• Please remember that Politics, Off Topic and Global Warming boards are for fairly serious discussion. I would like to see language used in those boards reflect that level of serious discussion. Sand Pit, Members. Improvements—go your hardest.

Wars

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
I have a problem with the premise of the question. It isn’t good that anyone has nukes. So the fewer countries that have them, the better.
The first nuke war (both sides having nukes) will be fought between India and China and it will be over the dwindling meltwater coming from the Himalayan ice sheet. Currently that ice sheet waters 1/4 of all humanity in India, China and IndoChina (Mekong River.)
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
The first nuke war (both sides having nukes) will be fought between India and China and it will be over the dwindling meltwater coming from the Himalayan ice sheet. Currently that ice sheet waters 1/4 of all humanity in India, China and IndoChina (Mekong River.)
I can understand a conflict over water, but a nuclear war?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
If any of you are jet fighter or aviation buffs, you might like this. Awesome display and great photography.


Merica! 🇺🇸
 
Did you know that Russia and Iran are military allies? And, that its embassies are in Iran? China also supports Iran as an important and essential trading partner. Both of these counties have nuclear weapons. In fact Russia(6,850) has more nukes than the US(6,450), And China has 320 warheads. So far only 9 countries on the planet have nukes.

The real problem with America, is trust. They have lied, failed to protect, or have walked away from treaties, that other countries just don't trust them.
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
Did you know that Russia and Iran are military allies? And, that its embassies are in Iran? China also supports Iran as an important and essential trading partner. Both of these counties have nuclear weapons. In fact Russia(6,850) has more nukes than the US(6,450), And China has 320 warheads. So far only 9 countries on the planet have nukes.

The real problem with America, is trust. They have lied, failed to protect, or have walked away from treaties, that other countries just don't trust them.
Good thing nothing any other country does has a direct correlation to Australia, they can all let off their bombs, it wont effect us :)🌎
 

Auggie

Active member
I'm with Seth on this one. North Korea and Iran shouldn't have nukes and it's ok for America to have them. The fact of the matter is that some regimes are pure evil - North Korea is most evil regime to exist currently and because they are evil - we absolutely have the right to dictate terms to them.

Some regimes are evil and some people deserve to die.
 
I can understand a conflict over water, but a nuclear war?
Since it has been stated by a poster, let me ask you, do you believe that N.Korea and Iran are just pure evil regimes? And, that they should NOT be allowed to have nukes in their arsenal? And, that America has every right to dictate terms to them?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I'm with Seth on this one. North Korea and Iran shouldn't have nukes and it's ok for America to have them. The fact of the matter is that some regimes are pure evil - North Korea is most evil regime to exist currently and because they are evil - we absolutely have the right to dictate terms to them.

Some regimes are evil and some people deserve to die.
Since it has been stated by a poster, let me ask you, do you believe that N.Korea and Iran are just pure evil regimes? And, that they should NOT be allowed to have nukes in their arsenal? And, that America has every right to dictate terms to them?
I agree with Auggie on this one.
 
I agree with Auggie on this one.
With the most sincerest respect Seth, that is not what I asked. But if you agree with Auggie, then you agree that N. Korea and Iran are just evil countries. Since countries can't be evil(reification fallacy), you must mean by extension, that it is the people in these countries who are evil. Since Auggie also says that some people deserve to die, I will assume that he means only the evil people in these evil countries. And, because the US has demonized these countries and their people as evil, that this somehow gives them the right to tell a sovereign country to get rid of their nukes.

Does this sound even rational to you, let alone being moral? If Australia decided to get more revenue from McDonald's and Hungry jacks, or to not NOT trade oil in American dollars, Australia would also be demonized, the government removed, sanctioned, and the people characterized as the evil roos.. Only money matters to America, hence why they are now the worst terrorist's country's bitch(Saudi Arabia). This same playbook has been used in Bolivia, Libya, Venezuela, Guatemala, Syria, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, or any country that opposes western imperialism.

I bet you totally support Israel as well. A country with more human rights abuses than N. Korea. And, Saudi Arabia, other than funding and exporting terrorism around the world(including 911), and the cutting up a Saudi journalists with a bone saw(khashoggi), the only thing that matters is the Saudi's multi-billion dollar arms deal paid in cash. As well as their keeping oil trading in American dollars.

So, if you think that it is okay to demonize countries, and kill their evil people, then I am very surprised.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
With the most sincerest respect Seth, that is not what I asked. But if you agree with Auggie, then you agree that N. Korea and Iran are just evil countries. Since countries can't be evil(reification fallacy), you must mean by extension, that it is the people in these countries who are evil. Since Auggie also says that some people deserve to die, I will assume that he means only the evil people in these evil countries. And, because the US has demonized these countries and their people as evil, that this somehow gives them the right to tell a sovereign country to get rid of their nukes.

Does this sound even rational to you, let alone being moral? If Australia decided to get more revenue from McDonald's and Hungry jacks, or to not NOT trade oil in American dollars, Australia would also be demonized, the government removed, sanctioned, and the people characterized as the evil roos.. Only money matters to America, hence why they are now the worst terrorist's country's bitch(Saudi Arabia). This same playbook has been used in Bolivia, Libya, Venezuela, Guatemala, Syria, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, or any country that opposes western imperialism.

I bet you totally support Israel as well. A country with more human rights abuses than N. Korea. And, Saudi Arabia, other than funding and exporting terrorism around the world(including 911), and the cutting up a Saudi journalists with a bone saw(khashoggi), the only thing that matters is the Saudi's multi-billion dollar arms deal paid in cash. As well as their keeping oil trading in American dollars.

So, if you think that it is okay to demonize countries, and kill their evil people, then I am very surprised.
I don't believe the people of Iran or N. Korea are evil, and I don't want a war with either country. Where I agree with Auggie is in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of those countries. Yes, I know it is believed that NK already has a few of them. If that is the case, then I believe that NK should not have ICBMs. Protected by China and Russia, NK has no good reason to need nuclear ICBMs.

I also don't think anyone really wants a war with Iran. Not Israel, not Trump, not the American people. The Iranians also have no good reason to try to acquire nuclear weapons. And, if they did, it would greatly upset the balance of power in the region. I also don't think the Israelis would be able to tolerate the existential threat that would pose to their survival.

So it's best that those two countries' nuclear ambitions be held back.

I always find it interesting when people write about the evil, nuclear-armed USA, but they are fine with an ultra-conservative religion-based country or an isolated, poor, family-run personality-cult government having nuclear weapons.
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member


Donald Trump has warned that the US will retaliate with “1,000 times greater” force against any Iranian attack on its interests.

On Tuesday morning, the president also told Fox & Friends he had wanted to assassinate the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
“I had a shot to take him out if I wanted and Mattis was against it,” Trump said. “Mattis was against most of that stuff … he didn’t know how to win.
quoted Trump as saying: “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them.”

Yeah So much different to Hillary 😅 :ROFLMAO: 😆
 

greggerypeccary

Active member


Donald Trump has warned that the US will retaliate with “1,000 times greater” force against any Iranian attack on its interests.

On Tuesday morning, the president also told Fox & Friends he had wanted to assassinate the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
“I had a shot to take him out if I wanted and Mattis was against it,” Trump said. “Mattis was against most of that stuff … he didn’t know how to win.
quoted Trump as saying: “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them.”

Yeah So much different to Hillary 😅 :ROFLMAO: 😆
Mattis was against committing murder, and Trump sees that as a bad thing.

FFS :rolleyes:
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
@DonDeeHippy @greggerypeccary

Whatever interactions occurred between Trump and Mattis, there are a couple of things we know for sure.

(1) A defense secretary does not tell a president what to do. A defense secretary may advise a president, but a defense secretary will obey orders or resign.
(2) If Mattis advised against attacking Assad directly, ultimately, Trump took that advice. Mattis may not have been the only one against it.
(3) Suspected chemical weapons depots were hit in the dead of night when workers at those locations would not be there, keeping casualties light.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
ohh how anti war Seth is so willing to make excuses for thrumpy

if that had been reported about Hillary, you'd be going on and on about what a war monger she is
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
In any war there is a winner and a loser. You think the loser in this battle for the water of life would give up or throw a few nukes?
If you throw nukes from a losing position you would have to count on extremely dire consequences for the nearing peace treaty.
 
Top