• 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?

Ha! I'm not the one justifying atrocity.

You're the one who can't escape your ideological prison. There were ample atrocities on all sides in WW2. There was, however, no equivalence between the sides.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

You're the one who can't escape your ideological prison. There were ample atrocities on all sides in WW2. There was, however, no equivalence between the sides.

Its ideological to be critical of targeting innocent civilians? Come on, show us more what a freakish mind you have. There's a certain sickness that accompanies the conservative mind and you exhibit it best.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Its ideological be critical of targeting innocent civilians? Come on, show us more what a freakish mind you have.

All sides targeted civilians in WW2 and there's no point claiming otherwise. The difference is that Allied victory produced a vastly better world than Axis victory would have. And in the case of the nuclear weapons in Japan, their use saved millions of lives.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

And in the case of the nuclear weapons in Japan, their use saved millions of lives.


Except for the hundreds of thousands of Japanese who dies immediately and suffered for generations to come because of the nuclear weapons
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Except for the hundreds of thousands of Japanese who dies immediately and suffered for generations to come because of the nuclear weapons

Indeed, but the Japanese projected (and were prepared to accept) 20 million casualties in an invasion, not to mention the one million Americans who would have been lost.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

All sides targeted civilians in WW2 and there's no point claiming otherwise. The difference is that Allied victory produced a vastly better world than Axis victory would have. And in the case of the nuclear weapons in Japan, their use saved millions of lives.
good point Jack.
It took 2 bombs to get Japan to surrender - their Shinto devotion to death to the last man included their women and young men,
even elder children

I've seen pictures of women drilling with pitchforks -the alternative was invasion of the Japanese Islands.
I wonder how many more millions would have had to die for that WWII to end like that.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

good point Jack.
It took 2 bombs to get Japan to surrender - their Shinto devotion to death to the last man included their women and young men,
even elder children

I've seen pictures of women drilling with pitchforks -the alternative was invasion of the Japanese Islands.
I wonder how many more millions would have had to die for that WWII to end like that.

Thanks. You may be interested in #172.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Indeed, but the Japanese projected (and were prepared to accept) 20 million casualties in an invasion, not to mention the one million Americans who would have been lost.

Possibly true, but that does not detract from the atrocity that we perpetrated on the world (Japan in particular) with the use of nuclear weapons
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Possibly true, but that does not detract from the atrocity that we perpetrated on the world (Japan in particular) with the use of nuclear weapons


War is war, and nuclear weapons are just weapons. Their use in Japan saved lives and enabled Allied victory.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

War is war, and nuclear weapons are just weapons. Their use in Japan saved lives and enabled Allied victory.

Then why is there such a controversy about Iran having a nuclear weapon, since weapons are just weapons and war is war?
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Then why is there such a controversy about Iran having a nuclear weapon, since weapons are just weapons and war is war?

It is in our interest for Iran not to have such weapons. It is in Iran's interest to have them.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Possibly true, but that does not detract from the atrocity that we perpetrated on the world (Japan in particular) with the use of nuclear weapons
on balance..the idea is the war had to end ASAP, and with minimal Allied casualties.
Not Axis casualties,and not even Japanese civilian casualties - it was a horrible choice, but that is the nature of war.

Truman had no choice really when looked at it with clarity.

My personal perspective is Iran would eventually get the bomb if it wants it, and I'm not too happy about that
because that means the ME will go nuclear too.

But it's best to focus on what we can there -supporting Sisi in Egypt,
and trying to save what we can of Iraq from being a complete colony of Iran, with the exception of Anbar for the Sunnis and the upcoming Kurdistan.

Nukes are something we a re just going to have to live with, i'm not happy with Obama's end run around Congress either,
but there are bigger concerns then nukes.
I know most focus on nukes, but I just don't think even Iran would play that card
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

My personal perspective is Iran would eventually get the bomb if it wants it, and I'm not too happy about that
because that means the ME will go nuclear too.

Since Israel already has the capability, the ME is already nuclear
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Since Israel already has the capability, the ME is already nuclear
true. But Israel's "terrorism" extends only to Gaza -it isn't an Shia fundamentalist state like Iran is.
Or ISIS brand of Salafi jihad. apocalyptic meaning ISIL would gladly let loose a nuke,
Iran...I'm not 100% sure either way, but I'd like to at least not think so

Israel doesn't want war..not even Bibi Netanyahu...the problem is Iran is like ISIL in that regards..
The Iranian regime are a bunch of fundamentalist Shia clerics

Shiite Islam and Islamic Fundamentalism | Martin Kramer on the Middle East
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

You're the one who can't escape your ideological prison. There were ample atrocities on all sides in WW2. There was, however, no equivalence between the sides.

There doesn't have to be equivalence to note that an atrocity is wrong. An act stands on it's own as being either just or wrong.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

All sides targeted civilians in WW2 and there's no point claiming otherwise. The difference is that Allied victory produced a vastly better world than Axis victory would have. And in the case of the nuclear weapons in Japan, their use saved millions of lives.

Who's claiming otherwise, hmm. Do you want to search DP to see if I have. The point here is that you and your brethren project America as righteous, you justify the killing of children and women, you promote American hegemony, violence and exploitation upon some platitude that we are a shinning city on the hill, the bastion of democracy, the promoters of peace, love, equity and justice. When in fact we're just another people seeking wealth and prosperity at the expense of the weak. You know what you can do with your platitude?
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Indeed, but the Japanese projected (and were prepared to accept) 20 million casualties in an invasion, not to mention the one million Americans who would have been lost.

More lies from the conservative crap that perpetuates hate for America.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I heard someone make the argument that Obama doesn't believe the US has any rightful role in preventing or hindering Iran from developing and maintaining nuclear weapons. I don't know that that's true, and nobody but the President can answer to what he believes, so I'll ask what you believe. If Iran has the ability, does it have the "right" to nuclear weapons? (By "right", I mean the U.S. and other nations would not be unjustified in trying to prevent it.)

working on the poll

No country should have the "RIGHT" to nuclear weapons, however if one is allowed to then all should be allowed to. It seems stupid to think that the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon, and we used two iirc, is somehow the determiner of who can "safely" have the technology.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Then why is there such a controversy about Iran having a nuclear weapon, since weapons are just weapons and war is war?

You'll find in time that Jack and his pals at DP will defend US atrocities at all cost. Filthy as it is.

Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the...FILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-je6NUbpObpQ-_-10:1&r=1
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

War is war, and nuclear weapons are just weapons. Their use in Japan saved lives and enabled Allied victory.

Yes, and you promote it. And you lie about nuclear weapons. They're not just weapons, they are indiscriminate and they have no legitimacy. But why would pigs have a problem with them, unless they are in the hands of others of course.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

It is in our interest for Iran not to have such weapons. It is in Iran's interest to have them.

It is in America's interest to have them, and America has been the only country to have used them. It's in my interest to continue to expose you as a freak that justifies the use of nuclear weapons on children, women and old men to prove that you are the victor. One things certain, there are other powers, growing in the world at the moment that seek to arrest American hegemony and imperialism. It won't last forever.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Then maybe you need to do a little more research because those people are out there and for every one of them that is open about their desires, there are many more who would love the opportunity but say nothing.

They're already doing everything I stated in Iran.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

The only reason they don't is because secular society doesn't allow it. I'm sure you could find lots of extremist Christians who would be very happy to start executing gays, in fact, some asshat politician from California just suggested such a thing. And, of course, most of these people think that America is a gift from God, so seeing it burn is probably not an option, but the rest of the world? They don't really care.

So iran, where 80% or more of the population wants shar'ia law, where gays are thrown off buildings while crowds watch, is the same as the modern christian world. Is that why all 7 countries that officially execute for homosexuality are muslim, not christian?

About 2/3 of the US is Christian, so it's not the 1/3 who are secular who prevent atrocities. Roughly 70% of the country thinks gay relationships should be legal. That's not nearly high enough, but executions? Probably more like 10-15%, the same fringe of radicals who think AIDS is divine justice. Unlike in iran though, i'm confident their numbers will continue to dwindle


http://www.christianitytoday.com/images/22472.jpg?h=429&w=550

From the federal "general social survey," you can see that the generational gap is as big a predictor of support for gay rights as religious affiliation. Yes, half of americans want a state religion, but what that entails is far diff from shar'ia law

Comparing ISIS to 1600s Christianity or 2015 uganda is one thing, but what you're doing just makes atheists look delusional. You fail to appreciate or even acknowledge the progress that has been made.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

And, likely, millions of Japanese lives. Somehow that always gets left out.

i feel this is getting off track, but i can't let slide revisionism that pretends americans in 1940s gave a rat's ass about this, not while they were forcing americans of japanese descent into camps, and the bombs very nearly did not lead to a surrender anyway

of course after all the efforts building the damn thing, it was going to be used no matter what
 
Back
Top Bottom