Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) won't work now... 35 replies

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1 11 years ago

Unlike the USSR who, being communist who frowned upon religion, Iran will not be deterred by mutually assured destruction. Iran has embraced Islam and utilized it's teachings to whip it's populace and sympathetic organizations into a fervor of killing and murder. The USSR had enough personal acumen to not launch on the USA and that is what I want us to focus on. When the religion of the matter is removed, the essential yearning for the human being to be free and survive will trump any established cannon, be it political or religious.

The United States of America is itself fighting for it's survival and freedom across the globe now for all the right reasons. We are not deployed in meals on wheels like the UN. We are not exercising our sovereignty only to violate others. We are acknowledging other nations sovereignty by assuring them that they have failed to stop terrorists and we are going to do so while respecting their own sovereignty. This is why we are justified in defending ourselves because no one else will do so.

The best way at this point and time to do so would be to nuke Tehran and stand up on the ashes and ask the rhetorical question, "Who's next?" Perspective would be rapidly established for those who are supporters of freedom and survival, and those that would bring about the demise of humanity itself. Pro aris et focis!!!

NormSaxYT :deal:




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,010 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#2 11 years ago

I don't understand how people can talk in vague terms about some of the principles of enlightenment and then proceed to say that indiscriminate massmurder should be the next step.




feardamaverickhunters

theres a dollar in my pocket

50 XP

9th November 2006

0 Uploads

863 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

i'm not sure i understand what this thread is supposed to be about....




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago
NormSaxYT;3801948The best way at this point and time to do so would be to nuke Tehran and stand up on the ashes and ask the rhetorical question, "Who's next?" Perspective would be rapidly established for those who are supporters of freedom and survival, and those that would bring about the demise of humanity itself.

Even though your post has made pretty obvious that you don't really have a clear grasp of how the world works, I'll ask these questions.

1. How would indiscriminately killing a large number of people stop terrorists that base their ideology on hatred of certain groups?

2. What sort of logical sense would it make to commit an act of terrorism, in order to stop terrorism?




Kwould

OK, but wash it first

50 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,537 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago
MrFancypants;3802001I don't understand how people can talk in vague terms about some of the principles of enlightenment and then proceed to say that indiscriminate massmurder should be the next step.[/quote] Perhaps that statement should be made to the extremist clerics and the terrorists that they rally up support for. [quote=Karst;3802127]Even though your post has made pretty obvious that you don't really have a clear grasp of how the world works, I'll ask these questions.

I think he has a very clear grasp on how the world works, and that many are increasingly blind to it. Terrorists don't hate certain groups. They hate all groups of people who aren't exactly like them. Let us not forget, they kill their own people as well - simply for not adhering to the same twisted ideologies.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago
Kwould;3802267I think he has a very clear grasp on how the world works, and that many are increasingly blind to it. Terrorists don't hate certain groups. They hate all groups of people who aren't exactly like them. Let us not forget, they kill their own people as well - simply for not adhering to the same twisted ideologies.

That neither explains nor justifies the genocide he is advocating.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#7 11 years ago

If you nuke those that do nothing to prevent terrorists from manifesting, then you motivate them to do so in order to prevent being nuked themselves. This may be a little heavy handed but not as heavy as the head that wears the crown...USA!!!

Genocide would be the USA targeting a specific race. I am advocating nuking those who are passive in allowing terrorists to have anything to do in their country. They allow them safe harbor to build strength over seas to strike us when they are ready. The goal is to never let them get ready again and make sure other countries understand that negligence by design will not be tolerated by the United States.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

NormSaxYT;3802473If you nuke those that do nothing to prevent terrorists from manifesting, then you motivate them to do so in order to prevent being nuked themselves. This may be a little heavy handed but not as heavy as the head that wears the crown...USA!!![/quote]

With that justification you could nuke any American suburb and say that the people didn't do anything to stop terrorism from manifesting, because they certainly aren't doing more or less than the average citizen of Tehran against terrorism. What the hell are they supposed to do, ask people on the street if they are terrorists, and then beat them up? You seem to think terrorists all live in one place, and are somehow easily identifiable for average citizens. Even the definition itself is not a very precise term and there's no real way of saying who is a terrorist and who isn't, even if you know everything they've done in their lives. Furthermore, saying nuking civilians in order to motivate them to do anything, is despicable and would be an atrocious act of genocide in itself.

If your national pride goes so far that you think nuking other countries with such justification is alright, your ideology is frighteningly similar to Nazism, with the belief that one's national identity gives the right to kill or subjugate others.

[quote=NormSaxYT;3802481]Genocide would be the USA targeting a specific race. I am advocating nuking those who are passive in allowing terrorists to have anything to do in their country. They allow them safe harbor to build strength over seas to strike us when they are ready. The goal is to never let them get ready again and make sure other countries understand that negligence by design will not be tolerated by the United States.

It is genocide because it is the indiscriminate killing of people just because of their residence.




colonel_bob

Here & There

50 XP

4th June 2004

0 Uploads

6,685 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago

Yes, lets fight for freedom around the globe by... nuking an entire city we may not particularly like. Yes, makes perfect sense.




Cap'n Rommel

The Good

50 XP

7th August 2004

0 Uploads

8,766 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago
NormSaxYT;3802481Genocide would be the USA targeting a specific race. I am advocating nuking those who are passive in allowing terrorists to have anything to do in their country. They allow them safe harbor to build strength over seas to strike us when they are ready. The goal is to never let them get ready again and make sure other countries understand that negligence by design will not be tolerated by the United States.

well.. we have to nuke half the world then, including most of europe, the middleeast, africa and a good share of asia.