Mossad terrorists keep killing civilians.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Delay until...?

That ship unfortunately sailed. The until .... was presumably until such time as the government was destabilized and overthrown in favor of a more western friendly regime willing to give up nuclear weapons development.

Given we chose not to throw our support behind the demonstrations after the last election cycle, I'ld say the opportunity is likely lost.

[giblets]

This isn't jingoism. This is an unambiguous case of good versus bad. It doesn't matter if the US has done bad things, it doesn't even matter that Iran has done bad things. Iran IS doing bad things and WANTS to do bad things with weapons it is trying to acquire, and we are preventing bad things by preventing them from getting nukes. This is not a moral quandary.

Bull****, they probably think tactical nuclear weapons are the only thing that could allow them to resist a US invasion. Which, you know, is the thing that happened to two of Iran's neighbors in the last decade. The US is currently the most aggressive warmonger in the world and has shown that it will accuse enemies of developing nukes even when they don't (see Iraq). The argument "we need to attack Iran because soon it will be too late and we will no longer be able to invade them" is hollow. The idea that they would nuke Israel is preposterous because Israel already has lots of nuclear weapons.

[dannubis]

Reg, I think you've pissed him off to the point that he can no longer write comprehensible English. Excellent work

Finished jerking off ? I mean it was just another goat ****er yes ?

[The Mad Monk]

I hold in my hand a copy of King Leopold's Ghost.

I liked The Scramble For Africa, myself. Probably much the same.

[Arrian]

There's no moral equivalence between the US and Iran, Arrian. The world where Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons is better than the one where it does; enough better that it's probably worth the price one Iranian physicist. Which part of that do you disagree with?

1. I see more equivalence than you do, apparently, though I never claimed perfect equivalence.
2. This totally ignores blowback. If/when Iran retaliates? Shrieks of outrage, I'm sure.
3. I'm significantly less terrified of Iranian nukes than some. I don't find the idea threatening at all, actually. I know this makes me unusual, at least here.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

some might ask why we want to put pressure on iran in the first place.

Some might suggest reading to the end of the sentence you quoted, which answers that question.

some might say that we (the west) have interfered enough there over the last 100 years or so and that our interference has had many negative consequences for both us, and, more importantly the iranian people. some might say that if we stopped interferring in their country, the iranians would stop hating us so much.

Some might suggest you man up and take ownership of your own opinions.

Your case here sucks. Observably "Iran" (ignoring, for the moment, the distinction between the people and the political establishment) gets upset at things not involving them at all - Israeli behavior in Palestine and Lebanon most prominently. Observably they respond to this by supplying money and arms to anti-Israeli terrorists. In addition, they supplied money and arms to anti-American Iraqi insurgents. The world would be a better place if it stopped doing any of those things. Simply leaving Iran alone clearly won't do that.

i would prefer to see a world with no nuclear weapons, but it isn't going to happen.

Yes, which is why we should aim for the next-best option, where we minimize the number of nuclear weapons and the number of states that have them!

the problem with this argument is that we already have states which are arguably worse than iran who have nuclear weapons. i'm think particularly of pakistan (more unstable) and north korea (crazier).

And it would be super awesome if we could change either of those things, but we can't, so we should settle for what we can do - prevent Iran from getting them.

it's worth mentioning, but as you admit yourself it's very unlikely. if you had to pick a country where nuclear weapons had the highest chance of falling into 'the wrong hands', pakistan would be it, rather than a potentially nuclear iran. even in pakistan though, it's a very remote possibility.

Yes, but since we can't stop Pakistan from having nukes we might as well settle for stopping Iran.

And it's worth a modest price to reduce an already-small chance of a horrifying outcome.

i don't see how this will prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, merely delay.

The best way to deal with a problem is usually to delay it as long as we can and enjoy our brief moments of peace and prosperity before everything we know and love disappears and we die friendless and alone.

do you think that killing israeli settlers is valid, because it prevents them (personally) occupying palestinian land? if not, why?

The harm from Israeli settlers occupying land is substantially less than the harm from murdering those same settlers.

[Kuciwalker]

2. This totally ignores blowback. If/when Iran retaliates? Shrieks of outrage, I'm sure.

Of course we should be outraged; violent Iranian retaliation would make the world unambiguously worse. And it seems unlikely that the cost of any Iranian retaliation would seriously affect the original equation.

3. I'm significantly less terrified of Iranian nukes than some. I don't find the idea threatening at all, actually. I know this makes me unusual, at least here.

See #133.

[Al B. Sure!]

I hate the utilitarian calculus. I'm not going to get into a discussion about it because ethics is always nebulous, no matter how much Kuci wants to think it can be rational and scientific, but I personally find it morally repugnant. Yes, killing professors to delay Iran's weapons program is repugnant, regardless of the 'evil' of allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons (how catastrophic a nuclear Iran is is debatable). Intentionally targeting civilians, even those working for a nation's military infrastructure, is repugnant. Hell, intentionally targeting uniformed military without a declaration of war or any formal hostilities is repugnant.

[Kuciwalker]

I hate the utilitarian calculus. I'm not going to get into a discussion about it because ethics is always nebulous, no matter how much Kuci wants to think it can be rational and scientific, but I personally find it morally repugnant. Yes, killing professors to delay Iran's weapons program is repugnant, regardless of the 'evil' of allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons (how catastrophic a nuclear Iran is is debatable). Intentionally targeting civilians, even those working for a nation's military infrastructure, is repugnant. Hell, intentionally targeting uniformed military without a declaration of war or any formal hostilities is repugnant.

Albie, there are lots of good reasons for us to follow rules that, in individual circumstances, lead us to 'irrational' (non-utility-maximizing) choices. e.g. using punishment as deterrent may frequently be this. But those rules can and should be abandoned if the cost becomes too high; and the cost of a conventional war with Iran would be so horrifying that we can and should hold our noses and pick the repugnant option instead.

[DaShi]

Are you being deliberately obtuse HC? Or did DD get access to your account?

[Aeson]

The best way to deal with a problem is usually to delay it as long as we can and enjoy our brief moments of peace and prosperity before everything we know and love disappears and we die friendless and alone.

a) there are problems we can stop causing
b) there are other problems we don't cause that we can actually fix
c) how is a continual campaign of assassinating and bombing people "peace"?
d) you sound like some goth kid in high school

[Kitschum]

The Mossad may have been behind this, or the CIA, or the MI6 or whatever but I'm guessing they didn't perpetrate the actual terrorist act. That would most likely have been the job of the local People's Mojahedin (Mojahedin e Khalq) operative.

Collusion between the People's Mojahedin cult/organization and certain intelligence agencies has been rumored for a while. The laptop that the recent incredulous IAEA report was based on is supposed to have been provided through that route as well.

[Kuciwalker]

d) you sound like some goth kid in high school

It's actually the opposite perspective.

[Aeson]

The whole fatalistic "everything we know and love disappears and we die friendless and alone" is pretty much what you'll find posted in a billion different ways on MySpace. You may act differently on it (try to maximize enjoyment for yourself at the expense of others like Iranian physicists, rather than paint your face and cut your wrists), but it's the same fatalistic reasoning.

[DaShi]

I get my kicks blowing up Iranian scientists. Actually, its the only way I can feel anything anymore. And with each Iranian scientist I blow up, the feeling of euphoria dims a little. Thus, each explosion is somberly colored with the knowledge that it is one more explosion to my last.