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 60 of 86 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 852

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

  1. #591
    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
    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.
    Not at all. That the Japanese were already prepared to surrender makes the point of land invasion, and the use of nuclear weapons, moot! Such hypotheticals don't require an answer. No one had a nuclear weapon before the US devised one, and such secrets, never remain secret. And again, Eisenhower's opinion as both general during the war, and certainly as president subsequently, means that he was privy to classified information, besides his conversations with others that were in the loop, quite trump Ali's current opinion.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  2. #592
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,941
    Blog Entries
    2

    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.
    Let's get one thing out of the way. I'm not a Christian and I'm uninterested in Christian teaching on war. Christian teaching is second only to Islamic teaching in justifying war. I much prefer the practical calculus of the veteran warrior, which almost always results in fewer deaths. The War Department projection of 46,000 dead is what Giangreco demonstrates was always a phony number. His work relies on previously unknown or ignored documents that were never part of any narrative, conventional or otherwise.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  3. #593
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,941
    Blog Entries
    2

    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.
    And btw, the "deeply flawed" accusation against Giangreco's work predates Hell to Pay by seven years. Game, set, match.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  4. #594
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,577

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Not at all. That the Japanese were already prepared to surrender makes the point of land invasion, and the use of nuclear weapons, moot! Such hypotheticals don't require an answer. No one had a nuclear weapon before the US devised one, and such secrets, never remain secret. And again, Eisenhower's opinion as both general during the war, and certainly as president subsequently, means that he was privy to classified information, besides his conversations with others that were in the loop, quite trump Ali's current opinion.
    Your and Eisenhower opinions were at least in hindsight and at most hypothetical. "That the Japanese were already prepared to surrender makes the point of land invasion, and the use of nuclear weapons, moot!" No, the continued dropping of bombs made it moot. You keep saying that they were preparing to surrender. Clearly that is speculation because they surrendered very quickly after Nagasaki was bombed. You just don't agree with the principal of Unconditional Surrender. Neither did the Japanese until that 2nd bomb. That very avoidable 2nd bomb that could have saved all those lives.

    And it isn't my opinion. The Commander in Chief, Mr. Truman made the decision based on the information he had at that moment in time and no where is it recorded in history that he discussed with General Eisenhower. So you won't answer my hypothetical question but you expect everyone to believe your speculative hypothesis. Japan wasn't getting ready to surrender, they were trying to negotiate. Eisenhower had tremendous motivation to de-escalate the beginnings of the arms race so his hindsight has his motivations at heart. It didn't change the fact that he had them at his disposal and it greatly influenced his foreign policy decisions. He also knew you couldn't put the genie back in the bottle. It is the horror of their use that has kept us safe all these years.

  5. #595
    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
    Your and Eisenhower opinions were at least in hindsight and at most hypothetical. "That the Japanese were already prepared to surrender makes the point of land invasion, and the use of nuclear weapons, moot!" No, the continued dropping of bombs made it moot. You keep saying that they were preparing to surrender. Clearly that is speculation because they surrendered very quickly after Nagasaki was bombed. You just don't agree with the principal of Unconditional Surrender. Neither did the Japanese until that 2nd bomb. That very avoidable 2nd bomb that could have saved all those lives.

    And it isn't my opinion. The Commander in Chief, Mr. Truman made the decision based on the information he had at that moment in time and no where is it recorded in history that he discussed with General Eisenhower. So you won't answer my hypothetical question but you expect everyone to believe your speculative hypothesis. Japan wasn't getting ready to surrender, they were trying to negotiate. Eisenhower had tremendous motivation to de-escalate the beginnings of the arms race so his hindsight has his motivations at heart. It didn't change the fact that he had them at his disposal and it greatly influenced his foreign policy decisions. He also knew you couldn't put the genie back in the bottle. It is the horror of their use that has kept us safe all these years.
    You're still wrong.

    The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    Of course Eisenhower was agenda driven????? Sorry, but he had a heated discussion with Stimson at the time. And his other comment was after he was no longer president and in retirement. What would that agenda be exactly. And what about Truman, of course he would have cause to defend his own decision to use nuclear weapons, and until his death he did.

    I perused the thread a little and don't see that you commented on Iran, and it's alleged nuclear weapons ambition, any thoughts on that??
    Last edited by Montecresto; 03-20-15 at 05:57 PM.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  6. #596
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,941
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    You're still wrong.

    The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    Of course Eisenhower was agenda driven????? Sorry, but he had a heated discussion with Stimson at the time. And his other comment was after he was no longer president and in retirement. What would that agenda be exactly. And what about Truman, of course he would have cause to defend his own decision to use nuclear weapons, and until his death he did.
    The "surviving Japanese leaders," by 1946 completely under the control of the US occupation, of course were going to say they had wanted to surrender. Just like every German veteran every American met had fought only on the Russian front.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  7. #597
    Student HK.227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    259

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    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.
    The simple fact remains that despite those examples (the factually correct ones anyway) no critical tensions arose in relations between the US and the international community at large because of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    And who defines "civilized"? We do! You fail to recognize the base hypocrisy in your words.
    Since when did it become hypocritical for people who speak a language to define what words in that language mean?
    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...

  8. #598
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    The "surviving Japanese leaders," by 1946 completely under the control of the US occupation, of course were going to say they had wanted to surrender. Just like every German veteran every American met had fought only on the Russian front.
    One of the very first military history books I read cover-to-cover was Martin Caidin's "A Torch to the Enemy". It was about the firebombing of Japan. He pointed out that the atomic weapons were responsible for only about two percent of the total bombing damage done to Japan. The rest was almost all firebombing...including quite a bit of Tokyo itself. Dresden was the only firestorm on the European front. Japan had quite a few...including a "sweep conflagaration" - which survivors described as "a tidal wave of fire that traveled slower than a man could run, but faster than he could walk" - and which destroyed 98% of the city of Nagoya.

    Funny how things like that stick with me forty years after reading it.

    But anyway, I agree with
    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Cephus
    - they were already strongly considering surrender. The atomic bombs were only the 2% that broke the proverbial camel's back.
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

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

  9. #599
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    05-25-17 @ 08:09 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    You're repeating yourself.
    Yeah you won't answer the question. But in not doing you so, you answered it for me.
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

  10. #600
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,941
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    One of the very first military history books I read cover-to-cover was Martin Caidin's "A Torch to the Enemy". It was about the firebombing of Japan. He pointed out that the atomic weapons were responsible for only about two percent of the total bombing damage done to Japan. The rest was almost all firebombing...including quite a bit of Tokyo itself. Dresden was the only firestorm on the European front. Japan had quite a few...including a "sweep conflagaration" - which survivors described as "a tidal wave of fire that traveled slower than a man could run, but faster than he could walk" - and which destroyed 98% of the city of Nagoya.

    Funny how things like that stick with me forty years after reading it.

    But anyway, I agree with - they were already strongly considering surrender. The atomic bombs were only the 2% that broke the proverbial camel's back.
    For the record, there was a firestorm in Hamburg too.

    The Japanese were prepared to fight on. Two nuclear bombs did not stop them; what stopped the Japanese was the idea we had more and would use them.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Page 60 of 86 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270 ... 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
  •