Communism Discussion

[Alphabear 11]

same would happen if china looked like it would win.

[TheBlackOut 7]

same would happen if china looked like it would win.

 

Too bad it wouldn't.. And we have a policy... No nukey unless nuked...

 

China I think reversed that and they can make strikes first. I think.. Maybe it got rejected, but I heard bout it on Wikipedia or something.

[Alphabear 11]

same would happen if china looked like it would win.

 

Too bad it wouldn't.. And we have a policy... No nukey unless nuked...

 

China I think reversed that and they can make strikes first. I think.. Maybe it got rejected, but I heard bout it on Wikipedia or something.

 

it wouldnt take them long to change such a policy considering that they were thinking of using nukes on iran

[BWare 0]

King, that was an excellent response to this guy who obviously has NO idea how capitalism works, or why it succeeds so brilliantly. Allow me to expand on a couple points...

it is a way of showing your democracy? funny. that's a way of showing the corruption of capitalism. you must see movies by Charlie Chaplin.in 'Modern Times' you think the crazy worker is just funny? machines made those guys lose their jobs. and don't forget it's in US' date=' a capitalism country. and in 'Monsieur Verdoux' do you think he was praising the capitalism? no, he's showing the corruption of capitalism.you may say it's widely criticized,but isn't that the real life people have during Great Depression?[/quote']You're ACTUALLY citing a CHARLIE CHAPLIN movie to decry the evils of capitalism?? Holy hell dude. Let me just say this- despite the turbulent nature of capitalism at times (but try pointing out anything in the last FIFTY years), we still don't squash contrary thinking, arrest at random, terrorize our people, FORCE abortions and brutal populatin control on our people, or slaughter "criminals" by the millions. Those evils are reserved for your country my friend.

 

And you say capitalism is more evil. You sir are a moron.

 

come on you dude. is that a war for peace?

Yes. The evil and incredibly dangerous Butcher of Baghdad is now behind bars. Done.

 

well the US want to liberate Iraq? well your army may come to china' date=' kill the corrupt communism government and liberate chinese peolpe, why not ?[/quote']Good question!

 

oh yep it's not deserved to do so. why? cos china don't have much oil the Iraq have.

You moron' date=' stop reading off the American Democratic talking points. It's just embarrassing. We have had NO benefit, oil wise, from invading Iraq. That's what the anti-war morons have been saying for years, but they've quiteted down lately because it is JUST NOT TRUE. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. :roll:

 

why they want to 'liberate' Iraq? save people in such third world country? come on, save the dying blacks and Indians in your own country.

You stupid son of a... okay, this really upsets me. What "dying" blacks and indians?? This is incredibly insulting. As your country terrorizes, kills, tortures, and imprisons its own people, you accuse MY country of allowing "blacks and indians" to die? What the hell is your reason for this?? You had better have a damn good answer.

 

save the children who suffer from AIDS and lacking of food and water in Africa.

We've been sending billions annually for that very reason (what has communism been doing for them? :roll:). We don't get directly involved because Africa is a chaotic and corrupt hell hole with no end in sight. Also' date=' you've missed the point entirely (big surprise). The only reason we'd invade a country is if it posed a threat to us. Africa only poses a threat to itself. Are you actually suggesting that we invade and overthrow the governments of AFRICA?

 

and there's a organization called UN. isn't it their duty to bring the world peace?

Yes. But they suck at it. The UN is possibly the most bloated, inefficient, useless and CORRUPT organization on the face of the earth. It takes leaders like the US to actually get anything done and ENFORCE their pathetic resolutions.

 

you want the Iraq liberated? simple. sit there and wait. the citizens in their countries know what they want. they will kill the gov if they don't like it. if they cannot the UN may have some actions. and there's nothing to do with the US.

After 9/11' date=' we realized that we can no longer sit and wait for threats to materialize. Saddam was a rogue psycopath with terrorist connections and WMD (YES HE HAD THEM), and we simply couldn't let him ignore the UN sanctions (see? They weren't doing their job) and defy the weapons inspectors any longer. He had the people completely and horribly oppressed. There was no way that they could overthrow him, but luckily we were there to lend a helping hand. This kind of thing is not unprecedented. Read some history. :roll:

 

wow war for peace.you just want o expand your colony and a war finally give you a chance to do so.soyou want to reorder the world,submitting your will. want else do you want?

:roll: Tell me where we "expanded our colony" after WWI or WWII. Yeah, I'll leave it at that. You are an idiot.

 

communism countries are not hells.

Yes they are.

 

hav you ever study your pay? do you get equal pay for your work?(don't say you do' date=' if so ,what can you boss get?[/quote']The market regulates it. The boss' job, managing the workers, is a skilled position. Not every moron can do it. That's why they DESERVE higher pay- much higher in some cases. The unskilled workers can unionize and demand things from the company, and they have that right. Everyone has a way to help themselves, and the invisible hand of the market keeps it fair. Also, one question to you, a person intent on bitching about the "boss" getting so much more pay than you (wah wah :roll:): What's stopping you from getting skilled, learning the game, and climbing the corporate ladder YOURSELF? YOU can become a "boss!" Has that thought ever crossed your mind? Defeatist losers always drown in capitalism, yes it's true, but should that kind of a person be REWARDED? I think not, and history agrees with me.

 

One more point- The fact that someone has something more than you does NOT hurt you. Coveting what others have is just pathetic. If you want that pay/possession, then work and GET it!

 

 

 

 

 

it wouldnt take them long to change such a policy considering that they were thinking of using nukes on iran

You need to get something straight- that was a ridiculous bit of politics. The debate was over whether STRATEGIC nukes, used as bunker busters, could be used to wipe out those nuke sites completely. They would do no damage to populated areas, like the alarmists would have you believe ("OMG nuclear! Ah! Radiation! Bad stuff! Ah!"). Really, nukes aren't much different than conventional weapons except for explosive capacity and the radioactivity. If they were used as bunker busters, they would be no different than any other payload- except they would be much more effective.

 

Stop clouding the argument. The over-politicized bunker buster nuke thing has nothing to do with the conventional use of the term. We're not taling about nuking cities here :roll:. That was a very unfair point on your part.

[Alphabear 11]

but the whole point there was that you wanted to prevent annother nation from developing nuclear weapons buy using nukes on them. All it would do would increase their desire for them and its setting a bad example by the so called world leader

[Guest Rabbit]

communism countries are not hells.

Yes they are.

 

Plain and simple. I like it.

[Azrael 0]

No, they are absolutely NOT hells. Sure, less freedom, but that's ok to pay for a stable economy and ensured work... I mean, the unemployment rate in non-communist countries are probably higher than those of communist countries (even the U.S. has a considerable population of unemployed). But like I said in my past posts about this topic, you can develop a country by starting as a communist, then evolving into a capitalist, to adapt to the capitalistic world we have right now. Really, take Philippines as an example. Compared to 2 communist countries (China and Cuba) and you would see that the only hell on earth is here, the Philippines. The only communist country comparable to the Philippines is North Korea, and still they're better of than us.

[BWare 0]

but the whole point there was that you wanted to prevent annother nation from developing nuclear weapons buy using nukes on them. All it would do would increase their desire for them and its setting a bad example by the so called world leader

"So called?" Why the hell would you say that the US is the "so called" leader? I am so tired of the trendy, mindless anti-Americanism that so many people have been spewing lately. The US IS the world leader. Period. If you want to make a point to the contrary, go ahead and make it. I'm sick of the spineless uses of "so called", putting quotes around American "greatness", and all that nonsense. Either make a point or shut up. Stop being a bitch about it.

 

Anyway... you are using here a garbage argument. Do you not recognize that the nightmare scenario of Iran getting nukes MUST be avoided at all cost? Do you not see that there's not moral equivalency between the US and Iran? Sheesh. :roll:

 

 

I mean, the unemployment rate in non-communist countries are probably higher than those of communist countries (even the U.S. has a considerable population of unemployed).

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The US currently has an unemployment rate of under 5 percent... in fact, it's a negative unemployment rate because many people have multiple jobs. There are more jobs than workers in this country. Five percent is considered FULL employment (everyone who wants a job has one), and the US is currently at 4.7%. That's unheard of.

 

America has one of the most vibrant economies in history. Your point here could NOT be more wrong.

[Alphabear 11]

yes but you do realise most of the world doesnt follow the US. Why are you accusing me of not making a point when you aren't explaining why you believe the US is the world leader. Sure the US has influence over a few nation (Australia included) but many americans (not all, most are ok) need to stop thinking that you have free reign over the world. Their are nations that do look up to the US so you guys need to set a good example by not using the same nuclear weapons that you are trying to stop the spread of

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Oh of course, we understand, "there are many nations that do not look up to America"

 

Like....Iran....Cuba...o wait, Cubans run from Cuba to America, scratch one. China...o wait, China is adopting a capitalist economy, and the US has the strongest capitalist economy in the history of mankind. Scratch two. Africa...well they cant even hold themselves together, no wonder they hate us out of spite, despite the fact that we only send billions of dollars every year to aid them (and the Communist contribution to Africa? Zero). Why do many Americans (myself and BWare highly included) say that we are the world's greatest (in terms of economy, military, and history of helping others) nation? Because if you read history (Z0mG0DORZ READING AAAHHHH) you would see that we are correct. However, most Americans do NOT believe that we have free run of the planet.

 

"Then why do you have troops everywhere?" Valid point. Why do we? Because no one else can or has the ability to step to the plate as global police. Even in UN sanctioned opperations, the US has almost exclusively lead the way every time (Korea anyone? Desert Storm?). The only thing that could compete with the US in terms of Global Police would be GDI, but that is again, fictitious. So the burden falls to us.

 

Honestly, people all like to bitch at the US, but we send more aid and relief to any and everything than pretty much everyone else, so SHUT THE HELL UP. Here in the land of the plenty, we are generous to those who arent as forunate. Even when they refuse to return the favor.

[BWare 0]

yes but you do realise most of the world doesnt follow the US.

Well now this is just demonstratably untrue. Plus, it's only the loser countries that don't follow our lead. :wink:

 

Why are you accusing me of not making a point when you aren't explaining why you believe the US is the world leader.

What "explanation" do you need? Do you have a contrary point?

 

Sure the US has influence over a few nation (Australia included) but many americans (not all, most are ok) need to stop thinking that you have free reign over the world.

I don't know a single American that thinks we have "free reign" over the world. If so, we WOULD be seizing the Iraqi oil, nuking Iran, and booting the freaking UN off our soil! Just knock off the typical "OMG amer1ca thinx it kan do anyting!1" We ARE the world leader, and just because the rest of the weak, feminized western world doesn't like strong leadership doesn't mean that we're monsters or that there isn't a NEED for us. Whenever there's a major disaster or some crazy dictator trying to conquer the world, who comes to the rescue EVERY DAMN TIME? Who NEVER GETS CREDIT FOR IT? Man, I am so damn SICK of you typical, shortsighted, anti-American FOOLS. We're fighting WWIII right now, an epic clash of civilizations, and fools like you can only sit back and call our attempts at PRESERVING sanity in the world as holding "free reign". And all this over something we haven't even DONE yet! I can only hope that when this war REALLY heats up, you morons will shut up, take a back seat, and let the men do the fighting.

 

I'm sorry, but I've been debating this a lot with some anti-American morons I know at my university. The sheer suicidal idiocy of some of these people is just staggering... Alphabear, I'm not necessarily lumping you in with them, but you ARE sounding like them... so I apologize in advance if that isn't where you stand

 

Their are nations that do look up to the US so you guys need to set a good example by not using the same nuclear weapons that you are trying to stop the spread of

Using small, TACTICAL nukes would in no way be hypocritical. We aren't taking a stand against them- we're keeping them out of dangerous hands. Why can't you understand this? It's really very simple. Do you need it SPELLED out? IRAN CAN'T GET NUKES. Period. Our using nukes to stop them would be very justifiable. We're not talking about vaporizing cities, anyway.... but they would be. Iran = evil, America = good. Yes class, it IS that simple. :wink:

[Alphabear 11]

Sure they may only be tactical nukes but would you be happy if Iran only build tactical nukes? The point is your still using a form of weaponry that you are trying to discourage the rest of the world from developing when there are alternatives methods. Its seperating you from other nations including who are unable to produce any kind on nuclear weaponry because of restrictions. I imagine if it was China that planned to use tactical nukes on the Iranian facility then the US would be 100% against that.

 

Whenever there's a major disaster or some crazy dictator trying to conquer the world, who comes to the rescue EVERY DAMN TIME? Who NEVER GETS CREDIT FOR IT?

you shouldnt want credit for helping out other nations in a natural disaster, it should come naturally. None of the other nations who helped out in in the boxing day tsunami got credit for it, some of these other nations supplied much more assistance the the US government.

 

And sure you helped in WW2, but it wasnt the US that won the war, it was a combined effort by the Allies, other nations had been fighting and had lost a lot of men before you joined in. The Australian government hasnt stopped thanking you for your assistance in the pacific when Britain left us on our own against Japan. We followed you to Vietnam because we felt we still owed you.

 

We're fighting WWIII right now, an epic clash of civilizations, and fools like you can only sit back and call our attempts at PRESERVING sanity in the world as holding "free reign". And all this over something we haven't even DONE yet! I can only hope that when this war REALLY heats up, you morons will shut up, take a back seat, and let the men do the fighting.

 

Its not what you havent done, its what you have been doing, long before the war on terror. The US considers itself the "global police", a position which was self appointed. Sure you may have a democratic government, but a sole nation that self appoints itself to be the global police looks alot like a dictatorship, even if it is a benevolent one. People in other nations dont like the thought of this, and im not talking about all the fools who think they have an oppinion on these matters when it bores them so much that they dont know a thing other than the messages the media are subjecting them to.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Sure they may only be tactical nukes but would you be happy if Iran only build tactical nukes? The point is your still using a form of weaponry that you are trying to discourage the rest of the world from developing when there are alternatives methods. Its seperating you from other nations including who are unable to produce any kind on nuclear weaponry because of restrictions. I imagine if it was China that planned to use tactical nukes on the Iranian facility then the US would be 100% against that.

What part of Iran and not getting nuclear capabilities do you not understand? There's a fundamental difference between those raving lunatics and Americans: we won't use them on a ****ing whim. They would... so do the ****ing math. :roll:

 

you shouldnt want credit for helping out other nations in a natural disaster, it should come naturally. None of the other nations who helped out in in the boxing day tsunami got credit for it, some of these other nations supplied much more assistance the the US government.

Well if we got credit where credit was due, shortsighted morons like you would see that America is not as bad as your stupid media portrays us to be. While we may not be the leader on every disaster, we're right up there with the quote-unquote 'leaders.'

 

Its not what you havent done, its what you have been doing, long before the war on terror. The US considers itself the "global police", a position which was self appointed. Sure you may have a democratic government, but a sole nation that self appoints itself to be the global police looks alot like a dictatorship, even if it is a benevolent one. People in other nations dont like the thought of this, and im not talking about all the fools who think they have an oppinion on these matters when it bores them so much that they dont know a thing other than the messages the media are subjecting them to.

Well, who the hell else is going to step up and lay down the law? Surely not the UN... or anyone else for that matter. The simple fact is that, now and again, we have to step in and clear out the riffraff. If that means a small-scale war, that's what happens. People don't like this idea because they've been indoctrinated by a horribly biased that ONLY reports anything negative going on, always forgoing the positives going on.

 

I'm fully with BWare on this one. I'm really getting tired of the anti-American **** being thrown around these days. All of it is trendy bull**** and, quite frankly, I wish these morons would cut it out. You have no idea how tiring it is to read the same drivvel from the same people day in and day out.

[Alphabear 11]

Im not against the war on terror. Like Bware said, if and when things do get started and heat up, il offer my support where its needed. You dont want to alienate yourself from the rest of your allies and the world before it even starts though. Other nations will be less inclined to support the US if they are using the very weaponse they are preventing the rest of the world from using in the name of peace.

 

And I still dont see why you should be given special credit for helping out in natural disasters. All nations should pitch in and help where possible, and most do.

[BWare 0]

Sure they may only be tactical nukes but would you be happy if Iran only build tactical nukes?

This is a purely idiotic point. Iran WON'T be building "just tactical nukes." Why can't you get this through your head?? There is some kind of MAJOR mental block with some people. Let me state this again: In this conflict, America = Good, Iran = Evil. Period. Remember that Iran's freaking president has vowed to slaughter every last Jew and drive Israel into the ocean. Even Hitler wasn't that straightforward (he was more clever)!

 

The point is your still using a form of weaponry that you are trying to discourage the rest of the world from developing when there are alternatives methods. Its seperating you from other nations including who are unable to produce any kind on nuclear weaponry because of restrictions.

American can be trusted with nukes. This has been proven by history. A rogue nation like Iran or Iraq can't.

Again I'll say this: America using nukes to stop Iran from getting nukes is NOT hypocrisy, and is entirely called for. Our nuclear bunker busters are currently the only way we can be sure to wipe out those underground facilities.

Remember this: Our using bombs and tanks to take away Hitler's bombs and tanks was very justifiable. Why are nukes, just because they have the name "nuclear", so damn different to you?

 

you shouldnt want credit for helping out other nations in a natural disaster, it should come naturally. None of the other nations who helped out in in the boxing day tsunami got credit for it, some of these other nations supplied much more assistance the the US government.

America has no inherent obligation TO help out these nations! We do it out of the kindness of our hearts. But what happens? We usually get attacked for not helping ENOUGH! When natural disasters happen on the OTHER SIDE of the freaking globe, America is EXPECTED to help. If we didn't, oh boy... there would be hell to pay. Do you not see how insane this is? You despise us for being "world police" (a responsibility thrust ON us), but expect us to be the world caretaker. It's lunacy.

 

And sure you helped in WW2, but it wasnt the US that won the war, it was a combined effort by the Allies, other nations had been fighting and had lost a lot of men before you joined in.

America made the difference. Without our support, the Allies would have been up a creek. You know this.

...and of COURSE other countries lost more men before we joined in. It was happening IN EUROPE! :roll:

 

The Australian government hasnt stopped thanking you for your assistance in the pacific when Britain left us on our own against Japan. We followed you to Vietnam because we felt we still owed you.

Good. You did. It's all part of being allies.... and I'm sure that Australia wasn't too happy about the spreading of communism either. I don't think that they were devoting troops and supplies to the war JUST because you "owed us". :roll:

 

Its not what you havent done, its what you have been doing, long before the war on terror. The US considers itself the "global police", a position which was self appointed.

You couldn't be more wrong. You have a very clear misunderstanding of how this all works. The US has always been an isolationist country. World events (LIKE WWII) forced us to step up and save the west's bacon. Ever since, as the SOLE superpower, we have been acting as the world police... and NOT by choice. Also, the term "world police" didn't come from us. It came from snide anti-Americans like you.

 

 

Sure you may have a democratic government, but a sole nation that self appoints itself to be the global police looks alot like a dictatorship, even if it is a benevolent one.

Moron. :roll:

America is and has always been for democracy, liberty, and freedom. We oppose anything contrary to this at every turn. The nations we get involved with militarily we help rebuild as democracies, and then GET OUT! I don't see how you can honestly look at our history and then say we look "like a dictatorship."

 

Im not against the war on terror. Like Bware said, if and when things do get started and heat up, il offer my support where its needed. You dont want to alienate yourself from the rest of your allies and the world before it even starts though.

Good, but it HAS started. Every conflict that has been going on has been either between the US and Iran, or between our proxies. WWIII is happening.

 

Other nations will be less inclined to support the US if they are using the very weaponse they are preventing the rest of the world from using in the name of peace.

Then that's their problem. If they can't see the difference or that we're just doing the right thing- what needs to be done- then I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Im not against the war on terror. Like Bware said, if and when things do get started and heat up, il offer my support where its needed. You dont want to alienate yourself from the rest of your allies and the world before it even starts though. Other nations will be less inclined to support the US if they are using the very weaponse they are preventing the rest of the world from using in the name of peace.

Far as I know, we're not using any sort of nuclear weapon and if we are, I'd prefer it if we cut it out. I actually agree with you here, though but sometimes, it's necessary to do something drastic to defeat an insane enemy.

 

And I still dont see why you should be given special credit for helping out in natural disasters. All nations should pitch in and help where possible, and most do.

We're not! I'm just saying that if we got credit where credit was due, people would be less apt to desipse us for being world police. See, the thing is thius, and BWare even said it, we're not obligated to help anyone at any time ever. We do because we're kind like that and we don't expect anyone to return the favor.

[Saracen 16]

Far as I know, we're not using any sort of nuclear weapon and if we are, I'd prefer it if we cut it out. I actually agree with you here, though but sometimes, it's necessary to do something drastic to defeat an insane enemy.

 

MOAB for the win! The US has never had to use it in a real war scenario. But any 30ft long, 21,700lbs bomb that can level a small town (or 9 city blocks) should be used more often in my book! About 10 of these in Baghdad and Basra would have saved many soldiers lives and probably would have cost less in the long run. :wink:

 

But no doubt that would have sent the anti-war protesters nuts. Not so much for it's destructive power, but to the untrained eye it does look nuclear since the dust cloud this thing throws up goes about 10,000 ft. It's the worlds most powerful conventional weapon, and since it's conventional I'd be happy if the US did use it more! In the war against terror it'd kill more TSF (Terrorists per square foot). Maybe the US should go metric and measure a bombs explosive radius in TSF

[Dr. Rodney McKay 0]

Yes, I concur CnC King.

 

America kicks ass. End of Story. All the facts supporting it have been stated.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

You know what would happen if Iran did get nukes and Israel got hit. EVERY FRIGGIN NATION OUT THERE would blame the US for not stopping Iran. But if we use tactical nukes (wich really arent a bad thing, its firepower in a bombshell) to take out Iran's nukes, EVERYONE blames us for going "nuclear". May I remind the world the US oftentimes is caught in a political lose-lose situation. No matter what we do, we still are made to look bad in the eyes of those would sit on their arses and accuse us. Yet we still go out and do the dirty that no one else will. We are the sole power behind UN resolutions. We are out there 24/7 attempting to take care of many hotspots around the globe, with little support. Hell even the democrats of America dont support us. All they care about is "down with BUSH!!!" ect. They refuse to see the good we do for the damn planet (as a people) and only want to worry abotu party politics. WWIII (East vs West, essentially) is heating up, (every wars starts small) and yet there are many who would rather see America more like France and the current Germany. Pacificst loosers who refuse to take a stand. Remember WWII? Yeah. We weren't ready. It took 3 years to gear up to start kicking ass and taking names. 3 ****ing years. If that would happen today, 3 years is plenty of time for COmmunist powers or Middle East fascist radicals to do a chiitload of damage.

 

SO heres one for all the anti-American people out there. If we did things your way, we'd all be slaves of radical Islam or Communists. You would see a great culture (the West) divided were it to go your way. Well its not. So either shut up and join the ride, or go join the God forsaken terrorists (like that one Texan) and then you will die. I garuntee it. Stick with us, and we can irradicate this problem. We cannot have global peace with radicals constantly on the move to oust people from life. You think you are so important, what do you think those oppressed of the Middle East think? I bet at night they pray that American troops would show up everyday to kick out the dicators, the oppressors, and hte fascists. You fail to see the good we have done for Iraq and Afgahnistan. You FAILED. Get it? FAILED. America is here, and we have been for several hundred years now. And aslong as we stand united with our Allies both in the West and the East, and all in between, I have a feeling that we will be here for at least a few hundred more.

[Alphabear 11]

MOABs i have no problem with. Its the use of nuclear weaponry in war while trying to prevent other nations from developing the same technology that i have a problem with. Its further seperating the US and its Allies from the rest of the world. Many more nations like Iran are going to want to develop the same technology because the US are able to use it. Many of them dont develop nuclear technology because they cannot use it in war, but if the US uses nuclear weapons it gives them the idea that they would be able to as well

[BWare 0]

MOABs i have no problem with. Its the use of nuclear weaponry in war while trying to prevent other nations from developing the same technology that i have a problem with.

I've made this same point many times so far, but I'll make it again: There is NO MORAL EQUIVALENCY between us. The fact that we consider using tactical nukes does NOT justify Iran's desire for them or make us hypocrites. PERIOD. Now let's see if it sticks this time....

Oh, and again with my WWII analogy. We used bombs, guns, and tanks to take away Hitler's bombs, guns, and tanks. Is there an inherent contradiction there? What's the problem? The ONLY DIFFERENCE between this and the current situation with Iran is the word "nuclear", which always tends to send the small-minded into a frenzy. :roll:

 

Its further seperating the US and its Allies from the rest of the world.

False. First of all, WE HAVEN'T USED ANY DAMN NUKES YET, SO CALM DOWN. Hopefully we won't end up needing to. Secondly, even if we DID, our true allies would realize that it was a good, sound, logical thing to do. We've spent billions developing these subterranean bunker buster nukes in the last few years, and this is the perfect application for them. The fact that their payloads are "nuclear" is incidental, and the fact that you and others are making a big deal out of it is just silly. :roll:

 

Many more nations like Iran are going to want to develop the same technology because the US are able to use it.

What the hell are you talking about? You aren't actually this stupid, are you? Do you REALLY think that Iran or other countries like that need an EXCUSE to pursue nukes? Do you ACTUALLY think that our (justified) ability to use them is WHY they want them? You can't be this stupid. The fact that you're able to actually form readable sentences tells me that you aren't this big of a moron.

 

Many of them dont develop nuclear technology because they cannot use it in war, but if the US uses nuclear weapons it gives them the idea that they would be able to as well

Again, they only want them for POWER. That's the ONLY reason. Not because they see US do it and think, "hey, that looks like fun!" WE have nothing to do with it. They do it to further their own goals and agendas (in Iran's case, the genocide of the Jews). Countries need nukes to be considered seriously by other nuclear nations. THAT'S why these countries want nukes. They want to play with the big boys. To misunderstand this dynamic is to fundamentally fail in understanding what's happening out there on the geopolitical stage, and it renders anything else you have to say about it completely worthless. :roll:

[Alphabear 11]

Yes but one of the primary arguments behind the pressure to stop the spread of nuclear weapons is that their use is never justified. whats the point of a nation developing the technology if they wouldnt be able to use them in conflict. Such a strike against Iran by a nation that many others try to copy justifies their use and creates a reason for nations to develop the technology.

[BWare 0]

Yes but one of the primary arguments behind the pressure to stop the spread of nuclear weapons is that their use is never justified.

Who has EVER made that point? You're wrong from the very start here my friend. Their use CAN BE justified, and has been in the past. The SOLE argument here is that Iran can't be trusted with them because Iran is ruthless, evil, and sworn to the destruction of Israel and, in fact, the entire West. That's the point.

 

Such a strike against Iran by a nation that many others try to copy justifies their use and creates a reason for nations to develop the technology.

Once again you miss the point. Other nations aren't looking to us for cues on whether or not to go nuclear. If they have the means, they will do it! They don't need an excuse from us.

[Alphabear 11]

Australia has the means to do it, the US government just said it will back and decision we make to go nuclear. That doesnt mean we want to go nuclear though.

[BWare 0]

Australia has the means to do it, the US government just said it will back and decision we make to go nuclear. That doesnt mean we want to go nuclear though.

That's because you're a good country. You have no aspirations of world domination or wiping out a particular race. Do you not see the difference?