[webjedi]

Hmmm, that sounds a lot like what the US did in the 1940's.

Now there's a reason to do something. Because Jonny did it, James can do it? That's not logical.

Quote by: webjedi (2) Iran has provided support to terrorist organizations. Apparently there is no such thing as terrorism to Iran, or at least they don't mind lying about it. >Was that an action they undertook of their own volition, or was that a reaction to aggression against them?

That depends on who you ask, doesn't it? How many things in your life do others blame you for, that you know weren't your fault? If you are like most humans, you do not have the ability to be objective about things that affect you, proportional to how important it is to you. If your child is starving and my child is starving, and there is only one piece of food, who it belongs to is pretty much irrelevant - you're going to try to save your child, and you're not going to have too much moral consternation about stealing or any other act to do it. That is human nature.

To many Muslims the mere existence of a single Christian or Jew in any land once dominated by Muslim powers is an "act of aggression". To most Muslims Jews or Christians in the Holy Land is offensive on the deepest levels, and therefore justification for some pretty evil deeds. To the best of my knowledge Iran hasn't been invaded by the U.S., nor Israel for that matter, so objectively I'd have to say they don't have anything to react to.

Anyway, which one of your choices makes it right, or smart, for Iran to fight a proxy war via Hezzbollah?

Quote by: webjedi (3) The ruler of Iran, and many of it's people, deny the one of the most well-documented events of human history. This does not sit easily with me. >Until your side is ready to address what they bring to the table, there isn't a lot of room for criticism from your side.

My side is logic and reason. What's your side?

Quote: Quote by: webjedi (4) The U.S. and Israel are not Iran's only enemies. If Iran gets nukes, Saudi Arabia will want them. >Everybody wants them, but then that was supposedly the beauty of Mutally Assured Destruction. The destruction was mutual.

Another good reason to give Iran nukes. WHAT!?!?

Quote by: webjedi (5) Iran does not have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. Heck Russia doesn't have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. And even worse, the United States, the country with the most resources of all couldn't prevent nuclear secrets from getting out. >Exactly, so what was the point of taking us to war over this one incident again?

You've lost me... What incident? What war? Iraq?

Quote by: webjedi (6) Once the genie is out of the bottle there is no way to ensure it doesn't end up in the hands of Iran's Muslim enemies, which happen to be a whole heck of a lot closer, have much less to loose, and and have much more to gain by taking Iran out of the picture once and for all. I bet there are plenty of Sunnis that would suicide-bomb Tehran. >Yet, only one country actually used these weapons on other human beings, and you don't object to tham having possession of such monsterous devices.

WTF does that have anything to do with Sunnis blowing up Tehran??? Nothing! You want to argue about WWII, I'm happy to give you an education, but a suicide bomber walking detonating a nuclear device because he thinks God wants him to blow up a Million other people is a whole heck of a lot different than two nations declaring war on each other.

Quote by: webjedi (7) Maintaining a ready-force of nuclear weapons is expensive and dangerous. If the weapons aren't ready to use they are no good. So Iran would have to maintain it's current prosperity or better to be able to sustain a nuclear program, something that Saddam couldn't even do. And then what happens when the evil U.S. and Israel know that is happening, especially after they have "assured mutual destruction"? You think the Israelis are going to let Iran get desperate? What about the U.S.?[ >While I agree that if it happens, it would be very ugly, but it almost seems as if you're attempting to transfer the blame here. Let us remember whos policies led us to this conflict, and the imbalance that is at the heart of it. These other countries asked for nuclear technology back in the 1940's, but we would not relinquish the information.

OK, I know you are trying to blame the United States for something, I just can't tell exactly what. Which conflict? Iraq? You have got this whole world going on in your head I have no idea where you are coming from or what you are talking about.

Could you be a little more specific with your America-bashing?

QuoteQuote by: webjedi If Iran picks up that gun, they'd better be ready to bring it on - forever. >Well, that was one of the underlying principles of the MADD philosophy you are defending, is it not?

My statement is true, I can't tell if you are attempting to refute it or not. You're not making sense at all.

Quote by: webjedi (8) Even though Iran is a comparatively wealthy nation, it doesn't have the money to de-commission nuclear weapons, which is much more expensive than making them. > Do we? And by that I mean, do we really?

OK, here it is even worse, you are making my argument for me... if I understand your statement. So you are concerned the U.S. doesn't have the resources to de-commision these weapons? Then you agree it would be a disaster for the Iranians to get them, right?

Quote by: webjedi (9) Iran would be the 10th nuclear state. Of these 10 countries Iran is the 2nd most unstable government (Pakistan being 1st). >Again, you have nobody to blame but the people that put us into this position by playing every card wrong along the way.

Personally, I'm not looking to convince anyone of who is to blame, because who's fault something is, is (1) usually a matter of opinion, and (2) not material to the argument.

Are you going to put together an actual argument at some point? Are you just trying to increase your number of posts to look cool or something?

Quote by: webjedi (10) If Iran were to come into possession of nuclear weapons it would be considered a moral sin by many, many Iranians. If that happened, the most redeeming factor of the Iranian people - their national conscience, would be eliminated, making them an evil country even in their own eyes. Iran has no WMDs precisely for this reason, and for this reason I do not supporting a full bombing campaign against Iran (presently), although I definitely believe they should not be supporting terrorists and something does need to be done about that (another discussion). >A rather profound observation, if it's true. ( and I believe it is ) However this assumes that you have the moral obligation, and the divine authority to act in such a manor, and last time I checked, neither are really true.

I believe you when you say you accept the assertion that Iranians know it is wrong for them to have nuclear weapons. All the more reason not to let them have them.

Quote by: webjedi In reality, the people of Iran are extraordinarily good people - moral, just, introspective (comparatively). That by no means makes them incapable of serious errors and, indeed, wrongs. >If only the same could be said about Americans. ( and I say that as one of you. )

First off, you and I are not the same, so get that out of your head right now.

Second, I can tell you my brother went to Africa to help people half way around the World - at his cost, for no reason other than his own conscious. My mother went to the Ukraine to work at an orphanage (you want to talk about hell - try being an orphan in an Eastern Block country). I have worked with "troubled" youths & teens, drug addicts and alcoholics, and the mentally ill since ~1993. That's the way we do it in our family, and I don't really associate with people who don't believe in community service, the value of human life, and have a strong sense of morality. I don't know who you are or where you come from, but your low opinion of Americans tells me you most likely have done none of these things. For if you had you would realize that there are certainly no more moral or just peoples than Americans.

I don't care if you believe me or not. The U.S. is the single greatest gift to man the world has known, and if it were not for us you would be speaking German or Russian. And if you're not white you would be chained to a post digging a ditch while the people around you spoke German or Russian.

Quote by: webjedi One thing is for sure: When Iranians themselves don't think they should have nuclear weapons, I think the World needs to make sure that doesn't happen. >Hmmm, is that a universal truth among all Iranians? Since we both know it's not, the same exact truth must be true for America as well.

The basis for that point is that the fabric of Iranian culture depends on them maintaining their identity, which includes not having WMDs. They also execute homosexuals. Now I don't agree with homosexual behavior, but I don't think people should be executed or even jailed for it. What would happen if Texas suddenly started executing gays? Protests, social unrest - it would be a disaster for the country as people lined up on both sides to fight it out. from the social standpoint, the U.S. not having nukes is an entirely different proposition from Iran not having them.

You're gonna have to do a little better than that.