Iran

[MMMMMM]

[ 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.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ 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

[MMMMMM]

[ 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.

[QuadsOverQuads]

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

[ACPlayer]

Our support of Israel makes no sense at all.

Get a grip.

[superleeds]

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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

[MMMMMM]

[ 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.

[twowords]

[ 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?

[BluffTHIS!]

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.