Iran... (1 Viewer)

[conserv.pat15]

Do any of you here think that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? If so, why?






I DON'T think Iran should even come close to getting nuclear weapons and I think we(or Israel) need to launch airstrikes on Iran very soon.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

No, Iran doesn't have the right to have nuclear weapons. But then, neither do we; in fact, we probably have less right to them, since we are the only country that has used them. If we are going to stop Iran from developing them, we should start by getting rid of our own.

 

[Parmenion]

I am somewhat in agreement with coffesaint.

No country should have the right to nuclear weapons.

However, thats an idealistic notion and given the fact that several countries already have nuclear weapons then any other country who doesn't have them can be bullied by the countries already possessing them.

I believe that if a nation's adversaries possess nuclear capability then it only makes logical sense for said nation to also develop that capability to deter such a threat.

Might I remind you conserv pat that Syria and Iran signed an agreement that states if either of these nations has acts of aggression against it that both will react in unison against the offending nation.

If America or Israel bombs Iran that would be the stupidest move that eitehr nation has made in the last generation. Nobody bombed Israel when they where developing nukes, nor Pakistan nor India nor China. Why should Iran be any different?

If any country makes war with Iran, they make war with Syria and many other nations at the same time and I predict that the sleeping bear (China) will not take too kindly to other nations making war with one of their main oil suppilers. If you wake the beast you better be preapred to incur harm to yourself economically or physically.

 

[Red_Dave]

I am somewhat in agreement with coffesaint.

No country should have the right to nuclear weapons.

However, thats an idealistic notion and given the fact that several countries already have nuclear weapons then any other country who doesn't have them can be bullied by the countries already possessing them.

I believe that if a nation's adversaries possess nuclear capability then it only makes logical sense for said nation to also develop that capability to deter such a threat.

Might I remind you conserv pat that Syria and Iran signed an agreement that states if either of these nations has acts of aggression against it that both will react in unison against the offending nation.

If America or Israel bombs Iran that would be the stupidest move that eitehr nation has made in the last generation. Nobody bombed Israel when they where developing nukes, nor Pakistan nor India nor China. Why should Iran be any different?

If any country makes war with Iran, they make war with Syria and many other nations at the same time and I predict that the sleeping bear (China) will not take too kindly to other nations making war with one of their main oil suppilers. If you wake the beast you better be preapred to incur harm to yourself economically or physically.

Ive not heard off this pact between iran and syria before. Do you have a source for that? ild like to read up on it.

 

[Parmenion]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1416319,00.html

 

[cherokee]

If I may ask something, when was the last time you heard the US calling for the over-all destruction of another country and all of its people?

Is it also wise to allow a 10 year old a machinegun?


We have used nukes before but the reasons were justified.

 

[Parmenion]

If I may ask something, when was the last time you heard the US calling for the over-all destruction of another country and all of its people?

Is it also wise to allow a 10 year old a machinegun?


We have used nukes before but the reasons were justified.

The US are far more subtle than to actually call for such things. Arming countries intent upon genocidal destruction however are not beneath US political tendancies. Indonesia in East Timor. Of course the murder of 2 million vietnamese and 1 million cambodians doesn't count as genocide though? Of course these were actions perpetrated, not words just spoken.

Back up your 10 year old carrying a machine gun statement.

The nukes used by USA were not justified. Japan was beaten, but they would never give up and so the choice became to beat them either by the usual metho (invasion) in which case USA would lose an inordinate amount of soldiers or by terrifying them into surrender - nukes.

The fact remains that while any country holds a nuclear capacity, all other countries regardless of race, colour, creed or political agenda are entitled to same.

 

[Kandahar]

No, Iran doesn't have the right to have nuclear weapons. But then, neither do we; in fact, we probably have less right to them, since we are the only country that has used them. If we are going to stop Iran from developing them, we should start by getting rid of our own.

Completely naive and irrational. Do you believe that Iran would stop building nukes if we dismantled our own arsenal?

 

[Joby]

If I may ask something, when was the last time you heard the US calling for the over-all destruction of another country and all of its people?

Please provide a quote where the current Iranian leadership called for the destruction of a people?

 

[Navy Pride]

Not no but Hell no......The leaders in Iran are nutso.....The first thing they would do if they had a nuke would be to nuke Israel..........

 

[Iriemon]

If I may ask something, when was the last time you heard the US calling for the over-all destruction of another country and all of its people?

Assured destruction with nuclear weapons has been, and I believe still is, US doctrine for decades. The US never agreed to give up first strike option of the use of nuclear weapons.

Is it also wise to allow a 10 year old a machinegun?

Not IMO.

We have used nukes before but the reasons were justified.

Depends upon whom you ask.

 

[Voidwar]

The nukes used by USA were not justified. Japan was beaten, but they would never give up and so the choice became to beat them either by the usual metho (invasion) in which case USA would lose an inordinate amount of soldiers or by terrifying them into surrender - nukes.

The biggest reason was that the Red Army had set a date for the invasion of mainland Japan. We hit Japan with atomics to make them surrender before Russia could steal the Kuriles and cut them in half like they did Germany.

No, other countries are not "entitled to same". There is no "entitlement".

 

[Joby]

Not no but Hell no......The leaders in Iran are nutso.....The first thing they would do if they had a nuke would be to nuke Israel..........

I doubt they would Nuke Israel, at least not right away. Israel has a subs carrying nukes and all of Israels land-based nukes are burried far enough down to survive a first strike.

They're nutso, but I don't think they're that nutso.

 

[Airman424]

I don't think that nuclear weapons are probably ever going to go away (at least not any time soon). But don't you think that the people of Iran. Not the government, but the people deserve nuclear power so that their society can grow and develop?

 

[Parmenion]

The biggest reason was that the Red Army had set a date for the invasion of mainland Japan. We hit Japan with atomics to make them surrender before Russia could steal the Kuriles and cut them in half like they did Germany.

No, other countries are not "entitled to same". There is no "entitlement".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that the "red army" were your "allies" in WW2. So why would it matter who got there first?

 

[Jay R]

The Allied/Soviet alliance was one of convenience as far as defeating Nazi Germany was concerned. Once Berlin fell the split that would develop into the Cold War began to take effect almost immediately.

 

[Voidwar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that the "red army" were your "allies" in WW2. So why would it matter who got there first?

Ask Germany and Berlin if they enjoyed hosting a 45 year cold war, if they liked having an East Germany and a West Germany.

It mattered because we already knew Stalin was a bad guy.
It was not about who got there first, but about winning so swiftly and completely that we could tell Stalin not to land in Japan at all. That we already had unconditional surrender (except for the emperor's life, a condition we gladly granted)l, and thus Stalin deploying an invading force would risk contact with our forces unnecessarily. This was a slight threat issued between nations, and it kept Japan from suffering Russian Occupation as Germany did.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The US are far more subtle than to actually call for such things. Arming countries intent upon genocidal destruction however are not beneath US political tendancies. Indonesia in East Timor. Of course the murder of 2 million vietnamese and 1 million cambodians doesn't count as genocide though? Of course these were actions perpetrated, not words just spoken.

lmfao we didn't arm Pol-Pot where do you come up with this ****. It was in fact the anti-war left; such as, the likes of traitorous dogs like Noam Chomsky that supported Pol-Pot.

The nukes used by USA were not justified. Japan was beaten, but they would never give up and so the choice became to beat them either by the usual metho (invasion) in which case USA would lose an inordinate amount of soldiers or by terrifying them into surrender - nukes.

Using nuclear weapons actually saved far more lives for both sides than if we had attampted a ground invasion of Japan. The Japanes practiced Shintoism (emperor worship) and the emperor shortly before the bombs dropped ordered every man, woman, and child to fight to the death against any U.S. invasion of their homeland. The battle of Okinawa which was a mirror of what would happen in a ground invasion of Japan cost the lives of 12,000 American and British soldiers and 100,000 Japanese. An invasion of Japan would have dwarfed those numbers, the dropping of the bombs was more than justified.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Completely naive and irrational. Do you believe that Iran would stop building nukes if we dismantled our own arsenal?

Pardon me; I should have said that if we want to take the moral high ground, and actually be doing the world some kind of service by preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, then we should begin by getting rid of our own. If we want to squash the possible autonomy of any other nation that doesn't kowtow to us, and remain the biggest swinging-dick on the block, then of course we shouldn't get rid of our nukes: they're America's dick.

I don't believe Iran will stop building nukes no matter what we say or do, unless we do unto them as we did to Iraq, and I would tend to be against that. I also don't think that the Iranian government would use nuclear weapons, considering the US's obvious willingness to crush Middle Eastern countries like bugs, but morally, I am against both war and using the threat of war as a diplomatic weapon; I'm fully aware it's unrealistic, which is why I'm not writing my congressman and demanding the elimination of our country's nuclear stockpile. But by god, I have the right to say that nuclear weapons are horrible things, their use is an atrocity, and the government that uses them is the enemy of peace and of humanity.

 

[Purple]

Not no but Hell no......The leaders in Iran are nutso.........

Most of the world has that same view about our leaders.

No one should have nukes including us. No one country should have the power to decimate the earth as we know it. There is no "justifiable" reason to use a nuclear weapon.

We have come so far in our intellect and technology yet we still only use it to come up with ways to destroy earth rather than save it.

 

[TPG]

I'd say no simply for the reason that they signed the NPT and should follow what they agreed to when they signed it.

 

[Parmenion]

America signed the Kyoto agreement and then backed out. That line of thinking holds little water.

 

[conserv.pat15]

No, Iran doesn't have the right to have nuclear weapons. But then, neither do we; in fact, we probably have less right to them, since we are the only country that has used them. If we are going to stop Iran from developing them, we should start by getting rid of our own.

We have less right to have nukes than Iran??? Are you serious?

Iran has ties to terrorism and says things like wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the map... And you think we have less of a right to have nukes than a country like that? If Iran had nukes, they would hand them off to terrorists, and countries like the U.S. and Israel would be in serious danger. Iran would not be afraid to use nukes as a first strike either.

And when we used our nukes in WW2, it was easily justified.

 

[Red_Dave]

We have less right to have nukes than Iran??? Are you serious?

Iran has ties to terrorism and says things like wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the map... And you think we have less of a right to have nukes than a country like that? If Iran had nukes, they would hand them off to terrorists, and countries like the U.S. and Israel would be in serious danger. Iran would not be afraid to use nukes as a first strike either.

And when we used our nukes in WW2, it was easily justified.

Iran has indeed financed terroists and mass murderours. Whereas the U.S on the otherhand...........no wait [see iran-contra affair and general pinochet.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

We have less right to have nukes than Iran??? Are you serious?

Iran has ties to terrorism and says things like wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the map... And you think we have less of a right to have nukes than a country like that? If Iran had nukes, they would hand them off to terrorists, and countries like the U.S. and Israel would be in serious danger. Iran would not be afraid to use nukes as a first strike either.

We have used nuclear weapons. The action carries more weight than the intent, especially when that intent is not established as a fact, but is only a theory. You have no proof that Iran would actually use nuclear weapons, but I have very clear proof that America has used nuclear weapons. So morally, we have less ground to stand on than they, when it comes to nukes.

And when we used our nukes in WW2, it was easily justified.

Then justify it, please.