WCOM -- Withold Comments, Only Monitor

Iran will get nuclear weapons. Everyone will get nuclear weapons. The time has come where our idiotic policy on nuclear weapons is coming back to bite us in the ass and frankly, it's becoming too late to change anything. Unless the U.S. does a complete 180 and adopts a rational nuclear philosophy (nobody can have them) everyone will get them.

Portions of our nuculur program arent for peaceful purposes so Im not sure why any other country should be held to different standards then us - especially if that country could care less what we or any other country thinks about them.

What pisses me off is that dipshit Iran will fuck with Isreal - who will come at them - US funded guns-a -blazin. They will level the entire country and Iran will in turn launch a nuke. Iran will claim it had no choice.

Depending how far down the line this happens - and if Obama is able to get results people are satisfied with (because if not, I think this retarded country will put dumbass conservatives back in charge) - the US may get involved at that point... unfortunately.

God I miss our debates - I have been hanging out on MSN's newsvines lately - what a bunch of fucks. Makes Wiseone there look like fucking James Carvell.

Holy crap! HE RETURNS!

Other countries should be held to other standards, especially nations with possible expansive and aggresive policies. Unfriendly nations should be held to other standards because they are unfriendly. Besides even if you believe its hypocracy(sp?) to have nukes while we say we don't want Iran to have nukes, the situation wouldn't really change if the US had no nukes or adopted a policy to de-nuke itself. Do you really think Iran, North Korea or any other nuclear power will disarm their nukes if the US does? Or do you think any country without nukes who are trying to get them will stop if the US has none?
Nuclear weapons are in the hands of rational nations/leaders/people defensive weapons. They are deterants. The exist to make every other nation unwilling to attack them because the cost of doing so will be so much greater than any gains made.
In the hands of illrational/desperate nations/leaders/people nuclear weapons are offensive. These people are expected to use them in acts of terrorism or as a means to advance some ideological goal.
Of course there is a long history of rational people and nations using nuclear weapons as deterants, just look at the Cold War. Even DPRK could be called rational in this degree, because they realize the offensive use of nukes would be the end of them. Of course if they get desperate, and they might soon, that could change but in the short history of their nuclear weapons they've been rational.
But there isn't really a point in history where someone who is "crazy" enough to use nukes has actually controlled them, at least that we know of. So who knows what a person who'll actually use nukes sounds and looks like, better play it safe.

The United States doesn't need nukes to roll over almost any country in the world. It's that simple. Anyone who wouldn't attack somebody else for fear of the US nukes has equal, possibly even greater, reason to be afraid of the massive military which we have. If we went balls out, the simple fact is that almost nobody in the world could even remotely stand up to a full-on U.S. assault and everyone knows it, regardless of nuclear weapons.

"Other countries should be held to other standards, especially nations with possible expansive and aggresive policies"

What you don't seem to grasp is that a very, very fair case can be made that the US has expansive and aggressive policies. In fact, I think to argue otherwise is absurd. Our policies all over the world, especially in the Middle East, are expansive and aggressive. We have consistently proven ourselves to be willing to crush almost anyone that stands in our way, no matter how legally they are doing so, when it comes to economic matters. The last century of U.S. foreign policy has been to wage bloody war for business interests time and time again.

The only thing that puts us "above" these other countries is that we are bigger and stronger. Does it make sense to only arm the big and strong? No, it doesn't. The US policy on nuclear weapons is just as irrational as passing a law that said "Only the rich are allowed to have guns." It's absurd, arrogant, and stupid.

The only rational policy is to say "Nobody can have or can research nuclear weaponry, PERIOD." You don't lead by hypocrisy. We would laugh at politicians who said "Well, I think we ought to illegalize guns except for me and my friends." and we should expect no more from other countries. Do you really think that researching new kinds of nuclear weapons is conducive to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons? Where do you think these other countries learn how to build them? Do you honestly think that they build them from the ground up? Of course not. They use stolen information and build with the ideas that WE FUNDED.

We have ABSOLUTELY no right to tell anyone that they can't have nuclear weapons as long as we have them. Nobody will ever respect our authority as long as we are selfish, arrogant hypocrites.

You can make the argument that the US doesn't need nukes, but my point was that regardless of our stance or possession of nukes it won't stop other nations from attempting to acquire them.

Also we are obviously arguing from two different perspectives, you're much more international in your considerations while I really only care about the US. This is why I can accept things like hypocrisy. Hypocrisy doesn't mean anything in nation-to-nation considerations. Hypocrisy doesn't matter in trade, although that's changed somewhat recently, it doesn't matter for warfare and it ultimately doesn't how you win, just as long as you do. While it may be bad sportsmanship to be a hypocrite, what is anyone going to do about?
My focus on the US also permits me to be a hypocrite about expansive and aggressive polices. I don't agree that our policy is either expansive or aggressive, but if another nation thinks it is it probably doesn't matter.
In other words, there are no real rules in international relations. There may be expected rules of the game, but they aren't hard set rules because there's nothing anyone can do if they break them. So like I said, while it may be arrogant, selfish, and hypocritical to take this anti-nuclear stance that's acceptable.

Lastly, most foreign nuclear weapons programs and knowledge is NOT based out of information given or taken from the US, most of it is Russian, European, or domestic.
China's nuclear weapons program is domestic built, and its missiles were in the past mostly Russian but are now mostly DOMESTIC.
North Korea's nuclear weapon's program is built off DUTCH nuclear technology which was bought from a Pakistani National, AQ Khan, who was trained and educated about nuclear technology in the Netherlands. Their missiles, except for the Taepodong-3, are Russian.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons and reactors are based off Dutch technology stolen by AQ Khan. Their missiles are Russian
India's nuclear weapons program was Russian when it first started along with its missile program, but now both are domestically produced.
France's nuclear program is purely domestic
Britain's nuclear program is also purely domestic but they did have a little help from the US back in the 50s-60s
Russia's nuclear program is of course domestic
Iraq's nuclear reactor that Israel destroyed in 82 was French built.
Israel's nuclear weapons program is really hard to find information about, but I'd bet its domestically produced.
Lastly, Iran's nuclear program is domestic now but it had a lot of Russian help when it first started up.
You underestimate the ability of nations today to build a nuclear program. It really only requires the resources to purchase the knowledge or the resources to research it yourself, and of course the will to do so. The information about how to build a nuclear reactor is free on the internet and you can hire European, probably French, experts/companies to build a reactor for you in your country. Its that easy. Saddam bought his nuclear reactor from the French. Iran bought their first one's from Russia. China has been holding talks with Egypt and Sudan over a possible deal for Chinese experts to build reactors in both those countries.
And once you have a nuclear reactor, even one that produces only power, its not a far leap to producing the right kind of Uranium to make a bomb.

So how would the US not having nukes stop all this? Most of these countries don't have nukes to counter the threat of American nukes, they have them for regional purposes. For example India and Pakistan don't have nukes to stop the US, they have them to stop each other.

Copypasta'd from Oh-Wiseone:You can make the argument that the US doesn't need nukes, but my point was that regardless of our stance or possession of nukes it won't stop other nations from attempting to acquire them.

Also we are obviously arguing from two different perspectives, you're much more international in your considerations while I really only care about the US. This is why I can accept things like hypocrisy. Hypocrisy doesn't mean anything in nation-to-nation considerations. Hypocrisy doesn't matter in trade, although that's changed somewhat recently, it doesn't matter for warfare and it ultimately doesn't how you win, just as long as you do. While it may be bad sportsmanship to be a hypocrite, what is anyone going to do about?

Fly planes into buildings. Hypocrisy fosters resentment. Now if we want to be isolationist and ignore the rest of the world, then it doesn't matter. The fact remains that we are uniquely reliant on other nations. Our trade imbalance is embarrassing, for example. What you don't seem to ever be able to grasp is that the U.S. being respected and admired is GOOD for the U.S.. It prevents things like terrorism. A world where we are a shining beacon of democracy and freedom is a better world than the one where we are a blunt weapon of death and inequality. That is a world that is BETTER for the U.S.. That is a world where we are safer and have more influence. That's a world where our ability to solve conflicts without spending AMERICAN LIVES is greatly enhanced.

My focus on the US also permits me to be a hypocrite about expansive and aggressive polices. I don't agree that our policy is either expansive or aggressive, but if another nation thinks it is it probably doesn't matter.
In other words, there are no real rules in international relations. There may be expected rules of the game, but they aren't hard set rules because there's nothing anyone can do if they break them. So like I said, while it may be arrogant, selfish, and hypocritical to take this anti-nuclear stance that's acceptable.

Your focus on the U.S. results in a more dangerous world where nobody respects us and our only option in conflict is to expend American lives and vast sums of American dollars.

Here is a nice timeline of the CIA: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

Don't tell me the U.S. doesn't have aggressive or expansionist foreign policy. That's intensely ignorant. We are currently embroiled in a brutally aggressive war in Iraq in case you forgot. What did we do as part of that war? Oh yeah, build a cadre of permanent military bases against the will of the people of Iraq. The Iraq war is clearly aggressive and clearly expansionist. This isn't the first time and it isn't even the twentieth time. We repeatedly demonstrate aggression against anyone who stands in our way or anyone who it is in our economic interest to take on. You can even trace the current situation in Iraq back to our overthrow of their democratically elected leader because he stood in the way of our oil interests. In response, we installed the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators in Middle Eastern history.

Remember Manuel Noriega?

Lastly, most foreign nuclear weapons programs and knowledge is NOT based out of information given or taken from the US, most of it is Russian, European, or domestic.
China's nuclear weapons program is domestic built, and its missiles were in the past mostly Russian but are now mostly DOMESTIC.
North Korea's nuclear weapon's program is built off DUTCH nuclear technology which was bought from a Pakistani National, AQ Khan, who was trained and educated about nuclear technology in the Netherlands. Their missiles, except for the Taepodong-3, are Russian.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons and reactors are based off Dutch technology stolen by AQ Khan. Their missiles are Russian
India's nuclear weapons program was Russian when it first started along with its missile program, but now both are domestically produced.
France's nuclear program is purely domestic
Britain's nuclear program is also purely domestic but they did have a little help from the US back in the 50s-60s
Russia's nuclear program is of course domestic
Iraq's nuclear reactor that Israel destroyed in 82 was French built.
Israel's nuclear weapons program is really hard to find information about, but I'd bet its domestically produced.
Lastly, Iran's nuclear program is domestic now but it had a lot of Russian help when it first started up.
You underestimate the ability of nations today to build a nuclear program. It really only requires the resources to purchase the knowledge or the resources to research it yourself, and of course the will to do so. The information about how to build a nuclear reactor is free on the internet and you can hire European, probably French, experts/companies to build a reactor for you in your country. Its that easy. Saddam bought his nuclear reactor from the French. Iran bought their first one's from Russia. China has been holding talks with Egypt and Sudan over a possible deal for Chinese experts to build reactors in both those countries.
And once you have a nuclear reactor, even one that produces only power, its not a far leap to producing the right kind of Uranium to make a bomb.

You think that if we banned nuclear weapons twenty years ago the technology would have advanced at the same rate? Get real. You think nobody has gotten away with this: http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=45311

Come back to reality. It's nice here.

So how would the US not having nukes stop all this? Most of these countries don't have nukes to counter the threat of American nukes, they have them for regional purposes. For example India and Pakistan don't have nukes to stop the US, they have them to stop each other.

Everyone doesn't have an incredibly short-sighted ignorant attitude like you. Even the German forces treated their POWs well (in most cases) because they expected the same from the U.S.. There are individual examples, but in general our POWs in almost every major conflict were treated decently because they knew we would do the same. The same applies to nuclear weapons. We could garner a lot more international support if we were willing to disarm ourselves. We could be a respected leader, who other nations would actually listen to, instead of the laughing stock of the world. Our current status in the world right now is the big bully rich kid who occasionally kicks someones ass. Sure, nobody wants to get into a fight with that kid and if he tells them to do something they might listen but his opinion isn't influencing anyone and mostly people avoid his input and try to keep him out of their business. It isn't GOOD FOR AMERICA to be in that position. It's very bad. It's dangerous. it makes us vulnerable. It makes us resented. It fosters hatred and eventually causes events like 9/11. 9/11 wasn't caused by a rational foreign policy where we respected other nations and used our influence to help people and make the world safer. It was caused by the exact caveman attitude you have right now: "Might = Right".

If we actually have a respected leadership role in the world, it is much easier to negotiate without violence. As long as we run around punching people in the face and then getting upset that they don't say thank you, nobody cares what we think.

Iran and others will have nuclear weapons in the not too distant future.

But in the not too distant future we will be rocking plasma and ion canons that will disintegrate their nukes out of the air.

Pwnt.

We may even invent Superman and then he can throw them into the sun. Or back at the Arabs if we choose to use the evil superman story arc.

Fly planes into buildings. Hypocrisy fosters resentment. Now if we want to be isolationist and ignore the rest of the world, then it doesn't matter. The fact remains that we are uniquely reliant on other nations. Our trade imbalance is embarrassing, for example. What you don't seem to ever be able to grasp is that the U.S. being respected and admired is GOOD for the U.S.. It prevents things like terrorism. A world where we are a shining beacon of democracy and freedom is a better world than the one where we are a blunt weapon of death and inequality. That is a world that is BETTER for the U.S.. That is a world where we are safer and have more influence. That's a world where our ability to solve conflicts without spending AMERICAN LIVES is greatly enhanced.

That's true to an extent. Its nice to be well liked and being well liked can lead to positive benefits. And we could argue the full extent of everything the US does and how it affects our perception in the world and how that good/bad perception created from our actions could possibly aid us. But that would undoubtedly too broad for a single debate to really cover like this, so I'll stick to addresses how nukes affect our global perception. And I can sum up international opinion over our nuclear arsenal in one word: Indifference. I cannot think of a single nation that has global anti-nuclear policies. Even Iran or DPRK has not commented on the fact that we have nukes as a reason why we should not negotiate with them with the goal of stopping their nuclear programs. No nation has a policy that affects things like our trade or prevents that nation from cooperating with us on issues they would otherwise work with us on. Of course there are individuals across the entire world, such as yourself, that are very anti-nuclear and who's opinions of a nation are affected by whether or not they have nukes. But as far as national policy goes, there aren't really any nations who's official stance towards the US is affected negatively by our nukes. Even Japan, one of the most anti-nuclear states in the world, doesn't view us negatively because of our nukes and in fact Japan has been very cooperative with the US on all sorts of issues such as DPRK nukes, Iraq, Afghanistan, trade, Iran. Although now that I think about it the only nation I can think of with any kind of anti-nuclear policy towards the US is New Zealand, which refuses to allow any USN ship to dock in New Zealand if it carries nukes or even is powered by a nuclear reactor.
But regardless nations cannot always do what is most liked by the world, yes perception counts for something but sometimes it doesn't count for enough to prevent a nation from doing something. A nation has to be willing to accept that fact.

Your focus on the U.S. results in a more dangerous world where nobody respects us and our only option in conflict is to expend American lives and vast sums of American dollars.

Here is a nice timeline of the CIA: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

Don't tell me the U.S. doesn't have aggressive or expansionist foreign policy. That's intensely ignorant. We are currently embroiled in a brutally aggressive war in Iraq in case you forgot. What did we do as part of that war? Oh yeah, build a cadre of permanent military bases against the will of the people of Iraq. The Iraq war is clearly aggressive and clearly expansionist. This isn't the first time and it isn't even the twentieth time. We repeatedly demonstrate aggression against anyone who stands in our way or anyone who it is in our economic interest to take on. You can even trace the current situation in Iraq back to our overthrow of their democratically elected leader because he stood in the way of our oil interests. In response, we installed the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators in Middle Eastern history.

Remember Manuel Noriega?

Well again I want to stick to nukes alone, not the entire scope of US foreign policy. You can make an argument that we are expansive, although obviously not territorially, but economically for sure. Now we can be so without using nukes because of our military, being the most advanced on earth, so nukes aren't required for us to expand economically. Besides, what kind of economic situation would we have if we nuked somebody? But suppose our military suddenly wasn't the strongest in the world or wasn't able to accomplish the national policy goals set out by the gov't, would we use nukes then? History says no. I can think of two big examples where we refused to use nuclear weapons in situations were our military could not accomplish the objective of our foreign policy. Those are Korea and Vietnam. In Korea Gen. MacArthur wanted to use nukes so badly against North Korea and China that he publicly criticized Pres. Truman's handling of the war and his refusal to use nukes to win. Well in the end we failed to reunite Korea or defeat communist China and MacArthur was removed from command. And I'm sure you know the result the Vietnam War, we accepted that over using nukes. Why? Well the US has held a longstanding policy against using nuclear weapons first, after WW2 of course, and has shown it is willing to accept loss to uphold that policy. Iran and North Korea have not. Besides, think of the international backlash from using nukes, the gain from it would have to be pretty big to accept that.
Just as a side note, the US presence in Iraq isn't permanent by any means. Not only has Obama stated countless times he'll withdraw us from Iraq, the Iraqi government has placed a time line upon us to leave the country by 2012.


You think that if we banned nuclear weapons twenty years ago the technology would have advanced at the same rate? Get real. You think nobody has gotten away with this: http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=45311

Come back to reality. It's nice here.

No nuclear technology would probably not advanced at the same rate if the US never did research on the subject, who can say by how much? No one really. That kind of thought is very speculative. If you look at nuclear weapons development from the beginnings in the 30s and 40s and earlier many of the scientists doing the research in the US were not Americans, in fact the first guy to split the atom, obviously something critical to nuclear weapons and nuclear technology, was a man from New Zealand(ironically). Some early work into nuclear fission was done in Germany pre-WW2, Hitler had plans to construct nuclear weapons if the research proved fruitful. But Germany lacked the resources, due to both geography and war,
and the technical expertise, mostly due to Hitler's hatred of Jews which many nuclear physicists were. Even the Soviet Union had an atomic program pre-Manhattan Project. Of course because of the war and lack of expertise their progress was almost nil during the war, and they were aided by espionage missions in the US. But the fact is that many nations other than the US knew the potential of atomic research and several of those had some kind of bomb program. So I wouldn't doubt that if the US had not bomb program it would have slowed development worldwide, but by no means would it have stopped it.
Lastly, even if you could prove that if the US had no atomic program there would be no nukes today, how would that change the present situation? We are talking about the present and showing all the "mistakes" of the past does not affect the result of those "mistakes" in the present, you can't change the past. The fact today is that nations have many many options to explore other than the US if they seek nuclear technology.

Everyone doesn't have an incredibly short-sighted ignorant attitude like you. Even the German forces treated their POWs well (in most cases) because they expected the same from the U.S.. There are individual examples, but in general our POWs in almost every major conflict were treated decently because they knew we would do the same. The same applies to nuclear weapons. We could garner a lot more international support if we were willing to disarm ourselves. We could be a respected leader, who other nations would actually listen to, instead of the laughing stock of the world. Our current status in the world right now is the big bully rich kid who occasionally kicks someones ass. Sure, nobody wants to get into a fight with that kid and if he tells them to do something they might listen but his opinion isn't influencing anyone and mostly people avoid his input and try to keep him out of their business. It isn't GOOD FOR AMERICA to be in that position. It's very bad. It's dangerous. it makes us vulnerable. It makes us resented. It fosters hatred and eventually causes events like 9/11. 9/11 wasn't caused by a rational foreign policy where we respected other nations and used our influence to help people and make the world safer. It was caused by the exact caveman attitude you have right now: "Might = Right".

If we actually have a respected leadership role in the world, it is much easier to negotiate without violence. As long as we run around punching people in the face and then getting upset that they don't say thank you, nobody cares what we think.

I'm not sure what all that stuff about POWs is about but let me assure you that unlike the treatment of POWs, if this is even the case, our possession of nukes does not and would not change the polices of other nations in regards to nuclear technology. Show me how Pakistan and India would destroy their nukes because the US doesn't have nukes. Or show me why France, which receives roughly 80% of its electrical power from nuclear power plants, would restructure its energy policy because the US has no nuclear weapons.
9/11 had nothing to do with our nuclear policy. You cannot say American nuclear weapons were the reason 9/11 happened. You can argue that it was the result of ill rational foreign policy but when I say our nuclear weapons policy is rational I mean just our nuclear weapons policy. I'm not talking about any other policy the US has.
Lastly. it may be the case that if we disarm ourselves we'll gain more international respect but the loss would be greater than the gain. China and Russia still make foriegn policy decisions with consideration towards our nuclear weapons, and its impossible that China or Russia would disarm because the US did. China and Russia care less about international perception than the US does, and if gains in international perception is your chief argument against nukes then I'm using it to show that its not a good enough reason to convince China and Russia to disarm. And if you think that the US having no nukes would convince China and Russia to disarm you really don't understand how these people operate.

1. Nuclear weapons programs and nuclear power programs are two different things. Don't be an idiot. Making that connection is like saying that banning viral weapons somehow hinders medical research on viruses.

2. Trying to say that the perception of the U.S. isn't influences by nukes is existential at best and stupid to even speculate on at worst. You can't possibly state how the world would act toward nuclear weapons if we had gone on a global campaign of complete disarmament twenty years ago. It is likely that we would have influenced many other nations and it isn't inconceivable that we would be in a nuke-free world right now. To state anything definitively is ignorant.

3. The reason nations like Pakistan and Iran ignore us when we say they shouldn't make nukes is because we have them and we gladly encourage our friends, like Israel, to have them. We have absolutely no ground to stand on when trying to negotiate the situation with them. They look at us as hypocrites and laugh off our attempts at influence.

4. No, we can't stick to "nukes alone" when talking about the U.S. being expansionist and aggressive. You said that you think the U.S. should fight against expansionist and aggressive nations trying to obtain nuclear weapons. WE ARE EXPANSIONIST AND AGGRESSIVE! Telling Iran that they can't have nuclear weapons is absolutely NO different than a nuclear armed China telling us to get rid of ours. We would (rightfully so) laugh at them. In Iran we handed large swaths of land over to AMERICAN based corporations to build businesses. We turned a large section of Baghdad into a shopping mall and that isn't leaving with us. We have built permanent bases that we have no intention of leaving behind. We have handed over various sections of the country's infrastructure to AMERICAN corporations and ingrained them so deeply that removal of them is virtually impossible at this point. We have allowed AMERICAN companies to pillage the oil fields and claim them as their own, once again in such a way that removal of them by the Iraqi government is impossible. The war on Iraq was intensely unprovoked and aggressive. This is unquestionable and undebatable.

5. You really don't understand anything. Every point you make is so intensely short sighted and ignorant that it is maddening. You assume every argument made against you is being done from the most retarded possible outlook. For example, I never said "Oh if we throw out our nukes everyone else would." Who the fuck would say that? Yet, it's the point you argue against. You need to think before making your replies, so at the very least I can save myself the trouble of having to elaborate OBVIOUS THINGS. My point here is that if we said to the world "We want to work toward universal nuclear disarmament. Who is with us?" we should be able to drum up some support, especially considering how incredibly anti-war and anti-aggression most of Europe is. If we can establish a coalition of powerful countries willing to carry this mantle, our bargaining power with rogue nations is MASSIVELY increased. It's common sense. The point here isn't to get rid of our nukes and see what happens; It is to announce our willingness to work towards it and see who we can get with us. If we can get a few European countries with us, it is VERY likely that the rest will fall like dominoes, and that will make it increasingly likely that other countries all over the world will join. Once this happens, our ability to police the world's nukes is brilliantly empowered, as it is easier to tell Iran they can't have nukes when we are saying Israel needs to get rid of them too.

My point is that treating nations who don't respect us as though they are disrespectful children who need to be spanked is arrogant and dangerous. It threatens our national security, our economy, and our world influence.

Nuclear weapons programs and nuclear power programs are two different things. Don't be an idiot. Making that connection is like saying that banning viral weapons somehow hinders medical research on viruses.

Sorry I assumed you were against both, but to be fair I only ever hear you talk negatively about anything nuclear.

2. Trying to say that the perception of the U.S. isn't influences by nukes is existential at best and stupid to even speculate on at worst. You can't possibly state how the world would act toward nuclear weapons if we had gone on a global campaign of complete disarmament twenty years ago. It is likely that we would have influenced many other nations and it isn't inconceivable that we would be in a nuke-free world right now. To state anything definitively is ignorant.

How is it inconceivable? You've accused me of speculation but then you make this blanket statement with no back-up. Can you give me a detailed explanation about how the world would be nuke free if we went on a global nuke free campaign? Every point I've attempted to make has been backed up by actual history and actual facts, many of yours however are backed up by your opinion of what the world would be like if we had done something 20 years ago. And whats so special about 20 years ago, 1989? Is there a reason you picked that date or are you speaking in generalities? Explain to me how Russia and China could have disarmed 20 years ago, please don't just say it was possible. Secondly, even if you do prove it was possible it won't change a damn thing. I don't know if you know but we can't change what did or didn't happen 20 years ago, give me a solution that doesn't require time travel.
Please explain yourself and don't just make statements.
Also, please find me a nation that has an official policy not to work with the US on any kind of issue in which that nation would otherwise work with the US if the US did not have nukes. Sorry, but most nations don't really care that we have them, no national policies of any nation is as anti-nuclear as you.

3. The reason nations like Pakistan and Iran ignore us when we say they shouldn't make nukes is because we have them and we gladly encourage our friends, like Israel, to have them. We have absolutely no ground to stand on when trying to negotiate the situation with them. They look at us as hypocrites and laugh off our attempts at influence.

Look at the Iran negotiations or look at our past negotiations with Pakistan, you won't find once Iran or Pakistan ever stating they won't listen to us because we have nukes. These nukes are for regional purposes, as in: The reason for their existence is completely independent of America. Iran and Pakistan don't care if we have nukes or not. Why would you possibly think Pakistan would care more about our opinion on their nukes if we didn't have any? The nukes are for INDIA. Pakistan and Iran need a better reason than the US not be a hypocrite to disarm themselves, they need a real practical reason to disarm. As in, the reason Pakistan and Iran want nukes needs to be removed and believe me they don't want nukes because America does. Well Iran does but that's not the only reason, the other being goals of regional dominance.
Also tell me why the UN, Sweden, or Japan is just as unsuccessful in disarming nukes of other nations when they have none of their own.
And tell me that if the US, who built the first nukes, did so to gain an advantage over their enemies why you cannot conceive of another nation building nukes to gain advantages over their enemies. Like Pakistan, or India or Iran or DPRK or China.

4. No, we can't stick to "nukes alone" when talking about the U.S. being expansionist and aggressive. You said that you think the U.S. should fight against expansionist and aggressive nations trying to obtain nuclear weapons. WE ARE EXPANSIONIST AND AGGRESSIVE! Telling Iran that they can't have nuclear weapons is absolutely NO different than a nuclear armed China telling us to get rid of ours. We would (rightfully so) laugh at them. In Iran we handed large swaths of land over to AMERICAN based corporations to build businesses. We turned a large section of Baghdad into a shopping mall and that isn't leaving with us. We have built permanent bases that we have no intention of leaving behind. We have handed over various sections of the country's infrastructure to AMERICAN corporations and ingrained them so deeply that removal of them is virtually impossible at this point. We have allowed AMERICAN companies to pillage the oil fields and claim them as their own, once again in such a way that removal of them by the Iraqi government is impossible. The war on Iraq was intensely unprovoked and aggressive. This is unquestionable and undebatable.

Whats your point? This has nothing to do with nukes. Are you saying we shouldn't have done all these things? Are you once again pointing out impossible solutions because they exist in the past? Tell me what can be done for the present. The difference between Iran and China is of course the ability of the international community to stop Iranian nuclear development. Its greater than the ability to stop China. This of course aside from the point that China isn't openly hostile like Iran and does not threaten strategic trade and oil routes to the world daily. That's right, oil. One reason Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes is because they can close an area of ocean in which almost 25% of the world's oil supply moves. And I know it pisses you off for me to say something like we have to make sure the oil routes are secure but that's the real practical problem. Sorry.

5. You really don't understand anything. Every point you make is so intensely short sighted and ignorant that it is maddening. You assume every argument made against you is being done from the most retarded possible outlook. For example, I never said "Oh if we throw out our nukes everyone else would." Who the fuck would say that? Yet, it's the point you argue against. You need to think before making your replies, so at the very least I can save myself the trouble of having to elaborate OBVIOUS THINGS. My point here is that if we said to the world "We want to work toward universal nuclear disarmament. Who is with us?" we should be able to drum up some support, especially considering how incredibly anti-war and anti-aggression most of Europe is. If we can establish a coalition of powerful countries willing to carry this mantle, our bargaining power with rogue nations is MASSIVELY increased. It's common sense. The point here isn't to get rid of our nukes and see what happens; It is to announce our willingness to work towards it and see who we can get with us. If we can get a few European countries with us, it is VERY likely that the rest will fall like dominoes, and that will make it increasingly likely that other countries all over the world will join. Once this happens, our ability to police the world's nukes is brilliantly empowered, as it is easier to tell Iran they can't have nukes when we are saying Israel needs to get rid of them too.

My point is that treating nations who don't respect us as though they are disrespectful children who need to be spanked is arrogant and dangerous. It threatens our national security, our economy, and our world influence.

I completely a agree we should work towards disarmament worldwide but I think you overestimate what the success of that effort would be, but its worth working towards. Even Europe wouldn't be 100% on board, France has a long standing policy of not being reliant on any other nation for national defense, part of that policy has always been nukes. But I don't doubt that some kind of reduction could be made, but 100% nuke free probably never.

1. The United States completely disregards the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and you act like it is ludicrous that such a thing would hurt our standing on the subject of nuclear proliferation. I don't need to quote anyone to tell you that making Jeffrey Dahmer a spokesman for an anti-cannibalism campaign won't be very efficient. You don't make a child molester a spokesman for child safety. It's idiotic and just makes you look like a tool. This situation is no different.

We are saying to other nations "We think you are dangerous despite the fact that we have been nothing but aggressive toward you for the last hundred years no matter what you did." It's totally moronic.

2. You said that we need to stop these nations from getting nukes because they are "aggressive and expansionist". When I explain to you that we are "aggressive and expansionist" you tell me that it doesn't have anything to do with nukes. I feel like I'm carrying on a conversation with a fucking five year old sometimes.

3. I'm not saying it isn't too late. It probably is too late, BUT it's important to realize that the short-sighted, arrogant, nationalistic garbage that you spew is the reason we got to this situation in the first place. You can trace virtually every arms race on this planet to a nation that we think it's OK to allow nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons because India has them and Pakistan's nuclear program came from scientific sources that we didn't stop when we could have. And guess where Iran and North Korea got their information? Pakistan.

4. Do you honestly think that you can compare Japan trying to negotiate with other nations with the concept of a league of non-nuclear nations trying to negotiate? Again: Don't be an idiot.

Copypasta'd from NineSpine:1. The United States completely disregards the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and you act like it is ludicrous that such a thing would hurt our standing on the subject of nuclear proliferation. I don't need to quote anyone to tell you that making Jeffrey Dahmer a spokesman for an anti-cannibalism campaign won't be very efficient. You don't make a child molester a spokesman for child safety. It's idiotic and just makes you look like a tool. This situation is no different.

How did the US violate the NPT? We haven't sold nuclear weapons technology to any state nor have we increased our number of nuclear weapons since the treaty was signed? And again, if you are so certain that our standing in the world is hurt by our nukes, show me a country which has said that.

We are saying to other nations "We think you are dangerous despite the fact that we have been nothing but aggressive toward you for the last hundred years no matter what you did." It's totally moronic.

What other nations? You need to be more specific to make any kind of constructive and meaningful statement.

2. You said that we need to stop these nations from getting nukes because they are "aggressive and expansionist". When I explain to you that we are "aggressive and expansionist" you tell me that it doesn't have anything to do with nukes. I feel like I'm carrying on a conversation with a fucking five year old sometimes.

In the case of the US, if we were expansionist and aggressive, we've shown in the past that we are willing to sacrifice a lot, like two wars for example, to avoid using nukes. Iran on the other hand has openly announced that it plans to control the Persian Gulf. That cannot be allowed and hence they cannot be allowed to have nukes because of how much it would aid them in that goal. In other words, the US doesn't need nukes to expand the way the US intends to expand the way it wants to, which is influence and economic gain. Iran on the other hand cannot expand the way it intends to without the help of nuclear weapons. For example if we look at Iran's goal to control the Persian Gulf. Why do they want to do that? To control oil of course, 25% of which moves through that region. The US goal for the Persian Gulf is to keep it open to trade and oil movement to protect ours and the world's oil supply. The US does not need nukes to accomplish that goal, Iran on the other hand does need nukes. Why? Because there is no way the Iranian navy is going to force the US navy out of that sea.
To summarize: The US doesn't need nukes to accomplish most of its global goals and has shown to be willing to fail to achieve these goals in order to avoid the use of nukes.
Iran needs nukes to achieve any of its global and strategic goals due to the condition of its military in comparison to the US and other middle eastern states.

3. I'm not saying it isn't too late. It probably is too late, BUT it's important to realize that the short-sighted, arrogant, nationalistic garbage that you spew is the reason we got to this situation in the first place. You can trace virtually every arms race on this planet to a nation that we think it's OK to allow nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons because India has them and Pakistan's nuclear program came from scientific sources that we didn't stop when we could have. And guess where Iran and North Korea got their information? Pakistan.

Do you remember that list I made a few posts ago? I showed that most of the nuclear technology in the world today did not come from the US and that the US was not the only country trying to get a Bomb. The USSR and Nazi Germany were attempting to develop a bomb at the same time we were. Do you think that Stalin would have stopped development of the A-Bomb if the US wasn't making them?
Here's a refresher:
Pakistan got its nuclear technology from the Netherlands when it was stolen by AQ Khan.
India got their first nuclear reactor from its own domestic research with some Russians working as technical advisers.
Iran and DPRK got there's from AQ Khan who illegal sold his knowledge to them, it was not a policy of Pakistan to sell them this information.
Whats missing from this list? US involvement.
Lastly here's something else to think about. Suppose the US had never built an atomic Bomb project and the USSR got the A-Bomb when the US didn't. Do you think Stalin would have not used the bomb if it were not for threat of retaliation from the US? Its speculation sure, but I think its a thought worth some thinking about.

4. Do you honestly think that you can compare Japan trying to negotiate with other nations with the concept of a league of non-nuclear nations trying to negotiate? Again: Don't be an idiot.

On what basis to you think non-nuclear treaties would see more success if the negotiators represented non-nuclear states? Again, look at the negotiations between the DPRK and Iran. They have never said that the talks between the US and them were invalid or lacked respect because the US had nukes. And again look at the UN, a non-nuclear body, which has failed its talks and efforts to denuclearize Iran and North Korea.
So what evidence can you point to that states which seek nuclear weapons to increase their own power would stop doing so if we had no nukes or had a disarmament policy for the globe including ourselves.
Let me say that again, the reason Iran and North Korea want nukes has nothing to do with our own nukes, so why would getting rid of them or having a disarmament policy affect their desire to have nukes?

Copypasta'd from Blaze:Iran and others will have nuclear weapons in the not too distant future.

But in the not too distant future we will be rocking plasma and ion canons that will disintegrate their nukes out of the air.

Pwnt.

Winna!

1. U.S. complicity is U.S. involvement.

2. The NPT’s preamble calls on nuclear weapons states “to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.” We have never liquidated our existing stockpiles, and we have announced repeatedly our plans to build new types of nuclear weapons. Not only that, but we reject inspectors (the same kind that we insist everyone else must give access to) and shield Israel from those inspectors as well.

3. I never said that Iran had rosy goals that involve candy and teddy bears. Israel repeatedly states that they WANT to wipe out Iran and they have even attempted to start a war with them as recent as a few weeks ago. WE protect Israel and their nuclear weapons. You think that has no factor on Iran? Israel is a psychotic nation. Psychotic. They are equally, if not more dangerous to the security of the Middle East than Iran and Pakistan. Our ability to negotiate with other Middle Eastern nations is vastly undercut by our fixation on protecting every move psycho Israel with their nuclear arsenal does.

4. You seem to not be getting the point. You defended our attitude toward other nations who are "aggressive and expansionist". We are aggressive and expansionist. Now, you either need to accept that no other country will care what we say, because we act like spoiled children, OR you need to say we shouldn't act like that. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that our insane, hypocritical, aggressive, war-mongering attitude has no effect on whether other nations listen to us. You think that Iran wouldn't PREFER to be in good standing with us? You are mental. Diplomacy has proven, repeatedly, to be more effective than threatening to blow someone's country up. We have no diplomatic legs to stand on if we are being hypocritical and shielding an insane nation like Israel. Period. Nobody TRUSTS us to follow through in any negotiations. Of course, someone like you would prefer that we go expend thousands of American lives and blow up a few hundred thousand women and children to achieve a goal we could easily achieve by being reasonable and talking.

But who cares, most of them aren't even American lives so they don't count, right?

5. I'm not going to defend anything about North Korea. North Korea is insane. North Korea's government needs to be laid to waste. Period. But the fact that you even try to conflate Iran and North Korea, two countries that have so little in common, shows how poor your understand of any of this is. No matter how many facts you try to spout out, you still end up conflating everyone in a "for or against us" mentality. No matter what information you bring up, you still always end up boiling it all down to a redneck "might is right" mentality. The problem isn't your facts. The problem is how you interpret them. You assume everyone in Iran wants to blow up everyone else in the Middle East and there is no negotiating with them. In fact, you would rather expend American and Iranian lives, while risking the security of the whole region, instead of just talking to them. Perhaps the idea of diplomacy or negotiation offends your simplistic ant-like worldview (WE ARE BLACK ANS THIS IS OUR COLONY WE WILL KILL ALL OTHER ANTS GAAAH! BITE!", or maybe this idea that the people of the U.S. are actually more valuable than everyone else has really permeated that deep into your skull (we can call that a conflation of nationalism and racism in most cases).

Either way, you have the same worldview for America that the fringe in Iran has for Iran. This makes you short-sighted and arrogant. It makes you part of the problem. There are somewhat reasonable forces in Iran that would prefer peace and there are nutcases, but as in almost every other nation in the world, most of the people just want to be left the fuck alone. We can either play to those people, who ALWAYS make up a significant majority or we can be short-sighted, arrogant fools who wave our ignorance proudly. Like you.

6. I already posted significant examples of the U.S. being aggressive and expansionist. I'm not posting more, because frankly we all know it's true and it's a waste of time. Refer to what I posted before if you already forgot it.

Copypasta'd from mjs:

Copypasta'd from Blaze:Iran and others will have nuclear weapons in the not too distant future.

But in the not too distant future we will be rocking plasma and ion canons that will disintegrate their nukes out of the air.

Pwnt.

Winna!

so the ion cannon will launch a giant punching glove to veer the nuke off course??

Copypasta'd from NineSpine:1. U.S. complicity is U.S. involvement.

What does this mean? That every negative thing that happens in the world is the fault of the US because we allowed to happen? I'm really not trying to suggest that's what you mean but I'm honestly confused what you mean by this. This is a stupid statement.

2. The NPT’s preamble calls on nuclear weapons states “to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.” We have never liquidated our existing stockpiles, and we have announced repeatedly our plans to build new types of nuclear weapons. Not only that, but we reject inspectors (the same kind that we insist everyone else must give access to) and shield Israel from those inspectors as well.

Actually, since we've signed the treaty the number of nuclear weapons we have has decrease from then till present. Yes we still have several thousand, but we don't have the tens of thousands we had when the treaty was signed. Besides, how can you get so mad at the US for supposedly violating the treaty when other nuclear states have never signed it all. One of those assumed nuclear powers, Israel, has never signed the treaty you it seems silly to accuse them of violating it. It is true that since signing the treaty several plans have been made to build new types of nuclear weapons, the one that got the farthest was one to build special bunker buster and mountain penetrating nuclear weapons for use in Afghanistan after 9/11. However none of these plans have been approved or funded, not a single one.

3. I never said that Iran had rosy goals that involve candy and teddy bears. Israel repeatedly states that they WANT to wipe out Iran and they have even attempted to start a war with them as recent as a few weeks ago. WE protect Israel and their nuclear weapons. You think that has no factor on Iran? Israel is a psychotic nation. Psychotic. They are equally, if not more dangerous to the security of the Middle East than Iran and Pakistan. Our ability to negotiate with other Middle Eastern nations is vastly undercut by our fixation on protecting every move psycho Israel with their nuclear arsenal does.

This is getting off topic, its true that our relation with Israel has harmed our relations with other middle eastern nations but this was the case before most people begun to think Israel got nukes and its obviously the case afterward. So if Israel had no nukes, I'm sure Iran would still not like that we support them.

4. You seem to not be getting the point. You defended our attitude toward other nations who are "aggressive and expansionist". We are aggressive and expansionist. Now, you either need to accept that no other country will care what we say, because we act like spoiled children, OR you need to say we shouldn't act like that. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that our insane, hypocritical, aggressive, war-mongering attitude has no effect on whether other nations listen to us. You think that Iran wouldn't PREFER to be in good standing with us? You are mental. Diplomacy has proven, repeatedly, to be more effective than threatening to blow someone's country up. We have no diplomatic legs to stand on if we are being hypocritical and shielding an insane nation like Israel. Period. Nobody TRUSTS us to follow through in any negotiations. Of course, someone like you would prefer that we go expend thousands of American lives and blow up a few hundred thousand women and children to achieve a goal we could easily achieve by being reasonable and talking.
But who cares, most of them aren't even American lives so they don't count, right?

We have plenty of diplomatic options even while we support Israel. If you or another nation considers our support for Israel to be a negative that doesn't mean we cannot negotiate with them. Why? Because even though they may not like our policy we still have real and piratical tools and issues, like our Navy and oil trade routes. You see, international relations are ultimately not based on being nice, being honest, being fair or not being hypocritical, its ultimately based on real issues.
Secondly, I don't know what you mean by no one trusts us to not follow through with our treaties, thats just not the case. Sure the US hasn't always been totally faithful to the treaties its signed, but what nation has?
Lastly, use your own advice and think about things that you can't have both ways. Have you ever considered that Iran has to choose between good relations with us and accomplishing their goals? And have you ever considered that Iran may actually want to attempt to accomplish its goals more than it wants to be friends with us? Iran won't have a problem being unfriendly with the US if it accomplishes its goal to control the Persian Gulf, it really won't have to be friends because it'll control 25% of the world's oil trade. If we control real and piratical issues and have real power its acceptable to be hypocritical or unfair or all kinds of other things that'll give us advantages. And do you know why? Because thats how the world works, I'm sorry but asking everyone to sit down and play nice and fair isn't going to fly. Why? Because what would any nation rather have to do, rely on someone else to play nice and not screw them? Or rely on themselves?

5. I'm not going to defend anything about North Korea. North Korea is insane. North Korea's government needs to be laid to waste. Period. But the fact that you even try to conflate Iran and North Korea, two countries that have so little in common, shows how poor your understand of any of this is. No matter how many facts you try to spout out, you still end up conflating everyone in a "for or against us" mentality. No matter what information you bring up, you still always end up boiling it all down to a redneck "might is right" mentality. The problem isn't your facts. The problem is how you interpret them. You assume everyone in Iran wants to blow up everyone else in the Middle East and there is no negotiating with them. In fact, you would rather expend American and Iranian lives, while risking the security of the whole region, instead of just talking to them. Perhaps the idea of diplomacy or negotiation offends your simplistic ant-like worldview (WE ARE BLACK ANS THIS IS OUR COLONY WE WILL KILL ALL OTHER ANTS GAAAH! BITE!", or maybe this idea that the people of the U.S. are actually more valuable than everyone else has really permeated that deep into your skull (we can call that a conflation of nationalism and racism in most cases).

Might is right. You might not like it but thats the way the world works. You could be morally correct, fair, just, and all other kinds of good things but if you're dead or have no way to enforce all your good things, it doesn't matter. Hell, we had to destroy the Nazis in WW2, being right didn't mean dick.
Now I don't think Iran wants to blow up the entire Middle East, I think Iran wants to expand its control and influence in the Middle East. And I have very good reason to believe that.
Now consider that its possible there is no compromise, consider that Iran controlling the Persian Gulf is something unacceptable to the US and that Iran not controlling the Persian Gulf is something unacceptable to Iran. It is possible that talk won't solve this conflict of interest. I don't think we should stop talking, I think we should try our best to reach a diplomatic solution and compromise if we have to. But I think you live in a fantasy world if you think diplomacy always has a solution.

Either way, you have the same worldview for America that the fringe in Iran has for Iran. This makes you short-sighted and arrogant. It makes you part of the problem. There are somewhat reasonable forces in Iran that would prefer peace and there are nutcases, but as in almost every other nation in the world, most of the people just want to be left the fuck alone. We can either play to those people, who ALWAYS make up a significant majority or we can be short-sighted, arrogant fools who wave our ignorance proudly. Like you.

Do you know how the Iranian government is run? Its a dictatorship, and even if it wasn't the normal people out of power don't really matter anyway. Do you think that because you are anti-nuclear that another nation can play to you instead of the actual government? Sorry but you don't matter in international relations, and likewise the Iranian people don't matter in international relations because their opinions have no force behind them. Its about what the government believes, not the people.

6. I already posted significant examples of the U.S. being aggressive and expansionist. I'm not posting more, because frankly we all know it's true and it's a waste of time. Refer to what I posted before if you already forgot it.

This exchange started out nice and informative but we've really gotten away from nukes. I'd like to keep it more focused on nukes and less about your ranting on Israel or whatever else bugs you.

Besides we agree on a lot more than we disagree on.
We agree diplomacy needs to be explored completely.
We agree that Iran or North Korea shouldn't have nukes, nor should anyone else for that matter.
We agree that other nations seeking nukes are not doing so to counter our own nukes.
We disagree on how successful diplomacy might be, but that doesn't really matter because its just a prediction on a course of action we agree on.
We disagree on the importance of hypocrisy and other "unsportsmanlike like conduct" in international relations in relation to real issues like who controls what kind of military or trade routes, resources, etc.

Iran believed that expansion of it's power is necessary for their survival. If they didn't feel it was, there is a very likely possibility that they wouldn't feel the need to expand that power. Our threats toward them, which are largely because of their nuclear aspirations, simply drive them farther into a corner. Threatened people turn to extremism. This is a universal issue. It's the reason Hamas has so much power. If we had the diplomatic credibility to reason with them, this entire situation might be ended quickly, but we don't have that diplomatic credibility because of our attitude toward nuclear weapons.

Middle Eastern cultures revere one thing above pretty much everything else: RESPECT. This is why Obama repeatedly used that word during his first interview. Iran wants to be respected. They want to be treated like a sovereign nation. The longer we condone the nuclear programs of psycho Israel, the more volatile the situation with Iran will get and the more they will resent us because we are not respecting them if we are being hypocritical. This is your core problem: You don't seem to have any understanding of Middle Eastern values. Once again, you can throw out facts all day but you seem unable to contemplate that other people have different values. You simply have contempt for those with different values and look down upon them. Our nation has THAT attitude as our foreign policy and you are too short-sighted to recognize it. You cannot divide the world into Good and Bad countries who are responsible enough for nukes and who aren't. The problem with that logic is twofold:

1. Regimes can change in a heartbeat. A nation can go from close ally to total fringe lunatic dictatorship very quickly. When this happens, the nukes owned by the old "Good" leadership are still there. Look at what is about to happen in Pakistan. The government is on the brink of being overthrown by radicals.
2. Development of nuclear weapons begets development of nuclear weapons. The "Bad" nations will only want them more as "Good" nations get them.

Supporting Israel's nuclear program and shielding it from investigation is a violation of the NPT for us. We have not made a good faith effort to dismantle our nuclear program. Even suggesting such a thing is ludicrous. We spend $40B a year maintaining our nuclear program.

The fact that you would even use the term "unsportsmanlike conduct" is an indication of how grossly you misunderstand the situation and how arrogant you are. Putting effort forth to be respected in the world and having a voice that people are willing to negotiate with is not a luxury: It's a necessity. You are pissed that Iran won't play by our rules, but it never occurs to you that there is no reason they should because we shit all over their rules. The point here is to avoid situations where American lives and American dollars will be wasted. Your attitude is the root cause of pointless war. Having a sense of mutual respect is not a concession, it's common sense. You want everyone else in the world to laud us for doing pretty much nothing but occasionally blowing their families up.

Might does not equal right or effective. "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Those are some of the smartest words ever spoken. The quote isn't "Run up and punch people in the mouth." because that isn't a constructive approach to foreign relations. It's an idiotic, short-sighted approach that yields nothing but wasted time, lives, and money. Pulling out a gun every time you have a disagreement with someone won't get you very far in life. I don't know what madness makes you assume that it will make you successful in foreign relations. To return to your WWII comparison, your attitude is the one that cost us so many lives in WWII. If we had gotten involved much earlier, things might have been over very quickly. Instead, we waited and waited. People like you are why we waited. "Who cares, they aren't American."

Copypasta'd from NineSpine:Iran believed that expansion of it's power is necessary for their survival. If they didn't feel it was, there is a very likely possibility that they wouldn't feel the need to expand that power. Our threats toward them, which are largely because of their nuclear aspirations, simply drive them farther into a corner. Threatened people turn to extremism. This is a universal issue. It's the reason Hamas has so much power. If we had the diplomatic credibility to reason with them, this entire situation might be ended quickly, but we don't have that diplomatic credibility because of our attitude toward nuclear weapons.

Where did you get the idea that they felt they needed to expand to survive? Please me if you can show that Iran is trying to expand its influence because it feels threatened and would not be seeking to expand if it didn't feel threatened, I'll do a 180 on this issue.

Middle Eastern cultures revere one thing above pretty much everything else: RESPECT. This is why Obama repeatedly used that word during his first interview. Iran wants to be respected. They want to be treated like a sovereign nation. The longer we condone the nuclear programs of psycho Israel, the more volatile the situation with Iran will get and the more they will resent us because we are not respecting them if we are being hypocritical. This is your core problem: You don't seem to have any understanding of Middle Eastern values. Once again, you can throw out facts all day but you seem unable to contemplate that other people have different values. You simply have contempt for those with different values and look down upon them. Our nation has THAT attitude as our foreign policy and you are too short-sighted to recognize it. You cannot divide the world into Good and Bad countries who are responsible enough for nukes and who aren't. The problem with that logic is twofold:

Look man I know more about Middle Eastern cultures then I'm sure you ever will. My entire college career has been spent studying the Middle East, everything here circles around it. It is literally the center of the universe here. And I agree that we should talk to Iran directly one-on-one or with a group of nations who share our concerns.

1. Regimes can change in a heartbeat. A nation can go from close ally to total fringe lunatic dictatorship very quickly. When this happens, the nukes owned by the old "Good" leadership are still there. Look at what is about to happen in Pakistan. The government is on the brink of being overthrown by radicals.
Then we agree, we should all work towards the removal of nukes
2. Development of nuclear weapons begets development of nuclear weapons. The "Bad" nations will only want them more as "Good" nations get them.
How so?

Supporting Israel's nuclear program and shielding it from investigation is a violation of the NPT for us. We have not made a good faith effort to dismantle our nuclear program. Even suggesting such a thing is ludicrous. We spend $40B a year maintaining our nuclear program.

No we have not made it a policy goal to completely dismantle our nuclear program, all I said was that we have reduced the total number of warheads since 1968.

The fact that you would even use the term "unsportsmanlike conduct" is an indication of how grossly you misunderstand the situation and how arrogant you are. Putting effort forth to be respected in the world and having a voice that people are willing to negotiate with is not a luxury: It's a necessity. You are pissed that Iran won't play by our rules, but it never occurs to you that there is no reason they should because we shit all over their rules. The point here is to avoid situations where American lives and American dollars will be wasted. Your attitude is the root cause of pointless war. Having a sense of mutual respect is not a concession, it's common sense. You want everyone else in the world to laud us for doing pretty much nothing but occasionally blowing their families up.

Say what you mean, unless you actually mean I want people laud us for blowing up families don't say it. I hate trying to pick out your meaning from these things. And I'm not pissed Iran isn't playing by our rules, I completely understand why they don't and I don't expect any nation to follow "the rules(whatever that means)" just because its nice to follow them. I expect nations to follow the rules because if they will suffer a real and actual loss of something valuable to them. For example a nation that doesn't follow the rules can be embargo'ed to force that nation to follow the rules by taking away something of real value, in this case trade. Let me tell you that if I was in Iran I would love the situation Iran was in, it is literally the best opportunity for expansion of influence since the Revolution.
And if you think that Iran would rather play nice by the rules and pass up this opportunity then you really need to look again.

Might does not equal right or effective. "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Those are some of the smartest words ever spoken. The quote isn't "Run up and punch people in the mouth." because that isn't a constructive approach to foreign relations. It's an idiotic, short-sighted approach that yields nothing but wasted time, lives, and money. Pulling out a gun every time you have a disagreement with someone won't get you very far in life. I don't know what madness makes you assume that it will make you successful in foreign relations. To return to your WWII comparison, your attitude is the one that cost us so many lives in WWII. If we had gotten involved much earlier, things might have been over very quickly. Instead, we waited and waited. People like you are why we waited. "Who cares, they aren't American."

Remember I was the guy who said we should invade Iraq back in 2003 because we don't want to wait around like we did in WW2. Course I was wrong. And I'm not sure what your point is when you accuse me of being a waiter, are you saying we should invade Iran now? I know you aren't but I'm not sure what your point is.

And dude I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what you mean in a lot of these paragraphs, I don't want to respond to something you aren't saying. For example that last paragraph never mentions Iran or nukes or really anything. Its just a bunch of statements that.

1. The preamble of the NPT says it calls on signed nations “to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.” How does that NOT say we need to dismantle all of our nukes?

2. You can know everything about Middle Eastern culture and be totally clueless as to how to approach actual Middle Easterners. Understanding the mindset of a culture is more than memorizing facts; It's a work of empathy, which is a trait that your repeated racist, nationalist tirades have proven you to be lacking.

3. I don't know what is so complex about the idea that assigning nations we like the privilege to have nukes will drive other nations to develop them.

4. My whole point here is your utter refusal to say "Well, perhaps we should look at how the Iranians feel and see if how they feel is justified." This is the exact mindset that lef to 9/11. We refused to actually analyze why people disagreed with us. We repeatedly kept fucking up the Middle East and when someone retaliated we acted surprised. It's idiotic. We go into the Middle East, shield Israel from even verbal criticism, defend their actions ad nauseum, depose people we don't like regardless of their sovereignty, blow up hundreds of thousands of women and children, tell nations they have no right to do the exact same things we do, and then act surprised when people don't want to negotiate with us because they don't trust us or even HATE us after being snubbed and in many cases outright murdered for decades. It's absolute stupidity, and the nuke issue is part of that larger issue. It only drives nations like Iran to fight for nukes harder, because they know that once they have them we won't be as willing to fuck with them. We never would have invaded Iraq if they had nuclear weapons and everyone knows it. Iran isn't run by a bunch of morons. Why aren't we worrying more about Saudi Arabia, run a far more extremist regime then Iran, gaining nuclear weapons. It is because we treat Saudi Arabia and all their insanity as legitimate. Saudi Arabia doesn't have it's existence threatened.

5. You say we should talk to Iran, but you don't really mean it. You want concessions from them, not negotiations. You would scoff at the notion that there should be give and take. Get real.

Copypasta'd from NineSpine:1. The preamble of the NPT says it calls on signed nations “to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.” How does that NOT say we need to dismantle all of our nukes?

Of course that's what it says. But that doesn't actually means it means what it says or that the actual treaty signers expect what it actually says to happen. By that I mean I doubt anyone really thought this treaty would cause all the nuclear powers at the time to start total disarming. By signing the treaty back in 1968 didn't change the relationship between the US, USSR, France, UK, and China, meaning the reason they had nukes(the nature of their relationship) didn't change. This is a shared understanding between all the nuclear and non-nuclear states of the world who have signed this document, which is why you have never heard of an actual government announcing its pissed another signer hasn't dismantled all their nukes yet. Did you know Iran has signed the treaty, that would also be a clear violation.
Another example would be the UN charter, which refers to the UN as a body of the "peace loving nations of the world." Obviously UN member finds every other member to actually be peace-loving, whither its the US, Israel, or a Middle Eastern Nation, someone doesn't someone else.
I admit its silly to have such language like that in treaties when its not followed and no signatory intended to follow it, but that's out of my power and its just how the world works.


2. You can know everything about Middle Eastern culture and be totally clueless as to how to approach actual Middle Easterners. Understanding the mindset of a culture is more than memorizing facts; It's a work of empathy, which is a trait that your repeated racist, nationalist tirades have proven you to be lacking.

I'd hardly call what I write a tirade, but whatever. Anyway I don't admit to know everything about middle eastern culture or customs, and I'm sure that if I were to travel in the area I'd commit some kind of faux pas. But I have a basic understand of how Middle Eastern culture works, and its not really one culture, and how Islamic culture works. I don't know how I can exactly demonstrate that but I can say that if you look at the ethnic breakdown of my school you'll see that while white comes in first, second place is Arab, so there are a lot of middle easterners here. Plus my Army training includes this kind of education as well.

3. I don't know what is so complex about the idea that assigning nations we like the privilege to have nukes will drive other nations to develop them.

Because the only motive there is spite, and even without ours and the world's anti-nuclear policies, I'd say spite is a pretty poor reason to do anything. Like I've said, states developing nuclear power want it for regional dominance, not because they want to spite the US and its hypocrisy. These nuclear programs serve a real purpose.

4. My whole point here is your utter refusal to say "Well, perhaps we should look at how the Iranians feel and see if how they feel is justified." This is the exact mindset that lef to 9/11. We refused to actually analyze why people disagreed with us. We repeatedly kept fucking up the Middle East and when someone retaliated we acted surprised. It's idiotic. We go into the Middle East, shield Israel from even verbal criticism, defend their actions ad nauseum, depose people we don't like regardless of their sovereignty, blow up hundreds of thousands of women and children, tell nations they have no right to do the exact same things we do, and then act surprised when people don't want to negotiate with us because they don't trust us or even HATE us after being snubbed and in many cases outright murdered for decades. It's absolute stupidity, and the nuke issue is part of that larger issue. It only drives nations like Iran to fight for nukes harder, because they know that once they have them we won't be as willing to fuck with them. We never would have invaded Iraq if they had nuclear weapons and everyone knows it. Iran isn't run by a bunch of morons. Why aren't we worrying more about Saudi Arabia, run a far more extremist regime then Iran, gaining nuclear weapons. It is because we treat Saudi Arabia and all their insanity as legitimate. Saudi Arabia doesn't have it's existence threatened.

Now this is a tirade, I can't tell the difference between actual points and ranting. I need examples.

5. You say we should talk to Iran, but you don't really mean it. You want concessions from them, not negotiations. You would scoff at the notion that there should be give and take. Get real.
No really I want to talk to Iran. The US can make concessions if it has to but there are a few things that we will be unwilling to concede, like control of the Gulf. I'm not certain how successful any talks will be given what Iran wants, the opportunity it has to take it, and the state of the US militarily but whats there to lose from talking? The fact of the matter is that the US is in no position to strike Iran with any kind of military force. Our military is thinned and bloodied from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we started some kind of war with Iran it would easily be the end of our mission in Iraq as we know it. Talking is the only option we have, which is another reason Iran is being so aggressive lately, our military is beat up so they know they don't have to worry about the US attacking them. And given that Obama is president and the Congress is democratic, does anyone see Iran being attacked by the US?