What is really amazing is that the only source of real disagreement is whether Iran is a “threat”. Since “threat” or “non-threat” does not seem to imply any policy difference whatsoever, the issue is really kind of pointless. I suppose some people lick canker sores; I keep coming back here.
FinnAgain, I think you are the only one who actually thinks he is factually refuting anything. I don’t bother returning to your supposed refutations because a) they are fundamentally side issues, b) I know I have no chance nor desire to change your deeply held beliefs, and c) I know I am right and cannot be bothered to explain the details to someone too lazy to read a 19 page pdf.
An “intellectually honest” discussant would be straightforward about his understanding of “threat”. For the sake of clarity and rigor, he would lay out his axioms and show his interested readers how to apply them. So I would ask you one more time, FinnAgain, what are your axioms? By what abstract criteria is Iran (or other nations) a threat?
I have tried in reasonably good faith to extract them from your endless line-by-line “refutations” only to meet with your disdain. So go ahead, show us. Here is your chance.
In the absence of FinnAgain’s principles thus far, here are some alternatives. They are very common-sense.
Threat can be assessed based on strength (size, economic capabilities, etc), geographical proximity, offensive capabilities, and offensive intentions. Let’s take a quick look.
Strength
Population
Iran: 70,049,262
United States: 301,139,947
Size
Iran: 1.636 million sq km
United States: 9,161,923 sq km
GDP
Iran: $599.2 billion ($8,700 per capita, purchasing power parity)
United States: $13.06 trillion ($43,800 per capita, purchasing power parity)
Geographical Proximity
Tehran and New York are separated by an ocean and 6,138 miles. The circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901 miles.
Offensive Capabilities
Manpower Fit For Military Service
Iran: males age 18-49: 15,665,725
females age 18-49: 15,005,597
United States:males age 18-49: 54,609,050
females age 18-49: 54,696,706
Expenditures
Iran: 2.5% of GDP ($1.495B)
United States: 4.06% ($530B)
Intentions
Let’s induce them from observed behavior.
Iran: Strong words. Death to America day. Support for organizations that have killed a few dozen Americans and servicemen.
United States: Overthrew a democratically elected leader and installed a brutally repressive monarch. Iraq-gate (Banca Nazionale del Lavoro) affair. Export of billions of dollars worth of dual use technology and pathogenic and toxigenic chemicals to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. US support for Israel here is icing on the cake.
The population of the United States is nearly 5 times the size of Iran’s. The GDP of Iran is less than half of California’s GDP. US military expenditures are 350 times those of Iran’s. Iran is full of Muslims who supposedly hate freedom. The US unilaterally dissolved Iran’s government when its oil interests were threatened and has funneled billions untold in cash, toxic chemicals, and nuclear products to Iran’s enemies. Iran has never demonstrated any ability to project force out of the Middle East. The United States has intercontinental ballistic missiles, a full complement of infernal devices, and projects force far outside its own borders every day of the week.
I don’t hate America. I work right across the West Side Highway from what was once the World Trade Center. My great grandfather was a pioneer in Palestine and was David Ben Gurion’s roommate. Yet still I say, FinnAgain, what planet are you on?
Cuba certainly invited the Soviet Union to plant missiles in 1962. I suppose it was none of the United States’ business and we should have just left it well alone. Cuba was a sovereign nation.
Before I get back into this silly game of whack a mole with maeglin: John, you never did explain how Saudi Arabia is a threat to us, I assume you say that because of their support for Islamic fundamentalism and their support for terrorism… but Iran despite their Islamic fundamentalism and support for terrorism is not a threat to us.
You have stated that we could warm to Iran and then be on the outs with the Saudis, but you have never addressed why the things that make Saudi Arabia a threat to America aren’t a threat when Iran does them.
You’re not saying that SA is at threat while Iran is not because SA is a bigger threat, right?
Just wondering if you’d like to clear that up.
Anyways, once more into the breach.
Hmmm:
“As I have stated, my position is that as long as Iran continues to arm, finance, train and give safe haven to Hezbollah, we should remain wary of their intentions. And that we should adopt a defensive posture.”
“As I have said elsewhere, we should adopt a defensive stance and not be convinced of Iran’s intentions unless and until they make [substantive moves] towards peace.”
No…not any policy difference whatsoever. Certainly doesn’t have anything to do with how we might look at negotiations or Iranian attempts to influence the region.
Riiiiight. Troops pull out, attacks continue for years certainly isn’t a refutation of troops pull out, attacks cease. Nobody but I might think so.
Let’s see…
a) Yeah right! Saying something like ‘These two issues of threat and motive are inextricably linked.’ means that the issue of motive is a total side issue. When you say “The strategic objective of both attacks was to remove the US military presence from the affected area. In both cases, Hezbollah was successful and America withdrew. The attacks ceased.”, it’s a total side issue that you are wrong about Hezbollah’s goal and that your claim of the attacks ceasing is 100% wrong. It’s a “side issue” that you say the attacks were directed at removing US troops, even though they continued for years after US troops were removed.
b) You can’t change my “deeply held beliefs” (like we pulled out troops in 1984 and were attacked for years later), and that terrorist groups ,in their own words and by their own goals, showed that they weren’t solely focused on getting American troops out of the region… but you “know you are right”. The hypocrisy is truly interesting. You know you’re right, it’s not a dogmatic, deeply held belief. Attacks continued for years after what you claim was the goal was already accomplished, but you still “know” that you’re right.
c) Your continued repetition of lies (the attacks ceased after troops were withdrawn) are because you can’t be bothered to explain the details. Of course, the clear fact is that the attacks did not cease for years, but it’s my fault, of course, that you won’t debate honestly. As for the suggestion that it’s “lazy” of me not to read a 19 page PDF when no specific claim is made about its content or use in a debate other than that I might find if “interesting”, that has to be the most loopy thing I’ve read in the last few days. Which is really saying something as I’ve been reading this thread. And, of course, my not devoting time to read a document that you can’t be bothered to say more about than that it’s interesting, well, that’s part of the reason you can keep repeating the lie that after our troops pulled out of Lebanon the attacks ceased. And by ceased, you mean continued for years.
Yes, to a non-native speaker of English perhaps. You do have access to a dictionary, yes? You’re not confused about what the word “threat” means?
Here’s some help. Go to google. This is even easier if you have a google toolbar on firefox. Enter “american heritage threat”. Then read. Three words for a search, three lines for a definition.
I can understand how it was too hard for you to do before now.
I hope I helped.
Mmm hmmm. You whine about me not reading a random 19 page PDF that you only say is “interesting”, and use that as a justification (along with your deeply held belief) as a reason why you can keep making false claims after they’re disproven… but you’re too lazy to have read a single three line entry in a dictionary?
Abstract criteria? Read the dictionary. Abstract?
Hah.
“Reasonably” and “good faith”? I do not think that means what you think it means.
And I’m sorry, but my chance is going to slip by, I must go sob into my pillow now. But I’m glad that you’ve accepted the heavy burden of spokesman and believe you speak for a greater group of people. Unless you are in the habit of referring to yourself as “us”, in which case I am sorry.
If you (or “us”) were actually curious, you could’ve spent five seconds and used just about any English language dictionary to see what the word “threat” means.
Or you could have read, time and again, when I outlined why I was saying that Iran was a threat. I’ve done so, what, perhaps half a dozen times? And you have persisted in oversimplifying and dumbing things down to a point of obfuscation, including saying that my argument against Hezbollah was that they were doing “naughty” things… and you just can’t understand why you haven’t accurately described my argument?
Funny, that.
Nope, you’re about to embark on more deceptive bull, but it’ll be fun to point that out, too.
Nope, population has nothing to do with whether or not an entity can serve as a threat, but can modify the degree of threat. Al Quaeda certainly didn’t have even enough members to have even one half of one percent of our population. But they proved to be a threat quite easily.
Another absurd metric. As if the land mass of a nation governs whether or not it could be a threat to another nation. Al Quaeda was sovereign over 0 km.
Not quite as absurd as your first two risible bits, but still pretty damn odd. Yet again, Al Quaeda had a fraction of that financing. GDP can modify a threat, but simply looking at GDP (even with land mass and population size and blah blah blah) won’t tell us if something is a threat. Only how much cash they can pump into threatening you.
More bull. Bin Laden and America were separated by quite a distance, too. There are many interesting inventions, including boats, airplanes, phones and email. You can actually send people somewhere and/or then tell people in other places to do things. You can even find someone who you know intends to attack someone else, and give them help knowing to what use your help will be put. I’m pretty sure that was possible some time around Cro-Magnon Man. But maybe the idea of using a proxy to carry out your goals wasn’t invented during any point when Tehran and New York were established and separated by “a few dozen” miles.
Funny, of course, that as soon as you’re trying to make a point, exact numbers get trotted out.
By the way, keeping your same scale as describing Hezbollah’s body count as “a few dozen”, Tehran is a “a few hundred miles” away from New York. And the circumference of the planet at the equator is “a few thousand” miles.
More blah. Al Quaeda had how many members, exactly, when they killed thousands, leveled a NYC landmark, hit the Pentagon with a plane and did billions of dollars of damage to the American economy?
Mmm hmmm. What fraction of those military expenditures did Al Queada have to its name?
You could, you know, try being honest? Thorough? Complete? Or you could, of course, deliberately try to downplay the situation in a rather absurd manner, much like saying my argument was that Iran was supporting Hezbollah and that was a threat since Hezbollah was “naughty”, eh?
I assume by ‘strong words’ you mean the deliberate spread of radical Islam which holds a virulently and often violently anti-Western and anti-American set of ideals. Perhaps how Iran has a history of using Islamic radicals who have been indoctrinated with Khomenist ideology, and ordering them to attack Americans. You might, if you were feeling particularly intellectually honest, also discuss the impact of such ideologies and how Mohammed himself certainly had neither land mass, GDP, a large population, etc… but he and his ideas proved to be quite a threat to much of the world. You could even look at all the other times in history that an ideology, especially a fundamentalist religious ideology, has directly led to a great number of very dangerous things. But, nope. Strong words.
“Death to America” which certainly isn’t just confined to “Death to America day”, as that’s just a dishonest formulation on your part designed to bullshit your way out of looking at what actually happens. Many mosques in Iran end their Friday services with that chant (remember Islamic fundamentalism, that thing you didn’t mention even once?). As the Iranians voted to resume uranium enrichment, their parliament broke into chants of “death to America”. Numerous other parliamentary sessions feature chants of “death to America”. Numerous military parades, as well, include messages of “death to America”. Just one day, indeed.
You also somehow fail to mention that Iran did not just “support” organizations that have killed Americans, they have formed them and given them orders as well. You downplay the casualty count as hard as you can, as “a few dozen”. Interesting, of course, that you don’t choose to use a word like “hundreds”. But good use of wiggle room. Even though for Hezbollah alone we’d be talking about dozens of dozens, downplay, downplay, downplay. Much like saying my argument was that because Iran supported Hezbollah, and Hezbollah was “naughty”, that Iran was a threat. Funny of course that instead of saying that America was “naughty” to Iran or just saying that we supported the Shah “for a few years”, you go into great detail with dramatic adjectives and all. But, of course, the double standard you employ is not indicative of intellectual dishonesty. No sireee “Bob” sir ma’am!
You also ‘forget’ to mention that Iran supported Al Quaeda, guilty of thousands of American casualties, even when AQ was clearly stating that their goals included the murder of as many Americans as possible, soldiers or civilians, at home or abroad. And that Iran supported them with full knowledge of AQ’s goals and agenda.
Obviously, supporting Al Quaeda, for example, and making a “concerted effort to strengthen relations” with Al Quaeda after they expressed their ideology and after they had already attacked the WTC once and after they’d bombed the Cole… well, that, along with some other things, might just show something about Iran’s intentions. But, no, when Iran supports global terrorism, they do it without any intention to cause harm. And support of terrorists who make clear that they plan on killing Americans cannot be regarded as a possible danger. Eh? Eh?
And then of course you invoke a nifty tu quoque fallacy and talk about America and whether or not we’re a threat to Iran. You do realize that because America is more of a threat to any country that is our enemy than they are to us… doesn’t mean that they aren’t a threat to us?
Do you really think : “Police swat team is a threat to armed hostage taker” any way disproves “armed hostage taker a threat to police swat team” ?
And as long as I’m keeping things honest…
Why don’t you list who, exactly, the US has given “nuclear products” to, eh?
Surely you’re not claiming that the US was the one who gave the “nuclear products” to Israel that allowed them to build weapons, right?
Please tell me that you don’t have France and the US confused.
I know, this is just another false claim that you will continue to believe in and probably won’t retract because I’m a fanatic, you’re right even though the facts say the exact opposite of what you’re claiming, you don’t have to correct mistakes because I’m just too lazy to read a 19 page pdf as part of a discussion when the only reason that’s given for my reading it is that someone whose opinion I don’t place much value in says I might find it “interesting”, that whether or not Iran can project force at us is a total side issue to whether or not they could project force at us, and blah blah blah blah blah.
The truth, not that you’re interested, is that Iran did indeed project force. Outside of the ME. In Argentina, actually. And not only that, I directly referenced it while responding to you. I see that you must have ‘missed’ that.
Don’t worry, I don’t actually expect you to retract your claims.
Again you just ‘happen’ to leave out essential details and use a fallacy of false analogy.
The Cuban missiles were aimed at the US. We did not have a crisis or make much of a fuss during all the years that Soviet soldiers were invited to stay at Cuba, we made a fuss when they aimed nuclear missiles at us.
The US peace keepers who were murdered in Lebanon, on the other hand, had nothing to do with Iran. They weren’t even allowed to have a live round in the chamber most of the time, let alone aiming anything at Iran.
*It shows a lot about your method of argumentation that you would create an analogy between peace keepers who were not serving in a combat role and nuclear missiles aimed at a specific state. *
The members of the Air Force at the Khobar Towers also had nothing to do with Iran. They were there, in fact, to interdict the no-fly zone in Iraq, and they had no authorization from the Saudis to launch any attacks on other nations.
I find the US Govt.'s release of the report ( that Iran halted its nuclear bomb program 4 years ago) quite suspicious-was this to get GWB off the hook with the Israelis? The Israelis have been beating the war drums for some time…I find it strange that they have all this intelligence (about Iran’s bomb) that we apparently don’t have.
So my conclusion is: Bush and his neocon friends tested the US public (on the viability of another war - with Iran). They were shocked to find that most people didn’t believe them…so they needed some way to back away-the report supplied the reason. Maybe I’m cynical, but that’s how i see it. :eek:
It’s a very broad term that is obviously in need of further definition as it is being used in this conversation. It may be telling that you haven’t discerned this necessity.
Mexico poses a threat and so does Canada.
Though our immediate neighbors present a threat, its not the same kind of threats qualitatively or quantitatively as the threat from China, Pakistan, etc.
If you’re unwilling to make some of the distinctions that come with defining the terms used in a debate, then the origin of the muddiness of your position becomes clear.
I think an attack on my reading comprehension skills is the customary teh interwebs rebuttal. If would like to try that one next, you may.
I’m not really sure what Finn thinks he is whacking, but to me, it sure looks like he is whacking off.
FinnAgain does not think he needs clear, measurable criteria for threat when a dictionary definition and a lot of handwaving will do. Amazingly enough, international relations theorists, the military, and foreign policymakers don’t just crack open m-w.com when they are analyzing threat. Instead, like the NIE, they take definitions extremely seriously and spend a lot of time thinking and talking about them.
I think that intentionally obfuscating definitions and failing to take the opportunity to be rigorous is, wait for it, intellectually dishonest. A 3 line definition of threat from googling just doesn’t cut it. I doubt I am the only one who doesn’t think FinnAgain actually knows enough to come up with a real list that can be discussed logically and sensibly.
How about the actual metrics and discussion of threat?
FinnAgain tries to “refute” using Al Qaeda! This is comedy gold. These examples are irrelevant, nonresponsive, and are exactly the sort of thing George Bush would say.
Let’s think about 9/11 for just a moment in terms of threat. I was there. I know what kind of damage 9/11 caused both financially and otherwise. I walked home with people covered in ashes and blood.
9/11 cost just my company more than the entire yearly military expenditure of the Iranian army. It prompted the United States to topple two sovereign governments. Yet at the same time, it did not threaten our borders, it did not threaten our institutions, and it did not threaten our economic dominance. It was a terrible event and a lot of innocent people died, but America is largely the same place both before and after. Well, not entirely true. There are a lot more tourists downtown in the spring than there were before 9/11.
Afghanistan, the sovereign nation that officially supported Al Qaeda, is a very different place. Iraq, the sovereign nation that purportedly had weapons of mass destruction and purportedly supported Al Qaeda, also is a very different place. The United States has killed a lot of people, has destroyed two governments, and has left two nations perilously close to outright civil war.
Who is generating the real threat here? Who is the giant in the playground who occasionally steps on a wasp?
Iran through Hezbollah has the ability to threaten a limited number of Americans worldwide. This is sad but true. Have they demonstrated coercive policy power? Absolutely. Have any of the attacks compromised our borders, threatened our institutions, or caused lasting or irreparable damage to our economy despite their large number?
Go on. Whack that mole, FinnAgain. Hit it out of the park. Our GDP growth last quarter was a blistering 4.9%.
Suppose I was being rhetorical. Suppose Iran and Hezbollah are responsible for the deaths of several hundred Americans (659, to be exact), lead Daily Hates against America, and, evil of all evils, suppose they try to spread their fundamentalist religion everywhere! Against the awesome power of the United States, against its hundreds of nuclear weapons, juggernaut economy, and gigantic and well-equipped army, what difference does it make? After all, Saudi Arabia does all of these things, yet is a close ally of the United States.
The burden is on FinnAgain to demonstrate how Islamic fundamentalism, suicide attacks, and strong language do anything but kill Americans, make people say things that stop making sense, and cause us to alter international policy decisions. I agree completely these three things have all occurred.
But none, I repeat, none of these things have eroded the strength of the United States as a unitary actor in the world state system.
That is what makes FinnAgain’s position so utterly defective. Despite his extreme parsings, selective interpretation of his “facts”, and self-proclaimed jihad for Truth, he is completely missing the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room. Of course we should be wary with Iran. Good grief, should we expect them to immediately roll over and let us scratch their bellies after they spent eight years choking on American chemical weapons?
Bismillah, no.
By the way, you are still completely and utterly wrong about the timing, purpose, and targeting of the Hezbollah attacks. In some of them, the ties to Hezbollah are not even universally acknowledged.
I would be more than happy to rectify this for you in another thread. I have a mitzvah to do today.
That about covers the sum total of this thread’s “debate.”
Thanks, Keith, for being an “intellectually dishonest,” scoundrel. No, really, I mean it. In the context of this thread that is high praise indeed. Just ask the towering intellect that is FF and I’m sure he’ll set you straight with one of brilliant bolts of all-encompassing wisdom.
Oh, and go hide under your mattress pronto. Hezbollah might just be at your doorsteps – courtesy of Iran no doubt.
Here’s where Finn’s logic breaks down again. If we can (so inerrantly) trace previous terrorist attacks on foreign soils back to Iran, surely we would be able to trace an Iran-sponsored attack on our own soil back to Iran as well.
That being the case, wouldn’t it be remarkably foolish for Iran to sponsor a terrorist attack here, knowing that we could trace it back to them, and that we would respond with overwhelming force?
Does Finn mean to suggest that Iran’s leaders are suicide bombers on a grand scale? That they have no care for their own safety? That they are irrational zealots bent on bombing us because they hate our freedom? What?
Thing is, beneath all of this foam-flecked hysteria and hamster abuse, there is a very minor point: BG worded the title of his thread poorly. Finn would have us believe that it was a deliberate attempt at misinformation. The NIE says that Iran is probably not working on a bomb, but that scurrilous BG has wildly exaggerated that in to not working on a bomb, with a delilberate and calculated intent to deceive.
But the actual thrust of the OP is that Bush is exaggerating the significance of Iran’s threat in order to justify a public campaign of belligerance and, well, threat.
Its the old “define your terms” gambit. (I’ve had some minor experience with formal debate, we whupped Texas A&M Varsity Debate Squad once, and a prouder bunch of seventh-graders you’ve never seen! 'Couirse, the Coach was kind of a dick, very tough, very unsympathetic, if you got hurt he would just sneer at you and tell you to “Talk it off, talk it off!”)
So long as you can define the terms of the debate in your favor, you can’t actually lose. You never, ever let the other guy define the terms, the terrms must be mutually agreed upon, or the debate becomes senseless. In a debate on universal health care, you don’t let the other guy define it as “socialized medicine” because the term carries such emotional baggage.
In this case, Finn would have us beleive that so long as he can reasonably suggest that Iran is any sort of threat, however minor, he wins. Doesn’t matter how recent the threat, nor does it matter how practical and realistic. The Evil Eye will do.
Heck, I knew what BG was talking about, even as I knew that the NIE was about “probably”, not about “certainly”. Couldn’t be any other way, its an intelligence estimate, by definition, its not about certainty. I could have brought that up, if I was in a mood to be a dick about it.
“Hey, BG, you know, that NIE doesn’t definitively state that Iran is not working on a bomb, only that its pretty likely.”
“Right you are, 'luc, slip of the keyboard. Thanks for the quibble, you pedantic prick…”
But Finn will have none of it, it must be a vile and dishonest attempt at misinformation. Clearly, he must believe that some or several of us would be utterly fooled by such a transparent ruse, we are idiots who simply accept what we see, and must be protected from such scoundrels, lest the purity and sanctity of the Boards be soiled.
And, of course, the thrust of the OP is that Bush was exaggerating the threat from Iran. Apparently, Finn does not like that argument, so he simply ignores it, and mounts his high horse and starts in calling people liars. (Which I didn’t know you could get away with around here, sure seems like an insult to me. Not that I’d make any use of it, being the very embodiment of calm reason and propriety, and all…)
Of course, if Finn thought BG was being deliberately deceptive, he shoud have taken it to be The Pit, the space reserved for such. He wants the shelter of GD propriety, even as he violates it. And, to be ruthlessly fair, he is posting facts, but the facts are not as significant as he makes them out to be. Sure, Iran is a “threat” (quote marks because the term has utterly lost all definition…), but so is Pakistan, so is Saudi Arabia, etc. When facts are exaggerated, strict rationality becomes the enemy of reason.
It is a favored tactic of the poor debater, to define the terms to exclude the middle, and to refuse any reasoning that contradicts those definitions.
“Yes or no! Is a carrot a vegetable? Yes or no, you weasel, its a binary question!”
“Well, yeah, a carrot is a vegetable but that…”
“Aha! Gotchaya! I’ve already proven that if a carrot is a vegetable, the George Bush is your Momma!”
“Well, no, actually, you didn’t…”
“What?! Yes or no, is a carrot a vegetable? Look here, I’ve got a ten page quote from the Horticultural Society that proves you are a liar! A carrot is a vegetable, only a lying scum would try to pretend otherwise!”
“But that doesn’t mean he’s my Momma, it just means…”
“That you are a liar, a liar, a liar! I’ll waste no more time debating a liar like you!”
Well, got to leave off now, if I start right away, I may be able to find enough psychoactive chemicals that I can expunge the image of Shodan bearing Finn’s baby. I’ve only got about $600, so its going to be tough…
Like a roomful of monkeys. While they howl, jump around, and hurl poo, that is.
I especially enjoyed the part about our having to take military action because of an attack in the *first * Bush War, never mind that the government he’s referring to has rolled over a bit since then.
Not in this case - the Taliban was Afghanistan’s government, and the obvious fact that the US would not take kindly to aiding and abetting terrorist attacks on our soil did not seem to deter them. Yet we are asked to rely on this to sleep easy, knowing that Iran will never hand any nuclear weapon over to some terrorist group they sponsor.
Spoke is not honestly confused. It’s just whack a mole. He tried the same thing in another thread, got a solid refutation showing that he was blowing smoke, and then totally ignored it… only to have it pop up here again.
The claim that Iranian leaders wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice massive numbers of lives to fulfill a goal is directly contradicted by 500,000 plastic keys. Not only were they willing to sacrifice half a million lives just to clear mines, but they were willing to sacrifice half a million children as young as 12 years old.
And, of course, that even if Iran was not willing to launch an attack on American soil, Americans are in a great many places and Iran has displayed a perfect willingness to direct attacks against them.
Of course, some posters like magelin will complain about how Iran just does things like kills Americans, so that’s no threat.
Telling, eh?
Is support for terrorist groups with a known agenda and known goals of attacking Americans, as well as making threats that one’s intentions include “death to America” “An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment”, “One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.” ?
I have specifically avoided discussing threat levels and instead only focused on intention and refuting the absurd claim that Iran is no threat.
As I’ve already shown you have no interest in honest debate, and as you’ve now taken to violating GD rules, I don’t see much of a need to respond to your worthless posts anymore, but I’ll amuse myself a bit more as I can always use a scratching post.
The idea that having a history of supporting terrorist groups, including Al Queada, shows that Iran supports certain goals is neither irrelevant non responsive. That your claims of threat metrics all break down when talking about Al Quaeda is not only relevant and responsive, the fact that you cannot even address it other than to claim that something that is not an existential threat is not a threat? Well… kinda shows how much support you have when you need to obfuscate, distort, and shift the goalposts in order to have a leg to stand on.
Ahhhh, more obfuscation. The gunman who opens fire on the police swat team isn’t threatening the institution of the police, their annual budget or their role as an organization. But it is still a threat.
Simply because something is not an existential threat does not make it a non-threat. But, of course, you already knew that. Just another ‘mistake’.
Hrmmm… I wonder, deliberately trying to downplay the effects of fundamentalist Islam?
Um… no. No I don’t have to do any such thing, largely because you have just auto-refuted your own argument. Again, it shows a whole lot about how you debate that you are evidently classifying a deliberate intent to “kill Americans” as a non-threat.
This is one of my favorites. Unable to show that I am wrong in any one factual matter I have discussed, you have continually obfuscated and talked about how I was just interpreting facts. But, no. Real, honest to God facts that require no interpretation have shown that you were tossing out pure falsehoods on quite a few topics. Like I said, I don’t expect you to retract your bullshit claims, but it’s telling that instead of admitting your mistakes or ignoring them, you try to attack “selective interpretations”.
I’d probably get a good laugh out of seeing how “Iran never projected force outside the ME” is somehow not contradicted by “Iran organized and carried out, in concert with Hezbollah, a bombing in Argentina.”
Ah well, eh?
Brilliant factual refutation, brilliant!
As it just so happens, my “interpretation” of facts like this include real, reputable sources including but not limited to a five year, 250 person FBI investigation. I’m wrong… but you can’t post a single cite that says so. I’m wrong… but you still can’t somehow use magic to make the years of attacks after we pulled out from Lebanon go away.
“The facts clearly show I was wrong, but… you’re wrong! And I won’t tell you why, even though these claims are central to my argument… because you’re a fanatic!”
It’s the same sort of behavior I’ve come to expect from you.
Double posting is generally bad, but it’s worth it to point out some more lying.
Surely you can point out anywhere that I said we have to take military action? With a quote and everything?
You’re not just making it up, eh?
Gee… who’d a thunk it.
And of course, your compatriots are not participating in an echo chamber, and one of them will come along any minute to point out that you are lying. Any minute. Any minute now.
Any remotely rational scenario is going to give you some problems, there.
If you’re going to suggest that Iran’s leadership is so barking mad that they would risk annihilation, and are therefore “undeterrable”, then you have to confront the question of why they haven’t done anything already. If they are crazy, why are they acting sane?
Next off: they can’t imagine, even for an instant, that such an attack wouldn’t be blamed on them. Hell, if there is any kind of terrorist attack, Iran is going to catch it whether they had anything to do with it or not. Which makes it plausible, to some unknowable degree, that an enemy of Iran (and she has many) might commit such a crime, knowing that we will blame Iran regardless.
Now, if you want to opt for the Iran-is-rational aspect, that gives you even more trouble. Besides the scenarios outlined above, if Iran gives a weapon to anyone not under their direct control, they offer a lot of vulnerability to someone who is their friend today, but may not be tomorrow. Stranger things have happened, alliances that seemed rock-solid one day become pixie dust the next.
(You know, this all sounds vaguely familiar, I could have sworn I heard something almost exactly like that, just recently.)
You certainly have. Because if you address that objection, your case falls apart like steamed Charmin. As soon as you apply any reasonable standard of threat assessment, you’re done. Is Pakistan a threat, given our suspicions that aspects of its government are actively seeking to thwart action against AlQ? Must be so, according to your standards of binay, threat/no threat. However minimal the threat, its a threat, it qualifies.
How about India? Semi-friendly at the moment, getting warmer, definitely a good thing. But they have the nukes, no? What about some collossal mistake? Unilikely, sure, implausible, Hugh Betcha but! you only demand any level of threat to qualify, and there it is. Here, borrow my magnifying glass, see that little tiny speck there? No, not that one, that’s GeeDub’s integrity. The bigger one, next to it. Yeah, that’s it, the threat from India. Or is that the threat from Belgium?
Keeping mind, of course, that India almost certainly has nukes, and Iran almost certainly does not.
Absolutist thinking like that may be rational, but it isn’t reasonable.
So because the Taliban did something that means that Iran is likely to do the same thing?
Is it even possible that the two different entities [the Taliban and the Iranian powers-that-be] may behave differently?
Some folks who fit this description are US “allies.” W/o a working definitions this conversation is hopelessly adrift. It is very telling that you don’t realize this.
Depending on how the word threat is defined, this “absurd” claim may well be true. Many people would claim that Canada and Mexico are no threat.
Yet, it’s possible to find examples that would show that they indeed constitute a threat of some sort.
Unless there is a agreed upon definition that is being used, the conversation isn’t really happening.
This is an essential and fundamental element of the debate you’re attempting to have. The fact that you have been intentionally avoiding it indicates that you are not really up to debating this subject.
I’m certain you see otherwise, but you are quite wrong. But at least now you can’t say no one ever told you so.
Well, not that I disagree with you because I obviously don’t – thus my spoofing – but if you substitute “Iraq” for “Iran” in the above post, you’d see how Finn’s “logic” (right out of the Zeocon’s playschool) fits right in. I mean, we all saw what a great “threat” Saddam’s Iraq was, didn’t we? Funny that, because nowit is*. And so far the only clear winner of this madness is, ironically enough, none other than…yep, you guessed it, Iran.
As 'luc mentions in one of his prior posts, what does this whole campaign remind you of? Surely people can’t have such short memories. Then again, posters such as FF, Shodan and XT, show us that, indeed, they can.
Simply amazing. Jeez, is LHD ever right about True Believers. Frightening stuff becoming what you hate.
***** Warning, Salon site. If not a subscriber you’ll have to watch a small add. Still and all, I think that minor annoyance worth it as it link to an article by Professor Juan Cole, whom, IMHO, has been one of the most reality-based (if not the foremost) analyst/critic of Bush’s regime tragically misguided FP, especially as applied in response to the 9/11 tragedy. Depending on how you look at it, said ‘policy’ has stopped just short of genocide. And I’d venture that’s debatable as does Professor Cole. It all depends on how you juggle your numbers. But certainly, as things stand now, Iraq, as it stands now is clearly a failed state.
Can the US afford to precipitate another one? And a much tougher, bigger and resourceful one at that. Surely most-right thinking people will think that if a WW-III scenario turns-out from all of this, most of the world will blame the US Administration directly.
7th grade debate level just about covers it. And I’d wager they’d do better than what we’ve seen here from some individuals.
And yet, some self-professed intelligent individuals still refuse to see what’s in front of their eyes.
What will it take to get your nation to turn-down its bellicosity down a few notches? Because they are really out of control.
