Quake3World

I wonder if this story impacts things at all:

"Iran far from nuclear bomb, U.S. finds
Intelligence estimate contrasts with administration’s statements"

"A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8791468/

no matter how you haters try to make things look like, when its all said and done America is the good guys and iran/iraq/nkorea and the such are the bad guys
just be thankful we're the top dog and not some other nation like china

stocktroll wrote:no matter how you haters try to make things look like, when its all said and done America is the good guys and iran/iraq/nkorea and the such are the bad guys
just be thankful we're the top dog and not some other nation like china

I'm not so sure if the US is the good guy.
What's the difference between bombing a Spanish train/English subway and throwing a nuke on a civil target (religious locations)?

I sure as hell already feel ashamed of my own government (here in the Netherlands)... or Europe in general. The fact that they don't respond to nuclear threats coming from the US makes me want to throw up. Europe is the US' lapdog with Blair being their favourite poodle.

Europe should say Fuck you America, if you're going to threaten with nuclear weapons, we're not gonna listen to you anymore. It's simply outrageous.

tnf wrote:I'm pretty sure that this plan won't be implemented as soon as we're attacked by a terrorist again. But I can't say that with 100% certainty.

well, that IS the plan, according the story

...a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States...includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons

it may of course just be one of many plans but after iraq it isn't difficult to imagine another feeble 'pre-emptive defence' case being made.

Jesus fucking christ! They can't threaten Iran with military and economic stuff.... they'll threaten back by raising the oil prices and absolutely destroy our collective economies. Besides that, China is the main importer of Iranian oil so we're risking a conflict with them as well.

And don't even think about conventional military action against Iran, they'd win so hard it wouldn't even be funny anymore. It'd be the end of Western global domination.

stocktroll wrote:no matter how you haters try to make things look like, when its all said and done America is the good guys and iran/iraq/nkorea and the such are the bad guys
just be thankful we're the top dog and not some other nation like china

some would say that the state isn't a moral agent, and that it acts in the self-interest of whoever it truly represents (not necessarily who it *formally* represents), so to say this or that nation is 'the good guys' is meaningless. instead states are judged by the *consequences* of their policies (rather than by the 'good' intentions of those policies) - and measured in consequences, it's easy to see that the US (i.e. the state, not the people) has not always been a good thing overall, and is becoming more of a bad thing overall year by year

edit: what i'm trying to say here is get your head out your arse mate and unlearn all the propaganda they taught you in grade school

Eraser wrote:What's the difference between bombing a Spanish train/English subway and throwing a nuke on a civil target (religious locations)?

Simple, you fucking idiot, one was done, was wasn't.

Let's rephrase then: what's the difference between putting economic sanctions on a country in the full knowledge that many thousands of people will die because of it and bombing a metroline? Is it not both forcing your will by terrorizing the general population?

Dave wrote:

Eraser wrote:What's the difference between bombing a Spanish train/English subway and throwing a nuke on a civil target (religious locations)?

Simple, you fucking idiot, one was done, was wasn't.

That doesn't matter, it's a hypothetical question.

But if you insist, then what's the difference between bombing a train and invading an entire country based on nothing but lies? A couple of thousands casualties perhaps?

tnf wrote:I wonder if this story impacts things at all:

"Iran far from nuclear bomb, U.S. finds
Intelligence estimate contrasts with administration’s statements"

"A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8791468/

Since when has real intelligence had any impact on their policies?

Oh btw, check out this highly interesting article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07302005.html

Eraser wrote:

Dave wrote:

Eraser wrote:What's the difference between bombing a Spanish train/English subway and throwing a nuke on a civil target (religious locations)?

Simple, you fucking idiot, one was done, was wasn't.

That doesn't matter, it's a hypothetical question.

But if you insist, then what's the difference between bombing a train and invading an entire country based on nothing but lies? A couple of thousands casualties perhaps?

Sure it matters. You're talking about something hypothetical as if it actually happened. At least you decided to pick a valid comparison after I decided to call you on your shit.

Dave wrote:

Eraser wrote:

Dave wrote: Simple, you fucking idiot, one was done, was wasn't.

That doesn't matter, it's a hypothetical question.

But if you insist, then what's the difference between bombing a train and invading an entire country based on nothing but lies? A couple of thousands casualties perhaps?

Sure it matters. You're talking about something hypothetical as if it actually happened. At least you decided to pick a valid comparison after I decided to call you on your shit.

So you're saying the US is just talking bullshit when they mention nukes? Really adds to their credibility then don't you think?'

Yeah sure, just bullying others by bigmouthing them and boasting the destructive power of your fighting force isn't half as bad as actually using that destructive power, but it still shows the US government are cunts, and are quickly drifting away from the good-guy side. Threatening with nuclear weapons is not something that's to be taken lightly.

Ryoki wrote:Oh btw, check out this highly interesting article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07302005.html

Oh that's fucking rich. So, not only were we circling Baghdad with 3 nukes for no apparent reason (were we really going to nuke them in the first war?), but after dropping them off in the shallow end of the ocean, 3 months went by where we didn't even bother to retrieve them or make sure they were not retrievable?

When it comes to nukes, it's hard not to say that we're one of the most dangerous countries that has them - not because we threaten others with them or might use them (never, never!), but because we handle them with all the precaution of pellet guns. This isn't exactly the first "accidentally lost" nuclear warhead we've had on our hands.

But I guess when you have hundreds of them, it's hard to keep track of all those darned things!

Yeah, the whole article had me shaking my head and rolling my eyes.