Does Iran have a right to nuclear weapons?

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Well that’s quite a parade of horribles all right. Remind me why Iran would want to do these things to the US as opposed to Israel (knowing that the US is capable of covert and equally horrible retaliation)?
[/quote]

Ask the hundreds of Americans Hezbollah has killed.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

Or is it that you fear Iran would do those things to Israel?
[/quote]

Or Egypt, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or…

[QUOTE=spoke-]

I don’t think they would, for the just the same reason.
[/quote]

Tell that to the hundreds of Israelis Hezbollah has killed.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

But if Israel fears Iran, let Israel fight Iran.
[/quote]

Which would be great for the region and the rest of the world.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

I don’t want the US fighting a proxy war for Israel. (Since you raise the topic of proxy wars.)
[/quote]

The simple fact of something being a ‘proxy war’ is merely a category. A proxy war is not necessarily the same in any significant respects as any other proxy war. War is not fungible.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

Spare me. Hezbollah uses ignorant, disturbed kids to commit suicide bombings.
[/quote]

I can’t spare you, the leaders often do things that are likely to get them killed. Nasrallah certainly guaranteed that the Israelis would try to kill him.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

Nor do I think the leaders of Iran are suicidal.
[/quote]

Nasrallah launched his war, and then went to hide in an embassy of Iran. Are other leaders incapable of unleashing war and then hiding from the consequences? .

[QUOTE=spoke-]

The Iranians love their children, too.
[/quote]

Wonder how much room there is in the governmental bunkers down there in Tehran, eh? Or if one might simply fly their own family out of the country…

[QUOTE=spoke-]

Yes, the prospect of war is horrible, isn’t it? So horrible you might find people on both sides who would seek ways to avoid it.
[/quote]

Iran has been funding, arming, and helping to direct Hezbollah for decades now. Letting Iran get nukes will not cause them to find ways to avoid helping Hezbollah engage in violence.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but given your vocal support for Israel on this board, I am entitled to wonder whether Israel’s safety might be your primary consideration.
[/quote]

You’re entitled to wonder what a creature that was half taco and half orangutan would look like, too.

182

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I have no desire to save America, even if I could. It doesn’t deserve to be saved. If I knew for a fact that I and I alone could save Ameica, I’d leave, then sit back in some other country and watch America collapse with a smile.
[/quote]

Well, there we have it. You’ve finally came out and stated you want America to fail. Categoricaly. No matter what. You, given the chance to “save” it, would sit back with a bucket of popcorn and cheer the demise. Got it.

Hmmm…the only enemies I see threatening the lives of American’s are the fundies of Islam strapping bombs to their children’s bodies and themselves worldwide.

Oh wait. It’s Bush’s fault.

USS Cole…Kenya..Saudi Arabia…World Trade Center (1)…damn. You’re right. It’s all GWB’s fault. I’d hate to mention He Who Isn’t To Be Mentioned By A Conservative. Of course, it wasn’t that President’s fault either when you realize it’s America they hate and not a political party. But when you hate America (wow, could I be the first to post those words and have them not be a joke?) I can see how any party is the enemy.

Keep posting to a US-based server about how oppressed your oppo views are subject to arrest and how Bush wants to eat your children. Keep an eye out for the black helicopters.

As of February 2009, we’ll get to see your updated Mad Libs[sup]TM[/sup] posts, and compare for style and inventiveness. Don’t let us down. Unless, of course, you actually are “silenced” by the bad guys. But you’ll still be here. Ranting about how the gummint is working to oppress and silence those opposed to the Great Cabal. :rolleyes:

183

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Duffer, I don’t think you’re getting me. I’m saying we shouldn’t buy into Iran’s “crazy” rhetoric. We’ve heard it before. Just because they shout slogans, it doesn’t mean they would launch nukes.

I see no reason to believe they want nukes for any other purpose than to deter invasion by the US or attack by Israel.
[/QUOTE]
Launching a nuke is not the problem. It has a return address and nobody is that stupid. Detonating a nuke hidden in the trunk of a car is the problem. If terrorists are involved then the equation changes radically. Who do you retaliate against? If you can detonate 20 small nukes, particularly if they are deliberately made dirty, then you have an economic problem without a solution. Replacing a couple of buildings in NY only takes 10-15 years. Imagine trying to clean up a city after a dirty nuke. Chernobyl will look like a vacation spot in comparison.

The entire country of Iran answers to one religous nut-job. He approves the funding of Hezbola along with domestic volunteers for suicide missions. He will someday get a nuke because he has the job of Grand Poobah for life. It’s a matter of time.

184

As time has gone on we find that we came real close a couple times. In Cuba troops were equipped with nukes and were on their own to use them. if we had followed the generals we may have been in a nuke war.Maybe we were lucky.
Proliferation makes us that less safe. More variables.

185

Nope. Sorry. The scaremongering isn’t working on me.

The scaremongers stampeded us into fighting Iraq, but I’ll be damned if I’ll stand by silently while the US gets stampeded into war with Iran.

I believe Iran is seeking nukes. I believe they are seeking them for deterrent purposes. Quite rationally so. I do not believe their leaders are “crazy” or “irrational.” I believe those labels are used to augment the scaremongering.

Let me turn this around on you, Magiver and FinnAgain. What exactly are you proposing? What steps should the US take to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes? Are you suggesting we should go to war? Launch a bombing campaign? Do you think either of those actions would lessen the risk of Americans dying in terrorist attacks? Or would they merely draw us further into a quagmire? And create yet another generation of terrorists?

At some point the madness must stop.

I grow sick of War Without End. I really see no US interest in even maintaining troops in the Middle East, when compared with the cost of doing so-- the cost in lives, in treasure, and in international esteem.

186

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Ask the hundreds of Americans Hezbollah has killed.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, and stop with this disingenuous and misleading argument, will you? You know as well as I that no Americans have been kiled outside the Middle East. You are talking primarily about the US troops killed in Lebanon over 20 years ago before Reagan finally had the good sense to get them out of there.

187

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Duffer, I don’t think you’re getting me. I’m saying we shouldn’t buy into Iran’s “crazy” rhetoric. We’ve heard it before. Just because they shout slogans, it doesn’t mean they would launch nukes.

I see no reason to believe they want nukes for any other purpose than to deter invasion by the US or attack by Israel.
[/QUOTE]

I get what what you’re saying in a base version. However, I’m filtering it through the lens of a leader (supported by those in real power that will be in power after Mahmoud is out of office), that are, and have been, calling for the destruction of Israel.

Granted, my opinions here may have the weight of a fart at a funeral, but I just can’t see any reason to not be suspicious of Iran having nukes. If the US wanted to take over Iran, it would have been attempted long ago.

And if we were trigger-happy with our missles, they would have been launched long ago Ever wonder why the US’s military R&D budget is so big? We’re looking to kill people with minimal collateral casualities.

The US will always need shit that blows people up. The R&D is to find a way to do it without just wiping people out. en masse If we can. That’s why the most destructive arsenal hasn’t been used since the '40’s. If we have to use a weapon, we want it to kill the bad guys (relative, of course), not innocents.

This was a good policy when the enemy was a State. (Soviets) The USSR had a central government with a recognized body. Technically they had proxy’s, but those areas were Soviet, ruled officially by Moscow. We knew who was doing what.

It’s a bit different with Iran. Now, I have no proof (wink, wink) that Iran and Syria have any dealings with Hezzbollah, but if they do, I have to look with a jaundiced eye at the government dealing with them.

But were that government, with a proxy army accountable to nobody, have access to nuclear wepons, it seems that could become an issue.

A government calling for the destruction of Israel, America and Western Europe (in that order) with nuclear technology supplying a decentralized 'army"? Can’t imagine anything to be concerned about.

India and Pakistan? It’s more a dick-waving contest at this point. Like the US and USSR they want to be equal. Can anyone link the statement of either country’s leader calling for the other to be “wiped off the planet”?

Yeah, didn’t think so. That’s why people done want Iran to have a nuke.

188

[QUOTE=spoke-]
The scaremongering isn’t working on me.
[/quote]

No, not the scaremongering! Perhaps I will have to monger something else.
I hear fish are nice.

You may not be concerned that Iran supports a massive terrorist network, that they have a history of using this terrorist network to attack other countries including the United States, that they have cells within the United States, that Iran’s goals of regional influence may very well (further) destabilize the region, etc…

But that doesn’t mean that being concerned about those factors can be handwaved away as “fearmongering”. But, I suppose, that is an easy way to ignore all the reasoning behind an argmuent.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

The scaremongers stampeded us into fighting Iraq, but I’ll be damned if I’ll stand by silently while the US gets stampeded into war with Iran.
[/quote]

Once bitten twice shy?

[QUOTE=spoke-]

I believe Iran is seeking nukes. I believe they are seeking them for deterrent purposes.
[/quote]

So that they can continue to use Hezbollah and/or other organizations with impunity.

[QUOTE=spoke-]
What exactly are you proposing?
[/quote]

I thought I was quite clear, no? Negotiations until absolutely the last moment, and then whatever needs to be done to stop Iran from getting nukes.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

Are you suggesting we should go to war? Launch a bombing campaign? Do you think either of those actions would lessen the risk of Americans dying in terrorist attacks?
[/quote]

What, exactly, will having Hezbollah become even more likely to launch attacks have on the risk of Americans dying in terrorist attacks? What effect would stopping state sponsorhip of terrorism have on the risk of Americans dying in terrorist attacks?

189

[QUOTE=Magiver]
He will someday get a nuke because he has the job of Grand Poobah for life.
[/QUOTE]

Presidents serve a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms under Iran’s Constitution. Cite.

190

[QUOTE=spoke-]
You are talking primarily about the US troops killed in Lebanon over 20 years ago before Reagan finally had the good sense to get them out of there.
[/QUOTE]

And if we look back to the itchy trigger-finger the US had with the nuclear arsenal, we would have never seen that attack happen. Granted the clothes were atrocious, but 1979 did happen.

And with the attack on the USMC barracks, I think we have more proof of the restraint of the US using nukes than others in this tread care to recognize.

After all, Reagan was the renegade that was going to detroy the country. At least that’s what we heard from some people in the 80’s. yet, the missles never launched. Imagine that.

191

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
What, exactly, will having Hezbollah become even more likely to launch attacks have on the risk of Americans dying in terrorist attacks?
[/QUOTE]

Stop it, Finn. You’re scaring me again. :rolleyes:

192

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

America has been an enemy of Iran for decades. Right now, with Bush and the Republicans in power, America is the enemy of everybody.
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s ignorance that is the enemy of everybody. Willfull ignorance is an enemy only to the person who strives for it. Good luck with that.

193

[QUOTE=duffer]
After all, Reagan was the renegade that was going to detroy the country. At least that’s what we heard from some people in the 80’s. yet, the missles never launched. Imagine that.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know who you’re debating here, but it ain’t me. I never took seriously Reagan’s crazy rhetoric, and more than I take seriously that rhetoric coming from Tehran. Bellicose rhetoric does not imply willingness to use nukes offensively. Usually it just means you are playing to your electorate.

194

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
As time has gone on we find that we came real close a couple times. In Cuba troops were equipped with nukes and were on their own to use them. if we had followed the generals we may have been in a nuke war.Maybe we were lucky.
Proliferation makes us that less safe. More variables.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I think we’re going to need some cites for this.

195

[QUOTE=spoke-]
I don’t know who you’re debating here, but it ain’t me. I never took seriously Reagan’s crazy rhetoric, and more than I take seriously that rhetoric coming from Tehran. Bellicose rhetoric does not imply willingness to use nukes offensively. Usually it just means you are playing to your electorate.
[/QUOTE]

It wasn’t directed at you. I used the post for context. Debate takes a shitload of practice, and I’ve spen too much time in the Pit. Just trying to get my sea legs back. Don’t take any of my responses personally.

196

[QUOTE=duffer]
Don’t take any of my responses personally.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I haven’t. I don’t take these debates personally.

197

[QUOTE=Magiver]
Launching a nuke is not the problem. It has a return address and nobody is that stupid. Detonating a nuke hidden in the trunk of a car is the problem. If terrorists are involved then the equation changes radically. Who do you retaliate against?
[/quote]
And what in the world makes you think any country is going to give terrorists nukes ? Or biological or chemical weapons, for that matter. Countries don’t do that; they don’t hand over that kind of power to loose cannons. As far as who we’d retaliate against, Iran of course. Whether or not they did it, we’d use it as an excuse to attack. Bush and friends would love that kind of excuse to kill a few million people.

[QUOTE=duffer]
And with the attack on the USMC barracks, I think we have more proof of the restraint of the US using nukes than others in this tread care to recognize.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: Are you actually claiming it took restraint to not nuke Lebanon for one barracks worth of soldiers ?

[QUOTE=duffer]
After all, Reagan was the renegade that was going to detroy the country. At least that’s what we heard from some people in the 80’s. yet, the missles never launched. Imagine that.
[/QUOTE]
Luck, and the fact that the USSR was marginally more sane; his mere election was nearly enough to trigger a first strike by the Russians according to them. I’ve also read quotes from Reagan that made it clear that Falwell had him half-convinced to pull the nuclear trigger, in order to kill everybody and bring on the Rapture.

198

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Presidents serve a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms under Iran’s Constitution. Cite.
[/QUOTE]
The President of Iran has no actual power. He answers to Ali Khamenei who is Iran’s Supreme Leader.

199

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’ve also read quotes from Reagan that made it clear that Falwell had him half-convinced to pull the nuclear trigger, in order to kill everybody and bring on the Rapture.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: That type of wild allegation requires a cite.

I’m no fan of Reagan, but Reagan wasn’t crazy. And I don’t believe Ahmadinejad is crazy, either. Just playing to his base.
Magiver, your post did not make it clear to whom you were referring. We had been discussing Ahmadinejad.

200

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Oh, and stop with this disingenuous and misleading argument, will you?
[/quote]

So pointing out that Hezbollah has murdered American displomatic staff and captured and killed Americans who happend to be in Lebanon, as well as attacking US troops on a peacekeeping mission to help stabalize a civil war is “disingenuous and misleading” because… they happened to have been killed in the ME?

Are you suggesting that America has no right to diplomatic facilities in the ME, or to participate in peacekeeping forces in the ME, or to have American citizens living in/visiting the ME?

Are attacks upon Americans somehow not attacks upon Americans if we’re away from the US proper? It’s also worth noting that TWA Flight 847 was most certainly not in the ME, anyway.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

You know as well as I that no Americans have been kiled outside the Middle East.
[/QUOTE]

Well then, it’s okay as long as Iran only uses Hezbollah against America or its citizens when Iran’s strategic goals are threatened.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

You are talking primarily about the US troops killed in Lebanon over 20 years ago before Reagan finally had the good sense to get them out of there.
[/QUOTE]

Spot on. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I’m talking primarily about the troops. As if participating in a peacekeeping mission is grounds for attack or something, anyway.

And of course, the fact that most of Hezbollah’s attacks have been limited to the ME means… what, exactly?

Hezbollah: