US goes to war with Iran

[TheTexan]

They have a level of responsibility.

They are more responsible than Israel.

Israel let them have Gaza snd said police yourself. Govern yourself. Rule yourself.

Hamas is their "police" and they are trying to kill Israel.

The United Nations only works if people police their regions.

If not people will destroy modern civilization and bring us to the dark ages or nuclear winter.

If that's true then they should just kill them all and get it over with. Entrapping them and starving them is both torture and slavery.

 

[nikcers]

If that's true then they should just kill them all and get it over with. Entrapping them and starving them is both torture and slavery.

They did this to themselves.

Letting people rule themselves is democracy in a nutshell. Democracy means common people rule.

It's not modern democracy but its proto democracy.

John Adam's once said there hasn't yet been a democracy that hasn't killed themselves.

 

[TheTexan]

They did this to themselves.

Letting people rule themselves in democracy is a nutshell. Democracy means common people rule.

It's not modern democracy but its proto democracy.

John Adam's once said there hasn't yet been a democracy that hasn't killed themselves.

Yea but it's insane to think Israel doesn't have other options than to trap and starve an entire population.

Evict them from the area. If they attack from elsewhere then conquer and control that territory as well. Israel would just keep getting bigger and their enemies would keep getting weaker, and Israel would be winning their fight ethically.

The unethical manner in which Israel is conducting themselves is only making their problems worse.

 

[Madison320]

Nah I was actually already pretty generous with counting 3 as "invaded". These are Iran's direct neighbors.

I'm sure that's comforting to Iran, Only a 3 out of 7 chance of getting invaded.

So if countries aren't acquiring nukes for self defense why are they acquiring them?

 

[nikcers]

Yea but it's insane to think Israel doesn't have other options.

Evict them from the area. If they attack from elsewhere then conquer and control that territory as well. Israel would just keep getting bigger and their enemies would keep getting weaker, and Israel would be winning their fight ethically.

The unethical manner in which Israel is conducting themselves is only making their problems worse.

This is way more civilized than they would treat us if they won the war.

If they won the war we would be dead.

We let the civilized people in the region join modern civilization.

Hundreds of millions of them.

So if .3% of the region is a prison thats not a bad number.

They would put us all in a prison.

 

[TheTexan]

I'm sure that's comforting to Iran, Only a 3 out of 7 chance of getting invaded.

So if countries aren't acquiring nukes for self defense why are they acquiring them?

Did Israel acquire nukes for self defense or did Israel acquire nukes so they could bully those around them?

Or both? Or maybe it's the same thing.

 

[nikcers]

Did Israel acquire nukes for self defense or did Israel acquire nukes so they could bully those around them?

Or both? Or maybe it's the same thing.

We let them have nukes to balance the power in the global powers to prevent world war.

We had to bully the Soviet Union into not killing us and raping us.

 

[CaptUSA]

I'm sure that's comforting to Iran, Only a 3 out of 7 chance of getting invaded.

So if countries aren't acquiring nukes for self defense why are they acquiring them?

Israel did the equivalent of swatting their neighbor. "Hey, look cops! That guy's acquiring nukes!"

 

[acptulsa]

Well in democracy the king is the future in which you want to protect.

What would you give away your future for?

I dont have a price tag on my future.

Some things are priceless.

Bot unresponsive.

Reassert query.

How many thousands of gallons of spilled blood would it take to sate your bloodlust?

 

[TheTexan]

Israel did the equivalent of swatting their neighbor. "Hey, look cops! That guy's acquiring nukes!"

It's not swatting if the person is actually doing the crime they are accused of.

 

[CaptUSA]

It's not swatting if the person is actually doing the crime they are accused of.

Or if the propaganda is good enough to scare you into believing that, eh?

 

[CCTelander]

Bot unresponsive.

Reassert query.

How many thousands of gallons of spilled blood would it take to sate your bloodlust?

.

At the risk of sounding religious when I’m really not…

Perhaps when the blood reaches the horses’ bridles?

But I doubt it even then. In my experience the bloodthirsty are never satiated.

 

[nikcers]

Bot unresponsive.

Reassert query.

How many thousands of gallons of spilled blood would it take to sate your bloodlust?

My future is priceless. I wouldnt trade it for all the blood and all the gold in the world and I mean all.

If you come for the king don't miss.

 

[TheTexan]

Or if the propaganda is good enough to scare you into believing that, eh?

There is nothing that Israel accused Iran of, that Iran hasn't admitted to doing themselves.

 

[CCTelander]

Or if the propaganda is good enough to scare you into believing that, eh?

.

Not to mention the fact that, if we actually believe in self-determination (again, a necessary component of secession), then a “sovereign” nation pursuing its own defensive interests is not a crime.

 

[TheTexan]

.

Not to mention the fact that, if we actually believe in self-determination (again, a necessary component of secession), then a “sovereign” nation pursuing its own defensive interests is not a crime.

I've admitted I'm a globalist on two specific issues:

Nuclear weapons and manufactured pathogens.

They both have the potential to erase humanity from existence, and due to the nature of the weapons and the unlimited collateral damage from each, there is no legitimate use as a weapon or as a deterrent. As a deterrent, its implied that you will use it in retaliation, which is itself is morally unjustifiable given the nature of the weapon.

It's not ethically justifiable to threaten to mass murder innocent people as a deterrent to keep others from mass murdering innocent people.

And given the existential threat to humanity of these weapons, there is no reason that anyone should have them or be allowed to pursue them.

 

[acptulsa]

At the risk of sounding religious when I’m really not…

I think I'm convinced to believe in the Orange Catholic Bible. Thou shalt not create a machine mind in the image of men. Clarke was right. There's no limit to their ruthlessness.

 

[Madison320]

Did Israel acquire nukes for self defense or did Israel acquire nukes so they could bully those around them?

Or both? Or maybe it's the same thing.

Ok so you admit you were wrong. I accept.

 

[TheTexan]

Ok so you admit you were wrong. I accept.

My position is that it's not even possible to use a nuclear weapon as self defense, due to the nature of the weapon. That'd be like strapping yourself with a suicide vest on a deadman switch and calling it self defense.

 

[Madison320]

I've admitted I'm a globalist on two specific issues:

Nuclear weapons and manufactured pathogens.

They both have the potential to erase humanity from existence, and due to the nature of the weapons and the unlimited collateral damage from each, there is no legitimate use as a weapon or as a deterrent. As a deterrent, its implied that you will use it in retaliation, which is itself is morally unjustifiable given the nature of the weapon.

It's not ethically justifiable to threaten to mass murder innocent people as a deterrent to keep others from mass murdering innocent people.

And given the existential threat to humanity of these weapons, there is no reason that anyone should have them or be allowed to pursue them.

Do you think there should be a world government power that is responsible for enforcing "no nukes"?