3 ms·
The cognitive dissonance is a little too thick to parse. Are you saying if another nation other than the USA had done the deed, you'd be cool with it, since it
by shii 16y ago
The cognitive dissonance is a little too thick to parse. Are you saying if another nation other than the USA had done the deed, you'd be cool with it, since it comes to an end that you support?
- daeken 16y agoNo, I'm saying that the ends don't justify the means. I don't think that Iran should have nuclear capabilities, but that it's not our battle to fight, and thus the US (and any other nation) should not be attacking it.
- redthrowaway 16y agoSo, to clarify, you think it's a bad thing if Iran gets nukes, but nobody has the right to try and stop them?
- rdtsc 16y agoAnother way to interpret "nobody has the right to stop them" is that officially a "nobody" stops them i.e. a nameless shadow organization with everyone involved having the highest level of clearance and a program having a high degree of compartmentalization.
- berntb 16y agoI would guess his position is: Don't mess with people that routinely murder your civilians, if they get angry. Like Iran's ayatollahs. Not unreasonable, but here we talk about that murderous regime with nuclear weapons, too... :-(