Quote:
Wenin said:
Quote:
just because the States is too afraid of not having their big club with which to menace the smaller nations of the world?
|
What country has the US menaced with nukes?
I'm sure North Korea FEELS menaced, but KJI is likely menaced by scary bedtime stories.
|
Iran, for one.
Quote:
Quote:
Or too afraid to let someone who isn't an ally have weapons of mass destruction?
|
Ummmm yes. You're fine with your enemies having nukes pointed at you?
|
It's a parity thing. You have nukes, they have nukes, no one will use them. You have nukes, they don't have nukes, you might just decide to use them.
Quote:
Quote:
Who says the US should have weapons of mass destruction?
|
Seeing as we were the first to invent the "bomb", it's a pandora's box kinda thing. Once you got them, they themselves say you can have WMDs... until someone bigger gets brave and tries to take them from you.
|
My point was that the US has them and trys to keep others from getting them. Your leader's stated reason for trying to stop these nations from acquiring nukes is to protect US interests...but in reality it's so the US has the biggest club whenever they want to go somewhere and do something in someone else's backyard... The threat of use is used as an offensive weapon, not defensive which is the only way nukes should be used.
I wonder what the US would do if Canada suddenly decided we wanted to maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Would you start threatening us to? Can you see how the rest of the world views it, when one nation trys to create nuclear weapons and the US starts making threats and throwing it's weight around? The rest of the world begins to worry a little bit, since everyone can posit that some day, the US might try to go after their country...
Many other countries have nuclear weapons, besides the US. Mostly US allies. Do you see them threatening other nations with their nuclear weapons like the US has recently threatened Iran? No. We respect the sovreignty of other nations, the right for them to determine their own destiny. We don't try to force others into our way of thinking. Of course, if they take offensive action against another sovreign nation, the rest of the world, not just the US, would put a stop to it. That's all well and good. But don't interfere when someone hasn't done anything.
Quote:
One of the current Iranian president's big policies is:
"Isreal should be wiped off the map."
I think that's a good enough reason to keep him from getting nukes..
|
It'll never happen. If Iran was stupid enough to nuke Israel, Iran would be turned into a glowing piece of glass. They know this as well as anyone. Their "big policy" is nothing more than propaganda to appease the portion of their populace that is violent.
Lets just say that they were allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Lets also say they nuked Israel. Israel would nuke them right back, and Iran would no longer exist after Israel and the rest of the world was done with them. Even the violent Iranians aren't so stupid that they can't see that.
NOTE: I'm not saying that I don't think action against Iran is necessary. Personally, I think they should be bombed back to the stone age, where they'd still be if it wasn't for the "infidel" West.
What I have stated above is what a lot of people will think, and what represents the other side of the arguement. In other words, I'm curious what you think is the justification for taking out Iran.
Essentially, I'm playing the devils advocate.
What I do not support is sending troops in, that'd be doomed to failure from the get-go. Systematic and severe bombing...that'd work. When an entire religion is dedicated to destroying your culture, race and religion, you must wipe them out. It may sound extreme, but it'd work and probably, after a while, make for a more peaceful world.
I know, I have some scary opinions.
