Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    22 Jul '15 22:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    There's a solution a little less dramatic than that, Bill: It's maintaining or even stepping up the sanctions unless and until Iran stops it's nuclear program entirely, or at least until you get better terms than this agreement (which allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium and sunsets a lot of the inspection provisions).

    It's possible that Iran was going ...[text shortened]... hance of stopping or seriously delaying the Iranian nuke program. Hopefully the Mossad is on it.
    The US has a long history of using sanctions to impose terrible harm on the populations of countries failing to comply with their demands. Quite why Americans imagine they have the right to impose their will in this fashion is beyond me. It is not a peaceful approach to international disputes. It is destructive and unprincipled. A common US pattern is to starve a country of trade for many years, then point to the political, social and economic failings of the country they have damaged as evidence that they were right all along.
  2. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    23 Jul '15 00:14
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The US has a long history of using sanctions to impose terrible harm on the populations of countries failing to comply with their demands. Quite why Americans imagine they have the right to impose their will in this fashion is beyond me. It is not a peaceful approach to international disputes. It is destructive and unprincipled. A common US pattern is to ...[text shortened]... d economic failings of the country they have damaged as evidence that they were right all along.
    I'm sure you don't care whether Iran gets a nuke or not.

    But let's say for a moment that one did. What would you suggest be done about Iran's nuclear program?
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Jul '15 00:373 edits
    Originally posted by sh76 to Finnegan
    I'm sure you don't care whether Iran gets a nuke or not.
    But let's say for a moment that one did. What would you suggest be done about Iran's nuclear program?
    Why do you (Sh76) believe, if you do, that Iran potentially having a nuclear weapon should
    be considered more dangerous than the DPRK (North Korea) actually having a nuclear weapon?
    One suggestion would be to make the entire Middle East (including Israel) free of nuclear weapons.

    According to Edgar O'Ballance in his history of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Moshe Dayan
    (in a premature breakdown of confidence) concluded that Israel was losing the war,
    dramatically declaring 'This is the end of the third temple!' He asked for and received
    Prime Minister Golda Meir's permission to activate Israel's nuclear arsenal. If the IDF
    (then in retreat) could not stabilize the fronts within 48 hours, then Israel would begin
    to set its sights upon Arab targets (presumably including Cairo and Damascus) to nuke.
    The IDF was able to hold the fronts, and so Israel's nuclear arsenal was not deployed.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10118
    23 Jul '15 01:51
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Why do you (Sh76) believe, if you do, that Iran potentially having a nuclear weapon should
    be considered more dangerous than the DPRK (North Korea) actually having a nuclear weapon?
    One suggestion would be to make the entire Middle East (including Israel) free of nuclear weapons.

    According to Edgar O'Ballance in his history of the 1973 Arab-Israeli Wa ...[text shortened]... to nuke.
    The IDF was able to hold the fronts, and so Israel's nuclear arsenal was not deployed.
    For starters it will start an arms race in the Middle East.

    I thought left wingers were all about disarmament, or is it just arm Iran with nukes but take guns away from its citizens?
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Jul '15 01:571 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    For starters it will start an arms race in the Middle East.
    I thought left wingers were all about disarmament, or is it just arm Iran with nukes but take guns away from its citizens?
    Whodey has shown more abysmal 'reading comprehension' or abysmal 'reasoning'.

    The proposition would be that no country in the Middle East, including Iran and Israel,
    would have nuclear weapons. In that case, no government in the Middle East would
    be confronted with the sudden temptation of using nuclear weapons in any crisis.
    Israel already has the most powerful non-nuclear military in the Middle East.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10118
    23 Jul '15 02:03
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Whodey has shown more abysmal 'reading comprehension' or abysmal 'reasoning'.

    The proposition would be that no country in the Middle East, including Iran and Israel,
    would have nuclear weapons. In that case, no government in the Middle East would
    be confronted with the sudden temptation of using nuclear weapons in any crisis.
    Israel already has the most powerful non-nuclear military in the Middle East.
    If anyone thinks this will stop Iran from obtaining a nuke they are a fool.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    23 Jul '15 02:19
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Why do you (Sh76) believe, if you do, that Iran potentially having a nuclear weapon should
    be considered more dangerous than the DPRK (North Korea) actually having a nuclear weapon?
    One suggestion would be to make the entire Middle East (including Israel) free of nuclear weapons.

    According to Edgar O'Ballance in his history of the 1973 Arab-Israeli Wa ...[text shortened]... to nuke.
    The IDF was able to hold the fronts, and so Israel's nuclear arsenal was not deployed.
    For one thing North Korea is not in the Middle East and their leader does not seem to be interested in conquering the world for a crazy Satanic religious idea.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    23 Jul '15 02:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    If anyone thinks this will stop Iran from obtaining a nuke they are a fool.
    I passed that test. 😏
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    23 Jul '15 02:261 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The US has a long history of using sanctions to impose terrible harm on the populations of countries failing to comply with their demands. Quite why Americans imagine they have the right to impose their will in this fashion is beyond me. It is not a peaceful approach to international disputes. It is destructive and unprincipled. A common US pattern is to ...[text shortened]... d economic failings of the country they have damaged as evidence that they were right all along.
    The Western democracies have designated the USA as the world's policeman. Many people in the USA would like to pass that job to another. However, there has been none that have risen to the challenge to accept that responsibility. It appears the USA is stuck with it, at least, for the time being.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117859/allure-normalcy-what-america-still-owes-world
  10. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    23 Jul '15 08:27
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The Western democracies have designated the USA as the world's policeman. Many people in the USA would like to pass that job to another. However, there has been none that have risen to the challenge to accept that responsibility. It appears the USA is stuck with it, at least, for the time being.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117859/allure-normalcy-what-america-still-owes-world
    No the Western democracies and others appointed the United Nations to be the World's law giver and its member states collectively to be the World's police.

    You cannot have the concept of police without the concept of international law, which you and other Americans persistently reject and certainly the USA declines to be subject to it.

    The US appoints itself to serve its own selfish interests in an imperialistic expansion of its undemocratic powers. If you think the largest military industrial complex in the world is an example of democracy at work then you are (deliberately) deluded. Neither is the American dominated IMF programme of destroying social investment and promoting corporate interests. Neither is the current round of free trade agreements, opening up democratic governments to corporate greed.

    Not everything America does is bad and much is good but it remains selfish and the claim to be a disinterested global philanthropist is spurious.
  11. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    23 Jul '15 08:36
    Originally posted by whodey
    For starters it will start an arms race in the Middle East.

    I thought left wingers were all about disarmament, or is it just arm Iran with nukes but take guns away from its citizens?
    There is already an arms race in the Middle East and America (like the UK) directly funds much of it or enjoys the benefit of massive corporate earnings on the sale of the latest hardware to curious, anti democratic allies. Protection of nuclear powered Israel is a huge factor destabilizing the region. Pakistan is a not very responsible nuclear proliferator and fits the label of curious ally.

    With Russian and Western (but not Chinese it seems) intrusion a continuing threat, and the US and UK having already invaded and destroyed neighbouring Iraq while imposing sanctions for many years against Iran, why would Iran not feel the need to protect itself? If you wish to reduce the level of threat to others, reducing the level of threat to Iran would help.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    23 Jul '15 11:132 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    No the Western democracies and others appointed the United Nations to be the World's law giver and its member states collectively to be the World's police.

    You cannot have the concept of police without the concept of international law, which you and other Americans persistently reject and certainly the USA declines to be subject to it.

    The US appoin ...[text shortened]... od but it remains selfish and the claim to be a disinterested global philanthropist is spurious.
    To correct your abysmal knowledge, it was the USA that started the UN idea.
    During the Second World War, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated talks on a successor agency to the League of Nations, and the United Nations Charter was drafted at a conference in April–June 1945; this charter took effect 24 October 1945, and the UN began operation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

    You must also not forget the importance of NATO to the western nations in keeping the peace. I do not see how any reasonably knowledgeable person would not believe the USA has been chosen to be the leader of the western nations in keeping the peace.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    23 Jul '15 11:453 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    There is already an arms race in the Middle East and America (like the UK) directly funds much of it or enjoys the benefit of massive corporate earnings on the sale of the latest hardware to curious, anti democratic allies. Protection of nuclear powered Israel is a huge factor destabilizing the region. Pakistan is a not very responsible nuclear proliferator ...[text shortened]... wish to reduce the level of threat to others, reducing the level of threat to Iran would help.
    There is no evidence that Israel has Nuclear Weapons as far as I know. I have heard the rumors, but I believe that is all it is. How is it possible that little Israel could have gotten Nuclear weapons? Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons.
    Israel has no nuclear power plants. However, in January 2007, Israeli Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said his country should consider producing nuclear power for civilian purposes.

    As a result of the nuclear emergencies at Japan's Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on March 17, 2011, "I don't think we're going to pursue civil nuclear energy in the coming years."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Israel

    I believe Israel is just being coy about dispelling the rumors of having nuclear weapons in the hope that their enemies will be afraid to conduct a full scale attack against them.
  14. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    23 Jul '15 18:03
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Why do you (Sh76) believe, if you do, that Iran potentially having a nuclear weapon should
    be considered more dangerous than the DPRK (North Korea) actually having a nuclear weapon?
    One suggestion would be to make the entire Middle East (including Israel) free of nuclear weapons.

    According to Edgar O'Ballance in his history of the 1973 Arab-Israeli Wa ...[text shortened]... to nuke.
    The IDF was able to hold the fronts, and so Israel's nuclear arsenal was not deployed.
    ===Why do you (Sh76) believe, if you do, that Iran potentially having a nuclear weapon should be considered more dangerous than the DPRK (North Korea) actually having a nuclear weapon?===

    Not necessarily. Both are dangerous. We tried to prevent NK from getting a bomb (albeit not very hard). It didn't work. Now we have to deal with NK as a nuclear power. Unfortunate. I hope the same does not happen with Iran (though I think it will).

    ===One suggestion would be to make the entire Middle East (including Israel) free of nuclear weapons.===

    A better suggestion would be to make the entire world free of nuclear weapons. That would be amazing. But barring that, Israel is not going to give up its nukes. As long as someone has nukes, the threat that a rogue state or terrorist organization could get their hands on nukes is a real concern. For example, even if. say, Iran agreed to give up its nuc program in exchange for Israel doing so, that wouldn't solve the potential problem of rogue terrorist groups operating in Pakistan or a former Soviet republic potentially getting their hands on a nuke.
  15. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    23 Jul '15 18:04
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There is no evidence that Israel has Nuclear Weapons as far as I know. I have heard the rumors, but I believe that is all it is. How is it possible that little Israel could have gotten Nuclear weapons? Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons.
    [quote]Israel has no nuclear power plants. However, in January 2007, Israeli Infrastructure ...[text shortened]... apons in the hope that their enemies will be afraid to conduct a full scale attack against them.
    Israel almost certainly does have nuclear weapons. But if by some chance they really don't, then their policy of nuclear ambiguity is truly genius.
Back to Top