Jump to content


Photo

Korea Conflict


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#21 The Midnight Q

The Midnight Q

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,444 posts
  • Mood::giggidy
  • LocationQuahog, RI

Posted 20 April 2013 - 11:39 PM

the thing is, people with Western-type views (America, Europe, NATO-allies, others) never actually want to use these horrific weapons and choose to leave them in the background as the unspoken deterrant, while these north korean clowns, and the nutty tinpot arab dictators like aberdinajhad, parade them out, brag and boast about them, and given half a chance would actually USE them directly or through their terrorist-puppet stooges, like hezbolloh and al-quaeda. when was the last time you heard the USA actually talking about their nuclear weapons and programs, much less even acknowledging said weapons deployed or actively in use? the USA does not discuss these programs, and Israel is even more secretive, as they have had the capability probably since the 1960s and still deny their existence to this very day. there is a huge difference in the views of these weapons, between the West, and the nutbags currently joining the nuclear club.

 

President Ahmadinejad is the head of a Persian country, not Arab. The common belief is that France sold one of their warheads to Israel during the Cold War when Israel was fighting their Arab wars. Any truth behind this is still yet to be discovered I guess. The US, or most nuclear armed country for that matter, have absolutely no intention of using these weapons for fear of global retaliation. Virtually every ally will cease to be one should a country use a nuclear warhead offensively; even if it is a pre-emptive strike. The concept of MAD still exists to this very day. This is why most wars fought by the larger nations are fought conventionally with the use of boots. Tactics nowadays use precision rather than destruction to achieve military goals so long as collateral and friendly damage is minimized. Although the exception would be the stupid drone strikes that Obama keeps ordering.


Posted Image
~Thanks Jade~

#22 Emma_Rules

Emma_Rules

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • LocationVirginia Beach, Virginia

Posted 21 April 2013 - 05:27 AM

persia existed in the crusades and earlier. 90% of iranians today are shiites. shittes are arabs.


good_music_zps1def08f8.gif


#23 The Midnight Q

The Midnight Q

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,444 posts
  • Mood::giggidy
  • LocationQuahog, RI

Posted 21 April 2013 - 06:33 AM

persia existed in the crusades and earlier. 90% of iranians today are shiites. shittes are arabs.

 

https://www.cia.gov/...ok/geos/ir.html

 

Shia muslims belong to a religious/political demographic, not an ethnic one. It's like when people often use the "democracy vs. communism" notion, one is a political system and the other is an economic system. The two can not and should not be compared.

 

I called one of my Persian friends an Arab once and I he almost went nuts over it. Same happened when I jokingly called my Taiwanese friend Chinese, and he took it personal. (Even though the people of Taiwan are mostly ethnic Chinese, they're just not of China.)

 

Part of the post-invasion sectarian violence in Iraq was attributed to old embers from the Iran-Iraq War 20 years prior. With the "Sunni" dictator gone, and coalition support for the Shia minority, they were able to gain more influence over the events of the war. [Much of the rebels involved after Desert Storm that fought against the Iraqi regime were affiliated as Shia]. During OIF-2, it was widely believed that the Mahdi Army, one of the largest militia groups the coalition had to deal with, was supported by Iranian government.


Posted Image
~Thanks Jade~




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users