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) - Friday, November 18 2011, 16:13:06 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
> >>A. Nuclear bombs deter countries from attacking each other.
>
>...they have so far...
>
>Yes, I'm not arguing against that. They do deter wars in the near future . “Near” could be any time span: 100 yrs, 200 yrs...etc.
>
> remember, they didn't start this fight...we've forced it on them...we are the bullies of the block against whom weaker people have to defend themselves...by whatever means possible.
>
>This opens the door to another argument. In light of the fact that the industrial world is dependent entirely on oil, does it have the right, albeit limited, to interfere in the affairs of the underdeveloped countries to ensure the survival of its civilization?

...no. This isn't about having enough oil to run our economy so that people can drive their kids to school and shop...it's about first of all using up everybody else's oil before our own....it's about getting it from them on our terms...and it's about making as much money for owners as possible. Same reason we closed factories here and opened them in poor countries...we were told that it was done in order to give us better savings, to "ensure the survival of our civilization"...but it wasn't. That shirt you paid $40.00 for when it was made in Ohio you're still paying $40.00 for, it's just that now it costs $5.00 to make and puts more money in the boss's hands...Saddam was selling us oil before the war...and at a much lower price. There was no threat to our survival, except that our survival has come to mean as much profit for our bosses as can be squeezed from people...everyone is being squeezed...and enough is never enough...are we surviving? If our system is so great how come we're borrowing from Communists in order to "survive"?
>
>I am not talking about Iraq in particular.
>
> >>C. If every country has a nuclear bomb, the likelihood of a nuclear warfare in the future will increase.
>
>...that hasn't been the case so far...and I doubt it ever will be...
>
>Past behavior is a poor indicator of the future. We cannot, statistically speaking, say that a world in which 20 countries have nuclear arsenals will equal to or less likely have a nuclear warfare than a world in which only 2 out of 20 countries have them.

...past behavior will have to do...we have nothing else to go on except what people Think might happen.
>
> they're very impractical weapons....you may kill your enemy but you'll devastate yourself as well.
>
>
>True, which is why they avert wars in the near future. But this does not ensure that people will remain rational and that nothing will go wrong in the distant future.

..no one said people are rational...they obviously aren't. But people don;t like to be threatened by irrational people and right now Muslims feel threatened by the United States..which irrationally concluded that because 19 Saudis flew planes into building, they would declare war on Iraq, not Saudi Arabia....from Islam's point of view Christian nations are irrational, bloodthirsty and unbelievably greedy and short-sighted to boot...but what can THEY do about it...except develop a level of threat the West will understand, fear and respect.
>
>What you are saying is that distant future does not matter because you don't see a rosy one and “we're slowly killing ourselves anyway”.

..of course it matters...but if all nations have nuclear weapons there is a greater chance of the weaker ones, with resources, escaping the kind of fate that befell Vietnam, Korea and Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Iran and Syria next. They didn't set the rules of the game, the West did. Don't blame them for playing catch-up.
>
> If you believe that countries with nuclear weapons will use them...which countries are you talking about? Right now the only Muslim nation that has them is Pakistan. Muslim nations are not the threat...they never were...
>
>It may not a problem if one or two Muslim countries have them, but if one country after another was granted the right to develop nukes, then it will become out of control.

...you don't know that. I feel more comfortable with no one having them or everyone having them...maybe that will scare people into getting rid of all of them...but if not, then better every country has them and we take our chances...the alternative is raging bullies declaring wars for fun and profit...that could lead to greater disasters or the same anyway.

Yes US, Russian, China... has them but the world cannot force them to destroy them, but it can prevent more and more countries from having them.... If today they allow Iran, then can they say no to the rest in the region? And then the rest of world?

....the cat is out of the bag...besides there are chemical and biological weapons and who knows what else....a teaspoonful of pure nicotine can kill everyone in the United States....you can poison the water supply...or melt the ice caps...or fill the air with chemicals....or kill the oceans...or destroy the rivers and lakes...there are lots of ways to render life on earth impossible, given enough time...on all counts it is the West which is rapidly destroying this planet, not Muslim countries...talk to them.
>
>So which world do we want to end up with: 2/20 or 20/20?


....all or nothing.



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


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9