Reply With Quote
Oh great, Crookshanks viewing thread. Brace yourselves for something really in re ed.
The US would have just loved it if Oppenheimer and Fermi were blown up in their cars on their way home.
Oh great, Crookshanks viewing thread. Brace yourselves for something really in re ed.
"I'm a dinner jacket" does not operate the nuclear button. Just sayin.
Bush is in office?
TBH, it's because my country comes first, I could give a rats ass about any other. I want to be safe and if that's war mongering on some sand wasteland so that doesn't happen... whatever. Big man on the block makes the rules.
At least the police have the legitimacy of being authorized by republican representational cons ution ie the consent of the governed. The UN much less the US by itself has no such legitimacy over anyone not in the security council.
So your argument is that Iran 1) Doesn't have or won't develop these WMDs in the near future and 2) Won't use them to threaten American interests? Notice the word threaten.Americans like AFBlue have already been brainwashed into thinking Iraq had WMDs that threatened us and were gonna be used on us, those Americans can easily be tricked all over again
Why do you keep invoking this example?
Do you honestly believe that Iran is only a threat to the US if they can land a missle in North America? American economic interests extend far beyond this continent. Maybe your business background can shed some light on this for us.
And to answer the OP, nothing gives the US "the right" to do anything.
Until another country feels its in their best interest to check US ambitions, thats the way its going to be though.
So what economic interests does Iran threaten if they have a nuke? Enlighten me please.
PS -trying to pretend we go to war over our "economic interests" being threatened. The Republicans like Santorum who want a war with Iraq are saying it strictly because they claim Americans aren't safe if Iraq develops a nuke.
Notice that the USA has no problem with countries that are not traditional allies, but have the nuclear power and know-how to produce bombs.
And Iran with nukes is a risk.
Israel has nukes alreaady.
El Che would be cheering for Ron Paul to the US presidency
Ron Paul Revolution
Liberty or death
any of those ring a bell?
No way Che would support Ron Paul dude.
In any event, as for the OP - no country has a right to dictate anything to another country but its not about rights. Its about how much power you have. The US has the power to bully countries both economically and militarily. The problem is that when countries don't care about your economic power they can proceed. Iran "cares" about sanctions but not enough to make them stop antagonizing things. North Korea's leaders don't care. And both countries have enough military power to make a military option unrealistic.
There's also the blowback we get from our preemptive war policies. It makes countries all that more likely to look for a nuclear deterrent.
All in all the danger from nukes is really overblown. They're a perfect weapon for terrorists to use if they can get one, but countries are a different matter all together. I fear biological weapons FAR more than a suitcase nuke and so should any rational person. Then again, any rational person would fear being on the road each and every day and heart disease far more than either of those.
Bush wasn't in office at one point?
i think we're wasting far too much money, risking too many American lives, and wasting time trying to police the world. all we need is a massive military of our own along with militarily formidable allies. the crazy bas in Iran is bluffing.
an nuke arm iran is no threat to anyone
the only threat to anyone is fkn israel, pushin buttons without consenting the wider community, then happens, they run to the UN for help and making up stories
Iran and North Korea's militaries do not preclude anything. Russia and China's are another matter.
To be fair, Iran's leader isn't really their leader. He's just a puppet and mouthpiece for the clerics.
Does the anybody really think the theocratic, authoritarian, wealthy Mullahs really want to start a war, have Iran and their power position (the Army and secret police) destroyed, while millions of Iranians are ready to overthrow them for having stolen the 2009 election?
it's all neocon/oilco/MIC war-mongering to suck $100Bs out of US taxpayer pockets.
^As mentioned already, the clerics in Iran were rapidly losing the support of the people and almost lost the last election in Iran largely because Obama let them be and didn't act like what goes on in Iran is America's business. Of course, Republicans in this country who act as lap dogs to Israel and make statements that threaten Iran make it incredibly easy for the clerics in Iran to unite the country in support of them.
The only reason Iran is our enemy in the first place is because of what the CIA did in 1953.
Apparently yes. It might completely go against common sense for the leaders of Iran to deliberately want go to war with a country that can wipe away all their power/money and have them hung like Hussein was, but Rick Santorum and Fox News are saying Iran is a terrorist threat, so it must be true!
The clerics do want to stir up trouble just to unite the people on their side. American/Isreali aggression will do that. That's why they're trying to antagonize the U.S.A. I think if they're left alone, their power will disintergrate.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
