"Victory Is Not an Option"

[Provost Harrison]

Mossadegh?

[Arrian]

"Now look, some folks think its hypocritical for the mean imperialist US, and its EEVIL Zionist allies to object to Iran dominating the region.

Neither the United States, Isreal nor Iran have some sort of God-given right to dominate the ME. Nobody does. Nobody has some sort of God-given right to nuclear weapons, either. It is in our national interest (and even moreso in the interest of our ally Israel) to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. We do NOT, however, have the right to attack them in order to do so. We can refuse to trade with them (sanctions) and we can offer incentives to discontinue the program, but we have no RIGHT to stop them by force.

As for my comments of our bull**** vs theirs, like I said, I prefer ours to theirs, and for good reason. Btw, I HAVE heard USian right-wingers advocating nuking Iran. Luckily, not in the public sphere (personal aquaintances). I've heard a deadly serious argument for killing Arabs (I know Iran =! Arab, it was actually more like enemies of Israel) at will, and for using nukes in that effort. Our politicians don't say such things, thank goodness, which is why I say I prefer our bull**** to theirs.

So I guess it was silly of me to bother trying again, wasnt it?

Yep. I don't buy it, sorry.

I wasnt thinking so much in terms of govt to govt stuff, as like sending your personal money for reconstruction and healing, etc. Its not going to be pretty if Tel Aviv is nuked. But like I said, you probably dont have as much invested in that, and thats kewl, I guess.

I gave money for the Tsunami recovery effort, I'm sure I'd give money to help the victims of a nuclear strike.

But yes, LotM, I *do* have less "invested" in Israel than you. I'm not particularly anti-Israel (dispute that if you wish), but I'm not particularly pro-Israel either. I support its right to exist. Beyond that, my support is conditional on whether or not I agree with a given Israeli policy/action.

-Arrian

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I think Iran nuking Israel is less possible than Pakistan nuking India.

Total absurdity.

Pakistan built nukes to match India in the same way the US and USSR had their Cold War. It could be argued, other than the instability of the govt itsaelf, that nuclear weapons for Pakistan stablized the region.

Iran's POLICY is the destruction of Israel. Their president has made this clear on many occasions. He has said it so often that people have become numb to it.

Iran's SLOGAN is "Death to America"

I've seen a few analogies in this post so here's mine.

Iran is like a kidnapper (remember the hostages) and a neighborhood thug who is now applying for a gun permit. On the application it asks for the reason the applicant wants the gun. Iran responds "To murder my neighbor."

[Thedrin]

Iran's POLICY is the destruction of Israel. Their president has made this clear on many occasions. He has said it so often that people have become numb to it.

If or when Iran obtains nuclear weapons, the Iranian President will have no authority over their use. It is also highly unlikely that Ahmedinejad would still be in power by then.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Total absurdity.

Pakistan built nukes to match India in the same way the US and USSR had their Cold War. It could be argued, other than the instability of the govt itsaelf, that nuclear weapons for Pakistan stablized the region.

Iran's POLICY is the destruction of Israel. Their president has made this clear on many occasions. He has said it so often that people have become numb to it.

Iran's SLOGAN is "Death to America"

I've seen a few analogies in this post so here's mine.

Iran is like a kidnapper (remember the hostages) and a neighborhood thug who is now applying for a gun permit. On the application it asks for the reason the applicant wants the gun. Iran responds "To murder my neighbor."

The US administration has briefed you well. Their rhetoric is as silly as the Iranian rhetoric! Let's be honest, no one is going to be nuking anyone.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Neither the United States, Israel nor Iran have some sort of God-given right to dominate the ME. Nobody does.

let me be painfully literal. Since you dont believe in God, obviously nobody has a God-given right to anything. (For me since I dont believe I have direct insight to G-ds geopolitics, we're in effectively the same boat)

What I was trying to assert with this point is that there is another reason that Iran might want nukes aside from fear of US threats, OR wanting to imminently nuke Israel. That is that they would try to dominate the ME. Im having a hard time getting you to admit thats their goal, apart from some snark about so are we.

Do you agree A. They are trying to dominate the ME
and B. That growing Iranian power in the ME is a very bad thing, not only to the US and Israel, but to other powers in the region, and to powers outside the region?

This is a question apart from what we do about it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
We can refuse to trade with them (sanctions) and we can offer incentives to discontinue the program, but we have no RIGHT to stop them by force.

Would that be the case if we believed there was a 90% probability they would use the bomb if they had it? 50%? 20%?

Would it apply to policies in between force and conventional attack? Would it apply to subsidies to Iranian dissidents? Guns for Iranian dissidents? Spec Ops forces alongside Iranian dissidents?

How about implicitly threatening force in order to get reluctant states to agree to sanctions, in order to avert our use of force?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian

Beyond that, my support is conditional on whether or not I agree with a given Israeli policy/action.

-Arrian

the "Invested" wasnt about supporting Israeli actions. I disagree with some Israeli actions (you havent seen it much here, as its been 8 years since Israel has had a definitely non-pragmatic right wing PM) and I have Zionist friends who are more fiercely left wing than I am, and disagree far more than I do. But to them losing 100,000 Israelis, losing neighborhoods and institutions, would mean a blow to hopes and dreams - it would be an existential challenge. I dont expect you to share that. I am deeply appreciative that SOME gentiles do share that, even if I disagree with them on many issues.

[DinoDoc]

Why would it be an "existential challenge" to them assuming they aren't Israeli?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why would it be an "existential challenge" to them assuming they aren't Israeli?

Perhaps I misused the word. It would challenge, for many of them, their beliefs in a just God, and a just universe. That Jews would place special emphasis on the fate of Jews, in judging G-d, is I suspect something you may have difficulty with, but it goes deep to the nature of Jewish history, chosenness, the burden of chosenness, and the belief in modernity as an answer to those problems. And to the belief that with Israel, and with a world that had been changed by the holocaust, the danger of a new holocaust would be no more.

Im sorry, i cant answer it in the paragraphs I can spare. If you dont believe me, thats alright.

[Berzerker]

Iran's POLICY is the destruction of Israel

Via supporting the native population, not by nuking Israel...which wont accomplish anything other than the destruction of Iran and millions of Muslims. Iran doesn't care about Israel, it cares about being threatened. They see Israel as a colonial outpost and the west has done little over the decades/centuries to convince Iranians we'll let them live in peace.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Thedrin


If or when Iran obtains nuclear weapons, the Iranian President will have no authority over their use. It is also highly unlikely that Ahmedinejad would still be in power by then.

Ahmadinajad emerged from the Revolutionary Guard milieu. They are likely to continue to be influential, and beyond the office of the presidency.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Via supporting the native population, not by nuking Israel...which wont accomplish anything other than the destruction of Iran and millions of Muslims. Iran doesn't care about Israel, it cares about being threatened. They see Israel as a colonial outpost and the west has done little over the decades/centuries to convince Iranians we'll let them live in peace.

threaten with what? A coup? Nukes are no protection against a coup. We cant invade and occupy them, thats pretty clear from the current situation in Iraq. If they werent pursuing nukes thered be no talk of attacking them.

Hell they held our diplos hostage, and we did nothing more than a raid.

and centuries?? Whered you get that? What did the west do to Iran before say 1800? From 1800 to 1918 what was done by the west, besides an occasional brit warship sent to deter them from grabbing Herat from the Afghans?

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
...you havent seen it much here, as its been 8 years since Israel has had a definitely non-pragmatic right wing PM) and I have Zionist friends who are more fiercely left wing than I am...

I'm not about to enter the debate (few people believe as I do and it's proven worthless to try and explain) but I do like knowing what people are thinking.

To that end I'd like to know your views of "left" and "right"...and "pragmatic" for that matter.

I personally know people from Palistine and people from Israel and it's interesting to see the different sides when a rational discussion can be had (sometimes that gets hard and they throw the uniquly arogant "you could never understand" at me).

Tom P.

[Arrian]

LotM,

As you correctly note, I do not believe in God. I used "God-given right" as a figure of speech. Surely you knew that. So why nitpick?

Iran nuking Israel just doesn't seem plausible to me, despite the rhetoric Iran has spewed forth. As I've said, on this we simply differ.

As for Iranian domination of the ME, sure, I've little doubt they want to increase their influence in the region, and further that having nukes would help them accomplish that. I also agree that it's not a good thing for Israel, the US, and some of Iran's neighbors. Note that US dominance hasn't been so great for some of the inhabitants of the ME, either, though.

Here's where it seems we really differ: I reject the idea that we have a right to attack Iran for developing nuclear weapons, which as you may recall we invented. We remain the only nation to have have actually used them (other than testing). Especially given that use of nukes by Iran would result in the destruction of Iran. First of all, Israel has its own nuclear weapons. Second, Israel's powerful ally, our very own USofA, has more nukes than we know what to do with.

Of course, we shouldn't question those Israeli nukes, should we? Having them doesn't allow Israel to "mess around in the region" more than it would otherwise be able to do, does it? It's ok that Israel has them, 'cause Israel is one of the good guys (tm).

Ultimately, despite my sarcasm, I would agree with the above. But I'm not unaware of how hypocritical it looks to, say, an Iranian.

-Arrian