Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A nuclear Iran

kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 4:34:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I was interested in finding out your views on a nuclear equipped Iran. I can just imagine the responses that will come.

My personal view on the issue is why can the U.S.(the biggest bully in the yard) dictate to everyone else what they can have? If history serves me right the US was the ONLY nation that ever had the gall to launch a nuke. What makes us immune to the scrutiny of the world body?Why don't we adhere to anything, but our OWN SELF INTERESTS?

The Iranian revolution was based around the US trying to control Iran's oil, and there reserves they kicked out the US backed Shah, and Ayatollah Khomeini takes over. We don't have a problem with brutal dictators as long as they do our bidding.
Yet when mainstream media tells the story, Iran is demonized, and ostracised. At the same time, no threats, only sanctions to North Korea, or Pakistan. The US only intimidates those who don't have nuclear capabilities.
I'm not saying that Iran is innocent in all of this because they are not, but the US will do ANYTHING to protect Israel, who aren't innocent themselves.
Israel threatens to attack Iran, and we all know that the US is the "Big brother" of Israel. No one says how Israel invaded, and seized control of that country in I think 1959..Don't quote me on that, I think I remember Chomsky say it was 1959 (who by the way is Jewish himself)

your thoughts?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 4:45:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
America may be the biggest bully (Under Bush anyway), but at least that bully is a Democracy with a Constitution.

Besides, I'm not comfortable with the tension in the middle east, and Iran being the Shi'a Muslim controlled country surrounded the Sunni Muslim states like Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Why does Ian need nuclear weapons anyway. They're in general a bad idea, and we need to cap them now rather than later, starting with preventing their spread.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 4:58:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yes we were wrong to interfere with Iran's democracy.

However they are not a democracy any longer, and the government has no reasonable claim be the representatives of the Iranian people.

I am against allowing ridiculous, unstable, and undemocratic regimes to devolop or have access to nuclear weapons.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 4:59:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A nuclear-armed Iran is a bad idea for relations in the Middle East. Make no mistake - when Iran is thinking nukes, it isn't thinking about the US. It is thinking about their much older enemies, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

And the second Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Sauds will follow. Then, if Iraq can find enough leeway, it shall also follow. Eventually, you'll have three states that generally all dislike each other, each with Islamist or regionalist terrorist organizations with ties to Al-Qaeda and shoddy-at-best security, armed with nuclear weaponry. Does that actually sound like a good thing to you?

In my opinion, Iran's self-determination be damned - we need to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands. This isn't like Pakistan or Russia, where they actually have a good security capability and army that is mostly still under the control of reasonable secular generals/dictators. Iran is a country with a huge fundamentalist movement in government, ready and willing to attack their neighbors should the opportunity arise.

I don't support military intervention until the very last moment - but Iran cannot get nukes.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 6:08:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The question isn't whether or not Iran should have nukes, because no country should have them, the questions are rather IF they are trying to build a nuclear weapons program, how can we stop them?

The answer to the first question is 'probably.' We don't actually have any hard evidence telling us what they're ding, but there's a lot of circumstantial happenings that suggest they are.

As far as trying to stop them; war is exactly the wrong answer in every conceivable situation. Those who were, and still are, advocating for military intervention are completely out of their minds. First off; America couldn't win the war. Given how depleted they are following Afghanistan and Iraq, the army would simply implode. America has never fought three wars at once, or at least in a decade, and they have certainly not done it with a volunteer army. Furthermore, even if they won, it would only sow the seeds of hate even more and create a further anti-American shift in the middle east.

Now if the U.S. wanted to be productive, they would have helped Mir Hussein Mousavi in his bid to topple the authoritarian government and install a transparent democracy. The populist uprisings in response to the obviously fraudulent election were the most ideal time for the U.S to have righted a 30 year wrong in overthrowing the brutal Ayatollah. It is not too late, but it is only going to get harder if they don't act soon.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 8:31:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think we should not get involved.
Why get involved in things that are not our business?

We should follow our intel and if they are threatening us, than act.
Our forefathers did not get involved in these crazy matters. And it is unconstitutional.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 9:24:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If world history were 2009, and the Earth was created at on Jan 1st, 2009, then the world would have been introduced to nuclear weapons, analogously, at about the time you just started reading this message.

My point is that holding Iran back is very practical for obvious reasons, but equally ridiculous for others. How long are we going to hold back countries from discovering nuclear technology? 20 years? 100 years? 500 years? And all the while, we already have the US, Russia, Japan, Europe, Pakistan, India, etc who already have nukes, and we are all just going to sit on them and not use them?

From a strictly logical viewpoint, there really is nothing we can "force". Just like the gun became the great equalizer for men, the nuke will become the great equalizer for nations. Right now, we have some trouble in the middle east. It's easy to say "who cares" and brush it off right now, but it appears that in the near future, we will have to come to terms with the rest of the world.

Coming to terms involves three main parts:
1) Religion
2) Resources
3) Respect

I rant about Christians quite a bit on this site, and this is precisely why. We say our god is bigger and better, they say their god is bigger and better... This is unsustainable. Disbanding Christianity im our government won't destroy radical Islam overnight, but it is absolutely essential to bringing world peace to the table. How would you Christians feel if you were scattered throughout the Gaza strip paying for drinking water out of jugs, and each jug constituted 25% of your daily wages, while Islam controlled America and threw steaks to their dogs? This is the perception of Islam, and explains some of why we are in trouble. Our religious differences must be quelled, and this can only be achieved by us taking the first move. Like I said, what people "believe in" in their personal lives is one thing, but bringing metaphysics to the table in the realm of public policy is obsurd.

This leads me to my next point, that we need to do better in redistributing the wealth on this planet. We can do it willfully, or we can fall like every other empire before us that became rich and fat. The US is horrible in foreign aid, despite what you might think. We give the most absolutely, but relatively, we are ranked in the high teens in how much we help other countries. Of course, the free market will fix this, right? Those people in the middle east are doing what they are doing because they are desperate. And these sanctions you speak of are really great! Do you think the elite in Iran are drinking water that would kill a dog because of our sanctions? Only the poor are hurt by sanctions, and it is almost more ethical to just bomb them then it is to sanction them.

Finally, after rising above the "my god is better than your god" jazz, perpetrated by politicians which openly proclaim that America is a Christian nation and the voters that support them, and spreading around the wealth that we horde and waste, literally feeding our trash cans better than the children of the poor in these countries while they feed their children mud patties so that they can at least get them to sleep without the pangs of hunger keeping them up through the night, we need to respect these people. I don't have much to say about how, but I know that it is something that we don't currently have for them, and it is something that will finally put the nail in the coffin to this nuclear problem. Once they have respect (which is only possible after satisfying the lower levels of the hierarchy of needs), there will be nothing for Radical Islam, or Iran, or anyone else to have to fight about.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 9:36:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Why don't we adhere to anything, but our OWN SELF INTERESTS?
Why should anyone?

That said, nuclear or no nuclear makes very little difference in the present world unless the person you're dealing with is consciously seeking apocalypse, which isn't the case here (Thankfully Iran's gunmint is too corrupted by worldly concerns). At best, we should make a big giant show of opposing nukes if there is something else we want to use the matter as a bargaining chip or some other kind of maneuver.

Plus, if they wind up with some kind of Chernobyl (which is quite possible with a government like Iran's), who are the winners? The US of course.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 12:32:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 8:31:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
I think we should not get involved.
Why get involved in things that are not our business?

Because it will become the United States' interests very quickly. Note, your oil comes from one of the countries that Iran views as an enemy. In fact, note that your country is bound by treaty to protect the leaders of said oil-producing country.

We should follow our intel and if they are threatening us, than act.
Our forefathers did not get involved in these crazy matters. And it is unconstitutional.

Of course not. Hence the years of relative American non-expansion, and the murders of Indians that did not take place, and the takeover of the Phillipines after a war was started with Spain on the whims of idiotic journalists and a willing Republican government over absolutely sh*t sweet all.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 7:48:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 8:31:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
I think we should not get involved.
Why get involved in things that are not our business?

We should follow our intel and if they are threatening us, than act.
Our forefathers did not get involved in these crazy matters. And it is unconstitutional.

Our forefathers also didn't have to deal with nuclear weapons. Nonproliferation is absolutely essential, even if it goes against your non-interventionist constitutionalism. Drop your idealism for a few minutes and think about the implication of allowing any nation to produce nukes that wants them. Think about how they would change the world, and how the dangerous state of such a world.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 10:16:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 8:31:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
I think we should not get involved.
Why get involved in things that are not our business?

We should follow our intel and if they are threatening us, than act.
Our forefathers did not get involved in these crazy matters. And it is unconstitutional.

The US loves playing devil's advocate. They turn the cheek when it is a REAL threat, meaning when a really defenseless country needs help, they turn their backs, but when they are serving their own interests is when they care. So in order for you to recieve help from the US, you have better let them exploit you.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 10:17:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 4:45:17 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
America may be the biggest bully (Under Bush anyway), but at least that bully is a Democracy with a Constitution.

Besides, I'm not comfortable with the tension in the middle east, and Iran being the Shi'a Muslim controlled country surrounded the Sunni Muslim states like Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Why does Ian need nuclear weapons anyway. They're in general a bad idea, and we need to cap them now rather than later, starting with preventing their spread.

Why does anyone need nukes?...We spend billions of dollars to bluff each other.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 10:18:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 4:59:41 PM, Volkov wrote:
A nuclear-armed Iran is a bad idea for relations in the Middle East. Make no mistake - when Iran is thinking nukes, it isn't thinking about the US. It is thinking about their much older enemies, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

And the second Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Sauds will follow. Then, if Iraq can find enough leeway, it shall also follow. Eventually, you'll have three states that generally all dislike each other, each with Islamist or regionalist terrorist organizations with ties to Al-Qaeda and shoddy-at-best security, armed with nuclear weaponry. Does that actually sound like a good thing to you?

In my opinion, Iran's self-determination be damned - we need to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands. This isn't like Pakistan or Russia, where they actually have a good security capability and army that is mostly still under the control of reasonable secular generals/dictators. Iran is a country with a huge fundamentalist movement in government, ready and willing to attack their neighbors should the opportunity arise.

I don't support military intervention until the very last moment - but Iran cannot get nukes.

I'm sure they say America's self determination be dammed as well.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 10:21:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 12:32:19 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/23/2009 8:31:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
I think we should not get involved.
Why get involved in things that are not our business?

Because it will become the United States' interests very quickly. Note, your oil comes from one of the countries that Iran views as an enemy. In fact, note that your country is bound by treaty to protect the leaders of said oil-producing country.

We should follow our intel and if they are threatening us, than act.
Our forefathers did not get involved in these crazy matters. And it is unconstitutional.

Of course not. Hence the years of relative American non-expansion, and the murders of Indians that did not take place, and the takeover of the Phillipines after a war was started with Spain on the whims of idiotic journalists and a willing Republican government over absolutely sh*t sweet all.

It really isn't about the US caring so much as for a particular countries well being as it is them protecting their own interests,right?....There are plenty of brutal dicators out there, I don't see us trying to topple every one of them.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 10:38:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 10:17:44 AM, kelly224 wrote:
At 11/23/2009 4:45:17 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
America may be the biggest bully (Under Bush anyway), but at least that bully is a Democracy with a Constitution.

Besides, I'm not comfortable with the tension in the middle east, and Iran being the Shi'a Muslim controlled country surrounded the Sunni Muslim states like Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Why does Ian need nuclear weapons anyway. They're in general a bad idea, and we need to cap them now rather than later, starting with preventing their spread.

Why does anyone need nukes?...We spend billions of dollars to bluff each other.

Because, if we didn't the Cold War wouldn't have been so cold. it's a deterrent. If Russia invades America *BOOM*. And vica versa. AND it works.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 11:03:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
When only one ideological party has the nukes, it's GG for everyone else if they have a tenth of a brain cell (the US gov't didn't at the time or we wouldn't have nuked Japan, we'd have accepted their conditional surrender, nuked Russia repeatedly, and the Cold War would never have happened).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 11:20:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 11:03:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When only one ideological party has the nukes, it's GG for everyone else if they have a tenth of a brain cell (the US gov't didn't at the time or we wouldn't have nuked Japan, we'd have accepted their conditional surrender, nuked Russia repeatedly, and the Cold War would never have happened).

I didn't ever learn that the Japanese offered a conditional surrender, in fact I thought they were generally against surrender on principle.

do you mind if I ask what the terms were?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 11:32:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 11:20:50 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/24/2009 11:03:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When only one ideological party has the nukes, it's GG for everyone else if they have a tenth of a brain cell (the US gov't didn't at the time or we wouldn't have nuked Japan, we'd have accepted their conditional surrender, nuked Russia repeatedly, and the Cold War would never have happened).

I didn't ever learn that the Japanese offered a conditional surrender, in fact I thought they were generally against surrender on principle.

do you mind if I ask what the terms were?

The same terms we eventually accepted anyway AFTER wasting our time with more war-- they get to keep the emperor as a figurehead and do pretty much whatever else we bloody well please:

http://www.ihr.org...

(scroll to "A secret memorandum.") It was also discussed in my AP US history book but I don't have a copy of that lying around, that was a few years back.

The fact that they were against surrender on principle was mostly about how they'd never needed it before. They didn't want their entire nation destroyed you know.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 11:32:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Plus, if they wind up with some kind of Chernobyl (which is quite possible with a government like Iran's), who are the winners? The US of course.

Ragnar, I can't seem to get it across to you that environmental damage is in no one's best interests. Chernobyl was just as big a problem in Europe as it was in the Soviet Union, because the winds took the radioactive plume out of the country.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 11:34:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 11:32:23 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Plus, if they wind up with some kind of Chernobyl (which is quite possible with a government like Iran's), who are the winners? The US of course.

Ragnar, I can't seem to get it across to you that environmental damage is in no one's best interests. Chernobyl was just as big a problem in Europe as it was in the Soviet Union, because the winds took the radioactive plume out of the country.

Is the US Europe?

Perhaps if we intended to conquer either Europe or Iran or somewhere else nearby (and by the way "Just as much" is highly doubtful, things diffuse) and occupy it matters might be different. As long as we're not stupid enough to do that it is quite to the US's strategic advantage to have the enemy have even worse living environment than they do now.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 12:47:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 11:34:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is the US Europe?

No, but unless you're forgetting a major part of international relations, Europe is the United States' ward. Hence the entire thing with NATO and various treaties designed to protect European countries.

Thank God no one of your line of thought was in charge of diplomacy back in those days, or we'd be looking at a nuclear ash pile across the pond.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 1:27:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 12:47:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/24/2009 11:34:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is the US Europe?

No, but unless you're forgetting a major part of international relations, Europe is the United States' ward. Hence the entire thing with NATO and various treaties designed to protect European countries.
You expect me to be pleased that we continue to provide welfare defense to foreign countries that are quite frankly more likely to become our enemies than be of any use to us?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 1:28:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
In other words, if EUROPE decides to invade Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear technology, by all means I don't propose to stop them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 1:30:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Everyone seems to think that environmental damage is a bad thing. Did we all forget what happened in Russia, of how the farmers burned everything to the ground when retreating away from Germany, and that was what allowed the Allied to ultimately Win? Sometimes its better to destroy the land so that your opponent cannot use it, rather than to leave the land be and let your opponent gain the most out of their territory.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 1:30:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 1:27:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 12:47:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/24/2009 11:34:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is the US Europe?

No, but unless you're forgetting a major part of international relations, Europe is the United States' ward. Hence the entire thing with NATO and various treaties designed to protect European countries.
You expect me to be pleased that we continue to provide welfare defense to foreign countries that are quite frankly more likely to become our enemies than be of any use to us?

Correction, I suppose, my enemy.

Your ally.

And maybe Obama's too.

But you don't seriously expect my foreign policy positions to be based on Obama's agenda :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 1:43:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 1:30:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 1:27:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 12:47:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/24/2009 11:34:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is the US Europe?

No, but unless you're forgetting a major part of international relations, Europe is the United States' ward. Hence the entire thing with NATO and various treaties designed to protect European countries.
You expect me to be pleased that we continue to provide welfare defense to foreign countries that are quite frankly more likely to become our enemies than be of any use to us?

Correction, I suppose, my enemy.

Your ally.

And maybe Obama's too.

But you don't seriously expect my foreign policy positions to be based on Obama's agenda :).

Why would you base your country's foreign policy decisions on your own personal agenda? (Assuming that, somehow, you crawled up to power)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 1:44:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 1:30:02 PM, tkubok wrote:
Everyone seems to think that environmental damage is a bad thing. Did we all forget what happened in Russia, of how the farmers burned everything to the ground when retreating away from Germany, and that was what allowed the Allied to ultimately Win? Sometimes its better to destroy the land so that your opponent cannot use it, rather than to leave the land be and let your opponent gain the most out of their territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 1:53:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 1:44:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 1:30:02 PM, tkubok wrote:
Everyone seems to think that environmental damage is a bad thing. Did we all forget what happened in Russia, of how the farmers burned everything to the ground when retreating away from Germany, and that was what allowed the Allied to ultimately Win? Sometimes its better to destroy the land so that your opponent cannot use it, rather than to leave the land be and let your opponent gain the most out of their territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A victory is a victory nonetheless. History is written by the winners. And the winners get everything the losers had.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 2:05:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 1:43:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 1:30:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 1:27:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 12:47:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/24/2009 11:34:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is the US Europe?

No, but unless you're forgetting a major part of international relations, Europe is the United States' ward. Hence the entire thing with NATO and various treaties designed to protect European countries.
You expect me to be pleased that we continue to provide welfare defense to foreign countries that are quite frankly more likely to become our enemies than be of any use to us?

Correction, I suppose, my enemy.

Your ally.

And maybe Obama's too.

But you don't seriously expect my foreign policy positions to be based on Obama's agenda :).

Why would you base your country's foreign policy decisions on your own personal agenda? (Assuming that, somehow, you crawled up to power)

What other purpose for foreign policy is there, but to cause a state of relations with other countries most conducive to implementing your preferred domestic policies?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 5:01:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 1:27:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You expect me to be pleased that we continue to provide welfare defense to foreign countries that are quite frankly more likely to become our enemies than be of any use to us?

There is no proof of this "more likely to become our enemies" idea, especially if you're providing "welfare defense," even though it is the United States' treaty obligation, in return for other benefits. Why would European countries be opposed to the US if the US is providing them effective protection? Why would Europe be opposed at all? Because they're all evil socialists?