Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marlin
The right to have a nuclear bomb. Hmm. Do you mean in a moral sense or in a international law and treaty sense.
|
Either
Quote:
|
Trust Iran's political stability ... nah, i vote no nukes in Iran. Nuclear power, sure, if it's safe.
|
What gives you the right (moral or legal) to say that Iran can't have nukes?
Quote:
|
Europe needs something to bargain with. Economic sanctions are usually good for that.
|
Economic sanctions usually impact the civilians much more than the ruling class. So, you're suggesting that we punish the Iranian people for a decision made by their leaders? That's seems pretty cruel.
Also, we've seen how effective UN sanctions are at changing minds. What makes you think it would work in this case?
Quote:
|
War, Europe, can't see it happen, not as europe, maybe with the UN.
|
So, you would support your government and allow it to send troops in a UN mandated war against Iran? What if the UN did not authorize military force, would you still be in favor of war should diplomatic solutions fail? If so, how long is a reasonable time to try diplomacy?
Quote:
|
Anyway, if the UN would do nothing, we always have our trigger happy friends across the atlantic.
|
That's interesting. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Is it good that Europe can stay on its moral high horse while the US answers world threats? Or, would you rather the US simply stay out of it and allow the EU and UN to handle whatever problems arise? If those problems are not resolved, will you hold the EU and UN accountable, or will you simply blame the Americans for, once again, not coming to your aid soon enough?
What would make you consider the US "trigger happy"? If no action were taken by the UN over 12 years and the US acted unilaterally (with 40 other nations, but not the all (self)important French)? Would it have to be longer before you would consider us not "trigger happy"?