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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.