Left and Right in the debate on nuclear weapons

[Atheus]

Frackal's thread (locked) claimed that 'leftists' were often found in support of Iranian nuclear weapons. I've seen a similar view in situations involving countries like korea. Those who support some independent action from govornments who are not friendly with the US are often labelled as lefties, but are they?

Nuclear weapons specifically have nothing to do with left or right wing politics, but if you were to link them, those who support Iran would have to be considered right wing. This is essentially a question of equality (left wing) versus liberty (right wing), so the liberty camp should argue for the right of any nation to do whatever it wants, right?

 

[3chordcharlie]

I for one am of the opinion that nucear weapons are a realtively unfortunate invention. Therefore I would prefer that no one have them, and am critical of nutjobs spouting off about wishing we could use them here, there, and everywhere.

I also recognize no moral authority of one nation to tell another whether they are 'allowed' to have nucear weapons. Non-proliferation treaties are one thing, but I find the whole Iran and NK nuke things ridiculous.

If I got to choose (which I don't) I'd ssoner see NK with nukes than Israel.

 

[Todd33]

I'm against any countries developing nukes, that includes ones friendly to the US. What is hypocritical is when the small club of nuclear countries starts to tell a potential new member they cannot join. Either we all have them or none do.

Frackels other thread was ridiculous, much like all of his threads. He comes of as some 19 year old with little education other than some Rush type radio/TV show.

 

[Bitek]

How about practicallity? I trust Iran with nukes far less than I trust our govt. with them (or should I say distrust more?)

Only bad things can of them having them, we shouldn't let them then.

OTOH, I cringe every time I hear some right-wing nut saying we hsould nuke this or that. Worst possible thing that could happen for our country. Tactical nukes (if useful in theory) is one of the dumbest ideas our miltary has come up with in the last 50 years.

 

[judasmachine]

One thing many forget or overlook is who the actual people are when they are talking left and right. Many consider all Christians as right wingers, and the atheists as leftists. If you were to wade into an modern anti-war protest you would find this to be 'generally' true, but as someone who has attended a protest, and met a nun, I'd say it's hardly the truth. The fact remains that Jesus was an anti-war, no shoe wearing, long haired hippy. Except for end of that mad dream that became Revelations, then he becomes a hawk.

As for permissiveness among [insert label here] groups that often protest war, nukes, etc. there probably is a grain of truth to it, but is it the rule? No, far from it.

I'm just torn between my disdain for nuclear weapons (and other mass destruction devices), and my disdain and weariness of further conflict. Perhaps we should have skipped Iraq altogether. See even that last sentence is going to be called 'permissiveness.'

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Frackal's thread (locked) claimed that 'leftists' were often found in support of Iranian nuclear weapons. I've seen a similar view in situations involving countries like korea. Those who support some independent action from govornments who are not friendly with the US are often labelled as lefties, but are they?

Nuclear weapons specifically have nothing to do with left or right wing politics, but if you were to link them, those who support Iran would have to be considered right wing. This is essentially a question of equality (left wing) versus liberty (right wing), so the liberty camp should argue for the right of any nation to do whatever it wants, right?

You left out survival. I am all for living... so development of nuclear weapons on the part of states ruled by hyper-religious insane maniacs is not on the top of my list, in terms of freedoms to preserve.

 

[Albatross]

nukes are an excellent invention.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Frackal's thread (locked) claimed that 'leftists' were often found in support of Iranian nuclear weapons. I've seen a similar view in situations involving countries like korea. Those who support some independent action from govornments who are not friendly with the US are often labelled as lefties, but are they?

Nuclear weapons specifically have nothing to do with left or right wing politics, but if you were to link them, those who support Iran would have to be considered right wing. This is essentially a question of equality (left wing) versus liberty (right wing), so the liberty camp should argue for the right of any nation to do whatever it wants, right?

I'm Republican/Conservative and I'm totally agianst Iran and N Korea having nukes...

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Frackal's thread (locked) claimed that 'leftists' were often found in support of Iranian nuclear weapons. I've seen a similar view in situations involving countries like korea. Those who support some independent action from govornments who are not friendly with the US are often labelled as lefties, but are they?

Nuclear weapons specifically have nothing to do with left or right wing politics, but if you were to link them, those who support Iran would have to be considered right wing. This is essentially a question of equality (left wing) versus liberty (right wing), so the liberty camp should argue for the right of any nation to do whatever it wants, right?

Since when is liberty right wing?

And Nuclear weapons are not weapons, they are deterrents. To protect countries like Iran and N Korea frmo people like the right wing opn this forum. I'd like to name names. But i'd get banned.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Atheus
Frackal's thread (locked) claimed that 'leftists' were often found in support of Iranian nuclear weapons. I've seen a similar view in situations involving countries like korea. Those who support some independent action from govornments who are not friendly with the US are often labelled as lefties, but are they?

Nuclear weapons specifically have nothing to do with left or right wing politics, but if you were to link them, those who support Iran would have to be considered right wing. This is essentially a question of equality (left wing) versus liberty (right wing), so the liberty camp should argue for the right of any nation to do whatever it wants, right?

Since when is liberty right wing?

Just going by internet definitions of right-wing like wikipedia. Traditionally right wingers are for individual freedoms over equality.

And Nuclear weapons are not weapons.

logical error at line 3, quitting...

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Since when is liberty right wing?

And Nuclear weapons are not weapons, they are deterrents. To protect countries like Iran and N Korea frmo people like the right wing opn this forum. I'd like to name names. But i'd get banned.

Anyone that would desire any potential enemy of the US to have nuclear weapons should be shot for treason. If you think nulcear weapons are a deterant and not a weapon you need to go vist two cities by the names of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear proliferation will only lead to one thing, Nuclear war.

 

[Tab]

I find it absurd that we're trying to force sovereign countries to not have any nuclear weapons? What the hell do you think North Korea is going to do when you consider them a part of the axis of evil? What do you think Iran wants to do when you have the world's largest military next door?

They feel threatenend and the only logical way for these much smaller countries to defend themselves is the use of WMDs. Unforunatly, our current administration is just adding fuel to the fire...

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Tab
I find it absurd that we're trying to force sovereign countries to not have any nuclear weapons?

Adults don't generally want countries that would like to kill them to have weapons that could kill them. Maybe you'll grow up some day and realize you don't want irresponsible neighbors building bombs next door.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Tab
I find it absurd that we're trying to force sovereign countries to not have any nuclear weapons? What the hell do you think North Korea is going to do when you consider them a part of the axis of evil? What do you think Iran wants to do when you have the world's largest military next door?

They feel threatenend and the only logical way for these much smaller countries to defend themselves is the use of WMDs. Unforunatly, our current administration is just adding fuel to the fire...

That is complete bullshit. The US has no reason, need, or intention of attacking either NK or Iran. They are both useless countries run by whack job dictators who have ruined their respective economies and future. Iran only has oil ank NK has nothing. These little pissant countries only want nuclear weapons to either sell or use as international blackmail to get what they want. They are playing the "we are threatened" card just like every whiney little idiot here pulls the race card when they don't like someone elses opinion.

Find another argument. You can try but you won't find one. There is no reason unstable and untrustworthy dictators should be allowed nuclear weapons.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Tab
I find it absurd that we're trying to force sovereign countries to not have any nuclear weapons? What the hell do you think North Korea is going to do when you consider them a part of the axis of evil? What do you think Iran wants to do when you have the world's largest military next door?

They feel threatenend and the only logical way for these much smaller countries to defend themselves is the use of WMDs. Unforunatly, our current administration is just adding fuel to the fire...

Iran started their nuclear program well before Iraq was ever invaded...

So you're obviously for Iran getting nukes, you're OK with us having thousands of nukes as well? I assume you would like us to jumpstart our nuclear program to create larger, more powerful bombs and better delivery systems?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Iran started their nuclear program well before Iraq was ever invaded...

I hope you understand the problem if they, or North Korea, really present a threat, we really need to do something about it, and we can't because we squandered all of our military resources on Bush's war of lies in Iraq. :shocked:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
Iran started their nuclear program well before Iraq was ever invaded...

I hope you understand the problem if they, or North Korea, really present a threat, we really need to do something about it, and we can't because we squandered all of our military resources on Bush's war of lies in Iraq. :shocked:

The last thing we need to do is invade Iran...and besides, we have more than enough air power to take out their facilities if we so wished...

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
Iran started their nuclear program well before Iraq was ever invaded...

I hope you understand the problem if they, or North Korea, really present a threat, we really need to do something about it, and we can't because we squandered all of our military resources on Bush's war of lies in Iraq. :shocked:

We don't (and shouldn't) invade Iran. If we need their nuclear facilities destroyed, then we can use the appropriate amount of airpower to achieve that goal... preferably unmanned airpower, in the form of drones and missiles.

 

[Looney]

I'm a leftist, and I don't Iran or North Korea to have nukes. But they should have the right of it... since so many other countries do... isn't it a little hypocritical to say they can't? That being said, i doubt they'll ever use the nukes... if they did, they would be completely annihilated.

 

[spunkz]

Originally posted by: Looney
I'm a leftist, and I don't Iran or North Korea to have nukes. But they should have the right of it... since so many other countries do... isn't it a little hypocritical to say they can't? That being said, i doubt they'll ever use the nukes... if they did, they would be completely annihilated.

it's not like there's a God-given right for a country to have nuclear weapons. we have seen mostly responsible nations acquire them, but why should the world sit back and allow a nation with an openly hostile government run by radical Muslims to build weapons of mass destruction? especially one that is arrogantly defying the UN

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Meuge
We don't (and shouldn't) invade Iran. If we need their nuclear facilities destroyed, then we can use the appropriate amount of airpower to achieve that goal... preferably unmanned airpower, in the form of drones and missiles.

Remember, I'm a peace loving lefty, but as nice as your statement is as a concept, Iran and North Korea are both currently lead by whackos, and it is conceivable that we could be legitimately drawn into conflict with either.

As I said, the problem is, Bush has already squandered our military capabilities in Iraq. Both of them know it, and that, alone, could embolden either of them to the point where they think we couldn't do anything about it... and they may be right.

The second part of your "solution" isn't necessarily viable, either. Logistically, air power, alone, may not be enough to do the job of stopping aggression or threats by either Iran or North Korea. Hell! North Korea could pour a huge army across the 38th parallel before we could launch any strikes, and any resulting nuclear fallout would be only minutes from Seoul, and Iran's neighborhood isn't any better as far as proximity goes.

Then, there's this little matter of our diminished credibility in the world community. As difficult as doing anything would be, it'll be that much more difficult without any help from those who would at least question any claims of a threat coming from the Bushwhackos.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie! :|

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Meuge
We don't (and shouldn't) invade Iran. If we need their nuclear facilities destroyed, then we can use the appropriate amount of airpower to achieve that goal... preferably unmanned airpower, in the form of drones and missiles.

Remember, I'm a peace loving lefty, but as nice as your statement is as a concept, Iran and North Korea are both currently lead by whackos, and it is conceivable that we could be legitimately drawn into conflict with either.

As I said, the problem is, Bush has already squandered our military capabilities in Iraq. Both of them know it, and that, alone, could embolden either of them to the point where they think we couldn't do anything about it... and they may be right.

The second part of your "solution" isn't necessarily viable, either. Logistically, air power, alone, may not be enough to do the job of stopping aggression or threats by either Iran or North Korea. Hell! North Korea could pour a huge army across the 38th parallel before we could launch any strikes, and any resulting nuclear fallout would be only minutes from Seoul, and Iran's neighborhood isn't any better as far as proximity goes.

Then, there's this little matter of our diminished credibility in the world community. As difficult as doing anything would be, it'll be that much more difficult without any help from those who would at least question any claims of a threat coming from the Bushwhackos.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie! :|

What, we're the only capable military to confronting Iran? Germany/France/UK/Spain/The rest of the EU aren't up to the challenge? BTW, the use of terms such as "Bushwhackos" does nothing for your argument.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Traditionally right wingers are for individual freedoms over equality.

So they should have no problems with abortion or gay marraige.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Atheus
Traditionally right wingers are for individual freedoms over equality.

So they should have no problems with abortion or gay marraige.

Umm...anti gay and anti abortion is also a typical right winger trait.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: Looney
I'm a leftist, and I don't Iran or North Korea to have nukes. But they should have the right of it... since so many other countries do... isn't it a little hypocritical to say they can't? That being said, i doubt they'll ever use the nukes... if they did, they would be completely annihilated.

it's not like there's a God-given right for a country to have nuclear weapons. we have seen mostly responsible nations acquire them, but why should the world sit back and allow a nation with an openly hostile government run by radical Muslims to build weapons of mass destruction? especially one that is arrogantly defying the UN

Openly hostile? How many countries and wars have they been involved in versus what the US has done?