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

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
And yet you also talk about how these cells might gun us down, and how the Iranian backed terrorists have attacked us.
[/quote]

In direct response to claims of how Iran isn’t a threat and hasn’t attacked us. I didn’t figure that fighting ignorance would be such a problem around here.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

On the one hand you call for defense (and no one I’ve noticed is saying we should pretend these guys don’t exist) but on the other, like Cato, you play up the threat.
[/quote]

First, the threat is the reason we need defense. And, second, there are indeed at least two posters who have been busy ignoring the evidence, including but not limited to commenting on the situation without actually reading the evidence and pretending that there was pretty much no threat.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

If you are saying the neocon calls for action against Iraq are batshit crazy, then I apologize - but despite your calls for defense, I haven’t noticed this.
[/quote]

I’m not sure exactly what you want for me. I have outlined my position, in detail, numerous times. I have countered incorrect claims and irrational claims numerous times. Do I really have to mention the neocons in specific if I’ve already said, in detail and repeatedly, exactly what I believe?

Have two terms of W really brought us to this point where anybody even offering clarification of claims and debunking untruths that that some on the Left are using must be a raging rightist warmonger, even if every single word coming out of their mouth puts paid to that fiction? Have our board posters spent too much time fighting monsters, and now if I’m not with them in lockstep, then, by gum, I’m not only against them but an evil doer? If so, it’s a sad day.

By the way, apropos of this mess, here’s the arch neocon Chuck Schumer. Dissent from the position that Iran is absolutely no threat makes him a neocon imperialist warmonger, after all.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

But reacting to what was called a possible immediate threat is what we did in Iraq. That language makes me real nervous.
[/quote]

The problem with ‘once bitten twice shy’ is that you’re unable to evaluate the second instance objectively rather than emotionally. There’s also the fact that I neither planned nor launched the Iraq war, so there’s really no rational reason to take what I say as analogous to Bush’s rush to war.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

Now, are you calling a decorated Air Force General and member of the Joint Chief a barbarian? For shame.
[/quote]

So far, in this thread, I’ve been likened to LaRouche, a neocon and LeMay. And you in specific ignored everything I’ve said and asked if I might not have some affection for a man who once said that if Vietnam didn’t stop its aggression, he’d bomb them back into the stone age, men, women, children and all. I hope you could begrudge a bit of sarcasm on my part?

As I had hoped was obvious, I was not responding by calling him a barbarian, but by poking fun at the level of hyperbole that’s been thrown my way. And just to nitpick, neither Vlad, Mussolini nor Stalin were barbarians.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
In direct response to claims of how Iran isn’t a threat and hasn’t attacked us. I didn’t figure that fighting ignorance would be such a problem around here.

First, the threat is the reason we need defense. And, second, there are indeed at least two posters who have been busy ignoring the evidence, including but not limited to commenting on the situation without actually reading the evidence and pretending that there was pretty much no threat.

[/quote]

No, they are disputing the level of the threat. Has Iran attacked us? You could say that, but you can also say we attacked them. I think it is perfectly fair to be a bit emphatic about threat levels when we invaded a country that was no threat to us, with disastrous consequences.

I’m not sure exactly what you want for me. I have outlined my position, in detail, numerous times. I have countered incorrect claims and irrational claims numerous times. Do I really have to mention the neocons in specific if I’ve already said, in detail and repeatedly, exactly what I believe?

Have two terms of W really brought us to this point where anybody even offering clarification of claims and debunking untruths that that some on the Left are using must be a raging rightist warmonger, even if every single word coming out of their mouth puts paid to that fiction? Have our board posters spent too much time fighting monsters, and now if I’m not with them in lockstep, then, by gum, I’m not only against them but an evil doer? If so, it’s a sad day.

Perhaps I’m being unfair, but I saw in your posts a reflection of the hysteria we’re seeing from the administration. It’s very easy to collect instances of the Iranians funding this or that, or saying that or this, and making them seem a much bigger problem than they are. I haven’t noted you mentioning them getting involved in Iraq - they almost certainly are, because that’s what you do when an enemy, self-declared, moves in next door. How do you deal with this threat? Do you bomb or invade, and escalate, or do you try to intercept Iranian agents and embarrass them?

By the way, apropos of this mess, here’s the arch neocon Chuck Schumer. Dissent from the position that Iran is absolutely no threat makes him a neocon imperialist warmonger, after all.

I’m shocked, shocked, that there are spies in the UN. Actually, my father worked there for decades, and had first hand knowledge of Soviet spies - the guys who never showed up for work, and whose Soviet bosses pushed through promotions. He was unpopular because he was on the Promotion board and voted against them.

I’m betting these guys are doing more serious spying than taking pictures of subways, and this is a good way to try to expel them. But it’s not like we don’t have spies all over the place.

The problem with ‘once bitten twice shy’ is that you’re unable to evaluate the second instance objectively rather than emotionally. There’s also the fact that I neither planned nor launched the Iraq war, so there’s really no rational reason to take what I say as analogous to Bush’s rush to war.

No? Since I doubt you have first hand evidence, you seem to be going on the threats listed by those who do want to rush, or at least amble, to war. The absolute unreliability of the evidence the last time around, coming from the same people, makes it unwise to trust them in a similar situation. Remember, it’s the same pit bull as the one who bit us the last time, and I haven’t seen its obedience class diploma. Neither you nor I are going to launch or prevent a war, but it behooves us all to keep our heads. It seems that much of the Iranian population is fed up with spending money on nukes when their standard of living could be better. Why don’t we try to prove to them that we aren’t like what the dictators claim we are like, rather than prove we are?

So far, in this thread, I’ve been likened to LaRouche, a neocon and LeMay. And you in specific ignored everything I’ve said and asked if I might not have some affection for a man who once said that if Vietnam didn’t stop its aggression, he’d bomb them back into the stone age, men, women, children and all. I hope you could begrudge a bit of sarcasm on my part?

As I had hoped was obvious, I was not responding by calling him a barbarian, but by poking fun at the level of hyperbole that’s been thrown my way. And just to nitpick, neither Vlad, Mussolini nor Stalin were barbarians.

Whoosh right back at ya. I believe he made the statement you quote when he was running with Wallace, back in '68. I was rather mentioning his support for an attack on the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he was a respected military leader. That was a classic case of the wisdom of not responding to a threat with all you got - and it was a far bigger threat than what we are facing now. I think Bush the elder would have reacted like JFK. If Bush the younger and Cheney were in the White House, we’d all be radioactive cinders now.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
No, they are disputing the level of the threat.
[/quote]

Nope, first without doing the research they disputed that any cells existed in our country at all. Then they refused to read the links once I’d provided them. And they have, indeed, both claimed that the cells in this country are virtually no threat at all to us. To be honest I’m not sure how you read it otherwise. Unless I’m seriously missing something, they have not claimed that the cells are a threat while quibbling over the degree of a threat, they have claimed that the cells are not a threat. Do you see any text which supports another interpretation?

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I think it is perfectly fair to be a bit emphatic about threat levels when we invaded a country that was no threat to us, with disastrous consequences.
[/quote]

I’m simply not understanding where you’re coming from. My point is simply that the FBI and Justice Department have confirmed that there are more Hezbollah cells in America than the one that was broken up in Charlotte. My point is that having cells of a terrorist organization which has attacked westerners, and Americans in specific, time and time again cannot be considered to be totally 100% safe.

I’m not sure what that has to do with Iraq, at all. Can you please elaborate?
It seems that some have lost the capability to objectively evaluate evidence because circumstances remind them of the war with Iraq. This is hardly a rational way to go about things, right?

[QUOTE=Voyager]

Perhaps I’m being unfair, but I saw in your posts a reflection of the hysteria we’re seeing from the administration. It’s very easy to collect instances of the Iranians funding this or that, or saying that or this, and making them seem a much bigger problem than they are.
[/quote]

It’s bad juju when my posts are judged on whether or not they reflect something the administration might be doing, rather than what I’ve actually said. I do you the courtesy of doing my best to engage what you are saying to me, and I’d hope that I can get that in return. Fair?

I think I’ve been more than clear when I spelled out my argument, the three or four times I’ve stated it directly in the hope that the confusion directed at me was accidental rather than deliberate. I have stated and restated that those who claim that Iran is a definite threat that’s going to attack us tomorrow and those who claim that Iran is absolutely no threat and we have no reason at all to be wary are both wrong and trying to sell a viewpoint that is not supported by the evidence. My point, that I have repeated several times, is that it is dishonest to claim that Iran is no threat at all and has no hostile intentions at all, that all we can say with confidence is that we cannot be certain as to what course events will take and that protecting ourselves, holding to a defensive posture and being ready to interdict any immediate threat is a sound course of action. Would you say that’s a fair statement for me to make?

[QUOTE=Voyager]

I haven’t noted you mentioning them getting involved in Iraq - they almost certainly are, because that’s what you do when an enemy, self-declared, moves in next door.
[/quote]

I have mentioned it in this thread a few times, actually. I’ve generally let that slide as the evidence, IMO, is not as absurdly iron clad as Iran’s support of Hezballah or the history of their clandestine nuclear program.

My goal in this thread, as I said, was mainly to keep it honest and to dispel what seem to be evolving into popular myths. To be frank, nothing I’ve said is all that radical, and the reaction I’ve gotten, from folks ignoring what I’ve actually said to making stuff up and acting as if it bears even a superficial resemblance to what I’ve said to pretending that a defensive stance is actually belligerency and slavish devotion to whatever Israel says, is, well… weird. To say the least.

Reminds me a little bit of the Simpsons episode “Bart vs. Australia”

Marge: I’ll just have a cup of coffee.
Bartender: Beer it is.
Marge: No, I said coffee.
Bartender: Beer.
Marge: Cof-fee.
Bartender: Be-er.
Marge: (spells) C-O…
Bartender: B-E…

[QUOTE=Voyager]

I’m shocked, shocked, that there are spies in the UN.
[/quote]

My point was that Schumer, who is hardly a “neocon”, believes that the evidence supports us being wary of Iran’s intentions.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

I’m betting these guys are doing more serious spying than taking pictures of subways, and this is a good way to try to expel them. But it’s not like we don’t have spies all over the place.
[/quote]

Never said we didn’t, and I haven’t proposed any draconian responses to spying. But it’s also clear that recording footage of subway tracks at night, videotaping infrastructure and NY landmarks might give a rational person cause for concern. Not war. Not a casus belli. But they, paired with the confirmed “hardcore Hezballah supporters” in NY, give cause for us to be wary. They represent a threat, something dangerous, a risk.

Now, my point, again, is not that Iran is going to attack us tomorrow, but that anybody who is saying as a definite statement that Iran is absolutely no threat at all isn’t being honest. My point in linking that Schumer page in specific was also to show the absurdity of accusing anybody who doesn’t mouth the myths of Iranian harmlessness of being a “neocon”.

I’m not sure if that’s SOP now on the Dope, but it’s rather shocking if it is.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

No? Since I doubt you have first hand evidence, you seem to be going on the threats listed by those who do want to rush, or at least amble, to war.
[/quote]

The FBI, Justice Department, IAEA, etc… all want to amble to war? Give proof or retract.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

The absolute unreliability of the evidence the last time around, coming from the same people, makes it unwise to trust them in a similar situation.
[/quote]

The FBI, Justice Department, IAEA, etc… are the same people who gave us the evidence before? Give proof or retract.
While I’m at it, surely you’re not conflating all of the agents at the CIA, many of whom deemed that much of the evidence was unreliable at best, and the actions of the OSP?

[QUOTE=Voyager]
but it behooves us all to keep our heads.
[/quote]

I would contend that I have scrupulously observed proper protocol for the collection, handling, and interpretation of evidence. As you weren’t aware that I’d mentioned Iran’s involvement in Iraq, for instance, I would politely request that you read over what I’ve written before we continue this. Fair?

You may find that not only have I kept my head, but that much of the criticism that’s been leveled at me has been absurd, dishonest, or both.

If, upon reading my contributions to this thread you disagree, I’ll be happy to engage in continued discussion. Fair?

[QUOTE=Voyager]

It seems that much of the Iranian population is fed up with spending money on nukes when their standard of living could be better.
[/quote]

I provided a link to a poll that said something very similar to that myself, upthread a bit.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

Why don’t we try to prove to them that we aren’t like what the dictators claim we are like, rather than prove we are?
[/quote]

Can you quote anything I’ve actually said, anywhere in this thread, that would support actions that would “make us look like dictators?”

I really do have to reiterate that my posts, and the calumnious strawmen assembled under the pretense of discussing what I’ve actually said, bear no relation at all. If your understanding of my position was, in any part, derived from the dishonesty of those who deliberately sought to distort and ignore my words, I would request that you read what I said instead of what they pretended I was saying.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

Whoosh right back at ya. I believe he made the statement you quote when he was running with Wallace, back in '68.
[/quote]

I’m not quite sure why that’d be a whoosh… I would still hope that you might understand why, after the way this mess of a thread played out, I might be less than sanguine when presented with yet another unflattering comparison thrown at me. Especially when it again did not fit at all with what I was actually saying.

[QUOTE=Voyager]

I was rather mentioning his support for an attack on the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he was a respected military leader.
[/quote]

Have I said anywhere in this thread that we should launch a war, major, minor, or otherwise, directed at Iran, due to Hezballah’s actions so far? Or have I stated that Iran funding, arming, training and giving safe haven to Hezballah makes them complicit, makes them a threat, and allows reasonable doubt of claims that Iran’s only intentions are peaceful?

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I think Bush the elder would have reacted like JFK. If Bush the younger and Cheney were in the White House, we’d all be radioactive cinders now.
[/QUOTE]

I would respectfully suggest that this sort of thinking is the problem in this thread. Not that it isn’t okay to distrust W’s tactical or strategic insights, but that people seem to be spoiling for a fight with them thar damn neocons, and if they have to invent one and pretend that posts that mention only defense are actually a deep well of belligerence, why, that’ll do for a neocon, boy howdy!

I’m a bit reminded of the witch scene in The Holy Grail and I feel like someone keeps trying to stick a damn fake nose on me.
(I’m not looking forward to folks seeing if I weigh more than a duck, which I suppose would mean I’m a neocon. Which would mean, I guess, that they could burn me. Or something. )

I would ask that you read my posts in this thread and then ask any questions you have of my position that I haven’t made clear. Agreed?

[elucidator]

I see now, I’ve misjudged the fellow most dreadfully!

Friend Finn is only suggesting that since Iran has engaged in hostilities with America, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Hezbollah, it remains, at least to some degree, a threat. He is not necessarily demanding that we believe it is more of a threat than North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Gabon or Upper Volta. Nor does he propose, contrary to our dastardly accusations, some form of military conflict with Iran, but that we should not invite Iran along on our camping holiday, to make smores and sing “Kumbayah”.

I can only hope we are appropriately grateful.

[XT]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Friend Finn is only suggesting that since Iran has engaged in hostilities with America, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Hezbollah, it remains, at least to some degree, a threat. He is not necessarily demanding that we believe it is more of a threat than North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Gabon or Upper Volta. Nor does he propose, contrary to our dastardly accusations, some form of military conflict with Iran, but that we should not invite Iran along on our camping holiday, to make smores and sing “Kumbayah”.
[/QUOTE]

Do you really believe that this strawman is actually convincing? That the rest of us poor schlubs aren’t following the discussion enough that we are going too buy this load of bullshit? He isn’t saying any of those things and the more you hand wave and try and build strawmen for him the more ridiculous you are looking.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
I can only hope we are appropriately grateful.
[/QUOTE]

I’m guessing your real hope is ‘gods, I hope those stupid bastards out there in the peanut gallery aren’t actually reading the thread so I can get away with this crap’.
Anyway, I’ve noticed that the thread has strayed into a round robin strawman attack on Finn’s position on Iran and Hezbollah…and curiously away from the chicken little-like original intent of the OP. So…It’s now November. When can we expect this war with Iran? Still not seeing much sign of it myself. I’m sure it’s going too happen when we get the promised neo-con propaganda push that was foretold in another of these lovely threads. Any day now, right?

-XT

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Do you really believe that this strawman is actually convincing? That the rest of us poor schlubs aren’t following the discussion enough that we are going too buy this load of bullshit? He isn’t saying any of those things and the more you hand wave and try and build strawmen for him the more ridiculous you are looking.
[/quote]

But, doesn’t it make perfect sense? By repeatedly saying that I am not talking about control, and that control isn’t necessary for complicity, those who oppose me don’t even need to address my actual argument, they can just keep repeating “So describe this control you’re talking about” And when I say that “No, here is my actual argument and these specific reasons and bits of logic are why I say that control isn’t necessary for someone who continues supporting terrorists with weapons, training, money and safe haven” the insightful response is “Yeah, so tell us about this allegation of control your argument rests on.”

And then, of course, if I don’t mention, say, the Vietnam War in a discussion of Iran in 2007, I’m obviously trying to not change the subject. And why haven’t I mentioned Saudi Arabia in a discussion on Iran? Or Chavez? I haven’t mentioned the Korean War either or their nuclear program. Good gods, I haven’t touched on the Roman system of mercenaries and garrisons! I haven’t even mentioned ebola, which is obviously more dangerous than many terrorists. How on earth can I point out facts about Iran’s nuclear program or involvement with terrorism if I don’t talk about ebola?!? Personally I find my reluctance to mention non sequitors to be truly frightening. Just what am I hiding by sticking to talking about Iran in a thread about Iran?

And, of course, we all know that if you aren’t with us, you’re against us. And if you’re against us you’re an Evil Doer. Obviously there are only two possible beliefs: that Iran is a blameless innocent lamb that would never do anybody any harm, or Iran is Xerxes’ force returned and they’re going to beat in our doors if we don’t nuke them right damn now. Failure to believe in one position means you simply must believe in the other. It’s either nuclear war or kumbaya, all this talk about ‘nuance’ is sooooo John Kerry. Since I believe that Iran is not totally innocent, I must, perforce, believe that we should nuke them. Especially if I say that we should only adopt a defensive stance and that we can’t pretend that we know a number of things with certainty. Who needs proof and certainty when we have faith? Why question if Iran has given us complete disclosure of its nuclear program or if its proxy force is still a threat to us? We have faith that everything is peaches n’ cream, why complicate that? My continued reliance on an honest appraisal of the data just shows my crafty, quisling-scheming in service of a nefarious belligerent bile-filled Zionist conspiracy of Israel Firsters, as others have been kind enough to clear up.

Sure takes a load off of my mind to know that my fiendish moderation and cleaving to the truth has been exposed as traitorous warmongering Zionist conspiratorial imperialism.

[QUOTE=xtisme]

And curiously away from the chicken little-like original intent of the OP. So…It’s now November. When can we expect this war with Iran? Still not seeing much sign of it myself. I’m sure it’s going too happen when we get the promised neo-con propaganda push that was foretold in another of these lovely threads. Any day now, right?

[/QUOTE]

Of course it’s any day now. That’s obvious.
The fact that you doubt it just shows that you’re a neocon.
Why do you hate [del]America[/del] peace?

[FinnAgain]

In any case, spoke- posted something in another thread that I think was supposed to go here, simply judging by the fact that it continues this argument and had nothing to do with the discussion that was going on in the thread in which it was posted. This is the post, and I will respond to it here.

I’ll take it in pieces, as there are more than a few strange ideas and claims contained in it.

@spoke-

Nope, sorry, FinnAgain. Still not scared of Iran.

As many have done, you are deliberately mis-characterizing my argument. I’m tired of reiterating what relying on strawmen shows about one’s argument, but I am going to point out, for perhaps, yet again, rational concern and an honest assessment that one cannot be certain of several things is hardly fear mongering. I am not going to continually repeat that I am asking nobody to be scared, live in a state of fear or panic for that matter. I am advising that nobody pretend to hold certainty that they do not, that we use reason and logic in order to assess whether certain threats are known to have a probability of zero, or a non-zero probability, and whether or not we should have rational caution, prudent wariness and a sound defensive stance. My position is not at all hard to understand, so I doubt that you have misunderstood it by accident.

Further, if you are pretending that you know for certain what Iran’s leaders’ intentions are, what Hezbollah will do with certainty or whether a 20 year pattern of deception was ended with 100% certainty, well…

And you are attempting to demonize those who will not go along with the game of make-believe. When someone says “We do not know this terrorist organization’s plans for certain, it makes sense to be on our guard”, you respond that they are sorcerers engaged in fear mongering. Does that seem rational to you?

@spoke-

Still not scared of its leaders.

That you see no reason to be on one’s guard when the leaders of a foreign nation hold military parades that have missiles draped with slogans of “death to you”, who sponsor terrorists who have made a career decades long of murdering civilians and hitting military targets of you nation and other western nations, that’s your call.

I would point out that you cannot even possibly be 100% certain that there is no threat at all, so you are merely pretending. Why you feel a need to pretend to have certainty you cannot possibly rationally justify is something I’m sure you know. I’m not going to hazard any guesses.

@spoke-

Still not scared of Hamas or Hezbollah. (They strike me as more a threat to Israel than to the US.)

Hezbollah has a long track record of killing westerners in general and Americans in specific. That you refuse to even view it as a possibility that they might be a threat, and refuse to even admit that it might just be a good idea for us to keep our guard up simply shows that you are operating from a faith based system. You cannot justify your claims with reason, you can only justify them with faith that Hezbollah would not harm Americans again.

I will also note that just because Hezbollah is more of a threat to Israel does not mean it is no threat to America. That’s a bit of obfuscation on your part and its use is elucidative.

@spoke-

Not scared of secret nuclear programs.

Not being aware that there is a non-zero chance of a secret nuclear program still going on, and not being aware that there is a non-zero chance that such a program would pose legitimate concerns for Americans is willful ignorance.

@spoke-

Not scared of Iranian-sponsored cells within our midst! (Which, even if they are here, are likely intended as an asymmetrical response option in the event of a US attack on Iran.)

As you have read this thread, you will know for a fact that those cells are indeed here. So your statement that “even if” they are here can only be designed to be deceptive. Further, I will note that you are again pretending, but your game has slipped a bit. You just said that those cells are “likely” not going to be used as anything other than a response.

As should be glaringly obvious, “likely” =/= “certain”. Why you feel the need to pretend to hold a certainty that you admit straight out you do not have, is something perhaps only you know. Why you attempt to demonize not pretending to hold something as a certainty that you yourself do not hold as a ceratinty is truly incomprehensible.

@spoke-

In fact, I’m not scared, period.

As should be obvious, I am not asking anybody to be “scared”, merely not to engage in willful ignorance. That you want to pat yourself on the back for your magnificent ‘bravery’, when all your doing is pretending to be sure about things that you can’t rationally be sure about, it weird.

@spoke-

And I sure wish our politicians (with assistance from conjurers like you) would stop trying to control us through fear.

Oooooh, scary, I’m a conjurer!
It’s sad that we’ve gotten to the point where someone stating facts and using some very elementary logic is a “conjurer” if the facts and logic don’t reinforce willful ignorance.

[Shodan]

FinnAgain, you are a credit to the SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan

[ralph124c]

It looks like we are being prepped for an attack on Iran. We have the usual suspects (Iranian defector, who knows all about Iran’s nuclear plans), Israeli planning for a strike (how they expect to hit an underground bunker with 24’ of concrete on top) is anyone’s guess. Finally-US strike plans-up to 1000 air strikes (cruise missiles, stealth bombers, strikes from carrier-based aircraft). It looks like “deja vue” all over again-except there is NOproffof any kind that Iran plans to make a bomb. So, if we intend to set off another major war, this looks like the plan-only-who is going to occupy post-war Iran?

[elucidator]

There will be no need to occupy, as we will be greeted as liberators.

[FinnAgain]

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

[/QUOTE]

Thank you very much.

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
It looks like we are being prepped for an attack on Iran.
[/quote]

That’s what folks have been saying for years. Often using the same evidence from one year to the next, always while saying that an attack was imminent. Any day now. Any day now.

[QUOTE=ralph124c]

We have the usual suspects (Iranian defector, who knows all about Iran’s nuclear plans), Israeli planning for a strike (how they expect to hit an underground bunker with 24’ of concrete on top) is anyone’s guess.
[/quote]

We’ve had all of that for years. No attack so far.

[QUOTE=ralph124c]

Finally-US strike plans-up to 1000 air strikes (cruise missiles, stealth bombers, strikes from carrier-based aircraft).
[/quote]

Without actually having seen the show, it certainly sounds like war gaming and contingency planning. I expect that if our military leadership is at all competent, that they have plans to deal with any and every location of strategic importance on the planet. Was there any evidence that this wasn’t simply a contingency plan, but something that we were putting into motion?

There were dozens of war games simulating war with the Soviets during the cold war. But we didn’t go to war directly with the Soviets.

I’d also note, the History Channel has a pretty crap track record in terms of solid reporting.

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Without actually having seen the show, it certainly sounds like war gaming and contingency planning. I expect that if our military leadership is at all competent, that they have plans to deal with any and every location of strategic importance on the planet. Was there any evidence that this wasn’t simply a contingency plan, but something that we were putting into motion?
[/QUOTE]

Only the evidence of precedent - what these same people have done in the past elsewhere after saying essentially the same things. Why would you think it’s more sensible to dismiss that than to apply it? “Fool me once” etc.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
We’ve had all of that for years. No attack so far.
[/QUOTE]
And we’ve been bogged down in Iraq for years, or we would already have invaded. As Bush’s term nears it’s end, the warhawks will see their chance to fulfill their bloodlust slipping away, and attack.

[elucidator]

Frankly, Der, I am more concerned with war by blunder than war by intent. After all, at the time, the Von Shliieffern Plan for WWI was only a “contingency plan”, kind of thing might be useful in the event of some “damn fool thing in the Balkans”.

The absolute number one ideal situation for the Forces of Darkness would be if Iran directly and unequivocally attacked American soldiers. Step down from that is a situation that could be exaggerated to that end. Sabre rattling advances that possibility while offering a iron-clad sanctuary of plausible deniability: “Hey, we were just practicing firm and forthright diplomacy, and they went nuts, not our fault!” That we appear to be doing our level best to induce a state of fear and paranoia will be brushed aside lightly, as all good Americans rally to The Leader etc. etc.

This is not a confrontation between powers in a rough parity, as the US and the Soviet Union. Iran has no capacity to inflict a level of damage on America that poses an “existential threat”, as the droll phrase has it. Even given the uncounted number of Hezbollah cells in America champing at the bit to get themselves dead for Allah, the bottom line remains: we can kill Iran, Iran cannot kill us. Whatever level of violence they may offer, we can return it a hundredfold at any time.

We are offered the hostile propaganda in Iran as proof positive of malign intention, but at the same instant, we are assured that violent fantasies suggested by American politicians are not the same thing at all. When Iran does it, its a serious threat, when we do it, its merely vigorous diplomacy.

[XT]

I’m reminded of the Energizer commercials where the bunny is still going…and going…and going…

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Finally-US strike plans-up to 1000 air strikes (cruise missiles, stealth bombers, strikes from carrier-based aircraft).
[/QUOTE]

Do you know what it takes too stage ‘1000 air strikes’ into some place like Iran? Do you suppose we have that kind of combat power and the logistics too support it in theater? If so…do you have a cite for that? If not…do you have a cite that we are currently staging that combat power too in theater?

Where is your evidence that we are being prepped for this war? Sounds like the white van is still always at the corner…

[QUOTE=elucidator]
There will be no need to occupy, as we will be greeted as liberators.
[/QUOTE]

No need too provide evidence when catchy one liners are at hand, ehe?

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Only the evidence of precedent - what these same people have done in the past elsewhere after saying essentially the same things. Why would you think it’s more sensible to dismiss that than to apply it? “Fool me once” etc.
[/QUOTE]

Well…where is your evidence of a precedent? Are you saying either the air campaign in Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq are such evidence? If so…where is your evidence we are preparing in the same way for Iran? Please provide it too support your contention that past US action indicates that the US is currently preparing for a strike into Iran.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And we’ve been bogged down in Iraq for years, or we would already have invaded. As Bush’s term nears it’s end, the warhawks will see their chance to fulfill their bloodlust slipping away, and attack.
[/QUOTE]

Your evidence that we would have invaded Iran already is…?

As for the other…well, you also contend that the US is going too nuke Iran so it’s probably grain of salt time…

One thing though…if the ‘warhawks’ ARE planning too strike at Iran with more than a Clinton-esque tomahawk strike or too they are kind of leaving it until the last minute, wouldn’t you say? It takes time too get something major organized, prepped, and get all those bomb and missile thingies shipped over there for this theoretical 1000’s of strikes. Maybe these ‘warhawks’ aren’t aware of this?

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Frankly, Der, I am more concerned with war by blunder than war by intent. After all, at the time, the Von Shliieffern Plan for WWI was only a “contingency plan”, kind of thing might be useful in the event of some “damn fool thing in the Balkans”.
[/QUOTE]

So…you aren’t really worried that the US is CURRENTLY (and sooper sekretly) getting in position too strike at Iran…but afraid that some event could possibly have the effect of massively ramping up the violence factors and cause conflict? In that case…I agree completely. I’m worried about that as well. Both sides are really ramping up the tension/rhetoric and it COULD simply take one violent event too spin the whole situation out of control. If the US actually attacks Iran while Bush is still in office (something I still think is a very remote possibility) it will be because of just such a fuckup on both sides.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
We are offered the hostile propaganda in Iran as proof positive of malign intention, but at the same instant, we are assured that violent fantasies suggested by American politicians are not the same thing at all. When Iran does it, its a serious threat, when we do it, its merely vigorous diplomacy.
[/QUOTE]

We are offered a bit more than that as evidence that Iran has hostile intent…for those of us actually paying attention. And too be honest, the Iranian leadership and people are offered a bit more than simply propaganda that WE have hostile (or at least very unfriendly) intent as well. Their continued development of their nuclear program clearly brings them into direct conflict with the US (and in a hand wringing, procrastination sort of way with our Euro buddies as well)…not too mention their support of external terrorist organizations. It’s not ‘fantasies’ on either side…except too those who have buried their heads and refuse too look at the evidence.

-XT

[elucidator]

You are implying a parity that does not exist. The “threats” from Iran take the form of “If you attack us, you’re going to regret it.” The theats from the US take the form of an aggressive threat, that we will attack without a direct attack on us, we may attack because Iran does not comply with our demands. Not really the same thing, I’m sure you’ll agree, unless you simply refuse to see the startling clarity of my arguments.

Then there is the question of capacity. If Stevie Hawkings threatens to beat the living snot out of Chuck Norris, it would be roughly equivalent to Iran threatening the US. Iran can severely annoy the US, the US can obliterate Iran. Wipe out, annihilate, exaggeration is not possible. You are buttoned up in a Sherman tank, the other guy is a thousand yards away and rumored to be fashioning a crossbow.

And on the one hand, you mock suggestions of possible aggression against Iran, despite the wide array of prominent politicians urging just that by snorting with derision. “Well, if we are so intent on attacking, why haven’t we?” If America is riddled with deranged and bloodthirsty Hezbollah, aching to fling themselves upon the Great Satan, what’s stopping them? On the one hand, you claim inactivity proves a crucial point, when the sauce is applied to the gander, you ignore it. If the FBI is so obsessively concerned with the dreadful threat of Hezbollah cells in the US, how is it that they have so much time to waste on a bunch of dipshits in Miami, who couldn’t have disrupted a Hadassah luncheon?

Where antagonism exists, it falls to the stronger party to display the hero’s portion of restraint, civilization requires a certain acceptance of risk.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Only the evidence of precedent - what these same people have done in the past elsewhere after saying essentially the same things.
[/quote]

We could look at things rationally.

For instance, we could look at whether there is a possibility of us having enough free troop strength to actually run another war. If we don’t, then it’s pretty unlikely.
We could look at how long they’ve been saying “essentially the same things.” If it’s a period of years, about half a decade, then perhaps it’s not indicative of anything happening any time soon.

We could also, for instance, look at whether or not there are real, direct similarities or general ones that vaguely resemble a previous circumstance. We at least sought a cover of UN legitimacy last time. Have we gotten any resolutions promising “serious consequences” if Iran doesn’t stop certain things? Has Bush gone to our own Congress, who have given him the ability to initiate war as they did during the runup to Iraq? By late 2002 we were already shifting specialized troops and assets out of Afghanistan and towards Iraq. Have we started doing the same thing in Iraq towards Iran? This process of saying “essentially the same things” has gone on for a long while now. Surely there is some evidence then that we’re shifting those forces and gearing up for war?

It seems to me that much of the hysteria over the years-long wait for the imminent-attack is something akin to “Bush said it. I don’t believe it. That settles it. And Bush is a warmonger so we’re going to war.”

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

Why would you think it’s more sensible to dismiss that than to apply it?
[/quote]

Because not one of the claims put forward convince me that there is an actual war that is being planned and will be launched imminently. The fact that such claims have been made for years should probably make you question them. Right? After all…

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

“Fool me once”
[/QUOTE]

So the anti-war crusaders who have been crusading against a war that hasn’t actually happened and who have been fooling those who would listen to them, for years now, with claims of an imminent war… they’re still trustworthy.
But Bush, who once fooled us, is not.
To me that suggests that the standard is not really “fool me once…” at all.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
…
To me that suggests that the standard is not really “fool me once…” at all…
[/QUOTE]

Kind of a big one there, Finn. The disgrace to our good name and honorable intentions, the slaughter of innocents. Guy does that once shouldn’t get another shot. Your generous and forgiving nature has led you astray.

[XT]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Kind of a big one there, Finn. The disgrace to our good name and honorable intentions, the slaughter of innocents. Guy does that once shouldn’t get another shot. Your generous and forgiving nature has led you astray.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you are missing the reality factor I believe. You see, when Bush ‘fooled us’ we spent literally months openly getting READY too, you know, invade or strike. It was quite visible.

Where is the evidence of a similar effort too get ready too do something in Iran? It’s not really a matter of trusting Bush (which I for one do not), as looking at that reality stuff. I look at the political situation here at home. I look at the US’s actual combat capabilities…what we can and can not do. I look at what we are actually DOING. I look at the effect of Iraq and Afghanistan on our increasingly stretched military.

Then I look at the hand waving claims of imminent attack by the US on Iran. And I look at the fact that this wolf crying for years.

Then I get out my trusty rusty Occam’s Razor…

-XT

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Then I get out my trusty rusty Occam’s Razor…

[/QUOTE]

Oh you would. But as we all know, the fact that it would take America quite some time and effort to ramp up to war simply means that Bush has craftily hidden all of his ramping up with invisible paint. The fact that there are no actual indications we’re gearing up for any major confrontation just proves our aggressive intentions.

Iran’s support of Hezbollah, on the other hand, proves that their intentions are totally defensive. After all, in order to certify that Hezbollah is definitely in our country in a totally retaliatory capacity, we’d need to know that Iran had direct control over them and would only unleash them if Iran was attacked. And it’s not like the people suggesting that scenario have any antipathy towards the idea that Iran controls Hezbollah. I mean… right?