Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
A one sided balance of power in the middle east is detrimental to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get a grip.

Re: Iran
 

Good post!!! Pithy on point and full of reason.

Re: Iran
 

They have as much right as they do to electricity or mechanical ploughs. Off course they have a right if they have the knowledge and the capability. The point is to try and give them incentives not to build them. Invading one of their neighbors, screwing it up royally, stretching your military and pissing off all your allies so your attempts at fearful rhetoric become ridiculous are maybe not the right way to go?

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good post!!! Pithy on point and full of reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that it makes sense that we wouldn't want Israel, our democratic ally to dominate the region strategically instead of a situation where our undemocratic enemies had an equal power, then my injunction to you stands.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
it's perfectly correct for every piss-ant small nation to have nukes cause "it's their right!".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuclear proliferation is one of the only ways i see to make war impossible. Also natural rights are impossible to forfiet. There is nothing you can do that takes away your right to free speach. Likewise every nation on the face of the earht has an equal right to self defense. Since Iran's holding of nukes does not infringe on any ones elses rightto self defense they must be allowed to have them.

Keep in mind that to most of the world America is viewed as a theocratic, tolitarian state whose goals are nothing less than world economic domination. Calling another governmetn a totalitarian state is competely subjective to whose doing the name caling

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, Superleeds: do YOU think that totalitarian, tyrannical governments should have the right to possess doomsday weapons? Weatherman seemed to think that such regimes have as much right as any other country to have them. Do you agree with him?



[/ QUOTE ] They have as much right as they do to electricity or mechanical ploughs. Off course they have a right if they have the knowledge and the capability.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how do you define "having a right"...merely as "being capable of doing something"? Anything one is capable of doing, one has a right to do? Just because a regime has the know-how, they have a RIGHT to do it? Would Hitler have had a RIGHT to build nuclear weapons? Maybe you think so; I certainly don't. I think "right" encompasses morals as well as pure abilities. I don't think there is anything moral about a dastardly regime attaining doomsday weapons, as what they might well do with them could be truly evil (again, imagine the Nazis if they were first to gain nukes). Regimes that have zero respect for human rights have zero right to possess nukes.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, Superleeds: do YOU think that totalitarian, tyrannical governments should have the right to possess doomsday weapons? Weatherman seemed to think that such regimes have as much right as any other country to have them. Do you agree with him?



[/ QUOTE ] They have as much right as they do to electricity or mechanical ploughs. Off course they have a right if they have the knowledge and the capability.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how do you define "having a right"...merely as "being capable of doing something"? Anything one is capable of doing, one has a right to do? Just because a regime has the know-how, they have a RIGHT to do it? Would Hitler have had a RIGHT to build nuclear weapons? Maybe you think so; I certainly don't. I think "right" encompasses morals as well as pure abilities. I don't think there is anything moral about a dastardly regime attaining doomsday weapons, as what they might well do with them could be truly evil (again, imagine the Nazis if they were first to gain nukes). Regimes that have zero respect for human rights have zero right to possess nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any nation has the absolute right to have the same technology other nations have. If iran somehow created an antimatter destructor beam then maybe they dont have a right to that. But nuclear weapons is a 100%right of every nation on this planet.

Adolf Hitler was a democratically elected leader of a European nation. You may not like his policies, but he is no more dastardly than any other leader. (Remember when the US systematically destroyed an entirerace of people? The Native Americans? Maybe we shouldnt have any nukes!)

Dastardly regimes is a made up term. Forthis to have any meaning there needs to be a clearly defined absolute morality. Until then you may say that you feelthat a government was evil and/or dastardly. But certainly none exist.

What if the Nazis had nukes first? Geez, they would probably do something terrible like drop them on civilian populations, not once, but TWICE!! Oh wait the US did that and no one batted an eye

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since Iran's holding of nukes does not infringe on any ones elses rightto self defense they must be allowed to have them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not that their possession of nukes would infringe on another nation's right of self defense, but on their right to be free from fear of an unjustified attack or be subject to the actual attack itself.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since Iran's holding of nukes does not infringe on any ones elses rightto self defense they must be allowed to have them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not that their possession of nukes would infringe on another nation's right of self defense, but on their right to be free from fear of an unjustified attack or be subject to the actual attack itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is Iran made to be fearful of attack but Isrrael is immune from it? Since none of you will admit it i will just tell you.

There is clearly a double standard between the rich nations and the poor ones. Without a doubt Iran is kept in a position where its growth is stifled by the western powers.

Re: Iran
 

I said it in an earlier post and I'll try to make this real clear for you. Read it slooooooooooow.

1. If Iran neither a) supports terrorists who attack Israel, nor b) develops nuclear weapons, then Iran has no justifiable fear of Israeli attack.

2. Iran has made a threat to wipe out Israel and thus is shown to be the true threat.

So the only reason left that you can have to excuse Iran developing nukes is because you think they also have a right to support terroristic attacks on Israel and should be able to defend themselves from Israeli retaliation for same.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any nation has the absolute right to have the same technology other nations have. If iran somehow created an antimatter destructor beam then maybe they dont have a right to that. But nuclear weapons is a 100%right of every nation on this planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. Irresponsible, totalitarian regimes should NOT have this "right."

[ QUOTE ]
Adolf Hitler was a democratically elected leader of a European nation. You may not like his policies, but he is no more dastardly than any other leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? He was no more dastardly than, say, the leader of Sweden or Australia in his time? Huh? He murdered millions of his own people, and invaded all of his neighboring countries in order to take them over, but he wes no more dastardly than any other leader? Totally ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
(Remember when the US systematically destroyed an entirerace of people? The Native Americans? Maybe we shouldnt have any nukes!)

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not ancient history that applies to the question of whether a government should have nukes, but rather what is nature of the current regime or government. Regimes that have no problem with GASSING millions of their own citizens obviously should not be allowed the potential to inflict grave harm on other countries as well--if it can be prevented.

[ QUOTE ]
Dastardly regimes is a made up term. Forthis to have any meaning there needs to be a clearly defined absolute morality. Until then you may say that you feelthat a government was evil and/or dastardly. But certainly none exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolute nonsense. You don't think Kim Jong-il's regime is dastardly or evil, starving a couple million of his own people, and sending hundreds of thousands of political prisoners to the gulags where they generally die of hardships (and yes, the families of political prisoners and relatives are sent too)? You don't think that is evil? Come on.

[ QUOTE ]
What if the Nazis had nukes first? Geez, they would probably do something terrible like drop them on civilian populations, not once, but TWICE!! Oh wait the US did that and no one batted an eye


[/ QUOTE ]

The US was attacked by Japan; the US did not initiate the war of aggression. If however the Nazis had had nukes first there is little doubt they would have used them to initiate wars of aggression against many peaceful countries.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you get the ball rolling...what do you think the US should do to Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Support a coup by pro western elements within Iran's military.

Stu

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you get the ball rolling...what do you think the US should do to Iran?



Support a coup by pro western elements within Iran's military.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Now there's a fine idea.

If need be, we might be able to lend them a hand, too--like blowing the hell out of their next session of Parliament, where all the "Death To America!" mullah-lawmakers will be gathered in one place.

Re: Iran
 

I think we should invade and occupy them.

Then we should invade and occupy North Korea.

Then we should invade and occupy Pakistan.

Then we should invade and occupy every other country that might potentially develop weapons that could potentially be used to threaten this country at some potential future time.

Then, when all the other countries of the world are safely under American military control and military occupation, the world will finally be at peace.

Amen.


q/q

Re: Iran
 

Our support of Israel makes no sense at all.

Get a grip.

Re: Iran
 

Morals have nothing to do with it. If they have the technology they have the right. Morals only enter the equation when discussing how that technology should be used.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Morals have nothing to do with it. If they have the technology they have the right. Morals only enter the equation when discussing how that technology should be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

So should rabid dogs be allowed to roam freely until they actually bite people? Should our laws be changed so that convicted felons can own firearms upon release from prison?

Just as in criminal law where a person can forfeit various future rights by commission of crimes, so too in the international arena, rogue nations that threaten their neighbors and to "wipe out" other nations, cannot expect to be allowed to develop nuclear weapons or other such destructive technologies.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Morals have nothing to do with it. If they have the technology they have the right. Morals only enter the equation when discussing how that technology should be used.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think if they can be surmised to be fairly likely use the technology in a bad way, then it is immoral for them to have it or for others to allow them to have it. An extreme example of this principle (not intended to be an analogy) would be: should the Son of Sam serial killer be allowed to have a gun? Obviously not--and, it would be immoral to allow him to have one. Similarly (though not analogously) it is immoral for Kim Jong-il to have nuclear weapons; and, if we could have reasonably prevented his attaining them, it was immoral of us to allow his acquisition of nukes.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I said it in an earlier post and I'll try to make this real clear for you. Read it slooooooooooow.

1. If Iran neither a) supports terrorists who attack Israel, nor b) develops nuclear weapons, then Iran has no justifiable fear of Israeli attack.

2. Iran has made a threat to wipe out Israel and thus is shown to be the true threat.

So the only reason left that you can have to excuse Iran developing nukes is because you think they also have a right to support terroristic attacks on Israel and should be able to defend themselves from Israeli retaliation for same.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACPlayer exlained the problem with this thinking very effectively just a few posts ago. Weatherman also tried to tell you. To analyze an international conflict you can't just look at it from the US perspective, but from the "bad guys" perspective as well. The Arab Middle East FEARS the US, and for many the War in Iraq confirmed their worse fears about our intentions. They DO see our alliance with Israel as western imperialism aimed at controlling the whole muslim world, its likely their most pressing fear, and for good reason given their history.

Part of this comes from propaganda demonizing the US, but mostly the moderate majority fear and hatred of us is an unfortunante byproduct of having US troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq, "starving Iraq's children", invading and occupying Iraq, and having Israel in "Arab lands" and further occupying the rightful residents of Palestine (with full US support). Without these factors, the terrorists pool of moderate muslims converts goes dry.

See how things look a little different from the "bad guys" side? An objective look at the whole situation is much different, but how can you expect an equivalent bluffTHIS in Iran to see the whole picture? He will see it close to how I've outlined above. He will see America and Israel as the bad guys, and as threats. Our policy should reflect an actual calculation of interests including analysis of the "enemy" position, as opposed to just supporting the good guys (Israel) and taking out the bad guys (Iraq, Iran, others).

Like AC said, Iran FEARS Israel and the US, and nukes are seen as a good deterrent. Iraq had no nukes and we went after Saddam, while we didn't go after North Korea becasue they had nukes. Sounds like a great incentive to get nukes from the bad guys perspective. If your a non-democracy and have nukes you get negotiations or friendly relations, if not you had better get them fast or the US is gonna attcak you. Can't you and M see how this PERCEPTION is inevitable given our policy right now?

Re: Iran
 

Yeah, let's look at things from the criminal's perspective. He fears the good guys who might try to punish him for the future criminal actions he wishes to commit. So naturally he wishes to arm himself with the best weapons so that he might perpetrate those criminal actions with impunity. Makes sense.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, let's look at things from the criminal's perspective. He fears the good guys who might try to punish him for the future criminal actions he wishes to commit. So naturally he wishes to arm himself with the best weapons so that he might perpetrate those criminal actions with impunity. Makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am almost sure that you are serious in your response, in which case I wonder if you are aware that someone making fun of your position would make EXACTLY the same post sarcastically to illustrate the sheer ignorance of your position.

Re: Iran
 

What part of my previous post don't you get that Iran has no legitimate reason to fear Israel, being as far removed geographically as it is, unless Iran intends to go on supporting terrorists who attack Israel or to attack Israel themselves?

Re: Iran
 

Your analogies are crap. And your arguments are retarded. That's the best you can do 'the good 'ol US of A will decide what's best'?

Re: Iran
 

Your arguments are all about what is best for the USA and has nothing to do with Iran rights to develop technolgy it has the knowledge and ability to develop. Argue that it is disadvantagious to the US to have certain nations with the ability to have and launch WMD but it's insulting to suggest that there is some natural law that forbids Iran to apply knowledge they have.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you get the ball rolling...what do you think the US should do to Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Support a coup by pro western elements within Iran's military.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah because that worked out so well the last time we did it.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, let's look at things from the criminal's perspective. He fears the good guys who might try to punish him for the future criminal actions he wishes to commit. So naturally he wishes to arm himself with the best weapons so that he might perpetrate those criminal actions with impunity. Makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please describe any blanant acts of crime Iran has commitedin the past 25 years? I can't, of course this holds true for Iraq but hey, once a douche always a douche right?

Re: Iran
 

I think it is your arguments that are very lacking in intelligence. It is clear that you are intentionally missing the point MMMMMM and myself have made here repeatedly. Namely that it is Iran's past actions, statements and future intentions, and lack of any true fear of an unprovoked Israeli attack that is the key factor here. Without such intentions as supporting terrorism against Israel or the US, they would have no need for nuclear weapons.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
What part of my previous post don't you get that Iran has no legitimate reason to fear Israel, being as far removed geographically as it is, unless Iran intends to go on supporting terrorists who attack Israel or to attack Israel themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you getto decide what Iranian fears arelegitimate and what are not. They cannot repel any sort of military attack from the US or Israel without nuclear weapons. Maybe Iran is tired of being in a position where they can be [censored] with and are willing to dosomething about it. The US has no right to keep dozens of nations in fear of an invasion and Iran has every rightto have whatever technology they can develop to defend themselves

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Iran has every rightto have whatever technology they can develop to defend themselves

[/ QUOTE ]
And if their reason for developing nukes is not defensive?

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iran has every rightto have whatever technology they can develop to defend themselves

[/ QUOTE ]
And if their reason for developing nukes is not defensive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuclear weapons are obviously a terrible weapon which the world wouldprobably be betteroff without. HOwever from a Game theory pov if one has them then everyone shoul d have tehm. The situation is far more dangerous when one power can nuke anotherwith no fear of represuccions.

Thebest idea is to create a senario where offensive nukes are a losing proposition.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you getto decide what Iranian fears arelegitimate and what are not. They cannot repel any sort of military attack from the US or Israel without nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rest of the world gets to decide because they are the aggressor, and thus in the wrong.

It logically follows from your views that you think Iran has a "right" to threaten to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" and to support terrorism against Israel or the US. It is clear that this is your hidden agenda, for without those intentions Iran will never be subject to attack by Israel or the US.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you getto decide what Iranian fears arelegitimate and what are not. They cannot repel any sort of military attack from the US or Israel without nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rest of the world gets to decide because they are the aggressor, and thus in the wrong.

It logically follows from your views that you think Iran has a "right" to threaten to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" and to support terrorism against Israel or the US. It is clear that this is your hidden agenda, for without those intentions Iran will never be subject to attack by Israel or the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should review your history of the middle east. In the 1950's the US sponsered a coup d'eta against the newly democratic Iran. We reinstalled the brutal Shah and thus two decades of US sponsered totalitarianism resulted. The Ayotolla finally overthrew the US backed Shah and created the modern state of Iran.
Meanwhile the US backed state of Israel was pursuing their expansionist agenda only a few hundred miles away.

Iran has been messed with by the Us far more than you realize and has every right to fear it will be in the future.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile the US backed state of Israel was pursuing their expansionist agenda only a few hundred miles away.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the root of all the arugments of such posters as yourself is a hatred for Israel. So much so that you don't care about the nature or intentions of any enemy of theirs. And Israel only expanded after its creation by defeating enemies who either attacked it first or were about too. But of course none of that matters to you.

Your anti-Semitic views and rationalizations are ugly.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile the US backed state of Israel was pursuing their expansionist agenda only a few hundred miles away.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the root of all the arugments of such posters as yourself is a hatred for Israel. So much so that you don't care about the nature or intentions of any enemy of theirs. And Israel only expanded after its creation by defeating enemies who either attacked it first or were about too. But of course none of that matters to you.

Your anti-Semitic views and rationalizations are ugly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please calm down and answer with rational on topic replys. I said nothing anti semetic, I merely recited facts. Isreal justified their expansion with a spoils of war type mentality (one which has been largely abandoned since the beginning of the 20th century)but any justification does not disguise the fact that were clearly one of the most aggressive expansionist powers in the middle east since WWII.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear weapons are obviously a terrible weapon which the world wouldprobably be betteroff without. HOwever from a Game theory pov if one has them then everyone shoul d have tehm. The situation is far more dangerous when one power can nuke anotherwith no fear of represuccions.

Thebest idea is to create a senario where offensive nukes are a losing proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might well have applied with regard the former USSR and the USA, but it does not equally apply to regimes which are radical, unstable, or in cohorts with terrorists.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear weapons are obviously a terrible weapon which the world wouldprobably be betteroff without. HOwever from a Game theory pov if one has them then everyone shoul d have tehm. The situation is far more dangerous when one power can nuke anotherwith no fear of represuccions.

Thebest idea is to create a senario where offensive nukes are a losing proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might well have applied with regard the former USSR and the USA, but it does not equally apply to regimes which are radical, unstable, or in cohorts with terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

The international system is based on rational actors. Unfortunatly there is no judge of rationality. Iran has done nothing to warrant any doubt of its rationality.

Keep in mind that the US has sponsered terrorists in Cuba, Afganistan, and Nicaragua. Sponsoring terrorists in this case is a piss poor measure of rationality.

Re: Iran
 

In addition the united states is the only nation to have violently used nuclear weapons. We are not in the clear just because we are 'the good guys'. We must apply stringent standards of moral behaviour to ourselves as well as to 'terrorist states'.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Iran has done nothing to warrant any doubt of its rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except for that penchant for calling for the extermination of an entire country...

Oh and sponsering terrorism against said country.

Quit trolling, dude.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
In addition the united states is the only nation to have violently used nuclear weapons. We are not in the clear just because we are 'the good guys'. We must apply stringent standards of moral behaviour to ourselves as well as to 'terrorist states'.

[/ QUOTE ]
You think? Yeah, we used them. And in all the conflicts we've been in since, we've never used them. Weatherman's comment previously about us dropping the atomic bombs "without batting an eye" is just plain wrong. There have been many eyes batted then and since about whether to drop the bombs.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iran has done nothing to warrant any doubt of its rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except for that penchant for calling for the extermination of an entire country...

Oh and sponsering terrorism against said country.

Quit trolling, dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off they seek to destroy the government, not outright genocide. This makes them no different than the US giving Saddam a 24 hour ultimatum.

As I have already mentioned the Us has sponsored terrorism in numerous theaters and so Iran is once again no different.