[hrothgar]

>6) They all say 5-10 years before they get Nukes but do not discuss why
>we and USSR did in it 3 years with 1940's technology.

As I noted a couple times before, this boils down to resources.

The US economy draws on the resources of a continent.
During the 1940s, we were involved in a war of National survival.
The project still strained our economy.

In a similar fashion, the Soviet Union was a very large command economy. Once again, these economies are very good at mobililzing resources.

In contrast, Iran is at best second world. They will recieve VERY little help from outside their own country in developing a bomb. Coupled with this, the Irans are being forced to disperse and bury their factories, sustantially increasing development costs.

>9) These panels seem to say blackmail us and the world and we will cave
>and pay up. Blackmail works!

I think the "lesson" of Iran is a simply one:

The US has been acting as a rogue state. The US government committed itself to a policy of preemptive regime change in Iraq and is threating the Iranian government. Coupled with this, the US shut down negotiations with Iran over the last two years.

I don't find it surprising that other governments are taking steps to protect themselves.

[luke warm]

the reason MAD worked, despite some pretty hairy encounters, had to do with the relative sanity of the two superpowers... some seem to think that if iran gets nukes that'll be the end of it...

do you think it will, or do you think what mike wrote is more likely? do you think egypt, et al, will also want the bomb? and finally, do any of you honestly believe there is no difference between the ussr having nukes during the cold war and some of the middle eastern countries we're discussing? iow, do you think iran is relatively sane or relatively insane?

i still think israel will have to be muzzled by the usa, and i'm not sure that will happen - regardless of the party in power here (read some of hillary clinton's words on this subject, for example)

[pbleighton]

"iow, do you think iran is relatively sane or relatively insane"

I think that they are sane, to the extent that they realize what would happen if they launched a nuclear attack on the U.S. or Israel, and do not want that to happen.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary, given this narrow but relevant definition of insanity?

Peter

[luke warm]

only their words... it's easy to dismiss their avowal of israel's destruction as rhetoric, but there were people in the us during the '30s who dismissed things said by hitler as rhetoric...

we see with many in the arab world a continuation of 'a solution to the jewish problem'... these are people who burn and loot over cartoons... why people might think they're just kidding is beyond me

[pbleighton]

What words make you think they are suicidally insane?

Not "crazy". Suicidally insane.

Peter

P.S. The Hitler analogy is the most overused analogy in political discussion, by both ends of the political spectrum. It usually doesn't apply, as here. Iran will not invade us. It is a real stretch, and exposes the flimsiness of your argument.

[mike777]

Peter I do not think many worry that Iran will invade anyone.

The concern is Iran will bomb someone or give someone the bomb who will bomb someone. Or that someone (non USA) will bomb Iran first that results in more bombs. That someone will bomb someone else. End result mass USA deaths at the end of this string.

If this is nonsense or very very unlikely then Iran having the bomb is a nonissue for the USA. I think the main issue is will Iran getting the bomb somehow result in mass USA deaths? You seem to argue (perhaps not) that the answer is a strong NO.

[pbleighton]

"Peter I do not think many worry that Iran will invade anyone."

Well, they won't invade us, anyway. That was my point about the silly Hitler analogy - he has become the generic bogeyman, invoked when facts and logic fail.

"You seem to argue (perhaps not) that the answer is a strong NO."

I think it is VERY unlikely. I notice that you don't give an argument as to their being suicidally insane.

The fact that they are undeniably a very bad government (in many ways) is irrelevant to the discussion (though relevant to other discussions we might have). The question is, will they attack a nuclear power who would certainly retaliate, causing more Iranians to die than U.S. or Israeli citizens

Peter

[mike777]

"The fact that they are undeniably a very bad government (in many ways) is irrelevant to the discussion (though relevant to other discussions we might have). The question is, will they attack a nuclear power who would certainly retaliate, causing more Iranians to die than U.S. or Israeli citizens

Peter"


I strongly disagree that this is the best way to frame the question. For example perhaps some Sunni State will bomb Iran before Iran bombs anyone? Example, Iran gets the bomb so Sunni Turkey or Egypt or Saudi Arabia gets the bomb or new Iraq gets the bomb, Arabs versus Persians versus Sunni vs Shia....

or....


Iran a known terror state gives the bomb or sort of gives a bomb to some stateless entity who cares less what countries get bombed. We cannot prove Iran or radical elements in Iran gave the information away so who do we bomb back? Of course if you think this is very very unlikely, then Iran having the bomb is a nonissue at least for USA.

[pbleighton]

If the moon was made of green cheese and the finest red wine, then we could send astronauts there without any food or water. What an argument for the space program!

"I strongly disagree that this is the best way to frame the question. For example perhaps some Sunni State will bomb Iran before Iran bombs anyone? Example, Iran gets the bomb so Sunni Turkey or Egypt or Saudi Arabia gets the bomb or new Iraq gets the bomb, Arabs versus Persians versus Sunni vs Shia...."

Eeeeeek! Attempt to move the goalposts, ref!

I agree that the world is a marginally more dangerous each time another country joins the nuclear club, invited or uninvited. You still have to show that Iran, or some other country of your choice, is suicidally insane. You have still not even attempted to do so, in spite of repeated invitations.

"Iran a known terror state gives the bomb or sort of gives a bomb to some stateless entity who cares less what countries get bombed."

And they would give away an exceedingly valuable, dangerous asset to an organization which could easily turn on them for what reason? They would have to be suicidally insane to do such a thing. This would be totally different than giving them money or conventional weapons.

"We cannot prove Iran or radical elements in Iran gave the information away so who do we bomb back?"

If you think that would stop us, you are less familiar with our history than are the Iranians.

Peter

[mike777]

Ok at least we have defined the issue here. You believe Iran getting the bomb will not result in mass USA deaths. I hope and pray you are correct.

[luke warm]

peter said:

Iran will not invade us. It is a real stretch, and exposes the flimsiness of your argument.

you say that the fact that iran won't invade us shows the flimsiness of my argument...in what way did my post even hint at an invasion of the usa by iran? i never mentioned an invasion nor entertained any thought of one... i simply stated that iran is an avowed enemy of israel who has stated (along with others in the arab world) that nothing less than the complete destruction of the jewish state is acceptable... why you insist on throwing straw man arguments into any discussion is beyond me...

Quote

The Hitler analogy is the most overused analogy in political discussion, by both ends of the political spectrum. It usually doesn't apply, as here.

and

Quote

Well, they won't invade us, anyway. That was my point about the silly Hitler analogy - he has become the generic bogeyman, invoked when facts and logic fail.

what facts? what logic? the hitler analogy had nothing to do with invasion, i plainly stated why it was used in the context of 'a solution to the jewish problem'... you seem to dismiss this as mere rhetoric, and i pointed out that many thought hitler's very same views were also rhetoric... how is that a "silly Hitler analogy?" ...

Quote

What words make you think they are suicidally insane?

as a point of reference, nobody but you mentioned suicidal insanity... i simply stated that MAD worked because of the relative sanity of the ussr and the usa (as compared to iran)... you can make up arguments and attempt to convince others that i made those arguments, but it doesn't make it true... that's the definition of a straw man argument

try to counter things i actually say rather than make up things you wish i'd said

mike said:

For example perhaps some Sunni State will bomb Iran before Iran bombs anyone? Example, Iran gets the bomb so Sunni Turkey or Egypt or Saudi Arabia gets the bomb or new Iraq gets the bomb, Arabs versus Persians versus Sunni vs Shia

peter said:

If the moon was made of green cheese and the finest red wine, then we could send astronauts there without any food or water. What an argument for the space program!

which of those two statements is more likely to be true? and more importantly, how does the second follow from the first?

[pbleighton]

Re Hitler:
You brought him up in a discussion regarding the the threat of nuclear weapons. The issue is not whether Iran's government is viciously antisemitic, and would like to destroy Israel. They are. The question is whether the Hitler analogy is useful in determining whether or not they would take the suicidally insane step of attacking either the U.S. or Israel with nuclear weapons. It is not. Iran is not Nazi Germany, which was the most powerful military force in the world in the late thirties.

"as a point of reference, nobody but you mentioned suicidal insanity... i simply stated that MAD worked because of the relative sanity of the ussr and the usa (as compared to iran)... you can make up arguments and attempt to convince others that i made those arguments, but it doesn't make it true... that's the definition of a straw man argument"

OK, Jimmy, let me spell it out for you (I thought the syllogism was implied, but never mind):
1. It would be suicidally insane for Iran to attack either the U.S. or Israel with nuclear weapons, since the retaliation would be worse than the damage they would inflict.
2. Iran is not suicidally insane.
3. Therefore, Iran will not attack either the U.S. or Israel with nuclear weapons.

Disagree with any of the above?

BTW, in a discussion, when someone uses an argument, with a statement stipulated as fact (i.e. Iran is not suicidally insane) embedded in that argument, and asks you to disprove the statement in order to disprove the argument, it is not a "straw man".

OTOH, raising the "straw man" argument, as you do consistently when you don't like an argument, is silly.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 14 2006, 07:56 AM, said:

Re Hitler:
You brought him up in a discussion regarding the the threat of nuclear weapons.  The issue is not whether Iran's government is viciously antisemitic, and would like to destroy Israel.  They are.  The question is whether the Hitler analogy is useful in determining whether or not they would take the suicidally insane step of attacking either the U.S. or Israel with nuclear weapons.  It is not.  Iran is not Nazi Germany, which was the most powerful military force in the world in the late thirties.

i brought him up to show the danger of ignoring "rhetoric" from people with the means by which to make good their threats... you seem to think that a nuclear iran is no danger to israel or the world...

religions fanatics can and have done many things you and i would consider to be insane, neh? even 'suicidally insane' (since, i suppose, the detonation of a suicide bomb would fall in that category)... so if a person, group, country, thinks the rewards promised by their faith outweigh the threats of retaliation, why would they fear those threats? after all, heaven awaits

Quote

"as a point of reference, nobody but you mentioned suicidal insanity... i simply stated that MAD worked because of the relative sanity of the ussr and the usa (as compared to iran)... you can make up arguments and attempt to convince others that i made those arguments, but it doesn't make it true... that's the definition of a straw man argument"

OK, Jimmy, let me spell it out for you (I thought the syllogism was implied, but never mind):
1.  It would be suicidally insane for Iran to attack either the U.S. or Israel with nuclear weapons, since the retaliation would be worse than the damage they would inflict.
2. Iran is not suicidally insane.
3. Therefore, Iran will not attack either the U.S. or Israel with nuclear weapons.

Disagree with any of the above?

1) may or may not be true... some in the japanese navy thought pearl harbor was 'suicidal'... others thought it assured victory... but even if it is true that the retaliation would be worse, i think you should look at a preemptive strike by iran from within the context of their religion and their hatred of israel and the great satan
2) the jury's still out
3) all you have here is a possibility, not a conclusion based on the truthfulness of the premises

1) it was suicidally insane for napolean to attack russia in winter
2) napolean was not suicidally insane
3) therefore, napolean will not attack russia in the winter

we can agree or not on #2, but in my example and yours we can only guess about #1... in both, the conclusions don't follow

Quote

BTW, in a discussion, when someone uses an argument, with a statement stipulated as fact (i.e. Iran is not suicidally insane) embedded in that argument, and asks you to disprove the statement in order to disprove the argument, it is not a "straw man".

a stipulation is usually agreed to, not stated as a fact by one party.. be that as it may, i asked if you thought iran was relatively sane or relatively insane (compared to the usa and ussr re: MAD).. you said:

"I think that they are sane, to the extent that they realize what would happen if they launched a nuclear attack on the U.S. or Israel, and do not want that to happen.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary, given this narrow but relevant definition of insanity?"

i said i only had their words which avow a destruction of israel, and pointed out that rhetoric in the hands of (imo) madmen isn't to be ignored... this is when you asked about suicidal insanity, going so far as to ask mike:

"I notice that you don't give an argument as to their being suicidally insane."

you want him to make a case for a concept he never introduced... evidently you like the ring to 'suicidal insanity', but it is a straw man

Quote

OTOH, raising the "straw man" argument, as you do consistently when you don't like an argument, is silly.

it might be silly to you, but not to those who object to being told they must defend things they never said or implied

you never answered me on the 'invasion' parts of my post... you simply call an argument flimsy, then when you are shown that it is only flimsy in your mind, and then only because you have completely misunderstood an analogy, you ignore it

you base the follwing, "The Hitler analogy is the most overused analogy in political discussion, by both ends of the political spectrum. It usually doesn't apply, as here. Iran will not invade us. It is a real stretch, and exposes the flimsiness of your argument." on the "fact" that iran won't invade, completely ignoring another fact - that i never said they would.. so my argument is flimsy based on your rebuttal of something i never said...

what is your definition of a straw man argument, and why do you think it's silly to object to one being used?

[hrothgar]

If quite amused to see the parallel between this thread and the discussion regarding global warming. Both discussions revolve around the same fundamental question: the relative position of the United States compared to the developing world.

Looking at the Iran thread: The United States is the charter member of the nuclear club. We are one of a handful of countries that possess nuclear weapons. We would like to maintain this advantageous position.

Looking at the Global warming thread: The United States consumes vast numbers of resources and releases enormous amounts of pollution. In the long term, its doubtful whether the global environment can support the United States. If Indian and China adopt this same model the impact will be ruinous.

Ultimately, the question is a simple one: Is the United States willing/able to oppress large portions of the world in order to sustain the highly advantageous position that we current enjoy? Do “we” formally create an American empire?

Personally, I think that the Age of Empires is past. The American experience in Iraq clearly demonstrates that local insurgencies can prevent effective governance. Equally significant, you can't do a half ass job creating an Empire. We need to recognize that if we start making lots of military interventions trying to adjust the world to our own liking there is going to be substantial “blowback”. The local residents whose lives are getting “tweaked” are going to radicalize. Emerging Great Powers like India and China are going to ramp up their own military programs. Genocide is clearly a possibility. The US could probably tailor some bio-weapon simply kill the inhabitants the rest of the world. We'd lose a bunch of our own citizens, however wars always about acceptable losses. In this case, acceptable losses means all those "welfare queens" that the right wing is always bitching about. Luckily, we don't seem to have the character flaws that lead down this road. (Please note: I wasn't the one who started the Neutron weapons thread).

I believe that there are alternatives to "Empire". However, these require a commitment to robust Internationalism and leadership by example. (You know, those character traits that the US mocks in "old Europe"). Hopefully, the US will grow up in time.

[pbleighton]

You had asked:
"the reason MAD worked, despite some pretty hairy encounters, had to do with the relative sanity of the two superpowers... some seem to think that if iran gets nukes that'll be the end of it..."
"iow, do you think iran is relatively sane or relatively insane?"

It was in response to this that I brought up suicidal insanity. You brought up the sanity of Iran's leaders, not me. It was important to you at that point in the discussion, but apparently not now.

"1) may or may not be true... some in the japanese navy thought pearl harbor was 'suicidal'... others thought it assured victory... but even if it is true that the retaliation would be worse, i think you should look at a preemptive strike by iran from within the context of their religion and their hatred of israel and the great satan"
A traditional invasion by a military superpower (which Japan was and we at that point weren't) versus starting a nuclear war with a country with greatly superior nuclear firepower? Talk about apples and oranges! The same goes for your Napoleon analogy. And religion or no, the issue comes back to suicidal insanity. You are suggesting that if they are not suicidally insane, that they would view the destruction of Iran in a positive light?

"2) the jury's still out" My point. I am asking you for evidence. I see absolutely none. You were the one who raised MAD not working with Iran.

"3) all you have here is a possibility, not a conclusion based on the truthfulness of the premises"

I'm not sure what you mean. Would you agree with 3, if you conceded 1) and 2) were accurate?

"it might be silly to you, but not to those who object to being told they must defend things they never said or implied"

See above. You raised MAD and sanity, not me.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"Personally, I think that the Age of Empires is past."

Yes it is.

Sadly, though, imperialism is alive and well, half assed and in denial as it may be.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 14 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

You had asked:
"the reason MAD worked, despite some pretty hairy encounters, had to do with the relative sanity of the two superpowers... some seem to think that if iran gets nukes that'll be the end of it..."
"iow, do you think iran is relatively sane or relatively insane?"

It was in response to this that I brought up suicidal insanity.  You brought up the sanity of Iran's leaders, not me.  It was important to you at that point in the discussion, but apparently not now.

how you get suicidally insane from "the relative sanity of the usa and ussr (meaning, neither wanted to destroy the globe - one stated aim of some muslims is that very destruction)" is beyond me ... the term 'relative' was used

Quote

A traditional invasion by a military superpower (which Japan was and we at that point weren't) versus starting a nuclear war with a country with greatly superior nuclear firepower?  Talk about apples and oranges! The same goes for your Napoleon analogy.

the fact is, peter, some in japan thought an attack on pearl harbor would be suicidal... and they were right... however, this "fact" did not prevent japan from attacking... so whether or not you view an iranian nuclear attack as suicidal has nothing to do with whether or not one would be launched

as for napolean, whether or not anyone thought an attack on russia in winter was suicidal had nothing to do with whether or not it actually *was* suicidal

Quote

And religion or no, the issue comes back to suicidal insanity.  You are suggesting that if they are not suicidally insane, that they would view the destruction of Iran in a positive light?

no, i'm suggesting that what you judge suicidal might not be the same thing others judge to be suicidal... and i'm suggesting that a person, a group of people, or even a country that believes it is imperative to start and win a holy war, regardless of cost, is *relatively* less sane than either the usa or ussr during MAD... you obviously disagree, i just don't know why

Quote

"2) the jury's still out"  My point.  I am asking you for evidence. I see absolutely none.  You were the one who raised MAD not working with Iran.

for the reasons i stated above

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean.  Would you agree with 3, if you conceded 1) and 2) were accurate?

no i wouldn't... why? because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, even if i granted the truth of them... i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them

whether this makes them suicidally insane or not, i don't know.. that's why i object to having to defend that phrase

you accused me of making a flimsy argument and used the word "silly" twice in replies... despite the fact that the use of 'flimsy' and 'silly' appear to be based on emotional rather than logical thought, for the 3rd time you failed to address the points i raised... here they are again:

me said:

you never answered me on the 'invasion' parts of my post... you simply call an argument flimsy, then when you are shown that it is only flimsy in your mind, and then only because you have completely misunderstood an analogy, you ignore it

you base the follwing, "The Hitler analogy is the most overused analogy in political discussion, by both ends of the political spectrum. It usually doesn't apply, as here. Iran will not invade us. It is a real stretch, and exposes the flimsiness of your argument." on the "fact" that iran won't invade, completely ignoring another fact - that i never said they would.. so my argument is flimsy based on your rebuttal of something i never said...

what is your definition of a straw man argument, and why do you think it's silly to object to one being used?

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Apr 14 2006, 09:22 AM, said:

Looking at the Iran thread:  The United States is the charter member of the nuclear club.  We are one of a handful of countries that possess nuclear weapons.  We would like to maintain this advantageous position.

that's true, and i think that at least a part of its truth is based in the fact that the usa doesn't trust the motives of some countries who have or desire nuclear capabilities

Quote

Ultimately, the question is a simple one:  Is the United States willing/able to oppress large portions of the world in order to sustain the highly advantageous position that we current enjoy?  Do “we” formally create an American empire? 

imo, the answers are (in order): no; yes; no

Quote

Luckily, we don't seem to have the character flaws that lead down this road.  (Please note:  I wasn't the one who started the Neutron weapons thread).

i don't understand your point here... i started that thread and asked whether or not anyone agreed with cohen's assertion that the neutron bomb is the most moral weapon invented to date

Quote

I believe that there are alternatives to "Empire".  However, these require a commitment to robust Internationalism and leadership by example.  (You know, those character traits that the US mocks in "old Europe").  Hopefully, the US will grow up in time.

which 'old europe' are you discussing? the one that brought the world to war twice? or one prior to that?

as far as internationalism, i guess that is strictly a matter of political philosophy... some americans, intelligent and thoughtful, believe that our national sovereignty and national interests are secondary to those of the international community... others, equally intelligent and equally thoughtful, believe that what is in america's national interests and does not interfere with america's sovereignty is the most important thing

[pbleighton]

"i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them"

You have revealed yourself for what you are. I am disappointed, but...

I will no longer respond to any of your posts.

Peter

[luke warm]

hahahahahaha... well that was suitably cryptic, and held the impeccable logic your posts are noted for

also, it's a good way to get out of having to defend things you say