Seems you don't know English is just Latin slang without any solid grammar. British were just lazy adopting the Latin-like languages when they were sieged and cut off the grammar of anything, keeping word stems. The only grammar you know is great tenses (not kidding, they are great) which have developed in a reasonable way in history and irregular verbs of which the English language only has a few. Declension and conjugation is simply missing.

It may be an easy, cleverly small and reasonable language (thanks to history). But not perfect or the best.

Dude, did you read my post?  The whole "it has rules that make no other sense or have any other analogues in other languages" part ring a bell?  I was making fun of English, being sarcastic, you know?  I tried to make it as over the top sarcastic as possible, guess it didn't work. 

English is not a graceful language at all, and its not Latin slang without grammer either.  It's truthfully a mixture of Celtic, French, Old German, and Nordic all mixed into one.  For example, the food stuffs follow french, beef would be buef (spelling?) in french.  The animal it comes from, cow, is coo in german (spelling again?)  The peasants generally had Germanic roots while the land holders were of Latin-French descent.  Add in transit across the North Sea from Nordic Tribes, and the crossing of the Channel by the Celtic tribes, and you have one mess of a language, which is why so many non-native English speakers have such a hard time learning English. 

The best language is probably Japanese, it has very simple rules, 5 total vowel sounds, and very logical sentence progression.   The only problem is that American culture has introduced all sorts of slang to the once easy language that has convoluted it some.  Of course the huge barrier to entry of Japanese is the Kanji character set.  Having to learn 10000 characters to be literate is not an easy or quick process. 

Not often do I feel the need to say this, but this time you are wrong.

Calling the USA "a democracy" does not excuse the fact that they ARE the country that has dropped a nuke on another country, nor does it excuse the fact that the USA can't go a year without commiting some sort of invasion, bombing, illegal entry or otherwise wrongful act of violence towards another country.

And that includes these so called "preventions of crimes against humanity" against countries like Libya, which end up just tearing down the entire country into dust. And as far as I know, the ever so "threatening" Iran does not do any of these acts on a yearly basis.

So, sorry, but the USA has just as much right (none) to have nuclear weapons as Iran does, and I for one do not feel any safer know that the USA has them than if Iran had them.

One thing not to overlook though is that Iran could realistically fall to internal pressure... one wonders what would happen to it's weapons in the chaos.

When the soviet union fell we were lucky, but that I mostly attribute to the general ignorance on how to handle such stuff... or a use for it.

Now a days...

The USA was the first country in the world to obtain a nuclear weapon and therefore the first to be able to use it without fear of response in kind. Had Iran acquired a bomb before Israel, you could be certain that it would be used.

Yes, American foreign policy is very questionable, but that doesn't extend to dropping nukes. Perhaps this is a personal bias because Britain is practically America's closest ally in the world, but I do feel safer in a world in which America has a nuclear bomb.

If we could get rid of nukes entirely, that would be brilliant, but I definitely wouldn't want North Korea, China, Russia and the like possessing nuclear weapons whilst America didn't.

As for Libya, honestly you can't fault America for intervening there because:

a) It was really secondary to Britain and France there

b) Everyone was screaming at America to get involved.

Things always look different in retrospect. Iraq was always unpopular, but there was overwhelming support for invading Afghanistan initially, as there was for invading Libya.

Helping stop the brutal Ghadafi regime is something that I am very proud of as an American. Notice that I said HELPING. America lent some drones, a couple of war ships, some fighters, and Military Intelligence and administration. Britain and France pretty much ran the non-Libyan show. The resistance was BEGGING the world for help, and I for one am glad that we did help.

Millenium, I don't know where you are from, but it must be nice to be able to ignore the unjust and cruel world that we live in. You're a pussy, I'm a dick, now Pussies don't like dicks, because dicks fuck pussies. But Ghadafi, Assad, Osama, and Saddam, they are assholes, and sometimes dicks have to fuck assholes. Now sometimes pussies side with assholes, because pussies are only an inch away from assholes, and sometimes they become assholes. But if pussies dont let dicks fuck assholes, assholes will shit all over everything, and then you will just have shit all over your dicks and pussies.

So stay a pussy, but let us dicks fuck the assholes who try to shit all over everything.

Someone's seen Team America World Police...
Dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck!

Oh, someone wants to play.

I don't know where you live Plezbo, but you're an simpleton, the unjust and cruel world we live in? Sure, no-one ever said it wasn't, but guess what, Libya is worse of now than it was before, and it would take someone as blind as you to not recognize that.

As for the resistance begging for help, if I want to rape some random girl on the street and ask you for help holding her down, would you ever so kindly oblige?

Also, your way of describing something looks similar to how a 4 year old  with tourettes might do it.

So go ahead, feel proud of America bombing the shit out of countries and then pretend you were HELPING them, and go rub sticks together to make fire near your cave while you're at it.

A smart precision dick like myself will always get more pussy than a dumb unguided shlong like you.

Libya is worse off now than it was when?  Three years ago?  Are you truly stating that Libya is worse now than it was when Moammar Ghadafi was terrorizing the citizens of Misrata with snipers, airstrikes, and mortar attacks?   You have no clue what you are talking about, clearly.  I challenge you to find ONE Libyan citizen who wasn't part of Ghadafi's inner circle who isn't happy that someone stepped in and stopped the Genocide.  Clearly, you have no handle on what was actually happening in that country.  Ghadafi, his sons, and his inner circle were committing murder writ large against their own citizens while the world stood around and did NOTHING.  

Of course, because the facts surrounding this event do not support you, you have turned to hyperbole and personal insults to try and derail this into a flame war.  As I am above such conduct, I will merely ask you to revisit the Libyan uprising, and really ask yourself if the people of Libya would have been better off if we had let Ghadafi continue to opress them.  I honestly can't imagine how you could still think this since Syria offers a perfect example of what Libya could have been without outside intervention.

Good Day Sir. 

On a brighter note, look at how my Forum Buddy cuts off the thread title: