Thread: Why i think the USA won't Nuke or invade Iran

Of course not, why would it?

Because people aren't always in control of their emotions...
A psycho with a gun is more dangerous than an unarmed psycho.

But whatever I don't feel like arguing forever.

We are not talking about psychos though. We are talking about normal everyday people. You use a steak knife to cut your food, but you never thought of running around stabbing people in the face with it did you? Of course not.

Besides, if there is a crazy person running around, why wouldn't you want to defend yourself? Its an odd idea that if you give up your weapon your some how safer when a nut case goes on a rampage. If you notice mass shooting always take place in areas where they ban guns. Theres never shootings at the gun range however. Hmm I wonder why? Maybe its because if people have guns they just shoot the psycho?

Originally Posted by Alric

We are not talking about psychos though. We are talking about normal everyday people. You use a steak knife to cut your food, but you never thought of running around stabbing people in the face with it did you? Of course not.

If there's no ban on guns, then psychos can get guns. x)

A knife is a lot different than a gun, with the gun you just pull the trigger and magic happens.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Doesn't it give people the idea that they can just shoot anyone they want?

You have held a steak knife, did it give you the idea you could stab anyone you wanted?

Yes. I could. But of course, I'm a sane human, so I don't.

There is a ban on drugs and theres tons of people with drugs. Why do you believe if there was a ban on guns there would be no guns? The truth is, banning guns doesn't get rid of them, its just makes it very difficulty for normaly people to get them legally. Criminals and insane people will still have them either way.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats because you dont know anything about history. The people in the US believe they have a god given right to defend themself, and their property.

1. God isn't real
2. a 9 millimeter sidearm defends your property just as well as an uzi.

Doesn't matter if god is real or not. People still have the innate right to be free and to defend themself. It doesn't really matter why you believe that, the belief that you are born with certian rights are what we are talking about.

When does the innate right to own a killing device come from then? If all you want is self defense, why not get a taser instead?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

2. a 9 millimeter sidearm defends your property just as well as an uzi.

...

An uzi is much better than a 9 millimeter for defending yourself against a gang of attackers or intruders. A tazer only subdues sombody for a little bit, and it is not instantaneous. Watch the "Don't Taze Me, Bro" video to see how weak a tazer is. If somebody attacks you or breaks into your house, you deserve to be able to take the person completely out on the spot so you can be as safe as possible. You do not owe it to an attacker to make things riskier for yourself. Attackers owe you as much safety as you can have.

Taser wouldn't help you if more than one person attacked you. It also isn't a fair match up against a gun. People have guns so you need to have a gun to be on an even ground with them. Even if guns were made illegal people would still own guns, so you would still need a gun to be on an even level with them.

Originally Posted by Alric

Taser wouldn't help you if more than one person attacked you. It also isn't a fair match up against a gun. People have guns so you need to have a gun to be on an even ground with them. Even if guns were made illegal people would still own guns, so you would still need a gun to be on an even level with them.

A war on guns would be very successful. Just look at how good of a job they are doing with the war on drugs.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Well then, in that case, isn't protecting your wife and daughter more important than your country or your own brains? If not, how would you prioritise it?

I could give a damn about this country. I think I was pretty clear up there in regards to how I explained it. The scenerio was was also clear as well and I'll reinerate what I said and make it more elementry for those who didn't understand. My Country Invaded - Me - Splattering Brains all over the pavement bottom Line.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I could give a damn about this country. I think I was pretty clear up there in regards to how I explained it. The scenerio was was also clear as well and I'll reinerate what I said and make it more elementry for those who didn't understand. My Country Invaded - Me - Splattering Brains all over the pavement bottom Line.

Exactly!. Now i wonder why some people are surpised at the reaction of iraqs people to the invasion when all they have to do is think what would they do if a foreign power invaded there own country.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Exactly!. Now i wonder why some people are surpised at the reaction of iraqs people to the invasion when all they have to do is think what would they do if a foreign power invaded there own country.

You cannot equate China invading the United States with the United States invading Iraq. We are not an oppressed terrorist dictatorship where genocide occurs, and China would not be here to save us from such a government. They would be here to give us one. Humongous difference.

Also, the insurgents in Iraq know that we would leave if they would stop engaging in insurgency. They are not fighting to get us to leave. They could do that by not fighting. They are fighting to prevent democracy.

Its really not different at all, atleast not to the people living in the country. It looks exactly the same to them. You see a tank driving down the street, does it matter why its there? Just being there is pretty scary.

Originally Posted by Alric

Its really not different at all, atleast not to the people living in the country. It looks exactly the same to them. You see a tank driving down the street, does it matter why its there? Just being there is pretty scary.

We are accepted by a great portion of the Iraqi people. Even a major portion of the people who want us to leave say they are glad we overthrew the Hussein regime. Do you think Americans would be saying things like that about a Chinese invasion? How many Americans would be holding up signs saying, "Thank you, China."? Would Americans in large numbers eagerly take pictures with Chinese soldiers and smile in the pictures?

I have asked this question about a thousand times and never gotten an answer. The insurgents know that their insurgency is what is keeping us in Iraq and that if they quit we would leave. Right? So why do they continue with the insurgency? Seriously... Why?

It is a nonsensical idea that the insurgents are doing what they do to make us leave when they know that what they are doing is specifically what is keeping us there. If you disagree, please be the first to explain otherwise.

The only possible explanation is that they are against democracy, as Zarqawi flat out said he was and as Bin Laden has said he is. Anybody who is against democracy is wrong. Oppressive dictatorship is not a legitimate form of government. It is completely out of the question, it should be internationally outlawed, and we are not bad people for standing in the way of it. I am surprised you don't agree with me, considering all you have said about individual liberties. The freedom I say people are entitled to from birth (Remember what you said about gun rights?) is something that applies to all people, not just Americans.

Thats because your using a poor example, china. What would happen if instead of china it was UN peace keepers? Say there was some big problem and they came in to help us out. A lot of people would probably support them helping. What happens when they don't leave however? Well then people start getting mad at them.

And me, I would hate them at the very start, like many others. I am sure even years after being here, there would be people still thanking the UN.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats because your using a poor example, china. What would happen if instead of china it was UN peace keepers? Say there was some big problem and they came in to help us out. A lot of people would probably support them helping. What happens when they don't leave however? Well then people start getting mad at them.

And me, I would hate them at the very start, like many others. I am sure even years after being here, there would be people still thanking the UN.

If the Hussein regime were our government, you can bet the farm that I would really want the U.N. coming in and installing a new government. Now suppose that the Hussein regime was Christian and supported Christian terrorists and terrorist groups. If masses of brainwashed fundamentalist Christians started blowing up shopping centers and shooting at crowds and soldiers and creating chaos everywhere so the new government would not work, I would totally understand why the U.N. decided to remain for as long as they need to. It would be completely legitimate and necessary. I would be one of the smiling people in the pictures.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I could give a damn about this country. I think I was pretty clear up there in regards to how I explained it. The scenerio was was also clear as well and I'll reinerate what I said and make it more elementry for those who didn't understand. My Country Invaded - Me - Splattering Brains all over the pavement bottom Line.

Hmmm... so in other words, you'd put your country before your loved ones? Not exactly something I understand myself, since if any sort of invasion occurred where I'm at, I would primarily focus on protecting family and friends.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If the Hussein regime were our government, you can bet the farm that I would really want the U.N. coming in and installing a new government. Now suppose that the Hussein regime was Christian and supported Christian terrorists and terrorist groups. If masses of brainwashed fundamentalist Christians started blowing up shopping centers and shooting at crowds and soldiers and creating chaos everywhere so the new government would not work, I would totally understand why the U.N. decided to remain for as long as they need to. It would be completely legitimate and necessary. I would be one of the smiling people in the pictures.

Ummm, not too sure if every assumption there is correct. You said the Hussein supported terrorists, can I assume by this you mean he supported Al-Qaeda? If so, then Hussein actually never supported the terrorist group in the time he was in power. Of course, doesn't mean he wasn't a terrible dictator, but I think that's also one of the many things the US government didn't pay attention to. However, if this is not the terrorist group I'm assuming you are referring to, please feel free to correct me on that bit.

Now, as with the whole Iraq war... I never liked it from the beginning. Executed under false pretences, and once the 'war' was declared over, little was done to set up an effective government and law enforcement, improve infrastructure, etc... and when things did come round, it was too little too late. People got pissed off, and naturally insurgents started popping up throughout the country.

We did remove a nasty dictator from power, but in the Saddam-shaped hole that was left in Iraq, we put nothing else in to fill that void in, instead insurgents took advantage of such a void of power and control. There was no WMDs, and if anything, we literally have ruined a country.

Now, if the pretences for such a conflict weren't false and were focused on solely deposing the dictator, then most likely I would have had a more favourable opinion on the war. Plus, if there was a plan for how to run and repair the country until an effective democratic government could be formed that was formulated before the war even begun, then I would have had an even more favourable look on the war. But what the war actually looks like to me is simply a sustained and engineered conflict, with interests on keeping defence contractors happy and not on actually fixing Iraq, otherwise the country would be in a much better state today. You don't go invading countries without contingencies/plans in place for when the conflict is supposed to have ended.

That summarises my two cents on the Iraq war. I wonder how this will go after the whole theoretical "China vs US" talk...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A tazer only subdues sombody for a little bit, and it is not instantaneous. Watch the "Don't Taze Me, Bro" video to see how weak a tazer is. If somebody attacks you or breaks into your house, you deserve to be able to take the person completely out on the spot so you can be as safe as possible.

Originally Posted by Alric

Taser wouldn't help you if more than one person attacked you. It also isn't a fair match up against a gun. People have guns so you need to have a gun to be on an even ground with them. Even if guns were made illegal people would still own guns, so you would still need a gun to be on an even level with them.

Some nice facts about tasers: http://www.safetygearhq.com/taser-facts-info.htm

If more than one armed person attacked you, having a gun yourself probably wouldn't help at all.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Ummm, not too sure if every assumption there is correct. You said the Hussein supported terrorists, can I assume by this you mean he supported Al-Qaeda?

You can assume it, but you would be wrong. Hussein provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, funded Hamas and Hezballah, and used sarin gas in a terrorist attack himself.

However, Hussein's representatives did have a few meetings with Al Qaeda members, and Zarqawi was harbored in an Iraqi hospital. That is about all we know about the ties between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Now, as with the whole Iraq war... I never liked it from the beginning. Executed under false pretences, and once the 'war' was declared over, little was done to set up an effective government and law enforcement, improve infrastructure, etc... and when things did come round, it was too little too late. People got pissed off, and naturally insurgents started popping up throughout the country.

The right term is not "false pretenses". The correct term is "one unproven basis among several proven ones". There is a major difference. However, in being unproven, it was still supported by six goverments and some people in the U.N. The rest of the reasons were absolutely correct and proven. The regime did violate our ceasefire on several grounds, the Hussein regime was a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism, liberation of Iraq does have long term strategic significance in the war on terror, we are luring in Islamofascists by the tens of thousands and capturing or killing them, and the people of Iraq do deserve to be free just like you and I do. We are doing a great deal to protect the new government and set up infrastructure. If we had left right after the liberation was accomplished, you would be right in saying we have done little in those areas.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

We did remove a nasty dictator from power, but in the Saddam-shaped hole that was left in Iraq, we put nothing else in to fill that void in, instead insurgents took advantage of such a void of power and control. There was no WMDs, and if anything, we literally have ruined a country.

Iraq has a future with great potential for freedom and prosperity. Before the invasion, they had absolutely no hope of that. Did you know that Iraqis are now voting in higher percentages than Americans? Do you have any idea what Iraq was like under the Hussein regime? You should read about it. It was a horror story that would make Stephen King novels look like Disney stories. The idea that we "ruined" that scene is light years from the truth.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Now, if the pretences for such a conflict weren't false and were focused on solely deposing the dictator, then most likely I would have had a more favourable opinion on the war. Plus, if there was a plan for how to run and repair the country until an effective democratic government could be formed that was formulated before the war even begun, then I would have had an even more favourable look on the war. But what the war actually looks like to me is simply a sustained and engineered conflict, with interests on keeping defence contractors happy and not on actually fixing Iraq, otherwise the country would be in a much better state today. You don't go invading countries without contingencies/plans in place for when the conflict is supposed to have ended.

We are getting a democracy off the ground in a place where the world never dreamed it could happen. If you want to see major success in Iraq, stick around. We planted the seed, and we are gardening it every day. Watch what happens over the decades. You should rethink your position because eventually you will really see the success. When that happens, you will like knowing that you were on the right side when the world did not believe in the success of Iraq and on too sad of a scale did not even want it.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Some nice facts about tasers: http://www.safetygearhq.com/taser-facts-info.htm

Watch this video and ask yourself what it would be like to have nothing but a tazer when somebody has broken into your house and is trying to rape your wife and kill your kids. Ask yourself what it would be like if three men are trying to do it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

If more than one armed person attacked you, having a gun yourself probably wouldn't help at all.

An uzi would work wonders.