If we are threatening a war we intend to pursue, we are aggressors, war mongers in the truest sense, if we threaten a war which we haven’t the means to pursue, we are incredibly stupid.
Take comfort where you can, I suppose.
I note that those two conditions are not mutually exclusive.
Alas.
We aren’t threatening war however. We are rattling Iran’s cage. It’s called ‘diplomacy’…at least until the bullets fly. I figure one of the reasons we ARE talking (and have been for, oh, a few years now) is that we really don’t have the means too do anything really substantial…at least not without great cost too the country (i.e. costs that make the adventure in Iraq look like peanuts). And the country ain’t ready or willing too pay those great costs atm in a war with Iran. Perhaps one day we will be…but I have serious doubts that we will be under the present administration given the short amount of time remaining until they are history.
So…the third option is that we are essentially bluffing…but bluffing with a couple of cards up our sleeves (after all, if we DID decide it was worth the huge cost we could probably flatten Iran, at least militarily). Or, perhaps we are playing bad cop too Europe’s good cop.
Of course, you can’t rule out that we are incredibly stupid (or at least that our administration is) as well. There are just alternatives that you didn’t mention.
-XT
A “surgical bombing strike” against “known WMD facilities” takes precious little planning, none of which would be publicly apparent. Yet that would constitute an act of war, no? Iran would consider us to have declared war on them, no? There’d be retaliation of various and serious kinds, no?
The fact that Cheney is not planning a major war, or for what comes after whatever it is he’s planning, can mean only that he’s sure everything will work out fine. Don’t laugh; that’s his demonstrated MO.
And yet…despite your assertion that this is so, and despite the fact that Bush has actually been in charge for 7 years now and has had ample opportunities, motive AND the authority too do so…well, despite all of that I’ve yet too see one of these supposedly easy surgical strikes against Iran.
Why?
Perhaps. I can’t think of when ‘surgical bombing strike’(s) have escalated into all out war…can you give some examples? The ‘surgical bombing strike’(s) that come too mind were the US attacks on Iraq during the Clinton administration and Reagan’s attacks on Libya. Neither of those examples ramped up too all out war (unless you want too make a case of delayed reaction in Iraq’s case).
They might…with their external terrorist groups anyway. But then again…they might do that anyway, for any number of reasons. I seriously doubt Iran is going too try and go toe too toe with the US on the battlefield.
Well…no. Chaney’s MO, such as it is, seems too be too reach for a bigger hammer. Certainly I’d like too see some examples of this covers, sneaky Chaney. Iraq was certainly not a good example…nor Afghanistan. Do you have others?
-XT
Where’s the direct conflict? All the evidence is that the nuclear program is for power generation and possibly export. Which is the rational thing for Iran to do, having a substantial commercial experience in power generation and export. And it is their country to do as they please.
Ah yes. 20 years of black market efforts to procure nuclear technology, burying their secret facilities deep underground and not revealing them to anybody until they were exposed by political opponents certainly constitutes strong evidence of their honest and forthright intentions. Good call.
While we’re at it, some more of that super strong evidence that Iran is hiding nothing, at all. And you’re a warmongering neocon if you think otherwise.
[
](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/12/wiran12.xml)
But, I mean, surely, the IAEA trusts that Iran has been totally open and honest, right?
[
](http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2007/ft021007.html)
Oh…
Well, obvious then all the evidence points to Iran being 100% open, honest and transparent. Except all the evidence that doesn’t. It will be interesting to see what conclusions we can draw come November 22nd, if any… but if the conclusions then are that Iran hasn’t been totally honest then that can be discounted, too. Only a neocon would insist otherwise.
This is the sort of straw man that causes you to scream to the heavens when directed to your posts. Feel free to continue to use it, it is not against the rules, but don’t later get upset when some observers declare that neither side is blameless in any lessening of integrity in these ongoing debates.
Given that regardless of their intentions they can reasonable expect us or Israel or both to bomb their nuclear facilities, regardless of why they build them, it’s not suspicious of them at all to hide and bury and harden them.
Although they are fools if they are NOT trying to get nukes, being faced with an violently irrational, stupid, and amoral superpower that hates them. The government of Iraq is derelict in it’s duty if it’s not trying to get nukes. As I’ve said before, I regard it as the duty of every government nf Earth to acquire nukes, in order to point them at America. It’s all our leadership understands or respects.
Bwah? Strawman?
Serious like?
When someone says:
I can certainly point out that’s bull, because much of the evidence points out that Iran has neither been fully open nor fully honest with its nuclear program. The operative word, tom, was all. Now, all of the evidence does not point to power generation/export, because some of the evidence points to things that are mighty fishy, unlike a totally above board power generation system.
Honestly tom, explain how I have lessened the integrity of this debate? Someone claimed that all of the evidence pointed to a peaceful power generation program. That would mean, obviously, that all of the evidence was in accord and that none of the evidence pointed to opaqueness, dishonesty and/or deception.
As such tom, I see no strawman at all. In order for all of the evidence to point to something, there has to be no contradictory evidence and there must be openness and honesty.
Where do you see a strawman?
It is a conflict of national goals obviously.
:dubious: If power generation is REALLY their only goal, why didn’t they simply accept the European compromise that would end their nuclear program in return for European supplied nuclear power AND lots of goodies? Why have a ‘secret’ nuclear program at all if they have nothing to hide. By the NPT they have the right for peaceful development (monitored) of nuclear power…why not simply and openly have their program in that case? Why all the subterfuge, the hidden facilities, etc?
Again, I get out my Occam’s Razor and it leads me too a different conclusion than you are drawing from ‘all the evidence’…
Certainly…yet they aren’t being ration in the way they are developing their program. Unless ‘rational’ in your book is too set the conditions for a confrontation with the US.
Well sure (if we ignore the whole NPT thingy). And we can bomb the shit out of them if we please too. Somehow I’m thinking that neither course is exactly, um, wise.
YMMV.
As always, the words ‘complete horseshit’ spring too mind. If Iran had a completely open nuclear power program there would be no threat…and so there would be no reason for the US OR Israel too feel, you know, threatened. People who don’t feel threatened don’t generally bomb you. Again, YMMV.
:rolleyes: So, you think it’s smart of Iran not only too ignore the treaty it signed but too deliberately antagonize the US? Yeah, sounds like a wise course too me…
And of course you fail too see how threatening the US could perhaps lead the US too do all those terrible things you so fondly accuse them of doing? Well, of course you don’t…it’s you after all. It’s Ok If It’s Not America should be your new motto…
-XT
The more I chew on this tom, the stranger it tastes. Now, I will certainly say that not only am I attempting to keep this debate honest and to uphold the integrity of the conversation, but that I’ll even directly address and discuss a claim that I’ve somehow played fast and loose rather than, instead, ignoring it while moving along (fancy that).
I will be happy to lay my logic out all nice and neat, and you can tell me whether you believe I’ve pulled any linguistic misdirection along the way. If, upon reading my elaboration, you conclude that I used no strawman, you will retract your claim. Fair?
Okay, here goes:
- In order for all evidence to point to a certain conclusion, the evidence must, by necessity, be absolutely unanimous. It must be coherent when looked at as a whole. And finally it must be thorough.
- Data that are not unanimous in their implication yield evidence that is not totally in accord, and thus, does not all point to a certain conclusion.
- Data that are not coherent when looked at as a whole yield evidence that is inconclusive and/or contradictory.
- Data that are not thorough in their scope yield evidence that is either not totally compelling or, in the case of some truly massive holes, evidence that may actually disprove and/or challenge a claim.
- In order to achieve data that are unanimous, coherent and thorough, we must be assured that we were analyzing all information that can be reasonably expected to be examined, and that it all points to the same conclusion without contradiction.
- Thus, in order to claim that all of the data on Iran’s nuclear program points to peaceful purposes, it must be unanimous in implication, coherent when analyzed as a whole, and thorough in the scope of investigation.
- Post 2002, after Iran’s secret nuclear program was revealed, it has allowed the IAEA a certain degree of investigative freedom.
- Iran has not, however, been totally open and honest in their dealings with inspectors. This means the data gathered has not been totally thorough.
- Certain actions, like granting access to a site and then razing it, strongly suggest active dishonesty and obfuscation.
- If Iran’s nuclear program was simply a peaceful nuclear program, there would be no reason for obfuscation, dishonesty or opaqueness. Not once there were already inspectors there. This means that the data gathered has been contradictory and do not coherently mesh to form one interpretation. Since the data are not consistent and offer contradictory implications, they are not unanimous in implication.
- Since the inspection of Iran’s nuclear program has offered data that are not unanimous in implication, not coherent when analyzed as a whole and not thorough in the scope of investigation, they would not yield evidence that all points to one conclusion.
- As such, anybody who claims that all of the evidence points to a peaceful program is not telling the truth, and would have to be alleging data of unanimous implication that was coherently interrelated and that revealed a totally thorough scope of investigation.
So no strawman.
If you contend otherwise… where did I fuck up?
P.S. “scream to the heavens” ?
The problem is the US goal is to tell other countries what to do.
Der Trihs answered this. Again, what business is it of the US what Iran does?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Certainly…yet they aren’t being ration in the way they are developing their program. Unless ‘rational’ in your book is too set the conditions for a confrontation with the US.[/xtisme]There’s no confrontation coming. Like I said earlier, there’s enough rational self-interest in the GOP to prevent the Likud wing taking the country to war on for Israel again.
Iran: minding its own business. US: interfering with somebody’s else domestic business. See the difference?
When has anybody suggested the US might feel threatened?
Well, I disagree that this is the US goal. I think this is a very Der Trihs™ style comic book view of the world. But let’s say you are right and it is. So what? The point stands…if the US wants too tell Iran they can’t have nuclear weapons, and Iran wants too develop them then there is a obvious conflict. Which is what I said.
It’s the US’s business because the region Iran is in, namely the Middle East, is of vital strategic value too the US. That makes it our business obviously. I’m guessing the reason our Euro buddies are expending so much midnight oil in negotiations with the Iranians over this issue indicates that THEY think the region is kind of important too. And the Russians. And the Chinese. And…
There is that whole signing the NPT thingy too of course…
Only when you set up a strawman. Otherwise…no. I don’t really. Really, the world is not something you can buy at the news stand with bright colors for a couple of bucks. It doesn’t go ‘WAM! BASH! WOOSH!’, you know?
“All the evidence” indeed seems too point to the fact that, yes, the US DOES in fact feel threatened by the idea of Iran having their own nuclear weapons. So, I’m unsure how too answer your question. Do you have any evidence that the US really doesn’t or has never felt threatened by the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapons program? Say, do you have evidence that during the Clinton administration we were OK with the idea…and now we aren’t? How about during Bush I administration? Earlier?
-XT
:rolleyes:
C’mon. You know as well as anyone that no one else claimed that Iran was being “open and honest.” Now, you can create a massive train of logic whereby you can draw the conclusion that Iran has never been open or honest about their nuclear program, but the actual syntax of your statement implies that some other participant in this thread had actually made that declaration. The closest we come to any such claim is Sevastopol’s “all the evidence,” but he still made no claim regarding openness or honesty. “All the evidence” could easily include information that could only be pried out of Iran through spying and overflights and inferences drawn from outside sources. Regardless whether Sevastopol’s claim is accurate or not, no one has made the claim that Iran has been “open and honest,” yet you attacked that claim four times in a post that contained only seven sentences that you wrote.
Where the evidence actually points is a separate issue from whether Iran has been “open and honest” and attacking that point is the classic example of a straw man argument.
Iran not being open and honest is itself a piece of evidence.
It is a piece of evidence that does not support the conclusion that Iran’s intentions are totally above board.
Someone claimed that all of the evidence pointed to above board intentions, which would require there to be no counter evidence, not any. So yes tom, someone claiming that all the evidence points to above board intentions on Iran’s part is certainly making the claim that there is no evidence (eg. dishonesty and opaqueness) that contradicts such a conclusion.
Iran’s actions that show opaqueness and dishonesty are evidence that there is something to hide, yes?
If the program is 100% peaceful and legitimate, Iran would have nothing to hide, yes?
Since Iran has been trying to hide something, there is evidence that the program is not 100% peaceful and legitimate, yes?
Since there is evidence, not all of the evidence points to above board activities, yes?
In order for the claim to have been accurate, there must have been continued openness and honesty. Or at the very least, not deliberate opaqueness and dishonesty. Those two things falsify the claim that all evidence points to above board intentions.
No, it isn’t tom. Iran has no reason to be dishonest and opaque if everything it’s doing is kosher according to Hoyle. Right? The very fact that they have been trying to hide something is evidence that does, indeed, point somewhere. And it points away from a strictly peaceful nuclear program. And since it is evidence that points away from a strictly peaceful nuclear program, not all of the evidence points to a peaceful nuclear program.
If Iran had nothing to hide, they wouldn’t be trying to hide anything.
Since they have, it points to something they’re trying to hide. Thus, their opaqueness and dishonesty do, indeed, gainsay the claim that all evidence points to a peaceful nuclear program, as there would be absolutely no reason to hide any details of a purely peaceful nuclear program.
The fact of Iran’s cooperation or duplicity does, indeed, count as evidence. Someone who claims that all the evidence points to something above board is, indeed, claiming that there is no counter evidence. Duplicity is counter evidence.
Unless, of course, you really do claim that Iran being dishonest and deliberately opaque is not evidence that contradicts a view that all of Iran’s intentions are above board? I mean, do you really think that Iran trying to hide something is a totally “separate issue” from whether or not all the evidence points to something that Iran could have no possible justification for trying to hide?
Someone who claimed, for instance, that most of the evidence supported a peaceful nuclear program would be open to quibbles as to whether it was a little/some/much/most/what have you. Someone, however, who claims that all of the evidence points to a peaceful nuclear program is, by necessity, claiming that no evidence contradicts that. Iran attempting to hide something is evidence that contradicts that.
I still can’t see any strawman tom. I’d be happy to admit it if I were in error. I’m not.
:rolleyes: right back at ya.
But no one has made a claim for their having been open and honest. That is the essential nature of a straw man argument: to attack a position that has not been put forth.
I am not challenging your assessment of the overall situation, (although there are legitimate interpretations that differ with several of your points), I have pointed out that you engaged in a specific rhetorical device that is not appropriate to the overall discussion. For one who makes such an issue of the details of what you and others have posted, it is unfortunate that you employed it and are now trying to deny that you employed it by restating other arguments and ignoring your own rhetoric.
It does not change the general thrust of the discussion; but it does not carry it forward, either.
By claiming that all the evidence supported something that had no reason to be hidden, someone was indeed making the claim that there’d been no effort to hide anything.
Is Iran’s duplicity evidence, or is it not?
If it is, and someone comments on “all evidence”, then their argument must touch on it even if they didn’t explicitly raise that point.
What is your specific problem with this? What is your problem, when someone says all evidence supports conclusion A, with putting forward evidence which contradicts conclusion A and supports conclusion B?
I am engaged in the same logical refutation that I’ve been engaged in since the start of this; I am poking holes in false-to-facts certainty put forward by someone trying to sell something.
I see nothing dishonest about analyzing the logical foundations of someone’s argument or how I am “ignoring” my rhetoric.
Will you touch on the logical foundation of my argument, instead of repeating that I’ve somehow distorted matters? Does someone who says that “all” evidence supports a certain view, then, explicitly open the scope to all evidence? Do they claim that all evidence will support their claim? Is a pattern of deception which is wholly inconsistent with a legitimate nuclear program count as evidence? Does it, then, fall under the category of “all evidence”? Why or why not?
Will you please answer this directly?
Someone claimed that all of the evidence now supports a certain conclusion. But it does not. In fact, there is some pretty significant counter evidence that should be pointed out. I pointed it out, and have now discussed, at exhaustive levels of elaboration, why it puts paid to the claim that “all” of the evidence points to only one inescapable conclusion.
Why do you claim that Iran attempting to hide things is not evidence as to what the intentions of their nuclear program are?