Now Iran?!?!

[L'ennemi.]

if you can live with those two problems, you probably can live with an nuclear Iran as well.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
if you can live with those two problems, you probably can live with an nuclear Iran as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that India, North Korea and Pakistan are irrelevant to the powers that be. The question is about oil, and its kind of sad, but that's how it is.

If America was smart enough to get off foreign oils, then we would treat nuclear Iran the same way we treated all the others. Raise a diplomatic stink, give them the cold shoulder for a few years and then make nice.

Go ethanol, go wind, go solar, save the world you know.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because thats not an argument unless you can prove that its "wrong", which you can't since "wrong" is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont disagree with the premise, that 'wrong' is a subjective term, and thus any claim that something is wrong is unprovable.

However, the leap in logic you make from this premise to "thats not an argument because you cant prove it" is just silly. If Euclid couldnt get through the basics of lines without a ton of unprovable assumptions, then political discussion would be pointless if "you cant prove it" were a valid reason to conclude "therefore its not an argument." Every political argument since the beginning of the time has rested on unprovable assumptions.


Also, an 'argument' is, by its nature, going to be unprovable. If it werent, we wouldnt call it 'argument', it would be called 'fact'.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY. And to think that I was under the impression that in an argument one side might have the facts wrong. Learn something new every day.

[/ QUOTE ]


Awesome strawman. The claim "all political argument relies on some unproveable assumptions" doesnt speak about whether poltical arguers can sometimes get the facts right/wrong.

Anyway, can you come up with a political argument that doesnt rely on an unprovable assumption? Or, will you just cleverly ignore this post, like last time.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
if you can live with those two problems, you probably can live with an nuclear Iran as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering if hardline Shiite Supremacists with nukes, in troubled and volatile oil-rich regions, might pose some problems. That question isn't resolved merely by ascertaining whether you or I could live with it. Others may be affected too.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you can live with those two problems, you probably can live with an nuclear Iran as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering if hardline Shiite Supremacists with nukes, in troubled and volatile oil-rich regions, might pose some problems. That question isn't resolved merely by ascertaining whether you or I could live with it. Others may be affected too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering if another US attack in this highly volatile region might pose some problems. This time the US would be alone. It would only strenghten the iranian regime as it would justified all their anti-Us rethoric. It would only strengthen their resolution to obtain the nuclear bomb, as it would be the only way to guarantee the absolute sanctity of their territory.
AN intervention in Iran would obviously destroy any chance of progess in Iraq, and it would probably has not a really good effect in Palestine and in Liban.
And it would foster terrorism and US hatred over the world.
It is obvious that the iranian threat is exagerated by G. Bush War on terror 'stupid rethoric.

So obviously, I don't care wether you and I could live with it. It seems that the danger of a nuclear Iran is incredibly overrated as they sure as hell won't use it except as a deterrence tool. And given the American rethoric this stance seems justified. Just imagine for a second that you are iranian. You biggest ennemy is the United Strates that has invaded a country four years ago without any valid justification. How compelled would you be to try to get the bomb.
Don't kidd yourself. the Iranian government is not trying to get the bomb because they are itching to destroy ISrael.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you can live with those two problems, you probably can live with an nuclear Iran as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering if hardline Shiite Supremacists with nukes, in troubled and volatile oil-rich regions, might pose some problems. That question isn't resolved merely by ascertaining whether you or I could live with it. Others may be affected too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering if another US attack in this highly volatile region might pose some problems. This time the US would be alone. It would only strenghten the iranian regime as it would justified all their anti-Us rethoric. It would only strengthen their resolution to obtain the nuclear bomb, as it would be the only way to guarantee the absolute sanctity of their territory.
AN intervention in Iran would obviously destroy any chance of progess in Iraq, and it would probably has not a really good effect in Palestine and in Liban.
And it would foster terrorism and US hatred over the world.
It is obvious that the iranian threat is exagerated by G. Bush War on terror 'stupid rethoric.

So obviously, I don't care wether you and I could live with it. It seems that the danger of a nuclear Iran is incredibly overrated as they sure as hell won't use it except as a deterrence tool. And given the American rethoric this stance seems justified. Just imagine for a second that you are iranian. You biggest ennemy is the United Strates that has invaded a country four years ago without any valid justification. How compelled would you be to try to get the bomb.
Don't kidd yourself. the Iranian government is not trying to get the bomb because they are itching to destroy ISrael.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're jumping WAAAAAAAY ahead of the conversation you and I were having.

If you'd care to slow down and back up a bit, maybe I could rejoin you.

Thanks for your input, regardless.

[L'ennemi.]

Yeah you're right sorry.
We agree that a nuclear Iran would be a pain in the ass.
But not as dangerous as some want you to believe(see Pakistant or Korea comparison). And I believe that the alternative: a US attack on Iran could be far more desastrous

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah you're right sorry.
We agree that a nuclear Iran would be a pain in the ass.
But not as dangerous as some want you to believe(see Pakistant or Korea comparison). And I believe that the alternative: a US attack on Iran could be far more desastrous

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a nuclear Iran would be more problematic than North Korea or Pakistan, for various reasons. I also think a U.S. attack on Iran would be very problematic.

The future appears quite murky...

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you can live with those two problems, you probably can live with an nuclear Iran as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that India, North Korea and Pakistan are irrelevant to the powers that be. The question is about oil, and its kind of sad, but that's how it is.

If America was smart enough to get off foreign oils, then we would treat nuclear Iran the same way we treated all the others. Raise a diplomatic stink, give them the cold shoulder for a few years and then make nice.

Go ethanol, go wind, go solar, save the world you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats sad is that you don't mention the one technology that really could save the world from "oil wars", and its so obvious even the French know it.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The future appears quite murky...

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, if the US cannot win in Iraq, what chance has the US got against Iran, really? How many states/countries will again support US intervention, given the Iraq experience?