Are USA & Israel The Most Dangerous Countries In The World?

[Revoltingest]

I'm hoping this thread will win me a popularity contest.

U.S., Israel Discuss Triggers for Bombing Iran

It appears that their rationale is as follows:
We get to have nuclear weapons, but Iran has no right to them.
Iran threatens Israel, & Israel threatens Iran. Only the former is wrong.
A preemptive attack on Iran might start WW3, but that's acceptable if it enhances security of Israel & cheap oil.

We are a threat to peace, & must be stopped!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't think countries are dangerous, but rather policies, decisions, and attitudes.

 

[sandandfoam]

Israel isn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

Israel isn't.

From the sound of it, they're the ones chompingest at the bit to make the area glow in the dark.
Even if they don't initially use nukes, I see great risk that someone will.

 

[bobhikes]

I'm hoping this thread will win me a popularity contest.

U.S., Israel Discuss Triggers for Bombing Iran

It appears that their rationale is as follows:
We get to have nuclear weapons, but Iran has no right to them.
Iran threatens Israel, & Israel threatens Iran. Only the former is wrong.
A preemptive attack on Iran might start WW3, but that's acceptable if it enhances security of Israel & cheap oil.

We are a threat to peace, & must be stopped!

The world is overpopulated anyway might as well thin the population.:banghead3

 

[JMorris]

people who have weapons that can destroy entire cities with just 1 bomb might be a threat to peace? that sounds a bit far fetched to me. we should go back large rocks & pointy sticks.

 

[sandandfoam]

From the sound of it, they're the ones most chomping at the bit to make the area glow in the dark.
Even if they don't initially use nukes, I see great risk that someone will.

Maybe I'm naive, but apart from a small number of headbangers that exist in every country I don't believe that the huge majority of people in Israel want any more than to live their lives in peace and free from threat.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe I'm naive, but apart from a small number of headbangers that exist in every country I don't believe that the huge majority of people in Israel want any more than to live their lives in peace and free from threat.

I'm likely just as naive.
But leaders rule, not the majority.
And they appear to share a different version of "peace" from mine.

people who have weapons that can destroy entire cities with just 1 bomb might be a threat to peace? that sounds a bit far fetched to me. we should go back large rocks & pointy sticks.

Rocks & sticks? Hmmm....no radioactive debris hanging around to cause genetic damage for generations....I like it!
War ought not be so easy as a haphazardly chosen few just looking up codes & pushing buttons.

 

[JMorris]

I'm likely just as naive.
But leaders rule, not the majority.
And they appear to share a different version of "peace" from mine.

ive noticed that too. i thought i was the only one.

Rocks & sticks? Hmmm....no radioactive debris hanging around to cause genetic damage for generations....I like it!
War ought not be so easy as looking up codes & pushing buttons.

you should have to look your enemy in the eye while you shove your pointy stick into the other eye. but i dunno if that would sell many copies of the next Call of Duty.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We get to have nuclear weapons, but Iran has no right to them.

Precisely.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is there a good rationale or argument for Iran having nuclear weapons?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Is there a good rationale or argument for Iran having nuclear weapons?

Is there a good rationale or argument for a 10 year old having a loaded pistol?

 

[JMorris]

Is there a good rationale or argument for a 10 year old having a loaded pistol?

bears

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there a good rationale or argument for Iran having nuclear weapons?

I think that's the wrong argument to address. Rather.....
Is there a good argument for a preemptive attack on Iran in order to prevent them from having nuclear weapons?
Such an argument should address the potential for incurring further much greater wrath of the Islamic world at an
unprovoked (no attacks by Iran) & hypocritical (by nuclear powers who would deny this power to others) attack?
Moreover, Iran might find new allies in Russia & China, who would likely see opportunity to flex greater power on
the world stage.

 

[Caladan]

I'm hoping this thread will win me a popularity contest.

U.S., Israel Discuss Triggers for Bombing Iran

It appears that their rationale is as follows:
We get to have nuclear weapons, but Iran has no right to them.

If we look at modern history, this has always been the rationale. the efforts of the US to develop nuclear abilities in WWII in order to achieve the final edge and win the war. later the cold war, the nuclear competition between India and Pakistan. you make it sound as if there is a new change in world policies.
the standard world policy, is that you work on having an edge over your opponent.

Iran threatens Israel, & Israel threatens Iran. Only the former is wrong.
A preemptive attack on Iran might start WW3, but that's acceptable if it enhances security of Israel & cheap oil.

How do you see it results in A 'WWIII'?

 

[Caladan]

Moreover, Iran might find new allies in Russia & China, who would likely see opportunity to flex greater power on
the world stage.

How is it already not the case?
Russia and China specifically oppose larger sanctions on Iran because of the supply of Iranian oil.

 

[Revoltingest]

How is it already not the case?
Russia and China specifically oppose larger sanctions on Iran because of the supply of Iranian oil.

I see that they might ramp up their involvement....but on their own & Iran's side.

If we look at modern history, this has always been the rationale. the efforts of the US to develop nuclear abilities in WWII in order to achieve the final edge and win the war. later the cold war, the nuclear competition between India and Pakistan. you make it sound as if there is a new change in world policies.
the standard world policy, is that you work on having an edge over your opponent.

It certainly is a standard approach. But I'm not addressing moral arguments to keep Iran under our thumb.
Rather, I'm envisioning risks of a preemptive attack on them.

How do you see it results in A 'WWIII'?

Religion. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran hasn't invaded a foreign country or harbored a bin Laden. They'd look like the innocent victim.
An attack on Iran much more resembles a religious war, in that a Xian country & a Jewish country would unilaterally decide that a Muslim country
is not permitted to have nukes, even though the attackers have them. A deadly attack on Iran could easily be seen as a blatantly hypocritical
& deadly attack on Islam. Pakistan is already a loose cannon.....one which I don't want aimed at me. Russia & China would pick a side which
results in their benefit. And China is eyeballing natural resources in the region.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think that's the wrong argument to address. Rather.....
Is there a good argument for a preemptive attack on Iran in order to prevent them from having nuclear weapons?
Such an argument should address the potential for incurring further much greater wrath of the Islamic world at an
unprovoked (no attacks by Iran) & hypocritical (by nuclear powers who would deny this power to others) attack?
Moreover, Iran might find new allies in Russia & China, who would likely see opportunity to flex greater power on
the world stage.

Indeed, these are among the wide range of possibilities that must be weighed and considered. I'm not sure what the results of a thorough and honest analysis of all the variables involved would be. Still, the question of the ramifications of Iran having nuclear weapons is certainly a relevant variable in any such analysis. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Revoltingest]

Indeed, these are among the wide range of possibilities that must be weighed and considered. I'm not sure what the results of a thorough and honest analysis of all the variables involved would be. Still, the question of the ramifications of Iran having nuclear weapons is certainly a relevant variable in any such analysis. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes...not disputed.
But have we the wisdom to crush the country militarily in order to prevent their arming with nukes?
I don't see our foreign adventurism as having gone so smoothly over the last 4 decades. And this move
appears to have greater potential to go very wrong. More potential enemies have nukes (eg, Pakistan),
attacks are easier to make local & the US is economically weaker.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes...not disputed.
But have we the wisdom to crush the country militarily in order to prevent their arming with nukes?
I don't see our foreign adventurism as going so smoothly over the last 4 decades. And this move
appears to have greater potential to go very wrong.

It has a greater potential to go wrong whichever path we choose.