Romney 47%. How many % believe USA is entitled to stick their nose in Irans business?

Romney made a sweet comment recently about the 47% of idiots feeling entitled. how many of you feel USA is entitled to stick their nose into Irans nuclear business, while having nuclear plants, and even nuclear bombs themselves? not just having them, but having USED them...

 

Should I use a larger font?

 

Yes, I do believe the U.S. and it's citizenry (that chose), have a reason for legitimate concern of a nuclear armed Islamic Theocracy.

 

I do not believe it is our place. The only reason America seems to not want Iran to have nukes is because it effectively locks Iran in on the map. No one will ever attempt to invade them once they have nukes. And I don't think Iran is stupid enough to look to start a nuclear war with Israel either. The way I see it Iran having nukes leads to a more peaceful middle east. Maybe one with high tensions but one where no one would dare (*)(*)(*)(*) with the other. Quite frankly I don't see either Iran or Israel having moral high ground. And Israel already has nukes. So I'm not that scared of Iran getting them.

 

Good point.

 

I say no. I don't care about nuclear proliferation. The worst rivalry in quite a while was in the Cold War, and it never happened. North Korea, if they actually do have it, despite their intense propaganda and hatred for the South, have yet to use it.

 

I don't think its our business. China has a horrific human rights record, abysmal relations with her neighbors, has a huge standing army, and we're in debt to her. Why we have chosen Iran to be concerned about is beyond me.

Iranians didn't attack us on 911, it was Saudis and Egyptians mostly.

 

If the number is higher than 0%, it's way too many. And it is, sadly.

It isn't our business.

 

We have no threats. Even if Iran got nukes, they still aren't a threat.

 

Iran is more of a threat to itself than a threat to us. We will see another revolution in Iran within our lifetimes. I have no doubt on that. The current regime is too corrupt too extreme. And too many of the people are young, intelligent moderates.

 

Once Iran gets nuclear weapons Saudi Arabia will demand that they get them also followed shortly thereafter by Egypt and Iraq.

Given the history of warfare in the Middle East are you sure its such a good idea to have that area armed to the teeth with nukes?

 

Saudi Arabia already has them.

They are not stupid. If they were, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would have an entire Empire over there.

 

Not a yes or no question imo... If there is a threat to our country or national interest then yes, if not then no.

 

This question is tendentiously phrased, as it appears to assume that it is exclusively Iran's business if the Persian mullocracy acquires nuclear capability.

I would strongly differ. As would any of the (hundreds of thousands, or even millions) of innocents who might be, eventually, on the receiving end of an Iranian nuke. Or a terrorists' nuke, if Iran should sell terrorists, say, a suitcase nuke.

As to America's having used nuclear weapons, that was two-thirds of a century ago, in the heat of a declared war; and before the (current) Western taboo against the first use of nuclear weapons had developed...

 

Allowing Iran to gain the nuclear bomb is insane. All the rest of the ME would feel the need to have one. Eventually someone would lit one off and that would probably doom the entire planet. Israel has about 300 nukes which would be dumped on iran if ever attacked but the crazies in Iran seem hell bent on Israel's destruction.

 

You're not going to stop the world from having nuclear weapons until EVERYONE makes an open and honest effort to eliminate them. INCLUDING us.

There is simply no way for us to say "HEY YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" while we do it! We can act as big and tough as we want. But all they have to do is call our bluff. Unless the president is an idiot like Bush or you have somehow managed to (*)(*)(*)(*) off the entire world (not even North Korea has managed to do that yet) we're not going to invade you over it.

On the other hand though I do think we should continue making it as tough as we have the ability to make it to get nukes. We just shouldn't be invading the sovereignty of nations to do so.

 

There will always be some--rogue states, for example--who will clandestinely develop nuclear weapons. (Once they have accomplished this, of course, they can feel free to announce to the world that they have nuclear weapons.)

So, for the US to disarm, in the knowledge that others would surely continue to develop nukes, would be tantamount to our agreeing (tacitly) to submit to the international blackmail of aggressor states...

 

I agree. Which is why I'd prefer everyone had nukes instead. I think it's the most realistic way to achieve world peace. Would you argue to invade a country if it could possibly mean the end of the world in a nuclear winter?

 

This argument assumes the efficacy of the Cold War-era doctrine of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), which makes for an apt acronym, in my opinion.

With Iran, it is likely to be even less effective than it was with the Soviets. For I believe that the mullocracy in Iran is being run by crazed apocalyptists--not by calculating pragmatists--so it would gladly sacrifice the lives of a few hundred thousand people (or even a few million people) in order to hasten the Eschaton, complete with the return of the long-deceased Twelfth Imam (or Mahdi), in accordance with radical Shiite eschatology...

I really don't believe that the threshold, for going to war, should be any different in 2012 than it was in 1912.

Or even in 1812.

 

Then why haven't they just all committed suicide by running into Israel with scimitars?

 

I wonder if Romney feels entitled to stick his nose in Iranian business?