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

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

Glen Contrarian said:

Y'know, I think your posts as compared to mine are a wonderful example of how two rational people can look at the same thing and give completely opposite interpretations of what they see. There's obviously cognitive dissonance - and of course each of us think that cognitive dissonance is on the part of the other guy.

I say this because I see in your post how the decision almost "wrecked the cabinet", and how MP's resigned in protest. I see that war was not declared until AFTER Germany began the invasion...and of course Belgium had known for at least a few days that an invasion was imminent, and would have informed their allies - which included England.

England gave the ultimatum to Germany because England was bound by treaty to defend Belgium...and even then, until Belgium was actually invaded, England did not declare war, but was using every tool they had (in the very short time they had available from when they first received the news about what Germany was about to do) to try to avoid war, to try to keep the invasion from happening. But - and this is especially true in the days of crude electronic communication such as the telegraph - they only had a few days to prevent the invasion. What were their options? How could they have prevented Germany's invasion by anything other than, "Don't do it, or we're going to war with you"?

What I see there is a nation that was demonstrably reluctant to go to war until they saw Belgium being invaded.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the thought, but the British peace option was an illusion. Asquith and Grey (and Churchill) had already decided for war, and they knew that if their cabinet split (and fell) then they would be succeeded by a firmly pro-war Conservative government. By 1914 isolation was no longer British policy.

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

Born Free said:

I could respond to all these but no sense, but I will comment on the Civil War, as you know was because of southern liberals did not want to give up their slaves. Yes liberals enslaving black people.

Click to expand...

:lamo

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

Glen Contrarian said:

And of course, instead of even attempting to give diplomacy a chance, you want to go to war, go directly to war, do not pass "Go".

Click to expand...

Peace through strength, something you liberals have no clue. War is always the last option and it is always on the table. Not so with you liberals.

When you're the president, and you're the one who has to decide to get involved militarily and risk escalation to a general thermonuclear exchange which would destroy America and most of human civilization just to stop Russia from invading a country next door, THEN you can tell all America how your way is best.

Fortunately, none of our presidents - even Reagan, even Dubya himself - have been that idiotic.

Click to expand...

Once again Obama's diplomacy is not working. Yet you are so naive to think diplomacy is the cure all to all conflicts. Go try diplomacy on ISIS and see how far you get before they burn you alive or cut your head off.

AND YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T READ MY POST. If you did, you would have seen the following line: "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." Our involvement in WWII was NOT mostly due to a lack of diplomacy - I never said it was. To be sure, in the years leading up to the war, FDR did commit the diplomatic sin of cutting off Japan's access to oil without giving them what would have been (in Japanese eyes) viable options - he didn't "give the enemy a golden parachute", a way out that would have allowed them to save face. But this by itself does not by any means excuse what Japan did - Pearl Harbor was NOT the result of failed diplomacy, and I NEVER said it was. That's only YOUR freaking fantasy, guy.

So when you learn your history, and when you learn to respect those who have worn the uniform to protect YOUR ass, come back and talk to me. Until then, I hold you in the same contempt as I do those who spat on the veterans returning from Vietnam.

Click to expand...

First you say diplomacy is the only way to solve a conflict and in the same breath you state conservatives only want to bomb first, then in bold you don't blame diplomacy for not working. But hey your as naive a person as I've came across, for you to say you would tell Iran they can have all the nuks it wants and therefore they will not want nuks. All because you told them they could have them. I role my eyes on that one. Navy man my ass.

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

Cephus said:

How many nations has Iran attacked in the past decade? None? How many have we attacked? Two? Three? I'd say the only rogue nation around is the United States, doesn't that mean Iran ought to have the right to protect themselves against us?

Click to expand...

Who are "we"?

Iran funds terrorist groups, making them acessories to any attack those terrorist groups carry out. Even if they did not, there is still the matter of the human rights violations of the Iranian regime against it's own population as well as the issuing of threats towards other nations. Particularly threats of genocide must be taken seriously when made by states that are attepting to aquire weapons of mass destruction.

When combined these factors demonstrate a blatant disregard for the manner in which the community of sovereign nations establish and maintain civilized relations, making Iran what is commonly known as a bandit state.
Therefore the unspoken rules that govern conduct between civilized states do not fully apply to them. Only those rules that are legally mandatory need be upheld.

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

That other nations think highly enough of another( to allow the N-bomb) is quite the compliment ..Does Iran deserve this responsibility ? IMO, they do, and most all nations do have the right..BUT , its very easily said that NO Islamic nation has matured enough to merit any WMD ... Is Iran the exception ?? I , of course, have never been there, all I know and hear is the crap from conservatives and liberals ..I strongly do NOT believe the propaganda from the conservatives ..

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

Born Free said:

Peace through strength, something you liberals have no clue. War is always the last option and it is always on the table. Not so with you liberals.


Once again Obama's diplomacy is not working. Yet you are so naive to think diplomacy is the cure all to all conflicts. Go try diplomacy on ISIS and see how far you get before they burn you alive or cut your head off.



First you say diplomacy is the only way to solve a conflict and in the same breath you state conservatives only want to bomb first, then in bold you don't blame diplomacy for not working. But hey your as naive a person as I've came across, for you to say you would tell Iran they can have all the nuks it wants and therefore they will not want nuks. All because you told them they could have them. I role my eyes on that one. Navy man my ass.

Click to expand...

One word comes to mind ...immaturity...

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

earthworm said:

One word comes to mind ...immaturity...

Click to expand...

This is immaturity on your part and so naive

Peace through strength, something you liberals have no clue. War is always the last option and it is always on the table. Not so with you liberals.

This is immaturity on Obama and you, Putin tells Obama to jump and high high.

Once again Obama's diplomacy is not working. Yet you are so naive to think diplomacy is the cure all to all conflicts. Go try diplomacy on ISIS and see how far you get before they burn you alive or cut your head off.

And this is the worst immaturity of anything I've heard

First you say diplomacy is the only way to solve a conflict and in the same breath you state conservatives only want to bomb first, then in bold you don't blame diplomacy for not working. But hey your as naive a person as I've came across, for you to say you would tell Iran they can have all the nuks it wants and therefore they will not want nuks. All because you told them they could have them. I role my eyes on that one. Navy man my ass.

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

HK.227 said:

Who are "we"?

Iran funds terrorist groups, making them acessories to any attack those terrorist groups carry out. Even if they did not, there is still the matter of the human rights violations of the Iranian regime against it's own population as well as the issuing of threats towards other nations. Particularly threats of genocide must be taken seriously when made by states that are attepting to aquire weapons of mass destruction.

When combined these factors demonstrate a blatant disregard for the manner in which the community of sovereign nations establish and maintain civilized relations, making Iran what is commonly known as a bandit state.
Therefore the unspoken rules that govern conduct between civilized states do not fully apply to them. Only those rules that are legally mandatory need be upheld.

Click to expand...

"We" as in the United States. And since we all fund terrorist groups, it's like the pot calling the kettle black. Plus, these "human rights violations" are being defined by the west, it would be like Iran accusing the U.S. of "human rights violations" under Sharia Law. Would we care? Of course not. So why should they take our definitions seriously? The problem with all of this is that it's all very west-centric. We think we get to make the rules and everyone else gets to follow them without a peep. It all comes down to "they're not acting in a way we think is appropriate, therefore we're going to stop them from doing what we don't want." Well who the hell died and left us in charge of the planet?

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

Born Free said:

Peace through strength, something you liberals have no clue. War is always the last option and it is always on the table. Not so with you liberals.

Once again Obama's diplomacy is not working. Yet you are so naive to think diplomacy is the cure all to all conflicts. Go try diplomacy on ISIS and see how far you get before they burn you alive or cut your head off.

Click to expand...

What we liberals understand that you apparently have no clue about is that diplomacy involves using carrots and sticks, and not just sticks. Diplomacy is not "do this or we bomb you" - such never works in the long run. Diplomacy consists of, "These are the benefits you reap if you work with us, and this is how life gets harder if you don't". The threat of a military strike need not be even mentioned - both sides KNOW it's there and KNOW it we have that option unless we specifically state that military force if "off the table"...and we almost never do that.

On the other hand, if we tell them, "do this or we bomb you", the other side is going to tell us to pack sand...for the same reason that we would say the same if someone threatened us. That's what conservatives never get - if the other side threatens us, we here in America NEVER do what they want...and this is the same reaction that EVERY other nation - including Iran - would have to threats like "do this or we bomb you".

First you say diplomacy is the only way to solve a conflict and in the same breath you state conservatives only want to bomb first, then in bold you don't blame diplomacy for not working. But hey your as naive a person as I've came across, for you to say you would tell Iran they can have all the nuks it wants and therefore they will not want nuks. All because you told them they could have them. I role my eyes on that one. Navy man my ass.

Click to expand...

Where did I say that diplomacy is the ONLY way to solve a conflict? I never did - that's just you making up crap...just like when you falsely claimed that I said that we entered WWII because of a failure of diplomacy. You have lied at least twice in your past few posts. Here's a clue, guy - the more a person tells lies, the LESS that person is able to discern when the other person is telling the truth. You lie, and because you lie, you assume that the other guy must be lying, too.

When you grow up and learn to stop making crap up about what other people do and don't say, then come back and talk to me. Until then, I won't reply to your asinine posts.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

What we liberals understand that you apparently have no clue about is that diplomacy involves using carrots and sticks, and not just sticks. Diplomacy is not "do this or we bomb you" - such never works in the long run. Diplomacy consists of, "These are the benefits you reap if you work with us, and this is how life gets harder if you don't". The threat of a military strike need not be even mentioned - both sides KNOW it's there and KNOW it we have that option unless we specifically state that military force if "off the table"...and we almost never do that.

On the other hand, if we tell them, "do this or we bomb you", the other side is going to tell us to pack sand...for the same reason that we would say the same if someone threatened us. That's what conservatives never get - if the other side threatens us, we here in America NEVER do what they want...and this is the same reaction that EVERY other nation - including Iran - would have to threats like "do this or we bomb you".



Where did I say that diplomacy is the ONLY way to solve a conflict? I never did - that's just you making up crap...just like when you falsely claimed that I said that we entered WWII because of a failure of diplomacy. You have lied at least twice in your past few posts. Here's a clue, guy - the more a person tells lies, the LESS that person is able to discern when the other person is telling the truth. You lie, and because you lie, you assume that the other guy must be lying, too.

When you grow up and learn to stop making crap up about what other people do and don't say, then come back and talk to me. Until then, I won't reply to your asinine posts.

Click to expand...

Beautiful!!!!!!!!

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

Jack Hays said:

I appreciate the thought, but the British peace option was an illusion. Asquith and Grey (and Churchill) had already decided for war, and they knew that if their cabinet split (and fell) then they would be succeeded by a firmly pro-war Conservative government. By 1914 isolation was no longer British policy.

Click to expand...

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

if we tell them, "do this or we bomb you", the other side is going to tell us to pack sand...for the same reason that we would say the same if someone threatened us. That's what conservatives never get - if the other side threatens us, we here in America NEVER do what they want...and this is the same reaction that EVERY other nation - including Iran - would have to threats like "do this or we bomb you".

Click to expand...

I don't know why it should matter if an opponent resents being told what to do by the United States, under threat of military force. What matters is that they do it--nothing else. What pleases the jihadist murderers in Tehran does not interest me. Nor do I care about reciprocity and fairness in dealing with bastards like them.

In 1962, President Kennedy was not concerned with whether Nikita Khrushchev would be happy about being told to remove the nuclear missiles (and, as was discovered later, the 158 nuclear weapons, sixty of which were one megaton, large enough for even one to kill hundreds of thousands if set off over an American city) he had sneaked into Cuba. Kennedy's only concern was to force him to remove the missiles, or have this country remove them.

And his threat of military force got the results he wanted. The threat was credible not only because the U.S. had several times as many strategic nuclear weapons as the Soviet Union did, but also because Kennedy had ordered 100 warships to blockade Cuba, had about 1,000 armed aircraft staged at forward bases near Cuba, landed 5,700 Marines to reinforce Guantanamo, and had moved six divisions, about 100,000 men, into position to invade the island.

But then President Kennedy was a real man, unlike the weak sister who is now disgracing the White House.

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

matchlight said:

I don't know why it should matter if an opponent resents being told what to do by the United States, under threat of military force. What matters is that they do it--nothing else. What pleases the jihadist murderers in Tehran does not interest me. Nor do I care about reciprocity and fairness in dealing with bastards like them.

Click to expand...

All you're arguing is might makes right, which is childish. If they had the power to force their will on you, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying it only matters if you do what they say.

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

Cephus said:

All you're arguing is might makes right, which is childish. If they had the power to force their will on you, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying it only matters if you do what they say.

Click to expand...

Your suggestion that this country is morally equivalent to the regime of jihadist curs that rules Iran is disgusting. I don't care about hypothetical situations that will never come about. The United States should long ago have destroyed ever part of Iran's nuclear weapons program from the air, and its ballistic missile facilities as well. There may still be time to do this, after the current president has retired to the golf course for good.

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

matchlight said:

Your suggestion that this country is morally equivalent to the regime of jihadist curs that rules Iran is disgusting. I don't care about hypothetical situations that will never come about. The United States should long ago have destroyed ever part of Iran's nuclear weapons program from the air, and its ballistic missile facilities as well. There may still be time to do this, after the current president has retired to the golf course for good.

Click to expand...

Depends on whose morals you're using. You're just assuming that we're right and everyone who disagrees with us is wrong. From the standpoint of others, that's absurd. I know you don't care but you have absurd biases.

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

matchlight said:

I don't know why it should matter if an opponent resents being told what to do by the United States, under threat of military force. What matters is that they do it--nothing else. What pleases the jihadist murderers in Tehran does not interest me. Nor do I care about reciprocity and fairness in dealing with bastards like them.

In 1962, President Kennedy was not concerned with whether Nikita Khrushchev would be happy about being told to remove the nuclear missiles (and, as was discovered later, the 158 nuclear weapons, sixty of which were one megaton, large enough for even one to kill hundreds of thousands if set off over an American city) he had sneaked into Cuba. Kennedy's only concern was to force him to remove the missiles, or have this country remove them.

And his threat of military force got the results he wanted. The threat was credible not only because the U.S. had several times as many strategic nuclear weapons as the Soviet Union did, but also because Kennedy had ordered 100 warships to blockade Cuba, had about 1,000 armed aircraft staged at forward bases near Cuba, landed 5,700 Marines to reinforce Guantanamo, and had moved six divisions, about 100,000 men, into position to invade the island.

But then President Kennedy was a real man, unlike the weak sister who is now disgracing the White House.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes, the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis. On the other hand, in 2003, Saddam offered to go into exile for $1B. Which would have been cheaper - to pay the idiot $1B to leave, or to invade and spend hundreds of billions of dollars (and thousands of our lives and over 100K Iraqi lives) to find him and kill him?

And when the Serbian national killed Archduke Ferdinand in 1914, Austria gave the Serbs a laundry list of demands and said, "comply within a month or we will invade". How did that one work out?

Again, "Do this or we bomb you" is rarely (if ever) the wisest course of action. It might make the testosterone-addicted Right feel better, but in the long run, it's a really stupid way to go.

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

cephus said:

depends on whose morals you're using. You're just assuming that we're right and everyone who disagrees with us is wrong. From the standpoint of others, that's absurd. I know you don't care but you have absurd biases.

Click to expand...

quoted for truth!!!!

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

matchlight said:

Your suggestion that this country is morally equivalent to the regime of jihadist curs that rules Iran is disgusting. I don't care about hypothetical situations that will never come about. The United States should long ago have destroyed ever part of Iran's nuclear weapons program from the air, and its ballistic missile facilities as well. There may still be time to do this, after the current president has retired to the golf course for good.

Click to expand...

Okay, say we do what you suggest. Then say Iran looks to Russia for help, and Russia decides to put bases in Iran and tells us, "Bomb Iran again and we launch" at which point America's very existence (and human civilization as a whole) is threatened. The Soviets did back down in 1963, but that doesn't mean they'll back down this time.

So you're the president - is it worth risking America's existence and human civilization to continue bombing Iran? Is it really?

I just want to know how the heck satisfying your testosterone-worship would justify risking the deaths of hundreds of millions (and perhaps billions) of civilians.

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

Cephus said:

Depends on whose morals you're using. You're just assuming that we're right and everyone who disagrees with us is wrong. From the standpoint of others, that's absurd. I know you don't care but you have absurd biases.

Click to expand...

I use my own morals, as I suppose everyone else does. I don't care if any other nation disagrees with U.S. policies. My only concern is that those policies advance the interests of this country. Nor do I care about seeing things from the point of view of any nation that is antagonistic to us. And I could just as easily call your biases absurd, if I wanted to personalize the issue.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

Oh, yes, the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Click to expand...

Yes, that example. Of course you don't like it, because it flatly refutes your claim that the threat of force does not work.

Again, "Do this or we bomb you" is rarely (if ever) the wisest course of action. It might make the testosterone-addicted Right feel better, but in the long run, it's a really stupid way to go.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you don't think very highly of testosterone.

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

matchlight said:

Yes, that example. Of course you don't like it, because it flatly refutes your claim that the threat of force does not work.

Click to expand...

And of course you completely ignored the crystal-clear examples of World War One and our invasion of Iraq, both of which flatly refute your claim that the threat of force works.

It sounds like you don't think very highly of testosterone

Click to expand...

.

If you had half the understanding you think you do, you'd realize that - like all other things - testosterone has it's time and place...and it very rarely belongs in diplomacy.

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

matchlight said:

My only concern is that those policies advance the interests of this country. Nor do I care about seeing things from the point of view of any nation that is antagonistic to us.

Click to expand...

What a wonderful example of the mindset of so much of the Right.

Fortunately for the world, most of the people in our government realize that seeing things from the point of view of the other nation IS very often in the interests of our own country. If you don't give a damn about them, they won't give a damn about you...and all of a sudden trade barriers go up and our economy goes to crap, and down we go back into recession.

But hey, that's no big deal, is it? Who the heck cares if our actions drove us down into recession and threw millions of Americans out of work, as long as we let the rest of the world know that we don't give a damn about them, right?

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

Glen Contrarian said:

Then say Iran looks to Russia for help and Russia decides to put bases in Iran and tells us, "Bomb Iran again and we launch" at which point America's very existence (and human civilization as a whole) is threatened.

Click to expand...

If there is any reason to believe the Khomeinists would do that--or if they did that their plea would be sympathetically received--you don't say what it is. It sound like nothing but the product of an active imagination, fed on a diet of third-rate disaster movies.

The Soviets did back down in 1963

Click to expand...

The backing down over Cuba in fact took place in late October and November of 1962.

but that doesn't mean they'll back down this time.

Click to expand...

You've offered no reason to think they would even be involved.

So you're the president - is it worth risking America's existence and human civilization to continue bombing Iran? Is it really?

Click to expand...

Calm yourself. The sky is not really falling.

I just want to know how the heck satisfying your testosterone-worship would justify risking the deaths of hundreds of millions (and perhaps billions) of civilians

Click to expand...

Testosterone again. It seems to occupy a prominent place in your thoughts.

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

Glen Contrarian said:

And of course you completely ignored the crystal-clear examples of World War One and our invasion of Iraq, both of which flatly refute your claim that the threat of force works.

.

If you had half the understanding you think you do, you'd realize that - like all other things - testosterone has it's time and place...and it very rarely belongs in diplomacy.

Click to expand...

It's "its."

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

Glen Contrarian said:

What a wonderful example of the mindset of so much of the Right.

Fortunately for the world, most of the people in our government realize that seeing things from the point of view of the other nation IS very often in the interests of our own country. If you don't give a damn about them, they won't give a damn about you...and all of a sudden trade barriers go up and our economy goes to crap, and down we go back into recession.

But hey, that's no big deal, is it? Who the heck cares if our actions drove us down into recession and threw millions of Americans out of work, as long as we let the rest of the world know that we don't give a damn about them, right?

Click to expand...

I don't know what "the Right" is. I have my own mind, and I speak for myself. Lacking your wide and worldly view, though, apparently I've forgotten to consider the threat of a trade war with ISIS. To say nothing about the vast amount of U.S. exports to Iran that would be placed at risk if we ever did anything that made its leaders feel invalidated or icky. Why, millions of Americans could be thrown out of work. The sky could fall. The tides could rise. The sun might not come up tomorrow.