Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Off the hook? The idea that the deal should have been accepted hasn't changed.
If you're counter to that, the fact that Obama isnt the sharpest stick around doesn't make your position any better.
Obama knows they will develop a weapon. He isn't that dull.
The OP's argument was that the deal in and of itself would allow them to create such a weapon, he knew you didnt like President Obama, so he changed the subject and you took the bait.
The OP's argument was that the deal in and of itself would allow them to create such a weapon, he knew you didnt like President Obama, so he changed the subject and you took the bait.
That argument can be made. Since they are their own inspectors one can make a rational argument for that.
It's like saying the serial killer can lock himself up at home. Does that allow him to kill again? No. Does it actually do anything to stop it?
That part of the argument is worthless as no one thinks Iran won't pursue a weapon. Not even you. The agreement was to avert war, nothing more.
Not in the least bit, if you are of the school of thought that procuring a nuclear weapon by Korea or Iran is there raison d'etre then it really doesn't matter what you do, they will in time get one. If that is the case then the discussion turns to, "so now you have one what are you going to do with it?" So far everyone with one hasn't figure out that question. So we (the nuclear nations) sit on our piles of kilotons and rattle our sabers at anyone else that wants to get one, so they can join in with the saber rattling. Generally speaking it isn't very musical. There are 9 countries with nuclear weapons all of whom think the others are not from time to time rational actors but we've have survived more than 70 years with only one country resorting to the use of nuclear weapons, it kind of puts that country at a moral disadvantage when it comes to lecturing the rest of the world.
Agreed. And no one has used a nuclear weapon in war since because they know the consequences. The Iranians may be irrational, but they're not insane.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
That argument can be made. Since they are their own inspectors one can make a rational argument for that.
It's like saying the serial killer can lock himself up at home. Does that allow him to kill again? No. Does it actually do anything to stop it?
That part of the argument is worthless as no one thinks Iran won't pursue a weapon. Not even you. The agreement was to avert war, nothing more.
At least for now it's successful. That's a win.
both would be breaking the deal, and in doing so, would not be proving the OP's point. He was saying that the deal is a licence to have a nuclear bomb, like the actual non proliferation treaty that allows the US, China, France, UK and Russia.
Arguing that someone could break the deal, is not the same as saying the deal allows for them to do wrong, because it clearly doesnt.
both would be breaking the deal, and in doing so, would not be proving the OP's point. He was saying that the deal is a licence to have a nuclear bomb, like the actual non proliferation treaty that allows the US, China, France, UK and Russia.
Arguing that someone could break the deal, is not the same as saying the deal allows for them to do wrong, because it clearly doesnt.
Something I'm not concerned over. It averts war for now. Win.
Who am I and who are we to say Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon? Do I want them to have one? No. But what right do I have to deny them?
The right of those who want to live without being nuked by psycopaths.
Do you lack any sense of self preservation and do you think that arming a nation which pledges the destruction of its neighbors makes good sense?
Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
Suppose you had a next door neighbor who had threatened to kill you on multiple occasions and wished you were dead. Would you be alarmed if he was constructing a battery of mortors in his backyard, or would you "not want to interfere with his rights"?
The right of those who want to live without being nuked by psycopaths.
Do you lack any sense of self preservation and do you think that arming a nation which pledges the destruction of its neighbors makes good sense?
Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
Suppose you had a next door neighbor who had threatened to kill you on multiple occasions and wished you were dead. Would you be alarmed if he was constructing a battery of mortors in his backyard, or would you "not want to interfere with his rights"?: smack:
Considering I have enough weapons to blow up the entire neighborhood, I'd let him do it and make it very clear to him that if he fires one shot at my house it will result in the death of him and his entire family (including grandma and the dog) and the destruction of his whole house.
[even if he misses]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
