I don't agree with them but....

[useless]

iran exists for the sole purpose of annoying america

all iranians are muslim, myep no jews, christians, zoroastrians etc...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes there are no Universities in Iran where people are taught about rational thinking. Iranians are certainly not allowed to attend other Universities in the world and emigrate back. Obviously they are taught to burn American & Israeli flags from the age of two. They are brainwashed by an extremist view of the islamic religion from birth and there are no secular people in that population of 75 million.

And you support the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? As I've said before, you good sir are a saint and a shinning example of great Christians.

If it saves hundreds of thousands more, yep. If I have to kill those of another nation to save my nation, yep...

 

[useless]

there we have it, dominion would strangle innocents to save himself, seriously this goes against your beliefs, can you not see this?

 

[moscaverde]

How exactly is your nation in danger or in need to be saved?

 

[nonconformist]

The Soviet Union had no chance against us when we had an atom bomb and they didn't. Stalin dead, Russia free, happy world.

Frankly, you're as moronic as those fictional Iranians you keep magically conjuring out of air, and you have absolutely no idea about history.

You had 2 atom bombs which took you months to produce; Stalin was well aware of this.
You couldn't have produced 2 more bombs in '45, so you'd have been screwed. Even 2 nukes would never have held off the Russkies, too many of them.
You'd have had millions of angry, patriotic, furious, glowing Soviets of ever colour, creed, ethnicity and political view charging through Europe, killing every Yankee they saw.

Stalin dead would not have given a "happy world with russia free".
Russia would have reverted to a new form of dictatorship, and frankly, the next in line was probably Lavrenti Beria, and if you think Stalin was bad, Beria would have given you a stroke.

As for Iran, I don't support nuking them, I support letting the CIA or some kind of spy network start blowing stuff up, hitting nukes, and saying "We don't know and we don't care."

Frankly, I don't care if Iranians start blowing crap up in New York wither, bub.

If that didn't get rid of the nukes, invade.

If we had no other choice, fire nuke.

Yeah, and what gives you the moral right to toy with the lives of any innocent Iranians, let alone of every human being upon this planet.

You are the dangerous one, not the Iranians.

 

[GhostWriter16]

there we have it, dominion would strangle innocents to save himself, seriously this goes against your beliefs, can you not see this?

It's domination for the millionth time!

And actually, there's something in Ecclesiastes saying, "A time and season for everything," there's also something in Joshua where God ordered the killing of every Canaanite, man, woman, and child (Without explicit order from God though, I would never favor this.)

How exactly is your nation in danger or in need to be saved?

I'm saying if Iran gets a nuke, they could kill 8 million of ours. If I were president I would value life and liberty for other countries but with a choice our lives or theirs, I will take there's.

 

[nonconformist]

If it saves hundreds of thousands more, yep. If I have to kill those of another nation to save my nation, yep...

"My mother, drunk or sober..."

 

[useless]

freedom isnt free, it costs money and america is the seller

It's domination for the millionth time!

And actually, there's something in Ecclesiastes saying, "A time and season for everything," there's also something in Joshua where God ordered the killing of every Canaanite, man, woman, and child (Without explicit order from God though, I would never favor this.)



I'm saying if Iran gets a nuke, they could kill 8 million of ours. If I were president I would value life and liberty for other countries but with a choice our lives or theirs, I will take there's.

it must be difficult being a good christian whilst ignoring certain verses in the bible with all this picking and choosing

 

[Leoreth]

Can I please signature this?

Seeing that you already did it somehow makes this question moot, but I'd allowed it anyway But I would appreciate if you point out my sarcasm using a smiley or such. Not that someone takes that at face value

The Short Answer: We got them first, and if we wanted to, we could've kept the monopoly, anyone who builds one gets nuked (I think this would be a stupid way to handle foreign policy, but it would've held the nuke monopoly a bit.)

The Long Answer: It's about rationality. First off, I don't think we should've let the Soviets live in their communist empire for any longer than the Nazis were a threat. I think we would've saved a lot of people by a well placed Atom Bomb in Moscow in 1945. However, at least they would never nuke us because of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction.) Iranian government long to be martyrs for Allah, if we have to make martyrs of them, I'd much rather take the first shot and not lose American lives.

I hoped for a longer long answer, but at least you're answering.

While I agree with you that America should have exerted more pressure on Russia after WW2, which might have benefitted many later Eastern Block countries a great deal (including half of Germany), and while I also concede that America was in an unique situation, being forced to hurry for the bomb before the Nazis do (I don't even dare to picture what would have happened then):

You still haven't provided a moral justification for America being the only nuclear power. You simply stated "the right of the stronger", which doesn't really befit the moral values America likes to adorn itself with.

Also, you can't solve problems by dropping bombs on everyone you don't like. If you really think annihilating Moscow or "making martyrs out of Iran" is an acceptable foreign policy, I know where to fold you under, because there is a term for it. It's called "terrorism".
All that completely disregarding the fact that "Stalin dead, everyone happy" doesn't work. Look at Iraq for further consideration.

Additionally, know that I see you're aware of what MAD is: have you ever considered that many countries aspire to get their own nukes because they fear yours? So you're not really helping your point when you run around shouting "oh let's nuke them", only reaffirming their attitude.

 

[Grimz101]

Dominion does not realise the Iranians are rational people. Also if you think they can kill 8 million Americans if they got the nuke and had some crazy regime which they don't, I must ask.. Do you believe in Santa as well? Because you're on that level of crazy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Seeing that you already did it somehow makes this question moot, but I'd allowed it anyway But I would appreciate if you point out my sarcasm using a smiley or such. Not that someone takes that at face value


I hoped for a longer long answer, but at least you're answering.

While I agree with you that America should have exerted more pressure on Russia after WW2, which might have benefitted many later Eastern Block countries a great deal (including half of Germany), and while I also concede that America was in an unique situation, being forced to hurry for the bomb before the Nazis do (I don't even dare to picture what would have happened then):

You still haven't provided a moral justification for America being the only nuclear power. You simply stated "the right of the stronger", which doesn't really befit the moral values America likes to adorn itself with.

Also, you can't solve problems by dropping bombs on everyone you don't like. If you really think annihilating Moscow or "making martyrs out of Iran" is an acceptable foreign policy, I know where to fold you under, because there is a term for it. It's called "terrorism".
All that completely disregarding the fact that "Stalin dead, everyone happy" doesn't work. Look at Iraq for further consideration.

Additionally, know that I see you're aware of what MAD is: have you ever considered that many countries aspire to get their own nukes because they fear yours? So you're not really helping your point when you run around shouting "oh let's nuke them", only reaffirming their attitude.

The Soviet Union I think is worth thinking about a bit more, but there is no question Iran is not afraid of us. Neither is any country in the Middle East. They should be afraid. And while I think a nuke in Iran would kill a lot of people, it just might affirm our authority as the world superpower and send a clear message to the world.

As for "The only nuclear power," we aren't. However, other nations having nukes is clearly dangerous. However, due to Muslim Jihad, Iran getting one is more dangerous then most nations getting one.

 

[RedRalph]

Just calling it like I see it. If anyone thinks the USA is a threat to Europe but Iran isn't, that's sufficient cause to have them institutionalized so they cannot harm others.

How on Earth is Iran a threat to Europe?

 

[useless]

americans are typically paranoid

 

[Leoreth]

The Soviet Union I think is worth thinking about a bit more, but there is no question Iran is not afraid of us. Neither is any country in the Middle East. They should be afraid. And while I think a nuke in Iran would kill a lot of people, it just might affirm our authority as the world superpower and send a clear message to the world.

And thus, you would affirm your authority by terrorism. Do you really want to do that??

As for "The only nuclear power," we aren't. However, other nations having nukes is clearly dangerous. However, due to Muslim Jihad, Iran getting one is more dangerous then most nations getting one.

Well, but you claimed the world would be better off if you were.

While I agree that there is danger from Iranian nukes, I also stand by my opinion that there is danger from American nukes (maybe not for me personally, but for humanity as a whole). So, still, how do you justify America owning nukes other than with the right of force?

 

[nonconformist]

The Soviet Union I think is worth thinking about a bit more, but there is no question Iran is not afraid of us.

Of course they bloody are; why do you think they want nukes?

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

... have you ever considered that many countries aspire to get their own nukes because they fear yours?

It's apparently the only way to deter US ground troops. Iraq didn't have nukes, and they were pounded into the dust. Twice. North Korea (allegedly) has a bomb, and look how polite the State Department has suddenly become. And I'd wager Kim Jong is more volatile than Ahmadinejad.

And thus, you would affirm your authority by terrorism.

"Princess Leia, before your execution, I would like you to be my guest as a ceremony that will make this battlestation operational. No star system will dare oppose the Emperor now."
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

 

[GhostWriter16]

And thus, you would affirm your authority by terrorism. Do you really want to do that??


Well, but you claimed the world would be better off if you were.

While I agree that there is danger from Iranian nukes, I also stand by my opinion that there is danger from American nukes (maybe not for me personally, but for humanity as a whole). So, still, how do you justify America owning nukes other than with the right of force?

No, it would be by a nuke. I'm undecided if this would be better for America. At the time being though I'm solidly against because of all the lives we'd take. I think we could conquer Iran without nuclear help, and probably just destroy the bomb via our CIA.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No, it would be by a nuke.

So if evil Muslim terrorist A detonates a nuke in the USA you will also be commenting: "This was no terrorist attack. It was by a nuke"?
You have so much to learn.

 

[RedRalph]

No, it would be by a nuke. I'm undecided if this would be better for America. At the time being though I'm solidly against because of all the lives we'd take. I think we could conquer Iran without nuclear help, and probably just destroy the bomb via our CIA.

that's what happens in movies, it would be light years beyond the capabilities of the CIA

 

[ColdClimate]

Of course they bloody are; why do you think they want nukes?

Precisely. Although I might argue that they are even more scared of another nuclear power in the neighbourhood: Israel. And why shouldn't they be? Israel is able to attack most of its neighbours with relative impugnity, and I big part of that balance is maintained by a thermonuclear trump card.

Even with that nutty president in charge, Iran would never, EVER, attack America, Europe, or Israel, because they know that doing so would be near instant suicide for thier entire population. On the other hand if Israel decided to denotate such a device over Tehran (unlikely, but follow along), who would respond in kind towards Israel? The only possible nuclear state to even consider such an act would be Pakistan, and that would be very unlikely to say the least.

So what does this all mean? Iran wants a bit of insurance. And with people talking about 'conquering them' from the states like this, I can't say that I blame them.

One point on that: 'conquering Iran' and installing a gov't of your choice by military force a la Iraq would be more complicated and costly than 5 afghanistans. The US army is years away from even contemplating that.

Besides, I ran is probably the likeliest place for a real, domestically conceived democracy to spring forth. Why would you want to ruin that??