Do I have a press release from AIPAC saying, “We want American to go to war with Iran and the sooner the bettter?” No. And I do not think I will be able to get one anytime soon. Very often in politics you have to infer goals from actions because the players know better than to announce their goals. I think AIPAC’s actions lead to a reasonable inference about their attitude toward war with Iran.
No, lay it on me.
So AIPAC, supposedly one of the most powerful lobbying organizations on the planet, can’t even say “America should launch a preemptive strike at Iran?” They can’t even match Coulter for political rhetoric? Gee, they sure don’t sound too powerful.
And faced with the fact that you have no proof at all, you’re playing a guess-the-insinuation game and claiming that we can make reasonable inferences about their attitude about war. Rather obviously you’re now shifting the goalposts from AIPAC advocating to war to them having the attitude that, well, war would be swell. You do, I trust, know the difference between an attitude and active advocacy.
Really? Try spotting it if it wasn’t in the form of a rather conspiratorial bit of political musing that you’re rationalizing for since you can’t find any facts to back it up: “I was once served a drink in a dribble glass and it was really embarrassing. Now, whenever anybody serves me a drink I don’t just assume that it’s going to end poorly, but that they’re out to get me.”
Spot it now?
Powerful organizations operate via subterfuge all the time. Frex, the Republican Party never said that their positions against Affirmative Action and so forth (the Southern Strategy) was to “keep the niggers down” instead they said it was to “promote fairness wink wink” but it sure as hell was what they were selling to the southern racists to get votes.
I’m making inferences based on what I read and see. I’m trying to be reasonable about it. If you got something besides “gotcha” stuff trot it out.
C’mon. It’s obvious that in the modern world that if you want to get a First World nation alarmed about a Third World nation, you claim they are developing weapons of mass destruction. Now it may be that some Third World nations ARE developing weapons of mass distruction … North Korea comes to mind. But we would do well to examine carefully the claims of anyone who is making such assertions. Are they trying to drive our policy through fear? It certainly worked for Bush!
This is yet another bit of fallacy. The motivations for the GOP to oppose AA were one thing, but they didn’t pretend that they weren’t opposing AA. Here you have a hypothesis that is, gee whiz, totally unfalsifiable, and in large part is based on the fact that AIPAC is not advocating war with Iran. Why, the fact that they’re not advocating it just goes to show how dastardly they are in going about advocating it!
Faced with the fact that your conclusions are unsupported, your logic fallacious and your reasoning is actually a series of rationalizations designed to support a conclusion you didn’t reason your way to in the first place, you’re now complaining that pointing those facts out is a “gotcha”. But you’re not retracting or modifying your claims. Unsurprisingly.
Well, of course. After all it has happened all of one whole times. More than enough to build a solid pattern around forever. And we should base our worldview on that conspiratorial paranoia, and not the fact that WRT Iran, we’ve had the IAEA pointing out non-implementation of the Additional Protocols for years, among other things. Nope, let’s not go with the evidence. The Bush administration did some bad things regarding intelligence gathering and propaganda, so let’s never trust anything ever again.
It’s not only true that I can’t believe it’s not butter, I’m pretty sure that the Government is behind this whole ‘not butter’ thing. I demand an inquiry.
<.<
>.>
Actually, there has been any number of times in history when governments have lied about evidence, selectively attended to evidence, or simply dreamed the evidence that led to warfare.
In this case there is a lot more similarity between Iraq and Iran than UN IAEA troubles:
Certain nations, principally the US, exaggerating the conclusions of IAEA reports.
The political spectrum of the people wanting to escalate.
The fact that Iran and Iraq were tied together on an Axis of Evil by the people with the same political identity.
The hard evidence for weapons development only found in the past…
…inconclusive evidence for continued activities in the present, if anything at all.
Possible dual use items reinterpreted for the worst possible result.
The open interest in regime change.
The military activities already occurring in the country.
The ratcheting of sanctions that seems to be doing nothing but punishing the people of Iran.
And my personal favorite: The dire speculation of just what the terrorists will do once Iraq, I mean Iran, gets the bomb!
I do not bring these things up to really argue whether Iran is or isn’t developing a nuke. I suspect it’s currently somewhere in between, but more importantly I do not give shit what Iran develops.
I bring it up, because I think you are going overboard calling it “conspiratorial paranoia” when the cost of war or war-like activity against Iran will be so high while the accumulated evidence presented thus far looks nearly identical to Iraq pre-invasion.
I find it hard to believe that with all the knowledge you apparently have about these kinds of things in the Middle East, that you cannot see how somebody might quite reasonably come to the conclusion that the way these events are playing out is something to be suspicious of.
After all, your conclusions are just as baseless as Evil Captor’s and requires an Iranian conspiracy to cover up a nationwide network of nuclear weapons activities when they can’t even keep their scientists from being assassinated by guys on motorcycles.
Because there is no reasonable way to come to that conclusion. Go figure.
Your list is also awful, and includes, among other things, calling the IAEA’s own questioning of Iran’s dual-use technologies “reinterpreted for the worst possible result.” One wonders how the IAEA can reinterpret their own conclusions, but ah well.
So EC’s is baseless because he has no evidence, and mine is baseless because I have years and years of IAEA reports that show a deliberate pattern on iran’s part of covering up information about their nuclear program, up to and including bulldozing sites before the IAEA could inspect them and refusing the Additional Protocols for years even though the IAEA has repeatedly certified that the AP’s could verify non-diversion of nuclear materials from civilian activities and the non-existence of a military component. Something tells me that you’re not quite grokking what the concept of “baseless” means.
So what evidence do you have.
So far you seem to be insisting that since a lot of people on the net believe AIPAC was pushing for war they must be.
By that logic, since lots of people on the net believe Obama is a Muslim it’s perfectly reasonable to believe he is one.
What actions? Please give me specific examples.
Also, you never said who the neo-cons of the Bush administration were who “led Cheney and Rumsfeld around by the nose”.
Could you please give me their names and evidence of them leading “Cheney and Rumsfeld around by the nose.”
Thanks
MJ Rosenberg explains why people might think that here. Restricting diplomatic avenues in this manner does seem rather strange.
This article also notes the similarities with the approach to Iraq;
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/10/292724/aipac-iran-iraq/?mobile=nc
You’re presenting an article that was already presented and discredited.
As I already said.