Obama The Destroyer

[DarrinS]

Building nuclear plants isn't an attack.

When was the last time Iran started a war with another country?

Iran is just going "green".


LMFAO


Talk about delusional. WTF was that missle they tested the other day?

[Marcus Bryant]

Well , we just created a textbook example of why you better have the real deal next door.

How many Israeli troops were a part of the 'Coalition forces' that invaded Iraq?

[Winehole23]

Talk about delusional. WTF was that missle they tested the other day?

You know for a fact they plan to attack Israel?

Iran needs nukes for strategic deterrence. It secures their place at the parley.

Containment worked for the USSR for forty years. Why wouldn't it work for Iran? You think they have a deathwish?

Personally, I think the Guardian Council would rather keep their power than see their country -- and their ancient civilization -- turned to green glass.

[Marcus Bryant]

duplicate post

[Winehole23]

Also, Israel already has nukes, and has declared their intention to attack Iran preventively. What Israel fears isn't destruction IMO, but strategic parity with Iran.

[DarrinS]

Also, Israel already has nukes, and has declared their intention to attack Iran preventively. What Israel fears isn't destruction IMO, but strategic parity with Iran.

So, in your opinion, Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel? Do I understand you correctly?

[Marcus Bryant]

So, in your opinion, Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel? Do I understand you correctly?

Why, nobody could ever have what our lover has.

Based on the last 8 years, Iran could presumably invade another country because it wanted to convert its government to a form the Iranians preferred.

[Winehole23]

So, in your opinion, Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel? Do I understand you correctly?

That's their view. In power politics, there's no such things as rights. Iran is an NPT signatory and as such has the "right " to develop nuclear power.

Are you telling me you cede to international norms?

BTW, what "right" did Israel have to develop nukes? Or anyone else for that matter?

[Winehole23]

BTW, the fixation on (abstract, extra-cons utional) "rights" for this that and everything is a hallmark of liberal paternalism. In the context of geopolitical power politics, they don't make very much sense. Who could ever enforce them?

[DarrinS]

Based on the rationale in the last few posts, I suppose JFK had no right to tell Cuba they couldn't have Russian nukes.

[Winehole23]

Based on the rationale in the last few posts, I suppose JFK had no right to tell Cuba they couldn't have Russian nukes.

That supposition would be correct IMO. Rights had nothing to do with it.

Cuba didn't have any *rights* to deploy nukes, and JFK didn't have any *right* to tell them not to. Any such *right* would've been completely ineffective by itself. Diplomacy backed by the threat of force won the day. Rights are a total non-issue here.

[Winehole23]

You tell me Darrin: What *right* did JFK have to constrain Cuba to do anything it didn't want to?

[jack sommerset]

America and Russia should decide who has nukes are not. Which should be NOONE. Attack who ever is trying to build a nuke. No troops, just send some bombs over until they stop. We have plenty of them

[DarrinS]

You tell me Darrin: What *right* did JFK have to constrain Cuba to do anything it didn't want to?

"Right" may be the wrong word.

As Commander-In-Chief, JFK had the responsibility to do what was right for the national security of the US.

So, sure, Iran has every *right* to have nuclear weapons, but it wouldn't be *right* to ever allow that to happen.

[Winehole23]

"Right" may be the wrong word.

As Commander-In-Chief, JFK had the responsibility to do what was right for the national security of the US.

So, sure, Iran has every *right* to have nuclear weapons, but it wouldn't be *right* to ever allow that to happen.

That's much clearer, Darrin. But again, there's no *right* to nukes. You either make them or you don't.

[Wild Cobra]

You know we've gone through the looking glass when you have to explain that pre-emptive attacks aren't defensive.

We did start a Pre-Emptive War. Not a Preventative War. Opinion varies on how right it was, but it does fit the defensive criteria.

[Winehole23]

Since when?

I'll answer it for you. Since our invasion of Iraq.

Pre-emptive war is a novelty, completely without any philosophical or historical pedigree, and we crafted the criteria to suit the case. Too bad our casus belli (WMD) turned out to be a mirage.

[Wild Cobra]

For example:

Libertarians Accuse Obama of "Hawkish" Foreign Policy

Like I said, libertarians are not of the same mind, in lockstep. Although I agree more with the libertarian party than any other, I will not register with them. They tend to get some rather unusual characters running for office.

[Wild Cobra]

ROFL.

Our affair with Israel has caused us enough trouble. The last thing we need is the relationship dragging us into yet another war.

I see. You're the type of person that runs away when their friends are in trouble. Yep, I get it.

[Marcus Bryant]

I see. You're the type of person that runs away when their friends are in trouble. Yep, I get it.

At least I get to choose my friends. I see you're the type of person who wants to force others to pay for military action that you don't actually participate in. I get it alright you ing coward.

[Marcus Bryant]

Like I said, libertarians are not of the same mind, in lockstep. Although I agree more with the libertarian party than any other, I will not register with them. They tend to get some rather unusual characters running for office.

Bull . A libertarian position is not preemptive, pre-anything war. Find your nuts and be the neoconservative you are.