DescentBB

This is a split from the Rudy G. thread...

DCrazy wrote:

Herculosis wrote:Here's what I see:
1. Iran is agressively moving toward nuclear weapons, and thumbing its nose at the world in the process.

Not according to the IAEA... where have you heard otherwise?

He's been frantically building up their enrichment capabilities, adding tons of centrifuges. When a country takes such an interest in nuclear capabilities, and also has all of the energy it'll ever need already, one has to consider intent. I suppose that we COULD say that an alternate explanation might be his interest in helping the "global warming" cause. I hadn't thought of that one. Yeah, that sounds plausible.

DCrazy wrote:

Herculosis wrote:2. Ahmadinejad has been very vocal about his desire to wipe Israel off the face of the planet.

Nope. He claimed Pakistan would do it, though. When has Ahmadinejad threatened to use pre-emptive force against Israel? And then there's the entire question of whether that is our problem to begin with.

The FIRST LINE of the article you linked states EXACTLY what my point does!!! I never said that he had threatened to use pre-emptive force against Israel, did I? Don't change my words, and then imply that I'm full of crap for saying them. By the way, there's no mention of Pakistan in that article. Good rebuttal source!

DCrazy wrote:

3. He's excited about the escalation and seems to want to take his rightful place in what he sees as the apocalypse.

Absolute and complete conjecture, unless you're Ahmadinejad's personal psychologist.

I don't have time right now to find links on this one, but I've seen some stuff in recent TV documentaries that has laid out this point in those terms. You can chalk that all up to propaganda for now if you wish.

By the way, if you notice in my original post, I never said we should be jumping into a war with Iran. What I said was that war AND doing nothing were both very bad scenarios to consider.

If you think Iran's after a bomb, I can sell you the brooklyn bridge for cheap. Honest!

Consider these two points:

Iran has never attacked a country for any reason.
Iran has an alliance with China and Russia.


You'd have to be crazy to pick a fight with Iran.


Here's two other bits of info.

To make a bomb, the uranium has to be enriched to 99%. For a power plant, it has to be enriched to 3%.

Also, the rhetoric for Iran is almost like a word-for-word repeat of the rhetoric for Iraq.

Herculosis wrote:He's been frantically building up their enrichment capabilities, adding tons of centrifuges. When a country takes such an interest in nuclear capabilities, and also has all of the energy it'll ever need already, one has to consider intent.

Right now, Iran can sell the oil on the market at over $100 a barrel, or it can sell it internally for far, far less. With the country's GDP growing at an estimated 4.3% per annum, it makes sense for Iran to focus all oil production on exporting at a manipulated price before satisfying internal energy demands. Not only does it rake in profits, this policy ensures that Iran has a presence on the world stage.

That is plausible. Is it true? I don't know.

Herculosis wrote: I never said that he had threatened to use pre-emptive force against Israel, did I? Don't change my words, and then imply that I'm full of crap for saying them. By the way, there's no mention of Pakistan in that article. Good rebuttal source!

Actually there is, four paragraphs down. It's strong rhetoric, but does not (necessarily) imply that he is interested in actively engaging in war with Israel.

And I was not attempting to change what you said to defeat a straw man. I was exploring the deeper meanings lingering behind the question.

Herculosis wrote: I don't have time right now to find links on this one, but I've seen some stuff in recent TV documentaries that has laid out this point in those terms. You can chalk that all up to propaganda for now if you wish.

That's exactly what I will do, and have been doing. My original statement was that there is a great deal of pro-Iranian-war propaganda being spread right now.

Herculosis wrote: By the way, if you notice in my original post, I never said we should be jumping into a war with Iran. What I said was that war AND doing nothing were both very bad scenarios to consider.

I'm justifying my position that the mere idea of war with Iran is intenable at this stage, and any presidential candidate who comes close to acknowledging the possibility of conflict with Iran is, at best, using Iran as a bogeyman, and at worst, actually convicted of a falsehood that has very dangerous repercussions for foreign policy.

Endless war plays so well to the masses doesn't it? A nuclear armed Iran! Oh horrors what will happen to us?
Well unless making Israel less the Biggest Dog On The Block is going to somehow affect your vacation in Florida next year I don't really think anything is going to happen to the good old USA.
Ask yourself why would Iran want a nuclear weapon? To attack the US? Don't be silly. They would be outnumbered in warheads by about 3000 to 1 and in delivery systems by a power of magnitude or three. To attack Israel? Well maybe in desperation if they were about to be overrun but Israel has them by about 200 warheads to one and an attack would only guarantee the end of Iran as an inhabited corner of the world.
To make Israel think twice, three times and maybe more about attacking Iran. Yeah that sounds right. So this is all about making sure that Israel can attack or bully any of it's neighbours any time it wants. Yep a real domestic conundrum all right.
Oh. Of course this is just my opinion. Yours may differ.

Ford, I think your argument of mutually insured destruction is quite accurate for most countries. It is easy for me to say in hindsight--but Russia would have never nuked us-- if for no other reason, they themselves did not want to be nuked.

The fear, to Americans, is the stability of Iran, and the fact that enough of them do not seem to reguard their own mortality when it comes to killing others. This attitude, combined with nuclear weapons, makes for a dangerous cocktail.

I think that it does get blown out of purportion, but I also don't believe that being concerned about Iran, or any country, getting a nuke is being naive.

i guffawed when i read \"Iran is looming\" as well .

you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe America's warpandering rhetoric YET AGAIN, i mean Iraq isn't even done yet - who's gonna fall for it all over again?

no really, who? i think a lot of people! and that makes me want to scream. ★■◆●@!@!#!
i think this is exposing some serious lacking in American culture in ability to recognise and label propeganda.

Or even spell propaganda.
Sorry just had to do that.

I just wonder if my teen counterpart in Israel feels as comfortable with Iran as some of you guys....

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:I just wonder if my teen counterpart in Israel feels as comfortable with Iran as some of you guys....

Bee

Israel's foreign policy is not our foreign policy. Pakistan's foreign policy is not our foreign policy. The U.K.'s foreign policy is not our foreign policy.

But just to invert your appeal to emotion, I wonder if your teen counterpart in Iraq felt as comfortable with the U.S. invasion as many of us did.

Israel is looming, they are like... loominologists

DCrazy wrote:Israel's foreign policy is not our foreign policy. Pakistan's foreign policy is not our foreign policy. The U.K.'s foreign policy is not our foreign policy.

But just to invert your appeal to emotion, I wonder if your teen counterpart in Iraq felt as comfortable with the U.S. invasion as many of us did.

1. I think she feels too worried about the countries that hate her because she is jewish or whether she or any of her friends will die on the bus today, to bother with anything else.

2. It was a question, not an "appeal to emotion".

3. Lets change your wording from "foreign policy" to "problem". Isn't that what you meant?

Roid...

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:1. I think she feels too worried about the countries that hate her because she is jewish or whether she or any of her friends will die on the bus today, to bother with anything else.

You believe that a generic Jewish girl in Israel is afraid of being killed because other countries hate her.

How does this involve an American invasion of Iran? Are you saying that because of this archetype you've constructed, we should invade a foreign country?

2. It was a question, not an "appeal to emotion".

It was not a question at all. Your original post was a statement, which implied a belief that invading Iran is justified because someone in a foreign country feels unsafe, and the mighty U.S. of A. needs to protect her. It was very much an appeal to emotion, that relies on the "weak, teenage female" stereotype to deliver its effect.

3. Lets change your wording from "foreign policy" to "problem". Isn't that what you meant?

No, I meant what I said. How did you get from point A to point B?

Given enough time, Iran's current leadership would eventually implode without a shot fired. In this case I would agree that an attack on Iran wouldn't be advisable- HOWEVER, Iran may not wait for an attack as Ahmedinejad is looking to start a war with Israel through Hezbollah and Syria, inevitably, drawing the US in as soon as Israel engages Syria.

There are rumors that Syria may not have the stomach for a war and is engaging in backchannel negotiations with Israel even as it blusters and threatens in public and possibly \"walking away\" during the upcoming Annapolis summit.

On another front, Pakistan is more of a worry than Iran - and a much more urgent threat from civil war and rogue elements trying to goad India into all-out war; which would end with a nuclear exchange much more probable than a phantom Iranian bomb.

Iran's little president dreams of being another hitler- but is nowhere near as popular in his own country as hitler was in his.

Bet51987 wrote:
1. I think she feels too worried about the countries that hate her because she is jewish or whether she or any of her friends will die on the bus today, to bother with anything else.

If she feels worried about Iran then someone's been filling her head with crap.

And besides.. we shouldn't let the concerns of a foreign country override our own.

Iran may not wait for an attack as Ahmedinejad is looking to start a war with Israel through Hezbollah and Syria,

what interests does Iran have with Syria and Hezbollah? From what i've learnt it's a big fat zero.

\"what interests does Iran have with Syria and Hezbollah? From what i've learnt it's a big fat zero. Smile\" Ferno

Ferno, care to re think Iran/Hizbollah ties?

\"Upon the realization that the IDF was entrenching itself in south Lebanon, and influenced and assisted by 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon, Hizballah cells began developing with the immediate desire to resist the Israeli invasion. Hizbollah began establishing its base in Lebanon in 1982 and has expanded and strengthened ever since, primarily due to its wave of suicide bombings and foreign support by Iran and Syria.\"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ballah.htm

ThunderBunny wrote:On another front, Pakistan is more of a worry than Iran -

...nooooo i agree with TB

Bet51987 wrote:1. I think she feels too worried about the countries that hate her because she is jewish or whether she or any of her friends will die on the bus today, to bother with anything else.

Naaa! We built a big friggin' wall to keep the gits out. My daughter--a teen living in Israel-- is worried that messenger is down, spot cream, new jeans, i-pod batteries and a grumpy father that thinks her hem line is too short.

Flabby Chick wrote: Naaa! We built a big friggin' wall to keep the gits out. My daughter--a teen living in Israel-- is worried that messenger is down, spot cream, new jeans, i-pod batteries and a grumpy father that thinks her hem line is too short.

glad to hear that daughters are the same half way around the world!

Glad my daughter is no longer a teen and is in college... or am I ?

woodchip wrote: Ferno, care to re think Iran/Hizbollah ties?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ballah.htm

Okay, I gave it a read.. seems that in 82, which is a long time ago they did have some interest, but that's about it. It also says that Hezbollah took their inspiration from the Iranian revolution. Nothing recent, though.

Flabby Chick wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:1. I think she feels too worried about the countries that hate her because she is jewish or whether she or any of her friends will die on the bus today, to bother with anything else.

Naaa! We built a big friggin' wall to keep the gits out. My daughter--a teen living in Israel-- is worried that messenger is down, spot cream, new jeans, i-pod batteries and a grumpy father that thinks her hem line is too short.

I didn't know you lived in Israel so I take back what I said. I would have thought that living with the enemy all around me would be frightening enough without Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:I didn't know you lived in Israel so I take back what I said. I would have thought that living with the enemy all around me would be frightening enough without Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

Welcome to the Culture of Fear. I really do find it amazing that elected officials have been so successful in teaching Americans to fear "the enemy" so quickly, even when "the enemy" has nothing to do with them.

Transitive Property of Scared Sh*tlessness?

DCrazy wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I didn't know you lived in Israel so I take back what I said. I would have thought that living with the enemy all around me would be frightening enough without Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

Welcome to the Culture of Fear. I really do find it amazing that elected officials have been so successful in teaching Americans to fear "the enemy" so quickly, even when "the enemy" has nothing to do with them.

Transitive Property of Scared Sh*tlessness?

Hmmm... There were people like you who said that Hitler was not our problem. Oh, and I believe that the "enemy" is everyone's problem.

I have a question for you. Would you ever come to the defense of Israel if it was evident that they were going to lose? I don't mean you personally. Just curious.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Hmmm... There were people like you who said that Hitler was not our problem. Oh, and I believe that the "enemy" is everyone's problem.

There is a general rule on the Internet that once you invoke the name of Hitler, you have lost the debate. It's called "Godwinning".

I have a question for you. Would you ever come to the defense of Israel if it was evident that they were going to lose? I don't mean you personally. Just curious.

Your question is meaningless without more context -- specifically the word "lose". The world isn't created from these Win/Lose, Us/Them dichotomies you're so fond of. You don't even specify what you're referring to them "losing". Gaza? A full-scale war with Iran? Who else is involved in this conflict? What spawned it?

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote: Ferno, care to re think Iran/Hizbollah ties?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ballah.htm

Okay, I gave it a read.. seems that in 82, which is a long time ago they did have some interest, but that's about it. It also says that Hezbollah took their inspiration from the Iranian revolution. Nothing recent, though.

Do try and read closer bud:

"In a written report to the Security Council 18 April 2006, Secretary-General Kofi Annan called on Syria and Iran to stop interfering in Lebanon. The report, which was written by the secretary-general's special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, said that Hizballah, the Lebanese militant group, "maintains close ties, with frequent contacts and regular communication" with Syria and Iran."

Hizballah was established by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who came to Lebanon during the 1982 "Peace for Galilee" war, as part of the policy of exporting the Islamic revolution. It receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria. Published reports that Iran *provides hundreds million dollars of aid annually are probably exaggerated. Iran probably provides financial assistance and military assistance worth about $25-50 million.*

Hizballah is closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran but has the capability and willingness to act independently. Closely allied with, and often directed by Iran, it may have conducted operations that were not approved by Tehran. Though Hizballah does not share the Syrian regime’s secular orientation, the group has been a strong ally in helping Syria advance its political objectives in the region.

Bet51987 wrote:Hmmm... There were people like you who said that Hitler was not our problem.

I don't know which makes this most ironic: the fact that the USA was very late in coming into WW2, or the fact that they only came into WW2 in the first place because Japan attacked them without warning...

DCrazy wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Hmmm... There were people like you who said that Hitler was not our problem. Oh, and I believe that the "enemy" is everyone's problem.

There is a general rule on the Internet that once you invoke the name of Hitler, you have lost the debate. It's called "Godwinning".

I have a question for you. Would you ever come to the defense of Israel if it was evident that they were going to lose? I don't mean you personally. Just curious.

Your question is meaningless without more context -- specifically the word "lose". The world isn't created from these Win/Lose, Us/Them dichotomies you're so fond of. You don't even specify what you're referring to them "losing". Gaza? A full-scale war with Iran? Who else is involved in this conflict? What spawned it?

I don't have any good answers.
..Do I want a war with Iran? No.
..Do I trust the Ayatollah's with nuclear weapons? No.

I just know that some bad things are coming.

Bee

Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

Bet51987 wrote:..Do I want a war with Iran? No.

Right, that's that settled. Bet suddnely doesn't want to invade Iran. Next thread!
Hopefully, she'll also stop bothering us with lots of 'we should invade Iran' posts now too!

Had to look that up ccb

Où sont les Neigedens d’antan—The well-known phrase, from the French poet François Villon (1431–1463) actually is, où sont les neiges d’antan (“where are the snows of yesteryear”). Yossarian alters the fourth word to match his pun on the plural “Snowdens.”

A two language pun from Catch 22. Very nice.