7 Reasons To Nuke The US

Status
Not open for further replies.

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia


7 Reasons To Nuke The USA

By Yamin Zakaria

02/23/07 "
ICH" -- -- According to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which the US has adopted since 9/11, it too can be subjected to a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as it poses a threat to other peaceful nations of the world. The US has a sordid track record for using such weapons against civilians and it has constantly maintained a large stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, and continuously develops them. There are additional reasons to nuke the US, however I have decided to highlight only seven, which I have listed below.

This is partly for brevity and I hope it might have some resonance with the Zionist-Christian Fundamentalists, especially the nutty ones, as number 7 has significance in the Bible. Also, they are constantly yearning for the Armageddon, and nuking USA may only speed up the process, so for a change I might have these Christian-Zionists on my side! The Halleluiah brigade would probably jump up, waving their arms in the air whilst claiming to be speaking in tongues, proclaim that the good Lord says: bring it on, nuke the US for their sins! Perhaps, I would also have the communists and their variants to concur with me, as nuking the leading capitalist nation by non-state actors would seem like initiating a 21st century explosive revolution by the powerless proletariats against the capitalist class!

Before anyone screams mass murder, they ought to consider that their judgments will rest on the identity of the victims and the perpetrators. If it is the ‘terrorists’ (non state-actors, freedom fighters, Iraqi resistance etc) nuking the US, it will be depicted as terrorism and mass murder; conversely if the US uses such weapons, it will be defensive measures in the guise of a pre-emptive strike to eliminate potential threats incurring lots of collateral damages. Like the collateral damages inflicted on a massive scale when the Atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither were military targets and by this time Japan was already on its knees with no Air Force and its Navy almost annihilated. Perhaps one day some objective historian might call that an act of terrorism! Let me now list the 7 reasons to Nuke the USA.

1) The US was established on the blood of 70 million Native Americans. Their lands were stolen. Since the US leadership considers it right of the Jews to occupy Palestine as they lived here over 2000 years ago, then the Native Americans can also argue back only 500 years and have their lands returned to them. So a valid ground to repatriate the European colonizers, if they refuse they can be herded into camps, subjected to a trail of tears. Alternatively they can be nuked out of existence for resisting, as well as retribution for the brutal killing of their ancestors.

2) Consider the crimes against the Africans, their enslavement, oppression and lynching for centuries, which led to millions perishing. An irony of the declaration of independence by the Founding Fathers of the US, who stated that all men were created equal, whilst Afro-Americans were subjected to such brutality which continued for many decades. They have the right seek retribution (including nuclear strike) against the descendents of the criminals who have not paid them any compensation.

3) During the Spanish-American war at the turn of century, Philippines was colonized, and at least a 250,000 Filipinos were killed, then the country was turned into a brothel for the US soldiers, and it continues to be used in that manner. We don’t find Billy Graham and his ilk lecturing about the sin here. Nor do we find the voices for women’s rights; I suppose if they covered up instead of spreading their legs to the US soldiers then it would be cause for alarm! The Filipinos have the right of retribution for the carnage and rape.

4) The killing of the innocent Vietnamese populations and supporting monsters like the Pol Pot led to millions of Cambodians being killed. They too have the right of retribution and a nuclear strike would serve as deterrence for future attacks by the US.

5) The ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians through arming the Zionists, and the genocide against the Iraqis from 1991 onwards are good reasons to nuke the US and halt the massacre and oppression. A bully always think twice when it gets a punched by one of its victim. The only reason why the US has not used nukes against the Islamic world because it fears nuclear reprisal, as Muslims do not believe in turning the other cheek, for that matter neither do the Christians!

6) Using the various financial institutions, and bribing corrupt regimes, the US has exploited the economic resources for its own benefit, bringing misery to millions around the world. Nuking the US would halt these forms of oppression, and a new economic order is likely to prevail after it is crippled permanently by nuking it.

7) At present everyone is speculating the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by the US or through its proxy Israel. A pre-emptive strike would make the US and the Zionists think twice, as the American and Israeli masses might appreciate what it means to use such weapons. I doubt they would have the appetite for more. For the Iraqis and the oppressed around the world they are already dying, their situation is unlikely to get any worse than it is.

Using the principles of free speech I have expressed the case for nuking the US and I am sure others would add to the above list. My opponents would try and gag me under the pretext of promoting terrorism, of course that is because I am advocating that Americans are terrorized in order to restrain the beast amongst them. Giving them a taste of their own medicine would make the US masses actually realize what foreign policy, collateral damages etc really means! In contrast, the numerous times calls have been made to nuke Iran, Mecca, North Korea etc goes unnoticed, of course that would not be promoting terrorism but upholding free speech. Is this not double standard? Of course not as it depends on whose standards you are using as a yardstick!

Although I have made the case for nuking the US but I would oppose the use of such weapons, a nuclear war would lead to everyone losing out. Mass murder on such a scale would bring misery to all sides. Hence, I would favor a genuine nuclear-free world and not a nuclear-free Iran only! Likewise a nuclear-free Middle East and not a nuclear Israel with nuclear-free Arabs. The only justification for using such weapons would be one of last resort of self-defense, which the Iranians, Iraqis and Palestinians and others might resort to given the constant US and Israeli aggression against them.

Now consider this scenario, a Caliphate is established in the Middle East that has unified the Islamic world, it’s armed with nuclear weapons. No doubt it would be competing with the US in the international arena. Who is more like to use such weapons? Foreign policy of the Caliphate is Jihad, which is the spread of Islam, using nukes to annihilate entire section of population, would defeat that central objective of spreading the message of Islam. Nukes and Jihad does not go hand in hand unless it is entirely for defensive purpose.

Where as the US as a Capitalist nation is a far better candidate as it: has a track record for using such weapons; it seeks to maximize its interests at any cost, so annihilating other races fits with its philosophy and morals, and it has a strong record for committing genocide on a massive scale in order to exploit natural resources and enforce hegemony.

They scream peace, but what they mean is war; they shout freedom but what they mean is enslavement; they shout democracy but what they mean is democracy for its multinationals. The Holy Quran describes such people whose words contradict their deeds: “And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only. Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not. (2:11-12)

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org) - Mumbai, India
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)











HOME
 

Dalreg

Electoral Member
Sep 29, 2006
191
1
18
Saskatchewan eh!
70 million native americans? Lucky if there were 7 million.

You want to nuke the USA go ahead just make sure when they return the favor you are no where near me.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Gopher said:
Don't nuke me, I'm innocent!
............ along with a buncha other Canucks who would be affected.
It would be suicidal for someone to launch against the US. Quite stupid, too, as the reaction would be that any ccountry on the planet would be a potential target for Iraq-like invasions.
 
Last edited:

westmanguy

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,651
18
38
Holy Moma, if they dropped the N-word (lol, get it) on the USA, all hell would break loose.

I would jump in my bomb shelter and hope for the best! b/c if that happened the USA would be at war quicker then you could say FIRE!

I could say with all honesty WW III would emmerge if any country dared to nuke the USA.

One good thing would come out of a massive attack dropped on the USA... the nation would move to the right very fast, and conservative values and right-winged values would be at the centre stage.
 

westmanguy

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,651
18
38
darkbeaver you witty behavior reminds me of the Bell Beavers.



You know those beavers that talk on the commercials about ExpressVu, Sympatico, and Bell Mobility.

Feel free to grab that pic as your addy.

But seriously, you are an amazing intellect darkbeaver, you are in touch with so many issues it makes my head spin.
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
Well I guess turn about is fair play. If the USA was subject to their own policies then a pre-emptive strike would be in order. Just goes to show you the hypocracies in American forgien poli cy.:evil:
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Well I guess turn about is fair play. If the USA was subject to their own policies then a pre-emptive strike would be in order. Just goes to show you the hypocracies in American forgien poli cy.:evil:


Nooooo!!! Wait!!! It isn't the USA that is preemptively attacking anyone -- it's Bush_Hitler, Junior that is doing so. Take it out on that @#$#@, not me!:wink:
 

Logic 7

Council Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,382
9
38



Only 7?


There is about thousands of reason to nuke Usa, however it will means we are just like them(us right wing)

The thing is, In usa there is a lot of good peoples who are against them, just like us, something is happening in the us, and according to me, for the good.​
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Oh man I laugh so hard.

Especially about #1.

You got the logic backwards. America believes that whether or not their ancestors stole land from people now dead is irrelevant. They were not alive , they didn't commit a crime, they bear no responsibility. Therefore, regardless of if the Israelis stole land, they were born there, and those they stole from are the vast majority, now dead.

Therefore, no breach in logic.



Of course, the rest is all idiocy whereby one ignores the concept of a sovereign nation. That means they can do what they want, to other nations.

Sure they can be nuked, if anyone wants to go for it. Sovereignty works both ways.

Lets face it, the reason the US hasn't nuked the Middle east isn't fear of reprisals, you grossly underestimate the size of the USA and its nuclear arsenal.

If the USA wanted to nuke the middle east, it would be glass. 1.) there would be no time for reprisals. 2.) any reprisals that were forth coming would be pointless. You can knock out a dozen or so US city without doing much more than being a blip in its economy, the USA truly is a powerhouse, if one city fails another will pick up the pieces damn quick.

Only Russia really has a big enough arsenal to harm the USA, and why would it? The US drives the oil spike that keeps it affloat. Its China's major customer, and keeps Europe from turning on themselves like they traditionally do every 20 years (Europe has a bloodier, more unruly history than the middle east by a vast margin, traditionally the middle east has been the sleepy little corner of the globe).

Nuke USA if you want, but the only people who can hurt it have been carefully appeased by it.


Someone is always at the top, it isn't ever going to be you, and now its the USA. Even if you did knock it off, you aren't going to get anyone any nicer in that throne and they could be a whole lot worse.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Is there even a point to that post or what? honestly things like that have no point on a discussion forum and should just be chopped by a mod.

But thanks for coming out, by your lack of rebuttal I guess that means you agree with me?

:wave:
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
according to a friend of mine, a large amount of palestinians now live in Jordan. The jordanians don't seem too keen on it either. I can't comment on why because people get a little... heartfelt... when u go any deeper
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
No amount of intentionally limiting the creative imagination of people like Zzarchov to only considering the outcome of a nuclear engagement of any nation on the face of this planet as limited to only that nation would or will make one iota of difference to the outcome. Radioactive contamination of water, petroleum, air, species that would survive for some brief period would eventually contaminate those in even the most remote places on the surface. If anyone thinks that a nuclear event in say New York City or Los Angeles or Chigaco wouldn't dramatically change the complexion of what's left of this planet is living in a dream world. That any consideration can be given to the survivability of a nuclear exchange is ludicrous. If you're proud to be among the people who rally around the banner of mutual assurred destruction, then I suppose you'd believe that AIDS and cancer, heavy metal contamination of sea life and soils is simply a hurdle to be overcome.....but survivable...

Wrong
 

westmanguy

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,651
18
38
Prob. is the USA is too powerful, and if they got attacked or nuked it would be bloody WW III

Besides that Secular Progressives and Liberals/lefties would dread an attack on the USA.

b/c if we were given another major attack like 9/11 the USA would go to the right and be very conservative very fast.

9/11 conservative/right wing has worn off... so in a sense I would like an attack in the sense the USA would move to the right again.

So these terrorists help keep people conservative and right-winged, which is only a good thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.