Possible nuclear strike on Iran?

[BWare 0]

Yeah, that's WRONG, but they're aiming at Israel, not at you, so let Israelians solve their problems (don't call me selfish, Italy would be in range of Iranian nukes).

That doesn't make you selfish. That makes you stupid, short-sighted, and, quite possibly, suicidal. Now you REALLY need to learn something about how to treat your allies. If they're about to get wiped off the map, and you have the direct ability to prevent it, then how could you not? Israel and the US rely on each other, and we are also very loyal to each other. An attack on Israel is an attack on the US. No, we're not going to take your cowardly approach and cut our ties, leaving Israel to fend for themselves. Are you seriously suggesting this? :shock:

 

Even if Amadinejihad was crazy, he would not be so crazy to use them.

Oh yes he would. That's be problem. Have you actually looked into this? The man is truly insane. He is a Muslim radical who actually believes that he will be an instrument of Armageddon, and will help usher in the 12th Imam, the righteous descendant of Muhammed. He believes that this will all happen in his lifetime, and what better way than to use nukes to wipe out the country that he already swore he would destroy? He's not joking around, and neither am I. We're not dealing with the relatively sane enemy we had in Russia. These Muslim radicals are a whole different breed.

 

Plus, you DO realzie that nukes can be smuggled over borders, right? Frankly, I really don't feel like running the risk of having one of MY cities blown off the map after that monster hands off a nuke to a small terrorist group and smuggles it over, say, our border with Mexico. I'd MUCH rather eliminate that possibility now.... and it takes true leaders and strength (something apparently foreign to most of Europe) to think this way and, yes, to protect the planet.

 

No nation in the world has the right to attack any other nation, and that does include USA. Remember that the world isn't under American protection, nor it has to be.

The world has basically been under the protection of the US since WWII, and especially since the UN has been so incapable of doing ANYTHING right in the last couple decades. And where do you get the idea that no nation has the right to attack another nation? Where did THAT come from? You say it as though it's common sense, but it could not be further from the truth.

[The Nker 0]

Yeah, that's WRONG, but they're aiming at Israel, not at you, so let Israelians solve their problems (don't call me selfish, Italy would be in range of Iranian nukes).

That doesn't make you selfish. That makes you stupid, short-sighted, and, quite possibly, suicidal. Now you REALLY need to learn something about how to treat your allies. If they're about to get wiped off the map, and you have the direct ability to prevent it, then how could you not? Israel and the US rely on each other, and we are also very loyal to each other. An attack on Israel is an attack on the US. No, we're not going to take your cowardly approach and cut our ties, leaving Israel to fend for themselves. Are you seriously suggesting this? :shock:

 

Even if Amadinejihad was crazy, he would not be so crazy to use them.

Oh yes he would. That's be problem. Have you actually looked into this? The man is truly insane. He is a Muslim radical who actually believes that he will be an instrument of Armageddon, and will help usher in the 12th Imam, the righteous descendant of Muhammed. He believes that this will all happen in his lifetime, and what better way than to use nukes to wipe out the country that he already swore he would destroy? He's not joking around, and neither am I. We're not dealing with the relatively sane enemy we had in Russia. These Muslim radicals are a whole different breed.

 

Plus, you DO realzie that nukes can be smuggled over borders, right? Frankly, I really don't feel like running the risk of having one of MY cities blown off the map after that monster hands off a nuke to a small terrorist group and smuggles it over, say, our border with Mexico. I'd MUCH rather eliminate that possibility now.... and it takes true leaders and strength (something apparently foreign to most of Europe) to think this way and, yes, to protect the planet.

 

No nation in the world has the right to attack any other nation, and that does include USA. Remember that the world isn't under American protection, nor it has to be.

The world has basically been under the protection of the US since WWII, and especially since the UN has been so incapable of doing ANYTHING right in the last couple decades. And where do you get the idea that no nation has the right to attack another nation? Where did THAT come from? You say it as though it's common sense, but it could not be further from the truth.

 

 

I stand on my ground. No nation has the right to attack any other nation. You don't want US or Israel to be attacked by Iran, do you? It's your right not to be attacked, but it's also the right of every nation in the world. With no distinctions. You can attack only if attacked before. International law, do you know what it is? You would have all the rights to attack Iran if it attacked first. Wich is IMHO improbable. Even if Amadinejihad was that crazy, not all Iranians are, keep in mind that their propaganda is all about a pacific use of nuclear technology, and that Iranian Imams condemned the Nord-Corean nuclear test (you should worry about them more), and said that Iran strongly condemns the use of nuclear technology for war.

If Aamadinejihad tried to use nukes, it would the Iranian people itself to get rid of him.

 

I'm not saying the Iranian nuclear program isn't a problem, even if Amadinejihad didn't use them, he would be ignoring the no-proliferation act (which, BTW, you don't seem to follow...), but you should let UN solve it.

 

You say UN hasn't been able to do anything in the last couple decades? Well, that's because of the crap rules (veto power, etc.) you and the former allied nations did.

[BWare 0]

I stand on my ground. No nation has the right to attack any other nation. You don't want US or Israel to be attacked by Iran, do you?

Ah... and now, once again, the sick and twisted liberal mindset reveals itself. You're actually assuming a moral equivalency here between the US and Iran... did you notice that?

 

It's your right not to be attacked, but it's also the right of every nation in the world. With no distinctions.

What?? Not being attacked is a right? Where on earth did you get that? :roll:

 

You can attack only if attacked before. International law, do you know what it is? You would have all the rights to attack Iran if it attacked first.

This is just plain idiotic. You're telling me that if you see an army massing on your border, preparing to wipe you off the map, you have no right to hit them first? Preepmptive strikes are sometimes VERY justified. Ahmadinejad is the modern day Hitler. If he gets nukes, it will be VERY bad for everyone involved... even our yellow-bellied allies like NKer here. Go ahead and badmouth the US all you want, but in the end, it's the US who saves the world from the bad guys. NOT the corrupt UN.

 

(Plus, international law is far more intricate and obscure than you make it seem. There isn't a simple 10 Commandments of international law :roll:)

 

Even if Amadinejihad was that crazy, not all Iranians are, keep in mind that their propaganda is all about a pacific use of nuclear technology, and that Iranian Imams condemned the Nord-Corean nuclear test (you should worry about them more), and said that Iran strongly condemns the use of nuclear technology for war.

So you're actually going to believe Iranian propaganda... even after IDENTIFYING it as propaganda. Brilliant.

(Oh, and Ahmadinejad IS that crazy. You're a blind fool if you don't see it.)

 

If Aamadinejihad tried to use nukes, it would the Iranian people itself to get rid of him.

Boy, that would be nice. However, the people are in no position to challenge their overbearing government in Iran. They need help. It's okay to be an idealist dude.... but it takes a realist to actually get anything done.

 

I'm not saying the Iranian nuclear program isn't a problem, even if Amadinejihad didn't use them, he would be ignoring the no-proliferation act (which, BTW, you don't seem to follow...), but you should let UN solve it.

Here's that sickening moral equivalency again. We're guilty of nuclear proliferation? That was a cute little underhanded attack, but how about owning up to it? What is that supposed to mean?

It's good for everyone that America has nukes because we DON'T use them, and we keep the peace with them.

 

Oh and also, you defer to the UN here without even giving a reason why or, probably, even any thought.

 

You say UN hasn't been able to do anything in the last couple decades? Well, that's because of the crap rules (veto power, etc.) you and the former allied nations did.

Riiiiight..... and what about the massive corruption? How about the Oil for Food scandal (biggest in history)? Ring any bells? :lol:

What's REALLY pathetic is that you couldn't even give me a contrary example :lol:. You admit that they're incompetent, but still want to trust them with the nuclear fate of the Middle East! Unbelievable.

[Mario 0]

Ahmadinejad is the modern day Hitler. If he gets nukes' date=' it will be VERY bad for everyone involved...[/quote']

 

yeah the same if Kim Jong-il does get nukes

[BWare 0]

He already has nukes! There was some uncertainty, but he DID just recently test one in an underground explosion, and it was confirmed. But yes, it's bad either way. Nuclear proliferation sucks .

[Alphabear 11]

While yes they probably to now hove nukes it is not a fact yet. There is still no proof that the explosion was nuclear. None of the nearby countries have detected radiation from the blast region yet.

[Dr. Rodney McKay 0]

Reminds me of something Stephen Colbert said in a recent episode of the Colbert Report.

 

"This whole 'bomb thing' could be nothing. I mean, the only confirmation we have of this nuclear blast is that a 4.2 magnatude tremor was felt in South Korea, so maybe they don't have a bomb. Maybe they just have an earthquake machine."

[The Nker 0]

BWare, basically you're saying: "We have the right to attack whoever we want, use nukes, ignore international law, and tell UN and whoever doesn't agree with us to suck off, because, hey, we are America, and we are the defenders of the world!" Is that your opinion? Because, just in case you didn't know, it's because of that approach that half of the world hates America...

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying except for the nukes part. I say the same thing, as well. I hate to break it to you but America really is the defender of the world because no one else will step up and bear the responsibility. And it is not our attitude that causes the hatred. That's very ignorant and short-sighted. The hate is much deeper than just an attitude.

[F15pilotX 4]

and Nker, the UN truly is a most useless organization :wink: it has not solved a single war on it's own, and if the US pulled out, I wouldn't be suprised to see it disentegrate in a few years :roll:

[TheBlackOut 7]

I just don't like the fact that we started it, fund it, and host it and we get diddlely.

[F15pilotX 4]

Which is why we should pull out; what good has it done us?

[Alphabear 11]

I just don't like the fact that we started it, fund it, and host it and we get diddlely.

 

Its not just you that fund it, you only host the General Assembely, and its created for the would not just the US.

 

And according to the UN mandate the Korean war was a success. There are numerous other conflics around the world it has ended through peacekeeping such as East Timor and many african conflicts

[F15pilotX 4]

I mean, what good has it done the US :wink:

 

We give it most of it's funds, we host it, we provide the most men, and what benefits do we derive from all that? Certainly not world peace :roll:

[BWare 0]

Its not just you that fund it, you only host the General Assembely, and its created for the would not just the US.

No no, of course not.... we just fund the VAST and OVERWHELMING majority of it. And what do we get in return? Nothing. Just more hate and disdain from the useless and corrupt morons who run it. I agree that kicking it OFF OUR SHORES would be a great move. They're nothing but an OBSTACLE to conflict resolutions, the exact OPPOSITE of their stated objective. It's not just that they're useless and thus neutral- they're HORRIBLY corrupt, making them a net negative force. They are great in concept, but we have to pull our heads out of the sand, grow up, and face harsh reality. The UN sucks.

 

And according to the UN mandate the Korean war was a success.

Oh yeah, the blue helmets did a HELL of a job there... oh wait, no. That was, once again, US Marines kicking ass so the UN doesn't have to.

Plus, that war was not a total success. We didn't take it far enough. Would you call the current state of the Korean Peninsula a success? Way to go UN. :roll:

 

There are numerous other conflics around the world it has ended through peacekeeping such as East Timor and many african conflicts

....and who supplies the vast majority of the UN peacekeepers? I'll give you 2 guesses, but you'll only need one.

 

 

Bottom line: Without the US, the little good the UN is capable of vanishes.

 

 

One thing further... how about citing for me a couple successes and accomplishments that we can thank the UN for. Just a couple! For the life of me I can't think of ONE. And you can't say that they've haven't had ample opportunity......

[Alphabear 11]

The Korean War was fought by the UN, the only reason control of the war was given to the US is because you guys gave it to yourselves in the security council when the ussr and china were not present. They fouchgt under the UN flag.

 

Anyway the UN's role is not to win wars, it to stop aggression, and thats what they did.

 

 

 

One thing further... how about citing for me a couple successes and accomplishments that we can thank the UN for. Just a couple! For the life of me I can't think of ONE.

 

UN decleration of human rights, nuclear non-proliferation treaty...

[BWare 0]

The Korean War was fought by the UN, the only reason control of the war was given to the US is because you guys gave it to yourselves in the security council when the ussr and china were not present. They fouchgt under the UN flag.

Spin it however you want. That was an American war that was fought and won BY Anerica. End of story.

 

Anyway the UN's role is not to win wars, it to stop aggression, and thats what they did.

No no, that's what America did. Besides American victories, where else has the UN ever succeeded in "stopping aggression"? They do seem to excel at lining their own pockets....

 

UN decleration of human rights, nuclear non-proliferation treaty...

Wow, two pieces of paper. That's pretty impressive.... especially when you consider the MANY nations in the UN who are STILL guilty of unspeakable human rights attrocities. Score one for the "declaration of human rights." Oh, and the non-proliferation treaty.... clearly working its magic on Iran and North Korea, am I right? Let me ask you this: How are those pieces of paper that you're apparently so proud of worth ANYTHING if they're written by the spineless UN? A United Nations "declaration" or "sanction" is utterly meaningless if not backed by US might... and even THEN we're called murderers by the same damn organization!

 

Just give it up already. You can't POSSIBLY argue that the UN is worthwhile anywhere apart from your misplaced optimism. This is where the realist demolishes the idealist. It's ugly and frankly kinda depressing, but it's reality. Get your head outta the sand. Face it.

[Alphabear 11]

correct me if im wrong here but i cannot ever recal a time when the UN was called murderers by the UN.

 

Spin it however you want. That was an American war that was fought and won BY Anerica. End of story.

You might need to check your history books Bware it was fought under the UN flag by many nationsunder the strategic command of the US as you requested.

 

The only reason there is a strong US presence at the major UN involvements such as somalia is because the US public doesnt like the idea of americans being under the command of foreign commanders. Many operations are conducted without the US. Take East Timor for example, the only US contribution was small logistical support even though the indonesian invasion in the first place was funded by the US.

 

The UN is not GDI, they are not a military organisation. It is a organisation where every nation can work together and discuss internation issues.

[The Nker 0]

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying except for the nukes part. I say the same thing, as well. I hate to break it to you but America really is the defender of the world because no one else will step up and bear the responsibility. And it is not our attitude that causes the hatred. That's very ignorant and short-sighted. The hate is much deeper than just an attitude.

 

There's simply not a question such as 'who's gonna take US place'. The fact is, and you Americans REALLY need to understand it, the world doesn't need nor want a defender. A defender from who? Who would want a so-called defender? For what? Think about it. The century of world wars is over (and, anyway, you entered war only when attacked), the cold war is over. The world is free and doesn't need anyone to defend it. Simple as that.

 

You can ignore me and my ideas if you want, but keep this in mind: I'm a moderate person, and I don't call myself an American hater. I can say I was raised, just like every European, in the myth of the USA. Still, the world hates USA. And you, instead of wondering if maybe you have done something wrong, just think you must be in the right, and that it's the whole world to be in the wrong. That only makes things worse. I assure you.

[TheBlackOut 7]

K, if I could, I would pull our troops out of everywhere and become an isolated country again. We'd quit funding and hosting the U.N. and just be by ourselves, doing as we please. I'd say to China and all them, "You can invade who ever you wish, we don't care anymore and we won't defend no one except ourselves."

 

I'd wanna see what'd happen.

[BWare 0]

NKer, you are a blind fool. The world needs a defender now more than ever. We are in the MIDST of a third world war, a clash between civilizations of epic proportions. Radical Islam has already pretty much claimed Europe.... and you can't even see that in your own backyard. We have North Korea testing nukes, the evil psychopath in Iran very close to developing his own (and promising genocide), and you, in what has become an atrophied, lazy, decadent hellhole in Europe, can sit back and say that the world is at peace? Whether you think you need it or appreciate it, you NEED a superpower to keep these nuts in check. We never WANTED this! We got pulled into both world wars (you're welcome, by the way), and out of necessity, loyalty, and a sense of responsibilty we have for being the sole superpower (a benevolence absent ANYWHERE ELSE in history- again you're welcome) have remained the world "defender", as you put it.

 

So you go ahead, sit back and relax, ignoring the growing tension all around you, and your DEFENDER, the United States, will be there to save the day when things fall apart... as they inevitably will. I'd love it just as much as you did if we just turned our back and left you to the wolves, but we're better people than that... even if the willingly blind can't see it.

 

 

 

Alpha- again I ask you... one example, a single accomplishment besides "discussion", is all I ask.

[General Leang 0]

Leang, why are you overreacting about this? :? Ahmadinejad is a psychopath whose research program MUST be stopped at all costs. The worst case scenario would be him with his finger on the red button. The guy has SWORN the destruction of Israel! For those of you who are so damn eager to draw Nazi parallels to extremist Christians (:roll:), how about taking a look at THIS guy? He is, in his OWN WORDS, hell bent on wiping the Jews off the face of the earth.

 

Sorry for not replying sooner. My reaction to this in asking opinion about it was based on discussions I have had with the people who put this to me. However on further discussion I have drawn my own conclusions. They want to rid America of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the November elections, and believe exposing this, which is meant to occur this Sunday, will do it. Questions I asked such as how America believe they can get away with it and how such a secret plan became known were met with contradictary answers, and the subject quickly came to money. They want hundreds of dollars to publish flyers decrying BCR, otherwise they do not want to know you. Why have they not jumped on every single forum they can find if they were serious about this? No, I doubt this is something to take seriously, and there might have been something about being opposed to the church from them in the past which further damages their creditbility.

 

With using nuclear weapons to bomb nuclear production facilities and storming into Iran and protecting Israel, I believe that were action to be taken then it should be the best offensive option we have without lessening the effectiveness of any attack. Does that mean nuclear weapons? Are there other options that would work just as well? A special forces team perhaps to find and shut down any nuclear program?

[Alphabear 11]

Alpha- again I ask you... one example, a single accomplishment besides "discussion", is all I ask.

 

The independence of hundreds of countries worldwide from larger oppression.

[Mario 0]

NKer, you are a blind fool. The world needs a defender now more than ever. We are in the MIDST of a third world war, a clash between civilizations of epic proportions. Radical Islam has already pretty much claimed Europe.... and you can't even see that in your own backyard. We have North Korea testing nukes, the evil psychopath in Iran very close to developing his own (and promising genocide), and you, in what has become an atrophied, lazy, decadent hellhole in Europe, can sit back and say that the world is at peace? Whether you think you need it or appreciate it, you NEED a superpower to keep these nuts in check. We never WANTED this! We got pulled into both world wars (you're welcome, by the way), and out of necessity, loyalty, and a sense of responsibilty we have for being the sole superpower (a benevolence absent ANYWHERE ELSE in history- again you're welcome) have remained the world "defender", as you put it.

 

So you go ahead, sit back and relax, ignoring the growing tension all around you, and your DEFENDER, the United States, will be there to save the day when things fall apart... as they inevitably will. I'd love it just as much as you did if we just turned our back and left you to the wolves, but we're better people than that... even if the willingly blind can't see it.

 

.

 

which is why a Global Defence Agency is needed like the GDI

[F15pilotX 4]

Alpha- again I ask you... one example, a single accomplishment besides "discussion", is all I ask.

 

The independence of hundreds of countries worldwide from larger oppression.

so you're telling me that UN forces have liberated hundreds of countries :haha: :haha:

 

That's SO ****ing hilarious I can't even roll my eyes at it

 

Even the US has only liberated two not counting, of course saving the world twice over in World Wars I and II :wink: