So what was the point of bombing cities in Germany?
Obviously it was a scare tactic, but again, I wouldn't have agreed with that, either. But even that, you could argue that's how we had to fight wars at the time, whether one agreed with the actions or not. In today's technological age, however, I find it very hard to believe we can't possibly find a way to target the people we need to deal with without dragging innocent people into the conflict.
And if you must get them involved, it also usually helps if you can get the citizens of a country on your side and have them fight
alongside you. Doesn't seem the U.S. has really figured out how to do that very well, we usually wind up alienating everyone altogether. From what I've read about the Middle East conflicts, it seems the people there are in a lose-lose situation: they hate the radical terrorists or figureheads that wind up running their countries, but they aren't too crazy about us, either. So they pretty much have to choose between one or the other. Or they can form their own resistance, or flee, but those options are fraught with danger, too. So if the U.S., or Israel, is going to go and handle Iran, they might want to do well to get the civilians' full support and help beforehand. Maybe then we could actually make some headway and get these problems dealt with.
Well seeing as Obama is our president, no I don't.
No, he doesn't think that way (thankfully), but there are people in our government that have been known to see this as a "holy war", a "crusade", who would also say things of that nature, if they haven't already. There's some scary people in our current Congress. And any other politicians who could one day hold a position of power who think that way would be worth being concerned about.
Okay, I see what you're saying. But there's just never going to be that perfect world scenario. Even if the middle east was somehow completly disarmed, theres always the possibility of someone re-aquiring dangerous weapons and technologies.
This is true. But it still just seems strange to me that when they have the weapons, they're dangerous. When we have them, we're not. And besides that, haven't we given weapons to people in that part of the world before? Seems like a strange gesture for us if we're that distrusting of their use of weapons.
I think most people in Iran realize how bad of an idea having a nuclear arsenal would be. But other than that I don't really care what Iran has.
They may realize it's not a good situation, yes, but they may also understand the potential need for it as we do here. I'm pretty sure (I'm hopefully sure) that most Americans aren't too enthused about us owning weapons, either, but people such as yourself provide reasons why some may see our owning them as justifiable. Like I said, I'm no fan of Iran having weapons, either. I just wish nobody anywhere in the world had them. But that's just me being hopelessly idealistic again
. I feel if we show we're willing to work on reducing our arsenal, other people will feel inspired to want to reduce theirs, too, and work to remove those who refuse to compromise. And it seems Obama and I are on the same wavelength in regards to that, which makes me happy.
Angela