well let us know when you are going to actually do anything other sit around your house, in the great war of civilzations
He is trying to enlist his wife. She is the one who has the guns and wears the pants so little willy can hide under the bed while she protects him.
Only a complete moron would think that this was a good argument. Are you now so demoralized that you cannot make any rational points, and are now reduced to copying gworld's lunatic ravings? As you two can't seem to come up with a new argument, I'll just cut and paste what I replied the last time one of you posted this same idiocy. I am not a doctor, but I know that doctors do an important job and I I am not a nuclear physicist, but I know that nuclear physicists do an important job and I respect them for doing it. I am not a police officer, but I know that police officers do an important job and I respect them for doing it. I am not a farmer, but I know that farmers do an important job and I I am not a garbage collector, but I know that garbage collectors do an important job and I respect them for doing it. I am not an accountant, but I know that accountants do an important job and I respect them for doing it. I am not a soldiers, but I know that soldiers do an important job and I respect them for doing it. Your "argument" is prima facie moronic. We live in an age of specialization -- and we have done so for several hundred years. Have you even heard of The Wealth of Nations? I chose not to go into the military. Another fellow chose to go into the military. That's freedom -- that's the kind of freedom that America represents. Now, quit sucking each others cocks and get back to work at trying to come up with one decent rational argument.
Actually a big percentage of soldiers are only in the service for like 2-6 years And people many times join when they country is in trouble, ie WWII, becasue they want to help But apparently most of the most vigorous supports of never ending war, the last thing they would want to do is participate in the war If there was garbage everywhere and it was threatening americas existence, I would think you would pick up some garbage, like wise if there were people sick and dying everywhere you would help try to help even though you are not a doctor You talk about how "we" have to fight, but its not reall "we" you want others to go be maimed and die because you are scared Which makes more sense will? A) premptively nuking a country and killing possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent people B) Improving homeland security so that people cannot sail a bomb acroos the atlantic
ferret: Option B is impossible, for purely technical reasons. Defensive technology is lagging behind offensive technology -- by several hundred years. Try to get this into your thick skull: Effective defense is impossible. 99% secure is 100% insecure. Wishing otherwise will not make it so. We must live in the real world -- if we hope to continue living at all.
we have satellites that can read the logo on a golf ball from space We can detect nuclear material inside a boat Nuking some country does not gaurentee that their ability to build bombs will be gone It also gives every person in that country a good reason to want to attack us back
ferret: There are many sources where you can study military technology and correct the deficiencies in your understanding. I recommend you do so before embarrassing yourself further.
What does this have to do with his post? You can bomb Iran every year for the next 10 years and they'll still have the knowledge necessary to develop nuclear weapons. All you're doing is delaying the inevitable, while at the same time giving them more reason to use the technology in retaliation.
You must be missing the concept. After a good round of nuclear paving, the mad mullah's won't be around to build nuclear weapons.
Do you think the Mullahs are the ones developing the technology? It's scientists hired from the private sector who are doing the work. Are you suggesting the US should start bombing Iranian civilians so we can stop the flow of scientists? Or maybe the US should just invade and send all of Iran's nuclear physics majors to Guantanamo?
I'm really not sure how you're failing to get the concept here. The U.S. does not possess a tactical nuclear capability. Our nuclear capabilities are strategic in nature. We're not going to blow up an airfield here and a powerplant there -- we are going to remove every major population center in Iran.
Remove every major population center in Iran, I don't understand. If you mean every part of Iran that is developing nuclear technology, what then? What's to stop them from rebuilding? They're one of the most powerful countries in the Middle East, rebuilding isn't beyond their means. And in that time they will find more reason to use nuclear weapons in retaliation. My whole point is that if the US and Iran can come to a diplomatic solution comparable to those the US has with other nations, the results will be better for everyone. If the US can manage relations with Russia, Iran is doable.
I agree but i'm almost cretain it won't work, Iran just doesn't listen, i'm not saying it isn't worth trying though.
Well, being dead for one... They won't be so powerful, when they're dead. How powerful is Adolph Hitler right now? The Iranians have no interest in a peaceful solution. The only way to interest them in a peaceful solution is to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that if they do not play nice we will obliterate them. When we tried to manage relations with the Soviets, we failed again and again. We failed because the Soviets were on the attack and we were on the defense. This is the same as the current situation with Iran. Only when Ronald Reagan put us on the attack did we begin to achieve victories -- victories which eventually led to the defeat and dissolution of the Soviet Union. I strongly recommend that you read Barry Goldwater on Islamic Terrorism.
You're not understanding my point. Unless you go to Iran and kill every nuclear physicist you aren't going to stop them from developing nuclear capabilities. Bombing them is only a temporary solution, and even then it doesn't do much good, they can always rebuild. You said they can't rebuild "when they're dead", who are you talking about when you say that? The Mullahs? Even if you kill all of them the Iranians will still want nuclear power. Not all of Iran is aligned with the Mullahs, but all of Iran wants nuclear power. Mullahs, or not, they're going to keep trying until they get it. There are only two permanent solutions for this problem, 1) Allow them to develop nuclear power and forge diplomatic relationships to keep the peace. Even if diplomacy fails, Iran would never nuke the US, or any other country. They would be nuked in return and nothing would be gained. 2) Annihilate Iran. Who needs Hitler if you're considering the latter?
And You are a moron and you know nothing about military You are a big mouth sissy cheerleader and too much of a coward to serve your country
And Your name should be gspot since you seem to be a pinko You're resorting to a fallacy attack which is personal I can prove that I can do it too
That’s funny, what your suggesting doing, would as bad as Hitler Murdering an entire country because you are scared they are going to use a sailboat to deliver a bomb would definitely go down in history rivaling the holocaust Thank goodness there are smarter people in charge of the country
If you stay around long enough, you will understand that there is no point to have a serious discussion with some of the morons around here and it is as well just to make fun of them and show what a miserable excuse for human being they are. What do you say to a sissy who is too much of a coward to stand up and fight for the war that he is cheering for but at the same time is advocating to kill 65,000,000 people? Does anyone in the right mind need to explain the stupidity of this idea of destroying a country and killing so many people because he has watched too many 24 hours movies in TV?