Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Please, for the love of Jeebus, tell me you are joking.

Ok, maybe they shouldn't wave it in front of the UNs face, but they should build a bomb and test it safely once.

Which is in violation of the test ban treaty.
And non-proliferation treaty.

[Hippostania]

I can agree that Reza is a good fellow (unlike his father) and I wouldn't mind if he was given a ceremonial role in government

Yes, that's what I mean. Iran would be a constitutional monarchy. His father actually was a good fellow too.

NO,it wasn't a crime,he practised the will of the Iranian people as oil was in the land of Iran before BP came,therefore it should belong to it's people not to a British company,now what the Shah and CIA did was a crime

Democracy doesn't give a right to steal. It wasn't Iranian oil, it was oil of the Ango-Persian Oil Company and what they tried to do was stealing, pure and simple. CIA simply punished that Mossadegh, which was clearly justifiable. Why should criminals not be punished?

no country shall have nukes,pro-western or not ...ban them once and for all

Only countries that should have nukes are USA, UK, France and Israel.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

In short, the Iranians benefit a lot - nobody is going to dare to mess with it, the other Middle Eastern states, I don't know, depending on whether they are friend or foe with Iran, and very bad news for America and its allies (i.e. Israel and Saudi Arabia both of which are at loggerheads with Iran). From my perspective, that's bad news, and I think it will be a destabilizing factor - I doubt the other Middle Eastern states will all stand by idly and watch Iran develop nuclear weapons. Worse yet, other states may start developing one, leading to a nuclear arms race which can only further destabilize the region.

If anything it would stabilize the area. Nuclear bombs will, as the evidence supports reduce the occurrence of war providing further economic stabilization to the region that is severely needed. Think India and Pakistan or the United States and Cuba/Turkey and Russia, in all 3 situations nuclear bombs actually reduced the likelihood of a major war occurring rather than increasing such a likelihood. If it had increased the chances of war we wouldn't be here on the laptop talking today. Something about human nature prevents a nuclear catastrophe from occurring so as long as if the other nation is armed.

[Kalalification]

So in a way nukes helped prevent an apocalyptic war. Ironic huh?

Conventional warfare can't bring about an apocalypse. Besides that, we're not talking about creating some new paradigm in nuclear politics, we're talking about rejecting the current international agenda of non-proliferation and disarmament so that analdevestated yuropoors and hippies can snicker at their sabotage of American interests. What they fail to realize is that they're also sabotaging the interests of the global community.

if the USA didn't mess with Iran in the first place

You're clearly just a troll.

But I don't.

Good. I was being sarcastic in the section you posted.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Ok, maybe they shouldn't wave it in front of the UNs face, but they should build a bomb and test it safely once.

Which is in violation of the test ban treaty.
And non-proliferation treaty.

The real point I'm making is that Iran has the right to have a nuke that works. Testing it safely once is just to prove that it works, if they can prove that it works without testing it an prove this to other nations then that way is more preferable to the former.

[Kalalification]

The real point I'm making is that Iran has the right to have a nuke that works.

They don't. They objectively don't.

[Camelza]

NO,it wasn't a crime,he practised the will of the Iranian people as oil was in the land of Iran before BP came,therefore it should belong to it's people not to a British company,now what the Shah and CIA did was a crime

Democracy doesn't give a right to steal. It wasn't Iranian oil, it was oil of the Ango-Persian Oil Company and what they tried to do was stealing, pure and simple. CIA simply punished that Mossadegh, which was clearly justifiable. Why should criminals not be punished?

you really dissapoint me,you actually say a popular prime minister was a criminal because he actually did what his people wanted him to do and in the meantime idolise a puppet dictator who used torture,death squads and a brutal police as a way of retaining power

no country shall have nukes,pro-western or not ...ban them once and for all

Only countries that should have nukes are USA, UK, France and Israel.

now that's just not making sense

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

So in a way nukes helped prevent an apocalyptic war. Ironic huh?

Conventional warfare can't bring about an apocalypse. Besides that, we're not talking about creating some new paradigm in nuclear politics, we're talking about rejecting the current international agenda of non-proliferation and disarmament so that analdevestated yuropoors and hippies can snicker at their sabotage of American interests. What they fail to realize is that they're also sabotaging the interests of the global community.

if the USA didn't mess with Iran in the first place

You're clearly just a troll.

But I don't.

Good. I was being sarcastic in the section you posted.

I'm not a troll, I'm very sincere in my opinion that Iran should have nukes to defend itself from US aggression. The same logic here is the same logic that is used by pro-gun advocates. "Imagine how many people would have potentially be save if there were just one gun on the Island Breivik massacred". Likewise it can be applied on a large scale between nations "Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the Vietnamese could have deterred the united states with a nuclear weapon".

[Garboshia]

I can agree that Reza is a good fellow (unlike his father) and I wouldn't mind if he was given a ceremonial role in government

Yes, that's what I mean. Iran would be a constitutional monarchy. His father actually was a good fellow too.

NO,it wasn't a crime,he practised the will of the Iranian people as oil was in the land of Iran before BP came,therefore it should belong to it's people not to a British company,now what the Shah and CIA did was a crime

Democracy doesn't give a right to steal. It wasn't Iranian oil, it was oil of the Ango-Persian Oil Company and what they tried to do was stealing, pure and simple. CIA simply punished that Mossadegh, which was clearly justifiable. Why should criminals not be punished?

no country shall have nukes,pro-western or not ...ban them once and for all

Only countries that should have nukes are USA, UK, France and Israel.

1) again I'm in agreement with you 2) Mossadegh was trying to help his people, the British had a monopoly on Iran's oil. Oil that could give Iran a lot of wealth and improve their economy was basically being taken by people from another country. Would you be happy if a natural resource in your country could make your country economically stable and wealthy but it all belonged to guys in a much more wealthy and economically stable country? 3) No. That is too much power in the hands of too few men.

[Anacasppia]

In short, the Iranians benefit a lot - nobody is going to dare to mess with it, the other Middle Eastern states, I don't know, depending on whether they are friend or foe with Iran, and very bad news for America and its allies (i.e. Israel and Saudi Arabia both of which are at loggerheads with Iran). From my perspective, that's bad news, and I think it will be a destabilizing factor - I doubt the other Middle Eastern states will all stand by idly and watch Iran develop nuclear weapons. Worse yet, other states may start developing one, leading to a nuclear arms race which can only further destabilize the region.

If anything it would stabilize the area. Nuclear bombs will, as the evidence supports reduce the occurrence of war providing further economic stabilization to the region that is severely needed. Think India and Pakistan or the United States and Cuba/Turkey and Russia, in all 3 situations nuclear bombs actually reduced the likelihood of a major war occurring rather than increasing such a likelihood. If it had increased the chances of war we wouldn't be here on the laptop talking today. Something about human nature prevents a nuclear catastrophe from occurring so as long as if the other nation is armed.

Perhaps, but it is noteworthy that
1. Nuclear arms races were triggered as a result
2. The Middle East is not a linear NATO vs Warsaw Pact or India vs Pakistan issue. It is much more complex than that. Also, as we've seen, the Israelis are prepared and even eager to bomb any potential nuclear facility. Was NATO, the Soviet Union, India, and Pakistan prepared to bomb the adversary's nuclear facilities? No. Israel? Definitely. And if that happens, the result may not be pretty for the entire region.
3. Stability. Many Middle Eastern states are nowhere as stable as even Pakistan. There comes the problem of whether Middle Eastern states can ensure their nuclear weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

The real point I'm making is that Iran has the right to have a nuke that works.

They don't. They objectively don't.

From a moral standpoint, yes they do.

[Gauntleted Fist]

you really dissapoint me,you actually say a popular prime minister was a criminal because he actually did what his people wanted him to do and in the meantime idolise a puppet dictator who used torture,death squads and a brutal police as a way of retaining power

Just because doing something horrifically evil is supported by a large number of people does not make it a good thing for people in positions of power to do.

[Forster Keys]

Conventional warfare can't bring about an apocalypse. Besides that, we're not talking about creating some new paradigm in nuclear politics, we're talking about rejecting the current international agenda of non-proliferation and disarmament so that analdevestated yuropoors and hippies can snicker at their sabotage of American interests. What they fail to realize is that they're also sabotaging the interests of the global community.You're clearly just a troll.Good. I was being sarcastic in the section you posted.

I'm not a troll, I'm very sincere in my opinion that Iran should have nukes to defend itself from US aggression. The same logic here is the same logic that is used by pro-gun advocates. "Imagine how many people would have potentially be save if there were just one gun on the Island Breivik massacred". Likewise it can be applied on a large scale between nations "Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the Vietnamese could have deterred the united states with a nuclear weapon".

Maybe in a world where everyone thought and acted rationally this idea would work, even then I'm not sure.

[Anacasppia]

They don't. They objectively don't.

From a moral standpoint, yes they do.

Its like asking, do I have the right to obtain a pistol for myself? Notice that this varies by country - one wouldn't have to right to fashion a firearm for oneself in, say, the UK, but one probably would have that right in the US.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

.
3. Stability. Many Middle Eastern states are nowhere as stable as even Pakistan. There comes the problem of whether Middle Eastern states can ensure their nuclear weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

This wouldn't be a problem if we didn't intervene in the middle east in the first place. They'd have no reason to want to attack us if we didn't get involved in their affairs.

[Anacasppia]

you really dissapoint me,you actually say a popular prime minister was a criminal because he actually did what his people wanted him to do and in the meantime idolise a puppet dictator who used torture,death squads and a brutal police as a way of retaining power

Just because doing something horrifically evil is supported by a large number of people does not make it a good thing for people in positions of power to do.

Let us not forget that Hitler was elected.

[Risottia]

Are you really trying to argue nuclear-fucking-fairness? Holy hell, son, do you WANT an apocalypse?

Nice strawman. And I'm NOT your "son".
Nuclear-"fucking"-fairness, as you put it, can also be reached through multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Alternatively, it can drive to a stalemate through threat of retaliation.

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Certainly not in the case of Iran.

So what?
Oh, I see. Iran, as a theocracy, is my enemy. The US are an enemy of Iran. Well, I assume this proves that the US aren't necessarily a friend of mine. That's the point you were making, right?

Don't go trying to circumvent international law so that you can get in a few jabs at the US.

Exactly where am I "circumvening international law" in my earlier post?
Also, where were I jabbing at the US exactly?
Strawmen won't take you much further than a fail.

It's not going to diminish US presence, and serves only to give theocratic fuckheads talking points when they pull ridiculous shit.

Considering the amount of ridiculous bullshit about nuclear weapons American fuckheads have used as talking points at the UN to justify their invasion and occupation of Iraq, colour me unimpressed by your own point.

[Hippostania]

you really dissapoint me,you actually say a popular prime minister was a criminal because he actually did what his people wanted him to do and in the meantime idolise a puppet dictator who used torture,death squads and a brutal police as a way of retaining power

Yes, if a prime minister commits a crime, whetever it's murder or stealing, he is a criminal. Just because you happen to live somewhere, it doesn't mean that you have a right to the resources of that land. That oil was property of the APOC. And Shah cared about his people and westernized and secularized the country. And at least he didn't try to take something that wasn't his.

now that's just not making sense

Only free countries should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Hell, only free countries should be allowed to possess weapons of any kind.

[Forster Keys]

Yes, that's what I mean. Iran would be a constitutional monarchy. His father actually was a good fellow too.


Democracy doesn't give a right to steal. It wasn't Iranian oil, it was oil of the Ango-Persian Oil Company and what they tried to do was stealing, pure and simple. CIA simply punished that Mossadegh, which was clearly justifiable. Why should criminals not be punished?


Only countries that should have nukes are USA, UK, France and Israel.

1) again I'm in agreement with you 2) Mossadegh was trying to help his people, the British had a monopoly on Iran's oil. Oil that could give Iran a lot of wealth and improve their economy was basically being taken by people from another country. Would you be happy if a natural resource in your country could make your country economically stable and wealthy but it all belonged to guys in a much more wealthy and economically stable country? 3) No. That is too much power in the hands of too few men.

I'd give up if I were you.

[Camelza]

you really dissapoint me,you actually say a popular prime minister was a criminal because he actually did what his people wanted him to do and in the meantime idolise a puppet dictator who used torture,death squads and a brutal police as a way of retaining power

Just because doing something horrifically evil is supported by a large number of people does not make it a good thing for people in positions of power to do.

yes,but in this case Mossadegh didn't do anyhting "evil"

[Anacasppia]

.
3. Stability. Many Middle Eastern states are nowhere as stable as even Pakistan. There comes the problem of whether Middle Eastern states can ensure their nuclear weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

This wouldn't be a problem if we didn't intervene in the middle east in the first place. They'd have no reason to want to attack us if we didn't get involved in their affairs.

Uh. They are just as likely to fight among themselves as with foreign powers, as is evident from history. Besides, that doesn't change the fact that I really do not trust most Middle Eastern states to be able to ensure their weaponry is not stolen or captured by terrorists/rebels etc which would be highly dangerous as these groups are often not rational.

[Kalalification]

From a moral standpoint, yes they do.

Solid ground you have there. The moral standpoint. No doubt you can establish that the morality you're using here is based in objective reality. Surely you've got the capacity to show us all that your moral sentiments are plainly and logically superior to all others. That's why you're using it in an argument about policy, after all. One would have to be insane and/or incredibly stupid to try using it otherwise.

[Hippostania]

2) Mossadegh was trying to help his people, the British had a monopoly on Iran's oil. Oil that could give Iran a lot of wealth and improve their economy was basically being taken by people from another country. Would you be happy if a natural resource in your country could make your country economically stable and wealthy but it all belonged to guys in a much more wealthy and economically stable country?

Guess what? Just because you live in a country doesn't mean that the natural resources of that country are yours. The oil was property of the APOC, not Iranians. Mossadegh illegally tried to steal, and he was punished.

3) No. That is too much power in the hands of too few men.

Dictatorships don't deserve weapons.

[Risottia]

Just because you happen to live somewhere, it doesn't mean that you have a right to the resources of that land.

You might revise the concept of sovereignity.

That oil was property of the APOC.

Property is defined by law. Laws can change.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

From a moral standpoint, yes they do.

Its like asking, do I have the right to obtain a pistol for myself? Notice that this varies by country - one wouldn't have to right to fashion a firearm for oneself in, say, the UK, but one probably would have that right in the US.

Ok, but you would want a pistol if some one threatened you with one, no? And would you not be offended if you were denied the right to have one in the face of such a threat even if you were labelled crazy by the guy who has been constantly bullying you. This is the literally the exact same position Iran is in today. The US has bullied Iran for decades an has consistently intervened in its affairs. Iran for this reason has the right to arm itself with a nuclear weapon.