Report: US/Pentagon Preparing Strike on Iran

The US is not a true form of democracy....
What is? Actually democracy causes the problem, you won't change anything if every idiot under the sun has the right to vote.
Until the Great War the U.S. wasn't democracy it was a constitutional republic. As I understand it, the Constitution was actually followed. People didn't have the right to vote. Does a janitor in a private company have the right to decide who is going to be next CEO? Stupid isn't it?
Basically if you didn't own a property and was a woman you couldn't vote. WISE
 
Quote from studyandtrade:

At 9/11 you wouldn't have said that, would you?
More...

Assuming you meant a WMD attack by a 'rouge state' against the United States, yes, of course i would have said it.

The Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine remains in force - both before and after 9/11 - in the use of nuclear weapons in response to an unprovocated WMD attack.

The US (and every other nuclear country for that matter) reserves the right to use lethal and overwhelming force - equivalent in magnitude (WMD) - to neutralize the threat posed by a attacking state using WMD.

Nothing has changed.
 
Quote from achilles28:

The US (and every other nuclear country for that matter) reserves the right to use lethal and overwhelming force - equivalent in magnitude (WMD) - to neutralize the threat posed by a attacking state using WMD.

Nothing has changed.
More...
As far as I know neither Irak nor Iran have threatened the U.S! However, what everybody on this planet knows is that the U.S. violated international laws (U.N) by invading Irak and used lies to justify their crimes. And killing thousands of innocent citizens in Bagdad isn't also very heroic!
 
Quote from shortlong:

As far as I know neither Irak nor Iran have threatened the U.S! However, what everybody on this planet knows is that the U.S. violated international laws (U.N) by invading Irak and used lies to justify their crimes. And killing thousands of innocent citizens in Bagdad isn't also very heroic!
More...

International law ( and UN all together) is such a joke because
1. There is no way to enforce them
2. No way international law can possibly govern the matters of national security.

The laws of physics are governed by forces of nature. People naively think they can write the laws of national interests. Sure they can write such laws but they'll never enforce them ( without going to war).

Either all countries abide by international laws in a good faith or they are worthless.
 
Quote from gkishot:

International law ( and UN all together) is such a joke because
1. There is no way to enforce them
2. No way international law can possibly govern the matters of national security.
More...
You know history?
September 1, 1939 Adolf Hitler: "Polen hat jeztz auch mit regulären Waffen auf deutsches Territorium geschoßen. Von jetzt an wird Bombe mit Bombe vergolten".
If I would follow your reasoning we shouldn't blame Adolf Hitler starting WWII; he was only securing national German security!
 
Quote from shortlong:

You know history?
September 1, 1939 Adolf Hitler: "Polen hat jeztz auch mit regulären Waffen auf deutsches Territorium geschoßen. Von jetzt an wird Bombe mit Bombe vergolten".
If I would follow your reasoning we shouldn't blame Adolf Hitler starting WWII; he was only securing national German security!
More...


If to follow your reasoning the international laws if they were at the time could no doubt prevent the WW2 and thwart Hitler from invading Poland. As I said the laws ( international laws in our case) if they cannot be enforced they cannot be called the laws and they are pointless. If I were you I would rather compare Saddam to Hitler. That would make more sense.
 
Quote from gkishot:

If to follow your reasoning the international laws if they were at the time could no doubt prevent the WW2 and thwart Hitler from invading Poland. As I said if international laws cannot be enforced they are pointless. If I were you I would rather compare Saddam to Hitler.
More...
The international community declared war to Germany when Hitler invaded Poland! And that was justified of course because a sovereign country was attacked by an aggressor. In the case of Irak the U.S is the aggressor and the so called allies should speak that out openly. But it won't happen because you cannot expect that from cowards.

Hitler lied about Poland; Poland was NOT the aggressor.
Bush lied about Irak; Irak was NOT the aggressor.

So, why should I compare Saddam to Hitler?
 
Quote from shortlong:

As far as I know neither Irak nor Iran have threatened the U.S! However, what everybody on this planet knows is that the U.S. violated international laws (U.N) by invading Irak and used lies to justify their crimes. And killing thousands of innocent citizens in Bagdad isn't also very heroic!
More...

I totally agree with you - except for 'international law'. Whats the problem?
 
Quote from gkishot:

If I were you I would rather compare Saddam to Hitler. That would make more sense.
More...

Just for shits and giggles, the Saddam-Hitler comparision is a bit of a farce.

Saddam wasn't 1/10th the threat Hitler was.

As we've seen, Saddam was totally contained after the first Gulf war. And before it, our big buddy.

Hardly a tyrant worthy the fear of an entire nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top