[Winstonm]

Quote

Well if you are saying what the USA or other countries do or did is the moral equilavent to what Iran is doing....fair enough.

It's rather difficult for the U.S. to take the moral high ground when torture is a state-approved interrogation technique, the State Department Blackwater commandos are allowed to murder without repercussions or penalty, and (depending on source) up to 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed because of U.S. actions taken due to the falsehoods of WMD, reconsituted nuclear ambitions, and Al-Qaeda ties.

I'm not saying what Iran is doing is right - at the same time, how we we defend what we have done and continue to do?

[blackshoe]

An act of war is an "act of political agenda". Ask von Clausewitz.

[sceptic]

I have this Theory, Iran have had nuclear weapons for years and the reason that we invaded Iraq was based on Bushes inability to diferentiate his q's from his n's, just the same as he seems unable to diferentiate his ass from his elbow

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Nov 13 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

Quote

Well if you are saying what the USA or other countries do or did is the moral equilavent to what Iran is doing....fair enough.

It's rather difficult for the U.S. to take the moral high ground when torture is a state-approved interrogation technique, the State Department Blackwater commandos are allowed to murder without repercussions or penalty, and (depending on source) up to 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed because of U.S. actions taken due to the falsehoods of WMD, reconsituted nuclear ambitions, and Al-Qaeda ties.

I'm not saying what Iran is doing is right - at the same time, how we we defend what we have done and continue to do?

I cant...if 1million are dead because of how the USA citizens voted.......I guess we are terrible. We get the government we deserve.....we are not victims.
Note we replace the House 100% every 2 years and 1/3 of the senate every two years...and the president every 4....not really that long of a time. Please note we are not a UK style government....

I note we still are funding the war....with billions and billions.

[Winstonm]

I believe the question to address is "how great is the risk?" There is no doubt that a certain percentage of extreme fundamental Islamists are very dangerous, but from what I have read they hold almost as much hatred for moderate Islamists as for the U.S. How big of group is this, and what is the direct risk for the U.S.A.

It only takes a couple of nuts to cause terrible damage, but do you go to war to crack and roast a few nuts?

In my mind, a comparison in size of risk could be made to Christianity - it would be like invading Texas because of the risk posed by David Koresh and his brand of fundamentalism.

Maybe I am wrong; maybe the size of the enemy is much greater and the threat more urgent - I know my brother the Colonel believes this to be so. In fact, he told me the other night that if we weren't disrupting al-Qaeda oversees, within a year there would be another attack on the U.S.

Seems to me, though, that if al-Qaeda was intent on attacking the U.S., they could do so regardless of whether our armies were here or there - after all, how many does it take to organize and carry out an attack: 20-30?

[helene_t]

sceptic, on Nov 14 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

I have this Theory, Iran have had nuclear weapons for years and the reason that we invaded Iraq was based on Bushes inability to diferentiate his q's from his n's, just the same as he seems unable to diferentiate his ass from his elbow

This is the most plausible theory about the US/Iran/Iraq thing I have heard for years. Which doesn't say much, admittedly.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Nov 14 2007, 09:35 AM, said:

I believe the question to address is "how great is the risk?" There is no doubt that a certain percentage of extreme fundamental Islamists are very dangerous, but from what I have read they hold almost as much hatred for moderate Islamists as for the U.S. How big of group is this, and what is the direct risk for the U.S.A.

It only takes a couple of nuts to cause terrible damage, but do you go to war to crack and roast a few nuts?

In my mind, a comparison in size of risk could be made to Christianity - it would be like invading Texas because of the risk posed by David Koresh and his brand of fundamentalism.

Maybe I am wrong; maybe the size of the enemy is much greater and the threat more urgent - I know my brother the Colonel believes this to be so. In fact, he told me the other night that if we weren't disrupting al-Qaeda oversees, within a year there would be another attack on the U.S.

Seems to me, though, that if al-Qaeda was intent on attacking the U.S., they could do so regardless of whether our armies were here or there - after all, how many does it take to organize and carry out an attack: 20-30?

Your brother's comment seems to get back to your first question. Let us agree he is correct.

What right does any country have to attack people in another country to stop a future attack?

And if we are going to attack people in another country because of an old attack is that not just revenge or an eye for an eye? What right is that?

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Nov 14 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

What right does any country have to attack people in another country to stop a future attack?

I would argue that Israel and Iran are currently at war. While it was a mis-translation that the Iranian President said that Israel should be wiped off the map, there's no question that Iran would prefer that Israel ceased to exist.

Just because they aren't directly shooting at each other this very moment, so what? Do you think during the Hundred Years War there was some battle going on every minute of those hundred years?

Given that they're currently at war, then of course you have the right to 'attack' the other country, and of course a power reactor is a valid target. So I don't see where this is coming from.

As for the U.S. and Iran, we've been at war since 1981. We should either sign a peace treaty or blow them away already.

[jonottawa]

helene_t, on Nov 14 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

sceptic, on Nov 14 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

I have this Theory, Iran have had nuclear weapons for years and the reason that we invaded Iraq was based on Bushes inability to diferentiate his q's from his n's, just the same as he seems unable to diferentiate his ass from his elbow

This is the most plausible theory about the US/Iran/Iraq thing I have heard for years. Which doesn't say much, admittedly.

No, that's not it. Bush's plan all along has been to invade Iraq first, then Iran, which we would then combine into one big country called Irate. That way we'd have all the pi$$ed off people in one place.

(Joke stolen from the folks here.)

[Winstonm]

Quote

And if we are going to attack people in another country because of an old attack is that not just revenge or an eye for an eye? What right is that?

My understanding of the argument is that the preemption is to stop a future attack, not as revenge for a previous attack.

This makes me wonder, though. If I kill my neighbor, but then in court claim that I believed that sometime in the future he might get drunk and run over me with his car, can I claim self-defense? Or if I bombed his car but accidentally killed his family in the process, would that be righteous? After all, I was only protecting myself from his possible future actions.

Somehow, I don' think this defense would work for one simple reason - no one can t00% predict the future, and that, after all, is what a preemptive strike claims - that it was necessary to prevent future actions.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Given that they're currently at war, then of course you have the right to 'attack' the other country, and of course a power reactor is a valid target. So I don't see where this is coming from.

Under this argument, then, Iran has a perfect right to attack an Israeli power reactor as the countries are at war?

[sceptic]

If Israel and Iran are at war, surely the Israelis could Nuke Tehran using a plane to drop the bomb (lets call it Enola Jew) for the same reason someone else did it a few years ago, to bring an end to hostilities, then there could be no reprecussions from accross the world as it is not a preemptive strike, more of a lets finish this war and get on with lfe and go forward

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Nov 14 2007, 02:29 PM, said:

As for the U.S. and Iran, we've been at war since 1981.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. What does "at war" mean?

Wikipedia lists 30 current "ongoing conflicts" in the world. None of them appear to involve Iran - although I have no doubt Iran is stirring the pot in several places, including Iraq.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Nov 14 2007, 08:33 PM, said:

Quote

Given that they're currently at war, then of course you have the right to 'attack' the other country, and of course a power reactor is a valid target. So I don't see where this is coming from.

Under this argument, then, Iran has a perfect right to attack an Israeli power reactor as the countries are at war?

Again, I'm not sure what right or wrong means, but sure. Of course, then the U.S. will step up. I am aware that I'm coming dangerously close to the 'the Iraq War of 1991 authorized our going in in 2003', which I do not believe (main treaty was with the U.N.).

I consider us to have 'current hostilities' with North Korea, Cuba, and Iran. As in, we attacked all three countries and never had a treaty authorizing the cessation of those hostilities.

[Winstonm]

Jt,

The only thing that really irks me is an oversimplification of the problems in this region of the world into a simple black and white scenario.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Nov 15 2007, 06:11 PM, said:

The only thing that really irks me is an oversimplification of the problems in this region of the world into a simple black and white scenario.

Quote

If the Times' report is accurate, Israel is getting ready to carry out an unprovoked attack, using nuclear weapons, on another nation.

I don't understand what you're saying in at least one of the quotes above.

[Winstonm]

In the U.S, everything Israel does is supported - yet nothing in this region of the world is so simple as good guys/bad guys, us-versus-them mentality.

The point I'm trying to make is that if Israel is indeed planning some type of limited nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear sites, it can't be as simple as saying "way to go, Israel. They had it coming."

There is plenty of fault for everyone, the U.S. included. If the U.S. is going to intervene in this area of the world, shouldn't the U.S. attempt to stop Israeli aggression as well as Iranian ambitions? How can allowing an act of war by one country but disallowing the defensive capabilities of another country be considered sponsoring regional peace? If it is sponsoring peace, it is a unilateral peace won at the point of a gun, and thus not really peace but a conquering.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Nov 15 2007, 11:23 PM, said:

In the U.S, everything Israel does is supported - yet nothing in this region of the world is so simple as good guys/bad guys, us-versus-them mentality.

The point I'm trying to make is that if Israel is indeed planning some type of limited nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear sites, it can't be as simple as saying "way to go, Israel.  They had it coming." 

There is plenty of fault for everyone, the U.S. included.  If the U.S. is going to intervene in this area of the world, shouldn't the U.S. attempt to stop Israeli aggression as well as Iranian ambitions?  How can allowing an act of war by one country but disallowing the defensive capabilities of another country be considered sponsoring regional peace?  If it is sponsoring peace, it is a unilateral peace won at the point of a gun, and thus not really peace but a conquering.

I have no idea what you are saying here



What do you want to do that we are not doing?

Do you want more debate...
Do you want more information
At what point do you make a decision or never ending more study?

If you think a preemptive strike is ok.....then you could be a bit more clear.

[Gerben42]

My opinion on this is very simple. Any country or movement that uses a nuclear weapon is so criminal it does not deserve to exist. End of story.

I don't care if they are the "good guys" or the "bad guys", whoever defined that. In my definition, whoever throws the bomb is a BAD guy in ways of "genocide" kind of bad.

In this case I am also against the "an eye for an eye" approach. Suppose country X attacks country Y with a nuclear bomb. Then one should not return the favour!

[blackshoe]

"Your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose."

If you swing your fist and hit my nose (or any other part of me) I have the right to swing back. That does not give me the right to swing first just because you have a fist.

The same principle applies to countries.