Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

What’s laughable is not looking at the facts. Fact: no government with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked by another government. Fact: governments without nuclear weapons get attacked by other government with nuclear weapons all the time. Fact: the attack on the twin towers was not an attack by another government. Fact: Afghanistan asked for evidence before dealing with the Taliban, and the U.S. government refused to provide it. Fact: the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950’s resulting in a dictator taking over. Fact: the U.S. government supplied weapons to the government of Iraq. Fact: the government of Iraq did not think anyone would care if they attacked Kuwait. Fact: U.S. sanctions on Iraq in the 90’s resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Fact: U.S. backing of Israel has resulted in the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people. Fact: the reason bin Laden claimed to make the attacks on the twin towers was because of U.S. troops in the Middle East. Fact: the terrorists mostly came from Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. government continues to support the government of Saudi Arabia. Fact: Iraq had nothing to do with the twin towers attack and did not have WMDs, yet the U.S. government invaded anyways.

But go ahead, keep ignoring the facts.

And your example is nothing like the real world. I am not leaving my door unlocked. It is more like I am over in my neighbor’s house, telling him what he can and cannot do. Sometimes I take his stuff, rape his wife, and beat his children too.

Carved up by whom? Why don`t you compare the navies.

It has been done, in the wrong direction. If they can do it, why can’t we? It is the concentration on mass change that is the issue. For a group of people whose world view is heavily influenced by economics, I find it hard to fathom that Austrian/Anarcho Capitalists would insist on the rest of the world’s people making categorical ideological changes rather than marginal ones.

I’m not suggesting either. I’m saying that, as when you make buying decisions, you take each issue as it comes and make the trade offs necessary without sacrificing the overall direction you’re pushing in. I think we can make gains toward freedom and a minimal state, and need to evaluate the practical implications of each decision as it comes to us. Ideologically pure nonsense seems to me as ridiculous as Climate ‘Scientists’ claiming CO2 causes warming in the Earth’s complex open ended climate system just because it does so in a controlled lab. Real life is more complex than that, their refusal to acknowledge that is very much like the refusal of people here to acknowledge that the real world deviates from their ideal, and should be perhaps dealt with on its own terms from time to time if you really want to make a difference.

Show me a historical record of a truly stateless society that has lasted. Furthermore, show me a historical record of a society with a state that successfully removed that state. Somalia doesn’t count, their future is still heavily in question.

And? If you do not see the logical fallacy here, you are truly blind. What can happen is not limited by what has happened.

I never said it was, so your point is…?

Fact: some governments sponsor and support terrorist activites. I do not want a government giving a terrorist organization a nuke. I do not want a government without the somewhat ponderous predictability of the US or other pseudo socialized and socialized governments to have to keep track of weapons of mass destruction, especially when their sky fairy of choice happens to be a homocidal maniac and not the middle aged, had a son and mellowed out father/god that most of the Judeo Christians tend to worship.

And? Where did I say I agreed with this action? Please explain the relevance of your other facts as well, since I fail to see how they argue against a measured, phased draw down of US troops from the Middle East and the world in general with the overall goal of not pissing any more people off and maybe appeasing some as our troops leave so we are less likely to deal with mass hatred of our country eminating from a nuclear armed cluster &$?# of a region. You want a full and immediate pull out, I want a slowed pull out. Draw whatever analogy you want, none of your facts and none of your arguments specifically address the apparent massive difference you see between the two and the exception you take with the slower approach.

Whether or not the US has engaged in moronic, harmful policies in the past is not at issue: the answer is yes. What’s at issue is how to end such policies in a way that has a practical chance of actually happening in this, the real world, where most of us live.

And the problem with immediately withdrawing all the troops is? Fear? Does the Boogeyman still scare you too? It definitely cannot be because of anything that happened in the past. We both know that’s a fallacy.

I recall mr pragmatist xahrx whining a lot about how bad so called ‘illegal’ immigration was for amerikkka…

He’s just another jingoist.

Ah, the US has engaged in moronic and MURDEROUS policies in the past and your ‘solution’ is to propose that “you-the-US” keep on engaging in moronic and murderous policies.

You surely are an example of unclouded logical thinking…

Why do you keep claiming irrelevance when I am only repeating your argument back to you? If the point is irrelevant in the first place, don’t assert it.

Who is them?

But it is inaccurate. Why would I have to deal with you making inaccurate statements (and the petty act of not referring to him by his proper name)?

How? And by what moral authority?

Is it ok to kill civilians piecemeal?

I’ll repeat the question you avoided. Do you believe the US/Obama/Americans should attack Iran to prevent them from getting nukes?

This premise is tested by the answer you will give to my question bolded above.

There is no fuel left because that is the nature of war. It consumes and consumes until there is nothing left. Whether you declare peace today, or when there are only two people left standing, peace is the only solution to violence short of complete destruction.

Yes, the US government is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism world-wide and has been for decades.

But if the US does it, you will be ok with it right?

So the US, who has wantonly killed people with nukes, and has probably killed more non-combatants than any other nation in the last 2 decades, is the safe choice?

Sure it is, because that is the standard you judge your enemies by.

I believe you’ve contradicted yourself here.

Correct me if you are wrong but your position seems to be that: people cannot ever again organize themselves and maintain order without the concept of “state” or divine ruler, even though it has happened before.

We’ll ignore that private law is functioning today in places such as Guatemala, Somalia, and Iraq, because these places must not be up to your imperialist standards.

Nevermind that Iceland lasted longer than the US has existed, and its downfall (religion) is much less of a threat today.

Ignore that technology is better suited today for the spread of information and ideas, defining borders, as well as allowing people to group in spite of borders.

You’re saying that its a literal impossibility or just “impractical”? Either way, I disagree.

Just how would the military go about doing this? What makes you think civilians won’t die in ANY of the attacks we make on their infrastructure? Please look at all the “Precision” strikes that the US makes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq in the recent years- they kill civilians all the time.

Even if you think its possible to make an accurate precision strike that will only take out a nuclear bomb making facility, you will be killing people who are in it- thus destroying families and creating a new group of people ready to throw everything away just to get a shot at the United States. Death and destruction is never the path for justice, peace, or security- please stop advocating it.

Immediate forgivness is not in the offerring from those we’ve pissed off, and pulling out and leaving Europe to deal with a problem that the US by and large created isn’t going to make them all too friendly toward us either. Pulling the military presence out slowly, if nothing else, allows the people there time to adjust gradually.

No, but the fact that people as arrogant, naive, belligerent, and juvenile as you seem to be are technically considered on my side in broader debates does. Once you learn that not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, you might actually be worth talking to. Until then, I’m actually rather glad your influence is likely limited to talking and writing with other people as beguiled with their own brilliance as you seem to be.

Ah, I see. You’re just a lying troll. My bad. I thought you were actually trying to say something of worth and your lack of intellect was just getting in the way.

Nope, I’m not a lying troll. When immigration was discussed in the past you sided with the anti immigration ‘libertarians’. Not that I paid much attention to your nonsense anyway.

Now, do you think you can explain why the iranian gov’t can’t have nukes while the american murderers can ? It would be nice if you were able to defend a consistent position for a change…instead of parroting your pragmatic amerikkka first fascist propaganda.

I don’t think that the people you are disagreeing with are ‘on your side’. They are not fascists…

I claim irrelevance when something is irrelevant. If you have a point state it or don’t. Or do you debate fortune cookie fashion?

Oh for Christ’s sake, give it up. You know damn well who I am writing of. There are people out there who do not share your ideals and who would happily kill Americans simply because they are Americans. Just because you are an individualist doesn’t change the reality that a lot of people in the world are not and don’t make such fine distinctions when taking revenge for real and/or perceived wrongs done to them or people they identify with.

His proper name, nor respecting his half witted ass enough to say it, don’t concern me. And please, do explain, what about sayin DinnerJacket is a powerful man among many, though not the superior one in Iran, is inaccurate? You are aware that he is part of their government, are you not? Does he come to UN and speak because he’s a lowly functionary? Please, do tell…

By scaring him if possible, and killing him if necessary, and I don’t give a shit by what moral authority. Neither will he or any other fanatic. Once more, if you want to have debates about how things work in a perfect world where everyone respects one another’s property rights, have at it. In the real world there are people who would gladly gut you, often with no perceivable reason, while you pontificate on moral authority.

No, it is not. And no, I do not advocate attacking Iran nor Iranian citizens. If I did, I wouldn’t be saying lets drawn down our troop presence. The two goals are mutually exclusive as far as I can see.

That’s nice. And technically right. However, I believe I have a limited time on this Earth and I’m not sure of any after life, and am not inclined to offer myself as a sacrifice to madmen from my home or abroad just to make a moral/ethical point. Ghandi had a good point, he also got shot and killed before his time, and eventually lost. I see nothing wrong with, as opposed to an immediate pull out of troops, to pulling out gradually, training and helping people over there to defend themselves by giving them some food and weapons before we leave, perhaps repairing some of the infrastructure we bombed out of existence and building a school or two so their kids have a better chance of learning and reading something besides See Spot Explode in an Israeli Disco, and then finally leaving a few fanatics with a much smaller population of potential recruits. And as a policy it’s a hell of a lot more likely and possible to get in place than an immediate pull out of all troops everywhere. So hang on to your dream of total peace while people like me actually try to achieve something close to it, however imperfect, sometime this millenium and this side of heaven.

Once more, since I’m not advocating we support anyone in perpetuity, what’s the relevance?

No, but if that’s caricature/strawman you must set up to dismiss my arguments, be my guest.

There is no safe choice. There is a least shitty choice.

Not quite, but once more if it bloats your goat, go with it.

I notice you have failed to provide the example I asked for.

This is a perfect example of the type of debate that will get you no where in the real world, and why most people dismiss anarchists as morons. When you grow up and realize that intelligent people disagree with you, and that not everyone who disagrees with you is an “imperialist,” shoot me a message.

Then provide the example I have asked for. I didn’t ask for fleeting examples of private law here or there in the larger context of a massive state, or about Iceland which to my knowledge has a government, a parliment, and many political parties. I want an example of a stateless society that has existed for some time, demonstrated stability and the ability to defend itself from attempts to impose a state from without and from within. Is anarchism impossible? I don’t think so. Is it impractical? Now most likely, maybe not in the future. I do know however that if the sum total of anarchism is a bunch of nits congratulating themselves on their intellectual purity and beguiling themselves with their own trivia, with their only act of socializing and political activity consisting of sniping at the great unwashed, anarchism will remain impractical and likely become impossible.

I have not advocated using the military to strike at ‘their’ infrastructure.