The Hitler-Like Basis of the Iranian Regime's Ideology

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
My interpretation of Ahmadinejad's wish for Israel to disappear is that he wants the regime to disappear, in the same way as USSR, the shah or Iran fell. And "allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself."

I will be quoting his speech at Columbia.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/202820.php

[ QUOTE ]
What we say is that to solve the 60-year problem we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. Whatever they choose as a nation everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.
We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

As for nuclear weapons, he has always claimed that he only wants civil nuclear power.

[ QUOTE ]

Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity.
I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them -- politically they are backward, retarded.


[/ QUOTE ]


Also Iran is a signatory of the non proliferation treaty and hasn't violated it.

[ QUOTE ]
(wikipedia) The treaty is sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should let Iran build peaceful nuclear technology, while finding a way to watch over their activities.
Otherwise, why are we letting Egypt build a nuclear plant, why is France going to build a plant in Libya?

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure do seem to be giving a regime which believes in hanging gays for being gay, and in hanging teenage girls for promiscuity, a lot of the benefit of the doubt. Hamas and Hezbollah appear even more bluntly to believe in genocide, and Iran is their sponsor and ally.

A lot of people gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt for quite some time, too - until he grew powerful enough to prove them wrong.

I don't understand giving evil people or evil regimes the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean I think Iran should be bombed (I'm not at all sure what should be done) but I do think it is a pure "sucker" move to give the mullahs the benefit of the doubt. Neville Chamberlain was a sucker, and so in my opinion too are those who think Iran isn't going to be building nuclear weapons.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't entirely, but I'd trust the USA, England, France, Australia a whole lot more than I'd trust Iran. How about you, would you trust all states equally with nukes?

[/ QUOTE ]

well going by who has used them, its 1-0 US vs. rest of world.

and US is only country to threaten to nuke in the immediate future (US openly plans to nuke iran, according to numerous people like seymour hersh.)

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't entirely, but I'd trust the USA, England, France, Australia a whole lot more than I'd trust Iran. How about you, would you trust all states equally with nukes?

[/ QUOTE ]

well going by who has used them, its 1-0 US vs. rest of world.

and US is only country to threaten to nuke in the immediate future (US openly plans to nuke iran, according to numerous people like seymour hersh.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The nuking of Japan in WWII involved a major war already in progress and debatably it may have saved many lives (let's not debate that here in this thread; it has been debated extensively already on this forum). Conventional bombings had caused more deaths. A country using nukes is not necessarily the same as a country using nukes irresponsibly or in pure aggression or in trying to commit genocide. Hitler didn't use nukes but what he did was a lot worse, right?

So you apparently don't care about what a regime believes; that has no impact at all on whether that regime should have nukes??? Is that your viewpoint, that ideology doesn't matter?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

So you apparently don't care about what a regime believes; that has no impact at all on whether that regime should have nukes??? Is that your viewpoint, that ideology doesn't matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

as far as I'm aware, the only country that has used them is US, and the only country to seriously threaten to use them is the US ("tactical" nukes vs. iran in a massive aerial assault which would cripple iranian military at the very least).

so in my opinion that's the main answer to the question of, which countries which you trust with nukes.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you apparently don't care about what a regime believes; that has no impact at all on whether that regime should have nukes??? Is that your viewpoint, that ideology doesn't matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

as far as I'm aware, the only country that has used them is US, and the only country to seriously threaten to use them is the US ("tactical" nukes vs. iran in a massive aerial assault which would cripple iranian military at the very least).

so in my opinion that's the main answer to the question of, which countries which you trust with nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think the use of nuclear weapons is the only determining factor in whether they were used responsibly (or threatened to be used). In other words, your position is that any use or threatened use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances = irresponsible?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
So you think the use of nuclear weapons is the only determining factor in whether they were used responsibly (or threatened to be used). In other words, your position is that any use or threatened use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances = irresponsible?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's implied in your question; which countries can be trusted to have nukes *and not to use them*.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think the use of nuclear weapons is the only determining factor in whether they were used responsibly (or threatened to be used). In other words, your position is that any use or threatened use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances = irresponsible?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's implied in your question; which countries can be trusted to have nukes *and not to use them*.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a question I asked.

What matters is which countries could be more trusted to have nukes; you added the "and not to use them" part all by yourself.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not a question I asked.

What matters is which countries could be more trusted to have nukes; you added the "and not to use them" part all by yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

but isn't that the point. I mean country A has nukes and is trusted to have nukes because it is a peaceful country.
country B cannot be trusted to have nukes because it is felt B will use them and cause destruction.

that's really the only criterion; it seems like you're arguing that iran can't be trusted because iran will use nukes.
All I'm saying is that to get away from opinion and look at historical facts and also some current event stuff(tactical nuke iran by US), the US is far and away the least trustworthy country today.


I mean, if trusting a country to have nukes doesn't mean having nukes but not using them, what else could it possibly mean? (using them in self defense *after* being attacked could still qualify as trusted not to use them I guess.)

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, if trusting a country to have nukes doesn't mean having nukes but not using them, what else could it possibly mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

It could mean being unlikely to use them irresponsibly, or not using them to further an evil ideology.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
It could mean being unlikely to use them irresponsibly, or not using them to further an evil ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

too vague, stuff like that is meaningless.