So North Korea launches a rocket.........

[Laxplayer201092]

Fortunately, you don't control the little red button.

Fortunatly, neither do you, or when the time came to use it, it might not happen :P

regardless, and i know i will take flak, (and negative rep) for this post, but whatever, i have the same opinion as anyone else on these boards. North Korea can do whatever North Korea wants to do, they want to start building nuclear weapons, and any and all things that go with them, fine. They want to make their people live in third world conditions? Fine. Thats not our problem.. America has enough problems in America that we need to be dealing with. But the second they cross over the line of becoming agressive with a nuclear force..either at the US, one of our allies, etc etc, youd better believe we would bring everything we got. You gotta know when to be the bully, and when to be the kid who watches the fights.

[Surefire]

1st, I don't see the US solely targeting defensless civilians, like the bombers do.... they use lethal indescriminate tactics to disrupt and punish those that in any way oppose their beliefs. they do NOT tolerate diversity of religion, in any way, shape, or form.not only must you be a Muslim, but you MUST be of their sect to be allowed any acceptance.

Again this is just your biased viewpoint, because of the media presented to you.

Look up what US soldiers have done to civilians in Iraq.

we've had nuclear capabilities since 1945, and have used it only to end WW2. not once has it been utilized against ANY nation. thoise "others" you speak of would not hesitate to use that destructive power to further their agendas. anyone who honestly believes that N.Korea or Iran(and subsequently other MidEast Arab nations) wouldn't fire off a missle onto any one of their enemies is living in a dream world. they know no other way than to use whatever might they can muster.

Where is the evidence to back this up?

Again just an opinion based on one viewpoint. If the US is the only country in the world that can safely have and use nuclear weapons, how have we survived for the last 60 odd years? Plenty of countries have nuclear capabilities, I'm sure 20 years ago this argument would have Russia in place of North Korea\Iran, yet we are still here. Added to the fact nuclear weapons are really for show of might rather than use. Once someone fires them at someone else, an ally will fire back, and then an ally of the starter will etc, and we'll all die.

[rmccabe6]

Don't worry about it. Have you ever bought anything made in Korea that actually worked?

[Surefire]

Don't worry about it. Have you ever bought anything made in Korea that actually worked?

If this was facebook, I'd have clicked 'I like'

[Laxplayer201092]

Again this is just your biased viewpoint, because of the media presented to you.

Look up what Russian soldiers did in Georgia. look up in any war what soldiers have "done" to civs... bottom line the media hates the war in iraq, things are blown way out of proportion.. Talk to some folks that have ACTUALLY been over there.Not many of these things are actually happening.

You are just an opinion just the same as us. Nuclear weapons are for use.. you dont buy a gun not to shoot it, you wouldnt make a bomb without the intent of using it if needed. Remember Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Would that be bad for nuclear fall out in a few countrys? yea, but if the countries want to do things to provoke this, thats their wrong doing.

[Surefire]

Look up what Russian soldiers did in Georgia. look up in any war what soldiers have "done" to civs... bottom line the media hates the war in iraq, things are blown way out of proportion.. Talk to some folks that have ACTUALLY been over there.Not many of these things are actually happening.

You've completely missed my point.

I said that both sides believe they are right. I have not taken one side or the other. Instead of seeing this, you are still trying to justify why your side is right, proving my point even further. I know people who have been in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and heard what goes on.

Nuclear weapons are for use.. you dont buy a gun not to shoot it, you wouldnt make a bomb without the intent of using it if needed. Remember Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Would that be bad for nuclear fall out in a few countrys? yea, but if the countries want to do things to provoke this, thats their wrong doing.

Hiroshima and Ngasaki are exceptions. Back then noone else had the technology to retaliate. The situation is very different now.

On the topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, someone said Muslims only target civs. How many innocent civilians were killed here?

[ChiChiIsMe]

Where is the evidence to back this up?

Here is a collection of quotes from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world, ... The World without Zionism. Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury [and] is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.” (source)

"Israel must be wiped off the map" (source) "America was free to sever its ties with Iran, but it remains Iran's decision to re-establish relations with America." (source) "Our enemies can deal a blow to us any time they wish. They do not wait for permission to do this. They do not deal a blow with prior notice. They did not take action because they can't." (source) "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." (source) “Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.” (source)

[Surefire]

Which one of those quotes says Iran won't hesitate to use nuclear missiles?

They are all very ambiguous quotes, open to many interpretations (depending on viewpoint and opinion).

I guess that is the point of them, to be veiled threats but no direct mention or intent of actually using nuclear weapons.

[Surefire]

On the topic of Israel though, I think it deserves a bit of a special exception.

The way the country was created and then partitioned wasn't exactly the smartest move ever. It is not suprising the tension it has created in the Arab world.

Disclaimer - Not that I have a better solution for how things could have been done.

[WilsonWedgeMan]

Which one of those quotes says Iran won't hesitate to use nuclear missiles?

"Israel must be wiped off the map" (source).. I think thats' pretty closed to interpretations...it means what it says, and the Iranian prez said it..multiple times.....they currently do not have the means to do that.....yet, and thats' the only thing thats' prevented it thus far

On the topic of Israel though, I think it deserves a bit of a special exception.

Israel was given back land that was already theirs...everything thats' happened to that nation has been done under the guiding hand of the Creator. the fact remains that Israel was given that land(and had it taken away as well). the Book clearly states that Israel would become a nation again, and would return to her lands,the Temple WILL be rebuilt in Jerusalem,as before. whos' the biggest opponent to that happening? yep, the Domed- Mosque occupying people in Jeruslaem...namely the muslims. the tension you speak of can be directly pinpointed in it's origin, concerning Abraham/Sarah/Hagar... do some research and you'll see why they've been at odds for many,many centuries...

as for what our soldiers did/didn't do in Iraq...(and VietNam/Korea/France/Germany/Phillipines/many other theaters of war), I'll take the word of soldiers/Marines that were there, and I've had the honor of talking to more than about anyone on this forum. I work for the Dept of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, and what I've been told is nowhere near what the media has tried to convince. bad things have happened at the hands of our troops, yes, but nowhere near the scale the biased-media wants you to believe.they only want to sell "news", they don't care about how unbiased, or even factual the stories may be.every corespondent has an agenda that they serve, and they really don't care about whether our military is being sucessful in their operations.... like the song says about the news.." give us dirty laundry". how sadly true. you wanted evidence to back up my previous posts... not a problem: evidence for N. Koreas' aggresivness: the nearly total invasion of S. Korea in 1950....with the help of China as their military might, they nearly defeated the Rok and US armies... we beat 'em back and still hold firm at the 38th Parallel. remember that NO PEACE TREATY was ever signed, only a cease fire( because China backed out).. so technically, we're still in a "conflict" on that penninsula. the media back then were with the soldiers, fast forward to 1965-75 in another divided country( Viet Nam) and you'll see China(and Russia) once again being the backing nation of the North and the US backing the South... only this time the media were NOT with the soldiers..and we see where that led...the power of the media has strong influence. Evidence of Iran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution this led to the hostage situation when Pres. Carter was in office, due to the fact that we weren't conservative in our beliefs, that we had gotten Iran into the industrial age(which is anti-Muslim at it's basic foundations), it led to future sabre-rattlings from Khomeni against Israel( and her allies).. and that is still prevelant today,as evidenced in Iranian rhetorical comments from it's Gov't concerning Israel. their exsistence today is wrapped heavily in conservative Muslim belief, which clearly states what the options are concerning dealings with non-believers or infidels as they're called. they do have a right to defend themselves, as they had to in the 1980-88 war w/ Iraq. no question about that... but they don't need nukes to accomplish that, as none of their neighbors have threatened to use nukes against Iran( except Israel, which they have and will use to maintain THEIR exsitence). the foreign problems America faces today are directly related to the fact that we are militarily superior to anyone, and that our interests HAVE to be protected..mainly OIL. not to mention that every weaker allie calls upon us in time of need....

[microcrayfish]

"Israel must be wiped off the map" (source).. I think thats' pretty closed to interpretations...it means what it says, and the Iranian prez said it..multiple times.....they currently do not have the means to do that.....yet, and thats' the only thing thats' prevented it thus far

Now I wasn't planning on wading into this discussion again but I've got to stop you right there. Muslim fundamentalist groups all over the Islamic world have well published intents and a long history (The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in the 1920s and others have been around since the 19th century) of wanting to modernize their societies and bring about industrialization. The base agenda of most Islamic fundamentalist groups is modernization, unfortunately, some of these groups use violence and terror as a means to achieve this; there are many more who do not.

And because citing wikipedia is basically like citing "anonymous" here are some published academic articles and books based on empirical evidence to prove that point: Abed-Kotob, S. , (1995). ‘The Accomodationists Speak: Goals and Strategies of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt’, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies , vol. 27, no.3, pp. 321-339. Goldberg, E. , (1991). ‘Smashing Idols and the State: The Protestant Ethic and Eqyptian Sunni Radicalism’, Comparative Studies in Society and History , vol. 33, no.1, pp. 3-35. Lapidus, I.M. , (1997). ‘Islamic Revival and Modernity: The Contemporary Movements and the Historical Paradigms’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient , vol. 40, no. 4. pp. 444-460. Utvik, B.O. , (2003). ‘The Modernizing Force of Islam’, in J. L. Esposito, and F. Burgat, (eds.), Modernizing Islam . London, Hurst.

[Surefire]

I don't want to go to deep into this, because I will admit I am not a history expert and don't wish to do tons of research just for a forum topic. Also this is getting to the stage where I am being forced to take a side which wasn't my original point.

I will go back to the original point that I was making, everything depends on your original viewpoint.
Right and Wrong are not standard SI units, they are entirely opinion based.

This board is predominantly US based, so I am not suprised I am having the resistence to my point that I am getting, as a majority will share the same opinion, and won't have seen or in some cases want to see things from a different angle.

My original point which kind of got sidestepped still stands.
If the same question was asked on a board with a different racial or religious background there would be a different viewpoint.

Everyone always thinks they are right, this doesn't mean that they are!