The “data” he presented is overshadowed by histronics that are so spectacularly way out of proportion to anything anyone is saying that its hard to take the guy seriously. You don’t have to be particularly partisan to see that all he’s bringing to this discussion is an impassioned defense of nitpicking semantics.
Yeah, he’s right: The report has not said Iran is not working on a bomb. But Big fecking deal. Definitive statements of that nature are close to impossible to make given the inherent limitations of intelligence (not to mention, its just politically stupid; these folks hold a patent on CYA). But for some reason, FinnAgain is portraying the absence of definitive statements as evidence of something.
This isn’t about winning or losing a debate because frankly, aside from the nits that Finn insists on picking (by his lonesome, I might add), there really isn’t much to debate. Just questions to answer.
The DoS’s INR said that they accepted the DoE conclusions.
“INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.”
Pardonne moi! What was I thinking! Or should that be “who told me I could think”?
So, yeah, to get back on topic: BG, you Big Fat Lier.
But I’m afraid that either my ADD is kicking-in or Shodan’s open adulation of Friend Finn – who, BTW, is simply parroting the AIPAC. There’s a surprise for you I’m sure – that I feel compelled to post a link to this picture.
…
::::sigh::::
…poor George, losing lovers left and right.
Anyway, to get back on topic, let’s carry on with the demonization of BG and the deification of FF.
Although I was only half-joking in my response to Shodan’s ridiculous hyperbole, you should note that there are several debates going on here, and there are more than just two sides. As for Finn, his main point seems to be that Iran poses some threat to the US, and that has not been substantianted. Iran poses a threat to Israel, and Iran would like to increase its influence in the M.E. Neither of those, per se, translates into a threat to the US unless we want to make it a threat. One can make a much stronger case that Saudi Arabia poses a threat to the US, and yet we treat them as a cherished ally.
When you’re as powerful as the US, it’s not too hard to win friends and influence people. If we chose to cozy up to Iran instead of Saudi Arabia, we’d probably have good relations with the former and not so good relations with the latter. It’s unclear to me which choice would result in the better outcome for the US. n.b.: I’m not saying we should “cozy up” to either one, but we seem to do that a lot, and we have been cozying up to Saudi Arabia for quite some time.
See? See?* Now* will you listen? Cognitive Dissonance is the number two threat to the Republic. Yeah, that’s right, two. You already know who number one is.
Support for terrorist groups that have attacked America numerous times, including but not limited to Hezbollah and Al Quaeda, draping missiles with slogans like “Death to America” that’s not substantiation of a risk factor or Iran’s intentions.
Support for terrorist groups that have attacked Israel numerous times, including but not limited to Hezbollah and Hamas, stating and then confirming via their own official translators that they want Israel wiped off the map, that’s totally substantiation.
Is there any reason Iran cannot pose a threat to Isreal and the US? Any reason at all? Is this a quibble because Iran poses a greater threat to Israel? Heck, Al Quaeda definitely poses more of a threat to Iraq than it does to the US. Does that mean that Al Quaeda does not pose a threat to the US?
Can you explain why a history of supporting Al Quaeda and a continuing pattern up to the present of supporting Hezbollah, and Iranian governmental rhetoric that says their goal is our death, is not substantiation that they are a threat? Are you using a unique definition of substantiate or of threat? Are you saying that since Iran’s support for terrorism doesn’t pose an existential threat, they’re not a threat at all?
One of the ways it wants to do so is by increasing the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. Are you saying that Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t represent a threat to America?
What do you mean, unless we want to make it a threat? Islamic fundamentalism isn’t a threat unless we somehow make it one? A continuing history of being willing and eager to support global terrorism, especially groups that have and/or continue to attack America, and groups whose violently anti-Americans agendas are well known and explicit, is only a threat if we make it a threat?
Of course the Saudis are a threat to us, by spreading Wahabist ideology and their support for terrorism. Why, then, is spreading Khomenist ideology and supporting terrorism not a threat when Iran does it?
It still behooves us to be wary of the Saudi’s intentions and to adopt a defensive stance with them, too.
Unless they are religiously, ideologically dedicated to opposing you. How much luck have we had, with all of our power, at reforming Wahabism? Have we won friends or influenced them? Or have we had (limited) success in the area of stopping them receiving finances? Has the most effective crackdown on Wahabist ideology actually only begun to come about because the Saudis began to be a target, themselves?
We might have good relations with Iran’s government, at least parts of it. Can you provide evidence that the faction represented, in part, by the MOIS would warm to us? As of yet, nobody in this thread has even attempted to explain the circumstances surrounding the 2003 memo.
And cozying up to the Saudis didn’t reduce their threat to us by all that much, right?
The one thing that is true is that the Saudis have a much higher percentage of their citizens who are religious fanatics, so opposition to America comes not only from parts of their ruling class, but also from their citizenry to a great extent.
Iran, on the other hand, has a smaller percentage of its citizens who are religious fanatics. In fact, that majority oppose the government and yes, if the government vanished tomorrow in a puff of smoke, Iran would be one of our best allies in the region. But the government is still there. If the Supreme Leader dies, well then, long live the Supreme Leader. And as the 2003 memo evinced, even the Supreme Leader and his close circle of political allies is not empowered to conduct peace negotiations without the very real fear that the rest of his government would scuttle any such deal.
I’ve asked you at least once why Iran’s support for Hezbollah, for instance, is not a threat to America. Unless I missed something, the closest you’ve come to that is a non-answer that attacks on the Marine Barracks and such aren’t similar to the downing of the WTC.
Can you respond, directly, specifically and explicitly, as to how nothing Iran does can be considered a threat to America?
Again I am asking your opinion: Exactly what interest of the US does Iran threaten?
Stability? With Iran the dominant local power, there’s all the stability you could hope for.
Oil? What, they’ll stop selling it to you?
See, you have many times repeated this vague suggestion of “strategic threat” but never given it any body. What in fact is your nightmare scenario regarding Iran?
I think the inference you are making here is a little hard on the member. FA has been here long enough and read enough debates to appreciate the truth of the ME situation. Sure, he arrived with misguided views on Israel. But has he now stated in anyway that the US should take action to protect Israel? Quite the contrary, no he has not.
Naturally. The key issue in the ME is how to bring the Israelis sharply to heel, in no uncertain terms. And who better to do that than the Iranians? What follows then is that the question for the US is how to protect its interest, the reliable supply of petrochemical products. Yet it must be done without in any way degrading the ability of Iran to constrain or liquidate Israel or parts thereof, if such action is judged prudent. It’s a delicate balance.
Well, I suppose, in addition to past claims about how it’s perfectly natural to want to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, now we’ve got fond thoughts of Israel’s genocide.
Too bad I’ve got such a misguided position that thoughts of genocide are not attractive to me. Poor, poor misguided me.
Personally, I believe FinnAgain’s rhetoric, histrionics, and transparent exclamations are every bit as ideologically motivated as anyone else’s. His outspoken and self-professed commitment to “truth” only highlights his dogmatism. If you don’t buy into FinnAgain’s version of the truth, then you must be a liar, a partisan, or “intellectually dishonest”. I don’t even know what that means.
Rather than wade through extreme parsings or dubiously relevant quotations of source material, I think it would be more valuable to examine the underlying logic of Finn’s position.
First and foremost, I do not think he and I disagree on what we would like the outcome to be. I have zero appetite for war with Iran. I believe Iran has the strongest native democratic institutions in the entire Muslim middle east, and it could be a valuable partner for the United States in the future. I believe that the answer is in patient diplomacy and in realigning the strategic reality of the middle east such that the United States and Iran are not at odds over so many critical issues.
Yet he perceives Iran is a threat. I don’t. Ultimately, since are responses to Iran are probably pretty similar, who cares?
I do only insofar I believe FinnAgain is both fanatical and wrong. May God save us from true believers.
There are two issues.
Threat
Let’s stick to the basic logic here.
Iran has supports Hezbollah. Hezbollah has done naughty things. Ergo, Iran is a threat.
Furthermore, Iran has engaged in anti-American activities, Iran is the source of anti-American rhetoric, and Iran puts US flags on its missiles. We have the following criteria for threat:
Support for an organization that has killed Americans.
Anti-American rhetoric.
Despite reading a few of Finn’s posts regrettably more than once, I could not really find anything else substantive to extract.
For what it’s worth, these criteria of threat are not consistent with those of, say, Stephen Walt’s, the leading threat theorist of the Realist school of international relations. I’m shocked.
If I am missing any criteria, do let me know. I would like to see whether or not other, more unambiguous threats or non-threats captured by these filters.
Purpose of the Attacks
There have been many studies of terrorism lately. The best ones analyze the entire range of terrorism to induce the motives for both individuals and organizations based on the historical outcomes delivered. One such study I linked earlier by Robert Pape. The domain of his study is suicide terrorism, but I believe his conclusions can be pretty easily generalized. Here’s a pretty good summary.
This isn’t just the author’s view. For example, let’s take a look at what Ronald Reagan had to say about Lebanon in 1984.
We withdrew from Lebanon. Months later, Israel also withdrew from Lebanon. This campaign ceased. Hezbollah moved on to attack Israel and the SLA in a campaign shortly after this ended.
Campaign #1: Hezbollah vs. US, France
Weapon Target Killed∗
1. April 18, 1983 car bomb US embassy, Beirut 63
2. Oct 23, 1983 car bomb US Marine barracks 241
3. Oct 23, 1983 car bomb French barracks 58
4. Dec 12, 1983 grenades US Embassy, Kuwait 7
5. Dec 21, 1983 car bomb French HQ, Beirut 1
6. Sept ?, 1984 truck bomb US Beirut embassy 14
Campaign #2: Hezbollah vs. Israel
Weapon Target Killed∗
1. Nov 4, 1983 car bomb IDF post in Tyre, Lebanon 50
2. Jun 16, 1984 car bomb IDF post, southern Lebanon 5
3. Mar 8, 1985: truck bomb IDF post 12
4. Apr 9, 1985: car bomb IDF post 4
5. May 9, 1985: suitcase bomb SLA checkpoint 2
6. June 15, 1985: car bomb IDF post in Beirut 23
End result? Complete withdrawal. The US withdrew from Lebanon. The US withdrew from Saudi Arabia. Civilians are targeted because the target nations are democracies. Attacking non-military targets delivers a much stronger coercive message. As it turns out, attacking these targets has precipitated complete withdrawal. Terrorists have learned this lesson well and have used it to their advantage.
Finn may believe that one nation does not have the right to dictate whether other nations in the same region may accept foreign occupation or interference. The historical record does not agree. I doubt we need an obligatory wikipedia link to the Monroe Doctrine.
These two issues of threat and motive are inextricably linked. They return us to the same strategic problem. We know that terrorists use bombings to achieve relatively limited territorial objectives. We know that Iran has supported Hezbollah to do the same. If these territorial objectives did not need to be achieved, would Iran still be a putative threat?
Admitting any of your blatant errors might be a good place to start.
Or that all of my claims are backed up by verifiable cites and are, in fact, true.
Tough call.
Interesting that you can’t or won’t even attempt to rebut a single cite I have provided, merely called them irrelevant and/or tried to change the subject. But I’m sure that has no bearing on whether or not you could prove me wrong.
Funny thing is, I don’t have a version of the truth. Things are either true, or not. And if I make a correct claim, support it with facts, and those facts are never rebutted… I’m correct. As for not understanding what intellectual dishonesty means, no argument.
Funny… weren’t you the one who was caught in numerous outright factual errors and then rather than retracting let alone acknowledging them, handwaved them away as being of dubious relevance?
That’s neat, but I thought you were going to touch on the logic I used. If you’d like to actually do so, you should probably not create a strawman and pretend that it’s the logic that’s being used.
I can only assume that if Bush said that our official policy was to be “Death to Iran”, you would claim that we were not threatening Iran? That Iran could not then consider us to be a threat? Because, it is of course interesting that many who make the claim that Iran’s threats are ‘mere rhetoric’ also make the claim that the Axis of Evil speech showed Iran that the US was a threat to them. That, by the way, is an example of intellectual dishonesty. I’m sure you can puzzle out why.
Interesting, too, that you classify murdering, kidnapping and torturing Americans as “naughty things”. Or that you ignore that Hezbollah kept on attacking Americans even after (what you claim was) the goal behind their attacks had already been met.
And that you ignore Iranian support for Al Quaeda, who I’m sure has also done “naughty things”. Or that their support for fundamentalist Islam is not just “anti-American” but often, as it just so happens, expresses such ideology via violence and that Iran has a history of supplying weapons, training and direction for such violence.
You mean… for instance, making death threats are not threats, since they’re not consistent with the views of thoroughly discredited Walt? Somehow I’m of the impression if I posted a list of the many errors that Walt certified as true in his recent screeds, you’d simply handwave it away as a fanatical version of the truth.
But interesting fallacy of Appeal to Authority in any case.
That you’d use a person like Walt as your support also is not all that surprising. Oh, I know, I know, simply because a Harvard professor claimed things that 30 seconds on google would show were false doesn’t make him dishonest and his opinions untrustworthy, it makes me a fanatic. Much like, I’m sure, when Harvard removed its endorsement from Walt’s work, it was not because Walt was a proponent of sloppy, unsupportable ‘scholarship’, merely that Walt was simply too damn correct.
I know this is whack a mole, and I’m just a fanatic dedicated to a ‘version’ of the truth that happens to only be supported by all the facts of the matter, but you’ve already claimed that the attacks ceased once we withdrew, even though they continued for years.
Nor have you attempted to address how attacking an America embassy and kidnapping/torturing American citizens after American troops already left a country is consistent with getting American troops to leave that country.
Of course. Because if attacks are directed at Americans and American interests, they’re not directed at hurting Americans and Americans interests, it’s just because America happens to be a democracy.
Except, much like you refuse to retract your patently false assertion regarding Lebanon and Hezbollah’s attacks there, or even address the fact that you were slinging utter bullshit… you also cannot address the fact that you cannot be aiming at sending a “coercive” message of ‘removing your occupying troops from this country’ if you are sending such a ‘message’ *years after those troops have already left. *
And then after that withdrawal, they continued to attack those targets. Obviously as it could not possibly have had anything to do with accomplishing a goal that they’d already accomplished, pointing that fact out must only be a fanatical insistence on a version of the truth.
Not only does the “historical record” not agree, all it points out is examples where countries have imposed their will in an imperialistic manner on other nations. Kindly, as you claim that it is a right, cite any relevant part of international law that confirms that such a right exists.
Contrary to what you dishonestly claim, the issues we were talking about were neither “occupation” nor “interference” but a request for aid made by a sovereign state. Your rhetoric is a bit threadbare when requested peace keepers are an occupying force and requested soldiers are not cooperating with a state, but occupying/interfering.
No, as it would have nothing to do with whether or not a nation had a right to restrict sovereign nations from inviting other sovereign nations to their own sovereign territory. In fact, your claims make a mockery of the entire concept of sovereignty.
Further, by whatever passes for your logic, the US has a right to demand that Iran not have any of its personnel in foreign nations. And since Iran’s right to negate other sovereign nations’ choices evidently included the use of force, as that was the only way they could “dictate” whether America could be invited by a sovereign nation, then America has that same right… under your system of belief at least.
Double standards, by the way, are intellectually dishonest.
Except as you have deliberately ignored and handwaved away the relevant evidence. Even Iran’s/Hezbollah’s actions in Saudi Arabia were directed at attacking Americans and American interests. Not that their goal was the simple removal of American troops. You point to results as if the results represent the sum total of a group’s goals or that the results they achieved were their only goals, despite what they were actually aiming at.
You also have to deliberate ignore the actual facts of history. If Iran’s goal was to hurt American interests in Saudi Arabia, then the bombing succeeded. If it was to remove American troops, then it failed as it wasn’t until about nine years later that US troops were removed. Interesting… if Iran didn’t succeed in their goal, why didn’t they try again during the next 5 years before 9/11?
Even groups like Al Quaeda, in their own words, stated that their goal was the complete removal of Americans, soldiers and civilians. As well as the murder of Americans, soldiers and civilians, wherever they could be found. Not that their goal was the removal of soldiers and hitting civilian targets helped facilitate that.
That you cannot even address this point, what the groups themselves have aimed at and said their goals are, should probably be counted as you conceding that you cannot possibly rebut it.
That you conflate and attempt to substitute the goals of suicide terrorism, as claimed by Pape rather than the groups that are committing such acts themselves say, with the goals of all military operations that those groups (and their Iranian backers) engage in? That should probably be counted as you conceding that you cannot possibly contend with the evidence as to what the groups actions outside of suicide bombings are motivated by and that you cannot rebut what those groups, themselves, say are their goals. Fair enough?
Like hitting any American interests they can, and attacking any Americans, soldiers or civilians, in an area they consider theirs, even if it belongs to actual sovereign nations?
Like Bin Laden saying that his goal was the ‘relatively limited’ goal of killing Americans wherever they were on the globe, and that every American, soldier or civilian, should be pushed out of the ME?
Sure, if you ignore (as you just so happen to) that Iran supported Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia in order to hurt American interests, not remove American troops. That attacking an American military target was a sub-set of their goal of attacking American interests.
Much like your contention that after the US withdrew its troops from Lebanon, the attacks ceased, and, evidently, that kidnappings and an embassy bombing are consistent with those attacks ceasing.
Not admitting that a claim you make is shown to be factually incorrect and then not retracting it, let alone not even acknowledging it, is intellectually dishonest.
-“See that man over there, the one hitting that other man?”
-"…Yeah."
-“He’s beating the second guy up in order to get him to take his hat off inside a a third guy’s house, who invited him there in order with specific instructions to wear the hat”
-“But… it’s not the first guy’s house, is it? The guy who owns the house said he wanted the second guy to wear a hat?”
-“So? He’s hitting him in order to get him to remove the hat.”
-“Okay. Well, look, there, the second guy took off his hat and the first guy is still hitting him.”
-“No, the hitting stopped.”
-"But… we all just saw it, he hit him again several times. How can you say it stopped when it continued? How can you say it was only to get him to do something if he kept doing it after that goal had already been met? "
-“No, it stopped, and he was only hitting him in order to get him to take off the hat. Only a fanatic would suggest that my description lacks honesty.”
-“But… even without paying attention to how what you’re saying is contradicted by all the facts, isn’t your position odd? What right does this man have to not just tell someone else, in someone else’s house, when the owner of that house allows and encourages the behavior, to not do it? And not just to tell him such a thing, but to attack him if he doesn’t comply?”
-“Haven’t you heard? The historical record is quite clear on his right to do so. Just last year someone went into someone else’s private residence and beat the shit out of them for not having a Christmas tree. Do we really need the obligatory Wikipedia link to prove that because such behavior goes on, those who engage in it have a right to do it?”
-“You haven’t admitted your mistakes, your position isn’t based on the facts, and your logic is fallacious.”
Finn, I’m sure I’m not the only one scrolling past your posts. The few I read at the beginning simply didn’t reward the effort: they consisted of false choices offered to other posters, in which they could choose to be liars or idiots. They evinced no desire to consider what other posters were saying. And they went on at extreme length in that regard.
Brevity is the soul of wit. Respect for your opponents engenders respect for your own position. If you would like to be taken seriously by the folks you wish to persuade, you’d do well to keep both points in mind.
The US has a certain view of the way the M.E. should be. That view is in conflict with the way Iran thinks it should be, but there is nothing inherently “right” about the US’s view. I’m not even convinced that it’s in the best interest of the US to pursue that view.
So, to the extent that Iran is a threat to us there, it is because of the way we have chosen to push our weight around in the M.E. Let’s not forget that we (along with some of the European states) backed Saddam Hussein in his war of aggression against Iran. We could choose to push our weight around differently, and Iran could be our buddy. Alternatively, we could remain neutral and let them fight it out among themselves.
We control our own destiny, to a large extent. We’ve sided with the Sunni Arab states, but it needn’t be that way. That puts us at odds with Iran, but I don’t see how that is Iran’s fault. They are responding the way most states would respond, and how we’ve responded, too.
It pains me to have to defend Iran, which I think is a disgusting, repressive regime. But their foreign policy towards the US is largely a reaction to what we have done since long before the hostage crisis of the late seventies, and continue to do today.
If you back a dog into a corner, that dog is going to be threat to you. Especially in that little corner.
This binary thing just doesn’t work, it is simply a more positive for “excluded middle”. All such things come in degrees, there are threats and there are threats and they are not the same. I can understand why you cling to it with such ferocity, without it, your argument is dead rather than simply crippled and consumptive.
Russia was a genuine threat to the US, no two ways about it. Red China was also a threat, but not as much! They simply lacked the capacity, even were they determined to accept catastropic retaliation.
Which sidles into another point, your exaggeration of the importance of public displays of belligerance. In the above example, Red China was far more publicly hostile to the US, but was still less of a threat than Russia, where the level of hostility waxed and waned. The reason being that Russia could do something awful to us by mistake (and, I understand, very nearly did…) whereas Red China couldn’t do it by intent. Public displays or hostility dont mean much at all, Castro has been excoriating the US for years, and the only harm he ever inflicted on us was banishing boatloads of brand new Republicans.
And how is it this view of Hezbollah as a dark spectre of terror is so meagerly accepted? These boards have some pretty smart cookies, sort of like Mensa with a self-selecting sample. Why is it that I don’t hear much of anyone else wringing their hands and clutching their pearls over the Dread Threat of Hezbollah. Of course, one explanation is that we are but intellectual pygmies dazzled by the blazing light of an intellectual supernova.
As long as you ignore that the brand of Islamic fundamentalism that Iran spreads is virulently anti-American and anti-Western. Even if Iran’s leaders’ own ideology didn’t put them at odds with us, their “fault” would still be how they act on that, like directing attacks against our forces if they’re in other nations that invite us.
Oh… a threat?
Aint cognitive dissonance a bitch?
Interesting, of course, that you only feel the need to read posts agreeing with each other and not have the slightest inclination to read, let alone attempt to factually disprove, the factual refutations that take them to pieces. And that even when you are reading only those posts, you don’t see fit to criticize them. One poster advocates genocide of Israel? No biggie. Another claims that Iran stopped making overtures of peace after the Axis of Evil speech even though that’s blatantly untrue? Unworthy of comment. Another claims that after we withdrew troops from a place attacks stopped, even though attacks continued for years after? Who cares.
I have no idea why I might have thought of such behavior as an echo chamber.
Yes, it is a false choice. When someone misrepresents something, whether they are doing so deliberately or because they are ignoring what actually went on aren’t the only choices. They could also… um… be ignoring what actually went on with sincerity. Or sincerely trying to deceive people. Or something.
I’m not even going to attempt to begin to untangle how I can respond in detail to every single substantive point someone makes, and rebut them with direct quotes, facts, and solid reasoning if I’m not considering what they’re saying.
But hey, I guess I just need to “consider” how there is nothing at all dishonest, wilfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest in a desire to deliberately ignore 1/8 of the NIE report since it doesn’t fit in with someone’s political goals. That when someone pretends that the distinctions the NIE laid out don’t matter, that you’re not acting with intellectual dishonesty and deliberately ignoring what they actually said. Nopers.
And still, not one single person has even attempted to elaborate on why the NIE spent an entire 1/8 of their report to define their terminology so thoroughly, why they specifically clearly delineated between “high quality information” “solid judgments” and “plausible judgments” that are “not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.”
Deliberately ignoring that isn’t indicative of willful ignorance, and if I have the temerity to point out willfully ignorance at extreme length, the proper course of action for an honest person is not to admit that they were behaving poorly, but to ignore me. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Whatever.
Double Whatever to the claim that I’m supposed to respect behavior like deception, willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, or that people who habitually engage in such behaviors are worthy of respect.
Oh, I have no doubt in my mind that True Believers are beyond persuasion. When purposefully gleefully disregards an entire 1/8 of the NIE report because only by disregarding it can someone arrive at their conclusions, no amount of text I post, mini, maxi, or mega, will make a damn bit of difference.
Like I said, keeping the debate honest is its own reward, and while I have no faith in the True Belivers’ dedication to intellectual honesty, I have great faith that those reading along are more than capable of spotting the slew of factual errors made that not only do not get retracted, do not even get addressed again by those who make them, but get repeated.
