By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Obama: Ignoring Russian Aggression Would Have Global Consequences

 

What does Obama hope to accomplish? alterior motive?

I will post below. 29 14.29%
 
To calm the situation down 67 33.00%
 
See results 100 49.26%
 
Total:196
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Fair enough, but who are we to say they can't have nuclear weapons if they wanted? Especially when we have them. That's what the issue is ultimately about with Iran, most likely

 


Common sense.

Nucleaer waepons are so strong and dangerous that they should be limited only to large countries who are stable and have the means to protect them.  Well nations like that shouldn't even have them either but you can't really take nuclear weapons from someone once they get them... because they have nuclear weapons.

 

A country like Iran, that's small, specific terrorist affiliations and always on the bring of a popular revolution of younger people is just a disaster waiting to happen.


Imagine for example if Syria had nuclear weapons.  Syria could totally lose those weapons to the rebels.  Who include extreme terrorist groups.

The type that totally wouldn't blink an eye of detonating one in the center of London or Germany.

 

Every nation like Iran and Pakistan are dangerous time bombs waiting to go off... that by the way, would totally cause way more intervention for reasons that are less solid.

 

For example...  Syria.  If they had nucelear weapons.  NATO would be in syria right now securiing them.  Possibily even fighting on the side of the government. We would be fighting with Assad if he had nukes, if we intervened in that alternate universe. 

 

When the Iranian lineral democratic movement happens, if they have weapons, you may find the UK in Iran supressing democracy.  For fear of not being able to account for their nukes. History does repeat itself if this happens! Think of the 1953 coup

Who's to say any country is stable or trustworthy enough to have them? People didn't expect the Soviet Union to just suddenly collapse and yet it did and it had at least 10000 nukes. It really was a miracle that none of them fell into dodgy hands. 

I want a world rid of nukes to be honest, they are just far too destructive. I would kill the guy who invented them if I could go back in time. The power from these weapons gives my PM just way too much power and you know what? We (UK) have 250 of these fucking things and we'll never use them, just such a waste of money and seriously undermine peace and anything moral. The world would a better place without these things



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Around the Network
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Fair enough, but who are we to say they can't have nuclear weapons if they wanted? Especially when we have them. That's what the issue is ultimately about with Iran, most likely

 


Common sense.

Nucleaer waepons are so strong and dangerous that they should be limited only to large countries who are stable and have the means to protect them.  Well nations like that shouldn't even have them either but you can't really take nuclear weapons from someone once they get them... because they have nuclear weapons.

 

A country like Iran, that's small, specific terrorist affiliations and always on the bring of a popular revolution of younger people is just a disaster waiting to happen.


Imagine for example if Syria had nuclear weapons.  Syria could totally lose those weapons to the rebels.  Who include extreme terrorist groups.

The type that totally wouldn't blink an eye of detonating one in the center of London or Germany.

 

Every nation like Iran and Pakistan are dangerous time bombs waiting to go off... that by the way, would totally cause way more intervention for reasons that are less solid.

 

For example...  Syria.  If they had nucelear weapons.  NATO would be in syria right now securiing them.  Possibily even fighting on the side of the government. We would be fighting with Assad if he had nukes, if we intervened in that alternate universe. 

 

When the Iranian lineral democratic movement happens, if they have weapons, you may find the UK in Iran supressing democracy.  For fear of not being able to account for their nukes. History does repeat itself if this happens! Think of the 1953 coup

Who's to say any country is stable or trustworthy enough to have them? People didn't expect the Soviet Union to just suddenly collapse and yet it did and it had at least 10000 nukes. It really was a miracle that none of them fell into dodgy hands. 

I want a world rid of nukes to be honest, they are just far too destructive. I would kill the guy who invented them if I could go back in time. The power from these weapons gives my PM just way too much power and you know what? We (UK) have 250 of these fucking things and we'll never use them, just such a waste of money and seriously undermine peace and anything moral. The world would a better place without these things


So,  because some parents leave their more well adjusted 5 year olds around opened bleach we should totally let all kids play with opened containers of bleach?



Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Fair enough, but who are we to say they can't have nuclear weapons if they wanted? Especially when we have them. That's what the issue is ultimately about with Iran, most likely

 


Common sense.

Nucleaer waepons are so strong and dangerous that they should be limited only to large countries who are stable and have the means to protect them.  Well nations like that shouldn't even have them either but you can't really take nuclear weapons from someone once they get them... because they have nuclear weapons.

 

A country like Iran, that's small, specific terrorist affiliations and always on the bring of a popular revolution of younger people is just a disaster waiting to happen.


Imagine for example if Syria had nuclear weapons.  Syria could totally lose those weapons to the rebels.  Who include extreme terrorist groups.

The type that totally wouldn't blink an eye of detonating one in the center of London or Germany.

 

Every nation like Iran and Pakistan are dangerous time bombs waiting to go off... that by the way, would totally cause way more intervention for reasons that are less solid.

 

For example...  Syria.  If they had nucelear weapons.  NATO would be in syria right now securiing them.  Possibily even fighting on the side of the government. We would be fighting with Assad if he had nukes, if we intervened in that alternate universe. 

 

When the Iranian lineral democratic movement happens, if they have weapons, you may find the UK in Iran supressing democracy.  For fear of not being able to account for their nukes. History does repeat itself if this happens! Think of the 1953 coup

Who's to say any country is stable or trustworthy enough to have them? People didn't expect the Soviet Union to just suddenly collapse and yet it did and it had at least 10000 nukes. It really was a miracle that none of them fell into dodgy hands. 

I want a world rid of nukes to be honest, they are just far too destructive. I would kill the guy who invented them if I could go back in time. The power from these weapons gives my PM just way too much power and you know what? We (UK) have 250 of these fucking things and we'll never use them, just such a waste of money and seriously undermine peace and anything moral. The world would a better place without these things


So,  because some parents leave their more well adjusted 5 year olds around opened bleach we should totally let all kids play with opened containers of bleach?

What are you talking about?



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Kasz216 said:


So,  because some parents leave their more well adjusted 5 year olds around opened bleach we should totally let all kids play with opened containers of bleach?

Well, you compare Iran with a 5 years old kid? When they have several thousand years of a rich culture/civilization (Persian, I mean). And your country is one of the youngest in the world with Star Wars and McDonalds as biggest culture accomplishments...
It looks like a schoolkid on a gaming forum who calls people around 'kiddies' and swears to show that he's so big and hardcore...



the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:

 


So,  because some parents leave their more well adjusted 5 year olds around opened bleach we should totally let all kids play with opened containers of bleach?

What are you talking about?


Your arugment is that because even big stable countries shouldn't have nucleaer weapons... everyone should have them.



Around the Network
Sharu said:
Kasz216 said:


So,  because some parents leave their more well adjusted 5 year olds around opened bleach we should totally let all kids play with opened containers of bleach?

Well, you compare Iran with a 5 years old kid? When they have several thousand years of a rich culture/civilization (Persian, I mean). And your country is one of the youngest in the world with Star Wars and McDonalds as biggest culture accomplishments...
It looks like a schoolkid on a gaming forum who calls people around 'kiddies' and swears to show that he's so big and hardcore...


I was comparing all countries to 5 year old kids.



Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:

 


So,  because some parents leave their more well adjusted 5 year olds around opened bleach we should totally let all kids play with opened containers of bleach?

What are you talking about?


Your arugment is that because even big stable countries shouldn't have nucleaer weapons... everyone should have them.

No i don't think anyone should have them but since we have them, we can't tell other countries not to have them without disabling our own. Having nuclear weapons is something awful I think 



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Kasz216 said:
Sharu said:
Kasz216 said:


So,  because some parents leave their more well adjusted 5 year olds around opened bleach we should totally let all kids play with opened containers of bleach?

Well, you compare Iran with a 5 years old kid? When they have several thousand years of a rich culture/civilization (Persian, I mean). And your country is one of the youngest in the world with Star Wars and McDonalds as biggest culture accomplishments...
It looks like a schoolkid on a gaming forum who calls people around 'kiddies' and swears to show that he's so big and hardcore...


I was comparing all countries to 5 year old kids.

then i don't understand who are 'some parents' in your comparison. 



the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:

 


Your arugment is that because even big stable countries shouldn't have nucleaer weapons... everyone should have them.

No i don't think anyone should have them but since we have them, we can't tell other countries not to have them without disabling our own. Having nuclear weapons is something awful I think 


Why?  Becuase we have nuclear weapons we can't tell more unstable dangerous nations to not have them?

That doesn't make any sense.

but ok.  Let me rephrase that...

your argument is because even big stable countries shouldn't even have nulear weapons...  EVERYONE should can have them.

 

So, becaue there is a .01% chance the US or UK could get it's nuclear weapons stolen and won't get rid of theirs... these two nations should let other countries get nuclear weapons.  Even though it greatly increases the chance of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of people who will use them in highly populated areas far higher then the chance it happens in the US or UK.



Sharu said:
Kasz216 said:
Sharu said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

 


I was comparing all countries to 5 year old kids.

then i don't understand who are 'some parents' in your comparison. 


It's really sort of like a lord of the flies situation where everyone is both parent and child i guess if you want to really dig into the metaphor.

The point though is just because one group engages in risky behavior doesn't really mean others should be allowed to.

 

If an alchoholic tells you to cut back on drinking... is it hypocritical?  Sure.  It's still damn good advice.