<p>
[quote]
Wait a minute Cuse, did you just argue that dropping the atomic bomb was the humane thing to do? Maybe it was a more strategic action, but certainly not more humane. And you're right, we can stop them in 15 minutes, so why don't we?...we came about the same situation several times during the Cold War. If we used "massive retaliation" on Iran, just like we could have against the USSR, they would eventually do the same to us.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, the whole concept of massive retaliation involves retaliation. Iran has to do something to us first. We can't and won't just nuke countries for the hell of it; America is better than that. </p>
<p>And yes, the A-bombs were the more humane thing to do. More Japanese civilians would have died in a large-scale invasion of Japan than the number killed in the atomic blasts. Hell, our fire-bombing of Tokyo alone killed more than the a-bomb did.</p>
<p>Yet we feel that sodomizing/raping/sexually harrassing Iraqi "POWs"-protected under the Geneva Convention that we signed-is anything less unacceptable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, the whole concept of massive retaliation involves retaliation. Iran has to do something to us first. We can't and won't just nuke countries for the hell of it; America is better than that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That was the term that they used, even if the Soviet Union had never bombed us. The underlying point was the the United States believed that the Soviet Union had done something wrong, and thus retaliation was in order. The same could be applied to this case. The United States assumes that Iran is developing nuclear weapons in order to use them against, if anybody, the US. The issue here questions whether the United States as a nation has the right to decide, even dictate, who can and cannot possess nuclear weapons. While, in my opinion, it is certainly not right for any nation, including the United States, to possess such weapons, the facts are that different countries already have, or are close to gaining these capabilities. I think this nation needs to sit back and ask itself if all of this is really worth it. Is the United States attempts to police the world really accomplishing anything? Take a look at what we are doing against terrorists. Since US intervention in Afghanistan, terrorists operations based there have decreased. But it's simply not possible to carry on a "War on Terror" on the scale that we would require for victory. In Middle East, the United States may feel the need to police Iraq or Iran, but are the consequences if we weren't to involve ourselves really what the nation has been led to believe?</p>
<p>Gumball, I have enough reasons to distrust the US government to write a multi-volume book on the subject. Why do you think I left the US and decided not to pursue a US citizenship? I am waiting for my Greencard to expire and that will be it. Don't get me wrong. I love the US as a country. Its people are among the most honest, funnest, laidback and well-meaning I have encountered. Its infrastucture is user-friendly and entertainment-based. The countryside is varried and beautiful. Its universities are awesome. I plan on spending a few days there on my honeymoon in July and I intend to visit the US on a frequent basis as long as I am welcomed there. Hopefully, my children will one day have the chance to have as great an educational experience in the US as I have had the pleasure of experiencing. I can go on forever with things I love about the US. But I do not trust the US government. Almost everything it says is a lie. I trust the US government about as much as I trust my very own Lebanese government...and let me tell you, that's no feat!</p>
<p>I am not going to debate the point of the use of nuclear weapons or of preemptive strikes because it depends on one's own believes. I do believe that Iran should be left alone. Threatening Iran with the use of nuclear weapons or accusing them of being evil is wrong on many levels. Each country is entitled to its sovereignty and if Iran's neighbours are beligerent and armed with nuclear technology, it is not fair to expect them to remain toothless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet we feel that sodomizing/raping/sexually harrassing Iraqi "POWs"-protected under the Geneva Convention that we signed-is anything less unacceptable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heaven forbid! Under Saddam, these people would have been spoon-fed their own flesh (yes, that was actually reported). They would have been tossed alive into plastic shredders, and they would have been subject to torture far more severe than what they endured at Abu Ghraib.</p>
<p>If the insurgents had them, they simply would have sawed their heads off with a kitchen knife. </p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that our troops were given jailtime for that incident, while Saddam's cronies would have gotten a pay raise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That was the term that they used, even if the Soviet Union had never bombed us. The underlying point was the the United States believed that the Soviet Union had done something wrong, and thus retaliation was in order. The same could be applied to this case. The United States assumes that Iran is developing nuclear weapons in order to use them against, if anybody, the US. The issue here questions whether the United States as a nation has the right to decide, even dictate, who can and cannot possess nuclear weapons. While, in my opinion, it is certainly not right for any nation, including the United States, to possess such weapons, the facts are that different countries already have, or are close to gaining these capabilities. I think this nation needs to sit back and ask itself if all of this is really worth it. Is the United States attempts to police the world really accomplishing anything? Take a look at what we are doing against terrorists. Since US intervention in Afghanistan, terrorists operations based there have decreased. But it's simply not possible to carry on a "War on Terror" on the scale that we would require for victory. In Middle East, the United States may feel the need to police Iraq or Iran, but are the consequences if we weren't to involve ourselves really what the nation has been led to believe?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, in a one superpower world the US is forced to be responsible and make sure that things stay stable. We learned our lesson in World War II-if we leave madmen to do as they wish, things turn out very, very badly. Complacency is not an option, certainly not in this day and age. We have to be proactive to eliminate potential threats before they can harm us or our allies.</p>
<p>I suggest you read the book called Saddam's Bombmaker by Khidir Hamza. He was one of Saddam's chief scientist who supervised his weapons programs. A man who lived in Iraq doesn't portray Iraq as a paradise as Michael Moore or you ignorant liberals do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suggest you read the book called Saddam's Bombmaker by Khidir Hamza. He was one of Saddam's chief scientist who supervised his weapons programs. A man who lived in Iraq doesn't portray Iraq as a paradise as Michael Moore or you ignorant liberals do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody here has called Iraq a paradise, thanks.</p>
<p>The tendency is that the more nuclear weapons countries have, the more peace there is around the world because everyone is afraid of nuclear war. Have you imagined how fast would war occur between US and SU if they both wouldn't have nuclear weapons to neutralize each other? How many people would've died because of that lack in nuclear weapons?</p>
<p>Iran is NOT entitled to its sovereignty. Any state that oppresses its own people and commits crimes against its own people has no legitimate claim to existence.</p>