Should Iran Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons?

[Churchill]

Can you see a difference in the "cause"?

You're asking to discern a difference in two things but haven't told me what those are.

So far as I'm aware there are always differences but they are always in pursuit of some political outcome.

 

[BS Filter]

The reason is always some political objective, that's the reason.

Are some political objectives good and some are evil? Is there a difference between good and evil or is that subjective in your mind?

 

[Godboy]

No, by the UN, democratically decided.

Why would you want any nation other than your own to decide? Why would you leave it in the hands of the UN where Russia can just veto any move to stop a nation from obtaining a nuke?

 

[toomuchtime_]

? what vote? where? when? who?

It's the US and Isarael that have caused world danger over the past couple months.

The vote for JCPOA.

The US and Israel have made the world safer by preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons and by preventing their imperialist actions.

 

[Churchill]

Are some political objectives good and some are evil?

I don't what "good" and "evil" mean here.

Is there a difference between good and evil or is that subjective in your mind?

Is there some objective difference beteween the meanings of good and evil in your mind?

 

[BS Filter]

I don't what "good" and "evil" mean here.

Is there some objective difference beteween the meanings of good and evil in your mind?

You didn't answer my question. Are good and evil subjective in your mind?

 

[Churchill]

You didn't answer my question. Are good and evil subjective in your mind?

I don't actually know, that's a philosophical question.

 

[BS Filter]

I don't actually know.

So you have no moral compass to determine good from evil. Looks like you have a problem.

 

[Churchill]

So you have no moral compass to determine good from evil. Looks like you have a problem.

You misunderstood me. I said I don't know if they are subjective or not, and I don't, do you?

To insinuate that I therefore have no morality is unwarranted.

 

[BS Filter]

You misunderstood me. I said I don't know if they are subjective or not, and I don't, do you?

To insinuate that I therefore have no morality is unwarranted.

Yet, you can't tell us if there are good nations and evil nations.

 

[Churchill]

Yet, you can't tell us if there are good nations and evil nations.

Well we can speak of a nation as of it has a morality but it masks that fact that this just an abstraction. Nations are composed of people all having their own views on good/bad.

But I guess we can agree that decisions and actions carried out by or under direction from a country's leaderhip can be simplied as being that country's actions.

Some actions might qualify as "good" and some as "evil" so in that sense every country exhibits both.

The easiest way out of this to try to objectify the matter and that's where the UN comes in. Rather than emotive, subjective "good" and "evil" we can talk of legal or illegal insofar as the UN charter defines things and that's largely how I look at it.

There are other ways but they lose their objectivity unless we invoke some external authority.

 

[BS Filter]

Well we can speak of a nation as of it has a morality but it masks that fact that this just an abstraction. Nations are composed of people all having their own views on good/bad.

But I guess we can agree that decisions and actions carried out by or under direction from a country's leaderhip can be simplied as being that country's actions.

Some actions might qualify as "good" and some as "evil" so in that sense every country exhibits both.

The easiest way out of this to try to objectify the matter and that's where the UN comes in. Rather than emotive, subjective "good" and "evil" we can talk of legal or illegal insofar as the UN charter defines things and that's largely how I look at it.

There are other ways but they lose their objectivity unless we invoke some external authority.

So you believe in a one world government?

 

[toobfreak]

The NPT is irrelevant. The Shah's government signed the treaty and the ayatollahs have been in nearly constant violation of it since 1979.

Further proof of TWO things:

1. Iran has never been in compliance once in the past 50 years and never will. They only say they agree to comply temporarily as a ruse to try to leverage opportunities, so why should anyone expect current or future negotiations to go any different?
2. If the global community has failed to reign in Iran in 50 years of diplomatic negotiations yet are STILL trying to negotiate diplomatically, why should Iran ever concede? They've strung the planet along for 50 years with bullshit, parleyed their position into controlling the Gulf, and we are proving they will get away with another 50 years of it because everyone is proving we are simply unwilling to do otherwise.

Except Trump. He is trying to really fix the problem, settle it for once and all and look at the response: the entire globe is withdrawing from supporting Trump, democrats do not support him, republican support is sketchy, and even public opinion is faltering.

So when the Iran gig fails, everyone will blame Trump for trying when in fact, they are the reason it failed. The message the whole planet sends out to Iran is that they will put up with anything rather than go to actual war, so Iran knows to just ride this out and sooner or later, the world will acquiesce, and they will get their way yet again.

The alternative would have been to do this right:

1. Decapitate their leaders.
2. Take out their air force and navy.
3. Destroy the infrastructure.
4. Massive ground invasion to catch their army unprepared before they can reorganize, and simply beat the snot out of them and forcibly destroy the IRGC.

We did 1 & 2, but then political correctness once again stopped us from doing 3 & 4.

 

[Churchill]

So you believe in a one world government?

Well we're moving into philsophy more and more, but yes, I'd argue that ideally there'd be one authority, perhaps God but we'd be drifiting into theology then.

 

[BS Filter]

Well we're moving into philsophy more and more, but yes, I'd argue that ideally there'd be one authority, perhaps God but we'd be drifiting into theology then.

Do you believe that there are God and Satan?

 

[Churchill]

Do you believe that there are God and Satan?

Do you want to move this to the religion and ethics area?

Religion and Ethics

Religion, Philosophy and the discussion of right and wrong

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[BS Filter]

Do you want to move this to the religion and ethics area?

Religion and Ethics

Religion, Philosophy and the discussion of right and wrong

www.usmessageboard.com

My point is nations and leaders are motivated by good or evil. Some people see it, some don't.

 

[Independent thinker]

Further proof of TWO things:

1. Iran has never been in compliance once in the past 50 years and never will. They only say they agree to comply temporarily as a ruse to try to leverage opportunities, so why should anyone expect current or future negotiations to go any different?
2. If the global community has failed to reign in Iran in 50 years of diplomatic negotiations yet are STILL trying to negotiate diplomatically, why should Iran ever concede? They've strung the planet along for 50 years with bullshit, parleyed their position into controlling the Gulf, and we are proving they will get away with another 50 years of it because everyone is proving we are simply unwilling to do otherwise.

Except Trump. He is trying to really fix the problem, settle it for once and all and look at the response: the entire globe is withdrawing from supporting Trump, democrats do not support him, republican support is sketchy, and even public opinion is faltering.

So when the Iran gig fails, everyone will blame Trump for trying when in fact, they are the reason it failed. The message the whole planet sends out to Iran is that they will put up with anything rather than go to actual war, so Iran knows to just ride this out and sooner or later, the world will acquiesce, and they will get their way yet again.

The alternative would have been to do this right:

1. Decapitate their leaders.
2. Take out their air force and navy.
3. Destroy the infrastructure.
4. Massive ground invasion to catch their army unprepared before they can reorganize, and simply beat the snot out of them and forcibly destroy the IRGC.

We did 1 & 2, but then political correctness once again stopped us from doing 3 & 4.

I’m starting to wonder if Iran even has an army but, if they do, where is it and can it actually be deployed? And, Can it be deployed without us seeing it and taking them out by air? I’m kind of thinking that if we went in with ground troops they would be shooting missiles at us because their army couldn’t get to us.

 

[Independent thinker]

Do you want to move this to the religion and ethics area?

Religion and Ethics

Religion, Philosophy and the discussion of right and wrong

www.usmessageboard.com

Your non answer actually answered the question.

 

[BS Filter]

I’m starting to wonder if Iran even has an army but, if they do, where is it and can it actually be deployed? And, Can it be deployed without us seeing it and taking them out by air? I’m kind of thinking that if we went in with ground troops they would be shooting missiles at us because their army couldn’t get to us.

The President must not send in ground troops and hopefully his generals have advised him not to.