If that is basis for making the decision will you believe that they will regain the ‘right’ if they opt out of the treaty as is their option under the terms of the treaty?
Dumb question. In fact it's these types of absolutist, incomplete questions posed to the country as a tactic to push policy that highlight the lack of insight that Bush has shown in dealing with all aspects of a post 9-11 world.
A better question would have been: "How far do we go to stop Iran from developing/acquiring nuclear weapons?" then list 4 or 5 options such as invasion, nuclear strike, conventional bombing, sanctions, physical blockade, etc. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons but I also don't want a nuclear strike from Israel or any kind of strike from the United States.
ironically israel is also not a member of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. iran claims to want to develope this tech for peaceful purposes. they should have the ability to do that since they hvae that right. however they should be crazy inspected.
This is a dumb question. No one should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That said, if I were running Iran, you can bet the farm I would do whatever it took to get them. Same goes if I were Hugo Chavez. Do you think Bush would have invaded Iraq if they had a nuclear weapon? I don't.
The problem is that Bush is reeling from Iraq so even if Iran is an imminent threat, it'll appear that Bush is crying wolf. This is why the burden of proof was set to very high standards in the case for preemption. Now it appears that the US is set on a reactionary position where if our cold relations persist, a war that follows would get very nasty quickly. I would support opening dialogues between the two countries, but our domestic climate seems unlikely, which is a damn shame.
Be allowed? Since when do countries need permission to pursue anything within their own borders? Did USA have permission to invade Iraq? Iran voluntarily signed the NPT. They can also break that promise. Do I want Iran to develop Nukes? Of course not. But I don't have the right to stop them from developing nukes any more than I have to right to enter your house and tell you what to do. Countries are separate entities who make their own decisions and risk the consequences.
Question: What if Venezuela and Nicaragua pursued nuclear weapons along with the means to deliver them long range (as in long enough to hit the United States). Would you have the U.S. just stand by and do nothing to discourage them?
despite the ridicule with which some of you have greeted the question, it really is a binary issue. for to argue, "no, but..." is really to argue "yes." "no, but i would not support the use of force" in reality acquieces to a nuclear iran. to argue we must open a dialog, ignores the reality that diplomacy (which has in fact been on-going for years) w/o the credible threat of force is surely destined to fail. if you voted no, as i did, you must ask yourself, what are you prepared to do to prevent it. and if your answer is "anything but..." then you really voted "yes."
Wow..... It must be extremely difficult to live in a country that you despise so much. How do you do it ????
i think it is possible to live in and love your country, but not support certain things the government does. we still remain the only country to actually use the bomb against another. its a seperate issue, but many historians would argue that while the first bomb was justified the second was unnecessary as japan would have surrendered after hiroshima. nagasaki was bombed out of pure revenge. and per your sig, its dale GRIBBLE - not dribble. if you dont correct this im going to have to revoke your king of the hill fan-club membership, ill tell you what!
what will you do to stop north korea from getting nuclear weapons? wait a minute, they already have them! werent they part of the 'axis of evil' too? havent they actually threatened the united states (unlike iran)? http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,,889679,00.html North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday. Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war. "The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US." Since reopening the plant in December, the North has kicked out international inspectors and withdrawn from the global treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. _________________________________________________________________ all this saber rattling against iran is so blantantly hypocritical in light of the fact that north korea ("axis of evil", remember?) went nuclear and we did absolutely NOTHING.
Allowed is a tough call, they have as much right to develop them as we do...and the rest of the world has a right to isolate them. DD
