Tweet
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian
So are you saying that IF it were plausible, your statement that we dont have a right to use force would not apply? Im trying to get clarity, which is why I gave several specified percentage probablitilies.
"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."
Im not so sure of that. First, Im not sure what time frame youre looking at. Until 1991, the US didnt dominate the region, but found its influenced fiercely contested by the USSR. Virtually as soon as the USSR left the contest (though even then US dominance was limited by many factors) the US atttempted to push forward a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Certainly that led to greater gains for Palestinian self-rule than any previous period. If its not the Pals, who are you indicating as suffering from US dominance?
"Here's where it seems we really differ: I reject the idea that we have a right to attack Iran for developing nuclear weapons,"
You still have not clarified for me if this rejection is dependent on your estimate as to the plausibility of Iran using them aggressively.
" which as you may recall we invented. "
as you may recall, FDR started the Manhattan project at least in part at the prompting of scientists, including Albert Einstein, who were concerned about the German programs.
" We remain the only nation to have have actually used them (other than testing)."
At the end of WW2, a war fought by almost every civilized nation on earth against the Axis, a war in which the casualties from the a bombs paled beside total civilian casualties. I categorically reject the notion that our use of the bomb in WW2 in any way lessens our moral authority or rights wrt to nuclear proliferation today.
"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."
Again, there are reason to question the certainty of that acting as deterrence. In order to avoid going around again on discussion ranging from what the consequence for Israel and the US would be if they responded to a single attack on Tel Aviv inflicting 100,000 casualties with the destruction of tens of millions of Iranians, to the question of whether Ahmadinajad is the only man in the Iranian polity who may be believe in the imminent arrival of the 12 imam, I asked you to state what rights we would have under certain specified percentages. You have not responded to that.
"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)."
We have certainly questioned Israel nukes, and IIRC at Madrid one of the sub forums was a discussion of regional disarmament. However we are aware that Israel developed nukes at a time when almost every state in the region denied Israel right to exist. Today, Iran, which will soon have nuclear weapons, denies Israels right to exist. They wont even mention Israels name, calling it "the Zionist entity" May I ask which state denies Irans right to exist? May I note that even today many in the West deny Israels right to exist, and that many who acknowledge it, do so grudgingly?
Your attempt to draw a facile comparison between Israels security situation and Irans is deeply innaccurate.
As for Israel messing around in the region, I would have to ask you where Israel has shown regional ambitions as geographically wide as Irans? Israel has been at peace with Egypt for over 3 decades. Israel last was involved in Jordanian politics in 1971, and then on behalf to the Jordanian regime against the PLO, an intervention that prevented a gain for the USSR, BTW. They entered Lebanon in 1982, after years of cross border attacks by the PLO. I agree they were mistaken in trying to reshape Lebanense politics, but they quickly learne their lesson and withdrew to a narrow border zone. Most of their "messsing around" is in areas that are a couple of hours walk from Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Imagine, sending in troops to Bethlehem, a mere, what, 20 miles from the Knesset house. Vast imperial ambitions indeed.
If you look at Ahmadinajads domestic rhetoric on the nukes, hes careful to always position it as the eevil imperialists dont want us to have nuclear energy, and if you look at pro-regime post to say BBC boards from IRan, you almost always see loud assertions of Irans right to modernize using nuclear energy, like everyone else. This tells me that the regime is not terribly confident about how well it nuclear WEAPONS ambitions will actually sell domestically.
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 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.
So are you saying that IF it were plausible, your statement that we dont have a right to use force would not apply? Im trying to get clarity, which is why I gave several specified percentage probablitilies.
"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."
Im not so sure of that. First, Im not sure what time frame youre looking at. Until 1991, the US didnt dominate the region, but found its influenced fiercely contested by the USSR. Virtually as soon as the USSR left the contest (though even then US dominance was limited by many factors) the US atttempted to push forward a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Certainly that led to greater gains for Palestinian self-rule than any previous period. If its not the Pals, who are you indicating as suffering from US dominance?
"Here's where it seems we really differ: I reject the idea that we have a right to attack Iran for developing nuclear weapons,"
You still have not clarified for me if this rejection is dependent on your estimate as to the plausibility of Iran using them aggressively.
" which as you may recall we invented. "
as you may recall, FDR started the Manhattan project at least in part at the prompting of scientists, including Albert Einstein, who were concerned about the German programs.
" We remain the only nation to have have actually used them (other than testing)."
At the end of WW2, a war fought by almost every civilized nation on earth against the Axis, a war in which the casualties from the a bombs paled beside total civilian casualties. I categorically reject the notion that our use of the bomb in WW2 in any way lessens our moral authority or rights wrt to nuclear proliferation today.
"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."
Again, there are reason to question the certainty of that acting as deterrence. In order to avoid going around again on discussion ranging from what the consequence for Israel and the US would be if they responded to a single attack on Tel Aviv inflicting 100,000 casualties with the destruction of tens of millions of Iranians, to the question of whether Ahmadinajad is the only man in the Iranian polity who may be believe in the imminent arrival of the 12 imam, I asked you to state what rights we would have under certain specified percentages. You have not responded to that.
"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)."
We have certainly questioned Israel nukes, and IIRC at Madrid one of the sub forums was a discussion of regional disarmament. However we are aware that Israel developed nukes at a time when almost every state in the region denied Israel right to exist. Today, Iran, which will soon have nuclear weapons, denies Israels right to exist. They wont even mention Israels name, calling it "the Zionist entity" May I ask which state denies Irans right to exist? May I note that even today many in the West deny Israels right to exist, and that many who acknowledge it, do so grudgingly?
Your attempt to draw a facile comparison between Israels security situation and Irans is deeply innaccurate.
As for Israel messing around in the region, I would have to ask you where Israel has shown regional ambitions as geographically wide as Irans? Israel has been at peace with Egypt for over 3 decades. Israel last was involved in Jordanian politics in 1971, and then on behalf to the Jordanian regime against the PLO, an intervention that prevented a gain for the USSR, BTW. They entered Lebanon in 1982, after years of cross border attacks by the PLO. I agree they were mistaken in trying to reshape Lebanense politics, but they quickly learne their lesson and withdrew to a narrow border zone. Most of their "messsing around" is in areas that are a couple of hours walk from Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Imagine, sending in troops to Bethlehem, a mere, what, 20 miles from the Knesset house. Vast imperial ambitions indeed.
Ultimately, despite my sarcasm, I would agree with the above. But I'm not unaware of how hypocritical it looks to, say, an Iranian.
If you look at Ahmadinajads domestic rhetoric on the nukes, hes careful to always position it as the eevil imperialists dont want us to have nuclear energy, and if you look at pro-regime post to say BBC boards from IRan, you almost always see loud assertions of Irans right to modernize using nuclear energy, like everyone else. This tells me that the regime is not terribly confident about how well it nuclear WEAPONS ambitions will actually sell domestically.
They might have had a more competent plan going in.
Comment