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…?
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.
Are you going to bring up hypocritical irrelevancies again?
It would only be a tu quoque if I was trying to argue that the US should NOT be allowed to have nukes
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.
Well, I disagree, but should I take it from this statement that you don’t believe the US should have WMD?
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.
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
The fact that somebody else has something we want does not magically grant us the right to tell them how to protect it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
