14 Mar 06
Originally posted by PeachyNo worries, that essay passed first shot (actually it was highly commended).
[b]princeoforange
I hope you are taking notes as you will need them whenever you resubmit that essay when you reset that school year.
1, Having nuclear capability causes threat to everything God created. The ONLY purpose of their invention is to KILL. How can mass murder threaten peace..? you work out.
2, Israel is civilised? Have you ever be ...[text shortened]... ssed with the word "incite".. was it the last English word you ever learned?
Bless.[/b]
1. Nukes are actually principally for deterrent value, not for killing
2. Israel is civillised, if you have been there you should know, do not spout your biased hatred
3. Yes, that's what I asked, you were the one fussing about Israel and India, I asked you to focus on Iran.
4. a) No, this defeats the purpose (deterrent) of nukes, if everyone had them then they would make the world more dangerous, because only a few have them, they make the world safer, although this may sound paradoxical to your simple mind.
b) What gives the country a right to nukes is if it is civillised. A country with a leader that wants a neighbour "wiped off the map" does not fall into this bracket.
5. "Going nuclear" does not make you a civillised country, if one is led by a mad Ayatollah whose views differ in no aspect from a crazy paedophile who lived nearly 16 centuries ago, that country is not civillised, perhaps my 16th century assessment was a little too generous, wanting nukes to "wipe out the neighbours" is not a common mindset of the civillised.
Thank you for the little tribute to my brightness and wisdom, there is hope for you yet if you dig your head out of the quicksand and catch up with reality. I would have no problem with Iran having nukes if they were responsible and civillised, everyone knows they are not.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangei would have a problem with iran having nukes under any circumstances. i have a problem with any country having nukes. the soviet union was certainly "civilized" by our first-world standards - meaning that they are mostly white people. yet we should all be fairly uncomfortable with the fact that those nukes could be anywhere for all we know. the problem with an arms race is that there is no way to reverse direction. the prospect of cheating pays too highly. game theory has taught as much with such things as "the prisoners dilemma." vonnegut's "cat's cradle" beautifully spells out why we are all doomed.
No worries, that essay passed first shot (actually it was highly commended).
1. Nukes are actually principally for deterrent value, not for killing
2. Israel is civillised, if you have been there you should know, do not spout your biased hatred
3. Yes, that's what I asked, you were the one fussing about Israel and India, I asked you to focus on I ...[text shortened]... h Iran having nukes if they were responsible and civillised, everyone knows they are not.
15 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by princeoforange1. Indeed nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent. But at the same time, they also demand respect. I doubt very much Iran wants them so that they can cause a nuclear holocaust.
No worries, that essay passed first shot (actually it was highly commended).
1. Nukes are actually principally for deterrent value, not for killing
2. Israel is civillised, if you have been there you should know, do not spout your biased hatred
3. Yes, that's what I asked, you were the one fussing about Israel and India, I asked you to focus on I h Iran having nukes if they were responsible and civillised, everyone knows they are not.
They want it for respect. At the moment they are not a military force to be reckoned with. If they acquired nuclear weapons they would be a step closer to realising that. I suggest you procure a non Western translation of the Iranian Prime Ministers speech. You will see he never made any such remark.
If one considers the view you hold (that nuclear weapons held by the West serve as a deterrent to fanatics from the East), the reciprocate view also holds. If the East has nuclear weapons, the warmonger Bush and his puppets will be less inclined to trounce all over them.
2. Civilised – A higher state of culture. That is my understanding of the word civilised. Israeli’s believe they are the chosen, that they are somehow blessed. God favours them. The Holy Land is theirs. It is their right to be there. Hence they show a wanton disregard for Palestinians who were there previously. Irrespective of who was there first, or who has a greater right to the land.
Consider it from a philosophical level and not an historical one. Palestinians who were born and raised in the Holy Lands are completely independent of the history, of Moses, of Mohammed and of anything else. That is their home. They were born there. The People who oust them are using the events of years gone by, which isn’t a justification anyway. That means nothing to a person being ousted from his home. What did he have to do with Hitler and Auschwitz? What did he have to do with the Roman Empire? Why must he pay for their crimes? Israeli’s use their religion and their history as their justification. Both of which are irrelevant. A mindset like that is not intrinsic to a higher state of culture and hence not intrinsic to a civilised people.
4. Your point is understood. But I believe that it only makes the world safer for a few people. How are Iraqi’s, Palestinians, Iranians etc safer because America has nukes? In fact, if Iraq was allowed to have nukes, America might not have been able to manufacture an excuse for its invasion. They might well be safer today.
(b) Your condition for a country being allowed the luxury and privilege of nuclear weapons is severely flawed, if not only because it is highly subjective and biased, but also extremely narrow minded. How does one judge if a country is civilised or not? Is it quantifiable? Does everyone consider Israel to be civilised? Does Iran? Does Saudi? I suppose they don’t matter to you because they aren’t civilised right?
Do you not see the problem? Then again, according to the UN, Israel should not be in possession of nuclear weapons anyway. A country that shows a complete lack of regard for human life, in my opinion, should certainly not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. More so than a country who’s prime minister continuously engages in rhetoric. Actions speak louder than words.
4. Who is this crazy paedophile you refer to? Care to prove this statement? Perhaps you could write another essay, on this topic. I believe you were highly commended the last time you wrote one.
15 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeA pretty arrogant and bold statement for someone who's making his ignorance; lack of knowledge on the matter, apparent to everyone.
...there is hope for you yet if you dig your head out of the quicksand and catch up with reality...
15 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ASROMAAn excellent post, there. Very thought through and clear. You have heightened the level of discussion by miles, in my opinon. 🙂
A country that shows a complete lack of regard for human life, in my opinion, should certainly not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. More so than a country who’s prime minister continuously engages in rhetoric. Actions speak louder than words.
Here's a rec.
15 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PeachyThe ultimate corruption is that practised by the mad mullahs, like the hook-handed wallah recently jailed here for seven years, who incite (encourage) weak-minded youths to commit mass murder within the society that has provided a sanctuary for them, and a standard of living such that they could not have dreamed of back in their Islamic homelands.
Did I "incite" sarcasm..? pardon meeee...
No they don't have "mad mullahs" or "ayatollahs", you are right. They only have Zionists who are ever so kind with the native Arabs. And Hindu's would go to the moon and back begging Pakistan for forgiveness over the massacres committed in Kashmir and the like..
My position might be weak.
Yours is corrupt.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by NargagunaNo answer to this Peachy?
The ultimate corruption is that practised by the mad mullahs, like the hook-handed wallah recently jailed here for seven years, who incite (encourage) weak-minded youths to commit mass murder within the society that has provided a sanctuary for them, and a standard of living such that they could not have dreamed of back in their Islamic homelands.
16 Mar 06
If I were the Iranian President I would consider the acquisition of nuclear weapons to be my most important and urgent duty to my country.
You will notice how the US doesn't bully nuclear countries with the same relish as those who are defenceless. Iran won't be safe until it has its own deterrent, and I hope that it is able to develop one.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by VillagerThen, with their 'suicide-bomber' mindset, the rest of the world will be even more unsafe!
[
You will notice how the US doesn't bully nuclear countries with the same relish as those who are defenceless. Iran won't be safe until it has its own deterrent, and I hope that it is able to develop one.[/b]
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by NargagunaBut don't worry, at least the Iranians will be safe and happy with there ability to kill us all. Unfortunately the idiots who support the Iranian regime will be protected from the nuclear fallout on account that their heads will be buried in the sand.
Then, with their 'suicide-bomber' mindset, the rest of the world will be even more unsafe!
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeActually with just your head buried in the sand, you wouldn't survive a nuclear explosion.
But don't worry, at least the Iranians will be safe and happy with there ability to kill us all. Unfortunately the idiots who support the Iranian regime will be protected from the nuclear fallout on account that their heads will be buried in the sand.
I suppose you are going to tell me differently because you wrote an essay on it in grade school.
You are ignorant even in your week attempts at wit and humour.
How apposite.