Pakistan has shown a similar lack of restraint with regard to sponsoring terrorists over the years, and yet they haven’t provided nuclear materials.
Hell, you could look at Latin America (as an easy example) and argue that the US has shown a lack of restraint regarding terrorist groups we have funded.
[QUOTE=Spoke]
Not unless the Martian presumed the Iranians to be suicidal.
[/QUOTE]
So, what you are saying here is that Martians are able to both see into the future AND to know peoples intent (i.e. to read minds)? Wow…those Martians are supernatural!
And this keen eyed Martian has failed to note that Iran hasn’t been attacked, and doesn’t really ‘need’ nuclear anti-tiger protection? For a Martian able to see the future and read minds it’s got a pretty tenuous grasp of history. Odd, that.
-XT
[QUOTE=Spoke]
Pakistan has shown a similar lack of restraint with regard to sponsoring terrorists over the years, and yet they haven’t provided nuclear materials.
[/QUOTE]
Well, a couple of things here. First, Pakistan never signed the NNPT. Secondly, there is an argument that since India was a nuclear power already (also having failed to sign the NNPT), that Pakistan did ‘need’ nukes, since the two countries are mortal enemies. Lastly, the fact that Pakistan has nukes in no way makes a good case that everyone SHOULD have the things, since there is a lot of anxiety that Pakistan might fold at some point, leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of the gods know who when the dust settles.
The argument that Iran is going to give nukes away is ridiculous. The argument that Iran might use a proxy (such as H&H) to attempt to deliver a nuke while avoiding the blame is less ridiculous…and it’s merely one of the arguments of why it’s a bad idea for Iran to get the things.
You mean during the Cold War? Or do you have more recent examples? Regardless, the US didn’t control those ‘terrorist’ groups, by and large…merely held our noses and funded them. That’s a bit different than Iran’s support of it’s pet groups at a fairly fundamental level.
-XT
xtisme, your posts to this thread have become weirdly arch. But hey, your posting style is your own, I guess.
I again point to this map, which I presume our Martian is consulting, and which might reasonably make an Iranian ruler feel a little insecure.
A bad idea? Maybe. Worth going to war over? No way in hell.
[QUOTE=Spoke]
xtisme, your posts to this thread have become weirdly arch. But hey, your posting style is your own, I guess.
[/QUOTE]
Because not only has all this ground been trodden over and over in this thread, but it’s been beaten to death in countless other threads on this same subject over the years. In the end, the folks calculating that Iran is no threat and that it’s some sort of good idea or at least innocuous that Iran should seek nuclear weapons are doing so, IMHO, from a flawed initial premise, and are ignoring history (not to mention that whole treaty thingy).
The keen eyed Martian might also note that countries that don’t attempt to develop nukes and also don’t support terrorist groups are unlikely in the extreme to actually be attacked by tigers…or rampant Americans. Iran feels insecure because they are doing both of those things, they want to continue to do so and they want a get out of jail free card to enable them to continue to do so. I never denied that Iran THINKS they need the things. I’ve been trying to explain why we might not agree, and why that lack of agreement might lead to war, which I think even a Martian would agree might not be a good thing.
-XT
[QUOTE=Spoke]
A bad idea? Maybe. Worth going to war over? No way in hell.
[/QUOTE]
Based on who’s calculation? Again, because YOU think that doesn’t mean countries like Israel will agree with the calculation of risk. I think that if Iran gets to the point where they are fairly close to actually creating the nasty things that even Europe might be onboard with disagreeing with your calculation. They (and obviously the US, or the bombs would already be falling) don’t think that all peaceful avenues have been explored (and I fully agree…I don’t want there to be a war and hope this is all resolved peacefully). But if Iran continues and the UN/IAEA thinks that Iran is getting close, that calculation is bound to change…if nothing else from the Israelis perspective, since they take this stuff a bit more seriously than you and others in this thread seem to.
-XT
Like Iraq, for example?
Nope, nothing like Iraq in fact. As I’ve said already, I know some of you think this is a good example, but I think our keen eyed Martian would see some pretty glaring flaws in why Iraq does not equal Iran.
-XT
Funny, the last time you pointed to the map you were educated on the fact that despite Iran launching multiple attacks against US military targets, killing hundreds of US soldiers, the US retaliated with precisely zero attacks against Iran. You were also pointed to the niggling detail that absent its support of international terrorism and its nuclear program itself, it would have no reason to feel “insecure.” I will say, though, that the rhetorical and logical contortions of you and your fellow travelers are at least entertaining. An aggressive nation fears retaliation for its aggression, and that just proves how insecure it is! You rhetoric reminds me of the old joke about a chutzpadik murderer who, after killing both his parents, demands leniency from the court since he’s an orphan.
“Look how insecure I am, there are cops all over place, look at this map!”
“Yeah, but… they won’t hassle you if you’re just minding your own business.”
“You don’t get it. Last week I knocked over a liquor store, and I mugged some guys this week. I need grenades, the cops are seriously threatening my security. But, damnit, it’s illegal to try to buy grenades and I’ll probably get even more heat for trying to buy 'em!”
“Well, before you try to get grenades, have you maybe considered stopping committing crimes and that attempting to purchase illegal weapons is not exactly helping you?”
“I don’t see what you mean. Besides, Martians agree with me.”
I would say that we should then leave it to the Israelis to fight that foolish war, if they are determined to do so. However, given our military placement in the region, if the Israelis started it we would almost inevitably be drawn into it.
Given the hazard of regional conflagration, I think we should do everything in our power to discourage Israeli action, up to and including withdrawing our veto support in the Security Council.
Those attacks from 29 and 16 years ago, you mean? The ones in which no Iranians actually participated?
Perhaps this quote should be posted prominently somewhere in the Pentagon.
Then the Martian would have been quite ignorant of Iranian history.
Had the Martian been knowledgeable about Iranian history they’d have known that the Revolutionary government was guilty of lots of extreme, unstable behavior, some of which might be considered suicidal.
For example, the Ayatollah decided it would be a good idea to try and have the President of Iraq assassinated. This was despite the fact that Iraq, a nation bordering it, with a vastly larger army with a leader spoiling for an excuse to invade and this was after the Ayatollah had jailed all of Iran’s Air Force pilots effectively leaving her without any defenses against Iraqi bombers.
Well, the assassination was foiled, it was discovered Iran was behind it, Iraq invaded, came within a whisker of conquering Iran and a seven year war followed in which nearly a million of my countrymen were killed and the situation became so dire that the Ayatollah was forced to turn thousands of Iranian children into human minesweepers ordering them to walk onto minefields to intentionally blow themselves up clearing the way for troops to follow and to attack in swarms over machine gun nests while carrying no weapons, though he had the courtesy to giver them plastic keys before doing so that they could use to enter heaven.
Perhaps you think that people who do that to children are sane, but I’m not one of them.
Similarly, I doubt the current Ayatollah is crazy enough to do something that stupid, but he has a history of making reckless moves and if, unlikely as it is, some Hojjiateh whackjob takes over after him, then all bets are off.
Now, I don’t mean to sound to callous, but while I wouldn’t be overjoyed if a mushroom cloud formed over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, I’m utterly terrified at the possibility that the leaders of my home country might be stupid enough as to provoke an attack the might make the destruction the suffered during the 80s due to Khomeini’s stupidity and arrogance look like a walk in the park.
Nobody said the Ayatollahs were good guys. Only that they are not suicidal. Sending children to sweep for mines makes them evil, not suicidal. If anything it shows the lengths to which the Ayatollahs will go to protect their own lives.
Iran’s misadventure with Iraq was not suicidal, it was a miscalculation. Using nukes (or giving them to terrorists) would be suicidal. No doubt. Full stop.
Maybe YOU want to go to war on the off chance that some future Ayatollah may be suicidal. I don’t.
(And anyway, short of a war of conquest, I have real doubts that we can keep the nuclear genie in the bottle in Iran anyway. Do you think the problem merits a war of conquest?)
So your argument is that during the 1980’s and the 1990’s the US would not respond to Iranian attacks, but now we are at risk of attacking them for no reason at all? Really? You’re willing to make that argument with a straight face? Care to posit an hypothesis as to why we’d suffer Iran to attack us with no retaliation on multiple occasions, murdering hundreds of US soldiers, with no military response, but now Iran has to be on its guard once we’ve overextended, financially hobbled and in no mood for another ground campaign? Or is this just “throw shit at the wall and see what sticks” practice for you? Do you have any reason, at all, for handwaving away the actual history, or is it just difficult for your apolgia to rationalize? You do realize “It was a while ago!” is not a reason to explain why we didn’t retaliate at that time, right?
Your bit of nonsense about “no Iranians actually participating” is also fictional, which you should know as I also educated you on the fact that the attacks were authorized, directed, funded, and supplied by Iran. Interesting that you’ve somehow forgotten that, as you immediately resorted to a tu quoque fallacy about MEK when I pointed it out to you last time. I guess spending time on factual accuracy is a luxury some folks cannot indulge in when they’ve got an apologia to craft.
You’re the guy who thinks that map is pretty important. Take a look at it again, does Israel share a border with Iran? No? Then how, exactly, will the US be drawn into the modern equivalent of an artillery duel? How many of Israel’s last wars, the ones where it actually put boots on the ground, did the US take part in?
What, exactly, is your apologia based on again?
So your argument is that they have not yet mastered “go hide in a bunker for a bit” technology? You do realize that they would be sacrificing their countrymen, not themselves, right? You do know the difference between suicide and not-suicide, yes? Or is it a “miscalculation” with Iraq, but crazypants theater with Israel because, well, the apologia just has to keep on trucking?
And do you really not understand that strikes to set back Iran’s nuclear program are not designed to eliminate it forever? That nothing short of conquering Iran would do that, and nobody, at all, is contemplating that type of war? Does a strawman make the apologia more palatable to you?
“The Ayatollahs”?
What the fuck are you talking about?
There’s only one Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, who’s the Supreme Leader. It’s not a rule by consensus.
It was a little more than a miscalculation. They came within a whisker of being lined up against a wall and shot and having their country conquered and their people massacred in the millions.
That’s awfully presumptuous of you to assume.
Are you sure that’s how the Hojjiateh feel?
For that matter, what makes you think they’d be terrified about taking actions that bring about Youmud Dinn?
Those are stunningly stupid statements. I’m Iranian and proud of it. I’ve already made it clear I’m vastly more terrified of Khamenei or one of his successors doing something to bring about the destruction of the land I was born in and you’re suggesting that I support “a war of conquest”?
Please.
I support neither a war to prevent Iran from getting nukes or an invasion if it’s discovered they got one.
If you’re not with him, you’re against him.
If you point out logical and factual errors in his claims, your character is suspect.
If you point out his whole argument is absurd, well, you might just be an Evil Doer.
I swear I’ve seen that rhetorical gambit before…
I was just countering your ever so subtle attempt to propagandize your readers into believing Iran poses some sort of serious threat to the US. They don’t. They have never sponsored terrorism on US soil. Decades ago, they sponsored terrorism in response to US incursions into the Middle East.
As to what sort of threat we pose to Iran, it’s a question which must be examined not from our perspective but from Iran’s. And the question is whether the Iranians might reasonably perceive the constricting US military presence in the region combined with hostile rhetoric to present an existential threat. And I think Iran’s apparent conclusion in that regard is perfectly reasonable.
Because, as I understand it, Israel’s air force doesn’t have the range to reach its targets in Iran without US assistance. And if we assist Israel in this endeavor, suddenly all our military assets in the region become inviting targets to revenge-minded Iranians.
Then why join so cheerfully in Finn’s parade of propaganda in service of just such a war?
[QUOTE=Spoke]
I would say that we should then leave it to the Israelis to fight that foolish war, if they are determined to do so. However, given our military placement in the region, if the Israelis started it we would almost inevitably be drawn into it.
[/QUOTE]
And if Iran was in, say, Antarctica, or perhaps the inner reaches of Outer Mongolia you might have a point. But, see, there is all that oil stuff in the region, and all that trade stuff that goes through the straights that Iran just so happens to have a coast line on. That’s why it’s not just the US and Israel foaming at the mouth over the non-threat of Iran gaining a nuke…because, see, it DOES effect us, and it DOES threaten not just our trade and Israels security but that vital strategic material, access and trade stuff for a large part of the industrialized world.
Good grief…what do you think we’ve been doing through at least 2 administrations so far?? We HAVE been discouraging Israel from taking direct action, while we try for a non-military solution! The keen eyed Martian would notice right off that Israel still hasn’t attacked Iran or the Iranian nuclear program, despite the fact that Iran has engaged in a covert war with Israel using proxy forces and terrorist tactics AND has continued, in the face of pretty much universal international condemnation, to pursue the acquisition (despite treaties they signed saying they wouldn’t do so) of nuclear weapons.
Seriously, and no snark intended here…what part of that is confusing? I really, REALLY want to understand where you and others are coming from here.
-XT
