2015-04-04, 00:39 | Link #36222 |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Reminds of how a moderate once ranted on his FB about an extremist telling him he would go to hell, while the latter is advertising "hot sexy Lebanese/Persian women" on his page.
Porn will fix them alright.
__________________
|
2015-04-04, 02:14 | Link #36223 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
i.e. the reason nuclear weapons was justified to begin with; as a deterrent. The US of A need to make sure Iran could be invaded. Now, so far no full military invasion of a Nuclear Power had happened. But that could just be because nuclear power is so new historically. Pakistan and India argue and kill each other once in a while, but no true invasions. North Korea just might collapse one day and that might be the exception when someone go in to clean up the mess. At the moment, if one genuinely fear an unstable nuclear-armed nation with a large Muslim population, the focus should be on Pakistan. But obviously the US doesn't seem to be afraid. So to fear Iran but not Pakistan, just seem irrational.
__________________
|
|
2015-04-04, 02:40 | Link #36224 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Pakistan has a premade target (India) and did not sign the NPT. Iran did sign the treaty and has multiple targets that are friendly with the US (or the US itself if they could manage it). Plus can use said weaponry as a lever on trade in the region. Pakistan does not have the leverage to all out block trade routes to a region.
__________________
|
2015-04-04, 05:12 | Link #36225 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
This is all about Israel wanting to remain the only country in the middle east with nuclear arms. It's _this_ paired with American protection which allows Israel to pursue whatever they want with total impunity. Like their attempt to annex more land via illegal settlements.
Which is why it's my personal opinion that the middle east would be less festering if Iran _was_ in possession of nukes. Because then, Israel would be FORCED to actively pursue peace solutions instead of forcefully blocking them while pretending to do something different (see Netanyahu's famous post-election make-believe flip-flop on the palestinians). |
2015-04-04, 07:35 | Link #36227 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
|
|
2015-04-04, 08:15 | Link #36228 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Clinton campaign signed lease for Brooklyn HQ: source
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MU0YQ20150404 Special Report: After Iraqi forces take Tikrit, a wave of looting and lynching http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MU1DP20150403 Exclusive: California used 70 million gallons of water in fracking in 2014 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MU01M20150403
__________________
|
2015-04-04, 08:24 | Link #36229 | |
Index III was a mistake
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 32
|
Quote:
In this day and age, there is no country on Earth that actually has the balls to set off a nuclear weapon because doing so would isolate the country from the rest of the world; it would basically mean the end of that country, kinda like a murder-suicide. That's why today nuclear weapons are merely a show of power and nothing else. And that's why Israel (especially Netanyahu) is so against Iran having a nuclear weapon, it would undermine the show of strength that the country has in the region.
__________________
|
|
2015-04-04, 15:54 | Link #36231 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2015-04-04, 21:01 | Link #36233 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
Joe Biden to Authoritarian Chinese President: U.S. Only Supports Human
Rights As ‘Political Imperative’: "Vice President Joe Biden once told Chinese President Xi Jinping that U.S. leaders only support human rights as a matter of political optics, and that this makes the United States no better than China, according to a new New Yorker profile of Jinping." See: http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...al-imperative/ |
2015-04-04, 21:35 | Link #36234 | |
Index III was a mistake
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Just applying it to the USA already tells me that something like the whole Iraq disaster could have been avoided. But at the same time, the president IS the commander in chief by definition so they are tied together from the onset. Of course if the military has some agenda along the lines of a terrorist organization then that's a big problem. But the military's purpose IS to protect the country and its interests. If they don't listen to the government then either the army is corrupt or the government is. At the moment, the Pakistani government is pretty questionable.
__________________
|
|
2015-04-04, 22:00 | Link #36235 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
On the other hand, you have other countries which the military is so integrated or subservient to the political party in power that it is used to suppress the people. Either way is bad I guess |
|
2015-04-04, 22:14 | Link #36236 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
If anything, at least civilian governments can be replaced peacefully sometimes. Military leaders tend to not step down without the use of violence.
__________________
|
|
2015-04-05, 07:58 | Link #36238 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
India's IT plans suffer from power cuts, congestion - and monkeys
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MS5DT20150402 Kenya says son of a government official was among gunmen in Garissa attack http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MW03H20150405
__________________
|
2015-04-05, 13:42 | Link #36239 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
Quote:
And a military rule will indeed be more risky as you mentioned. |
|
2015-04-05, 14:08 | Link #36240 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Isekai
|
Quote:
Quote:
Unrelated. Ukraine got invaded because the Europe didn't respect the treaty that was made after the fall of the USSR. They kind of did to Russia what the US experienced (and Cuba pays the price for that up to today). |
||
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|