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?
That's all rather nice, but doesn't actually say anything substantial.
Under what authority does the US claim to be the arbitrator of who is allowed to have nukes and who is not?
That is pure arbitary/subjective.
Indeed, shall we presume that since you claim the USA is the final arbitrator of who is allowed to have nukes and who is not, that the USA has (ipso facto) given its permission (tacit or otherwise) to India, Pakistan and Israel.
I repeat, asserting that that the USA has the right to decide whether or not any given nation may possess nukes is just silly.
The USA may have a long history of forcing their opinions upon other nations, but there's nothing 'legal' or 'right' about that to appeal to. Just naked self interest and bullying.
If it is your point that the USA ought to use its power and military to physically prevent Iran (or any other nation-state) from having nuke weapons, then say so. Couching this appeal inside some hypothetically benign framework that doesn't exist is just obfusication meant to hide the essential 'bullying' that is (apparently) your counsel.
So you are using pragmatic, subjective and temporal considerations here to justify a making an absolute theoretical statement?
No.
Your single word answer is underwhelming and entirely unpersuasive in the fact that it contradicts your posted words.
You may have different motives or different intents, but the bottom line is you are in fact using a pragmatic/subjective assessment of Christianity and applying it as an absolute rule here. That's logically untenable.
Read what I said: I don't agree with pandering to religion. Ever. But if I had to pick I'd pander to Christianity.
You don't ever agree with pandering, but you prefer pandering to Christianity?
Okay. I'll just leave the point here since further discussion seems pointless.
Note: See your appeal to pragmatism given earlier.
That's like saying "God does not exist because I don't like the idea of God existing".
No it's not.
Once again, I'm underwhelmed with the force of logic illustrated by your detailed rebuttal of my argument.
Subjective whim always trumps all arguments. I'm familiar with this rule. It means this discussion is pointless.
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?
Yes, several.
You do realize that reducing the rights of criminals is about preserving the rights of everyone else don't you?
No, I don't see it that way at all.
Rights are only as good as they are held to be universal.
Thus, any reduction or limits on rights are reductions or limits on the principle of rights generally.
The rights of a criminal are the same rights as all other individuals. Reduce the rights of criminals and you reduce the rights of all other people.
