War, what is it good for?

Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:59 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:20 am
Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:14 am
 This idea of Bert's that once a state has a nuclear weapon they must be permitted to engage in unfettered genocide, is truly fucked up.
It's not my idea, it's the reality of the world we live in. Maybe it can be changed in theory, but it's a coordination problem that is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. If the Nazis had the bomb they would have kept Holocausting.
We had a thing called World War Two so that we could stop them.
They didn't have atom bombs....

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:20 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:14 am
 This idea of Bert's that once a state has a nuclear weapon they must be permitted to engage in unfettered genocide, is truly fucked up.
It's not my idea, it's the reality of the world we live in. Maybe it can be changed in theory, but it's a coordination problem that is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. If the Nazis had the bomb they would have kept Holocausting.
We had a thing called World War Two so that we could stop them.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:14 am
 This idea of Bert's that once a state has a nuclear weapon they must be permitted to engage in unfettered genocide, is truly fucked up.
It's not my idea, it's the reality of the world we live in. Maybe it can be changed in theory, but it's a coordination problem that is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. If the Nazis had the bomb they would have kept Holocausting.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am

Not everyone accepts this approach to international relations, and we should fight hard against the view that Bert is advancing. Sorry Bert but your willingness to take this shit is fucked up and you've lost any moral compass, it seems to me.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:14 am

This idea of Bert's that once a state has a nuclear weapon they must be permitted to engage in unfettered genocide, is truly fucked up.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:12 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:10 am
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am
Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:07 am

I agree on the moral problem. That's a big part of why it would be bad if Iran were to get the bomb.
So why isn't it equally important to take the bomb AWAY from Israel?

Why are you so happy about attacking a sovereign state that was not attacking anyone? Why such double standards??
You can't take away a bomb from someone who has one. They'll nuke you.

I'm not saying this is fair or desirable lol, it's just blatantly obvious.
Again going with the might makes right approach that makes international relations irrelevant.

Might as well just start WW3 now then. Fuck humanity.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:11 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:06 am
Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.
If I was UK Prime Minister that would be one of my main foreign policy goals.

I would also dismantle the UKs nukes as a matter of urgency.
The UK can do unilateral disarmament. It definitely cannot do anything about others' nukes.
Fucking can if I'm UK PM and I put a whole lot of the Royal Navy in the Eastern Med...

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:10 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am
Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:07 am
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:04 am
 You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?
I agree on the moral problem. That's a big part of why it would be bad if Iran were to get the bomb.
So why isn't it equally important to take the bomb AWAY from Israel?

Why are you so happy about attacking a sovereign state that was not attacking anyone? Why such double standards??
You can't take away a bomb from someone who has one. They'll nuke you.

I'm not saying this is fair or desirable lol, it's just blatantly obvious.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:07 am
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:04 am
 You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?
I agree on the moral problem. That's a big part of why it would be bad if Iran were to get the bomb.
So why isn't it equally important to take the bomb AWAY from Israel?

Why are you so happy about attacking a sovereign state that was not attacking anyone? Why such double standards??

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:06 am
Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.
If I was UK Prime Minister that would be one of my main foreign policy goals.

I would also dismantle the UKs nukes as a matter of urgency.
The UK can do unilateral disarmament. It definitely cannot do anything about others' nukes.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:08 am

And to be clear, I would dismantle rhe UKs nukes irrespective of the stance of other countries, because reducing the amount of nuclear weapons on earth is to humanity's net benefit.

It's the same as unilaterally removing trade barriers if you believe in free trade...

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:07 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:04 am
 You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?
I agree on the moral problem. That's a big part of why it would be bad if Iran were to get the bomb.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:06 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.
If I was UK Prime Minister that would be one of my main foreign policy goals.

I would also dismantle the UKs nukes as a matter of urgency.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:04 am

You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:00 am

If you want to have a shitfit about how the world is unfair I guess I'm just not interested in that convo. Yup, it'd be better if there were no nukes. Iran getting nukes it didn't have previously seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:58 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:53 pm
 Esquire Bert:

"Everyone who fucks my mom is entitled to come over every weekend and fuck her again."

"If anyone lusts after my mom, I will kill them".

Nonsense.
You're really grasping for any misunderstanding that lets you keep a childishly simple view of the conflict.

The analogy you made doesn't work in the slightest.

Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:54 pm

And if you don't care about the morality of the argument, I don't care what you have to fucking say.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:54 pm

The argument that once a nation obtains nukes it has a moral right to do as it pleases, but any nation without nukes is forbidden from thinking about it, IS FUCKING STUPID.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:53 pm

Esquire Bert:

"Everyone who fucks my mom is entitled to come over every weekend and fuck her again."

"If anyone lusts after my mom, I will kill them".

Nonsense.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:51 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:50 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:49 pm
Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:46 pm
 Lol Jamie I get being against this but you have to cop to at least some of the facts at hand.

Iran *is* developing nukes. It threatens to nuke Israel all the time. Unlike all current nuclear powers, it can be stopped from doing so by either negotiation or military intervention.
Isn't Iran's stance based on Israel's constant aggression, since the 1940s?

Why shouldn't the focus be on preventing Israel from continuing to have nukes?
You can't de-nuke a nuke-having government. The moral arguments here are beside the point.
But surely that argument incentivises Iran to complete its programme to develop viable nukes as soon as possible?

You see how stupid your position is?

Top