# At what point in Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb are we justified in attacking? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2006, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082 "2006-02-12T04:39:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/161 "2006-02-17T09:18:51Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > It is a wonder that you live in the US given the trust you exhibit towards your fellow countrymen. History demonstrates that trusting America is insane. Ask what’s left of the Native Americans, or the Iraqis we encouraged to rebel, then stood by while the were killed. _Never trust America._ > [@Uzi](#): > > Saddam could have done one thing that would have stopped any invasion dead in its tracks. He could have stepped down. No, we would have invaded anyway; at least one U.S. official stated so before the war in an Italian interview. And no, I don’t have a cite from so long ago, I’m going by memory. IMHO, every member of the Saddam regime could have killed themselves and we’d have invaded. > [@Uzi](#): > > Iran can stop an invasion (assuming there ever would be one) dead in its tracks by not acting like nutbars. Nonsense. We don’t care how nutty they are. > [@Uzi](#): > > If they are so pissed and afraid of the US why is it they insessently say they are going to destroy Israel? What does this have to do with protecting themselves from invasion? It’s called appealing to the base. American politicians do it all the time. > [@Uzi](#): > > Once the Iraqi government is stable they will choose who gets contracts and who to sell to. No. they will sell or refuse to sell to whomever we order them to. That’s one of the major reasons we invaded, after all. > [@Uzi](#): > > If you truly believe this why hasn’t the US invaded Saudi Arabia? More oil there and the Saudis pretty much control all the oil through Aramco. Because Bush is buddies with the Saudis. > [@Uzi](#): > > Anyhoo, so, why do they insist on continually calling for the destruction of Israel who has little capability of doing anything to Iran, nor has shown the inclination of doing so? An appeal to the base, like I said. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/162 "2006-02-17T16:33:52Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] First, there was a cold war on. The geopolitical situation was very different, and the Soviet Union was engaged in proxy wars and signing up Arab countries for their side. The U.S. had to play that game or risk ceding the middle east and the world’s main oil supply to a hostile power. [QUOTE] That argument appears to be justifying US actions from the US point of view. Do you really think that an would Iranian feel “Oh, that’s okay then, they had an ideological conflict and wanted oil,” about US intervention? Here’s another way to look at it: would Iran be justified in meddling in the US government because they felt pressing competition for our resources in some ideological struggle? No, I think you’d be pissed at them. Certainly Joe Sixpack would be. Let’s look at **your very own formulation** through the eyes of an imaginary Iranian mullah: > [@Putative mullah](#): > > First, there was a holy war on. The geopolitical situation was very different, and the West was engaged in proxy wars and signing up Arab countries for liberal Democracy. Iran had to play that game [nuclear brinksmanship] or risk ceding the middle east and the world’s main oil supply to a hostile power. It kinda works, doesn’t it? See, in theory, other nations view themselves as sovereign, and in their view (rightly or wrongly), if one country can justify itself by compelling self-interest in a global ideological struggle, another can as well. I realize that Americans might have trouble accepting that. I am NOT defending Iran nor presupposing it has a moral right to nuclear weapons. I am strongly against proliferation personally. I merely wanted to point out that self-interest in a global conflict (cold war vs Communism could be seen as equivalent to holy war vs Liberal Democracy) is a poor justification indeed, and certainly won’t move the mullahs to roll over for us. You’ll have to argue better than that. Sailboat ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/163 "2006-02-17T16:42:15Z")
Bah, screwed up the quote tags. Should look like this: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > First, there was a cold war on. The geopolitical situation was very different, and the Soviet Union was engaged in proxy wars and signing up Arab countries for their side. The U.S. had to play that game or risk ceding the middle east and the world’s main oil supply to a hostile power. That argument appears to be justifying US actions from the US point of view. Do you really think that an would Iranian feel “Oh, that’s okay then, they had an ideological conflict and wanted oil,” about US intervention? Here’s another way to look at it: would Iran be justified in meddling in the US government because they felt pressing competition for our resources in some ideological struggle? No, I think you’d be pissed at them. Certainly Joe Sixpack would be. Let’s look at **your very own formulation** through the eyes of an imaginary Iranian mullah: > [@Putative mullah](#): > > First, there was a holy war on. The geopolitical situation was very different, and the West was engaged in proxy wars and signing up Arab countries for liberal Democracy. Iran had to play that game [nuclear brinksmanship] or risk ceding the middle east and the world’s main oil supply to a hostile power. It kinda works, doesn’t it? See, in theory, other nations view themselves as sovereign, and in their view (rightly or wrongly), if one country can justify itself by compelling self-interest in a global ideological struggle, another can as well. I realize that Americans might have trouble accepting that. I am NOT defending Iran nor presupposing it has a moral right to nuclear weapons. I am strongly against proliferation personally. I merely wanted to point out that self-interest in a global conflict (cold war vs Communism could be seen as equivalent to holy war vs Liberal Democracy) is a poor justification indeed, and certainly won’t move the mullahs to roll over for us. You’ll have to argue better than that. Sailboat ---
**Author:** ![Nietzsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8dc957/32.png) [@Nietzsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nietzsche)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/164 "2006-02-17T19:44:33Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > None of your cites says that the U.S. gave Iraq Chemical or biological weapons. Alright, how about [This one?](http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm) [Or this one?](http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html) [Here’s a concise sequence of events](http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php) > [@](#): > > Iraq was given pesticides, which could be used as a precursor to making chemical weapons. It was also given Anthrax strains through the commerce department, which were intended for agriculture use and which were NOT weaponized. I’d be able to accept that it was unintentional or mere benevolence on the part of the U.S. had it not been the only country to vote against condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons at the UN in 1986. So the Reagan administration, with strong opposition from the U.S. Congress as well as the UN, removes export controls that had been in place against Iraq simply because they felt Iraq must have weapons grade germs and chemicals for use in agriculture? Even after it was proven time and again that it was never used in agriculture, but rather, used as weapons? Are you testing the limits of credulity? Do you genuinely believe what you’re suggesting in the face of all that’s come to light since then? > [@](#): > > Now, you can make the argument that it was stupid of the U.S. to give that stuff to Iraq, and I wouldn’t argue. But there is a fundamental difference between this and turning over actual chemical or biological weapons. Yes it was stupid and yes they did know full well what it would be used for. And even when it was shown what it was being used for, the U.S. continued to supply it right up until Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/165 "2006-02-17T21:27:00Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Sorry, but that’s just unhinged. You really think Republicans would send anthrax through the mail to Democratic senators, hoping to kill them? Republicans are a bunch of murderers of their own colleagues? > > Btw, you do know that Bill Frist, one of the leading Republicans in the Senate, had ricin sent to his office, right? Oh, wait! That was just to cover the fact that they were trying to kill Democrats! Or maybe Frist knew too much, and the evil cabal was trying to rub him out! > > And of course, when the anthrax arrived in the Capitol, all the Republicans had their evil overlord gas masks on in case one of those detestable Democrats opened his envelope near one of the air vents. Those Republicans are clever. Bill Frist???Ricin for Frist??? What, you think Trent Lott doesn’t know how to lick a stamp?? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082.md?page=8)