George Bush

Pages

AuthorTopic: George Bush
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
Profile #25
A threat that is not confirmed is a possibe threat. You can't attack somebody for that.

Oh, and please note that I'm not saying that England is going to attack the world, I just wanted to use an unlikely example to help my point.
Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 5814
Profile #26
quote:
Originally written by Thralni:

quote:
Originally written by Randomizer:

In regards to whether Israel will attack Iran over it's nuclear program -

The US gave Israel an ambiguous response so we can cheer or condemn them based upon the result. It's similar to the one LBJ gave Israel before the 6 Day War.

Israel denies rumors that it is sending bombers on training missions to Gilbraltar in preparation.

The problem with troop surge is that there is no indication that they will be used effectively. Plus there is already an equipment shortage for the troops that are already there,

Meh. Israel won't do it. They may have ace pilots, but they can't risk this gamble. I would be pleased if they did it, but I bet many people espaciall in Europe will only cry about the "poor Iranians," and fail to recognize a possible threat ebing everted.

Of course, when you read these words, you must keep in mind that if Israel were invaded quite a few people would be crying for the "poor Israelis", and Thralni would be one of them.

Israel is as much of a threat to its numerous enemies as Iran is to Israel. Supporting Israel but not Iran on the grounds that attacking Iran "averts a threat" requires that you select, without any evidence, Israel, as the just and moral entity in such a conflict.

The USA constantly warns/threatens Iran about its nuclear program, which is not expressly a nuclear weapons program. The USA claims that Iran is evil and intends to develop nuclear weapons. However, there is a suspicious lack of evidence, much as there is now that Iraq had WMDs.

Whether Iran is guilty or innocent of its accused crimes, I have not decided. I have not picked a side in this; I require actual evidence. Until then, I will strongly support impartiality.

[ Tuesday, January 30, 2007 14:09: Message edited by: ID 101 Error ]

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon
Well, I'm at least pretty

Posts: 1115 | Registered: Sunday, May 15 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #27
quote:
Originally written by ID 101 Error:

Whether Iran is guilty or innocent of its accused crimes, I have not decided. I have not picked a side in this; I require actual evidence. Until then, I will strongly support impartiality.
I had no idea that you were a decision maker in the present administration. I will endeavor to treat you with the respect you so rightly deserve.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #28
The difference is that the president of Iran repeatedly promised to wipe Israel off the map. I am not sure how you draw the moral equivalence between a bombing raid against nuclear weapons labs and a nuclear strike to wipe out an entire country, but the difference looks pretty clear to me.

I personally don't think even Ahmedinajad would be insane enough to start a nuclear war, but if I lived in range of his missiles in the country he promised to destroy, my opinion would probably be different.

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Agent
Member # 27
Profile #29
quote:
The USA constantly warns/threatens Iran about its nuclear program, which is not expressly a nuclear weapons program. The USA claims that Iran is evil and intends to develop nuclear weapons. However, there is a suspicious lack of evidence, much as there is now that Iraq had WMDs.
Please show us where you came up with this information...

I'd say that it's not so much the fact that 'IRAN WILL MAKE WMDs AND USE THEM,' as it is the possiblity and risk. If you were a leader in today's world, would you take that risk? Would you allow even the smallest chance that a country, outside of your genearl control, might obtain WMDs? Mind you, this country exists in a region known for religious fanaticism and a hatred of Israel. Do the benefits of nuclear power in Iran outweigh the risks of possible WMDs?
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #30
Well, nobody's invaded the USA yet, so apparently world leaders are actually just fine with a country that's known for religious fanaticism and using nuclear weapons on civilians, as long as it's run by white people.

[ Tuesday, January 30, 2007 14:43: Message edited by: Cryptozoology ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #31
Japan did invade the US during World War II by landing on two islands in Alaska. They abandoned one and were killed on the other after digging in with bunkers and tunnels. My father was stationed up there against a second invaison.

The US has long tried to prevent anyone else from being able to do anything like our atomic bombings. Especially since we will probably be the target.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Agent
Member # 2210
Profile #32
For $200 you can buy an anti-tank rocket launcher in Vietnam, I wonder how much it costs in Iraq $150. Maybe, someone will wake up and stop exporting parts for tanks and fighter planes to our supposed friends. I am more worried about the fuzzy arms trade than the nukes right now. That is what is killing our troops, Soviet and Chinese RPGs, high explosives, etc.

--------------------
Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh.

Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight.
Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #33
Nukes don't scare me. Theocracies scare me.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Agent
Member # 5814
Profile #34
Bringing up Ahmadinejad's vicious statements is a good point. Partly because of that, partly because I am supposedly impartial, and partly because I simply am not interested, I don't think I'll be participating much more in this thread.

Drakefyre, I honestly don't try.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon
Well, I'm at least pretty

Posts: 1115 | Registered: Sunday, May 15 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
Profile #35
Nobody would bother invading the U.S. Nobody is that stupid. If they wanted to the U.S. could whim-fully attack any country they wanted to.

I don't think Iran would attack Isreal. The U.S. would be all over them if they did, along with the remnants of the 4th largest army in the world.
Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Master
Member # 5977
Profile Homepage #36
quote:
Originally written by Kyrek:

A threat that is not confirmed is a possibe threat. You can't attack somebody for that.
But Bush has been doing it for some time now...

Look, if you're country is in danger, even a possible threat can be declared war over. If it's an ethical thing to do is not something people care about when it comes to that point. But let's bring it a bit closer to home. I have some friends in school with which I always b*tch-slap. It's sorta funny I guess... But anyway, at a certain point you will have to be on your guard. You friend can become a possile threat, and you want to be the one dealing the first blow, don't ya?

I thought so.

Of course, comparing a war with a small game at school is like comparing a car accident with the collapse of the WTC, but I don't realy care about that, sorry.

[ Wednesday, January 31, 2007 06:04: Message edited by: Thralni ]

--------------------
Play and rate my scenarios:

Where the rivers meet
View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape.

Give us your drek!
Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #37
quote:
Originally written by Enraged Slith:

I'd say that it's not so much the fact that 'IRAN WILL MAKE WMDs AND USE THEM,' as it is the possiblity and risk. If you were a leader in today's world, would you take that risk? Would you allow even the smallest chance that a country, outside of your genearl control, might obtain WMDs? Mind you, this country exists in a region known for religious fanaticism and a hatred of Israel. Do the benefits of nuclear power in Iran outweigh the risks of possible WMDs?
I see that you've bought in to the doctrine of pre-emption. The first necessary step to repairing the damage done by the Bush administration is to repudiate pre-emption as the complete and utter garbage that it is. You can't invade a country for what you think its leaders might secretly want to do. You can only invade a country on the basis of a clear and immediate threat that definitely exists.

Iran, by the way, is good example of the disasters that can follow unnecessary meddling. Oppressive government and worsening extremism over the past fifty-four years are a direct result of intervention by the U.S. Ask an Iranian about Mossadegh, the Shah, and the Islamic Revolution sometime (the history of Iran from about 1950 to about 1980), and you'll get an earful. We screwed up big-time.

quote:
Originally written by Cryptozoology:

Well, nobody's invaded the USA yet, so apparently world leaders are actually just fine with a country that's known for religious fanaticism and using nuclear weapons on civilians, as long as it's run by white people.
That's low, because the comparison doesn't match and you know it.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 5246
Profile #38
quote:
Originally written by Kyrek:

quote:
Meh. Israel won't do it. They may have ace pilots, but they can't risk this gamble. I would be pleased if they did it, but I bet many people espaciall in Europe will only cry about the "poor Iranians," and fail to recognize a possible threat ebing everted.

Possible threat. You can't start a war because of a possibility. There is a possibility that England will wage war on the world, but that doesn't mean that we should attack them. Attacking somebody, or a lot of somebodies in this case, is stupid.

You're right it is much better to wait tell you've been attacked horribly by a country that has repeatedly called for your destruction in the must gruesome of ways with their brand new shiny nuclear missles. Excellent idea. Sure glad we're not stupid.

Please, Israel has more than enough equipment to level Iran. Everyone knows it, why do you think all of the Middle East rallies around destroying Israel. It's not about the holy land, it's about Israel being a threat.

You see Israel is in a unique position. On one hand it has the nosy world willing to condemn and that's it to worry about and on the other hand it has to deal with the people surrounding them on almost all sides that wish to kill them. More than that they actually try and go through with it. There are bombings, mortar attacks, militia funded by surrounding countries, and the list goes on. Ask yourself how long would you stand by on threats, when your family members have died becuase of them? How long would you stand by when your peace is constantly threatened simply becuase people hate you?
Posts: 24 | Registered: Friday, December 3 2004 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 5246
Profile #39
quote:Originally written by Cryptozoology:
Well, nobody's invaded the USA yet, so apparently world leaders are actually just fine with a country that's known for religious fanaticism and using nuclear weapons on civilians, as long as it's run by white people.

//////////////////

Guess you forgot about WW2? Sorry that was a while a go, guess we'll need to keep ourself more invasion current.

Also you're a genius. Blaming the white man for everything is the solution to everything. Funny thing is you probably think the white man is racist, and somehow excuse yourself of being the same thing.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Friday, December 3 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #40
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Nukes don't scare me. Theocracies scare me.
Seconded.

quote:
Originally written by 2disbetter:

Also you're a genius. Blaming the white man for everything is the solution to everything. Funny thing is you probably think the white man is racist, and somehow excuse yourself of being the same thing.
Hey, first off, Thuryl tends to say this sort of thing a lot. Not so much the "what about the white man" thing, but the "incredibly sarcastic remark" thing. Second, your retort was just as uncalled for as Thuryl's comparison.

Cool it, folks. :P

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 5246
Profile #41
Oh my fault he says it all the time...

Haha...

Totally excuses it.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Friday, December 3 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #42
He has a different sense of humor. He's the kind of person who sees nukes as birth control.

But actually, he was referencing World War 2. America wasn't invaded, insignifcant islands aside. America was bombed once and retaliated by nuking civilians with the only nukes ever dropped in an act of war. Yes, there were reasons for it, but America isn't pure and innocent.

And for the record, Thuryl is the white man. He is, in fact, possibly the Man. I wouldn't put it past him.

—Alorael, who supports dealing with Iran reasonably. Maybe that requires bombing. It probably doesn't. It certainly doesn't call for nation-building again.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Guardian
Member # 6670
Profile Homepage #43
I dunno about the huge fixation with WMDs. In my opinion, the most dangerous weapon in the world remains the AK-47 (no statistics on that, just the way things seem to me).

--------------------
The ozone hole over the Antarctic may soon set the record as being the world's biggest. This is the first year that the world's biggest hole will not be a head of state.
- Rick Mercer
Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
Profile #44
quote:
But Bush has been doing it for some time now...
Since when has what Bush has been doing a good thing?

quote:
Look, if you're country is in danger, even a possible threat can be declared war over. If it's an ethical thing to do is not something people care about when it comes to that point. But let's bring it a bit closer to home. I have some friends in school with which I always b*tch-slap. It's sorta funny I guess... But anyway, at a certain point you will have to be on your guard. You friend can become a possile threat, and you want to be the one dealing the first blow, don't ya?
Do you have any proof that he/she is a possible threat? You need that first.

Attacking Iran would be like the attack on Lebanon earlier. They attacked and massacred many people, almost all of the civilians. They also attacked reporters. That was an attack on a possible threat.

quote:
Oh my fault he says it all the time...

Haha...

Totally excuses it.
No, it's just your fault for being an idiot about it.
Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #45
quote:
Originally written by 2disbetter:

Please, Israel has more than enough equipment to level Iran. Everyone knows it, why do you think all of the Middle East rallies around destroying Israel. It's not about the holy land, it's about Israel being a threat.
So Israel wants to destroy Iran because Iran is a threat, and Iran wants to destroy Israel... because Israel is a threat.

And they say moral equivalence is stupid.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
Profile #46
You know, I never thought of it that way. That's a very interesting way to put it. It shows that this argument is pretty much a popularity contest.

[ Wednesday, January 31, 2007 14:15: Message edited by: Kyrek ]
Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7331
Profile Homepage #47
How true.

--------------------
You Shall Die Laughing: http://www.worfthecat.ermarian.net/converted

The Roost: www.roost01.proboards104.com. Birds of a feather flock together.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #48
quote:
Originally written by Dintiradan:

I dunno about the huge fixation with WMDs. In my opinion, the most dangerous weapon in the world remains the AK-47 (no statistics on that, just the way things seem to me).

--------------------
The ozone hole over the Antarctic may soon set the record as being the world's biggest. This is the first year that the world's biggest hole will not be a head of state.
- Rick Mercer

You're pretty close. AK-47s are more or less obsolete now; on the other hand, a $50 rocket-propelled grenade launched from a $200 RPG launcher can disable or destroy a main-battle-tank (vintage European Cold War, a.k.a. the superpower war over open plains and autobahnen that never happened) that costs more than would modern schools for half of Iraq.

Who loses in that calculus? The American taxpayer, to the tune of however many millions that MBT is; and the Iraqi people - including the insurgent - to the tune of whatever the cost of that MBT could have brought them.

Who gains? Whoever manufactured the tank and whoever manufactured the rocket launcher.

In other words, what we have spent on Iraq has, for the most part, disappeared into the American arms industry's maw, with a brief stopover in the arms manufacturers of the People's Republic of China.

To simplify it a little, and give rough figures to support it: because we bought into the myth of pre-emption, the American taxpayer has shovelled around $10,000 into Halliburton's mouth - apiece. And for every 200 such shovellings there's a human body to show for it. If you're some kind of monster and only want to count the American bodies, that's one corpse for every 100,000 living.

WMDs, Saddam, and democracy were an excuse from the word go. We're footing a horrific bill to enrich the elite backers of the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.

And if we are still duped, and the President is allowed his war with Iran, we will face the same costs before he is even out of office.

But yes, Ahmadinejad is an evil anti-Semite and must be stopped. Preferably with billions of dollars of bombs and trillions of dollars of ships and armor.

How anyone with the wits to operate a computer could be as credulous as the lot of you is beyond me. Pre-emption or no, we're spending thousands of lives for the privilege of being robbed blind.

[ Wednesday, January 31, 2007 14:21: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #49
Hi Alec.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00

Pages