Turn on thread page Beta

Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    "If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, then they will be one of the most dangerous nations on earth, along with North Korea." - And yet, America are the most threatening, and they invade other nations, and they were the first to use nuclear weapons on other nations....

    "First off, Iran is ruled by a bunch of fanatic muslims. To give you an idea, if women there wear their veils a little to high, or their veils are considered too short, they go to prison for two weeks." - How does that aid your argument in justifying the death of thousands of people? Since when did these fanatics attack America?

    Ironically, for those who aren't aware of this, it was due to America that the Iranian government was screwed up and these dictators were allowed to fu*k up the country and have rule; when Shaa was in power, Iran was an excellent country.

    So Bookworm, while you support the US despite your terrible arguments, remember that it's due to the USA that these dictators were allowed to rule.
    That's true. I don't condone what the USA have done. All I'm saying is, we can't have Iran let nuclear weapons.

    The Shah was a dictator himself, supported by the United States. Iran was probably slightly better off under his rule, but it certainly was not a good thing either. Unfortunately, the country kicked out one dictator just to get another one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    And yet, America are the most threatening, and they invade other nations, and they were the first to use nuclear weapons on other nations...
    I agree, but what is behind all this? (this is what i was trying to ask earlier) why are America always planning to invade countries? where is the justification?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    That is certainly a very good summary for reasoning to go there. The only problem that I have with action in Iran is that at the moment the whole of middle east is very instable and very sensitve to political change with particulary with US action in that country and I am trying to avoid mentioning. Hence inconcieved action could generate a new generation of jihad fighters who feel the west is just interfering to for personnal gain.
    Good point, that's true, but we already have those Jihad fighters. And Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will not help stability at all. No way. In fact, it would be the worst time for them to get them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    "If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, then they will be one of the most dangerous nations on earth, along with North Korea." - And yet, America are the most threatening, and they invade other nations,
    the US spreads ideals that are of greater moral value tho
    (Original post by Invisible)
    and they were the first to use nuclear weapons on other nations....
    irrelevant or would you of liked the japanese to have ravaged australia?
    (Original post by Invisible)
    "First off, Iran is ruled by a bunch of fanatic muslims. To give you an idea, if women there wear their veils a little to high, or their veils are considered too short, they go to prison for two weeks." - How does that aid your argument in justifying the death of thousands of people? Since when did these fanatics attack America?
    so you think that allowing people to go without basic human rights is good then?
    (Original post by Invisible)
    Ironically, for those who aren't aware of this, it was due to America that the Iranian government was screwed up and these dictators were allowed to fu*k up the country and have rule; when Shaa was in power, Iran was an excellent country.

    So Bookworm, while you support the US, remember that it's due to the USA that these dictators were allowed to rule.
    maybe but i would prefer what we have now to communism in the middle east
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    the US spreads ideals that are of greater moral value tho
    irrelevant or would you of liked the japanese to have ravaged australia?so you think that allowing people to go without basic human rights is good then?
    maybe but i would prefer what we have now to communism in the middle east
    "the US spreads ideals that are of greater moral value tho": depends what exactly you mean, but certainly democracy is better than a theocracy.

    "maybe but i would prefer what we have now to communism in the middle east": What do you mean by that? :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    "the US spreads ideals that are of greater moral value tho": depends what exactly you mean, but certainly democracy is better than a theocracy.
    democracy is a better system for countries than dictatorships, if the USA could impliment it without causing the resentment that led to 9/11 and do it in a just way i would have no problem with them interfering
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    "maybe but i would prefer what we have now to communism in the middle east": What do you mean by that? :confused:
    the USA helped the shar (sp?) in Iran in the late 70's due to the fact it did want it falling into communsim hands or am i mistaken? prehaps bono knows
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    I see your point. China fu*ks up Tibet and America does nothing.
    I would visit Tibet if it wasn't for China.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I would visit Tibet if it wasn't for China.
    Same here.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Same here.
    I wonder why this is why people rant on the revival of the British Empire. Even Scottish users on this site have!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    If a sovereign nation can claim a right to produce nuclear weapons, then surely other nations can claim their right to self-defence if they have a good reason to feel threatened by the country acquiring those weapons, or rather, the technology to build them.
    Logically, there is no validity to nuclear arms proliferation when citing 'self-defence' as, in the case of a 'strike' those weapons would be pointing at empty silos!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nik P)
    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_wh/us_iran_4

    "We cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon. The international community has got to find a way to come together and to make certain that that does not happen." Rice

    Rice should be fired... she is a liability and a liar... not to mention a *****...
    I think that it is not the buisness of America to decide who can and cannot have nuclear wepons. They have them and are not going to disarm so why should the stop other countries from doing the same.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I think that it is not the buisness of America to decide who can and cannot have nuclear wepons. They have them and are not going to disarm so why should the stop other countries from doing the same.
    because they want to live and they protect us. easy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    because they want to live and they protect us. easy.
    I'm surprised you weren't here earlier
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    "the US spreads ideals that are of greater moral value tho" - Like what? That's it's fine to kill 10, 000 people if others are stupid enough to go along with it?
    freedom, democracy for a start.

    " irrelevant or would you of liked the japanese to have ravaged australia?" - Hows it irrelevant? It shows the USA have used nuclear weapons, so they are a threat. Back up your points properly, of why it is irrelevant. It isn't.
    its irrelevent because its a double edged moral sword.

    "so you think that allowing people to go without basic human rights is good then?" - Currently in Iraq, people are economically worser off due to the devastation of the Iraq war.
    absolute rubbish. they can actually trade freely for christs sake, how is that a worse economic position? Iraq actually has the makings of a viable economy and the Iraqi people will finally see the benefits of their country's greatest export.

    Damaged farmland, lost homes, dead families, depression, mass murders, lack of food etc. All this either caused/worsened due to the Iraq war. Open your eyes, instead of listening to ******** propoganda to your convenience.
    damaged farmland in iraq? mass murders didnt occur under Saddam or by Saddam?
    how about unemployment at half pre-war, health spending 30 times under Saddam, the most liberal, multiethnic and morderate piece of governing legislation in the Middle East? aswell as 90%+ of Iraq's local councils being democratically elected. these are the real points pertinent to basic human rights.

    "maybe but i would prefer what we have now to communism in the middle east" - That is an irrelevant statement.
    irrelevant to what?

    [b]hehe, "I would prefer" - What on earth has it got to do with what we want?
    i think "prefer" was the term used.

    See, that's evidence of western greedy attitudes.
    no thats an active imagination when provided with someone elses opinion.

    "I want this", "I want that". Yes, you want everything how it suits you, you don't give a flying fu*k about the thousands that die due to selfish US *****,
    and 20+ active coalition partners btw.

    so it "suits you". You've pretty much represented the selfish,
    what is America gaining from this war other than their own security?

    ruthless,
    i never thought the US military was THAT good, but it is a conflict situation. "Back up your points properly"

    capitalist
    what is capitalist relevant to? and why is it in a sentence between murderous and ruthless?

    murderous
    show me the murder. "Back up your points properly"

    (Original post by vienna95)
    because they want to live and they protect us. easy.
    So so very naive. You’re exactly the type Neocon wants us all to become.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I'm surprised you weren't here earlier
    i think people can broadly estimate my opinion by now.the thread started poorly and went down hill from there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Biggles)
    So so very naive. You’re exactly the type Neocon wants us all to become.
    who is Neocon?

    (Original post by vienna95)
    who is Neocon?
    For one who seems to know so much about US politics I'm rather suprised at your question.

    Neocon, or the neoconservatives, are the dominant group within the Republican Party (just as New Labour dominate Labour) - there was a very good program on Newsnight a few weeks ago about the Neocon.

    Apparently (according to Newsnight) most of the big neocon guns are Jewish...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Biggles)
    For one who seems to know so much about US politics
    thanks.

    "You’re exactly the type Neocon wants us all to become"

    this reads rather poorly then.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    thanks.

    "You’re exactly the type Neocon wants us all to become"

    this reads rather poorly then.
    Naturally the Neocon wants you to be ignorant of your master - visible bonds can be smashed; invisible bonds cant even be detected.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.