World War Three Coming Soon?

[Praktik]

Iran is already sacrificing its national security by playing with nuclear toys.

Thats not the way they see it. And if they achieve it, it will be the best insurance policy they could possibly buy.

 

[WildCat]

I won't be tied to that whipping post, WildCat. Moral equivalency typically gets the slippery slope treatment, where its zealot adherents declare that because someone is doing the same thing as someone else, that they are on the whole basically just as bad (or just as good, though it's rarely used in good sense). Meanwhile, the zealot detractors seem to argue something along the lines of my country, right or wrong -- suggesting that when we do it, it's right, and when they do it, it's wrong. But while the absolute character of morality is debatable, hypocrisy can still be identified.

For instance, when criticized for deficit spending, Obama suggests that Bush was doing the same thing. It's an equivalence fallacy because it doesn't really address the criticism, only suggests that he's no better or no worse than his predecessor about this. But there is no hypocrisy because he's not saying that Bush was wrong to do it. (He's basically calling out many of his detractor's own hypocrisy for excusing it one instance and not the next, but that's a subject for another thread.)

So deficit spending is just like hanging homosexuals and stoning rape victims?

What I hear people saying in this instance, however, is that it's OK when America does it, but not when Iran does. Dr. Kitten partially addressed this by suggesting that we're complying with the relevant "optional" treaties and they aren't. But of course, that in itself is an equivalence fallacy because it suggests that compliance and agreement about such matters are the same for them as they are for us, and they're not.

Actually it is. Iran is free to withdraw from the treaty if they want to come clean and admit they have a nuclear weapons program. Until they do formally withdraw however the treaty is in force.

This outrageous notion that America's **** doesn't stink has got to stop. But that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing that we're being hypocritical -- and we are.

More moral equivalency argument. Still defending a regime which hangs homosexuals, stones rape victims, executes political opposition, jails dissenters, and oppresses reporters.

It's funny that you can't refrain from the moral equivalency argument even in your post where you deny moral equivalency.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Okay, suppose ASBs brought the Draka eek (from 1918 Drakaverse) to 2010 Earth OTL and had given them a nuclear programme. You'd all be moping that the Draka are only defending themselves from Western aggression after Iraq and about how they were "persecuted", despite their human rights abuses. Heck, i'd think Noam Chomsky and William Blum would defend the Draka.

 

[A'isha]

And if when Iran gets the nuke, what's stopping them from giving warheads to Venezuela? They're buddies remember? And Venezuela already is trying to acquire ships from Russia. It'll be the Cuban missile crisis all over again.

Wait, you're worried that if Venezuela gets Iranian-made nukes, they'd threaten to use them against us? I know Chavez is power-mad and authoritarian, but come on. And what does Iran get out of the deal? What do you think will happen to them, if Venezuela manages to fire off their one or two Iranian-provided nukes at us? Don't you think they're aware of that?

And it's not even close to the Cuban Missile Crisis. For one thing, we knew the nuclear weapons the Soviets stationed there were aimed at us, because we were in a cold war with them, and had fought (and would still fight) proxy wars with them. We were declared enemies, constantly teetering on the edge of a declared war. The US and Chavez' Venezuela aren't BFFs, certainly, but we aren't anywhere close to that same level of antagonism with them.

Plus lots of countries have purchased Russian ships. The Soviets used to sell 'em all the time.

 

[Pardalis]

Thats not the way they see it. And if they achieve it, it will be the best insurance policy they could possibly buy.

That's the thing, they won't achieve it, there will never come a time where they get the bomb, the US will make sure of that.

 

[Praktik]

Plus lots of countries have purchased Russian ships. The Soviets used to sell 'em all the time.

Indeed, and the American policies re: American parts in military equipment already caps what Venezuela can get anyways. EADS was prevented from selling military air transport planes to Venezuela because of one part in the planes that had an American origin.

That being said, Venezuela certainly has a right to arm itself for its self-defence and I am unsure how Venezuela buying any planes or boats is a worry for the country currently spending over 50% of the entire world's spending on defence.

 

[Praktik]

That's the thing, they won't achieve it, there will never come a time where they get the bomb, the US will make sure of that.

My argument is that its not within the US power to 100% ensure prevention of this outcome - and that there are certain recent policies and stances taken towards Iran which actually make it more likely to happen.

 

[WildCat]

I also recognize that nations, especially weaker and alienated ones, will see a nuclear deterrent as a very tempting way to immunize themselves from foreign interference.

No country has ever "immunized themselves from foreign interference" by going nuclear.

 

[WildCat]

This comment pretends to the rather bizarre conceit that the Iranian Revolution somehow occurred spontaneously, as if fully formed from the brow of Zeus. It didn't. It was a direct result of the many years of profoundly brutal behavior by a regime installed and supported by the United States. At the time of the embassy hostage taking the very figurehead of that puppet regime was being ostentatiously sheltered ... in our country ... by our government.

That argument might actually make sense, if the revolutionaries didn't install a government many times more oppressive than under the monarchy.

It wasn't that they were opposed to an oppressive government, it's that they wanted a theocratic oppressive government.

 

[Praktik]

That argument might actually make sense, if the revolutionaries didn't install a government many times more oppressive than under the monarchy.

It wasn't that they were opposed to an oppressive government, it's that they wanted a theocratic oppressive government.

As far as revolutions go, kind of par for the course. Certainly it was a brutal time to be in Iran - the hangings were happening everywhere and in astounding numbers.

Out of brutality comes brutality - we should not be overly surprised (see: Russian Revolution, French revolution, etc).

 

[Praktik]

No country has ever "immunized themselves from foreign interference" by going nuclear.

Ok let's put it this way: dramatically reduced the options available to potential adversaries.

 

[WildCat]

That being said, Venezuela certainly has a right to arm itself for its self-defence and I am unsure how Venezuela buying any planes or boats is a worry for the country currently spending over 50% of the entire world's spending on defence.

Actually the worry is to Venezuela's neighbors, particularly Colombia. Chavez does a lot of saber-rattling, and was caught red-handed funding FARC to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

No one argues he has the right to self-defense, it's his penchant for attacking his neighbors via proxies that is the issue.

 

[WildCat]

As far as revolutions go, kind of par for the course. Certainly it was a brutal time to be in Iran - the hangings were happening everywhere and in astounding numbers.

Out of brutality comes brutality - we should not be overly surprised (see: Russian Revolution, French revolution, etc).

Why are you talking in the past tense? Iran executed opposition leaders just recently. They banned foreign reporters from the country, and jail/torture/oppress domestic reporters.

The revolution was over 30 years ago.

 

[Praktik]

Ya I was, I was referring to the period just after the revolution - when the executions were happening in the thousands. I am aware of the current crackdown on dissidents as well, no need to assume ignorance..

 

[A'isha]

No country has ever "immunized themselves from foreign interference" by going nuclear.

It seems to be working for North Korea. Compare the rhetoric and proposed plans for dealing with that country, as opposed to dealing with Iran (or how Saddam's Iraq was dealt with).

 

[WildCat]

Ya I was, I was referring to the period just after the revolution - when the executions were happening in the thousands. I am aware of the current crackdown on dissidents as well, no need to assume ignorance..

So can we agree that Iranians weren't opposed to the Shah because he was a brutal dictator, but because he wasn't the right kind of brutal dictator?

 

[WildCat]

It seems to be working for North Korea. Compare the rhetoric and proposed plans for dealing with that country, as opposed to dealing with Iran (or how Saddam's Iraq was dealt with).

I really haven't seen any change wrt NK. Can you give some examples?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Not splitting hairs, you are deliberately creating a strawman. Stop it. Nobody is calling for an invasion of Iran.

What exactly is it that you're advocating, then? As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, bombing Iran is (a) not likely to stop Iran's nuclear program in the long run, if Iran is after weapons (b) still likely to incite some form of retaliation from Iran.

You actually did when you claimed Iran is peaceful. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iranian funding of these and other terrorist groups show Iran is not peaceful.

In the context it was quite clear that I was referring to inter-state military action to try and dominate the region, in response to Dudalb's claim that Iran would 'take over'. Hezbollah and Hamas have no chance of 'taking over' Israel, let alone dominate the region.

Pakistan funds/funded the friggin' Taliban and others. Unlike Hezbollah and Hamas, which are primarily concerned with regional issues, the Taliban has obvious links to Al Qaeda, a terrorist network with global scope. What should the US do about Pakistan having the bomb?

It is an issue here, because it is Iran which is funding, arming, and training terrorist groups to attack Israel.

No, that is not the issue here.

Iran is not a peaceful country minding its own business. Israel has never attacked Iran, and yet Iran has been attacking Israel for 30 years.

Are you proposing that Iran getting the bomb will mean it gives nuclear weapons to Hamas or Hezbollah? Or are you insinuating that since Iran funds Hezbollah this means it is likely to try and invade other countries? I don't think you can make a strong case for either argument, so I'm sure you mean something else I just can't figure out what.

And btw, altering my user name is a breach of your membership agreement. If I was the type to report you you could get suspended.

It was a typo.
My bad.

 

[A'isha]

So can we agree that Iranians weren't opposed to the Shah because he was a brutal dictator, but because he wasn't the right kind of brutal dictator?

I think it's more of a case that the Oppressive Threat in front of you now is often seen as worse than a Nebulous Future Oppressive Threat, even if the Future Oppressive Threat turns out to be just as bad (or worse).

See also the Communist overthrow of the Czar.

 

[A'isha]

I really haven't seen any change wrt NK. Can you give some examples?

They were taken off the State Sponsors of Terrorism list in return for dismantling their nuclear program and, well, stopping their support of terrorism, for one thing.

And yet, despite still yanking around UN nuclear inspectors as bad as Saddam used to and not showing any signs that they've stopped shipping arms to terrorists and rebel groups around the world, they've been kept off the list, and you'll note that no one is talking about bombing their nuclear facilities like they keep talking about doing to Iran, or invading the country because of WMDs like we did to Iraq.