Another non-argument. Then again, I doubt that you want to seriously try to argue that America doesn’t do exactly what I accused it of doing - something it is notorious for doing. So, instead you try the stupid “Comic book! Comic book! Hur hur hur!” tactic of mockery without substance.
You’re entire argument he was responding to was “Iran thinks we’re bullies because of what we did in Iraq.” And it’s all you’ve said since. It’s just a single statement that can’t be refuted. Not because it’s inherently true, but because you have provided nothing to indicate why you came to that conclusion.
If if’s so simple that none of us could argue with it: prove it. Don’t just keep repeating the same thing over and over.
I don’t think it is unreasonable at all to link the war in Iraq to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. While it is surely not the ONLY factor in Iran’s nuclear program (because the efforts apparently began well before the war in Iraq, was suspended from 2003 for a period of years, and now it appears restarted – cite) it seems a bizarre claim that Iraq has NOTHING to do with Iran’s intentions to get a nuclear weapon.
What is beyond ridiculous is Der Trihs’s insistence that America’s wars against brown, non-Christian people is a significant or reasonable point. The war in Serbia was against white Christians who were oppressing European Muslims, we risked thermonuclear war with Russians for the better part of a half century, we are at zero risk of starting a war against the Japanese, Taiwanese, Turks, Israelis, Philippinos, etc. A reasonable person would conclude that there must be factors other than race and religion that determine whether we go to war with a country. One shocking and stunning theory – hold on to your hats – is that politics is more determinative than racism in who we fight.
Of course, this doesn’t fit in with DT’s preconceived, unshakable conclusion that we are bloodthirsty, imperialist racists, so any evidence or theories that do not agree with that conclusion must be rejected because they are propaganda from the capitalist patriarchy, or something like that.
Be that as it may, his comments about why Iran is interested in nuclear weapons are not unreasonable at all. I agree with a good portion of what he has said on that particular topic.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable either (this part of his assertions), just that it’s only one small factor in their reasoning for pursuing their current strategy. Certainly nuclear weapons as a shield against possible attack is part of it, and certainly they have to have looked hard at what the US did to Iraq and (rightfully) calculated that we could do the same to them if we wanted too, but by the same token this is 2010 and we still haven’t even launched an air strike against them. Being ‘tied up’ in Iraq is not much of an excuse, considering the fleet is pretty much untapped and could have been used to attack Iran’s programs if we REALLY wanted to go that route (not to mention the various NATO assets that could have been used, assuming we could get them on board with the threat), instead of what we actually have been doing, which is seemingly endless diplomatic talks punctuated by sanctions. Personally I think the main part has to do more with asserting their power on the regional level and attempting to move themselves into a position of regional power, of becoming a regional nuclear player.
Out of curiosity, who was claiming that Iraq and the Iraqi invasion had nothing to do with Iran’s renewal of their nuclear program?
-XT
Why would I need “credibility” if I have a nuclear bomb?
Heh. You don’t think anyone thought “Oh lord, don’t let him screw this up too!”?
I was responding toBigT’s post. He seems to think DT has to prove something which is inherently reasonable, the only debate being the degree to which the war in Iraq has effected Iran’s thinking on nuclear weapons.
And, for the record, I have never believed any of the hype that we were on the verge of attacking Iran. I probably offered a half-dozen wagers on that topic over the last several years, and for all the “OMG Cheney’s going to attack next week!” hysteria, nobody ever took me up on my offer. Too bad for me.
Would have been big money for you, Ravenman. sigh Ah well, c’est la vie…
-XT
Why hasn’t the Mossad assassinated this AQ Khan guy yet? Seems to me that the entire undertaking of making illicit nuclear weapons gets more difficult without him.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18546-iran-showing-fastest-scientific-growth-of-any-country.html Pursuit of nuclear enrichment seems to have a lot of spillover. They are making scientific strides.
If I were Iran ,I would be going after nuclear power. They have oil, but not that damn much. They need to sell it abroad to stay solvent.
They may be after the bomb. If I were them I would certainly consider it. They have to protect themselves from us, and we have no trouble invading the middle east.
If you put yourself in their shoes, it seems like a pretty good idea.
Nukes are their own credibility. It’s not like any nuclear power has any genuine credibility in the sense that you can believe anything they say. Seriously, does the US or Britain have credibility after Iraq? Does Israel have credibility? China? India? Pakistan? What nuclear power can be taken at face value?
What matters is not if you can be believed or not – nobody can – but whether you can blow shit up. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, then they will have the only credibility that matters.