Does Iran have a right to nuclear weapons?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I just said we don’t have to assume that the US should have nukes. We can even assume that the US shouldn’t have nukes.
[/quote]

I think the US SHOULD have nukes.
[qupte]:rolleyes: You just said that we can’t justify the US having nukes but not Iran.
[/quote]

That’s correct…and…?

So to get you to discuss the actual OP, I said that we can say that the US shouldn’t have nukes.

The US SHOULD have nukes. I disagree with any argument to the contrary, so you’re wasting your time with this angle. You aren’t conceding anything to me. I’m not attempting to make any kind of suggestion that the US shouldn’t have nukes, ok? That’s our right…and it’s Iran’s right.

Can we discuss Iran?

Are you going to bring up hypocritical irrelevancies again?

What you’re handwaving away is your tu quoque fallacy. If Ghengis Kahn said that Iran shouldn’t have nukes, we could still debate the premise without lowering the discussion to the level of pure fallacy.

It would only be a tu quoque if I was trying to argue that the US should NOT be allowed to have nukes

So an aggressive nation that sponsors terrorism and wants nukes to prevent those that it attacks from protecting themselves is doing so in the name of ‘defense’.

I thought you wanted to talk about Iran, why do you keep bringing up the US?
[qupte]It’s like saying that everybody deserves safety, so the neighberhood criminal should have weaponized anthrax in case his victims fight back.
[/quote]

It’s more like the biggest mob boss in the city trying to decide which low lwvel drug dealers should have guns and which shouldn’t. The US is simply in no moral position to dictate how any other country can defend itself.

No, not every nation has the ‘right’ to a military force, or weapons of mass destruction, especially if it uses those in naked acts of aggression.

Well, I disagree, but should I take it from this statement that you don’t believe the US should have WMD?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The point I’m trying to make, Finn, is that if an argument against prohibiting a state from having nukes doesn’t work for the US (and I don’t think they do), then they don’t work for Iran.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Nope. No such right. That’s not self-defense, that’s Bush logic.
[/QUOTE]

I see. So, basically its every nations ‘right’ to arm to the teeth, but its no nations ‘right’ to protect their interests or to prevent rogue nations from threatening them…because preventing rogue nations from aquiring nuclear weapons in strategically vital areas of the world, nations unfriendly or even hostile, nations who support terrorist groups (or at the minimum proxy para-military forces), is not, by your interesting definition, ‘self-defense’. And a nation attempting to protect its interest by preventing such a rogue nation in a strategic area, by diplomatic or even military means…well, thats ‘Bush logic’, ehe?

However, rogue nations arming to the teeth…this is sound logic and a good thing, ehe? They have the right to gain nuclear weapons so they can threaten their neighbors (or cause a nuclear arms race in their neck of the woods…a brilliant idea considering the region we are talking about!), as well as put themselves essentially beyond reach of any reprisals for doing fun stuff like sending rockets to para-military groups, or money to terror organizations!

Frankly I’ll pick the ‘Bush Logic’ on this one…

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The US SHOULD have nukes. I disagree with any argument to the contrary, so you’re wasting your time with this angle. You aren’t conceding anything to me. I’m not attempting to make any kind of suggestion that the US shouldn’t have nukes, ok? That’s our right…and it’s Iran’s right.
[/QUOTE]

Why is it Iran’s (and presumably every other nation on earth’s) ‘right’ to have nuclear weapons? Why is it not the right of powerful nations to prevent this if its not in their best interests? You seem to have a bit of a double standard problem going on here. Or do you not acknowledge that the US (and other countries) have strategic interests outside their borders? Do you not acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, the Middle East is such a place by reason of all that yucky oil stuff under the ground there?

-XT

[FRDE]

Some things do not seem to have come up.

1. Iran is beefing about the ‘right’ to have Nuclear power stations
2. Most people are quite happy to supply them with those and show them the technology
3. Most people do /not/ want Iran to have Nuclear enrichment capabilities
4. Iran repeatedly states that it does not want to build a bomb
5. Most people don’t believe that for a minute

This debate is supposed to be about whether Iran has the ‘right’ to have Nuclear weapons

• which is profoundly irrelevant as Iran keeps saying that they don’t want them

The debate should really be:
Is the Iranian leadership a bunch of liars, who are trying to build a bomb on the sly ?

If they are, then what should we/anyone do about it ?

My take is nothing, because anything they get up to on the sly will be carefully monitored

• and will lead to a nasty accident

[crowmanyclouds]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Since they signed the NNPT if they try to develop it we have the right to blow it up.
[/QUOTE]
What part of the NNPT would I find that in?

CMC fnord!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I see. So, basically its every nations ‘right’ to arm to the teeth, but its no nations ‘right’ to protect their interests or to prevent rogue nations from threatening them
[/quote]

That’s it in a nutshell, yes
Why is it Iran’s (and presumably every other nation on earth’s) ‘right’ to have nuclear weapons? Why is it not the right of powerful nations to prevent this if its not in their best interests?
[/quote]

Because each country’s “rights” ends at its own borders. You’d also have to explain to me which rogue countries get to decide which other rogue countries are allowed to have nukes and why.

You seem to have a bit of a double standard problem going on here.

No, I would only have a double standard if I tried to ague that different countries should have different rights. Would you argue that Iran has the right to prevent the US from having nukes (since it’s in their best interests and all)? If not, then you’re the one with the double standard, not me.

Or do you not acknowledge that the US (and other countries) have strategic interests outside their borders?

This is an irrelevant question. The question is whether we have jurisdiction outside our own borders, and we don’t. Our “strategic interests” mean nothing and grant us no authority to tell other countries what to do.

Do you not acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, the Middle East is such a place by reason of all that yucky oil stuff under the ground there?

The fact that somebody else has something we want does not magically grant us the right to tell them how to protect it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
The debate should really be:
Is the Iranian leadership a bunch of liars
[/quote]

So what if they are? What country isn’t?

who are trying to build a bomb on the sly ?

Which is their right.

If they are, then what should we/anyone do about it ?

Nothing. If anything we should be friendly to them.

My take is nothing, because anything they get up to on the sly will be carefully monitored

• and will lead to a nasty accident

So you’re saying we should attack them? Who would be the rogue if we did that?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Because each country’s “rights” ends at its own borders. You’d also have to explain to me which rogue countries get to decide which other rogue countries are allowed to have nukes and why.
[/QUOTE]

Each nation is an island unto itself? Nations don’t interact at all, don’t trade or have external needs that are vital to their survival? You have a rather archaic view of the world I’m afraid. Even in ancient times of course this was bullshit, but today its laughable.

As to your last question: Power. Power gives some ‘rogue countries’ (presumably you mean the US and the others on the UNSC) the power to decide such things. The UNSC has the power…and the Iran’s and North Korea’s of the world just wish they did.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No, I would only have a double standard if I tried to ague that different countries should have different rights. Would you argue that Iran has the right to prevent the US from having nukes (since it’s in their best interests and all)? If not, then you’re the one with the double standard, not me.
[/QUOTE]

I would argue tht Iran does not have the means of preventing the US from getting nukes…but the converse isn’t true. I don’t have a double standard at all…because I don’t believe in the UNSC, the charter or any of that other bullshit. I believe that this is window dressing and that its the power to do something…or not do something…that determines if a country has the ‘right’. I said so above.

You on the other had certainly DO have a double standard. Perhaps not between different nations…but between situations. You seem to believe that nations are islands, and that they don’t have external needs that are vital to their survival…or that protecting those needs is a ‘right’. I disagree. If I have access to the only water source in your country, then its in your best interest to ensure that I’m a good neighbor, thus securing your water supply. If I decide NOT to be a good neighbor, then you have two choices…hope for the best and perhaps die as a nation if I destroy your water access, or force me to BE a good neighbor.

Iran has been given ample opportunity to be a good neighbor. Our Euro buddies are practically falling over themselves to bribe them into being a good neighbor. The Russians and Chinese have further sweetened the pot. Iran however has chosen to go a different, more dangerous course instead. Are they ‘right’? If they pull it off they are.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The fact that somebody else has something we want does not magically grant us the right to tell them how to protect it.
[/QUOTE]

Change ‘want’ to ‘vitally need for the continuation of the nation’ and this is the key point where you are wrong. A nation DOES have the right to protect what is vital to its basic survival…and oil IS vital to the US’s survival as the nation it is today. Its vital to the survival of every industrial nation on earth. And Iran having a nuclear weapon is a threat to that, by the very nature of the regime and where its located.

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I’ll stick with “want,” but “need” doesn’t change the point. People need food, but that doesn’t mean they have a right to demand that supermarkets take the locks off their doors. The fact that the oil industry has made people abjectly dependent on an obsolete source of energy is not Iran’s problem. That’s just too damn bad for the US. Why don’t we stop being crybabies and build some solar panels.

Oh…and might? Does not make right. “Power” does not confer moral authority.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I’ll stick with “want,” but “need” doesn’t change the point. People need food, but that doesn’t mean they have a right to demand that supermarkets take the locks off their doors. The fact that the oil industry has made people abjectly dependent on an obsolete source of energy is not Iran’s problem. That’s just too damn bad for the US. Why don’t we stop being crybabies and build some solar panels.
[/QUOTE]

You are wrong. Lets make the analogy correct first. If the ‘supermarkets’ have control of 75% of all food available, and one of the stores has the means to destroy or prevent access to that food because of its actions, then its certainly the right of the people to demand that this situation be fixed. What, you figure they should just die quietly? People need food you say, and this doen’t give them the right to survive in the event the supermarket decides to deny them access or blow up all the food??

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Oh…and might? Does not make right. “Power” does not confer moral authority.
[/QUOTE]

Did I mention moral authority?

-XT

[AFAIKnow]

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Bullshit. All of it. The Iraq invasion was clearly illegal no matter how much handwaving and jumping up and down you do. And then you want other nations to respect UN resolutions or abide by treaties. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

How dare you make a bald face lie like that?

Two can play at this game. It’s much more fun than pulling my hair out every time I see one of the assenine posts.

[AFAIKnow]

[QUOTE=AFAIKnow]
How dare you make a bald face lie like that?

Two can play at this game. It’s much more fun than pulling my hair out every time I see one of the assenine posts.
[/QUOTE]

Or asinine, take your pcik

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You are wrong. Lets make the analogy correct first. If the ‘supermarkets’ have control of 75% of all food available, and one of the stores has the means to destroy or prevent access to that food because of its actions, then its certainly the right of the people to demand that this situation be fixed. What, you figure they should just die quietly? People need food you say, and this doen’t give them the right to survive in the event the supermarket decides to deny them access or blow up all the food??
[/quote]

I had no idea you were such a socialist.

No. The people don’t have a right to take someone else’s property. If they’re hungry that’s just too bad for them. No one is obligated to give them anything.

Did I mention moral authority?

Well, if you’re conceding that the US doesn’t have any moral authority to tell Iran what to do, then we are in agreement and the debate has been resolved.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No. The people don’t have a right to take someone else’s property. If they’re hungry that’s just too bad for them. No one is obligated to give them anything.
[/QUOTE]
While I disagree, I think it doesn’t matter. Has Iran refused to export oil ? What are they going to do, drink it themselves ?

Iran cannot and will not deny oil to the world, nor can they keep us from getting what we need. It’s not like someone robbing a supermarket because they are starving, which I would consider justifiable if they had no legal options. It’s more like robbing a supermarket because the owner is a Hatfield and you are a McCoy.

We do NOT need to use force to get oil, nor is oil the only source of energy available. Claiming that we need to rob and conquer other countries is either a lie or a delusion.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I had no idea you were such a socialist.
[/QUOTE]

Ha!

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No. The people don’t have a right to take someone else’s property. If they’re hungry that’s just too bad for them. No one is obligated to give them anything.
[/QUOTE]

sigh Did I say anything about take? Iran, by pushing through with its nuclear program can potentially destabalize the entire region. I’m not talking about TAKING the oil…I’m talking about Iran disrupting things to the point that no one can even GET the oil. Thats sort of a key difference.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Well, if you’re conceding that the US doesn’t have any moral authority to tell Iran what to do, then we are in agreement and the debate has been resolved.
[/QUOTE]

Then we are in agreement ( :dubious: ). The US doesn’t have the moral authority to tell Iran to desist in their nuclear program. The US DOES have the military power (if we choose to use it) to compell them to desist in their nuclear program…and its clearly in the US’s interest to do so (whether we do or not is another matter).

Lets go ahead and shut things down then and give the hamsters a break, ehe?

-XT

[RedFury]

[QUOTE=AFAIKnow]
How dare you make a bald face lie like that?

Two can play at this game. It’s much more fun than pulling my hair out every time I see one of the assenine posts.
[/QUOTE]

You’ve got to be fuckin’ kidding me! Citing Powell? The same lying dirtbag who now “regrets” all the Bushit he fed the UN?

Making False Case for Iraq War a ‘Blot’ on Record

It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels “terrible” about the claims he made in that now-infamous address — assertions that later proved to be false.

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, “Of course it will. It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.”

Got any other lying MFs who’ll back-up the “legallity” of the Iraq invasion?

[AFAIKnow]

[QUOTE=RedFury]
You’ve got to be fuckin’ kidding me! Citing Powell? The same lying dirtbag who now “regrets” all the Bushit he fed the UN?

Making False Case for Iraq War a ‘Blot’ on Record

Got any other lying MFs who’ll back-up the “legallity” of the Iraq invasion?
[/QUOTE]

As many as you got bucko

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I don’t doubt that for a second.

[XT]

Cultural differences are to be expected. I was reading this article on Time though and thought I’d post it here. Its only tangential to the subject of the OP…but I’ve heard several people call the US a fundamentalist state in the past. So, I figured I’d give folks who make such stupid claims a brief taste of what a REAL fundamentalist state is like. Read and enjoy…then ponder the OP’s question about whether these folks should have nuclear weapons…

Inside the Creeping Restrictions in Iran
For the past few months, Iranians have been subjected to enforcement of Islamic codes. Is this a revival of the dogmatic strictures of the country’s revolutionary past?

When Behnaz Mohsenian, 29, started English lessons at the Najdad Institute in Tehran this spring, the 15 men and women in her class studied grammar sitting in mixed circles. Last month, the language institute divided male and female students into separate classes held on separate days of the week. Not long after, female staff began arriving at work dressed in full-length black chador, at the government-run institute’s request. Now plans are underway to move the women’s classes to a separate building, to eliminate altogether the possibility of illicit mingling. Promptly, a third of Mohsenian’s classmates dropped out of the institute, preferring to study English elsewhere in integrated classrooms, or not at all. “It feels like your rights are being amputated,” she says. “As if we’re all incapable of behaving like normal people, and need to be regulated at all times.”

There is nothing new about the restrictions themselves. They were the grim reality of life here before the 1997 election of the liberalizer Mohammad Khatami. The difference today is the sporadic and velvet-gloved implementation of the old codes. Instead of announcing new bans or dispatching morality police onto the streets of Tehran to harass and arrest young people — the crude, classic measures that fomented much anger and discontent — the system is employing more subtle means that seek to make Iranians themselves, instead of uniformed agents of the state, the enforcers.

So discreet is this steady creep toward Talibanism that it only hit me last week, after a visit to the beauty salon. Usually, framed photos of coiffed brides adorn the walls, but I arrived to find the coffee-colored walls blank, save a clinical advertisement for fungus-fighting nail polish. Authorities had raided the salon two weeks prior, declaring images of unveiled women illegal and demanding they be taken down. In Iran, women’s hair salons are off limits to men anyway, so it makes little sense why photos of coiffed women should be banned in a room full of women getting their hair coiffed.

Goes to show though…people can get used to anything. The irony for me is the crumbs the author wistfully remembers as being small slivers of freedom wouldn’t be acceptable to any one in the US or Europe.

-XT

[RedFury]

[QUOTE=AFAIKnow]
As many as you got bucko
[/QUOTE]

Do you personally get some kind of cheap thrill trying to defend a bunch of proven liers?

::::shrug::::

To each their own I guess. Which ties right into XT’s excerpt. Sure as hell wouldn’t want to live there.