450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 27 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The difference is that we have the weapons and they don't. So all their arguments don't amount to much.
WMDs are so destructive that we cannot trust them in the hands of those who would use them irresponsibly. Since we cannot uninvent them, the only way to be certain they will not be used against us or our interests and allies is to strictly control them.
I agree, other nations see this from a different perspective. But we got there first, we have them, they don't. They can either join us in consensus and agree not to develop the weapons...or they must submit to our will and determination that they will not be allowed to develop the weapons.
On this issue they are not our equals with the soveriegn power to act as they will...they must bow to our leadership and respect our power.
Thanks for your honesty that it's not about fairness or what is right and wrong, but simply about having the power to do what you want. That statement is so often lacking in the discourse used by the Right, when it really is at the basis of their beliefs.
Quote:
This power we have is the very reason we must have it and not allow them to share, its a lot of power. We have it and choose not to use it...we never used our might to conquer the world...never even tried, not even on Canada. Would Iran be so...restrained? We can't risk it.
Except that the US has used nuclear weapons and does use its power for its own gain, is currently involved in a number of wars and proxy wars that can pretty much be viewed as being about power and control, and that culturally and economically has dominated (conquered?) the world for the past sixty years.
In that regards, I'm not sure I would describe the US as having restraint.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Restraint is the fact that the U.S. has nuclear capability and yet does not use it. We could have easily dropped a bomb in the mountains between Afganistan and Pakistan where it's beleived Bin Laden is hiding. But we don't.
I don't trust the likes of Ahmedinejad (sp?) to have nuclear capability and NOT use it against Isreal or Iraq or whomever. Those people have NO restraint and go into hysterics whenever Mohamed is sullied in the slightest way or if someone accidentally steps on a Koran.
If anyone would have used a nuclear bomb without remorse or forethought it would have been the devil's spawn of Bush and Cheney . . . according to the Left anyway.
It's all apples and oranges.
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except again, the US has used it, and possibly would again if it were considered to be a viable solution to any given conflict or scenario. It's not restraint that stops the bombs from being dropped, it's just not a strategy that will have a desired outcome. Hence the reason that nuclear capacity is not as big a deal as it was in the cold war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Against one nation that attacked us aggressively for no reason and only as the last resort to get them to surrender after years of fighting. If I have my history right, that is.
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Except again, the US has used it, and possibly would again if it were considered to be a viable solution to any given conflict or scenario.
Just curious, do you think slavery will make a comeback in the U.S.?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by RipWash:
Those people have NO restraint...
Which "those people" are you referring to?
I'll note for the record - AGAIN - that in the entire history of the world, there exists only one single nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another in anger.
And somehow that nation is the one who's supposed to be the final arbiter of who's responsible enough to have the infernal things?
Does not compute...does not compute...error...error...errorerrorerror
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually believing that nuclear weapons should be controlled is for obvious reason something very different from believing individuals have a right to bear arms. I don’t see anything funny about that at all. One can easily and quite reasonable draw a line between a gun and a nuclear weapon. What is really quite odd is that peeps who believe so strongly in the controlling weapons like handguns often don’t seem to be as concerned with controlling nuclear weapons internationally. Now that is really very strange.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Its funny, but the peeps who believe so strongly in the right to bear arms are often the one most worried about that paradigm extended internationally.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What lines would YOU draw between handguns and nuclear weapons? If all nations had two nuclear bombs each, wouldn't that be the same as everyone owning a handgun except on an international setting? Wouldn't that make potential aggressors far more careful about not pissing off others, since they would never know which direction retaliation might come from? Wouldn't that make all nations equally powerful? It seems to me, on that basis, to be a perfect logical equivalent.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you're saying you WOULD trust Ahmedinejad with a nuclear weaon? You would have trusted Hussein with a nuclear weapon? How about Qadaffi (or however the heck you spell his name) in Lybia? The Taliban?
I'm talking about the radical muslims (I know you guys hate that term) who go ballistic whenever Mohamed is besmirched in any way whatsoever and send death threats to all involved in the besmirching. Dutch newspaper prints cartoons of Mohamed in a less than flattering manner and there are riots in the streets. So many death threats to the newspaper that they back down and redact and apologize.
Yeah. I wanna give a volatile group of people like THAT access to a nuclear weapon.
Here's the thing. You want the US to give up our nuclear weapons. Fine, but then we can't realistically STOP a rogue nation from developing it's own nuclear weapon and then . . . Ooops! They're holding the royal flush and we've gotta do as they say. Not particularly a position I wanna be in.
OR! OR! Let's have EVERYONE be able to access a nuclear weapon. That makes things fair, right? Okay. But then don't think that everyone is on an even playing field and NO ONE will ever, EVER use it.
Yeah. Right.
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well it's very much the same as handguns, except on a grander scale. Don't you think there are criminals "out there" willing to use handguns to commit crimes, or... even worse... just plain nut-jobs who hear voices and see colors? Isn't the best way to protect ourselves from these whack-jobs for everyone to own a gun?
Let's say that Immadinnerjacket takes out Paris... and then Iran gets slagged because everyone from the EU unloads their weapons on Iran. Again- isn't that the perfect logical equivalent? And if not, how is it different?
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME