Communism Discussion

[F15pilotX 4]

And before it even comes up, the US obviously has no intentions of conquering the world with the threat of nukes :roll:

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Yes thank you.

 

Alphabear - you say there is no point to having the tech if it wont be used....so WHY the bloody hell would we let Iran develop them if there is "no point" in having them except to use? It is justifiable. I dont think you understand that a nuclear bunkerbuster is nothing more than the nuclear concept being applied to conventional weaponry. A nuclear bunkerbuster wont blast apart a city, it will bust through hardened defenses and completley annihilate the target beneath. Hence the term "bunkerbuster". City busters are what US and the USSR developed to keep each other in check. Those are the giant nukes that movies love to have in them.

 

Iran has openly stated that they will wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Now if you dont see that as a threat, please die. If you do percieve it as a threat, then wake up. They want nukes. They want to comitt genoiced. 2 and 2 makes 4, right?

 

We can and we WILL stop them if they do acquire nuclear weapons. Why are we justified in having them? Because we are the ones out there doing the dirty work, and the US has never been one to let its enemies gain more military or economic strength than herself for very long.

[Alphabear 11]

It doesnt matter what their target is, it is a nuclear device used aggressivly against another nation. While it certainly may be a valid target, the world isnt going to like it. I never said Iran should be allowed to develop nukes, its the method of removing them that is going to cause trouble

[Guest Rabbit]

Well, it's not like we're just going to nuke them as soon as they have a nuke. We're going to be getting it out by other means. Our nuclear weapons are primarily, and I express this fully, primarily for defence. Bunker buster nukes are even for defence, because they destroy the bunkers that could destroy us.

 

Even if people have nukes, they are still smart. We know what could happen with them. Now, Iran wants to pretty much cause another Hiroshima on Israel, but it's not like we're going to use nuclear weapons to blow them off the face of the earth first. We're going to disable them. Only reason we have the true big nuclear weapons is the same reason BWare treaded over: to look flashy. To look powerful. And, for defence. We sure as hell know we aren't going to use them, except in a LAST case resort. But, if someone has them, we have them. No questions asked.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

And if we let one radical Islamic nation get nukes, they will all want them. Then Israel will want more to hold them back. And if Iran uses even just one nuke, the US will get the blame for not stoping them in time. But if we do preemptive strike them and destroy their nuclear weapons, they will cry out to the UN saying that we unprovoked attacked them and the UN will blame us for nuclear agression and then we would never hear the end of it.

 

Keep in mind that any Democrap or Republicant president will probably be afriad of the said situation and they wont stop Iran until it is too late. Then of course, with Jerusalem (or another Israeli city) a melted hulk, we would retaliate in full, wiping out every last one of Iran's military instilations (and probably a few cities just for good measure) and voila! WWIII, with nukes.

[BWare 0]

Cygnus, we can only pray that we don't get a completely weak, loser president like Bill Clinton. His refusal to make a fuss and hurt his own image led to the attacks on 9/11, attacks that could have been pretty easily prevented.

 

Our current situation DOES suck. As the only benevolent world power in history, we are in a VERY unique position. You understand the dilemma very well. Do we act preemptively and look like "war-mongers", or, in typical liberal fashion, wait until we're hit hard and THEN grow a pair and make our move, and come across as weak? I really think that the problem here lies with our concern over what the "world" thinks. Historically, America has NEVER been as obsessed with our global image as we are now. It's that damn liberal mentality that's been doing its subtle work over the last few decades in America and Europe. If we tip-toe around these very real issues, then we're doomed to suffer at the hands of those evil Islamo-fascists who DON'T think before acting. Frankly, I don't see much hope in our breaking this trend and doing what needs to be done. I really truly hope I'm wrong, but I have a very bad feeling about it.

 

George Bush has been in some ways a good, traditional, STRONG American leader. He doesn't sense trends in popularity and put his finger to the wind, and he doesn't lose sleep over what some European elitists think about America. He does what he believes is the RIGHT thing to do, the feelings of others be damned.

 

God help us if we don't get a president in '08 who feels the same way. God help the planet!

[Acerz492 1]

God help us if we don't get a president in '08 who feels the same way. God help the planet!

 

/agree. Who are the next candidates for the presidentual election anyways? Or is it too early to tell? I've been outta the loop for a damn while.

[Saracen 16]

Ms Rice would make an excellent president. Although there has never been a female or black president in the running, I believe the US people should drop their sterotypical views on the matter and go for this woman if she runs for office! The world has seen what Margaret Thatcher did for the UK. She was hardline, direct, and damn confident in this country's ability to stand up for anything that opposed the UK. And so, she is marked as perhaps one of our best Premiers this country has ever had.

 

The US should follow this example. Hell if Ms Rice does get into power she'd be one who'd march right into Pakistan herself with sleves rolled up, and personally give Bin Laden a kick in the groin. Gotta love a woman scorned.

[BWare 0]

Although there has never been a female or black president in the running, I believe the US people should drop their sterotypical views on the matter and go for this woman if she runs for office!

Don't be a fool king. Why is it that you assume that "stereotypical views" are what have kept our leaders men?

You may not have even meant it that way, but your insinuation here is very insulting and false.

 

The world has seen what Margaret Thatcher did for the UK. She was hardline, direct, and damn confident in this country's ability to stand up for anything that opposed the UK. And so, she is marked as perhaps one of our best Premiers this country has ever had.

You know, I COULD make a very below-the-belt joke about British masculinity and the fact that your greatest leader was a woman, but I won't go there .

(Plus you have to take into consideration Winston Churchill, one of the greatest leaders in his time :wink:)

 

The US should follow this example. Hell if Ms Rice does get into power she'd be one who'd march right into Pakistan herself with sleves rolled up, and personally give Bin Laden a kick in the groin. Gotta love a woman scorned.

True enough. She has some great potential, no question. I don't think that she has any serious aspirations for the presidency though.

[Alphabear 11]

Plus you have to take into consideration Winston Churchill, one of the greatest leaders in his time :wink:

 

I would go as far to say of all time

[BWare 0]

True enough. The guy was an incredible leader.

[F15pilotX 4]

True enough. She has some great potential, no question. I don't think that she has any serious aspirations for the presidency though.

which is really too bad

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Aside from her though, all other possible candidates that I've heard about are full of Democrap and Republicant. And seeing as how my first voting experience will be one of the most important presidential elections of the US in global history (WWIII looming, ect) I'm actually appalled at how childish Congress has become. For example, did you know that they are refusing to allow the USAF to retire old aircraft just so jobs can be kept, even though overall the USAF is loosing over 6 Billion USD just in maintaining old transports and tankers that arent even flight certified anymore. This petty bickering has led to the creation of pretty shiitty leaders. Aside from Rice and perhaps a few of the military types (yeah, the ones who have their priorities straight) there really arent any good candiates.

 

God save the Queen, King, Pope, and everyone else while he's at it. We're gona need it. Really really bad.

[F15pilotX 4]

How about the US

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Hence the Everyone else part.

 

I still stand with George W. on this one.

 

"Stay away from party politics" - George Washington's last words to the US as its first president.

[F15pilotX 4]

Hence the Everyone else part.

 

I still stand with George W. on this one.

 

"Stay away from party politics" - George Washington's last words to the US as its first president.

Well, that'll never happen now :?

 

And so, the US follows the path of Rome, and Carthage before Rome

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Not Carthage. They were obliterated from the outside. By Rome in fact.

 

Of course, we will probably go the same way Rome did, to corruption and mindless powerstruggles.

 

Then again, if all of that can be changed, there lies much hope in the future.

[BWare 0]

A factor that you may not be considering is nuclear weapons. They are to world warfare what the gun was to small scale warfare. They're effectively sealing off the borders of the larger, more influential countries. I frankly don't see anything changing for a LONG time. The status quo seems to have been pretty much cemented. After all, we've got our finger on the red button!

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Yes, but pressing it would seal not only military, but political doom as well. In essence, the end.(and why does my post count keep getting reduced?)

[Alphabear 11]

A factor that you may not be considering is nuclear weapons. They are to world warfare what the gun was to small scale warfare. They're effectively sealing off the borders of the larger, more influential countries. I frankly don't see anything changing for a LONG time. The status quo seems to have been pretty much cemented. After all, we've got our finger on the red button!

 

And you wonder why the rest of the world doesnt like the US using nukes.

[BWare 0]

NO alphabear. You keep missing the point dude! It's really something.

 

No, my point is that the advent of nuclear weapons has forever changed the workings of international politics. This goes for all countries, and it isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing. It's JUST an observation.

 

How is it that you can turn anything we bring up into an anti-US statement? :?

[Alphabear 11]

allow me to quote again, more specific this time

After all, we've got our finger on the red button!

[BWare 0]

That wasn't meant SPECIFICALLY about the US.... :roll:

 

We aren't the only country with nukes, alphabear.

[Alphabear 11]

Maybe its just me but i dont like the idea of the US destroying the world in the event that it looks like it will lose a war. I do know other nation have nukes but they still dont joke about their finger being on the red button like th US. Its a line i have heard many a time.

[BWare 0]

:roll:

 

The naivety and flagrant anti-Americanism here is almost too much. Apparently alpha here thinks that the US is just a step away from nuking the planet to death. I use a popular phrase, and this is what he draws from it. Wow.

 

Here's my point. Hopefully the unthinking alarmists (like alpha) will actually understand it this time around:

Other nations will not be NEARLY as aggressive towards other nations now for fear of their nuclear arsenals. This fear has cemented the borders where they are. In a worst case scenario, let's say Russia gets invaded by China (I won't use America as an example, because alpha can't seem to see through his anti-Americanism). Russia would likely start nuking Chinese cities until they drove them out. In the past, they would have probably lost some territory. THAT'S what I'm talking about. I said nothing about America feeling the need to nuke other nations. I simply pointed out the fear that other nations have about that possibility. GET IT?