regarding the bombing of Iran...

[AJW]

[ QUOTE ]

You say that the animosity of Iran towards USA is justified - that may well be so, to an extent, and I won't argue that point. What I'd like to know is what is the possible and reasonable justification for Iran's flaming animosity towards Israel, a country that has never done anything bad in the slightest degree to Iran or to Persians. Israel has oppressed Palestinians, is that Iran's supposed justification? By that rationale, any country has the right to hate any other country and make noises about wiping it off the map if it perceives that that other country has done anything to any other country or to any group of people. It is not a sound rationale and it is certainly no excuse for a third party to be making threatening noises about wiping Israel off the map.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points first in the eyes of the Iranian clergy Palestine is part of the uma the world wide Muslim brotherhood and as such any aggression against it is an aggression against all Muslims and must be repelled. Secondly you seem to be denying the legitimacy of any international action against a pariah state by your own rational the British declaration of war against Germany after the invasion of Poland was illegitimate because Germany had not directly aggressed against Britain.

[ QUOTE ]

If Iran is upset about the USA meddling in their affairs decades ago, maybe Iran should stop meddling in the affairs of others (Lebanon, Iraq). I don't deny there has been some hypocrisy on the part of the USA based on past actions, but what about Iran's hypocrisy? If Iran objects on principle to being meddled with then what the heck are they doing severely meddling all over the region themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to attempt to excuse Iran's involvement in other nation’s affairs. I’m in favour of all international relations being conducted through diplomatic channels.

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that the mullahs want to spread their version of theocratic rule, and to literally wipe out the Jews if they can get away with it. The Palestinian cause is wholly unrelated to Iran and merely serves as a convenient excuse for Iran to put pressure through proxy on Israel and to try to advance their cause of a hardline theocratic Islamic regime - a highly intolerant regime and ideology which would prefer to see the Jews and their supporters gone from the face of the Earth. Yet Israel never did anything to Iran (to my knowledge, anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this seems to be at the hart of our disagreement you seem to see the Iranians as some kind of turbaned Daleks bent on extermination. I'm going to guess that the wipe Israel of the map quote is in the for front of your mind. It sounds awful it sounds like his calling for a second genocide against the Jews but did he even say it. "This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" looking at his other speeches where he has been careful to refer to the Zionist regime it seems believable that he was calling for an end to the present Jewish majority Israel which is denying over a million Palestinians the right to return to their ancestral homes. If I believed that Iran was seriously willing to launch a unilateral strike against Israel in order to annihilate its population then id support air strikes against its capacity to produce nuclear weapons however unpalatable I might find it.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You say that the animosity of Iran towards USA is justified - that may well be so, to an extent, and I won't argue that point. What I'd like to know is what is the possible and reasonable justification for Iran's flaming animosity towards Israel, a country that has never done anything bad in the slightest degree to Iran or to Persians. Israel has oppressed Palestinians, is that Iran's supposed justification? By that rationale, any country has the right to hate any other country and make noises about wiping it off the map if it perceives that that other country has done anything to any other country or to any group of people. It is not a sound rationale and it is certainly no excuse for a third party to be making threatening noises about wiping Israel off the map.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points first in the eyes of the Iranian clergy Palestine is part of the uma the world wide Muslim brotherhood and as such any aggression against it is an aggression against all Muslims and must be repelled.

[/ QUOTE ]


There are problems with that rationale as can be seen by just reversing it: what about any aggressions against Christians by others (say by Muslims), should all Christians all over the world jump immediately into the fray? How about all the oppressions of Christians, Jews and Hindus in many countries by Muslims (and under Sharia law) - is that not an act of aggression, and by the same token, should not their religious compatriots everywhere rush to their defense? But that would be chaos and insanity if practiced by every country, wouldn't it, to automatically rush to defend one's co-religionists regardless of national boundaries? It's simply tribalism on a larger scale.

What means more in terms of national defense: treaties, or one's religion? What cans of worms does this potentially open up?

In the case of Israelis/Palestinians, it doesn't take into account the fact that there are two sides to the issue, either. It doesn't take into account the fact that Israel has done nothing to Iran. Iran may legitimately have a preference of sides favoring the Palestinians but it has no good reason to HATE Israel and make noises about wiping it out.

[ QUOTE ]
Second you seem to be denying the legitimacy of any international action against a pariah state by your own rational the British declaration of war against Germany after the invasion of Poland was illegitimate because Germany had not directly aggressed against Britain.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that, but it is at least partially debatable who has acted worse in the Israel/Palestine issue and which side is most at fault. There's plenty of blame to be assigned to both sides. That's a lot different than clear-cut cases like Hitler's Nazi Germany which was obviously solely wrong and at fault and committing horrors on grand scale.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If Iran is upset about the USA meddling in their affairs decades ago, maybe Iran should stop meddling in the affairs of others (Lebanon, Iraq). I don't deny there has been some hypocrisy on the part of the USA based on past actions, but what about Iran's hypocrisy? If Iran objects on principle to being meddled with then what the heck are they doing severely meddling all over the region themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to attempt to excuse Iran's involvement in other nation’s affairs. I’m in favour of all international relations being conducted through diplomatic channels.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that the mullahs want to spread their version of theocratic rule, and to literally wipe out the Jews if they can get away with it. The Palestinian cause is wholly unrelated to Iran and merely serves as a convenient excuse for Iran to put pressure through proxy on Israel and to try to advance their cause of a hardline theocratic Islamic regime - a highly intolerant regime and ideology which would prefer to see the Jews and their supporters gone from the face of the Earth. Yet Israel never did anything to Iran (to my knowledge, anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this seems to be at the hart of our disagreement you seem to see the Iranians as some kind of turbaned Daleks bent on extermination. I'm going to guess that the wipe Israel of the map quote is in the for front of your mind. It sounds awful it sounds like his calling for a second genocide against the Jews but did he even say it. "This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" looking at his other speeches where he has been careful to refer to the Zionist regime it seems believable that he was calling for an end to the present Jewish majority Israel which is denying over a million Palestinians the right to return to their ancestral homes. If I believed that Iran was seriously willing to launch a unilateral strike against Israel in order to annihilate its population then id support air strikes against its capacity to produce nuclear weapons however unpalatable I might find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if Iran would actually try a strike against Israel at some point, and I don't think anyone can know. There have been other quotes by Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani about Israel and those quotes are unsettling at least. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are actually bent on extermination but I believe they wouldn't mind it occurring either. They'd certainly like to have the power to exterminate Israel even if they might never use it. They are bigoted against non-Muslims and against Jews especially, and I see no reason to think that the Iranian government should be trusted with nukes any more than the KKK ought to be trusted with nukes. The government of Iran is run by Shi'ite Islamic Supremacists.

For all that, I'm still not convinced that air strikes would be a good answer. It's a very complex issue. I'm just trying to give some perspective on why Iran getting nukes would be far from the same thing as, for instance, Australia getting nukes.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses, by the way.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like nuclear weapons because they're the only thing that would allow any country to do significant damage to the US in an all-out military conflict. If noone had them we would own any country in the world, and it wouldn't even be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Results-oriented thinking?

How would you feel about the USA having them if the USA wasn't the biggest world superpower?

[AJW]

This is going to get very big and confusing if we keep quoting the whole debate so I'm going to try and simplify it and hopefully it will still be comprehensible.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Two points first in the eyes of the Iranian clergy Palestine is part of the Uma the world wide Muslim brotherhood and as such any aggression against it is an aggression against all Muslims and must be repelled.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are problems with that rationale as can be seen by just reversing it: what about any aggressions against Christians by others (say by Muslims), should all Christians all over the world jump immediately into the fray? How about all the oppressions of Christians, Jews and Hindus in many countries by Muslims (and under Sharia law) - is that not an act of aggression, and by the same token, should not their religious compatriots everywhere rush to their defense? But that would be chaos and insanity if practiced by every country, wouldn't it, to automatically rush to defend one's co-religionists regardless of national boundaries? It's simply tribalism on a larger scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re attempting to impose a western notion of the nation state on an eastern people who believe in the Uma and the tribe. You state that national boundaries should be the extent of a people’s fealty. Why a nation? What is a nation except an artificially constructed tribe? It’s also worth reiterating that Arab states have tried to use the international community to bring sanctions to bear against Israel but Israel is still in violation of 68 UN resolutions not to mention those resolutions that would have passed if it wasn’t for the US veto

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of Israelis/Palestinians, it doesn't take into account the fact that there are two sides to the issue, either. It doesn't take into account the fact that Israel has done nothing to Iran. Iran may legitimately have a preference of sides favouring the Palestinians but it has no good reason to HATE Israel and make noises about wiping it out.

[/ QUOTE ]
At the end of the Second World War the Soviet Union had done nothing to the USA the US may have favoured the western European nations but that was no reason to hate the Soviet Union and express a desire to see it ended. The US was however very clear in its desire to see the Soviet Union disbanded and its leaders deposed citing its treatment of the people with in its sphere of influence as justification.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that, but it is at least partially debatable who has acted worse in the Israel/Palestine issue and which side is most at fault. There's plenty of blame to be assigned to both sides. That's a lot different than clear-cut cases like Hitler's Nazi Germany which was obviously solely wrong and at fault and committing horrors on grand scale.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think to the average Arab citizen the Palestinian Israeli conflict is just as clear cut as the German invasion of Poland. A force of foreign nationals wanting land took it by force ethnically cleared it and set up an apartheid state that they have maintained for over sixty years.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
This is going to get very big and confusing if we keep quoting the whole debate so I'm going to try and simplify it and hopefully it will still be comprehensible.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Two points first in the eyes of the Iranian clergy Palestine is part of the Uma the world wide Muslim brotherhood and as such any aggression against it is an aggression against all Muslims and must be repelled.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are problems with that rationale as can be seen by just reversing it: what about any aggressions against Christians by others (say by Muslims), should all Christians all over the world jump immediately into the fray? How about all the oppressions of Christians, Jews and Hindus in many countries by Muslims (and under Sharia law) - is that not an act of aggression, and by the same token, should not their religious compatriots everywhere rush to their defense? But that would be chaos and insanity if practiced by every country, wouldn't it, to automatically rush to defend one's co-religionists regardless of national boundaries? It's simply tribalism on a larger scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re attempting to impose a western notion of the nation state on an eastern people who believe in the Uma and the tribe. You state that national boundaries should be the extent of a people’s fealty. Why a nation? What is a nation except an artificially constructed tribe? It’s also worth reiterating that Arab states have tried to use the international community to bring sanctions to bear against Israel but Israel is still in violation of 68 UN resolutions not to mention those resolutions that would have passed if it wasn’t for the US veto

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of Israelis/Palestinians, it doesn't take into account the fact that there are two sides to the issue, either. It doesn't take into account the fact that Israel has done nothing to Iran. Iran may legitimately have a preference of sides favouring the Palestinians but it has no good reason to HATE Israel and make noises about wiping it out.

[/ QUOTE ]


At the end of the Second World War the Soviet Union had done nothing to the USA the US may have favoured the western European nations but that was no reason to hate the Soviet Union and express a desire to see it ended. The US was however very clear in its desire to see the Soviet Union disbanded and its leaders deposed citing its treatment of the people with in its sphere of influence as justification.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that, but it is at least partially debatable who has acted worse in the Israel/Palestine issue and which side is most at fault. There's plenty of blame to be assigned to both sides. That's a lot different than clear-cut cases like Hitler's Nazi Germany which was obviously solely wrong and at fault and committing horrors on grand scale.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think to the average Arab citizen the Palestinian Israeli conflict is just as clear cut as the German invasion of Poland. A force of foreign nationals wanting land took it by force ethnically cleared it and set up an apartheid state that they have maintained for over sixty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

For clarity's sake I have quoted your response and enumerated my responses:

1. I'm not attempting to impose a Western notion on Muslims, I'm saying that if others used the same principle (defending the religious community worldwide by force) to govern their interferences, the world would descend into chaos and devolve into religious wars all over the globe. It's a bad principle and unworkable unless one doesn't mind religious wars.

2. The US didn't viscerally HATE the USSR the way rest of the Middle East hates Israel deep down in their guts. The US government would have liked to see the USSR dissolved or broken up but never said things like: "it will disappear in one storm" "this stain shall be removed".

3. Nazi Germany exterminated over a million Poles, Israel clearly has not exterminated a million Arabs.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like nuclear weapons because they're the only thing that would allow any country to do significant damage to the US in an all-out military conflict. If noone had them we would own any country in the world, and it wouldn't even be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Results-oriented thinking?

How would you feel about the USA having them if the USA wasn't the biggest world superpower?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how this can be results oriented if this scenario hasn't ever played out. My scenario indicated (at least I thought so) that noone would have them, but that's unrealistic. To be honest, I don't know how I'd feel if the US wasn't the preeminent superpower but we had them. I guess the same way British people feel about their government possessing them maybe?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like nuclear weapons because they're the only thing that would allow any country to do significant damage to the US in an all-out military conflict. If noone had them we would own any country in the world, and it wouldn't even be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Results-oriented thinking?

How would you feel about the USA having them if the USA wasn't the biggest world superpower?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how this can be results oriented if this scenario hasn't ever played out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying you don't like them because it allows other countries to at least partially equalize the power discrepancy with the US. In order to hold this position, you must take the supremacy of the US as a given. This is a results-oriented positon, just like saying that you like 72o better than AA simply because the board is 227.

[ QUOTE ]
My scenario indicated (at least I thought so) that noone would have them, but that's unrealistic. To be honest, I don't know how I'd feel if the US wasn't the preeminent superpower but we had them. I guess the same way British people feel about their government possessing them maybe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right; you're approaching the question from a descriptive view of the status quo instead of a normative viewpoint. This is a recipie for results-oriented thinking, and what you're going to end up with more often than not is a position that comes down to "might makes right". This is great if all you are concerned about is USA #1!! but it's not a good approach to formulating universally consistent moral positions, and it's certainly not compatible with, say, the Golden Rule.

Just something to think about.

[MuresanForMVP]

I was just saying that in an all-out military conflict it's much more likely that the US would take any other one country to the cleaners. I don't think that can be denied, that's just what I was saying.

[King_S]

[ QUOTE ]
better in what sense? wtf kind of question is this? It's amazing that talking about wiping out huge numbers of people is what passes for civilized discourse.

[/ QUOTE ]

American lives > Iranian lives.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know if Iran would actually try a strike against Israel at some point, and I don't think anyone can know.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think so. i'd believe iran would attack israel for sure (+ all US targets in the area) for sure. i'd say suddenly the problem wouldn't be in iran only - just imagine the situation in iraq in case of war. syria? rising extremism in all other countries including unstable pakistan...

those who believe a sustained bombing campaign would lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government must be kidding. more likely it would increase his popularity, just as 9/11 did to bush. and again that wouldn't be within iranian borders only.

after all, did israeli attack 1981 changed anything in iraq?
[ QUOTE ]

On Crossfire two Iraqi scientists described the result of the 1981 Israeli bombing of the Iraqi reactor Osirak. They destroyed the reactor, but Saddam increased his funding of nuclear weapons ten fold and greatly accelerated the program.

...actually, what Israel [did] is that it got out the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us - we were 400... scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret, much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium.... They [Israel] estimated we'd make 7kg of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed it out. Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year. —Khidir Hamza

(Khidir Hamza and Imad Khadduri, Crossfire transcript, CNN, February 7, 2003)
http://zfacts.com/p/291.html


[/ QUOTE ]