Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill
Kind of, I can sort of see what he's saying but I think he's only looking at one side of it. In support of it, as the richest country in the world and all that shit we set examples and I think in doing that we would set a very good one for the rest of the world and hopefully start a trend in dismantling them. Of course some countries wouldn't follow but even if a few did it would be a very good thing but the ones that didn't follow would be a threat and a problem and with nuclear weapons on our side they'd think twice so yeah.
|
No one does win in a nuclear war, but what’s that got to do with dismantling our nuclear weapons?
And on another point, what does being rich have to do with setting an example? I’m missing the inherent point on which being rich means being responsible. And I’m not saying that the U.S. shouldn’t but I don’t think that’s the argument. The pound is kicking our ass, the Euro is beating us out, so I’d refute our “richness” to begin with.
I’ll just pose a question to you, there were a few seasoned Hawks in the country saying that invading Iran was necessary. My opinions on this will be removed but I want yours, is the U.S. more likely to invade Iran when they do have nuclear weapons, or when they do not. And if your answer is “when they do,” don’t you think that the act of having the capability prevents nuclear war more powerfully than not having them?
We dropped an Atomic bomb on Japan because they couldn’t do it back. Would we have if they had the ability to? I’m not the first one to suggest that every countries foreign diplomacy is a self interested one but I certainly agree with it. The threat of retaliation keeps more at bay than the foolish ideology that we can all get together under the umbrella of Democratic Peace Theory and get over our differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gates_of_Iscariot
The United states will have failed yet again if they elect this woman, I am not against woman, but honestly, this cold bitch should not be in office, her health care plan is Bull****. Kucinich would be grand, but i still am anti leadership, Being a nasty libertarian that I am. I wont be voting, because im not registering either.
Id be happy if he won, but theres hardly a chance, and then there would be thousands of militaristic protesters, and right, and left wing ****balls all over the place.
|
Kucinich would be a nightmare that would plunge the country into vicious disarray. DK is the foolishly left candidate that all the apolitical, unrealistic children vote for. And I’m well aware that sounds snotty but I also believe that it sounds true.
And if I may, the “The U.S. will fail again” comment back up my statement that a self-hating American is not anyone I’d want voting. America did bad things? Revelation! I’ve got news for you. Every country does ****ty things, and still do and you’d be hard pressed to find any country that plays by all the rules amazingly well. Whether it’s the denial of homosexuals, the holocaust, or violations in whaling and the suppression of free speech, even your minute Norse lands can’t claim the idiotic perfection that you believe countries should live up to.
I’m massively pro-western and find more comfort in the ability to change things than the ability to feign perfection. The U.S. is still more liberal with regard to immigration, class structure and education than roughly 99% of the world. The U.S. fails quite a bit, but you fail constantly when you don’t ever see its positive features and judge it on a scale that no country will ever achieve.