Iranian President makes clear why Iran would be a responsible nuclear power

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


And no one has shown how the Iranian regime is not a rational agent.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Iranian regime is rational, that's one rational agent. Where's the other one?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


:
The argument remains an oh so simple one: claiming a state to be irrational is useless unless you can show that it carries out irrational actions. .

it depends on your standards for risk. New Orleans never drowned, until it did so. No one used hijakced airplanes to destroy major building till they did so. If Hitler had died in 1938, anyone claiming he would have done what he did would be laughed at. If Mao had remained alive and in control longer, its not impossible he would have started a nuclear war. That he didnt in ten years, and that Hitler didnt use ineffective chemical weapons, doesnt tell us anything about Iran.

Showing that a state says irrational things adds evidence for the risks related to that states behaviour.

YEs there are internal constituencies that want to hear this. SOme of those internal constitutiencies would like to see ISrael destroyed, and have real power in the regime. Certainly to say these things at the very time that Iran is under scrutiny, and when its case is before the IAEA, and when Russia is trying to desperately to prevent further resolutions against Iran, hardly looks rational to me.

And what was rational about murdering Argentian Jews?

[Last Conformist]

It's a hell alot more rational than offing American Jews ...

[Barnabas]

Ws it Iran who put bombs at the embassy of israel in Buenos Aires, and that other jewish building?

I thought it was Hamas

[Barnabas]

Yep, it seems it was Iran

The Israeli Embassy Attack in Buenos Aires was a bomb attack against the Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Until 1994, it was Argentina's deadliest terror attack and remains the deadliest attack on an Israeli diplomatic mission.

On March 17, 1992, a pickup truck, driven by a suicide bomber and loaded with explosives, smashed into the front of the Israeli Embassy and detonated. The explosion destroyed the embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building. Several Israelis died, but most of the victims were Argentine civilians, many of them children. The blast killed 29 and wounded 242.

The bombers were believed to have gained access to Argentina through the Tri-Border area, the area where the borders of Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil meet. They videotaped the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and assembled their explosives. It is likely they chose to carry out the attack in Argentina due to its large Jewish population.

A group called "Islamic Jihad" claimed responsibility; their stated motive for the attack was Israel's assassination of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Abbas al-Musawi. On February 16, 1992, Israeli helicopters had attacked a motorcade in southern Lebanon, killing Musawi, his wife, son, and four others. Israel said the attack had been planned as an assassination attempt.

After the bombing, Israel sent investigators to Argentina to search for clues. In May 1998, Moshen Rabbani, (the Cultural Attache in the Iranian Embassy in Argentina until December 1997) was detained in Germany, and the Argentine government expelled seven Iranian diplomats from the country, stating that it had "convincing proof" of Iranian involvement in the bombing. However, none of the suspects have been prosecuted, and a number of sources have suggested that the action was carried out by Hezbollah, with Syrian assistance. The case remains unsolved.

In 1999, the Argentinian government issued an arrest warrant for Imad Mugniyah in connection with this attack and the 1994 AMIA Bombing in Buenos Aires, which killed 86. It is suspected that the two attacks are linked.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it depends on your standards for risk. New Orleans never drowned, until it did so. No one used hijakced airplanes to destroy major building till they did so. If Hitler had died in 1938, anyone claiming he would have done what he did would be laughed at. If Mao had remained alive and in control longer, its not impossible he would have started a nuclear war. That he didnt in ten years, and that Hitler didnt use ineffective chemical weapons, doesnt tell us anything about Iran.

Showing that a state says irrational things adds evidence for the risks related to that states behaviour.

YEs there are internal constituencies that want to hear this. SOme of those internal constitutiencies would like to see ISrael destroyed, and have real power in the regime. Certainly to say these things at the very time that Iran is under scrutiny, and when its case is before the IAEA, and when Russia is trying to desperately to prevent further resolutions against Iran, hardly looks rational to me.

And what was rational about murdering Argentian Jews?

It was a soft target, and the likelyhood of any cost to the regime was none, and that was exactly what it cost them.

Its one thing for hateful people to attack cheap, easy targets. Its another to commit suicide. There is a reason why its never the leaders who commit suicide missions-they send others.

As for 9/11- it is certainly not an irrational action on the part of those that planned it and were planning for the aftermath. They knew they could convince individuals to be human targeting units, and made their plans accordingly.
Of course AQ is not a regime, it has no land to protect, so thier mode of thinking will be fundamentally different from anyone with a constituency and a capital.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by vomitus


Why did you refer to North Korea as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? There are three inherent lies in "DPRK".

you're twice the of they ever were.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


It was a soft target, and the likelyhood of any cost to the regime was none, and that was exactly what it cost them.

Its one thing for hateful people to attack cheap, easy targets. Its another to commit suicide. There is a reason why its never the leaders who commit suicide missions-they send others.

As for 9/11- it is certainly not an irrational action on the part of those that planned it and were planning for the aftermath. They knew they could convince individuals to be human targeting units, and made their plans accordingly.
Of course AQ is not a regime, it has no land to protect, so thier mode of thinking will be fundamentally different from anyone with a constituency and a capital.

You miss my point. It wasnt specifically about the question of rationality, but about the question of generalizing from the past. Its a broader disagreement I think we have, about contingency in world affairs.

As for the murder of the Argentinian Jews, why didnt it have consequences? Because those who would have punished Iran have been deterred. If Iran has nukes, what actions can we look forward to them doing?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Yep, it seems it was Iran

The Israeli Embassy Attack in Buenos Aires was a bomb attack against the Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Until 1994, it was Argentina's deadliest terror attack and remains the deadliest attack on an Israeli diplomatic mission.

On March 17, 1992, a pickup truck, driven by a suicide bomber and loaded with explosives, smashed into the front of the Israeli Embassy and detonated. The explosion destroyed the embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building. Several Israelis died, but most of the victims were Argentine civilians, many of them children. The blast killed 29 and wounded 242.

The bombers were believed to have gained access to Argentina through the Tri-Border area, the area where the borders of Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil meet. They videotaped the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and assembled their explosives. It is likely they chose to carry out the attack in Argentina due to its large Jewish population.

A group called "Islamic Jihad" claimed responsibility; their stated motive for the attack was Israel's assassination of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Abbas al-Musawi. On February 16, 1992, Israeli helicopters had attacked a motorcade in southern Lebanon, killing Musawi, his wife, son, and four others. Israel said the attack had been planned as an assassination attempt.

After the bombing, Israel sent investigators to Argentina to search for clues. In May 1998, Moshen Rabbani, (the Cultural Attache in the Iranian Embassy in Argentina until December 1997) was detained in Germany, and the Argentine government expelled seven Iranian diplomats from the country, stating that it had "convincing proof" of Iranian involvement in the bombing. However, none of the suspects have been prosecuted, and a number of sources have suggested that the action was carried out by Hezbollah, with Syrian assistance. The case remains unsolved.

In 1999, the Argentinian government issued an arrest warrant for Imad Mugniyah in connection with this attack and the 1994 AMIA Bombing in Buenos Aires, which killed 86. It is suspected that the two attacks are linked.

I was thinking of the attack on the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

And if they have the power to strike western interests, which I think Iran would be able to do (eg, Israel, oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc) what would the US do?

Be deterred, which is why the Iranians want nukes in the first place.

So if we were to be hit by terroist attacks from a nuclear powered Iran, we wouldn't respond, we would just sit back and take it?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You miss my point. It wasnt specifically about the question of rationality, but about the question of generalizing from the past. Its a broader disagreement I think we have, about contingency in world affairs.

You can make the same arguement about the sun coming up tommorrow. Simply saying "well, it might" isn;t the basis for an argument.

As for the murder of the Argentinian Jews, why didnt it have consequences? Because those who would have punished Iran have been deterred. If Iran has nukes, what actions can we look forward to them doing?

No, it had no consequence because it happened in Argentina. Had it happened in the US or Europe there would have been consequences. Argentina has (had) neither the political will to pick a fight with Iran about it, nor the political clout to do it either.

Deterrence in this case had nothing to do with it.

This is the real world, and in the real world human life is nowhere as valuable as people blather on about. State interests come first and foremost.

[Imran Siddiqui]

GePap is correct here. All this is is meaningless bluster. Similar sorts of things said in the early years of the Cold War. Iran has shown itself to be a rational actor (it doesn't go out and do things that would obviously hurt itself). I don't see why people fear a nuclear strike from them.

Hell, North Korea has nukes and they are considered less rational than Iran, but haven't launched at anyone yet.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


So if we were to be hit by terroist attacks from a nuclear powered Iran, we wouldn't respond, we would just sit back and take it?

NO. But the US response would be limited to say, conventional attacks on some Iranian facilities. Regime change and all out war would both the utterly off the table as a response.

That is the point of a nuclear deterrent. Regime survival. Having nukes does not stop you from getting attacked in small ways.

[Barnabas]

ah, you mean the AMIA (I think that is the spelling), even more people died there.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Edan


So if we were to be hit by terroist attacks from a nuclear powered Iran, we wouldn't respond, we would just sit back and take it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051026/...ran_alqaeda_dc