Wha?!
You couldn't even pretend you have an intention of providing evidence of your claims?
Breakthrough in Iranian nuclear talks!
- Thread starter Jocko
- Start date
-
- Tags
- breakthrough iranian nuclear talks
You couldn't even pretend you have an intention of providing evidence of your claims?
demon channeling CFLarsen.
Indeed. The only winning move is not to play checkers with the 'tards; all you can expect are spittle on the board and checkers in your hair.
I blame myself for even going along with the charade for a single citation. Ah well, can't say I never throw a bone to the more challenged intellects.
MichelQC
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 93
Just a question
Hello all,
There's one question (Ok more than one) that I keep asking myself and it is this one; Why is it that the US government is so worried about a country WANTING (not having) a nuclear arm, when they themselves have mountains of them and can probably wipe out all life on the planet should they want to. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to deny others what you yourselves have more than plenty of? Why is it immoral for Iran (or any other country for that fact) to possess nuclear arms but it is OK for the US to have them? Why does the UN council never comment on that?
Hello all,
There's one question (Ok more than one) that I keep asking myself and it is this one; Why is it that the US government is so worried about a country WANTING (not having) a nuclear arm, when they themselves have mountains of them and can probably wipe out all life on the planet should they want to. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to deny others what you yourselves have more than plenty of? Why is it immoral for Iran (or any other country for that fact) to possess nuclear arms but it is OK for the US to have them? Why does the UN council never comment on that?
In what way are the two clauses of your sentence logically connected? Why does the fact that the US has the ability to destroy the world relevant to not wanting Iran to have a nuclear weapon? I've seen this statement before and i can't figure out why the capacity to destroy the world is relevant here?
No more hypocrtical than a brain surgeon who doesn't think people should go around drilling holes in other people's heads. Is it fair that only brain surgeons get to drill holes in other people's heads? Yes, I think it is.
Morality has nothing to do with it--security does. The US, as well as Engalnd, France and a host of other nuclear countries, does not want Iran to have a nuke because we don't believe they will use it responsibly. (Ie, only to defend themselves from attack).
I allow myself to drive a car. I do not let my eight-year old daughter drive a car. I do not believe that to be hypocritical.
Because your premise has all sorts of logical fallacies and unfounded assumptions, and while that hasn't always stopped the UN before, in this case I applaud them for their restraint.
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
Iran claims they don't want nuclear weapons, only nuclear power and nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. If that's all Iran wants then why would they refuse offers to provide them with that capability in exchange for not producing nuclear weapons?
Besides that, the genie is already out of the bottle for the US. Does that mean we should allow nuclear weapons to proliferate, especially for countries who profess to want to wipe other countries off the map?
MichelQC
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 93
The point I was trying to make, is that it is hypocritical for the biggest nuclear power on this planet to act concerned or defensive when another country wants access to something that themselves have more than enough of.
That being said I believe nuclear arms should be banned all over the world without exceptions. There are more than enough ways to kill your ennemies in my humble opinion.
MichelQC
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 93
Just that it seems to me that if you have the rights to have such a big nuclear arsenal, you should not act surprised that others wants them too. If it's bad for them then it should be bad for you.
Except that the sole fact you have the biggest drill doesn't qualify you as a brain surgeon.
You are making an assumption not based on any facts. Like the USSR during th cold war, one might make a safe bet that Iran does not wish to start a nuclear war, especially not with the US and it's allies. We all know what the end result of that would be.
It isn't if you are the adult. But in this case, to use your analogies, you want to prevent another adult from driving while you have this very same right while at the same time reserving the right to decide if this other adult should be allowed to drive.
My basic premise is that what's good for one shoud be good for the other. Hence if you yourself have nuclear arms then you should not be surprised that others wants them, exactly for the reason you cited, security.
That being said I do not believe that nuclear weapons are a good thing at all and would be quite happy to see them permanently removed from any arsenal wherever thay may be.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
I know what the end result of that would be - Israel and most of Iran turned into a smoking radioactive wasteland. Unfortunately, there are Iranians - the President included - who think the end result would be the destruction of Israel and the return of the 12th Imam to rule of the world. And that is something I am not comfortable with. YMMV.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Let's follow that thought. Iran, go ahead, build away, join the big boy's club.
Oh, by the way, gents, you are now targeted by our SLBM's and ICBM's and all other N type weapons. (Russians seem to have put you on their little delivery list, and it ain't Santa Clausky we are talkin' here!) We have to deter you now, ya know, since you now have nukes.
Welcome, Iran, to the exclusively small club of nations tageted by our nukes. Champagne?
Oh, part of your exclusive welcome package is this note, from our Secretary of State:
The first one of your Ballistic Missiles that our satellites detect launching will result in an immediate counter launch. We can't afford to screw around, you see, because this isn't kindergarten anymore. This is varsity football, and the big boys hit hard. Get yourself a helmet.
==================================
That actually might work.
DR
The problem is not the nukes per se, it's Iran religiously-driven genocidal intentions. If Belgium or Easter Island got nukes tomorrow, it wouldn't be a good thing, but it would hardly be a cause for undue concern since it is inconceivable that they would threathen anybody with them. Not so with Iran.
Simply put, "why can't Iran have nukes when the USA has them?" is the equivalent of asking, "why can't homocidal maniacs have guns when every cop has them?".
Simply put, "why can't Iran have nukes when the USA has them?" is the equivalent of asking, "why can't homocidal maniacs have guns when every cop has them?".
I own a revolver. I am a responsible citizen, pay my taxes, keep my lawn mowed, and understand the proper and improper use of the weapon. I have taken gun safety courses and spend time on the firing range to make sure that should the occasion arise, I would not endanger any innocent people. In all the time I have owned the gun, I have never pointed it at anyone, have never threatened anyone with it.
Do you think think my neighborhood is in any significant danger because I own a gun?
Now say I have a neighbor. He's not a responsible citizen, he regularly picks fights with his neighbors, drives down the street 'way too fast, provokes his neighbors by throwing his trash on their lawns, has wee-hours-of-the-morning fights with his wife that usually end with the police being called and occasionally with him being hauled off to the cooler to sober up. He has a special dislike of one neighbor in particular, complaining that that neighbor should be run out of the neighborhood and saying that neighbor doesn't have the right to live.
Now he's talking about getting a gun.
Do you think think my neighborhood would be in any significant danger if he got one?
What makes you think that anybody is surprised that Iran wants nukes? It's one of the least surprising things in international politics.
You seem to have an irrational need for symmetry. I have a friend who is deathly allergic to peanuts. Presumably, that would make it equally bad for me. And yet, it doesn't.
Just because the US and France have demonstrated the ability to go more than a half-century without nuking anybody does not mean that Iran has that capability.
A demonstrated ability to refrain from nuking people does. Iran has not demonstrated any ability to co-exist as a responsible member of the world of nations. One of the reason few people are making a stink about India having nukes (outside Pakistan) is because few people think India will use them irresponsibly. Any objections (mostly from Europe) are on nonproliferation principles unrelated to the qualities of the individual nations. The truth is that nonproliferation exists as a justification because it would be unseemly to say out loud that India would be a responsible nuclear power, but that Iran would not.
My assumptions are based on facts. What makes you think Iran doesn't want a nuclear war given their religious statements on the issue?
Iran should not be included in the "we all" as they believe something much less damaging will happen than what you or I might expect.
Yes, because this adult has professed the desire to drive his car into a crowd of people he doesn't like. So, yes, I think it is entirely appropriate to deny that person a car, even though I will maintain my own right to drive.
Iran is not a responsible member of the world politic and thus should be given the right to bear nuclear arms.
You're arguing from results. You want America to denuclearitize and you're latching on to this perceived hypocrisy to justify it. But your argument is requiring you to defend Iran as a responsible nation and that's just silly.
In the future, if you wish to argue that America shoudl dump its nukes, you should devise an argument that does so directly and not use there convoluted and fallacious arguments.
And that premise is flawed. All nations do not have equal capacity. Iran has demonstrated a pronounced lack of judgment.
Then why argue that Iran should be allowed to have them? You're argument is irrational because you don't respect proper logical argument. You are arguing backwards from your desired result rather than constructing a proper argument from premise to proof.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Iraq is only a problem because of the attempt to fix it. It would be no problem to invade Iran and destroy their nuclear capability, then leave. I'm not advocating that at this time, but it is doable.Not alone, or, like Iraq, essentially alone, I would hope. If it comes to it I'd like to think our leaders are smart enough to stop antagonizing Europe long enough to get some serious assistance.
MichelQC
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 93
I understand your (and everybody else's) argument and I am not claiming that Iran having nukes is a good thing far from it. But I am just not ready to demonize them either which is something most of the posters here seem to take as a given. Yes some of them leaders are religious extremists they talk the talk and generally try to make themselves look bigger than they are. Their professed hatred of Israel and the US is a concern. But (call me a fool) I like to believe that they are humans too and as such have a certain amount of self-preservation instinct. They have to know what would happen to them and their country should they ever use a nuke against anyone. I see this as a natural self deterrent. I believe that the US and UN attitude of wanting to push them around will in the end only fuel their resolve and ignite the situation even more.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
This is where you are wrong. Shiites, which the ruling mullahs of Iran are, believe in an apocalyptic war necessary for the return of the 12th Imam. The Iranian president also believes this. It is hard for you and I to understand, but they really believe that the 12th Imam will save them from any nuclear retaliation. In other words, they believe they already have a fully functional, guaranteed 100% effective defense against a nuclear strike.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Iran is not being demonized because it is seeking nukes. It's "demonized" because it's a religious theocracy run by people who are bat-guano insane.
Yes they are human, just like you or me.
Have you ever met a nut-case Christian fundamentalist? Not just someone who is devout, but the kind of person who listens to rock music backwards for secret messages or claims that Harry Potter is evil because he teaches witch-craft.
Those people are also human, just like you or me.
Now imagine a group of people like that running a country.
Now imagine that country with nukes.
Think about it.
Now ask yourself if "human, just like you or me" is a comforting thought.
Have you ever talked with one of those bright and sunny Christians about how they believe the end of times will happen? Not just any Christian, but one of the ones that believes the end-of-times is near.
Do you think "natural self-deterant" applies to someone who's grown up considering armageddon and doomsday scenarios as a good thing?!
Some? Which of them are not?
Have to? I haven't seen evidence of that.
Darth Rotor:
"The problem, demon, was the uncertainty. Informed commentary was divided for the simple reason of not knowing."
Now that is a bit more accurate. There was some "uncertainty", but again, let`s not overestimate this.
My problem is with asinine propaganda statements that rely on people`s ignorance or people`s sheer bloody minded willingness to accept wars based on lies. Statements like:
"in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq"
and that "Hans Blix, the UN security council, 99% of the planet's intelligence communities" believed that a nuclear threat was developing in Iraq.
That is BS of the highest order...see below.
"The problem, demon, was the uncertainty. Informed commentary was divided for the simple reason of not knowing."
Now that is a bit more accurate. There was some "uncertainty", but again, let`s not overestimate this.
My problem is with asinine propaganda statements that rely on people`s ignorance or people`s sheer bloody minded willingness to accept wars based on lies. Statements like:
"in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq"
and that "Hans Blix, the UN security council, 99% of the planet's intelligence communities" believed that a nuclear threat was developing in Iraq.
That is BS of the highest order...see below.