime was based entirly on his bank account, while leaving his people hungary. he would have done everything and anything to stay in power, which is too dangerous for my eyes. The national holiday in Iraq was his birthday, for heavans sake get rid of this blasphemy.

K.Snyder wrote: would you have asked this in '90. Suddam invaded Kuwait, what makes you think he wouldnt have done it again?? Suddams regime was based entirly on his bank account, while leaving his people hungary. he would have done everything and anything to stay in power, which is too dangerous for my eyes. The national holiday in Iraq was his birthday, for heavans sake get rid of this blasphemy.The way to maintain a dictator in power it to attack him externally. The way a dictator in power maintains his hold on a nation is to invent external aggression if none exists. Any number of dictators have been taken down by internal processes, so long as their internal competitors have been able to mount such a process. To do that they need quiet borders. It can be reasonably argued that the external sanctions during the ten years following Gulf 1 were what kept the Iraqi President in power, by preventing internal opposition.

Do you think that Iraq, as a client state of the USA through the 1980s, would have invaded Kuwait had it not thought that the USA had declared indifference to the re-adsorption of the renagade Iraqi province (which was always historically Iraq's claimed position regarding Kuwait)? I've always seen Gulf 1 and "this shall not stand" as a perfect instance of the US shimmy, getting what they want by misleading and backstabbing their pawns. What's that word Anthony Price uses in his novels about David Audley, denoting a clever piece of cynical misdirection? That was the first shot at a naked "New World Order" permanent occupation of the Middle East by US forces, and they've been there ever since.

spot wrote: The way to maintain a dictator in power it to attack him externally. The way a dictator in power maintains his hold on a nation is to invent external aggression if none exists. Any number of dictators have been taken down by internal processes, so long as their internal competitors have been able to mount such a process. To do that they need quiet borders. It can be reasonably argued that the external sanctions during the ten years following Gulf 1 were what kept the Iraqi President in power, by preventing internal opposition.

Do you think that Iraq, as a client state of the USA through the 1980s, would have invaded Kuwait had it not thought that the USA had declared indifference to the re-adsorption of the renagade Iraqi province (which was always historically Iraq's claimed position regarding Kuwait)? I've always seen Gulf 1 and "this shall not stand" as a perfect instance of the US shimmy, getting what they want by misleading and backstabbing their pawns. What's that word Anthony Price uses in his novels about David Audley, denoting a clever piece of cynical misdirection? That was the first shot at a naked "New World Order" permanent occupation of the Middle East by US forces, and they've been there ever since.


I dont entirly agree with this.

Suddam bribed his hold on his power from within the regime didnt he?

Are you justifying Iraq attacking Kuwait, by the theory of the USA's attempt to overthrow Suddams regime internally, knowing that such aggression may lead to what exactly did happen, which was American(others) intervention?

What you have said about Suddam creating opposition to stay faithfull to him as a leader, further illustrates the need for Suddam to be exiled. Chopping heads off doesnt help either.

spot wrote: Any number of dictators have been taken down by internal processes, so long as their internal competitors have been able to mount such a process.


And it is evident that the Iraqi rebells couldnt mount a camel, compared to the money Suddam has/had.

I suppose your theory of world peace is that of handing everyone a nuclear bomb, as a means of intimidation? Which in the history of warfare has always proved to be the provocation of warfare itself. Am I wrong?

K.Snyder wrote: I suppose your theory of world peace is that of handing everyone a nuclear bomb, as a means of intimidation? Which in the history of warfare has always proved to be the provocation of warfare itself. Am I wrong?It's very easy to test for yourself whether you're right or wrong. Name any country that has declared war on a nuclear state. There's a special case of Pakistan and India where clashes take place on the disputed territory of Kashmir, but neither endangers the existence of the other, they merely go through fairly formal motions - there's nothing "total" about their notion of warfare. They have a rather more civilized form which equates to von Clausewitz's older notion of "the continuation of policy by other means". Where has any state joining the nuclear-armed club ever, much less always, provoked an attack? It has, on the contrary, invariably become a deterrent to attack, which has been my thesis here since we started.

spot wrote: Where has any state joining the nuclear-armed club ever, much less always, provoked an attack? It has, on the contrary, invariably become a deterrent to attack, which has been my thesis here since we started.


As of now maybe so, but your comparing the history of man and his obvious readiness to go to war over thousands of years, with that of a measly 50+ years since the evolution of the atomic bomb. Not to mention that these other countries are just now discovering nuclear innovation(without the help of greedy countries selling there own technologies to them).

you can trust everyone with the power to destroy the world, but I wont.

K.Snyder wrote: you can trust everyone with the power to destroy the world, but I wont.Look at your words and try to think. A dozen nuclear bombs don't destroy the world. In my opinion they don't even destroy a country, but that's arguable and I'm not pushing it - I might point out that I'm a trained ex-member of the UK Civil Defence force, in passing, and I don't think I'm talking through my hat. Nobody has extrapolated a position from which Iran could produce more nuclear bombs than that in the next generation. The rough feel for the figures is that if they take their current power-generating program, which requires just the degree of enrichment that they're currently employing, and they extend it into weapons-grade enrichment, which nobody has accused them of doing, they might have a single nuclear device in around ten years, and additional warheads at the rate of perhaps one a year thereafter. This is not a just cause for war. It may be an excuse for the USA to lower the nuclear threshold for a low-yield tactical first strike, which I suspect the White House is desperate to engage in while it's still in office, but it's not a just cause for war.

Can you not see that your hyperbole of "trust everyone with the power to destroy the world" makes meaningful conversation on this topic hard work?

spot wrote: Look at your words and try to think. A dozen nuclear bombs don't destroy the world. In my opinion they don't even destroy a country, but that's arguable and I'm not pushing it - I might point out that I'm a trained ex-member of the UK Civil Defence force, in passing, and I don't think I'm talking through my hat. Nobody has extrapolated a position from which Iran could produce more nuclear bombs than that in the next generation. The rough feel for the figures is that if they take their current power-generating program, which requires just the degree of enrichment that they're currently employing, and they extend it into weapons-grade enrichment, which nobody has accused them of doing, they might have a single nuclear device in around ten years, and additional warheads at the rate of perhaps one a year thereafter. This is not a just cause for war. It may be an excuse for the USA to lower the nuclear threshold for a low-yield tactical first strike, which I suspect the White House is desperate to engage in while it's still in office, but it's not a just cause for war.

Can you not see that your hyperbole of "trust everyone with the power to destroy the world" makes meaningful conversation on this topic hard work?


May be exaggeration, but I do know one thing. Anyone willing to venture in producing a nuclear bomb is not going to stop at just one. Are you familiar with Lays potato chips?

Even one nuclear bomb hit in the right place will be devastating no matter where it is. And given the history of a few bad dictators(leaders) whatever, the risk goes up that much higher in accordance with the number of newly formed nuclear states.

K.Snyder wrote: May be exaggeration, but I do know one thing. Anyone willing to venture in producing a nuclear bomb is not going to stop at just one. Are you familiar with Lays potato chips?

Even one nuclear bomb hit in the right place will be devastating no matter where it is. And given the history of a few bad dictators(leaders) whatever, the risk goes up that much higher in accordance with the number of newly formed nuclear states.Very good, we're getting somewhere. Now, can we have a shot at that sleaze-word "dictator", please? Not only is the current Iranian President the genuine peoples' choice, he's an extremist because the people wanted an extremist this time. They wanted one as a reaction to the rhetoric of the US leadership and the sudden presence on their borders of far more ordinance than might be thought courteous. This man is not a dictator, you're using words to generate an emotive response. I don't mind you doing that if you do it accurately and honestly, but I dislike hyperbolic rhetorical inexactitude.

spot wrote: Very good, we're getting somewhere. Now, can we have a shot at that sleaze-word "dictator", please? Not only is the current Iranian President the genuine peoples' choice, he's an extremist because the people wanted an extremist this time. They wanted one as a reaction to the rhetoric of the US leadership and the sudden presence on their borders of far more ordinance than might be thought courteous. This man is not a dictator, you're using words to generate an emotive response. I don't mind you doing that if you do it accurately and honestly, but I dislike hyperbolic rhetorical inexactitude.


I was making a point. I didnt at anytime associate the Iranian leader as being a dictator. Im talking about not letting insane, imorale people have complete control over any nuclear weapon, be it one ore 10,000.

And who is expendable when someone does leash a nuclear unjust attack??

spot wrote: This man is not a dictator, you're using words to generate an emotive response. I don't mind you doing that if you do it accurately and honestly, but I dislike hyperbolic rhetorical inexactitude.


Dont bore me to death with your political correctness.

K.Snyder wrote: Dont bore me to death with your political correctness.What the **** was politically correct about a single word of what you complained about? If you want me to call you a bastard liar from hell then say so, but I prefer to be polite.

K.Snyder wrote: I was making a point. I didnt at anytime associate the Iranian leader as being a dictator. Im talking about not letting insane, imorale people have complete control over any nuclear weapon, be it one ore 10,000.Too late, that bunch of quack merchants in the White House have all the clout in the world, and only a few die-hard radicals in the Pentagon defending what's left of civilized values. Insane? That's a broad word. Immoral? And how!

As for "I didnt at anytime associate the Iranian leader as being a dictator" - what else does "And given the history of a few bad dictators(leaders) whatever, the risk goes up that much higher in accordance with the number of newly formed nuclear states" mean in the context of the thread title?

spot wrote: Too late, that bunch of quack merchants in the White House have all the clout in the world, and only a few die-hard radicals in the Pentagon defending what's left of civilized values. Insane? That's a broad word. Immoral? And how!

As for "I didnt at anytime associate the Iranian leader as being a dictator" - what else does "And given the history of a few bad dictators(leaders) whatever, the risk goes up that much higher in accordance with the number of newly formed nuclear states" mean in the context of the thread title?


So you have no problem with allowing a country that for the last 20 years been suspected of supporting terrorist attacks through-out the world is that it???

Im talking about if you allow one, then all will want to develop nuclear weapons, or buy them from Russia, and you see no problem in this??

Absurd.

spot wrote: What the **** was politically correct about a single word of what you complained about? If you want me to call you a bastard liar from hell then say so, but I prefer to be polite.


I said Dictator Leader or whatever. I wasnt stereotyping one.

How am I a liar?

If you want me to call you a terrorist I will, but I prefer to not be stereotypical.

K.Snyder wrote: So you have no problem with allowing a country that for the last 20 years been suspected of supporting terrorist attacks through-out the world is that it???

Im talking about if you allow one, then all will want to develop nuclear weapons, or buy them from Russia, and you see no problem in this??

Absurd.Not at all. The US has sponsored state terrorism on a greater scale, over more countries, than anyone else in history. Iran is a minor irritant by comparison.

It isn't a question of "allow", even. I'd distribute them free, four per nation state, with indefinite maintenance. I'd sleep a lot safer knowing that no invasions were being contemplated any longer.

Why is that more absurd than watching hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians die in order that a bloated USA can project power beyond its own continental jurisdiction, in order to enforce its capitalist notions of "free trade" on other countries?

K.Snyder wrote: I said Dictator Leader or whatever. I wasnt stereotyping one.

How am I a liar?

If you want me to call you a terrorist I will, but I prefer to not be stereotypical.The "hyperbolic rhetorical inexactitude" related specifically - do go and check the context - to your calling the Iranian President a dictator. I was fishing for an appropriate way of disagreeing with you.

I'm sure you can call me a terrorist, it's a label that fits anyone so long as you also get to choose how the word's defined. There must be a way of defining the word so that I fit the picture. We've been watching your current administration writhe on the wording for years now, and it's still rather amorphous.

spot wrote: Not at all. The US has sponsored state terrorism on a greater scale, over more countries, than anyone else in history. Iran is a minor irritant by comparison.




Care to elaborate?

spot wrote:

It isn't a question of "allow", even. I'd distribute them free, four per nation state, with indefinite maintenance. I'd sleep a lot safer knowing that no invasions were being contemplated any longer.




This is preposterous.

Wake Hitler up he will be ecstatic.

spot wrote:

Why is that more absurd than watching hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians die in order that a bloated USA can project power beyond its own continental jurisdiction, in order to enforce its capitalist notions of "free trade" on other countries?


Is the Iraqi-Iranian war a figment of my imagination or did they not kill a million people with biological war fare for a measly river?

K.Snyder wrote: Is the Iraqi-Iranian war a figment of my imagination or did they not kill a million people with biological war fare for a measly river?Of course they didn't, you uninformed person. And at the very least go and look up who started it!

K.Snyder wrote: Care to elaborate?Nicaragua, that'll do for a start. If we exhaust the topic of US state-sponsored terrorism vis-a-vis Nicaragua, we can move on across the globe a country at a time.

spot wrote: Of course they didn't, you uninformed person. And at the very least go and look up who started it!


Found this interesting tid-bit here http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... niraq.html.

spot wrote: Nicaragua, that'll do for a start. If we exhaust the topic of US state-sponsored terrorism vis-a-vis Nicaragua, we can move on across the globe a country at a time.


Are you saying that America is the real "evil of the world".

If this is evil I cant wait to go to hell.