Bwhahahah and those bombings of civilians all around the world and America's terrorising.
... has got what to do with the price of milk in Nazi Germany?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Main reasons you wouldn't get an EV?
Australia 0, Obama 1
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
... has got what to do with the price of milk in Nazi Germany?
rwenzori
Honorary Master
What freedom would you like it to be?
Natas
Expert Member
Errr.....What?!!?!? I have little doubt that Iran doesn't like America very much. But you are talking like Iran is busy building up its arsenal and any day now, once it has built up enough weapons, the Prez will wake up one Thursday and say..."Right...Today is the day we declare war on the USA...we finished our first nuke yesterday and today we gonna use it!".
Iran may or may not be acquiring nuclear weapons, but if it is, its only joinng many otehr nations that already have the capability. All this will do is change teh balance of power. THIS is what America does not want. Once Iran has nuclear weapons, America will no longer be able to invade it one day. SOmehting that I guarantee they have been thinking about for a while, but never had a reason, or a need.
Certain nations are a thorn in the side of Iran, so I have no doubt that Iran is taking certain covert action against these nations...in the same way america takes action against its irritations.
Neitehr side is wrong or right. Each nation ahs its own interests. If you go to war with another nation, at least respect your enemy and admit that he has just as much a right to protect what's his. America is irritaing in that it always creates teh impression that it is objectively right. They spend a lot of money spinning it right and Americans each that **** up like its corn dogs and coke!!
Last edited:
Natas
Expert Member
Spear and shield? Yeah you are in the wrong time. Maye that will help you but I would rather be buried under ground in a concrete room if Iran ....no sorry when Iran becomes nuclear officialy. When it happens then maybe we will hear you saying ops we should have acted quicker.
America.
What is the only nation to have ever used a nuclear weapon?
If America can have em' why cant anyone else.....like i said, its a balance of power thing. IMO if you want to be worried about a nation ahving nukes, then worry about North Korea and India. IMO, these countries are much mor elikely to actually use them.
For Iran to launch a nuke offensively would be suicide..the only use for an iranian Nuke would be to prevent invasion ...surely you understand that....
If iran are building NUkes its only so that they can safely start quoting oil prices in Euros instead of dollars, wothout being invaded. America is in big ****. The US dollar is hugely overvalued, with the price being inflated by the fact that Oil is traded mainly in dollars. Trading oil in dollar prices means that countries need to buy dollars in order to pay for oil. This creates an inflated demand for dollars, which in turn drives up the price.
Last edited:
The U.S objective is not to "kill people" as you put it. If Saddam had obeyed U.N resolutions then no war. Same with Iran.
Also they spend millions on precision weapons to limit the collateral damage. If they just wanted to kill there would be very few Iraqis left I assure you. They would have just flattened the place. Nevermind the strict rules of engagement their troops have to follow often putting their own lives at risk for civilian safety.
As you can see in Iraq today it looks like the other sides only objective is to literally "kill people"
Well definitely not the "freedom fighters" idea of freedom.
Last edited:
rwenzori
Honorary Master
Giving atomic weapons to the USA France UK Iran N. Korea Russia etc is like handing out handgrenades to a troop on monkeys.
There are many US resolutions the US does not abide by... should we kill them as well?
rwenzori
Honorary Master
What exactly is their "objective"?
You mean if Saddam had surrendered his imaginary WMD?
Silly USA is like the dog that finally caught the car it was chasing - it cannot deal with what it has caught. In spite of being given the same lesson in Vietnam some years back.
You have a better aslternative to those bombings?
Really. What makes you think that.
But what about their terrorist henchman? What about the k@k they will cause in third world countries when they know that they are immune to invasion? It would be the cold war all over again.
Would you like to live under Iranian style laws? You have no time for religion being forced on you nevermind your freedoms curtailed do you?. I guess it wouldn't be long under the Ayatollahs that you'll be swinging from a rope under a tree in a park for all to see your sorry a$$.
Not a nice thought is it? But that's what will happen if Iran gets ther way.
On both sides. The wise mans choice would be to choose neither fools war.What might those be?
Natas
Expert Member
The primary objective is not to kill people, but they do a whole lotta killing anyways.
Lets not start talking about UN Resolutions and the rules of engagement. Saddam could have gone on CNN and sang the American national anthem, his ass was getting invaded come hell or high water.....I mean we ALL KNEW that he was up to his EYEBALLS in "dubyaMD's"!!
Yes, if America wanted to kill iraqi's there would be none left..its too bad that they use the media as one of their weapons. Nothing wrong with that...it just places limits on what you can do and why you say you did it. ANd what you mean they could have flattened it. In addition to being the only country that ahs used a nuke, America is also the only country to have ever attacked a country that looked exaclty the same before and after they bombed it!!!!
What strict rules of engagement. I am presuming these are rules which are put in place to minimise casualties to innocent people. Well if, America applies these strict rules of engagement, ten how do explain all the americans that die by way of friendly fire...surely if they had followed the rules of engagement they would have established that the people they are about to start shooting at are in fact their side. If that many americans die by way of friendly fire, I would hate to see how many Iraqi's get shot for nothing?!!?
Please lets not talk talk about rules in the context of war.....if you for one minute think that 20 year old boys with fully locked and loaded M16's scared sh1tless follow the rules of engagement, then you need to catch a wake up. I wouldn't..if I was at war..I would shoot punks in their heads
Oh... how about the ones that effect the whole world, and not just some cruddy real estate in the middle east. Such as the child labour resolutions or the carbon emissions resolutions?
Nooo, they don't want to actually do things to help the world, they would rather declare wars on nouns and countries with oil. Want to make sure those oil and weapon share`s go up
When I refer to they, I do not refer to general populace of America, because my personal travels have showed to me they are a good people... I refer to the right wing Bush regime.
Oh... how about the ones that effect the whole world, and not just some cruddy real estate in the middle east. Such as the child labour resolutions or the carbon emissions resolutions?
Nooo, they don't want to actually do things to help the world, they would rather declare wars on nouns and countries with oil. Want to make sure those oil and weapon share`s go up
When I refer to they, I do not refer to general populace of America, because my personal travels have showed to me they are a good people... I refer to the right wing Bush regime.
still what resolutions?
The general populace who voted for these guys
Natas
Expert Member
Well what kind of K2K are you talking about? Do you by any chance mean the kind of k@k America cathces on in third world countries? What makes you think that this is what they want to do? Oh I know....it because they are Muslim and all Muslim's are evil.
How do you jump from Iran gets Nukes to me being strung up under a tree...which is what I assure you I would rather suffer before I get "forced" to become ANY religion. If you're islamic, you cant drink and you cant eat pork = I'm out!!!
I will never ever be forced to become any specific religion. NOR will I have my ability to think logically taken away from me, nor will I be instilled with that irritating American sensibility, Oprah-esque sense of morality, and a statue of liberty sense of democracy. Team America: World Police is not objectively "right".
I do not support Iran, I do not support America. the point I am trying to make is that America has claimed the moral high ground. People seem to be conviced that they fight the forces of evil in the interest of good. This is not the truth. America and Iran/Iraq/whoever are on the exact same moral ground!!!
chiskop
Executive Member
I think that some of our republican friends got their talking point mixed up.
Obama = BAD
Iran = BAD
therefore Obama = Iran?
Iran = BAD
therefore Obama = Iran?
When did they ever say all Muslims are evil?
What's stopping them from supporting people who further their ideology in other countries. They already use Hezbollah. You wouldn't accept living under Sharia law would you? In there eyes you're a just an infidel. They'll have you strung up for the most minor of offences. They do it all the time where they rule and that's to there own kind(ie muslim). With them it's their way or the "hungway".
But at least in the U.S they don't force you do they? You can be what you want there. Not so with these guys.
Well you gotta support somebody. One or the other is gonna win. Question is who would you rather be ruled by?
Pfft
Both are bad. Obama less so. Problem is he'll just give the worse guys a green light. So in the long run with him it will lead to Iran.
Notably the brain doesn't come into this equation (it is assumed you have one.)
Racists all. And somehow they don't seem to read the same newspapers or spend time on the same internet. Perhaps it is because they are BLIND and will not see.