U.S. Should give up nukes- Ahmadinejad

[Malsidabym]

[edit] you know exactly what it means.

you're a joker

There is a rule in these forums about name calling for good reason. Please be respectful of other members. Namecalling weakens your arguement in the debate, some would call it desperation at near defeat. If you are doing well, then there is no need to weaken your arguement that way. Peace.

 

[abdullahi]

bro, he was being sarcastic when he made that comment (at least that's what i want to think) so i started laughing.
if u make me laugh, you're a joker.
;D

 

[Malsidabym]

bro, he was being sarcastic when he made that comment (at least that's what i want to think) so i started laughing.
if u make me laugh, you're a joker.

Sorry, just seen some other threads get out of hand with the disrespect.

 

[abdullahi]

no hard feelings bro, it's all good.

 

[samina1]

HELLOOOOOOO MY BROTHERS N SISTERS WHERE IS DA LOV IN THIS FORUM.. subhanALLAH..
RESPECT IS DA KEY.. USE IT, IM SURE IT WILL HELP MOST OF US...
MA SALAM
FIAMANIALLAH..

 

[Anette]

I think the world is better served if as few people as possible have them. Which do you prefer?

That's something we seam to agree about anyway.

That is because Europeans think it is better for old women to be raped and murdered by released felons than murderers be put to death. I do not think that reflects well on Europe. Sweden does not have the problems that the US does. Nor does any of the European powers. When they did have the same problems that the US does, what did they do?

No, it is not because Europeans think it is better for the few of the old women to get raped. It is because the statistics from US have shown us that the correlation between death punishment and crime seams to go on a quite different way then the intention might be at the beginning. The countries that today have the hardest punishments seams to get the heaviest criminal. So once again it is a question regarding the famous hen and the egg.

Only idiots say that. The Nuclear powers have counted the costs of war and decided it is not worth it. The US is not keen to fight conventional war and never has been. Peace pays better than war whatever pop Marxists might like to claim. This is why America is rich and Iraq is not.

Quite harsh to call the Economists in the world idiots. I do not think that the peaceful way of living is the reason why America is rich and Iraq is not. It must be quite simple that in every case put the blame on the ones that is under attack whether it is attack from nature, other countries or prejudices.

I notice a complete ignoring of the point. I shall take that as a concession. Again paranoia is unfortunate but not productive.

So that is the world that people should use to put a name on the fear regarding “terrorists”.

Brazil had more slavery than the US. Haiti was entirely built on slavery. And yet neither is anywhere near as wealthy as the US.

No they marketed wrong kind of products.

Because you have no idea of how the real world works and the sort of bad people that are in it? You shelter behind the American Army and nuclear umbrella and so can indulge yourself in play acting and self righteous posturing? I don't know. You tell me why. Would the Cold War have been much fun your end of the world if the US Army was not there to protect you?

Yeah right. We do not shelter behind the American Army they use their elbows to get in front in every situation all by them self. I do not know what kind of history you are learning in school but the Cold War in our view were a power demonstration between two hegemonic states in our part of the world. We do not view up on that time like US Army protected us; I think it is more the kind of way that US want to look at things then how other parts of the world experienced it.

 

[HeiGou]

No, it is not because Europeans think it is better for the few of the old women to get raped. It is because the statistics from US have shown us that the correlation between death punishment and crime seams to go on a quite different way then the intention might be at the beginning. The countries that today have the hardest punishments seams to get the heaviest criminal. So once again it is a question regarding the famous hen and the egg.

You can pick and choose your statistics and prove whatever you like. I will point out a study at Duke University showed every execution in the US saved between eight and eighteen lives. I do not accept that the US has the worst crime or the worst criminals. But what is certainly true is that the policy of the Europeans of letting criminals out after token sentences means they get out and re-offend. A criminal murdered a man in London after serving less than six years of a murder sentence. The French have a serial killer on trial who was sentenced to seven years for serious sex offenses against young children - and then he got out and became a serial killer. What is sure is that because Europeans do not execute, old women living alone will be raped and murdered by release felons. It happens all over the West.

Quite harsh to call the Economists in the world idiots.

Name me one credible economist who believes what you have claimed.

I do not think that the peaceful way of living is the reason why America is rich and Iraq is not. It must be quite simple that in every case put the blame on the ones that is under attack whether it is attack from nature, other countries or prejudices.

Yeah right. We do not shelter behind the American Army they use their elbows to get in front in every situation all by them self. I do not know what kind of history you are learning in school but the Cold War in our view were a power demonstration between two hegemonic states in our part of the world. We do not view up on that time like US Army protected us; I think it is more the kind of way that US want to look at things then how other parts of the world experienced it.

Again we are back with the empty cynical posturing made possible by the American nuclear umbrella. A power demonstration? What do you think kept the Soviet Army on their side of the Baltic Sea? The fact is, as the British Minister of Defence once put it, the only thing the Soviet Army needed to make it to the Channel was boots. But for the US Army.

 

[Anette]

Name me one credible economist who believes what you have claimed.

A quick search on Internet and I found an interesting thing:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2003/01/27/IoD.pdf

Written by Graeme Leach, Chief Economist 2003,

You can look at page 5 table 1 were he is trying to predict the US Economy in 2003 – Illustrative Scenarios of the Iraq war, GDP % change based on shows the range of US GDP growth forecasts depending on alternative military and geo-political developments.

Scenario Stand-off No War --> 2.2% growth
Scenario Capitulation – no war --> 2.5% growth
Scenario Capitulation – short war --> 2.9% growth

The forecast tells that:

"The key messages from Table 1 are:
(1) In economic terms, a short war is better than no war, or no regime change,
because of the removal of uncertainty.
(2) The highest GDP growth scenario has the highest probability.
(3) The lowest GDP growth scenario has the lowest probability."

It might have something to do with Economy? This is what Economist thought was the most likely scenario when US attacked Iraq. As you can see is the growth with a short war higher then without a war. They did not know then that they were quite wrong regarding the short war.

This is only one of many predictions regarding Economy and war written by Economists.

 

[AbuSalahudeen]

Salam,

Every country should give them up if they are so dangerious, and America are the worst ones to have it they bomb more than anyone and pushed to the limit they probably use them like the way they bombed the Japanes.

 

[Keltoi]

What is often lost in this discussion about Iran's nuclear ambitions is the fact that for nations to achieve nuclear technology they must go through an international process. That is why Iran and North Korea are considered to be going "rogue" in their pursuit of this technology. They are not going through the proper channels and following international guidelines. If Iran only wants nuclear technology for civilian purposes, as they claim, then going through this international process wouldn't be a problem.

This isn't holding Iran to some standard that others don't follow either...as Iran signed the international agreement that set these standards to begin with.

 

[kirk]

This isn't holding Iran to some standard that others don't follow either...as Iran signed the international agreement that set these standards to begin with.

This has been the issue all along. To some it is convenient to foget it.

k

 

[Muezzin]

Another issue is that this thread is now two years old.

Why it's still open, when we close threads that are three days old, is a mystery I am now solving.

Thread closed.