If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
That's a bit like saying the US is about to attack every Muslim country in the world and force all Muslims to convert to Christianity- because Ann Coulter has said so.
Well the President of Iran has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction. Do you not think he’s a religious extremist? Do you honestly trust him with nukes? Do you think the world will be a safer place if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Will the world will be a safer place if Iran gets nuclear weapons and Arab states follow suit? Would it be a good thing for the Middle East to be armed to the teeth with nukes?
Ideally Iran would not want to join the nuclear club- but if it wants to, we shouldn't do anything stupid about it.
How many times do we have to fuck about in the Middle East before the message gets through people's minds?
i'm hoping the answer is america as that would create caution.
but ...i'm all for Iran being stopoped having nukes.
If the world allows Iran to get nuclear weapons and nuclear war follows our non-intervention will be later rightly judged as a catastrophic mistake. We’re right to have doubts about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Iran isn’t just any country.
we will die!
at least the west understands the consequences,iran does not give a fuck!
Also that ann coulter bit is abit unfair, she isnt exactly influencial in religious fanatism is she.
What's not fair is suggesting Iran is going to nuke anyone because one mad mullah who has bugger all to do with Iran says nukes should be used.
How about we judge people and countries by their actions, not words? How about we compare the records of Iran against those of the US or Israel in the last 4 decades?
If I had to choose which country must or musn't be allowed to have nukes, I'd be happier about a country that speaks nonsense but hasn't fired a single bullet in anger (other than in self defence) in decades than a country that has illegally and pre-emptiededly attacked other nations dozens of times in the same period while speaking of wanting peace.
Current Iranian missiles in development could reach Paris. It's only a matter of time before they can reach an additional 300 miles.. And I still say we should not use force to prevent them from using nukes. And I'd say that if I lived next door to them too
Like all tyrants, they want to rule. It's hard to rule when the world's in a grave.
Israel and the US have not made any secrets of the fact they want to see Iran gone. They paid Saddam to try and do it, and turned on him when he didn't. I don't see anything wrong with the Iranian government wanting to defend itself from its imperialist neighbours.
I'd rather nobody had nukes, but the only country that has ever used nukes is the US. The only country that has driven the world nearly to MAD is, erm, the US. Anyone else see a pattern?
As to nuclear weapons - there has never been a weapon that has been invented that hasn't ended up widely available for use by anyone who would like to use it. To try and put some huge block in place and stop people developing nuclear weapons is a bit finger in the dam isn't it?
How many years can we hold back the profileration of nuclear weapons? Do we think it will be harder to develop nuclear weapons in 10 years, in 20, in 100 years? At some point, just like all the other weapons that claimed to end war they will be available.
We need some further push towards dipolmacy to resolve conflict, however naive it may seem, and however unlikey looking at the current UN and military spending, as there will never be a situation where the nuclear weapon can be prevented from spreading forever.
You can provide alternatives to conflict, or just try to always have the biggest stick - they way doesn't lead to peace, just to quicker, worse wars.
'If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.'
From the Bhagavad-Gita, as quoted by Oppenhiemer in describing his thoughts on the seeing the first Trinity test.
MAD only works when more then one side has nuclear weapons so everyone saying, only America was responsible for MAD is just showing their blatent hatred of America and selectivity in placing blame where it is due, as the Soviet Union was as much to blame. That is the point of it.
Also, what was America going to do? They still had a Japan that was unwilling to surrender and would fight to the last man, tooth and nail, island for island. The cost of lives would have been hundreds of thousands of dead for the Japanese and American soldiers. American simply used the weapon they had to end the war quickly, finally and made a political statement to the USSR at the same time. Anyone who says Japan would not have fought on and they knew they were beaten, is wrong and has no grasp of the Japanese culture of the time or the way the people worshipped their living God.
Iran has never fired a a shot in anger. But surely the fact that Iran has ties to terrorist groups, supplying them on the sly and so forth, should indicate they are not all "goody goody, happy happy, lets all be free to worship the way we want and not hate each other" but are a nation to be concerned about. And no, im not on about Al-Qida, i am on about real terrorist groups.
Has america gone to war before? Yes!
Has Iran waged a war of Aggression? No!
Why is this the case? Because one side has the money and army to win wars and the other side is stuck in a desert having to deal with its neighbours first.
Can the prevention of the Proliferation of nuclear weapons be maintained? Probably not since the fall of the USSR. Once they collapsed, scientists, Russian military and so forth needed money and happily sold nuclear technology to both India and Pakistan. Now it seems it is Iran too. Everyone will have nuclear weapons one day, but just because that is the case, that doesnt mean we should not do what we can to stop the spread. If we dont stop the spread then why do we try to stop the enevitable in anything? We will all die one day, so why bother trying cure fatal illnesses? for example. The spread of nuclear weapons on the world is the same as a spreading cancer in the human body. We can either give in to the inevitable or try to put off the inevitable a little longer.
All types weapons get used eventually, it is just a question of how and when...
They still dropped TWO nuclear bombs on innocent civilians, and those civilians are still having to deal with the consequences.
And the US DID know what that bomb would do, especially the second time. And yet they still did it.
Do you think that the death and destruction, something which is still being felt in Japan, was worth a "political statement" to anyone? Really?
What the hell are you on about?
Iran has two enemies that want to obliterate it- Israel and the US. Israel and the US both have nuclear arms. Israel kidnapped someone, tortured him and put him in jail for 20 years for daring to say that they had nukes. The US has proven it is callous enough to drop it, but obviously only on defenceless people. The only way to defend yourself from this is through MAD, and that means you need nuclear weapons.
That, as I say, is why you won't see a US invasion on Iran, and you won't see a US tanks in Pyongyang any time soon.
Defence is the stated reason why we still have Trident, and I have yet to hear a decent reason why if we have Trident for protection Iran can't.
If you read my post you would see i did not say ANYTHING about America not knowing what the bomb could do. Why would i say that for a start when everyone who had developed it knew what it could do. They ENDED the war at the cost of an enemy, saving American and Allied forces lives. That was their aim, that was their duty, that was the right thing to do. To show Japan they could not win. The fact Japan didnt surrender until a second bomb was dropped should show you the mentality of the Japanese peopel to fight on no matter what. Since. one bomb couldnt make the Emperor surrender after all.
The Political statement was unneccessary, but never te less a side-affect of using the bombs to end the world war.
I am astonished by your ignorance of the term MAD however. MAD only works if neither side is willing to use nuclear weapons. Mutually Assured Destruction is what neither side wants, hence the USA and USSR. Since everyone is saying America IS in fact prepared to use nuclear weapons, MAD no longer applies to the scenario and is no longer a deterent.
As for Iran, ok, they have not been an aggressor, and America has been, then again, Americans can (supposedly) remove their leaders from office if they grow to dangerous and wreckless. Vietnam didnt have a backlash until 5 years into the war. Iraq is only 3 years in so far so i wouldnt expect a backlash just yet from the American people with marches on the capital. However, Irans leadership are Religious rulers who rule by the word of God and not by elections. They believe their say is what ever God wants as they are his representatives on earth and so whatever they do is justified. They can not be removed from power by their own people. Even the king of Nepal cannot be removed from power by the people.
It is not wise to happily dish out Nukes to everyone who wants them because eventually a country that will use them will get them. Maybe not Iran, but it opens the door.
The Iranian President is already on public record as wanting to wipe Israel from the face of the world, and once he getS his nuclear warheads he'll attempt just that and also give nuclear weapons to terrorists - the US should take out the facilities now without delay.
I agree. It’s not just the danger of the barbarous Iranian regime itself it’s partly the company they keep that’s the problem. Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism. We’re all endangered if Iran gets its hands on nuclear weapons. The trouble is it would be apparently difficult to destroy their nuclear facilities from the air leaving only an invasion as an option.
And fuck the millions of Japanese people who have had to live with genetic defects due to the radiation, yeah? And continue to do so, and probably will do so for another ten generations.
Whilst you may find such atrocities as Hiroshima, Nagasaki and to a lesser extent Dresden justifiable because it was only "enemy" people who were left to die in the slowest most agonising way possible, I don't.
Just because I disagree with your "the Allieds were always right" bullshit doesn't mean I don't know anything. So shut the hell up.
Don't make yourself look dumb.
MAD is where you cannot use a terminal device because the opponent will use it back. If I have a nuke and nobody else does I can use the nuke with impunity- as the USA proved in 1945.
As it stands the USA could drop the nuke on Tehran with impunity, because Iran cannot retaliate using such force. MAD would only occur if Tehran could retaliate using similar terminal force.
MAD only occurred during the Cold War once the USSR had nuclear capabilities too.
It doesn't open the door at all, IMHO.
The reason why the "mad mullahs" won't use nukes is because the US will nuke them. And its hard to be a tyrannical dictator when you're dead.
I believe it to be a fallacy to say these people are willing to trigger MAD- they aren't. They're willing to let other people blow themselves up for their political agenda, but they won't blow themselves up. How can you rule under fifty feet of tube train?
They only want nuclear capabilities because it is the only way they can defend their power from US and Israeli invasion.
The Miitary dictatorship or political elements would work if they had the power in Iran, that is when MAD works. MAD does not work when one side is led by religious fanatics whether it be Christian nuts like Bush or Islamic Nuts like those ruling Iran.
The problem with MAD is if both Iran and America had Nukes, they would get used, probably by both sides. America would think it take out Nuke facilities with Nukes but miss one and end up with Iran retaliatin gin kind. It is not like the USSR where they would develop so many Nukes so quickly it would be impossible to do so.
Everyone seems to want to say Israel will be invading? Does anyone serious think Israel is going to send troops to Iran? They are not, they are going to stay home and kill Palestinians.
I am not excusing what the Allies did to the Japanese, i am saying that is war! That is what happens in War, you kill the enemy and in a situation where the enemy has stopped obeyng the rules of war and killed civilians, they have changed the war to that level and although you may argue that we should always do the right thing and never risk enemy civilians no matter what, thats not reality, not then or ever.
The Nukes had to be used to save Ally lives, otherwise the war would have gone on 2 more years fighting island to island for every inche of Japan, and probably ended up with more Japanese killed then the Nukes killed.
As for Dresden, people who argue that there was no need to bomb the area should take a look at what was made in those factories that got bombed. Not guns, no, but trigger mechanisms for guns, casings, etc. Target bombing would not have guaranteed hitting the target. In a way where the people have been fighting for 6 years and are desperate to end it, they are driven to make these decisions. I know after 6 years of war i would have given the order to area bomb industrial parts of Germany too.
Just like Sadam had weapons that could attack Britain in 40 minutes and was harbouring terrorists. :rolleyes:
Wake up son.
Anyway Kermit you really are talking bollocks lately. Israel for a start isn’t going to invade Iran. The most Israel could ever do is attempt to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities from the air – and that would be a dangerous option – you might want to read the first post of this thread for Dershowitz’s take on that. America meanwhile (with its hands tied in Iraq) can’t really touch Iran – but with no nuclear weapons there is no way the US would invade Iran. The American public is absolutely opposed to war with Iran – but if the Iranians try to develop nukes the US public suddenly has a reason (and a very good one) to support invasion.
In point of fact, Japan had already been suing for surrender for months if not at least the year before the decision to flex political muscle by dropping the bombs was made. The real agenda at work had nothing to do with Japan itself but rather a political message to display to our then mistrusted allies, the Soviet Union. Japan was the weaker pawn to be sacrificed merely to fire the new "shot heard round the world" to inaugurate the previous Cold War paradigm-era.
Just as false and to date never proven PR claims (oft asserted through mainstream media/press channels in order to establish mass acceptance by mere repetition alone, and that being sourced from those who have themselves been repeatedly exposed as most untrustworthy, self-serving liars) of arab terrorist orchestrators of 911 have inaugurated an agenda of perpetual war of aggression in full breach of every principle established at Nuremberg by our own nations only a few generations ago.
Claims of saving US lives and the intention of Japan to fight to the last are lies as bold-faced as all other paradigm-setting claims made to justify military or political confrontation (Sinking of the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, Invasion of Grenada, et al.) in their time.
Read more than intellectually-cowardly status quo apologists for the MIC and its expansionistic self serving falsehoods which comprise the bulk of mainstream non-investigatory, pseudo-journalism and a fair portion of equally complacent "historical" reviews.
The truth of our deliberate and mass murdering amorality in the service of Post-WWII (to present) aspirations of renewed empire tears the big-money driven curtain of magnanimous soudbites to shreds and reveals our governments and those who aspire to positions of power therein as the real and active menace threatening global stability, not the weaker nations pointed at to divert sensationalism-driven minds such as yours.
It is OUR acts of hatred and violence, first and foremost, that prevent creative, humanocentric, socially progressive solutions from ever taking root, not the other way round. Time to act as an example, not a perpetual instigator.
Hiroshima: needless slaughter, useful terrorism
Further substantiation for those interested
and yet further, if somewhat self excusatory, revelatory admission of the truth
Interesting links Clan. William Blum is a fruitcake however. I don’t see anything propagandistic in my post...I don’t have a strong personal opinion on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and I’m not adhering to any ‘Wartime propaganda’ but I feel those points in my previous post are legitimate. It’s not something I’ve entirely made my mind up on; although I suppose one conclusion in hindsight we can make is that the effects, so devastating, so catastrophic were probably part of what prevented the use of such instruments of destruction again. Unfortunately the president of Iran lacks the kind of rational reasoning even the Soviets possessed...
Are you saying that the actually sequence of events was the Japanese were willing to surrender unconditionally? I knew the use of the A-Bomb was a political statement as much as a means to victory, but i was under the impression, until reading your post, that the Japanese were prepared to fight on, despite the impossible situation they were in.
It was, as today, the means to cloak the true domino agenda of OUR leaders as they established the new role of US hegemonic military (and subsequent corporate) entrenchment and accompanying political intimidation across the bulk of the globe using both covert subversion and overt military interventionism (whilst instilling fear in the public that it was the "enemy" who was actively pursuing the better part of such practices with our leaders portrayed as the noble defenders) when political carrot & stick tactics failed to achieve their desired subjugatory aims.
This is the modus operandi of false history making that becomes so commonly accepted not even the academics dare confront it lest they be hounded out by their peers or more routinely smeared by yellow journalistic witchhunts (as we have seen befall every successive Bush admin whistleblower in the past few years, in historic fashion).
Sorry if you dont want to believe the actual historic reality. Realisation of the truth carries with it the indictment of just how mentally complacent and politically non vigilant we have allowed ourselves to become in exchange for the false glitter of the consumerist dream. Those with their narcissistic eye on the attainment of power for power's sake have never failed to recognise this preference of the majority to believe anything, however false, that will allow them to dispense with the duties and obligations of every citizen to help ensure full democratic accountability is not undermined to serve only a precious few. Sadly that is precisely what the Cold War era bred and what has made the current falshoods all that much easier to instill as fact in the collective western public mind.
Time to return to your investigations with a great deal more discernment of the PR tactics employed by our MIC to guarantee perpetually recurring excuses for war ( and the exhorbitant budgetary winfalls that are maintained thereby).