"A theocratic semi-republic of 70,000,000 people with an uneducated electorate doesn't qualify as a stable major power."

LoL! C'mon... US voters chose George W. Bush! Twice! What does THAT tell us about US voters?

IIRC, Soviet Union had even more uneducated voters that could only vote for one party for 70 years. Did that make Soviet Union stable mayor power worthy of having nuclear weapons?

"Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime (Israel) must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine... Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam."

I fail to see words "nuclear bomb" in the above text. My eyesight is getting real bad...

I think neither trim101 nor I *LIKE* any Muslim tyrants. We just don't like US tyrants, either. Nor any other, for that matter :)

"I fail to see words "nuclear bomb" in the above text. My eyesight is getting real bad..."

Is your head that far up your ass? It's impossible to have a rational argument with you when you come assuming America only acts evilly and dismiss an blatant threat to destroy Israel as nonsense.

no one has yet said what gives america and any other country infact the right to have nuclear weapons, and others not to

Invictus: I never said US only acts evilly. I'm saying it SOMETIMES acts evilly. Please admit that, before we can proceed with any kind of rational argumentation.
I didn't say threat was nonsense. I'm saying that the right way to deal with threats is negotiation, not threatening back foolishly.
I am saying that America if unusually full of self-inflated egos, that cannot depart from the righteousness of their non-existant right to tell other people how they should think.
That is obvious in this thread, also. The catch is, you need to stop being American to be able to see that.

Trim. Firsties.

Denzel, again you show your ignorance. US voters may have voted for Bush... but the vote of the people doesn't matter. 100% of the people could have voted for Kerry or another idiot, and if the Electoral College gave its votes to Bush, he'd still be president. Read up a little bit more on the American political system.

"I'm saying that the right way to deal with threats is negotiation, not threatening back foolishly."

Well, Denzel, that sure as hell paints Russia into a bad corner, doesn't it? They took the missile defense system as a threat, and then threatened to advance nuclear missiles up onto their borders. Weird how your own words contradicts your position.

Trim: There's no such thing as a "right" to have nuclear weapons. The US employs them in a defensive manner. And only in a defensive manner. That means that we can have them and be Responsible with them. And your beloved Muslim tyrants cannot be trusted to be Responsible with them.

the only country to use nuclear weapons was the US in an OFFENSIVE manner!

@ trim Only because we were the first to get one. If Japan Germany or Soviets had built one first do you think they would not have used it.

@warsprite :) we still in school :p, if we are then bagsy iran can have nukes

thats beside the point i was just proving marchosias's point absoultly wrong.

Actually, you didn't address his point at all. You just told a half truth.

Well I was about to post the above quote but Marchosias beat me to it. You are correct Denzel, he did not say how he will destroy Israel. But if I was trying to destroy Israel I'd think using my nukes would be a pretty good way.

"The US employs them in a defensive manner. And only in a defensive manner"- thats a lie, america used nuclear weapons in an offensive manner it was defensive, was america under threat?No

So it wasn't a half truth its the full truth

Was America under threat in World War II? Are you serious?

And anyway, it's anachronistic of you to impose the same set of values we have today on nuclear weapons to that time period. People didn't understand about the radiation effects and the real magnitude of the act. It was just another weapon to help end the war to them.

If you say they're not defensive today you're just wrong. It's not like nuclear weapons are actually used in warfare. We have them so we never have to use them.

And as I remember, you're from Britain and Britain has nukes too, so your hands aren't clean.

I never said my hands were clean did i,when america used nuclear weapons were they underthreat?

No they were not. I never said they weren't defensive today did i?

Im only making the point that america has used nuclear weapons in an offensive manner, which they have done which proves Marchosias's point wrong.

Im not talking about the justification for using it or anything like that.

'"The US employs them in a defensive manner. And only in a defensive manner"- thats a lie, america used nuclear weapons in an offensive manner it was defensive, was america under threat?No'

That's exactly what you said.

You're just are so full of hate that nothing can reason with you.

Marchosias is talking about the here and now.

im not full of hate at all, its a simple point im making, which you are avoiding the truth of by attacking me.

No I'm not. You're making an incorrect point that's inconsistent with the rest of the argument.

And you are full of hate for America. It doesn't make sense why.

"no US leader would ever consider releasing nuclear weapons on another group of people unless we were first attacked with nuclear weapons"- also wrong. Correct me if im wrong (and i do mean that as my memory might be wrong on this) but didnt america threaten Iran with Nuclear strikes?

or said something along the lines of every means neccisary?

This isnt an attack on america at all, im just responding to what Marchosias says, i truely believe we all have them or we dont, i would obviously prefer that we dont, and i hope any sane person would agree with me on that one.

I have nothing against america, i just hate it when nationalistic people make comments that are lies, ok i may have taken Marchosias comment the wrong way, and i admit that, but he and you do look at america with rose tinted glasses on, it can do no wrong.

You live in a fantasy land then. You really want every nation to have a nuke? You want St. Vincent and the Grenadines to be packing?

America didn't threaten Iran with nuclear strikes per se. Some bunker busting bombs are partially nuclear weapons.

And there's a BIG gap between talk and action.

No, you think it can do no right. We're the realistic ones.

"And there's a BIG gap between talk and action." like when iran threatens isreal!

You really want every nation to have a nuke? You want St. Vincent and the Grenadines to be packing- ok any nation that can fulfil strict requirements for the safe keeping of the nukes then yes.

America didn't threaten Iran with nuclear strikes per se. Some bunker busting bombs are partially nuclear weapons- so they did technically threaten iran with nuclear weapons?

No, you think it can do no right. We're the realistic ones.- uk is just to blame as america for most things, and neither country has done much right in the last decade or so

Don't you think it would be better if LESS countries had nukes rather than more?