Do you agree with the Democrats that Iran is responsible enough to have nuclear weapons?

Question

Before you answer my question keep in mind, The president of Iran is a holocaust denier, Iran has called for the destruction of Israel a numerous amount of times, Iran is arming the Insurgents in Iraq so they can KILL American troops, and last the U.S. Navy has maintained a presence in the Persian Gulf for the last 2 decades for a couple of reasons-the most important reason being is that the U.S. Navy keeps the waters of the Persian Gulf peaceful so that Merchant ships can sail to their destination freely. If Iran gets Nuclear Weapons then we will have to pull our Navy ships out of the Gulf for fear of an Iranian Nuke strike that could kill thousands of sailors.

Ladies and Gentleman:I get some of the dumbest comments from Liberals out there. Hillary Clinton,Barrack Hussein Obama,Moveon.org, ect..... all have said that no matter what, America needs to avoid a war with Iran!!!! They said we need to negotiate with them diplomatically on the Nuke!!!!! To me,(I guess I suck at reading between the lines, correct me if I'm wrong) To me that is the same as saying if our Diplomatic talk don't work we have to let them have Nukes because we are not going to fight another war. lol

Answer 1

no never main
no
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Answer 2

Yes, and no.

First of all, one needs to look at Iran's motives for wanting nuclear weapons. (which we don't even know that they do.)

The iranians are bordering Iraq, Turkey, Abzebajan, Turkmenistan, Afhanistan, and Pakistan.
Few of these countries are particularly good friends of Iran.
Pakistan is a suni dominated state, wich allready [i]has[/i] nuclear weapons. Among other things, they used to support the Taliban, which sees the Shia Iranians as infidels as good as any. (No heathen like a heretic)
Before the coaltion invation, the Taliban had a Jihad going against the shia.

In adition to this, the most powerfull country in the world has openly declaed them "evil", has allready occupied their neightbouring country, and is loudly discussing among themselves if they should attack them or not.

Under these circumstances, the want for heavy weaponry is quite understandable.

Another issue is the nature of the sitting president.
It should be noted that Amahedjan is, in deed, elected. The election might not have been free in the sense that secular candidates could run, but there is a real chance that he will not be reelected.
Amahidejan is first and foremost a populist nationalist. His main political strategy is to show that he will fight for Iran's rights. He does this by going into confrontation with international society on such issues as uranium enrichment and, lately, "defending" iranian territorial waters in the gulf.
This does not mean that he intends to go to war with anybody. It's mostly to gain internal political support.

In any case, who would the iranians use their nuclear weapons against?
there is simply noone they could attack without risking massive US, Israeli or Pakistani retaliation.
The natural answer is self defense, to ensure that they would not be targeted by tactical nuclear weapons in case of a invasion by a foe with such capability.

I do think that the Iranian government is responsible enough to not use nuclear weapons offensively. They have to much to loose by doing so.

Personally, I'm not sure if they are developing nuclear weapons at all. Knowing Amahidejan, they will probably finish the buildup of the enrichment plants, and then open them to full international inspections, on the condition that the plants are not shut down.
Internal supply of uranium, huge internal political gain, and a international report that says he was telling the truth all along...

Answer 3

Iran is much more stable than Pakistan. The only ships USA will move out of Gulf if Iran get nukes are ones quickly moved in to provoke war.
Will nukes turn out being their biggest headache: As one country follows it's fifty year old pattern of making war. Will wonder aloud--What happens when bluff does not work

Answer 4

Iran has distinctive "nuclear" centers. even as there is no longer an outstanding quantity of information at this aspect, one ought to seem at Iran's status contained in the global. The are a terrorist regime. They help terrorism in combating US troops in Iraq, they continually call for the eliminating of Israel. in addition they play video games with the United international locations. those are literally not information of nuclear guns, yet only rationalization why they ought to no longer be allowed to receive them.

Answer 5

Are you asking this question to seek further understanding or opinion of the subject matter or are you just making an assertion and looking for supportive answers? It seems from the bias comments supporting your question that the latter is the case and as such there is no point in providing you with an answer that does not conform with your assertions on this matter.

I would humbly suggest that you open your mind to some opinions that are not based on the obvious bias that you display. In order to do that you must learn to construct your questions in a less judgemental format. If you cannot manage to do this you will only receive replies that support your own point of view, this will only serve to reinforce your bias and you will learn absolutely nothing.

Answer 6

Yes I trust them. Without listening to all the Fox News (all US media) stories, saying Iran did this and Iran did that, to paint another face of an enemy without any clout or proof. Just like I trust Israel to have nukes, even though they'd shoot down US sailors at any given time. Read any stories about the USS Liberty and tell the world why it's ok for Israel to have any nukes now.

Answer 7

Why shouldn't they have nuclear when at least three other countries in the region have nuclear. We even reward all of them.

How do you justify our policy with Pakistan, Israel and India; all nuclear and receiving US support?

I don't think those that have nuclear weapons should block those that don't until those that do dis-arm them all.

Or do you believe that freedom of choice is only for a limited number of countries?

What is good for one is good for all. I trust Iran as much as I trust Pakistan, Israel or India.

At least Iran has elections; when was the last time Pakistan voted for President?

Answer 8

OK, don't mean to answer a question with another question, but...
Did Democrats really state that Iran is responsible enough to have nuclear weapons?
When was that stated?
I can't imagine any Democrat agreeing with something that could jeapordize not only US National Security, but Intl security in general.
Perhaps you should rephrase the question to be a bit more accurate.

Answer 9

When did the Democratic party endorse Iran's nuclear program? Stop making sh#t up.

Answer 10

I don't think they are saying that. I think they are saying that we need to work with the current framework of the UN as we did when SOuth Africa needed to give up nukes, until there is a confirmation that a bomb exists. THEN it's time to go hard line.

Answer 11

I dont believe anything the democrats say. They are stupid.
They would think the same way if Osama bin laden wanted
a nuke.