Would Attacking Iran Be Worth It?

[Tricky]

Containment, combined with ratcheting up the technology to demonstrate freedom-based capitalism can grossly outproduce a command-and-control dictatorship isn't a win?

No. The US has a vast advantage over the USSR in resources. They barely have enough cropland to feed themselves. The collapse of Russian Communism may have actually been because the government was not adhering to socialist principals and distributing the limited wealth. Neither has the collapse of communism made Russia a particularly wonderful place. It is questionable indeed as to whether it was an overall net benefit for the world.

No, it would not necessarily have. I can easily conceive a continuation of Carter and the like keeping a lot less pressure on them.

I'm sure you can concieve it, but I seriously doubt it would have made any difference. The USSR imploded, it wasn't crushed. I suspect globalism had more to do with it than anything else. McDonald's did more to change Russia than McDonnell Douglas.

 

[yinyinwang]

Is everything Iran's fault? I think you need a new bogeyman:




Hmmm...can't seem to get the embedded video working. Oh well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeJsYWj5vto

To your disappointment it is the fact.

 

[D'rok]

To your disappointment it is the fact.

If your arguments are any indication, I don't think facts greatly concern you.

 

[yinyinwang]

If your arguments are any indication, I don't think facts greatly concern you.

O really, so the Iranian money and rockets in Lebanon are not facts, I invented it, if the facts do not favor you, blame the fact and the one who use it, that is what you have been doing.

 

[D'rok]

O really, so the Iranian money and rockets in Lebanon are not facts, I invented it,

You'll have to explain to me how Iran is to blame for Israel's actions. I may just be slow, but I think you missed the point of my analogy.

if the facts do not favor you, blame the fact and the one who use it, that is what you have been doing.

I'm still waiting for some evidence to back up your claims that:
1. Iranian soldiers were captured in Iraq
2. Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq
3. Al Qaeda is not Sunni
4. Sunni insurgents cannot make IED's without Iran's help.
4a. Implied by 4. That Iran, the center of Shia Islam, would materially aid the Sunni insurgency. These folks are also blowing up Shia neighbourhoods. Your assertion is about as likely as claiming that English Protestants materially aided the IRA.

If you present facts that support these assertions, I will retract my statements appropriately.

 

[D'rok]

No. The US has a vast advantage over the USSR in resources. They barely have enough cropland to feed themselves. The collapse of Russian Communism may have actually been because the government was not adhering to socialist principals and distributing the limited wealth. Neither has the collapse of communism made Russia a particularly wonderful place. It is questionable indeed as to whether it was an overall net benefit for the world.


I'm sure you can concieve it, but I seriously doubt it would have made any difference. The USSR imploded, it wasn't crushed. I suspect globalism had more to do with it than anything else. McDonald's did more to change Russia than McDonnell Douglas.

Don't forget about Mr. Gorbachev. If there is any argument to be made about the effects of leadership, Gorbachev's actions would make the most compelling case.

 

[yinyinwang]

You'll have to explain to me how Iran is to blame for Israel's actions. I may just be slow, but I think you missed the point of my analogy.

Because Iran wants to wipe Israel out, am I right?

 

[Corsair 115]

You are right, that it boils down to semantics, so really the statement that started this derail can be interpreted almost any way you like.

Which is exactly the point I wanted our little debate to bring forth. Word usage, how those words are defined, and the pre-conceived notions of what certain words and phrases might mean, can play a huge role in shaping the course of a discussion on an issue. If there isn't some measure of common agreement as to what certain terms mean, the chances for misunderstaning go up considerably.

In any case, I would strongly advise the US not to engage in any sort of massive destruction in Iran, especially since they have done nothing that justifies such actions.

Agreed.

But, you're forgetting that the U.S. singlehandedly saved the universe from fascism...

The Commonwealth nations and Russia would, I suspect, strongly disagree with the assertion that the Nazi regime was defeated "singlehandedly" by the U.S. I also note that I don't recall anyone putting forth that claim.

...and that everything the U.S. did during the course of WWII was a necessary part of the omnipotent FDR's plan. Nuking Japanese civilians was morally correctly by virtue of having been done by the winners of the war.

Having won the war has no bearing, in my view, on the morality, or lack thereof, of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. A rational case can be made that such attacks were entirely justified and appropriate. I would also ask about what the substantive distinction is between atomic and non-atomic bombs being dropped, since sufficient numbers of the latter are quite capable of killing large numbers of people.

 

[yinyinwang]

I'm still waiting for some evidence to back up your claims that:
1. Iranian soldiers were captured in Iraq
2. Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq
3. Al Qaeda is not Sunni
4. Sunni insurgents cannot make IED's without Iran's help.
4a. Implied by 4. That Iran, the center of Shia Islam, would materially aid the Sunni insurgency. These folks are also blowing up Shia neighbourhoods. Your assertion is about as likely as claiming that English Protestants materially aided the IRA.

If you present facts that support these assertions, I will retract my statements appropriately.

I wish I have the time to dig up all the facts for you.

 

[D'rok]

Because Iran wants to wipe Israel out

Even if this was correct (it isn't), how would this make Iran responsible for Israel's actions?

am I right?

No, you are not right:

"Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.

Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated 'Israel must be wiped off the map'. On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

 

[D'rok]

The Commonwealth nations and Russia would, I suspect, strongly disagree with the assertion that the Nazi regime was defeated "singlehandedly" by the U.S. I also note that I don't recall anyone putting forth that claim.

I think your sarcasm detector might be on the fritz.

 

[yinyinwang]

Even if this was correct (it isn't), how would this make Iran responsible for Israel's actions?

No, you are not right:
[/URL]

So Iran is not responsible for its aggressive action to wipe Israel out, Israel should be responsible for its self-defence.

 

[yinyinwang]

O really, so the Iranian money and rockets in Lebanon are not facts, I invented it.

If you do not accept this is a fact.
Providing facts for you is just wast of time.

 

[Drysdale]

Even if this was correct (it isn't), how would this make Iran responsible for Israel's actions?

No, you are not right:

"Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.

Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated 'Israel must be wiped off the map'. On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Geez, talk about semantics.

So me saying "I'm going to stop your heart from beating", doesnt necessarily mean I'm going to kill you? Wow, I've seen stretches to make a point but this is up there.

And Cole isn't a guy I think I'd hang my hat on. His reputation is spotty to say the least.

 

[D'rok]

So Iran is not responsible for its aggressive action to wipe Israel out, Israel should be responsible for its self-defence.

You're really going to have to start backing this stuff up with some secondary sources. Iran is aggressively trying to wipe Israel out? Good grief. I have news for you....Israel has the preponderance of power in the region. Iran could no more wipe out Israel than Mexico could wipe out the USA, and Iran knows it. For crying out loud, Israel has an arsenal of nukes, a fleet F-15's, F-16's and Apache helicopters, communications satellites, missile defense systems and other hi-tech weaponry, and a professional fighting force (IDF). And then there's the material and tactical aid from America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Defense_Forces#Service_and_manpower

Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in six days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

You're going to have to do better than that.

 

[Tricky]

Which is exactly the point I wanted our little debate to bring forth. Word usage, how those words are defined, and the pre-conceived notions of what certain words and phrases might mean, can play a huge role in shaping the course of a discussion on an issue. If there isn't some measure of common agreement as to what certain terms mean, the chances for misunderstaning go up considerably.

It would indeed be useful, but it become so cumbersome to have to define specifics of what you mean when you make a general statement. The first impulse is to go for the literal meaning, which is why metaphors like "corner to corner" are somewhat chancy to use in political discussions.

I have heard that French is the language that is often used in diplomacy because they so jealously guard their language from foreign intrusion and modernization that it is much more difficult to be misunderstood. Of course, it takes forever to say anything.

I would also ask about what the substantive distinction is between atomic and non-atomic bombs being dropped, since sufficient numbers of the latter are quite capable of killing large numbers of people.

An excellent point. Conventional bombs are weapons of mass destruction if you have enough of them, and one cannister of nerve gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[yinyinwang]

You're really going to have to start backing this stuff up with some secondary sources. Iran is aggressively trying to wipe Israel out? Good grief. I have news for you....Israel has the preponderance of power in the region. Iran could no more wipe out Israel than Mexico could wipe out the USA, and Iran knows it. For crying out loud, Israel has an arsenal of nukes, a fleet F-15's, F-16's and Apache helicopters, communications satellites, missile defense systems and other hi-tech weaponry, and a professional fighting force (IDF). And then there's the material and tactical aid from America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Defense_Forces#Service_and_manpower

Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in six days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

You're going to have to do better than that.

What military force has Al Qaeda got, they attacked US, by your analogy, it was something no one will think about. But it is a fact.

 

[D'rok]

So me saying "I'm going to stop your heart from beating", doesnt necessarily mean I'm going to kill you?

That certainly sounds like you mean to kill me, and if [SIZE=-1]Ahmadinejad had said something like that you might have a point[/SIZE]. Now if you had said "I wish you had never been born", or even "I wish your heart would stop beating", I might be offended but I would be much less likely to assume that you actually intended to kill me.

Do you see the difference? It may be semantics, but semantics are important in the political rhetoric of war. I would not preemptively try to kill you for either of these two statements, however reprehensible their sentiments may be.

 

[D'rok]

What military force has Al Qaeda got, they attacked US, by your analogy, it was something no one will think about. But it is a fact.

I don't understand what you are saying here or how it relates in any way to what I said. Al Qaeda has no military force to speak of, they attacked the US, and everyone thinks about it. In fact, some even think about it so much that they use it justify utterly unrelated military adventurism.


ETA: Are you somehow trying to equivocate Al Qaeda's attack on America with some imagined action of Iran against Israel? That's the best I can come up with given your post.

 

[Drysdale]

That certainly sounds like you mean to kill me, and if [SIZE=-1]Ahmadinejad had said something like that you might have a point[/SIZE]. Now if you had said "I wish you had never been born", or even "I wish your heart would stop beating", I might be offended but I would be much less likely to assume that you actually intended to kill me.

Do you see the difference? It may be semantics, but semantics are important in the political rhetoric of war. I would not preemptively try to kill you for either of these two statements, however reprehensible their sentiments may be.

I honestly dont know what he really said, so unless you speak Arabic or whatever Ahmadinejad speaks, chances are though you dont either. I've read where he did say Israel needs to be wiped off the map, and thats from the Al Jazeera website which should know what he said I'd think.

Cole is giving his own translation of what he said, I think I'll take Al Jazeera's interpretation over Coles.