65 replies to this topic

[Christianlady]

Propaganda_of_the_Deed, on 15 July 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

We still have to remember that even though their use is in their non-use, they are still weapons with potential for groteque destruction on Bibilical proportions,

Hello,

Aye. The USA, the only government that has used them and who killed thousands of innocent babies, children, men, and women in Japan, know that very well... as well as Japan and the survivors of the cities the USA nuked.

Quote

that technically still have the potential for being used, despite the sabre-rattling function in which they currently serve. Ideally, there should be no nukes,

I 100% agree that ideally there should be no nukes.

Quote

but the world in which we live in, I only see more proliferation - not less. If other states can acquire them, then, in this international system, which is characterised as an over-arching anarchic one - Iran has every right to acquire them, and to do so with their own interests in mind.

I still see it as Iran following the footsteps of the USA going down into a pit, not pleasing God or trusting in God. However, I understand a little bit better your point of view, though I don't share it.

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady, 26 July 2012 - 11:34 AM.

[Hasnain Ali1]

Iran will never create nukes or and for of weapon of mas destruction, True Islam is what is praticed in Itran and they shall not create anything that could harm any innocent people, Iran is not following the foot steps of yanks, Iran is a nation of God.

[Christianlady]

Hasnain Ali1, on 26 July 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Iran will never create nukes or and for of weapon of mas destruction, True Islam is what is praticed in Itran and they shall not create anything that could harm any innocent people, Iran is not following the foot steps of yanks, Iran is a nation of God.

Hello Hasnain Ali,

God can protect a nation without people making nukes. When David killed Goliath, he didn't make an advanced weapon that could blow up Goliath and all Goliath's family and friends and countrymen. Rather, he trusted in God and used a slingshot...

I understand your post and even though I am not a Muslim, I respect it. As a Christian, I am so ashamed of my country for not trusting in God and instead making weapons of mass destruction and using them against others. I believe God can protect my country without people trying to take matters into their own hands and messing everything up by killing thousands of people and becoming guilty of bloodshed.

May God have mercy on the USA and help the USA repent from mass murder and all the atroticities commited.



Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady, 26 July 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[Hasnain Ali1]

Salamz christian lady

Indeed, please forgive me for what i am about to say, but please bear with me. Your leaders are not believers in God, their god is lusifer, and they work in ways to build and create his kingdom on earth, they have corrupted the american people into false ways of life and living for this world, they sell their souls for the tempory, unity in the states is lacking as well as respect for parents, majority of the americans are lost as they have been miss guided. They live their lives in absalute sin. Kids state side engage in sexual acts at very young ages.

In no way am i saying all muslims are angels, for that would be a lie, but most muslim both sunni and shia believe in God. And in no way am i saying that the american people are our enemy, for they have just been fooled by big lies. But your leaders and military are. It is a fact that satanism is a praticed religion in th US military.

I thank you for you kind blessing, may Allah bless you and keep you on the pure path.

Ps i was a former christian and believed that the west was right with out a doubt till i learnt the truth a few years back.

May peace be with you and your family

[Wahdat]

Ugly Jinn, on 25 July 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Also, why doesn't Iran just open all it's doors to the inspectors?

Why dont you just zip it once and for all?

And to answer your not-so-bright question- Saddam opened all his doors to inspectors. What happened to him? So did Gaddafi. What happened to him?

Nukes are not the problem. It is its avatar & excuse.

[Ugly Jinn]

Wahdat, on 26 July 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Why dont you just zip it once and for all?

And to answer your not-so-bright question- Saddam opened all his doors to inspectors. What happened to him? So did Gaddafi. What happened to him?

Nukes are not the problem. It is its avatar & excuse.

Saddam did not allow full access for years until the end of 2002 when it was too late genius.

"A 1999 U.N. Security Council resolution requires Iraq to allow a full team of weapons inspectors at least 60 days on the ground to investigate what has happened since their last access in December 1998. Iraq's refusal to grant full access to weapons inspectors is a key platform for severe U.N. economic sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990."
http://www.pbs.org/n...q_08-05-02.html

Sign off, go do wudhu, and learn history in depth before posting.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 26 July 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[Wahdat]

Ugly Jinn, on 26 July 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Saddam did not allow full access for years until the end of 2002 when it was too late genius.

"A 1999 U.N. Security Council resolution requires Iraq to allow a full team of weapons inspectors at least 60 days on the ground to investigate what has happened since their last access in December 1998. Iraq's refusal to grant full access to weapons inspectors is a key platform for severe U.N. economic sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990."
http://www.pbs.org/n...q_08-05-02.html

Sign off, go do wudhu, and learn history in depth before posting.

[Edited - Avoid direct or implied personal attacks, warn log updated] Everyone in the world now KNOW that Iraq war was not about WMDs, or Saddam but about Oil. What are you trying to tell me? So go right ahead and spare us the WMD-laced Evil Man Saddam argument. Secondly Here is a more accurate take from someone who was actually the head of the UN team for some 7 years.


Thirdly, its only logical to starve your enemy before your big fight. In this case militarily and economically. So once again, its not about WMDs or inspections or..... its just about weakening Iran.

Lastly, grow the hell up and stop wasting your life by playing the devil's advocate on SC. Thats pathetic.

[Ugly Jinn]

Wahdat, on 26 July 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Even the retarded and below average people in the world now KNOW that Iraq war was not about WMDs, or Saddam but about Oil. What are you trying to tell me? So go right ahead and spare us the WMD-laced Evil Man Saddam argument. Secondly Here is a more accurate take from someone who was actually the head of the UN team for some 7 years.

Lastly, grow the hell up and stop wasting your life by playing the devil's advocate on SC. Thats pathetic.

Who said anything about WMD? Do you actually read before posting? You replied stating Iraq gave full access and I replied that it was not the case until the end. That's it, nothing more. [RUDE TEXT]

Saddam screwed up the day he got greedy and invaded Kuwait and years later being uncooperative. And if it was only about oil than US would've justified invading Saudi who has more oil and a weaker military than Iraq.

Quote

Thirdly, its only logical to starve your enemy before your big fight. In this case militarily and economically. So once again, its not about WMDs or inspections or..... its just about weakening Iran.

You don't give a bully reasons to starve you, and Iran hasn't learnt anything from Iraq. [RUDE TEXT] All you can do is complain and whine about what's fair and what's not. You think a bully like the US gets up one morning and picks a random country to harass? No. And until you can figure that out you will always be clueless about politics.

Edited by Haji 2003, 27 July 2012 - 02:51 AM.

[Wahdat]

Ugly Jinn, on 26 July 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Who said anything about WMD? Do you actually read before posting? You replied stating Iraq gave full access and I replied that it was not the case until the end. That's it, nothing more. So stop adding off-topic jibberish to compensate for the lack of substance in your posts.

Saddam screwed up the day he got greedy and invaded Kuwait and years later being uncooperative. And if it was only about oil than US would've justified invading Saudi who has more oil and a weaker military than Iraq.

inspections were supposed to be about non-existent wmds then. and it seems to be the case now with iran.

Quote

You don't give a bully reasons to starve you, and Iran hasn't learnt anything from Iraq. And people with low IQ, like yourself, are clueless as to how politics work. All you can do is complain and whine about what's fair and what's not. You think a bully like the US gets up one morning and picks a random country to harass? No. And until you can figure that out you will always be clueless about politics.

lol US does and so does Iran.
it must have learnt from Iraq for today Iran is the total opposite of iraq. Iraq was fooled and Iran is not. Iraq was hit and Iran is not. Iran progresses and Iraq not (during sanctions)etc etc etc however if Iran gave full access like Saddam was forced to then it could surely be said that Iran did not learn anything from Iraq and walked into the inspection snare willy nilly. So its you, little Einstein, that have not learnt anything from Iraq war or history. You really dont have to argue for the sake of arguing you know.
Now how about....

[Ugly Jinn]

Wahdat, on 26 July 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

inspections were supposed to be about non-existent wmds then. and it seems to be the case now with iran.

Yes, and Saddam still was uncooperative for years, which created unnecessary reasons to attack. Iran is doing the exact same.

Quote

it must have learnt from Iraq for today Iran is the total opposite of iraq.
Iraq was fooled and Iran is not. Iraq was hit and Iran is not. Iran progresses and Iraq not (during sanctions)etc etc etc however if Iran gave full access like Saddam was forced to then it could surely be said that Iran did not learn anything from Iraq and walked into the inspection snare willy nilly. So its you, little Einstein, that have not learnt anything from Iraq war or history. You really dont have to argue for the sake of arguing you know.
Now how about....

Iran/Iraq = Same nuclear issue, same country (US) bullying, both had sanctions, economic woes, neither has wmd yet uncooperative with inspectors, and both had delusional supporters.

[ABA]

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 25 July 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Small tactical nukes against US bases, 'might' have an effect against those bases only, however, you're still going to get hit on your home territory and in your capital cities.

1. If someone is going to bomb your nation from far away, you must have a deterrent.  

2. The US used atomic weapons on Japan without Japan possessing a nuclear weapon.  If Japan had a nuke, this never would have happened because the US would have known that Japan would do the same back.

• # of countries US has used a nuke on that did not have responsive nuclear weapons: 1
  
• # of countries US has used a nuke on that did have responsive nuclear weapons: 0

• Iraq = No Nuke = Destroyed by US Military
  
• N. Korea = Nuke = No attack by US.

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 25 July 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

the US have been altering their bases policy to be more mobile .... and will factor in the fact that the first targets Iran is likely to go after are those bases ... their military strategists will have a plan to deal with it

3.  Doubt US can defend against a nuke at every US base.   Even if they have to plan for it - their job will be very difficult and no plan is 100%.   The US planned a lot of things for Iraq and Afghanistan: what % came true?

4.  If they're going to hit "capital cities" with a nuke, the capital cities of nations sponsoring major US bases are fair game.

[hasanhh]

Ugly Jinn, on 26 July 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Saddam did not allow full access for years until the end of 2002 when it was too late genius.

"A 1999 U.N. Security Council resolution requires Iraq to allow a full team of weapons inspectors at least 60 days on the ground to investigate what has happened since their last access in December 1998. Iraq's refusal to grant full access to weapons inspectors is a key platform for severe U.N. economic sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990."
http://www.pbs.org/n...q_08-05-02.html

Sign off, go do wudhu, and learn history in depth before posting.

You are in error, here.  Saddam did grant full access --twice.  The first time was right after the Persian Gulf Offensive in 1991. Remember that the UN/US went through a lot of Iraqi stuff, blew up the "Doomsday Gun" (a waste of money by Iraq -but Saddam Insane was a Stalinist), and so on. And there were the sanctions deliberately designed to kill people, especially the children who did not have access to vaccines or medicine. [Which doesn't bother the US because Iraqis are some of those "christless sand-niggers" as the American people like to say.] The second time, the UN teams -under US indirect direction via the UN office-- were going everywhere. It was only went Saddam refused to let them search his palaces and dig-up the basements did Saddam draw the line. The US and NATO ALWAYS KNEW there were no chemical weapons because they supplied the munitions and had their own people there to count them even as they were fired into Iranian positions. Even the "duds" were counted. Remember the smalll number of duds the US dug up which were 30-40 feet underground. If the US wasn't there twenty years earlier, how did they know they were there -and so precisely? Iraq had not kept any record of them.
Then the US started doing what they wanted to do all along. Bang the War Drum. Then 9/11 and the US invaded, but changed their primary plan of "turning right" into Iran.

[Ugly Jinn]

hasanhh, on 30 July 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

You are in error, here.  Saddam did grant full access --twice.  The first time was right after the Persian Gulf Offensive in 1991. Remember that the UN/US went through a lot of Iraqi stuff, blew up the "Doomsday Gun" (a waste of money by Iraq -but Saddam Insane was a Stalinist), and so on. And there were the sanctions deliberately designed to kill people, especially the children who did not have access to vaccines or medicine. [Which doesn't bother the US because Iraqis are some of those "christless sand-niggers" as the American people like to say.] The second time, the UN teams -under US indirect direction via the UN office-- were going everywhere. It was only went Saddam refused to let them search his palaces and dig-up the basements did Saddam draw the line. The US and NATO ALWAYS KNEW there were no chemical weapons because they supplied the munitions and had their own people there to count them even as they were fired into Iranian positions. Even the "duds" were counted. Remember the smalll number of duds the US dug up which were 30-40 feet underground. If the US wasn't there twenty years earlier, how did they know they were there -and so precisely? Iraq had not kept any record of them.
Then the US started doing what they wanted to do all along. Bang the War Drum. Then 9/11 and the US invaded, but changed their primary plan of "turning right" into Iran.

"The resolution created the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) and called on inspection teams to be given "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect. In May of 1991, Iraq accepted the privileges and immunities of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its personnel. These guarantees include the right of "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, equipment.

However, in June of 1991, Iraqi personnel fired warning shots to prevent the inspectors from approaching their vehicles. Two months later, Iraqi officials confiscated documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refused to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refused to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day standoff ensued, but Iraq permitted the team to leave with the documents after a statement from the Security Council threatens enforcement actions. This began Saddam's seven year long game of cat and mouse with inspectors, agreeing at times to allow them greater access and then frustrating their attempts to visit suspected weapons sites."

http://www.trvnews.c...2602/index.html

^Iraq never fully cooperated in 1991 and only gave in at the end because of the enforcement threat. This saved him from being toppled by Bush senior. Saddam used the same strategy by being uncooperative years later but it was too late second time around.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 30 July 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[hasanhh]

Ugly Jinn, you are forgetting the subsequent events after 1992.

[jhonkerry]

USA refused to initiate a military intervention because Syria has much more military equipment than Libya and will be expensive to beat. The decision seems to be good as long as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming a new Vietnam War for the States.
Turkey became an enemy of Syria with the introduction of its imperialist political doctrine and the years of cooperation between the two countries were forgotten.

[hasanhh]

jhonkerry, on 27 March 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

USA refused to initiate a military intervention because Syria has much more military equipment than Libya and will be expensive to beat. The decision seems to be good as long as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming a new Vietnam War for the States.
Turkey became an enemy of Syria with the introduction of its imperialist political doctrine and the years of cooperation between the two countries were forgotten.

"expensive to beat" --correct

Your Error: Turkey did not become Syria's enemy because of doctrine, but because it bought the lie it will then be able to join the "christian club" EU. And with Turkey's current good economy, the EU will love to spend Turkish money.

You are also under the wrong heading to post this comment.