Friday, January 27, 2006

Haven't we learned anything?

Good grief-o-ramus, Americans really are a bunch of morons:

"Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found."

Could someone explain to me why it's OK for us to bomb other countries who want to develop nukes, but not OK for other countries to bomb us for already having done so?

8 comments:

rsheridan6 said...

That's an easy one. Because we're us and they're them.

Alexis said...

"Peloponnesian Wars", Chapter 17, "The Melian Conference", paragraph 105:

Athenians: As for the gods, we expect to have quite as much of their favour as you: for we are not doing or claiming anything which goes beyond common opinion about divine or men's desires about human things. Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a law of their nature wherever they can rule they will. This law was not made by us, and we are not the first who have acted upon it; we did but inherit it, and shall bequeath it to all time, and we know that you and all mankind, if you were as strong as we are, would do as we do. So much for the gods; we have told you why we expect to stand as high in their good opinion as you

Tarun said...

'Cause... its all about Freedom and Justice, and defence against the Axis of Evil.

Thats the way the world is, the prima donna keeps the others in their place. Human civilisation is flawed. Civilisation must protect itself as an entity - Public Good (as envisioned by those who control more of society) must win over Individual Rights.

Same book, different jacket.

The most powerful coalition of nations must protect its own existence by putting the other fellers down time to time. Its not fair, but it has to happen. Its wrong, but it will still happen unless society undergoes radical changes (I'm not an anarchist).

Bernardo said...

Well, technically, those countries ARE breaking treaties they signed. Unlike Iran, the US never promised to not develop nuclear technologies. If I'm not mistaken, Iran even got technological help from the US, and trade favorable to itelf, in exchange for making these promises it is now breaking.

I'm not saying it's RIGHT to go take over a country just because they are developing a technology they said they whould not develop. The whole pre-emptive war thing is very scary. Personally, I say a country ought to be bombed only once it starts killing or invading its neighbours. I'm just saying, they ARE breaking a treaty. (I interact with many strong conservatives on a regular basis, so I thougth I'd try to summarize their point for them... Don't ask me to back it up...)

Josh said...

What would you suggest we do? Doesn't it make yo a little nervous to think of Iran with nuclear weapons? Are we supposed to just sit here and say, "Now Iran be good and don't blow the Americans and other westerners to shreds"?

Do you have better ideas? I am sure we'd be happy to hear them.

Ron said...

Unlike Iran, the US never promised to not develop nuclear technologies.

No, we abrogated the ABM treaty instead.

Doesn't it make yo a little nervous to think of Iran with nuclear weapons?

Of course it does (though not nearly as nervous as thinking of North Korea). But the fact that the U.S. has nukes makes a lot of people nervous too (particularly in light of the fact that we have a history of unprovoked aggression against other countries with which we share no borders). Does that make it OK for them to attack us?

What would you suggest we do?

Admit that attacking Iraq was a horrible mistake. Apologize. Beg the world for forgiveness. Impeach George Bush. And no, I am not joking. In my experience, when one has made a mistake, a little contrition goes a long way.

raves23 said...

So it is immoral to bomb Saddam and his regime. The moral thing to do would have been to sit back and watch him torture and murder thousands of more human beings. The man offered money to the families of suicide bombers that set target to the US and it's allies. The difference between us and Iran is that we don't plan to use our nuclear weapons unless we are defending ourselves. They hate us enough to strike first and you got to believe they will. Before putting down Bush, let us not forget that had Bill Clinton taken a firmer stand against Bin Ladin when he was in office we wouldn't be having this discussion. I guess it was too immoral to strike against Bin Ladin until he brought down our towers.

Ron said...

So it is immoral to bomb Saddam and his regime

I don't know, you tell me. But if it is moral for us to bomb Iraq because we judge Saddam to be evil, why is it not moral for anyone else to bomb us because they judge us to be evil?

The difference between us and Iran is that we don't plan to use our nuclear weapons unless we are defending ourselves.

Do you have any actual evidence that Iran is planning to even make nuclear weapons, let alone use them for purposes other than to defend themselves?

They hate us enough to strike first

And we fear them enough to strike first. I fail to see the essential difference.