POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?

[Dutch]

As I always say, Israel has the responsability to either annex the disputed territories and welcome a few million more "Muslims" into their "Jewish" state or release the lands so it can become a formal sovereign entity. Everybody has a right to vote, it's not the average Palestinian worker/squatter's fault that terrorists and their "govt" can't stop their own violence.

However, the flip side is, of course, that I feel the second Palestine becomes a sovereign nation it will trigger a massive war.

Palestine will bomb Israel (whether on purpose or just supporting it) and Israel will be allowed to declare war on Palestine. That will probably lead to at least Syria and Iran declaring war on Israel. Which may or may not prompt a response from the US and Europe, depending on whether it looks like Israel is about to be exterminated or not, I suppose.

I don't envy the Isreali/Palestinian future, they are the modern day "powder keg".

[MrBigglesworth]

Matthew Yglesias takes apart the idea of war with Iran:

Should we go to war with Iran? The short answer is “no.” The long answer is “hell no.”

As the rumbles of war are heard over the horizon, many feel they’ve heard this whole story before. But with all due respect to those who correctly ascertained in advance that backing Bush’s march on Baghdad was insane, following the neoconservatives to Teheran would be far, far, far more insane.

The United States military is, for one thing, in much worse shape today than it was in March 2003 with far fewer resources at its disposal (see the Iraq War). The Iranian military, meanwhile, is in better shape than Iraq’s army was, since it hasn’t been subjected to more than a decade of stifling sanctions. Iran is geographically larger than Iraq. Its population is about twice as large as Iraq’s. Perhaps more to the point, the vast majority of the trouble in Iraq has been made by a distinct minority of the population -- the one Iraqi in five, more or less, who is Sunni Arab, the dominant group in the Baathist ancient regime. Fully half of Iranians are Shiite Persians, so we’re talking about a nationalist backlash with a population base about four or five times as large as the one we're facing in Iraq.

Surveying that scene, many have concluded that rather than an invasion, some sort of aerial bombing campaign, perhaps backed by special operations forces, is in order. This is foolish. If we bomb Iran, Iran will find a way to strike back -- either at oil operations in the Persian Gulf, at American troops in Iraq, or using Hezbollah as a proxy. The conflict will escalate. To stop the Iranian nuclear problem, meanwhile, it would have to escalate. Blowing some stuff up won't make the Iranians abandon their quest for nuclear weapons, it will intensify it. At best, bombing will delay the Iranian program. At worst, by causing them to redouble their commitment, it will actually speed it.

The more honest among the hawks, including Mark Steyn in a recent City Journal article, admit as much. Only “regime change” can keep Iran nuke-free. But we don’t have the troops to occupy the country. Steyn’s “solution” is for the United States to overthrow the Iranian government but skip the occupation.

This is so mind-bogglingly stupid as to defy belief. It couldn’t possibly work. What would it accomplish? You need to believe that a stable, viable, democratic government would just emerge overnight -- perhaps by magic -- and immediately establish control over all of Iranian territory. It’s a fantasy, a dream. Whether hawks actually believe this is or are just pretending to do so, counting on conscription (or something) to provide the troops necessary for an occupation, I couldn't say. Either way, these are not people who should be listened to or in any way given a respectful hearing.

The Iraq War, meanwhile, was semi-legitimate under international law. There were years worth of United Nations resolutions demanding that Saddam come clean about his WMD. Even though he turned out not to have had any, he really didn’t ever come clean. Resolution 1441, passed before the war, was deliberately ambiguous as to whether it authorized the use of force. None of this is true of Iran. Everything it’s done so far is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If Iran does go forward with a bomb program, it will need to leave the NPT, something the NPT itself permits. There’s nothing resembling a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force, and the United States has cozy alliances with two non-NPT countries (Israel and Pakistan) and is getting cozier with India.

Saddam’s regime really was one of the most brutal in the world (probably number two after North Korea). Iran’s regime is unpleasant, but not notably more repressive than those prevailing in the region. Indeed, compared to close Arab allies of the United States like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, etc., Iran is closer to being a democracy. Politically, it’s about on the level of Morocco's pseudo-democracy, probably the most progressive of the bunch. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is given to saying crazy stuff, but unlike Saddam, the Iranians have never waged war on their neighbors and the government hasn’t even “gassed its own people” or whatever other talking points you want to break out. Nor has Iran, to anyone's knowledge, ever been involved in any terrorist attacks on American civilians.

Instead, the big fear is supposed to be that Iran will launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Israel. The evidence for this is so weak that people feel the need to make stuff up. In The New Republic Daniel Jonah Goldhagen tried to make this case and had to clearly misinterpret something a former (yes, former) president of Iran said after he left office to do it. In a later issue of the same magazine, Matthias Kuntzel just truncated the same quotation to make his interpretation seem more plausible. Jeffrey Bell once alleged in The Weekly Standard that Ahmadinejad “muses about the possibility of correcting that Nazi failure by dropping a nuclear bomb on Israel,” which never happened. I called him up and asked him about that, and he explained he was using “poetic license” (my understanding had always been that journalists, not actually being poets or fiction writers of any sort, didn’t have this license).

This aside, the idea that any Iranian leader would commit national suicide in order to harm Israel is ridiculous. Lots of “crazy” leaders -- Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il -- have had nuclear weapons and they’ve never done anything like that. What’s more, if Iran wanted to start a war with Israel, kill a bunch of Jews, and get wiped out in the process they could do that with conventional weapons. But in more than 20 years in power, the Islamic Republic’s never done any such thing. Indeed, just over the weekend Iran announced it would offer up a paltry $50 million in aid to the new Hamas-ified Palestinian Authority compared with many hundreds of millions in funding the PA lost from Europe and the United States. Just as they taught me in Hebrew school, the Islamic world’s governments like to talk a big game about Israel, but don’t actually give a rat's ass about the issue and never have.

They’ll do anything to help the Palestinian cause unless it involves spending money, risking the stability of their own regimes, or deploying their military assets. Now we’re supposed to believe that, suddenly, the Mullahs are willing to guarantee their own destruction in order to turn the holy city of Jerusalem into a radioactive wasteland. That’s absurd.

A nuclear Iran, however, would be worse than a non-nuclear one. Enough worse, that it’s worth trying to see what kind of diplomatic concessions the Iranians might want in exchange for giving their program up. Maybe if we stopped trying to impoverish their country and overthrow their government while threatening to bomb them, they’d agree to rigorous inspections. If so, we should take the deal. If not, then we’ll live with it. But under no circumstances should war be an option.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleId=11431

Can't agree more.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

By my math, that makes 1.

The only one that says we should bomb right now. But there are several that have said that war is an option assuming diplomacy fail. You said:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't see anybody suggesting it would be a good idea to attack Iran, and only the lefties think it's likely.

You are now moving the goalposts to only include people that want to nuke Iran tomorrow, which isn't what you said.

[Dutch]

The only one that says we should bomb right now. But there are several that have said that war is an option assuming diplomacy fail.

What is your opinion of Iran using nuclear weapons if they acquire them?

[Solecismic]

Obviously, the blogger here feels that Iran would never use nuclear weapons. And if that is the case, then he's absolutely right. No sense attacking Iran over something that doesn't matter in the long run.

I feel differently. I don't dismiss the lunatic ravings as mere rhetoric. The leader of Iran has promised to wipe Israel off the map. Just as other lunatic leaders in the region did before they attacked. Perhaps Iran's war simulations indicate that a first-strike nuke will take out Israel's second-strike capabilities. Or perhaps they feel that Allah has blessed them with this weapon for a reason.

It all amounts to whether you believe Iran's current leadership is capable of making that determination. History says they are. This blogger, who repeatedly rallies against U.S. aid to Israel, makes quite a few mentions of Israel behaving badly toward Palestinians while explaining away the leadership of Palestine as violence from radical outliers. He does seem biased.

Just to edit to reiterate one point: we are not anywhere near the point where bombing or invasions is an appropriate response. If that's where Bush is headed, he needs to be stopped.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So, basically, what you're saying is that because I'm not a military expert, I should defer to your selection of nattering nabobs?

I'm saying that since we are not military experts, we should listen to those who are. Here is a list of real scholars, real military people, and not just 'nattering nabobs' that believe that any war with Iran is not a good option:

http://thinkprogress.org/iran-military-option

Originally Posted by Solecismic

People learn from mistakes. Maybe Bush's successor will listen, and will put a better strategist in Rumsfeld's place.

One mistake was not having enough troops in Iraq. Problem is, we didn't have enough troops to do it right. And Iran has four to five times the insurrection population as Iraq. So any invasion/occupation is off the table, unless you want a major draft along with major expenses that would make Iraq look cheap.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If bombing only sets them back a couple of years, come back in a year or so and bomb again. Eventually, they will get tired of wasting money on expensive recepticles for our bombs and they will stop building nukes.

What about the effects of war with Iran? Oil prices? Muslim hostility? Attacks on our troops in Iraq? Iran using Hezbollah has a proxy? We don't just bomb and go home and have a beer with the Iranians after it is over. I don't see any benefits that match that cost.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Meanwhile, repeating what I said about the Palestinian situation... by implying that it's a 50/50 conflict, you defend the use of force by Hamas. I don't see how it can be viewed a 50/50 conflict, when one side is doing its best to eradicate the other. You have steadfastly refused to comment on the Hamas charter, and how that contrasts with what the Israelis say and do.

The Palestinians are the ones that believe their land was stolen, of course their position is that they shouldn't exist. If someone took your cake, then wanted to keep it, you would want it back, not have it split between you (that is the way that the Palestinians see the issue anyway, which can be debated).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Obviously, the blogger here feels that Iran would never use nuclear weapons. And if that is the case, then he's absolutely right. No sense attacking Iran over something that doesn't matter in the long run.

I feel differently.

me too

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What is your opinion of Iran using nuclear weapons if they acquire them?

I think the odds are low that they will use them, and even lower that they will use them against us.

Iran is one of the most stable and democratic countries in the Middle East. One of their biggest allies is one of our supposed biggest allies, UAE. Why would the UAE be going after such big ties with them if they were the next Nazi Germany?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Obviously, the blogger here feels that Iran would never use nuclear weapons. And if that is the case, then he's absolutely right. No sense attacking Iran over something that doesn't matter in the long run.

I feel differently. I don't dismiss the lunatic ravings as mere rhetoric. The leader of Iran has promised to wipe Israel off the map. Just as other lunatic leaders in the region did before they attacked. Perhaps Iran's war simulations indicate that a first-strike nuke will take out Israel's second-strike capabilities. Or perhaps they feel that Allah has blessed them with this weapon for a reason.

Question: if they didn't care about mutual destruction, couldn't Iran wipe out Isreal just as easily with conventional weapons? How does nukes change the equation?

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This blogger, who repeatedly rallies against U.S. aid to Israel...

I don't know if you are wrong or right on this, but what is your point? Are you trying to say that this Jew is an anti-semite? And he is a writer for the American Prospect, and pretty highly regarded.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Question: if they didn't care about mutual destruction, couldn't Iran wipe out Isreal just as easily with conventional weapons? How does nukes change the equation?

they dont want to make the same mistake that others in the past have made of underestimating israel. There is a huge article on the ties that are being solidified between arab nations in their disdain for Israel. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the hamas, PLO, Jihadists will be difficult to math up with since the enemy will be coming from inside and out.

Iran having nukes should not be an option allowed by anyone.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

they dont want to make the same mistake that others in the past have made of underestimating israel. There is a huge article on the ties that are being solidified between arab nations in their disdain for Israel. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the hamas, PLO, Jihadists will be difficult to math up with since the enemy will be coming from inside and out.

Iran having nukes should not be an option allowed by anyone.

What do you mean? If the entire Arab world put it's entire military, missiles, nerve gas, bio weapons, etc, and left nothing back at home to defend the homeland, they could easily destory Isreal. Since Isreal has second strike capability, how do nukes change the equation?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The Palestinians are the ones that believe their land was stolen, of course their position is that they shouldn't exist. If someone took your cake, then wanted to keep it, you would want it back, not have it split between you (that is the way that the Palestinians see the issue anyway, which can be debated).

They're wrong. The Israelis have just as much right to the land, from both a recent historic (back to the 1890s) and a long-term (birth of civilization) perspective. The Palestinians were mostly nomadic people, and never tried to settle the land themselves.

Originally, both groups were to live together in peace. But in 1948, the rest of the Arab world convinced the Palestinians who were trying to live in peace to leave their homes so they could finish Hitler's job. The Israelis survived, against all odds.

Anyone who believes the Palestinians are entitled to Israel is, in my opinion, an anti-Semite. The Israelis have a right to some homeland, and this little piece of land the size of New Jersey, which they settled out of mostly desert themselves, is all they have.

You can complain that the British didn't have the right to imperialistically set boundaries on their own, but they were certainly at odds with the Jews themselves and the Jews did not get a great deal here. You should be mad at the British, not the six million people living in this tiny piece of land who had no other place to go.

The Palestinians could easily be absorbed into any number of much larger Arab countries nearby. But these Arab countries refuse to take them in. Why? Because it keeps the pressure on Israel.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Question: if they didn't care about mutual destruction, couldn't Iran wipe out Isreal just as easily with conventional weapons? How does nukes change the equation?


I don't know if you are wrong or right on this, but what is your point? Are you trying to say that this Jew is an anti-semite? And he is a writer for the American Prospect, and pretty highly regarded.

They've tried before, with forces from several countries, and Israel has proven that it can defend itself against conventional attack, even against what looks like staggering odds. They don't just want to war against Israel, they want to slaughter every man, woman and child. A prolonged attack that includes Arabs on Israeli soil going house to house slaughtering people greatly increases the chances that Israel will retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Iran having nukes gives it the power to do the home-to-home slaughtering at a distance. Or through presumed proxy.

I have no idea what Yglacias believes in his heart, other than he writes a lot about believing the US gives too much foreign aid to Israel and he thinks the Arab terrorists are not mainstream. I disagree. He's a good writer, but he's very young and I think he needs to get out there. Maybe he should live in Israel for awhile, see the conflict first-hand. That's the difference between a blogger and a journalist.

[sedator]

I don't post very often but to this I just could not resist.

Since the day the sun rose on humanity people from this region have faught and killed each other, they will continue to do so until the day the sun sets on humanity. So if letting Iran go nuclear speeds up this process so be it.

I think in the best interest of the US and Europe would be to have Iran remain without nuclear capability, but as for invading Iran I think Isreal should do the bombing after all its in thier backyard not ours.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by sedator

I don't post very often but to this I just could not resist.

Since the day the sun rose on humanity people from this region have faught and killed each other, they will continue to do so until the day the sun sets on humanity. So if letting Iran go nuclear speeds up this process so be it.

I think in the best interest of the US and Europe would be to have Iran remain without nuclear capability, but as for invading Iran I think Isreal should do the bombing after all its in thier backyard not ours.

I may agree with your conclusions, but not the way you got there. Sounds a little too racist (or religion-ist) for me. It's hard to say that people from that region are more prone to killing than anywhere else. Haven't we killed more people in the middle east than anyone else in the past 20 years?

[NoMyths]

The speech reproduced in this post articulates a lot of my feelings on the matter. I'd encourage everyone who has an opinion on the matter to read it.

Warning: it's long, and I realize we're all Americans, but if there's ever a time for an effort at increasing attention span, that speech is it.

[Flasch186]

things are not looking up for the whole area. It seems Hamas has no sense or care what the international community thinks of their overtures or moves.

Abbas Blocks Hamas Plan for Security Force

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 45 minutes ago

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday vetoed Hamas' plan to set up a security force of 4,000 militants, but Hamas insisted it would go ahead, deepening the bitterest clash yet between the Islamic group and the moderate Palestinian leader.
ADVERTISEMENT

Hamas, which ousted Abbas'
Fatah Party from power in January parliamentary elections, had spoken in the past of incorporating militants into the Fatah-dominated Palestinian security forces.

But the concept of a shadow security force headed by the No. 2 fugitive on
Israel's wanted list appeared to go too far for Abbas, who favors talks with Israel and is trying to keep the West from shunning the Palestinians over Hamas' violently anti-Israel ideology.

The new force, to be based in chaotic Gaza, is to have about 4,000 members, or nearly one-fourth the size of the 18,000-member armed security contingent in the coastal strip.

Egypt, meanwhile, invited interim Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for an official visit even before he has put together his government, signaling it is eager to do business with a man keen to draw Israel's final borders with the Palestinians within the next four years.

Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak extended the invitation in a telephone call to Olmert, and a date for the visit is to be set next week, aides to the Israeli leader said. Israeli and Egyptian leaders haven't met since February 2005.

Egypt's MENA news agency reported the phone call, but did not mention any invitation.

Olmert has said he prefers a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, but is expected to act unilaterally because of Hamas' refusal to disarm or recognize Israel's right to exist.

Hamas hard-line policies have already cost it hundreds of millions of dollars in Western aid and Israeli transfer payments. Abbas, who was elected separately, saw the proposed militants' security force as yet another act of defiance, and on Friday, wielded his ultimate power — the presidential veto — to block the force.

"All the officers, soldiers and security personnel are asked not to abide by these decisions and to consider them null and void," Abbas wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. A text of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

Government spokesman Ghazi Hamad said Interior Minister Said Siyam, who nominally controls three of the six existing security forces, would form the new force as planned, despite Abbas' veto.

"The decision of the interior minister conformed with the law ... which gives the minister the authority to take the necessary decisions to guarantee security," Hamad said. "The aim of the decision was to support and strengthen the efforts of the police, and not to replace the police."

In
Syria, Hamas' political chief, Khaled Mashaal, lashed out at Abbas' veto, without mentioning the Palestinian leader by name.

"We can understand that Israel and America are persecuting us, and seeking ways to besiege and starve us, but what about the sons of our people who are plotting against us, who are following a studied plan to make us fai1?" Mashaal said.

Abbas' clash with Hamas over the security forces is the bitterest tussle since the two sides started wrangling over authority.

Hamas' proposed security force would draw its members from various militant factions. The force is to be headed by Jamal Abu Samhadana, 43, a founder of the small Popular Resistance Committees, which blew up three Israeli tanks in 2002 and 2003, killing seven Israeli soldiers. The group is also suspected in a deadly bombing attack on a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Gaza in 2003.

Abu Samhadana, who refused to discuss Abbas' decree, told The AP he would continue his resistance despite his appointment to head the militants' forces.

"I am not going to give up resistance," he said. "There is no contradiction between the appointment and resistance. I am a fighter who is protecting the homeland."

During five years of fighting, Israel has killed dozens of militants in targeted missile attacks. Abu Samhadana is high on Israel's wanted list, and Israel has tried to kill him in targeted strikes.

"We have old scores to settle with this murderer," Israeli Cabinet minister Zeev Boim told Israel Radio. "He has no immunity and we will have to settle this score sooner or later."

Meanwhile, a senior Israeli military commander raised the pressure on Hamas by saying Israel is preparing for a possible invasion of Gaza.

Officials said there were no immediate plans to strike. But the comments reflected rising Israeli impatience with Hamas, which defended a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv this week and hasn't halted militant rocket fire from Gaza.

"If the price we have to pay becomes unreasonable as a result of increased attacks, then we shall have to take all steps, including occupying the
Gaza Strip," Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, head of Israel's southern command, told the Maariv daily. He said the plans have been approved by senior officials, including Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.

Israel already has made two brief incursions into Gaza in recent days to search for explosives. But defense officials said the odds of a large-scale operation or full occupation are slim because of financial and political constraints.

Israel withdrew from Gaza last summer, ending 38 years of military occupation. Since the pullout, militants have fired rockets into southern Israel on nearly a daily basis.

[Flasch186]

Hey FLASCH186.

What?

You are looking more and more right all the time on this one.

Thanks.



Iran Threatens Israel if U.S. Attacks

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran - A top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander said Tuesday that
Israel would be
Iran's first retaliatory target in response to any U.S. attack.


"We have announced that whenever America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel," the Iranian Student News Agency quoted Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani as saying.

Dehghani, a top commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, also said Israel was not prepared to go war against Iran.

"We will definitely resist...U.S. B-52 (bombers)," Dehghani also was quoted as saying.

President Bush has said a military option remained on the table if Iran did not agree to international demands for it to stop enriching uranium. The American leader has said, however, that Washington wanted to solve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program through diplomacy.

[flere-imsaho]

Good work Flasch, I expect you to be first in line when we storm the beach.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Good work Flasch, I expect you to be first in line to burn your draft card when the shit hits the fan.

Fixed that for you.

[Flasch186]

whats a draft card? I kid.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Hey FLASCH186.

What?

You are looking more and more right all the time on this one.

Thanks.

What are you right about? That if we attack Iran they will attack Isreal? Yeah, no kidding. Not only did Iraq do the same thing during the first Gulf War, but they did the same thing for the same reason: they are absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. They have no missiles that can reach us, they have no power they can project to our shores.

Because they will attack Isreal if we attack them is not a reason to attack them. In fact, it's a reason NOT to attack them.

[Flasch186]

sorry, my initial point way back in this thread, which you disagree with, is that their hatred for Israel will lead them to attack Israel sometime regardless of what we do to prompt it. They will launch a strike at israel.

This article simply shows their willingness to view israel as target #1 no matter what.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

sorry, my initial point way back in this thread, which you disagree with, is that their hatred for Israel will lead them to attack Israel sometime regardless of what we do to prompt it. They will launch a strike at israel.

This article simply shows their willingness to view israel as target #1 no matter what.

What do you mean 'no matter what'? If we attack them, it is a perfectly rational response on their part to attack Isreal. They simply don't have the ability to attack us. If we attack them, they will probably also shoot at our planes. That doesn't mean that they will launch an attack against our planes no matter what. This doesn't help your point at all.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What do you mean 'no matter what'? If we attack them, it is a perfectly rational response on their part to attack Isreal. They simply don't have the ability to attack us. If we attack them, they will probably also shoot at our planes. That doesn't mean that they will launch an attack against our planes no matter what. This doesn't help your point at all.

Actually, no matter what is said or shown, you will NEVER agree to anyone else's point but your own so what good does it do to have you debate the topic at all. I showed that Israel is target #1 for iran, We showed that Iran is flaunting their nose at IAEA and the UN, we have stated our opinions that Iran having Nukes WILL in turn lead them to attacking Israel and why that seems rational to them. That is our side of the debate and we have the articles and history to come to our OPINION. That is all, sir.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Actually, no matter what is said or shown, you will NEVER agree to anyone else's point but your own so what good does it do to have you debate the topic at all. I showed that Israel is target #1 for iran, We showed that Iran is flaunting their nose at IAEA and the UN, we have stated our opinions that Iran having Nukes WILL in turn lead them to attacking Israel and why that seems rational to them. That is our side of the debate and we have the articles and history to come to our OPINION. That is all, sir.

While I do agree that you are unlikely to persuade MrB, I find it odd that you would target someone else with such an arrogant dismissal. You rarely engage in anything that would be considered "debate" on an issue. Instead you take a stand (and you try to take contary views to prove you are non-partisan in your own mind) and then get mad that people don't agree with you. That is not debate. We (myself included) have all done that in political debates on this board, but Flasch you really seem to make this your normal tact. You aren't as bad as Dutch in doing this (that is a low, low bar), but I think viewing yourself as somehow better than MrB in this regard is mistaken.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Actually, no matter what is said or shown, you will NEVER agree to anyone else's point but your own so what good does it do to have you debate the topic at all. I showed that Israel is target #1 for iran, We showed that Iran is flaunting their nose at IAEA and the UN, we have stated our opinions that Iran having Nukes WILL in turn lead them to attacking Israel and why that seems rational to them. That is our side of the debate and we have the articles and history to come to our OPINION. That is all, sir.

Haha, hilarious Flasch. Your points do not show what you think they do. No kidding Isreal is Iran's #1 enemy. No kidding they will be attacked if we invade them. But not a single point you have made supports the fact that Iran would want to get annihilated just to start a war of aggression against Isreal. That is not rational, so you actually have to have something to back that up, not just accept it as fact. And the fact that they will attack Isreal if we attack comes nowhere near doing that.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What do you mean 'no matter what'? If we attack them, it is a perfectly rational response on their part to attack Isreal. They simply don't have the ability to attack us. If we attack them, they will probably also shoot at our planes. That doesn't mean that they will launch an attack against our planes no matter what. This doesn't help your point at all.

You have lost your mind. That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. How dare you even try to justify such an evil, asinine policy?

Imagine if Bush said something like "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt."

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You have lost your mind. That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. How dare you even try to justify such an evil, asinine policy?

Imagine if Bush said something like "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt."

Ok... read that quote in W's voice in your head... it's a lot funnier.

Iran is dead-set against Israel. Any argument to the contrary is head-in-the-sand appeasement talk... the sort of thing that got a lot of Jews killed back in the 30's and 40's.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You have lost your mind. That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. How dare you even try to justify such an evil, asinine policy?

Imagine if Bush said something like "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt."

MrB can speak for himself, but I assume he meant "perfectly rational" in the realism sense of the world, not in the morally justifiable sense of the word.

I had to reply at the irony though. So, if the U.S. attacks Iran and Iran attacks Israel, that is the "most idiotic thing [you] have ever heard" and an "evil, asinine policy." And it is like Bush saying "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt." And yet when Al Qaeda attacked the U.S., we justifiably invaded Iraq? Interesting.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by John Galt

While I do agree that you are unlikely to persuade MrB, I find it odd that you would target someone else with such an arrogant dismissal. You rarely engage in anything that would be considered "debate" on an issue. Instead you take a stand (and you try to take contary views to prove you are non-partisan in your own mind) and then get mad that people don't agree with you. That is not debate. We (myself included) have all done that in political debates on this board, but Flasch you really seem to make this your normal tact. You aren't as bad as Dutch in doing this (that is a low, low bar), but I think viewing yourself as somehow better than MrB in this regard is mistaken.

Well thats not true though. Via debate on this here boards many people have changed my views on stuff. Most recently being theDubai ports deal, I forgot who the person was but someone directed me to a link wherein I found the information I needed to change myview and did so. I can think of more than once where Glen or Bishop has shown me information that changed my view. Are you just ignoring these in the "flasch" = X vain? I dont understand that. I may be emotional but I am open minded on issues enough to change my stance when I learn that Im worng or information changes. no?

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by John Galt

MrB can speak for himself, but I assume he meant "perfectly rational" in the realism sense of the world, not in the morally justifiable sense of the word.

I had to reply at the irony though. So, if the U.S. attacks Iran and Iran attacks Israel, that is the "most idiotic thing [you] have ever heard" and an "evil, asinine policy." And it is like Bush saying "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt." And yet when Al Qaeda attacked the U.S., we justifiably invaded Iraq? Interesting.

Only perfectly rational people would read MrB comments as such though!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

MrB can speak for himself, but I assume he meant "perfectly rational" in the realism sense of the world, not in the morally justifiable sense of the word.

I had to reply at the irony though. So, if the U.S. attacks Iran and Iran attacks Israel, that is the "most idiotic thing [you] have ever heard" and an "evil, asinine policy." And it is like Bush saying "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt." And yet when Al Qaeda attacked the U.S., we justifiably invaded Iraq? Interesting.

As you are well aware, the reasons for invading Iraq were not so simple, and are in fact still being debated by reasonable men.

If you think it's rational for Iran to attack Israel when Israel has not attacked Iran then you are just wrong, end of story.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You have lost your mind. That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. How dare you even try to justify such an evil, asinine policy?

st.cronin, Isreal is our ally, correct? We care about what happens to Isreal, correct? Any military action in the area will most likely have their blessing, and probably some help from them at least in terms of intelligence, correct? Iran has no hope of attacking our country, correct?

How does this not make them a legitimate target? It boggles my mind that you can defend a war of aggression on Iran and at the same time call their retaliatory strike on Isreal 'evil' and 'asinine'. Incredible.

Shorter st.cronin: USA good! Iran bad!

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Imagine if Bush said something like "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt."

Keep in mind also that Iran doesn't have nukes, so saying that I said that it would be ok for Iran to nuke Isreal is not only a strawman, but not connected to reality.

Imagine if Bush said something like "If Al Queda attacks us, we'll nuke Iran". Crazy, I know!

EDIT: Looks like JG and I thought the same thing reading the imagined Bush comment. And yes, I meant it's rational as in it being rational for guerrillas to fight the way they do, I wasn't speaking in terms of moral justification.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well thats not true though. Via debate on this here boards many people have changed my views on stuff. Most recently being theDubai ports deal, I forgot who the person was but someone directed me to a link wherein I found the information I needed to change myview and did so. I can think of more than once where Glen or Bishop has shown me information that changed my view. Are you just ignoring these in the "flasch" = X vain? I dont understand that. I may be emotional but I am open minded on issues enough to change my stance when I learn that Im worng or information changes. no?

My emphasis is on the word "debate" not on the steadfastness of one's views. Debate is the exchange of argument and discussion of oppositional viewpoints. One can have a highly effective debate where no one changes their mind. You can also have an argument (but not a debate) where everyone changes their mind. Debate is about engaging and opponent's arguments, recognizing weaknesses, and responding accordingly. It is not just about finding out something you didn't know (like the Dubai ports issue). In your arguments, I think you usually ignore the objections of your opponents (i.e. in this discussion, you seem to gloss over the fact that the rhetoric of Iran's leadership is probably not the reality, you presume irrationality on a small historic record, and ignore a lot of historical construction of enemy threats that proved to false) and fail to engage their strong points. I would say Jim is "debating" in this thread and you are shouting.

I value debate (although I do my share of shouting). To criticize MrB for his failure to change his mind (especially in the fashion you did) strikes me as missing the point. If a debate is only about changing your opponent's mind, then I have failed in virtually every debate I've had on this board. I like to think that isn't the case.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Imagine if Bush said something like "If Iran attacks Israel, we will nuke Egypt."

Yeah, it's kind of like saying "Osama bin Ladin attacked us, so let's get rid of Saddam." Oh wait...

Seriously though, I agree that rational choice theory would not predict a conventional Iranian attack on Israel following a US military action on Iran, especially since Iran doesn't have the power projection capability.

Leveraging their unconventional capacity wouldn't be that surprising, however.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Keep in mind also that Iran doesn't have nukes, so saying that I said that it would be ok for Iran to nuke Isreal is not only a strawman, but not connected to reality.

but we cant let it get that far to see. not a good gamble considering all the outside static.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

st.cronin, Isreal is our ally, correct? We care about what happens to Isreal, correct? Any military action in the area will most likely have their blessing, and probably some help from them at least in terms of intelligence, correct? Iran has no hope of attacking our country, correct?

How does this not make them a legitimate target? It boggles my mind that you can defend a war of aggression on Iran and at the same time call their retaliatory strike on Isreal 'evil' and 'asinine'. Incredible.

Shorter st.cronin: USA good! Iran bad!


Keep in mind also that Iran doesn't have nukes, so saying that I said that it would be ok for Iran to nuke Isreal is not only a strawman, but not connected to reality.

Imagine if Bush said something like "If Al Queda attacks us, we'll nuke Iran". Crazy, I know!

I have said repeatedly that war with Iran would be a mistake. But it is a lie to equate Israeli policy in the region with US policy in the region, and a lie that is repeated by those who should know better. Honestly, Kuwait or Turkey would make more sense as a target for Iran if that is the point of view.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

As you are well aware, the reasons for invading Iraq were not so simple, and are in fact still being debated by reasonable men.

If you think it's rational for Iran to attack Israel when Israel has not attacked Iran then you are just wrong, end of story.

As usual, you have no consistent view of the world and make it up as you go along. I thought your bizarre habit of making stuff up and being indignant was limited to political threads until you randomly asserted that Jim was working on TCY2. Now, I just don't know what goes through your mind.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you think it's rational for Iran to attack Israel when Israel has not attacked Iran then you are just wrong, end of story.

I'm glad you feel this way. You are therefore very much against any attack that the US would make on Iran, so the whole point of Iran attacking Isreal if we attack is moot. Right?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Leveraging their unconventional capacity wouldn't be that surprising, however.

Given Israel's hardened second-strike capability, I'm not sure that's the case. It would be an awful big gamble to launch a nuke at Israel on the hope that they wouldn't launch back. MAD is a disturbing, yet historically effective doctrine for keeping peace.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

That is our side of the debate and we have the articles and history to come to our OPINION.

Emphasis mine.

What is this "history" of which you speak? Can you relate for me the last time Iran attacked another country (without being attacked first)?

Or maybe you're speaking about the last "rogue state" to acquire WMD, which would be Pakistan or North Korea, depending on your point of view. Neither of them attacked their neighbors immediately afterwards (pre-existing conflict in Kashmir excepted).

So, where exactly are the facts that bolster this opinion:

we have stated our opinions that Iran having Nukes WILL in turn lead them to attacking Israel

I don't know, maybe you're trying to say that if Iran develops nukes, the U.S. will attack them, and then they will attack Israel, and that this is not a rational thing for Iran to do. If so, then yes, this is a compelling argument, since Iran would be following the same gameplan the Bush Administration followed after 9/11: Get attacked by Afghanistan-based, Saudi-financed terrorists and after a slight diversion, attack an unrelated 3rd country, on the strength of supposed connections between that country and your original enemy.

Actually, by that logic, Iran probably have the stronger case.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by John Galt

My emphasis is on the word "debate" not on the steadfastness of one's views. Debate is the exchange of argument and discussion of oppositional viewpoints. One can have a highly effective debate where no one changes their mind. You can also have an argument (but not a debate) where everyone changes their mind. Debate is about engaging and opponent's arguments, recognizing weaknesses, and responding accordingly. It is not just about finding out something you didn't know (like the Dubai ports issue). In your arguments, I think you usually ignore the objections of your opponents (i.e. in this discussion, you seem to gloss over the fact that the rhetoric of Iran's leadership is probably not the reality, you presume irrationality on a small historic record, and ignore a lot of historical construction of enemy threats that proved to false) and fail to engage their strong points. I would say Jim is "debating" in this thread and you are shouting.

I value debate (although I do my share of shouting). To criticize MrB for his failure to change his mind (especially in the fashion you did) strikes me as missing the point. If a debate is only about changing your opponent's mind, then I have failed in virtually every debate I've had on this board. I like to think that isn't the case.

hmmm, interesting point. Perhaps I do my fair share of shouting but I certainly do NOT disregard others points but you are failing to see, like in this thread, that we are actually not debating but talking in circles because Jim and my view is that we cant allow iran to get nukes because that will lead to them attacking Israel unprovoked (although who knows what they consider provoked if they dont already consider themselves provoked like Hamas does), the other side is saying we shouldnt/cant attack Iran because we dont know what the future holds. So this is essentially a shouting match unless we trim down the focus of the debate, no? Am I understanding you correctly.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

As usual, you have no consistent view of the world and make it up as you go along. I thought your bizarre habit of making stuff up and being indignant was limited to political threads until you randomly asserted that Jim was working on TCY2. Now, I just don't know what goes through your mind.

Jim has said he is working on new versions of both games. And you're right, I just make up my worldview all by myself, instead of getting it from whatever newspaper or website. It's called independent thinking.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

They have no missiles that can reach us, they have no power they can project to our shores.

I am loathe to join in on this thread but I did want to point out one thing. While I agree Iran currently doesn't have a rocket that can reach our shores they certainly could in the semi-near future. They have already launched a satellite into space with the help of the Russians and are far more advanced than I think many people realize.

Sadly, as I posted in another Iran thread I really don't see a good answer to this one. I also think the situation will get much worse before it gets any better.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Given Israel's hardened second-strike capability, I'm not sure that's the case. It would be an awful big gamble to launch a nuke at Israel on the hope that they wouldn't launch back. MAD is a disturbing, yet historically effective doctrine for keeping peace.

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.

What I meant by "uncoventional" was their sponsorship of terrorist groups. Israel has tolerated this for some time (again, since the Israeli's long range power projection capability is also rather limited).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the other side is saying we shouldnt/cant attack Iran because we dont know what the future holds.

See, I think that's what I'm talking about. Your characterization of the "other side" is pretty weak and not particularly accurate, IMO. I think people are saying there is a lot of history (other "bad" regimes - China, North Korea, Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, and the Soviets) who talked big, but either gave up their nuclear pursuits or didn't use their weapons. And I think a lot of people subscribe to some version of international realism (although I bet most of them wouldn't sign off on realism's dismissal of arms control as a means of securing peace) that holds that countries tend to act rationally. Jim has made a good argument that maybe these countries leaders aren't rational. That is the meat of the debate, IMO. Your description of the "other side" seems to miss this point.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I have said repeatedly that war with Iran would be a mistake. But it is a lie to equate Israeli policy in the region with US policy in the region, and a lie that is repeated by those who should know better. Honestly, Kuwait or Turkey would make more sense as a target for Iran if that is the point of view.

Turkey and the US have icy relations right now. Turkey just denied the US airspace for attacks in Iran. Kuwait is muslim, and when Iraq attacked Kuwait the whole muslim world supported the Gulf War. And people in the US don't really care if Turkey or even Kuwait is hit, but they do care about Isreal. So Iranian threats and attacks on Isreal would be a concern to the American people, so that would help them out. It would also energize other countries in the muslim world to perhaps take their side. It makes much more sense for them to attack Isreal if we attack them, I'm surprised you can't see that.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Jim has said he is working on new versions of both games. And you're right, I just make up my worldview all by myself, instead of getting it from whatever newspaper or website. It's called independent thinking.

One might think there is a difference between independent thinking and contradictory and ad hoc thinking. But then again, maybe not.

[John Galt]

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.

What I meant by "uncoventional" was their sponsorship of terrorist groups. Israel has tolerated this for some time (again, since the Israeli's long range power projection capability is also rather limited).

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