801–810 of 862 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't worry, it was just a test of Abraham's loyalty. God was never going to let him kill Isaac. It's the perfect example of a completely ethical thing to do to another person...
Some religious people would be nodding along in agreement not realising this is satire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Have you? I haven't, and that is why I am not making higher-than-you, virtuous claims about how I would act in that situation. Maybe you should do the same. >Your ridiculous analogy doesn't even apply to the US, one of the wealthiest countries in the world And where did that wealth come from? Sure, you have smart people, but it also require a functioning economy to mobilize and convert all those talent into wealth.…
> I haven't, and that is why I am not making higher-than-you [...] Then maybe stop making up hypotheticals that don't apply to me, you, or any of the nations involved? What are you hoping to achieve here? "Let's assume we live in a Mad Max world, would you steal all the women and water"? > And where did that wealth come from? Sure, you have smart people, but it also require a functioning economy to mobilize and conve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't that the US ran out, a 3rd bomb could have been dropped within two weeks of the first 2 had Japan not surrendered after the initial round https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event...
It needed to be built first. The us had no bombs left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a recap, my reply to your reply was that DoD is the actual newspeak, and your reply to that evolution of the discussion is that you were not discussing newspeak.
In trying to understand if I'm missing something, I looked up what newspeak means. I (as well as probably a few other commenters based on the contents of their comments) was under the assumption it meant "new speak" meaning it's something new. In case anyone else reading this was not aware of this, this is what I discovered. It's a term from George Orwell's 1984, describing a language used to make thoughts unthinkabl…
I think Department of War is also newspeak. Or at least, they didn't change the name just to get the name in line with the amount of war the department does.
They changed it because they wanted to do more even more war. The amount of war the department does under the name "Defense" has been status quo for a long time, and my take is they wanted us to think of them differently so they could do even more war, which they have since been doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iran launched a 1-ton payload (e.g. nuclear capable) rocket with a 2000 km range two days ago. That rocket can threaten US assets and allies even into Europe. And, of course, and small ship or container ship even could carry a nuclear weapon into an American port.
There is no proof Iran has nuclear weapons. This has been covered extensively, and this kind of misinformation is exactly the same thing that drove the US and half of NATO into the Iraq war. Absolutely unbelievable this is happening again!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Negotiations did halt it. Then Trump went back on the deal. There's reports Iran agreed to limit themselves to only medical grade centrifuges as recently as last week. And no, Iran does not have weapons capability to reach the US, period. They fundamentally did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. A threat to American strategic goals is not an imminent threat to the American people.
Negotiations halted Iran's nuclear program for, as per words of the treaty, "10 to 15 years". That was in 2016. If that treaty were not torn up, then Iran would be allowed to unveil their nuclear weapon in January 16, 2026. Yes, two months ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't that the US ran out, a 3rd bomb could have been dropped within two weeks of the first 2 had Japan not surrendered after the initial round https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event...
It needed to be built first. The us had no bombs left.
Had the bomb already been shipped, nothing about these delays suggests it would have instead been dropped before surrender instead of just delayed there. In reality, the pause sources from when Truman intervened immediately after Nagasaki (which was bombed on the 9th, Hiroshima previously on the 6th) by the 10th in hopes of unconditional surrender instead.
Had Japan not surrendered for some reason (they had more going south at the time than just the nukes) the US may well have dropped a 3rd bomb over another approach. That said, I'll give due credit to Truman that the activity was paused on hopes of surrender first rather than waiting for the next one to arrive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safe for the aggressors, I mean. If war is easy and cheap for us to wage, we will do more of it, and likely make the world a worse place.
Your post reads as if you would rather those aggressors who threaten America to not be disposed of. How is the world a better place with the aggressors than without?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iran launched a 1-ton payload (e.g. nuclear capable) rocket with a 2000 km range two days ago. That rocket can threaten US assets and allies even into Europe. And, of course, and small ship or container ship even could carry a nuclear weapon into an American port.
There is no proof Iran has nuclear weapons. This has been covered extensively, and this kind of misinformation is exactly the same thing that drove the US and half of NATO into the Iraq war. Absolutely unbelievable this is happening again!
Here is an Iranian, Persian language interview with Ali Motahari, deputy speaker of the Iranian parliament:
https://www.iranintl.com/202204244448
He says:
>از همان ابتدا که وارد فعالیت هسته ای شدیم هدفمان ساخت بمب و تقویت قوای بازدارنده بود، اما نتوانستیم محرمانه بودن این مساله را حفظ کنیم
> From the very beginning when we entered nuclear activity, our goal was to build a bomb and strengthen deterrence, but we were unable to maintain the secrecy of this issue