• 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?

ecofarm said:
Containing it is not a solution, human rights and democracy is. That you support addressing a symptom with genocide is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Tsk, tsk. You know I don't support genocide.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

joko104 said:
Agreed. However, Hussein poised a unique risk justifying the first Gulf War, when he should have been eliminated - but the government otherwise left intact. The second Gulf War was a mistake.
Click to expand...

Well, we're closer with that then we've been.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Montecresto said:
Well, we're closer with that then we've been.
Click to expand...

What an absurd statement. What Gulf War? Obama just surrendered for the USA. He has decided that we lost.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I don't think they have a right to nukes, but with that said we sure do not have the right to force them to do what we want when it comes to nukes.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

DA60 said:
If Israel does, then so does Iran.
Click to expand...

Then so does ISIS, the Palestinians, Columbia and Haiti. Definitely Somolia.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

joko104 said:
What an absurd statement. What Gulf War? Obama just surrendered for the USA. He has decided that we lost.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. I was telling you that you and I were closer than we have been, and you said this????!!!
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

that depends...the question is if they had one who would they give it to to cause harm to the west/Christians ... under the table...I doubt if they would openly shoot one of or take responsibility for a blast/bombing
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Obama surrendered what??? suddam is dead he must have surrendered the oil????,,the Iraq real estate??? ...ohhh im sorry Iraq peoples freedom...is that what your talking about...
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Jack Hays said:
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.
Click to expand...

No they really don't. Winning doesn't make that so either. And I say it because it's true.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

joko104 said:
That logic doesn't work. Japan has a massive military and massive storehouse of weapons and aircraft, with plans for a genocidal fight the ends ultimately to Japan's mountains where their reserve armaments and aircraft was kept. They had a million troops in China to bring back.

It was not just a question of how many hundreds of thousands of Americans might have been killed, but how many millions upon millions of Japanese would be killed in the fight, with starvation and disease likely killing even more Japanese.

The "terrorism" would have been killing Japanese across the entire nation of Japan by the millions upon millions.

The two atomic bombing sent an exact message. The Emperor could not defend his palace or capital against an atomic bombing. We specifically did NOT bomb Tokyo NOR the largest Japanese population centers. If we killed the Emperor who could surrender? But if he wouldn't, that is exactly what would have happened. Him and the center of Japanese government would have been obliterated.

The usage of the atomic bombs was specifically 1.) to save American lives, 2.) to save Japanese lives and 3.) not have to kill the Emperor of Japan to facilitate a surrender. It worked exactly as hoped - saving countless millions of lives.
Click to expand...

That's just not so. Terrorist killed some 3,000 people on 9/11 and not deaths across the nation. One attack. And it was a terrorist attack.

And all three on your list are 1) debatable as to how true they were both as reasons and as valid reasons, and 2) don't change that it was terror used to bring abut a political objective against civilians and not military targets.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Empirica said:
Unfortunately for you "nothing new" is more than enough; because it is what it is!
Click to expand...

The point is that as this has been rejected, it doesn't help to repeat it.

What an incredible crock of absolute poo-poo; Boo!

Most Americans have always preferred their leaders make wartime military lives a priority over enemy civilian casualties_

Especially when said war was initiated with a massive sneak attack by a ruthless enemy before it issued a Declaration of War!
Click to expand...

I don't know if that is really true. I'd love to see a poll. But such a popularity things doesn't matter in whether something is right or wrong. So while I get the strong emotion over Pearl Harbor, such emotion doesn't justify all evil. How would you feel if Iraq dropped the bomb here in response to invading Iraq?


Preventing an estimated one million American casualties absolutely "justify the means" and anyone who has ever served or had a friend or loved one in the military knows this!
Click to expand...

That is the claim, but not something we can factually prove. There are other opinions on that, you know. ;)

And the fact that you can actually compare the United States to a bunch of radical psycho Islamic terrorists only demonstrates your warped sense of priority!
Click to expand...

Not exactly what I'm doing. I'm comparing your argument with theirs. That's different. Evil is evil no matter who does it. And quite frankly, it can be found in every group of people ever.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Boo Radley said:
No they really don't. Winning doesn't make that so either. And I say it because it's true.
Click to expand...

There is no episode in history in which the losing government in a war consoled its people by reminding them of their fair play. Victory trumps everything else.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Jack Hays said:
There is no episode in history in which the losing government in a war consoled its people by reminding them of their fair play. Victory trumps everything else.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The point is such doesn't make evil honorable. Evil is still evil. That we may lack a moral center, as you argue, is besides the point.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Boo Radley said:
That's not the point. The point is such doesn't make evil honorable. Evil is still evil. That we may lack a moral center, as you argue, is besides the point.
Click to expand...

It is the only point. What you call a moral center today would have been incomprehensible 1,000 years ago (even 500) and will be incomprehensible 1,000 years in the future (probably 500). We are all formed by the things we protect, the enemies we face and the times in which we live.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Jack Hays said:
It is the only point. What you call a moral center today would have been incomprehensible 1,000 years ago (even 500) and will be incomprehensible 1,000 years in the future (probably 500). We are all formed by the things we protect, the enemies we face and the times in which we live.
Click to expand...

Yes...and no. Depends not just upon the society and the culture, but also upon certain aspects of each society and culture, for there are moral centers of the past that are not too different from our own today. For instance, Xenophon shows how homosexuality was accepted as normal in ancient Greece, yet women did not AFAIK have a right to vote in the Greek democracy.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Glen Contrarian said:
Yes...and no. Depends not just upon the society and the culture, but also upon certain aspects of each society and culture, for there are moral centers of the past that are not too different from our own today. For instance, Xenophon shows how homosexuality was accepted as normal in ancient Greece, yet women did not AFAIK have a right to vote in the Greek democracy.
Click to expand...

I would never argue there are not points of coincidence down through the ages. Human nature is a constant even if "moral centers" are not. I hope you are having a good spring.:2wave:
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Jack Hays said:
It is the only point. What you call a moral center today would have been incomprehensible 1,000 years ago (even 500) and will be incomprehensible 1,000 years in the future (probably 500). We are all formed by the things we protect, the enemies we face and the times in which we live.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. 1,000 years ago we couldn't kill 100's of thousands of people in an instant. Death of that magnitude may well have horrified them, as it should us. if you have no moral center, you are at best amoral. As such, people can claim no moral ground or belief if they have no morals to start with.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Boo Radley said:
I doubt it. 1,000 years ago we couldn't kill 100's of thousands of people in an instant. Death of that magnitude may well have horrified them, as it should us. if you have no moral center, you are at best amoral. As such, people can claim no moral ground or belief if they have no morals to start with.
Click to expand...

True. In the pre-industrial era the work of many hands was required to do what our technology does today.

Arnaud Amalric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric

("Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own.") ... them that are His.). This is the origin of the modern phrase, "Kill them all and let God sort them out.".

In 1204, he was named a papal legate and inquisitor and was sent by Innocent III with Peter of Castelnau and Arnoul to attempt the conversion of the Albigensians. Failing in this, he distinguished himself by the zeal with which he incited men by his preaching to the crusade against them. He was in charge of the crusader army that sacked Béziers in 1209.[SUP][2][/SUP] There, according to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach (real name Caesarius), Arnaul Amalric supposedly responded when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics,
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His.).[SUP][3][/SUP]
​
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Jack Hays said:
True. In the pre-industrial era the work of many hands was required to do what our technology does today.

Arnaud Amalric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric

("Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own.") ... them that are His.). This is the origin of the modern phrase, "Kill them all and let God sort them out.".

In 1204, he was named a papal legate and inquisitor and was sent by Innocent III with Peter of Castelnau and Arnoul to attempt the conversion of the Albigensians. Failing in this, he distinguished himself by the zeal with which he incited men by his preaching to the crusade against them. He was in charge of the crusader army that sacked Béziers in 1209.[SUP][2][/SUP] There, according to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach (real name Caesarius), Arnaul Amalric supposedly responded when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics,
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His.).[SUP][3][/SUP]
​
Click to expand...

You think this addresses my point?
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Boo Radley said:
You're wrong as it doesn't. Try explaining.
Click to expand...

In the pre-industrial world it was certainly possible to kill hundreds of thousands. It was just harder work. Manual labor, as it were.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Absolutely yes! I hope they get them! Balances the power in the ME between Israel and Iran then.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

ORION83 said:
Absolutely yes! I hope they get them! Balances the power in the ME between Israel and Iran then.
Click to expand...

If Iran gets the bomb then Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not be far behind. That is, if Iran does not immediately attack Israel.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Jack Hays said:
If Iran gets the bomb then Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not be far behind. That is, if Iran does not immediately attack Israel.
Click to expand...

SA I expect yes...Egypt eh I don't think so....I don't care if Iran attacks Israel has nothing to do with the US or me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom