World may back [Israel in] Iran op as part of deal [with palestinians]

[quadraphonics]

Any reasonably modern country has "dangerous capabilities".

Sure.

Even some backwards third world countries have "dangerous capabilities".

Not of the mechanized warfare type, but sure.

If your goal is to prevent Iran from having "dangerous capabilities",

I don't recall forwarding - or even formulating - a goal. But yeah, that would be a poor one.

Although I would expect it to be obvious to someone of your faculties that I was simply citing reasons why a person might consider Iran a dangerous country. If you'd read any of the context, that is; historically your responses to me have struck me as lacking in that regard.

 

[quadraphonics]

We have gone over this before, and the evidence for these activities is flimsy.

No it isn't.

Bear in mind that I'm not interested in convincing you of anything: I'm simply telling you, at your request, what elements of reality lead some people to conclude that Iran is dangerous.

If your plan is to respond by simply denying reality, well... that's pretty stupid.

So, self defense is a "dangerous" capability?

Of course; otherwise it wouldn't work. Iran killed hundreds of thousands of people in that war, and did hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage to Iraq's economy.

Potentially harmful civil unrest is contained by most governments.

Potentially harmful to who, exactly? The tyrant who had just staged a coup to disenfranchise the peaceful protestors?

When Israel breaks up Palestinian demonstrations with tear gas and beatings, will you be there to equivocate?

Torture and Disappearances? Corroborated?

Indeed, for those who care to deal in facts.

 

[iceaura]

Although I would expect it to be obvious to someone of your faculties that I was simply citing reasons why a person might consider Iran a dangerous country.

And I was simply pointing out that those were not very good reasons for considering Iran a dangerous country - unless you are going to regard all countries as dangerous.

Bear in mind that I'm not interested in convincing you of anything: I'm simply telling you, at your request, what elements of reality lead some people to conclude that Iran is dangerous.

Nothing in the reality part of that would lead to any such conclusion. Those people are bringing something quite other than reality to the table.

 

[quadraphonics]

And I was simply pointing out that those

"those?" That word seems awfully plural, considering you took issue with only one reason. And this tack seems awfully short on - again - context. The suggestion was not that people find Iran dangerous solely because they have a functional military. And yet, present pluralizations notwithstanding, that is the position you are trying to attribute to me.

This sort of cheap tactic is beneath you.

were not very good reasons for considering Iran a dangerous country - unless you are going to regard all countries as dangerous.

All countries torture and disappear their citizens, deploy paramilitaries to retain power in the wake of elections, attempt to overthrow neighboring states on ethno/religious grounds, sponsor regional terrorism, etc.?

News to me.

I consider a great many countries dangerous, although not all of them.

Nothing in the reality part of that would lead to any such conclusion. Those people are bringing something quite other than reality to the table.

Which people? The Saudis? The Afghanis? The Bahrainis? The Iranian exiles?

And why are you supporting the elision between "an imminent threat that must be confronted" (the judgement "those people" are pushing) to simply "dangerous" (a category that most nation states in history clearly inhabit, and so without any serious political implications) in the first place?

 

[mike47]

America has a very strong Jewish lobby in all aspects of the Administration and it just keeps on tricking the whole world . Just look what the U.S.A. did in both Iraq and Afghanistan !.

 

[StrawDog]

No it isn't.
Bear in mind that I'm not interested in convincing you of anything: I'm simply telling you, at your request, what elements of reality lead some people to conclude that Iran is dangerous.
If your plan is to respond by simply denying reality, well... that's pretty stupid.

The same reality that led them to conclude that Iraq was dangerous?

Of course; otherwise it wouldn't work. Iran killed hundreds of thousands of people in that war, and did hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage to Iraq's economy.

The single VITAL fact, is that Iran did NOT initiate the war, or any other. If damage was caused, who was to blame? Was the "damage" caused to Germany's economy by WW2 the fault of the allies?

Potentially harmful to who, exactly? The tyrant who had just staged a coup to disenfranchise the peaceful protestors?

There is NO indication of a coup. I am all for peaceful protest, unfortunately, the protests were not entirely peaceful and were heading towards ugly. Furthermore, they had potential to create widespread civil unrest and anarchy. The Iranian government is not so naive as to negate foreign interference and fomenting, most recent example, Honduras.
The tyrant, from all indications, won a fair election. Not perfect, but from a numbers voting perspective, fair.

When Israel breaks up Palestinian demonstrations with tear gas and beatings, will you be there to equivocate?

Are you talking about Palestinian protests in Israel or Palestinian protest in Palestine? In Israel, obviously to protect the innocent, civil order should be assured, by the Israeli government.
In Palestine, the Israeli government have no right to interfere, yet they do.

Indeed, for those who care to deal in facts.

I do not deny that there seem to be some abuses, (as there are allegedly in China, but without the same level of US outrage ) but try as I might, I just cannot seem to find anything solid. Most sites against these abuses are unidentifiable or US NGO`s. Even the respectable Amnesty reports, are lacking in detail.

 

[WillNever]

Strawdog, you keep giving these reasons why Iran is not undeserving of nuclear weapons... but you continually fail to put forth a compelling reason as to WHY they should have nuclear weapons. The USA and Israel having them are not valid reasons, because Iran is not under iminent threat of being nuked by them or anyone else. Indeed, no one would even think about nuking Iran unless Iran decided that THEY wanted to destroy another country first.

What possible good could come out of Iran obtaining nukes? Nukes only destroy, they don't protect. And death and destruction are not noble concepts, regardless of who is doing it.

 

[S.A.M.]

. but you continually fail to put forth a compelling reason as to WHY they should have nuclear weapons.

Why does there need to be an argument? Has there been an argument why any nuclear nation needs their nuclear weapons?

If the technology is there, it should be all. They have as much of a right to explore nuclear technology if they want to as anyone else doing so right now.

 

[WillNever]

Why does there need to be an argument? Has there been an argument why any nuclear nation needs their nuclear weapons?

If the technology is there, it should be all. They have as much of a right to explore nuclear technology if they want to as anyone else doing so right now.

The question is, what do they want to do with that technology? If their desire is to build nukes, then they don't have that right. This is all our planet, not just theirs. What they do has an effect on everyone else, especially if they want to deploy those nukes on somebody -- which is the only thing nukes can be used for: deployment.

Keep in mind that the USA is slowly disarming. We have many fewer nukes now than we used to... and the number keeps going down. We of most of the rest of the world have decided that we want LESS nukes in our world, not more. If Iran decides to fly against the world, then we of the world have a right to step in.

 

[S.A.M.]

The question is, what do they want to do with that technology?

Why is there this question? Countries that have used this technology to kill are not asked this question.

If Iran decides to fly against the world, then we of the world have a right to step in

I'm Indian, you should know we don't give a fig. I doubt the Iranians will either.

The fact that "the world" does nothing at all is pretty evident from Israels 200+ nukes. And India's nukes. And Pakistan's nukes. Etc.

Science is not bound by international hypocrisy.

 

[WillNever]

Other countries are not asked this question, because other countries already have the technology. You can't unlearn it, once it's there. You can, however, stop it from being applied elsewhere -- which is the noble thing to do, for all parties involved.

Question: exactly why can't you guys answer the question of why Iran wants nukes, anyway? Let's just lay it out on the table. Why does Iran want nukes?

 

[S.A.M.]

Why shouldn't it?

 

[WillNever]

And the answer still doesn't come. Why am I not surprised?

I've explained why nukes are bad, pretty adequately. So just tell us, without any redirecting or any questions to questions, a statement on what Iran could possibly want to do with nukes. Surely that's not difficult.

 

[S.A.M.]

If nukes are bad, let those advocating disarmamaent disarm and stop all research into and upgrading of weapons [not to mention invading and occupying of other coutries and peoples]. Until then, they really do not have the credibility to recommend "do as I say, not as I do"

 

[WillNever]

The USA and Russia *are* disarming, SAM. We disarm more every single year.

And you're still unwilling to explain what Iran wants to use nukes for. I think we both know why: because whatever it is they want to do, it's something bad.

Well, I don't know about you, but I like to prevent bad things from happening.

 

[S.A.M.]

Then you should start using your brain. Iran has reduced its defense expenditure under the Islamic regime from 25% [under the Shah] to 2-4%. The majority of its defense research is on defensive technology, anti-missile, anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, anti-tank. Its defense budget is a fraction of its neighbours. It is surrounded by countries either occupied by "hostile nuclear weapon throwing military complex" countries or their allies.

And yet, since its Parliament was first established in 1905, it has not once invaded a sovereign nation.

With a track record like that I don't see why they cannot have any weapons they want.

 

[WillNever]

Nukes are not weapons of defense, SAM. Weapons of defense target and and eliminate offensive weapons. Nukes, on the other hand, are weapons of destruction. They just kill people, usually innocents, and that's all they do. Iran wanting nukes is not a move of self defense because (1) no one has ever threatened to nuke Iran and (2) nukes are inherently offensive in nature. They have no reason to want such weapons -- unless they want to use them on somebody, in which case we have a right and a responsibility to prevent them from doing so.

 

[S.A.M.]

First you have to prove they want nukes.

The Persians have been around for over 5000 years, most of it independent. I suspect there is very little you can teach them about survival.

 

[WillNever]

We haven't ascertained whether they want nukes or not SAM. This argument applies only in a case of Iran actually wanting nukes.

 

[S.A.M.]

Exactly. Its a hypothetical.

However, based on their track record alone, if they wanted nukes to defend themselves from hostile nations [MAD doctrine], I see no reason why they should not have them.