Iran is trolling the US

[Lelouche]

Yes, I'm willing to bet my life on it.

I'm not willing to let you, or anyone else, bet my life on it.

Because Nuclear War is Final

And a risk I can't take
Trusting Iran is a mistake.

it has proven itself to have hostile intent to us, and it's neighbors.

[Zoharland]

They're getting all sort of heat and bullying from the US about their alleged uranium enrichment program.

Yeah, how horrible for the US to try to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those anti-semitic fundie psychopaths. We are so horrible.

But it's their nukes, not yours. You're not the world police. It's none of your business.

ever since WWII we haven't seen it that way
in fact just the opposite

Interventionist Police Action is the cornerstone of our national foreign policy
We can't let dangerous rogue regimes, wield such awesome power, because they will use it against us

Sending a fruit basket is a nice gesture, but wholly unrealistic

If they're going to use it, it's because you're giving them reason to. Stop dicking around in everyone else's business and they'll leave you alone too. Just look at Sweden and all of those countries. In fact, their foreign policies are similar to what I describe, and they're doing really well for themselves.

The reason countries like Sweden can have Non-Interventionist policies and be successful is because America is busy defending the world from rogue regimes that would possibly destroy Sweden given half a chance.

American bleeds, so that Europe can live in peace. they should be thanking us.

in a world where everyone "Minded their own business" it would take only one country to go ahead and start shit with ever other country

in fact WWII is a prime example of letting every country "do whatever they want" eventually we had to step in, because it came to our door-step

and we had to "Police the World" as it were.

This.

We weren't going to be involved in 1914 when all that shit in Europe started, and what happened?

World War One.

We weren't going to be involved in 1939 when all that shit in Europe started, and what happened?

World War Two

We need to "Police the World" because every time we should have, and haven't, a frikin' World War starts and millions of people die.

I think you need to read up about the world wars before you say that sort of stuff.

nah, he's accurate

If America were to pull a Swiss like UAWC want's us to do, we would never have sent arms and material to Britain, Japan wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor, and America would continue to sit and watch as German and Japan swallowed more and more territory .

I can make all sorts of what if's based on this scenario, but long story short, the war would have been longer and more bloody, and the outcome would be far from desirable.

Yes, but we asked for Americas help that time.
This time no one is asking for you.

Yeah, well, we decided we'd be proactive this time. Europeans wait til the **** has hit the fan, just like they did with the Nazis, Soviets, etc.

[North Suran]

And what might be the reason we don't want them to have nukes?

Hmm, this is such an agonizing question. Maybe because they're an unstable, terrorist-breeding dictatorship, that harbors hatred for every western nation?

No, that can't be it. Sure it's factual, but the left-wing denounces facts, so it can't possibly be true.

Nice strawman, there.

We weren't going to be involved in 1914 when all that shit in Europe started, and what happened?

World War One.

Please do your homework before making idiotic, sweeping statements.

Interventionism is the whole reason World War One occurred in the first place.
If the European powers had been following a policy of isolationism at that time, do you know what World War One would have amounted to?

Austria-Hungary invading Serbia.

Thank God for intervention, of course; turning that minor regional conflict into a global war and all.

We weren't going to be involved in 1939 when all that shit in Europe started, and what happened?

World War Two

A conflict which sprung directly from the First World War, which - as aforementioned - was caused because of interventionism.

We need to "Police the World" because every time we should have, and haven't, a frikin' World War starts and millions of people die.

And so all those centuries of "No world wars" which predate the founding of the USA were...?

[Resolute Prime]

They're getting all sort of heat and bullying from the US about their alleged uranium enrichment program.

Yeah, how horrible for the US to try to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those anti-semitic fundie psychopaths. We are so horrible.

But it's their nukes, not yours. You're not the world police. It's none of your business.

ever since WWII we haven't seen it that way
in fact just the opposite

Interventionist Police Action is the cornerstone of our national foreign policy
We can't let dangerous rogue regimes, wield such awesome power, because they will use it against us

Sending a fruit basket is a nice gesture, but wholly unrealistic

If they're going to use it, it's because you're giving them reason to. Stop dicking around in everyone else's business and they'll leave you alone too. Just look at Sweden and all of those countries. In fact, their foreign policies are similar to what I describe, and they're doing really well for themselves.

The reason countries like Sweden can have Non-Interventionist policies and be successful is because America is busy defending the world from rogue regimes that would possibly destroy Sweden given half a chance.

American bleeds, so that Europe can live in peace. they should be thanking us.

in a world where everyone "Minded their own business" it would take only one country to go ahead and start shit with ever other country

in fact WWII is a prime example of letting every country "do whatever they want" eventually we had to step in, because it came to our door-step

and we had to "Police the World" as it were.

This.

We weren't going to be involved in 1914 when all that shit in Europe started, and what happened?

World War One.

We weren't going to be involved in 1939 when all that shit in Europe started, and what happened?

World War Two

We need to "Police the World" because every time we should have, and haven't, a frikin' World War starts and millions of people die.

I think you need to read up about the world wars before you say that sort of stuff.

nah, he's accurate

If America were to pull a Swiss like UAWC want's us to do, we would never have sent arms and material to Britain, Japan wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor, and America would continue to sit and watch as German and Japan swallowed more and more territory .

I can make all sorts of what if's based on this scenario, but long story short, the war would have been longer and more bloody, and the outcome would be far from desirable.

Yes, but we asked for Americas help that time.
This time no one is asking for you.

Yeah, well, we decided we'd be proactive this time. Europeans wait til the **** has hit the fan, just like they did with the Nazis, Soviets, etc.

Thus saying that America prefers to initiate a "pearl harbor" on its enemies?

[Station 12]

They're getting all sort of heat and bullying from the US about their alleged uranium enrichment program.

Yeah, how horrible for the US to try to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those anti-semitic fundie psychopaths. We are so horrible.

But it's their nukes, not yours. You're not the world police. It's none of your business.

Yes, one of the most devastating weapons available to mankind falling in the hands of people who really do not like the west is none of our business.

Oh wait.

EDIT: To the above post- DAMN BITCH, YOU BETTER GET SOME ICE FOR THAT BURN

[Lelouche]

Yes, but we asked for Americas help that time.
This time no one is asking for you.

You don't have to ask, a good friend provides assistance, even before you realize you need it
furthermore, we believe we know what is best for you, and the world.

We are doing the whole "Trust your big brother, we wouldn't let you down" thing.

[Arab Confederacy]

If Iran is trolling, wouldn't that make the Radical Left guilty of flaming?

[East Canuck]

Honsetly, having Iran with a nuke is maybe the best thing that could ahppen to that corner of the world. It would stop Israel expansionism, force Israel and Palestine to sit at the table and hammer out a deal.

With these things happening, resentment for the western world would lower and terrorists would be hard-pressed to find new recruits and source of money.

MAD has worked for Russia and the USA. MAD is working with Pakistan and India. MAD would work with Iran and Israel.

Those who think Amhenidjad is weilding real power in Iran are delusionnal. The real power in Iran is anything but unstable, trigger-happy or stupid. They have too much to loose. There is no credible evidence that Iran would use their nuke. Those who say so are the delusionnal lot.

Yes, I'm willing to bet my life on it.

1) I'm not entirely sure Israel ever would let Iran have nukes.

2) Iran having nukes changes the mistrust between the mid-east and the west how? Magic!??

3) MAD came awfully close to ending the modern world a couple of times. Off the top of my head, cuban missile crisis. Just because it worked maybe a few times doesn't mean it will work always. And with nuclear weapons, i'd rather not take the risk that it won't.

4) Still, all the same to you, I'd rather Iran nukeless, at least whilst its a tin-pot fundie dictatorship.

1) I'm not either. I was talking as a "what if".

2) By having Israel being less agressive and a bully, Iran can't point and say "see? And the USA is backing tham too!" It will not stop overnight the mistrust but I do think that Israel and it's backing is THE most important point of contention between us and them.

3) That's the beaty of MAD. Before firing, even when the other side is awfully close, you think twice. Having one power in the middle-east with a death-switch is a recipe for disaster unless your goal is for that contry to annex the reast of his corner of the world.

4) Still, all the same to you, I'd rather Israel nukeless, at least whilst its a tin-pot fundie democracy.
We really should remove that particular weapon of Israel arsenal if we want to stop nuclear proliferation. That's the bloody reason Iran is researching nukes in the first place. They saw Irak and North Korea. One got invaded and one got relief aid. Guess which one had one nuke. Only one.

[North Suran]

If Iran is trolling, wouldn't that make the Radical Left guilty of flaming?

1. The joke was already made, only without the added partisan potshot.
2. What Radical Left? George Bush? Jimmy Carter? Barack Obama? Having a tough line against the Persians is not exactly an ideologically restricted action.

[Lelouche]

[spoiler]

They're getting all sort of heat and bullying from the US about their alleged uranium enrichment program.

Yeah, how horrible for the US to try to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those anti-semitic fundie psychopaths. We are so horrible.

But it's their nukes, not yours. You're not the world police. It's none of your business.

ever since WWII we haven't seen it that way
in fact just the opposite

Interventionist Police Action is the cornerstone of our national foreign policy
We can't let dangerous rogue regimes, wield such awesome power, because they will use it against us

Sending a fruit basket is a nice gesture, but wholly unrealistic

If they're going to use it, it's because you're giving them reason to. Stop dicking around in everyone else's business and they'll leave you alone too. Just look at Sweden and all of those countries. In fact, their foreign policies are similar to what I describe, and they're doing really well for themselves.

The reason countries like Sweden can have Non-Interventionist policies and be successful is because America is busy defending the world from rogue regimes that would possibly destroy Sweden given half a chance.

American bleeds, so that Europe can live in peace. they should be thanking us.

in a world where everyone "Minded their own business" it would take only one country to go ahead and start shit with ever other country

in fact WWII is a prime example of letting every country "do whatever they want" eventually we had to step in, because it came to our door-step

and we had to "Police the World" as it were.

This.

We weren't going to be involved in 1914 when all that shit in Europe started, and what happened?

World War One.

We weren't going to be involved in 1939 when all that shit in Europe started, and what happened?

World War Two

We need to "Police the World" because every time we should have, and haven't, a frikin' World War starts and millions of people die.

I think you need to read up about the world wars before you say that sort of stuff.

nah, he's accurate

If America were to pull a Swiss like UAWC want's us to do, we would never have sent arms and material to Britain, Japan wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor, and America would continue to sit and watch as German and Japan swallowed more and more territory .

I can make all sorts of what if's based on this scenario, but long story short, the war would have been longer and more bloody, and the outcome would be far from desirable.

Yes, but we asked for Americas help that time.
This time no one is asking for you.

[North Suran]

-snip double post-

[North Suran]

Yeah, well, we decided we'd be proactive this time. Europeans wait til the **** has hit the fan, just like they did with the Nazis, Soviets, etc.

Thus saying that America prefers to initiate a "pearl harbor" on its enemies?

Yes, because it saves us the headache of potentially larger more lethal conflicts

we are doing the world a massive favor, by stamping out problems before they become to huge to tackle

And yet the USA condemned the attack on Pearl Harbour - the words "A day that will live in infamy" especially spring to mind.

But hey, when a country invades another country - like, say, Iraq invading Kuwait - its an unprovoked act of aggression and expansion. But when the good ol' USA does it, it's a justified pre-emptive police action with good intentions?

[Station 12]

Woah, what's going on. What did you americans break now?

Also- that sounded very Knight Templar of you, Lelouche. And a little creepy. That's not a good thing.

[Zoharland]

Yeah, well, we decided we'd be proactive this time. Europeans wait til the **** has hit the fan, just like they did with the Nazis, Soviets, etc.

Thus saying that America prefers to initiate a "pearl harbor" on its enemies?

Yes, because it saves us the headache of potentially larger more lethal conflicts

we are doing the world a massive favor, by stamping out problems before they become to huge to tackle

And yet the USA condemned the attack on Pearl Harbour - the words "A day that will live in infamy" especially spring to mind.

But hey, when a country invades another country - like, say, Iraq invading Kuwait - its an unprovoked act of aggression and expansion. But when the good ol' USA does it, it's a justified pre-emptive police action with good intentions?

Well, see, Iraq didn't enter Kuwait to overthrow an evil dictatorship and provide freedom to the countries populace. We entered Iraq to do just that, however. There is a bit of a difference.

[Resolute Prime]

We are forgetting a lot of things here. For one thing, Iran probably wont nuke Israel or at least all of it. First off all, it won't nuke the occupied sections, (The Gaza strip, the west bank) because there are Palestinians living there. If they did, a lot of terrorism is going to Target them instead, not to mention their neighbors will be *pissed* as hell that they did what the Israelis did only on a larger scale, effectively making the "Give Palestinians back their land" moot, as most of the Palestinian will be dead and Palestine a smoldering crater. They won't nuke Jerusalem either, since the place is of significant religious importance to three main religions, Islam included. The biggest threat, however, is for Iran to "misplace" a nuke, which was "accidentally" found by terrorists and "somehow" finds is way to New York. Or Washington. Or San Fransisco. or some other thousand-plus cities around the globe.

[Gauthier]

Yeah, well, we decided we'd be proactive this time. Europeans wait til the **** has hit the fan, just like they did with the Nazis, Soviets, etc.

Thus saying that America prefers to initiate a "pearl harbor" on its enemies?

Yes, because it saves us the headache of potentially larger more lethal conflicts

we are doing the world a massive favor, by stamping out problems before they become to huge to tackle

And yet the USA condemned the attack on Pearl Harbour - the words "A day that will live in infamy" especially spring to mind.

But hey, when a country invades another country - like, say, Iraq invading Kuwait - its an unprovoked act of aggression and expansion. But when the good ol' USA does it, it's a justified pre-emptive police action with good intentions?

Well, see, Iraq didn't enter Kuwait to overthrow an evil dictatorship and provide freedom to the countries populace. We entered Iraq to do just that, however. There is a bit of a difference.

On the other hand, Kuwait would have never been invaded in the first place if America's Good Buddy Saddam didn't get ambiguous signals from April Glaspie that made him think the U.S. wasn't going to get into a hissy fit if he did invade.

[North Suran]

Yeah, well, we decided we'd be proactive this time. Europeans wait til the **** has hit the fan, just like they did with the Nazis, Soviets, etc.

Thus saying that America prefers to initiate a "pearl harbor" on its enemies?

Yes, because it saves us the headache of potentially larger more lethal conflicts

we are doing the world a massive favor, by stamping out problems before they become to huge to tackle

And yet the USA condemned the attack on Pearl Harbour - the words "A day that will live in infamy" especially spring to mind.

But hey, when a country invades another country - like, say, Iraq invading Kuwait - its an unprovoked act of aggression and expansion. But when the good ol' USA does it, it's a justified pre-emptive police action with good intentions?

Well, see, Iraq didn't enter Kuwait to overthrow an evil dictatorship and provide freedom to the countries populace. We entered Iraq to do just that, however. There is a bit of a difference.

Ah, so it is the White Knight Trope, then.

And just what do you define as "evil dictatorship" and "freedom to the countries populace"? Because when I'm thinking of Kuwait, I'm thinking of a nation readily condemned by the UN whose government has repeatedly suspended the national parliament - including in the time period running up to the Iraq War.

So yeah, was Hussein not justified, then?

[Teccor]

Woah, what's going on. What did you americans break now?

Also- that sounded very Knight Templar of you, Lelouche. And a little creepy. That's not a good thing.

I take offence to the Templar name being used in a negative connotation.

The Knights Templar were the most righteous and inherently good organization of humans to ever walk the earth. And they were killed for it, their leader literally burned for it.

I would be honored as hell to be called a "Templar". Lelouche, you should take Station 12's comment as a compliment.

[Resolute Prime]

Well, see, Iraq didn't enter Kuwait to overthrow an evil dictatorship and provide freedom to the countries populace. We entered Iraq to do just that, however. There is a bit of a difference.

Yeah. and since when was overthrowing an evil dictatorship a legit reason to invade? and don't give me that "we thought there were WMDs crap either. Bush knew all along. Think about it. If Saddam had nukes, would you invade him? knowing that he *might* just grow desperate? MAD would not apply there, because you have your troops in there. Not to mention it was stated in a UN conference a couple of years prior that Saddam had no nukes. And lets not even start with the "they supported terrorism" stuff. There was never any evidence whatsoever that Iraq was funding or training terrorist. After the invasion, however...

Its nice to think that we did it because we are good people, and want to help out. but realistically, we did for the Oil.

[Pevisopolis]

If Iran is Trolling, then wouldn't that make the US guilty of Flamebait?

Sigged

O.O

I really am capable of a siggable quote.

*strokes ego*

[East Canuck]

We are forgetting a lot of things here. For one thing, Iran probably wont nuke Israel or at least all of it. First off all, it won't nuke the occupied sections, (The Gaza strip, the west bank) because there are Palestinians living there. If they did, a lot of terrorism is going to Target them instead, not to mention their neighbors will be *pissed* as hell that they did what the Israelis did only on a larger scale, effectively making the "Give Palestinians back their land" moot, as most of the Palestinian will be dead and Palestine a smoldering crater. They won't nuke Jerusalem either, since the place is of significant religious importance to three main religions, Islam included. The biggest threat, however, is for Iran to "misplace" a nuke, which was "accidentally" found by terrorists and "somehow" finds is way to New York. Or Washington. Or San Fransisco. or some other thousand-plus cities around the globe.

Which is still pretty small considering that no ruling cleric in his right mind would relinquish his power and life of luxury to go live in a montainous cave for the rest of his life, looking over his shoulder for the sake of a few "infidel" lives.

[Teccor]

Yeah, well, we decided we'd be proactive this time. Europeans wait til the **** has hit the fan, just like they did with the Nazis, Soviets, etc.

Thus saying that America prefers to initiate a "pearl harbor" on its enemies?

Yes, because it saves us the headache of potentially larger more lethal conflicts

we are doing the world a massive favor, by stamping out problems before they become to huge to tackle

And yet the USA condemned the attack on Pearl Harbour - the words "A day that will live in infamy" especially spring to mind.

But hey, when a country invades another country - like, say, Iraq invading Kuwait - its an unprovoked act of aggression and expansion. But when the good ol' USA does it, it's a justified pre-emptive police action with good intentions?

Well, see, Iraq didn't enter Kuwait to overthrow an evil dictatorship and provide freedom to the countries populace. We entered Iraq to do just that, however. There is a bit of a difference.

Ah, so it is the White Knight Trope, then.

And just what do you define as "evil dictatorship" and "freedom to the countries populace"? Because when I'm thinking of Kuwait, I'm thinking of a nation readily condemned by the UN whose government has repeatedly suspended the national parliament - including in the time period running up to the Iraq War.

So yeah, was Hussein not justified, then?

Hussein intended to conquer Kuwait under his flag, and take their vast oil reserves for his own. Odd, considering Iraq's already-overflowing oil reserves.

America went in to stop him. And it wasn't just America, mind you. Germany, Britain, Japan and many other nations are there as well.

[North Suran]

Woah, what's going on. What did you americans break now?

Also- that sounded very Knight Templar of you, Lelouche. And a little creepy. That's not a good thing.

I take offence to the Templar name being used in a negative connotation.

The Knights Templar were the most righteous and inherently good organization of humans to ever walk the earth. And they were killed for it, their leader literally burned for it.

I would be honored as hell to be called a "Templar". Lelouche, you should take Station 12's comment as a compliment.

They also happened to be a collection of violent fanatics who arrogantly presumed that their viewpoint was superior to others to the point where they would readily kill for it; hence the whole "Crusades" thing.

[Gauthier]

Well, see, Iraq didn't enter Kuwait to overthrow an evil dictatorship and provide freedom to the countries populace. We entered Iraq to do just that, however. There is a bit of a difference.

Yeah. and since when was overthrowing an evil dictatorship a legit reason to invade? and don't give me that "we thought there were WMDs crap either. Bush knew all along. Think about it. If Saddam had nukes, would you invade him? knowing that he *might* just grow desperate? MAD would not apply there, because you have your troops in there. Not to mention it was stated in a UN conference a couple of years prior that Saddam had no nukes. And lets not even start with the "they supported terrorism" stuff. There was never any evidence whatsoever that Iraq was funding or training terrorist. After the invasion, however...

Its nice to think that we did it because we are good people, and want to help out. but realistically, we did for the Oil.

Oil was just a fringe benefit. Iraq was invaded primarily because Shrub wanted to say "Look Daddy, I avenged you!"

[Lelouche]

Yeah, well, we decided we'd be proactive this time. Europeans wait til the **** has hit the fan, just like they did with the Nazis, Soviets, etc.

Thus saying that America prefers to initiate a "pearl harbor" on its enemies?

Yes, because it saves us the headache of potentially larger more lethal conflicts

we are doing the world a massive favor, by stamping out problems before they become to huge to tackle

And yet the USA condemned the attack on Pearl Harbour - the words "A day that will live in infamy" especially spring to mind.

But hey, when a country invades another country - like, say, Iraq invading Kuwait - its an unprovoked act of aggression and expansion. But when the good ol' USA does it, it's a justified pre-emptive police action with good intentions?

Correct

America has a history of going to war for the right reason's
We don't do it for territory, or power, or wealth. but to right wrongs, and correct mistakes.

Pearl Harbour was unannounced, where as the vast majority of American actions consisted of the following dialouge

"You have Violated UN Resolution #A/Human Right #B/Treaty #C. cease and desist/comply to demands D,E,F. Failure to do will result in Actions X/Y/Z"

"Screw you America, it's my country, I will kill/rape/pillage whatever I want, and as for my people, they can suck it as well."

"You were warned fairly, now suffer your fate"