Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear ...

[Turin]

So far arguments for and against:

For:

• Iran deserves equality to its neighbours
• Right to defend its interests and freedom
• Competition and refusing sanctions
• Fight off hypocrisy

Against:

• 1)Bad intentions (i.e. to wipe Israel off the map...)
• 2)Lack of transparency

Counter:

• 1)Assumed Bad Intentions
• 2)Countries which use this argument, are also defect in being transparent hence are hypocrits and are breaking/have broken the UN protocol before. (i.e. Israel/Pakistan/India developing weapons)

Turin

 

[urbanfox]

So far arguments for and against:

For:

• Iran deserves equality to its neighbours
• Right to defend its interests and freedom
• Competition and refusing sanctions
• Fight off hypocrisy

Against:

• 1)Bad intentions (i.e. to wipe Israel off the map...)
• 2)Lack of transparency

Counter:
[*] 1)Assumed Bad Intentions
[*] 2)Countries which use this argument, are also defect in being transparent hence are hypocrits and are breaking/have broken the UN protocol before. (i.e. Israel/Pakistan/India developing weapons)
[/list]
Turin

Yes, we know, you sympathise for Iran bla bla bla.

Well, I don't really care.

Iran isn't going to be able to develop a working nuclear weapons program, and that makes me happy

 

[Turin]

Your interpetation (which I wouldn't dare say is held by all muslims) is another side of an argument that cannot and will not prevail just as one could say another side of the argument is to give Iran nuclear privledges and move Israel to Europe.

The UN and the atomic nuclear agency approves their nuclear holdings. You were saying?

This isn't about Israel's legitmacy on anything so stop trying to spin it that way.

Once again, the bottom line is that the UN, the EU, and the USA, and other countries are against an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Know what that means? No Iranian nuclear weapons program.

You're actually quite right there. Muslims don't hold unanimous sentiments with Iran, because 90% of the Muslim word is Sunni, whilst the 10% Shi'ite reside mostly in Iran. Their is some innitial displeasure in a Shi'ite state gaining that advantage over its neighbours i.e. Syria/Lebanon. But then again Pakistan and India have got the weapons so, what's to say Iran won't achieve it?

This is not about Israel's legitimacy to exist, but it is about Israels/USA/UK/China/Russia/India/Pakistan and so forth's legitimacy for refering Iran to the security council which can result in unfair Sanctions, resulting in the deaths of many civilians no doubt, like it did in Iraq. If the countries in question won't follow the rules themselves (and hence be hypocrits) what right do they have to enforce that law on anyone else?

Well that is what I am saying isn't it? The whole thing is a process of removing possible deterrent against future political accession in the Iranian area. Take North Korea for example, they have massive pressure on them, but as of yet, the USA hasn't dared to attack it because of its nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile Iraq, who supposedly had WMD ... err.. got attacked and coincidentily also secured oil trade in USD.

Discuss,
Turin

 

[Turin]

Yes, we know, you sympathise for Iran bla bla bla.

Well, I don't really care.

Iran isn't going to be able to develop a working nuclear weapons program, and that makes me happy

So what your saying is that... as long as there is a majority, regardless of whether it is a corrupt majority, it should get its way?

Ooh, what happened to democracy? They call it double standards.
Turin

 

[urbanfox]

There's nothing more to discuss lol.

21 of the 25 posts in this forum are between you and I.

It's obvious where we stand. We are two people who have never met eachother living half way across each other's worlds who disagree, there's no shock there.

I see no reason for me to spend any more time debating something that you will never accept and vice a versa.

I am pleased with the way that the UN, the EU, and the USA and various other agency's and countries are handling this. I agree with their stance.

So what your saying is that... as long as there is a majority, regardless of whether it is a corrupt majority, it should get its way?

Ooh, what happened to democracy? They call it double standards.
Turin

This is the last time I'll be replying this this thread, only to clear up, no, obviously I do not always agree with the majority and I think you already know that.

In this situation I do.

The end.

 

[Turin]

There's nothing more to discuss lol.

21 of the 25 posts in this forum are between you and I.

It's obvious where we stand. We are two people who have never met eachother living half way across eachother's worlds who disagree, there's no shock there.

I see no reason for me to spend any more time debating something that you will never accept and vice a versa.

I am pleased with the way that the UN, the EU, and the USA and various other agency's and countries are handling this. I agree with their stance.

Fair enough

Thanks for taking part in the debate, you made some good points. I'm actually debating for the sake of getting some good answers. I'm sort of indifferent to the situation, as either way it won't effect my life.

Let's watch as the drama unfolds O_O
Turin

 

[Turin]

GoOd GoD didn't expect the drama to unfold that fast LOL...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4680294.stm