Originally posted by It's xyz!
Israel is the reason the Us has the right to **** with Iran.
Nuclear weapons are so dangerous that they shouldn't really be the right of any nation, and contrary to what some might think, Iran isn't a crazy nation. If I could let Iran have nukes if it meant North Korea and Russia didn't have them anymore I'd feel pretty good about the trade.
Originally posted by Robtard
Question: What right does the US have to stop Iran from building a nuke when the US and eight other countries have them?
"Right" is obviously problematic. But I think that the international community generally agrees that we want to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and keep them out of the hands of more actors (in particular ones that are closely involved in violent rhetoric, etc.), due to the increased chance of them being used. That seems to be the moral justification the US and others feel they have.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
0bama on ISIS todayReporter: What is the administrations plan concerning ISIS
Mr. Pres: We have no current strategy
😂
1. Why is it Obama and the US government's responsibility if the Iraqi and Syrian government can't contain an insurgency in their countries?
2. What more can Obama do? He's authorized airstrikes in Iraq. Aerial recon and eventually airstrikes will be occurring in Syria. Americans and other countries get all pissy if there is even a hint that US troops will be deployed back in Iraq. what else is there to do? What would you have Obama do?
3. IIRC, wasn't it you who was complaining about US presence in the Middle East?
4. What does this have to do with Israel/Gaza?
Originally posted by Lestov16
1. Why is it Obama and the US government's responsibility if the Iraqi and Syrian government can't contain an insurgency in their countries?2. What more can Obama do? He's authorized airstrikes in Iraq. Aerial recon and eventually airstrikes will be occurring in Syria. Americans and other countries get all pissy if there is even a hint that US troops will be deployed back in Iraq. what else is there to do? What would you have Obama do?
3. IIRC, wasn't it you who was complaining about US presence in the Middle East?
4. What does this have to do with Israel/Gaza?
I thought it was funny. 😆
Originally posted by Bardock42
"Right" is obviously problematic. But I think that the international community generally agrees that we want to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and keep them out of the hands of more actors (in particular ones that are closely involved in violent rhetoric, etc.), due to the increased chance of them being used. That seems to be the moral justification the US and others feel they have.
ie "We have nukes already and they're not going away, but nukes are dangerous so we need to stop more from being made."
It's really a dickheadish argument that basically tells other countries who want them: "you're not responsible enough."
Originally posted by Robtard
ie "We have nukes already and they're not going away, but nukes are dangerous so we need to stop more from being made."It's really a dickheadish argument that basically tells other countries who want them: "you're not responsible enough."
Can you imagine how difficult a task of removing all nukes in the world is with 7 or so countries having them? Now just imagine hundreds of nations with nukes. The goal is to get rid of all nukes, not to have more.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you imagine how difficult a task of removing all nukes in the world is with 7 or so countries having them? Now just imagine hundreds of nations with nukes. The goal is to get rid of all nukes, not to have more.
That would be fine if those 9 countries with nukes got rid of theirs before they started telling other nations "no, you're not responsible enough, cos."
Originally posted by Lestov16
Remember To Serve Man. Those nukes will come in handy if aliens try to invade.
This one is good too from TNTZ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Small_Talent_for_War
Originally posted by Robtard
ie "We have nukes already and they're not going away, but nukes are dangerous so we need to stop more from being made."It's really a dickheadish argument that basically tells other countries who want them: "you're not responsible enough."
At least the US and the USSR are getting rid of some of their nuclear arsenal slowly (too slowly). In fact the US takes terrible care of theirs apparently, but no one really cares anymore. John Oliver of Last Week Tonight had a great segment on it:
Whether you like the argument or not, it seems that most countries, and I think a fair amount of people, feel that we do not want nuclear weapons anymore, and one step necessary in that is to stop further proliferation of them. As far as reasons for doing things in international politics go, that's actually a pretty decent one, I think.