North Korea or Iran which one is more threatening?

[Varg]

[quote name='Servus_Mariae' date='12 February 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1266026918' post='2056196']
America: Retaliation to end a war.

Iran: [s]Assault inspired by Anti-Semitism[/s] don't have any nukes.
[/quote]

Edited February 13, 2010 by Varg

[Servus_Mariae]

[quote name='Servus_Mariae' date='12 February 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1266026918' post='2056196']
America: Retaliation to end a war.

Iran: [s]Assault inspired by Anti-Semitism[/s] don't have any nukes [b]yet[/b]
[/quote]

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary to end World War II. They just wanted to beat Japan into unconditional surrender. Does it really meet all the high standards of "just war" to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, which could have been avoided anyway? The United States government isn't always "the good guy," domestically or on the international stage. I worry more about US involvement in the Middle East draining our economy and creating more foreign enemies than I do about relatively weak powers like Iran.

[Hilde]

Wow 12:12

[add]

Iran, deceitful is

[Servus_Mariae]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='14 February 2010 - 09:14 AM' timestamp='1266156878' post='2057023']
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary to end World War II. They just wanted to beat Japan into unconditional surrender. Does it really meet all the high standards of "just war" to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, which could have been avoided anyway? The United States government isn't always "the good guy," domestically or on the international stage. I worry more about US involvement in the Middle East draining our economy and creating more foreign enemies than I do about relatively weak powers like Iran.
[/quote]

I tend to agree with you...and when I said "end a war" I was making reference to a specific conflict between us and Japan not the entire Second World War;sorry for the lack of clarity.

My point in my post was not to justify our use of a nuclear weapon, but rather to illustrate that equating the US with having nuclear arms to Iran having them is a poor comparison. Our use of a nuclear weapon was qualified for the purpose of retaliation and sure victory, not because we harbor a special hatred for the Japanese(as Ahmadinejad does for Israel).

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

I would argue that the North Koreans may be present more of a threat of drawing us into a war or conflict. They have shown no hesitancy in launching missiles over Japanese air space. Granted the missile landed harmlessly in the ocean, but if it did hit Japan and Japan retaliated we may get drawn in. Japan in a close ally yes; however, as far as I understand we are treaty bound to defend them navally. Since the treaty that ended WWII in the Pacific Theatre, Japan has not been allowed to have a navy and as such America is bound to defend them navally if they ever need one. They do have a small amount of naval ships for coastal defense and for defending waterways but nothing major or anything for a counter invasion. If Japan is drawn into a conflict with North Korea, then we may have to provide naval support and we are not going to jeopardize our navy without being sure we can protect it, which may include more than just our navy....Just some thoughts.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='14 February 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1266192794' post='2057280']
I would argue that the North Koreans may be present more of a threat of drawing us into a war or conflict. They have shown no hesitancy in launching missiles over Japanese air space. Granted the missile landed harmlessly in the ocean, but if it did hit Japan and Japan retaliated we may get drawn in. Japan in a close ally yes; however, as far as I understand we are treaty bound to defend them navally. Since the treaty that ended WWII in the Pacific Theatre, Japan has not been allowed to have a navy and as such America is bound to defend them navally if they ever need one. They do have a small amount of naval ships for coastal defense and for defending waterways but nothing major or anything for a counter invasion. If Japan is drawn into a conflict with North Korea, then we may have to provide naval support and we are not going to jeopardize our navy without being sure we can protect it, which may include more than just our navy....Just some thoughts.
[/quote]
"Legally", I don't think Japan would be allowed to retaliate. Stupid thing to have as a law, in my opinion, but that's what is on the books.

[havok579257]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='14 February 2010 - 09:14 AM' timestamp='1266156878' post='2057023']
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary to end World War II. They just wanted to beat Japan into unconditional surrender. Does it really meet all the high standards of "just war" to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, which could have been avoided anyway? The United States government isn't always "the good guy," domestically or on the international stage. I worry more about US involvement in the Middle East draining our economy and creating more foreign enemies than I do about relatively weak powers like Iran.
[/quote]


less people were lost due to the atomic bombs in japan than if the allies continued a man assult on japan.

the us government is not always the good guy, but in the case of WWII, they were the good guys. Sorry, but a country which tries to exterminate jews, blacks, homosexual's and killed plenty of catholics and the innocent people they conqured are evil. had america not entered into WWII, the axis could very well control the entire world. without america's help the axis powers would have eventually overpowered great britian leaving only russia to oppose the axis powers. it would have taken many years, but eventually would have fallen. sometimes there is just war and this was one of the few times in modern history that the criteria was met.

[havok579257]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='22 January 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1264206891' post='2042490']
Neither are a particular threat to the United States. The danger is that the United States destroys its economy sending armies on these third-world countries, ramping up the police state and creating more enemies around the world. Why is that there is always a country or three on the US hit list? Always [i]somebody[/i] the media's trumpeting as the next Mordor in the desert. What right does the US have to march around the world wreaking havoc? Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen...It just never ends and it never will end, because the more people the United States attacks, the more people will want to attack the United States. The US Empire is what we should be worried, not these foreign countries.
[/quote]


what are you supposed to do when someone threatens to destroy one of your friends? are you just going to sit ideally by as the person kills you friend or are you going to do something to save your friends life?

iran has said they have every intention of eventually wipping isreal off the face of the earth. isreal is one of our allies. iran has just shown that they now have nuclear cababilities. they can't threaten us being so far away, but isreal is right next door and that is someone then can threaten with their nukes. so what should we do? sit ideally by and let isreal be destroyed or intervine? if we intervine, in the end its going to mean war. iran will continue on towards destroying isreal and eventually with nuke capabilities now, they will try something. since we consider isreal an friend, we need to help them in their hour of need when it arises.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='16 February 2010 - 12:14 AM' timestamp='1266300888' post='2057803']
less people were lost due to the atomic bombs in japan than if the allies continued a man assult on japan.

the us government is not always the good guy, but in the case of WWII, they were the good guys. Sorry, but a country which tries to exterminate jews, blacks, homosexual's and killed plenty of catholics and the innocent people they conqured are evil. had america not entered into WWII, the axis could very well control the entire world. without america's help the axis powers would have eventually overpowered great britian leaving only russia to oppose the axis powers. it would have taken many years, but eventually would have fallen. sometimes there is just war and this was one of the few times in modern history that the criteria was met.
[/quote]
Are we talking about the war itself, or the atomic bombing of Japan? I personally believe that WWII was a just war, but I do not believe that the use of atomic bombs can be justified. Same goes for the carpet bombing of Dresden, etc..

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='16 February 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1266302110' post='2057808']
Same goes for the carpet bombing of Dresden, etc..
[/quote]

We could carpet bomb Iran, they'd love that, but I don't think North Korea are into carpets. Carpets are more of a middle eastern thingy, especially of the magic variety.

[Nihil Obstat]

[Varg]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='16 February 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1266304450' post='2057814']
We could carpet bomb Iran, they'd love that, but I don't think North Korea are into carpets. Carpets are more of a middle eastern thingy, especially of the magic variety.
[/quote]
Genius.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='16 February 2010 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1266302110' post='2057808']
Are we talking about the war itself, or the atomic bombing of Japan? I personally believe that WWII was a just war, but I do not believe that the use of atomic bombs can be justified. Same goes for the carpet bombing of Dresden, etc..
[/quote]


my two thoughts got mixed together. i was trying to say that less people died by the atomic bomb than if a ground assult continued, although the atomic bomb was still wrong.

the ohter point i was trying to make was that WWII was one of the few modern era wars that was a just war.