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 69 of 86 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 852

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

  1. #681
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,044

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
    Yes, because it is unfair that countries like US have hundreds of nuclear weapons that they can use to threaten anyone but Iran cannot. I think they should be allowed to have nuclear weapons as a means of self-defence, not out of an apocalyptic urge, under the same philosophy as the gun law.
    You probably feel the same way about Cuba and Venezuela. They deserve self defense as well. You probably want North Korea to also have ICBMs to really be able to protect itself.

  2. #682
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    19,639

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    But Bush decided we should get in the middle of it in 2002 and sent 1000's of Americans to their deaths. You need to embrace the horror.
    No you need to read history
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  3. #683
    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
    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.
    Well, in ethic circles, it's universally wrong. And no, they likely saw them and did not give as much weight to them as you do. And I think I've explained why.

    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. #684
    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 Empirica View Post
    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!
    Attachment 67182405Attachment 67182406

    "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!
    Yes, you cite nothing new there. But it is unlikely that the Nuke was necessary. Still, Losing military life in a war is more acceptable than civilian life. And we took a lot of civilian lives, more if you count the long term effects of the radiation. It wasn't moral. And by justifying it, you make the case for every terrorist group out there that the ends justify the means.

    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. #685
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,297
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Well, in ethic circles, it's universally wrong. And no, they likely saw them and did not give as much weight to them as you do. And I think I've explained why.
    The common characteristic of "ethics circles" is a lack of real world experience. And no, I think your cited authors had never seen Giangreco's sources.

    Arthur Goodzeit Award for Best Military History Book of 2009 Awarded by the New York Military Affairs Symposium


    Hell To Pay is a comprehensive and compelling examination of the myriad complex issues that comprised the strategic plans for the American invasion of Japan. U.S. planning for the invasion and military occupation of Imperial Japan was begun in 1943, two years before the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In its final form, Operation Downfall called for a massive Allied invasion—on a scale dwarfing "D-Day"—to be carried out in two stages. In the first stage, Operation Olympic, the U.S. Sixth Army would lead the southern-most assault on the Home Island of Kyushu preceded by the dropping of as many as nine atom bombs behind the landing beaches. Sixth Army would secure airfields and anchorages needed to launch the second stage, Operation Coronet, 500 miles to the north in 1946. The decisive Coronet invasion of the industrial heartland of Japan through the Tokyo Plain would be led by the Eighth Army, as well as the First Army, which had previously pummeled its way across France and Germany to defeat the Nazis.

    These facts are well known and have been recounted—with varying degrees of accuracy—in a variety of books and articles. A common theme in these works is their reliance on a relatively few declassified high-level planning documents. An attempt to fully understand how both the U.S. and Japan planned to conduct the massive battles subsequent to the initial landings was not dealt with in these books beyond the skeletal U.S. outlines formulated nine months before the initial land battles were to commence, and more than a year before the anticipated climactic series of battles near Tokyo. On the Japanese side, plans for Operation Ketsu-go, the "decisive battle" in the Home Islands, have been unexamined below the strategic level and seldom consisted of more than a list of the units involved and a rehash of U.S. intelligence estimates of Kamikaze aircraft available for the defense of Kyushu.



    Hell to Pay examines the invasion of Japan in light of the large body of Japanese and American operational and tactical planning documents unearthed by the author in both familiar and obscure archives, as well as postwar interrogations and reports that senior Japanese commanders and their staffs were ordered to produce for General MacArthur's headquarters. Hell to Pay clarifies the political and military ramifications of the enormous casualties and loss of material projected by both sides in the climatic struggle to bring the Pacific War to a conclusion through a brutal series of battles on Japanese soil. This groundbreaking history counters the revisionist interpretations questioning the rationale for the use of the atom bomb and shows that President Truman's decision was based on very real estimates of the truly horrific cost of a conventional invasion of Japan.


    D. M. Giangreco served for more than twenty years as an editor for Military Review, published by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He has written and lectured widely on national security matters, and is an award-winning author of numerous articles and eleven books, including Dear Harry...Truman's Mailroom, 1945-1973.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #686
    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
    The common characteristic of "ethics circles" is a lack of real world experience. And no, I think your cited authors had never seen Giangreco's sources.

    Arthur Goodzeit Award for Best Military History Book of 2009 Awarded by the New York Military Affairs Symposium


    Hell To Pay is a comprehensive and compelling examination of the myriad complex issues that comprised the strategic plans for the American invasion of Japan. U.S. planning for the invasion and military occupation of Imperial Japan was begun in 1943, two years before the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In its final form, Operation Downfall called for a massive Allied invasion—on a scale dwarfing "D-Day"—to be carried out in two stages. In the first stage, Operation Olympic, the U.S. Sixth Army would lead the southern-most assault on the Home Island of Kyushu preceded by the dropping of as many as nine atom bombs behind the landing beaches. Sixth Army would secure airfields and anchorages needed to launch the second stage, Operation Coronet, 500 miles to the north in 1946. The decisive Coronet invasion of the industrial heartland of Japan through the Tokyo Plain would be led by the Eighth Army, as well as the First Army, which had previously pummeled its way across France and Germany to defeat the Nazis.

    These facts are well known and have been recounted—with varying degrees of accuracy—in a variety of books and articles. A common theme in these works is their reliance on a relatively few declassified high-level planning documents. An attempt to fully understand how both the U.S. and Japan planned to conduct the massive battles subsequent to the initial landings was not dealt with in these books beyond the skeletal U.S. outlines formulated nine months before the initial land battles were to commence, and more than a year before the anticipated climactic series of battles near Tokyo. On the Japanese side, plans for Operation Ketsu-go, the "decisive battle" in the Home Islands, have been unexamined below the strategic level and seldom consisted of more than a list of the units involved and a rehash of U.S. intelligence estimates of Kamikaze aircraft available for the defense of Kyushu.



    Hell to Pay examines the invasion of Japan in light of the large body of Japanese and American operational and tactical planning documents unearthed by the author in both familiar and obscure archives, as well as postwar interrogations and reports that senior Japanese commanders and their staffs were ordered to produce for General MacArthur's headquarters. Hell to Pay clarifies the political and military ramifications of the enormous casualties and loss of material projected by both sides in the climatic struggle to bring the Pacific War to a conclusion through a brutal series of battles on Japanese soil. This groundbreaking history counters the revisionist interpretations questioning the rationale for the use of the atom bomb and shows that President Truman's decision was based on very real estimates of the truly horrific cost of a conventional invasion of Japan.


    D. M. Giangreco served for more than twenty years as an editor for Military Review, published by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He has written and lectured widely on national security matters, and is an award-winning author of numerous articles and eleven books, including Dear Harry...Truman's Mailroom, 1945-1973.
    Again, this changes little to nothing. And morality that is so malleable as to be meaningless is having no morals at all. You give credence to the terrorist argument that the results justify the emans.

    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. #687
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Reston, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,297
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again, this changes little to nothing. And morality that is so malleable as to be meaningless is having no morals at all. You give credence to the terrorist argument that the results justify the emans.
    In most of history the ends do in fact justify the means. And you can say the above changes nothing, but that's just keeping your head in the sand.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  8. #688
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    3

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

    They have the right, but why do the need them? Mutually Assured Destruction?

  9. #689
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    06-05-15 @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    2,264

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tjweeks View Post
    They have the right, but why do the need them? Mutually Assured Destruction?
    No country needs them, but if one has them, every other country will "have" to have them.

  10. #690
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    03-20-17 @ 05:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    It is important to remember President Obama's action was not with the agreement of Congress and was exactly opposite the USA's long standing policy towards Iran.

    Yet no one wants to accept that was Barrack Obama's personal decision and his own agenda for whatever reasons. So this is the real question: Why would Barrack Hussein Obama PERSONALLY oppose the Muslim nation of Iran having nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles? Why would he personally oppose an arms race that would create a Muslim Middle East bristling with every increasing nuclear weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles, on Muslim submarines and under the bellies of Muslim aircraft?

    Personally, he has never made it a secret is view that the colonial and imperialist Judeo-Christian Western powers intrusions in the rest of the world were and are fundamentally evil and wrong. Unquestionable the Judeo-Christian West massively intruded into the Muslim M.E. and virtual every other Muslim country.

    So PERSONALLY (since being lame duck that is now is only rational motive) why WOULDN'T he want Muslim countries armed with huge nuclear retaliatory potential weapons systems to end the USA and Western powers ever daring intrude into any the affairs or expansionism of ANY Muslim country?

    What why would anyone think he would have ANY reason to PERSONALLY support, let alone favor, Israeli Jews? He was rather publicly outraged in his declaration of supporting Palestinian's agenda and condemning that of Israel's government.

    That doesn't necessarily mean he is a Muslim himself - though I believe it does. But he certainly is no Jew. In his youth, his education and indoctrination was anti-Jew - both in his Muslim schooling and his Catholic schooling. He openly condemns America's and the West's (particularly the UK) past colonialism and imperialism. On no occasion has he ever withdrawn that view and upon election - even before - went on apology tours to the world apologizing for the USA's past in relation to the rest of the world.

    For whatever reason, Barrack Obama is doing what he personally believes and has for a very long time. Being lame duck, he has no reason whatsoever to do anything but exactly what he personally wants to do for whatever personal reasons he has.

Page 69 of 86 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179 ... 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
  •