Will the Bush Administration attack Iran?

[baywax]

Let's put it this way, if Iran actually made the mistake of dropping an A bomb or a Vacuum bomb on Isreal, suddenly there would be no more Iran. Not much else would take place after that other than Russian sabre rattling, Chinese goose stepping and Peace activists crying... but, for the most part, we would be minus one culture in a world where cultures seem to be falling more often than rising.

 

[kach22i]

Do you deny the fact that the President of Iran denies the Holocaust?

Just an FYI here, you guys do realize that Turkey still denies the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915, right? And that Turkey has successfully lobbied the US Congress and all our Presidents for nearly the past 100 years to suppress the truth the whole world knows.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US ally Turkey and by the US government is long overdue, but you will not be seeing this in the news as a justification for war on the US or Turkey by anyone anytime soon.

Just think about the hypocrisy for a moment.

Wikipedia Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

 

[slugcountry]

kach I agree that is an enormous crime against humanity but iran is IMHO more relevant because israel is being threatened TODAY

that said I agree absolutely that the armenian genocide deserves far greater recognition than it receives today.

 

[slugcountry]

Who in their sane mind is not opposed to US foreign policy and Israel? What hostility r u talking about? Who is threating who here, who is planning war agains who here?, anyway You should take a educational trip to Iran and see for your self about the nonsense opinion you hold so dearly.

U.S. foreign policy is one thing but Israel is entirely different. Perhaps YOU should take an educational trip to ISRAEL before spouting your own nonsense opinion.

 

[chemisttree]

Just an FYI here, you guys do realize that Turkey still denies the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915, right? And that Turkey has successfully lobbied the US Congress and all our Presidents for nearly the past 100 years to suppress the truth the whole world knows.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US ally Turkey and by the US government is long overdue, but you will not be seeing this in the news as a justification for war on the US or Turkey by anyone anytime soon.

Just think about the hypocrisy for a moment.

Wikipedia Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

The real leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, does not deny the Holocaust although he does advocate the abolishment of Israel.

"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/

but not by force (apparently).

"the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2050168,00.html

Is he lying through his teeth? I guess it depends on what you mean by 'threaten'. His statement that, "...this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." coupled with Iran's funding of Hezbollah and desire to obtain nuclear materials could be construed by most sane people as a threatening posture.

Would any sane people go to war based solely on the fact that the Jewish Holocaust is or isn't a real event in history?

 

[sneez]

"U.S. foreign policy is one thing but Israel is entirely different. Perhaps YOU should take an educational trip to ISRAEL before spouting your own nonsense opinion."

Kinda funny, as a jew i am in israel at home :d, If I could I would tell you about jewishness more than you can imagine in your wake state.

Just general question, what you do you understand by the word "MYTH" ? Thats the word used by Iran's president. And anyone who critically examined the holocaust myth (with many of my predecesors in it) I can tell you its not all that it thaught in elementary school textbooks.

 

[Moridin]

Just an FYI here, you guys do realize that Turkey still denies the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915, right? And that Turkey has successfully lobbied the US Congress and all our Presidents for nearly the past 100 years to suppress the truth the whole world knows.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US ally Turkey and by the US government is long overdue, but you will not be seeing this in the news as a justification for war on the US or Turkey by anyone anytime soon.

Just think about the hypocrisy for a moment.

Wikipedia Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

That is the same formal fallacy again. Two wrongs does not make a right.

Moridin, I am not going to go into this since you made up your mind already twice over. It does not matter how strong emotional attachments you have to your political opinions about iran ,they are primitivelly naive. I can toss out hundreds of links and you can toss out 200 more that support your conclusion, its not going to change anything. So let me not waste time on that.

There is a difference between being open minded and downright gullible. Being open minded means assessing each new piece of evidence objectively, and trying to see the wider picture. This mean accepting possibility, but evaluating probability. It does not mean believe everything. It does not mean to assert absolute truth in the absence of evidence.

Yes, I have drawn a conclusion from the available facts that are available to me.

The facts are there and if your slavish and blind devotion to your own world view and inability to stop skewing things through your lens of bias clouds your mind from being able to understand the evidence, that is your problem, not mine. The evidence is there. Accept it. Or alternatively, provide evidence for your position to counter my evidence. That is what a debate is all about, you know.

Who in their sane mind is not opposed to US foreign policy and Israel? What hostility r u talking about? Who is threating who here, who is planning war agains who here?, anyway You should take a educational trip to Iran and see for your self about the nonsense opinion you hold so dearly. I do not deny that Iran has made bad judgements. I can as well bring out the houndred cases of US/Israel violation of much broader scale (genocide, torture on mass scale, well all those thing you know about and do not admit). But that is not going to do as good talking about Iran.

Iran is all but what you present here you think it is. I am pro discussion on the sharia law of iran, the religious aspect and etc, but I am totally numb from the ignorance you present about Iran. And ofcause its not your fault since you have never been there. You probably don't even personally know anyone from there, so all your opinions came from external source. A source you just prefer for one reason or the other. Your refusal of looking at world just for a second through different lense is astonishing but hey, if it works for you. I am just sad that ppl with similar minds are in governments.

Also a very intelligent non-argument. You have not tried to argue against any of the questions I asked in order to demonstrate your view.

Since you have not done this, we can only accept them.

The President of Iran denies the Holocaust
Iran is a theocracy
Iran is hostile to Israel and the US
Homosexuals are stoned to death or buried alive in Iran
Women are oppressed in Iran due to Islam
Critics of the regime are killed by the regime or simply gone missing

We have established that Iran cannot be compared to any democratic country with a rational political system. This is also why certain countries are more reliable with nuclear weapons than others.

When it comes to your accusation that the US is a terrorist state you must realize that it is a completely fabricated notion? Do you even know what terrorism means? Here is an example to illustrate my point.

Postulate smart bombs that can kill precisely without collateral damage when it comes to buildings or human life. Would the United States acquire these weapons and substitute their primitive weapons for it? Yes, if not only because public opinion. Would a terrorist state like Iran do it? Hardly. A terrorist wants to inflicts as much causalities and structural damage as possible.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/terrorism

 

[Moridin]

Just general question, what you do you understand by the word "MYTH" ? Thats the word used by Iran's president. And anyone who critically examined the holocaust myth (with many of my predecesors in it) I can tell you its not all that it thaught in elementary school textbooks.

To be fair, the divine right of existence of Israel is based on a myth as well.

 

[chemisttree]

Shame for the warmongers the IAEA won't play ball and gave Iran a glowing scorecard in their last report.

Is this what you mean by a glowing scorecard?

3. Since May 2007, Iran has continued to test single centrifuge machines, the 10- and 20-machine cascades and one 164-machine cascade at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP). Between 17 March and 22 July 2007, Iran fed 14 kg of UF6 into the single machines; there was no feeding of nuclear material into the cascades. Between 17 March and 22 July 2007, Iran fed 14 kg of UF6 into the single machines; there was no feeding of nuclear material into the cascades.
4. Since February 2007, Iran has fed approximately 690 kg of UF6 into the cascades at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP), which is well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design. While Iran has stated that it has reached enrichment levels up to 4.8% U-235 at FEP, the highest enrichment level measured from environmental samples taken so far by the Agency from cascade components and related equipment is 3.7%. Detailed nuclear material accountancy, which is necessary to confirm the actual enrichment level, will be carried out when the product and tails are withdrawn from the cascades. As of 19 August 2007, twelve 164-machine cascades were operating simultaneously and were being fed with UF6; one other cascade was operating without UF6; another cascade was being vacuum tested; and two more were under construction.

ALL of this testing is in violation of the Security Council Resolution’s dating back years.
(http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-48.pdf)

El-Baradei and Iran have both rewritten the schedule for the disclosure of remaining issues. The Security Council has demanded immediate compliance but el-Baradei has given Iran as much time as Iran needs. No definite dates have been agreed upon and cooperation on many of the unresolved issues is contingent upon the resolution of the so-called “Uranium Metal Document” as a prerequisite for further cooperation. The document in question deals with the procedure to isolate metallic enriched uranium metal from the enriched UF6 stream and it’s subsequent machining into hemispheres. Hemispheres! How are they going to use that in a peaceful way?

Remember that el-Baradei earned the moniker “Rogue Regulator” for secretly agreeing to a deal with Iran that contradicted the UN Security Council’s several resolutions dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. The IAEA has absolutely no authority or mandate to enter into agreements with any government regarding issues related to their nuclear program. The IAEA’s mandate is clear… inspection, verification and reportage only. This ‘agreement’ of el-Baradei’s is clearly rogue diplomacy that upsets all the multi-year efforts the Security Council. Germany has abandoned the UN process entirely as a result. This can only embolden the US to attack and is counterproductive.

This is hardly a glowing scorecard. Perhaps ‘glowing’ is too double entendre for this discussion?

 

[sneez]

-hmm- Obviously your conviction that you ate the knowledge of the world and that your opinions are not subject of being possibly wrong or incomplete in the given context is established. The fact that you wave your 'hands' along with the other dude throwing rehtorics of logical fallacies here and there yet yourself are guilty is also sign of something. And just for your own education: "Since you have not done this, we can only accept them." Not proving somebody's arguments wrong does not make them right. But I think you know that, you are just blinded by the automatic emotions that are trigered by this topic. I feel sad from our conversation, not because of our difference of opinion, its the again and again reccuring theme of a person not being able to look beyond the limits of his/her own knowledge. I know you have many years ahead of you and hopefully if you like philosophy at all, you may come to learn better ways concerning even political opinions (which are really philosophical in nature). Its the fact that the automatic emotions rule the people that make decisions if some nation will suffer injustly or not.

So maybe again on some other topic...ba

 

[Art]

Is this what you mean by a glowing scorecard?

Let's put things in context. The UNSC resolutions were passed originally on the basis that Iran refused to come clean on their past nuclear activities. A core part of the IAEA mandate is to clear up these open historical questions.

ElBaradei has succeeded in persuading Iran to answer nearly all of the questions outstanding to the IAEA's full satisfaction and for those few still open Iran has promised to reply to them in full by the end of the year.

The report also says Iran is now in full compliance with the IAEA's requirements re snap inspections, giving full unrestricted access to their 219 inspectors and remote monitoring and that there is no sign of Iran running a parallel weapons program.

That Iran shall shortly be in full compliance with the requirements of the NPT is very good news which is how the other world powers see it. It is especially good news for Israel who should feel very happy knowing Iran, unlike them, does not have a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Some in the USA administration do not like this as it severely weakens their case for war. Seeing as how these were the IAEA's findings it is hard to see what else the IAEA could have reported other than the facts ElBaradei is to be congratulated on achieving a large part of his mandate but instead is being attacked.

With the historical questions settled the major outstanding issue now is the UNSC demand that Iran stop processing uranium but seeing as how the reason for that demand was Iran's secrecy about it's past activities and that has now been largely resolved and will likely be fully resolved by the end of the year it will be difficult to justify a war based on Iran's non-compliance with the UNSC which is what has the neo-cons in the US and ironically Israel frothing at the mouth at this time.

Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, sums it up well. He said

"Those critical of ElBaradei should take a deep, hard look at their own role and record for the war in Iraq."

"We have an American government seemingly itching to go to war, and we find that those who are proposing negotiations and inspections instead of war are themselves coming under attack"

The reaction of the Bush hawks suggest that the whole nuclear business was never the real issue, it was simply their excuse for marching off to war again.

If Iran did want to do serious damage to Israel or anybody else for that matter would it make sense for them to go the nuclear route? I very much doubt it when there are other equally devastating weapons that can be developed far faster and several orders of magnitude cheaper such as fuel air bombs - the 'poor man's nuclear bomb' as used by the US during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and by the Russians in Chechnya to devastating effect.

 

[chemisttree]

Let's put things in context. The UNSC resolutions were passed originally on the basis that Iran refused to come clean on their past nuclear activities. A core part of the IAEA mandate is to clear up these open historical questions.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different Security Council resolution. I was referring to the resolutions that demanded a cessation of Iran's enrichment and heavy water programs. Neither of these programs have been addressed to anyone's satisfaction and no timetable for it’s resolution has been agreed to by either Iran or el-Baradei. It is a current, not a past, activity.

Security Council Resolution 1696 demanded the immediate cessation of enrichment activities and heavy water development by August 31, 2007 (sponsored by France, Germany and UK). Iran failed to abide.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

Security Council Resolution 1737 enacted sanctions for Iran’s failure to halt enrichment and heavy water projects (sponsored by France, Germany and UK). Iran failed to abide.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm

Security Council Resolution 1747 reaffirmed the two previous resolutions (1696 and 1737) after Iran had failed to abide.

Also, the various IAEA Board of Governors resolutions such as GOV/2006/14 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf) which details Iran’s 1) failure to halt its enrichment program, 2) failure to ratify the Additional Protocol of the NPT, 3) to provide for inspection an Agency-sealed document regarding the manufacture of uranium metal hemispheres, to 4) halt work on heavy water projects, 5) to implement transparency measures to provide inspectors access to individuals and records related to equipment procurement, dual use technologies and military equipment workshops.
El-Baradei’s report outlines some successes such as the questions related to reprocessing and the granting of visas to 219 inspectors (only 13 are multiple entry type visas, however). He also reports resolution on other minor points related to explanations of enriched uranium contamination at several locations and that the inventory of declared nuclear inventory is accurate.
In el-Baradei’s most recent report, only one sentence of his summary deals with Iran’s resolution of outstanding matters. The rest is either negative or hopelessly hopeful…

G. Summary
22. The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities. However, the Agency remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. It should be noted that since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, including pursuant to the Additional Protocol, for example information relevant to ongoing advanced centrifuge research.
23. The work plan is a significant step forward. If Iran finally addresses the long outstanding verification issues, the Agency should be in a position to reconstruct the history of Iran’s nuclear programme. Naturally, the key to successful implementation of the agreed work plan is Iran’s full and active cooperation with the Agency, and its provision to the Agency of all relevant information and access to all relevant documentation and individuals to enable the gency to resolve all outstanding issues. To this end, the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures provided for in the Additional Protocol.
24. Once Iran’s past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to build confidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally important, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, through the implementation of the Additional Protocol. The Director General therefore again urges Iran to ratify and bring into force the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date, as requested by the Board of Governors and the Security Council.
25. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued with the operation of PFEP, and with the construction and operation of FEP. Iran is also continuing with its construction of the IR-40 reactor and operation of the Heavy Water Production Plant.
26. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

The bolded items were the only positive statements I could find.

That Iran shall shortly be in full compliance with the requirements of the NPT is very good news which is how the other world powers see it. It is especially good news for Israel who should feel very happy knowing Iran, unlike them, does not have a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

If only this were not complete fantasy, alas. Where did you hear this news?

With the historical questions settled the major outstanding issue now is the UNSC demand that Iran stop processing uranium but seeing as how the reason for that demand was Iran's secrecy about it's past activities and that has now been largely resolved and will likely be fully resolved by the end of the year it will be difficult to justify a war based on Iran's non-compliance with the UNSC which is what has the neo-cons in the US and ironically Israel frothing at the mouth at this time.

WTF? What fantasy is this? (I want some too…)

If Iran did want to do serious damage to Israel or anybody else for that matter would it make sense for them to go the nuclear route? I very much doubt it when there are other equally devastating weapons that can be developed far faster and several orders of magnitude cheaper such as fuel air bombs - the 'poor man's nuclear bomb' as used by the US during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and by the Russians in Chechnya to devastating effect.

I doubt that Iran could successfully deploy a FAB in a hostile environment even if they had it. In your examples, two superpowers that had complete control of the sky used them. Why attack from the air when you can use car bombs and proxy militant groups at will?

 

[Art]

Chemistree perhaps you didn't understand my post so here's a question which should prompt some research for you to help educate yourself on this.

Why do you think the resolution was passed demanding Iran cease enrichment?

Here's a clue. There is nothing in the NPT which forbids signatories from performing enrichment so why do you think Iran was singled out for special treatment? If it wasn't because of it's previous non-compliance then there is something seriously amiss with the UNSC.

You will find many countries practice uranium enrichment such as Germany and Japan for instance both of whom have less than glowing histories in world affairs so why is Iran special despite never having attacked anybody in modern history?

 

[chemisttree]

Chemistree perhaps you didn't understand my post so here's a question which should prompt some research for you to help educate yourself on this.

Why do you think the resolution was passed demanding Iran cease enrichment?

Because Iran sits atop a huge reserve of oil and yet still thinks that now is the time to develop nuclear energy. The rest of the world doesn't believe him either.

Here's a clue. There is nothing in the NPT which forbids signatories from performing enrichment so why do you think Iran was singled out for special treatment? If it wasn't because of it's previous non-compliance then there is something seriously amiss with the UNSC.

I agree. If only Iran would actually comply with the NPT. Its non-disclosure of its enrichment program (before the resolutions) was in itself a serious violation of the NPT. Subesquently it refused to abide by the Additional Protocol (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1998/infcirc540corrected.pdf ), enacted in 1997. This goes back a long way.

You will find many countries practice uranium enrichment such as Germany and Japan for instance both of whom have less than glowing histories in world affairs so why is Iran special despite never having attacked anybody in modern history?

Point taken. Are Germany and Japan in violation of the NPT and the Additional Protocol as IRAN IS? Oh, and by the way, I consider Iran's takeover of the US Embassy and the imprisonment of the hostages for 444 days an attack on the US.

Research complete.

 

[turbo]

There is no need to argue over the enrichment program. That "reason" was a red herring, and administration has now changed the reason to terrorism. Now a substantial portion of Iran's military is charged with supporting terrorism, and the attack will be made on that premise. There is no need for another war, but it sure looks we're going to get one. The president's spokesperson keeps saying the the president believes that there is a diplomatic solution to this "situation", but somehow, there is no diplomacy currently underway because Bush won't negotiate with Iran. Real diplomats know that negotiating with your enemies is far more important and possibly productive than negotiating with your friends. Scroll down to "Iran drumbeat" and prepare to be dismayed. Those of us who remember the run-up to the Iraq invasion know the drill all too well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

 

[Moridin]

-hmm- Obviously your conviction that you ate the knowledge of the world and that your opinions are not subject of being possibly wrong or incomplete in the given context is established.

You are the one who is refusing to enter a rational debate. I have posted my views with the evidence I present to support it. You have two options: i.) try to use logical arguments to refute my arguments with supporting evidence or ii.) withdraw from the discussion.

The fact that you wave your 'hands' along with the other dude throwing rehtorics of logical fallacies here and there yet yourself are guilty is also sign of something. And just for your own education: "Since you have not done this, we can only accept them."

I have made no such fallacy. In fact, I have pointed out the logical fallacies in your argument.

Not proving somebody's arguments wrong does not make them right. But I think you know that, you are just blinded by the automatic emotions that are trigered by this topic.

No, but since I have presented valid and strong evidence for my point whereupon you attempt to withdraw from the discussion, we can only accept them as valid in the light of the evidence presented.

I have no emotional investment in this discussion or the real life situation. You, however, have shown plenty. Iran, Israel and the US can bomb each other to pieces for all I care. In fact, such an event would actually strengthen my view on religion in this situation.

I feel sad from our conversation, not because of our difference of opinion, its the again and again reccuring theme of a person not being able to look beyond the limits of his/her own knowledge.

...

How can I look beyond the evidence presented by me when you have presented no such evidence to support your claim at all? In other words, I take this as your withdrawal from this debate and the forfeiting of all arguments. Thank you for your time, have a nice day.

As for the arguments made by turbo-1, you seem very cynical and perhaps you have read too many conspiracy books about it? There are plenty of obstacles for Bush before he can launch another war. Congress for instance.

 

[chemisttree]

Well, Turbo-1 is right about the enrichment program not being used solely as an argument for the inevitable bombing of Iran. The regime itself will probably be branded a terrorist regime and the words "regime change" will have to pass the lips of those in power before anything will begin. As for diplomacy solving anything of substance remains to be seen. Someone refresh my memory, please.

When did diplomacy work to avert an impending war?

 

[Art]

Yes. That video sums it up well. The American people are sleepwalking into another war unless they wake up and make their resistance known unless of course the majority are like Chemistree and still want revenge for the American hostage crisis in 1979 .

Lets just pray the Iraqis don't bear grudges as long

 

[turbo]

When did diplomacy work to avert an impending war?

We will never know how many conflicts that could have escalated into war have been averted through diplomacy. Our western society does not define itself in terms of the periods of relative calm - only in the terms of conflicts. The point is that Bush did not use diplomacy with Iraq. He demanded that they turn over all WMDs (that they didn't have) and since they did not turn over WMDs (that they didn't have), he declared them to be in possession of WMDs and invaded. Now, Bush refuses to negotiate with Iran because he's already branded them as supporters of terrorism. Without diplomacy, there will be no peaceful resolution, and Cheney's Halliburton holdings and stock options will only continue to balloon.

The real point is not that negotiations could ease tensions - they could. The point is that Bush and Cheney want another war to enrich themselves and their friends and they will not permit any attempt at diplomacy to succeed. They will attack Iran, then claim it was necessary because diplomacy failed. Guess what, people? Diplomacy can only work if you actually try it. There is absolutely no problem with us averting this war. Iran is not attacking us, and if we do not attack them, there will be no Iranian war. Bush may inform a few of his congressional lap-dogs after he gives the order to attack Iran, but there will be no public discussion of this war, nor of its "necessity". It's funny that Bush calls the Iranian military "terrorists". What do the people of other countries call the US after our military and intelligence agencies train terrorists to unleash on their populations? The US is the largest exporter of terrorism in the western hemisphere. Just ask the families of the tortured, murdered, "disappeared", etc in South and Central American countries.

 

[chemisttree]

Hey, I don't want a war with Iraq either. I just object to bad diplomacy and gross mischaracterization of el-Baradei's shameful behavior.

As for revenge for the hostage crisis, I feel that Iran has punished itself far more effectively than the US could have. http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Iran-oil-exports-could-dwindle/2007/01/05/1167777251449.html
Iran's oil infrastructure continues a steep downward decline and exports are expected to dwindle to zero by 2015. Already, Iran has seen serious gasoline shortages reminiscent of the Oil Crisis in the 70's here in the US.

I'm happy to wait them out while they empty their treasury to continue their insane behavior. And if they do get the bomb, I'm OK with that as well. That will only hasten their demise. If its a nuclear arms race they want with the West, bring it on! The bigger the bill, the faster we can get all this behind us.

 

[Moridin]

Again, I think that you are confusing 'Iran' with 'rational, democratic country that listens to reason and that is not obsessed with religious dogma'. There is a reason that two democratic countries has never (or you would have to search a long time for an example) been to war with each other. Can you justify this assumption? Especially with the KNOWN actions of Iran, independent of your view of the US administration as a propaganda machine for western imperialism?

It's funny that Bush calls the Iranian military "terrorists". What do the people of other countries call the US after our military and intelligence agencies train terrorists to unleash on their populations? The US is the largest exporter of terrorism in the western hemisphere. Just ask the families of the tortured, murdered, "disappeared", etc in South and Central American countries.

I though I already refuted this Chomsky styled leftist unreason in an earlier post? Do you even know what terrorism means? Can you define it for me and explain why it should apply to the US? What is the purpose of terrorism? I think that you are only using the term for attention.

 

[turbo]

I though I already refuted this Chomsky styled leftist unreason in an earlier post? Do you even know what terrorism means? Can you define it for me and explain why it should apply to the US? What is the purpose of terrorism? I think that you are only using the term for attention.

You may have nay-sayed something like this, but there is no way you could refute it. The US military and the US intelligence agencies train right-wing terrorists in torture, interrogation, and the application of terror. Yes, terror. Keeping the civilian populace so fearful for their lives and the lives of their families that they will not oppose whatever dictatorship is in power. That is the purpose of terror - to keep the populace cowed through fear and thereby control their behavior. The US government and its intelligence agencies and military have trained terrorists and orchestrated coups in this hemisphere many times in the past century. Their track record is very well-documented and is not in question. The only question is if you will refuse to call these terrorists terrorists because they wear a military uniform of the ruling junta, and they trained in the US. That is a distinction that their victims cannot make.

 

[sneez]

You are the one who is refusing to enter a rational debate. I have posted my views with the evidence I present to support it. You have two options: i.) try to use logical arguments to refute my arguments with supporting evidence or ii.) withdraw from the discussion.

Your views is the evidence? You presented your opinion and your opinion is expressed in those links, well, vice versa. What r u talking about? You can run but cannot hide. Be carefull with the word evidence, especially in politics.

Are you saying that when you say "Since you did not provide refutation of my opinions, they must be correct..." is not a fallacy ? Hmm, maybe its the lack of capacity to understand what fallacy is.
UPPS there you go again:

No, but since I have presented valid and strong evidence for my point whereupon you attempt to withdraw from the discussion, we can only accept them as valid in the light of the evidence presented.

You can convince yourself about the nature of my withdrawal from the no-debate. But as a homework: identify the premise, assumptions and conclusion of your argument and tell me what you find out... [There is a book which might help you: HOW WE KNOW, WHAT IS NOT SO, Thomas Gilovich]

I have no emotional investment in this discussion or the real life situation. You, however, have shown plenty. Iran, Israel and the US can bomb each other to pieces for all I care. In fact, such an event would actually strengthen my view on religion in this situation.

Wow, all this opinions that have no value to you, yet are ready to defend them with time and effort and I bet from where you sit with good dose of emotions. No more comment to this, you just showed your colors without me trying.

How can I look beyond the evidence presented by me when you have presented no such evidence to support your claim at all? In other words, I take this as your withdrawal from this debate and the forfeiting of all arguments. Thank you for your time, have a nice day.

As for the arguments made by turbo-1, you seem very cynical and perhaps you have read too many conspiracy books about it? There are plenty of obstacles for Bush before he can launch another war. Congress for instance.

I cannot make you look and/or see anyting. I can post 100of links. In my library there are at least dosen of books dealing with just this issue, but I am not willing to waste my time on someone who does not care, and even less he cares for humanity from his own comments. Turbo and others have taken time and posted something, which was passed in argument with some rethorics and internet link supporting other point of view. You are welcome for my time. The only problem is that you did not learn anything. Yes you can take this as a personal victory that you selfproclaim and obviously makes you somehow marry and feel good about soundness of your opinions and their supperiority.

Perfect example the depth of your thought about politics.

(Just in case you really don't play just dumb, Roberts Fisk, John Pilger, Scott Ritter, Blum, Chomsky, Cockburn, Kathy Kelly, Charless Sullivan, Greenwald among others are names to look for just in case you decide just to read the other side of the story)

 

[turbo]

As for the arguments made by turbo-1, you seem very cynical and perhaps you have read too many conspiracy books about it? There are plenty of obstacles for Bush before he can launch another war. Congress for instance.

I am not cynical. I am a realist, and when the entire administration is making the case for war against Iran, including a high ranking official who stated flatly to British diplomats "I hate all Iranians", I get a feeling that an attack is inevitable. Congress is no obstacle to war. They have passed a resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, so Bush can claim that he had to attack them in the ongoing "war on terror". The attack will happen, and it will happen before one of the two carrier groups has to re-deploy out of the Persian Gulf for resupply and maintenance. I'm 55, and I remember the lies and deceptions that were used to justify the war against Viet Nam and against Iraq. The political machinations have not changed - just the names of the warmongers.

 

[hserse]

Gentlemen,

These are very nice debate and of course everything is always debatable. It is obviously everyone here has their point of views, no one is winning. I sincerely hope that it is not about winning, but rather try understand from every individuals perspective. Everyone should at least learn that all is relative in nature, even the least of credible arguments that have been posted here. Nothing is absolute! I have learn very much from all of you and that of human nature. It is undeniably that man's nature tend to provide circumstantial arguments to prove one's right (state of relatively) over the others-aren't you glad you didn't sit in Oval office and just in front of a monitor.

As I have stated earlier, however, circumstantial of one's arguments or self righteous that one tends to acknowledge, but in the eyes of your Creator (not associated or relative to any religious sects known to man, but a figurative imagination of man's limit mind) is hypocracy-an argument as to why and how to kill your own brother.
Then again, my above statement is also relative because most may rather believe in Darwin's theory-'survival of the fittest.' Thus, relatively speaking who could blame Bush administration, Imperialism, Conquistador, Colonialism, Third Reich, Allied of WWI &II, Axis Power, Communist, Vietnam, Korea war... etc-everyone's trying to survive. Right now, U.S. holds the title as the fittest and wants to maintain that title and will make sure (not necessarily absolutely relatively) it will.
In conclusion, this debate as to whether Bush Administration should attack Iran should come to a conclusion. It is commendable that everyone apply their ideas, but it's unfortunate that none of our officials, leaders and dignitaries aren't willing or don't have time to listen to the ideas of voiceless revolution. May peace be with you all, and may your descendant transcend above man's hyprocracy.

 

[mjsd]

Gentlemen,

These are very nice debate and of course everything is always debatable. It is obviously everyone here has their point of views, no one is winning. I sincerely hope that it is not about winning, but rather try understand from every individuals perspective. Everyone should at least learn that all is relative in nature, even the least of credible arguments that have been posted here. Nothing is absolute! I have learn very much from all of you and that of human nature. It is undeniably that man's nature tend to provide circumstantial arguments to prove one's right (state of relatively) over the others-aren't you glad you didn't sit in Oval office and just in front of a monitor.

As I have stated earlier, however, circumstantial of one's arguments or self righteous that one tends to acknowledge, but in the eyes of your Creator (not associated or relative to any religious sects known to man, but a figurative imagination of man's limit mind) is hypocracy-an argument as to why and how to kill your own brother.
Then again, my above statement is also relative because most may rather believe in Darwin's theory-'survival of the fittest.' Thus, relatively speaking who could blame Bush administration, Imperialism, Conquistador, Colonialism, Third Reich, Allied of WWI &II, Axis Power, Communist, Vietnam, Korea war... etc-everyone's trying to survive. Right now, U.S. holds the title as the fittest and wants to maintain that title and will make sure (not necessarily absolutely relatively) it will.
In conclusion, this debate as to whether Bush Administration should attack Iran should come to a conclusion. It is commendable that everyone apply their ideas, but it's unfortunate that none of our officials, leaders and dignitaries aren't willing or don't have time to listen to the ideas of voiceless revolution. May peace be with you all, and may your descendant transcend above man's hyprocracy.

only if more ppl in the world think like this, we won't have so many wars...
hserse, I praise your courage to be netural and moderate for it is difficult. Being neutral often means that you are against both sides, hence everyone else. And it this climate of "if you are not with us, then you are against us..." , there seems to be no place for neutrality.

And absolutely! nothing is absolute, as Einstein told us (in another context) everything is relative . If one can put away one's emotions temporarily and think about the root of the problem and not just its symptoms, perhaps one will gain new knowledge and be able to see the point of view of others. Mutual understanding is the key to diplomatic success.

True. (nature of mankind:) hypocrisy, greed and the will to be no. 1 are constantly driving us towards neglecting others, and even suffering and destruction of others. But at the end of the day, one must realize that ONE CAN'T WIN ALL THE TIME, so one must know when to give back, when to share and when to work together for a common good. If you are so confident that you can win always...then, good luck pal, but you will definitely not get my sympathy vote when you are knocked down eventually because by then it is probably your turn to experience what it is like to be trampled upon. And those who trample you will eventually have their turn too if they fail to realize this themselves.

Often in life, unfortunately, lessons can only be learned in the hard way.

 

[BobG]

Getting back to the original question over the chances we will attack Iran (vs. whether we should) ...

I was pretty sure we'd attack Iran before the end of this Summer. I'm a little perplexed by the current situation. We still keep stepping towards an attack, but the timing is getting to the point where Bush has to decide "The hell with the Republican Party" if he decides to attack. He and Cheney don't have to worry about their own political future, so that may well be their attitude. Or does the immediate initial success give Republicans at least a short term boost as long as there isn't time for the adverse affects to surface?

I think Bush and Cheney are pursuing a cultural war between Christianity and Islam that will connect with some in the Republican base, even if the majority see it as insanity. I think they honestly believe this is a bigger issue than Republican/Democrat and won't be to concerned about the effect a war with Iran has on the 2008 elections.

 

[chemisttree]

An attack on Iran could also be viewed as an element of the Surge. The bombing of the Guard in Iran coupled with the inevitable closing and scrutiny of the border could put Iran in a very defensive position which would leave them less effective at exporting terrorism. With el-Baradei's deadlines looming (mid November), I think it is likely that the attack will come either just before (to kill el-Baradei's deal) or just after. Who in the world would come to their defense? Toning down the Iranian influence in Iraq would undoubtedly amplify any good that is coming from the Surge and would allow the Iraqi's a little time to better implement their domestic security apparatus.

 

[Moridin]

You may have nay-sayed something like this, but there is no way you could refute it. The US military and the US intelligence agencies train right-wing terrorists in torture, interrogation, and the application of terror. Yes, terror. Keeping the civilian populace so fearful for their lives and the lives of their families that they will not oppose whatever dictatorship is in power. That is the purpose of terror - to keep the populace cowed through fear and thereby control their behavior. The US government and its intelligence agencies and military have trained terrorists and orchestrated coups in this hemisphere many times in the past century. Their track record is very well-documented and is not in question. The only question is if you will refuse to call these terrorists terrorists because they wear a military uniform of the ruling junta, and they trained in the US. That is a distinction that their victims cannot make.

Of course it is not in question. Yes, the United States has done some nasty things in the past and continues to do so. In this sense, we can swallow Chomsky's thesis as a whole. There is no doubt that the United States has much to atone for such as the genocidal treatment of Native Americans, couple hundred years of slavery, denial of Jewish refugees fleeing the death camps of the Third Reich, stir in our collusion with a long, long list of modern despots and our subsequent disregard for their appalling human rights violations, the bombing of Cambodia and Sarajevo, refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol, refusal to support ban on land mines and refusal to submit to the rulings of the ICC etc. etc. Nothing in my posts should be construed as a denial of this.

My problem is with the moral equivalence that Chomsky et. al tries to draw.

"For the first time in modern history, Europe and its offshoots were subjected, on home soil, to the kind of atrocity that they routinely have carried out elsewhere" (Chomsky, 9-11, 2001)

As Sam Harris puts it, Chmosky's analysis is a masterpiece of moral blindness.

"Take the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals plant: according to Chomsky, the atrocity of September 11 pales in comparison with that perpetrated by the Clinton administration in August 1998. But let us now ask some very basic questions that Chomsky seems to have neglected to ask himself: What did the U.S. government it think it was doing when it sent cruise missiles into Sudan? Destroying a chemical weapons site used by Al Qaeda. Did the Clinton Administration intend to bring about the deaths of thousands of Sudanese children? No. Was our goal to kill as many Sudanese as we could? No. Were we trying to kill anyone at all? Not unless we though members of Al Qaeda would be at the Al-Shifa facility in the middle of the night. Asking these questions about Osama bin Ladin and the nineteen hijackers puts us in a different moral universe entirely

If we are inclined to follow Chomsky down the path of moral equivalence and ignore the role of human intentions, we can forget about the bombing of the Al-Shifa plant, because many of the things we did not do in Sudan had even greater consequences. What about all the money and food we simply never though to give the Sudanese prior to 1998? How many children did we kill (that is, not save) just by living in blissful ignorance of the conditions in Sudan?" (Harris, The End of Faith 2004)

I do not deny the brutal actions that the US has done in the last 200+ years, but what I do deny, is the moral equivalence that Chomsky et. al attempts to draw that just isn't there.

I think Bush and Cheney are pursuing a cultural war between Christianity and Islam that will connect with some in the Republican base, even if the majority see it as insanity. I think they honestly believe this is a bigger issue than Republican/Democrat and won't be to concerned about the effect a war with Iran has on the 2008 elections.

I tend to agree with this. It is not really a war on terror.

 

[Huckleberry]

There is a reason that two democratic countries has never (or you would have to search a long time for an example) been to war with each other.

It didn't take very long at all.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

I do not deny the brutal actions that the US has done in the last 200+ years, but what I do deny, is the moral equivalence that Chomsky et. al attempts to draw that just isn't there.

I'm guessing by moral equivalence you mean that the actions that the U.S. has taken in the past are not as immoral as the organizations the U.S. has declared terrorists because the number of deaths is fewer and fewer of them are civilians.

Perhaps you are right, but I think your conclusion is circumstancial. If these organizations had the capability of the U.S. military and the U.S. had the capability of these terrorist organizations, how would the actions be different? I think the difference is in capability and not morality. The two imo are morally equivalent and not capably equivalent.

It also reminds me that the U.S. has killed many more civilians in Iraq than terrorists have killed U.S. civilians. It isn't much of a comfort to me that the U.S. is doing the best it can to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties but can claim moral superiority because the deaths were unintentional. What is important to me is that civilian deaths were inevitable and the U.S. knew the casualties would occur when the war began. The conclusion I draw is that the U.S. government thinks its civilians lives are more valuable than Iraqi civilians lives. For every American citizen killed by a terrorist, X number of foreign civilians must die. No wonder the political reputation of the U.S. overseas is so poor.