TheChadd
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 414
Sometimes all you can do is laugh.
In order to be "misinformed" I would have had to make a statement that was incorrect. I did not. I asked question, which you were incapable of answering properly or without being an ass about it.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
France, too.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Agreed.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,769
very funny --- vagabond made this statement:
"What I have heard is the current setup (of nuclear facilities in Iran) is too far below ground to be destroyed by any conventional attack." and I said he is misinformed --- because the Israelis do indeed have bunker busters and are planning to take out some of those 'underground' facilities.
Yet, somehow, by my pointing this out to vagabond and providing him with the precise information he was lacking, makes me the ass.
Weird guy, that vagabond.
"What I have heard is the current setup (of nuclear facilities in Iran) is too far below ground to be destroyed by any conventional attack." and I said he is misinformed --- because the Israelis do indeed have bunker busters and are planning to take out some of those 'underground' facilities.
Yet, somehow, by my pointing this out to vagabond and providing him with the precise information he was lacking, makes me the ass.
Weird guy, that vagabond.
No, you are an ass just because you are an ass. Doesn't matter what you actually say your serious personality flaws still remain. When I say I "heard" that means I don't remember exactly where I heard it, but it was probably CNN. Which is a better source than you are, by a light year or two. "Bunker buster" bombs are huge and extremely heavy. Too heavy for an F-16 to fly with. If they use some kind of modified bomb, it's probably not good for bunker busting anymore and if they use some kind of modified F-16 it's not going to make a flight to Iran particularly undetected and it wouldn't be able to manuver at all to avoid SAM's or air to air defenses. Nor would it probably have enough fuel for a return trip.
I'm definitely not an expert on modern munitions, but five minutes of googling [and as we all know, all information on google is absolutely correct] left me with impression that Natanz nuclear facility may be be too well-protected for BLU-109. The performance specifics given for it (6 feet of "shallow-buried" concrete given here) fall short of given specifics of Natanz ("several meters of concrete" and "75 feet of earth over it" at here).
I have no doubt that dropping several BLU-109s on top of the facility will cause significant damage that will take months to repair, but I wouldn't be too certain about their ability to destroy the site for good.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
What a lot of reasons. Let's count 'em. Ooh, twenty-three "whereas" clauses.
Ten of which mention weapons of mass destruction and three of which explicitly mention 9/11, a couple more about terrorism ... oh, and did they really cite a UN resolution? They did. And if that makes you gasp, consider this: "Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to work with the United Nations Security Council ..."
That, my friends, is chuzpah.
Now, my feral feline, would you like to pick out the bits in that orotund document which (a) are true (b) do not apply more or less to Iran (c) would really constitute justification for a war?
What a lot of reasons. Let's count 'em. Ooh, twenty-three "whereas" clauses.
Ten of which mention weapons of mass destruction and three of which explicitly mention 9/11, a couple more about terrorism ... oh, and did they really cite a UN resolution? They did. And if that makes you gasp, consider this: "Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to work with the United Nations Security Council ..."
That, my friends, is chuzpah.
Now, my feral feline, would you like to pick out the bits in that orotund document which (a) are true (b) do not apply more or less to Iran (c) would really constitute justification for a war?
I’m not sure why you claim it is chutzpah to cite the UN Resolution, as it is most appropriate.
Regarding the rest, I’ll give it a quick shot. The below are selections with my snips left out.
All that being said, there is an argument for saying that the invasion of Iraq was not justified, but it is not clearcut, nor is perfidy on the part of the US obvious or certain.
The thing that gets me most about this whole discussion, and the many others I have had similar to it, is the idea that it is a valid argument to say: “If you invaded A because of X then you should also invade B because they do X just as much.”
If such decisions were made in a vacuum, the argument would carry weight, but they are not and so do not.
Was Iraq easier to invade than either North Korea or Iran would be? Undoubtedly. Did this play a role in the decision? I certainly hope so. It is not hypocrisy nor deceit to allow practical considerations to weigh on policy decisions.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
I said it was chutzpah to cite a commitment to work with the UN, and I stand by that.
As for the remainder of the "reasons" you cite:
* Six of them just refer to that fact that such and such a resolution has already been taken; they aren't reasons, and so fail criterion (c). The fact, for example, that Congress had already passed a resolution that "continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests..." does not count as an extra reason to invade Iraq, does it, to set beside the claim of WMDs, as WildCat intended?
* The statement: "Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region" is as true today as it has ever been. Where's the difference? This fails criterion (b).
* "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq". Are there no terrorists in Iran? Terrorists, perhaps, that bear responsibility for "attacks on the United States, its citizens, and its interests?" Does this not, in short, fail criterion (b)?
* "Continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population..." Again, does this not apply in good measure to Iran and fail criterion (b)?
* "Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction ..." Now, they did not in fact have the capability, remember? They used to have the capability. That fails criterion (a).
* "Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq." This, of course, fails criterion (c), since the fact that you've been to war with a country once is not in itself a reason to invade it again.
* "...firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council." In short, when we invaded their country, they shot back. Again, this is not a reason for doing it a second time, unless you like getting shot. Fails (c).
* "...by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait". This piques my curiousity. Did you get your serviceman back? I mean no disrespect to him if I suggest that given the number of American servicemen killed in Iraq, he might fall under (c). As for expropriated Kuwaiti property ... heck, it puts a whole new spin on the phrase: "Police action". Have any of those Kuwaitis got their stuff back, by the way?
* "...attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush." I must confess I've heard nothing of this. Did they? Why? Who'd assassinate a former president? Did they get as far as, say, taking a shot at him? And would you go to war over a failed assassination of a retired politician? And doesn't that fall under criterion (c)?
And that leaves...
Oh.
I think that's the lot.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Bjorn
Off Topic
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,968
Hmmm. Noticed Lurker never answered Art Vandelay's question regarding the OP: Should we have invaded Iran?
Should we have invaded Iran instead of Iraq?
Should we have invaded Iran in addition to Iraq?
Should we have invaded neither?
(This should probably be a poll...)
Should we have invaded Iran instead of Iraq?
Should we have invaded Iran in addition to Iraq?
Should we have invaded neither?
(This should probably be a poll...)
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
It's worse than 1984 at the moment, I'm supporting Denmark, but hating the EU.
Even a non-penetrating bomb will cause a helluva shock inside the facility. I would be very surprised if it didn't cause any damage in precision instruments.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
All good questions. And instead of giving you a simple answer I will respond with: I don't really know.
From a threat to the US perspective, we probably should not have invaded Iraq since they did not have WMDs or even a WMD program. The sanctions were working.
On to Iran, I wonder if our invasion of Iraq intensified Iran's thirst for a nuke in order to stave off attacks? Anyway, I know Iran would be much harder to invade than Iraq. But perhaps the $1trillion we are spending on invading and occupying Iraqw could have been put to better use against Iran. Not necessarily using the money to invade but other, more diplomatic actions.
Your thoughts?
Lurker
Hmmm, sounds like you're saying we might not be in this pickle with Iran if only we'd made nice to Saddam. Be nice to one bloodthirsty madman, and the other bloodthirsty madman will stop being a bloodthirsty madman. Yeah, that'll work...
As for "diplomatic actions", the French and the Germans and the Brits and the Russians and the Chinese and the UN have all been working on "diplomatic actions" for a couple of years now while Iran has led them all around by their collective noses (Hans Blix, call your office). Have they stopped Iran's nuclear program? Slowed it down?
Seems I read somewhere that you should never negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants never negotiate in good faith. That probably goes double for messianic tyrants who have visions of wiping one of their neighbors from the face of the earth.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Hmmm, this sounds like a failed attempt to read my mind. Where did I imply that we should have "made nice to Saddam"? I would not have lifted sanctions - heck I would have strengthened inspections. So why don't we actually discuss things I actually think instead of you attempting to misdirect with making up positions I don't hold. Unless you think you are incapable of discussing actual positions people hold instead of the strawman simplistic positions you prefer to "debate".
It was not that long ago that people were talking about a possible thawing of relations with Iran. That some of the more moderate people in Iran might start to attain power. I wonder what happened to steer Iran towards a more conservative and anti-American leader?
Don't get me wrong, BP, I am not saying that dealing with Iran would have been easy. But had we simply bribed them with a tenth of what we are spending in Iraq right now I bet that would buy us a whole lot of good will at the very least. Not that I am advocating this course of action, I just throw it out to show the possible alternatives.
As to Iran's nuclear program, I don't know what effect diplomacy has had on their program before Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech.
Lurker
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
I respectfully disagree with your interpertation of Lurker's comments. It was not a matter of 'playing nice' with Saddam (although there is ample evidence that previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, had 'played nice' with him), but if we got an adequate 'bang for the buck'. It seems to me that Lurker is saying (and this is pending his review and comments) that for a trillion dollars (my paper today notes that the president will ask Congress for another $120 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq to fund us through the rest of the fiscal year and into FY07) and over 2,200 deaths, deposing a brutal and ruthless dictator with no WMD or effective military forces while one Axis of Evil member develops nukes and the other is rushing to do the same--the allocation of resources doesn't seem to have done all that much for overall US (and world) security as one would hope from that expenditure of blood and treasure. And in that I think Lurker makes a valid point.
I think one can make an argument that it has slowed their program down--I will have to do some research on the IAEA information to confirm this, but if somebody has the data at hand I would be interested.
It seems I also remember reading a noted War Hawk and highly praised leader of his country in wartime having been quoted as saying "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." I'm quite sure you know the quoter.
Edited to add--BTW, it is a pleasure to see you around your old haunts again, BPSCG--even when you are giving addlebrained arguments like the above...
Last edited: