Because it's funny: US says their bomb is bigger...

Yea, this penis envy contest would be funny, if real people wouldn't be harmed because this suckers to death cults wouldn't be out of a mental sanatorium where they belong in the first place.

karma wher've you been? of course its a phallic contest.

but of course we win.
oh, and we happen to do it a day after they reveal their weapon, which I believe is 1/1825th the time it took them.

you already need a b52 to drop any of these sorts of ordinances, I dont see what making it heavier matters?

I think most of it is actually security concerns... but telling the world we have a bomb that's bigger a couple days after they say they have a big bomb is pretty funny. It doesn't serve any real purpose I shoudl think beyond one upping the russians...


No doubt they'll say they have a 500 ton bomb soon that is cool except it's so big you can't really move it.

though I'd like to say the Russians started it for calling their bomb the "father of all bombs"... in reference to our Moab bomb... which is "the mother"...



I don't know maybe we should call our bomb the rich great uncle of all bombs... beat that biatchs...

Does anyone else find it odd that just as we're easing off from Iraq, Iran is all of a sudden becoming a really big "problem"? I mean, cleaning up the act of such nations is all well and good, but I find myself strongly suspicious of the timing.

i have the same way. The only reason they sound dangerous is because they wanna protect there country as everyone else.

with nuclear weapons while making it very clear on a regular basis they'll wipe the jews off the face of the earth...


Yep... they're pussy cats... Goose stepping pussy cats that can and will make use of anyone foolish enough to walk in Neville Chamberlain's footsteps... Remember Nazi germany didn't rise in a day... it took years of people saying "nahhh" before it exploded on europe.


Iran will never threaten the US like the Nazis threatened europe... but they could easily overwhelm the middle east if not brought to heel.



Iran doesn't need to do anything to protect itself. All it has to do is stop supporting Hamas, stop promising to kill neighbors, stop threatening the world's only super power, and stop breaking every UN resolution they don't like.


That's all iran has to do to protect itself... stop acting like A-holes.


As to Iran becoming a bigger deal... that's not any conspiracy on our part... we don't need any more problems. Our military is stretched pretty thin as it is... Unless we massively expand our enlisted forces... by "some" means.

Iran is making more trouble for us is what has changed... they see us as weaker and thus want to take advantage of it. In a few years we won't be so vulnerable and we can answer their silly little games with large toothy grins.

Hey, remember when there was a UN resolution not to invade Iraq? Yeah, I do.

And thus far, while Iran has always postured blowing the hell out of Israel, they've been doing that since time immemorial. It's sort of their thing. Will they actually do it? Well, most probably not. Especially not with their non-existant nuclear weapons.

Its not the bomb that we should be worried about it is the fact that they are planning an attack on Iran.

Yes they're ass holes but so are a hell of a lot of the world's governments (Russia for instance, if your not russian, or America if your not american). Personally, I wouldn't worry to much about Iran's threats to Israel (Israel already has nukes). If Iran actually is making nukes (which since Bush told me they were I'm rather suspicious of that "fact") they have to know that any use of them will end in the destruction of their nation (even if they only use it against Israel). I wouldn't classfy Iran's government as crazy or completely irrational. For instance, their rhetoric against Israel and the US (even their rhetoric declaring disbelief of the Holocaust) are shrewd moves to build up support in the Arab world amoung the masses at least. Iran needs to present the Arab world with an outside threat as the logical threat to the Arab in the Middle East is Iran. For one thing, a misconception that most Americans have is that Iranians are NOT Arabs. They have different histories, different cultures (the differences are less than the differences between the Islamic world and the West, but they exist), and even a different language (Farsi as opposed to Arabic). When the Iran Iraq war was being fought the majority of the Arab world was on Sadaam's side to fight the "Persian threat." A crazy government would focus rhetoric against the Arabs as well as the West. A rational government which hates the West (as much of the Third world does) would seek allies amoung long time enemies as a bulkwark against the bigger threat (basically get the Arabs on Iran's side). So given that Iran is rational, I think that their attempt to gain nukes is actually defensive as any use of those weapons against the West would immediately mean that the West would turn Iran into glass. Even giving nukes to terrorists, if those nukes could be traced back to Iran (likely) then again, Iran would become glass. So I am highly doubtful of even Iran's intention to use nukes offensively.

P.S.: I'm playing devil advocate here (except for the not trusting Bush part).

P.P.S.: With all the penis enhancement techniques that we American's have invented we BETTER win in a phallic contest with Russia!

In Sovjet Russia, Penis enhances you!

Ok, that was quite immature...

there is a big gap between "Iran is a pain" and "guns ahoy!" with Iran, they in fact have been pseudo-cooperative, so I doubt we will invade them.
with the clean up in Iraq they've actually gotten much more kindly to us.

Ah yeah. Cleaning up, what a nice name for something so cruel:

Over a million Iraqis have been murdered since the invasion.

With the horror your government is inflicting on other humans, I really wonder how you people can sleep at night.

thats a polling buisness... hardly a reliable source of information

also, you arent noting some very important distinctions:
1) who are civilians, I doubt all of those numbers are non-militants, as you know it is the civs who are also the militants
2) who have we killed? who have they killed?
3) why is a poll being used for these numbers anyfricking how?
4) I dont care to continue, there are so many mitigating factors even I havent thought of.

dont twist my words, I dont like the death of people more than the next guy, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna accept it coming here.

you havent even thought about what the numbers represent, I cant believe what you believe, its rediculous.

Its not the first time nor the last time that countries (US, Russia, Terrorist States) will be at war!
There is not and probably never will be any two governments that will see things on the same level.
Im not so much attacking you here Vandenburg but just the pointing out that Bin Laden and his extreme followers that are "Scattered" all over the Middle Eastern States didnt come over here to "clean up" when they destroyed the Twin Towers.

There are plenty of reasons for the US to go to war after that fact.
Oil, revenge! Remove Saddam (Bush conspiracy) Pick your reason and go with it.
Personally I have my own beliefs about why we went to war.

Vandenburg - Im sure you are a good person just dont judge a group of people based on your beliefs otherwise how is that behavior any different than those extremist that began this war in the first place.

Im not attacking you just something to thing about.

Later
Aaron

When we gave Iraq weapons we thought we would be the best of friends, and now look what happened. If neocons stay in such powerful possitions like the Defense Council then we will invade Iran in the next five years.



Most are civilians. I heard the estatmate at around 75% of them were civilians, and 20% were suspected terrorists, the other 5% were convicted.



We have killed suspected Iraqi civilians, as well as militia forces and vigellente squands. They have killed US soldiers, civilians, and vigellente squads.

There was actually an interesting study I read recently of what happens to many soldiers mentally when they go to Iraq. A lot of them seem to develop very agressive and controlling characters because they are given the power to take life without reprisal. Its quite a scary thing, because here we have the US sending in unstable 18 year olds giving them guns and sending them out into the streets of Baghdad for patrol. These 18 year olds then have middle aged muslims terrified of them and feel quite impowered. Others suffer trauma and anxiety as well as panice.

Its a scary place for both 'factions'.

dont twist my words, I dont like the death of people more than the next guy, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna accept it coming here.

Linky.



Who cares if they're civilians, militants, terrorists, freedom fighters, soldiers, etc?

They are humans. Right now they are dead humans.



Who cares who has killed whom? They're dead now. And the largest single reason why they're dead now is because a government filled with incompetent megalomaniac people thought it would be a good thing to start a war and the majority of the inhabitants reelected those same people, or in other works, most of them supported this appalling thing we humans call war.



Are you really arguing, that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a threat to the USA? (I hope you aren't arguing that way.)

As a side note. I don't twist your words. I'm translating them as good as possible to my native language. And in the translation they sound like you've called the whole mess that is Iraq right now, a "cleaning up". Am I right in this translation? If not I would like to now what you've meant. I could easily have misunderstood you.



Oh, I have a very vivid imagination.

Do you have a daughter or a son? When not, do you have siblings? If yes, imagine one of them killed. It doesn't really matter who s/he was killed. It's just that s/he is dead know.

Now think of the feeling you get now, when you're imaging this. Feel it five minutes long. Now do it again, and again. 10 times, hundred times, a million times. That would take almost two years to do.

That's what the US government did. (Not personally, but their actions led to that.) And honestly, if it was my government I would protest against it until I was arrested (wouldn't be the first time for me) or they would stop it.

But I don't see anything like this happening in the USA, does it?



Oh it's pretty different. Judging people on ones belief is called prejudice. While it's harmful in it's one way, it can easily be overcome. War on the other hand, is a terminal act. It consists of killing people, not one, not dozens. It means killing ten thousands, through action or through inaction, but by a conscious decision of people who now what happens in wars.

Oh, and we're talking about Iraq right now. I don't remember any Iraqis being under those that made the terrorist attacks of the 11. September 2001. I don't see any war that the Iraqis have started against the USA.

Btw. I called the USA's government ruthless warmongers. Not the American people. I'm pretty sure lots of Americans were against the war. I just think the inaction of large segments of the USA's populace speaks very badly on this certain part of the populace.



Oh, don't worry. You can't attack me, since words doesn't hurt.

I've got a pretty thick hide.

look at THEIR linky!

I'm not talking of this any further, how can a POLL possibly have accurate results? you are rotting my brain with this crap.

ewwwwwww!!! ROTTEN S***!!!

sorry schem, i just had to say it

lol, this link was on the page that Karmashock sent us to:

El Chupacabra!

I'm sorry, but last I checked Saddam wasn't exactly very "nice" to his subjects. A lot of people would have died had we not gone in. A lot of people died because we (finally) went in. Yeah, its nasty. Yeah, its ugly. But the entire third world is ugly. Most third world countries don't have a pot to piss in, economically, and as a result crime is through the roof. Death, famine, horror... that is their life.

I'm not saying our war is justified -- but I'm not saying its not, either. But simply because a million people have died (which is all that horridly inaccurate piece of junk says) is a far cry from saying America killed them, or they died as a result of the war.

Van your argument is as morally justified as the birth of a sleezy car salesman and with the wishy-washy pathos to match.

by your logic I should protest my government for the rampant leperosy in paris of the middle ages, its not exactly my style.

You care who killed whom. You've proved that point by blaming the US government.


However you recognize that the US government has not been doing the really nasty killing and so you're going about this route to blame any death on the US no matter who does it.


It's not credible or respectable logic.



He didn't say you couldn't imagine dead people. He said you haven't THOUGHT about what the numbers MEAN.

That means actually understanding what is going on. Something that cannot be attained by thinking of dead people.


False, the manner of death is almost always important... as is who killed them.



You protest civilization in favor of chaos then.


You should live in a society ruled by warlords or simple barbarians... then you might get an appreciation for what you're throwing away here.



The whole basis of your logic is to blame the US for everything. That's not rational. The US didn't make the world and it isn't controlled by Gods. We make mistakes and most of us are good people. But we are also powerful and thus have responsibilities. This terror thing has gotten out of control.

We've very patiently ignored it for about 15 years but enough is enough. We're going to kill this at the source.

That you don't appreciate that need is in my opinion largely born of ignorance as to the significance of these issues. We have little choice but to stop terrorism or submit to it.


Your choice of ignoring it and pretending like everything is ok is both irresponsible and suicidal.

And fuck anyone who thinks that people who deliberately and directly target civilians can ever, ever be forgiven.

Well... it's even worse then that.


See, we targeted civilians in WW2. But they were people in factories making tanks and bombers...


The civilians being killed by the terrorists are completely removed from the war effort. They're just normal people trying to live. In addition they're only being killed to scare other people and make the government and society unstable.


That's the issue. And that's also why it's important not to define victory as "no one died" but as "the government has grown stronger". Because that's really what we're fighting to do right now. Give the Iraqi government enough time and support to become too strong to be overthrown by terrorists. We're not there yet... but it's not as hard as other people think either.


The terrorists will not stop of course. Look, Israel still gets bombed now and again by terrorists. But their government remains strong... if anything those attacks made it stronger. That's what needs to happen in Iraq. Every attack must make the government stronger.


The same is true of the US government. Every attack against us has brought our society closer together and made us stronger. Where as Spain for example had the opposite reaction... clear proof that terrorism apparently works against the spanish. But it doesn't work against the Israelis, the Americans, or the British.


We need to immunize the Iraqis against it as well. So that every attack causes their society to bind tighter together and strike out harder against terrorists.