America... Spying on Americans

You know the answer to that, don't you? Force.

Tico, and others like him, still live in a might-makes-right world. And they like it that way.

Cycloptichorn

If you can put it simply, what gives the US the right to decide to "allow" it, or not?

You know the answer to that, don't you? Force.

Tico, and others like him, still live in a might-makes-right world. And they like it that way.

Cycloptichorn

Usually when one argues 'self-preservation' as a defense for acts of aggression, one needs some sort of evidence showing that their 'self' was in danger.

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Iran poses any sort of threat to America that rises to the level of 'self-preservation.' There has been no evidence presented that Iran has anything close to a nuclear weapon at this time; there has been no evidence that Iran can get said weapon to the US, and no security is being done here to stop that from happening; therefore, how exactly do you see this as a threat?

Also, you didn't answer my question earlier: what gives Israel the right to own nukes, but not Iran? Alliance with the US? Or some magical moral superiority to Iran?

Cycloptichorn

If I see a gang-banger walking down the street, and I know this guy is dangerous, why can't I just cap him one in the head right then and there, Tico?

This is the same mentality that you are advocating; lawlessness on a global scale, with only our military force keeping others under our boot. This is what you envision as the Correct way to go about our Foreign policy, yes?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Usually when one argues 'self-preservation' as a defense for acts of aggression, one needs some sort of evidence showing that their 'self' was in danger.

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Iran poses any sort of threat to America that rises to the level of 'self-preservation.' There has been no evidence presented that Iran has anything close to a nuclear weapon at this time; there has been no evidence that Iran can get said weapon to the US, and no security is being done here to stop that from happening; therefore, how exactly do you see this as a threat?

I never said they were close to having a nuclear weapon. My question to you had nothing to do with the proximity in time to their acquiring nukes.

Why don't you see it as a threat? Amazing. Liberals simply cannot be trusted with issue of national security. Thankfully, most Americans see that.

So, if there is not a great possibility of Iran acquiring Nukes, then what, exactly, is the threat, again? What are we 'self-defensing' from?

It's amazing to see how quickly you fall back on talking points. What is the threat, exactly? That Iran will get nukes in the future? This requires us to go to war to stop them? You'd better explain further what the rationale for war is.

Quote:

Also, you didn't answer my question earlier: what gives Israel the right to own nukes, but not Iran? Alliance with the US? Or some magical moral superiority to Iran?

Cycloptichorn

The issue is not whether we can take the nukes away from Israel, or anyone else for that matter. The issue is whether we should permit Iran to get them in the first instance.

(Oh, and Israel has not proclaimed that Iran should be wiped off the map.)

False. If I have the money to buy a car, and you prevent me from buying it, then I don't have a car.

If I own a car, and you take said car from me, then I don't have a car.

The example holds in the larger case. The end result is the same whether you act pre-emptively, or not.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Usually when one argues 'self-preservation' as a defense for acts of aggression, one needs some sort of evidence showing that their 'self' was in danger.

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Iran poses any sort of threat to America that rises to the level of 'self-preservation.' There has been no evidence presented that Iran has anything close to a nuclear weapon at this time; there has been no evidence that Iran can get said weapon to the US, and no security is being done here to stop that from happening; therefore, how exactly do you see this as a threat?

I never said they were close to having a nuclear weapon. My question to you had nothing to do with the proximity in time to their acquiring nukes.

Why don't you see it as a threat? Amazing. Liberals simply cannot be trusted with issue of national security. Thankfully, most Americans see that.

So, if there is not a great possibility of Iran acquiring Nukes, then what, exactly, is the threat, again? What are we 'self-defensing' from?

It's amazing to see how quickly you fall back on talking points. What is the threat, exactly? That Iran will get nukes in the future? This requires us to go to war to stop them? You'd better explain further what the rationale for war is.[/color]

Tico wrote:

Cyclops wrote:

Also, you didn't answer my question earlier: what gives Israel the right to own nukes, but not Iran? Alliance with the US? Or some magical moral superiority to Iran?

Cycloptichorn

The issue is not whether we can take the nukes away from Israel, or anyone else for that matter. The issue is whether we should permit Iran to get them in the first instance.

(Oh, and Israel has not proclaimed that Iran should be wiped off the map.)

False. If I have the money to buy a car, and you prevent me from buying it, then I don't have a car.

If I own a car, and you take said car from me, then I don't have a car.

The example holds in the larger case. The end result is the same whether you act pre-emptively, or not.

Also, your 'reaching for his strap' quote does not fit the situation. Iran has done no such thing at all.

Not to mention the confusion the situation brings up; who can say later on whether he was looking at you threatingly, or your prejudice merely made you think so?

Cycloptichorn

Bush reaffirms first-strike policy, calls Iran biggest possible threat

Thursday, March 16, 2006; Posted: 2:24 p.m. EST (19:24 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

In a 49-page national security report, the president said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.

"The president believes that we must remember the clearest lesson of September 11 -- that the United States of America must confront threats before they fully materialize," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"The president's strategy affirms that the doctrine of pre-emption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy," Hadley said. "If necessary, the strategy states, under longstanding principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

Titled "National Security Strategy," the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.

In an earlier report issued a year after the September 11 attacks, Bush underscored his administration's adoption of a pre-emptive policy, marking the end of a deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War.

The latest report makes it clear Bush hasn't changed his mind, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same," Bush wrote.

The report had harsh words for Iran. It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq. Bush said diplomacy to halt Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons work must prevail to avert a conflict.

"This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," Bush said.

Bush went on to say: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons."

He did not say what would happen if international negotiations with Iran failed. The Bush administration currently is working to persuade Russia and China to support a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment program. (Full story)

A top Iranian official said Thursday that his country was ready to open direct talks with the United States over Iraq, marking a major shift in Tehran's foreign policy a day after an Iraqi leader called for such talks. Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator and secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council, told reporters that any talks between the United States and Iran would deal only with Iraqi issues.

But any direct dialogue between Tehran and Washington -- were it to happen -- also could be a beginning for negotiations between the two foes over Iran's suspect nuclear program.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the United States was ready to talk with Iran about Iraq. But he also said that any discussions must be restricted to that topic and not include other contentious subjects like Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

...

Not yet. Basically what their doing is wanting to build a gun. We are telling them they cannot possess a gun, and therefore they cannot build one. You seem to think G should have the gun because the policeman does. That satisfies your sense of fair play, I guess. Levels out the playing field?

What was your original question, Tico? I didn't even see it, yet you continually refer me back to said question.

Reprint your original question and I will address it.

Oh, okay. The answer then, is:

1, it isn't our place to allow or disallow another country to do anything that does not violate international laws. If they are in violation of international laws (and you are willing to hold the US and Israel responsible for their violations as well, btw), then the UN should take action against them.

and

2, yes (for power-generation purposes).

Cycloptichorn

A whole lot of "if's" on Iran that applies more to other countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Israel, France, Syria. and the US.

Many countries around the world can assume we are all dangerous with nukes, and attack us without warning. After all, they are justified as much as the US would believe we are based on "fear of the unknown if's."

Tico wrote:

Is allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons something we should allow to occur?

Oh, okay. The answer then, is:

1, it isn't our place to allow or disallow another country to do anything that does not violate international laws. If they are in violation of international laws (and you are willing to hold the US and Israel responsible for their violations as well, btw), then the UN should take action against them.