I'm really disturbed by what we feel is our right to take actions against other countries. At what point do we have the "right" to enforce sanctions or invade other countries? North Korea, Iran and Iraq may be "rogue" nations, but does that give us the right to interfere? This was the primary reason I was against the invasion of Iraq. Some would say that we are defending ourselves, but against what? A perceived threat? What gives the United States the right to have nuclear weapons and no one else? Why is it okay for the United States to finance rebels, but when other countries do this, they are supporting terrorism?

 

In the example of Iran, if we had certain evidence that they had nuclear weapons, then I think we'd be stupid not to take some action...if it came to a military assault to get rid of them, then I'd be all for it. No one in their right mind can possibly think it would be acceptable for Iran to have nuclear capabilities...if they get them, they will use them. That is a certainty, IMO. Especially when you look at the things Ahmadinejad has said...

 

As for your question about what gives the US the right to have nuclear weapons and no one else? There are other countries with nuclear weapons...I think the problem arises when we get unstable countries/leaders/peoples who have that capability. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US and other nuclear capable countries have shown that they aren't looking to launch nuclear assaults.

 

When you look at Iran and all the factors surrounding it...terrorism, their objectives (to destroy Israel), etc...do they seem like a nation that would just acquire nuclear weapons with no real desire to use them? There's a huge difference, IMO.

In the example of Iran, if we had certain evidence that they had nuclear weapons, then I think we'd be stupid not to take some action...if it came to a military assault to get rid of them, then I'd be all for it. No one in their right mind can possibly think it would be acceptable for Iran to have nuclear capabilities...if they get them, they will use them. That is a certainty, IMO. Especially when you look at the things Ahmadinejad has said...

 

As for your question about what gives the US the right to have nuclear weapons and no one else? There are other countries with nuclear weapons...I think the problem arises when we get unstable countries/leaders/peoples who have that capability. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US and other nuclear capable countries have shown that they aren't looking to launch nuclear assaults.

 

When you look at Iran and all the factors surrounding it...terrorism, their objectives (to destroy Israel), etc...do they seem like a nation that would just acquire nuclear weapons with no real desire to use them? There's a huge difference, IMO.

 

 

The biggest problem with this for me is that you can't prove they would use Nukes on anyone. Rhetoric is one thing, actually doing it is another. We say "they are unstable" but so is Castro, so is Park in North Korea, and growing up in the Cold War all I heard was how the Chinese and the Russians couldn't be trusted. But they never launched strikes, even when the Soviets were crumbling. Even when his regime was dying, Sadaam did not attack with chemicals or bio weapons we said he had.

 

Another problem to discuss is that our current administration told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and may have been on the verge of nuclear capability. It has been proven that we weren't totally right on that now. What happens when we bomb the stew out of Iran or someone we call "rogue" only to find out, "oops we were wrong again, I'm sorry."

 

Don't say we would have to be 100% sure when we thought we were just a few years ago. Intelligence can always be faulty. Do we risk nuclear events on a brash arrogance?

Why didn't we have the same attitude towards the USSR? We had the bomb for a while and they did not. What about China who did not develop nukes until the early 70's?

 

Just because a nation has nukes does not mean they will annihate us. Mutual Assured Destruction worked well for 50 years.

 

It's one think to own a few nukes, it's another to pull the trigger and know that the retaliation will be swift and complete. The US has never had a policy of "pre-emptive nuclear strikes" before but now some feel we need one?

 

I think it's naive to compare these Muslim-lead countries like Iran to previous examples...Russia and China, as you cited, are completely different animals.

 

Russian and Chinese factions weren't waging Jihad...they weren't sending suicide bombers at people around the world...they weren't flying planes into New York buildings...to my knowledge they didn't want to completely annihilate a neighboring country.

 

Ahmadinejad's statements mark him as an Islamic extremist...allowing them to attain nuclear weapons is completely different, IMO, than Russia and China. In the prior case, attaining nuclear weapons was more about validating their status as a superpower than actually using them. In the case of Iran, I get the feeling their intentions may be different, but I could be wrong. Is it worth the risk?

The biggest problem with this for me is that you can't prove they would use Nukes on anyone. Rhetoric is one thing, actually doing it is another. We say "they are unstable" but so is Castro, so is Park in North Korea, and growing up in the Cold War all I heard was how the Chinese and the Russians couldn't be trusted. But they never launched strikes, even when the Soviets were crumbling. Even when his regime was dying, Sadaam did not attack with chemicals or bio weapons we said he had.

 

Another problem to discuss is that our current administration told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and may have been on the verge of nuclear capability. It has been proven that we weren't totally right on that now. What happens when we bomb the stew out of Iran or someone we call "rogue" only to find out, "oops we were wrong again, I'm sorry."

 

Don't say we would have to be 100% sure when we thought we were just a few years ago. Intelligence can always be faulty. Do we risk nuclear events on a brash arrogance?

 

First off, launching an assault or blowing up a site in which we believe a country is keeping nuclear weapons is not a nuclear event...it's preventing the possibility. The way I see it, the only way we risk a nuclear even is by allowing some extremists Islamic state like Iran to attain nuclear capabilities.

 

So, do we risk allowing them to get them and watch as they try to wipe Israel of the map by firing nuclear warheads at them?

 

I'm sorry, I side with PepperII...the stakes are too high.

 

1. We launch an assault and blow up some supposed nuclear facility...turns out we're wrong...what happens? It's no doubt a diplomatic nightmare, but it could be worse.

 

2. We stand by and do nothing and Iran become nuclear capable. It's very possible that they launch an assault on Israel and start a nuclear exchange/war....

 

Which is worse? Again, I side with Pepper...the potential consequences of not doing anything is too great to risk, IMO.

In the example of Iran, if we had certain evidence that they had nuclear weapons, then I think we'd be stupid not to take some action...if it came to a military assault to get rid of them, then I'd be all for it. No one in their right mind can possibly think it would be acceptable for Iran to have nuclear capabilities...if they get them, they will use them. That is a certainty, IMO. Especially when you look at the things Ahmadinejad has said...

 

As for your question about what gives the US the right to have nuclear weapons and no one else? There are other countries with nuclear weapons...I think the problem arises when we get unstable countries/leaders/peoples who have that capability. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US and other nuclear capable countries have shown that they aren't looking to launch nuclear assaults.

 

When you look at Iran and all the factors surrounding it...terrorism, their objectives (to destroy Israel), etc...do they seem like a nation that would just acquire nuclear weapons with no real desire to use them? There's a huge difference, IMO.

How would you feel about another country bombing Offutt AFB to destroy USSTRATCOM or an attack at Hampton Roads on USSOCOM to wipe out our special forces capabilities?

I think it's naive to compare these Muslim-lead countries like Iran to previous examples...Russia and China, as you cited, are completely different animals.

 

Russian and Chinese factions weren't waging Jihad...they weren't sending suicide bombers at people around the world...they weren't flying planes into New York buildings...to my knowledge they didn't want to completely annihilate a neighboring country.

 

Ahmadinejad's statements mark him as an Islamic extremist...allowing them to attain nuclear weapons is completely different, IMO, than Russia and China. In the prior case, attaining nuclear weapons was more about validating their status as a superpower than actually using them. In the case of Iran, I get the feeling their intentions may be different, but I could be wrong. Is it worth the risk?

 

 

I think it's naive to believe that when we begin to take it upon ourselves to launch "pre-emptive strikes" on soverign lands then we no longer have a moral leg to stand on.

 

What would be the difference between US and say:

 

1. The Japanese who attacked the US in Pearl Harbor because they needed access to the oil of SE Asia and needed to try and cripple our Navy so they could control the South Pacific. It was in their best interests.

 

2. The North Vietnamese who attacked South Vietnam with the intent of unifying their homeland (which had been seperated by post WW II treaties) and the fact that as long as South Vietnam existed the US could be there and a threat to their nation's existence.

 

 

The stakes have always been high. A nuclear device is catastrophic. But so is the moral responsibility of a nation to avoid Imperialism or risk the path of destruction that other such nations went down (Germany, Rome, Greece, Napoleonic France, the USSR).

First off, launching an assault or blowing up a site in which we believe a country is keeping nuclear weapons is not a nuclear event...it's preventing the possibility. The way I see it, the only way we risk a nuclear even is by allowing some extremists Islamic state like Iran to attain nuclear capabilities.

 

So, do we risk allowing them to get them and watch as they try to wipe Israel of the map by firing nuclear warheads at them?

 

I'm sorry, I side with PepperII...the stakes are too high.

 

1. We launch an assault and blow up some supposed nuclear facility...turns out we're wrong...what happens? It's no doubt a diplomatic nightmare, but it could be worse.

 

2. We stand by and do nothing and Iran become nuclear capable. It's very possible that they launch an assault on Israel and start a nuclear exchange/war....

 

Which is worse? Again, I side with Pepper...the potential consequences of not doing anything is too great to risk, IMO.

 

 

First of all, let Israel take care of Israel. They've done a pretty good job with and without us. I don't understand this blind allegiance to Israel that somehow that they will be wiped off the face of the earth. If you support them because what you deem as a biblical mandate for 2007 then fine, you ought to have enough faith to believe that God would take care of them for His purpose. What we do or don't won't change that, will it?

 

We keep blowing up places it's not a diplomatic nightmare it is the loss of allies and soon we find ourself out on an Imperial island by ourselves. As great as our military is, it can't stand alone. (With the National Guard and Reserves bearing a huge brunt of our current war, Iraq has shown the limits to our military's on ground strength.)

 

If Iran launches a Nuke at Israel, right now the Israeli's have enough firepower to counter that and then some.

First of all, let Israel take care of Israel. They've done a pretty good job with and without us. I don't understand this blind allegiance to Israel that somehow that they will be wiped off the face of the earth. If you support them because what you deem as a biblical mandate for 2007 then fine, you ought to have enough faith to believe that God would take care of them for His purpose. What we do or don't won't change that, will it?

 

We keep blowing up places it's not a diplomatic nightmare it is the loss of allies and soon we find ourself out on an Imperial island by ourselves. As great as our military is, it can't stand alone. (With the National Guard and Reserves bearing a huge brunt of our current war, Iraq has shown the limits to our military's on ground strength.)

 

If Iran launches a Nuke at Israel, right now the Israeli's have enough firepower to counter that and then some.

 

So you purpose to let Israel stand alone against Iran? Wow. We have pledged Israel as an ally many years ago. If they need our support, they deserve our support. Otherwise, you are guaranteeing that they will go nuclear if they are at risk to fall. And quite frankly, I don't blame them.

I think it's naive to believe that when we begin to take it upon ourselves to launch "pre-emptive strikes" on soverign lands then we no longer have a moral leg to stand on.

 

What would be the difference between US and say:

 

1. The Japanese who attacked the US in Pearl Harbor because they needed access to the oil of SE Asia and needed to try and cripple our Navy so they could control the South Pacific. It was in their best interests.

 

2. The North Vietnamese who attacked South Vietnam with the intent of unifying their homeland (which had been seperated by post WW II treaties) and the fact that as long as South Vietnam existed the US could be there and a threat to their nation's existence.

 

 

The stakes have always been high. A nuclear device is catastrophic. But so is the moral responsibility of a nation to avoid Imperialism or risk the path of destruction that other such nations went down (Germany, Rome, Greece, Napoleonic France, the USSR).

 

Since when has there been a MORAL responsibility to avoid IMPERIALISM in the world? I must have been unaware that the world has turned into a Utopia.

Allowing more states to acquire nuclear weapons is ludicrous. Friend or foe, we should do everything in our power to keep more states from becoming nuclear powers. It starts with an international diplomatic coalition that could negotiate, sanction, and otherwise aid in the hindrance of a state acquiring nuclear weapons. Of course, if these options fail we should eliminate the threat with force.

Allowing more states to acquire nuclear weapons is ludicrous. Friend or foe, we should do everything in our power to keep more states from becoming nuclear powers. It starts with an international diplomatic coalition that could negotiate, sanction, and otherwise aid in the hindrance of a state acquiring nuclear weapons. Of course, if these options fail we should eliminate the threat with force.

What right do we have to do this? Do other countries have the right to prevent the U.S. from developing arms?

What right do we have to do this? Do other countries have the right to prevent the U.S. from developing arms?

 

The right of might to protect our interest.

The right of might to protect our interest.

What about the right to protect their interests?

First of all, let Israel take care of Israel. They've done a pretty good job with and without us. I don't understand this blind allegiance to Israel that somehow that they will be wiped off the face of the earth. If you support them because what you deem as a biblical mandate for 2007 then fine, you ought to have enough faith to believe that God would take care of them for His purpose. What we do or don't won't change that, will it?

 

We keep blowing up places it's not a diplomatic nightmare it is the loss of allies and soon we find ourself out on an Imperial island by ourselves. As great as our military is, it can't stand alone. (With the National Guard and Reserves bearing a huge brunt of our current war, Iraq has shown the limits to our military's on ground strength.)

 

If Iran launches a Nuke at Israel, right now the Israeli's have enough firepower to counter that and then some.

 

This post is a complete contradiction...you talk about losing allies immediately after you say "let Israel take care of Israel". That's what "allies" do...they help each other and Israel has been one of our closest allies. Leaving them to fend for themselves when the entire Middle East is out to get them would really make us a moral giant...right? Are you kidding me? What kind of message does that send to your other allies...? Fend for yourself, but can we still be friends.

 

It's got nothing to do with biblical mandate for 2007 or whatever you're talking about. I'm not even sure why you brought that up or how that applies.

How would you feel about another country bombing Offutt AFB to destroy USSTRATCOM or an attack at Hampton Roads on USSOCOM to wipe out our special forces capabilities?

 

If we were continuously threatening to destroy another nation's existence or using our military capabilities for genocide, then that would probably be a legitimate question.