Iran has every right to nuclear weapons

Its funny to me that you view yourself as fact based and unemotionally attached. At least I know where I am coming from..

I do not hate the US. I dislike opinionated Machiavellian imperialists just as much as any good semi socialist would do and I am provoked by hypocrisy when it is flaunted. You might disagree and thats your right.

You probably read the Fox tv schedule a week ahead...

 

"American imperialism" may very well be the reason your country exists in its current form. Remember "American imperialism" was at its peak during the cold war and helped keep the soviets from being the sole, dominant global power.

Fox news sucks. It is indeed propaganda for the retarded and easily led.
Also, I voted for a black communist, who may or may not feed on the blood of unborn white fetuses. You're gonna have a hell of a time trying to apply your stale stereotypes to me.

 

Look. you are clearly from another time, country and mindset than me. If you ask me the world could have used a bit more of a socialist influence. So there you have it, instead of public transportation and cabbage dishes, we have burger king and SUVs. Who knows what would have been best for us. Not that I think communism is the answer.

But you seem to think yours are an easier fit?

 

The USSR wasn't just socialist. The USSR wasn't just a bigger version of current day Norway. The USSR were authoritarian communists. They ruled by force. Seriously, read a history book.

I get it, you're still in the "I hate the man" and "I have to rebel against the world" phase. Nothing but time will change that. In the meantime you're pretty much doomed to drawing conclusions without the benefit of wisdom. I would help if I could but really time is the only remedy.

No idea what you're talking about.

 

You might try to paint me ignorant because I disagree with you. What I was trying to convey was that if they had been the dominant influence, like the US has been, then things might have looked differently. Not necessarily better, but different.

Well I was talking about the "stale stereo types" that you where forcing on me. Pot calling the kettle black?

Yup those stereo types!

I will try and refrain from using stereotypes and just comment that from your remarks I do not find you that bright. But you seem to think of yourself as wise even.

You seem to think that time might help me.. I hope it wont help me the same as it did you. Bitter and self-righteous .. Winning combo..

 

Trust me, I don't post here to try to get you to think I'm smart.
I'm not the one who started with stereotypes, but I do have a sort of loose profile for you. English, Canadian or Australian. Probably English. Middle class(not the lower side, but comfortably). At least one professional parent. Between the age of 15 and 23. Soon going to attend, are attending, or have recently graduated college(what you might call university). 90% of the people you choose to hang around with agree with you 90% of the time on political matters, especially when it comes to stereotypes about stupid, fox news watching Americans. 65% chance that you prefer mac over windows. How wrong am I?

Who's the one here hating on another country? I'm not bitter. I hate haters.

 

90% wrong..

English is my fourth language. None of my parents have university degrees. I do have a masters which I finished 7 years ago and you got my age 10 years wrong on the good side though. Politically I am used to being the minority, even amongst friends. I always hated mac. I dont think that all Americans are stupid and watch fox non stop. It just sounded like you where one of them.

And again.. I am not hating on another country.. I just dislike you and your world view.. Thats all. So there you go. That was how wrong you where. Dont go taking up crime scene investigations now. Instead how about taking your receding hairline and jiggle it on back to the age of jive with you.. Dinosaur..

 

Wow. You sound exactly like an 18 year old, idealistic, euro-liberal who thinks the US is their worst enemy because they are swept away by the emotion of the day and never actually read a history book. All the while remaining overly-polite to religious fanatics who are invading their country and trying to change it for the worse.

But then, I never watch fox news either except when I want to be entertained by how "fair and balanced" they are. So maybe we can stop the profiling game that you started and failed miserably at, OK, Clarice?

Sure you are. You reserve all your criticism for the big, bad bully of the world without taking into account the other threats the world has known and what the US was acting against.

You direct your indignation and outrage rather selectively:


Iran publicly wishing for the destruction of its neighbors and secretly developing nukes - check

North Korea starving it's people while building nukes - check

Taliban harboring terrorists that killed innocent people all over the world of many nationalities and religions - check

Taliban attempting to take over Pakistan by force, which is a nuclear power - check

US using a weapon for the first time to bring an end to the bloodiest war in history where civilians were routinely targeted by all sides -- and then to help rebuild their country and ensure a bright future for them -- OMFG!!!!. THE US IS SO EVIL THIS IS PROOF THAT THEY ARE EVIL HYPOCRITES LET ME GET ON MY IPHONE AND TELL ALL MY FRIENDS ON CHAT HOW EVIL THE US IS! Hey, mate, the US are evil hypocrites like we always talk about them being, you should use the Google and download some USSR wallpapers so that you can always be reminded of how much better things would be if the USSR had won the cold war!

I have all my hair, thank you, and assuming you're not lying about your age we're not that far apart. It's just that I stopped being an idealistic, hippy, hater of the man in my teens after I started actually learning about how the world worked from objective sources.(Yeah I know you think you probably have access to the most objective news/historical sources in the world where as I only have fox news, but one of the hallmarks of delusion is lack of insight into said delusion)
It's ok, some people just take longer to grow up. I have faith that you'll have an honest world view by the time you reach your 40s. After all, you'll have me here to help you out. Think of me as a mentor.

 

I always loved you.

To be fair, North Korea's nuclear program was their number one bargaining chip to get what they wanted.

They did starve their people in order to develop weapons, but used that as an excuse for more aid; which we appeased and gave to them.

This is called "saber rattling": Making noise with your weapons in order to intimidate others to your whim regardless of whether or not the saber is even sharpened or if you had any real intent/ability to use it.

Iran is not beneath using the same tactics to get the weapon and use the weapon to get more aid and be treated equally.

This can only be solved by treating this as either a non-issue, or having a real global community effort to once again send UN nuclear inspectors to another sandy nation.

 

Logicflux.. No personal attacks allowed here at DP.. So I can really tell you how I would think of you if I should be so unlucky to do so in future. Let me just leave you with this.. You might feel that the views I represent stem from immaturity, conspiracy theories and plain old wrong data. But maybe you should for just a brief second consider the fact that there might be other ways of viewing the world that you might not be privy to living your life in that closed off scull of yours.

The fact of the matter is that for every atrocity you cite other nations for, the us and its allies have committed tenfold. You tell me to read a history book, I wonder which ones you read. Or how you came about that peculiar way you read them. In any case your view of American impact on recent world history is sugar coated to say the least. You sound like one of those born again Christian fanatics your country so loves to foster.

Everybody that disagrees with you are !pot smoking, baby killing, liberal scum huh!?

Its funny how you throw around really profound sentences when you clearly havent reflected over them at all..
...one of the hallmarks of delusion is lack of insight into said delusion..

So that describes me? I am unaware of my cultural biases and I dont own up to them?
Funny sounds like somebody else to me...

 

having nuclear bombs is something that creates a sense of dominance in the beholder country's mind. I believe there are a lot of other things that can be used to achieve the same. Fear is not the road to victory on a planet that is nearing its extinction as i right this thread. a single explosion that is nuclear in nature can send the world in a frenzy. demolition of these weapons is what is needed, irrespective of whatever stand the countries owning them might take.

 

The problem with so many people in this forum is that they are idealists as opposed to being realists. Both I and the person who started this thread are a "realist," meaning we see the world as it is, not how we want to see it.

Those of you who think Iran should not have nukes are idealists. You sit here and talk about why Iran should not have nukes, when the United States has more nukes than anybody (except Russia), and is the ONLY country in history to use them. Those of you who are afraid of Iran having nukes are really afraid of a world where only a handful of powerful nations(those you live in) can no longer intimidate the rest of the world with them. As a realist, not an idealist, I'm about to make a series of statements which are accurate and based on how the world is, not how I wish it was. These statements are as follows:

1. The pandora's box on nuclear technology has been opened, and it will never be closed.

2. The world will never rid itself of nukes, because homo sapiens are a violent, non-altruistic, and selfish species and we need nukes and other weapons to protect ourselves from potential threats. This is why here in the U.S. we have what is called a second amendment. If humans were not a violent, selfish, non-altruistic species, we would not need guns, police, armies, or nukes, but because they are, we need these things, and this will never change, regardless of what you idealist pacifists want to believe.

3. The only way humans will get rid of nukes is if they find a better, more efficient way to kill each other. In other words, if nukes are replaced, it will be because they fell out of favor for better weapons, like the long bow was replaced in favor of guns. In other words, if we get rid of nukes, it isn't because we care about each other, but because we discovered a newer, more efficient way of killing large numbers of people within a short period of time.

4. In this world, might makes right. It always has and it always will. The countries that have nukes make the major policies in the world, do you know why that is? Because they have the military muscle to back it up. Russia, China, Europe, and the U.S. are the big players, because all these places have high technology and advanced military weaponry and finances. No one respects Somalia, Haiti, Jamaica, most African, Asian, or South American nations because non of these nations, in comparison, to Europe, The U.S., China, and Russia, have nuclear weapons, high technology, and finances. Therefore, they have little say in world affairs, and the powerful nations would like to keep it this way. You ever wonder why the nations with nukes always try to stop nations like Iran from developing their own, while simultaneously refusing to get rid of their own nukes? Think about, a ten year old kid could figure it out! If Iraq had nukes, do you think the U.S. would have attacked it like it did? All the countries with nukes have a mutual respect for each other, but none of them really respect weak nations without them, as well as high technology and money. This is why Africa and Latin American continues to be exploited, because these regions of the world are not respected.

5. The nations which are weak, like Iran, have a vested interest in having a say so in world affairs and protecting themselves from the nations that have nukes, so they desire to develop nuclear weapons not just so they can protect themselves against foreign threats like the U.S., but so that they can be respected in the world and have a say in world affairs. This is why North Korea is testing nukes. They are sending a message to the rest of the world not to mess with them, and they are also sending a message that they want to have a say in world affairs. This is also why no one has invaded North Korea yet, because the North Koreans are smart, and as long as they have nukes, they WON"T be invaded. The U.N and G20 will invade any country that doesn't have the means to protect itself. With North Korea, they have to sit down and "negotiate." You damn right, because when you have nukes, everyone knows how the game plays.

The reason why India now has nukes is for the same reason. The Indians, by testing their nukes in the late 1990s, send a message to the entire world, especially Pakistan, and the message is this: we now have nuclear technology, we are an economic and military powerhouse, and we will make our mark on the world.

6. As time goes on, more nations will advance and develop nukes, and the Nuclear Club of nations can do everything to stop them, but they only stop them to keep them in a weak position so that they have no say so in world affairs.

My suggestion to some of you is to go study some books on power politics, because you have no idea how the world works, and your idealism is completely worthless in the world of reality. Iran wants to, and should have nukes. If I was the king or president of a country, I would seek nukes to, for the simple reason that without nukes, my nation and people would inevitably, either directly or indirectly, be subservient to nations who have them.

Anyone who looks at the world today can plainly see that those nations who do not have nukes or advanced military technologies are weak and completely controlled by those nations that do. Most G20 nations either have nukes, or the resources to produce them, and they run the planet.

 

I don't know what you are talking about? 'NPT' is a ridiculous abbreviation started by US. I think you should ask your own country leaders what does that mean and who should follow that word.

 

It is treaty. Do you know what a treaty is? It sure doesn't sound like it. You do realize the NPT is more than just 3 letters, it is the abbreviation for an International treaty that Iran signed on to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

 

Excellent post, it is good and refreshing to see else than the browntwnian bluhluhing on these forums,

after the misuse of "muscles" to bully other nations, independent countries now, are not those who do not have foreign soldiers on their soil, but those who own nuclear weapons, it is normal for any country that been pushed, bullied, or been interfered in its policies, to seek these weapons,

in another but related note, Russian nukes should get Nobel prize for peace because it prevented US from dropping nukes again, on Vietnam.

 

Nice post. You wrote it interesting and detailed. Great analysis. I liked especially 4th one .

 

yes I agree with this post
100%

4. In this world, might makes right. It always has and it always will. The countries that have nukes make the major policies in the world, do you know why that is? Because they have the military muscle to back it up. Russia, China, Europe, and the U.S. are the big players, because all these places have high technology and advanced military weaponry and finances. No one respects Somalia, Haiti, Jamaica, most African, Asian, or South American nations because non of these nations, in comparison, to Europe, The U.S., China, and Russia, have nuclear weapons, high technology, and finances. Therefore, they have little say in world affairs, and the powerful nations would like to keep it this way. You ever wonder why the nations with nukes always try to stop nations like Iran from developing their own, while simultaneously refusing to get rid of their own nukes? Think about, a ten year old kid could figure it out! If Iraq had nukes, do you think the U.S. would have attacked it like it did? All the countries with nukes have a mutual respect for each other, but none of them really respect weak nations without them, as well as high technology and money. This is why Africa and Latin American continues to be exploited, because these regions of the world are not respected.

if Iran devolped nucleur weapon no one can attack them
and if Japan had nucleur weapons US wouldnot dare attacking two big cities because they would knew that Japan will attack them too with nukes

 

That's exactly what I had been trying to say, US can come up with any treaty and expect people to sign up, when they did not follow the UN orders of not to attack Iraq when junior bush did so, going against the UN advice. Do you have anything to say regarding this? Now don't say NPT and UN are different. I know they are different. I don't expect you to give me the difference between a treaty and an organization. Look at the broader picture.

 

This is interesting, and I agree. When the Soviet Union and the U.S. were in the Cold War, both sides balanced each other out. Nations that wanted democracy/capitalism would join the U.S., while nations that favored Marxism would ally themselves with the Soviets. Even then, both countries manipulated smaller countries, for example, one nation which was communist and Soviet backed would fight another nation that was backed by the U.S. In truth, Russia and the U.S. did fight each other in the Cold War, but they used other countries instead of themselves, which is brilliant.

The best example of this is both Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam, the U.S. was fighting the spread of communism, while the Soviets were funding North Vietnam. In the Afghan War, the U.S. funded the Mujahadeen and armed them to fight the Russians. In both cases, the weaker countries were manipulated. Had either fell to the philosophy of Marxism or Americanism, both would have ended up under the control of the larger, nuclear armed power. The only reason the U.S. didn't use nukes in Nam is because this would have given the pretext for the Soviets to use their against the U.S., and both sides new it. During World War 2, the U.S. attacked Japan with nukes because it could, no one else in the world had them and the U.S. was the most powerful nation on Earth. But once the Soviets got nukes, the playing field became leveled. And once other nations got them, the playing field became even more leveled, and so on..

Anyone who talks about getting rid of nukes is a dreamer, not a realist. Neither Russia or the U.S. or China or any other nuclear armed state will give up their weapons, for the same reason that millions of Americans here won't give up their guns. The truth is that an armed man is a free man, and an armed nation is a free nation. The moment you give up your ability to defend yourself, you will be at the mercy of your enemies.

My answer is to let the Iranians have their nukes. As long as they don't use them, unless they are attacked first. The moment they launch at Israel, Israel will retaliate. Both countries will be devastated, with millions dead on both sides. I don't believe the Iranians are stupid enough to use nukes against Israel unless they are attacked by Israel first, unless a radical president comes to power and initiates an attack, and even then, he will be demonized by the Iranians for the tragedy he would bring upon them.

Warfare will never end. It would be nice to live in a world without war, but that isn't realistic. Sun Tzu makes it clear in that art of war is of the highest importance to the state, that it means life or death. If any nation desires peace, then it must be ready for war. The Pentagon recently asked why China is spending so much on their military, but this is a stupid question, because anyone who read the Art of War knows why. The Chinese are wisely following Sun Tzu's advice: they prepare for war during peace, so that if and when war comes they will be ready.

I also wanted to add that I don't believe in violence per se. But humans are an aggressive species and this means both individuals and nations must protect themselves. This is why I'm a firm believer in the right to bare arms. If someone invades your home you should be able to kill them. If someone tries to harm your children or wife, you should be able to kill them. And if a country is attacked by a foreign aggressor, it should be more than capable of protecting itself. Only then will it be free.

When I was a child, I wanted to study Karate but my mother would not let me. She was religious, and wanted her boys to grow up to be "peaceful." This is an example of an idealist. In truth, studying Karate doesn't mean you are bad, and in truth has many benefits, include health, flexibility, a sharp mind, and discipline. But all my mother could see was the violence. It never occurred to her that, by knowing Karate, I can defend myself against attackers. She never realized that by learning Karate, not only would I become physically strong, but mentally strong as well. Being able to defend yourself, whether you are a nation or individual, is always a beautiful thing, and if I have a child, I would be more than happy for them to study martial arts, whether it was my son or daughter, because it is beneficial as long as it is used properly. I believe nukes should primarily be used as a deterrent, and should never be used unless no other option is available. But getting rid of them is silly.

 

Yeah, and since they're not going away, let's back anyone wanting them! That will keep the world much safer than just a few countries having them.

With that said, I think Texas should have nukes in case Arizona attacks us.

I think you're a little off on who is dreaming. Sure the people thinking nukes are going away are out of their minds... but no more than those who think more countries getting nukes mean the world will be SAFER!

Iran openly shooting people opposing their government in the streets is a sign of true compassion and knowing when and where to use force. I get a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about the fact that more countries are pushing to get nukes, especially countries like Iran!