Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
No one does win in a nuclear war, but what’s that got to do with dismantling our nuclear weapons?
|
Did you even read his speech on why he'd want to do it? Because if you're asking what that has to do with it then I don't think you have I think you just saw he wanted them dismantled and decided you were going to start making everything else up on his motives from there.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well I assumed I wouldn't really have to explain the important of the US and how influential we are.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Honestly I don't think having them or not would effective whether or not we went in. It's not like we go into countries and bomb the s
hit out of them with nuclear weaponry once we invade them.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I understand that, I even said that, I never said I was one way on this issue you're just trying to argue for the sake of it.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Because of his stance on nuclear weaponry? Maybe you should list more examples than that one because it probably won't even be passed.
Quote:
|
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.
|
So basically we shouldn't strive to be better because "every country does ****ty things?"