Of course not. If you hide money under your bed, is that some kind of proof that you have malign intentions for that money?
From yesterday’s Miami Herald:
Because they don’t like handing over something as vital as their energy supply over to foreign countries. Duh. Even if all they care about is power generation, I’d expect them to reject such an offer.
Because America and Israel are likely to attack such facilities regardless of their purpose.
Neither are they remotely equivalent. You aren’t really trying to equate something that a country does within it’s own borders to a military attack on some other country, are you ?
Iraq was no threat to America; we conquered and devastated it. We aren’t looking for threats; we are looking for prey, for victims. We’ve seldom cared whether a nation was a threat to us or not before we decided to attack.
America does not care whether people obey treaties, any more than it obeys them itself; the only law it obeys is the law of the jungle. And Iran antagonizes America simply by existing. Again, Iraq proves that there’s no point whatsoever in trying reason, or compromise, or even giving in as a means of placating America. Nukes, however, DO keep America from attacking you.
Not if the threat is a nuclear one. And for anything else, it doesn’t matter if you threaten America or not; that doesn’t change the likelyhood of America attacking you. America is a predator, a thug scaled up to superpower size; it’s vulnerabilty, perceived profit, American malice, and an inability to retaliate that affects whether or not we attack you. Not threats.
Tom Toles summed up the problem pretty well with this cartoon.
No, they are not. That is a conclusion you drew that requires all sorts of extra information (and secondary deductions and conclusions) in order to reach it.
Again, I have made no claim that Iran is an innocent entity or that your overall conclusions may not be correct. I am addressing the single event of you attributing opinions to other posters which they have not expressed–an act against which you have railed in both of the current threads when you have perceived it being directed against you.
And where did Sevastopol make the claim that anything “did not have to be hidden”? You are so fixed on your conclusions that you are ascribing non-existent statements to other posters: that is creating a straw man.
Bit late in the game too worry about Pakistan, isn’t it? You don’t see the irony of worrying about Pakistan having a nuclear capability (that they shouldn’t have) NOW…juxtaposed with the possibility of Iran GETTING them?
Essentially he (Sevastopol) handwaved away the question.
In response to me:
Thus putting himself in line with Der Trihs’s position on this. I think a good faith reading of the WHOLE discussion shows that Finn hasn’t exactly build a strawman of the position…though if Sav wants too come back and clarify then that would be perfectly fine.
I note with no little irony that while you have gone after Finn for supposed strawmen no one (including you) has bother too address Der Trihs’s various posts…especially the latest one. Why? I normally rate you high on the ‘fair and balanced’ scales (as I do some of the other posters in this thread)…yet you have gigged Finn on something that doesn’t seem much of a strawman while giving Der a pass.
You don’t find that…curious?
-XT
Well, I guess this is where we end this dance. I don’t see the application of basic logic to be unfair or fallacious in talking about what someone’s position is based on.
I’ve already outlined why Iran’s actions constitute evidence, why evidence falls under the category of “all evidence” and how someone who says that “all evidence” points one way has explicitly stated that no evidence points another way.
Not ‘opinions’, but logically necessary components of a claim.
If I say “all these jellybeans are green”, that means none are red. Even if I don’t say that specifically.
If I say “Babe Ruth’s NY Yankees won every game they played”, that means that they didn’t lose any. Even if I don’t say that specifically.
When I say “that course of action will be an unmitigated disaster”, that means nothing good will come of it. Even if I don’t say that specifically.
And when someone says “All evidence is that the nuclear program is for power generation”, that means that no evidence is for something other than power generation. Even if they don’t say that specifically.
None of the above are strawmen.
Nor have you offered any logical rebuttal of the fact that Iran hiding details of its nuclear program is evidence that does not support a program that it’d have no reason to hide. And as such, covered under “all evidence”. And as such, something that is claimed not to exist by someone who says that all evidence supports a program that Iran would have no reason to hide.
Unless you could dismantle that chain of logic, not poke fun at it, not allege it was somehow dishonest without showing it to be inaccurate, then there’s really nothing else to say. It’s as valid as part of the argument I was responding to as there being no red jellybeans is to someone’s argument claiming there are only green ones.
When he claimed that “all evidence” pointed towards a program that Iran would have no reason to hide? Or do you contend that, during inspections that Iran has agreed to in order to do away with the world’s fears, in regard to a program that they claim is totally peaceful and thus they would have no reason to hide… that them hiding things is consistent with that claim? If it is not, then it is evidence to the contrary of that claim..
If someone says “that killing was obviously murder one” and I respond “Yeah right, like there isn’t evidence that it was a crime of passion with no forethought”, have I used a strawman? Have I claimed that have an argument that does not contain a postulate, or am I responding directly to the logical content of their argument?
A peaceful nuclear program is above board. There is no conceivable reason to hide details of a peaceful nuclear program. Thus, hiding details of a nuclear program is evidence that it is not entirely peaceful. Thus, by logical necessity, when someone claims that a state has a peaceful nuclear program they are claiming that there are no conceivable reasons to hide its details.
QED.
Am I wrong? Can you list some reasons why Iran would hide details of its 100% legitimate, allowable under the NPT program? Why total disclosure would somehow hurt its claims that nobody had anything to worry from its program?
I mean, even Iran’s own foreign minister understands this dynamic.
Do you think he was babbling, or that he understood the clear logical implications
of Iran showing that it had something to hide?
Unless you can directly show where I’ve got a flaw in my formulation, you’ll be, ahem, screaming to the heavens about how someone who says all the jellybeans are green hasn’t said anything about how none of them are red.
To be fair, that’s probably the best course of action there. 
FinnAgain is a serious poster. Der Trihs is not. There is no real point in addressing the proclamations of Der Trihs that are little more than absolutist declarations of personal beliefs.
Beyond that, FinnAgain spends a great deal of effort expressing his displeasure with the manner in which other posters do or do not respond to his efforts, therefore, when he engages in acts that parallel theirs, I am more likely to point out those flaws in the hopes of improving his presentation.
Well tom, thanks for that. To be fair, I think we’ve come over this disagreement several times in the past, where I look at the logical implications and underpinnings of someone’s position and you claim that is somehow distorting someone’s argument.
I doubt that we’re likely to resolve the question here.
But I have at least done my best to point out the flaws in your claims and hopefully, help you to improve your presentation. 
And you don’t see the irony of worrying about a relatively stable Shi’a nation with no history of attacking us on our shores vs. worrying about the very unstable, nuclear-armed country where al Qaida is actually ensconced? You know, al Qaida? The Sunni organization that actually attacked us? And which would like very much to foment an Islamist revolution in Pakistan? And perhaps get its hands on some nukes in the process?
Do you really, honestly see Iran as the bigger problem? Really?
So no history of attacking us on our shores, just a history of attacking us most other places. This matters? They’ll bomb embassies and restaurants and kidnapm, torture and murder American citizens, but they haven’t yet attacked the US on our home soil. At the risk of belaboring the obvious… so?
And it’s worth pointing out that their stability has generally been expressed by their government being against us and using military force to back that up.
Or as pointed out to you several times, and you keep ignoring, is the fact that one can worry about multiple countries at once. And as xtisme is trying to make you aware, locking the doors once the horse is out of the barn is a different situation than preventing it in the first place.
As opposed to Hezbollah, the Shia organization that actually attacked us far more times than AQ has? You never did retract your silly assertion that talking about Hezbollah meant someone was lumping Sunnis in with Shias.
Now you italicize Sunni as if it has some relevance to the debate. What, do you think Shias don’t have their share of terrorists too?
Funny, the theocrats in Iran would very much like to foment an Islamist revolution in a great many places. But this is Short Attention Span Theater.
I’m not sure why this is giving you trouble… Are we perhaps playing Risk and only one country can give us problems in any given turn? Iran already has their Risk card so we only need to look at Pakistan?
It’s interesting that this has nothing, at all, to do with any arguments that have been presented. Iran representing a threat has nothing, at all, to do with someone else being a bigger threat. Whether or not it is, by the way, it totally outside the scope of this thread.
Is there some reason that you feel the need to divert the conversation, time and again, to other nations? If someone says that cancer is a dangerous disease, do you feel compelled to point out that the flesh eating virus is even worse so cancer isn’t that bad? Is there a reason you seem unable to talk about Iran’s threat to the western world without trying to divert the discussion to a discussion of another threat?
In short, does your argument have any point other than obfuscation, at all?
:rolleyes: Is the rule against personal insults suspended ? Can I blow off a comment from you by saying “Eh, tomndebb’s not a serious mod, so I ignore him ?”
Not that I would, but I thought I’d make it clear that saying that IS an insult.
Fair enough.
In retrospect this is undoubtedly true. 
Finn mostly addressed the points I would have anyway, but just too give my two cents worth:
I see them as a more immediate CONCERN…which isn’t too say we should ignore OTHER threats as well. Pakistan, as has been noted, ALREADY has nuclear capabilities…that genie has left the station and it’s a bit late in the game too worry about it now. Sort of like North Korea. The time too do something about it is gone and now we just have too deal with the reality of the situation as it is…much as it makes the world a more unstable place.
I worry about Iran joining the club and adding that much more instability too the global situation…and I think at a minimum Iran and their past action warrant close observation and a bit of vigilance. People with nothing too hide don’t generally, you know, try and hide stuff.
It’s a concern that Iran, who actually does have a fairly hostile AND violent, if covert foreign policy ALSO has a history of subterfuge wrt it’s nuclear program. There is no rational reason for Iran too hide a peaceful nuclear power program…they are completely within their rights as signatory too the NPT too develop peaceful nuclear energy after all. They have nothing too gain by hiding such a program, and everything too lose by acting suspiciously…unless, you know, they DO have something too hide.
As with Pakistan, it will be too late too worry about it after they have nuclear weapons.
-XT
YOU believe that. What makes you think that Iranians believe that ? Given our behavior, why would the Iranians believe for a moment that we’d care if they were found to have a completely peaceful program ? I can already hear the Right insisting that the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapons program just proves the deviousness of the Iranians in hiding it.
FinnAgain, I must tell you that I find your posting style tedious. Any debate thread you enter turns into a protracted exercise in post-parsing. I suspect that disinterested readers become uninterested readers pretty quickly trying to wade through all that. Just a personal observation, and one made without rancor.
I try to avoid falling into those sorts of debates because, first, I don’t have time for it, and secondly, I don’t think readers of the threads are going to be interested in a parsing war. Nevertheless, since you get so worked up when someone doesn’t respond to your every point, I’m going to tackle your last post.
So… I think our first priority should be dealing with the groups that have shown a willingness and capability of attacking us at home.
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.)
So why is it you only ever seem to be worried about the nations that are threats to Israel? I never see you in the Pakistan threads.
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.)
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 destabilize it).
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. If there is a danger of an American city being nuked, Pakistan is a much more likely source for such a nuke, and we need to be focusing our energy on that front.
You keep waving your arms and shouting about Hezbollah “attacking us” yet they have never attacked the US on its own shores, have they? Let’s look at some of Hezbollah’s attacks:
1983 (twenty-four years ago): Allegedly bombed the US embassy in Lebanon. The attack was motivated by US intervention in Lebanon.
1983: Allegedly bombed US barracks in Lebanon. Again, a response to US intervention in that country.
(Hezbollah, incidentally, denies involvement in those bombings. Cite.)
What else you got? Be specific. Because I’m just not seeing Hezbollah “attacking us.”
And again I ask: what would be Hezbollah’s motivation for attacking the US? (And “them guys is all nuts” is not an answer.)
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. Again what would be their motive?
(Al Qaida had a very definite motive. They wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia.)
Ah yes. The Islamofascist bugaboo. The Yellow Peril of our time. Pardon me if I’m not worried.
Look, if you want to use Risk analogies, you really shouldn’t be encouraging US military intervention in Asia. Australia, maybe.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I’m also not seeing many actual indications that the US is getting ready too attack Iran soon.
-XT
How about an example of attacking one for its imaginary nuclear program? Will that do?
So why are you worried about Pakistan? They haven’t attacked us on our own soil.
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”.
Oh, that’s right - no one did. Funny, that.
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.
Right?
Bullshit. They haven’t attacked us on their own soil, so it is a waste of resources to worry about them.
You may be right. I mean, it’s not like any Islamic groups have ever attacked us or anything.
All that is necessary is to imply that those who were actually awake over the last few decades are racist, and the problem disappears.
Regards,
Shodan