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 67 of 86 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 852

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

  1. #661
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,320
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    An immoral one. Showing lack of a moral code. And as noted, your assumption is also disputed.
    Let me know when you find a historian making that argument after 2010.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #662
    Transcend~
    Empirica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost at Sea
    Last Seen
    03-27-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,639

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Moderator's Warning:
    Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296, 650]Folks, this thread has a specific topic. I'd suggest people get focused on it
    Oh listen to you barking orders from the high horse of your powerful position as Global Moderator!

    While we the foot soldiers of the American Dream, wade through the filth and muck of liberaldom!

    You know nothing of the struggle of good-vs-evil down here in the dirty trenches of DebatePolitics!

    Ooups; sorry Zyppy guess I'm justa slave to my urges__I swear; I can't take myself anywhere!


    Hey; at least ya gotcha warning bumped! X&O Empi~
    When a crime is ignored ~ it becomes flagrant;
    When a crime is rewarded ~ it becomes epidemic:

    No Amnesty No Exception

  3. #663
    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 JANFU View Post
    From both sides bombing cities to rubble to Japan being decimated with bombing.
    Okinawa proved the point of high causalities if a land invasion of Japan was needed.
    Many say the Japanese were ready to surrender. I disagree, they would have fought to the death for their Emperor.
    Dresden was wrong because ti was against civilians and not military. What the Germans did was wrong for the same reason. And so was dropping the bomb. Because we did it and / or they did it, doesn't make wrong right. And speculation doesn't justify it either, even if that speculation was correct. That war saw a lot of evil all around, and it is important that we call evil what it is, evil.

    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.

  4. #664
    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
    Let me know when you find a historian making that argument after 2010.
    Wednesday 9th July 2014

    Roy, 29, from Belgium, has a master's degree in the history of the Catholic Church; an advanced master's degree on the historical expansion, exchange and globalisation of the world, . . .

    Roy: No, the US wasn’t justified. Even secretary of war Henry Lewis Stimson was not sure the bombs were needed to reduce the need of an invasion: “Japan had no allies; its navy was almost destroyed; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks.”

    The United States still had many industrial resources to use against Japan, and thus it was essentially defeated. Rear Admiral Toc****ane Takata concurred that B-29s “were the greatest single factor in forcing Japan's surrender”, while Prince Konoye already thought Japan was defeated on 14 February 1945 when he met emperor Hirohito.

    A combination of thoroughly bombing blockading cities that were economically dependent on foreign sources for food and raw materials, and the threat of Soviet entry in the war, would have been enough.

    http://www.historyextra.com/feature/...-during-second

    August 7, 2011

    Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack.

    Why did Japan surrender? - The Boston Globe

    May 30, 2013

    Despite the existence of these three powerful objections, the traditional interpretation still retains a strong hold on many people’s thinking, particularly in the United States. There is real resistance to looking at the facts. But perhaps this should not be surprising. It is worth reminding ourselves how emotionally convenient the traditional explanation of Hiroshima is — both for Japan and the United States.

    The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Policy

    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.

  5. #665
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,320
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Wednesday 9th July 2014

    Roy, 29, from Belgium, has a master's degree in the history of the Catholic Church; an advanced master's degree on the historical expansion, exchange and globalisation of the world, . . .

    Roy: No, the US wasn’t justified. Even secretary of war Henry Lewis Stimson was not sure the bombs were needed to reduce the need of an invasion: “Japan had no allies; its navy was almost destroyed; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks.”

    The United States still had many industrial resources to use against Japan, and thus it was essentially defeated. Rear Admiral Toc****ane Takata concurred that B-29s “were the greatest single factor in forcing Japan's surrender”, while Prince Konoye already thought Japan was defeated on 14 February 1945 when he met emperor Hirohito.

    A combination of thoroughly bombing blockading cities that were economically dependent on foreign sources for food and raw materials, and the threat of Soviet entry in the war, would have been enough.

    Was the US justified in dropping atomic bombs on Japan's Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War? You debate | History Extra

    August 7, 2011

    Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack.

    Why did Japan surrender? - The Boston Globe

    May 30, 2013

    Despite the existence of these three powerful objections, the traditional interpretation still retains a strong hold on many people’s thinking, particularly in the United States. There is real resistance to looking at the facts. But perhaps this should not be surprising. It is worth reminding ourselves how emotionally convenient the traditional explanation of Hiroshima is — both for Japan and the United States.

    The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Policy
    Roy is simply an interested layman. His testimony doesn't matter. Your second link at least cited prominent historians, but it avoids discussion of Giangreco's work altogether -- not impressive. And it includes this:
    ". . . . But therein lies the weakness of the Hasegawa interpretation as well, Bernstein says. After a long war and in the space of a few days, the Japanese leadership was hit with two extraordinary events - Hiroshima and the Soviet invasion - and sorting out cause and effect, based on incomplete documentation, may prove impossible.


    “When you look through all the evidence, I think it is hard to weigh one or the other more heavily,” Bernstein said. “The analysis is well intentioned, but more fine-grained than the evidence comfortably allows.”. . . ."

    Your third link is inaccessible. The challenge stands: Produce a post-2010 refutation of Giangreco.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #666
    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
    Roy is simply an interested layman. His testimony doesn't matter. Your second link at least cited prominent historians, but it avoids discussion of Giangreco's work altogether -- not impressive. And it includes this:
    ". . . . But therein lies the weakness of the Hasegawa interpretation as well, Bernstein says. After a long war and in the space of a few days, the Japanese leadership was hit with two extraordinary events - Hiroshima and the Soviet invasion - and sorting out cause and effect, based on incomplete documentation, may prove impossible.


    “When you look through all the evidence, I think it is hard to weigh one or the other more heavily,” Bernstein said. “The analysis is well intentioned, but more fine-grained than the evidence comfortably allows.”. . . ."

    Your third link is inaccessible. The challenge stands: Produce a post-2010 refutation of Giangreco.
    But you miss the point, while you put high value on documents, there are many then and now who believed the estimates were wrong. That is wasn't necessary.

    Consider that part A of the argument.

    Part B is that killing civilians for political gain is terrorism by definition. We all seem to agree terrorism is wrong. Killing civilians in this manner is morally wrong, be it by Germans, Brits, Al Qeada or the US. These doesn't mean one is the other and alike in all things, but that an immoral act is an immoral act. And this was an immoral act.

    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. #667
    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
    But you miss the point, while you put high value on documents, there are many then and now who believed the estimates were wrong. That is wasn't necessary.

    Consider that part A of the argument.

    Part B is that killing civilians for political gain is terrorism by definition. We all seem to agree terrorism is wrong. Killing civilians in this manner is morally wrong, be it by Germans, Brits, Al Qeada or the US. These doesn't mean one is the other and alike in all things, but that an immoral act is an immoral act. And this was an immoral act.
    It would be nice if that were universally acknowledged. There are more people today that acknowledge it than there use to be, and that's due in part to the advancements made in access to information. We use to have to wait forty years to find out the dirt, long after the culpable are dead and gone. Now, things are leaking in real time!!!!
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  8. #668
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,320
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    But you miss the point, while you put high value on documents, there are many then and now who believed the estimates were wrong. That is wasn't necessary.

    Consider that part A of the argument.

    Part B is that killing civilians for political gain is terrorism by definition. We all seem to agree terrorism is wrong. Killing civilians in this manner is morally wrong, be it by Germans, Brits, Al Qeada or the US. These doesn't mean one is the other and alike in all things, but that an immoral act is an immoral act. And this was an immoral act.
    One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There is no universal standard regarding the killing of civilians in war.

    The documents that are the foundation of Giangreco's argument were unavailable or overlooked before his work. It is likely the historians you cited never saw them until he referenced them.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  9. #669
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,439

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

    Iran doesn't have a "right" to nuclear weapons. However, it sure as hell can call a lot of countries on their bull**** from now on when it comes to them. Including: The US, Britain, France and Israel.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #670
    Transcend~
    Empirica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost at Sea
    Last Seen
    03-27-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,639

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Wednesday 9th July 2014

    Roy, 29, from Belgium, has a master's degree in the history of the Catholic Church; an advanced master's degree on the historical expansion, exchange and globalisation of the world, . . .

    Roy: No, the US wasn’t justified. Even secretary of war Henry Lewis Stimson was not sure the bombs were needed to reduce the need of an invasion: “Japan had no allies; its navy was almost destroyed; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks.”

    The United States still had many industrial resources to use against Japan, and thus it was essentially defeated. Rear Admiral Toc****ane Takata concurred that B-29s “were the greatest single factor in forcing Japan's surrender”, while Prince Konoye already thought Japan was defeated on 14 February 1945 when he met emperor Hirohito.

    A combination of thoroughly bombing blockading cities that were economically dependent on foreign sources for food and raw materials, and the threat of Soviet entry in the war, would have been enough.

    Was the US justified in dropping atomic bombs on Japan's Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War? You debate | History Extra

    August 7, 2011

    Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack.

    Why did Japan surrender? - The Boston Globe

    May 30, 2013

    Despite the existence of these three powerful objections, the traditional interpretation still retains a strong hold on many people’s thinking, particularly in the United States. There is real resistance to looking at the facts. But perhaps this should not be surprising. It is worth reminding ourselves how emotionally convenient the traditional explanation of Hiroshima is — both for Japan and the United States.

    The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Policy
    Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
    "Japan, however, vowed to fight to the bitter end in the Pacific, despite clear indications (as early as 1944) that they had little chance of winning. In fact, between mid-April 1945 (when President Harry Truman took office) and mid-July, Japanese forces inflicted Allied casualties totaling nearly half those suffered in three full years of war in the Pacific, proving that Japan had become even more deadly when faced with defeat.

    In late July, Japan’s militarist government rejected the Allied demand for surrender
    put forth in the Potsdam Declaration, which threatened the Japanese with “prompt and utter destruction” if they refused.

    On August 6, 1945, during World War II (1939-45), an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. Three days later, a second B-29 dropped another A-bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Japan’s Emperor Hirohito announced his country’s unconditional surrender in World War II in a radio address on August 15, citing the devastating power of “a new and most cruel bomb.”"


    What on earth could possibly be more persuasive than these surreal images of the total and utter destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after a single bomb was detonated 2000 feet over each of them?!

    Only a delusional ideologue would suggest that the primary factors for Japan's surrender was something other than the devastating results of Fat Man and Little Boy!
    Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296, 650]-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-bombing-picture-7-jpgDoes Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296, 650]-riobamba-hiroshima-jpg

    "General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million."

    And regardless of the horror; the nuclear option was necessary to save an estimated 1 million Allied casualties!
    When a crime is ignored ~ it becomes flagrant;
    When a crime is rewarded ~ it becomes epidemic:

    No Amnesty No Exception

Page 67 of 86 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977 ... 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
  •