Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Samozaryadnyastan]

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.

No he wasn't. He was appointed by Hindenberg.
The Nazi party did gain a majority in the Reichstag, however.

[Risottia]

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.

Legally, they're party to the NNPT.
Then again, considering that almost every country is party to the NNPT, with the notable exceptions of North Korea, India and Pakistan, but including USA, Russia, Britain, France, PRC, and all the parties to the NATO nuclear sharing program, we could ask ourselves what the real meaning of that treaty is.

[Gauntleted Fist]

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"

Obviously not. Theft is definitely okay. Especially when using a government's power to accomplish it.

[Kalalification]

Unlimited Asspain Works

Thing is, son, that the implication of what you say, and in fact, the immediate consequence of it, is that people who do support Iran's nuclear ambitions are going to gain ground. If you're sane, you're going to oppose that. No matter how angst-filled or anti-American you are (and it's clearly quite a lot), you do no one any good, and actually cause harm, by making the kind of statements you made in the venue and context you made them.

[Forster Keys]

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.

So the CIA have the right to depose a democratically elected leader halfway across the world because of... Yeah, nah.

And the Shah loved his people so much that he created a lovely organisation called SAVAK to torture, murder and repress thousands of his opponents, from Western style free market liberals, to Marxists and Islamists. What a lovely and benevolent man.

[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

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.

Actually it was first Reza Shah who modernised Iran and then Mossadegh himself,the only thing that "the" Shah cared about was to remain in power
and no,it's not stealing,it's called nationalisation and it's a legal governmental act ..show me where it said in the then Iranian constitution that what he did was illegal

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

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.

I use the same logic everyday to get people off my back. If you don't stand up to bullies they won't stop. USA needs to cut it out. The real problem here isn't Iran getting a nuke, because Iran is absolutely doing the right thing by stepping up to defend itself. The real problem is that the west, for some reason, believes that it can roam around the middle east like cowboys and vikings and expect those countries not to get pissed off and want to defend themselves by any means possible. The real problem is Western interventionism and poor foreign policy.

[Camelza]

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

Obviously not. Theft is definitely okay. Especially when using a government's power to accomplish it.

it's not theft,it's a different economic system

[Risottia]

No he wasn't. He was appointed by Hindenberg.
The Nazi party did gain a majority in the Reichstag, however.

A plurality iirc.
Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg as chancellor, given confidence by a parliamentary coalition (which amounts to "being elected" in parliamentary republics, just not directly by the citizens, but indirectly by their representatives instead), later elected as president by the parliament and given by the parliament full dictatorial powers via the Enabling act, every four years.

[Kalalification]

Then again, considering that almost every country is party to the NNPT, with the notable exceptions of North Korea, India and Pakistan, but including USA, Russia, Britain, France, PRC, and all the parties to the NATO nuclear sharing program, we could ask ourselves what the real meaning of that treaty is.

The NPT's primary purpose, as the name would suggest, is to prevent nuclear proliferation. A secondary objective is to speed up and encourage disarmament. Of course, disarmament for the US and Russia is a bilateral affair, and tied to bilateral treaties. And progress has been made. Shitloads of progress. Nuclear disarmament is moving along nicely. What won't help anyone is to defend this insane notion that countries are allowed to acquire nuclear weapons to achieve equal standing with NWS. That shit was thrown out long before the NPT was even conceptualized. Everyone agrees, with the exception of a handful of NWS, that proliferation is bad. Even the ones who don't agree don't agree because it would be bad for them as a matter of realpolitik. They don't think it's fucking 'fair' to let the world go nuclear.

[Kalalification]

I use the same logic everyday to get people off my back. If you don't stand up to bullies they won't stop.

Yeah okay, just make sure you take some stellar notes in 4th period social studies so you can come back and wow us all with your mastery of political philosophy.

[Risottia]

Unlimited Asspain Works

Thing is, son,

Cut it out and learn to quote.

No matter how angst-filled or anti-American you are (and it's clearly quite a lot),

Hoho, argumentum ad hominem.
That's the best you can do? Scaaaaaaary.

you do no one any good, and actually cause harm, by making the kind of statements you made in the venue and context you made them.

Well, prove it and sue me.

[Anacasppia]

Perhaps, but considering Iran's theocratic nature, the fact that it is not a true democracy, and its history of supporting terrorist groups/attempting to spread their brand of revolutionary Islam, any increase in influence, capability, or strength of Iran is an increase in the threat that it poses to democracy and secularism in the Middle East.

[Garboshia]

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.

but do we want the US, UK, France and Isreal to be the only guys with weapons? 'Cause all four of those countries have done some messed up stuff and now your're saying we should let them do said stuff without any fear of consequences? Plus what about all the other democracies? shouldn't they get weapons too? You've discluded Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Switzerland! Why shouldn't they get nuclear weapons?

[Hippostania]

Property is defined by law. Laws can change.

No. Property exists without laws. Everyone have a right to property, no matter what laws say. It's a concept that cannot be changed, just like freedom. And just like every human being has a right to be free, all human beings have a right to property.

[Kalalification]

but do we want the US, UK, France and Isreal to be the only guys with weapons? 'Cause all four of those countries have done some messed up stuff and now your're saying we should let them do said stuff without any fear of consequences? Plus what about all the other democracies? shouldn't they get weapons too? You've discluded Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Switzerland! Why shouldn't they get nuclear weapons?

Because they're all fucking signatories of the NPT. Everyone already agreed that international non-proliferation and disarmament were the way to go. That's international law, now.

[Camelza]

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.


Dictatorships don't deserve weapons.

but do we want the US, UK, France and Isreal to be the only guys with weapons? 'Cause all four of those countries have done some messed up stuff and now your're saying we should let them do said stuff without any fear of consequences? Plus what about all the other democracies? shouldn't they get weapons too? You've discluded Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Switzerland! Why shouldn't they get nuclear weapons?

n00kz 4 all!!

[Anacasppia]

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.


Dictatorships don't deserve weapons.

but do we want the US, UK, France and Isreal to be the only guys with weapons? 'Cause all four of those countries have done some messed up stuff and now your're saying we should let them do said stuff without any fear of consequences? Plus what about all the other democracies? shouldn't they get weapons too? You've discluded Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Switzerland! Why shouldn't they get nuclear weapons?

I'd say the world should be gradually disarmed of all nuclear weapons and the knowledge to produce them utterly destroyed, but I doubt any existing nuclear weapon state, in particular China, is even willing to reduce its stockpile.

[Risottia]

What won't help anyone is to defend this insane notion that countries are allowed to acquire nuclear weapons to achieve equal standing with NWS.

Then why do Russia, USA, China, Britain and France continue to maintain a rather huge stockpile? And why did North Korea suddenly disappear out of the crosshairs since they detonated a nuke?

It's not an "insane notion". It's realpolitik. Either everyone has to dismantle nuclear weapons, or everyone can get them. Because, you know, building a nuke isn't exactly difficult.

They don't think it's fucking 'fair' to let the world go nuclear.

Could you please point out where I did say that every country should have nuclear weapons?
So, try answering to my points instead of attacking the strawmen you fabricate.

[Gauntleted Fist]

I'd say the world should be gradually disarmed of all nuclear weapons and the knowledge to produce them utterly destroyed, but I doubt any existing nuclear weapon state, in particular China, is even willing to reduce its stockpile.

I'm actually extremely conflicted about that. Destroying knowledge of things is incredibly vile, to me. Even if it's awful to know.

[Risottia]

but do we want the US, UK, France and Isreal to be the only guys with weapons? 'Cause all four of those countries have done some messed up stuff and now your're saying we should let them do said stuff without any fear of consequences? Plus what about all the other democracies? shouldn't they get weapons too? You've discluded Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Switzerland! Why shouldn't they get nuclear weapons?

Because they're all fucking signatories of the NPT. Everyone already agreed that international non-proliferation and disarmament were the way to go. That's international law, now.

Germany and NL, iirc, are parties to the NATO nuclear sharing program. A nice way to circumvene the NNPT.

[Forster Keys]

Property is defined by law. Laws can change.

No. Property exists without laws. Everyone have a right to property, no matter what laws say. It's a concept that cannot be changed, just like freedom. And just like every human being has a right to be free, all human beings have a right to property.

What do you base this? Your own peculiar strain of religion?

[Gauntleted Fist]

Because, you know, building a nuke isn't exactly difficult.

Actually, it is. Just ask Iran. I heard they've been working on it for years.

[Hippostania]

Actually it was first Reza Shah who modernised Iran and then Mossadegh himself,the only thing that "the" Shah cared about was to remain in power

First Reza Shah started the modernization, and the Shah continued in his father's footsteps. Mossadegh wasn't a modernizer, he was a criminal and a thief.

and no,it's not stealing,it's called nationalisation and it's a legal governmental act ..show me where it said in the then Iranian constitution that what he did was illegal

''It's not genocide, it's voluntary population transfers into detainment camps! It doesn't matter what the law calls it, nationalization is stealing.

[Garboshia]

but do we want the US, UK, France and Isreal to be the only guys with weapons? 'Cause all four of those countries have done some messed up stuff and now your're saying we should let them do said stuff without any fear of consequences? Plus what about all the other democracies? shouldn't they get weapons too? You've discluded Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Switzerland! Why shouldn't they get nuclear weapons?

I'd say the world should be gradually disarmed of all nuclear weapons and the knowledge to produce them utterly destroyed, but I doubt any existing nuclear weapon state, in particular China, is even willing to reduce its stockpile.

Exactly! I like the idea of there being no more nukes. I know I said that they kept the cold war from getting hot but I have to admit that beyond that they haven't done much besides giving the more powerful nations in the world even more power. Unfortunatly no one will be willing to give up all that power and in the end nukes will be gone when they are no longer effective (example: if we perfect laser defense technology nukes and long ranged missles in general will become obsolete)