What will Iran bomb first?

[FireGarden]

But that's what my question was about. Thanks for not answering again.

Thanks for the Godwin point, and therefore making me win this argument.

I love Godwin -- except the part where no-one bothers to address the point. On the continuum from saint to Hitler, Bush is clearly the guy who started an agressive war and killed loads of people. Wherever you put him on that continuum, he is closer to Hitler than Ahmadinejad is.

It's not an answer, it's a pathetic apologetic excuse.

You're trying to make it seem "normal" for a head of state to be using such words. The "He's just talking tough" BS doesn't work, he is accountable for the words he uses, especially in such a volatile region, especially in such tense times.

You're trying to make it seem like it's more important what a head of state says than what he does. "All options are on the table" -- why that's very kind hearted of you, Mr Bush. Thanks for not bringing to mind the image of Iran as a stinking corpse. What? You didn't actually rule that out because "All options are still on the table" -- well, don't worry, you're being judged by those who measure your words without reference to your previous actions.

I couldn't give a damn about what you don't give a damn, it only is obvious you don't want to answer the question, and are making gymnastics to excuse Ahmadinejad and bring this always back to the US' fault.

This is not about the US, we're talking about Iran.

I know you're not talking about the US. You can't defend the actions of the US, so you want to move the debate into areas where you still feel able to defend: When will Iran stop talking about death and destruction? Can't they just tell us they will defend themselves and leave the rest to our imagination?

Why do they have to crow about the American economy going bad? Can't they just smile in private?

The world is changing and previously powerful nations have to eat a bit of crow. But why do they have to ram that down our throats with hyperbole?

Why do they have to wish for the destruction of their enemies? Can't they just hope their enemy will prosper like America hopes it's enemies will prosper?




Want more Godwin?
Here's a fun little agitprop, courtesy of google:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x99480

 

[Dragoonster]

Speculating is always fun.

It's better than flatly asserting something which may not be true.

"Let?" I'm not so presumptuous. It amazes how much people like Oliver and others speak with such confidence as to what will happen given A or B.

You seemed to be arguing that nations with nukes don't have many security advantages over those which don't, or even net disadvantages.

Oh, well.... are you serious? All I can say is I guess the concern over at the UN is for naught then... on the other hand... yeah, I'm going to go with the UN and the others that say this is something that ought to concern us.

Yes, there are concerns. No, the concerns aren't as bad as many claim via hyperbole or taking rhetoric at face value.

Again, serous? You didn't know anything about 12 years of WMD? I don't know about you but I could see that pretext coming a mile away.

The US gave a multitude of pretexts--humanitarian concern, breaking UN resolutions, Iraq firing at fly-by planes, Iraq linked to 9/11, WMDs as either a program or actually existing, false Iraqi "intelligence" sources, etc. They went from one to the other as soon as each looked weak. They both cited UN resolutions, and reneged on putting forth a final resolution because it wouldn't have passed. They cited UN and IAEA searches and documents, and disputed Hans Blix's ongoing searches.

Very soon after the invasion, they began prepping the spin for a possible future invasion of Iran. They claimed WMDs being shipped there, and Syria. Claimed Iranian navy belligerance, and other stuff I forget.

In short, they demonstrated they could use various pretexts, and would go ahead even when/if the pretexts were found very weak. No reason to think they wouldn't have done the same to Iran if they decided they wanted to invade it as well. I imagine the effort to gain US civilian's acceptance would follow the same route, no matter how flimsy.

Duh! Sorry. But I'm not at all happy about the US beating the war drums.

Sounds good. I don't think we've screwed up the Middle East. I'm quite confident it is, was and likely will be screwed up plenty without the US. I think in some ways we help. In some ways we exacerbate. If you honestly think all of the problems in the Mid-East are America's making then you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

I don't. But far too many of them are of our making.

FTR: America isn't really just a boogey man. These nations that bitch and moan about America are happy to take our money when we hand it out. And having a Democracy in the Mid-East isn't really the worst thing in the world. I'm not happy with America's role as world police but don't get drunk on the idea that the problems of this world are all due to America or that the world would break out in peace and prosperity if America were simply to go away. That's such tired old propaganda that has no basis in reality.

I've never thought or written that all the problems are due to America or any of these other strawman positions. The region is full of less-than-ideal ideologies, governments, and politics. But adding to that with foolish US foreign policy has made things worse.

As for democracies, depends on your definition--Yemen is a new democracy, relatively stable considering its age. Didn't even need the US to invade it to happen. Egypt and Turkey are other examples, if not directly in the Middle East they are close enough, and majority Muslim. Countries like Jordan are also fairly democratic aside from their Monarchy.

And someone supporting US foreign policy there shouldn't even mention democracy as a serious goal. For decades our closest non-Israel allies have been extremely anti-democratic. Saudi Arabia is the least democratic Arab nation, until a few years ago not having any government positions open to voting, whereas all others at least allowed it for some of their legislature. Pakistan was at the time of our recent alliance a military dictatorship. We overthrew or helped to overthrow democracies in favor of supposedly stable dictators in the past. And despite our lauding of democracy, when Palestinians elected Hamas via a fair election, we refused to recognize them as a legitimate government and instead supported the coup of Fatah, helping to overthrow yet another democracy.

Our history is that we base our alliances on friendliness and comportment to our policies, regardless of whether the ally is a democracy or dictatorship.

Don't hold your breath if America turns its back. Perhaps we should turn our back but don't think for a moment that Iran wishes for Israel's health.

I don't.

The US can aid Israel if it's legitimately attacked. I don't think it's acceptable to preemptively attack on its behalf, or to lend credence or moral support if Israel preemptively attacks. If I did think that I'd also think Iran has the right to preemptively attack to preempt the preemptive attack, and so on. Either both are acceptable or neither are.

 

[WildCat]

The US can aid Israel if it's legitimately attacked. I don't think it's acceptable to preemptively attack on its behalf, or to lend credence or moral support if Israel preemptively attacks. If I did think that I'd also think Iran has the right to preemptively attack to preempt the preemptive attack, and so on. Either both are acceptable or neither are.

Yes, both are acceptable. But Iran is actually attacking Israel through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, who they train, arm, and fund. They are also rattling the saber with the "Israel must be wiped off the map" comments, no matter how many of their apologists try to water down the translation.

If Israel attacks Iran there wouldn't be anything preemptive about it, since Iran is already attacking Israel. This is what you and Oliver seem to be ignoring in your arguments.

 

[Dragoonster]

Yes, both are acceptable. But Iran is actually attacking Israel through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, who they train, arm, and fund. They are also rattling the saber with the "Israel must be wiped off the map" comments, no matter how many of their apologists try to water down the translation.

If Israel attacks Iran there wouldn't be anything preemptive about it, since Iran is already attacking Israel. This is what you and Oliver seem to be ignoring in your arguments.

Yes, Iran aids these groups. But Israel has taken full advantage of counterattacking or attacking them directly and that mini-theater seems equitable. That is, it is way more risk for Israel to attack Iran or Iran to attack Israel than for them to skirmish via proxies. And that fight is at least relatively stable. The fight over south Lebanon, the territories, and terrorist attacks will not stop due to a strike on Iran's nuclear ambitions. I don't see much connection re: justification for that.

Iran is subject to sanctions and economic freezeouts by the US, Israel and allies for their support of terrorism, and that seems the proper response. A strike on Iran's nuclear facilities has little to do with that aspect of the conflict, but solely aimed at brunting Iran proper's threat. Also though you probably disagree, I don't think the threat of Hamas, Hezbollah and others is all that great. Both are moving more to political arms as their main operation, attempting to gain credibility in their own governments, and it seems like the violence by both has decreased.

I don't find the rhetoric compelling as justification for anything beyond a call for censure. For me it's a giant leap from Ahmedinejad and other's statements (assuming they mean exactly what you think they mean, for every Iranian in charge now or in the future) to Iran either launching a nuclear first strike on Israel, or handing nukes to non-state terrorist groups. Giant leap.

If the various politics, rhetoric, and sanctions magically maintain their current level for decades, I don't expect anything bad to happen if Iran gets nukes. If however, the US and/or Israel are determined to prevent this by military means, we may find ourselves in a self-fulfilling prophecy, by living up to the threat that Iran believes we could be.

And at least for me as an American, I don't think protecting Israel from what I consider a very slight risk via preemptive aggression is worth us getting involved in something that could lead to another, much more difficult and unwinnable war, which would add more decades to our involvement in the Middle East. Which would add decades of trouble for our own economy. And which would spur more terrorists, and hostile and neutral countries to desire the US and Israel more harm. I want us less involved, not more involved, in creating further turmoil and blowback in the ME.

 

[WildCat]

And at least for me as an American, I don't think protecting Israel from what I consider a very slight risk via preemptive aggression is worth us getting involved in something that could lead to another, much more difficult and unwinnable war, which would add more decades to our involvement in the Middle East.

There you go again with the "preemptive" nonsense! Iran is attacking Israel, you even admitted it. Call it escalation, but stop with the nonsense that an attack on Iran by Israel would be a preemptive strike.

As for US involvement there wouldn't be an invasion by ground forces. We have the ability to defang Iran with air power alone. Nobody is advocating an invasion!

 

[Oliver]

There you go again with the "preemptive" nonsense! Iran is attacking Israel, you even admitted it. Call it escalation, but stop with the nonsense that an attack on Iran by Israel would be a preemptive strike.

As for US involvement there wouldn't be an invasion by ground forces. We have the ability to defang Iran with air power alone. Nobody is advocating an invasion!

So Iran and Hezbollah are the same thing then?
Do you listen to yourself from time to time?

 

[Pardalis]

I love Godwin

No kidding. Godwin is the mark of the intellectual coward.

You're trying to make it seem like it's more important what a head of state says than what he does. "All options are on the table" -- why that's very kind hearted of you, Mr Bush. Thanks for not bringing to mind the image of Iran as a stinking corpse. What? You didn't actually rule that out because "All options are still on the table" -- well, don't worry, you're being judged by those who measure your words without reference to your previous actions.

Still not answering my question.

I know you're not talking about the US.

Read the thread title, the US is not the topic of this thread. For you to constantly bring this back to the US shows your bias.

You can't defend the actions of the US, so you want to move the debate into areas where you still feel able to defend:

Again, this thread isn't about the US.

This shows you only want to attack the US, and ARE INCAPABLE of any criticism on Iran.

When will Iran stop talking about death and destruction? Can't they just tell us they will defend themselves and leave the rest to our imagination?

They are not being attacked at this moment, so why are they using this language?

It's nothing more than provocation. Sorry to criticize your beloved friend.

 

[WildCat]

So Iran and Hezbollah are the same thing then?
Do you listen to yourself from time to time?

Iran arms, trains, supplies, and funds Hezbollah. It's astonishing that you don't know this.

 

[gtc]

Iran arms, trains, supplies, and funds Hezbollah. It's astonishing that you don't know this.

He seems to have a blind spot over this.

 

[Dragoonster]

There you go again with the "preemptive" nonsense! Iran is attacking Israel, you even admitted it. Call it escalation, but stop with the nonsense that an attack on Iran by Israel would be a preemptive strike.

Tell us how a surgical attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will cause a decline in Iranian aid to Hamas and Hezbollah. Or are you advocating another kind of attack?

As for US involvement there wouldn't be an invasion by ground forces. We have the ability to defang Iran with air power alone. Nobody is advocating an invasion!

What does "defanging Iran" have to do with Hamas and Hezbollah, to justify the attack as a reciprocity rather than a preemption?

How can you guarantee the defanging will succeed?

 

[FireGarden]

No kidding. Godwin is the mark of the intellectual coward.

Exactly.
Aren't you embarrassed to have brought it up?

Still not answering my question.

Read the thread title, the US is not the topic of this thread. For you to constantly bring this back to the US shows your bias.

Again, this thread isn't about the US.

No. You read the thread title.
"What will Iran bomb first?" And one of the options in the poll is indeed America. I'm entirely on topic.

This shows you only want to attack the US, and ARE INCAPABLE of any criticism on Iran.

They are not being attacked at this moment, so why are they using this language?

It's nothing more than provocation. Sorry to criticize your beloved friend.

I can criticise Iran. And Ahmadinejad: Inflation in Iran is at around 20% Ahmadinejad is a lousy administrator. He's put too much government money into the economy and made things worse rather than better.

But he hasn't caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people -- unlike your beloved friend. And I don't think he is the type to go around detonating nuclear bombs.

As for his rhetoric...
America is convinced that a hit and run against Iran is not possible. The rhetoric may have been a part of convincing America of that.

If America attacked Iran, Iran would respond against targets in the Gulf and against Israel. America would have to become involved in another war it cannot afford -- because Bush is also a bad administrator.

Hence the lack of attack against Iran. I consider a lack of attack to be the closest to peace that is available at this moment.

That, once again, is still my answer to your question.

 

[Oliver]

Iran arms, trains, supplies, and funds Hezbollah. It's astonishing that you don't know this.

Old Hat. I asked if Iran and Hezbollah are the same thing. You
said, that this is the case: "Iran supports Hamaz and Hezbollah,
ergo Iran attacked Israel."

It's like saying: "Zionists took away Palestinian land and declared it to
be Israel, ergo: Zionists attacked/invaded Palestine."

However: My point remains that an attack on anything within Iran
using US-Israeli Military won't solve anything. It's just one step closer
to what Khamenei [and Ahmadinejad] referred to in his recent speech:

Khamenei said Israel "has weakened day by day ... Today, officials of the Zionist regime acknowledge that they are moving towards weakness, destruction and defeat," according to state television. Khamenei added that the Zionists' failure and defeat is absolute. [Source: Khamenei: Iran won't let Palestinians be alone]

You agree?

 

[WildCat]

Tell us how a surgical attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will cause a decline in Iranian aid to Hamas and Hezbollah. Or are you advocating another kind of attack?

When did I claim it would? Maybe you could argue what I say instead of the straw men you are so fond of?

What does "defanging Iran" have to do with Hamas and Hezbollah, to justify the attack as a reciprocity rather than a preemption?

It's astonishing to me that you're still using words like "preemptive" to describe an attack on a nation that has been attacking another nation for years through proxies. What color is the sky in your world? Israel will do what it feels necessary to defend itself against Iran's unprovoked aggression. We know the only thing preventing Iran from expanding its aggression from proxy war to direct attack is Israeli military superiority. Certainly, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons changes that dynamic.

How can you guarantee the defanging will succeed?

Guarantee? This is the real world... I can't guarantee I will make it home alive the next time I get behind the wheel of my car. Maybe things can be guaranteed on Planet X, but not here.

 

[WildCat]

Old Hat. I asked if Iran and Hezbollah are the same thing. You
said, that this is the case: "Iran supports Hamaz and Hezbollah,
ergo Iran attacked Israel."

I see, so we won't ever see you making claims about US interventions against foreign governments unless said interventions involve direct action by US military forces, correct?

It's like saying: "Zionists took away Palestinian land and declared it to
be Israel, ergo: Zionists attacked/invaded Palestine."

No, because that is a false statement. Would you like to try again?

However: My point remains that an attack on anything within Iran
using US-Israeli Military won't solve anything. It's just one step closer
to what Khamenei [and Ahmadinejad] referred to in his recent speech:

And what will solve everything Oliver? Do you have a "final solution" in mind?

You agree?

Obviously not.

 

[Oliver]

I see, so we won't ever see you making claims about US interventions against foreign governments unless said interventions involve direct action by US military forces, correct?

No, because that is a false statement. Would you like to try again?

And what will solve everything Oliver? Do you have a "final solution" in mind?

Obviously not.

Huh? When did I say that US covert Op's in Iran justifies Iran to attack
Israel since Israel is pushing those Terror-acts against a Regime?

I know it is a false statement. That was my point.

Yes, the final solution would be peace. Which means that Israel
would have to be an appeaser.

So you agree with Ahmadinejad's and Khamenei's `dead end statements´?

 

[WildCat]

Huh? When did I say that US covert Op's in Iran justifies Iran to attack
Israel since Israel is pushing those Terror-acts against a Regime?

I know it is a false statement. That was my point.

Your point seems to change with every post, and frankly none of them are making any sense.

Yes, the final solution would be peace. Which means that Israel
would have to be an appeaser.

So how does Israel appease a genocidal group that calls for its destruction?

So you agree with Ahmadinejad's and Khamenei's `dead end statements´?

What gives you that idea?

 

[Pardalis]

Exactly.
Aren't you embarrassed to have brought it up?

?

You're the one who made the grotesque reference to Hitler.

You're not making any sense.

As for his rhetoric...
America is convinced that a hit and run against Iran is not possible. The rhetoric may have been a part of convincing America of that.

snip

Hence the lack of attack against Iran. I consider a lack of attack to be the closest to peace that is available at this moment.

So let me get this straight. By threatening Israel (now you seem to agree that "Death to Israel" is meant literally as a threat to the country, and not to the "regime"? You're contradicting yourself here), Iran is bullying the US that if it attacks, it'll make due on its threat?

And you call that peace?

You excuse Ahmadinejad for talking tough because it is threatened by the US, but the US is wrong about talking tough because Iran is threatening Israel? Talk about double standards.

Think of it that way: maybe the only reason Iran hasn't destroyed Israel already is because the US is making threats that if they do Iran will pay the price? The only reason Israel is still there today is the US. So by your logic, shouldn't the US threats against Iran be considered preserving the peace as well?

It's the chicken or the egg. Either Iran is threatening Israel and America won't stand for it and are making pressure on them, or America is threatening Iran (reason?) and Iran is threatening Israel as retaliation. The only problem is that in both possibilities, Iran is threatening Israel. Iran threatening Israel in both cases is unacceptable, and you can't escape that conclusion.

Iran is ideologically opposed to the state of Israel, it has a reason to want to destroy it. What is the reason for the US to want to attack Iran if not for its support and protection of the Jewish state?

Nice mental gymnastics. Ever considered le Cirque du Soleil?

 

[FireGarden]

?

You're the one who made the grotesque reference to Hitler.

You're not making any sense.

You're the one who brought up Godwin. Let me guess... You think that is the intellectual way to react to a mention of Hitler?

So let me get this straight. By threatening Israel (now you seem to agree that "Death to Israel" is meant literally as a threat to the country, and not to the "regime"? You're contradicting yourself here), Iran is bullying the US that if it attacks, it'll make due on its threat?

I don't see where I have contradicted myself. Iran has said it will retaliate. It has not said it would strike first. America hasn't taken a first strike off the table.

And you call that peace?

I said a lack of attack is the closest to peace we can get at the moment.

You excuse Ahmadinejad for talking tough because it is threatened by the US, but the US is wrong about talking tough because Iran is threatening Israel? Talk about double standards.

If you recall, I'm the one who doesn't give a damn whose rhetoric is worse. It's America's actions which I have condemned. America is anti-peace because it invades and destroys nations.

You are the one that is trying to turn this into a poetry contest, asking "Who has the nicest sound-bytes?" Over there is a damn -- it was not donated by me.

Think of it that way: maybe the only reason Iran hasn't destroyed Israel already is because the US is making threats that if they do Iran will pay the price? The only reason Israel is still there today is the US.

Well, let's see...
What evidence do you have that Iran would attack a nuclear power? People saying that a rival government will bite the dust.

Now what evidence do I have that America would bomb Iran if they thought it would cost them little? Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan --- Pakistan!!!! A nuclear power and member of the coalition of the willing. America will bomb its ally against the express wishes of its ally. What chance Iran? Come on: be serious!

The only reasons Iran has not been bombed is because Iran has promised to retaliate with force -- and America believes that promise.

Iran is ideologically opposed to the state of Israel, it has a reason to want to destroy it. What is the reason for the US to want to attack Iran

LOL
America is ideologically oppossed to Iran. More to the point, it has a history of attacking nations it is ideologically opposed to. (Or, at least, the weak ones who cannot defend themselves in any meaningful way).

It even has a history of attacking Iran: in 1953 they helped take out a democratically elected government because America was "ideologically" opposed to the idea of Iran nationalising the oil industry. And in the war Saddam started, America sided with Saddam -- with Rumsfeld shaking his hand twice.

 

[Oliver]

It even has a history of attacking Iran: in 1953 they helped take out a democratically elected government because America was "ideologically" opposed to the idea of Iran nationalising the oil industry. And in the war Saddam started, America sided with Saddam -- with Rumsfeld shaking his hand twice.

...while selling WMD ingridients and Military stuff to both sides, Iran and Iraq:

US support for war:
U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war
U.S. support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war

So according to Wildcat, Israel is to blame for attacking Iran, not Saddam.
Because the US, being Israels Ally, funded Saddam in the first place.

 

[Oliver]

Your point seems to change with every post, and frankly none of them are making any sense.

So how does Israel appease a genocidal group that calls for its destruction?

What gives you that idea?

When did Iran call for Israel's destruction? And how are they genocidal
when even they say it's all about the Zionist regime that will collapse
due to it's self-chosen way, not about Jewish people in general?

What gives me the Idea? Uhm, 60 years of conflict based on the fact,
that Israel's only chance to survive is A. Peace - or B. a never ending
support from pretty powerful forces from far away places.

You know that Israel wouldn't exist if no one would care. So why do you
think that Ahmadinejad and his Pal don't have any point talking about the
collapse of Israel?

Do you think that the West will never give up on Israel, no matter what?
We saw it before in another military intervention a short while ago, one
stupid political move, and allies turn around over night.

Ergo, Peace is the only stable solution. Which means that Israel has to
give up some loved things, maybe even the close strategical ties
to the US which didn't do any good in the long run.