Iran has every right to nuclear weapons

As a iranian, i dont want our contry to hav nukes.
but i want nuclear power, i dont care where we get the enriched uranuim from.

EVERY single person in our goverment should be slowly burned. they dont deserve the label of human.

they are a bunch of cowards thats why they want nukes even if they had nukes they dont hav the balls to use it.

 

Well.... That is a good thing isnt it???

 

The question or difference as it where is not whether one has the "right" to build Nuclear weapons but rather what the intent is for those Nuclear weapons.

I think you have to look at the intent and motivation behind building Nuclear weapons, not the right to do so. The US and Russia built Nuclear weapons with the strict intent of NEVER using them.

I'm not certain that is the intention of IRAN. That's where the problem lies. Its in the use, not the right.

 

Well the only solution to this problem is a UN resolution forcing all countries to get rid of nuclear weapons and prevent their development.

If this is not done then question arises which country has the right to have a nuclear weapon? offcourse the responsible ones. But who will judge them??
Many may suggest UN security council. But mind it UN security council is still built on the 1945 lines and hasnt changed. Many countries who are important in this world in this century lacks proper representation. So it is better not to have nukes on this earth.

 

A UN resolution is the "only solutions"... You're joking right?

Sheesh... Who's gonna enforce it?

 

They might have had the intent of not using them (though I dont believe that) but the US did in fact use them. The idea of building weapons solely as means of deterrent is really warped and I dont believe that has ever been the case. Guns are mean to be shoot.. No matter their size.. That being said its scary that anyone has the access to weapons of mass destruction. I would not trust any human being or nation with that kind of power.

 

and the only country who ever used them is usa FAIL

 

I completely agree with what you say. US has no rights to tell somebody to do something, especially, when US itself is not doing that thing. if United States feel that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, then US should also start destroying its own nuclear program. US should lead by example.

 

see what the neo-zionist war monger goons are saying


http://rawstory.com/2009/10/attack-iran-before-israel/
http://digg.com/politics/GOP_senators_US_not_Israel_should_attack_Iran

yeah, right only you can own those

 

I roughly read over the 4 pages of this thread..and saw too much trashing of the United States' use of nuclear weapons in Japan..


Does everyone fail to remember Japan's surprise attack of Pearl Harbor?
And, by that fact, everyone seems to forget that the U.S. gave Japan's Prime Minister fair warning before the attacks.

I think Iran should NOT have nuclear weapons; to begin with, they are not a major world power (at the stature of Japan, the U.S., Great Britain, etc.)..and that has nothing to do with whether they have nukes or not.

 

I do remember the Japanese surprise attack against Pearl Harbour. A brilliant strategical move made against a military installation. Now you can discuss the morality in surprise attacks. But it hardly resembles the slaughtering 100 thousands of civilians that had no chance to defend themselves.

Now I do agree with your final point although I find your reasoning behind it to be ethnocentric and immature. Iran should not have nuclear weapons, nor should any of the "major world powers" that you mention. Nor should Russia , Israel, Indian and Pakistan have them. But they do. How does those countries fit in your major world power category? Are they fit to carry the power to kill millions? Are anyone?

Kudos to South Africa for being the only country know to have had a nuclear arsenal which they since disassembled.

 

so it is ok to kill civilians and children if you warned them first

 

Immature? Apparently I wasn't clear enough; Iran shouldn't have it because it isn't a world power -- which is MORE reason why they don't deserve it. You would assume that all world powers play on an even playing field, therefore, world powers will all have nuclear weapons until they all simultaneously dismantle them. Is anyone fit to carry the power to kill millions? No, but unfortunately, we live in a day and age where a regular joe-schmoe can hijack a plane and kill 2,000 people, so obviously the threat to human life is not the direct point in this situation.

 

if to answer short.. Yes Iran has right to have nuclear weapons

 

Hundreds of thousands were killed in WWII by the combined bombing of civilians by all major players. The US didn't make the rules, it just played by them.

The fire bombing on Tokyo killed about as many as either of the atomic bombs but nobody talks about them because they didn't have the shock value of the atomic bombs. (one of the main points of dropping the bombs was indeed to shock the Japanese into offering an unconditional surrender. Merely killing large numbers wasn't going to do that, because the Japanese didn't mind dying as much as the other nationalities involved in the war)

The difference in dropping the atomic bombs was that it took two planes to do what otherwise would have took two hundred. If we hadn't had the atomic bomb we would have still bombed the hell out of them, probably ended up killing a lot more Japanese and losing a lot more Americans. And I'm just talking about the bombing. Having to take the Japanese mainland on ground would have been an absolute bloodbath because of the Japanese belief in Bushido.

Dropping two bombs of the like that had never been used in war to end the bloodiest conflict in human history is not really comparable to trying to stop nations today from acquiring the atomic bomb.

Because:

1) the weapon had never been used before and it's destruction had not been witnessed in a real way.

2) The world becomes more unsafe with every new nation that acquires the weapon. The likelihood that someone will use them goes up. And one group using them could lead to a chain reaction of many groups/nations using them. In 1945 only one nation had them so there wasn't danger of escalation. There was only the prospect of ending the bloodiest war in the world's history on the US's terms, which ended up being good for Japan, since they are a great, free nation today and not merely a puppet as they would have been had one of many other nations been victorious over them.



Also, any reasonable person would have to believe that the Germans and Japanese both would have used it, but not to bring about peace and renewed sovereignty to the nations they used it on, but rather imperialism, which was their goal from the onset. You don't have to look further than the Holacaust or Nanking Massacre to support this view.
So it's fortunate for the world that we can say the US was the first to acquire and use the weapon and that the Germans or Japanese didn't instead acquire it(or even the Russians). Because the world would look a lot different today and be a lot less free and prosperous.

 

Why? Can you be more specific than, "just because"? Thanks.

 

I am not trying to belittle or demean other atrocities committed during war. Neither am I saying that I am dissatisfied at who "won" the second world war. Try to keep in mind the heading of this thread. We are speaking about a certain type of atrocity.

Furthermore my answer was directed at a post claiming some kind of noble behaviour in the various hegemonic players and this sort of behaviour should warrant that the world community should accept these players as being more civilized than other nations. You seem to subscribe to the same notion in regards to the US.

Fact of the matter is that we will never know if Japan or even the Nazis would have used the bomb. We do know however that the US did. Not paying respect to that fact when trying to police the world is just hypocrisy.

You are right about the shock value of the nuclear bomb though. But there is more to it than that. The fact of the matter is that nothing as destructive as a nuclear bomb has ever been constructed. So the US might have killed just as many people carpet bombing Japan instead of dropping the bomb a few times. But instead they chose to take the next step up the weapon latter.

They used weapons of mass destruction on a civilian population. If you cant see the significance in that then I don't think I can do much to explain my view to you.

Now we might live in a world where "anyone can hijack a plane and kill 2.000 people". But the US response to that was to enforce George Orwells dystopia on our side of the world and drop bombs on the other part. Now I know who you think is the worst menace. But I am not as convinced.

 

Unless I've gotten you confused you've mentioned the US dropping of the bomb and us being the only nation to do it on several occasions. You keep mentioning it as proof of hypocrisy, so I feel it needs to be addressed.

You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to figure they would have, given the other atrocities they committed during the war that people like you always seem to forget or not care too much about. Except if they had(and I'm sure they would have) the intent of and proceeding aftermath of their use would not have been so favorable for the nation that it was used against. It was Germany and Japan who first attacked other nations. Japan slaughtered hundreds of thousands, if not millions in their imperialistic campaign and likewise the Germans. The US was sneak attacked and then proceeded to liberate the west half of Europe and helped Japan get on the road to freedom and prosperity after we ended the war and took control there.

They chose to use the weapon that would most likely shock the Bushido-following Japanese into surrendering so that perhaps millions of lives would be spared.

I see two significant differences. One operational/logistical, the other moral. The first difference is the operational/logistical that instead of using the atomic weapon we had developed on two missions to kill over a hundred thousand people, we instead use hundreds of planes on many missions that would likely kill more.
The second significance is a moral one. Instead of using two bombs we could have used dropped thousands of tons of less powerful bombs killing as many or more people but without having the required shock value to actually force the Japanese to surrender immediately.
Our decision was the best one on both accounts.

The taliban harbored terrorists who used their country as a base to plan terrorist attacks all over the world. They refused to cooperate in bringing those terrorists to justice. What do you suggest we do? Put up our best arm wrestler against theirs? Or maybe just give them a time-out or take away their WoW subscription?
Does it bother you that the taliban are not only trying to force people in Afghanistan into their own brutal, fundamentalist form of Islam but they're also thuggishly forcing people in Pakistan to submit to their view as well by beheading them and blowing up schools?

Source: http://video.pbs.org/video/1134827451/feature/62

 

Dude.. If you think that the wars in Iraque and Afganistan was about anything else than money. Then you are just plain wrong. Just good old imperialism at it best.

Making money through oil and gas pipelines..

If you wanted to hit Taliban you needed to go into Pakistan. Everyone knows that.. But nobody wanted to do that.. How come?

You seem to be a patriotic sort of type and have your view on how the world is made up. Like a lot of your fellow country men have. Peace be with it.. And please let us in peace as well.. You aint the world saving yanks no more.. Thats long gone..

 

I tend to stick to deriving my opinions from the facts and not baseless conspiracy theories. I also tend to operate less on emotion and a herd mentality than I do solid information and analysis.

We have hit Pakistan. And our allies -- the Pakistanis -- are at war with the taliban in their nation. Watch the documentary I linked to in my last post instead of an Alex Jones documentary.

You mean I read?

Imagine the world as it stands right now without the US. You have several powder kegs around the world that have not blown up largely because of the threat of US intervention. Iran/Israel, North Korea/South Korea, Russia/Georgia, China/Taiwan.
If there wasn't such a dominant force in the world there would be war busting out all over the place like it did in the first half of the twentieth century. I know it's so much fun hating us but the fact of the matter is that the US is the stabilizing force in the world. Sorry to burst your US-hating bubble, chap.