Power and responsibility

[Blind groper]

We all know that the comic hero, Spiderman, had an uncle who said "with great power comes great responsibility. It is interesting that in Franklin D. Roosevelt's last speech (not given since he dropped dead), he wrote : "Today, we have learned in the agony of war that great power involves great responsibility."

It was even written in the New Testament, 2,000 years ago, when Yeshua ben Yosef said " From him to which much is given, much is expected."

But the American government repeatedly betrays this principle. They have great power, since the US armed forces are the most powerful, but the American government does not seem to realise that this power requires restraint. We saw the horrors of the Viet Nam war, and more recently George W. Bush betraying that principle by going to war with Iraq, based on a lie, and resulting in 400,000 deaths (directly or indirectly as a result of that war).

Will this continue?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

In practice, the "responsibility" part of that phrase is usually equated with "who can we blame for this fucking mess!?"

[Sean Hayden]

I don't know. What do you think about Iran? It looks like we may have given them Iraq, and Washington has refused to take military action against Iran off the table. Some on the right are even going so far as to say that it is inevitable, and just, and that it will be swift and easy.

[Blind groper]

If the US government takes military action against Iran, it will be another abuse of power, and unnecessary.

[Brian Peacock]

We have to disentangle 'responsibility' from 'obligation' here I think. We also have to admit that even if one accepts a certain responsibility, acting responsibly is not always a clear and easy thing.

[cronus]

If America does not externalize its national angst there could be civil war. Civil unrest in the US for the last couple of years indicates a another war is necessary. It's picking the most profitable target and least risky target that's delaying things. Serial killer nation needs a global recession so the global party quietens down....less chance of being globally apprehended that way and turned into a pariah state.

[DaveDodo007]

In practice, the "responsibility" part of that phrase is usually equated with "who can we blame for this fucking mess!?"

The buck stops he..erm with that new Intern who started last month.

[Seth]

If the US government takes military action against Iran, it will be another abuse of power, and unnecessary.

You can say that because it's unlikely that Iran will drop a nuke on your pissant little island. The rest of the civilized world has a bit more to lose.

[Blind groper]

Seth

That debate was held in the early days of the nuclear bomb with regard to the Soviets. Many people thought that the Soviets should be blasted into oblivion before they fully developed their own nukes. Wiser heads prevailed, and today nuclear war is distant.

There are quite a bunch of nations in the 'nuclear club' today, including mutual enemies India and Pakistan. And the only time nukes were used in anger was done by the USA. There is no reason, apart from irrational paranoia, to believe that Iran would be different.

[Seth]

Seth

That debate was held in the early days of the nuclear bomb with regard to the Soviets. Many people thought that the Soviets should be blasted into oblivion before they fully developed their own nukes. Wiser heads prevailed, and today nuclear war is distant.

There are quite a bunch of nations in the 'nuclear club' today, including mutual enemies India and Pakistan. And the only time nukes were used in anger was done by the USA. There is no reason, apart from irrational paranoia, to believe that Iran would be different.

Except that they have stated the intention to blow Israel off the face of the earth and they are a prime sponsor of Islamic terrorism worldwide who won't hesitate to give nuclear weapons to ISIS or other Islamic terrorist groups to use against infidels.

[Blind groper]

All of which can be said about quite a few other nations, who never act on it. Going to war against Iran, on the basis of a bunch of 'maybes' is total insanity, and irresponsible.

[Brian Peacock]

Seth

That debate was held in the early days of the nuclear bomb with regard to the Soviets. Many people thought that the Soviets should be blasted into oblivion before they fully developed their own nukes. Wiser heads prevailed, and today nuclear war is distant.

There are quite a bunch of nations in the 'nuclear club' today, including mutual enemies India and Pakistan. And the only time nukes were used in anger was done by the USA. There is no reason, apart from irrational paranoia, to believe that Iran would be different.

Except that they have stated the intention to blow Israel off the face of the earth and they are a prime sponsor of Islamic terrorism worldwide who won't hesitate to give nuclear weapons to ISIS or other Islamic terrorist groups to use against infidels.

And Israel has reciprocated. Nor is Iran the only major sponsor of Jihadism.

And besides, Iran is subject to the most rigorous of oversight as a condition for removing unilateral economic sanctions. If any nation used a nuke, or even tried, that nation would effectively cease to exist such would be the global impetus to avoid wholesale Armageddon. Politicians might be ego-driven idiots but when faced with the facts, like there are c.25,000 nukes in the World but it would only take 10-20 of them finish us off, even they're not going to press the button. The one's to look out for are the religious nutjobs with a death wish, but that's always been the case anyway and it's not like the Middle East has a monopoly in that respect.

[Seth]

And Israel has reciprocated. Nor is Iran the only major sponsor of Jihadism.

The hell it's not....

And besides, Iran is subject to the most rigorous of oversight as a condition for removing unilateral economic sanctions. If any nation used a nuke, or even tried, that nation would effectively cease to exist such would be the global impetus to avoid wholesale Armageddon. Politicians might be ego-driven idiots but when faced with the facts, like there are c.25,000 nukes in the World but it would only take 10-20 of them finish us off, even they're not going to press the button. The one's to look out for are the religious nutjobs with a death wish, but that's always been the case anyway and it's not like the Middle East has a monopoly in that respect.

Er, need I point out to you that the Mullahs that run Iran are insane religious zealots, not politicians?

[Brian Peacock]

And Israel has reciprocated. Nor is Iran the only major sponsor of Jihadism.

The hell it's not....

And besides, Iran is subject to the most rigorous of oversight as a condition for removing unilateral economic sanctions. If any nation used a nuke, or even tried, that nation would effectively cease to exist such would be the global impetus to avoid wholesale Armageddon. Politicians might be ego-driven idiots but when faced with the facts, like there are c.25,000 nukes in the World but it would only take 10-20 of them finish us off, even they're not going to press the button. The one's to look out for are the religious nutjobs with a death wish, but that's always been the case anyway and it's not like the Middle East has a monopoly in that respect.

Er, need I point out to you that the Mullahs that run Iran are insane religious zealots, not politicians?

The one's to look out for are the religious nutjobs with a death wish, but that's always been the case anyway and it's not like the Middle East has a monopoly in that respect.

[Sean Hayden]

How are we going to sell the nutjob characterization given their approach to Iraq so far? I guess we could eventually focus on the genocidal extremists, but I believe they've condemned those fighters haven't they?