[Zarax]

Originally posted by nuclear1


No. Instead of playing the militaristic card, you backed out on the US and played the coward card and rolled in the red carpet for the Socialists.

And, instead of stepping to a new level of wrongness, the EU instead transformed itself into a world roadblock, putting itself directly in the middle of the way of the US's actions in the Middle East. Want to go on Iraq? It's not just Iraq.

It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.

No, they don't want Saddam out of office. Why? Because Saddam gave them money. He bribed nations of, above anything, the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world. So, instead of playing the militaristic card, the EU instead played the deaf-ear card. They instead accepted bribes, and stepped in the way of the US when we stepped in to stop Saddam.

And it wasn't all just for WMDs. I don't know what the hell Europe's problem is with freedom and civil rights, but for God's sake, don't screw with us when we try to do what's right. If we followed a typical EU policy here in the US back during WWII, we sure as hell wouldn't have gotten involved in such things as liberating France or destroying Italy's power.

But, hell, I don't know why I try anymore. I'm just gonna get blown off like Liberator anyway.

1)The "OMG you're all commies!" garbage doesn't win you any point, you might not like the European way but i'm thankful of our welfare state every day.
We backed the US?
The US "bribed" a few countries for military support in Iraq (trade agreements and the like, anyone?), and those got some healthy criticism (including our local bush-style PM, berlusconi).

2)If we were such a roadblock it seems it's not a big one since the US keeps doing whetever it pleases, stamping out every international organization.
Modern gunboat diplomacy, what a thing to be proud of...

3) Israel? gimme a break please. Get something to backup your sentences, otherwise i will assume you read too much propaganda.

4)Saddam gave EU money? Actually, may i remember you that saddam has been widely supported by the US in the past because they needed someone to fight against Iran who threw up their puppet Shah?
Again, you need to stop reading propaganda, son.
The EU did not play the deaf-ear card, we just followe the UN resolutions that even the US approved.
Iraq was embargoed and any potential facility inspected for suspect WMD, that before someone decided to invade the place because some UN inspector may had a chance to find the US receipt for the gasses saddam used against the kurds.

5)Screwing with you when you're doing what's right?
Who gave the US the monopoly of deciding what is right or wrong?
Also, the US acted as much to defends its commercial interests in WWII (those military exports and reconstruction loans surely gave good cash) as to defeat the nazi threath before it arrived to your shores...
Not that the world is not grateful for what you've done here but we repayed you by playing vassals for the whole cold war and doing deaf ears on your decades of puppet dictatoship installements all over the world.

[Genryu]

Originally posted by nuclear1

It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.

Don't forget that we eat babie too

[Corsair]

Just face it. Everyone's playing a big game of realpolitik, better known in the real world as "**** your buddy."

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by nuclear1


No. Instead of playing the militaristic card, you backed out on the US and played the coward card and rolled in the red carpet for the Socialists.

And, instead of stepping to a new level of wrongness, the EU instead transformed itself into a world roadblock, putting itself directly in the middle of the way of the US's actions in the Middle East. Want to go on Iraq? It's not just Iraq.

It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.

No, they don't want Saddam out of office. Why? Because Saddam gave them money. He bribed nations of, above anything, the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world. So, instead of playing the militaristic card, the EU instead played the deaf-ear card. They instead accepted bribes, and stepped in the way of the US when we stepped in to stop Saddam.

And it wasn't all just for WMDs. I don't know what the hell Europe's problem is with freedom and civil rights, but for God's sake, don't screw with us when we try to do what's right. If we followed a typical EU policy here in the US back during WWII, we sure as hell wouldn't have gotten involved in such things as liberating France or destroying Italy's power.

But, hell, I don't know why I try anymore. I'm just gonna get blown off like Liberator anyway.

No matter how much I get bashed, I Salute You Nuclear and Lib.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
 
But we all know that iran and iraq, among others do give harbor to these terrorists.  That is where this stems from.  everything else is bar room crap.  I can't offer proof that they harbor terrorists, but we all know it to be true.  They were warned after we were attacked by terrorists that we were coming for them if they harbor them, they do, and we are.  To hell with the rest of it.  
 

To hell with the rest of it?  The rest of what? The world?  I thought this was suppossed to be the globes war on terror... 'it's us or them', good vs evil, all that rubbish.

Maybe we 'know' that Iran and Iraq harbour terrorists (despite the complete lack of evidence for the latter, and when the US signed a ceasefire with terrorists operating inside Iraq to attack Iran)... but if you don't have proof, then it's nothing.  You can't get away with murder because you assume someone is going to hurt you - why get away with war over the same arguement?

Originally posted by nuclear1

No. Instead of playing the militaristic card, you backed out on the US and played the coward card and rolled in the red carpet for the Socialists.

Because war is always best?  Does wanting to avoid needless conflict = commie?

Originally posted by nuclear1
And, instead of stepping to a new level of wrongness, the EU instead transformed itself into a world roadblock, putting itself directly in the middle of the way of the US's actions in the Middle East. Want to go on Iraq? It's not just Iraq.

So the Us has sole jurisdiction over the Middle East now, does it?  Is that your dominion?

Originally posted by nuclear1
It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.

Well, maybe you should attack terrorists next time, eh?  Or at least convince people that you are.  As I remember, there wasn't a great deal of opposition over Afghanistan... maybe because there was some proof there?

Originally posted by nuclear1
No, they don't want Saddam out of office. Why? Because Saddam gave them money. He bribed nations of, above anything, the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world. So, instead of playing the militaristic card, the EU instead played the deaf-ear card. They instead accepted bribes, and stepped in the way of the US when we stepped in to stop Saddam.

Aha... the old unproven bribe accusation.  Remind me, who asked the Clinton government to allow his company to trade with Iraq.... Rumsfeld, I believe it was.  I love the 'stepped in the way' argument - how dare a nation disagree!  It's odd that the majority of the Security Council was against the war... Saddam must have far deeper pockets than mighty old America to achieve that.  After all, the Us couldn't get support for war despite the offers of aid & trade to the minor (temporary) SC nations like Bulgaria and a particular little African dictatorship (Gabon, I believe).

Originally posted by nuclear1
And it wasn't all just for WMDs. I don't know what the hell Europe's problem is with freedom and civil rights, but for God's sake, don't screw with us when we try to do what's right. If we followed a typical EU policy here in the US back during WWII, we sure as hell wouldn't have gotten involved in such things as liberating France or destroying Italy's power.

'Freedom and civil rights'; like Guantanamo bay, the exportation of prisoners to countries which allow torture, or the propping up of oppressive-yet-friendly governments?  Or how about the civil right of free speech.  The right to say "we think you're wrong".

Sometimes your best friend is the one who tells you when you make a mistake.

[Unknown Target]

From earlier: During World War II, the US military had a mandate to be able to fight two major wars at once (a major war is like US Vs. Germany). Iraq is a big war, but technically, it's not a major war.
Now the US is able to fight one major war and two smaller conflicts. Afghanistan and Iraq are two smaller conflicts. If we attack Iran, we will be stretched to our breaking point, because it won't just be Iran we'll be fighting: We'll be fighting the entire Middle East, once everyone gets really pissed off at us because of it.

Then you can say hello to the draft board.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Rictor


Well, not as such, but it works both ways. Iran should demand that the  US and Israel disarm as a prerequisite for stopping any plans they may or may not have to produce nukes. What do you think would be the response to that? Not even outrage, just blank disbelief.

I have no problem with forcing nations to live up to the NPT, so long as it applies to everyone.

" however, it (Israel) has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)."

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/index.html

Therefore technically we are not in illegal possession of Nuclear weapons

[vyper]

I don't think that's the point And really just proves how more "rogue" your country could be considered!

[Rictor]

Alright, so the point still stands for the US.

(and what do you think it says about Israel if 90% of the world signed the NPT but not you?)

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, so the point still stands for the US.

(and what do you think it says about Israel if 90% of the world signed the NPT but not you?)

that proves that we are probably the only country in the world that NEEDS nukes for survival...

otherwise I garuntee you the all-out-wars wouldn't have stopped after 1973.

vyper: rouge country? I can live with that... it's keeping us alive for the time being. *shrug*

[aldo_14]

That Israel wants nukes?

On the other hand, Israel is completely surrounded by hostile countries, many of whom won't even recognise it.... don't get me wrong, I'm against all nuclear weapons, but I guess if anyone has an arguement for needing them as a deterrent, it's Israel.

[vyper]

You need nukes for survival? Exactly what would you do to use them? You can't nuke **** without killing yourselves in the process mate.

[Zarax]

Well, israel fared pretty well on the military side even without nukes...
In fact it would really need them only if the US stopped the financial aid, which is quite unlikely imho.

[Gank]

Eh, US had draft during ww2, thats why they were able to fight on two fronts. Anything larger than Iraq which requires large troop deployments over long periods of time and you have no choice but to institute the draft. Vietnam for example, hardly classes as a major war.

That said neither Iran or US will want this to turn into a large scale war, US will just do airstrikes and Iran will send revolutionary guards into Iraq covertly to hit the US and hit Israel through Hez'bollah. Because the Iranians arent stupid, they'll fight their war on someone elses turf if they can, and they know opposition to their nuclear plans has nothing to do with al-quada and everything to do with tel-aviv.  Unlikely anything actually will happen now though, given the whistles been blown.

[Rictor]

Iran is bordered on the East by occupied Afghanistan and on the West by occupied Iraq. There is at least 1 US carrier task force within stiking distance, and Washington is openly making threats about invasion. To top it all off, Israel is training Kurdish peshmergas to go into Iran and conduct a guerilla war.

Tell me again which nation needs nukes for survival?

[IceFire]

Originally posted by vyper
You need nukes for survival? Exactly what would you do to use them? You can't nuke **** without killing yourselves in the process mate.

Its not the actual weapon that has any impact (one would really hope not) but the threat of its use.  Nuclear weapons are so terrible that most recognize that using them is suididal in every respect.  Even if the nation you did fire the weapons at was destroyed, if the escalation of the weapon useage was high then the fallout would cause worldwide devastation even if only a small percentage of it actually was physically destroyed by the weapons themselves.

If India and Pakistan went to war for instance...the problem would be felt over there immediately but then everywhere else.

[vyper]

Nukes against people who believe dying fighting for islam will get them to paradise...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper
You need nukes for survival? Exactly what would you do to use them? You can't nuke **** without killing yourselves in the process mate.

That's why I said deterrent.  

Technically they could nuke the primary cities of the enemy anyway, but that's beside the point; it's the classic case of "you **** us, we'll **** you back". (and given that Israel won't disclose what or how many weapons they have, they can use that factor too)

@Rictor:  yep, maybe so.  Although I wouldn't say Iran was under a current threat due to the instability in Iraq in particualr and also the political effects of a US war on Iran. And I don't think nukes are much use against guerillas anyway, but I guess that's beside the point.

My opinion would be that Israel face a greater potential military threat at present due to the fact they border hostile nations militarily able to invade them; if / once the Us gets a hold upon Iraq and frees up its troops, then the threat to Iran would be pretty severe.

[Gank]

Umm, I think those hostile nations have pretty much showed their inability to invade Israel Aldo, whereas Israel currently occupies territory which belonged to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The poor little Israel argument kinda falls flat on its face there.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by aldo_14
That Israel wants nukes?

On the other hand, Israel is completely surrounded by hostile countries, many of whom won't even recognise it.... don't get me wrong, I'm against all nuclear weapons, but I guess if anyone has an arguement for needing them as a deterrent, it's Israel.

Israel wants nukes? HAS my friend... plenty A-bombs and thermo-nuclear bombs and hydrogen bombs and neutron bombs and cobalt bombs... at the rate they have been developed thus far its anybody guess between 300-500+ nuclear weapons under our control.

According to retired US Army Colonel Warner D. Farr, M.D.,  Israel is the fifth largest nuclear superpower in the world.  By 1967, Israel  already had 15 atomic bombs in its arsenal. In 1976, their nuclear arsenal grew to 15 to 20 nukes, and by 1980 jumped to 200. According to Farr, in 1997, Israel now has over 400 nuclear and hydrogen weapons.

Israel has also developed, with U.S. financial assistance, the Arrow theater defense missile, which has become one of the only functioning missile defense systems in the world.

We have our bases covered.

Originally posted by vyper
You need nukes for survival? Exactly what would you do to use them? You can't nuke **** without killing yourselves in the process mate.

What are you talking about?
1. It’s not like we need to nuke the Pallis it would be a hit on Damascus or something not in our own territory

2. The wind mostly blows from the west the fallout would go towards Iraq

Originally posted by Zarax
Well, israel fared pretty well on the military side even without nukes...
In fact it would really need them only if the US stopped the financial aid, which is quite unlikely imho.

We may have "fared well" in the past but the reality is it was more we fared miraculously well. I wouldn’t want to put it to the try again especially with the current governments I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran joined in and they have no small army. I guarantee you the nukes are what have stopped further wars and they still may not prevent one in the future but they have thus far.

Originally posted by Rictor
Iran is bordered on the East by occupied Afghanistan and on the West by occupied Iraq. There is at least 1 US carrier task force within stiking distance, and Washington is openly making threats about invasion. To top it all off, Israel is training Kurdish peshmergas to go into Iran and conduct a guerilla war.

Tell me again which nation needs nukes for survival?

Not Iran... no one is threatening its survival only its acquisition of WMDs.

And also do you have a link from a viable news source about  "Israel is training Kurdish peshmergas to go into Iran and conduct a guerilla war."? Sounds interesting.