Runyan99
-
Posts
1,304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Runyan99
-
-
Oh stop. If my arguments are ridiculous on their face, why don't you refute them, instead of playing rhetorical games? The answer is, you have no rebuttal, but dismissal. Fantasy is your probability.
-
The real suggestion is that you cannot prevent a select few from having nukes while you happily allow their natural enemies to amass nukes without being called out as a hypocrite.
And since when are feelings a national security concern? We're supposed to allow the world to weaponize so America is not called nasty names? That's childish and foolish.
Of course, this focus on popularity, and seeking the approval of others, drives much leftist thought around the world, regardless of consequences. Better to be conquered than to be called a warmonger or a hypocrite.
This mentality might be conducive to dating, but fails in the harsh realm of international competition. The nation that loves his enemy, and turns the other cheek, cannot endure.
-
I reject the implicit suggestion that if everybody has nukes, the world is a safer place because nobody will risk a hot war. It only ensures that eventually there will be a hot war with a nuclear exchange.
Those non-interventionists who advocate doing nothing physical to prevent regimes like Iran from going nuclear are by default in the proliferation camp. Unmolested, they will gain the technology. I can't see how that makes the world a safer place.
-
The previous US administrations did not view allowing (and helping) Israel to have hundreds of nukes while saber rattling Iran for attempting to have a few of their own as hypocrisy.
I don't understand this line of thinking. Is that a bit like saying giving cops guns while trying to keep them away from criminals is hypocrisy? Everyone should have guns? To believe that, you'd have to think that the cops and the criminals are morally equivalent. Obviously, the state has decided that supporting the cops at the expense of the criminals is in the interest of society.
In the same way, the USA has chosen it's allies and supported them. That's how rational actors behave.
Suggesting that nations should act contrary to what they see as in their interest is empty and irrational. In my opinion this kind of thought is born of perceived guilt, self doubt, and a self destructive streak.
If you are convinced that the USA and Western society more broadly is the primary source of evil in the world, then it makes sense to advocate regimes like Iran or North Korea going nuclear. Otherwise, I don't see how a clear thinking person can get there.
-
Just out of curiosity then, what is the most likely problem in your estimation?
-
Oh good. Nothing to worry about.
-
At the very least, we can expect Iran to step up guerilla/terrorist efforts to undermine the Iraqi government once the US troops go. Should the Iranians be nuclear capable at that time, it further complicates the situation.
-
What does Israel have to do with any of this?
I didn't know this was so complicated, but I'll spell it out.
Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Iran's goverment has espoused the destruction of the Israeli state, and presumably the liquidation of most of it's Jews. The aggressive wars of '48 and '67 tend to buttress this claim.
Is this not happening, or do you just not care if it does happen? What is your view?
-
WTF. We know Isreal has nuclear weapons. What are you talking about, and who do you suppose they are sharing their technology with?
-
Oh stop with the straw man. It's so tired.
Has India's government suggested the destruction of the Chinese goverment? Has Pakistan suggested the same with regard to India?
Are you making relevant, or silly comparisons?
-
To quote Mao, how many divisions does the IAEA have?
As for India and Pakistan, they don't seem to be governed by Islamic fundamentalists bent on the destruction of Israel. At least, Pakistan has not been, but that may change post Musharrif.
Why are the Iranian apologists bending over backwards to ignore the rhetoric that comes out of that country?
-
Really, like was done with Saddam's WMD?
So, let's be clear. Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon? Is that so?
As for your other comment about giving the bomb to someone, I don't follow. You'll have to elaborate for me.
-
You just cannot see things as they are, can you. It's too painful, isn't it?
Better to create a fantasy world.
-
Fallacious arguments? That's a total rejection of reality. I guess I'm imagining the Arab Israeli conflict.
Live in a mental bubble of peace if you want, but one day the real world will come crashing in.
-
Also, the President of Iran has stated that the solution to the Middle Eastern situation is the destruction of Israel. I have to take him at his word. Therefore, this also seems like a good reason to prevent the development of a nuclear weapon by Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html
The non-interventionist postition is what? He doesn't mean it? He's bluffing? We don't care?
-
Um, yeah. Iran funds and supplies Hizbollah, a terrorist organization sworn to the destruction of Israel. Therefore, it seems allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is a bad idea, to be prevented with force if necessary.
How do you see it?
-
Oh. The international community will prevent nuclear proliferation with diplomacy.
Sure.
-
So, a nuclear weapon is never going to be used again? What's your argument?
-
Nothing to do then but wait for the next mushroom cloud I guess. I expect many of us will see it in our lifetimes. And then I suppose people will say, "Why wasn't something done!?"
-
What? Do you think the wars are over?
-
That's bound to change.
-
Is everybody here so sure that if Iran gets nuclear weapons they won't actually use them?
-
Looks like this is nowhere near completion. Might never see the light of day.
-
LOL. Damn hippies.
Bush stopped Israeli attack on Iran
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Spell it out. I'm not as smart as you are.