• 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]

It doesn't matter whether we do or don't think that the Iranians have a right to nuclear weapons. What DOES matter is that THEY - the Iranians - believe they have a right to build their own nuclear weapons. Now with skillful use of diplomacy and deal-making, we can stop it from happening. But if we allow the Neanderthal Right (both here in America and in Israel) to run things, they'll just say "If you make them, we will bomb you"...which means all the more that the Iranians WILL make them.

That's what's so stupid about the Right - they raise hell at the very thought of someone telling them something they don't want to hear, but they pretend that the {Insert Name of Enemy Here} will meekly say, "Okay, you're threatening to bomb us, so we'll do what you are telling us to do." It's as if in the Right's view, any 'diplomacy' that does not include bombers in the air waiting to rain destruction down on the other guy is automatically the modern-day equivalent of Chamberlain's "appeasement".

Then there's this.

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb - Council on Foreign Relations
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

It doesn't matter whether we do or don't think that the Iranians have a right to nuclear weapons. What DOES matter is that THEY - the Iranians - believe they have a right to build their own nuclear weapons. Now with skillful use of diplomacy and deal-making, we can stop it from happening. But if we allow the Neanderthal Right (both here in America and in Israel) to run things, they'll just say "If you make them, we will bomb you"...which means all the more that the Iranians WILL make them.

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's what's so stupid about the Right - they raise hell at the very thought of someone telling them something they don't want to hear, but they pretend that the {Insert Name of Enemy Here} will meekly say, "Okay, you're threatening to bomb us, so we'll do what you are telling us to do." It's as if in the Right's view, any 'diplomacy' that does not include bombers in the air waiting to rain destruction down on the other guy is automatically the modern-day equivalent of Chamberlain's "appeasement".

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

Yes. In order to be legitimately accused of building nuclear weapons, they must be building nuclear weapons. If you buy into the late argument of pre-emptive war because somebody may do something someday, you have a precarious perch.

Im not buying into anything, Dude.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Nobody has a right to nukes... they can get them or we can stop them. It is about what we can do to stop them and what they can do to stop us from stopping them...
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I don't see Iran's leaders as people that want to die themselves... they don't mind their people dying but they are just smart enough to know that if they used nukes on Israel, for instance, that they would be annihilated.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I don't see Iran's leaders as people that want to die themselves... they don't mind their people dying but they are just smart enough to know that if they used nukes on Israel, for instance, that they would be annihilated.

Pretty much. I think for Iran it's a matter of deterrence. There was a time where I may have thought that Iran just wanted to destroy Israel. However, that's mostly rhetoric. If Iran wanted, it could have started funding ISIL and encouraged them to move towards Israel. Instead, it's realized that their own control over the country is at stake if ISIL gains anymore ground.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Only under laws *WE* deem valid. If they act entirely under their own rules and laws and we don't like those rules and laws, we ignore them entirely. We pretend that because we have a big stick, we get to dictate what is acceptable.

And WE deem the NPT valid.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Actually, the two nuclear weapons dropped on Japan were necessary for victory. Dresden was overkill.

HELL TO PAY | U.S. Naval Institute
www.usni.org/store/books/audio.../hell-pay
United States Naval Institute
In its final form, Operation Downfall called for a massive Allied invasion—on a scale ... Hell to Pay examines the invasion of Japan in light of the large body of ...

I've read all the history on it, and that conclusion is debatable at best. it's the excuse used to justify evil and not an unchallenged fact.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Pretty much. I think for Iran it's a matter of deterrence. There was a time where I may have thought that Iran just wanted to destroy Israel. However, that's mostly rhetoric. If Iran wanted, it could have started funding ISIL and encouraged them to move towards Israel. Instead, it's realized that their own control over the country is at stake if ISIL gains anymore ground.

I used to think that they simply wanted to wipe out Israel as well... and I am sure if it was easier they might try, but the fact is that logistically they are not in a position to really even try and like you said there are easier ways to disrupt/invade Israel.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

The problem is not that critics believe the Iranians will meekly submit, but rather that they will continue to push toward a weapon.

War with Iran is probably our best option - The Washington Post

That's just it, Jack - when a hammer's your only tool, everything looks like a nail.

Time for a quick history lesson. In late July, in England most of the people were still against war with Germany - they felt it was more of a 'continental matter', and they didn't want to get embroiled in a war. But then Germany did something the Brits didn't expect - instead of attacking straight into France, they decided to use the "Schlieffen Plan" to go through Belgium. As a result, the Brits instantly began supporting war against Germany.

Likewise, if we were to unilaterally begin bombing Iran as the article suggests, we'd almost certainly turn Iraq against us...and perhaps even the Sunni nations might become sympathetic towards Iran. Not only that, then once Iran did get the bomb - and they will, sooner or later (even if they have to buy it from North Korea) - guess who their first target would be? Here's a hint - it would no longer be Tel Aviv or Riyadh.

I say we use diplomacy (which is, of course, the velvet glove that covers the mail'd fist) to try to get them to not develop nuclear weapons. And if (when) they do, that would drive the Sunni nations even further into our camp. It's a heck of a lot easier to conduct warfare from a nation where the regime really does want you there, y'know?
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]


I agree - I say let them have the Bomb...and let the Saudis have it, too. A little MADness can go a long way, y'know?

Oh, wait - I forgot - the conservatives who read this are Absolutely Sure that the very first thing the Iranians or Saudis will do would be to bomb Israel and America into radioactive dust! Feeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrr!!!!!

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

I've read all the history on it, and that conclusion is debatable at best. it's the excuse used to justify evil and not an unchallenged fact.

Sorry, but among historians it has become the definitive view. And the point is that the bombs were necessary to preclude evil.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

That's just it, Jack - when a hammer's your only tool, everything looks like a nail.

Time for a quick history lesson. In late July, in England most of the people were still against war with Germany - they felt it was more of a 'continental matter', and they didn't want to get embroiled in a war. But then Germany did something the Brits didn't expect - instead of attacking straight into France, they decided to use the "Schlieffen Plan" to go through Belgium. As a result, the Brits instantly began supporting war against Germany.

Likewise, if we were to unilaterally begin bombing Iran as the article suggests, we'd almost certainly turn Iraq against us...and perhaps even the Sunni nations might become sympathetic towards Iran. Not only that, then once Iran did get the bomb - and they will, sooner or later (even if they have to buy it from North Korea) - guess who their first target would be? Here's a hint - it would no longer be Tel Aviv or Riyadh.

I say we use diplomacy (which is, of course, the velvet glove that covers the mail'd fist) to try to get them to not develop nuclear weapons. And if (when) they do, that would drive the Sunni nations even further into our camp. It's a heck of a lot easier to conduct warfare from a nation where the regime really does want you there, y'know?

If we were to launch air attacks on Iran the Sunni air forces would fly with us.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

That's just it, Jack - when a hammer's your only tool, everything looks like a nail.

Time for a quick history lesson. In late July, in England most of the people were still against war with Germany - they felt it was more of a 'continental matter', and they didn't want to get embroiled in a war. But then Germany did something the Brits didn't expect - instead of attacking straight into France, they decided to use the "Schlieffen Plan" to go through Belgium. As a result, the Brits instantly began supporting war against Germany.

Likewise, if we were to unilaterally begin bombing Iran as the article suggests, we'd almost certainly turn Iraq against us...and perhaps even the Sunni nations might become sympathetic towards Iran. Not only that, then once Iran did get the bomb - and they will, sooner or later (even if they have to buy it from North Korea) - guess who their first target would be? Here's a hint - it would no longer be Tel Aviv or Riyadh.

I say we use diplomacy (which is, of course, the velvet glove that covers the mail'd fist) to try to get them to not develop nuclear weapons. And if (when) they do, that would drive the Sunni nations even further into our camp. It's a heck of a lot easier to conduct warfare from a nation where the regime really does want you there, y'know?

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

Um, this may come as a shock to you, but we don't rule Iran. That, and this might even be heretical to you, but most Iranians are just as patriotic about Iran as we are about America. Which means, if you tell them what not to do, then that's precisely what they WILL do.

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.

Yes, and Rome was far more powerful than the Germanic tribes and told the Visigoths et al what they could and could not do...and what happened a few generations later?

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.

This is called "diplomacy"...and is to some extent what we've been doing to Russia. Diplomacy, properly conducted, consists of both carrot and stick. Thing is, what you're proposing is all stick: "Do what we say or else". Anyone with any experience in military leadership will tell you that when it comes to getting people to do what you want them to do, "all stick" might work for days or weeks, but it NEVER works in the long run.

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.

Guy, your problem is the same that so many conservatives (and not a few chickenhawks like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh) have: your only tool is a hammer, so all the problems look like nails to you. You've forgotten that in the wars that we've gotten into because of a failure of diplomacy was usually because it was warmongering idiots who were conducting that diplomacy (i.e. Vietnam, Spanish-American War, the invasion of Iraq, the War of 1812). Note that there are wars where I do NOT blame our lack of diplomacy, like WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and of course the Civil War.

I'm retired Navy - and like most retired enlisted, the thing I miss most is guiding the junior enlisted. Most of my friends are retired or active duty. My oldest son was in NJROTC, and my youngest son is seeing the Navy recruiter with his friends this very day. So you go take your I-hate-all-liberals-'cause-FREEDOM crap and shove it where it richly deserves to be.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Now the liberal point of view is to let Iran have whatever the **** it wants, be damned our security interest or our allies.

....

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.

You disgust me. These are not the "liberal viewpoints," and it's pretty ****ing repugnant of you to claim they are.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

I agree - I say let them have the Bomb...and let the Saudis have it, too. A little MADness can go a long way, y'know?

Oh, wait - I forgot - the conservatives who read this are Absolutely Sure that the very first thing the Iranians or Saudis will do would be to bomb Israel and America into radioactive dust! Feeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrr!!!!!

*sigh*

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

If we were to launch air attacks on Iran the Sunni air forces would fly with us.

I strongly doubt it. They've got a significant Shiite population which would certainly cause a great deal of unrest in their nation in response to any attack by the Saudis on Iran.

Again, it's as Winston Churchill said: "Jaw jaw is better than war war."
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

I strongly doubt it. They've got a significant Shiite population which would certainly cause a great deal of unrest in their nation in response to any attack by the Saudis on Iran.

Again, it's as Winston Churchill said: "Jaw jaw is better than war war."

The Saudis are deeply distrustful of the current negotiations and they don't care at all about the views of their Shia population.
 
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.

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.

Another concern was Russia. For much of the 19th century, Russia wanted to take control of the Dardanelles, the area where the Black Sea opened out into the Mediterranean Sea. This would allow Russian warships and trading ships to sail easily around Europe. Russia had other ports in the north, but these tended to freeze over in winter. The problem was that the Dardanelles were owned by Turkey. Turkey and Russia had long been enemies. Britain supported Turkey against Russia. This was because Britain did not want Russian ships in the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean was part of Britain's most important trade route to India.

Until the early 1900s, Britain was more concerned about Russia and France than Germany. Relations between Britain and Germany were very good. This began to change, however. When Kaiser Wilhelm II took control of Germany, he was anxious for Germany to be a great power. He felt that Russia to the east and France to the west were encircling Germany. As a result, he built up his armed forces. France and Russia feared Germany and did the same. During the 1900s, all of the great powers in Europe began to build up their armies and navies.

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.
 
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.

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

The Saudis are deeply distrustful of the current negotiations and they don't care at all about the views of their Shia population.

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.
 
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.

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

It doesn't matter whether we do or don't think that the Iranians have a right to nuclear weapons. What DOES matter is that THEY - the Iranians - believe they have a right to build their own nuclear weapons. Now with skillful use of diplomacy and deal-making, we can stop it from happening. But if we allow the Neanderthal Right (both here in America and in Israel) to run things, they'll just say "If you make them, we will bomb you"...which means all the more that the Iranians WILL make them.

That's what's so stupid about the Right - they raise hell at the very thought of someone telling them something they don't want to hear, but they pretend that the {Insert Name of Enemy Here} will meekly say, "Okay, you're threatening to bomb us, so we'll do what you are telling us to do." It's as if in the Right's view, any 'diplomacy' that does not include bombers in the air waiting to rain destruction down on the other guy is automatically the modern-day equivalent of Chamberlain's "appeasement".
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?

You said in post #346: "Nukes don't exist in my world"

There you go.
You don't understand that phrase!!! :roll:
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!
 
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.

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