• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran 'concealed nuclear facility'

If Iran is developing nukes in secret, then it's to balance power with Israel. Iran is looking out for its sovereignty just like any other country. What the U.S. has to say about who is deserving of nuclear weapons and who isn't is irrelevant to me, as U.S. foreign policy is as inconsistent as the passing wind. If we care so much about the disarmament of Iran, then we should be concerned about the disarmament of the Middle East as a whole. Since we're not, and we are myopically focusing on Iran just because our Western leaders tell us to, things are going to continue unfolding the way they are.

I really don't believe Iran wants a nuclear holocaust. It just wants nuclear deterrence, and I don't blame it. Look at all of the Western campaigns happpening around it. You would want guaranteed protection too. That Iran is a theocracy has no relevance to this fact.

So,

1) You support the proliferation of nuclear weapons for anyone who wishes to possess them.
2) You believe a regime who openly supports terrorism to achieve their desired goals should have them and will be responsible with them.\
3) You believe the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran will bring less conflict and more peace to the region.
 
Last edited:
So,

1) You support the proliferation of nuclear weapons for anyone who wishes to possess them.
2) You believe a regime who openly supports terrorism to achieve their desired goals should have them and will be responsible with them.\
3) You believe the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran will bring less conflict and more peace to the region.

Yes, obviously I believe all of that.
 
1) You support the proliferation of nuclear weapons for anyone who wishes to possess them.
2) You believe a regime who openly supports terrorism to achieve their desired goals should have them and will be responsible with them.\
3) You believe the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran will bring less conflict and more peace to the region.
Yes, obviously I believe all of that.
Then you don't believe any of those are likely consequences? Why or why not?
 
Then you don't believe any of those are likely consequences? Why or why not?
Sorry, I'll try to be a little less hostile this time.

1) Why should any country including the US turn a blind eye to Iran developing nuclear weapons? Wouldn't it be best to address their concerns in just about any other manner?

2) Do you believe the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good thing or bad thing?

3) Do you believe the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region will increase stability, peace and prosperity or decrease it?
 
Sorry, I'll try to be a little less hostile this time.

Thanks.

1) Why should any country including the US turn a blind eye to Iran developing nuclear weapons? Wouldn't it be best to address their concerns in just about any other manner?

I think dialogue over nuclear weapons is important, but I don't think U.S. foreign policy should be the driving force behind the UN policy on the pursuit of nuclear sanctions, as it currently is. As long as the U.S. is in bed with Israel, its position is far too biased. Furthermore, after Iraq the CIA lost a great deal of credibility.

The only point that is of intrinsic value to me is that Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, so according to its own voice it is against its own possession of nuclear weapons. Any other standard to me is irrelevant.

If the atomic agency can prove Iran has weapons or is developing them, and it hasn't, then I'll consider the options.

2) Do you believe the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good thing or bad thing?

I believe it's universally bad no matter what nation has them, but that, simultaneously, we cannot always control who develops them. There are also aggravating factors. For example, the Security Council powers have set the standard of only granting nations with nuclear arms the power of the veto. I've always been an advocate of inviting nations like Germany and Japan to have a seat on the council to offset this impression.

Israel is, of course, the other factor. As long as Israel has nukes in the basement, Iran will want them too. That's POLISCI 101.

3) Do you believe the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region will increase stability, peace and prosperity or decrease it?

It depends on who has them at this point, but I think every power in the Middle East, without exception, is is not suited to have such weapons. That said, Israel has them, and Israel is backed by a world super power, and so other nations will want to balance that.
 
I think dialogue over nuclear weapons is important, but I don't think U.S. foreign policy should be the driving force behind the UN policy on the pursuit of nuclear sanctions, as it currently is. As long as the U.S. is in bed with Israel, its position is far too biased. Furthermore, after Iraq the CIA lost a great deal of credibility.
The U.S. is certainly not 'in bed' with Israel, the relationship between the two nations is an alliance.
Obama himself has made more than several claims that neglect Israeli interests, and hence, the US being in bed with Israel is a baseless claim.
The only point that is of intrinsic value to me is that Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, so according to its own voice it is against its own possession of nuclear weapons. Any other standard to me is irrelevant.
This would only make sense if it was the same Iranian regime that has signed the NPPT.
The current regime is nearly the opposite of the one who signed on the document.

Furthermore, the NPPT does not deny a nation the freedom to produce nuclear energy.
Iran however has violated the NPPT more than a dozens of times already and has over twenty times more centrifuges than allowed.
As the world leaders said, Iran's desire to nuclear power is no longer controversial, the second nuclear facility is the cutting evidence that it is not after mere nuclear energy.
If the atomic agency can prove Iran has weapons or is developing them, and it hasn't, then I'll consider the options.
The evidence is already strong enough, that's why the world leaders already act towards the disarmament of Iran from nuclear weapons.
I believe it's universally bad no matter what nation has them, but that, simultaneously, we cannot always control who develops them. There are also aggravating factors. For example, the Security Council powers have set the standard of only granting nations with nuclear arms the power of the veto. I've always been an advocate of inviting nations like Germany and Japan to have a seat on the council to offset this impression.
Not all of the nations with nuclear weapons are on the security council, so I do not understand your claim.
Israel is, of course, the other factor. As long as Israel has nukes in the basement, Iran will want them too. That's POLISCI 101.
When Iran has begun its way towards nukes, Israel was in a very good relationship with it, one of its biggest allies.
Israel having nuclear weapons or not is by no means different than France or the UK having them, as those nations are democracies that have never threatened to destroy another nation or to use their nuclear weapons.
Irrational regimes, however, such as North Korea and Iran, are certainly not to be allowed such devastating power into their hands.
It depends on who has them at this point, but I think every power in the Middle East, without exception, is is not suited to have such weapons. That said, Israel has them, and Israel is backed by a world super power, and so other nations will want to balance that.
Israeli nuclear power is rumored around for more than 40 years.
It is a based fact by now that the Israeli nuclear power, if existent, is by no means harmful to the world's nations.
Same goes for France, the UK, etc.
 
2) You believe a regime who openly supports terrorism to achieve their desired goals should have them and will be responsible with them.

I understand and sympathize with your objection to terrorists like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir holding high state positions, but really, what can we do? :shrug:
 
I understand and sympathize with your objection to terrorists like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir holding high state positions, but really, what can we do? :shrug:
*cough*troll*cough*
 
*cough*troll*cough*

So the personal attack is your preferred mode of communication? Perhaps you should instead consider the fact that the president of the aforementioned "peaceful" nation that you mentioned has threatened that Iran could be "wiped off the map," and that its "democratic" character involves supremacy by a specific ethnic/religious group enshrined in its very declaration of establishment rather than the multi-cultural aspects regarded as a necessary facet of liberal democracy. Perhaps. :shrug:
 
So the personal attack is your preferred mode of communication? Perhaps you should instead consider the fact that the president of the aforementioned "peaceful" nation that you mentioned has threatened that Iran could be "wiped off the map," and that its "democratic" character involves supremacy by a specific ethnic/religious group enshrined in its very declaration of establishment rather than the multi-cultural aspects regarded as a necessary facet of liberal democracy. Perhaps. :shrug:
In the movie "The Dark Knight" nearing the end, Batman alerts the Joker that if he'd press the button he'll kick his ass.

Just sayin'... :2razz:
 
In the movie "The Dark Knight" nearing the end, Batman alerts the Joker that if he'd press the button he'll kick his ass.

Just sayin'... :2razz:

Well, no...considering that there's little basis for comparison between wishing for the disapperance of a political regime and the destruction of an actual country, I think you're just misspeaking more than anything else. :lol:
 
Well, no...considering that there's little basis for comparison between wishing for the disapperance of a political regime and the destruction of an actual country, I think you're just misspeaking more than anything else. :lol:
It is the same thing dear confused one. ;)
 
It is the same thing dear confused one. ;)

Advocating the removal of a political regime is equivalent to advocating the violent destruction of the country that it governs? I wasn't aware that the teabaggers were advocating their own spontaneous combustion, but now that you mention it, the pieces of the puzzle do seem to all come together! :shock:
 
Advocating the removal of a political regime is equivalent to advocating the violent destruction of the country that it governs? I wasn't aware that the teabaggers were advocating their own spontaneous combustion, but now that you mention it, the pieces of the puzzle do seem to all come together! :shock:
Perhaps because you yourself has created some of the pieces, in order to fill in your ignorance.
The president has replied to the Iranian threat to remove Israel from the map with the the reminder that "they too can be removed".
This is by no means different from alerting the criminal of the consequences of his actions.

Of course your puzzle does seem to have unrelated pieces in it, such as the decision that the president has talked about a whole nation while the nutjob has spoken about a specific regime.
However it does match your pattern of behavior to support an irrational regime that would go on to the level of shooting its own people and supporting terrorism, so it is no wonder that you'd try to fit in the puzzle pieces that do not belong by using pure force. :)
 
Perhaps because you yourself has created some of the pieces, in order to fill in your ignorance.
The president has replied to the Iranian threat to remove Israel from the map with the the reminder that "they too can be removed".
This is by no means different from alerting the criminal of the consequences of his actions.

Of course your puzzle does seem to have unrelated pieces in it, such as the decision that the president has talked about a whole nation while the nutjob has spoken about a specific regime.

Actually, no, we've discussed the allegation that such a threat was issued at length long before you arrived here, and it was found lacking, not least of which because no such idiom as "wiped off the map" even exists in Farsi, which just might be a clue that something is amiss. If the president was speaking of a specific regime, he should have specified it, as the phrase "the regime occupying Jerusalem" does. However, he chose to speak of a country being "wiped off the map" instead, which is illustrative either of his mental imbalance, chronic stupidity, or both.

However it does match your pattern of behavior to support an irrational regime that would go on to the level of shooting its own people and supporting terrorism, so it is no wonder that you'd try to fit in the puzzle pieces that do not belong by using pure force. :)

I've never offered any support for the terrorists Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir, and thus cannot fathom what you're talking about. :2wave:
 
Actually, no, we've discussed the allegation that such a threat was issued at length long before you arrived here, and it was found lacking, not least of which because no such idiom as "wiped off the map" even exists in Farsi, which just might be a clue that something is amiss. If the president was speaking of a specific regime, he should have specified it, as the phrase "the regime occupying Jerusalem" does. However, he chose to speak of a country being "wiped off the map" instead, which is illustrative either of his mental imbalance, chronic stupidity, or both.
So did Sarkozy, and many other world leaders, as they understand that the difference does not really matter to the end result.
If you wish to argue semantics, in the president's reply to the Iranian threat, he merely said "you can be removed as well", thus, implying that the Iranian regime will be removed, and not the Iranian nation as a whole. ;)
I've never offered any support for the terrorists Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir, and thus cannot fathom what you're talking about. :2wave:
I was speaking about your support for a regime that directly assists and even controls terror organizations in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is a very concerning act you are taking here, perhaps some would say an act directed against humanity as a whole? :shock:
 
So did Sarkozy, and many other world leaders, as they understand that the difference does not really matter to the end result. If you wish to argue semantics, in the president's reply to the Iranian threat, he merely said "you can be removed as well", thus, implying that the Iranian regime will be removed, and not the Iranian nation as a whole. ;)

Actually, no, the remark was "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," which is fairly unambiguous in nature, and contains no reference to a specific political regime, as the Iranian president's comment did, and also contains an insinuation of an active threat through the phrase "wiped off the map," as the Iranian president's comment did not. Adjust your reading spectacles, dear chap! :2wave:

I was speaking about your support for a regime that directly assists and even controls terror organizations in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is a very concerning act you are taking here, perhaps some would say an act directed against humanity as a whole? :shock:

There's no support for any such regime on my part, nor would support for such regime rank anywhere near the bottom of the actions committed by U.S. political administrations in terms of the morality of policy. I'm merely pointing out that it's necessary to maintain a counterbalance so as to prevent unjust aggression by the ruling administration of a state with a concealed nuclear arsenal. :shrug:
 
Now that we know they're cheating and not merely spinning uranium for energy purposes....what say we celebrate Halloween at Natanz this year? Or Bushewr. I promote an Osirak like fireworks show, use a few Israelis to drop in for a visit to one of these..."concealed" sites if necessary....either way...we need to have a party in Iran, Ladies and Gentlemen. We drop leaflets for 2 weeks warning civilians to flee, send messages via internet, TV, and radio....and then go shopping for party favors.

:2usflag:we place this strait up the Iranian Hormuz.
 
So where are they getting their yellow cake from?
 
I believe there was a dictatorial U.S.-supported regime in power in Iran in 1975. Silly misconception of mine, perhaps, but I happen to think it's true. :shrug:

Alright, and that "dictatorial U.S.-supported regime" was gone by 1979. So back to my question. If an arms race was going to occur in the region because of an Israeli undeclared nuclear program, why now, instead of 30 years ago, when the same unfriendly regime was in power?
 
I understand and sympathize with your objection to terrorists like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir holding high state positions, but really, what can we do? :shrug:

We can make the development of nuclear weapons so negative that the negative consequences far outweigh the advantages. The problem with this is that other countries want something in return for supporting the US' goal in this.

Another option is to blow up there reactors. Hard to make nukes and advance the technology if you can't get the material.
 
Back
Top Bottom