• 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?[W:296]

I never head that before, but it is our countries right to secure the safety of this nation. Now Iran can think they have the right to do anything they want, wake up Iran so do we have that right.



That is what a powerful nation can do, strength through power. Iran wants more power by having nuks, it's all about power and the threat of using it. This is nothing new, it has been going on for thousands of years. Now the liberal point of view is to let Iran have whatever the **** it wants, be damned our security interest or our allies. We have the right to not do business with Iran, we have the right to get all our allies to not do business with them, no banking, no buying oil etc etc. We have the right to make their life miserable without ever firing one shot. That is what strength does. But to a liberal dead US bodies jumping out of the 50th floor to their death rather than burn to death is all because it was our fault 9-11 happened. What ****ing BS. Liberals say please don't do that. All the while ISIS is going around burning people and cutting heads off and turning kids into slaves etc. And all it would take is for Iran to call up one dumb ass suicide bomber but not a bomb this time but a nuke and set it off in the middle of Manhattan and flatten all of NY City. All because you want to be nice. No matter how sweet you want to be they want to cut your head off and will commit suicide if need be to do it.

Does naive mean anything to you.

You don't even know what a liberal is, never mind how one thinks. You're just flinging feces at shadows- all you're going to do is end up with **** on your hands.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Yes, they do have a delivery system. It's called a "yacht" or a "ship".

That's my personal fear - that they'll put one on board some rich-looking yacht and sail it up the Hudson.

Or a shipping container, buried under a stack of others on a dock.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Sorry, but among historians it has become the definitive view. And the point is that the bombs were necessary to preclude evil.

Fighting evil with evil= righteous.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

This is all pretty much the standard far-left propaganda which is regularly repeated by gullible liberal pawns that accept it as reality!
but
Let's pause for just a moment and completely forget about preventing Iran from getting the bomb_

Now tell us how you believe being a nuclear power would effect Iran and what would be the consequences; if any?

I think I do Monty; unfortunately your wording suggested that you credit yourself as being the only rational person in the world_

Rather than; "nukes don't exist in my world" a more suitable and accurate statement would be; "nukes don't exist in a perfect world"_

I can positively assure you that the great majority of the human race shares your desire for a Nuke Free World Monty!

No, even just in a better world. No, I'm not the only rational person, dozens of countries are actively working for nuclear eradication as well as advocacy groups here and across the world.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

There was never any doubt that Britain would enter the war on the side of France and Russia.

Sure, because there were only two sides and France and Russia weren't dropping bombs on London.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Please do not speak for others. The Iranians will not have delivery systems capable of threatening the US for a long time. Israel and Saudi Arabia would come under threat immediately.

And that's a bad thing how? I mean you don't see either of them out flying sorties against ISIS and if they ever did, it would only be if the U.S. bought them off. That's pretty much been the only way anyone on the Middle East has taken up serious arms against the extremists.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

That's like something out of a Steven Seagal movie. Do you know how hard that would be to do?

Not very.

I spent twenty years in the Navy - and yes, that included loading stuff on board ships. Even on a relatively small ship, there's many, many places to hide something the size of a nuclear warhead. Even the crudest of portable atomic bombs - the size of Little Boy or Fat Man - are easily loaded on a tramp steamer.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

The British strongly disagree with you. From the British National Archives site:

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Britain was often described as being in 'Splendid Isolation' from the rest of Europe. Britain had a huge empire and ruling this empire was its priority. The key to Britain's power was India with its vast resources of manpower. Britain relied heavily on Indian troops to control the empire. The highest priority for Britain was protecting the trade routes between Britain and India. Britain's large navy protected trade links with India and with the rest of the world.

Despite this focus on the empire, Britain was interested in events in Europe. To start with, other European countries had rival empires. Belgium and France both had large empires in Africa. There was strong rivalry between Britain and France over possessions in North Africa. By the early 1900s, Germany also had colonies in Africa and was beginning to show an interest in North Africa.

. . . . (edited because of character limit)

British policy in Europe intended that no country in Europe should become completely dominant. If Russia, France, Germany and Austria-Hungary worried about each other, then they would be less of a threat to Britain. By about 1907 it was becoming clear to Britain that the greatest potential threat to Britain was going to be Germany. The strong economy, large population and powerful armed forces of Germany seemed to be capable of dominating Europe. As a result, Britain began to support Russia and France. Britain joined the Triple Entente.

Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a "scrap of paper".

Within a few more days, Britain, France and Russia (the Allies) were all officially at war with Germany and Austria-Hungary (the Central Powers). What had started as a small, local problem in the Balkans was turning into the biggest and most brutal war the world had ever seen.

The Entente Cordiale (with France) in 1904 and a parallel agreement with Russia in 1907 left no doubt. Any ambiguity was just for diplomatic nicety. This puts it well.

Britain’s choice for war came before the disaster in Belgium. The choice for war, if war erupted, was made on Sunday 2 August, when the Cabinet authorized Grey to pledge naval assistance to France – two days before the invasion of Belgium. This pledge almost wrecked the Cabinet. So appalled were neutralist ministers at their own government’s haste that four resigned on 2-3 August (Burns, Simon, Morley and Beauchamp). Nowhere else did this happen in Europe. The German invasion of Belgium was unleashed on the morning of Tuesday 4 August. Britain declared war upon Germany later that evening, the very instant her short ultimatum expired. London waited least. In this sense, the German invasion was the occasion of Britain’s intervention – but not the cause. It arrived as a gift from Mars for British politicians and propagandists. It provided political cover for a prior commitment to war. It squeezed Russia, and the invasion of Eastern Europe, out of the national consciousness and made war much easier to sell to the British public.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

And as you can see here, even when France knew she was about to be invaded by the Germans, the French were very worried that the English would not join in the fight against Germany:

Following their refusal to remain neutral in a war between Germany and Russia, French leaders knew it was only a matter of time before Germany declared war on France too. Now it was all-important to get Britain to take their side, as promised (informally) in military staff talks and slightly less ambiguous Anglo-French Naval Convention. But many members of the British cabinet were unaware of these secret agreements and understandably reluctant to embroil Britain in a cataclysmic continental war.

On hearing word of the German invasion of neutral Luxembourg, whose neutrality was agreed in the Treaty of London of 1867, the French ambassador to London, Paul Cambon, asked Foreign Secretary Edward Grey whether Britain would fight. However Grey pointed out that, unlike the 1838 treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, the 1867 treaty didn’t technically oblige Britain to take military action to protect to Luxembourg’s neutrality, if the other Great Powers weren’t also intervening. Cambon could barely contain his anger at this slippery reasoning, according to H. Wickham Steed, the foreign editor of The Times, who recalled, “he pointed to a copy of the Luxemburg Treaty… and exclaimed bitterly: ‘There is the signature of England… I do not know whether this evening the word “honor” will not have to be struck out of the British vocabulary.’”

But Grey was merely representing the views of the British cabinet; personally, he had staked everything on British intervention, threatening to resign if the cabinet insisted on neutrality and working with First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill to drum up support from the opposition Unionists. Unionist support gave Grey and Prime Minister Asquith crucial political leverage, as they might be able to form a new coalition government without the anti-interventionists.

On August 2, Asquith went into the 11am cabinet meeting with a letter pledging Unionist support, and now the tide began to turn: although a handful of ministers resigned in protest, the rest of the cabinet agreed to at least protect the French coastline from German naval attacks, as promised in the naval convention of 1912. However, the deciding factor would be Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality.

As I said, there was never any real doubt.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

It doesn't matter whether they are distrustful of negotiations, and it doesn't matter about what they think of their Shi'a population. What does matter to them is keeping the peace within their kingdom.

They will simply send the Shia away if need be. They are much more ready for war than you imagine.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Yes, they do have a delivery system. It's called a "yacht" or a "ship".

That's my personal fear - that they'll put one on board some rich-looking yacht and sail it up the Hudson.

Too many chances for the secret to leak.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

And that's a bad thing how? I mean you don't see either of them out flying sorties against ISIS and if they ever did, it would only be if the U.S. bought them off. That's pretty much been the only way anyone on the Middle East has taken up serious arms against the extremists.

A number of countries fly with us against ISIS: Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. The Israelis do not because their participation would make it difficult for the others.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

A number of countries fly with us against ISIS: Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. The Israelis do not because their participation would make it difficult for the others.

Which is idiotic on every conceivable level. And the only reason anyone flies with us is because we're paying them. If we stopped, so would they.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

This is all pretty much the standard far-left propaganda which is regularly repeated by gullible liberal pawns that accept it as reality!

I'm one of those liberals who likes nuclear power (which is very green indeed) - and nuclear weapons (since they've saved us from having another world war).

And I suggest you start reading up on your history so you can learn that NO, sovereign nations generally do NOT bow down and obey overwhelmingly powerful nations even when threatened with utter destruction. Just ask Belgium, when they were threatened in 1914 with being overrun by the German Army, which was at the time the most powerful army ever to march the face of the earth. The Belgians said NO, they wouldn't just let the Germans march in...and their stubborn resistance threw the Germany timetable completely out of whack, and gave the French (and the Brits) just time enough to dig in.

Given that Iran will NOT give in to intimidation even when threatened by air strikes without end (and will instead redouble their efforts to build the Bomb), the SENSIBLE solution would be to realize that the trick is to show the Iranians how they can make more money and be more prosperous without nuclear weapons, while at the same time preserving their national security (especially since SHI'A Iran is Right Next Door to nuclear-armed SUNNI Pakistan).
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

A number of countries fly with us against ISIS: Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. The Israelis do not because their participation would make it difficult for the others.

ISIS is not Iran. Comparing the two would be like comparing the Basque separatists to Spain - one is seen by most of the world as a unusually large gang of thugs, while the other is an organized nation that stands on its own.

And it took a while to think of even a somewhat reasonable comparison - it wasn't easy...and of course the Basque separatists never truly held their own territory as ISIS does (for now). But the world gives ISIS the same (if not less) legitimacy as it did the Basque separtists (which wasn't much at all).
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

ISIS is not Iran. Comparing the two would be like comparing the Basque separatists to Spain - one is seen by most of the world as a unusually large gang of thugs, while the other is an organized nation that stands on its own.

And it took a while to think of even a somewhat reasonable comparison - it wasn't easy...and of course the Basque separatists never truly held their own territory as ISIS does (for now). But the world gives ISIS the same (if not less) legitimacy as it did the Basque separtists (which wasn't much at all).

I did not compare them. I answered a post that specifically referenced ISIS.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Too many chances for the secret to leak.

Chances, yes, but those are only chances. Remember, the Manhattan Project, as vast an operation as it was, was kept a secret from most of the world (except from Stalin, ironically enough).
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

They will simply send the Shia away if need be. They are much more ready for war than you imagine.

Gotta watch those assumptions. "Sending the Shi'a away" would be seen as 'ethnic cleansing' by the world, and even the Sauds don't want the kind of backlash that would surely bring.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

The Entente Cordiale (with France) in 1904 and a parallel agreement with Russia in 1907 left no doubt. Any ambiguity was just for diplomatic nicety. This puts it well.

Britain’s choice for war came before the disaster in Belgium. The choice for war, if war erupted, was made on Sunday 2 August, when the Cabinet authorized Grey to pledge naval assistance to France – two days before the invasion of Belgium. This pledge almost wrecked the Cabinet. So appalled were neutralist ministers at their own government’s haste that four resigned on 2-3 August (Burns, Simon, Morley and Beauchamp). Nowhere else did this happen in Europe. The German invasion of Belgium was unleashed on the morning of Tuesday 4 August. Britain declared war upon Germany later that evening, the very instant her short ultimatum expired. London waited least. In this sense, the German invasion was the occasion of Britain’s intervention – but not the cause. It arrived as a gift from Mars for British politicians and propagandists. It provided political cover for a prior commitment to war. It squeezed Russia, and the invasion of Eastern Europe, out of the national consciousness and made war much easier to sell to the British public.

The fact that there WAS an ultimatum, that the pledge "almost wrecked the Cabinet", that MP's resigned in protest are all clear indicators of the fact that England was NOT eager to go to war, that there many who didn't want England involved in a continental war at all.

And again, the reference I used was from England's own National Archives. It's pretty hard to ignore that.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Gotta watch those assumptions. "Sending the Shi'a away" would be seen as 'ethnic cleansing' by the world, and even the Sauds don't want the kind of backlash that would surely bring.

Again, the Saudis don't care. They consider it an act of charity to allow the Shia to remain.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

The fact that there WAS an ultimatum, that the pledge "almost wrecked the Cabinet", that MP's resigned in protest are all clear indicators of the fact that England was NOT eager to go to war, that there many who didn't want England involved in a continental war at all.

And again, the reference I used was from England's own National Archives. It's pretty hard to ignore that.

The Archives of any country present the official line. "Britain" may not have been committed to France, but the Grey cabinet was.
 
Back
Top Bottom