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 understand where you're coming from.

 

We make decisions based on what we feel is the right thing to do...they're typically not cut-and-dried black-and-white issues...they're tough decisions.

 

I just feel like when it comes down to it, you have to do what you think is in the best interest of your home nation...whatever that may mean. As a leader of the United States, your first priority is to your home people, not to worry about the rest of the world and what they'll think. It just so happens that the United States is the top dog at this time, so they're in a position of power. Will it always be that way? Almost certainly not...

 

Even if the United States isn't top dog, the leaders responsibility is still going to be do what he feels is in the best interest of the his people. He just isn't going to be in the position of power...

 

I don't think allowing the spread of nuclear weapons, which will undoubtedly make it easier for terrorists to get their hands on, is in our best interest. I think we have to do something to prevent that, and if it means a pre-emptive strategical airstrike to disable an Iranian nuclear facility, then so be 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.

 

The UN is a joke...they don't do anything and they're one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. Working with them is just for show...if the UN would do their job then these Iran and South Korea nuclear situations wouldn't even be happening.

The UN is a joke...they don't do anything and they're one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. Working with them is just for show...if the UN would do their job then these Iran and South Korea nuclear situations wouldn't even be happening.

 

 

I agree that the UN is a joke.

 

That said, why should the UN have a say over the nuclear capabilities of countries?

 

(I know you meant North Korea and not South Korea):thumb:

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 don't see it as a bad analogy at all. In fact it's pretty accurate if you choose to use the symbolism. We are talking about pre-emptive strike, surprise assault, sneak attack. (You know, all the things we painted the Japanese with in racist symbols)

 

As far as minimal casualties, tell that to the minimal.

 

I just believe that we are all so quick to bomb rather than use diplomacy. Even the great Ronald Reagan only bombed in retaliation and/or when felt he could get away with it. (see Libya)

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.

 

How do you get that into the US without detection? These things tend to leave measurable trails.

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

 

I think suitcase nukes are more apt to be dirty bombs, aren't they? They can provide quite a destructive point if released into the atmosphere. But they also don't require a Nuclear Reactor or a Nuclear program. So bombing someone else's turf first isn't going to change that.

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...

 

 

So if a nuclear plant goes up in Saudi Arabia we should bomb it?

 

I think we've gotten to the point of specifics are becoming a merry go round for us all in this thread.

 

I just will end my discussion by saying that I believe in the soverignty of a nation to govern itself. I believe that is what my forefathers fought and died for when the created this democracy. They threw out the foreign power that colonized them and stifled their right to self government.

 

I afford that right to any other existing nation. If I didn't, I would see myself as a hypocrite. I remember that Franklin once said, "Anyone who gives up a little liberty in order to obtain security deserves neither security nor liberty."

 

I'll stick with that as my final thought. :thumb:

But I don't have the right to break down my neigbors door beat him up and steal his guns just because I feel threatened by him.

 

If you make the rules you can. Or if you can not be stopped from doing it you can.

I don't see it as a bad analogy at all. In fact it's pretty accurate if you choose to use the symbolism. We are talking about pre-emptive strike, surprise assault, sneak attack. (You know, all the things we painted the Japanese with in racist symbols)

 

As far as minimal casualties, tell that to the minimal.

 

I just believe that we are all so quick to bomb rather than use diplomacy. Even the great Ronald Reagan only bombed in retaliation and/or when felt he could get away with it. (see Libya)

Diplomacy only works when there is a credible threat of force. Reagan was fortunate to have been president when the bipartisan majority in Congress was pro-American and placed national security ahead of politics.

 

Bombing Iran, says Chuck Schumer, would be a big political loser for Republican candidates in 2008.

 

“It would change the landscape against them, big time,” Mr. Schumer, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said about a scenario in which the Bush administration launches a military attack on Iran before leaving office. “I don’t think they are likely to do it, because they are so weak—not because they are chastened—but I also think it is very likely to be a negative political for them.”

 

Schumer Asserts Iran War Would Destroy G.O.P.

 

Please, somebody explain again how Democratic leaders like Chuck Shumer are just as patriotic as I am. Shumer could not care less about the Islamo-fascist threat and if we are attacked before the election, he will be among the first to blame the administration for not taking more forceful action.

 

Negotiating from a position of weakness just does not work. Not only is Shumer aware of this fact, he is counting on it as he does his part to weaken our country's ability to use diplomacy or force effectively between now and Novermeber '08.

So do we have the right to invade anywhere in the world? Sounds like the Soviets.

I don't see it as a bad analogy at all. In fact it's pretty accurate if you choose to use the symbolism. We are talking about pre-emptive strike, surprise assault, sneak attack. (You know, all the things we painted the Japanese with in racist symbols)

 

As far as minimal casualties, tell that to the minimal.

 

I just believe that we are all so quick to bomb rather than use diplomacy. Even the great Ronald Reagan only bombed in retaliation and/or when felt he could get away with it. (see Libya)

 

I'll clarify my stance here...my intention is not to give the impression that I want to bomb Iran ASAP...I'd rather use some aggressive diplomacy and try to work things out. However, if it becomes certain that they are going to get nuclear weapons and they aren't going to back down and there is no way to work it out, then I'd rather see the US (or somebody) cripple their nuclear facilities and eliminate that possibility. That's all I'm trying to say.

But I don't have the right to break down my neigbors door beat him up and steal his guns just because I feel threatened by him.

 

Right.

 

But what would you do if your neighbor traded in his .22 for a, I don't know, rocket launcher (or something crazy like that)? What if he were threatening? Liked to target practice in the neighborhood? Was suffering from dementia? Would you call the police?

So do we have the right to invade anywhere in the world? Sounds like the Soviets.

 

 

Actually I think the British and French have more of this to their credit than anyone else.

Right.

 

But what would you do if your neighbor traded in his .22 for a, I don't know, rocket launcher (or something crazy like that)? What if he were threatening? Liked to target practice in the neighborhood? Was suffering from dementia? Would you call the police?

 

 

I would ask him how much he paid for it and where he got it. I'd love to have one of those!

 

Then I'd call the ATF or FBI, they'd respond a little faster.