31 Mar 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainDisapprove. 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.
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?
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by rwingettYou sound like a fool.
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.
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.
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by rwingettYou do realize that Ron Paul is the only candidate who would oppose going to war with Iran, right?
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.
War is inevitable. Heck, the US has been at war since the fundamentalists took over.
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonFirst Iran and then Afghamistan and then Libya and now Iran?
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.
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.
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhat'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.
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.
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by rwingettIts called survival.
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.
Morals or fairness have nothing to do with it.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199211
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by rwingettExcept that they did sign off on the non-proliferation treaty originally.
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.
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou seem to think that the Iranians want to kill you with nuclear weapons.
Its called survival.
Morals or fairness have nothing to do with it.
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.
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonYour 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.
Its called survival.
Morals or fairness have nothing to do with it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by rwingettWhat does morality have to do with international relations?
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.
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.
31 Mar 12
Originally posted by JS357Maybe the students were right and the professor was wrong considering what happened to Saddam.
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.