while several countries in that part of the world got nukes...actual nuclear weapons, and got them without getting permission, and violating international protocol..including India, Pakistan, Israel.
Does it not seem just a bit, unfair to Iran that they would be targeted for doing something that others have done repeatedly without repercussions. The word that comes to mind is disingeniousness.
2007-11-20 17:36:09 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
or HYPOCRISY
2007-11-20 17:36:25 · update #1
The past is past.
What's now is the fact that letting a terrorist state (a state that sponsors terrorism) have access to nuclear weapons is irresponsible and dangerous.
2007-11-20 17:41:31 · answer #1 · answered by harvardbeans 4 · 6⤊ 4⤋
What international protocol might this be?
Are you referring to the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty? The one that was not signed by everybody?
Actually, the truth of the matter is that a nuclear Iran would present a debilitating threat to the region and beyond. NOT protesting and determining how to stop this real possibility would be "disingenuousness".
Those who would pretend otherwise are simply being foolish. And those who say "Wah! Israel has nukes too!" are sidestepping from the real issue.
2007-11-21 12:02:29 · answer #2 · answered by BMCR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it isn't disingenuous or, an act of hypocrisy.
You've got a man over there threatening to wipe countries off the map, preaching that the west is impure and asserting his Allah given right to rid the world of infidels.
There is no reason to trust such a man with the capacity to do what he desires.
If a leader of the free world expressed an open desire to rid the world of Muslims, we'd send that person to the loony pen immediately.
2007-11-20 19:20:32 · answer #3 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No...you take them on for 3 reasons:
1. A terrorist supportive state trying to develope a NUKE, not a reactor.
2. "Convert or die" and "Death to America" as your national slogans combined with #1.
3. Since they declared war on US in 1979 by invading our embassy {an act of war by international law} , it's time we dealt with the raghead mullahs.
The above 3 can be eliminated if the Iranian people got rid of the mullahs and stopped working on a nuclear weapon. Which one sounds like the best ?
I prefer the last, but am in full support for dealing with the first 3 !
2007-11-20 17:50:11 · answer #4 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
there are a number of reasons NOT to attack Iran. Here are just a few of them:
1. They haven't attacked the US.
2. We don't have the right to tell other sovereign nations what to do within their own country.
3. We are already badly over-extended in terms of military allocation, and another pointless crusade is only going to weaken us even further.
4. There are plenty of other countries that are just as bad or worse -- meaning that we'd be picking on that one for no reason other than we don't like what they say or what their dominant religion is.
5. There are many more pressing needs for where the US can spend a hundred billion (or more) per year.
6. Attacking Iran gains us absolutely nothing.
7. The Iranian people are already starting to get annoyed with the current president, and he probably won't win re-election in 2009 -- unless we attack, which justifies his actions and causes the entire country to rally against the US.
2007-11-20 17:40:34 · answer #5 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Iran is evil and poses a threat to the world. America should stop nations that will kill us all.
China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Socialist Liberals, and other should all be taken out.
2007-11-20 18:00:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It makes a lot of sense to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon capability.
Have you been listening to what Ahmadinejad has been saying? Do you really want this lunatic to have a nuclear weapon?
2007-11-20 18:12:51 · answer #7 · answered by truthsayer 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Here is one good reason to not allow Iran to have nuclear anything,even if it means bombing them out of existence.THEY WANT TO KILL US,and this means liberals too.
2007-11-20 17:54:43 · answer #8 · answered by Ronboy 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Only in the foggiest of politically correct leftist minds is it disingenuous to attack a country that has been swearing the destruction of another country, been the biggest sponsor of terrorism and providing support military support against the United States.
If you are trying to make me feel superior to you; it is working.
2007-11-20 17:41:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
And you believe that's why they want to build these? Why aren't other countries reacting in outrage then if it was commonly thought that was all Iran wanted?? And you need to research this a little more.
2007-11-20 17:49:47 · answer #10 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋