why don't we just loan them a few nukes to see if there intentions are good? We would be wasting our time negotiating with a person who denies the Holocaust and wants to wipe Israel off the map, and at the same time states he has no bad intentions. In other words, why wait years until they have them to find out. Since a majority of Democrats want to turn a blind eye, just give them some nukes and let us see how it turns out.
2007-05-08 15:32:01 · 9 answers · asked by Billy 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sageandscholar - How do you use diplomacy with someone who is a Holocaust denier and wants to wipe Israel off the map? Those are his words not mine.
2007-05-08 15:50:40 · update #1
Liberals tend not to see anything as a viable threat. The French were still debating whether or not Hitler was a viable threat when the answer came marching into Paris under a Swastika flag. And don't forget Chamberlain's "peace in our time."
Ideologies of hatred and domination simply don't respond to reasonable debate, appeasement or anything else short of military force. Sad, but true.
I would think Jimmy Carter's failed fourteen months of negotiations and diplomacy with the Iranians in a failed effort to get our hostages released would raise a red flag when considering the effectiveness of talking to these demented religious zealots. But, hey, history apparently isn't their strong point.
I guess if we just ignore them, they'll go away. Great policy, eh?
2007-05-08 16:08:39 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ask your self what number usa's returned in the 30's theory Hitler became right into a enormously staggering guy? This guy Ahmadinejad is undesirable information, you do not would desire to attend ten years to make a nuclear weapon all it takes is a few C-4 and a few enriched uranium in a suitcase and pal you have a weapon of mass destruction. is that this impossible, merely inspect what is going on at our southern boarders in the event that they'd usher in a great number of unlawful drugs into our usa how difficult will that's to usher in a small equipment full of destruction. Iran has been on the leading fringe of terrorism for some years, They not in basic terms grant weapons and economic help to the insurgents in Iraq yet to different center jap international places besides. so some distance as a mis interpretation of wiping Israel off the map, i'm specific he became into not extending an olive branch, that's certainly time-honored that Iran has deep hatred not in basic terms for Israel yet in addition united statesa.. i don't agree that Iran would not pose any defense force possibility , what's it going to take to open the eyes of a few human beings to the very incontrovertible fact that this guy is a loose cannon. except Iran is keen to to flow to the negotiating table and act as responsible member of a international community a plan for defense force action could be left on the table.
2016-10-15 03:55:00 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One wonders at what point in time, actions are locked into a chain of events.
Beyond the if hitler had been killed, sort of like if hitler had been paid an extra 10dm on a given day, how different would history have been.
Unfortunately history is irreversible.
The call becomes 10 today verses a potential million tomorrow.
Does sound like it has the potential to be considered black mail.
2007-05-08 15:54:53 · answer #3 · answered by Wonka 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No Democratic politician said they didn't see Iran as a viable threat. But any politician that advocates war with Iran is a viable threat to our country and the world. It's obvious this war in Iraq is going so well that we should start another (I'm rolling my eyes in sarcasm here).
2007-05-08 15:51:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Barack Obama says Iran "must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. One of the most profound consequences of the administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region, and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril."
"We have to understand what Ronald Reagan understood, which was that we'll talk even to folks who are your enemies," the Illinois senator told an audience of more than 2,000 at Iowa Western Community College in Council Bluffs.
"We should say to the Iranians: 'We don't accept you creating a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But if you are willing to stand down on nuclear weapons, if you are willing to stop funding terrorism, we are also willing to be a partner with you to try to stabilize the region," Obama said.
2007-05-08 16:24:26 · answer #5 · answered by gaahgasjhagshjkgahksjaghjks 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dems do not believe that Iran is not an issue. You used the key word - a VIABLE threat.
We also believe more is accomplished with diplomacy and multilateral efforts than by bombing the snot out of innocent people.
2007-05-08 15:48:41 · answer #6 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who said they don't?
Most Democrats think Iran is a huge threat - which is why they are disgusted that Bush blew our wad in Iraq and made us more vulnerable to Iran.
2007-05-08 16:41:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no problem giving them nukes, as long as they are either dropped from a plane or carried on a missile & have been armed before launch.
2007-05-08 15:46:06 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why do conservatives want to Nuke conservatives?
2007-05-08 15:49:23 · answer #9 · answered by Taco 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋