Trucks... My Opionin whats yours

"

Antnee wrote:

"People will just kill people anyway, so why not let people enrich uranium?"

You're not saying nuclear weapons should be kept out of the hands of dangerous people are you? because that's crazy talk. If nuclear weapons were worrisome, we wouldn't be looking the other way while Iran continues enrichment and launches their fourth ballistic missile in violation of all agreements. Judging by how the current government treats Iran, nuclear weapons are safe for everyone to have and enjoy.

But the treaty means there's no way they'll make any bad bombs for the next 20 years :)))
The treaty :))

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Finally, my point was not "people will just kill people anyway so why bother?" It was that terrorists will just kill people anyway so why attempt to limit the established rights of the law-abiding to try to stop those who will stop at NOTHING to kill? ='[.]'=

Ok, let me reiterate.

I am not a terrorist.
I want to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes.

Please explain why I shouldn't be able to enrich Uranium.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

diablofdb wrote:

I'm going to say something and it's very offensive but it's my thought. Few generations ago we were not scared to call things as they were and point our enemies.

Japan attacked the USA during the WW2, USA not only retaliated but they have made temporary for the Japanese population in the USA to control them in order to avoid terrorism or civil war because there could have been spies or militants of the Japanese fachist Gov in that population.


So now we see so many terrorist attack, more and more each years, all from Islam. I think we should stop being so politically correct and call things as it is. Islam is not a religion of peace and we are clearly at war against radical Islam, and that is part of the Muslim community.

We should start by closing our borders from anyone who could come from these countries and start some serious actions against radical Islam.

The problem with that narrative is as bad as the lefts gun banning. It's just reactionary BS that wont do anything. These killers are not muslim. They are gangsters. They kill more Muslims than anyone. My grandfather and his brother left Afghanistan in the early 1970s under threat of death from these gangsters. He is still muslim today and has owned a bar, a construction company, pays his taxes and vote republican every election. Good American.

Yeah, but it's always been gangsters. Always. Do you think Japan held a public vote before bombing Pearl Harbour? Do you think a single soul at Hiroshima or Nagasaki had a choice in that decision? Do you think every last German was in support of the massive systemic genocide of a people?

But lots of Japanese and Germans were slaughtered anyway. A cost of war.

The way I see it is: other people will represent you if you do nothing about it, and as a free person it is your duty to distance yourself from such representatives when they take an abominable stance or act of war. In other words, if you were in Japan after Pearl Harbor, the appropriate response would have been: get the fuck out of Japan. Or at least speak up about ending the war. Something. It's possible your very survival depended on it.

I would have no issues with fucking up a sovereign nation based on even tolerance, much less support, of terrorist activity. Such a nation had a choice to fight such people when they could have; such a nation choose poorly.

Yes, I get that our nation has a history of helping terrorists to win the Cold War, etc. That does make such a stance against Islamic terrorism hypocritical. But if it's hypocritical to take a stance against the intolerable when one has acted intolerably in the past, then hypocrisy is precisely what we fucking need.

Don't get me wrong here: I'm all for the minimization of collateral damage. If there was a way to kill the hateful terrorists and only them, that'd be peachy. But there isn't, and the fear of collateral damage is holding back the hand of the righteous from striking at its foes. We need to start prioritizing victory more. Our first concern should be the defeat of this enemy, and sparing the innocent should come second.

It's not any easy choice. It requires the conviction that some things aren't just worth dying for, but killing for.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Don't get me wrong here: I'm all for the minimization of collateral damage. If there was a way to kill the hateful terrorists and only them, that'd be peachy. But there isn't, and the fear of collateral damage is holding back the hand of the righteous from striking at its foes. We need to start prioritizing victory more. Our first concern should be the defeat of this enemy, and sparing the innocent should come second.

It's not any easy choice. It requires the conviction that some things aren't just worth dying for, but killing for.

The thing about ISIS (and Islam extremism in general) is, how victory looks like? With Iraq, or the Arab Spring, it's evident wars without any long term goal will end causing pointless suffering (although with Iraq is particularly egregious on its pointlessness). Sometimes, even a ruthless utilitarian mindset is needed.

Finding the will to kill is easy, taking the right decisions is GGG balance tier task.

big madafackin rigs

"

innervation wrote:

But the treaty means there's no way they'll make any bad bombs for the next 20 years :)))
The treaty :))

Lol, bad bombs... :)

A month or so after the treaty was done, Iran leaked a video of an IRGC ballistic missile complex, embeded inside a mountian (or underground). Huge tunnels / hangars made for Shabab-3 launchers.

The regime is practically teasing Obama and the clowns in his admin.

Iran reveals huge underground missile base

Is there any evidence Iran is working with Uranium? What were the conditions for the nuclear treaty?

(I found this about the subject, I insist, foreign policy is like GGG balance, the treaty looked like "more terrorism, less nukes")

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Is there any evidence Iran is working with Uranium?

Yes, they had numerous centrifuge enrichment facilities, and had over 25,000 lbs of 10%+ enriched Uranium (10% U235). Reportedly, the bulk of this enriched material was given to Russia, and by treaty, Iran is allowed to keep no more than 660 lbs of 3.67% enriched Uranium. That level of enrichment is useful for energy for reactors, but worthless for anything other than a dirty bomb. If Iran is kept to that amount at any time, they will have a little over half the critical mass necessary to make an atomic weapon.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

What were the conditions for the nuclear treaty?

They are allowed to keep a small amount of centrifuges, and have to alter some of their reactors so they stop producing plutonium (it doesn't take much of this at all to make a nuke and it relatively easy to separate from other material.) Uranium enrichment is a long slow process, so the deal, if honored, is supposed to slow Iran's access to developing weapons.

The infidel is in the details of course - We never got to do real independent inspections of what Iran had before hand, and the limits on what can be inspected and when (some areas the inspectors would have to give Iran 24 days notice beforehand) don't suggest that this deal is really anything more than an honorary handshake.

We don't really know if Iran acquired enough fissile material for a bomb before the deal was signed. The "best" estimates are all over the board, as western intelligence is severely lacking. Some experts think they already had enough for 2-5 weapons, others think they were 3 months away from 1-2 weapons worth, others suggest that 6 months was the time frame, and the most optimistic had Iran at 1-2 years from having enough for a nuclear weapon.

The deal doesn't pose any restrictions on what Iran can do 15 years from now. The emphasis they are putting on their ballistic missile program is worrisome and difficult to interpret in a non-agressive manner.

There's an interesting article on verification here:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/04/nuclear-inspectors-have-snazzy-new-tools-to-catch-iran-cheating/

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The infidel is in the details of course - We never got to do real independent inspections of what Iran had before hand, and the limits on what can be inspected and when (some areas the inspectors would have to give Iran 24 days notice beforehand) don't suggest that this deal is really anything more than an honorary handshake.

Ehhh...24 hours seems too little to evacuate a centrifugator.

I didn't question it too much because very few people disliked the treaty (also, the alternative was...I think nothing). Iran having missiles seems Iran being Iran. Poor people there are living a live action version of The Handmaid's Tale.

(by the way, I was screwed by the paywall)