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

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only meaningless if you aren't capable of good judgment.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
How is Iran any different from the U.S.? All states will inherently move towards evil because they exist solely to coerce. Why would you trust ANY state with Nukes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know for sure if this is solely a gimmick account, but if it isn't rest assured I am VERY dissapointed

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trusted should be only those countries which would use them in self-defense in case of heavy attack from outside. Please take a bird's perspective: if Iran would have 5 nukes today - who you think would use them first in attack over another country: USA or Iran? I wouldn't bet on Iran here.

Another question. Iran's president is making silly comments and threatening Israel. That's wrong and you're saying it should be nuked because of that. At the same time the other country is using similar language and is threatening Iran with nukes and that is ok? It's about the same question - who could be more trusted to not attack the other sovereign country?

next thing - how many countries did Iran attacked in the last century? and how many countries did other 'responsible or democratic' countries with nukes attacked in the last century?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Trusted should be only those countries which would use them in self-defense in case of heavy attack from outside. Please take a bird's perspective: if Iran would have 5 nukes today - who you think would use them first in attack over another country: USA or Iran? I wouldn't bet on Iran here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd bet on Iran. If the USA (or Israel) were to engage in direct conventional warfare with Iran, I'd bet Iran would be more likely to use a nuke on Israel. Let's specify a major difference between nuking cities with a nuke to kill many people, or merely using a tactical bunker-busting bomb with a small nuke charge in order to get through many tens of feet of hardened reinforced concrete in military installation. Huge difference. I'd think Iran would be more likely than the USA to nuke a city to kill hundreds of thousands or millions.

[ QUOTE ]
Another question. Iran's president is making silly comments and threatening Israel. That's wrong and you're saying it should be nuked because of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying anything of the sort. Don't know how you even got that idea but I'm definitely not. I'm not even fully convinced that there should be airstrikes on Iran's military/nuke research facilities. I just think that Iran can't be allowed to gain nukes.

[ QUOTE ]
At the same time the other country is using similar language and is threatening Iran with nukes and that is ok? It's about the same question - who could be more trusted to not attack the other sovereign country?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I view as being the key question. IF there could be a surgical strike on nuke facilities (a huge IF, I grant you) that would constitute an attack but not a greatly evil act. If, on the other hand, Iran were to nuke Israel in a first attack, striking for instance Tel Aviv with a bomb designed to kill everyone in the city, that would be a monumentally evil act.

[ QUOTE ]
next thing - how many countries did Iran attacked in the last century? and how many countries did other 'responsible or democratic' countries with nukes attacked in the last century?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the answer to that question does not ascertain the morality of it, because it is so highly debatable as to whetgher the USA acted wisely and morally, or needlessly and immorally, in nuking Japan during WWII. Many arguments have been presented on both sides: did it save millions of lives, or not? Was Japan about to stop resisting anyway, or not? It's been debated to death already so let's not try to determine those things here and now in this thread. Also, a major war was already in progress and Japan was the initial aggressor. So I don't think your question provides a useful basis for judging which countries might use nukes responsibly or irresponsibly, moraly or immorally.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is Iran any different from the U.S.? All states will inherently move towards evil because they exist solely to coerce. Why would you trust ANY state with Nukes?

[/ 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 ]

Who do you think Iran trusts more with a nuke? Us or them? So what makes you (or us) the sole qualifier of who can have nukes and who cant?

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Trusted should be only those countries which would use them in self-defense in case of heavy attack from outside. Please take a bird's perspective: if Iran would have 5 nukes today - who you think would use them first in attack over another country: USA or Iran? I wouldn't bet on Iran here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd bet on Iran. If the USA (or Israel) were to engage in direct conventional warfare with Iran, I'd bet Iran would be more likely to use a nuke on Israel. Let's specify a major difference between nuking cities with a nuke to kill many people, or merely using a tactical bunker-busting bomb with a small nuke charge in order to get through many tens of feet of hardened reinforced concrete in military installation. Huge difference. I'd think Iran would be more likely than the USA to nuke a city to kill hundreds of thousands or millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

My answer was on your specific question - i say only those who would use them as a defense weapon. Any country using them otherwise should not have it.

I don't know why, but you have changed the situation here into armed conflict. In that case i'd always say a defender has a right to use nukes (as i say as defensive weapon). If they'd be attacked it is their right to protect their land against aggressor, right? Wouldn't Israel have a right to use all its weapons in case of attack? Should USA leave its nukes behind if attacked from outside?
I won't even make a comment about your how one site would be using nukes in a humanitarian way and the other wouldn't. We're talking about nukes here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another question. Iran's president is making silly comments and threatening Israel. That's wrong and you're saying it should be nuked because of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying anything of the sort. Don't know how you even got that idea but I'm definitely not. I'm not even fully convinced that there should be airstrikes on Iran's military/nuke research facilities. I just think that Iran can't be allowed to gain nukes.

[ QUOTE ]
At the same time the other country is using similar language and is threatening Iran with nukes and that is ok? It's about the same question - who could be more trusted to not attack the other sovereign country?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I view as being the key question. IF there could be a surgical strike on nuke facilities (a huge IF, I grant you) that would constitute an attack but not a greatly evil act. If, on the other hand, Iran were to nuke Israel in a first attack, striking for instance Tel Aviv with a bomb designed to kill everyone in the city, that would be a monumentally evil act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why talking about surgical operations? Iraq used to be one as well and many people still see it that way no matter it caused over one million dead. There's nothing surgical in wars and that's never a goal. Also i'd never accept that attacking other country without being attacked first is not evil. What's evil then? It sounds like breaking into someone's house and attacking or murdering him and his family should be acceptable sometimes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
next thing - how many countries did Iran attacked in the last century? and how many countries did other 'responsible or democratic' countries with nukes attacked in the last century?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the answer to that question does not ascertain the morality of it, because it is so highly debatable as to whetgher the USA acted wisely and morally, or needlessly and immorally, in nuking Japan during WWII. Many arguments have been presented on both sides: did it save millions of lives, or not? Was Japan about to stop resisting anyway, or not? It's been debated to death already so let's not try to determine those things here and now in this thread. Also, a major war was already in progress and Japan was the initial aggressor. So I don't think your question provides a useful basis for judging which countries might use nukes responsibly or irresponsibly, moraly or immorally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean nuking Japan here. What i meant is how many countries did Iran attack since WWII and how many countries did USA attack since WWII (or other countries that have nukes)?

I don't mean Iran should have nukes, but that we should be objective. Thx for your reply. (check it here too)

[Scary_Tiger]

Why does the US have to stop the Jews from getting genocided? We've already hooked up the Israelis with lots of nukes, why can't we just cut ties and let them sort it out.

(Obviously Jewish-Americans are the responsibility of the US but I don't get why we concern ourselves with these others.)

[ QUOTE ]
I'd think Iran would be more likely than the USA to nuke a city to kill hundreds of thousands or millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf dude. There actually is a precedent here. The USA has done this.

[nicky g]

Ahmedinejad is a nut. I agree with you that it would be muc better for the Iranian regime not to have nuclear weapons. But if the regime's intention is really the Nazi-like genocide of Jews, why hasn't it killed its own small Jewish population? Or anything remotely approximating that? (Please don't respond with examples of mistreatment of Jews in Iran. I am well aware of them. But nonetheless Iran is not anything like Nazi Germany for its Jewish population).

Silly arguments like this just push people into over-sympathising with the likes of AJad. Also conflating the likes of Salafai zealots and Khomeni-ists is just ignorant.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
...But if the regime's intention is really the Nazi-like genocide of Jews, why hasn't it killed its own small Jewish population? ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps fearing a reprisal from Israel that's not that far away (a country that has nukes too).

IMO you offer a silly rationale for downplaying the danager of a Nazi-like genocide btw.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
How is Iran any different from the U.S.? All states will inherently move towards evil because they exist solely to coerce. Why would you trust ANY state with Nukes?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idiotic liberal moral equivalency BS rears it's ugly head again. Here's a clue for you, there's a great deal of difference between the Iranian government and the U.S. government.