The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Tehran Threatens to use Nuclear weapons on itself...

Re: Tehran Threatens to use Nuclear weapons on itself...
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Tuesday, November 22 2011, 0:07:04 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
>Ok let's wrap it up, shall we?
>
> ...and it is the obligation of those making such claims to prove it...not mine to prove that they DON'T fly on Mars...I have history on my side, I can "prove" that so far nuclear powers don;t attack each other...you can't prove that they would...
>
>The only way to prove it is to actually have a nuclear warfare. That's how we prove it. The past does NOT give you a proof. It gives you a hint, it gives you expectation, confidence, trust, faith, a belief in a good likelihood... but it does not grant you certainty or determination. If you buy a stock that has yielded profit for that past 20 years, you will have positive expectation in the future performance of that stock. If your friend has been loyal to you in the past 10 years, his past behavior will make you trust him, have faith in him, believe in him, but you cannot possibly have a 100% certainty about how will he behave in the future.

..of course there's no guarantee...when the United States will attack Iraq for what 19 Saudis did...obviously we've entered another universe....
>
> you said it was wrong to base the probable course of future events from the past...I said there is a good likelihood that if everyone has those bombs, no one will start a fight, because no one has so far(except for the US when it had the only ones)...
>
>Yes fine. That's what I was saying all along. I didn't object to that. You just said it: Likelihood. Yes there is a likelihood. It may be a good likelihood, I'm not disputing that, but a likelihood after all.


...nothing is certain in life.


>
> as long as only some countries have them, those who don;t are in for trouble, as also witnessed by recent events...no one dares attack a nuclear power, but they will gang up on those who don;t have them, whenever they feel like it.
>
>
>I did not dispute that. This debate did not revolve around that. I already agreed to that several times.
>
>The debate was about two world scenarios: one in which the US would continue to attack weaker countries and the other in which every country has a nuclear bomb and as a result peace roams. However, with the second scenario there is a probability, a likelihood, I don't know what that is, it may be 1%, that there might be a nuclear warfare, global catastrophe. I did not say that a nuclear warfare is highly likely.

...there is even more probability that with the US and its allies being the only ones with these weapons, smaller countries will live in fear of being attacked...as they have plenty examples all around...they also see that North Korea is not attacked and they have nuclear weapons...any sane person would conclude that it is

a. not safe to allow the US to be the only nuclear power

b. it's better to have the same weapons than not to have them.

>
>When I posed this problem to you this problem you first said it doesn't matter because you don't see a rosy future, and then you said it's not likely because it hasn't happened in the past. Finally you said:
>
> ..it isn't my choice...
>
>But you actually DID make a choice. When I first gave you those two world scenarios and asked you which do you prefer, the 2/20 or the 20/20, you said:

...I can have a preference...but I also have to live in this world..and in this world, dominated by the United Christian States, the reality is that anyone who wants to be safe from attack had better have nuclear weapons...and missles.
>
>“all or nothing”
>
>But there's something wrong with that preference, don't you think? You do not want “nothing”. Nothing will not solve the problem. If we eradicate all nuclear weapons from the world, the US will still attack weaker countries. So “nothing” cannot be one of you preferences. Actually, even if nuclear weapons hasn't been invented yet, you would still want them to be invented so that every country can have them.


...this is the world we live in...peace is attained by building horrible weapons too horrible to use because the "winner" would also lose....don't blame me. I just live here.


>Moreover, you said:
>
> the United States torpedoed this ship...whether one dies or all die is the fault of the United States, not the captain of the sinking ship.
>
>And now you said:
>
> if you don;t like those odds, thank the US and the West...not Iran.
>
>This debate was NOT about the root cause of the problem. Is it the US? Is it capitalism? Is it Christianity? We were not discussing that. We weren't searching for a people or a country to lay the blame on. This debate was about which the two world scenarios which one would be preferable.

...one choice deals with reality, the other is personal desire, whim, fantasy...they aren't two equal choices....as Herman Cain would say, before yelling "999"....those are apples and oranges...give me a choice between two REALITIES and there's no problem. But a world without nuclear weapons, without the US and the rest dismantling them, is a fantasy.
>
>The question was: in order to stop the attack on the weaker countries, in order to save those who you refer to as “Darkies” or “Muslims”, would you prefer to put the world on a ticking bomb, a bomb that might explode or it might not. The chances that it might is very low but it is a chance nevertheless.

...well of course I would....if I stand a good chance of getting beat up and having my daughter raped UNLESS I get the same weapons the bullies will use....will I do it? Of course....if you then tell me, "but the world might b low up if YOU get those weapons"...and I say, "yes but my daughter and I will still be harmed"...who would deny me the right and obligation to get those weapons also? It's called self-defense.
>
>And your response was:
>
> if we lose, we lose...why should only Darkies lose? We either all survive or all die


...exactly....let's all take our chances together...not just risk the lives of some.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9