if iran keeps enriching nuclear fuel, america should bomb them

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 184
Topic's author
#91
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
you're also making those other countries sound worse than they are. pakistan probably didn't officially give shelter to osama, he probably just stayed there. the terrorists from saudi arabia probably weren't sanctioned by the government, that's just where they happen to have come from. and north korea as far as i know doesn't support terrorism.... they might have the capability to do major damage, but that doesn't mean they are supporting terrorism or wanting to destroy other countries. 

where's the support for terrorists from the governments of those countries? where the talk of wiping out other countries? 
#92
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
No but the USA already has them, do you propose bombing them?
#93
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
yeah
.
.
.
nah
#94
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
So you only want to bomb and kill and maim Iranian children by the millions. How do you feel about American children being killed by the millions? All the same to you?
#95
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
At least Hamas supplied from Iran does not just kill Israeli children.

They kill their own kids too.


Allahu Ackbar you Sharia law freakazoids.


#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
those other countries may be worse than i realize, but that doesn't mean iran should have nukes. if we could have stopped the other countries, we should have too, if they are bad actors. do you seriously think it's alright for evil countries should have nukes?
Try and look at it this way.

There are a bunch of kids on a playground.  Some kids are bigger than others.  Some kids are more aggressive than others.  And some kids have sticks and some kids have knives and some kids have slingshots and then one day, one of the kids gets a gun.

That kid (USA) with a gun can automatically get cooperation from the other kids without even brandishing the gun.  Everybody on the playground knows they have the gun.  Everybody knows what happened when they pulled the trigger on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Then some other kids get guns (Russia, China) and they feel more secure, they don't feel implicitly coerced by the USA.  They feel they can negotiate as equals.

Then the USA starts giving guns to their friends.  Then Russia and China start giving guns to their friends.

Then the USA and Russia and China (UN Security Council) realize this is getting a little out of hand and decide to sign a non-proliferation treaty that basically says, "everyone who has a gun can keep it, but no new guns".

North Korea and Iran say, "you're not the boss of me, you guys aren't the king of the world, if I can figure out how to build a gun, you can't stop me".

Nobody "granted permission" to the USA and Russia and China before they got their guns.  

The USA doesn't have any right to make rules for SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES.
#97
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
where the talk of wiping out other countries? 
The sparring between India and Pakistan last month threatened to spiral out of control and only interventions by U.S. officials, including National Security Advisor John Bolton, headed off a bigger conflict, five sources familiar with the events said.

At one stage, India threatened to fire at least six missiles at Pakistan, and Islamabad said it would respond with its own missile strikes “three times over”, according to Western diplomats and government sources in New Delhi, Islamabad and Washington. [LINK]

North Korea threatened South Korea with “final destruction” during a debate at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament on Tuesday, saying it could take further steps after a nuclear test last week. [LINK]

2005: Chinese general threatened to nuclear bomb the U.S..
Chinese general warns of nuclear risk to US

"A senior Chinese general has warned that his country could destroy hundreds of American cities with nuclear weapons if the two nations clashed over Taiwan."

2006: China threatened to nuclear bomb Japan
The president or premier of China said it in March 2006.
This was one of links to communist websites in China that carried the story. China removed the story after it got so much attention.

moreover:
China doesn't care about its economy when it comes to war. China's leaders have already said that going to war is more important than its economy

As the former Soviet Union faces tough sanctions from the Obama Administration and European Union (EU) in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and incursion into Eastern Ukraine, Putin threatens the United States. The Russian president fired off more ominous rhetoric as his country’s Ruble and economy continue to suffer. Vladimir Putin warns that the continued “hostile” posturing from the West and its partners could have “nuclear consequences.” [LINK]
Topic's author
#98
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
that's one of the stupidest arguments ever. evil countries shouldn't have nukes. it's not complicated. reality is harsh, and you either eat or get eaten in these sorts of situations. that's why evil people can't have guns. why should we limit the rights of people to have guns if they are bad actors, in their own home? 
military generals take it as a given that if iran gets nukes, they will funnel them to terrorists. would you rather deal with iran before or after they get nukes? 

you're being stupid. you are out of touch with reality  

#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
that's why evil people can't have guns.
Maybe you missed this bit of news... [LINK]
Topic's author
#100
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
all you are doing is showing why as few countries should have nukes as possible, with showing all that sparring. when they are in bed with terrorists as much as iran is, that's all the more reason to stop them. 
#101
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
There is a reason why we do not let crazy people own guns.

Sharia Law Theocracies are fucking nutso on a global scale.
Topic's author
#102
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
we can't stop people from killing with guns, but if they are bad guys with a past, we can try to stop them. you aren't making a legitimate point. 

you're being illogical. 
#103
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
those other countries may be worse than i realize, but that doesn't mean iran should have nukes.
Duh, nobody should have nuclear bombs yet they do. Get real dude.

#104
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
all you are doing is showing why as few countries should have nukes as possible,
Read my lips/text. Absolutely no countries should have nuclear weapons. You obviously have no idea the destruction a single hydrogen bomb can do.

Please get real dude.

#105
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I can't wait to see the EU flooded with the mother load of refugees once iran gets the bomb. Screw the EU.
Topic's author
#106
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
should all the kids on the play ground get a gun, cause they are all soveriegn? even the kids who are bullies and show their willingness to use the guns to murder people? even if we can prevent it?

get real. 
#107
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
You must mean the USA. Gotcha.
#108
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
military generals take it as a given that if iran gets nukes, they will funnel them to terrorists.
Do you live in a world where people are punished for being hypothetically capable of committing a crime?

Do you live in a world where people are punished for being accused of a crime?

Or do you live in a world where people actually have to commit a crime BEFORE they are punished for it?

The USA can't just attack every country that says "I don't like you".
#109
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
we can't stop people from killing with guns, but if they are bad guys with a past, we can try to stop them. you aren't making a legitimate point. 
How bad is bad?  Do you mean like "Russia bad" or "China bad" or "Pakistan bad" or "Saudia Arabia bad"?

you're being illogical. 
Topic's author
#110
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
you might not agree with me, but i'm not being illogical. i think preemptive action is warranted. it's a rational thought. you on the other hand is trying to say people killing others with guns shows that we shouldn't try to stop them from getting them? actually, i can't make sense of what you were trying to say cause it makes no sense. 

but yeah it makes perfect sense to let all the bullies on the school ground gets guns, even if the teachers and our best military minds think they will murders others, even if we can stop it. how could i have thought otherwise? i would much rather respond to those bullies after they get guns. makes perfect sense. 


#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
should all the kids on the play ground get a gun, cause they are all soveriegn? even the kids who are bullies and show their willingness to use the guns to murder people? even if we can prevent it? 

get real. 
(EITHER) make all of the kids your friends (OR) make all the kids your slaves.

If a kid is not your friend and is not your slave, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO.

At this point the USA has convinced the other kids to stop playing with Iran.  Iran is lonely and hungry and angry.

The USA is reaching for their gun and Russia says, if you shoot Iran, we'll shoot you back.

Now everybody's just standing around staring at Iran, wondering why they're so mad "all of a sudden", just waiting for them to snap so the USA can "prove" to everyone just how "insane" and "dangerous" they are.

The really funny thing is this isn't anything new. [LINK]
Topic's author
#112
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
also, iran supports terrorists. to continue the analogy, if a person engages in violence too much even without a gun, we still try to stop them from getting a gun. iran is evil and conducts evil violence. for some reason all you can do is fall back on some sort of moral supposition that they can do whatever they want cause they are an independent country. i don't know what you're smoking, but that makes no sense on this planet. 
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
also, iran supports terrorists.
Before he became president, Trump said the “world’s biggest funder of terrorism” was Saudi Arabia – not Iran. So is his latest claim is just political rhetoric?

There are no “right” or “wrong” answers here, because it depends how we interpret Trump’s claim. For instance, does “leading sponsor” mean the country that channels the most cash to terrorist groups? Or does it refer to the biggest strategic threat to America?

And which groups are being counted as “terrorists”? The term is the subject of frequent debate; it’s often said that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.

Because of these ambiguities, the issue will ultimately come down to personal opinion. But here are some factors we think are important. [LINK]

Clearly "terrorist" simply means "we don't like you".
#114
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi

This is also going to happen when Iran gets the bomb if the retarded Sharia Theocracy is still in power.

Oh the destruction of the EU is going to be glorious. Thank god for a 3000 mile moat.
#115
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
You might find this interesting.  10 minutes [LINK]
Topic's author
#116
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
do you contest what the generals say, that if iran got nukes they would funnel them to terrorists? if you did contest it, your position would at least be plausible. but, ive heard it multiple times, and from what i can see, iran supports terrorists that even goes against USA interests at times, like our troops. i can acknowledge that there are two sides to every story, and iran has an argument to make at why it does what it does. but that doesn't mean we should give power to them when they've already establshed they are bad actors, and our military and government deem them to be a nuclear proliferation risk. if you see people in a bar fight, using bad tactics, both with some merit to why they're fighting, and that spills over to our people and interests.... do you let them both have guns? doesn't it make more sense to stop them and prevent things from getting out of hand? 
#117
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
You can't use the whataboutism arguments with Iran because you can't compare the USA to a radical theocracy that supports terrorism and genocide.
#118
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
do you contest what the generals say, that if iran got nukes they would funnel them to terrorists?
This is naked speculation.  If Iran developed nuclear weapons it would be a matter of national pride.  They would finally get a seat at the table with the big kids.  Why on earth does anyone think they would just give these away?  Terrorism is a super low-budget operation.  Terrorists are plenty scary with just a few bags of fertilizer and a panel van. 

Terrorism is cheap, like when the USA supported (with CIA training, money and weapons) the Mujaheddin (who later became Al-Qaeda) to oust the Russians from Afghanistan.

Or when the USA staged a military coup against Iran's democratically elected leader for $10,000?

if you did contest it, your position would at least be plausible. but, ive heard it multiple times, and from what i can see, iran supports terrorists that even goes against USA interests at times, like our troops.
Right, like in the Iran-Iraq war when the USA supported Saddam Hussein (the good guy).

i can acknowledge that there are two sides to every story, and iran has an argument to make at why it does what it does. but that doesn't mean we should give power to them when they've already establshed they are bad actors, and our military and government deem them to be a nuclear proliferation risk. if you see people in a bar fight, using bad tactics, both with some merit to why they're fighting, and that spills over to our people and interests.... do you let them both have guns? doesn't it make more sense to stop them and prevent things from getting out of hand? 
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein

History seems to have proven that you can get a lot more material benefit from threatening to nuke people than you can from actually nuking people.
#119
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL

Why on earth does anyone think they would just give these away?
#120
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The very next entity to use a nuke against people on this planet will be, no doubt, Iranian backed Hamas, or possibly the Houthis, unless a pre-emptive strike by either Saudi or Israel happens. It's not a question of if...it is a question of when.