by JH 80 Replies latest jw friends
As much as people bitch about the US, the fact is, no one else by themselves can take on these countries. Sad, but true.
If these countries were not threatening other countries, we would not have this problem. The US is not a bully. Sadly, sometimes the way to peace is through a short war. Countries like Iraq and North Korea are the real bullies.
NK is thinking about a first strike? Against the US???
How the hell do they plan do doing that? They have no means for transporting troops to US soil.
If they lob a nuke at us, that will be a suicide for them. We could retaliate in less than 30 minutes and leave them glowing in the dark for the next 29,000 years.
If these countries were not threatening other countries
How is NK threatening other countries?
They want to join the 'nuclear club'. We keep saying "No, we won't let you". They reply "Screw you guys, we are anyway".
So what if they do?
Is it not the right of any nation to defend themselves with nuclear weapons?
If it's not, then what are we still doing with them?
My point is the nauseating hypocrisy you all still show.
Oh, WE'RE allowed to have nukes, just not THEM. After all, WE'RE simply BETTER than them.
xander-
you keep belaboring this point about us having nukes, therefore everyone should have them, and your point is not valid. its like saying that EVERYONE has a right to defend themselves with guns just because some do. do you believe that? should we start selling guns to prison inmates? how about the severely mentally ill? known murderers?
aa
Is it not the right of any nation to defend themselves with nuclear weapons?
And what better way for the US to defend itself than to prevent its enemies from having nuclear weapons to begin with?
After all, WE'RE simply BETTER than them.
Yes, that is correct.
Edited by - Elsewhere on 6 February 2003 12:36:4
Yes, that is correct.
Well, good to see you haven't lost your unbounded arrogance from being a JW.
its like saying that EVERYONE has a right to defend themselves with guns just because some do.
That is, of course, exactly what I'm saying.
You disagree, of course. You feel it is a good idea to only let SOME defend themselves. Based on criteria YOU set. That's immoral and hypocritical. The only people who get to defend themselves are based on criteria that *I* set, and, oh, by the way, I just happen to fit that criteria perfectly and you don't. Huh - strange coincidence that.
Let me put it this way:
If the US were to, tomorrow, destroy every nuke we have. Build up huge conventional forces again, fine, whatever. Destroy all the nukes, though.
THEN, and ONLY then, can we start dictating to other nations the immorality of possessing nuclear weapons.
xander-
i see you sidestepped my questions. ill repeat them for you:
should we start selling guns to prison inmates? how about the severely mentally ill? known murderers?
if you honestly feel the answer to these questions is "yes", as you are implying, then i think most of us will realize the futility of discussing this issue with you further.
aa
No, I answered it directly.
I think we SHOULD sell guns to them, as long as guns can be sold to ANYONE. My argument is thus not that this is a good idea, but that GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED, PERIOD, if you will take the analogy.
It's either okay for everyone, or not okay for everyone. Picking and choosing based on criteria YOU select (doesn't matter if I agree with the criteria or not) is hypocritical.
xander-
ah, okay....didnt realize you were against guns altogether. in that case, should we also ban axes, baseball bats, kitchen knives? or should these items be supplied to the aforementioned prison inmates, due to the fact that we can all buy them?
aa
Depends, do any of those things have a use other than killing people?
(And note, I never suggested we SUPPLY anyone with anything. Should an ex-prison inmate be able to BUY a baseball bat, axe, or kitchen knife when he's out? While it's probably a bad idea - depending on what he served time for - we can't morally stop it.)
