- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The bases were no threat
With that I agree.
The bases were no threat
I have never said one word about not starting preemptive wars based on the size of the country. That is your strawman.
I cannot condone preemptive wars against less powerful nations that have not attacked us.
That was a thousand years ago; what have they done since then? Obviously, it was not in the Arabs' nature to contribute to math, or they'd be getting all the Nobel Prizes now. Retroactive historical analysis would point to the fact that by conquest, they temporarily re-activated Greek science, probably entirely by the Greeks they enslaved. When the West was re-born intellectually starting after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople, they naturally had continuous development and have done a lot since then. Obviously, they would have invented algebra on their own. Islam didn't fill in any gaps and never will.And the Muslim world developed algebra. So, your logic, all the Western world should be prohibited from teaching algebra.
What does that have to do with preemptive strikes? I'll tell you. It allows you to condone Iran striking US targets in Iraq.
That was a thousand years ago; what have they done since then? Obviously, it was not in the Arabs' nature to contribute to math, or they'd be getting all the Nobel Prizes now. Retroactive historical analysis would point to the fact that by conquest, they temporarily re-activated Greek science, probably entirely by the Greeks they enslaved. When the West was re-born intellectually starting after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople, they naturally had continuous development and have done a lot since then. Obviously, they would have invented algebra on their own. Islam didn't fill in any gaps and never will.
I already told you I do not condone the trading of human blood for oil.
Very nice. We're all proud of you. Well, you left out animals but they'll forgive. Still, I'm asking about something else: wtf does the power of a country have to do with preemptive strikes being ethical or not.
Very nice. We're all proud of you. Well, you left out animals but they'll forgive. Still, I'm asking about something else: wtf does the power of a country have to do with preemptive strikes being ethical or not.
Some people just think it is wrong for someone big and strong to kick the **** out of someone smaller, even the little guy kept kicking the big one on the shins.
You have taken a quote from a third party expert who has proved you to be wrong. You changed the quote and attributted it to me. You have have violated an infinite number of rules regarding civilized and legitimate debate. What you have effectively done was cause me to lose any respect I had for you as a reliable and forthright poster. What you did was underhanded....:2no4:With that I agree.
Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News"Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes'"
"Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said according to Fars "....:shock:
Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps shot off missiles during a televised military drill. (PressTV)
Originally Posted by Connery
The bases were no threat
Very nice. We're all proud of you. Well, you left out animals but they'll forgive. Still, I'm asking about something else: wtf does the power of a country have to do with preemptive strikes being ethical or not?
What you have effectively done was cause me to lose any respect I had for you as a reliable and forthright poster.
The little guy could be an industrial rapist, town gassing, food selling, woman owning, gay killing genocidal dictator, but as long as he doesn't get a bigger piece of the pie then we should leave him alone?
If a country is not a viable threat to us then we do not need to go to war with them.
In the case of Iran, Iran is not a real threat to the security of the United States, right now.
Apparently some do feel that way. But since I was in skies over Iraq helping kick the bastards ass, I'm pretty sure that would translate as me not being one of them.
Every slaver is a threat to the US. We just need to be sustainable about liberalization. In like 20 years, I bet Iraq is kicking ass (instead of being a hellhole).
The United States doesn't have the greatest history of overthrowing governments and installing the governments it intends....
Yeah, yeah, you've said that before. No love lost Connery, I have no respect for those that promote optional wars that result in the deaths of innocent civilians without an actual military threat to the US.
Goshin, there are less than 200,000,000 square miles of surface on the Earth. Only 29% of that surface is land or ice. The rest is water. Of that 29% only 1% is inhabited my man.
So that means that there are about 2,000,000 square miles of land that have humans on it. Most of those humans are concentrated in towns and cities. Let's us yoru example of England for instance. England has 50 cities, (cities with an official charter - surely there are a few uncharted villages, but not so much to make a big difference). Just one nuke could easily wipe out any city in Great Britain. In fact in many cases one nuke would wipe out a few cities in England. All things considered Great Britain could easily be wiped off the map with just a couple dozen nukes.
So this idea that we would need 2 million nukes to destroy the world is what I call Glen Beck-talk, i.e. No where in the ball park of Reality.
The United States doesn't have the greatest history of overthrowing governments and installing the governments it intends....
That's not a cakewalk.
So you support the existence of Evil and what it does to others, as long as they are not Americans? How very humane of you.
When is a war not optional? Only when you or other Americans are the victims?
You seem to advocate that it is ok for others to kill innocent people, but we shouldn't stop them from doing so because we might kill innocent people to do it? If innocents are going to die either way, what do you suggest we use to value the lives of these innocents so that we know which ones we should allow to be killed? Where they were born?
Is there some reason why you feel that because you were lucky enough to be born in America that your life, freedom and desires somehow are more valuable to the human race than someone born elsewhere?