Title and poll speaks for itself. It is my belief that had this administration not tied our hands in Iraq, for reasons they no longer feel the need to explain to the American people, Korea and Iran would not be quite so bold. Korea has not only developed nukes but they are testing missles capable of reaching U.S. soil. We invaded Iraq for far less. Iran is enriching uranium to produce weapons and thumbing it's nose at the world for telling them to stop. We invaded Iraq for far less. I'm not "too" concerned over what might happen if Iran were to succeed in attaining the bomb. It comes down to one phrase that they cannot avoid. Mutually assured destruction... If Iran does get the bomb and would ever be foolish enough to use it I'm sure they know that we would annihilate them. Then again the Iranian government is lead by a wacko (no offense nintendo). So who knows.
MAD presumes rationality. I am not so sanguine - but then, I never was. There is no conclusive evidence that MAD, in terms of game theory, is an effective paradigm; in fact, in some ways, I believe it is an inherently unstable game.
A solid rebuttle. But I'm curious as to what you think of the actual poll question and overall point of the thread and the main statements made within vice that ending side comment.
Sorry, I should have said, I agree with your notion. I think these states know we are exposed and are using this to rattle sabers they would normally keep sheathed.
One could argue Would this countries spend money in developping those weapons if they wouldn't believe that you will invade them?
i think the whole knows that US is too occupied with Afghanistan/ Iran and little missions around the world and on top of that New orleans
Another Republican party catch phrase response instead of addressing the actual point of the post from GTech. Hey if that's all you're gonna do I can go get a Karl Rove play book and save you the time by just replying for you. Let's see. Stay the course Dems don't have a plan The liberal media did it Blame America first Cut and run. You're just a Bush hater All nicely crafted media catch phrases ready and packaged for you to repeat and repeat until hopefully American starts to believe it. Sorry we're not buying it and the polls show it. But that's right GWB doesn't care about polls. (Read: he could care less what the American people think).
I really don't believe that there is a simple answer to this or any other similar question. They know for years that there is a possibility that they are going to get invaded so it's natural to prepare for it. Also it makes sense as a preventive defense mechanism, it's not an easy decision to attack a country that has nukes and to be honest I can't blame them for that at least not more than any other country that has developped nukes. It's a power balance game now and I wouldn't be surprised if it tuirns out to another cold war. Do I like it that they are develloping or have developped nukes. No, but I don't like the fact that USA or any other country has them either. To me nuclear weapons to the world are like sugar in a diet, empty calories that provide nothing useful and can only hurt you. Just my 2 cents
Nothing but the truth my friend, blame America first, always. It gives you something to do, right? Hoo, Boo type - 1 ea.
So you believe that they would be just as bold were we not in Iraq? I'm terribly sorry to keep putting the point back in front of you but you're getting old and a little senile so I'm here to help If someone doesn't help the little guy out he'll just keep rambling off talking points and derail the thread again.
I believe a lot of things went unchecked in the previous administration that unfortunately had to be dealt with by this administration. Do we need to go into the North Korea disaster of Clinton/Carter, of which Carter (in part) won a Nobel Peace Prize over? They provide NK with nuclear material and appeasement and guess what? Appeasement didn't work. You point is perfectly clear. Blame America first. Anything else to add? Was that the only talking point you had...blame America first? Now that I've got you back on track, what will you do?
OK this is your last do over. And I apologize, running to a new topic and more political talking points is not an direct answer to the question. Guess I should have clarified that for you? I mean you literally started your answer trying to blame a previous administration when all I asked you was..... So you believe that they would be just as bold were we not in Iraq?
My answer was clear. It just doesn't fit your blame America first agenda. Did you need more clarification? Was there other countries you wanted to blame second, or is America first your only objective?
Heh heh. You don't have an answer do you? You can't even put together an articulate direct rebuttle to the question of this thread without making it about me or your Republican catch phrases. Save it for a rally or something. You've had plenty of time to put up or shut up. G'night
My answer was clear, but it didn't fall in line with your blame America first agenda. As usual, if the answer doesn't fall in line with your way of thinking, just pretend it was never answered. Do you think it will work? Speaking of, you forgot to answer: Talk about someone who doesn't like to answer questions
purely hypothetical question. Who knows? While I agree with a lot of your premises and comments in other threads I can't say. Both admins in NK and Iran are renegade dangerous governments intent on building their ability to attack others. One wierd twist on that question is that if Saddam Hussein were in power, he was an historical enemy of Iran. Maybe he would have been a counter threat to Iraq. How ironic.