Thanks for stopping by! Comments are subject to edit or removal if warranted.
Yet, you and your Republicans friends always get upset about any state that tries to make it difficult to get a concealed carry permit for a handgun.
That would be correct, because a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen poses no threat to other law abiding citizens. Only the bad guys need worry, and that's a good thing.
"as though the presence of nuclear weapons in American hands poses the same moral dilemma they will pose in Iranian hands"
Normally I'd agree, but with the Rummy-Cheney-Bush Axis of Evil with their fingers on the button, I'd have to say we have a moral dilemma of our own.
Meanwhile, we allow nuclear weapons in North Korean hands...
Excellent point, but that cat got out of the bag a long time ago.
I don't trust ANY religion with nukes.
So? Why is it o.k. to engage in saber-rattling about Iran which does not have a nuclear bomb, but not o.k. to do the same vis-a-vis North Korea which already has the bomb? There is an obvious double standard here.
Could it be that it relates to a three-letter word: OIL?
You're going to have to stretch that pretty far to get an oil connection out of that. If all we wanted was oil, we could easily take any country we wanted in the Middle East and it's doubtful anyone could stop us. We're not even benefitting much from the Iraqi oil, so it's hard to make the case that we went there for oil.
Looking at oil prices today, we certainly didn't invade anybody to ensure supplies of cheap oil. If we did, it didn't work.
It is certainly true that it would be better for the US if Iran didn't get nukes, but what are we going to do about it? Nuke Iran first? That kind of puts a damper on that "they are way crazier then we are" argument. If we nuke a country that has never threatened us it would polorize world opinion against the US. It would cement the union already growing between Russia and China and put a quick end to the "unipolar moment" the neocons are so ga ga over.
Remember with oil it isn't about a large supply at a small price, but a large supply at a large price. Also, not only who gets it, but who doesn't.
I don't think anyone but crazy New Yorker writers seriously think that a nuclear strike by the U.S. on Iran is likely.
The tragedy is that the good people of Iraq and Iran have the misfortune to be led by mean-spirited, ignorant fundamentalist leaders who do not represent the best interests of their people. And sadly, the same is true of us here in the USA. It's a toxic mixture...
Anyone who uses the phrase "religion of peace", especially within quotes, is just as credible as anyone who uses the phrase "zionist conspiracy".
Well I don't know what the zionists have going on, but I can sure see problems with a religion that claims to be peaceful while lopping off the heads of people it sees as infidels. Do you see the conflict there?
Rick,
I don't think the religion is lopping anyone's head off. The followers might be.
sort of like Christians who kill doctors because they're pro-life.
are you ready to condemn Christianity?
Christians kill doctors because they are "pro-life". See the conflict?
And when was the last time that happened? The Christians killed a lot of Muslims during the Crusades, too, but we're not currently holding that against them.
I would quickly condemn anyone calling themselves a Christian who killed an abortion doctor, which is more condemnation than you'll hear from the Muslims these days concerning their murderous brethren.
Well, the reasoning of the line of thinking that mystifies you is as follows: only one country, since the advent of nuclear energy, has ever actually deployed a nuclear weapon. What country was that? And was its usage of nuclear weapons necessary, reasonable and prudent?
I hope this makes the position a bit less mystifying. I wouldn't study karate with somebody who'd actually used it to keep beating somebody who was already soundly defeated, and I think it's a little rich that the same country that bombed Hiroshima AND Nagasaki thinks of itself as the best arbiter of who should & shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
Study your history, Thomas. Those bombs ended the war without an invasion of Japan and saved possibly millions more lives than they cost. It was a prudent use of military force under the circumstances.
"There is no moral equivalence between the two."
Correct.
The United States has murdered hundreds of thousands of people with nuclear weapons. Iran hasn't killed anyone with nuclear weapons.
The United States has invaded many nations, and killed millions of people in countless wars of aggression. In the last 25 years, Iran has fought one devastating war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and oh by the way, the United States, run at the time by everybody's favorite Republican Reagan, just LOVED Saddam during that war.
You may fear Iran's possible intentions.
You should fear, and despise, the USA's repeated actions.
Ever read Jesus' words about beams and motes? The USA has a cosmic redwood stuck in its eyes.
Maybe that's why you are mystified.
Oh give me a break. I'll tell you what - why don't you go ahead and relocated to any paradise you want somewhere else since America is so evil. You're an idiot and you're dragging the average IQ down for the rest of us.
"Those bombs ended the war without an invasion of Japan"
The war could have ended without an invasion, and without nuking to death hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. It may not have ended with the humiliation of Japan so many Americans demanded, but the fact is the Japanese were trying to begin peace negotiations when the Americans nuked them.
You are saying that you feel the USA was justified in mass murdering people, and what you have allowed by this is that such a justification is ever morally possible, and by doing this you have allowed that possibility to the many enemies of the USA. who will doubtless use just such a rationale should they attempt the same "necessity" on Americans or their allies.
Wasn't Malcolm X correct about the chickens and the roost?
You know, this happens every time I get linked at Salon. It's like they throw open the doors to "Stupidland" and all the "we hate America" wackos come crawling out.
Go ahead and have your little pity party, folks. If it makes you feel better, it's worth it.
"If all we wanted was oil, we could easily take any country we wanted in the Middle East and it's doubtful anyone could stop us. "
Right. Well we sure are doing a great job of "easily taking" that Middle Eastern country we invaded with a war for weapons and labs the President knew didn't exist.
(whatever happened to that whole "the war will pay for itself in oil thing...oh well)
The Bush Crime Family is already using nuclear waepons in Iraq: depleted uranium shells. These will slowly kill our military and civilians for years to come.
Bush&Co should be on trial at the Hague. The invasion was against the Nuremberg principles and they should be put to death.
I don't hate America. The Bush Crime Family, you kool-aid drinkers unwilling to adimit Bush is disaster, and religous nutjobs are destroying my nation.
Tommo - your tinfoil hat is slipping.
Commenting by HaloScan
