Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Slapper on May 04, 2008, 10:15:17 AM
-
Ok, I have to say something about the subject because I see things a different way. What is the deal with Iran going nuclear? I mean, their president has publicly stated that they need nuclear power to generate electricity, not to build nuclear bombs. Moreover, he's said that he would not mind a UN envoy to inspect their nuclear infrastructure to ensure the world that they were not using it for other means (building WMD).
Why is it so hard for us gringos to understand that the world does not belong to us? Why is it that we see the world in a different light from 99.99% of the world? Why is it that we allow ourselves to be whipped into a hate frenzy by Big Business?
I mean, Ahmadinejad is not stupid. He knows that the US has thousands upon thousands of nuclear and God-knows-what weapons of mass destruction to completely obliterate planet earth many times over, and that any move toward nuclear aggresion against the US would immediately mean Iran becoming a huge crater.
Would we even be having this conversation as to whether to attack Iran or not were it not for Big Oil's intentions to STEAL the Iranian oilfields?
Are we Americans this stupid?
-
Are we Americans this stupid?
Yes.
"If it's on TV, it must be true."
-
Are we Americans this stupid?
No. Just the ones that think like you.
-
No. Just the ones that think like you.
10 million sperm and you were the fastest one? That's some genes!
-
I mean, their president has publicly stated that they need nuclear power to generate electricity, not to build nuclear bombs.
Must be true then.
Strange that you don't give Bush as much credit for the words he says.
-
10 million sperm and you were the fastest one? That's some genes!
You're the one that started this stupid thread, not me.
-
Must be true then.
Strange that you don't give Bush as much credit for the words he says.
Well, I do not know if it's true or not, but he is willing to accept the international community's monitoring of his nuclear program, so if he steps outta line, I agree on taking the "candy" away from him (even if he plays a Saddam on our inspectors). I do have a problem believing all this pre-emptive stuff an ex-cocaine addict from Texas is pushing on us though.
In any case, if he ain't telling the truth, knowing how trigger-happy our corporate representatives who rule the White House as of lately are, he is definitely an idiot. I mean, nothing would grow in Iran for the next 20.000 years so... he'd have to be major stupid to make such a moronically idiotic decision.
-
Well, I do not know if it's true or not, but he is willing to accept the international community's monitoring of his nuclear program, so if he steps outta line, I agree on taking the "candy" away from him (even if he plays a Saddam on our inspectors). I do have a problem believing all this pre-emptive stuff an ex-cocaine addict from Texas is pushing on us though.
In any case, if he ain't telling the truth, knowing how trigger-happy our corporate representatives who rule the White House as of lately are, he is definitely an idiot. I mean, nothing would grow in Iran for the next 20.000 years so... he'd have to be major stupid to make such a moronically idiotic decision.
So, you simply give the guy the benefit of the doubt?
Even though he was exposed lying about things as small as having NO homosexuals in Iran?
You also believe that cure is better than prevention, not vice-versa, by saying if he does step out of line (by which time millions might be dead) he'll be sorted out? Lunacy!
It's simple in my opinion, Iran can have nuclear technology, once they elect a reasonable leader.
-
I never understand why some nations decide themself who should have what. How can a nation run around with nukes but declare others can't? Many people think Bush is maniac, should the USA be disarmed? Pakistan seems unstable at time, they are nuclear - funded much by the USA I believe. Israel is constantly at strife - they are nuclear aren't they? China are known to be nutty and were huge aggressors in WWII, they are nuclear. South Africa built their nukes when they had apartheid, no one cared.
Really, I wish no one had nukes, but don't how some think it's ok for them, but not others.
Anyway, I assume it's a ruse for oil anyway.
-
I never understand why some nations decide themself who should have what. How can a nation run around with nukes but declare others can't? Many people think Bush is maniac, should the USA be disarmed? Pakistan seems unstable at time, they are nuclear - funded much by the USA I believe. Israel is constantly at strife - they are nuclear aren't they? China are known to be nutty and were huge aggressors in WWII, they are nuclear. South Africa built their nukes when they had apartheid, no one cared.
Really, I wish no one had nukes, but don't how some think it's ok for them, but not others.
Anyway, I assume it's a ruse for oil anyway.
So, by that logic you think everyone should have nukes? Even the most politically/economically unstable countries in the world? That's simply a deranged statement.
The argument "they have them, so we should too!" is ridiculous at best.
China were huge aggressors in WWII? Maybe in another dimension but in this one they were part of the Allies and were attacked by Japan to maximise resources, plus Japan had prophesied they were to be the rulers of the east.
So please go ahead and explain to me other than the ridiculous statement "they have em, so we should too" why a president like that of Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons?
-
South Africa built their nukes when they had apartheid, no one cared.
They just broke off from Colonial rule, but are still ruled so what they do is controlled.
Who do you think they bought the plans, and the construction materials from?
-
So, you simply give the guy the benefit of the doubt?
Even though he was exposed lying about things as small as having NO homosexuals in Iran?
You also believe that cure is better than prevention, not vice-versa, by saying if he does step out of line (by which time millions might be dead) he'll be sorted out? Lunacy!
It's simple in my opinion, Iran can have nuclear technology, once they elect a reasonable leader.
Iran has the legal right to develop domestic nuclear power.
What's your reasonable solution? Would it involve the US massacring Iran?
Gee, there was a time when we did give world leaders the benefit of the doubt. Then George Bush ordered the attack of Iraq to disarm a disarmed country. I remember that like it was almost yesterday.
Mission Accomplished!
Iranian leaders might be crazy but they are not insane. Why do you think Israel still exists? If Iran had the irrational bloodlust to attack them, Iran would be utterly destroyed...if not by Israel then the US.
-
Hahaha, this cracks me up. Yeah, we're the ONLY country that doesn't want Iran to have nukes. I think it's safe to say not one country in the middle east wants them having them. No one does. Maybe if they weren't financing terrorist groups left and right and preaching all kinds of useless banter they would have domestic nuclear power.
Can anyone honestly tell me they would expect Iran to not develop nuclear weapons? HAHAHAHA, good one. ::)
The best part is the guy claiming that they won't do it because Ahmadinejad said so. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
-
Hahaha, this cracks me up. Yeah, we're the ONLY country that doesn't want Iran to have nukes. I think it's safe to say not one country in the middle east wants them having them. No one does. Maybe if they weren't financing terrorist groups left and right and preaching all kinds of useless banter they would have domestic nuclear power.
Can anyone honestly tell me they would expect Iran to not develop nuclear weapons? HAHAHAHA, good one. ::)
The best part is the guy claiming that they won't do it because Ahmadinejad said so. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
And I don't want a nuclear Israel or middle east. But that ship has sailed or is fast sailing. With the passing of each year, developing technology and engineering make the possiblity of any country developing a nuclear weapon more possible.
It's a good thing that Mutual Assured Destruction works.
-
I don't want them to have nuclear weapons, but then again I'm not that comfortable with Bush and Co having them either.
-
Pakistan has them, they aren't any better or safer than Iran.
-
Israel will level Iran before they get nukes.
-
Pakistan has them, they aren't any better or safer than Iran.
And just as Pakistan hasn't taken it upon themselves to meddle in the affairs of almost every other Arab country....
Fact of the matter is that not one country in the Middle East wants to see Iran with nukes.
-
Even if the whole world got rid of nuclear weapons, our govt. would see fit to keep ours, ahem, just incase...
-
Iran has the legal right to develop domestic nuclear power.
What's your reasonable solution? Would it involve the US massacring Iran?
Gee, there was a time when we did give world leaders the benefit of the doubt. Then George Bush ordered the attack of Iraq to disarm a disarmed country. I remember that like it was almost yesterday.
Mission Accomplished!
Iranian leaders might be crazy but they are not insane. Why do you think Israel still exists? If Iran had the irrational bloodlust to attack them, Iran would be utterly destroyed...if not by Israel then the US.
Where was a talking about nuclear power? CQ was talking about nukes which I would assume she means a nuclear arsenal.
Reasonable solution for nuclear power would have one of Britain, US, France, Israel looking over the development and running on the nuclear plants. Iran in its current form needs babysitting, it's that simple, YOU are an idiot if you believe otherwise.
A time when world leaders got the benefit of the doubt? Is that sarcasm or just total lack of historical knowledge on your part?
Get of your high horse.
Pakistan has them, they aren't any better or safer than Iran.
How many times must I quote this for you:
“Wherever you see a man who gives someone else's corruption, someone else's prejudice as a reason for not taking action himself, you see a cog in The Machine that governs us.” - John Jay Chapman
You need an education.
-
Where was a talking about nuclear power? CQ was talking about nukes which I would assume she means a nuclear arsenal.
Reasonable solution for nuclear power would have one of Britain, US, France, Israel looking over the development and running on the nuclear plants. Iran in its current form needs babysitting, it's that simple, YOU are an idiot if you believe otherwise.
A time when world leaders got the benefit of the doubt? Is that sarcasm or just total lack of historical knowledge on your part?
Get of your high horse.
...
How did you know that I ride horses?
First of all, Israel has ZERO right to legislate the energy policy of Iran. Israel is violating the same anti-nuclear proliferation restrictions that the US is forcing on Iran. Does the US have the right to turn a blind eye to Israel's illegal nuclear arsenal while dropping the hammer on Iran?
IN the words of the first Bush, "What we say goes."
My point is that, with the refinement and advancement of technology, bomb production will become an easier more surreptitious act. The US had better find a way to deal with proliferation b/c it's going to get much worse.
Or do we just attack and decimate every country that may have nuclear designs?
The benefit of the doubt was extended to Bush by Blair over the Iraqi WMD assertions made by the US. Same goes for all the other countries in the "Coalition of the Willing", or are you just demonstrating your complete lack of recent historical knowledge?
-
Huh? I'm all for Iran and other nations having nuclear power. Literacy levels are falling fast in the US it seems.
However, whether you like it or not, there ARE a bunch of countries US, UK, Western Europe that should keep tabs on what these countries are doing.
IMO there should be bidding for which country provides nuclear energy to Iran, and that country should overlook the process until Iran is run by more desirable regime.
-
Where was a talking about nuclear power? CQ was talking about nukes which I would assume she means a nuclear arsenal.
Reasonable solution for nuclear power would have one of Britain, US, France, Israel looking over the development and running on the nuclear plants. Iran in its current form needs babysitting, it's that simple, YOU are an idiot if you believe otherwise.
A time when world leaders got the benefit of the doubt? Is that sarcasm or just total lack of historical knowledge on your part?
Get of your high horse.
How many times must I quote this for you:
“Wherever you see a man who gives someone else's corruption, someone else's prejudice as a reason for not taking action himself, you see a cog in The Machine that governs us.” - John Jay Chapman
You need an education.
Decker is right. And that seems to bother you. You are arguing 2 levels below him at all times.
-
Must be true then.
Strange that you don't give Bush as much credit for the words he says.
bush ws soooo right about iraq ::)
sucking bush kok dosen't make u whiter...
only makes u stupid..
-
Decker is right. And that seems to bother you. You are arguing 2 levels below him at all times.
Who's gimmick are you? Right about what?
You're one of the biggest losers on this forum, congrats.
bush ws soooo right about iraq ::)
sucking bush kok dosen't make u whiter...
only makes u stupid..
Yes, Iranian president was so right about women's rights in Iran and Iran having no gays.
How very interesting, he lies about the most mundane things, and you believe him on infinitely more serious matters.
Not very gullible are you?
-
Who's gimmick are you? Right about what?
You're one of the biggest losers on this forum, congrats.
Yes, Iranian president was so right about women's rights in Iran and Iran having no gays.
How very interesting, he lies about the most mundane things, and you believe him on infinitely more serious matters.
Not very gullible are you?
Ive seen wallpaper with higher intelligence than you. Re-read his posts than ask about what??......dumbass....
-
Huh? I'm all for Iran and other nations having nuclear power. Literacy levels are falling fast in the US it seems.
However, whether you like it or not, there ARE a bunch of countries US, UK, Western Europe that should keep tabs on what these countries are doing.
IMO there should be bidding for which country provides nuclear energy to Iran, and that country should overlook the process until Iran is run by more desirable regime.
The Russians are already doing that for Iran.
As for my literacy level, I assure you that I read at at least a 15 year old level. So I can comprehend what you are writing.
My point is that, with the refinement and advancement of technology, bomb production will become an easier more surreptitious act. The US had better find a way to deal with proliferation b/c it's going to get much worse. Inspections alone will not be enough. I mean if the US was worried about nuclear proliferation, Israel would be occupied at this moment just as Iraq was for its phantom WMD program.
The difference btn Israel and Iraq and Iran is that Israel does exactly what the US says it should do. And Israel is a very compliant 'associate'. Iraq and Iran want a little say over how they ran their own countries. That won't do b/c:
IN the words of the first Bush, "What we say goes."
-
"I'm the Decider" Funniest shit ever said.
-
Ive seen wallpaper with higher intelligence than you. Re-read his posts than ask about what??......dumbass....
??? What? You're a loony little fucker aren't you?
The Russians are already doing that for Iran.
As for my literacy level, I assure you that I read at at least a 15 year old level. So I can comprehend what you are writing.
My point is that, with the refinement and advancement of technology, bomb production will become an easier more surreptitious act. The US had better find a way to deal with proliferation b/c it's going to get much worse. Inspections alone will not be enough. I mean if the US was worried about nuclear proliferation, Israel would be occupied at this moment just as Iraq was for its phantom WMD program.
The difference btn Israel and Iraq and Iran is that Israel does exactly what the US says it should do. And Israel is a very compliant 'associate'. Iraq and Iran want a little say over how they ran their own countries. That won't do b/c:
IN the words of the first Bush, "What we say goes."
So where is this debate going?
First you pull me up on my opinions in regards to NUCLEAR WEAPONRY, but don't actually discuss that issue, rather you defect and turn it into a discussion on nuclear energy.
You're waffling.
-
??? What? You're a loony little fucker aren't you?
So where is this debate going?
First you pull me up on my opinions in regards to NUCLEAR WEAPONRY, but don't actually discuss that issue, rather you defect and turn it into a discussion on nuclear energy.
You're waffling.
My point re NUCLEAR WEAPONRY is that, with the refinement and advancement of technology, bomb production will become an easier more surreptitious act. The US had better find a way to deal with proliferation b/c it's going to get much worse. Inspections alone will not be enough. I mean if the US was worried about nuclear proliferation, Israel would be occupied at this moment just as Iraq was for its phantom WMD program.
I think that's the third time I've posted that sir.
-
Actually im a Big Fvcker. You're bulb is very dim isnt it.....
-
Who's gimmick are you? Right about what?
You're one of the biggest losers on this forum, congrats.
Yes, Iranian president was so right about women's rights in Iran and Iran having no gays.
How very interesting, he lies about the most mundane things, and you believe him on infinitely more serious matters.
Not very gullible are you?
what does their culture have to do with nukes?
who died and made bush ruler of the world??
-
The difference btn Israel and Iraq and Iran is that Israel does exactly what the US says it should do.
you got that backwards mate..
-
what does their culture have to do with nukes?
huh?
EVERYTHING!
Dumbass.
-
huh?
EVERYTHING!
Dumbass.
::)
-
::)
You've got a rebuttal I assume?
Oh no, as usual, you have not.
-
You've got a rebuttal I assume?
Oh no, as usual, you have not.
no matter what you'll always try n hide your hatered of brownies with this that or the other...and it'll always show...
why the fuck r we concerned what another country in the middle east does ...i know not...
acording to iran bush is the terrorist...iran has not attacked anyone in 700 yrs..
bush just did illegally 6 yrs ago...
-
no matter what you'll always try n hide your hatered of brownies with this that or the other...and it'll always show...
why the fuck r we concerned what another country in the middle east does ...i know not...
acording to iran bush is the terrorist...iran has not attacked anyone in 700 yrs..
bush just did illegally 6 yrs ago...
No, I think it has more to do with you being an idiot with the inability to provide a rebuttal.
Every time you make the same excuse. Pathetic.
-
no matter what you'll always try n hide your hatered of brownies with this that or the other...and it'll always show...
why the fuck r we concerned what another country in the middle east does ...i know not...
acording to iran bush is the terrorist...iran has not attacked anyone in 700 yrs..
bush just did illegally 6 yrs ago...
700 yrs....they have been an independant Islamic nutbag state since 1979. Since then they have supported attacks all over the world.
Tehran's role in supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist groups is also crucial. Even though Iran is hundreds of miles away from Lebanon, it helped nurture Hezbollah in its early years and even today exercises considerable ideological and operational influence. The Lebanese terrorist organization is the most deadly creation of the clerical regime in Tehran
After the 1979 Islamic revolution, Tehran used a wide range of terrorist organizations to export its revolution and to assassinate Iranian dissidents around the globe. Tehran played a major role in forming Hezbollah and helping it conduct attacks in Lebanon, including such devastating strikes as the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and embassy, which together killed more than 300 people. Indeed, before 9/11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other international terrorist organization. Iranian-backed groups also regularly attacked dissidents in Europe, countries that backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and the governments of pro-Western Arab states. Ten years ago, on June 26, 1996, Iranian-backed terrorists exploded a massive truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military housing project in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and one Saudi and wounding almost 400.
-
Iran also supported Nazi Germany over that of Britain and Russia.
-
you got that backwards mate..
No I don't.
Israel is a wholly owned subsidiary of the US. Any time there has been a collision of perspectives, Israel has backed down.
Nothing gets done by Israel without the US's tacit approval.
-
So, you simply give the guy the benefit of the doubt?
Even though he was exposed lying about things as small as having NO homosexuals in Iran?[...]
Ok, when you make comparisons like these I lose my faith in Western Civilization.
-
And just as Pakistan hasn't taken it upon themselves to meddle in the affairs of almost every other Arab country....
Fact of the matter is that not one country in the Middle East wants to see Iran with nukes.
They don't have to go anywhere all the terrorists go there to train and hide. It's like Club Med for wanted radicals. :D
-
700 yrs....they have been an independant Islamic nutbag state since 1979. Since then they have supported attacks all over the world.
Tehran's role in supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist groups is also crucial. Even though Iran is hundreds of miles away from Lebanon, it helped nurture Hezbollah in its early years and even today exercises considerable ideological and operational influence. The Lebanese terrorist organization is the most deadly creation of the clerical regime in Tehran
After the 1979 Islamic revolution, Tehran used a wide range of terrorist organizations to export its revolution and to assassinate Iranian dissidents around the globe. Tehran played a major role in forming Hezbollah and helping it conduct attacks in Lebanon, including such devastating strikes as the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and embassy, which together killed more than 300 people. Indeed, before 9/11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other international terrorist organization. Iranian-backed groups also regularly attacked dissidents in Europe, countries that backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and the governments of pro-Western Arab states. Ten years ago, on June 26, 1996, Iranian-backed terrorists exploded a massive truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military housing project in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and one Saudi and wounding almost 400.
and they did what to America??
-
and they did what to America??
Exactly. Paragraphs answered with one question......point made.
-
Ok, when you make comparisons like these I lose my faith in Western Civilization.
Huh? He's lying about mundane issues, that's my point.
and they did what to America??
Exactly. Paragraphs answered with one question......point made.
Yes, you're correct, the western world should be at least nice enough to give Iran a chance to wipe out large numbers of our citizens.
-
Yes, you're correct, the western world should be at least nice enough to give Iran a chance to wipe out large numbers of our citizens.
Does that mean Western powers will take a brief time out, and invite Iran to the party?
...cause based on their policies, it's looking like they want all the fun of wiping out American citizens themselves.
"The enemy is very crafty, and never stops thinking of ways to attack the American people,
...and neither do we" -- George W. Bush II
(not exactly verbatim, ...but close enough) A Freudian slip? ...you be the judge.
-
Does that mean Western powers will take a brief time out, and invite Iran to the party?
...cause based on their policies, it's looking like they want all the fun of wiping out American citizens themselves.
"The enemy is very crafty, and never stops thinking of ways to attack the American people,
...and neither do we" -- George W. Bush II
(not exactly verbatim, ...but close enough) A Freudian slip? ...you be the judge.
Do you HONESTLY believe what you've just written?
Or do you believe Bush's language skills aren't that great? (I could provide lots of examples of his poor grasp of the English language).
Answer honestly.
-
Do you HONESTLY believe what you've just written?
Or do you believe Bush's language skills aren't that great? (I could provide lots of examples of his poor grasp of the English language).
Answer honestly.
.............Uhhhh 67% believe this admin knew of 9/11 in advance. Too many convenient coincidence's.
-
Huh? He's lying about mundane issues, that's my point.
Yes, you're correct, the western world should be at least nice enough to give Iran a chance to wipe out large numbers of our citizens.
You're trying to argue with some of THE stupidest posters on Getbig who make it a point to lie as much as they can to further their retarded points along. I would be shocked if Toxic knew how to tie his sneakers with the cocaine and alcohol riddled brain of his. War-Horse, well, he's just an idiot. :-\
-
You're trying to argue with some of THE stupidest posters on Getbig who make it a point to lie as much as they can to further their retarded points along. I would be shocked if Toxic knew how to tie his sneakers with the cocaine and alcohol riddled brain of his. War-Horse, well, he's just an idiot. :-\
Yeah...........right.... ........ ::)
-
.............Uhhhh 67% believe this admin knew of 9/11 in advance. Too many convenient coincidence's.
So, tell me, in the example Jag gave, was a linguistic mistake or a Freudian slip?
I'm having an hard time believing someone as stupid as your are this naive and impervious of blatant truths.
You're trying to argue with some of THE stupidest posters on Getbig who make it a point to lie as much as they can to further their retarded points along. I would be shocked if Toxic knew how to tie his sneakers with the cocaine and alcohol riddled brain of his. War-Horse, well, he's just an idiot. :-\
War-Horse is clearly a troll.
-
So, by that logic you think everyone should have nukes? Even the most politically/economically unstable countries in the world? That's simply a deranged statement.
The argument "they have them, so we should too!" is ridiculous at best.
China were huge aggressors in WWII? Maybe in another dimension but in this one they were part of the Allies and were attacked by Japan to maximise resources, plus Japan had prophesied they were to be the rulers of the east.
So please go ahead and explain to me other than the ridiculous statement "they have em, so we should too" why a president like that of Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons?
Recall - where we are from would impact our thoughts.
We all know I am West Indian. In the last 100 years or so, only 1 nation has invaded us, killed our citizens etc..and they have nukes.
The same way America has been under attack from one segment so they feel that segment is unstable - well twist it to be where I am from, and that I would think the same way about the segment that invaded us - which is rational.
-
Recall - where we are from would impact our thoughts.
We all know I am West Indian. In the last 100 years or so, only 1 nation has invaded us, killed our citizens etc..and they have nukes.
The same way America has been under attack from one segment so they feel that segment is unstable - well twist it to be where I am from, and that I would think the same way about the segment that invaded us - which is rational.
Any sympathies I may have for you don't change the facts.
Found any evidence that China was a huge aggressor in WWII? :-*