Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Mar '12 23:32
    Even though Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program Obama is increasing the pressure again.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-oil-obama-iran-idUSBRE82S1FD20120330

    Oil prices went up on the news.

    Approve or disapprove?
  2. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    31 Mar '12 00:32
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Even though Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program Obama is increasing the pressure again.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-oil-obama-iran-idUSBRE82S1FD20120330

    Oil prices went up on the news.

    Approve or disapprove?
    Disapprove. I fail to see how one sovereign state with nuclear weapons has the authority to prevent another sovereign state from obtaining them. The only ones morally entitled to take a hard stance against the acquisition of nuclear weapons are those who do not have them themselves.
  3. 31 Mar '12 01:04
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Disapprove. I fail to see how one sovereign state with nuclear weapons has the authority to prevent another sovereign state from obtaining them. The only ones morally entitled to take a hard stance against the acquisition of nuclear weapons are those who do not have them themselves.
    You sound like a fool.
    Apparently, in the "world of rwingett" there are no wars, no enemies, no dangers from foreign terror/islamo states.
    I wonder how you would feel if Detroit was the center of a nuke/terror attack.
  4. 31 Mar '12 01:35
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Disapprove. I fail to see how one sovereign state with nuclear weapons has the authority to prevent another sovereign state from obtaining them. The only ones morally entitled to take a hard stance against the acquisition of nuclear weapons are those who do not have them themselves.
    You do realize that Ron Paul is the only candidate who would oppose going to war with Iran, right?

    War is inevitable. Heck, the US has been at war since the fundamentalists took over.
  5. 31 Mar '12 01:38
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    You sound like a fool.
    Apparently, in the "world of rwingett" there are no wars, no enemies, no dangers from foreign terror/islamo states.
    I wonder how you would feel if Detroit was the center of a nuke/terror attack.
    First Iran and then Afghamistan and then Libya and now Iran?

    Having enemies is one thing, but bankrupting yourself fighting them is another.

    If Iran is foolish enough to use a WMD, you simply push a few buttons and watch them all vaporize. I don't understand the need to police them like children.
  6. 31 Mar '12 02:02
    Its a political move. Liberals will stomach it and independants are appeased..or so is the logic.
  7. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    31 Mar '12 02:03
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    You sound like a fool.
    Apparently, in the "world of rwingett" there are no wars, no enemies, no dangers from foreign terror/islamo states.
    I wonder how you would feel if Detroit was the center of a nuke/terror attack.
    What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either everyone disarms, or everyone is entitled to nuclear weapons. Your desire to have it both ways is morally indefensible. That principle remains whether I perish in a nuclear holocaust or not.
  8. 31 Mar '12 03:30
    Originally posted by rwingett
    What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either everyone disarms, or everyone is entitled to nuclear weapons. Your desire to have it both ways is morally indefensible. That principle remains whether I perish in a nuclear holocaust or not.
    Its called survival.
    Morals or fairness have nothing to do with it.
  9. 31 Mar '12 04:42
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Its called survival.
    Morals or fairness have nothing to do with it.
    It's called putting a country that's already trillions in dept further in dept.
  10. 31 Mar '12 07:46
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Disapprove. I fail to see how one sovereign state with nuclear weapons has the authority to prevent another sovereign state from obtaining them. The only ones morally entitled to take a hard stance against the acquisition of nuclear weapons are those who do not have them themselves.
    Except that they did sign off on the non-proliferation treaty originally.
  11. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    31 Mar '12 12:32
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Its called survival.
    Morals or fairness have nothing to do with it.
    You seem to think that the Iranians want to kill you with nuclear weapons.

    Do you know what the usual diagnosis is for people who hold delusions that someone is trying to kill them?

    Go down to your local shelter and you will find plenty of people who eat only hard-boiled eggs because the CIA is trying to poison the meatloaf.
  12. 31 Mar '12 12:56
    Originally posted by badmoon
    Its a political move. Liberals will stomach it and independants are appeased..or so is the logic.
    Liberals have grown to love war and aggression. Now when Barry attacks a country you hear, "Thank you sir, may I nave another?"
  13. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    31 Mar '12 21:35
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Its called survival.
    Morals or fairness have nothing to do with it.
    Your lack of concern with morals and fairness are what undermine your security in the first place. If America were to actually stand up for the principles it allegedly stands for instead of wantonly flaunting them, then we wouldn't find ourselves in situations where we constantly fear for our survival. You can only keep the rest of the world under your thumb for just so long.
  14. 31 Mar '12 21:45
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Disapprove. I fail to see how one sovereign state with nuclear weapons has the authority to prevent another sovereign state from obtaining them. The only ones morally entitled to take a hard stance against the acquisition of nuclear weapons are those who do not have them themselves.
    What does morality have to do with international relations?

    In my daughter's first international relations course they were assigned writing a paper advising Saddam how to advance his interests. The prof looked at the papers and said "most of you would be taken out and shot." Of course these idealistic students had advised Saddam to play nice.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Mar '12 21:53
    Originally posted by JS357
    What does morality have to do with international relations?

    In my daughter's first international relations course they were assigned writing a paper advising Saddam how to advance his interests. The prof looked at the papers and said "most of you would be taken out and shot." Of course these idealistic students had advised Saddam to play nice.
    Maybe the students were right and the professor was wrong considering what happened to Saddam.