rincewind Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Because we don't routinely torture and starve millions of our own people. You can't discount that as you tried earlier. He doesn't care about his own people, why should he worry about the consequences of a nuclear attack against us.Something needs to be done about Iran and North Korea. Israel will take care of Iran. It will be up to us to take out North Korea. A conventional war against their million man army will cost thousands and thousands of American lives. We have a nuclear arsenal at our disposal, so let's use it. It eliminates the problem and saves thousands of American lives. But you're suggesting wiping an entire country of the map (3 actually). What is the point of being up in arms about the way they treat their people if we're just going to blow them all up? I know it is hard, but try to seperate the human rights issue from the nuclear arms issue. They view us as an aggressor (rightfully so - not saying anything about the justification of attacking Irag, but we were the aggressor). So in their mind's they feel they may need to pre-emptively attack us so that we don't turn our aggression on them; something we have hinted that we may do. Personally, i think something should be done about their human rights 'standards' but i just don't think blowing up the country is the right idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 But you're suggesting wiping an entire country of the map (3 actually). What is the point of being up in arms about the way they treat their people if we're just going to blow them all up? I know it is hard, but try to seperate the human rights issue from the nuclear arms issue. They view us as an aggressor (rightfully so - not saying anything about the justification of attacking Irag, but we were the aggressor). So in their mind's they feel they may need to pre-emptively attack us so that we don't turn our aggression on them; something we have hinted that we may do. Personally, i think something should be done about their human rights 'standards' but i just don't think blowing up the country is the right idea. Wow, you actually can sit there and reason why they want to attack us. I wouldn't wipe out those countries entirely, especially Iran and Syria because of the valueable oil. It would be a strategic nuclear attack on all 3 countries, targeting their nuclear facilites and their major military sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Wow, you actually can sit there and reason why they want to attack us. You can't? Its called objectivity. I love my country, but i don't for a second believe we are some innocent character that is simply trying to police the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 See where NK is? That should tell you why we can't just go and nuke them. Their neighbors will likely take issue - China won't want nukes going off, South Korea won't want to be nuked, Russia isn't going to be happy either, and who knows what Japan thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 You can't? Its called objectivity. I love my country, but i don't for a second believe we are some innocent character that is simply trying to police the world. It's called protecting your own people. No different than if someone threatened a family member. You nip it in the bud. You don't cower is some corner and wait to be attacked. Liberals and left wing hand wringers cower in the face of a threat. It's a proven fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 See where NK is? That should tell you why we can't just go and nuke them. Their neighbors will likely take issue - China won't want nukes going off, South Korea won't want to be nuked, Russia isn't going to be happy either, and who knows what Japan thinks. Neutron baby! Neutron. None of that nasty fallout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 See where NK is? That should tell you why we can't just go and nuke them. Their neighbors will likely take issue - China won't want nukes going off, South Korea won't want to be nuked, Russia isn't going to be happy either, and who knows what Japan thinks. If it took out N Korea, I don't think Japan would mind too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Neutron baby! Neutron.None of that nasty fallout I thought those were outlawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 If it took out N Korea, I don't think Japan would mind too much. Not with the wind patterns. All the fallout would be blown to Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 If it took out N Korea, I don't think Japan would mind too much. Quite frankly, I don't think Russia or China would mind either. This Kim Jong dude has a screw lose and he could just as easily turn against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Not with the wind patterns. All the fallout would be blown to Japan. Nuclear fallout is overrated. It would never make it to Japan, not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 It's called protecting your own people. No different than if someone threatened a family member. You nip it in the bud. You don't cower is some corner and wait to be attacked. Liberals and left wing hand wringers cower in the face of a threat. It's a proven fact. It's called mutual destruction. Even if those we nuke don't have the capabilty to nuke us back in time, someone else will do it. I assure you of that. So you aren't in fact protect yourself, your family, or your country. You are in fact putting them in grteater danger. I understand it is impossible for you to comprehend this, so in a way I feel sorry for you. But on the other hand, I realize your trembling hand isn't on the button, so I don't care to feel sorry for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 It's called mutual destruction. Even if those we nuke don't have the capabilty to nuke us back in time, someone else will do it. I assure you of that. So you aren't in fact protect yourself, your family, or your country. You are in fact putting them in grteater danger. I understand it is impossible for you to comprehend this, so in a way I feel sorry for you. But on the other hand, I realize your trembling hand isn't on the button, so I don't care to feel sorry for you. That's why liberalism is called a "mental disease". Your post is a prime example of someone that would rather cower in a corner than protect yourself. Did you get bullied in school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 It's called protecting your own people. No different than if someone threatened a family member. You nip it in the bud. You don't cower is some corner and wait to be attacked. Liberals and left wing hand wringers cower in the face of a threat. It's a proven fact. Did i ever say we should cower? Hell, i never even said we shouldn't strike first. Therefore, your arguement if fundamentally flawed. But for the sake of discussion lets say i did say we shouldn't attack. Don't we have ways of preventing weapons from making it to our shores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 That's why liberalism is called a "mental disease". Your post is a prime example of someone that would rather cower in a corner than protect yourself. Did you get bullied in school? Who, besides you and other conservatives, called liberalism a 'mental disease'. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I thought those were outlawed? Just one of those thoughts that keeps me warm at night. Actually, all we have to do is stop feeding them. Then they're done. That, or we could sneak a nuke into the country, set it off near one of their "secret" facilities and just say, "Oh look, they must have been messing around with nukes and accidentally set one off" See how easy that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Nuclear fallout is overrated. It would never make it to Japan, not even close. Fallout from Chernobyl was blown across Europe. I would say it's a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 That's why liberalism is called a "mental disease". Your post is a prime example of someone that would rather cower in a corner than protect yourself. Did you get bullied in school? Never got bullied in school. And either way, where in my post did I suggest being passive about the situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Fallout from Chernobyl was blown across Europe. I would say it's a big deal. Oh it was? How many deaths did it cause in Europe from this? Do you have a link that can back this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 That's why liberalism is called a "mental disease". Your post is a prime example of someone that would rather cower in a corner than protect yourself. Did you get bullied in school? Never got bullied in school. I did - granted i didn't become liberal until late in high school, well after people stopped bullying me. So there goes that theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 This is getting out of hand with Iran and now North Korea. I would be in total support of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Hell, we should do it on the same day and at the same time. Why stop at Syria, Iran, and North Korea? While you are at it you might as well pre-emptively strike every non American on the planet. God bless American :thumbsup: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Why stop at Syria, Iran, and North Korea? While you are at it you might as well pre-emptively strike every non American on the planet. God bless American :thumbsup: :laugh: Hey, lets not forget the liberal gays in San Fran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 But for the sake of discussion lets say i did say we shouldn't attack. Don't we have ways of preventing weapons from making it to our shores? We don't have a way to shoot down an InterContinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). That is Kim Jong and Iran's ultimate goal - to launch a nuclear missile from within their country that could reach the U.S. Remember, it was you liberals that shot down Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Just one of those thoughts that keeps me warm at night.Actually, all we have to do is stop feeding them. Then they're done. That, or we could sneak a nuke into the country, set it off near one of their "secret" facilities and just say, "Oh look, they must have been messing around with nukes and accidentally set one off" See how easy that is? So why dont we? One of my biggest beefs with Bush is that he hasnt been ENOUGH of a hawk. NK should have been dealt with by now. And not with troops. So save the "well we could if we werent in Iraq" excuse. We should have cut him off and sent in the sniper teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Why stop at Syria, Iran, and North Korea? While you are at it you might as well pre-emptively strike every non American on the planet. God bless American :thumbsup: :laugh: Nah, I think we should stick to countries that have publicly announced that they want to completely destroy America and/or Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.