View Poll Results: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Voters
217. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    108 49.77%
  • No

    70 32.26%
  • Maybe/not sure

    26 11.98%
  • Other

    13 5.99%
Page 47 of 86 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 852

Thread: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296, 650]

  1. #461
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    12-27-16 @ 05:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    14,748

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I agree - I say let them have the Bomb...and let the Saudis have it, too. A little MADness can go a long way, y'know?

    Oh, wait - I forgot - the conservatives who read this are Absolutely Sure that the very first thing the Iranians or Saudis will do would be to bomb Israel and America into radioactive dust! Feeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrr!!!!!

    *sigh*
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  2. #462
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,222
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I've read all the history on it, and that conclusion is debatable at best. it's the excuse used to justify evil and not an unchallenged fact.
    Sorry, but among historians it has become the definitive view. And the point is that the bombs were necessary to preclude evil.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  3. #463
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,222
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    That's just it, Jack - when a hammer's your only tool, everything looks like a nail.

    Time for a quick history lesson. In late July, in England most of the people were still against war with Germany - they felt it was more of a 'continental matter', and they didn't want to get embroiled in a war. But then Germany did something the Brits didn't expect - instead of attacking straight into France, they decided to use the "Schlieffen Plan" to go through Belgium. As a result, the Brits instantly began supporting war against Germany.

    Likewise, if we were to unilaterally begin bombing Iran as the article suggests, we'd almost certainly turn Iraq against us...and perhaps even the Sunni nations might become sympathetic towards Iran. Not only that, then once Iran did get the bomb - and they will, sooner or later (even if they have to buy it from North Korea) - guess who their first target would be? Here's a hint - it would no longer be Tel Aviv or Riyadh.

    I say we use diplomacy (which is, of course, the velvet glove that covers the mail'd fist) to try to get them to not develop nuclear weapons. And if (when) they do, that would drive the Sunni nations even further into our camp. It's a heck of a lot easier to conduct warfare from a nation where the regime really does want you there, y'know?
    If we were to launch air attacks on Iran the Sunni air forces would fly with us.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  4. #464
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,222
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    That's just it, Jack - when a hammer's your only tool, everything looks like a nail.

    Time for a quick history lesson. In late July, in England most of the people were still against war with Germany - they felt it was more of a 'continental matter', and they didn't want to get embroiled in a war. But then Germany did something the Brits didn't expect - instead of attacking straight into France, they decided to use the "Schlieffen Plan" to go through Belgium. As a result, the Brits instantly began supporting war against Germany.

    Likewise, if we were to unilaterally begin bombing Iran as the article suggests, we'd almost certainly turn Iraq against us...and perhaps even the Sunni nations might become sympathetic towards Iran. Not only that, then once Iran did get the bomb - and they will, sooner or later (even if they have to buy it from North Korea) - guess who their first target would be? Here's a hint - it would no longer be Tel Aviv or Riyadh.

    I say we use diplomacy (which is, of course, the velvet glove that covers the mail'd fist) to try to get them to not develop nuclear weapons. And if (when) they do, that would drive the Sunni nations even further into our camp. It's a heck of a lot easier to conduct warfare from a nation where the regime really does want you there, y'know?
    There was never any doubt that Britain would enter the war on the side of France and Russia.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  5. #465
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    12-27-16 @ 05:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    14,748

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    I never head that before, but it is our countries right to secure the safety of this nation. Now Iran can think they have the right to do anything they want, wake up Iran so do we have that right.
    Um, this may come as a shock to you, but we don't rule Iran. That, and this might even be heretical to you, but most Iranians are just as patriotic about Iran as we are about America. Which means, if you tell them what not to do, then that's precisely what they WILL do.

    That is what a powerful nation can do, strength through power. Iran wants more power by having nuks, it's all about power and the threat of using it. This is nothing new, it has been going on for thousands of years.
    Yes, and Rome was far more powerful than the Germanic tribes and told the Visigoths et al what they could and could not do...and what happened a few generations later?

    Now the liberal point of view is to let Iran have whatever the **** it wants, be damned our security interest or our allies. We have the right to not do business with Iran, we have the right to get all our allies to not do business with them, no banking, no buying oil etc etc. We have the right to make their life miserable without ever firing one shot. That is what strength does.
    This is called "diplomacy"...and is to some extent what we've been doing to Russia. Diplomacy, properly conducted, consists of both carrot and stick. Thing is, what you're proposing is all stick: "Do what we say or else". Anyone with any experience in military leadership will tell you that when it comes to getting people to do what you want them to do, "all stick" might work for days or weeks, but it NEVER works in the long run.

    But to a liberal dead US bodies jumping out of the 50th floor to their death rather than burn to death is all because it was our fault 9-11 happened. What ****ing BS. Liberals say please don't do that. All the while ISIS is going around burning people and cutting heads off and turning kids into slaves etc. And all it would take is for Iran to call up one dumb ass suicide bomber but not a bomb this time but a nuke and set it off in the middle of Manhattan and flatten all of NY City. All because you want to be nice. No matter how sweet you want to be they want to cut your head off and will commit suicide if need be to do it.
    Does naive mean anything to you.
    Guy, your problem is the same that so many conservatives (and not a few chickenhawks like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh) have: your only tool is a hammer, so all the problems look like nails to you. You've forgotten that in the wars that we've gotten into because of a failure of diplomacy was usually because it was warmongering idiots who were conducting that diplomacy (i.e. Vietnam, Spanish-American War, the invasion of Iraq, the War of 1812). Note that there are wars where I do NOT blame our lack of diplomacy, like WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and of course the Civil War.

    I'm retired Navy - and like most retired enlisted, the thing I miss most is guiding the junior enlisted. Most of my friends are retired or active duty. My oldest son was in NJROTC, and my youngest son is seeing the Navy recruiter with his friends this very day. So you go take your I-hate-all-liberals-'cause-FREEDOM crap and shove it where it richly deserves to be.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #466
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    39,903

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    Now the liberal point of view is to let Iran have whatever the **** it wants, be damned our security interest or our allies.

    ....

    But to a liberal dead US bodies jumping out of the 50th floor to their death rather than burn to death is all because it was our fault 9-11 happened.
    You disgust me. These are not the "liberal viewpoints," and it's pretty ****ing repugnant of you to claim they are.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  7. #467
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,222
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    I agree - I say let them have the Bomb...and let the Saudis have it, too. A little MADness can go a long way, y'know?

    Oh, wait - I forgot - the conservatives who read this are Absolutely Sure that the very first thing the Iranians or Saudis will do would be to bomb Israel and America into radioactive dust! Feeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrr!!!!!

    *sigh*
    Please do not speak for others. The Iranians will not have delivery systems capable of threatening the US for a long time. Israel and Saudi Arabia would come under threat immediately.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  8. #468
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    12-27-16 @ 05:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    14,748

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    If we were to launch air attacks on Iran the Sunni air forces would fly with us.
    I strongly doubt it. They've got a significant Shiite population which would certainly cause a great deal of unrest in their nation in response to any attack by the Saudis on Iran.

    Again, it's as Winston Churchill said: "Jaw jaw is better than war war."
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  9. #469
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,222
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    I strongly doubt it. They've got a significant Shiite population which would certainly cause a great deal of unrest in their nation in response to any attack by the Saudis on Iran.

    Again, it's as Winston Churchill said: "Jaw jaw is better than war war."
    The Saudis are deeply distrustful of the current negotiations and they don't care at all about the views of their Shia population.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  10. #470
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    12-27-16 @ 05:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    14,748

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    There was never any doubt that Britain would enter the war on the side of France and Russia.
    The British strongly disagree with you. From the British National Archives site:

    In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Britain was often described as being in 'Splendid Isolation' from the rest of Europe. Britain had a huge empire and ruling this empire was its priority. The key to Britain's power was India with its vast resources of manpower. Britain relied heavily on Indian troops to control the empire. The highest priority for Britain was protecting the trade routes between Britain and India. Britain's large navy protected trade links with India and with the rest of the world.

    Despite this focus on the empire, Britain was interested in events in Europe. To start with, other European countries had rival empires. Belgium and France both had large empires in Africa. There was strong rivalry between Britain and France over possessions in North Africa. By the early 1900s, Germany also had colonies in Africa and was beginning to show an interest in North Africa.

    Another concern was Russia. For much of the 19th century, Russia wanted to take control of the Dardanelles, the area where the Black Sea opened out into the Mediterranean Sea. This would allow Russian warships and trading ships to sail easily around Europe. Russia had other ports in the north, but these tended to freeze over in winter. The problem was that the Dardanelles were owned by Turkey. Turkey and Russia had long been enemies. Britain supported Turkey against Russia. This was because Britain did not want Russian ships in the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean was part of Britain's most important trade route to India.

    Until the early 1900s, Britain was more concerned about Russia and France than Germany. Relations between Britain and Germany were very good. This began to change, however. When Kaiser Wilhelm II took control of Germany, he was anxious for Germany to be a great power. He felt that Russia to the east and France to the west were encircling Germany. As a result, he built up his armed forces. France and Russia feared Germany and did the same. During the 1900s, all of the great powers in Europe began to build up their armies and navies.

    British policy in Europe intended that no country in Europe should become completely dominant. If Russia, France, Germany and Austria-Hungary worried about each other, then they would be less of a threat to Britain. By about 1907 it was becoming clear to Britain that the greatest potential threat to Britain was going to be Germany. The strong economy, large population and powerful armed forces of Germany seemed to be capable of dominating Europe. As a result, Britain began to support Russia and France. Britain joined the Triple Entente.

    Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

    Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a "scrap of paper".

    Within a few more days, Britain, France and Russia (the Allies) were all officially at war with Germany and Austria-Hungary (the Central Powers). What had started as a small, local problem in the Balkans was turning into the biggest and most brutal war the world had ever seen.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

Page 47 of 86 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •