• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?


  • Total voters
    118
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I think it's quite reasonable to conclude that someone who ends up referring to others as freaks and pigs lost the debate long ago.

Well perhaps we've a difference in opinion on the character of those that kill innocent women and children, and those that justify it, hmm?
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Well perhaps we've a difference in opinion on the character of those that kill innocent women and children, and those that justify it, hmm?

I'm on the side of those who acted to save millions of lives.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I'm on the side of those who acted to save millions of lives.

You're arguing with the forum's representative of the Dark Side regarding the subject of morality.

Just to let you know how meaningless what you're doing right now really is.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Well perhaps we've a difference in opinion on the character of those that kill innocent women and children, and those that justify it, hmm?

LOL

Simple minds, simple opinions. I'm a bit beyond that. But don't worry, there will always be people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect another's right to hate them.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

You're arguing with the forum's representative of the Dark Side regarding the subject of morality.

Just to let you know how meaningless what you're doing right now really is.

As a form of entertainment, don't you think it's interesting to view what the "Dark Side" thinks?
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Let's just remember this is all about Israel. Iran is not a threat to the U.S, and quite frankly I really don't care if they get nukes. The only reason that stopping Iran from going nuclear is such a priority for the U.S government is the influence pro-Israel lobby groups like AIPAC have on Capitol Hill.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

LOL

Simple minds, simple opinions. I'm a bit beyond that. But don't worry, there will always be people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect another's right to hate them.

What more motivation than hate do a people have to kill innocent woman and children, and justify it. One perpetrator mused how he would be prosecuted for war crimes were the US to loose. We know that the victors write the history and make the rules. Enjoy
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

As a form of entertainment, don't you think it's interesting to view what the "Dark Side" thinks?

Sure it's interesting during the first several times you would listen to him talk about how Russia and Iran and North Korea and Syria and basically every ****ing member of the Axis of Evil got it right over the cruel and barbaric West and their "human right violations", but after a while it just becomes a bloody waste of time and you ask yourself why bother.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

You're welcome.

Why the Atomic Bombings Could Have Been Avoided
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
Was Hiroshima Necessary?

The Colonel: The Life and Wars of Henry Stimson 1867-1950
Godfrey Hodgson
Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992 402 pages, paperbound

There never was, and never will be any conceivable military justification for the August 1945 U.S. nuclear-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Among all the evidence available on this matter, the documentary record compiled by several among the relevant primary sources, including the signed confessions of U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson himself, is more than sufficient to justify this conclusion. Nonetheless, the witless litany, the lie that that bombing "saved the lives of a million Americans," has widespread credulity to this day.

Really letting your colors show today, eh Monty? The Institute for Historical Review is perhaps the most infamous holocaust denial propaganda outlet in history.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Let's just remember this is all about Israel. Iran is not a threat to the U.S, and quite frankly I really don't care if they get nukes. The only reason that stopping Iran from going nuclear is such a priority for the U.S government is the influence pro-Israel lobby groups like AIPAC have on Capitol Hill.

True enough, but the handwringing and fear plays well, is a boon for business, galvanizes people and makes one proud, PROUD!!
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Really letting your colors show today, eh Monty? The Institute for Historical Review is perhaps the most infamous holocaust denial propaganda outlet in history.

I'm no holocaust denier. Nor does irh though they have a different take on it. I can direct you towards groups that flat out deny any holocaust if you want.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I'm no holocaust denier. Nor does irh though they have a different take on it. I can direct you towards groups that flat out deny any holocaust if you want.

"I don't deny the holocaust, I just have a different take on it than history has". :rofl:rofl:rofl

Post of the decade.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I'm no holocaust denier. Nor does irh though they have a different take on it. I can direct you towards groups that flat out deny any holocaust if you want.

Lol, yes they do. Their role as holocaust deniers earned them a special place in history for losing one of the most infamous contract cases in modern history when they tried to deny payment to a holocaust survivor for 'failing to prove that gas chambers existed'. But hey you're right they just have a 'different take' on whether gas chambers existed or not. Oh and I'm very sure you could direct me to groups that flat out deny the holocaust.

Institute for Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

"I don't deny the holocaust, I just have a different take on it than history has". :rofl:rofl:rofl

Post of the decade.

Wtf is your problem dude?? Huh? Do not mix my words, and then bracket them in quotes, hear? Besides, I thought I was your waste of time.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

What more motivation than hate do a people have to kill innocent woman and children, and justify it. One perpetrator mused how he would be prosecuted for war crimes were the US to loose. We know that the victors write the history and make the rules. Enjoy

LOL. I guess that means it's good to be a victor, rather than a victim.

As evidenced by so many posts, it's quite obvious the nature of motivation would never be understood or appreciated by some. The millions who were saved by those who did understand are relieved they did, and still do. :peace
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Sure it's interesting during the first several times you would listen to him talk about how Russia and Iran and North Korea and Syria and basically every ****ing member of the Axis of Evil got it right over the cruel and barbaric West and their "human right violations", but after a while it just becomes a bloody waste of time and you ask yourself why bother.

Comedy is best in small doses, I have to agree.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Man would you look at the freaks on the right this morning that can't stand it when an American atrocity is pointed out. We need a fire hose.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

LOL. I guess that means it's good to be a victor, rather than a victim.

As evidenced by so many posts, it's quite obvious the nature of motivation would never be understood or appreciated by some. The millions who were saved by those who did understand are relieved they did, and still do. :peace

Yes, in the world view of right wing conservative minds where victim and prey are all that play, indeed.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

As for the atomic bombings the irrefutable fact is that at the time of their usage there was universal support for their usage among the US high command. Any dissent is the result of decades later after the fact rationalization and not part of any documented opinion.

Their mixed answers came after the war had ended and in the intensity of the early anti-nuclear period and the rise of the Cold War. In other words when legacies was at stake and moral introspection was possible. The easiest thing to do is to quote Robert James Maddox who wrote an authoritative book on the matter in the late 1990's. The link is a 10 page piece detailing the step by step process that went into the decision to drop the bombs:

""Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs.

Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.' Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward.

Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?' The best that can be said about Eisenhower's memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time.
Notes made by one of Stimson's aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower's part.

The Biggest Decision: Why We Had To Drop The Atomic Bomb | American History Lives at American Heritage 1995 Volume 46 Issue 3

We have minutes and reports from the meeting of the Joint Chiefs and Marshall had in writing the affirmation of MacArthur and Nimitz, while he himself also concurred. While King, Leahey, and others also endorsed the invasion figures recommended by their group and believed an invasion would be a likely and bloody affair, with Leahey recommending an attack on Kyushu as soon as possible.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Lol, yes they do. Their role as holocaust deniers earned them a special place in history for losing one of the most infamous contract cases in modern history when they tried to deny payment to a holocaust survivor for 'failing to prove that gas chambers existed'. But hey you're right they just have a 'different take' on whether gas chambers existed or not. Oh and I'm very sure you could direct me to groups that flat out deny the holocaust.

Institute for Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is wiki alternatively accepted, and not?
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

No

YOU maintain he is wrong. YOU have provided NO proof, as usual.

Calm down feller, I thought it was clear long ago what I think of your opinion!
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Furthermore it utterly ignores our obligations to the tens of millions suffering under the boot of Japanese rule. At the time the bombs were dropped there were millions of Japanese soldiers deployed across the entirety of the the Pacific Rim, Southern Asia, and East Asia, with vast swathes of China, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, and more under their boot.

At the time of surrender the Japanese had 1.1 million troops in Manchuria between Japanese and Manchurian levy's, 1.6 million troops and militia of the Kwantung Army, another 682,000 in Korean proper, 1.5 million Japanese and Chinese levy's engaged in combat across most of northern and coastal China from Fujian to Peking, some 750,000 troops in Indo-China, 132,000 still launching attacks from the bush in the Philippines on Mindano and Luzon, close to 200,000 troops spread across Indonesia and New Guinea (indeed Japanese troops would inflict casualties here even after the surrender, as they would in Vietnam), another 500,000 troops, garrison levys, and militia in Formosa (Taiwan), and about another 180,000-210,000 scattered across the Pacific.

Combat operations continued almost until the final hours of the war across all fronts. To give an example, Chinese troops suffered 15,000 casualties in a single engagement in June of 1945 as they attempted to launch an offensive in Hunan, while thousands more were killed from August 1st-August 3rd when Chinese troops took advantage of the Soviet offensive and pushed into Guangxi which just to give you an idea of the scope is at the bottom rim of China.

Nearly 4,000,000 Indonesians, some 2,000,000-3,000,000 Vietnamese, tens of millions of Chinese, and hundreds of thousands of Allied military and civilian slave laborers died under the brutality of the Japanese boot. There was an obligation to end the war as swiftly as possible.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Lol, no one's buying it Monty. You've tarred yourself.

Ok, so this time wiki is acceptable, then I'll hear no complaints for trotting it out. Here's what the institute says about it, this is what they think, not what critics think that claim everybody who criticizes Israeli foreign policy is anti-Semitic.

"The Institute does not 'deny the Holocaust.' Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II. All the same, the IHR has over the years published detailed books and numerous probing essays that call into question aspects of the orthodox Holocaust extermination story, and highlight specific Holocaust exaggerations and falsehoods."[24] On the IHR website Barbara Kulaszka defends the distinction between denial and revisionism by arguing that considerable revisions have been made over the years by historians.................

Institute for Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom