Iran has enough uranium for bomb; UN (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

Wait let me get this straight.

Are you saying that because some countries (which you refer to as ALL) benefited from US involvement in WW2, OVER 60 YEARS AGO, that gives the US the right to impose whatever it want on the rest of the world by force?

No, but thanks to American-led liberation of Europe and Japan, defence of Britain and Australia, plus the economic help afterwards and the continual alliances, these countries all feel indebted to Americaz.

 

[moll.]

yeah, well, that's not going to happen.
Iran having nukes is infinitely less bad than the US having nukes.

No such thing as infinite when dealing with humanity.

 

[SAVAK]

no doubt America being the leader of the free world is better than China, Iran, USSR and so on. but one needs to consider that America may have its head high on freedom, democracy, liberty and rightfully so, however she as a nation is no different from the others that i have named when it comes to treating citizens of the world.

 

[JonathanM]

Wait let me get this straight.

Are you saying that because some countries (which you refer to as ALL) benefited from US involvement in WW2, OVER 60 YEARS AGO, that gives the US the right to impose whatever it want on the rest of the world by force?

Yes. Notice that your name isn't Hans and we aren't speaking in German or Japanese right now?

 

[tycho]

Doesn't mean it has to be them with it. Give them to the U.N. Or the European Union. Those European socialists would be far more steady over the apocalypse button than the religious zealots in l'Amerique.

Yeah, giving nukes to the UN or something would probably be a better option. Although I'm sure there would still be a mountain of problems.

 

[moll.]

Giving nukes to the UN is fucking retarded. I really hope I don't have to explain why.

U.N. Acquires Nuclear Weapon | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Yeah, it was a retard idea. Maybe NATO instead.
Swear to fucking God, we need a new alliance for western countries. Something to replace NATO and which includes Japan, South Korea and, more importantly, us.

 

[JonathanM]

Yeah, it was a retard idea. Maybe NATO instead.
Swear to fucking God, we need a new alliance for western countries. Something to replace NATO and which includes Japan, South Korea and, more importantly, us.

Yeah, we're getting bullied around too much by NATO, especially in Afghanistan.

 

[Iron]

McCain was gonna create the League of Democracies, which included a crack team similar to the French Foreign Legion.

Gee-willikers would it have been swell mister

Take that Russia
Take that China
Take that Middle East
YER AGAINST THE WORLD BAYBE
TUGATUGATUGARGUARGUARGUARUGBBBBBRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrbebrbrbrbebrbebebbrbr crash clang biff
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[SAVAK]

i dont understand why some posters are pushing for Australia to more involved in international military alliances. I think we are already too much involved.

 

[moll.]

i dont understand why some posters are pushing for Australia to more involved in international military alliances. I think we are already too much involved.

That's the point. We're too far involved, despite not being part of any formal alliance with Europe, Japan or any other advanced country, except the US and New Zealand. We're just the lapdog to America, dependant upon their goodwill alliance, not an equal like the European countries. Japan is in a similar situation, but their independant foreign policy helps.

 

[Empyrean444]

We all appointed it sherriff of the world when we went crawling to it for help in WW2 and other instances.

But yeah, Iran + Nukes = Bad

Thread over.

New thread about how fail Rudd Government is for not adopting nuclear power + how much the Greens fail =D

Including all the countries who didn't ask for US help? I think that, if it ever was Sherrif, its term has now long expired.

Nukes + any country = bad

 

[JonathanM]

Including all the countries who didn't ask for US help? I think that, if it ever was Sherrif, its term has now long expired.

What countries specifically are you talking about?

Who would you elect to take its place? What other democratic nation has the same power as the US?

 

[moll.]

What countries specifically are you talking about?

Who would you elect to take its place? What other democratic nation has the same power as the US?

The aforementioned League of Democracies.

 

[JonathanM]

The aforementioned League of Democracies.

The non-existent League of Democracies :/

 

[moll.]

The non-existent League of Democracies :/

It does exist. Just not officially.

 

[SAVAK]

The basis of a democracy is that public opinion translates into government, the people's representatives, policy. In the US, this doesn't happen. It doesn't on the war, it doesn't on social spending (which is declining), military spending (which is increasing), it doesn't on healthcare (eg majority of US citizens want national healthcare and have wanted so for over twenty years), it doesn't on environment (with the now overt threat of environmental catastrophe spelling the end for future generations.

apologizing to a abos doesn't count.

 

[moll.]

The basis of a democracy is that public opinion translates into government, the people's representatives, policy. In the US, this doesn't happen. It doesn't on the war, it doesn't on social spending (which is declining), military spending (which is increasing), it doesn't on healthcare (eg majority of US citizens want national healthcare and have wanted so for over twenty years), it doesn't on environment (with the now overt threat of environmental catastrophe spelling the end for future generations.

apologizing to a abos doesn't count.

It actually does happen on military spending and the enviornment. The GOP loves war and hates anything anti-business, including the environment.
Exactly what do you mean by "social spending"?
And healthcare is a tricky issue. America is split between wanting something all-encompassing (and hence very expensive) or something corporatised but still not far-reaching enough. Finding the balance is difficult, and someones going to end up unhappy.

 

[alexp01]

there is no way that i am pushing for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. yes, my posts may undertone such a notion, but i just don't like 2 different rules for players who play the same game.
Lets face it, If Iran wasn't run by theocratic nut jobs and was pro west, know one would have a problem with whatever they are doing.

Yes mate, you said it yourself and that's the sort of the be and end all of the whole arguement.

..but then again look at George Bush.

 

[alexp01]

Russia has the most, actually.

Yeah well I bet half of them would barely make it from the launch pad.

 

[SylviaB]

there is no way that i am pushing for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. yes, my posts may undertone such a notion, but i just don't like 2 different rules for players who play the same game.
Lets face it, If Iran wasn't run by theocratic nut jobs and was pro west, know one would have a problem with whatever they are doing.

Isn't that the whole point?