Should Iran have Nuclear Power?

<p>Are muslims just "inferior" beings? We do the same things to muslims that they do to us....deny them fair and speedy trial, not give them rights protected by the Geneva Convention, put civilians in military prisons and deny them counsel, etc.</p>

<p>Nobody should have nukes. Period. I'm going to go as far as to say that nobody should have weapons. Period. If there isn't equipment that we could kill people with, maybe we wouldn't. And besides that why do we have to be hating? This is my position and this is FINAL.</p>

<p>Its a bad position in any case. The government of Iran does not grant its citizens individual rights. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharaib are Disneylands compared to an average Middle Eastern prison. Or perhaps you missed the beheading videos? Radical Mullahs like the ones that run Iran are truly subhuman. I am obviously not saying your average Irani is inferior, but there is no way to conduct a war or use force that discriminates on this basis.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nobody should have nukes. Period.

[/quote]

No, we should have sacrificed another 100K American lives over some ****ty islands during WW II.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm going to go as far as to say that nobody should have weapons. Period

[/quote]

Yes, perhaps we can all circlejerk around a big bonfire and sing kumbaya as well.</p>

<p>
[quote]
it will be used solely against the Nuclear facilities, NOT the Iranian People.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>After being lied to TWICE, you expect me to take their word on this? If you answer yes, you're an idiot.</p>

<p>Lie #1: Iraq is related to 9/11. The 9/11 commission debunked this claim so many times it's not even funny.
Lie #2: Iraq has chemical/biological weapons. UN inspectors never found them, and we never found them. After being lied to once, I'm not going to trust Bush when he says "well they could have moved them." There's an equal possibility that they NEVER HAD ANY IN THE FIRST PLACE.</p>

<p>Ahmadinejad is inferior.</p>

<p>If you want to call Bush a liar, you gotta call the Clinton administration and many Democrats liars. They knew that Saddam had WMDs long before Bush came into power. Maybe you should ask some of the survivors of some thousands of Kurds who were killed by 'Chemical Ali'. Honestly, are you still talking? Isn't Katmandu in Tibet?</p>

<p>
[quote]
subhuman

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And sodomy/rape/sexual harrassment is not? What the Americans did in Abu Grahib is truly disgusting, especially when we went in to "liberate them." I'm sorry, but I can't support the soldiers and Donald Rumsfeld when they condone this kind of conduct. This kind of conduct is unacceptable for anybody, but it makes it more unacceptable because the idiots doing these kinds of things are supposed to represent freedom and justice and what not. </p>

<p>Saddam killed millions of his own people. The very people that he was trying to kill granted him a fair trial and counsel. Now that's what I call moral and professional conduct.</p>

<p>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.</p>

<p>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.</p>

<p>"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.</p>

<p>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998</p>

<p>"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.</p>

<p>"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.</p>

<p>"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.</p>

<p>"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.</p>

<p>"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.</p>

<p>"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.</p>

<p>"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.</p>

<p>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.</p>

<p>"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.</p>

<p>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.</p>

<p>"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,</p>

<p>"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.</p>

<p>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002</p>

<p>"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.</p>

<p>CN I never said they weren't. Most politicians are liars. We all know that. Clinton lied about having sex. Bush lied about reasons to go to war. It's the magnitude of the consequences that matter.</p>

<p>Cutting another man's throat with a dull knife sounds a bit worse, doesn't it?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I can't support the soldiers

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then get the **** out of the country, because they're the reason you can spew your <strong><em>ing leftist conspiracy theory hippie *</em></strong><strong><em>. *</em></strong> YOU.</p>

<p>It's not about magnitude. It's about the fact that they sodomized/raped/sexually harassed Iraqi civilians in an Iraqi prison. It's also about the fact that Rumsfeld let this happen. If the Sec of Defense was Clinton, I would have wanted his head too. They are representatives of this country when they're in Iraq, and thus act with the utmost integrity and professionalism, no matter what the other side does.</p>

<p>Gumball, I will answer four of your points:</p>

<p>1) Nuclear weapons do not merely wipe out a target. The radiation fallout will affect residents living in the area for decades. </p>

<p>2) The US nuked two major Japanese cities...murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. You can talk all you want about how the US was trying to bring an end to a costly war, there is no justification for murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.</p>

<p>3) I do not trust the Iranian government...nor do I trust the US government. In fact, I trust no government. But of all the governments out there, the US is one of those I trust the least. </p>

<p>4) Finally, the reason why your congressmen do not openly condone the desctruction of Muslims is because they aren't supposed to say such things out loud...not because they don't think or feel it.</p>

<p>At any rate, Iran is going to have nuclear weapons, whether we like it or not. Nobody can stop them.</p>

<p>Oh, about the "support the troops" thing...</p>

<p>Support them as people? Yes.
Support unprofessional behavior? I'm sorry, absolutely not.</p>

<p>I can not give the same justification to us saying we're the good guys as Hitler saying he was the good guys. China's attack on Nanking, Gen. Sherman's March to the Sea, the USSR's occupation reacting to the Prague Spring - these were terrible acts because they were morally wrong. They were morally wrong because the wars being waged were morally wrong - either for morally wrong reasons or by morally wrong states. Dresden was brutal. Hiroshima was brutal. Nagasaki was brutal(and yes, the USSR was part of the decision here. Not all of it.) I notice that there was no "insurgency" in Japan or Germany after WWII.</p>

<p>What's your point?</p>

<p>I'm responding to Chuck Norris' completely immature, emotionally charged flame. I'll reiterate my last post anyway:</p>

<p>Support the troops as fellow humans? Absolutely.
Condone unprofessional conduct? I'm sorry, ABSOLUTELY NOT.</p>

<p>People seem to think that if you say yes to the former, you HAVE to say yes to the latter. I could hate a person as a human being, but like their professional behavior. Likewise I could love a person as a person but not condone their unprofessional actions.</p>

<p>Futurenyustudent: Do you want the U.S. backed Iraqi government to succeed or do you want the "insurgency"(********. TERRORISTS.) to win?</p>

<p>What's your point?</p>

<p>His point is that you should shut up and spout your beliefs where people care about them. oh and NYU is a republican school. There are like no liberals there.</p>

<p>Are you going to answer the question? </p>

<p>Zipdrive: Appreciate the backup, but don't put words in my mouth :)</p>

<p>This isn't about liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs. republican. This is about professionalism.</p>