# Go ahead, tell me again how we're NOT going to war with Iran **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 25, 2007, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026 "2007-10-25T20:51:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/221 "2007-11-05T15:59:35Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] So… I think our first priority should be dealing with the groups that have shown a willingness and capability of attacking us at home. [/QUOTE] That still doesn’t mean we can’t have a secondary priority. Nor have you offered any evidence, at all, that talking about Iran on the Dope, or the US’s actions wrt Iran have, in any way shape or form, reduced our commitment and involvement with Pakistan. [QUOTE=spoke-] As for your hysterical hand waving about Hezbollah’s alleged attacks on the US elsewhere, we’ll come back to that in a moment. (And let’s drop the pretense that Hezbollah and Iran are one and the same, by the way.) [/quote] Wow. Hand waving, by the way, means deliberating ignoring something via bluster. That’s what you just did, by the way. Nor are they “alleged” attacks, that’s a nifty piece of dishonesty on your part though. And as long as I’m at it, you pretending that anybody has ever said that Iran and Hezbollah are one and the same is absurd. Yet again, since you can’t or won’t directly address what someone is saying, you play a rousing game of make-believe. But good job arguing against the claim that Iran and Hezbollah are identical. If anybody in the thread was actually arguing that, you’d be ahead of the curve. And while I’m at it, what, are you proposing that Pakistan and Al Quaeda are “one and the same”? After all, in a discussion of Pakistan’s instability, you’re talking about how we should have that as a priority because of Al Quaeda has attacked us on our own soil. Make much sense to you? Perhaps logical consistency isn’t so much the order of the day as an apologia? [QUOTE=spoke-] Can we be concerned about Pakistan and Iran at the same time? I suppose we can, but it’s a question of allocation of resources. I regard Iran as much less of a threat to the US than Pakistan. (I suppose if I were looking at the situation from Israel’s perspective, I might think differently.) [/quote] Mmmm hmmmm. It’s those traitorous quisling Zionists again! Meanwhile, of course, you yet again ignore that there is absolutely no conflict, at all, between being worried by Iran and worried by Pakistan. Moreover, you deliberately ignore that there is a massive gulf between the dynamic of stabilizing a foreign nation that already has nukes, and trying to prevent another nation from developing nukes. Nor have you offered a single shred of support that we have some sort of problem with “allocation of resources” between Iran and Pakistan. It seems, instead, that you’re objecting to us talking about Iran on the Dope instead of Pakistan. Of course, you haven’t provided a scrap of proof to back up your claims… largely because you probably haven’t researched the issue and, well, you’re totally wrong. Simply to fight your ignorance, the actual [balance](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060304-4.html) of [resources](http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2007/82374.htm) is wildly disproportionate in Pakistan’s favor. Again, reading up on a subject before you post on it generally helps. [QUOTE=spoke-] Yes, Pakistan already has nukes. And (frighteningly) it is increasingly unstable. Iran, on the other hand, seems to be a stable nation, and is likely to remain so (unless we do something stupid and _de_stabilize it). [/quote] And, yet again, you ignore that Iran is stable around the idea of hating/opposing/using military force against the West. Stability for you seems to be some sort of bromide. What do you even think it means? A stable enemy is somehow a good thing all of a sudden? Pointing out that an enemy is stable somehow makes them, what, less of a threat? “Ivan, don’t worry about those Mongol hordes, they’re pretty stable.” [QUOTE=spoke-] It is a foolish waste of our military and intelligence resources to be so focused on Iran. _Al Qaida_, and the sorts of Sunni extremists who support it, are in Pakistan, not Iran. [/quote] And _Hezbollah_ and the sort of Shia extremists who support it, are all over the damn place, but also in Iran, not Pakistan. I have to say, though, it’s truly interesting that you puff up your chest and talk about what a big brave ol’ bravey brave person you are when one terrorist organization is mentioned, but as soon as another is mentioned, boy howdy, we should really take them seriously! It’s fear mongering if someone talks about Hezbollah, prudent caution if someone talks about Al Queada. Being aware of Hezbollah and Iran is falling prey to an “Islamofascist bugaboo”, but being aware of Al Quaeda and Saudi Arabia/Pakistan is just sound thinking. Somewhere, Athena is weeping. [QUOTE=spoke-] You keep waving your arms and shouting about Hezbollah “attacking us” yet they have never attacked the US on its own shores, have they? [/quote] Interesting. I will note that you’ve reached the point of your screed where, unable to deal with facts or logic, you’re now referring to text as ‘shouting’ and ‘waving its arms’. And where you either cannot or pretend that you have not already read any of the lists I’ve already given of the history of Hezbollah’s attacks against Americans. Obviously, if you’re dead from a Hezbollah attack and you’re not on our own shores, you get a do-over. Or something. Surely it’s somehow significant that Hezbollah murders Americans but that they don’t happen to murder them here, right? [QUOTE=spoke-] 1983 (twenty-four years ago): Allegedly bombed the US embassy in Lebanon. The attack was motivated by US intervention in Lebanon. [/quote] Ah, I see you’re playing the same game others have in this thread. Either you have neglected to read any of the cites I provided, or you are deliberately pretending that you haven’t. “Allegedly”. As if. In any case, pretending that US peacekeepers, in a separate country from Iran, are a “motivation” for murdering American civilians is a bit wacky, even for your argument. [QUOTE=spoke-] 1983: Allegedly bombed US barracks in Lebanon. Again, a response to US intervention in that country. [/quote] And again you pretend you haven’t read my cites or you engage in debate without bothering to read the thread. And again you pretend that somehow murdering US peacekeepers is a “response” to them having the effrontery to be in a separate nation from Iran. Meanwhile, I’m guessing that you also haven’t done any of the required reading on what actually happened in Lebanon? Talking about “US intervention” kinda makes that readily apparent. The US took part in a UN peacekeeping mission. For that, evidently, someone had a “reason” to murder US troops and civilians. [QUOTE=spoke-] (Hezbollah, incidentally, denies involvement in those bombings. [Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Accusations_of_bombings.2C_terrorism_and_kidnappings_by_Hezbollah).) [/quote] And you cite… Wikipedia. Good job! Luckily I’ve provided actual cites that you either can’t be bothered to read or can’t be honest enough to address. Ah well. [QUOTE=spoke-] What else you got? Be specific. Because I’m just not seeing Hezbollah “attacking us.” [/quote] I know, much like a few others in this thread, you can’t be bothered to read my posts, my links, my cites, or the evidence (but you’ll cite Wikipedia). Or you do read, and then you pretend that you haven’t. Instead of spamming this debate with uninformed opinions, why don’t you read up on Hezbollah? It’s interesting that those folks arguing your position can’t seem to remember past the early 1980’s. [QUOTE=spoke-] And again I ask: what would be Hezbollah’s motivation for attacking the US? (And “them guys is all nuts” is not an answer.) [/quote] Mmm hmmmmmmmm. So them being religious fanatics isn’t possibly part of the answer, spoke says so, so it aint. But, of course, the US daring to have an embassy in a country where they have peacekeepers is a “reason” for Hezbollah to murder some civilians. I wonder if your faux logic would hold up if the tables were turned, eh? Iran has influence/covert forces in quite a few countries. Do we have a “reason” to start blowing up their embassies? Or rather than logic and guiding principles, is this more an exercise in rationalization? [QUOTE=spoke-] It _is_ relevant. We were attacked by Sunnis on 9/11. Iran is a Shi’a nation. Are there Shi’a terrorists? Sure. But none that seem bent on attacking the US in the way the Sunni _al Qaida_ has done. [/quote] Yes, I know, it’s much better, Al Quaeda murders Americans in America, Hezbollah murders Americans outside of America. So… what? [QUOTE=spoke-] (_Al Qaida_ had a very definite motive. They wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia.) [/quote] … What is this, history off the back of a cereal box? Do you honestly think that the entire constellation of AQ ideology, goals, and theology boils down to “We want the US out of Saudi Arabia?” That’s it? [QUOTE=spoke-] Ah yes. The Islamofascist bugaboo. The Yellow Peril of our time. Pardon me if I’m not worried. [/quote] Brilliant factual refutation. Brilliant! You do know that willful ignorance doesn’t make the world go away? Right? You don’t think that simply because you pretend reality, aint, it’ll run away from you? It just, ya know, leaves you ignorant? Something tells me you cannot possibly rebut the facts, that Iran is a theocracy, that they export their ideology, or that they’re looking to spread it. In short, you just continue with this patently dishonest bull, remain deliberately ignorant, and crow about how very brave you are. [QUOTE=spoke-] We have limited resources. The biggest threat to the US is from Sunni extremists of the type found in Pakistan (and Saudi Arabia). By focusing our nation’s energy and resources on the Shi’a in Iran, we are taking our eye off the ball. [/quote] Right. Except a great deal of actual intelligence experts disagree with you. And I’ve cited them. And you’ve ignored or haven’t read them. And, of course, you’re again making stuff up when you pretend that our nation’s energy and resources are on Iran and not Pakistan. [QUOTE=spoke-] No, but if someone keeps griping about a canker sore, I might point out to them that they have a spreading melanoma on their backside that really ought to cause for greater alarm. [/QUOTE] And you _keep flinging this strawman_. You keep pretending that by deliberately muddying the waters and trying to talk about a totally different situation, that you’ve somehow dealt with this one. You haven’t. Nobody who has said Iran is a concern has talked about whether or not it’s a greater or lesser concern than other nations, except you. While you act as if you’re actually responding to… anybody at all. And your continued dishonesty, willful ignorance, and patting yourself on the back about how very, very brave you are to ignore facts just means you’re not actually interested in debate. So, I think I’m done with your game as well. If you can’t be bothered to read a thing about Hezbollah’s actions after the early 1980’s, I’m not going to pretend that you’re here to fight ignorance instead of spread it. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/222 "2007-11-05T16:02:49Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Sure, if it’s [peaceful](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War) [and](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/020801_082002140807.htm)[open.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16142-2004Oct7.html) Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] A wiki cite for a war the USA and it’s poodles armed both sides in and used the proceeds to fund terrorists somehow is meant to mean something? Well it does - just not what you think. And as the IAEA is giving Iran cooperation a positive report and has no evidence of any hidden program the Iranian nuclear weapons program remains as fictitious as the Iraq ones. [Latest IAEA report](http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Iran%20Sep%20BoG%20Report%20gov2007-48.pdf) > [@](#): > > 1. The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities. However, the Agency remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. > > It should be noted that since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, including pursuant to the Additional Protocol, for example information relevant to ongoing advanced centrifuge research. > > 1. The work plan is a significant step forward. If Iran finally addresses the long outstanding verification issues, the Agency should be in a position to reconstruct the history of Iran’s nuclear programme. Naturally, the key to successful implementation of the agreed work plan is Iran’s full and active cooperation with the Agency, and its provision to the Agency of all relevant information and access to all relevant documentation and individuals to enable the Agency to resolve all outstanding issues. > > To this end, the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures provided for in the Additional Protocol. > > 1. Once Iran’s past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to build confidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally important, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, through the implementation of the Additional Protocol. The Director General therefore again urges Iran to ratify and bring into force the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date, as requested by the Board of Governors and the Security Council. The only thing the Iranians aren’t doing is complying with UN Resolutions. Hardly unique to the area in that regard. So - no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, only evidence of the nuclear program they are entitled to develop as sigs to the NPT. But don’t worry - I’m sure another [Curveball](http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20071103_source_of_faulty_iraq_weapons_claims_revealed/) will conveniently emerge soon. [BBC report](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7075501.stm) I > [@](#): > > t quotes former CIA senior official Tyler Drumheller as saying: “It was a guy trying to get his green card essentially, in Germany, and playing the system for what it was worth.” > > German intelligence agents warned the US in a letter that there was no way to verify Mr Alwan’s claims. Maybe you want to provide some current non-wingnut evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program? Or perhaps you should send it straight to the IAEA. Evidence that post-dates 30th Aug 2007 which is the date of the IAEA report. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/223 "2007-11-05T16:21:34Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] The only thing the Iranians aren’t doing is complying with UN Resolutions. Hardly unique to the area in that regard. [/quote] I already posted a cite that discussed who particles of enriched uranium were found at an Iranian military base. The IAEA requested access, Iran said “sure”. They then _razed the base to the ground before the IAEA could get there._ In the same post, I cited Baradei talking about how Iran has, among other things, kept the full extent of its nuclear program from the IAEA. Your cite mentions the same issue, that Iran is deliberately being opaque in its dealing with the IAEA. That’s hardly a little matter. I’d also note that all they’ve confirmed is the non-diversion of declared nuclear materials. But they also state that Iran has hardly been totally forthcoming, and elsewhere they’ve confirmed that Iran had a roughly 20 year history of black market nuclear dealings. While Iran is still hiding details of its nuclear program, we can’t really pretend that we know its extent. [QUOTE=tagos] So - no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, only evidence of the nuclear program they are entitled to develop as sigs to the NPT. [/quote] Bull. Razing facilities to the ground, withholding information, not being transparent in their dealings with the IAEA, all of that does not fall under “only evidence” of an allowed nuclear program. Again, what possible reason could Iran have for deceit and subterfuge if its program was 100% legit? Yes yes, people will talk about how the US invaded Iraq. But we already know that Iran has a nuclear program, and we haven’t invaded. We haven’t even taken any steps that would allow us to even begin building up to an invasion. How on earth could hiding details of their nuclear program help them in any way, shape or form? If they were worried about the US attacking, they wouldn’t opt for maximum transparency, they’d do all they could to make it look like they had something to hide? Especially since it isn’t just the US that is involved, but much of the rest of the world wants to verify Iran’s intentions as well? [QUOTE=tagos] Maybe you want to provide some current non-wingnut evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program? [/quote] Can you provide a damn good reason for Iran to hide the facts of its nuclear program and give anything less than full disclosure if, as its foreign minister has already said, it has nothing to hide? I mean… honestly, why? If their program is 100% allowed, why hide anything? If the US was going to attack them anyway, why would convincing the world that the US was totally in error not be in their best interest? If the US was going to attack them anyway, why would providing full disclosure make things anything but better for Iran? Why would deception make things any better, or not make things worse? Can you think of a single rational reason? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/224 "2007-11-05T16:28:47Z")
[UN Chief attacks US claims](http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071028/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsiaeaus) > [@](#): > > UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding “fuel to the fire” with recent bellicose rhetoric. > > “We haven’t received any information there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapon program,” the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN. > > “Second, even if Iran were to be working on nuclear weapons … they are at least (a) few years away from having such weapon,” he said, citing Washington’s own intelligence assessments. > > “My fear (is) that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. The Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire.” > > The White House Friday rejected any parallels between its Iran rhetoric and the run-up to the Iraq war, after fresh sanctions on Tehran and escalating US warnings fueled comparisons to the months before the 2003 invasion. > > \ > > ElBaradei has been vindicated in his pre-war belief that Iraq was not resuming its own nuclear arms program, contrary to claims by Bush and Cheney. > > However, he said that in the current dispute, “we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks.” > > “But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.” > > Merely “exchanging rhetoric” would not resolve the Iranian nuclear case, the IAEA chief said, adding that “the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody.” > > North Korea has already detonated a nuclear device. But under six-nation talks, the Stalinist state has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program in return for a broad package of economic and diplomatic incentives. > > ElBaradei said it is time “to stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue because that’s an issue that could have a major conflagration, and not only regionally but globally.” > > “It could even accelerate a drive by Iran, even if they are not working on a nuclear weapon today, to go for a nuclear weapon,” the IAEA chief said. So I ask again - what real current vidence can you show? The fact that they are Muslims and therefore of course all bent on our destruction like the Borg isn’t evidence. Suspicions are not evidence and sure as hell hysterical accusations from the same crooks and liars with a blue-ball hard on for another war aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/225 "2007-11-05T16:39:54Z")
This is getting absurd. Will you at least make an attempt to respond to what people are actually saying? [QUOTE=tagos] So I ask again - what real current vidence can you show? [/quote] First, nobody in this thread has claimed that there is definitive evidence of a weapons program. Nobody. Drop the damn strawman. People have pointed out, numerous times, that there is evidence that contradicts Iran’s claims that it has nothing to hide and that its program is 100% legitimate. Your own source points this out! > [@](#): > > However, he said that in the current dispute, “we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks.” Baraedi says that they haven’t received evidence of a parallel, ongoing nuclear program. That doesn’t rule out a parallel, inactive nuclear program that could be started up later. Especially since the Iranian government has been actively blocking full disclosure. And they might also have not received evidence because as he himself has said, Iran is _withholding information._ Yet again with this issue, anybody who tries to sell you certainty one way or another is trying to sell something. Here, you’re using Baraedi’s own words that he can’t give Iran a pass in order to… what… give Iran a pass? [QUOTE=tagos] The fact that they are Muslims and therefore of course all bent on our destruction like the Borg isn’t evidence. [/quote] Dreaming up racist motivations as a strawman and ignoring the actual argument isn’t evidence of much, either. [QUOTE=tagos] Suspicions are not evidence [/quote] But Iran’s actions are evidence that they cannot be “given a pass”. **In Baraedi’s own words**. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/226 "2007-11-05T17:01:46Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] I already posted a cite that discussed who particles of enriched uranium were found at an Iranian military base. The IAEA requested access, Iran said “sure”. They then _razed the base to the ground before the IAEA could get there._ In the same post, I cited Baradei talking about how Iran has, among other things, kept the full extent of its nuclear program from the IAEA. Your cite mentions the same issue, that Iran is deliberately being opaque in its dealing with the IAEA. That’s hardly a little matter. I’d also note that all they’ve confirmed is the non-diversion of declared nuclear materials. But they also state that Iran has hardly been totally forthcoming, and elsewhere they’ve confirmed that Iran had a roughly 20 year history of black market nuclear dealings. While Iran is still hiding details of its nuclear program, we can’t really pretend that we know its extent. Bull. Razing facilities to the ground, withholding information, not being transparent in their dealings with the IAEA, all of that does not fall under “only evidence” of an allowed nuclear program. Again, what possible reason could Iran have for deceit and subterfuge if its program was 100% legit? Yes yes, people will talk about how the US invaded Iraq. But we already know that Iran has a nuclear program, and we haven’t invaded. We haven’t even taken any steps that would allow us to even begin building up to an invasion. How on earth could hiding details of their nuclear program help them in any way, shape or form? If they were worried about the US attacking, they wouldn’t opt for maximum transparency, they’d do all they could to make it look like they had something to hide? Especially since it isn’t just the US that is involved, but much of the rest of the world wants to verify Iran’s intentions as well? Can you provide a damn good reason for Iran to hide the facts of its nuclear program and give anything less than full disclosure if, as its foreign minister has already said, it has nothing to hide? I mean… honestly, why? If their program is 100% allowed, why hide anything? If the US was going to attack them anyway, why would convincing the world that the US was totally in error not be in their best interest? If the US was going to attack them anyway, why would providing full disclosure make things anything but better for Iran? Why would deception make things any better, or not make things worse? Can you think of a single rational reason? [/QUOTE] Not relevant. I don’t have to think up any reason. It’s up to war-mongers to prove it. This is just the same old same old we heard about Saddams WMD and his alleged behaviour. I ask again - what evidence do you have? Evidence. Not wild surmises, not hypothetical questions, not inferences. Evidence. And your ‘evidence’ about the particles were disproved 2 years ago and referenced again in the IAEA report I cited. And I can find no cite for any ‘razed’ airbases. Allegations of a razed building but no evidence. If it happened there could be plenty of explanations. If it happened. And as the particles were not evidence of a program I’m inclined to think the incident either did not happen or it has been wildly spun. The bottom line is that the IAEA, the people whose job it is to know and the people who were right about Iraq say there is no evidence. Until such times as they have evidence and present it then all the allegations of a secret program are just hot air hand-waving which should not be given brain-room. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/227 "2007-11-05T18:07:08Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] How about an example of attacking one for its imaginary nuclear program? Will that do? [/QUOTE] Sure…provide your example. Do you have a cite for the US attacking an imaginary or real nuclear facility? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/228 "2007-11-05T18:31:05Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] A wiki cite for a war the USA and it’s poodles armed both sides in and used the proceeds to fund terrorists somehow is meant to mean something? [/QUOTE] It was meant to point out that the knee-jerk response of “BUSHLIEDABOUTIRAQ” was as ridiculous and misplaced as most such one-size-fits-all responses usually are. It apparently succeeded - I notice that you did not even attempt to sustain it. And again, since the standards for “strawmen” are being applied so flexibly, there were three cites, not one. The wiki cite was provided earlier by **spoke-** , and neither of the other two was wiki. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/229 "2007-11-05T18:33:49Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] Not relevant. [/quote] The quote you just provided from Baraedi says otherwise. [QUOTE=tagos] I don’t have to think up any reason. [/quote] Yes, you do. Contrary to Baradei’s words that you just quoted, you are giving Iran a pass. Then it does, indeed, fall to you to describe why evidence that casts serious doubt on Iran’s claims is “not relevant”. Rambling on about warmongering neocons or whatever has no bearing on proof or refutation. It’s simple obfuscation. [QUOTE=tagos] I ask again - what evidence do you have? Evidence. Not wild surmises, not hypothetical questions, not inferences. Evidence. [/quote] You mean that Iran is definitely working on a nuclear program? The thing that’s a strawman and nobody is actually claiming? I’m not going to provide evidence for a claim nobody is making but you persist in arguing against. Sorry. Evidence that we cannot “give Iran a pass”? You handwaved it away as not relevant, even though you quoted Baradei himself saying that the evidence didn’t allow him to give Iran a pass. I ask again that you address the actual argument rather then deliberately avoiding it, and if you cite Baradei saying something as support for your position you then don’t deliberate ignore what he said. But as this isn’t the first time I’ve asked that, I’m not going to get any traction, am I? [QUOTE=tagos] And your ‘evidence’ about the particles were disproved 2 years ago and referenced again in the IAEA report I cited. And I can find no cite for any ‘razed’ airbases. [/quote] Interesting, as the report you cited specifically says it was not resolved, let alone disproved. How do you think you made such a huge mistake, do you think? Also interesting that nobody has mentioned “airbases”. Further, it’s interesting that you claim this was all disproved when the IAEA itself again calls bullshit. I’ll get to that in a minute. Here, of course, is some more of what the IAEA says, and continues to say: namely, that it cannot make progress on assuring that there are no undeclared activities, and it cannot make that progress, because Iran is not cooperating. [ > [@](#): > > However, gaps remain in the Agency’s knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran’s centrifuge program. > > Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency’s knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear program, the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. > […] > > After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern. > > Any progress in that regard requires full transparency and active co-operation by Iran - transparency that goes beyond the measures prescribed in the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol - if the Agency is to be able to understand fully the 20 years of undeclared nuclear activities by Iran. ]([BBC NEWS | Middle East | Nuclear report on Iran: Excerpts](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4956882.stm)) As for you being able to find no cite of Iran razing the base, you’re not looking very hard, at all. I found it in about four seconds. Five if you count the amount of time it took me to click on the link. From that arch-neocon Zionist quisling outfit: PBS [ > [@](#): > > Charlier tells Kenyon that, when he is in Iran, he is always followed by the secret police. His job is to check out nuclear sites, but often the Iranians won’t grant him or his team access. One site, Lavizan, had been bulldozed by the time the team was allowed to visit. ]([FRONTLINE/WORLD . Iran - Going Nuclear . The Story | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran403/thestory.html)) Or the arch-neocon Zionist quisling outfit, the IAEA [ > [@](#): > > DICKEY: At one site called Lavizan, facilities were bulldozed by Iran before you could look at them, and you weren´t allowed to run tests in the area. > > ELBARADEI: We clearly need to take environmental samplings from some of the equipment that used to be in Lavizan. We need to interview some of the people who have been engaged in Lavizan. ]([http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2006/newsweek12012006.html](http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2006/newsweek12012006.html)) It’s interesting that now the IAEA tends to talk about material that was recovered from the [University](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Broad,%20William%20J.). That was right next to the military base. That just happened to be rubbled before it could be investigated. Now, it may very well be that there was no undeclared material at the military base. And while it certainly seems that the IAEA is confident that the material they did recover came from the university, they maintain, to the present day, that its nature/use/intention is _inconclusive_. By the way it’s interesting that you claim this was resolved two years ago, as well, as of a year ago the IAEA itself [was saying differently](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-64.pdf), > [@](#): > > 1. There has been no further progress on the resolution of the contamination issues referred to in GOV/2006/53, para. 11 (i.e. the sources of low enriched uranium particles, and some high enriched uranium (HEU) particles, found at locations where Iran has declared that centrifuge components had been manufactured, used and/or stored). In addition, clarification is still required of the particles of natural and high enriched uranium which were found in the samples taken from equipment at a technical university in January 2006 (GOV/2006/53, para. 24). In February of this year, the IAEA reiterated that the issues were [unresolved.](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-08.pdf) > [@](#): > > D.1.1. Contamination > 15. The issue of the source(s) of low enriched uranium (LEU) and high enriched uranium (HEU) particles found at locations where Iran has declared that centrifuge components had been manufactured, used and/or stored remains unresolved (GOV/2006/53, para. 11). Particle contamination similar to that in Iran was also detected in samples taken from centrifuge equipment and components found in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which are said to have originated from the same country. The Agency has received additional information from the country from which the components originated. This information, however, does not fully explain the presence of some of the LEU and HEU particles. While this information has been helpful, existing measurement and evaluation methodologies do not permit a clear determination of the origin of the HEU or LEU contamination on the basis of the information currently available to the Agency from Iran and > elsewhere. Therefore, verification of the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations in this regard can progress only with a full understanding of the scope and chronology of Iran’s centrifuge enrichment programme, which can only be achieved through the implementation by Iran of the Additional Protocol and required transparency measures. > > 1. In a letter dated 30 November 2006, Iran agreed to permit the Agency to re-sample equipment at the technical university in Tehran where a small number of natural uranium (NU) and HEU particles were found on samples collected in January 2006 (GOV/2006/53, para. 24). The re-sampling was carried out on 22 December 2006, the results of which showed NU and LEU particle contamination. > The Agency is awaiting clarification by Iran with regard to the origin of the uranium particle contamination found in the January and December 2006 samples. > > 2. Iran has not yet responded to the Agency’s long outstanding requests for clarification concerning, and access to carry out further environmental sampling of, other equipment and materials related to the Physics Research Centre (PHRC); nor has Iran agreed to permit the Agency to interview another former Head of the PHRC. Note by the way, the scope and clarification of Iran’s program can only be achieved via the additional protocol, in the IAEA’s judgment. Likewise, with the [May 2007 report](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-22.pdf). > [@](#): > > . Transparency Measures > > 1. Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme. These measures include discussions about information provided to the Agency concerning alleged studies related to the conversion of uranium dioxide into UF, to high explosives testing and to the design of a missile > 4 re-entry vehicle (GOV/2007/8, para. 25). > > G. Summary > > 1. Although the Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, the Agency remains unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. Pursuant to its NPT Safeguards Agreement, Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities. Iran has, however, ceased to implement the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements with respect to the early provision of design information, and has not permitted the Agency to perform design information verification at the IR-40 reactor. > > 2. As previously stated, unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues, and implements the Additional Protocol and the required transparency measures, the Agency will not be able to fully reconstruct the history of Iran’s nuclear programme and provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran or about the exclusively peaceful nature > of that programme. It should be noted that because the Agency has not been receiving for over a year information that Iran used to provide, including under the Additional Protocol, the Agency’s level of knowledge of certain aspects of Iran’s nuclear related activities has deteriorated. The PDF you yourself [linked to](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-48.pdf) states that you are wrong: > [@](#): > > D.3. Contamination > 12. As indicated previously to the Board of Governors (GOV/2007/8, paras 16–17; GOV/2006/53, para. 24), analysis of environmental samples taken in January 2006 from equipment purchased by a former Head of the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) and located at a technical university in Tehran showed a small number of particles of natural and high enriched uranium. The Agency has requested > clarifications, permission to take samples from other equipment and m > C (GOV/2006/53, para. 25). These requests have not yet been acceded to by Iran. However, as reflected in the work plan, Iran has undertaken to hold further > discussions on this matter, on the basis of written questions from the Agency, following resolution of the P-1 and P-2 issue. Indeed, the entire summary of the piece you linked to makes perfectly clear that we cannot honestly give Iran a pass (what we can do under political motivation is another matter, I suppose) > [@](#): > > G. Summary > 22. The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities. However, the Agency remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear > programme. It should be noted that since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, including pursuant to the Additional Protocol, for example information relevant to ongoing advanced centrifuge research. > > 1. The work plan is a significant step forward. If Iran finally addresses the long outstanding verification issues, the Agency should be in a position to reconstruct the history of Iran’s nuclear programme. Naturally, the key to successful implementation of the agreed work plan is Iran’s full and active cooperation with the Agency, and its provision to the Agency of all relevant information and > access to all relevant documentation and individuals to enable the Agency to resolve all outstanding issues. To this end, the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures > provided for in the Additional Protocol. > > 2. Once Iran’s past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to build confidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, **equally important,** regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, through the implementation of the Additional Protocol. The Director General therefore again urges Iran to ratify and bring into force the Additional > Protocol at the earliest possible date, as requested by the Board of Governors and the Security Council. In other words, you are deliberately distorting what the IAEA has said and you are attempting to sell people a bill of goods. [QUOTE=tagos] Allegations of a razed building but no evidence. [/quote] You not reading up on the issue is hardly a lack of evidence. Sorry. [QUOTE=tagos] If it happened there could be plenty of explanations. If it happened. [/quote] If it happened, if, which you can’t be bothered to google for four seconds. But if it did, there would certainly be plenty of explanations… you just haven’t offered any. Go ahead, offer some good reasons why Iran would bulldoze a facility that the IAEA wanted to look at. [QUOTE=tagos] And as the particles were not evidence of a program I’m inclined to think the incident either did not happen or it has been wildly spun. [/quote] Third possibility: you couldn’t be bothered to do the reading before you held forth on the topic, so your opinion was necessarily unfounded and uninformed. The IAEA itself has said it cannot confirm or deny whether Iran continues to have any undeclared nuclear endeavors. But a possible site was bulldozed. With plenty of reasons, of course. It’s interesting to note some of the backstory on the Lavizan site, by the way. [ > [@](#): > > On 17 May 2003 the National Council of Resistance of Iran reported that “During the Khatami’s presidency, the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics formed a new biological weapons center to expand biological bomb. That was called Malek Ashtar University and is based in Lavizan Shian Technological Research Center.” > > Imagery from August 2003 reveals large buildings inside a secure perimeter, while imagery from March 2004 shows that the buildings have been dismantled, the rubble removed, and the earth scrapedCommercial imagery acquired in March 2004 revealed that a facility at this location had been completely dismantled, with the vegetation removed and ground scraped clear. Far less ambitious evasion efforts had been encountered by the IAEA at the Kalaye electric and Lashkar Ab’ad facilities. Following public disclosure of this imagery on 16 June 2004, Richard Boucher from the State Department said … “I can’t give you any independent information, but commercial satellite photography shows the complete dismantling and the razing of a facility at Lavizan Shiyan. And that’s a site that was previously disclosed as a possible Iranian weapons of mass destruction-related site.” > > A Digital Globe satellite image of 10 May 2004 showed that Iran had almost completely razed part of the Lavizan-Shiyan Technical Research Center. Imagery from August 2003 and March 2004 showed Iran had been demolishing buildings and scraping ground at Lavizan. The Lavizan Center had imported a whole-body counter [WBC], a device used to identify and measure the radioactive material in the body of human beings and animals. The WBC uses heavy shielding to keep out naturally existing background radiation and ultrasensitive radiation detectors and electronic counting equipment. > > On 29 June 2004 Muhammad el-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said that Iran had acknowledged that the alleged hidden nuclear site in Tehran was a military-research complex before it was razed. He made his remarks today in Moscow after IAEA inspectors visited the site. El-Baradei said Iran told the IAEA that the site, recently cleared of buildings and topsoil, had been a military-research center. “That site now is dismantled,” el-Baradei said. “The Iranian authorities stated that this was a physics institute that later on turned to be a biotechnology-research and -development center.” El-Baradei said inspectors had taken environmental samples from the site for testing for nuclear materials. ]([Lavizan - Iran Special Weapons Facilities](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/lavizan.htm)) The physics research center that the IAEA is talking about certainly seems to be one of the facilities in and around the Lavizan site. Other [reports](http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_06/IAEAIranQuestions.asp) certainly seem to clarify that’s what the IAEA is referring to when it talking about a “physics research center”. [QUOTE=tagos] The bottom line is that the IAEA, the people whose job it is to know and the people who were right about Iraq say there is no evidence. [/quote] As I have already shown, you are _deliberately distorting_ just what the IAEA has said. It’s actually rather amusing. You state that we can give Iran a pass… and you cite Baradei saying: “we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks.” And you don’t even realize you’ve refuted your own argument. [QUOTE=tagos] Until such times as they have evidence and present it then all the allegations of a secret program are just hot air hand-waving which should not be given brain-room. [/QUOTE] Hot air hand-waving? You mean, like pretending that there isn’t reason to think Iran is hiding something, like pretending we can be certain of the scope and extent of their nuclear program, like pretending that there are perfectly good reasons to raze a facility before the UN can look at it? Hand waving like that? Sorry, the IAEA is quite clear: we cannot be certain of the nature and extent of all of Iran’s nuclear program. There are still unresolved issues. Further, your strawman that people are saying that there is definite evidence of a weapons program is getting threadbare. You don’t, by any chance, want to approach this debate honestly? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/230 "2007-11-05T18:42:54Z")
Whoops, cut and paste error that I didn’t notice until after the editing window closes. The August 2007 report stated: > [@](#): > > D.3. Contamination > > 1. As indicated previously to the Board of Governors (GOV/2007/8, paras 16–17; GOV/2006/53, para. 24), analysis of environmental samples taken in January 2006 from equipment purchased by a former Head of the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) and located at a technical university in Tehran showed a small number of particles of natural and high enriched uranium. The Agency has requested clarifications, permission to take samples from other equipment and materials procured by the PHRC and access to another former Head of the PHRC (GOV/2006/53, para. 25). These requests have not yet been acceded to by Iran. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/231 "2007-11-05T19:05:51Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] So why are you worried about Pakistan? They haven’t attacked us on our own soil. [/quote] Those who have attacked us on our own soil have found refuge in Pakistan. (Are you being purposely obtuse?) > [@](#): > > Since **tomndebb** ’s standards for straw man argumentation are so flexible, I’m guessing he isn’t going to try to call you on this the same way he tried with **FinnAgain**. So, feel free to quote where it was clearly stated that “Iran and Hizbollah are one and the same”. Finn keeps talking about how Iran’s “history of attacking the US,” when in fact he is referring to alleged Hezbollah attacks in the Middle East. No straw man there. He is purposely conflating Hezbollah with Iran. He started that in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9113131&postcount=56) > [@](#): > > That’s right - those Jews! You can’t trust them. Loyal to Israel above all else. Sneaky little back-stabbing bastards, the lot of them. I don’t know whether **Finn** is Jewish or not. What I _do_ know is that he has a history on these boards of stridently defending Israel. So **Finn** ’s _personal_ loyalty to Israel is readily apparent. And yes, I believe it interferes with his judgment when it comes to evaluating the interests of the US. And speaking of straw men, where did I claim that **Finn** speaks for all Jews? He certainly does not. It seems to me that _most_ American Jews are opposed to our bellicose policies in the Middle East. But good show, trying to smear me as an anti-Semite. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. They haven’t attacked us on their own soil, so it is a waste of resources to worry about them. > [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Accusations_of_bombings.2C_terrorism_and_kidnappings_by_Hezbollah) Well, thanks for citing back to me the Wikipedia article I already cited to you. It lists the 1983 embassy bombing and the 1983 barracks bombing as alleged actions of Hezbollah (which Hezbollah denies). And then it lists several more acts of violence carried out in Lebanon between 1982 and 1986, allegedly by Hezbollah. And then it lists a 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina, and a 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Argentina. So in other words when it comes to attacks on US interests post-1986, you got nuthin’. Nor have you or **Finn** offered any potential _motive_ for such an attack. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Nor have you offered any evidence, at all, that talking about Iran on the Dope, or the US’s actions wrt Iran have, in any way shape or form, reduced our commitment and involvement with Pakistan. My evidence is the saber rattling toward Iran that is a constant from this administration. They are focused on the wrong threat. And if they pursue military action against Iran (which will doubtless trigger retaliation) then we risk sinking into another stupid quagmire of escalating conflict, this time with Iran, which would certainly suck away the resources we have available to deal with the devolving situation in Pakistan. You seem quite happy (eager, even) to enable the administration’s bumbling in this direction. > [@](#): > > Wow. Hand waving, by the way, means deliberating ignoring something via bluster. Sorry, you’re right. You aren’t just waving your hands. You’re waving both arms. And jumping up and down. And screaming. But none of that makes the “threat” from Iran any more real. > [@](#): > > And as long as I’m at it, you pretending that anybody has ever said that Iran and Hezbollah are one and the same is absurd. You keep referring to attacks by Hezbollah as if they were attacks by Iran. That’s conflation, son. You started it in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9113131&postcount=56) > [@](#): > > Mmmm hmmmm. It’s those traitorous quisling Zionists again! See my response to **Shodan** above. Your _personal_ zeal in support of Israel is well-known. Which is why I suspect your concern for Israel may be clouding your judgment where US interests are concerned. But nice try. > [@](#): > > And, yet again, you ignore that Iran is stable around the idea of hating/opposing/using military force against the West. Stability for you seems to be some sort of bromide. What do you even think it means? A stable enemy is somehow a good thing all of a sudden? Pointing out that an enemy is stable somehow makes them, what, less of a threat? Certainly makes it less likely that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists. And I have no concern at all that the Iranian government would sponsor a nuclear attack on the US. I’m quite sure the Iranians love their children, too, and would not want the annihilation that a nuclear attack on the US by an Iranian-made weapon would bring. So, nope. Not much of a threat to the US. And I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate a pattern of Hezbollah violence against the US, either at home or abroad, since 1986. You keep yelling at us to read your cite. _What_ cite? I read the “[cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9055559&postcount=52)” you gave in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9113131&postcount=56). It was cite _to your own prior post_! (Which of course provided _no_ outside sources for your parade of horribles.) And you’re making fun of a _Wikipedia_ cite?. In your “cite” to yourself, the latest incident of violence directed against a US citizen is 1988, in Lebanon. (Leaving aside the question of whether or not it was Hezbollah that actually carried out the attack. Or whether an attack by Hezbollah equals an attack by Iran, which you seem to take for granted.) Like I said, you got nuthin’. ---
**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:** [November 5, 2007, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/232 "2007-11-05T19:22:16Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Because while they may or may not be fanatics, they aren’t really stupid. They have too be well aware of the fact that hiding their nuclear program is going to raise suspicion. Equally, they have too be well aware that there is no purpose served in hiding a peaceful nuclear energy program. Why do you believe the Iranians don’t believe that? [/quote] Because only a fool would believe that releasing any data on anything to us will have any other result than providing us with targeting data. Because our motivations are hatred and greed and power lust, not “suspicion”, so releasing data won’t make America less hostile. Because Saddam tried cooperation, and got killed for it. [QUOTE=xtisme] Do you have some examples of the US attacking nations who have peaceful and open nuclear programs? I’ve asked you for them several times and you have yet too provide anything like an example for why the Iranians would feel this way. [/quote] What are you talking about ? I see no reason to believe that the existance of a nuclear program matters, peaceful or not. Iran’s nuclear program is nothing more than an excuse; we’d just find another if they had none, or claim that they had one if they didn’t. The driving force here is America’s greed and implacable hostility, not anything Iran is or is not doing. And for all I know, we **haven’t** attacked any countrys with “peaceful and open nuclear programs”. Because we almost always choose victims who are too backwards and impoverished to have one. [QUOTE=xtisme] As I see a lot of posters in this thread militantly burying their heads in the sand and refusing too even look at any thing that contridicts that meme of a peaceful Iran who has neveh done nuffin too anyone, and just wants too get along. [/quote] No, I’m simply indifferent to what Iran is doing. [QUOTE=xtisme] I’m also not seeing many actual indications that the US is getting ready too attack Iran soon. [/QUOTE] Bush still has a year in office. And it doesn’t take that long to fire missles. And we have plenty of soldiers in Iraq. And yes, diverting forces from occupying Iraq into an Iranian attack would be incredibly stupid and a disaster; that’s never stopped Bush before. [QUOTE=FinnAgain] Yes yes, people will talk about how the US invaded Iraq. But we already know that Iran has a nuclear program, and we haven’t invaded. [/quote] Because we are pinned down in Iraq. [QUOTE=FinnAgain] Can you provide a damn good reason for Iran to hide the facts of its nuclear program and give anything less than full disclosure if, as its foreign minister has already said, it has nothing to hide? I mean… honestly, why? If their program is 100% allowed, why hide anything? If the US was going to attack them anyway, why would convincing the world that the US was totally in error not be in their best interest? If the US was going to attack them anyway, why would providing full disclosure make things anything but better for Iran? Why would deception make things any better, or not make things worse? Can you think of a single rational reason? [/QUOTE] Because doing so gives us better targeting data and information on the defense of those locations, if any. And because it’s simply normal human behavior to hide things from one’s enemies, whether or not those things are harmless. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/233 "2007-11-05T19:53:39Z")
It’s funny when someone links to a post but doesn’t actually read it. In the post I linked to, I linked to an earlier post of mine. Not only did I not conflate them, as you are pretending, I stated clearly and logically why Iranian support for Hezbollah made them complicit in Hezbollah’s actions. I see you can’t even pretend to address what I actually said. And need to keep pretending that I’ve somehow said, implied, or hinted with a ouija board via seance that they are “one and the same”. I’ll also note that you, again, haven’t read any of the actual cites I provided on Iran/Hezbollah, and are again lying by pretending that the sum total of my cite was one post where I laid out my argument. As for how I’m somehow eager to help the administration start a war, when I’ve repeatedly stated that we need a defensive stance. In fact, I had a rather drawn out post where [I defined all the relevant terms for you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9138623&postcount=167), just in case you were having trouble understanding what I was saying, rather than lying about it. At this point though, we can just chalk that up to you lying. Kay? And yes yes, I’ll leave you to your screed in just a moment,(I particularly like how I’m not a Zionist quisling, I’m just a personally-loyal-to-Israel-(but not, ya know, to where I live)-and-has-traitorous-dual-loyalty-which-I-lie-about-but-you-are-clever-enough-to-ferret-out quisling.) but pointing out your ignorance that’s in service of your political goals is kinda nifty. On the notion that Iran would never use nukes, because gosh darn it, their leaders just love their children and wouldn’t do anything to harm them! [500,000 plastic keys say otherwise.](http://www.claremont.org/blogs/blogid.4842/blog_detail.asp) And of course, you’d have to be talking about the leaders and not the citizens, because it’s the leaders who’d launch the attack. Unless of course you’re slinging another fallacy of equivocation in which the “Iranians” loving their children morphs into the “leadership of the Iranians” loving the children. I wouldn’t put it past you. As for attacks on the US past 1986, again, reading will help you. Reading the thread will help you. Reading posts where I directly [respond to you will help you.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9125248&postcount=111). I’m not going to point you to the rest of the cites you’re pretending don’t exist. And by the way, I already specifically pointed out to 'luc that my linking to that post was to clarify what my argument was, not to provide supporting evidence. Now, I’m not sure if you’re lying about that too, or if you simply can’t be bothered to read that either. It doesn’t matter much, does it? Hit control-f and look for “Mugniyah” if you’re bored. Google “Khobar Towers” for fun while you’re at it. You’d also find I cited information more than once on Hezbollah’s links to Iran, including but not limited to a trial in the US. Or perhaps you already found it but are pretending it isn’t so? In any case, I aint “got nuthin” just because “nuthin” is what you chose to read before or while you’re ‘debating’ an issue. But why stop to learn about a topic before suggesting that someone who disagrees with you is an evil Zionist traitor? Now, as you obviously have nothing of substance to offer this debate, I really will stop responding to you as if you did. Can’t promise that I won’t point out any other whoppers that you try to slip into the debate, however. Iran’s leadership would never do anything that’s bring carnage down on children because they love children. That’s a good one! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/234 "2007-11-05T20:04:04Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Finn keeps talking about how Iran’s “history of attacking the US,” when in fact he is referring to alleged Hezbollah attacks in the Middle East. No straw man there. He is purposely conflating Hezbollah with Iran. He started that in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9113131&postcount=56) [/quote] But, interestingly enough, the phrase in quotes is a manufactured one that appears nowhere in this thread except from you. IOW, you produce one falsehood, and base it on another. > [@](#): > > I don’t know whether **Finn** is Jewish or not. What I _do_ know is that he has a history on these boards of stridently defending Israel. So **Finn** ’s _personal_ loyalty to Israel is readily apparent. And yes, I believe it interferes with his judgment when it comes to evaluating the interests of the US. He probably has horns, too. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/235 "2007-11-05T20:32:18Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] > [@spoke-](#): > > Finn keeps talking about how Iran’s “history of attacking the US,” when in fact he is referring to alleged Hezbollah attacks in the Middle East. No straw man there. He is purposely conflating Hezbollah with Iran. He started that in this post But, interestingly enough, the phrase in quotes is a manufactured one that appears nowhere in this thread except from you. IOW, you produce one falsehood, and base it on another. He probably has horns, too. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] In [post #211](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9144280&postcount=211), **Finn** , speaking of Iran, wrote: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > So no history of attacking us on our shores, just a history of attacking us most other places. So he’s talking about _ **Iran** _’s supposed history of attacking the US, when in fact, that history (increasingly ancient) is of _ **Hezbollah** _ attacks. Now, whether **Finn** is horny or not, I couldn’t say. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/236 "2007-11-05T20:59:00Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] But, interestingly enough, the phrase in quotes is a manufactured one that appears nowhere in this thread except from you. IOW, you produce one falsehood, and base it on another. [/quote] To be fair, I did correctly point out that Iran has a history of attacking us. The sillyness about my saying, implying, or suggesting someohw that Iran and Hezbollah were one and the same, however, is absurd. In fact, I have repeatedly clarified my argument and pointed out why control is not necessary for complicity. But some folks lack the honesty to address an actual argument and pretend that fighting a strawman means they’ve somehow made a point. It’s funny, in a rather pathetic way, that [this post of mine](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9134369&postcount=166) still accurately describes how some folks are conducting their arguing against my debating. Just a few couple of examples now, though, of Iran’s actions, as I have to run: Of the Khobar Towers bombing (via that nefariously Zionist organization, Al Jazeera) [ > [@](#): > > “The defendants also provided money, training and travel documents to Saudi Hezbollah members in order to facilitate the attacks,” Lamberth wrote. > > “Moreover, the sheer gravity and nature of the attack demonstrate the defendants’ unlawful intent to inflict severe emotional distress upon the American servicemen as well as their close relatives.” ]([Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera](http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A449C4ED-5067-4F88-A2AE-6E6CBE116E54.htm)) From something I already cited: [ > [@](#): > > From the subsequent bench trial, Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983 and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation. ]([http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/)) It is clear that Iran bears culpability for Hezbollah’s actions, even those they did not directly help to plan. It is interesting that nobody, not one single person who has disagreed with my claim, has even bothered to respond to my specific argument. This particular poster even linked to my post where I provided a link to my argument, specifically saying that it was Iran’s continued support for Hezbollah made them _culpable_, not identical… and then he ignored it. The arguments are always something along the lines of ‘So explain how Iran always directly controlled Hezbollah and they’re the same exact thing.’ It’s also interesting, just as an observation, that the history of attacks against us, ranging from diplomatic, military and civilian targets are cast as being in the ME… as if that somehow nullifies that American/Americans were the targets. Spoke can go on pretending that Iranian funded, trained and directed attacks aren’t Iran’s fault, and that they’re only “alleged”, that in order for Iran to be complicit for a terror group that they give weapons, training and safe haven to they have to be the exact same entity, and only the people who Iran uses to carry out the attacks bear any responsibility. Pretending is fun. I can’t resist turning this around in my head. As if, tomorrow, America founded, trained, armed, financed, gave safe haven to and helped direct a group of people who then bombed, say, an Iranian embassy. I wonder how many folks expect the usual suspects in this thread would respond by saying “America did nothing wrong, they’re not to blame, America didn’t attack Iran!” Maybe that’s the solution to the neocons’ war dreams. They can just give F-16’s to pilots who they train, equip the jets with munitions, give them maps to their targets, and then count on the support of the usual suspects here to defend them. I mean… right? It’s the little things that make posting here amusing. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/237 "2007-11-05T22:19:42Z")
While I’m at it, because facts are good and ignorance is bad: From the 9/11 commission report [“The foundation of the new terrorism”](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf) > [@](#): > > Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and > join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan > between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993,another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983.The relation- > ship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in chapter 7,al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued 52 in ensuing years. [Chapter 7](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec7.pdf), by the way: > [@](#): > > Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al Qaeda > As we mentioned in chapter 2, while in Sudan, senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut.Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah. > > Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran,on their way to and from Afghanistan.For example,Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place > telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle”operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001. > […] > In mid-November, we believe, three of the future muscle hijackers,Wail al Shehri,Waleed al Shehri,and Ahmed al Nami,all of whom had obtained their U.S. visas in late October, traveled in a group from Saudi Arabia to Beirut and then onward to Iran.An associate of a senior Hezbollah operative was on the same flight that took the future hijackers to Iran. Hezbollah officials in Beirut and Iran were expecting the arrival of a group during the same time period. The travel of this group was important enough to merit the attention of senior figures in Hezbollah. From Matthew Levitt’s [testimony](http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2263) to the subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia and the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, House Committee on International Relations. (Formatting kept intact from the site) > [@](#): > > Iranian agents have long been directly involved in acts of terrorism themselves and in concert with Hizballah networks, beyond the terrorist activities carried out independently by its proxy groups. Iranian operatives are well known for conducting surveillance for potential attacks against U.S. interests, both on American soil and abroad. > > Last June, two security guards working at Iran’s mission to the United Nations were kicked out of the country for conducting surveillance of New York City landmarks in a manner incompatible with their stated duties. A U.S. counterintelligence official said at the time, �We cannot think of any reason for this activity other than this was reconnaissance for some kind of potential targeting for terrorists.� In the late 1990s, former FBI director Louis Freeh wrote, the FBI wanted to photograph and fingerprint official Iranian delegations visiting the United States because the �MOIS [Iranian Intelligence Ministry] was using these groups to infiltrate its agents into the country.� In 1998 Iranian agents were spotted conducting surveillance of U.S. interests in Kazakhstan. In 1997, a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report detailed the casing of U.S. diplomats in Tajikistan by Iranian intelligence operatives. These examples highlight the Iranian modus operandi for conducting surveillance of U.S. interests. > > Furthermore, several of the Hizballah operatives involved in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack received terrorist training in Iran. The Iranian embassy in Damascus also served as an important source of logistics and support for Saudi Hizballah members traveling to and from Lebanon. Former FBI director Freeh has said that FBI agents interviewed six of those who carried out the attack, and all of them directly implicated the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps], MOIS, and senior Iranian government officials in the planning and execution of the attack. From the [CFR](http://www.cfr.org/publication/11275/) > [@](#): > > Some experts are increasingly concerned by the threat posed by Hezbollah outside its normal area of operations. “I think we should be quite concerned,” Farah says, “Hezbollah will eventually be pushed back a bit and will see striking outside their borders as the way to go.” There is already some evidence suggesting the United States could be a target. According to Ed Royce, chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism and non-proliferation, “We’re seeing a pattern of activities on the border and elsewhere,” he told UPI, “a renewed operational focus by Hezbollah on getting their people in over the border.” > > Last month the FBI sent a notice to 18,000 police agencies asking them to remain wary of the Hezbollah threat. This is not the first time the FBI placed Hezbollah in its sights: A 2002 report from the agency suggested that fifty to one hundred Hamas and Hezbollah agents had infiltrated the United States at that time and were involved in fund-raising and low-level intelligence gathering. Etc, etc, etc. Suffice it to say, Iran has deep ties to terrorism, and has for quite some time. Anybody who tells you that Iran is absolutely no threat is trying to sell you something. Pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/238 "2007-11-06T00:11:05Z")
Observations. Of course Iran is hiding something, _everybody_ is hiding something. Why? Because they have enemies. Same reason we do it. Is our nuclear program open and above board? Well, sure, we don’t need it to be secret, in fact, it is to our advantage to be open and honest. Why, yes, point of fact, we do have an arsenal of weapons such that we can render any country in the world into exotic forms of dust. Pretty much any time we like. We don’t need “bluff” as an option. Does Israel have nukes? The consensus runs from “probably” to “Hugh Betcha!”. They may not, but if they don’t, they ain’t about to admit it. I would be willing to guess that every country in the Middle East has had some sort of nuclear program, if only to test the feasibility. (A process generously assisted for hard cash by our allies in Pakistan, the most progressive and democratic military dictatorship in the whole wide world!) Would they admit it? With America behaving like a meth-addicted pit bull? Why take the chance? ---
**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:** [November 6, 2007, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/239 "2007-11-06T00:23:48Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Does Israel have nukes? The consensus runs from “probably” to “Hugh Betcha!”. They may not, but if they don’t, they ain’t about to admit it. [/QUOTE] And naturally that means we should attack Israel. After all, they wouldn’t be secretive about it if they didn’t have something to hide, right ? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/240 "2007-11-06T00:24:14Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] …Anybody who tells you that Iran is absolutely no threat is trying to sell you something… [/QUOTE] “Absolutely” no threat? Begun, these parsing wars have! There’s a lttle old lady in a trailer down the way, gets around in a wheel chair. Is she a threat to me? No, or course not, she’s an LOL in a wheel chair, fer cryin’ out loud. But “absitively, posolutely” no threat to me? Might get a downhill start, tailwind, run over my toes (I am sometimes absorbed in meditation and not as mindful of my surroundings…) Might be best put a couple slugs in her gizzard, be on the safe side. So, if you wish to claim that no one can reasonably or honestly claim that Iran is absolutely no threat to America, you are entirely correct. But it is too thin a foundation to build an argument, you cannot balance a bowling ball on a knife edge. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026.md?page=13)