No I believe that they should be punished for their support of terrorism against all[/] countries. Personally I think the USA needs to understand that they are not the only country on the planet that matters.
[/quote]
Red herring. You’re avoiding the problem. Specifically, you admit that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, but insist that we should not intervene to prevent them from acquiring some of the most powerful weaponry known to man – because that’s the kind of gentlemanly play you’d prefer the whole world stood by. This is absolutely fucking insane. Akin to admitting a criminal should be jailed, but insisting he not be disarmed because it would be somehow unfair if only the police had guns.
Well you don't know untill you try it, perhaps they would work with Iran. Or perhaps not, it's an option that needs to be explored.
No, I’m sorry. We’ve had our fill of attempting to bribe maniacal Third World leadership and their corruption-ridden governments into compliance with often-unverifiable standards. The “security through faith” experiments failed; we need not resurrect them, because Iran and North Korea are similar enough that the results of the one can suggest with virtually perfect clarity what will happen elsewhere – not to mention having already invalidated the whole scheme by providing proof that the results of a failure render the entire strategy dangerously unwise anyway.
If your wrong then your beloved nation would have started another illegal and unjust war. They would possibly start a civil war in Iran, at the very least the USA would be fighting more insurgents. You know if you'd ever served in the military, you'd know that war is a horrible thing, and not to be embarked upon lightly.
No war against Iran would be “illegal and unjust.” Like Osama bin Laden immediately after September 11th, the Iranian government is already guilty of crimes worthy of war – even before one factors in the issues of the World Trade Center bombings or the current refusal to extradite terrorists.
This looks to me like the USA really is embarking on a crusade against Islam, and Islamic nations. If everyone else is willing to let Iran develop nuclear weapons than maybe the USA should allow it. It's not like Iran can attack the USA directly with them. And their nation would be destroyed if they gave them to terrorists.
I’m sorry it looks like that to you; it’s not the case. We’re simply embarking on an effort to castrate violent Islamic militants. Strangely enough, we find them in Islamic nations – virtually all of which have shitty governments with anti-American agendas.
And you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t give a shit what the rest of the world wants to do in Iran. I’m concerned with the security of the United States. Just because it’s “the rest of the world” doesn’t automatically validate the opinion.
The USA doesn't have the right to determine these things. That's what the UN is for, to prevent another nation from attacking a nation without the worlds approval.
Rights don’t exist, and the U.N. is a piece of trash. It’s nice because of the potential for coordinated activity in the case of mutual agreement, or to push limited humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts in non-essential areas devoid of flashpoints. It’s worthless from every other point of view.
So then the USA should revoke Israel's, India'a, and Pakistans rights to their weapons? After all they were developed with out US approval.
We can’t.
Frankly, Lord MJ and Illuminatus took care of everything already.
I said that they're universal and inherent, not that respecting them is.
Not really, no. Some people think they should be respected worldwide, and that they should be considered a guarantee for all people. Not to mention that, in this case, respect for rights is the starting point for their existence altogether. And the fact that some do not respect these “rights” in fact proves that they are not a universal concept.
You and your fucking realpolitik. Bismarck wouldn't have thought it was such a good idea if he'd been able to see what it led to in the end. Compromise and mutual benefits are generally more desirable than wars, death, destruction, and generations of bad blood on both side. (Note the "generally" I put in there; extreme cases require action, I know. I don't want you accusing me of Neville Chamberlain levels of complaisance.)
And the Draikaiserbund was about preventing the outbreak of massive war. Realpolitik, however much you may wish to believe differently, isn’t a political theory designed to meet the end result of war. It simply accepts that war is likely to occur between nations, and attempts to reduce one’s own potential disadvantages should it arise.
Frankly, you’re an absolutely blind fanatic if you actually think compromise and mutually-beneficial agreement are somehow prevented or even eschewed as a matter of course by those practicing realpolitik.
Did you miss the fact that Sharon is sacking cabinet members to effect this? Quite frikken literally Sharon is dismantling the current government in order to remove settlers from Gaza.
