Go ahead, tell me again how we're NOT going to war with Iran

[Spoke]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As long as I’m still pointing out whoppers, there’s the claim that, for instance, the marine barracks and Khobar Towers attacks are only “alleged” to have been carried out with Iran’s knowledge, support, and cooperation. I’ve already linked to two trials whose results show that there’s nothing “alleged” about it.
[/QUOTE]

As I read it, no defense was filed to the lawsuit. Failure to answer a lawsuit may mean that certain facts are deemed admitted as a matter of law, but that is not the same thing as “proof” of those facts. From the link you provided:

The lawsuit was brought by the families of 17 of the 19 people killed in the attack. Iran never responded to the lawsuit, did not send an attorney to appear in the case and is not expected to pay the award.

Iran has denied any connection to the bombing of the Khobar Towers and has rejected US allegations of its involvement as “unfounded”.

You do understand the difference between “proof” and “judgment by default”?

[XT]

[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
Isn’t it funny how some folks can argue that it’s ridiculous to think the US will go to war with Iran while giving lots of reasons why we should go to war with Iran?
[/QUOTE]

Well, as Finn points out, you might want too start with some quotes of anyone in this thread saying we should go too war. I might have missed one or two, but afaik no one has advocated that position…which would make your assertion a…

Well, never mind. The term has been thrown around too much already.

Anyway, the point is that it’s ridiculous too assert, with no evidence, that the US is getting READY for war (like, you know, the OP did) with Iran. Thus far there has been no evidence supporting this claim except some anti-America ranting about how we would bomb anyone for any reason and some hand waving about how Bush et al have been a bit rough on the rhetoric about Iran (like this is something new).

-XT

[tomndebb]

to: in a direction toward; may indicate physical motion or purpose

too: also; (alternatively) indicating an excessive amount or degree

[XT]

Well, thank you Tom…I never have been able too get that straight. My spelling and syntax are equally poor. C’est la vie.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

Fighting some more ignorance…

The judge in the cases specifically referenced evidence and the conclusion he drew from it. For those curious as to what the truth is, I invite you to read the memorandum and the 2003 ruling from the parallel marine bombing case.
You can read it yourself, and see if ‘proof’ was offered or if they simply decided to find against Iran because they didn’t show up. You will find, in specific, that the second document I have listed states quite clearly

However, despite the entries of default, this Court is required to make a further inquiry prior to entering any judgment against defendants. FSIA mandates that a default judgment against a foreign state be entered only after a plaintiff “establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence that is satisfactory to the Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e); see also Flatow v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 1998). As in Flatow, the Court will require plaintiff to establish their right to relief by clear and convincing evidence. The “clear and convincing” standard of proof is the standard required in the District of Columbia to support a claim for punitive damages, and is sufficient to establish a prima facie case in a contested proceeding.

I’m sure the gathered readers can determine if a " ‘clear and convincing’ standard of proof" is the same as the claimed “certain facts are deemed admitted as a matter of law, but that is not the same thing as “proof” of those facts.”
Certainly, any readers can figure out whether or not the judge used the word ‘proof’ in error or if he can “understand the difference between “proof” and “judgment by default””.

You may also note statements the judge made, for instance [

‘The court finds that it is beyond question that Hezbollah and its agents received massive material and technical support from the Iranian government,’

](U.S. Court Blames Iran for Beirut Bombing - The New York Times)

Or in the second linked document:

The Court now enters its findings of fact, based upon the sworn testimony and documentary evidence presented during the March trial, and received in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. This Court finds these facts to be
established by clear and convincing evidence.

If it’s actually required, I may be bothered to dig up other sources directly from Lamberth. Unless any specific evidence can be offered that the “clear and convincing standard of proof” was somehow waived in the second of the two cases, I suppose the peanut galary can puzzle out for themselves whether this latest objection is accurate and the claims are merely “alleged” and affirmed by default, or spurious and there was a clear and convincing standard of proof.

I’ll also have you note that I’ve now spoken with three separate lawyers to confirm this, I hope y’all appreciate my sacrifices.

And by the way, since some have claimed that these soldiers were a legitimate target, from the findings of fact:

Based on the testimony of Col. Geraghty and other witnesses, the Court finds that on October 23, 1983, the members of the 24th MAU, and the service members supporting the unit, 5 were clearly non-combatants operating under peacetime rules of engagement.

[Spoke]

Interesting links, Finn. Thanks for that. Of course they relate to the Marine barracks bombing (1983) and not to Khobar Towers (1996).

Moreover, this bit in the judge’s ruling is also relevant to our discussion:

Having established the existence of Hezbollah as a separate entity, the government of Iran framed the primary objective of Hezbollah: to engage in terrorist activities in furtherance of the transformation of Lebanon into an Islamic theocracy modeled after Iran.

Boy, that sounds bad for Lebanon. And maybe for Israel next door. But how does that make Hezbollah a continuing threat to the US?

For that matter, how would bombing the Khobar Towers (in Saudi Arabia, in 1996) have furthered Hezbollah’s founding goal?

A couple of recent articles also relevant to our discussion:

From Esquire: The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn’t Want You to Know (Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It’ll be Iraq all over again.)

From Salon: Iraq taught us nothing

[FinnAgain]

Make that “peanut gallery”. Yeeeeesh.

But as long as I’m already committing the sin of double posting…

Khobar Tower memorandum.

From their findings of fact:

13. The terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers was approved by Ayatollah Khameini, the Supreme leader of Iran at the time. It was also approved and supported by the Iranian Minister of Intelligence and Security (“MOIS”) at the time, Ali Fallahian, who was involved in providing intelligence security support for the operation. Fallahian’s representative in Damascus, a man named Nurani, also provided support for the operation. Id.

14. Under Louis Freeh, the FBI conducted a massive and thorough investigation of the attack, using over 250 agents. Id.

15. Based on that investigation, an Alexandria, Virginia, grand jury returned an indictment on June 21, 2001, against 13 identified members of the pro-Iran Saudi Hezballah organization. The indictment’s description of the plot to bomb the Khobar Towers complex frequently refers to direction and assistance from Iranian government officials. Id.

16. In addition, as a result of this investigation, the FBI also obtained a great deal of information linking the defendants to the bombing from interviews with six admitted members of the Saudi Hezbollah organization, who were arrested by the Saudis shortly after the bombing. Id. at 11-30. These six individuals admitted to the FBI their complicity in the attack on the Khobar Towers, and admitted that senior officials in theIranian government provided them with funding, planning, training, sponsorship, and travel necessary to carry out the attack on the Khobar Towers. (Exh. 7 at 11, 13-14, 27; see also Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 24-30.) The six individuals also indicated that the selection of the target and the authorization to proceed was done collectively by Iran, MOIS, and IRGC, though the actual preparation and carrying out of the attack was done by the IRGC. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 25.)

17. According to Director Freeh. the FBI obtained specific information from the six about how each was recruited and trained by the Iranian government in Iran and Lebanon, and how weapons were smuggled into Saudi Arabia from Iran through Syria and Jordan. One individual described in detail a meeting about the attack at which senior Iranian officials, including members of the MOIS and IRGC, were present. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 23.) Several stated that IRGC directed, assisted, and oversaw the surveillance of the Khobar Towers site, and that thesesurveillance reports were sent to IRGC officials for their review. Another told the FBI that IRGC gave the six individuals a large amount of money for the specific purpose of planning and executing the Khobar Towers bombing.

18. Louis Freeh has publicly and unequivocally stated his firm conclusion, based on evidence gathered by the FBI during their five-year investigation, that Iran was responsible for planning and supporting the Khobar Towers attack. Blais at *4.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
… some hand waving about how Bush et al have been a bit rough on the rhetoric about Iran (like this is something new)…
[/QUOTE]

“A bit rough”? Cheese Louise, XT! A bit rough?!

Now I realise that this is a judgement call, there is some wiggle room available by generous definition. And there isn’t any established metric for objective measurement, or we might report our rhetoric in relation to France a few years back measured 562 on the Bolton Bellicosity Index. Which would be, maybe, “a bit rough”. “Freedom fries”, and all that.

In which case our rhetoric would be, roughly, 11,380.

[XT]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
“A bit rough”? Cheese Louise, XT! A bit rough?!
[/QUOTE]

Well, we are talking about Bush et al…not known for their subtle use of language and nuance in international diplomacy. The key point I was making however was that I see nothing different from Bush’s PAST rhetoric wrt Iran…so no indications that Bush et al have their collective hands poised to drop too the figurative six shooter on America’s hip.

-XT

[Measure_for_Measure]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
However, it is erroneous too say we IMPOSED the Shah on Iran. The Shah was ALREADY the ruling monarch. Depending on how you look at it, we RESTORED the Shah (who was the constitutional monarch of Iran prior to our involvement). I suppose if you wanted to, you could say we RE-imposed the Shah.
[/QUOTE]
Bogus logic. The Shah became the ruler of Iran after the US supported and financed coup. No we didn’t make him the original monarch, just as the US did not make Pinochet of Chile a general and the Soviet Union didn’t make Castro a citizen of Cuba.

But these dictators were imposed on their country, in the sense that their puppet masters moved them from a lesser position of power to an absolute one.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
You see, it was a complex situation.
[/quote]
It always is. Which is to say that it is easier to mount a coup in an unstable situation.

I fail to see how the statement that the US imposed the Shah on the people of Iran is erroneous. Imprecise, maybe – the addition of extra nuance is always welcome on this board. Pretty much all dictators have a local constituency, but that doesn’t make them democratic.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Bogus logic. The Shah became the ruler of Iran after the US supported and financed coup.
[/QUOTE]

Well…no. You see, the Shah was ALREADY the ruler in Iran. Before the coup. He briefly became the not ruler of Iran when he fled the country. Then he became the ruler AGAIN when the US and the Brits (at the urging/insistence of the Brits and partially financed by them) helped RESTORE HIM TOO POWER. What I see is a bogus grasp of the essentials of history here.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
No we didn’t make him the original monarch, just as the US did not make Pinochet of Chile a general and the Soviet Union didn’t make Castro a citizen of Cuba.
[/QUOTE]

The two (or 3 I suppose) examples really don’t bear that much resemblance to each other.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
I fail to see how the statement that the US imposed the Shah on the people of Iran is erroneous.
[/QUOTE]

Yes…I see that. If you want too see something that is basically wrong as ‘Imprecise’, well, that’s up too you.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Pretty much all dictators have a local constituency, but that doesn’t make them democratic.
[/QUOTE]

What has this got to do with the price of rugs in Persia?
At any rate, I just wanted too provide the cites from Wiki too give some context and history. I didn’t want to hijack a threat that is supposed too be discussing the supposed imminent attack of the US on Iran. If you really want too discuss the history in Iran and the Shah’s roles we could start a thread on that…hopefully Tamerlane will wander in and we’ll all learn something.

-XT

[RedFury]

Might want to take a look at who you’re really fighting:

A Second Look at the Saudis

Oh, and don’t forget Pakistan: U.S. Takes a Hit From Pakistan’s Turmoil

I mean, seriously why build straw-bogymen, when they already exist IRL? Not convenient I’d gather, since they are “allies” and all…best kiss them on the cheek and forget it ever happened.

<tin-foil hat off>

[Starving_Artist]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
FinnAgain, you are a credit to the SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Well, I was just rummaging around in the thread and came upon this post, and I just wanted to second Shodan’s assessment of FinnAgain.

Cheers, Finn. It’s good to see you around again.

[FinnAgain]

Thanks very much.
As long as ignorance is still fighting back, I suppose I’ll be down in the trenches.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Well, I was just rummaging around in the thread and came upon this post, and I just wanted to second Shodan’s assessment of FinnAgain.

Cheers, Finn. It’s good to see you around again.
[/QUOTE]

No kidding. I thought that part about “Iranians love their kids too much to risk them” followed by the cite of the plastic keys was about as thundering a counter as I have seen lately.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

So who doesn’t love their kids? What do you imagine is proved by something that cannot be falsified? Suppose you believed that building a nuclear bomb would protect your kids from the Americans? What then?

It may shock you to hear it, but we are not universally beloved. Some folks, who are otherwise reasonable and rational, are afraid we might just attack a country for no good reason, without any proof of a threat.

Crazy, huh? Huh?

[XT]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
What do you imagine is proved by something that cannot be falsified?
[/QUOTE]

That echoing explosion sound was my irony meter once again going critical. Had to clean glass shards and shaving cream off the walls and ceiling (again).

Well, at least I had to clean Dr Pepper off my monitor when I nearly choked reading this in light of the OP we are debating here…

-XT

[elucidator]

May we presume that, once again, being unable to answer the argument you focus your snark on its source?

[XT]

Sorry, I’m still cleaning off my monitor. What was the question I can’t answer again? And who is ‘we’ kimosabe? You got a mouse in your pocket?

Lets see:

[QUOTE=elucidator]
So who doesn’t love their kids
[/QUOTE]

Did you want a list of names or just a general answer here?

[QUOTE=elucidator]
What do you imagine is proved by something that cannot be falsif
[/QUOTE]

Well, it’s hard to say. What did the OP (and countless handwavers before him/her on this subject) think THEY would accomplish by asking a question that can’t be falsified? Probably a ranting debate about the US being poised to invade Iran that won’t be proved false until after Bush et al is gone..and then be quietly forgotten in light of some new rant.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Suppose you believed that building a nuclear bomb would protect your kids from the American?
[/QUOTE]

Suppose they believe in the Easter Bunny, or that the world is flat? Just because they BELIEVE, doesn’t mean they are right.

Out of curiosity do you have any evidence that the average Iranian thinks that having nuclear weapons will make them safe?

[QUOTE=elucidator]
It may shock you to hear it, but we are not universally belove
[/QUOTE]

No…really? Do you have a cite for this??

Just kidding btw. I would like to see the cite for the other thing though. BTW, it may shock YOU to hear that no countrie is ‘universally beloved’. Iran itself isn’t exactly well loved in the region.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Some folks, who are otherwise reasonable and rational, are afraid we might just attack a country for no good reason, without any proof of a thre
[/QUOTE]

No doubt this is true…though what YOU consider ‘proof’ may differ from what they do. However, no one that I know in this thread is advocating attacking Iran, so why don’t you quote some of these ‘folks’ so we can look at their arguments. These are ‘reasonable and rational’ folk, mind…not the ranting of Bush et al. I’d actually be interested in reading some ‘reasonable and rational’ ‘folk’(s) arguments for why we should attack Iran. Might add something to the thread…put that cite in with the other one. Thanks.

-XT

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Out of curiosity do you have any evidence that the average Iranian thinks that having nuclear weapons will make them safe?
[/QUOTE]
Are they morons ? No ? Then there’s my evidence that they probably do think so. Of course it will make them safe, at least from us.

And if the average Iraqi doesn’t think so, they are wrong; it’s the only thing that will make them safe.