TheBig3

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.


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.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

sleepy jack

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.

Well I assumed I wouldn't really have to explain the important of the US and how influential we are.

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 shit out of them with nuclear weaponry once we invade them.

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.

Because of his stance on nuclear weaponry? Maybe you should list more examples than that one because it probably won't even be passed.

So basically we shouldn't strive to be better because "every country does ****ty things?"

__________________

TheBig3

I heard him interviewed but regardless of reasoning, I've laid mine out as to why we shouldn't.



I'm afraid you'll have to. Assumptions and conventional wisdom is how people arrive at some ill-thought of conclusions in my opinion.



No, we don't. But our use of the bombs is irrelevent. We've never invaded a country or bombed one while they had nuclear capabilities. For example, we invade Iraq which had nothing, and we have "peace talks" and "non-proliferation agreements" with North Korea because they not only have them but they fired one into the sea of Japan. Its less of a "will we use it" and more of a "will they use it?"



I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your logic.


I shouldn't. The very idea of his foreign policy is unrealistic and naive. In a time where foreign policy is brutally crucial to the sanctity of the globe, I don't want DK healing it back with renewable energy while he gives it away in foreign policy.



No, we should always strive to be better, but if we don't achieve it the "america is so corrupt and do you know what their doing to [third world country]" arguments should at least acknowledge that we certainly move in the correct direction a lot more than we do not. I think far too much is taken for granted here. We can do better, but we could also do much worse.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

sleepy jack

Okay, well were one of the richest countries in the world, fact. Governments and other countries tend to listen to rich countries. We're also one of the most powerful countries in the world. We also have the strongest military in the world, people tend to listen to those kind of countries.

What flaws? You just said what I said in more words.

So you're allowed to make sweeping statements that are pretty insulting without backing them up? I don't see what's wrong with his foreign policy either. "We need to understand the connection between peace and the environment. We know that life on our planet is threatened by the twin threats of global warring and global warming. They are linked, and we have to understand that as we cognize the world as being interconnected and interdependent, we know that resource wars are passe and that the focus on sustainability will create peace." Seems pretty solid and agreeable to me, maybe you should point out all thats terrible about it though.

I never said we were worse off than Africa.

__________________

TheBig3

Pretty insulting? Really? I want you to show me what was insulting. I wanted to have an intelligent discussion about this and refrained from insulting comments. Show me.

I have no problem with his environmental positions. Those I agree with, but if he thinks that the solution to global destruction is dismantling our nuclear weaponry then all of his green-minded positions seem to be null en void.

No you didn't, Gates did. Or at least he implied it and usually does in every other post.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

sleepy jack

"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." is pretty insulting and I no longer agree with his dismantling our nuclear weaponry even though I completely get where he's coming from. It won't even get passed anyway even if he did become president which is a small chance seeing as he doesn't have the giant media cover Edwards, Obama and Clinton have.

Hey now, he has 100 gigs of music you've never heard of are you sure you want to get into a fight with him about this?

__________________

Miltamec Soundsquinaez

I no longer agree with his dismantling our nuclear weaponry even though I completely get where he's coming from.


When are people going to read about the weapons in space program introduced in the Reagan years. If you guys don't care to read about this, then you are sounding like hypocritical, blind Americans who you claim to decry. The Weapons in Space Program developed technologically advanced weapons similar to the laser beams seen in the film Star Wars. In fact, it's often referred to as the Star Wars program. You guys probably think this is some deluded fantasy, but it's real. I would provide a link, but I'm unable to do that from my truckstop, hooked up on an idleaire computer(not even a real computer), so please read that, so you, and all Americans can stop worrying about a nuclear war that isn't possible.

With that in mind, there is no reason we shouldn't dismantle our nuclear weapons.

With 3 consecutive victories in New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nevada, Clinton is on a roll. For anyone who calls her 'cold' or 'b*tch' keep in mind that people who are constantly in the spotlight need to set boundaries, and need to see the difference between media relations and reality. Would you rather she walked around with a fake plastic smile like Barack Obama or Mitt Romney just so she could be impressionable in person only to stick the knife in their back when they walk away? Also, please, a little bit more respect for the first woman who has ever competitively vied for a nomination to one of the 2 main parties. Can any of you imagining any other woman running for president right now? Honestly? Who? She's being as strong as she can be right now under this considerable amount of pressure.

blachalaheebow

if Hilary wins, I'm moving to England.

sleepy jack

Kucinich dropped out of the race and I see Hillary/Bill are getting alot of crap, well deserved imo.

__________________