My dear friend, you fail to grasp concepts of law and order that tend to govern this somewhat crazy international system. If countries such as the U.S. and Israel can take it upon themselves to have preventative attacks and stop any other country from building weapons then you are in a sad sate of illusion of your position in this world. The U.S. is not the world police nor did anyone elect them to be the world police.Stingray24 wrote:
Fen321:
Please provide sources showing anything I posted is false. I’m not going to waste time posting more links for you to prove the wiki info is true. Do that yourself.
Waiting until an imminent threat materializes is foolish because by then, it’s far too late. You honestly support letting a nation like Iran have nukes, when their leader has publicly made threats against other nations in their region? We should wait until they have weapons grade material and a delivery system before acting? Glad you’re not in charge of the military. Israel taking out the ability of Iraq to even get started producing nuclear weapons makes perfect sense. So does not allowing Iran to acquire them. Worldwide it’s known Iran is a large sponsor of terrorism. Even if they had no rocket delivery system (I’m not saying they don't already have one) doesn’t mean they couldn’t sell weapons grade material to other nations or to terrorists. It’s about prudence, not fear.
Nearly everyone who has listened to Amedinijad's statements in public agree he's nuts and deluded. Israel does not export terrorists around the world as Iran and Syria do. CPoe simply hates Israel and we all know that. I thought we agreed to keep that bs in the stickied thread.
You get sources from wikipedia then have the nerve to tell me to disprove it when i can just as easily fabricate anything on the entire site. If i were to ever try to use a source such as wikipedia on any paper/research etc in college i'd fail my course miserably. Simply put its garbage.
Waiting for an imminent threat is what stop other countries from attacking others that don't share the same view as you, don't you see this? Immediate threat means they are coming to get you and its an actual possibility that will be taking place in the present moment hence your allowed to defend yourself and preemptively attack their forces. Otherwise you fall in the the gray area that yields to unabated military action justified by a whimsically usage of the term "preemptive strike" which in reality equates to preventative strikes.
Sure it makes perfect sense to attack countries before they can get an even hand in terms of military strength unfortunately that does not, i repeat does not, make it some how legal under international law. Oh but you argue they attacked on a Sunday therefore its defensive....wtfawk? How do you come to that conclusion?
Sure i support Iran having Nukes, just as much as you support destroying a countries that don't have nukes. If they were to have nuclear weapons right now do you think we would be having this discussion? No, we would be putting it on the back burner just like North Korea. What others don't seem to see is the fact that IRAN is part of the Middle East and as a consequence to their existence in that region they will evidently have more opportunities now, more so than before due to the fall of Iraq and the Taleban in Afghanistan, to push around its weight in the region.
The true bulk of your arguments are support by statements such as worldwide it is know that....
Honestly how can you be that inclusive on such a statement, but if i were to propose that world wide it is know that the United States takes unilateral action and sponsors state terrorism since the 80s you would feel hard pressed to believe me.
Here is the kicker, we know Pakistan has nuclear weapons, we also know now that they let terrorist organization function within the Pakistani/Afghan border why aren't we worried about the possible threat then that terrorist can receive armaments via this option?