I am a Dem but I am beginning to think that in the long run it is wise to keep some of these countries "in check" to protect America and others.
2007-10-20 12:59:13 · 10 answers · asked by Triumph 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
First -- any country that really wants nuclear weapons can buy them on the black market -- there are plenty around.
Second, no nation would be foolish enough to use nuclear weapons against another nation except as a last resort -- and the nations in the Middle East are just as crazy as we are -- meaning that they're not going to do it knowing we'd strike back.
Third -- the US has no legal right to stop other countries from doing anything they want -- that's the basic concept of sovereign nations -- and the idea of attacking any country that tries to do something we don't like -- that' will only guarantee further conflict, and push them even harder to develop such weapons.
If we're going to take that position -- we might as well declare ourselves the global overlords and the Empire of the USA right now -- and just admit that we'll use force to make every other country comply with our wishes and preferences -- which is what you're talking about.
2007-10-20 13:25:05 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
All of you who think you can prevent another country from eventually getting a nuclear weapon if they want one, are deluding yourselves.
It is only a matter of time before they either build or steal one. And they are doing this because they fear the cowboy, shoot em up attitude that the Bush administration has shown for the last 6+ years.
The rest of the world is not blind - they knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 911, and could not understand why Bush chose to let Osama bin Laden go free, in order to attack Saddam. Keep in mind that we put Saddam in power to keep the Iranian in check. And our dog turned around a bit us when he went after Kuwait.
Bush runs his mouth about stopping the Iranians or North Korea, but they both can look at our military, stretched to the breaking point fighting against both sides of a civil war. They know that we can not attack them and win. We just do not have the soldiers to take on a third battle. And they all know it.
Also, neither Iran or North Korea have a missile that has even a remote chance of hitting the US. If they have the bomb, but no way of delivering it, they are only a threat to themselves, not us. Or are we worried about "our oil" rather than our citizens?
Nearly 4000 US soldiers dead in Iraq - 20,000+ maimed or wounded. Thousand more than died on 911. How is this a win?
2007-10-20 13:15:28 · answer #2 · answered by Mcgoo 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
That's actually the job of the UN to keep these countries in check but when it all comes down to it, the US is the one that is always has to do the work or attacking.
Thank you lazy UN.
2007-10-20 14:02:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
We shouldn't attack them if they get them. However as soon as they start swinging them around I wouldnt mond a couple of carrier groups visiting the hood. Maybe a nice excercize with a couple of subs or just accidently dropping hints that nukes are a bad idea. I think Isreal will take care of matters..They may not have a choice.
2007-10-20 13:07:46 · answer #4 · answered by Bob D 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Pakistan is the only Islamic country that has approximately 50 nukes.
And, if I know it right, it is an "ally".
2007-10-20 13:15:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Better to turn thier buildings into piles of rubble than us glow in the dark !
Of course, if the finally see the error in thier thinking, this could be avoided.
2007-10-20 13:05:30 · answer #6 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sure... we don't want Iran and such to have them... but we can't take them away right now. We are out of combat troops. In order to invade a place like Iran, we'd have to take people out of Iraq... and I know a number of people in the army who flat-out won't go to Iran. The Iranians are hardcore, they'd use BRUTAL tactics. We're in no position to take on any more wars.
...I don't think we're in the position to take on this war, but that's not the issue here.
2007-10-20 13:06:49 · answer #7 · answered by Aia S 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It may not be fair but I have to admit that it is comforting to know your enemy is disarmed.
2007-10-20 13:08:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
yes to prevent possible attacks. we cant trust such regimes as is in Iran, it is just unecceptable when its top leader makes such a ridiculous statements as wipping Israel from the face of the world.
2007-10-20 13:13:23 · answer #9 · answered by dantistryfiliya 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Not only right, but has a responsibility to.
No matter who's in the white house.
2007-10-20 13:11:10 · answer #10 · answered by Pancakes 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋