thief
Full Member
Karma: +13/-6
Posts: 133
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2007, 07:28:39 PM » |
|
I'm also confused about #5 nuclear no-proliferation, for sure the conservatives are against Iran getting the bomb and if liberals are too, who takes the other side?
Morons and Islamofascists. Well call me a moron I guess. I think any country should be allowed to have weapon they want. It's if they use it is when there is a problem. I definitely think we should impose sanctions and such, whatever it takes to "encourage" Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. But invade/bomb because they don't succumb to our will not really what I want to see. I wouldn't blame Israel if they did, and If Iran was to use the bomb I wouldn't be against retaliation. For the record I am no pinko hippie either, I was very pro-war as members on this board may remember. But to be perfectly honest due to mistaken intelligence, national vanity, or outright lies(call it what you wish) I am very soured with the notion of war and military action. I am saying this as an 8 year veteran of the Marines. I am tired of it.I am not about ready to change ideologies or anything. I am still fiscally conservative and moderate on social issues, but the circumstances of this war and the actions since it began are shameful. Now I do believe we need to finish what we started, but its sad that we even got to this point. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Marines or Martyrs-- Who Do You Think Will Get The Virgins?
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2007, 10:56:38 AM » |
|
I'm also confused about #5 nuclear no-proliferation, for sure the conservatives are against Iran getting the bomb and if liberals are too, who takes the other side?
Morons and Islamofascists. Well call me a moron I guess. I think any country should be allowed to have weapon they want. It's if they use it is when there is a problem. That's like saying a baby can play with all the bleach he wants as long as he doesn't drink it. [/quote] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2007, 11:51:59 AM » |
|
I'd like to hear the liberal defense of #14 disallowing a ban on infidels in holy places.
Well, here in the US at least, there is a separation of church and state. The state cannot force a church to abandon or change its beliefs. From what I understand the Mormon Church does not allow non-Mormons -- a polite way of saying "infidel" -- into certain parts of their temples and certain rites in the Mormon faith are only allowed to be viewed by members of the Church of LDS. Could the state force them to change that article of their faith? Would such exercise of force be consitutional? Extremely unlikely. Would you want the state to have such power, to actually dictate to a religion who can enter its holiest innermost shrines, particularly if by going in the faith in question would take offense? If Mormons possess this right, why can't Muslims or Catholics or Hindus? Not much of a liberal defense, but I see no problem with allowing churches to operate fully within the confines of their faith. Short of breaking the law (human sacrifice, smoking of peyote, etc.), states have no right to tell churches how they operate. They are protected by the Constitution. If I read #14 right 'real' liberals are against Muslim only places. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2007, 06:02:17 AM » |
|
5 - Should Ahmadinejad's regime in Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb?
I think the validity of this question can be shown by holding a poll of non-US citizens on whether or not the USA ought to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That should show the silliness of this question. Does the USA have permission to exist? The point, I guess, is that one cannot be a liberal if you support Islam or dictatorships. I consider myself a liberal but I have noticed a tendency among liberals to support the suppression of people's rights for 'cultural' reasons. What's good for the Islamic goose is good for the Christian gander. If pandering to Christians is acceptable, then pandering to Muslims has the same standing. If pandering to Muslims is unacceptable, then so is pandering to Christians. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Liam
Newbie
Karma: +4/-5
Posts: 34
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2007, 01:00:25 PM » |
|
That's like saying a baby can play with all the bleach he wants as long as he doesn't drink it.
If the baby is smart enough to invent the bleach, one would hope he is smart enough to know it isn't a plaything. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +87/-104
Posts: 889
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2007, 03:13:33 PM » |
|
I'm also confused about #5 nuclear no-proliferation, for sure the conservatives are against Iran getting the bomb and if liberals are too, who takes the other side?
Morons and Islamofascists. Well call me a moron I guess. I think any country should be allowed to have weapon they want. It's if they use it is when there is a problem. That's like saying a baby can play with all the bleach he wants as long as he doesn't drink it. It's more along the lines of constructive engagement. Some countries see value in acquiring nuclear weapons and to an extent it is inevitable that they will eventually get them. We waste a lot of resources trying to stop what we can't. We gave N Korea Billions to not develop a bomb. In retrospect, the money was a waste. I personally do not fear a nuclear Iran anymore than I fear a nuclear N Korea. If we're being realistic, the idea of mutual assured destructing is the best we can get, and then it's one sided to where our destruction is by no means assured. Unless we're ready to go occupy every country deemed at risk of developing nukes, the options we have of preventing that are very limited. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2007, 11:39:13 AM » |
|
5 - Should Ahmadinejad's regime in Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb?
I think the validity of this question can be shown by holding a poll of non-US citizens on whether or not the USA ought to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That should show the silliness of this question. I don't understand. Does the USA have permission to exist?
Um...yes. The point, I guess, is that one cannot be a liberal if you support Islam or dictatorships. I consider myself a liberal but I have noticed a tendency among liberals to support the suppression of people's rights for 'cultural' reasons. What's good for the Islamic goose is good for the Christian gander. If pandering to Christians is acceptable, then pandering to Muslims has the same standing. If pandering to Muslims is unacceptable, then so is pandering to Christians. I disagree. The two are not equally as bad. Christianity is relatively moderate today whereas Islam is the thing causing men to fly planes into to buildings, to mutilate, beat and suppress women, to kill homosexuals etc. I don't agree to pandering to any religion but if we have to pander to one I'd rather it was Christianity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2007, 11:42:55 AM » |
|
That's like saying a baby can play with all the bleach he wants as long as he doesn't drink it.
If the baby is smart enough to invent the bleach, one would hope he is smart enough to know it isn't a plaything. Take it in context, do you really trust Iran not to use a nuke if it acquires one? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2007, 12:06:21 PM » |
|
I'm also confused about #5 nuclear no-proliferation, for sure the conservatives are against Iran getting the bomb and if liberals are too, who takes the other side?
Morons and Islamofascists. Well call me a moron I guess. I think any country should be allowed to have weapon they want. It's if they use it is when there is a problem. That's like saying a baby can play with all the bleach he wants as long as he doesn't drink it. It's more along the lines of constructive engagement. Some countries see value in acquiring nuclear weapons and to an extent it is inevitable that they will eventually get them. We waste a lot of resources trying to stop what we can't. We gave N Korea Billions to not develop a bomb. In retrospect, the money was a waste. I personally do not fear a nuclear Iran anymore than I fear a nuclear N Korea. If we're being realistic, the idea of mutual assured destructing is the best we can get, and then it's one sided to where our destruction is by no means assured. Unless we're ready to go occupy every country deemed at risk of developing nukes, the options we have of preventing that are very limited. Mutually assured destruction is predicated on the government actually caring about it's people's lives. I think Adhmadjinejad (that's spelled wrong I know) cares more about destroying Israel. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +87/-104
Posts: 889
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2007, 03:32:43 PM » |
|
A very legitimate concern, but is that what he actually intends to do, or is it just rhetoric to endear the people of Iran to him? It would most certainly mean the end of any power he has in Iran, rather quickly, and possibly his life. I think Ahmadickhead cares about the people of Iran to the extent that he wants power. Using a nuclear device would be a sure fire way for him to end his "leadership" of Iran.
Past that, there is the question of how far we are willing to go, and what we are willing to do to stop Iran from getting a bomb. Also there is a very real concern that preemptive military action could have consequences potentially worse than Iran having a bomb.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2007, 05:57:22 AM » |
|
5 - Should Ahmadinejad's regime in Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb?
I think the validity of this question can be shown by holding a poll of non-US citizens on whether or not the USA ought to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That should show the silliness of this question. I don't understand. Who granted permission for the USA to possess nukes? Who granted permission for the USSR/Russia to possess nukes? The point is that possessing nukes has never been something that one requires permission for. Your statement assumes that Iran needs permission. Indeed, your statement assumes that the USA has implicit authority to grant or whithold permission for same. That is either pure arrogance or absurd. The point, I guess, is that one cannot be a liberal if you support Islam or dictatorships. I consider myself a liberal but I have noticed a tendency among liberals to support the suppression of people's rights for 'cultural' reasons. What's good for the Islamic goose is good for the Christian gander. If pandering to Christians is acceptable, then pandering to Muslims has the same standing. If pandering to Muslims is unacceptable, then so is pandering to Christians. I disagree. The two are not equally as bad. Christianity is relatively moderate today whereas Islam is the thing causing men to fly planes into to buildings, to mutilate, beat and suppress women, to kill homosexuals etc. I don't agree to pandering to any religion but if we have to pander to one I'd rather it was Christianity. So you are using pragmatic, subjective and temporal considerations here to justify a making an absolute theoretical statement? That's not justified. If the absolute theoretical statement is to be held as true, then it requires its own logic, not subjective considerations and opinion choices to support it. That's like saying "God does not exist because I don't like the idea of God existing". Its all very nice and true, but it is an ultimately meaningless, insubstantial, subjective, or fickle statement depending on the mood or caprice of any given person. Btw, liberals often rationally support the reduction of rights for criminals (for example). This shows that liberalism is not a principle that holds absolutely to absolute equal rights for all. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 03, 2007, 06:00:02 AM by Dormouse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2007, 01:35:25 PM » |
|
Also there is a very real concern that preemptive military action could have consequences potentially worse than Iran having a bomb.
Such as? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2007, 01:45:49 PM » |
|
5 - Should Ahmadinejad's regime in Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb?
I think the validity of this question can be shown by holding a poll of non-US citizens on whether or not the USA ought to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That should show the silliness of this question. I don't understand. Who granted permission for the USA to possess nukes? Who granted permission for the USSR/Russia to possess nukes? The point is that possessing nukes has never been something that one requires permission for. Your statement assumes that Iran needs permission. Indeed, your statement assumes that the USA has implicit authority to grant or whithold permission for same. That is either pure arrogance or absurd. In an ideal world no one would possess nukes. We don't live in that world. We live in the world where some countries have nukes. I for one don't want the nuclear club to get any bigger and I especially don't want a country whose leader has vowed to wipe another country from the map to be part of the club. In theory, the US could act based on a UN resolution and draw it's authority for it's action from that resolution. If the international community doesn't have the authority then who does? The point, I guess, is that one cannot be a liberal if you support Islam or dictatorships. I consider myself a liberal but I have noticed a tendency among liberals to support the suppression of people's rights for 'cultural' reasons. What's good for the Islamic goose is good for the Christian gander. If pandering to Christians is acceptable, then pandering to Muslims has the same standing. If pandering to Muslims is unacceptable, then so is pandering to Christians. I disagree. The two are not equally as bad. Christianity is relatively moderate today whereas Islam is the thing causing men to fly planes into to buildings, to mutilate, beat and suppress women, to kill homosexuals etc. I don't agree to pandering to any religion but if we have to pander to one I'd rather it was Christianity. So you are using pragmatic, subjective and temporal considerations here to justify a making an absolute theoretical statement? No. That's not justified. If the absolute theoretical statement is to be held as true, then it requires its own logic, not subjective considerations and opinion choices to support it.
Read what I said: I don't agree with pandering to religion. Ever. But if I had to pick I'd pander to Christianity. That's like saying "God does not exist because I don't like the idea of God existing".
No it's not. Btw, liberals often rationally support the reduction of rights for criminals (for example). This shows that liberalism is not a principle that holds absolutely to absolute equal rights for all.
Can you think of any other exceptions? You do realize that reducing the rights of criminals is about preserving the rights of everyone else don't you? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +87/-104
Posts: 889
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2007, 02:59:30 PM » |
|
Also there is a very real concern that preemptive military action could have consequences potentially worse than Iran having a bomb.
Such as? A new rallying cry Ahawhateverhisnameis and extremists across the ME, increased hostility toward the west, and further destabilization of the Middle East. How it would play out in the region is a very important question to ask. How would it influence the power balance between "moderates" and extremists in Pakistan, which already has nukes? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2007, 01:31:49 PM » |
|
Also there is a very real concern that preemptive military action could have consequences potentially worse than Iran having a bomb.
Such as? A new rallying cry Ahawhateverhisnameis and extremists across the ME, increased hostility toward the west, and further destabilization of the Middle East. How it would play out in the region is a very important question to ask. How would it influence the power balance between "moderates" and extremists in Pakistan, which already has nukes? That does sound worse. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
