The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (rock, quote, guitar)

[Ace]

No I'm saying that I had a conversation with someone who said they were muslim, and later during that they got somewhat hostile. You no nothing of the conversation, so your assumptions are just that.
Did I say something about all muslims wanting to be terrorists?
No l-)

[TheBig3]

I once dreamt of a thread that didn't turn into a nit-picking bitch fest. It was glorious.

Iraq was a country that wouldn't allow Iran to have power in the first place. When they started winning the US (under Reagan) threw substantial funds and weaponry into Iraq, even parking our navy over there to lend aid.

This is a sad reality, but Saddam was actually a stabalizing force in the Arab world because while he claims Bathist (sp?) denomination, he's infact secular. I'm not saying he wasn't a bastard, but the truth is the truth.

[right-track]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Iraq was a country that wouldn't allow Iran to have power in the first place. When they started winning the US (under Reagan) threw substantial funds and weaponry into Iraq, even parking our navy over there to lend aid.

Not forgetting (with the help of Britain's contribution) weapons that included those of the chemical variety...ironic isn't it?

[TheBig3]

Well not really. Its almost as if the republicans thought this up bac in 83. We sold them to Iraq to fight off Iran then, who was sending thousands of 12 and 13 year olds over the border as fodder to drive back Iraqi forces. So we do know that he had them, but he wasn't stock piling them to attack us, he was using them to combat what is now the greatest middle eastern threat to the world.

Iran will soon be everyones problem. And to think British Military intelligence thought uniting the arab world under religeon was a way to end fighting.

[Merkaba]

So I assume we all know whats going on with North Korea and that little bastard with the red button under his finger. The same guy who strangely enough has a fetish for Hollywood movies and platform shoes.

Who thinks what will happen?

I can't imagine North Korea firing anything at anyone because theres about 40 countries lining up to annihilate them.

And I can't imagine any sort of disarmment project as North Koreas army is huge. I'm waiting to see how pissed China are, so maybe they'll shut off all economic aid. And then the UN are bound to do something but I don't know what just yet, theres been talk of setting up customs to check shipments going in and out of the country.

Theres a few options available, what do you guys think might go down?

[boo boo]

I don't think North Korea will actually be stupid enough to start a war.

I think Kim is just some freak who thinks the only way to earn peoples respect is to show them how badass his countries defense system is, I don't think he will actually use it unless seriously provoked, and I don't think the UN or the US will try anything as stupid as provoking North Korea into taking part in another world war.

We can barely afford the war in Iraq let alone another one, and while Bush may not be the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, I do think he has his concerns when it comes to the economy, so someway or another we're gonna try to stay nuetral on the matter as long as we possibly can, because thats pretty much what everyone wants.

Not that our economy is more important than our security, but being in several wars at once certainly wouldn't do a damn thing but lower our security level even more, no American feels secure about the idea of another war being on the way, unless that American is an extremely conservative religious nut or something.

[DontRunMeOver]

I don't know what will go down, although I found it quite funny that all of the countries on the news which had issued statements about how irresponsible North Korea were for developing nuclear weapons... were the same countries that already have nuclear weapons.

If our countries are allowed to possess nukes, I don't see why North Korea shouldn't be allowed also.

[boo boo]

The primary difference is, North Korea is known to be pretty agressive in military terms, they're not just building weapons for defence, they also want to be feared, like I said earlier, I really doubt NK will actually attack, but better safe than sorry.

However, I'm all opposed to having another war, I think there are other ways of compromising with them.

[DontRunMeOver]

Originally Posted by boo boo

The primary difference is, North Korea is known to be pretty agressive in military terms,

Compared to the UK and US? Really? I don't remember North Korea invading any middle Eastern countries recently.

[boo boo]

Oh thats right, I forgot, we just randomly invade neutral countries and kill innocent people for no reason.

Don't be a dumbass, NK has posed as a threat to the entire western world for well over a decade, because we've let them get away with so much thats pretty much why they're at the level they are now, and this no Iraq, they DO have WMDS, and they HAVE threatened to use them, that's a big ass difference.

But no, if they actually did launch an attack on American (or English) soil and we respond in some way or another, then that makes us the bad guys, we're all f*cking nazi's, you caught us.

Using Iraq to justify North Korea's actions is goddamn foolish, it's two completely different scenarios, yes, the war on Iraq was based on faulty logic, but using that war as a reason not to attack North Korea IF WE HAVE TO pretty much strips you of all credibility on this topic, we're not talking about terrorist attacks, we're talking about invasion, theres a difference, if a country invades another, theres not gonna be a damn argument about it afterwards, it's already a well established fact, and it is a well established fact that not only has NK threatened to use it's nukes, but most countries actually DO take them seriously as a threat, so once again, drawing paralels between NK and Iraq is pointless... Hell, if we do anything at all, it will probably be a counterstrike, because we're so reluctant to go to war, and we're giving NK the benefit of the doubt in that we think we can reason with them, but if we go to war based on a counterstrike, we certainly won't be the only country involved, but I take it that even if 40 countries invade NK you will still say it's our fault, because thats pretty much the way extremist liberals are, they won't admit they are wrong even when they know it.

Overall your logic is bad, most countries earn the right to bare nukes because it's simply for defensive purposes, and that's the big difference between these countries and North Korea, who many times have threatened to cast the first stone, I'm not saying they will do it (once again, I personally doubt it) but a threat is a threat and it should be treated as such.