Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran started its nuclear programme, because Iraq!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iran started its nuclear programme, because Iraq!

    Wow, Fox News!

    Fox News Embarrasses Dick Cheney On Iraq And Iran

    Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday shrugged off the rapid growth of Iran's nuclear capacity during the Bush years, insisting that the American invasion of Iraq had curbed Iranian nuclear ambitions.


    "There was military action that had an impact on the Iranians when we took down Saddam Hussein," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday." "There was a period of time when they stopped their program because they were afraid what we did to Saddam we were going to do to them next."


    The invasion of Iraq in fact deeply strengthened Iran's hand in the region, ousting a traditional enemy of Iran and installing a new government far more sympathetic to the Iranian regime. Much of Iraq has effectively functioned as a client state of Iran for years.


    Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out to Cheney that Iran had no uranium enrichment centrifuges prior to the Iraq War, but had 5,000 of them by the time Bush and Cheney left office.


    Cheney waved off the statistic. "I think we did a lot to deal with the arms control problem in the Middle East," he said.


    Cheney also claimed that the Iraq invasion forced Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi to dispose of his own weapons of mass destruction -- a claim that was debunked several years ago.


    In 2006, Time magazine reported that Hussein's ouster nearly derailed lengthy nuclear negotiations with Gaddafi. American and British leaders had been pressing since the Clinton years to cut a deal with Gaddafi that would require him to dispose of weapons of mass destruction. When Hussein was toppled, Time reported, Gaddafi nearly walked away from the talks, concerned that diplomacy with the United States would make him look weak in the face of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


    Former Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke about the shortcomings of the invasion of Iraq on “Meet the Press” on Sunday.


    "The fact of the matter is, we did it right in the first Gulf War. We had to listen to arguments for years afterwards about, 'Why didn't you go to Baghdad?' And the 2003 war came along and you saw why you didn't want to go to Baghdad," Powell said. "We had a clear mission, clearly defined and put resources against that mission and took out the Iraqi army in Kuwait, restored the government, what we set out to do."


    "Once you pull out the top of a government, unless there's a structure under it to give security and structure to the society, you can expect a mess," he added.


    Cheney's comments on Iraq came amid his criticism of President Barack Obama's recent diplomatic deal that aims to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Cheney said the U.S. is a "loser" in the pact, while the Iranian regime is "the only winner."


    Supporters of the pact have noted that economic sanctions against Iran have not curbed its nuclear capacities, and that other nations will not be willing to enforce economic levies against Iran if the U.S. abandons the deal. They argue that rejecting Obama's agreement would leave war as the only remaining tool to deal with a potential nuclear threat.
    There Iran was, being all peaceful (mostly!), but definitely nothing to do with any nuclear capabilities.

    Then America invades next door, and they start down the nuclear road cos they felt threatened - that they were next.

    Now the likes of Cheney want war with Iran.

    Discuss.

  • #2
    It is irrational, but it works, ie the Cheney strategy delivers power and money domestically despite producing more of what it pretends to fight. International failure lines domestic pockets quite nicely, so we can say that the strategy works just as intended.
    Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
    GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

    Comment


    • #3
      US started its nuclear program because of Jesse Owens.

      Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out to Cheney that the US had no nuclear weapons when Jesse Owens was born in 1913, but over 23,000 by the time Owens died in 1980.
      Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a game anyone can play! Let's all play. See if you can out-do Chris Wallace (note: it'll be hard; the OP quote isn't his silliest).
      The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty…we will be remembered in spite of ourselves… The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation… We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.
      - A. Lincoln

      Comment


      • #4
        Chris Wallace was citing evidence against Cheney's theory that the Iraq War deterred Iran from developing nuclear weapons and Nice Mobius then cited that data as evidence (not proof) that the Iraq War caused Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

        Comment


        • #5
          So invading a neighbouring country, killing 100k+ people, and promising war on multiple occasions over the last decade is not good enough of a cause to start developing deterrents?
          Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
          GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
            So invading a neighbouring country, killing 100k+ people, and promising war on multiple occasions over the last decade is not good enough of a cause to start developing deterrents?
            I'll have to consult a list of logical fallacies before I can answer this.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
              So invading a neighbouring country, killing 100k+ people, and promising war on multiple occasions over the last decade is not good enough of a cause to start developing deterrents?
              Are you talking about Saddam here, or Iran's leadership?
              The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty…we will be remembered in spite of ourselves… The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation… We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.
              - A. Lincoln

              Comment


              • #8
                Iran very probably. You can't deny that the US is much more threatening to them now than Iraq was pre Iraq war...
                Indifference is Bliss

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by N35t0r View Post
                  Iran very probably. You can't deny that the US is much more threatening to them now than Iraq was pre Iraq war...
                  Not really. Iraq actually invaded them. The US isn't going to do that.
                  The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty…we will be remembered in spite of ourselves… The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation… We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.
                  - A. Lincoln

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Being declared part of the "axis of evil" (which Bush did with Iran in his speech 2002) IMHO is a good sign that America might want to invade you next time. And nuclear weapons ... or the support by countries who own them ... have been shown to be the only real deterrent to the USA invading countries tghey want to invade. So yes, the assumption that the invasion of Iraq (together with Bushs "axis of evil"-speech) may be casually connected to Irans start of a nuclear program, may not be far from the truth
                    Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
                    Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by grumbler View Post
                      US started its nuclear program because of Jesse Owens.



                      Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a game anyone can play! Let's all play. See if you can out-do Chris Wallace (note: it'll be hard; the OP quote isn't his silliest).
                      Comparing the two is ridiculous. There is no mode of action even proposed by which a person running leads to the US starting a nuclear program.

                      The mode of action by which Iran starts/increases focus on a nuclear program is very clear ... it feels threatened. Not even Cheney is stupid enough to claim they didn't feel threatened. In fact he feels it was an accomplishment to threaten them. He's just completely backwards on what the effects of that threat were.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Maybe Grumbler has a point...?

                        Jesse Owens pissed off Hitler at the 1936 Olympics by beating the supposedly 'superior' Aryan race to gold in their own back yard.

                        By a series of logical conclusions Hitler realised that the only fool-proof way for the 'Aryans' to actually be the best was to kill everyone else off - hence kicking off WWII and starting on the Jews.

                        Japan joined in on the Germans' side, attacked Pearl Harbour, brought the Americans into the war, who started developing a nuclear weapon with the help of refugees from Hitler's war, and ultimately nuked them.

                        Jesse Owens > Nuclear Weapons!

                        Thank you for your very informative post, Grumbler, up until now I had been blissfully unawared that Jesse owens was responsible for nuclear proliferation in the world! Truly enlightening - BRAVO!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by grumbler View Post
                          Not really. Iraq actually invaded them. The US isn't going to do that.
                          No?

                          Maybe not now, hence why they've successfully negotiated with Iran for them to stop - but what about before?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
                            It is irrational, but it works, ie the Cheney strategy delivers power and money domestically despite producing more of what it pretends to fight. International failure lines domestic pockets quite nicely, so we can say that the strategy works just as intended.
                            Sad but true.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Aeson View Post
                              Comparing the two is ridiculous. There is no mode of action even proposed by which a person running leads to the US starting a nuclear program.

                              The mode of action by which Iran starts/increases focus on a nuclear program is very clear ... it feels threatened. Not even Cheney is stupid enough to claim they didn't feel threatened. In fact he feels it was an accomplishment to threaten them. He's just completely backwards on what the effects of that threat were.
                              Yes, post hoc ergo propter hoc is ridiculous. It is ridiculous when Chris Wallace uses it, and it is ridiculous when I use it. That's the point. Iran had a nuclear weapons program before 2003, and would have had centrifuges by the end of the Bush administration even if there was no invasion of Iraq. IAEA reports make it clear that Iran did have test centrifuges before the start of the Iraq War, so Wallace is technically wrong there, as well.
                              The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty…we will be remembered in spite of ourselves… The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation… We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.
                              - A. Lincoln

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X