Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Len Hyet]

( sorry if I spell things wrong, busted my shoulder)

I believe that earlier I saw an idea to support a revolution in Iran.

If memory serves, whenever the US has backed a revolution it always turns around and bites us in the ass. Iran and the Mujahadeen are prime examples.

[Kemaliste]

( sorry if I spell things wrong, busted my shoulder)

I believe that earlier I saw an idea to support a revolution in Iran.

If memory serves, whenever the US has backed a revolution it always turns around and bites us in the ass. Iran and the Mujahadeen are prime examples.

Yes, the ones you support should lick your *ss anyway.

[Kemaliste]

Look at the logic. Then I'll call my father and ask for him to fabricate somethings to justify my claims.

How do you figure that he fabricated those claims? Just because you never met the people in his family doesn't mean that they made up the stories as Oral History is one of the most widely acceptable forms of history in the known world.

And how do you figure that he didn't ?

And that's why the known history is full of lies and exaggerations.

[Shazbotdom]

How do you figure that he fabricated those claims? Just because you never met the people in his family doesn't mean that they made up the stories as Oral History is one of the most widely acceptable forms of history in the known world.

And how do you figure that he didn't ?

And that's why the known history is full of lies and exaggerations.

No, history is full of lies and exaggerations because it is always written by the winner. Oral history from both sides of a conflict prove that. Look at the history of the American West as a prime example. Whites claimed that they were the owners of territory that was settled by Natives thousands of years before the whites were even in the new world, but if you look at history books, Natives are nothing but "Savages" and the Whites were superior.

I trust Oral History more than what is in the books.

[Farnhamia]

And how do you figure that he didn't ?

And that's why the known history is full of lies and exaggerations.

No, history is full of lies and exaggerations because it is always written by the winner. Oral history from both sides of a conflict prove that. Look at the history of the American West as a prime example. Whites claimed that they were the owners of territory that was settled by Natives thousands of years before the whites were even in the new world, but if you look at history books, Natives are nothing but "Savages" and the Whites were superior.

I trust Oral History more than what is in the books.

You need to take both into account. And this has nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread.

[Pingxiang]

Iran is a fascist country which massacres its minorities. The Turk-populated northwest of this country (South Azerbaijan) is systematically enslaved and assimilated and persifized. Iran should be obliterated.

I can understand your being sensitive about Azeri minorities in Iran. But you should suppress your emotional feelings and approach to this issue in a rationalist way. Iran is now being targeted by western imperialists, so it would be unlogical to serve the interests of them.

The best solution is to talk with Iran as a friend and ask for them to treat Azeris in a fair way there. But don't act in a way that would put you in the same side with western imperialists.

No, you are mistaken. The Azeri population of Iran generally wants nothing to do with Turkey or Azerbaijan. They have it good in Iran. The Azeri part of Iran is very industrialized so there are jobs. They are well intergrated in Iran. You could say they run many important parts of Iran. Read once that a poll was taken and the majority of the Azeris in Iran preferred Iran to Turkey or Azerbaijan. They have a better standard of living. Many also commented that they wanted nothing to do with the dictatorial corrupt government of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

News from last year concerning the Republic of Azerbaijan

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its member organization, the Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan condemn the increasing persecution of political opponents, demonstrators, their lawyers and independent journalists.

Source - http://www.fidh.org/Political-Repression-must-stop

The majority of Azeris in Iran are Shiite like in the Republic of Azerbaijan. While Turkey is majority Sunni.

This on the Azeris in Iran's so called South Azerbaijan.

Iran's Azeris have never felt like aliens in the country they have lived in for thousands of years. They are as proud of Iran's achievements and as distressed by its shortcomings as any other Iranians are. They have played and continue to play an active role in the country's development, politics, economy, and culture -- on a par with their Persian-speaking compatriots. The only difference they feel is language.

It is hard to find un-biased information on so called South Azerbaijan from non-Iranian independent sources. The information you do find seems to be biased and coming from Azerbaijan and Turkey.

[Corporate Councils]

No, history is full of lies and exaggerations because it is always written by the winner. Oral history from both sides of a conflict prove that. Look at the history of the American West as a prime example. Whites claimed that they were the owners of territory that was settled by Natives thousands of years before the whites were even in the new world, but if you look at history books, Natives are nothing but "Savages" and the Whites were superior.

I trust Oral History more than what is in the books.

I don't know what history books you've read in the last 30 years that call Native Americans "savages".

Regardless of the many interesting conversations about the Armenian Genocide, perhaps that conversation would be better served in a thread of its own...

As for Iran, I don't think it should have a nuclear weapon; however, it wouldn't be the end of the world if it did. The US simply needs to threaten to completely annihilate them if they (or one of their proxies) use such a weapon. It worked in the Cold War and if we hadn't backed ourselves into a rhetorical corner it would still be a valid option.
The Iranian leadership has proven itself to be rational and therefore isn't going to do anything to endanger its position; therefore, if they feel that building a nuclear weapon will keep the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other power from endangering their grasp they're going to do it. They've already seen what happens with other countries give up their WMD programs (Libya) and if they have nuclear weapons I can assure you that we will not be setting up no-fly zones in their airspace to defend the protestors of the Second Green Revolution.

[Ralkovia]

They don't. They objectively don't.

From a moral standpoint, yes they do.

Unfortunately, Nukes don't have morals.

[Farnhamia]

From a moral standpoint, yes they do.

Unfortunately, Nukes don't have morals.

Kind of like land mines.

[Kemaliste]

I can understand your being sensitive about Azeri minorities in Iran. But you should suppress your emotional feelings and approach to this issue in a rationalist way. Iran is now being targeted by western imperialists, so it would be unlogical to serve the interests of them.

The best solution is to talk with Iran as a friend and ask for them to treat Azeris in a fair way there. But don't act in a way that would put you in the same side with western imperialists.

No, you are mistaken. The Azeri population of Iran generally wants nothing to do with Turkey or Azerbaijan. They have it good in Iran. The Azeri part of Iran is very industrialized so there are jobs. They are well intergrated in Iran. You could say they run many important parts of Iran. Read once that a poll was taken and the majority of the Azeris in Iran preferred Iran to Turkey or Azerbaijan. They have a better standard of living. Many also commented that they wanted nothing to do with the dictatorial corrupt government of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

News from last year concerning the Republic of Azerbaijan

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its member organization, the Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan condemn the increasing persecution of political opponents, demonstrators, their lawyers and independent journalists.

Source - http://www.fidh.org/Political-Repression-must-stop

The majority of Azeris in Iran are Shiite like in the Republic of Azerbaijan. While Turkey is majority Sunni.

This on the Azeris in Iran's so called South Azerbaijan.

Iran's Azeris have never felt like aliens in the country they have lived in for thousands of years. They are as proud of Iran's achievements and as distressed by its shortcomings as any other Iranians are. They have played and continue to play an active role in the country's development, politics, economy, and culture -- on a par with their Persian-speaking compatriots. The only difference they feel is language.

It is hard to find un-biased information on so called South Azerbaijan from non-Iranian independent sources. The information you do find seems to be biased and coming from Azerbaijan and Turkey.

What the hell are you talking about ? where did I say that Turkey or Azerbaijan should annex the Azeri-majority region of Iran ? I'm in the same side with Iran and the threat toward national entity and integration of Iranian lands is the last thing I would support.

[Socialist EU]

I don't think Iran should have the Nuke, but that doesn't justify a 'siege of war' on Iran, but that's rational nature of imperialism,(from the imperialists point of view) when the US as a hegemonic power is in decline.

And its not just Iran getting a nuke that has garnered the attention of the US state department. Apparently, Senator Tim Johnson(D),(Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee) reasons

"Unless Iranians “come clean on their nuclear program, end the suppression of their people and stop supporting terrorist activities, they will face deepening international isolation and even greater economic and diplomatic pressure,” Mr. Johnson said.[1]

Interesting, have they only just noticed that the Iranian Islamic regime suppresses their people,(most of which is against workers and labour activists campaigning against the regime implementation of neo-liberal policies) and supports terrorist activities? And the victims of these terrorist activities, for the most part, have been ordinary Iranians themselves. Curiously, the US says little about placing sanctions on Saudi Arabia for sponsoring terror and suppressing their people because they are key allies.

Notes
1.'Deal Struck to Tighten Sanctions Against Iran'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/world ... -iran.html

[Kalalification]

International Law is a joke. A total and complete joke. There are schools of IR that reject its legitimacy entirely (and its one of the more popular schools). Its called "realism" and I'm not just making that up or giving it that name to be a douche.

I am an IR neorealist. That doesn't mean that international law isn't extant, or that we shouldn't use it as a means to protect the national interest. I'll admit that the reason I'm concerned about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is that it negatively impacts my nation and my person, but that doesn't mean that Iran isn't violating international law.

So, actually, there are plenty of rational reasons why it could be argued that Iran should have a nuke. And they have been stated multiple times in this thread. You just going LOLOLOLOL INTERNATIONAL LAW! is not an acceptable refutation.

If you reject international law, then you reject international law. Whatever. But it doesn't mean that you get to ignore it, or that Iran gets to. As well, I'm confident that the majority of the world does support international law, and so your opinion is invalidated before we even get out of the gates.

[Socialist EU]

International Law is a joke. A total and complete joke. There are schools of IR that reject its legitimacy entirely (and its one of the more popular schools). Its called "realism" and I'm not just making that up or giving it that name to be a douche.

I am an IR neorealist. That doesn't mean that international law isn't extant, or that we shouldn't use it as a means to protect the national interest. I'll admit that the reason I'm concerned about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is that it negatively impacts my nation and my person, but that doesn't mean that Iran isn't violating international law.

So, actually, there are plenty of rational reasons why it could be argued that Iran should have a nuke. And they have been stated multiple times in this thread. You just going LOLOLOLOL INTERNATIONAL LAW! is not an acceptable refutation.

If you reject international law, then you reject international law. Whatever. But it doesn't mean that you get to ignore it, or that Iran gets to. As well, I'm confident that the majority of the world does support international law, and so your opinion is invalidated before we even get out of the gates.

Even if the Islamic regime announced they were no longer pursuing their nuclear programme, they would just think of another reason to place sanctions on Iran, already mentioned in my post above yours by the way.

In the end, both the Iranian regime and the US government sabre rattle and threaten in the hope that the working class of both countries forget their dire economic situation.

And as Labour MP John McDonell said, 'for a nuclear-weapons free Middle East.'

Also: Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn: "To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what delegation the UK plans to send to the Helsinki conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference on a nuclear-weapons free Middle East in December 2012." [116065]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 1w0001.htm

[Kalalification]

Even if the Islamic regime announced they were no longer pursuing their nuclear programme, they would just think of another reason to place sanctions on Iran, already mentioned in my post above yours by the way.

Iran will receive sanctions from the international community for pursuing its current agenda and maintaining its nuclear posture. If those two things change, ideally through democratic ousting of their leaders, then we will have no reason to impose sanctions on them. Now, actually, there might be some people on the Human Rights Commission that think otherwise, but that's a bit more global of a problem. I don't even see why you're arguing with me, since we both seem to agree that Iran should not acquire nuclear arms.

In the end, both the Iranian regime and the US government sabre rattle and threaten in the hope that the working class of both countries forget their dire economic situation.

Leave your Marxist nonsense out of this.

[Socialist EU]

Even if the Islamic regime announced they were no longer pursuing their nuclear programme, they would just think of another reason to place sanctions on Iran, already mentioned in my post above yours by the way.

Iran will receive sanctions from the international community for pursuing its current agenda and maintaining its nuclear posture. If those two things change, ideally through democratic ousting of their leaders, then we will have no reason to impose sanctions on them. Now, actually, there might be some people on the Human Rights Commission that think otherwise, but that's a bit more global of a problem. I don't even see why you're arguing with me, since we both seem to agree that Iran should not acquire nuclear arms.

In the end, both the Iranian regime and the US government sabre rattle and threaten in the hope that the working class of both countries forget their dire economic situation.

Leave your Marxist nonsense out of this.

Why? I see you do not support free speech, I'm sorry my "Marxist nonsense" causes you such hysterical discomfort. Sure, I don't think Iran should pursue nuclear weapons, but that doesn't justify punishing ordinary Iranians.

"I have also listened to a former head of Mossad, Efraim Halevy, who said that it is all about scaremongering and that there is no threat to the state of Israel as a result of this supposed escalation." - MP John McDonnell

And...

"We are already at war by proxy in undermining the potential for peace and change in Iran. The sanctions are a siege of Iran. Its currency is collapsing, imports of grain staples are drying up, and people are becoming impoverished. That is not undermining the regime but hardening support for it by giving it the excuse that an external enemy is causing the impoverishment and hunger. The covert military actions carried out by organisations and individuals whom we now know, as a result of exposés in Der Spiegel, were trained by Mossad, have prompted more terrorism around the world through Iran-sponsored attacks in India, Thailand and elsewhere. The cyber-war that was launched under Stuxnet, with the worm or bug that was put out to undermine Iran’s industrial complexes, has provoked even more retaliation, which has undermined some of the ability of Iran’s freedom movement to communicate with the outside world. I would welcome information on that extremely complicated cyber-attack. Did Israel sponsor it or its development? Was GCHQ alerted to it?"

- MP John McDonnell

http://www.johnmcdonnell.org.uk/search? ... -results=6

Is that really in both American's and Iranian's best interest? Nonsense? I think not!

[Corporate Councils]

Iran has been blaming America, Israel, and the West for its problems since 1979 regardless of the validity of its claims. I think the Iranian people are ready for their leadership to do something other than blaming the US. The US threatened sanctions against Iran for its continuation of its nuclear program and now it's fulfilling its threats.

The problem is that both sides know that their counterpart isn't going to back down. The US isn't going to stop the sanctions on Iran if Iran continues with its nuclear program, and Iran isn't going to stop their program at the risk of becoming another Libya. That leaves only a change of government, if sanctions help to speed up that process then so be it.

[Caninope]

Sure it does, just not with nuclear weapons.

Oh, I beg to differ. Put yourself in their situation. Say if your neighbor across the street had a grenade a constantly intimidated you, because of the specific beliefs you practice in your home. Wouldn't you like the right to be armed?

A common argument is the threat of nuclear fall out, but if the USA didn't mess with Iran in the first place than we wouldn't have this situation occurring. So believe what you will, but if the leaders of Iran are smart they'll arm themselves with a nuclear weapon.

Because the actions of sovereign states are totally comparable to said situation!

[Caninope]

They shouldn't have signed that Nuclear Proliferation Treaty then. Come on, it's in the first page.

Or they should do what you're telling them what they should do and cause a massive global shitstorm.

They should definitely do what I'm telling them to do! They should build the biggest nuke that they can then wave it in front of the UNs face. No country that is being bullied should stand down to any aggressor, America wouldn't do the same and Iran shouldn't either. If from a ethical standpoint if Iran doesn't stand up to itself and resist what's to stop the US from bullying her in the future? Think about it: What happens to a victim when he/she stand up to their tormentor the bully doesn't stop? The problem only gets worse because the bully believes he/she can get away with these things an other bullies might join in for the same reason. For this reason Iran needs to stand up and defend itself, if the founding fathers were observing this situation today I believe that they would agree with me.

Also, I personally don't see any risk to Iran having a bomb. North Korea is ideologically more dangerous than Iran, and they have a bomb that they never use, and Israel does too. These countries favor status quo, and using a nuke outside of defense would hurt that. That's why I place my stakes on them not doing it unless they're provoked into war.

This isn't some black and white playground bully thing.

The US isn't doing this to Iran just because the US is a bully- it goes a lot deeper than that.

[Qanchia]

They should definitely do what I'm telling them to do! They should build the biggest nuke that they can then wave it in front of the UNs face. No country that is being bullied should stand down to any aggressor, America wouldn't do the same and Iran shouldn't either. If from a ethical standpoint if Iran doesn't stand up to itself and resist what's to stop the US from bullying her in the future? Think about it: What happens to a victim when he/she stand up to their tormentor the bully doesn't stop? The problem only gets worse because the bully believes he/she can get away with these things an other bullies might join in for the same reason. For this reason Iran needs to stand up and defend itself, if the founding fathers were observing this situation today I believe that they would agree with me.

Also, I personally don't see any risk to Iran having a bomb. North Korea is ideologically more dangerous than Iran, and they have a bomb that they never use, and Israel does too. These countries favor status quo, and using a nuke outside of defense would hurt that. That's why I place my stakes on them not doing it unless they're provoked into war.

This isn't some black and white playground bully thing.

The US isn't doing this to Iran just because the US is a bully- it goes a lot deeper than that.

It does? Please, elaborate.

[Choronzon]

International Law is a joke. A total and complete joke. There are schools of IR that reject its legitimacy entirely (and its one of the more popular schools). Its called "realism" and I'm not just making that up or giving it that name to be a douche.

I am an IR neorealist. That doesn't mean that international law isn't extant, or that we shouldn't use it as a means to protect the national interest. I'll admit that the reason I'm concerned about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is that it negatively impacts my nation and my person, but that doesn't mean that Iran isn't violating international law.

So, actually, there are plenty of rational reasons why it could be argued that Iran should have a nuke. And they have been stated multiple times in this thread. You just going LOLOLOLOL INTERNATIONAL LAW! is not an acceptable refutation.

If you reject international law, then you reject international law. Whatever. But it doesn't mean that you get to ignore it, or that Iran gets to. As well, I'm confident that the majority of the world does support international law, and so your opinion is invalidated before we even get out of the gates.

Where will your international law be when Iran does get the bomb?

[Ralkovia]

They should definitely do what I'm telling them to do! They should build the biggest nuke that they can then wave it in front of the UNs face. No country that is being bullied should stand down to any aggressor, America wouldn't do the same and Iran shouldn't either. If from a ethical standpoint if Iran doesn't stand up to itself and resist what's to stop the US from bullying her in the future? Think about it: What happens to a victim when he/she stand up to their tormentor the bully doesn't stop? The problem only gets worse because the bully believes he/she can get away with these things an other bullies might join in for the same reason. For this reason Iran needs to stand up and defend itself, if the founding fathers were observing this situation today I believe that they would agree with me.

Also, I personally don't see any risk to Iran having a bomb. North Korea is ideologically more dangerous than Iran, and they have a bomb that they never use, and Israel does too. These countries favor status quo, and using a nuke outside of defense would hurt that. That's why I place my stakes on them not doing it unless they're provoked into war.

This isn't some black and white playground bully thing.

The US isn't doing this to Iran just because the US is a bully- it goes a lot deeper than that.

The fact that you can call America's Geopolitics 'bullying' shows that you probably don't understand the way the World works. The situation on an individual level is incomparable. America's vested interest is in itself and its allies. Not in being nice to someone who threatens our interests. It's not Iran here. You have the West, arguably making the World a better place through advances in every little niche of technology(I include Japan and South Korea in this little example, since both operate on western principles and philosophy.) Vs. The East(which is evil not because it's a bunch of foreigners, but because it challenges western interests.)

However, for Yandere, since I'm sure thinking of it on an individual level is much easier to wrap your head around. Every nation is a parent. It's citizen's its children. America is the CEO for the company which a whole bunch of other parents work for. Iran works for a rival corporation. If Iran's company wins, then America's company loses. All those parents who work for the CEO suffer. In term millions of people suffer. There is no fairness in international politics. It's cut throat. Limited number of resources for a growing number of people.

Lastly, Israel is part of western interests. North Korea, being a client state of China, is pretty much untouchable. Iran isn't. Therefore we act where we must.

[Caninope]

This isn't some black and white playground bully thing.

The US isn't doing this to Iran just because the US is a bully- it goes a lot deeper than that.

It does? Please, elaborate.

To begin, the US is acting as a rational self actor, unlike most bullies. Then there's the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would be against international law. There's the potential issue of it creating instability and/or an arms race in the Middle East.

In short, the US is acting in most people's best interests (perhaps even including Iran itself) by acting to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

[Caninope]

This isn't some black and white playground bully thing.

The US isn't doing this to Iran just because the US is a bully- it goes a lot deeper than that.

The fact that you can call America's Geopolitics 'bullying' shows that you probably don't understand the way the World works. The situation on an individual level is incomparable. America's vested interest is in itself and its allies. Not in being nice to someone who threatens our interests. It's not Iran here. You have the West, arguably making the World a better place through advances in every little niche of technology(I include Japan and South Korea in this little example, since both operate on western principles and philosophy.) Vs. The East(which is evil not because it's a bunch of foreigners, but because it challenges western interests.)

However, for Yandere, since I'm sure thinking of it on an individual level is much easier to wrap your head around. Every nation is a parent. It's citizen's its children. America is the CEO for the company which a whole bunch of other parents work for. Iran works for a rival corporation. If Iran's company wins, then America's company loses. All those parents who work for the CEO suffer. In term millions of people suffer. There is no fairness in international politics. It's cut throat. Limited number of resources for a growing number of people.

Lastly, Israel is part of western interests. North Korea, being a client state of China, is pretty much untouchable. Iran isn't. Therefore we act where we must.

Please edit your post to reflect that I don't hold that position, but Yandere does. You quoted me, not him.

[Caninope]

I am an IR neorealist. That doesn't mean that international law isn't extant, or that we shouldn't use it as a means to protect the national interest. I'll admit that the reason I'm concerned about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is that it negatively impacts my nation and my person, but that doesn't mean that Iran isn't violating international law.If you reject international law, then you reject international law. Whatever. But it doesn't mean that you get to ignore it, or that Iran gets to. As well, I'm confident that the majority of the world does support international law, and so your opinion is invalidated before we even get out of the gates.

Where will your international law be when Iran does get the bomb?

It will be in a smart bomb in a fighter, probably Israeli or American, in American airspace before Iran gets the bomb.

[Qanchia]

It does? Please, elaborate.

To begin, the US is acting as a rational self actor, unlike most bullies. Then there's the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would be against international law. There's the potential issue of it creating instability and/or an arms race in the Middle East.

In short, the US is acting in most people's best interests (perhaps even including Iran itself) by acting to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

If Iran withdraws from the NPT, then the issue of international law would disappear. A nuclear Iran would increase stability in the Middle East by discouraging wars, similar to how nuclear weapons prevented war between America and the Soviet Union. More repressive (North Korea) and unstable (Pakistan) regimes have gained nuclear weapons, and instability in those regions has stayed very low.