Iran

[superleeds]

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?

[MMMMMM]

[ 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.

[theweatherman]

[ 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

[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.

[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.

[superleeds]

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'?

[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.

[superleeds]

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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.