At what point is a preemptive strike actually justifiable?

[Cain]

This makes no sense. When someone threatens violence, you should pay very careful attention.

What makes no sense is your ability to comprehend text. When someone threatens violence, makes provocative comments, he's seeking attention. And careful attention means recognizing someone wants to say, "Hey I have big d!ck".

Paper tiger: One that is seemingly dangerous and powerful but is in fact timid and weak: “They are paper tigers, weak and indecisive” (Frederick Forsyth).

http://www.answers.com/paper+tiger&r=67

We conquered two nations in response to a terrorist attack. Who is it, exactly; that you believe sees us as a “paper tiger”?

The italicized sentence is the war time propaganda that you've internalized and repeat as unquestioned truth. As for the second sentence, I have a rather simple question: are you familiar with how OBL views the United States? Are you even vaguely familiar with the situation on the ground in Iraq, and the Iraqi insurgency against the occupation?

My good friend Rob Lister's criticism is even more inept:

But this sentence assumes a country as an intellegent entity: a error in logic. People make such determinations. They can make them wrongly or rightly, depending on their own criteria.

Pick a person. Select his criteria. What might his determination be?

I dunno, perhaps it could be based on the crieria that I wrote and you just quoted. Apply to the Iraqi insurgency.

And of course the leader can make an error in judgement. This is probably true for Saddam Hussein who, reportedly (I hate that word), did not believe the United States would really send in ground forces and depose him. But we did. Yay, we're the winnars! You could say, "Oh, that's because Saddam is sooooo irrational. He's mad; totally crazy." Alternatively, one could argue that Saddam perhaps thought the United States would act rationally and not invade because invading is stupid.

Pick the HMFIC of Iran, for example. Does he think we are a 'paper tiger'?

Are you talking about the President of Iran, who made the Holocaust comments? Or the "Supreme Islamic Leader of Iran" (however that title goes)? The leaders are basically daring us to attack. Even though Iranians detest their government, they resent the United States saying they're not allowed to have a bomb. Making comments against Israel, denying the Holocaust, talking about their big d!ck, etc., is way of reasserting national pride. It's what we call a wedge issue and it's a play on identity. "Hey, we know you're dirt poor, but you're a persecuted Christian. We'll keep "under God" in the pledge, and stop homos from marrying." He probably doesn't think the U.S. will attack given the debacle that is Iraq. In the game of geopolitics, Iran is outplaying the U.S.

I wouldn't call these countries "irrational" because they underestimate the power of the United States. As Kenneth Waltz (a conservative neo-realist) points out, the military hegemon in a unipoloar world tends to overestimate their power because it lacks an effective counterbalance. Empires have historically over-extended themselves.

 

[Mycroft]

What makes no sense is your ability to comprehend text. When someone threatens violence, makes provocative comments, he's seeking attention. And careful attention means recognizing someone wants to say, "Hey I have big d!ck".

You still have failed to provide a good reason not to take them at their word. Nobody starts a war without first providing the rhetoric of war, which is what Iran is doing right now.

The italicized sentence is the war time propaganda that you've internalized and repeat as unquestioned truth...

At the risk of getting into a derail, if the war with Iraq was, as the POTUS claims, about his changed foreign policy after 9/11, it's still in response to a terrorist attack even if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not saying it's the right policy, but I don't need to in order to say Iraq was conqurered in response to a terrorist attack.

Now, if we could get back to your claims...

...As for the second sentence, I have a rather simple question: are you familiar with how OBL views the United States? Are you even vaguely familiar with the situation on the ground in Iraq, and the Iraqi insurgency against the occupation?

What does that have to do with your claims that the lack of electricity in Iraq causes anyone to view us as a "paper tiger"? Tigers kick @ss, which is what we have done. That we have not rebuilt as much as expected after the fact does not change that.

Do you have any information on how OBL view the world that is not more than three years old?

 

[Ziggurat]

So what we're aiming at instead of assured mutual destruction is the destruction of those we consider our enemies? What makes us any different than Iran?

Do you really not know what makes us different than Iran? If you don't already know, I don't know what I can say here that would change that, and if you DO already know, this kind of rhetorical strategy of trying to make me spell it out is just a distraction.

And mutually assured destruction as a deterrent was not actually the preferred status between us and the Soviet Union. What we wanted (quite rightly so) and finally got was in fact the destruction of the USSR - MAD was only what we put up with because we couldn't get what we wanted immediately at a price we were willing to pay. It makes no sense to enter back into such a standoff if we aren't forced into it.

Didn't we also agree to that deal that limited the attainment of nukular weapons?

"At Bush's urging, Congress voted to lift its 10-year-old ban on research and development of small, "tactical" nukes, bombs ranging up to a third the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945.

Is this is in any way a violation of any of our treaty obligations? Our government possibly reversing a ban publicly that they decided to impose on themselves is quite a different matter than cheating on treaty obligations with another party in secret.

Of course I don't think it's a great idea that anyone has nukes, but if you look at it from Iran's point of view, you have to admit that it's a tactical move that makes sense.

First off, what you really mean when you say "Iran's point of view" is "the mullahs' point of view". But am I supposed to just accept their plan to aquire nukes because it furthers their goals? Why on earth would I ever do that, when I oppose their goals (becoming the dominant power in the region, spreading their radical interpretation of Islam, weakening the western world, etc)? Don't you oppose the goals of the mullahs? If you don't, then that really is where the breakdown is between you and me. If you do, then it shouldn't matter to you whether or not things make sense from their perspective, you should still be thinking about how best to keep them from getting what they want. So while I understand divergence on how best to achieve that, I'm quite baffled by what looks to me like a desire to not even defend western liberal values in the face of a despotic regime driven by a fascist religious ideology. Quite simply, is it or is it not of some value to you to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

We certainly not the ones to be pointing fingers about "acting crazy and violating the sovereignty of other nations," are we?

Actually, as a matter of fact, we are. I presume you mean that because we invaded Iraq, we can't talk about other countries violating sovereignty. But I do not accept the idea that the sovereignty of a dictatorship is in any meaningful way comparable to that of a democracy (and no, Iran is NOT a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word). So from where I'm sitting, there's a world of difference between our respect for sovereignty and theirs (as in morally meaningful sovereignty, not what the representatives of thugs manage to get written down of paper by UN lawyers).

Iran doesn't even believe in sovereignty the way the west does - it's simply not an important concept to the mullahs, regardless of how often they might resort to it out of convenience for their own protection. They believe in a single religious world order, originating from them, and the "state" of Iran with its current borders is merely an intermediate step along the way in fulfilling that. Who ACTUALLY runs Iran? Is it President Ahmadinejad? No, it is not. It's Khamenei and the other clerics. But Khamenei doesn't treat with heads of state as if they were equal. Other heads of state are treated as equal to Ahmadinejad, who is below Khamenei, because Khamenei (as the religious leader) should rightfully have authority over our leaders as well.

And about those mullahs - aren't they in power now because they deposed the Shah whom we supported? Aren't they fundie Muslim because of our meddling in their political affairs in the first place?

I'm not sure that line of argumentation really leads where you think it leads. Yes, we supported the Shah, mostly because of external, not internal, affairs. We may have looked the other way regarding domestic oppression, and that may have been a mistake, but it was hardly something we were encouraging him to do, and it's arguable that he lost power because he ceased cracking down on opponents. What would have happened had we not supported him? I'm not sure, but I don't see the likely alternatives as having been peachy keen either - and I don't see a line of logic that leads to the conclusion that any lack of support on our part for the Shah could have ensured that radicals wouldn't be able to take over. The two things (our supporting the Shah and the radicals coming to power) occurred in sequence, but I don't see the causative link.

And one nitpick: the mullahs are radicals, but they aren't fundies. Khomeini had some pretty non-fundamentalist ideas about how far his religious authority extended, considering his decrees even more immutable than the Koran - and the mullahs seem to take it seriously, as evidenced by the fact that the fatwa calling for Rushdie's death still stands, and they have stated that they cannot revoke it.

Iran is reacting to a situation we created and it's easily a circumstance we could have foreseen.

You keep saying that, but the sequence of causation simply doesn't make any sense. They started clandestine nuclear activity BEFORE Bush even took office - what, then, was that in response to? Is there no point in history where they are actually responsible for their own actions, but are always merely reacting to whatever circumstances we create?

 

[Cain]

You still have failed to provide a good reason not to take them at their word. Nobody starts a war without first providing the rhetoric of war, which is what Iran is doing right now.

Yes; I lack a good reason. Historical precedence, the fact that Iran does not exactly ooze credibility; you want to take them at their word, and I'm advising skepticism. Surely, my is hysterically implausible.

The United States played the same kind of game with our so-called "Patriot" defense system. The war-time propaganda broadcast on CNN would give people the impression that we intercepted 90% of missiles. It was in fact closer to 10%. It doesn't matter, though. Countries are interested in appearing strong, and this is particularly important for a superpower. By projecting fear we do not actually have to engage in combat. This is why Mao called the U.S. (and the USSR) paper tigers; the reality is different than the mystique. Vietnam brought this to bear, and Afghanistan for the Soveit Union.

At the risk of getting into a derail, if the war with Iraq was, as the POTUS claims, about his changed foreign policy after 9/11, it's still in response to a terrorist attack even if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not saying it's the right policy, but I don't need to in order to say Iraq was conqurered in response to a terrorist attack.

Now, if we could get back to your claims...

Too bad the war architects - Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are on record with going in prior to 9/11. Paul Krugman has a good line about how the administration fixes policy:

When asked to define the economic policy of the Bush administration: "There is no economic policy. That's really important to say. The general modus operandi of the Bushies is that they don't make policies to deal with problems. They use problems to justify things they wanted to do anyway. So there is no policy to deal with the lack of jobs. There really isn't even a policy to deal with terrorism. It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/09/11_krugman.html

What does that have to do with your claims that the lack of electricity in Iraq causes anyone to view us as a "paper tiger"? Tigers kick @ss, which is what we have done. That we have not rebuilt as much as expected after the fact does not change that. Do you have any information on how OBL view the world that is not more than three years old?

The United States failed to provide electricity and failed to secure sites within the country (except for the oil ministry), and failed to secure the country's borders. This is one of the reasons why people said, "hey, you know what, we're probably going to be needing more troops." Instead people realized -- in their formative moments no less -- that the U.S. isn't really all that powerful. Expectations matter.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes; I lack a good reason. Historical precedence, the fact that Iran does not exactly ooze credibility; you want to take them at their word, and I'm advising skepticism.

I find them pretty credible: they say they want to kill Jews, and they do it. They say they want Rushdie dead, and while he managed to stay alive by going into hiding, they got one of his translators killed and nearly killed a few others. The only lack of credibility Iran seems to have with regards to threats is their usually limited means in killing the people they want to kill - which is why it makes a lot of sense to take them a whole lot more seriously when they're close to getting a nuclear bomb, which rather removes this limitation.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes; I lack a good reason. Historical precedence, the fact that Iran does not exactly ooze credibility; you want to take them at their word, and I'm advising skepticism. Surely, my is hysterically implausible.

Okay, then you can cite historical precedence where leaders of Iran made public statements about wanting to do violence when they really didn't want to?

I'm waiting, let's hear it.

<Irrelevent attempt to derail snipped out>

The United States failed to provide electricity and failed to secure sites within the country (except for the oil ministry), and failed to secure the country's borders. This is one of the reasons why people said, "hey, you know what, we're probably going to be needing more troops." Instead people realized -- in their formative moments no less -- that the U.S. isn't really all that powerful. Expectations matter.

Providing electricity is not a sign of military might. Stomping the government of Saddam Hussein flat in a matter of days is. The other issues you raise may very well be valid criticisms and evidence of poor decision making, but they don't support your claim that it makes the US a "paper tiger."

Do you want to provide better evidence? Or will you just concede that you had a pavlovian response and spat out three-year-old Islamist rhetoric by mistake?

 

[Ziggurat]

Too bad the war architects - Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are on record with going in prior to 9/11.

So those three people thought that we needed to take care of Saddam permanently even before 9/11, by invasion if necessary. I actually think that basic idea is to their credit - they recognized the problem more clearly than a lot of people did at the time. But Bush is not identical to these people, and there's no reason to think that because they believed it was worth possibly invading Iraq before 9/11 that Bush did too. Nothing about the pre-existence of this opinion by certain members of his administration indicate that Bush's opinions on how to deal with our enemies didn't change in response to 9/11, and there's nothing nefarious, hypocritical, or dishonest required to explain such a change by the president.

 

[Cain]

Okay, then you can cite historical precedence where leaders of Iran made public statements about wanting to do violence when they really didn't want to?

Not leaders of Iran, you twit. Why? *sigh* Why???? This sort of realism goes back to rich historical texts: Thucidydes, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli.

In the above you're compouding your confusion. Sure, Iran wants to do violence against Israel. No, no, no, it really wants to do violence against Israel. Fine, sure. But they understand that there are consequences, and that it's not a realistic possiblilty. IR 101.

Gosh, I'm just totally crazy for being skeptical of Iran's weapons capabilities. They said they have these wicked cool torpedoes, what more evidence could I possibly want (aside from, you know, actual evidence)? When Saddam says he doesn't have weapons, then he does (Mycroft, RL, and Ziggurat were completely vindicated on that one). When Iran says they have weapon capabilities that have not been independently verified, then they do because they would never, ever exaggerate.

<Irrelevent attempt to derail snipped out>

Hilarious. A supporting example is viewed as an "attempt to derail." Well-played!

Providing electricity is not a sign of military might. Stomping the government of Saddam Hussein flat in a matter of days is. The other issues you raise may very well be valid criticisms and evidence of poor decision making, but they don't support your claim that it makes the US a "paper tiger."

You're failing to grasp the most basic things I've said. When Americans fail to supply enough electricity, fail to provide basic street security (which you seem to consistently overlook -- maybe because it's a war crime), then it undermines American prestige. In terms of "military might", the United States could have theoretically nuked Vietnam -- wiping it off the face of the earth (but there are political ramifications). What's that Calusewitz quote everyone cites? "War is a continuation of politics by other means."

Do you want to provide better evidence? Or will you just concede that you had a pavlovian response and spat out three-year-old Islamist rhetoric by mistake?

What are you babbling about? You mean OBL's appeal to the American public, in light of the fact that a majority supports withdrawal and thinks Iraq was a bad decision after all? His (justified) belief that we're losing in both countries? Please. As Iraq continues to go badly, American prestige is harmed. Things are worse now than one and two years ago. The fact that our forces are bogged down allows a country like Iran to taunt us. Do you seriously think the "Islamist rhetoric" is receding? Al-Qaeda's recruitment is up and American recruitment is down.

Ziggurat- I have to hand it to you. Iran's bounty on a pudgy Indian novelist proves that they have realistic ambitions to attack a nuclear power (and favored ally of the US)?

I actually think that basic idea is to their credit - they recognized the problem more clearly than a lot of people did at the time.

Yes, and they've done such a wonderful job dealing with that problem -- that is, by making it worse. The insurgency is in now its last throes, Wolfowitz's testimony about troop levels and the cost of war has been vindicated, and Rumsfeld's failure to seriously consider contingency planning has been a catastrophic success. Mission Accomplished.

But Bush is not identical to these people, and there's no reason to think that because they believed it was worth possibly invading Iraq before 9/11 that Bush did too.

Well, Bush, you see, he isn't... how shall I put this... very sophisticated when it comes to domestic policy, let alone foreign affairs. He couldn't name the leader of the world's largest democracy in 2000. Bush has made it very clear that he delegates; listens to the input of his enoromously influential inner circle. See for instance Bush's recent talk at JHU. An articulate young woman asked him a rather straightforward question and Bush stammered, and said he'd have to ask Rummy. When you have a guy who has been intellectually disengaged, doesn't bring any opinions or ideas to the table beyond cliche, then he's independent enough to question the information being fed to him.

 

[Moochie]

Haven't you figured it out yet?

It's all about money.

M.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gosh, I'm just totally crazy for being skeptical of Iran's weapons capabilities. They said they have these wicked cool torpedoes, what more evidence could I possibly want (aside from, you know, actual evidence)?

But this isn't about the torpedoes, which I agree likely aren't that impressive. It's about nuclear weapons, something that we know for absolute certainty is within their reach, even if we don't know exactly how far away they are, and even if they're still many years from it. All it takes is enrichment, and we know they can do that, even if only slowly. But they can and will get faster at that if nothing is done.

When Saddam says he doesn't have weapons, then he does (Mycroft, RL, and Ziggurat were completely vindicated on that one).

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't intentional, that you just assumed something about me and what I believe, but this was never really my justification for supporting the invasion of Iraq. It was instead based on the premise that we would not be able to continue sanctions indefinitely, that we could not ensure in the future that we would know if or when Saddam was about to acquire such weapons, and that it was getting harder instead of easier to solve that dilemma the only way we could be absolutely certain he wouldn't get them in the future (namely, remove him from power). Nothing that has transpired since then has altered that logic - the best argument against it is that the cost has been too high, but given that other possible benefits are still in the air (such as can they form a democracy?), those counter-arguments aren't settled yet either.

When Iran says they have weapon capabilities that have not been independently verified, then they do because they would never, ever exaggerate.

The only evidence we're ever going to get that they HAVE nuclear weapons is going to come too late, and they're not claiming to have one anyways, so I'm really not sure why you think this argument is relevant (again, I agree that the torpedoes are a sideshow, and not really relevant).

Ziggurat- I have to hand it to you. Iran's bounty on a pudgy Indian novelist proves that they have realistic ambitions to attack a nuclear power (and favored ally of the US)?

No, and that was never my point. Next time, reserve your sarcasm for when you actually understand my position. Their death sentence against Rushdie is symptomatic of the disdain they have for the sovereignty of other nations, which is in itself a dangerous thing (9/11 didn't require high-tech weapons). Add in nuclear weapons, and they only become more dangerous. And that additional danger exists whether or not they would use a nuclear weapon in a first strike.

Your phrasing reveals that you haven't even considered this aspect: you say "that they have realistic ambitions to attack a nuclear power" as if they would not risk such a thing, but in point of fact they do that regularly. They attack Israel on a fairly regular basis, using proxy terrorist groups. Israel is constrained in its response, but would strike back directly against Iran if those proxy attacks became sufficiently serious. But a nuclear-armed Iran becomes immune to retaliation for all but the worst terrorist attacks (as in it would probably take a nuclear attack), which is almost a guarantee that they WILL ratchet up the violence they export to a tremendous degree once they have a nuclear deterrent. If you honestly don't think that's a problem, well, I don't know what to say, but if you didn't even consider this aspect then you never understood my position to begin with.

Well, Bush, you see, he isn't... how shall I put this... very sophisticated when it comes to domestic policy, let alone foreign affairs. He couldn't name the leader of the world's largest democracy in 2000. Bush has made it very clear that he delegates; listens to the input of his enoromously influential inner circle.

Yes, and we all know his inner circle consists of no one but Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz (see? I can play the sarcastic counter-factual game too). Look, even if you take the view that Bush just does what his advissors tell him to, he still has to decide which one to listen to, because they really aren't all saying the same thing.

 

[CapelDodger]

I find them pretty credible: they say they want to kill Jews, and they do it.

What do you base that on? Iran supports Hezbullah, which killed a lot of Israeli soldiers, most of them Jewish as it happens, during the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. Iran doesn't recognise the legitimacy of Israel as a state and backs a one-state solution in Palestine. This is not equivalent to advocating the death of Jews.

 

[Zep]

The threat isn't against Israel directly, it's against the US navy, as well as potentially the global supply of oil which travels through the Persian gulf. Israel can strike at Iran, but it cannot topple the mullahs - that would take US intervention, and that requires out navy in the Gulf.

Not that I really believe they've got super torpedoes, but that's the issue.

Israel doesn't need to take out the mullahs. It only needs to neuter the nuclear and military strike capability. The mullahs would then be in a position much like Baghdad Bob - much big talk, little or no actual threat.

I wish it were that simple. Osiraq was a single above-ground site, whose destruction halted Iraq's program completely. Iran has multiple sites, some of them buried underground, and I'm not even sure if we've identified all of them. Taking out Iran's nuclear weapons program might be within Israeli capabilities, but it won't be nearly as easy for them as Osiraq was.

The object would be to neuter the capability, not necessarily destroy everything to do with it. They are a different objectives... For example, Osiraq was a single target building in a complex - destroying just one part of the complex achieved the required goal of emasculating Iraq's nuclear ability.

Funny thing, but I find that when people talk about what amounts to genocide against the Jews, it's better to take them at their word. I cannot know for sure what their "intent" was, and trying to divine that as something distinct from what they actually say is like Kremlinology (a doomed attempt to try to extract information from a closed and secretive system, which is more likely to confuse you than give you any insight). But I DO know what they said, and if they don't want me to interpret what they said as meaning what they said, then the answer on their part is quite simple: don't say it. So there's really no reason not to take them at their word when they talk about wiping out Israel.

An important point you overlook is the context of the speeches. To whom are they being made? For what purpose? If this was in the UN Security Council then I would agree with you wholeheartedly, including support for the subsequent reactions. But often these flaming rhetorics are merely local propaganda - little more than football cheers, a sort of brave jingoistic bluff. But if they were asked to "step outside and say that" in the real world then they wouldn't dare. "Big fish in a little pond" syndrome?

ETA: Having read further, "paper tiger" was the term I was trying to remember!

 

[Ziggurat]

What do you base that on? Iran supports Hezbullah, which killed a lot of Israeli soldiers, most of them Jewish as it happens, during the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. Iran doesn't recognise the legitimacy of Israel as a state and backs a one-state solution in Palestine. This is not equivalent to advocating the death of Jews.

Is your argument that because they don't explicitly call for the death of Jews as such, but only fund and arm other groups that do so, that we shouldn't consider this in effect a declaration that they want to kill Jews? Do you think it's mere coincidence, then, that despite a variety of conflicts between muslims and non-muslims, some of which involve muslim groups claiming oppression by more powerful non-muslim groups (Chechnya, Kashmir, Yugoslavia), only one state involved gets singled out for destruction by Iran for the supposed offenses against fellow muslims? They want to kill Israelis, but that's not so bad because they don't get killed because they're Jewish? Don't mind that holocaust denial conference - it's purely academic, nothing but honest debate, I swear.

 

[Zep]

Well, one thing the Jews have learned the hard way over the last four thousand years is that when someone with weapons says, "Let's kill the Jews," it's prudent to believe he means it, and will try it the minute he thinks he can get away with it.

I know. And I didn't advocate ignoring the problem, or looking the other way, or turning the other cheek. Only that there was no particular need to make a massive response to hollow rhetoric.

And no doubt there's a VERY close eye being kept on this situation from Tel Aviv!

 

[Ziggurat]

Israel doesn't need to take out the mullahs. It only needs to neuter the nuclear and military strike capability. The mullahs would then be in a position much like Baghdad Bob - much big talk, little or no actual threat.

I'd feel much safer if I knew they could do this for sure, but I don't have your confidence level at this point.

An important point you overlook is the context of the speeches. To whom are they being made? For what purpose? If this was in the UN Security Council then I would agree with you wholeheartedly, including support for the subsequent reactions. But often these flaming rhetorics are merely local propaganda - little more than football cheers, a sort of brave jingoistic bluff.

Mein Kampf was just rhetorics, intended for domestic consumption, until it wasn't. Antisemitism has preceded most of the great ideologically-driven horrors of the last few centuries (the only exceptions have been in Asia or Africa in places where Jews aren't really in the public consciousness). Even if you're right, that this is only intended to fan flames for domestic purposes, does that even matter if it still ignites an ideological fire which leads them to war? Can the mullahs back down even if they want to if the tension and hatred get hot enough? You may feel comfortable dismissing this as unimportant posturing on their part, but I'm not, and I don't think I'm being naive or paranoid. The cost of failing to take such words seriously in the past has been much greater than the cost of taking people at their word.

But if they were asked to "step outside and say that" in the real world then they wouldn't dare.

Not yet, because it could get them in trouble right now. But why not once they have the bomb?

 

[CapelDodger]

Is your argument that because they don't explicitly call for the death of Jews as such, but only fund and arm other groups that do so, that we shouldn't consider this in effect a declaration that they want to kill Jews?

Which groups do you refer to which explicitly declare that they want to kill Jews because they're Jews?

Iran supported - more or less created - Hezbullah to gain influence in Lebanon and to promote themselves as champions of the Shia world. The oppressive Lebanese power (from the Shia point of view) was Maronite Christian, not Jewish. And, after Black September, Sunni Palestinian, funnily enough. The 1982 Israeli invasion, purportedly to drive out the PLO, was initially welcomed by the Shia. When Israeli collusion with certain Maronites became clear eyebrows were raised. And when the Israelis didn't go home after the PLO left suspicions were confirmed. In the end, they had to be driven out.

Do you think it's mere coincidence, then, that despite a variety of conflicts between muslims and non-muslims, some of which involve muslim groups claiming oppression by more powerful non-muslim groups (Chechnya, Kashmir, Yugoslavia), only one state involved gets singled out for destruction by Iran for the supposed offenses against fellow muslims?

Israel is a Western colony in the Middle East. That makes it unique in the region. In fact, when you think about it, there aren't many equivalents to Israel anywhere. Regionally - and Iran has to be included in that - it is recognised as such. In the Western world it isn't recognised nearly as much.

In Yugoslavia, Iran backed Bosnian independence, which meant wiping Yugoslavia off the map. They've never expressed any great commitment to Pakistan's existence. They might call for Russia's withdrawal from Chechnya, which became part of its Empire in the 1840's and 50's after being Ottoman for a good while, but they're hardly going to call for the cancellation of Russia, which has deep roots. As does Iran.

They want to kill Israelis, but that's not so bad because they don't get killed because they're Jewish?

They want to see the demise of Israel. That doesn't mean they want to kill Israelis. What it does mean is that a single, multi-ethnic state would exist in what was the Palestinian Mandate territory after Transjordan was excised (and I see no good reason why Jordan shouldn't be included).

Don't mind that holocaust denial conference - it's purely academic, nothing but honest debate, I swear.

Denying the Holocaust is not equivalent to demanding one. Ahmedinejad sees the Holocaust as an excuse for Israel's existence, and zionists constantly use it for that purpose. Just as they conflate "Israel" and "Jewish". Ahmedinejad knows nothing about ... well, anything, really he's a complete hick, but he finds the Holocaust inconceivable. Just as many European Jews, closer to the scene, did at the time.

Turds such as David Irving deny the Holocaust to rehabilitate Hitler, whom they worship. Ahmedinejad, a good Muslim, would never fall for that kind of thing ...

Has that conference been scheduled yet?

 

[Cain]

But this isn't about the torpedoes, which I agree likely aren't that impressive. It's about nuclear weapons, something that we know for absolute certainty is within their reach, even if we don't know exactly how far away they are, and even if they're still many years from it. All it takes is enrichment, and we know they can do that, even if only slowly. But they can and will get faster at that if nothing is done.

The most pessimistic estimates place them at five years away. I believe the NIE has it at ten years.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't intentional, that you just assumed something about me and what I believe, but this was never really my justification for supporting the invasion of Iraq. It was instead based on the premise that we would not be able to continue sanctions indefinitely, that we could not ensure in the future that we would know if or when Saddam was about to acquire such weapons, and that it was getting harder instead of easier to solve that dilemma the only way we could be absolutely certain he wouldn't get them in the future (namely, remove him from power). Nothing that has transpired since then has altered that logic - the best argument against it is that the cost has been too high, but given that other possible benefits are still in the air (such as can they form a democracy?), those counter-arguments aren't settled yet either.

Oh, I fully anticipated this sort of response. I'm surprised you didn't urge me to consult the "forum's annals".

The only evidence we're ever going to get that they HAVE nuclear weapons is going to come too late, and they're not claiming to have one anyways, so I'm really not sure why you think this argument is relevant (again, I agree that the torpedoes are a sideshow, and not really relevant).

Now you're talking about Iranian nukes. I suggest you re-read the italicized portion several times realize how meaningless it is. Your emphasis on "HAVE" is charming. In fact, we can assess Iran's weapon capabilities (though not perhaps with as much confidence as we would like). Nevertheless, this is rather meaningless as far as my prior posts are concerned.

No, and that was never my point. Next time, reserve your sarcasm for when you actually understand my position. Their death sentence against Rushdie is symptomatic of the disdain they have for the sovereignty of other nations, which is in itself a dangerous thing (9/11 didn't require high-tech weapons). Add in nuclear weapons, and they only become more dangerous. And that additional danger exists whether or not they would use a nuclear weapon in a first strike.

*sigh* No, I'm afraid my sarcasm was entirely warranted. Using nuclear weapons against another country will ensure their own destruction. Do you see this? Do you see how they see this? You're completely overstating your position. Others have commented, and I won't belabor the point.

Your phrasing reveals that you haven't even considered this aspect: you say "that they have realistic ambitions to attack a nuclear power" as if they would not risk such a thing, but in point of fact they do that regularly. They attack Israel on a fairly regular basis, using proxy terrorist groups. Israel is constrained in its response, but would strike back directly against Iran if those proxy attacks became sufficiently serious. But a nuclear-armed Iran becomes immune to retaliation for all but the worst terrorist attacks (as in it would probably take a nuclear attack), which is almost a guarantee that they WILL ratchet up the violence they export to a tremendous degree once they have a nuclear deterrent. If you honestly don't think that's a problem, well, I don't know what to say, but if you didn't even consider this aspect then you never understood my position to begin with.

Oh, sure. The lesson the Bush administration is teaching is that if you don't have a nuclear weapon, then you better get one! Iraq wasn't close to having a nuke, and it got invaded -- thus futzing up any sort of recognizable incentive structure. Nuclear weapons allow states to become (what Waltz likes to say) "sanctuaries of peace" by deterring enemies.

Yes, and we all know his inner circle consists of no one but Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz (see? I can play the sarcastic counter-factual game too). Look, even if you take the view that Bush just does what his advissors tell him to, he still has to decide which one to listen to, because they really aren't all saying the same thing.

I'm exasperated. I have so many better things to do then get tangled in these ridiculous discussions with know-nothing, tendentious ideologues. Previously it was this discussion about guns that transmogrified into abortion, and now you're talking about things that are theoretically uninteresting (to me) and beyond the purview of my original post. In response to powerful elements in the Bush administration and their pre-9/11 agenda, all you have to say is "Bush hadn't made up his mind, Bush hadn't made up his mind", possibly followed up with "Colin Powell was there, Colin Powell was there". Whatever. Ulimtately our appallingly uninformed, dangerously incompetent president became captive to Cheney's view. The war was ill-concieved, and so it's not much of a surprise that it was also poorly executed. Powell has since admitted that the nuclear threat -- mushroom cloud fantasies -- "that was all Cheney." There's no way to reason with you, as evidenced by your previous comments, and realized in the following thought experiment: suppose Bush always wanted to go into Iraq and used 9/11 as a pretext. In your world view, he's still doing the right thing. If anything, you would have to regard him as being even more perceptive and knowledgable. I quote -- "To their credit", Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney supported attacking Iraq prior to 9/11.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, one thing the Jews have learned the hard way over the last four thousand years is that when someone with weapons says, "Let's kill the Jews," it's prudent to believe he means it, and will try it the minute he thinks he can get away with it.

If that were true there wouldn't have been any Jews for several thousand years. Nobody would ever have heard of them, just as they haven't heard about various other minorites that haven't survived. The basis for this sort of idea is Euro-centric, and Jews even survived in Christendom, while Muslims never did. Many Jews still live in Europe, even though they could go to Israel to "serve the Jewish State", as the King Under The Hill recently put it.

This "lachrymose version" of Jewish history irritates me no end, because it obscures the real history and Jewish achievements. Of which Israel is not one.

 

[Ziggurat]

They want to see the demise of Israel. That doesn't mean they want to kill Israelis. What it does mean is that a single, multi-ethnic state would exist in what was the Palestinian Mandate territory after Transjordan was excised (and I see no good reason why Jordan shouldn't be included).

Yeah, sure. Because Jewish populations in muslim-majority countries have done oh so well over the last 100 years, there's absolutely no reason to think that the formation of such a state, particularly when the Israeli Jews don't want anything of the sort, wouldn't involve killing lots of them. I got a bridge to sell, too. And as for why Jordan shouldn't be included, wow. How about because the Jordanians wouldn't want to be part of that mess? Why do you think Jordan has no interest in reclaiming West Bank territory that they lost to Israel? Maybe because they know there's no upside for them.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ummm, just a thought or two.

Even if they existed, what threat are super torpedoes and stealth hovercraft to Israel from Iran? How would they be deployed? Against what? How many of them are there?

Talk about Israel is cheap rhetoric, Iran's military-industrial complex takes a practical strategic view. The strategic focus is on the Straits of Hormuz, where a little can mean a lot. Force multiplication by geography. The US can command the air, they can cross but not necessarily command the ground, but how are they under the surface? How good is US intelligence? Do they know the known and the unknown and the known unknowns? US projection of air-power does rather depend on its surface fleet, which has an air bias. Perfectly understandable, especially with the Kamikaze trauma, but that's not an arena the Iranians are competing in. They've chosen an arena where uncertainty comes into play.