General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
I think third world nations that are victims of imperialism should use whatever means they have to defend themselves.

I don't know how you would have hegemony without imperialism and in any case it's both.

Yet you don't seem to have any issue with Iran's widespread hegemony in the region

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Hmmm you're right I guess it's just best the US continues on it's quest of mass murder to enrich the already wealthy.

Your point fails considering how abhorrent the conditions of the poor are versus the rich in the middle east, especially compared to the United States


Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
This is a meaningless semantic argument that could be applied to any colonization of "nationless" peoples (native Americans, Africans, Australians etc) and is not even true by that metric, they were a constituent people of a larger state.

They were subjects of various monarchs of different nations.
Regardless, you are right in the sense that this does not excuse oppression and subjugation... nonetheless I reject the premise that arabs are under government-supported oppression, and government-encouraged hate in Israel as jews are in the rest of the middle east.
The real irony that I don't think most people stateside understand is that fanatic zionists are typically "anti-israel" as well.

Quote:
lmao
Laugh all you want but you'd be wrong.
For a good counterexample you can see the statistics of increasing military service by muslims living in Israel.
For the most part they do not want to live under the governing of the "Palestinian Authority"
__________________
09 F9

Last edited by Zangmonkey; 11-16-2011 at 08:46 PM..
Old 11-16-2011, 05:44 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#61  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Hmmm you're right I guess it's just best the US continues on it's quest of mass murder to enrich the already wealthy.

That's quite the non sequitur answer you have there.
Old 11-16-2011, 06:09 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#62  

edplayer
no
 
edplayer's Avatar
 
what if Iran already has nuclear weapons
__________________
[QUOTE=g|aSsJaw;25381610]0/0 = undefined, it's a vertical line[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=g|aSsJaw;25381666]I'm not going to go back and forth with you about it all night, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
Old 11-16-2011, 07:06 PM edplayer is offline  
Reply With Quote
#63  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by edplayer View Post
what if Iran already has nuclear weapons

Then non-proliferation policy and commitment has, once again, failed because no international members have to stones to back up their policy.
__________________
09 F9
Old 11-16-2011, 08:46 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#64  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by edplayer View Post
what if Iran already has nuclear weapons
If that's the case then Bush, Obama and every leader of any western nation that opposes proliferation gets a big FAIL sticker on their forehead for not taking action years ago.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 11-16-2011, 08:49 PM joemama is online now  
Reply With Quote
#65  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
If that's the case then Bush, Obama and every leader of any western nation that opposes proliferation gets a big FAIL sticker on their forehead for not taking action years ago.

us does not oppose proliferation. it opposes certain countries getting nuclear weapons. there is a massive difference.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 11-16-2011, 09:46 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#66  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
If that's the case then Bush, Obama and every leader of any western nation that opposes proliferation gets a big FAIL sticker on their forehead for not taking action years ago.

ditto for North Korea and Pakistan.
Don't forget Clinton.
__________________
09 F9
Old 11-16-2011, 09:47 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#67  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
us does not oppose proliferation. it opposes certain countries getting nuclear weapons. there is a massive difference.

You're wrong.
__________________
09 F9
Old 11-16-2011, 09:48 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#68  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
You're wrong.

US has an active weapons program (also known as "stockpile stewardship"). that's more than enough to clearly define the US as NOT opposing proliferation as a whole.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 11-16-2011, 09:50 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#69  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
US has an active weapons program (also known as "stockpile stewardship"). that's more than enough to clearly define the US as NOT opposing proliferation as a whole.

Again, not true.

The atom cannot be unsplit. Once you are a nuclear armed power, you will never un-become one.
The US (or any other nuclear power) continuing nuclear research does not mean they are pro-proliferation. The core principle is in minimizing the number of independent authorities controlling nuclear arms.
__________________
09 F9
Old 11-16-2011, 09:57 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#70  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Again, not true.

The atom cannot be unsplit. Once you are a nuclear armed power, you will never un-become one.

first, this assumption directly contradicts one of the fundamental goals of the non-proliferation movement - nuclear weapons-free world (i.e., complete nuclear disarmament). furthermore, *disarmament* is one of the three fundamental pillars of just about every non-proliferation treaty, including the 1968 one.

second, if this assumption is actually correct, then yes, every nuclear armed power is by definition NOT against proliferation. a very active and well-funded stockpile stewardship and weapons research program just add to the US not being actually against proliferation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
The US (or any other nuclear power) continuing nuclear research does not mean they are pro-proliferation. The core principle is in minimizing the number of independent authorities controlling nuclear arms.

yes, it does meant exactly that. if you do not fully disarm and terminate your weapons program (not necessarily enrichment facilities though), you are pro-proliferation, even if you are against other countries getting nuclear weapons. (which, of course, US is, noone questioned that).

non-proliferation without disarmament is not non-proliferation, it's just an attempt to use a few pretty words (i.e., "non-proliferation") to denote "attempting to maintain a much stronger weapons program than other currently much militarily weaker nations".

P.S. Atom can definitely be unsplit, it's called fusion.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 11-16-2011, 10:07 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#71  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
us does not oppose proliferation. it opposes certain countries getting nuclear weapons. there is a massive difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
US has an active weapons program (also known as "stockpile stewardship"). that's more than enough to clearly define the US as NOT opposing proliferation as a whole.

Have we helped any country get the bomb (other than from having our secrets stolen)? It's a pretty exclusively club.

I really don't see how continuing developing new weapons here counts as proliferation under normal use of the word. Antagonistic, maybe, but proliferation?

edit; I see you just addressed this.
Old 11-16-2011, 10:09 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#72  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Have we helped any country get the bomb (other than from having our secrets stolen)? It's a pretty exclusive club.

at least partially, UK, simply because of their participation in the original program. obviously, maybe others too, but not openly.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 11-16-2011, 10:15 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#73  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
If the U.S./Russia had come to a disarmament agreement 30 years ago, (along with the small handful of other countries with nukes back then) it might have been possible for everyone to dismantle their arsenal and declare that any further weaponization of nukes be illegal from that point on. That didn't happen, so of course nobody can afford to give theirs up completely...just try to limit the number of countries with control of such things.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 11-16-2011, 10:19 PM joemama is online now  
Reply With Quote
#74  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
If the U.S./Russia had come to a disarmament agreement 30 years ago, (along with the small handful of other countries with nukes back then) it might have been possible for everyone to dismantle their arsenal and declare that any further weaponization of nukes be illegal from that point on. That didn't happen, so of course nobody can afford to give theirs up completely...just try to limit the number of countries with control of such things.

It is irrelevant.
If the US were to destroy its entire nuclear stockpile tomorrow we could rebuild a sufficient number of weapons in a short time. A destructive nuclear device is not necessarily a complicated one; which is why the most visible goal of non-proliferation has been to oppose independent enrichment.

Atomic Bombs are a textbook exercise today given the materials.
__________________
09 F9
Old 11-16-2011, 10:24 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#75  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.