Respecthelect
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,470
- Reaction score
- 969
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
simply because someone is blocking your path does not give you the right to initiate violence against him.
Our allies in the Middle East don't turn to Belgium, Canada, or Portugal for help, they turn to us. So we become involved and become a target. We can't hope to maintain diplomatic relations and trade in the Middle East if we turn our backs on our friends there.
I often see that said, but it doesn't comport with the facts. Radical muslims are involved in something like 18 different conflicts around the globe, mostly with their neighbors. In many cases it amounts to attempts at genocide and conquest on the part of the radicals, and the West is involved in only 2 of those conflicts. So how can it be that the West is causing it? Obviously, Western intervention is not necessary for radical Muslims to increase their terrorism and war -- they will be doing it whether or not the US gets involved, and they threaten to involve the US whether we like it or not.
You wouldn't survive a siege very well. If the enemy surrounds your city and prevents you from eating, you might want to consider violence, rather than death by starvation?
You wouldn't survive a siege very well. If the enemy surrounds your city and prevents you from eating, you might want to consider violence, rather than death by starvation?
The US isnt surrounded, is it?
because someone is blocking your path does not give you the right to initiate violence against him.
Siege merely prevents travel, there's no threat within the walls of your city. Sit in your city and starve, because you can't muster violence.
Libertarianism is not pacifism. If Libertarian's take stupid, self-destructive positions, they don't deserve leadership. And they won't get leadership.
Libertarians are not pacifists. Big difference between non-interventionism and pacifism. A good example of a non-interventionist country is Switzerland.TNAR has been arguing Libertarian's must be essentially, pacifists. For example, he asserted a new fundamental Libertarian principle. But, is it a principle, at all?
Libertarians are not pacifists. Big difference between non-interventionism and pacifism. A good example of a non-interventionist country is Switzerland.
Obama-Kerry signed Iran's permission slip to develop nuclear weapons. Iran's been developing nuclear weapons for thirty years. Not "dirty bombs," but full fraction-of-a-Megaton nukes. Every middle east country that can afford nukes, is developing nukes.
If America or it's allies aren't nuked within ten-years, I'll be very surprised. And nuked within two-years is very likely.
One of Iran's enrichment centrifuge farms. Visit hosted by Iranian president and former hostage-taker, Ahmadinejad. Significantly more advanced than box-cutters.
How many times are we going to underestimate middle east capabilities and intentions? Look what they accomplished when they limited themselves to knives on 9/11. Imagine what they'll do with the nuclear weapons Obama just gave them?
You claim to be a Libertarian, don't you reserve the right to trade with others? Is that right limited by our borders, or does it extend to all like-minded men interested in trading? Is it only American's that are free to trade or is it a natural right? If pirates block access to your trading partner, are you precluded from trading? Must you bow to every thug's threat? Or do you have a right to enforce free trade-routes?
Who can deny Obama's applied too little?
You liberal appeaser's (Kerry) signed the agreement that permitted Iran to enrich weapons-grade nuclear materials. Now they plan to bring those nukes to America. That doesn't leave much middle-ground. Either we stop them or they nuke us.
I didn't advocate nuking Iran (at least not in this thread), so that's a lie. Makes you a liar and a false-accuser.
The decision to use nuclear weapons is a serious one. But, it is not a decision that won't or can't be rightly made. When we get nuked, for example. Will Obama retaliate in-kind? I seriously doubt he would, but public support will be over 90% for it.
America is obviously following your strategy, not mine (which would ensure Iran never came close to nuclear weapons capability). Your strategy will almost certainly get America nuked within ten-years. Maybe within two. My strategy would ensure we never get nuked by Iran and would greatly reduce the possibility from elsewhere. Yet, Obama (and you) seem intent on the appeasement strategy that dooms us all?
Well, when all you hawks figure out how to pay for it, I'm sure you can bomb away.
If, Obama hasn't already used all the bombs in storage hitting the enemies of the Taliban and Muslim brotherhood.
Gods knows there's no military budget left to buy anything new so....
LOL
Putz
-
If Iran ever even thought seriously about sending a nuke our way, we have the ability to turn what used to be their country into a whole 50,000 miles deep
There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
The Director of National Intelligence testified that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Perhaps your smarter and more well informed than he?
Israel also believes Iran has built, but not yet tested nukes. They both believe that Iran has such high-confidence in their design (validated by Pakistan and North Korean testing) that they may perform their initial tests on the West. Detonating nukes in Israel and the U.S. and skipping any further testing program. In other words, we will receive no further warning before the nukes go off in U.S. cities.
U.S. media refuses to report our own public intelligence reports, so we must rely on foreign press. Pathetic. Pathetic because it leaves even our own conservatives with the false impassion that their world is secure, when it is most certainly not.
This is nothing more than bragging. America hasn't tested a weapon since 1992. All America's nukes are either over fifty-years old or designs that have never been tested - ever. The stockpile's been decimated by Obama's "Start Treaty," down to only 6% of what the military said it needed not long ago. Designers have been replaced with pacifists, builders closed-down and launch officers purged en-masse. Not one element of the nuclear deterrence chain is sound.
Kurmugeon has some expertise in this area, and he agrees. America is essentially defenseless and without a reliable deterrent.
The Director of National Intelligence testified that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Perhaps your smarter and more well informed than he?
I have no problem with Iran getting nukes. If anything this will make the region more peaceful since Isreal wont be able to start anything. MAD worked for decades during the Cold War and I think its the answer to peace in the Middle East.
Even Rand Paul says, No
What do I care about what he thinks. :lamo
Siege merely prevents travel, there's no threat within the walls of your city. Sit in your city and starve, because you can't muster violence.
Libertarianism is not pacifism. If Libertarian's take stupid, self-destructive positions, they don't deserve leadership. And they won't get leadership.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?