Chat/Comment thread

And just how do we do that?

Do you mean retired General Wesley Clark; the pompous ass who's only talent was kissing higher up asses?Who is "us"?

Excuse me?Stop and think.One plan put forward by both the US and the EU is to embargo Iranian oil, so it seems that both the US and the EU seem to think they do not need Iranian oil.Do you know how much oil the US buys from Iran?And the topic was a nuclear Iran. What does a nuclear Iran have to do with oil?And exactly how do you assure Iranian oil (that we say we won't buy) gets sent to the US without invading and occupying Iran?It really sounds more like "the US better watch its step".

So we buy no oil from Iran.In fact we get only about 15% of our oil from the whole Middle East.As you point out, Iran is broke, internally in turmoil, out spent militarily by its neighbors including Israel.So tell me how Iran is a threat to the US and what a nuclear Iran has to do with oil?

And almost 100% of Iran's income is generated by selling oil, a source of income they would lose should they close the strait.Where is the threat?

There would be no dead Iranians unless the US acts similarly to the stupidity exhibited by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.But I still do not see a threat to the US from Iran having nuclear weapons or any reason that the US should have a position on that subject.

I think it would be best if no country had nuclear weapons and would be in favor of the US setting an example by eliminating all of ours.The problem with nuclear weapons is that it is a tool that a Nation State cannot really use without every other nation on earth turning against them. Since we can't use the damn things, why not set an example by getting rid of them?

As long as US voters think that "THE US" can keep or make the world safe, "THE US" will fail.AbE:And yes, the cat is out of the bag and it's time we learn to live with others having them and work to get rid of the ones we have.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

I do not say that it is all the US's fault, only that as a US citizen it is the US that I care about most and have the best chance and right to change.It is the US that if I am to act as a citizen, I MUST criticize and judge.

Not sure how the US is more right than Iran, sorry.It's also irrelevant.It is not up to me to determine Iran's internal policies.Iran presents negligible threat to the US and it is up to Iranians to determine Iran's internal policies and to those who might be threatened by Iran to work out their relationships.

I don't think it is possible to determine which culture is better. I also don't think it is something we should do more than discuss. It is as reasonable for them to tell us how bad our Commodity Based Culture is as it is for us to tell them how bad their women's rights culture is.Seeking nuclear weapons is pretty futile since no Nation can really afford to use them.I don't think there is any one standard of rightness.Finally, I am a citizen of MY country and so I have a duty and obligation to be critical of MY country.

There are standards but they evolve over time and are standards only by consensus.Consider this fairly well known phrase:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."Of course in that phrase, they literally meant men, and not all men, black men were certainly not equal and no woman regardless of color was equal and in many cases only white men that owned property were equal and even then only kinda equal.We are trying to evolve a set of universal standards but without much luck so far.

Note the ending of the sentence you quoted.There are standards but they evolve over time and are standards only by consensus.Consensus is when all parties agree "Okay, I can live with that."We can and should try to persuade them but if they do not agree within their Nation, we cannot force their agreement.

No, I didn't say that. But in most cases it is ineffective in the long run.The problem is that unless you end up getting consensus from the individual citizens of a Nation to abide by the given set of standards, those standards can only be maintained by continued coercion. You must occupy the Nation for an extended period and even then have no assurance of that Nation continuing to abide by the standards once the coercion is stopped.As long as we operate within in a Nation State paradigm we need to recognize that every Nation State has the right to self rule. If a Nation State tries to impose its culture on another Nation State, then we should oppose and sanction that Nation State.That does not leave a Nation State helpless. If for example we disagree with Iran's internal policies on Gays we can offer sanctuary to all such people, we can refuse to do business with Iran, we can try to persuade other Nation States to boycott Iran, we can speak out publicly in opposition to their policies.

Only if that is where YOU place the highest value.