The same right you'd have to protect your family if you thought someone was a threat to them.

 

And again, if the US was funding terrorists and using it's military might to bring the whole world under the flag of Islam, this would be comparable. It's apples and oranges.

 

What right did we have to go to Europe and fight against Germany in WWII? We should have just left them alone and let the rest of Europe fend for themselves, right?

 

 

So if I believe that there is a family in town that hates my family. Hates them enough to do bodily harm to them. It is now okay for me to go over to their place and shoot the most extreme of them so they can't kill my family? The law won't look at it that way, and I hope I don't either.

I'm not sure it would fall under any right; it would be more of an infringement on other states' rights. It would simply be in our interest of survival. Ideally, no state would have nuclear weapons, but that is illusory, the next best option is to not allow more states to have nuclear weapons. I think if acting internationally, through a body such as the U.N., ideally, rather than unilaterally, we would have some degree of principle.

 

 

The best deterrent is to be armed so that no matter who has such weapons, they will know there will be a swift and decisive answer that will be a higher price than their actions will produce for their cause.

 

 

We didn't act with the UN on Iraq.

 

 

I think one thing that gets lost in some of this discussion is that some here believe that Iran or another nation we call "rogue" will use a nuke no matter what we have. I don't think that's true or human nature.

 

Are they zealous in their religion, yes? But I have yet to meet too many suicidal NATIONS. If Iran were to develop and use a Nuke (or even a few) the response would be one that they could not handle or survive.

 

When Hitler went mad and tried to conquer the world the German army went along. But that was prior to nukes. Even in defeat Germany would survive or have the chance to. With nukes, there is no assurance that your family, your homeland, your people will survive a nuclear attack from the US.

 

It's one thing to attack the US, it's another to use Nukes. ANY NATION STATE knows that they would cease to exist after they tried to inflict that kind of harm on the US.

Please see my other post #57. We stand with our allies but not as some pre-emptive mercanary that acts at the bidding of that ally.

 

If you don't believe that for some people the blind support of Israel is an agenda (political and religious) you need to reread Robertson, Hagee, LaHaye, Falwell and much of the Christian Right.

 

I'm well aware, but it has nothing to do with our discussion...unless you're assuming I fall under that category.

 

I'm sure Israel will greatly appreciate our assistance after Iran has laid waste to their country...

 

Look, you see it your way and I see it mine. You take the wait and see approach, while I would prefer to eliminate the problem before it becomes a reality. I would take your view if we weren't dealing with a radical Islamic state attaining nuclear weapons...the stakes and the risk are just too high to take a wait and see approach, IMO.

So if I believe that there is a family in town that hates my family. Hates them enough to do bodily harm to them. It is now okay for me to go over to their place and shoot the most extreme of them so they can't kill my family? The law won't look at it that way, and I hope I don't either.

 

So, if you knew someone had every intention of killing your family, you would just sit back and wait for them to attack before you did anything because of how the law would look at it...?

The best deterrent is to be armed so that no matter who has such weapons, they will know there will be a swift and decisive answer that will be a higher price than their actions will produce for their cause.

 

 

We didn't act with the UN on Iraq.

 

 

I think one thing that gets lost in some of this discussion is that some here believe that Iran or another nation we call "rogue" will use a nuke no matter what we have. I don't think that's true or human nature.

 

Are they zealous in their religion, yes? But I have yet to meet too many suicidal NATIONS. If Iran were to develop and use a Nuke (or even a few) the response would be one that they could not handle or survive.

 

It doesn't really matter what the nation as a whole thinks...it's the guys in power who are calling the shots and who can "push the button" so to speak.

 

When Hitler went mad and tried to conquer the world the German army went along. But that was prior to nukes. Even in defeat Germany would survive or have the chance to. With nukes, there is no assurance that your family, your homeland, your people will survive a nuclear attack from the US.

 

It's one thing to attack the US, it's another to use Nukes. ANY NATION STATE knows that they would cease to exist after they tried to inflict that kind of harm on the US.

 

And, please explain to me how that is an effective deterrent against a group of people who blow themselves up and fly planes into buildings committing suicide just to kill others...people who believe when they die in jihad they go straight to paradise, which is where they want to go...

 

Please. Give me a good explanation and you might win me over to your point-of-view.

Evil dictator is our perspective, not theirs. And we've seen many countries where Democracy just doesn't work.

 

Are you kidding me? A man who mass murdered hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even millions and calling him evil is just our perspective...

 

I give up. I'm done. You guys win. I see it my way, you see it yours.

So, if you knew someone had every intention of killing your family, you would just sit back and wait for them to attack before you did anything because of how the law would look at it...?

 

 

I'm saying that I would be prepared but not attack them first.

 

My relatives from a 130 years ago did that and they live in legend and infamy from it.

 

BTW, it would always be an intention but you never know until they act. Can you kill on an assumption?

The best deterrent is to be armed so that no matter who has such weapons, they will know there will be a swift and decisive answer that will be a higher price than their actions will produce for their cause.

 

I don't see that working when everyone has these weapons as there is no accountability. It isn't necessarily sovereign states I'm worried about; it is organizations similar to al-Qaida I am concerned with. I doubt Ahmedenijad would launch a missile straight out of Tehran, but he certainly may slip one to militant group. And if we let everyone have nuclear missiles, how would we know where it came from? Even if we were able to uncover that Iran and slipped the missile to this organization, do we then nuke Iran? Adding more nuclear weapons to the mix of things simply does not seem prudent to me.

 

We didn't act with the UN on Iraq.

 

Not really sure where that fits here, but it's going swimmingly isn't it?

And, please explain to me how that is an effective deterrent against a group of people who blow themselves up and fly planes into buildings committing suicide just to kill others...people who believe when they die in jihad they go straight to paradise, which is where they want to go...

 

Please. Give me a good explanation and you might win me over to your point-of-view.

 

Simple. Name one instance where a suicide bomber used a nuke.

 

BTW, how many of the attackers on 9/11 were from Iran?

 

If we go by the witness of those WHO DID attack we would have bombed Saudi Arabia, wouldn't we?

Are you kidding me? A man who mass murdered hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even millions and calling him evil is just our perspective...

 

I give up. I'm done. You guys win. I see it my way, you see it yours.

My whole point is that we view everyone else from our perspective but are totally unwilling to view it from theirs. We would have a cow if an invading force of any size crossed our borders. But other countries should just put up with it. It's okay to bomb other countries, but not the U.S. It's okay to sponsor insurgents in other countries, but when other countries do it, they're sponsoring terrorism.

 

For those who say we have the right because we have the power, what happens when we're not topdog anymore. And believe me boys and girls, that day is coming.

I don't see that working when everyone has these weapons as there is no accountability. It isn't necessarily sovereign states I'm worried about; it is organizations similar to al-Qaida I am concerned with. I doubt Ahmedenijad would launch a missile straight out of Tehran, but he certainly may slip one to militant group. And if we let everyone have nuclear missiles, how would we know where it came from? Even if we were able to uncover that Iran and slipped the missile to this organization, do we then nuke Iran? Adding more nuclear weapons to the mix of things simply does not seem prudent to me.

 

 

 

Not really sure where that fits here, but it's going swimmingly isn't it?

 

 

I will claim ignorance and ask, "How would a nuke get slipped to an independent group and then launched at the US?" You can't just fire these like bazooka, I think.

 

 

I think you mentioned working through the UN (unless I misunderstood). I was pointing out that we didn't follow that idea when we ignored them and invaded Iraq anyway. It's hard to see how going there is going to be our course of action when we choose to ignore it the last time because they didn't agree with our position.

I'm saying that I would be prepared but not attack them first.

 

My relatives from a 130 years ago did that and they live in legend and infamy from it.

 

BTW, it would always be an intention but you never know until they act. Can you kill on an assumption?

 

The family thing was a bad analogy.

 

I'm talking about as President of the United States to make a decision between launching a tactical assault to disable Iranian nuclear facilities...an attack that would produce minimal casualties...opposed to waiting until they become a nuclear state and launch an attack on United States soil that would likely kill thousands at a minimum. For me, it's a no-brainer.

I will claim ignorance and ask, "How would a nuke get slipped to an independent group and then launched at the US?" You can't just fire these like bazooka, I think.

 

I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I'm fairly certain once you acquire the means to create a nuclear device you don't necessarily have to affix it to the end of a missile. I think all you need is the radioactive product to wreak a lot of destruction.

Simple. Name one instance where a suicide bomber used a nuke.

 

BTW, how many of the attackers on 9/11 were from Iran?

 

If we go by the witness of those WHO DID attack we would have bombed Saudi Arabia, wouldn't we?

 

Simple. They don't have nukes. And that's my whole point...I'd like to keep it that way. (To further elaborate the point, read post #68 by Habib)

 

Iran just happens to be the talking point here...the real point is that I don't want attaining nukes to become an easy thing for Islamic extremists. And if you think Iran isn't linked with terrorism through funding and supplying, then I'm not sure how we made it this far into the discussion. It's not about where the people are from...the Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorists and they're going to use the most destructive weapons they have. If Iran can make nuclear weapons, then they will supply terrorists with them and they will be used in suicide bombings. It's irrelevant to me whether the suicide bomber is Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Saudi Arabian, etc...

I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I'm fairly certain once you acquire the means to create a nuclear device you don't necessarily have to affix it to the end of a missile. I think all you need is the radioactive product to wreak a lot of destruction.

 

Suitcase nukes...it doesn't have to be on a warhead.