|
|
|
|
#1
12-10-2005, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
|
#2
12-10-2005, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#3
12-10-2005, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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'?
|
|
#4
12-10-2005, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
12-10-2005, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#6
12-10-2005, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
