Mossad terrorists keep killing civilians.

[Hauldren Collider]

If you weren't such a drooling idiot I might explain you why the Kingdom of Belgium was formed in the first place. However, since this does not include jerking off to images of dead palestinians I just say: no, you had a couple of presidents kill of your native population.

Incorrect. We had a couple presidents who moved the natives around a bit with a fair number of casualties, but we can thank the virtual elimination of the native Americans to our wonderful friends the British.

[regexcellent]

Incorrect. We had a couple presidents who moved the natives around a bit with a fair number of casualties, but we can thank the virtual elimination of the native Americans to our wonderful friends the British.

That's only partially true.

[Hauldren Collider]

Maybe you should go back and read what your first rely was to. Slavery I just put on the plate of Kuci's drooling sibbling.

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

[MRT144]

Congratulations, you have now become what is known as a "moral relativist". It's okay for them to do what they do, because they have different standards of right and wrong.

I could make my standards of right and wrong whatever I want, and then whatever I do is totally justified.

See, I'm making what Kuci would call a "utilitarian calculation" here when I surmise that Iranian nukes would harm more people in more ways than assassinating a lone Iranian scientist. I think this is a reasonable conclusion. Now, to decide that we care more about the scientist than Iran's many potential victims seems like a pretty simple decision, and it sure as hell trumps Iran's pathetic excuse for "morals".

Well of course I'm making the moral relativist argument because you're unable or unwilling to see things from a perspective where Israel is morally ambiguous by most common moral standpoints at best.

[regexcellent]

While there are things the Israelis have done that are morally questionable I think assassinating an Iranian nuclear scientists is not high up on the list. It's not something anyone should be shedding tears over. Complaining about Israel doing things like this suggests a general worldview that Israel is always wrong, not morally ambiguous.

[Lorizael]

It's not something anyone should be shedding tears over.

Anyone?

[regexcellent]

Okay, the Iranians might be shedding tears, fine. Maybe also the Syrians, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

[Lorizael]

I was thinking more along the lines of the guys' family and friends, but whatevs.

[Elok]

I really can't bring myself to care whether Iran gets nukes. They don't seem anywhere near crazy or stupid enough to actually use them, and if their having the things discourages us from yet another "regime change," so much the better.

Of course, my judgment may be colored here by my strong distaste for the way Israel has our foreign policy by the balls.

[Dinner]

Given the fact that in 1979 Iran was pushing the Kurdish and Shiite populations in Iraq to revolt and topple Saddam

They weren't trying to topple Saddam, they knew they couldn't do that, but instead the Shah was trying to gain leverage over Iraq to settle the Shat el Arab territorial dispute in a favorable manner. Something which they did and that is exactly what Saddam used as an excuse to invade Iran in 1980 (to regain the territory ceded to Iran's Shahist governemt, he was attempting to use the instability of the revolution to regain lost territory).

[Kuciwalker]

My argument is that half measures rarely work. We can turn into total pacifists ourselves, withdraw from international politics, and send trucks full of food to the rest of the world; or we can annihilate our enemies and brainwash them into being our friends. But our current foreign policy of doing terrible things in secret while claiming the moral high ground in public is a stupid half measure doomed to failure.

So you think that Israel's strategy is ineffective? You think it's impossible to prevent or at least substantially delay Iranian nukes through the measures we've observed to date? Why?

[Lorizael]

Delay until...?

[Kuciwalker]

i'd like to hear your justification for why iran getting nuclear weapons is such a big problem that it requires murder/terrorism (call it what want) to 'prevent' it from happening.

Oh, there are plenty of things that would be bad about Iranian nukes:

1) It would be less susceptible to Western pressure. The West basically only pressures Iran on three issues: nukes, sponsoring terrorism, and democracy. For at least two out of three of those it would be objectively good for Iran to submit to that pressure.

2) Pretty much every additional nuclear-armed state in the world is bad for its own sake. We would be better off if neither India nor Pakistan had nukes. We would be better off if China didn't have nukes. We would be (very marginally) better off if Britain and France didn't have nukes. We would be better off if Russia didn't have nukes, and we even might have been better off if the Soviet Union hadn't had them (this one is arguable). Arguably we'd be better off if Israel didn't have nukes. Millions of deaths times a very small probability can still be a lot in expectation.

3) The idea that a nuclear Iran potentially could lead to nuclear-armed terrorists is worth mentioning, even if it's very unlikely.

Would it be worth invading Iran to prevent it from getting nukes? No. Is it worth killing a few people per year and bombing one building per decade with Israeli jets? Yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Delay until...?

Do you have any sense of proportion at all, Lori? Even if a bad thing is inevitable we get plenty of value from putting it off. Say Iranian nukes were only delayed by one month because of this attack. That would imply Israel is getting a bargain deal of an entire year for only 12 people.

You aren't going to come up with plausible estimates of the delay that justify your case; especially since it seems you consider full-scale invasion a valid option.

[C0ckney]

Oh, there are plenty of things that would be bad about Iranian nukes:

1) It would be less susceptible to Western pressure. The West basically only pressures Iran on three issues: nukes, sponsoring terrorism, and democracy. For at least two out of three of those it would be objectively good for Iran to submit to that pressure.

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

2) Pretty much every additional nuclear-armed state in the world is bad for its own sake.

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

3) The idea that a nuclear Iran potentially could lead to nuclear-armed terrorists is worth mentioning, even if it's very unlikely.

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.

Would it be worth invading Iran to prevent it from getting nukes? No. Is it worth killing a few people per year and bombing one building per decade with Israeli jets? Yes.

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

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