Warmonger Thread

page: 1
65
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+44 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
This is in response to the thread by Rigel4 (apparently it has been removed)

I am not a warmonger but that is the title given to everybody who supports removing threats in the world. Having enough sense to remove a threat before it hurts you makes perfect sense to me. I do NOT believe in destroying Iran, nuking Iran, killing Iranian civilians or destroying Iran's infrastructure. I DO want its nuclear program wiped out completely and its future nuclear activities monitored. I would be very happy if they would simply comply now and war could be avoided. As long as they don't get nuclear weapons I'll be happy....but that makes me a warmonger to some.


People who support Iran typically only do so because they hate America and the west. These people will support ANYTHING that goes against America, so why would supporting Iran be any different. The reasons I often hear in defense of Iran are: America kills people indiscriminately, America only fights wars for oil, America should mind its own business (as if nuclear threat isn’t our business), Iran has never started a war with any country, Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because America does, Iran is a peaceful nation, Iran would never use a nuke even if they had one, Iran just wants nuclear energy (which is why they’re building reactors underground), etc, etc.
Really??


Anyone who believes the world should reject Iran’s pursuit for nuclear weapons should explain why they feel that way here on this thread.

I’ll go first…..

Iran’s leaders want DEATH TO AMERICA. I don’t care what justification you give for the statements made by Ahmadinejad and other fanatical nutjob leaders in Iran. This type of rhetoric is fine, but I don’t want bozos like this with nuclear weapons. Shame on me for having common sense.



People who celebrate DEATH TO AMERICA DAY should not possess a nuclear weapon. Period!



Any country whose leader (Ali Khamenei in this case) encourages people to say DEATH TO AMERICA so they “will never forget the presence of SATAN” (which he believes is US) should not have a nuclear weapon.



Any country whose leaders are proposing a new law that could see the death sentence imposed on internet bloggers who post offensive material on the web should not have a nuclear weapon.



Any country whose leader threatens to wipe an entire race of people off the planet should not have nuclear weapons.



A country whose leaders use cartoons to teach children to become suicide bombers should not have nuclear weapons.



Incoming nasty comments or dead silence (sound of crickets chirping) starts in 3 …….. 2 ………. 1 ……….GO!
edit on 16-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



+44 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 
He said/she said. As far as I'm concerned, Israel's intelligence experts are correct when saying Iran wants the bomb at most as a deterrent against us.

Given that we've been tinkering in their affairs all the way back to '53 and their main gripe with Israel is a political grudge over the (disputed) treatment of the 'palestinians', I'm willing to say their claims of us as the Great Satan and the Little Satan are understandable, and given less belligerent speech coming from us as has been for quite awhile now, they'd simmer down and eventually come to terms with the palestinian situation.

However, us continuing to take more and more aggressive stances will only exacerbate the situation and make them entirely more likely to actually do something that would otherwise be avoided - we are enforcing a self-fulfilling prophecy, in other words.

Long story short - everyone needs to just cool down, stop giving everyone else a hard time, and stay out of everyone else's business while keeping a wary eye on things to be mindful of any ACTUAL threats without actually causing them.

Just my opinion, but most of the intelligence experts both here and there - that I'm aware of, anyway - seem to validate it.

EDIT:
I won't bother at the current time getting in to all the reasons we also shouldn't have the bomb - or such a ridiculous military capacity and reach - or discussing all the bad things in our own history and current standing...I'm tired and tired of it.

Take care, Seabag. Do appreciate your input, but I think there are all too many pieces of the puzzle either in the dark or so obfuscated and otherwise not considered so as to leave us fumbling effectively blinding in this matter, generally.
edit on 1/16/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
No particularly nasty comments from me on this...I tend to agree with the sentiment, although I cannot see how one can happen without the other in consequences to the civilian populations of all nations involved.

Oh... I'd also note that Achma-goober never said that. I put over an hour into making a whole thread to try and support how he'd said it about Israel being wiped off the map. I chose not to finish that effort since it just highlighted my own bad assumptions.....but it's a quote of a quote of Khomeini and the translation is shaky at best to come out that way...
The actual words in Farsi don't translate close, honestly. Oh well....

I want Iran's nuclear program Erased.....as you do. If Stuxnet and targeted assassination is how to do it, that works. Militarily doing it is patently absurd though..and we're in for a misadventure to end them all if it keeps going.

I hadn't realized just HOW absurd this is until I spent some real time on Google Earth last night using the ruler tool to check distances. Just distances...but that alone makes for an absurd set of problems. That nation is *ENORMOUS* compared to anywhere the U.S. has been before. It's roughly 800 miles or more across in almost any direction. Our mainline fighters (The F-15 is the major exception) have combat ranges of 400 miles total...and Tehran is actually wayyyy up and away from the convenient and nearby borders to go from.

There is nothing easy or even realistic about this idea without 1990 levels of military force to do it with and we literally....as a physical reality...do NOT have that level of military power anymore.


Oh..and Obama wants more cuts, of course. It's time to come home...and just assassinate the jerks we want gone. No more wars.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Star for you. Thanks for being brave and touching this thread!!


Things cooled down significantly when Bush left office and guess what? Iran is closer to nuclear weapons now than it ever has been.

I'm afraid this isn't one of those issues that you can ignore and it will go away. Obama tried.....it didn't work.
edit on 16-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Praetorius
 
Star for you. Thanks for being brave and touching this thread!!


Things cooled down significantly when Bush left office and guess what? Iran is closer to nuclear weapons now than they it ever has been.

I'm afraid this isn't one of those issues that you can ignore and it will go away. Obama tried.....it didn't work.

Fear profits man nothing, either in thread postings or action in the world. *weary smile*

I suppose you could make that argument, but before leaving office, Bush also told Israel to take no action on Iran - and we seem to have ramped the rhetoric up since he left - and Iran's proximity to the bomb is debatable anyway, especially as we keep hearing word from Panetta and others, including our energy analysts who say Iran's developments are of no military significance, and the IAEA who can only give a "this is possible" determination.

Regardless, none of that changes the intelligence consensus, which seems to be that military posturing and aggression will only make things worse, and that Iran is merely seeking insurance - not attack capability. This is probably one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree on, but I think the weight of the unbiased experts is on my side.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
This type of "Live and let Live" thinking may have been suitable 200 yrs ago.

Now, we have weapons that surely could obliterate whole countries in hours. All it takes is the right combination of rich and crazy to completely destroy the planet.

What do you think would happen if two countries just started hurling nuclear missiles at each other? I don't know. But I do know it would be pretty horrible for the entire planet.

In my opinion, this tech should have never existed. Its too late for that now. Left unchecked, it could destroy us all.

edit on 16-1-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



There is nothing easy or even realistic about this idea without 1990 levels of military force to do it with and we literally....as a physical reality...do NOT have that level of military power anymore.


It can be done but at what cost? I hope it doesn’t happen.


Oh..and Obama wants more cuts, of course. It's time to come home...and just assassinate the jerks we want gone. No more wars.


I think the covert option is well underway. I don’t want full scale war with anyone. I’m just fed up with all of this “let them have nukes” BS. Just as there are certain individuals in American society deemed too dangerous to own a firearm, Iran is too dangerous to possess a nuclear weapon IMO. I hope we can achieve that peacefully…but it does need to be achieved, and thinking that doesn’t make one a WARMONGER.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
Wrabbit, I'm tempted to give you kudos for this post for a few reasons, but I don't want to encourage some of your statements I can't support


Thanks for admitting on the assumptions regarding the "wiped off the map" thing, and I'd just like to ask that you also look at what may be assumptions or lack of complete information on the rest as well. Take care, friend, and thanks for all your input here even if I can't agree with all of it.


+50 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Given the language, and intent of the Second Amendment, it is perfectly clear that all People are protected in The United States from any government interference in their right to keep and bear arms. This would include, given the vast nuclear arsenal the federal government of the United States has stockpiled, the right of every individual to keep and bear nuclear weapons.

Sound insane? You bet it does, but let's not pretend for a single second that it is any saner for the U.S. federal government to determine that the Founders never meant nuclear weapons, and only they get to keep and use them. If the ordinary and average Joe cannot keep nuclear weapons then logically, neither can the government these ordinary and average Jane's and Joe's ordained.

The acronym MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is no accidental acronym, and this whole pathetic dog and pony show that insists that the U.S. only want to protect the world from imprudent nuclear war is absolute MADNESS!

There is no courage or bravery in stockpiling the largest cache of nuclear weapons in the world. Real courage and bravery will only be evident when the United States finally accepts their responsibility for opening this goddamned Pandora's box and putting an end to their own nuclear arsenal first, then, and only then, will any war rhetoric about Iran's nuclear ambitions have any weight and moral force.

edit on 16-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
legitimate pre-emptive strike is fine, but the means to do so requires intel and thats where, in a free society, the slow and inevitable downfall into tyranny takes place. they are either looking for non-existant targets or mistakingly creating them


+28 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Perhaps if the US had kept to itself instead of messing with other sovereign states you could take the moral high ground.

But the fact remains that in these disputes, the initial aggressor was the US.

I agree with you (partly), in that I don't want nut-jobs with nukes but they already have them, have used them in anger (no other country has) and are threatening everyone else left-right-and-center.

As a white, anglo-saxon citizen of another country (one allied with the US as well) I don't feel threatened by anyone in the Middle East half as much as I feel threatened by the dangers of the US nuclear weapons stockpile.

Your country holds the keys to the destruction of the world and has shown irresponsibility in use of that power.

Please think about that.



edit on 16/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I agree 100%. If Iran wanted a peaceful nuke program why do they refuse let the IAEA into many sites that are supposedly just for low grade enrichment. Also, the Russians gave them the Uranium for their peaceful reactor. Why do they need more? From an underground bunker site at that.

The leaders of Iran are just plain Bat Shat Crazy and I hope they are crushed soon before all hell breaks out in the mid-east.


+9 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I believe wholeheartedly in nonaggression, but deplore the idea of nonviolence. To put it more simply, I don't pick fights, but I have no problem finishing them. If only countries like the United States thought the same way, we wouldn't have lost thousands of soldiers and killed millions of civilians in preemptive wars based on falsehoods. I'm not antiwar, I'm anti-aggression. If you are pro-aggression, then you are a warmonger.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Given the language, and intent of the Second Amendment, it is perfectly clear that all People are protected in The United States from any government interference in their right to keep and bear arms. This would include, given the vast nuclear arsenal the federal government of the United States has stockpiled, the right of every individual to keep and bear nuclear weapons.



Source???



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
This is in response to the thread by Rigel4 (apparently it has been removed)


People who support Iran typically only do so because they hate America and the west. These people will support ANYTHING that goes against America

edit on 16-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)


sheeple, they make the title human weep


+16 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Given the language, and intent of the Second Amendment, it is perfectly clear that all People are protected in The United States from any government interference in their right to keep and bear arms. This would include, given the vast nuclear arsenal the federal government of the United States has stockpiled, the right of every individual to keep and bear nuclear weapons.



Source???


Dear Lord! Have you no idea how to Google the Second Amendment? For Christ's sakes how loony will this all get?


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


~Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the United States of America~

There's your source, Bub. Of course, if you cannot be bothered to look that up yourself, it is doubtful you will bother to read it now.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Please take 3 minutes of your time to watch this (everyone). It’s timeless and means as much to me today as the day it was delivered. We shouldn’t allow countries who want us dead to possess the means to kill us. For those countries that already possess those means, we should not allow them to be stronger than us.

It’s not about war….it’s about peace through strength…..it’s about diplomacy….it’s about stopping threats to our security by any and every means. I was taught to pray for the best and prepare for the worst and that is what I’ll do. I hope Iran will see the light. Iran is not threatened therefore they don’t need the protection of MAD. Besides, MAD has no affect on those who consider martyrdom the highest honor.




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I totally agree with everything you just stated.

Israel and the U.S. are far from perfect, but they don't going around making obscene verbal threats that Iran's leaders do. I've also noticed that the language, name calling, and attitude in general coming from the die hard Iran supporters sound like they came straight out of Ahmadinejad's mouth too.

I feel sorry for Iran's youth. As I read stories today from Fars News Agency that thousands of students are now committed to Iran's nuclear program and 300 of them have even switched their studies over to nuclear technology in solidarity for the recently assassinated scientist. Either they're all brainwashed into being suicidal or Iran is spewing so much propaganda that the youths will never have any idea what the word "truth" means. Either way, it's a sad, sad situation for them.

I hope the youth are able to make a difference over there and have a fighting chance for a future for themselves and their country. Unfortunately, for them, the Israel/Palestine issue will never go away, but they have to change their leaders violent "resistance" mindset into a peaceful one for them to ever have, what we would consider, a normal happy life.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
edit on 16-1-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You majorly underestimate the United States military. The only reason Iraq blew up in the beginning is Turkey would not let the 4th Infantry division rush Baghdad from the north.
The people of Iraq probably wouldn't have looted the place if the 4th had been in the city as well.

Besides, we will not even try to Invade Iran. We may take some land around to straights to keep them from taking pop shots at oil tankers but Tehran is surrounded by huge mountains.

Every American General has said over and over a land invasion is off the cards because we would have to drop in our airborne divisions and pray they can be resupplied in time.

It will only be a air and sea battle. Unless Iran is dumb enough to try and invade Iraq. Then the Iranian army units would be slaughtered.





new topics

top topics



 
65
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join