American morality...(sigh)....gotta love it. It appears the collective "american stomach" is too paper thin to support the use of our one great advatage against those who, in the clearest possible terms, intend us harm.
So here we wait...till the absurd occurs...that is...till the Jihadists have nukes. The question of MAD (mutually assurd destruction) doesnt come into play when the adversary is not yet a nuclear power.
"Oh but the Russians or Chinese wont stand for it!". I agree. If America nuked Iran or any other part of the Muslim world, the Russians and Chinese would almost certainly do something...with the excpetion of exchanging nuclear weapons with the USA!
Muslim countries only serve two purposes to the Chinese: Oil and "bleeding America". The strongest treaty between two countries is trade, and America is Chinas most important market. In the final analysis, Chinese relations will normalize.
"Love your enemy" said Christ...and love him we do..(again, sigh)...
2007-03-27 13:14:03 · 11 answers · asked by PragmaticMan 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The U.S. has the moral authority when it comes to nukes because we have so many of them, readily available, in so many different forms, and yet have staunchly refused to use them, even if it meant a fast, easy victory.
The world knows that we do not use nukes as blackmail. The world knows that we have a proven track record of being meticulously responsible with our arsenal. The world knows we would never use nukes unless the situation we faced was catastrophe.
When we forbid other countries from having nukes, we can sway international opinion because of our history of selfless restraint, compassion, and decency. If we used nukes, and then tried to prevent others from having them, that would be hypocritical, and we would no longer hold the moral high ground.
2007-03-27 13:38:20 · answer #1 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Blogbaba is not a good Christian, I don't agree with why we are in Iraq, but while we are there, I think we should win. We should take the abuction of 15 British sailors as the act we need to justiy the destruction of Iran, and escalate the Middle East conflict to the point where Iran is a glowing radioactive sheet of glass. Enough talk already, if they get nukes, you think they will hesitate to use them. Bush and Cheney may be upside down hanging vampires, but they are American's and that's the end of that. I would rather have a blood soaked American predator like Haliburton running our Federal Government than a Democrat anyway. Morality? In politics you ask about moraliy? Nuclear weapons are as immoral or moral as the man pushing the button, I say we are at war, the gloves are off and any thing we have, should be used.
If there are any survivors after we give Iran the nuke they want, let them debate about the immorality of nuclear weapons use, we have a war to win, and a Congress to loot, the American people haven't been bankrupted yet, there are still a few good paying jobs left in the couple of factories sill open in America. Bombs away.
2007-03-27 13:30:37 · answer #2 · answered by blogbaba 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your right, we let the Genie out of the bottle twice against Japan. Russia, even though a shadow of its former self, is still a power to deal with and China, cant say more than that.
MAD wouldn't work with Iran or any other Muslim country because they do no value life like the west does. To them, its an honor to Die for Allah. At some point, America may have to open the bottle again, but it will take a strong President to pull it off, or some terrorists closing down New York, LA or Houston for many years with a dirty Nuke.
2007-03-27 13:22:49 · answer #3 · answered by George C 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
so... genocide is the answer? I doubt we know exactly where they are, so we would pretty much have to destroy the country... 100s of nukes... they would say they were "going to stop" after one or two... but would they ever if we didn't destroy them? of course not...
not to mention the fact that CHINA is right there not too far away...and the level of strike you seem to be talking about... more than enough that it will both get to China, Israel, eastern Europe, and Africa probably...
China wouldn't like that... and they could make the EU a favored partner... and hike up our rates...
oh... you better hit NK too... do you actually believe they are disarming?
2007-03-27 13:23:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It isn't the "American stomach" that is compromised,our elected officials are the ones who feel encumbered by political correctness to the point that they are ineffective.And don't even get me started on these weak kneed generals who have been accepting such horseshit.
2007-03-27 13:34:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
So you want Bush to pull out........ NO he should go to war with Iran. Will bushbashers make up their minds already?
2007-03-27 13:18:38 · answer #6 · answered by bigsey93ortiz34 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is immoral to slaughter civilians by the tens of thousands....
Silly...
2007-03-27 13:23:35 · answer #7 · answered by Dave K 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it is immoral to use any weapon against someone who has not attacked you first.
2007-03-27 13:19:50 · answer #8 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
WELL DO U THINK KILLING MANY CIVILIANS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOSTILITY OF ITS LEADERS DESERVE TO DIE BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE THEY CAN NOT DECIDE ANYTHING FOR THEMSELVES, UNLIKE US?
2007-03-27 13:18:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
There is no immorality in war, just atrocities.
2007-03-27 13:19:10 · answer #10 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋