[OGNorCal707]

(01-30-2012 06:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 05:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

A lot of people fail to see the irony of the only country who used nuclear weapons on civilians trying to call the shots on who else can have them. Not to mention our use of uranium depleted bombs that are suspected for causing birth defects and other health ailments.

We may be the only country that used them, but we were attacked by Japan first on our own soil, completely unprovoked. So they were used in self-defense.

This isn't a very good rationale. From what I understand the Japanese only attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor, a quick wikipedia search shows that there were only 2,400 casualties, almost all of which I'm sure were serviceman.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military towns, the vast majority of people killed were innocent civilians. Something like 200,000 people killed, plus all the lingering damage from the radiation.

In my book that just doesn't add up. Yeah they attacked us on our soil, but the U.S. way over-extended the rule of an eye for an eye. We could have easily undertaken a target campaign of bombing their military bases, as they did to ours. No need to wipe out entire cities full of civilians.

According to your rationale, any country has the right to nuke another country if they attack them on their own soil. Maybe the U.S. should have nuked Afghanistan, for harboring Al Qaeda...?

[speakeasy]

(01-30-2012 07:33 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 06:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 05:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

A lot of people fail to see the irony of the only country who used nuclear weapons on civilians trying to call the shots on who else can have them. Not to mention our use of uranium depleted bombs that are suspected for causing birth defects and other health ailments.

We may be the only country that used them, but we were attacked by Japan first on our own soil, completely unprovoked. So they were used in self-defense.

This isn't a very good rationale. From what I understand the Japanese only attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor, a quick wikipedia search shows that there were only 2,400 casualties, almost all of which I'm sure were serviceman.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military towns, the vast majority of people killed were innocent civilians. Something like 200,000 people killed, plus all the lingering damage from the radiation.

In my book that just doesn't add up. Yeah they attacked us on our soil, but the U.S. way over-extended the rule of an eye for an eye. We could have easily undertaken a target campaign of bombing their military bases, as they did to ours. No need to wipe out entire cities full of civilians.

According to your rationale, any country has the right to nuke another country if they attack them on their own soil. Maybe the U.S. should have nuked Afghanistan, for harboring Al Qaeda...?

Guess you forgot about the 4 years of war that occurred between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima?

[Wizard]

(01-30-2012 07:33 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 06:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 05:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

A lot of people fail to see the irony of the only country who used nuclear weapons on civilians trying to call the shots on who else can have them. Not to mention our use of uranium depleted bombs that are suspected for causing birth defects and other health ailments.

We may be the only country that used them, but we were attacked by Japan first on our own soil, completely unprovoked. So they were used in self-defense.

This isn't a very good rationale. From what I understand the Japanese only attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor, a quick wikipedia search shows that there were only 2,400 casualties, almost all of which I'm sure were serviceman.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military towns, the vast majority of people killed were innocent civilians. Something like 200,000 people killed, plus all the lingering damage from the radiation.

In my book that just doesn't add up. Yeah they attacked us on our soil, but the U.S. way over-extended the rule of an eye for an eye. We could have easily undertaken a target campaign of bombing their military bases, as they did to ours. No need to wipe out entire cities full of civilians.

According to your rationale, any country has the right to nuke another country if they attack them on their own soil. Maybe the U.S. should have nuked Afghanistan, for harboring Al Qaeda...?

I noticed you completely and utterly ignored the fact the Japanese were refusing to surrender, and that invading would have cost both sides far more many lives then the bombs did.

Furthermore, the Afghan reference makes no sense; the situations are completely different.

[kosko]

The war with Iran was supposed to start in 06. It was put on hold after the Israeli war with Lebanon tanked. Contrast 06 to know the USA is a different place. It's broke and spread thin militarily to take on a legit ate regional power. Israel is pushing for it of course to the extent they may sink an American warship to force USA action. Obama has softened up, it is not smart for him to start war # 5 as he tries for re-election, but on the flip side powerful Israel interests will dump him and side someone whom will do the deed.

Will it happen ? I hope not but Israel is batshit insane and will eventually do something slimy. Also an angle that many people don't talk about is the economic basis of attack. When the mess in the EU boils over it will leave the dollar exposed, a steep exponential rise in oil prices would provide America with a flood of cash. Yes it would starve and kill citizens but for the Wall Street heads and DC lawmakers it would give a final prop to the dollar before it unravels with the EU mess. This is why the USA is constantly shit testing Iran with stunts in the Gulf. They want Iran to close the strait for that flood of cash via global oil sales.

I hope it does not happen, but all signs are leading to it. The global fat cats have leeched what they can and now they want to implode things and cash in via war. Iran best defence IS NUKES. I don't care your views, no two nations with nukes will ever face each other until all the rest of the globe is in ruins. The only nation that would be brazen to use nukes in today's modern would be Israel, I can't even picture Washington having the balls to use the old relics anymore to be quite honest. Any move like that would equal a move by Moscow to see NY, DC, or LA wiped out.

Things have cooled down for now but a lot of heads are still uneasy. London is worried their games will see a Munich type situation. Israel's far right is still thirsty for war, and how will Syria play into it? If Gadaffi could strangle NATO for months with amateur weapons, then how will they deal with a well armed and modern Syria?

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-30-2012 08:51 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The war with Iran was supposed to start in 06. It was put on hold after the Israeli war with Lebanon tanked. Contrast 06 to know the USA is a different place. It's broke and spread thin militarily to take on a legit ate regional power. Israel is pushing for it of course to the extent they may sink an American warship to force USA action. Obama has softened up, it is not smart for him to start war # 5 as he tries for re-election, but on the flip side powerful Israel interests will dump him and side someone whom will do the deed.

Will it happen ? I hope not but Israel is batshit insane and will eventually do something slimy. Also an angle that many people don't talk about is the economic basis of attack. When the mess in the EU boils over it will leave the dollar exposed, a steep exponential rise in oil prices would provide America with a flood of cash. Yes it would starve and kill citizens but for the Wall Street heads and DC lawmakers it would give a final prop to the dollar before it unravels with the EU mess. This is why the USA is constantly shit testing Iran with stunts in the Gulf. They want Iran to close the strait for that flood of cash via global oil sales.

I hope it does not happen, but all signs are leading to it. The global fat cats have leeched what they can and now they want to implode things and cash in via war. Iran best defence IS NUKES. I don't care your views, no two nations with nukes will ever face each other until all the rest of the globe is in ruins. The only nation that would be brazen to use nukes in today's modern would be Israel, I can't even picture Washington having the balls to use the old relics anymore to be quite honest. Any move like that would equal a move by Moscow to see NY, DC, or LA wiped out.

Things have cooled down for now but a lot of heads are still uneasy. London is worried their games will see a Munich type situation. Israel's far right is still thirsty for war, and how will Syria play into it? If Gadaffi could strangle NATO for months with amateur weapons, then how will they deal with a well armed and modern Syria?

The Syrian Army is still largely loyal to the Assad regime. The defects have mostly been low-level officers and conscripts. This is very different from what you saw in North Africa, especially Libya.

The Middle Eastern Arab states are extraordinarily different from those in North Africa. You've got a lot more social diversity (religiously, ethnically, culturally) and the ramifications are grave. When you consider the center of oil production lying in that region, the potential for utter catastrophe looms large.

No country would have the balls to invade Iran. The big question is how Iran would respond to an air strike on one of its facilities. Its weaponry isn't remotely modernized to the extent that Israel's is, but Iran certainly has the ability to strike major Israeli population centers. The question is, would they? Highly doubtful.

[Wizard]

Quote:

The war with Iran was supposed to start in 06. It was put on hold after the Israeli war with Lebanon tanked. Contrast 06 to know the USA is a different place. It's broke and spread thin militarily to take on a legit ate regional power. Israel is pushing for it of course to the extent they may sink an American warship to force USA action. Obama has softened up, it is not smart for him to start war # 5 as he tries for re-election, but on the flip side powerful Israel interests will dump him and side someone whom will do the deed.

Wow that is a lot of assumption, conspiracy theory, and innuendo but light on facts.

Quote:

Will it happen ? I hope not but Israel is batshit insane and will eventually do something slimy. Also an angle that many people don't talk about is the economic basis of attack. When the mess in the EU boils over it will leave the dollar exposed, a steep exponential rise in oil prices would provide America with a flood of cash. Yes it would starve and kill citizens but for the Wall Street heads and DC lawmakers it would give a final prop to the dollar before it unravels with the EU mess. This is why the USA is constantly shit testing Iran with stunts in the Gulf. They want Iran to close the strait for that flood of cash via global oil sales.

This makes no sense, how exactly is the dollar suppose to benefit from oil prices spiking? Also the United States isn't shit testing anyone, they've had a carrier deployed to the Middle East for years.

Quote:

I hope it does not happen, but all signs are leading to it. The global fat cats have leeched what they can and now they want to implode things and cash in via war. Iran best defence IS NUKES. I don't care your views, no two nations with nukes will ever face each other until all the rest of the globe is in ruins. The only nation that would be brazen to use nukes in today's modern would be Israel, I can't even picture Washington having the balls to use the old relics anymore to be quite honest. Any move like that would equal a move by Moscow to see NY, DC, or LA wiped out.

Again.. complete and utter nonsense.

Also who the hell are the "global fat cats" or is that suppose to be some vague term of a shadowy group of rich folk controlling the world? Also Russia isn't stupid enough to launch a nuclear attack on the United States, because they know it would mean their total destruction.

Quote:

Things have cooled down for now but a lot of heads are still uneasy. London is worried their games will see a Munich type situation. Israel's far right is still thirsty for war, and how will Syria play into it? If Gadaffi could strangle NATO for months with amateur weapons, then how will they deal with a well armed and modern Syria?

Gaddafi didn't strangle anyone, NATO was only in a supporting rule in that conflict. It was merely using airstrikes to aid the rebels in the overthrow, and by gosh it actually worked.

I think you need a readjustment on your tin foil hat.

[Roosh]

Quote:

I think you need a readjustment on your tin foil hat.

Relax there is no need to belittle others. If you are prone to getting angry at political discussions then stay out of those threads.

[Brian]

I dont know how you can say the US is shit testing Iran when its Iran threatening to close the straits of hormuz

[Wizard]

(01-30-2012 09:10 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

I think you need a readjustment on your tin foil hat.

Relax there is no need to belittle others. If you are prone to getting angry at political discussions then stay out of those threads.

As suggested, there are clearly sharp divisions on politics in the community, and I shall just avoid them from now on.

[Deluge]

(01-30-2012 07:33 PM)Brian Wrote:  

Israel will attack Iran before we do. Considering Iran's self proclaimed desire to wipe Israel off the map I wouldnt blame Israel for striking first.

If Israel strikes, it'll be targeted at Iran's nuclear facilities. If anybody were to occupy Iran it would be the U.S but how can they afford to invade with the current deficit problems? Iran is far larger and far more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan too so it would probably be even more expensive. It would be a nightmare.

[Brian]

agreed PDog, the last thing we need is another Mid East war. I tend to side w/Israel because when the Iranian leadership has repeatedly said the would like to wipe Israel off the map I think Israel should have the ability to defend itself and do whatever is necessary to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and if they have to assassinate nuclear scientists to prevent their country from that risk so be it.

[Deluge]

(01-30-2012 09:43 PM)Brian Wrote:  

agreed PDog, the last thing we need is another Mid East war. I tend to side w/Israel because when the Iranian leadership has repeatedly said the would like to wipe Israel off the map I think Israel should have the ability to defend itself and do whatever is necessary to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and if they have to assassinate nuclear scientists to prevent their country from that risk so be it.

Israel managed to sneak a computer virus onto the computer system of an Iranian nuclear facility in a sabotage attempt a while back.

[[email protected]]

Every major war in my lifetime has had a major propaganda campaign preceeding it dedicated to convincing the American people that the war was just and necessary; even if the campaign didn't work well- it still provided the illusion that the war was widely supported by the American people- thus manufacturing the illusion of consent and popular support even if none existed. Here's a good example of the US executing it during the 1950s.

I hate to say it Roosh, but in terms of Iran this looks like the phase we're at now. Its really a matter of when the power masters decide to pull the trigger. Before or after the election*.



*I'm really starting to think that the powers that be will select Ron Paul to be elected- and then have the war start either slightly before, or during his Presidency. Afterall who better to have a war under then the guy who has been anti-war from the start? Popular opposition to the war would be near zero if this happened.

[Blunt]

Allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons would be a Global White Knight move. Deplorable.

Claiming that Iran deserves an opportunity to have nuclear weapons is akin to claiming that the woman from the article deserves an opportunity to flirt with other men while her husband pretends that they aren't married. (http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-10015.html)

Oh well I guess every country deserves an equal opportunity to annihilate their neighbors, right? Fuck that. Iran is not our ally. Iran does not want to see us shine. If they wanted nukes they should have developed them earlier. Boohoo for them.

I am in no way in favor of a war with Iran and I don't think it will happen. However, the US and EU need to stay united on this and exercise their options.

I met a guy from Iran on vacation and when we spoke about this he was contending that the US should invade. From what he said, a lot of young people hate their government there. Their currency has lost something like 2/3 of its value in the past couple months. I'm not saying that his opinion represents all young people there, but their government puffing up their chest is diminishing their savings and quality of life.

From a bottom line standpoint, Iran getting a nuke would be more expensive for us. More expenses defending Israel, since the lobbies won't let that obligation go away anytime soon. More expenses defending Europe. How are we going to tell Iran to chill and not close the Strait when doing so could risk Nuclear war? It would be like giving a screaming drunk ex-girlfriend the keys to your truck and then complaining that she smashed your garage. It is your responsibility to protect your house.

[misterstir]

(01-30-2012 03:11 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

It sure seems like it. I've always been anti-US aggression but I don't know how I'd feel if my country invades my father's homeland where I have many relatives.

Yes. Yes they are. All the republicans are insisting they want to bomb Iran since McCain days, and a false flag operation leading to a war near the election would be perfect for Obama to win re-election because president popularity always goes up in the first few months of war.

That being said Iran has many valid reasons to go Nuclear. With neighbours like Pakistan, Iraq, Russia, China, Afghanistan and US and Israel flying drones and engaging in acts of war like threatening to cut off their oil and putting war ships in their waters. Not to mention Libya giving up nukes got the Libyan leaders killed and hanged whereas North Korea not giving an inch and threatening to bomb america with nukes and bomb japan and invade south korea has gotten them billions of dollars. The Iranian leadership would be wise and it would be prudent for them to follow the path of North Korea for the said reason.

As for the argument put forth by some that Iran not be allowed a single nuke because they threaten Israel. Nuclear technology is well over 70 years old now and Israel has something like 500 nukes so most likely Iran's obtaining even 50 nukes (same as Pakistan or India) would still make it far weaker than Israel.

[Vicious]

The argument that if the US has used nukes then it's ok for everyone else to have them, is the kind of logic that I can't wrap my head around. This is not even factoring how different the moral landscape was at the time compared to what it is today. There's plenty of literature available on why the atomic bombs on Japan was at the time perfectly necessary for ending a war that Japan never intended to withdraw from. An invasion of Japan would ultimately have led to far more causalities. Nemesis by Max Hastings is probably the best book on the topic IMO. Read it and you will also learn how Japan to this day is whitewashing its own horrific atrocities in China.

Heck, the Allied firebombings of Dresden and Hannover caused more civilian casualties than the nukes but no one ever picks those as an argument to ban conventional bombs.

[speakeasy]

(01-31-2012 12:56 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Heck, the Allied firebombings of Dresden and Hannover caused more civilian casualties than the nukes but no one ever picks those as an argument to ban conventional bombs.

^^^ This. And let's not forget that the Japanese were every bit as diabolical as the Germans. As docile as Japanese men are now, they were quite some formidable warriors during WWII. That one small nation holding all of Pacific Asia under its thumb.

[Deluge]

(01-31-2012 01:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-31-2012 12:56 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Heck, the Allied firebombings of Dresden and Hannover caused more civilian casualties than the nukes but no one ever picks those as an argument to ban conventional bombs.

^^^ This. And let's not forget that the Japanese were every bit as diabolical as the Germans. As docile as Japanese men are now, they were quite some formidable warriors during WWII. That one small nation holding all of Pacific Asia under its thumb.

Google the Rape of Nanking. I visited the Massacre Memorial of it when I stayed in Nanjing (name changed), made me want to puke.

[vinman]

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/new...l-1.404227

[nomadicdude]

It is not about stopping Iran from getting the bomb. It's about regime change. The bomb is just an excuse for regime change, just like WMD in Iraq.

Most Americans haven't learned anything, and would support an attack on Iran.

[ColSpanker]

Old Arabic curse:
"May you live to see your sons make war on their grandfather."

[Blunt]

(01-31-2012 01:37 AM)nomadicdude Wrote:  

It is not about stopping Iran from getting the bomb. It's about regime change. The bomb is just an excuse for regime change, just like WMD in Iraq.

Most Americans haven't learned anything, and would support an attack on Iran.

Again, you've made a rash generalization about Americans being ignorant, without attempting to qualify it or back it up. If all of the Americans that you know are truly just ignorant, then I feel sorry for you.

An attack on Iran and an invasion of Iran are two different things. A regime change would likely require an invasion. I'm not sure which you are referring to.

[Luckystar]

(01-31-2012 08:28 AM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

Old Arabic curse:
"May you live to see your sons make war on their grandfather."

Ouch.

[Brian]

(01-30-2012 03:11 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

It sure seems like it. I've always been anti-US aggression but I don't know how I'd feel if my country invades my father's homeland where I have many relatives.

Just out of curiosity Roosh, why did your Dad leave Iran?

[Luckystar]

I have long been very, very attracted to Persian girls.

I don't wish ill on Iran, but I wish Iran was a free and open society where I could take a crack at some of them. I've often heard that the young Persians in Iran are actually quite liberal and that it's the state that imposes the conservative values upon them. Not entirely sure if that's true or not.

Persian girls in NA are some of the hardest core bitches you'll ever find.