Afghanistan - Taliban not the problem - Pakistan is
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Attack me and my opinions with something a little more rational. I assure you, my hate of US foreign policy and outright aggression is very rational.
Unlike the defeated Nazis of WW2, the US has not been defeated. That is no reason to not tell the truth about their warmongering aggression. There is very good reason to talk about it openly if there is any chance in the least that it will open people's minds to what's happening and thereby embarrass the US into not going to war with one more country and murdering millions more under their bombs.
I will never apologize for hating evil my friend. Do you support evil?
I partially agree, but not totally. Sure nuclear weapons are protecting North Korea too. The problem though is that the more nuclear weapons there are, the more aggressive the US becomes towards non-nuclear power in a race against the bomb. In a sense, we can cay North Korea and Pakistan are partially to blame for the US invasion of Iraq (as they cause the US to fear that Iraq would follow in their footsteps) and Iran (for the same reason). Now let's say that Iran suddenly had a nuclear test tomorrow. On the one hand, yes it would immediately take the US off Iran's tail, but then the US would likely start looking around at what other country might want such weapons. In short, it encourages pre-emptive war on the part of the US, thus making the world less safe and predictable overall.
But I agree it's a tough call, as it's a vicious cycle. The more pre-emptive the US becomes, the more tempted other countries are to adopt nuclear weapons. And the more weapons there are, the more preemptive the US becomes. Essentially, it's just another kind of unsustainable and dangerous arms race that's bound to end badly sooner or later. Both sides are responsible to varying degrees, and even Canada is responsible for not calling on the US to end its preemptive strike doctrine.
The other side of that coin is, that the sooner the US invades every non-nuclear country the sooner they will run out of countries to invade. By that time they will have spread themselves so thin they will cease to be a threat to anybody - kinda like Hitler did.
Machjo, I appreciate your attempt to address the issue sensibly but I must correct you on one of your assumptions on which you seem to base your argument. The US did not invade Iraq because it feared that Iraq was going to procure nuclear weapons. Think back to the first Gulf war because the US aggression was for the exact same reason. That obviously was, Saddam was leading his nation to more prosperity and riches after the end of the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq had already become one of the leading countries of the ME in freedoms to it's people and equality of women. And most importantly, Saddam was privatizing Iraq's oil resources which would eventually lead to the US's inability to manipulate ME oil markets.
But besides all that, which I would be more than willing to argue in detail, you are apparently saying that for another country to become nuclear weapons capable it would lead to yet another country which is not capable being invaded and bombed by the US. Do you find any sense whatsoever in such an objection?? Are you really trying to say that Iran should not become nuclear weapon capable because it may lead to a US invasion of say Cambodia or Mexico, for examples?
I contend that the lack of an arms race is what is ending badly for too many countries. Although I fully understand the risk of many countries being nuclear armed, I can't for the life of me ignore the consequences of small countries not being armed if they are countries that have resources which the US covets.
The US has a track record of wars of aggression going back to Panama in the early 1900's, numbering over 30 wars of aggression. Should Venezuela for instance not attempt to procure it's own nuclear weapons when it's becoming painfully obvious that they will soon become another US victim. Or should they forsake nuclear weapons for the sake of another resource rich country.
Should we be more concerned with what could be if many countries are nuclear capable over coming to accepting what has been through US aggression? And should we even accept that your theory is valid? I would suggest to you that it makes no sense at all for a country to sit back and wait to become another victim in the long string of victims.
Wishful thinking Cliffy. The US is and intends to remain many times stronger militarily than their nearest opponent. What we need but won't get for a long time is another country which can assert itself as a balance against US aggression. The very best we can hope for is countries have their nuclear deterrant and be vocal in their willingness to use them against the US as a counter-attack. Even though that would lead to the smaller country's annihiliaton.
China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and perhaps some others have made themselves immune to military aggression by the US. At least they need only fear political dirty tricks against their countries as the US plays it's huge richness against them and their peoples.
It is no less than our duty as peace loving human beings to recognize the threat the US poses against humanity.
But besides all that, which I would be more than willing to argue in detail, you are apparently saying that for another country to become nuclear weapons capable it would lead to yet another country which is not capable being invaded and bombed by the US. Do you find any sense whatsoever in such an objection?? Are you really trying to say that Iran should not become nuclear weapon capable because it may lead to a US invasion of say Cambodia or Mexico, for examples?
I contend that the lack of an arms race is what is ending badly for too many countries. Although I fully understand the risk of many countries being nuclear armed, I can't for the life of me ignore the consequences of small countries not being armed if they are countries that have resources which the US covets.
The US has a track record of wars of aggression going back to Panama in the early 1900's, numbering over 30 wars of aggression. Should Venezuela for instance not attempt to procure it's own nuclear weapons when it's becoming painfully obvious that they will soon become another US victim. Or should they forsake nuclear weapons for the sake of another resource rich country.
Should we be more concerned with what could be if many countries are nuclear capable over coming to accepting what has been through US aggression? And should we even accept that your theory is valid? I would suggest to you that it makes no sense at all for a country to sit back and wait to become another victim in the long string of victims.
Wishful thinking Cliffy. The US is and intends to remain many times stronger militarily than their nearest opponent. What we need but won't get for a long time is another country which can assert itself as a balance against US aggression. The very best we can hope for is countries have their nuclear deterrant and be vocal in their willingness to use them against the US as a counter-attack. Even though that would lead to the smaller country's annihiliaton.
China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and perhaps some others have made themselves immune to military aggression by the US. At least they need only fear political dirty tricks against their countries as the US plays it's huge richness against them and their peoples.
It is no less than our duty as peace loving human beings to recognize the threat the US poses against humanity.
Well I reckon we will have to chose a country then. There are so many to chose from as well.
If we find ourselves under a mushroom cloud, rest assured some country is going to find themselves under at least a dozen.
Yes.
Tell me something newguy...do you think you are original here? Do you think you are the only one saying this stuff? Do you think you are breaking new ground here and enlightening the forum?
Give your head a shake.
What do you suggest?
Don't get your panties in a bunch.
I was just making a statement.
I have issues with the US but I don't hate them. Been there many times, for the most part very nice people.
I do worry however about the decline in what once was a great nation.
ES, you must mean 'choose' not 'chose'. Tough talk with the obvious intention of baiting me doesn't impress. You talk of 'choosing' a country to destroy in a way that I have learned to accept as the standard from Americans. It sounds more like you are contemplating swatting flies as opposed to murdering millions more human beings. Is my hate for that kind of attitude irrational? It may impress the gung-ho warmongers and a lot of Americans but it fails miserably with me. It makes it very clear to me what I am dealing with in you.
Whose hate is ugly and irrational, mine or yours? The age of US overkill has come and gone. You can only kill innocent human being once.
Perhaps what I have to say is nothing new but then again, perhaps it has not been said often enough by enough people. I hope to change that a little. Have a nice day pulling wings off of house flies.
Avro, I've been to the US many times and have met some nice people there too. But I am cautious of venturing too far south because what sometimes appear to be nice people on the surface is usually quickly betrayed to be a false impression as they display their arrogance and their dogma. For instance, in the matter of religious belief or lack of same, they simply cannot abide anyone who differs from them. Or in many other matters, if you have an opinion that differs from their opinions it's best to keep your opinions to yourself. It is simply not a place to go and expect to express one's opinions as an equal.
If your avatar is yours, which I'm sure it's not, you would probably be too young to understand what makes people decent people. It's very easy to be pleasant and voice the time of day in pleasantries but when it gets a little more coplicated and deeper than that, it becomes evident that most of them are really not very nice people. Their ideals and the things that we consider make us a decent people are not consistent with their ideals. Witness how some of them express their crooked views on this very forum! We should talk about it some time. And don't worry about my panties, worry about keeping yours on and intact.
Sure can't fault your support of the Habs though!
Rise above it Cliffy, that's the way they want to play the game because they are capable of no better.
Sure would be nice if they learned how to spell simple words like 'then', 'than', 'led', 'lead', ectc. though. They 'are' capable we know. They have mastered the spelling of all their weapons of mass destruction! LOL
Whose hate is ugly and irrational, mine or yours? The age of US overkill has come and gone. You can only kill innocent human being once.
Perhaps what I have to say is nothing new but then again, perhaps it has not been said often enough by enough people. I hope to change that a little. Have a nice day pulling wings off of house flies.
Avro, I've been to the US many times and have met some nice people there too. But I am cautious of venturing too far south because what sometimes appear to be nice people on the surface is usually quickly betrayed to be a false impression as they display their arrogance and their dogma. For instance, in the matter of religious belief or lack of same, they simply cannot abide anyone who differs from them. Or in many other matters, if you have an opinion that differs from their opinions it's best to keep your opinions to yourself. It is simply not a place to go and expect to express one's opinions as an equal.
If your avatar is yours, which I'm sure it's not, you would probably be too young to understand what makes people decent people. It's very easy to be pleasant and voice the time of day in pleasantries but when it gets a little more coplicated and deeper than that, it becomes evident that most of them are really not very nice people. Their ideals and the things that we consider make us a decent people are not consistent with their ideals. Witness how some of them express their crooked views on this very forum! We should talk about it some time. And don't worry about my panties, worry about keeping yours on and intact.
Sure can't fault your support of the Habs though!
Rise above it Cliffy, that's the way they want to play the game because they are capable of no better.
Sure would be nice if they learned how to spell simple words like 'then', 'than', 'led', 'lead', ectc. though. They 'are' capable we know. They have mastered the spelling of all their weapons of mass destruction! LOL
Well thank you for the correction. You're one of those guys are you.
I'm not baiting you, I am simply responding to your posts. Put me on ignore if you wish.
It is what you wanted to hear as well. Correct?
Yet your screen name is the UShaditComing so you obviously relish the thought of thousands of Americans getting killed and look forward to more from what I gather. It makes me pretty clear what I am dealing with you.
Yours.
LOL. Don't flatter yourself. It has been said many times in here. You are one of many and will change nothing. Stick around and you'll see.
Hey I never thought of doing that! Is it fun?
Don't worry, I have been sparring with the two ex-Marines here for a couple of years. We all know where we are coming from.
Cliffy, Oh, ex is it? That explains some of the frustration. But don't take it for granted that they ever had anything to do with that bunch of professional murderers. I've found that at least 8 out of 10 times they are just posers. I'll trap one of them and prove it out for everyone in short order.
Oh... posing as a Marine? I welcome the challenge.
I'll start off. I was in 3/6 and an 0311. Any clue what those numbers mean without searching the internet?
Update:Ten minutes gone. Far too slow.
FAILED
You would have to tell me something that only a marine would know. That, I could learn from my son's knowledge of playing war video games, if I didn't already know. Tell ya what though, let's lay our cards on the table and you have a shot at it. If you can't then do you promise to go away and stop bothering me? Take all the time you need. And no, you can't answer a question with another question.
Last edited:
Well that basically told you something that only a Marine would know. What is 3/6? What is an 0311?
You're the guy who was going to expose the Marine "posers'. How do you intend to do that?
I knew you couldn't. I'm finished with you now. Go play rifleman with somebody who may be impressed.
He showed his ... now it's your turn, newbie....
I expect we'll see your name in red shortly anyhow.
I expect we'll see your name in red shortly anyhow.
I just did answer his stupid question but if you don't understand then ask him. And why would you see my name in red? It seems to me that you're the one taking a cheap shot at me here for something that is none of your business.
When do the troll accusations start? Do you have a favourite moderator who will always take your side in a dispute? Can you get away with pretty much anything on this forum?
And anybody, what's this reputation thing? I see I have one to the bad because some nitwit doesn't like one of my posts. Am I supposed to take that kind of crap seriously?
heh
