Would Attacking Iran Be Worth It?

[yinyinwang]

I'm getting pretty tired of this dance. Please just back up your assertions or back down. I'll even settle for one. How about this one:

What Iranian actions are aggressively targeted at wiping Israel out? You also should probably explain your equivocation of these actions - whatever they are - with 9/11.

I prefer to stick to the original deal.

 

[Davo]

quote:

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.

Obviously no evidence for the above.

We all know which country supplied the IRA with arms though !

 

[D'rok]

I prefer to stick to the original deal.

Davo has kindly outlined the original deal. If you have no way of backing up your claims, you should retract them.

Have a nice thread.

 

[yinyinwang]

Davo has kindly outlined the original deal. If you have no way of backing up your claims, you should retract them.

Have a nice thread.

I prefer to stick to the original deal.I hate to repeat but you seem need some reminding from time to time.

 

[D'rok]

I prefer to stick to the original deal.I hate to repeat but you seem need some reminding from time to time.

Here are some reminders for you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2639440#post2639440
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2639446#post2639446
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2639946#post2639946
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2640240#post2640240
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2641283#post2641283
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2641515#post2641515
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2643450#post2643450
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2643588#post2643588

The preceding constitutes each time you were asked to factually establish one or more of your claims. The responses received so far have been:

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

And:

Providing facts for you is just wast of time.

You seem to have quite a bit of time to devote to this thread. I suggest using that time to find a way to support your arguments.

This is obviously a farce. If you had a leg to stand on, you would have stood on it already. I can only conclude that you have no rational basis for your conclusions.

 

[MaGZ]

No sane person wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon or the ability to produce one. But most experts agree that inorder to effectively ruin Iran's nuclear capabilities we would have to strike multiple targets, some of which are deep under ground.

Even if it was possible to destroy every single bit of their nuclear program (which most doubt), Iran would surely retaliate by attacking Israel, attacking American forces in Iraq, and maybe even launching terror attacks in the USA. They can't make nukes yet..but they surely can make lots of dirty bombs.

So, is destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities worth war? I guess some would say its better to face dirty bombs and conventional attacks, then an actual nuclear weapon in New York City.

Tough decisions are upon us in the next year or two.

Why do you think Iran would set off a dirty bomb in the US?

Iran does not want to bomb the US.

 

[MaGZ]

The only evidence we have that Iran is not working to build a bomb is the word of their president..and I dont trust him any farther then I can throw him. I could very easily see them announcing they have developed a nuke and claim "we told the world we didnt want a nuclear weapon inorder to convince them not to attack us, but we had to build one to protect ourselves anyway".

I think we should give then Iranians and offer they cant refuse: Tell them because of their ambiguity, we can only assume that they are working to build a weapon. offer them incredible amounts of aid, resources, etc in exchange for ending enrichment....or face military attack on their nuclear facilities. we will give them a deadline of december 1st, 2007 to fully suspend enrichment or face immediate attack.

Why do you want the US to attack Iran? Is Israel that important to you?

 

[yinyinwang]

Here are some reminders for you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2639440#post2639440
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2639446#post2639446
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2639946#post2639946
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2640240#post2640240
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2641283#post2641283
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2641515#post2641515
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2643450#post2643450
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2643588#post2643588

The preceding constitutes each time you were asked to factually establish one or more of your claims. The responses received so far have been:

And:
You seem to have quite a bit of time to devote to this thread. I suggest using that time to find a way to support your arguments.

This is obviously a farce. If you had a leg to stand on, you would have stood on it already. I can only conclude that you have no rational basis for your conclusions.

You seem like all known god. Things are always obvious to you and you know for sure Iran has only political role in Iraq, nothing else at all. How do you get that? Even if I did not provide any thing that does not prove the opposite is true, I can only wish you knew what I am saying, that is why I do not want to wast my time to argue with someone who does not has basic respect for reasoning.
I don't want to spend my time with bluffing "rational" stuff, that is why I stick to the original deal. Even though
you do provide a lot of links, but that is just bluffing too, because none of those addressing Iranian role in Lebanon and they can be hardly called reasons.

 

[D'rok]

You seem like all known god. Things are always obvious to you and you know for sure Iran has only political role in Iraq, nothing else at all. How do you get that? Even if I did not provide any thing that does not prove the opposite is true, I can only wish you knew what I am saying, that is why I do not want to wast my time to argue with someone who does not has basic respect for reasoning.
I don't want to spend my time with bluffing "rational" stuff, that is why I stick to the original deal. Even though
you do provide a lot of links, but that is just bluffing too, because none of those addressing Iranian role in Lebanon and they can be hardly called reasons.

Just to clarify - because clarity is not your strong suit - what is it that you are calling "the original deal"?

Is it this?

Would you mind telling me what are those "rational Realpolitik reasons "?

Gladly. But I'm going to need some reciprocity first. I've gone to some effort to state my arguments as clearly as I can. You have a litany of assertions that you have not backed up. Please address those first.

 

[yinyinwang]

Just to clarify - because clarity is not your strong suit - what is it that you are calling "the original deal"?

Is it this?

You seem deliberately left this out "I think in answering my question about "rational Realpolitik reasons", you will find my assertion held."

Which may mean you just want to manipulate this discussion to make political gain, you are not interested in finding truth.

 

[yinyinwang]

Davo has kindly outlined the original deal. If you have no way of backing up your claims, you should retract them.

Have a nice thread.

Up to now I may just get disappointed with getting anything from you for the "rational" stuff, let me make this discussion simple;
what proofs do we have to say the Iranian government are bad guys?
what proofs do we have to say the Iranian government are good guys?

If in doubt, we should think they are bad guys or good guys?

 

[D'rok]

You seem deliberately left this out "I think in answering my question about "rational Realpolitik reasons", you will find my assertion held."

Which may mean you just want to manipulate this discussion to make political gain, you are not interested in finding truth.

I don't recall agreeing to that deal. It appears that we have no deal. This puts us back to square one. I have offered my arguments as clearly and as rationally as I am capable. I have sourced some of my claims - even if only with wikipedia. When will you give me the same courtesy?

Feel free to disagree with anything I say. DR did and he did so clearly, reasonably and passionately. We came to an understanding through discourse. I suspect that is not possible in your case.

Political gain? I am not in politics. I appear to be in the troll feeding business. I have stated that my position on the question asked by this thread is that attacking Iran is not worthwhile. I have given my reasons. After all this time, I don't think you've even clearly stated whether or not you think attacking Iran is worthwhile. Do you? If so, why? If not, what the hell are we talking about?

 

[yinyinwang]

I don't recall agreeing to that deal. It appears that we have no deal. This puts us back to square one. I have offered my arguments as clearly and as rationally as I am capable. I have sourced some of my claims - even if only with wikipedia. When will you give me the same courtesy?

Feel free to disagree with anything I say. DR did and he did so clearly, reasonably and passionately. We came to an understanding through discourse. I suspect that is not possible in your case.

Political gain? I am not in politics. I appear to be in the troll feeding business. I have stated that my position on the question asked by this thread is that attacking Iran is not worthwhile. I have given my reasons. After all this time, I don't think you've even clearly stated whether or not you think attacking Iran is worthwhile. Do you? If so, why? If not, what the hell are we talking about?

You did try to act like we have one, by saying "your turn", I hope you can remember.

see post #171

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Sez who? That's a might big assumption on your part.

I'm a sane person and I say: LET THEM HAVE NUKES!

You are aware the president of Iran has publicly said he would like to eliminate Israel off the map. And you want to give Iran a nuke? That doesn't sound to sane to me.

 

[D'rok]

You did try to act like we have one, by saying "your turn", I hope you can remember.

see post #171

Umm...that was a link to my very first post which contained the bulk of my arguments, including an attempt to rationally analyze Iran's motives. I've been saying "your turn" for quite some time now. See post # 165 for all the instances.

Your turn.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You are aware the president of Iran has publicly said he would like to eliminate Israel off the map. And you want to give Iran a nuke? That doesn't sound to sane to me.

North Korea's Kim Jong Il, on the other hand, is a model of gentility and diplomacy. Pakistan and India, also members of the nuclear club, have never at any time vowed to destroy one another. It's very fortunate for us that all the countries who have nukes have been held to your high standards before acquiring these weapons.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Well, sort of sane, but when the whole world is insane, you look sane by comparison. As they say, you can't get the genie back in the bottle, but what is really insane is that anybody has nukes. We have seen what they can do. But the US has the unmitigated gall to say, "We can have nukes, but you can't" is beyond hypocrisy. You can't argue, "It's okay for us to have nukes because we would never start a war." In fact, there is only one member of that nuclear club you just listed who has used them against people. Right. The same one who says other countries can't be trusted with them.

And what have some of our brave USians here suggested we do if one of our enemies gets nukes? One said "Level them from corner to corner".

Somehow I remember something about one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq was because there was a brutal tyrant there who was ruthless in wiping out his enemies. Was that just because we don't want the competition?

First of all, the use of the two nukes on Japan was to end a devastating war that would have taken tens of thousands more American's to end without nuking them. Granted Japan lost a lot of people when we dropped the two bombs. But as I recall my history, they attacked us first, so maybe it was fitting that the war ended the way it did.

Secondly, nukes were so new at that point I imagine many of the policy makers in D.C. were unsure or unaware of the devastating impact and long lasting effects of nukes on populations. That's most likely why you haven't seen the U.S. use a nuke, (even tactical) since.

 

[yinyinwang]

Umm...that was a link to my very first post which contained the bulk of my arguments, including an attempt to rationally analyze Iran's motives. I've been saying "your turn" for quite some time now. See post # 165 for all the instances.

Your turn.

A gun can be use both as a tool for self defense or attacking,

A guy with a bad record, you would think the gun would be used in which way?

 

[D'rok]

A gun can be use both as a tool for self defense or attacking,

A guy with a bad record, you would think the gun would be used in which way?

Well...I suppose this is something like progress. But you're still making me guess at what your position is.

Are you saying that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon because they will use it offensively instead of defensively and that is the reason why we should attack them now?

If that is your position, we will at least have a starting point.

 

[Tricky]

First of all, the use of the two nukes on Japan was to end a devastating war that would have taken tens of thousands more American's to end without nuking them.

That is purely hypothetical, and probably wrong. Japan was pretty much dead in the water already after the Battle of Midway. Besides, losing American soldiers is still no excuse for the mass killing of civilians.

Granted Japan lost a lot of people when we dropped the two bombs. But as I recall my history, they attacked us first, so maybe it was fitting that the war ended the way it did.

They attacked an air force base, clearly a tactical military target. While it is not in doubt who started it, the two attacks are not comparable.

Secondly, nukes were so new at that point I imagine many of the policy makers in D.C. were unsure or unaware of the devastating impact and long lasting effects of nukes on populations. That's most likely why you haven't seen the U.S. use a nuke, (even tactical) since.

That is possible, yet they haven't campaigned to have nukes banned. Obviously their horror at the devastation by nuclear weapons does have some bounds.

But again, I'm not trying to dredge up this as a historical excuse for Iran getting nuclear weapons. We made a mistake and we have learned from it. But we should just be careful who we finger as irresponsible.