POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Sorry, I took "unconventional" to mean "nonconvential" weapons. I agree with what you said.

No problem, my prose was not very clear...

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Your description of the "other side" seems to miss this point.

no sir, the other side of the debate is saying that history doesnt predict that the future holds an attack on Israel as imminent. Jim, me and others feel that when the marbles are connected it shows a greater lkelihood of this regime attacking than another regime's attacking an enemy. why? Fanatacism, religious doctrine, hatred, rational irrationalism, desperation, etc. These are not the same ingredients that the "other side" holds up when they throw N. Korea on the board. ...oh, and what part about that is not debate. "My side" has used quotes, stats, history, op-eds, etc. to lay a framework of argument but if the other side wont see these as valid grounds to stand on than isnt the "shouting" being started by someone else regardless of whether or not they agree with the resulting opinion?

[Blade6119]

flasch, biggle, and flere...same people, different thread..always the same players

[Blade6119]

dola, all we need is JIMG to complete this thread

[MrBigglesworth]

What the hell is 'rational irrationalism'?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

no sir, the other side of the debate is saying that history doesnt predict that the future holds an attack on Israel as imminent. Jim, me and others feel that when the marbles are connected it shows a greater lkelihood of this regime attacking than another regime's attacking an enemy. why? Fanatacism, religious doctrine, hatred, rational irrationalism, desperation, etc. These are not the same ingredients that the "other side" holds up when they throw N. Korea on the board. ...oh, and what part about that is not debate. "My side" has used quotes, stats, history, op-eds, etc. to lay a framework of argument but if the other side wont see these as valid grounds to stand on than isnt the "shouting" being started by someone else regardless of whether or not they agree with the resulting opinion?

There certainly is a lot of "shouting" and not "debating" from the "other side" as well. My original post was triggered because I felt you were being way too dismissive of MrB when you yourself are hardly a saint in criticizing him. Glass houses and all.

So, although I talked about this particular discussion, I'm really not trying to reenter it. I just wanted to give examples to show that perhaps your attack on MrB requires a little looking in the mirror first. IMO, it is something I think we should all do from time to time before we are too critical of others.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What the hell is 'rational irrationalism'?

That they have a rationale behind their thinking that we view as irrational.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by John Galt

There certainly is a lot of "shouting" and not "debating" from the "other side" as well. My original post was triggered because I felt you were being way too dismissive of MrB when you yourself are hardly a saint in criticizing him. Glass houses and all.

So, although I talked about this particular discussion, I'm really not trying to reenter it. I just wanted to give examples to show that perhaps your attack on MrB requires a little looking in the mirror first. IMO, it is something I think we should all do from time to time before we are too critical of others.

Fair enough, I certainly allow my emotions to come into play, but In this case, in this particular thread I dont feel that "my side" has been anything but debate based on what "this side" views as important stones to stand on.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

That they have a rationale behind their thinking that we view as irrational.

That doesn't make sense. It's either rational or irrational. Everyone sees their own thinking as rational, or else they wouldn't think that way.

And nobody has provided any examples of Iran acting irrationally, it just seems to be stated as assumed.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That doesn't make sense. It's either rational or irrational. Everyone sees their own thinking as rational, or else they wouldn't think that way.

And nobody has provided any examples of Iran acting irrationally, it just seems to be stated as assumed.

I was covering both sides without having to go into an entire diatribe about who is thinking rationally and not, because it cannot be proven...you get it. I know you do

[dawgfan]

Flasch, let me make sure I'm understanding your contention here - you're saying that Iran's leaders are holding off on commiting national suicide by launching a massive attack on Israel until they have nukes? That even though they have a healthy supply of conventional weapons that could inflict great damage on Israel, they are waiting until they have mutual assured destruction before launching an attack?

Do you really think these leaders (who have behaved in a relatively moderate, realpolitik manner for at least the last decade) - and when I say leaders, I mean the ones with real power in the country, i.e. the Supreme Leader and the Assembly of Experts and not the President - are so completely irrational as to knowingly engage in behavior which will assure their annihiliation? What evidence supports this contention? What actions have they taken that supports this idea? There may be inflammatory rhetoric that flows from Ahmadinejad's mouth, but the actions of Iran have not backed up these dangerous speeches.

There is a long history of hatred and religious conflict between Pakistan and India including a long-running guerrila war for control of disputed Kashmir, yet neither side has resorted to using their nukes. Kim Jong-Il is as looney as despots come, yet North Korea hasn't used their nukes, nor relied on the "protection" of their nukes to launch conventional warfare on their neighbors.

Yet you think that Iran's leadership is somehow different and truly willing to sacrifice themselves and their country for the purpose of nuking Israel?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

[Flasch186]

ok.

Religious fanatacism
a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of allah
a realization that they should not underestimate an Israeli defense like last time
a wanting of the destruction of Israel
Im sure im leaving some out

comparing Iran or other Religioud fanatics to Dictators is a dangerous grouping....they are not the same. But Like JG said, we dont have to try and convince eachother to have a good debate. I hope you end up being right in the long run.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Religious fanatacism

Iran's leadership? Or are you confusing them with Al Qaeda? Fundamentalism and fanatacism are not necessarily the same thing.

a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of allah

Again, are you confusing Iran's leadership with Al Qaeda? What actions have they taken that support this statement?

a realization that they should not underestimate an Israeli defense like last time

What last time? When has Iran attacked Israel since the Shah was overthrown?

a wanting of the destruction of Israel

Perhaps, or perhaps this is hyperbole. Actions speak louder than words. And there is a difference between support of groups like Hezbollah and direct actions.

Im sure im leaving some out

Fill me in when you think of them.

comparing Iran or other Religioud fanatics to Dictators is a dangerous grouping....they are not the same. But Like JG said, we dont have to try and convince eachother to have a good debate. I hope you end up being right in the long run.

No, they're not exactly the same. But in many ways it doesn't matter - power has a tendency to shape actions in certain ways, generally towards a kind of pragmatism/survivalist instinct. Iran's President may speak in hyperbole, but the actions of the Supreme Leader suggest realpolitik holds sway.

[Flasch186]

the fanatacism of the "a world without Zionism" vain
the religious fanatacism in the way of allah since they are rounding up a battalion of martyrs to send to Israel - Martyrs in the Muslim kind of way
last time, the arab world attacked Israel
Actions do speak louder than words and IN MY OPINION, they are smart enough to know that a long protracted war would allow the World to gather strength to help Israel but a quick 1,2,3,4,5 warheads sent a flyin' would leave no one any time. I think that they think it is ok if some Muslims are sacrificed for the greater good of removing the Jews from the holy land. ITs what they have said anyways, in a round about way.
Again, I hope you are right, but to wait until they have Nukes, when every single week they ratchet up their evidence of a move towards nuclear capabilities and an unwillingness to allow watchdogs to have watch, seems irrational (to steal a phrase from earlier)

[dawgfan]

Flasch, there's a big difference between tacitly supporting terrorist groups that target Israel on a small scale, sending relatively small amounts of individuals to engage in holy war, and deciding to ensure the annihilation of themselves, their countrymen and their country itself by attacking Israel with nukes. It's always much easier to send someone else off to die for your cause than yourself, especially when you have so much to lose. The people in positions of power in Iran would have to be highly unusual in human history to be willing to sacrifice themselves in such a way as you're suggesting.

North Korea is a far more unstable nation because they are ruled by a dictator with absolute control. Iran on the other hand is a Republic; it's not as democratic as the U.S., but they have a system of government with multiple branches with much of the leadership subject to popular vote. This is not a governmental arrangement that lends itself to rash actions, and in fact the history of Iran since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in the aftermath of the Shah's removal has bourne that out.

[duckman]

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I should have been more clear--I was not talking about Iranian nukes, because they do not have the delivery capability. There is no dirty bomb scenario either, since the Iranians would be foolish to put any nukes in the hands of their terrorist clients.

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.a...tion=1&id=4722 take it for what its worth, because I've never heard of this newspaper before, and don't generally know which Arabic-language newspapers to trust, but at least some of it fits.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Kuwait is muslim, and when Iraq attacked Kuwait the whole muslim world supported the Gulf War.

Actually, that was what turned Osama bin Laden into a terrorist against us.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Flasch, there's a big difference between tacitly supporting terrorist groups that target Israel on a small scale, sending relatively small amounts of individuals to engage in holy war, and deciding to ensure the annihilation of themselves, their countrymen and their country itself by attacking Israel with nukes. It's always much easier to send someone else off to die for your cause than yourself, especially when you have so much to lose. The people in positions of power in Iran would have to be highly unusual in human history to be willing to sacrifice themselves in such a way as you're suggesting.

I'll go back to the same argument I made on Page 1 a month ago - http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...1&postcount=27 - you don't have to believe that the Iranian leaders would nuke Israel as soon as they got them to view it as an unacceptable contingency. I don't think they would do that, but I do ascribe to the "protestors at the gate" theory - where they wouldn't hesitate to nuke Israel if they were about to get overthrown and lose everything anyway. That would force us to prop up their regime (a very unpopular despotic one) against the will of the people, which is where many of our current problems in the Muslim world have come from.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'll go back to the same argument I made on Page 1 a month ago - http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...1&postcount=27 - you don't have to believe that the Iranian leaders would nuke Israel as soon as they got them to view it as an unacceptable contingency. I don't think they would do that, but I do ascribe to the "protestors at the gate" theory - where they wouldn't hesitate to nuke Israel if they were about to get overthrown and lose everything anyway. That would force us to prop up their regime (a very unpopular despotic one) against the will of the people, which is where many of our current problems in the Muslim world have come from.

First, let me be clear - I don't support the idea of Iran developing or acquiring nuclear weapons, and we should exhaust all diplomatic options to try and dissuade them from getting them.

Second, whether we like it or not Iran is a successful middle eastern Islamic republic - they probably have more corruption in their system than we do in ours, but in the large view this is a government of the people. That's not to say that the will of the people may come into increasing conflict with the desires of those in power, but from what I've read this is not a country in any imminant danger of violent revolution. The idea that this leadership would face overwhelming public resistance and the possibility of revolution seems pretty far-fetched based off of the reality of the situation there.

Even if you subscribe to the possibility of the "barbarians at the gates" idea, you'd still have to ascribe to the Supreme Leader in Iran a potential for a completely irrational act to press the big red nuke button. Facing potential death by the mobs at the gate and assuring not only your own destruction but virtually everyone in your country and the reduction of your homeland to radioactive ruins are not the same thing - there's a leap from one to the next. It's certainly possible, but then again that's always a risk with nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.

While I don't want Iran to have nukes, I don't think the risks outweigh the downsides to a Western invasion of Iran to prevent them from getting them.

[Flasch186]

Iran Leader: Israel a 'Tyrannical Regime'

By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer Thu May 11, 5:17 AM ET

JAKARTA, Indonesia -
Iran's president on Thursday intensified his attacks against
Israel, calling it a "a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed," but also said he was ready to negotiate with the United States and its allies over his country's nuclear program.
ADVERTISEMENT

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said Israel should be wiped off the map, told a cheering crowd of students in the Indonesian capital that it is every country's right — not just the United States — to use new technology to meet energy needs.

He said his country was willing to negotiate, but that the United States first must drop its "bad attitude."

"We are not only defending our rights, we are defending the rights of many other countries," he said. "By maintaining our position, we are defending our independence."

Ahmadinejad, known for his fiery rhetoric, is visiting Indonesia amid a deepening standoff over his country's nuclear program and suspicions it is developing nuclear weapons. This week, key
U.N. Security Council members agreed to present Tehran with a choice of incentives or sanctions in deciding whether to suspend uranium enrichment.

The move will delay a draft U.N. resolution that could lead to sanctions and possible military action if Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies, saying it aims only to generate energy.

The Iranian leader told Indonesia's Metro TV station earlier Thursday he was unconcerned about the possibility of U.N. sanctions, saying the West had more to lose than Iran did if the country was isolated.

"We do not need to be dependent on others," he said, adding international isolation would serve only to "motivate" the country's nuclear scientists.

He also said Western nations with large stocks of nuclear weapons were practicing "double standards" in pressing Iran to stop its peaceful nuclear program.

Asked what it would take to begin talks with the United States to resolve the standoff, he said Tehran would talk to anyone except Israel, which Iran does not recognize.

"There are no limits to our dialogue," he said. "But if someone points an arm (a weapon) at your face and says you must speak, will you do that?"

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly spoken out against Israel and provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Israeli officials have described Iran's nuclear quest as the Jewish state's greatest threat. Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres warned Monday that Iran could be threatened with destruction if it continues to vow to destroy Israel.

Israel had no immediate comment on Ahmadinejad's latest remarks, said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.

At a meeting Tuesday, representatives of the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France as well as Germany agreed to tell Iran the possible consequences of its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program and the benefits if it abandons it.

Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday she and her counterparts on the U.N. Security Council agreed to give Iran another two weeks to reconsider its position.

The Chinese and Russians have balked at the British, French and U.S. efforts to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if Tehran refuses to comply.

Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action.

[Flasch186]

Diplomats: Enriched uranium found in Iran

Friday, May 12, 2006; Posted: 12:09 p.m. EDT (16:09 GMT)


VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.

Still, they said, further analysis could show that the traces match others established to have come from abroad. The International Atomic Energy Agency determined earlier traces of weapons-grade uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that Iran bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine activity discovered just over three years ago.

Uranium enriched to between 3.5 percent and 5 percent is used to make fuel for reactors to generate electricity. It becomes suitable for use in nuclear weapons when enriched to more than 90 percent.

Iran's refusal to give up enrichment ambitions has led to involvement by the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions but remains split on how firmly to pressure Tehran.

Key U.N. Security Council members agreed Tuesday to postpone a resolution that would have delivered an ultimatum to Tehran, giving Iran another two weeks to re-evaluate its insistence on developing its uranium enrichment capabilities.

Iran's hard-line president said Friday that his country was not afraid of possible U.S. military action over its enrichment program, but added that he thought any such strikes were very unlikely. Washington has said it favors a diplomatic end to the dispute, but it hasn't ruled out military force.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also told a local TV station that Iran would cooperate with the Security Council if it makes a decision on the escalating standoff as long as the world body acts "in line with international rules."

The Islamic republic denies accusations it wants to make nuclear arms and says it is only interested in uranium to generate power.

To argue that it never enriched uranium domestically to weapons grade, it cites the IAEA's tentative conclusion last year that weapons-grade traces collected from other sites within the country with no suspected ties to that military came in on equipment from Pakistan.

The origin of the samples now under perusal created some concern in that regard.

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that the samples came from equipment that can be used in uranium-enriching centrifuges at a former research center at Lavizan-Shian.

The center is believed to have been the repository of equipment bought by the Iranian military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.

The United States alleges Iran had conducted high-explosive tests that could have a bearing on developing nuclear weapons at the site.

The State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan's buildings had been dismantled and topsoil had been removed in attempts to hide nuclear weapons-related experiments. The agency subsequently confirmed that the site had been razed.

In an April 28 report to the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said the agency took samples from some of the equipment of the former Physics Research Center at Lavizan-Shian. The diplomat said the evaluation of those samples revealed the traces in question.

Ahmadinejad's remarks on possible U.S. military action were made in Jakarta during a discussion with Indonesian Islamic leaders.

Asked whether his country was prepared to face an attack by the United States, he said "that is very unlikely because they know the Islamic Republic of Iran is a strong country."

"They are trying to frighten our country by waging a propaganda campaign using strong words. The people of Iran and the country are not afraid of them," he said to applause from the audience.

The Chinese and Russians have balked at British, French and U.S. efforts to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter.

Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if Tehran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment operations. Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action.

[Anthony]

Someone once asked Mr. T if he wanted a Hawiann Punch, Mr. T raped him.

When Mr. T was a young man, his family became homeless. That's when he realized that if he ate enough trees and nails, he could crap houses.

There's no "I" in Mr. T

When Mr. T looks at a Magic-Eye illusion, the image changes into a crying child and it never changes back.

Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be pitied by Mr. T, than you are to have feet.

Mr. T does not play the guitar, but he will bash your face in with one.

The other members of the A-Team are actually played by Mr. T moving faster than the speed of light and changing costumes constantly.

There is a 11th commandment, edited out of the Bible, that says "None of the above applies to Mr. T."

Mr. T and Chuck Norris once engaged in an arm wrestle. The result was Hiroshima. Oppenheimer, a failing chemist, took credit for creating the A-Bomb in an attempt to get women to like him.

Mr. T doesn't use a microwave oven, he stares at food and it heats from fear, then Mr. T eats it.

Mr. T was almost involved in a second car crash. To avoid the crash, he folded his arms and slowly shook his head. The car decided it was safer to avoid Mr. T.

"I pity the fool", wasn't actually what Mr.T origanlly said. At the time he had food in his mouth. What he really said was, "I pissed in the pool."

Every day for breakfast, Mr. T punches a rhinocerous in the face. He insists that this is the only way he can start his day.

Most people know that Mr. T battled cancer, what they don't know is how. It turns out Mr. T turned to his old A Team buddies and had them do what they do best. They used unloaded weapons and little explosives planted in the ground around the cancer to scare it off.

King Kong is computer generated because Mr. T declined the role when the director told him "you cannot wear chains and a feather in your ear".

Mr. T pities small children who lose their teeth. That is why he leaves them quarters under their pillows.

Mr. T recycles his toilet paper by beating the shit of it.

Mr T. doesn't understand Internet piracy. When questioned about it he responded, "T's momma didn't raise no fool. How dem pirates s'posed to get power on their pirate ships. You just be talking jibba jabba now, fool!" The interviewer was never seen alive again.

[Desnudo]

Nuke'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

[MrBigglesworth]

More details from the Iranian letter sent to the US in 2003. Iran agreed to:

1. Accept the Arab League Beirut document on Isreal/Palestinian peace, the same position re: Isreal as US allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia

2. Stop material support of Palestinian opposition groups and pressure them to stop violent actions against civilians

3. Take action to have Hezbollah become a more political organization instead of a terrorist one

4. Accept much tighter controls by and cooperate fully with the IAEA

So pretty much everything that we want them to do. In exchange, they requested:

1. Full access to peaceful nuclear technology

2. A halt to hostile relations between the US and Iran

3. Abolishment of all sanctions

4. Recognition of Iran’s legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity

This document was completely rejected by the Bush administration, and was not even followed up on.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348

Am I crazy, or is this a pretty damn good starting point for negotiations?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Am I crazy, or is this a pretty damn good starting point for negotiations?

Can I vote both?

[BrianD]

Dola,

Seriously, it doesn't sound like such a bad starting point. Is there more to this that we aren't seeing?

[Flasch186]

bump for timeliness and relevance....it seems that Jim, mine, and many others fears and warnings are closer than anytime that I can remember.