Iran: Nukes, good; e-cigs, bad

[ApOsTle51]

Apos, I respect your posts but being Half Japanese (My Mom is Japanese), being called a "..." is very rude, I do have some names for Brits I would never bring up, it's like the "N" word for us in the US.

Im real sorry PTJD i really didn't mean to cause offence, TBH i had no idea it was offensive to the Japanese. I typed it becuase it was quicker than typing the whole word ' Japanese '. My train of thought was it's no different to calling the British , 'Brits'. It's just the first syllabel of the complete word.

I would like to know exactly why it is offensive tho ? just so i know

I think its out of more jealousy than anything else though.

Makes me laugh that bit. with every so called 'anti-american' comment i have ever read on one forum or another, that line always comes up. Jealous of what ? that's what i'd like to know..

 

[Kate]

This is one reason I do not post much on internet Forums, seems if you are one of the "group" you look after each others back, If i had mentioned "Nig*er" on a US forum I would be banned. I do think Reign had the unfortunate timing of his/her avatar on this thread, and no I did not find it a problem. Even if I did it's OK according to Kate to make racial slurs as long as you did not mean it!

I certainly don't think racial slurs are acceptable.

We're not all from the states though and you might be interested in knowing that in the UK, ... is not known as offensive. ......, Paki, queer, etc are recognised as having derogatory origins, ... means cigarette. What's offensive in your culture doesn't necessarily apply to the whole world.

The reason I found your complaint interesting was that you totally overlooked the suggestion by a North American that using nuclear weapons is acceptable as long as it's against your 'enemy'. Which in your case potentially refers to family ancestors.

This is about patriotism and national pride ... plenty of people have suffered unjustly throughout history because of that cause.

 

[Reign]

I certainly don't think racial slurs are acceptable.

We're not all from the states though and you might be interested in knowing that in the UK, ... is not known as offensive. ......, Paki, queer, etc are recognised as having derogatory origins, ... means cigarette. What's offensive in your culture doesn't necessarily apply to the whole world.

The reason I found your complaint interesting was that you totally overlooked the suggestion by a North American that using nuclear weapons is acceptable as long as it's against your 'enemy'. Which in your case potentially refers to family ancestors.

This is about patriotism and national pride ... plenty of people have suffered unjustly throughout history because of that cause.

A weapon is a weapon. They kill people. Guns have killed more people in history than any nuclear device so why arent you up in arms about that?

The Japanese surprise attacked us and jacked us up pretty good at Pearl Harbor. Cheap Shot? I'd say so...Effective? Hell yes. During war, You win by eliminating the enemy or the enemy's will to fight back. Those are the only 2 ways to win.

The nukes were dropped because the US did not want to lose many more americans and thought the bomb would eliminate their will to fight back. Whats wrong with a country doing what it takes to end a war quickly to prevent those defending that country from dying?

Do I believe the nuke needs to be dropped again? Definitely not. It showed its devastating ability and more. Should it be thrown away and never looked at again? No because if another country develops the weapon and a way to send it long range(which is the biggest problem for most countries with nuclear capability), our stockpile acts as a good deterrent.

Oh, and im going to edit my avatar since I see how it could be seen as offensive.

 

[Kate]

A weapon is a weapon. They kill people. Guns have killed more people in history than any nuclear device so why arent you up in arms about that? ...

... maybe I am, there's not much good to be said about gun culture.

 

[Frankie]

I do not think any country, including Iran (excluding USA), is willing to attack others with nukes. The problem with nuclear weapons in Iran is, that the Big Bully would not be able to attack it, because the much smaller boy would have a big stick to defend himself with. Like Nothern Korea.

Since first used, nuclear weapons always served as a powerful deterrent against wannabe invaders.

 

[Reign]

I do not think any country, including Iran (excluding USA), is willing to attack others with nukes. The problem with nuclear weapons in Iran is, that the Big Bully would not be able to attack it, because the much smaller boy would have a big stick to defend himself with. Like Nothern Korea.

Since first used, nuclear weapons always served as a powerful deterrent against wannabe invaders.

I disagree. I think every country with the capability is willing to use them if it comes down to it. The US was just the first country and the last once people saw how destructive it was to include to US.

 

[Kate]

The 'defence' argument doesn't really persuade me, I think that if they exist they can and will be used.

One day everyone will have one

 

[Reign]

The 'defence' argument doesn't really persuade me, I think that if they exist they can and will be used.

One day everyone will have one

We should get nuclear powered e-cigs. Wonder what the throat hit would be like.

 

[Kate]

... atomic cigs ... you never know, maybe one day, lol.

Good for you for sorting your avatar, nice one.

 

[Frankie]

Reign: "Use" means something very different from "attack". If Iran gets nuclear weaponry and some bully country attacks it nevertheless, then, when it is at the brink of total collapse, there is a huge danger it would use nukes. Otherwise, that risk is negligible. Much worse dictators had nukes in the past. Worse countries have them even now, actually.

So, the American fear is that this oil-rich country could be protected against violence. That would mean it could sell the oil for market price, not give it away for peanuts liáke the occupied ones have to.

And as far as guns are concerned, you do have a point. Just look up "kalashnikov index". The lower the price of an assault rifle in a country, the lower human rights there.

 

[Reign]

Reign: "Use" means something very different from "attack". If Iran gets nuclear weaponry and some bully country attacks it nevertheless, then, when it is at the brink of total collapse, there is a huge danger it would use nukes. Otherwise, that risk is negligible. Much worse dictators had nukes in the past. Worse countries have them even now, actually.

So, the American fear is that this oil-rich country could be protected against violence. That would mean it could sell the oil for market price, not give it away for peanuts liáke the occupied ones have to.

And as far as guns are concerned, you do have a point. Just look up "kalashnikov index". The lower the price of an assault rifle in a country, the lower human rights there.

In that sense then, the US used them on japan, and did not attack japan with them. Japan was given sufficient time as well as multiple surrender documents. They were told something devastating was coming...just not exactly what it was. Japan called the bluff...and were subsequently shown that were was no bluff. Shortly after they surrendered and have been a very positive force in the world for anti-nuclear armament.

Had the bombs not been dropped....who knows how the world would be now. Maybe the next xountry that developed their own would have dropped them on the UK, or anywhere else. One way or another, a country was going to use it. I think people knew it was a terrible terrible weapon...I dont think they knew just how devastating it was until that point.

On your other point of Iran, Oil is not being stolen. Show proof. Most of those countries are so violent within themselves that other countries are the least of their worries. In those areas, religous wars have been fought for so long, its become a genetic part of the people it seems.

 

[trog100]

Trogg, you're like the grumpy old British father I never had.

thanks.. i take that as a genuine and very nice complement.. i dont get enough of them... he he

trog

 

[ApOsTle51]

does anyone else look at Dr. Russell Fells avatar and think ...Hot Fuzz

Or is it just me

 

[Frankie]

OK, so nobody ever attacked anybody with them - and there have been thousands of them around the globe in the hands of genocidal Communist dictators, Maoist fanatics, Islamic and Hindu zealots, militant Zionists, unspecified semi-literate idiots... Why all the fear of a couple of bombs in Iran all of sudden? Ha?

No, I am not gouing to show you the profit increases of US oil companies after the oil wars in Kuwait and Iraq. If you deny them now, you would then, too, so it would be a sheer loss of time.

 

[Dr. Russell Fell]

does anyone else look at Dr. Russell Fells avatar and think ...Hot Fuzz

Or is it just me

Good eye! It's because it's the same guy - Simon Pegg.

 

[aaa]

I am happy to see that there are so many of you not being fully brain-washed by the media.

God save the people of Iran.

 

[Mr.Darcy]

Good eye! It's because it's the same guy - Simon Pegg.

if you want to see simon peggs finest hour,get both series of Spaced...if you dont have them already that is...

 

[Dr. Russell Fell]

In that sense then, the US used them on japan, and did not attack japan with them. Japan was given sufficient time as well as multiple surrender documents. They were told something devastating was coming...just not exactly what it was. Japan called the bluff...and were subsequently shown that were was no bluff. Shortly after they surrendered and have been a very positive force in the world for anti-nuclear armament.

Had the bombs not been dropped....who knows how the world would be now. Maybe the next xountry that developed their own would have dropped them on the UK, or anywhere else. One way or another, a country was going to use it. I think people knew it was a terrible terrible weapon...I dont think they knew just how devastating it was until that point.

On your other point of Iran, Oil is not being stolen. Show proof. Most of those countries are so violent within themselves that other countries are the least of their worries. In those areas, religous wars have been fought for so long, its become a genetic part of the people it seems.

I like how "what if's" and "maybe's" only apply when you are DEFENDING American violence, but not the other way around.

 

[Reign]

OK, so nobody ever attacked anybody with them - and there have been thousands of them around the globe in the hands of genocidal Communist dictators, Maoist fanatics, Islamic and Hindu zealots, militant Zionists, unspecified semi-literate idiots... Why all the fear of a couple of bombs in Iran all of sudden? Ha?

No, I am not gouing to show you the profit increases of US oil companies after the oil wars in Kuwait and Iraq. If you deny them now, you would then, too, so it would be a sheer loss of time.

Its not an "all of a sudden" interest. The fear has been there since the creation of the technology. This isn't breaking news within the last few days.

umm..The US oil companies are profitting from gouging the US citizens, not because of stolen oil. Show proof or it didnt happen. Seems you believe every rumor that flys across your e-mail.

 

[Reign]

I like how "what if's" and "maybe's" only apply when you are DEFENDING American violence, but not the other way around.

Don't see any "What-ifs" in that quote of me. Try a little more reading Doc. And if i am not mistaken, violence is not isolated to Americans. In fact, our country is still so young that wouldnt we have adopted most of our violence from Europe, Africa, and the rest?