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 59 of 86 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 852

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

  1. #581
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,572

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Yes, if Iran can force it, though they haven't decided to, and no, the two cities nuked killed 200,000 plus civilians. They were the target.
    Again, your meme about the target of atomic weapons. And you dodged my question: "And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?"

  2. #582
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    Again, your meme about the target of atomic weapons. And you dodged my question: "And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?"
    I think that the atrocity of nuking Japan is part of the reason that the Iranian government has stated that they won't be having the weapons. The Japanese were preparing for surrender already as told by president Eisenhower, and he hated that the "US would be the first country to use that awful weapon".
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #583
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,572

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I think that the atrocity of nuking Japan is part of the reason that the Iranian government has stated that they won't be having the weapons. The Japanese were preparing for surrender already as told by president Eisenhower, and he hated that the "US would be the first country to use that awful weapon".
    Public pronouncements are always to be taken with a grain of salt, you seem to believe everything that people say that you agree with. Whether the Iranians today or President Eisenhower who was not involved with any of the Pacific Theaters, but did have a political agenda while he was in office. Even the tense on the quote doesn't make sense. the US was the first country to use that awful weapon and it would only have been 1, not 2, had the Japanese surrendered. Why, oh why, did they not surrender. That is the real shame.

    And you dodged my question again: "And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?"

  4. #584
    Student HK.227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    258

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    "We" as in the United States. And since we all fund terrorist groups, it's like the pot calling the kettle black. Plus, these "human rights violations" are being defined by the west, it would be like Iran accusing the U.S. of "human rights violations" under Sharia Law. Would we care? Of course not. So why should they take our definitions seriously? The problem with all of this is that it's all very west-centric. We think we get to make the rules and everyone else gets to follow them without a peep. It all comes down to "they're not acting in a way we think is appropriate, therefore we're going to stop them from doing what we don't want." Well who the hell died and left us in charge of the planet?
    I am not American, and I believe my country has every right to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities (fat chance) in order to secure the safety of ourselves and our neighbours without asking anyone's permission.

    I was also unaware that the US is funding terrorist groups. There is the ISIS weapons controversy with Syria, but trustworthy information is hard to come by.
    Anyway, that's not the point. Of course the US has from time to time broken the rules of civilized conduct between nations (Echelon and it's successor systems for instance). All nations have.

    What defines a bandit state is if those rules are broken consistently and to such a degree that other countries decide to exclude them from decent company. Iran lives up to those conditions while the US does not.
    In a world with a Muslim majority Shariah would probably indeed be the measuring stick applied, but that is not the case. For the time being our western-centric rule of "you do not get to blow your neighbours up" is what goes.

    And to answer your final question, noone died and left us in charge. Nor did God or Satan hand down written instructions in easily read format. We (the civilized nations) decided to apply the rules we thought best and took that responsibility upon our shoulders.
    Ok, that does it! I waste Professor Plum with the lead pipe.
    Oh yeah? Well say hello to my little friend, Colonel Mustard! Candlestick to the face!
    This is the last time I'm playing Clue with you two...

  5. #585
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    Public pronouncements are always to be taken with a grain of salt, you seem to believe everything that people say that you agree with. Whether the Iranians today or President Eisenhower who was not involved with any of the Pacific Theaters, but did have a political agenda while he was in office. Even the tense on the quote doesn't make sense. the US was the first country to use that awful weapon and it would only have been 1, not 2, had the Japanese surrendered. Why, oh why, did they not surrender. That is the real shame.

    And you dodged my question again: "And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?"
    No, I pointedly answered your question with Eisenhower's declaration that Japan was prepared to surrender, and the awful weapon was not needed. I'll go with Eisenhower, who was there and knows over Ali, who wasn't.

    After creating the nasty weapon, it was inevitable that the virus would spread, so yeah, Iran will likely obtain them if they so desire.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  6. #586
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-19-17 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,818

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    I'm not making myself clear. Giangreco's account is not just an opinion, but the use of sources previously unknown or overlooked. His work marks a breakthrough to a new level of understanding.
    However, it is known that the predicted number of U.S. combat deaths in the planned invasion escalated enormously among pro-bomb commentators from the U.S. War Department's 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead.

    (snip)

    This “deeply flawed” analysis by Giangreco is the very article upon which Kamm’s repeated assertion of projected high casualties relies so heavily.

    Careful historians do not deny that Truman was concerned at the prospect of many U.S. lives being lost in an invasion of Japan, but the predicted numbers were far less than the inflated figures provided postwar to ‘justify’ the atomic bombings. Such figures, along with Japan’s “rejection” of the Potsdam Proclamation, form part of the conventional narrative that the atomic bombs were sadly necessary. But as Hasegawa observes astutely:

    Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue. And it is here, in the evidence of roads not taken, that the question of moral responsibility comes to the fore. Until his death, Truman continually came back to this question and repeatedly justified his decision, inventing a fiction that he himself came to believe. That he spoke so often to justify his actions shows how much his decision to use the bomb haunted him.”[31]

    Media Lens - Racing Towards The Abyss: The U.S. Atomic Bombing of Japan

    Again, reading the same information, two different conclusions are reached. However, let's turn this a bit, might be lost is an unknown. Dropping the bomb is a definite. And it wasn't soldiers fighting a battle, but civilian lives being taken, and terrorizing the government and the people. Not amount of war causalities can justify such wanton death and destruction. Not morally. There's no Christian teaching that allows it.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #587
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    However, it is known that the predicted number of U.S. combat deaths in the planned invasion escalated enormously among pro-bomb commentators from the U.S. War Department's 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead.

    (snip)

    This “deeply flawed” analysis by Giangreco is the very article upon which Kamm’s repeated assertion of projected high casualties relies so heavily.

    Careful historians do not deny that Truman was concerned at the prospect of many U.S. lives being lost in an invasion of Japan, but the predicted numbers were far less than the inflated figures provided postwar to ‘justify’ the atomic bombings. Such figures, along with Japan’s “rejection” of the Potsdam Proclamation, form part of the conventional narrative that the atomic bombs were sadly necessary. But as Hasegawa observes astutely:

    Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue. And it is here, in the evidence of roads not taken, that the question of moral responsibility comes to the fore. Until his death, Truman continually came back to this question and repeatedly justified his decision, inventing a fiction that he himself came to believe. That he spoke so often to justify his actions shows how much his decision to use the bomb haunted him.”[31]

    Media Lens - Racing Towards The Abyss: The U.S. Atomic Bombing of Japan

    Again, reading the same information, two different conclusions are reached. However, let's turn this a bit, might be lost is an unknown. Dropping the bomb is a definite. And it wasn't soldiers fighting a battle, but civilian lives being taken, and terrorizing the government and the people. Not amount of war causalities can justify such wanton death and destruction. Not morally. There's no Christian teaching that allows it.
    There were also people in a position to know, that disagreed with the notion that even a land invasion was necessary.

    In Eisenhower’s autobiography, Mandate for Change (p.380), Eisenhower recalls his reaction to U.S. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, upon hearing of the successful atomic bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. Eisenhower told Stimson that he believed “that Japan was already defeated, and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Eisenhower couldn’t have been any clearer in his response: dropping the bomb was “no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” Nearly twenty years later Eisenhower’s views on the use of the bomb remained unchanged. In a 1963 interview with Newsweek he unequivocally stated that prior to the atomic blast at Hiroshima “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  8. #588
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    27,704

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HK.227 View Post
    I was also unaware that the US is funding terrorist groups. There is the ISIS weapons controversy with Syria, but trustworthy information is hard to come by.
    Anyway, that's not the point. Of course the US has from time to time broken the rules of civilized conduct between nations (Echelon and it's successor systems for instance). All nations have.
    We funded the Taliban, we funded Saddam Hussein, we funded any number of groups in South American wars, all of whom today would be called terrorists. We pretend they're "freedom fighters". They are not, they are puppets doing our bidding. We have a long, long history of doing it too.

    What defines a bandit state is if those rules are broken consistently and to such a degree that other countries decide to exclude them from decent company. Iran lives up to those conditions while the US does not.
    It wouldn't matter if the U.S. did or not, we have the military power and the political and financial strength to make us necessary, whereas Iran does not. We made it clear after 9/11 that we planned to invade any sovereign nation we thought might contain terrorists and couldn't care less what anyone else thought about it. We went into both Afghanistan and Iraq, killed tens of thousands of civilians and completely overthrew their governments. Yeah, we're angels.

    In a world with a Muslim majority Shariah would probably indeed be the measuring stick applied, but that is not the case. For the time being our western-centric rule of "you do not get to blow your neighbours up" is what goes.
    Might makes right.

    And to answer your final question, noone died and left us in charge. Nor did God or Satan hand down written instructions in easily read format. We (the civilized nations) decided to apply the rules we thought best and took that responsibility upon our shoulders.
    And who defines "civilized"? We do! You fail to recognize the base hypocrisy in your words.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  9. #589
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,572

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    No, I pointedly answered your question with Eisenhower's declaration that Japan was prepared to surrender, and the awful weapon was not needed. I'll go with Eisenhower, who was there and knows over Ali, who wasn't.

    After creating the nasty weapon, it was inevitable that the virus would spread, so yeah, Iran will likely obtain them if they so desire.
    Sorry, you answered your question, not mine.

    Eisenhower was President but not when the decision was made 7 years earlier. I would regard his opinion on Japan in 1945 the same way I would regard MacArthur's opinion on Germany--interesting but not applicable. Our having the bomb or not wasn't going to stop others from trying to get it, and I lump Iran in that group.

  10. #590
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-19-17 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,818

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    Sorry, you answered your question, not mine.

    Eisenhower was President but not when the decision was made 7 years earlier. I would regard his opinion on Japan in 1945 the same way I would regard MacArthur's opinion on Germany--interesting but not applicable. Our having the bomb or not wasn't going to stop others from trying to get it, and I lump Iran in that group.
    The hubris is to think you can use it and then prevent others from having it. The bar has been set, and that bar is to be a player at the table, you have to have one.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 59 of 86 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169 ... 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
  •