Iran started its nuclear programme, because Iraq!

[Aeson]

Under your definition, though, everyone is a threat to everyone else because everyone has the capability to act on any whim to hurt.

So? That is what the word means.

You seem to be hung up on a misconception that the level of threat is always the same. It varies. Most people, and even most countries, pose virtually no threat to Iran. The US military on the other hand is a bit more capable of harming Iran than most, and lead by people (at least at times and potentially in the future) who have shown the willingness to use it and want to use it against Iran.

Cops shooting your murderer next-door neighbor and staying to investigate his crimes are not a threat to you and everyone in the neighborhood, except in the most vague sense.

They are a very real threat if those "cops" are saying you are also a murderer, have the most powerful military on earth, previously had tried to arm the "murderer" to kill you (as well as decades of other belligerent actions), and everyone knows the reasons the "cops" killed the "murderer" were not what was claimed.

If you don't feel a very real threat is posed by the "cops" in that scenario you're a moron.

Iran did slow their nuclear program and agree to expanded inspections in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, and then ended that expanded cooperation and accelerated their program after they gained the upper hand in Iraq.

Oh, so they did that because there was no threat? I thought you said there was no threat? Why are you now claiming that the non-existent threat caused Iran to do that?

What Cheney says is irrelevant to the case, unless he said it to the Iranians at the time.

No, it's very important. Wallace's response was to Cheney's statement, and that statement is the context of the response and what this whole line of discussion stemmed from.

Quotes without cites are disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

I'm sorry. I made the mistake of thinking you had read this thread. It's a quote direct from the OP. You might want to try reading the context of what you were addressing before calling it irrelevant.

[grumbler]

So? That is what the word means.

You seem to be hung up on a misconception that the level of threat is always the same. It varies. Most people, and even most countries, pose virtually no threat to Iran. The US military on the other hand is a bit more capable of harming Iran than most, and lead by people (at least at times and potentially in the future) who have shown the willingness to use it and want to use it against Iran.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that the Iranians think and act like you do (i.e. in a manner to demonize certain US politicians). This is projection, pure and simple. The US did not threaten Iran more in 2003 than in 2002 or 2012; probably it threatened them far less, because it had fewer resources to use in a hypothetical war with Iran. The facts do not line up with your pre-selected narrative.

They are a very real threat if those "cops" are saying you are also a murderer, have the most powerful military on earth, previously had tried to arm the "murderer" to kill you (as well as decades of other belligerent actions), and everyone knows the reasons the "cops" killed the "murderer" were not what was claimed.

Here, you are simply making up facts to fit your narrative. The US didn't arm Saddam Hussein at all. The Iranians could not have known in 2002 that Saddam had no WMD, any more than the US could have known it, nor had the US issued military threats against Iran. Your analogy falls flat on its face.

If you don't feel a very real threat is posed by the "cops" in that scenario you're a moron.

Really? Name-calling? Whatever happened to your pretense that you were interested in intellectual debate?

Oh, so they did that because there was no threat? I thought you said there was no threat? Why are you now claiming that the non-existent threat caused Iran to do that?

Huh? Whatever made you think I "said there was no threat?" Reading comprehension, please. We can't debate this if you ignore what I say and invent straw man arguments to debate against.

No, it's very important. Wallace's response was to Cheney's statement, and that statement is the context of the response and what this whole line of discussion stemmed from.

If you are not debating the Iranian motives for developing a nuclear power/nuclear wepaons program, then I guess we have nothing further to debate. I really don't care what Wallace said, since he wasn't an Iranian decision-maker at the time, and offers no evidence beyond a feeble attempt at post hoc ergo prpter hoc.

I'm sorry. I made the mistake of thinking you had read this thread. It's a quote direct from the OP. You might want to try reading the context of what you were addressing before calling it irrelevant.

If you were quoting the OP, then you need to say so. That's what you do with quotes: provide attribution. If you fail to do so, it is incredibly lame to try to blame me.

[Aeson]

You seem to be hung up on the idea that the Iranians think and act like you do (i.e. in a manner to demonize certain US politicians).

I think Iranians are people, and people generally don't want to be bombed or invaded. I think the Iranian government wants to stay in power, like all governments do. I think in both regards they have long term memory. That's the extent of my "projection" onto the Iranians, and I feel very sure that my assessment is correct.

The US did not threaten Iran more in 2003 than in 2002 or 2012; probably it threatened them far less, because it had fewer resources to use in a hypothetical war with Iran.

It's not relevant if it was more or less than before/after. Clearly we have made threats before/after ... and it is the sum of all the threats we make that at any given time is going to be taken account by Iran. ("memory")

What is relevant is if it was a threat or not. Cheney claimed it was a threat that worked. Wallace pointed out it didn't work. Reality sides with Wallace. You side with Cheney (sometimes) and other times against him.

It was a threat to Iran to have us in Iraq. It was a threat to show we would invade one of "the Axis of Evil" which Iran was included in.

The US didn't arm Saddam Hussein at all.

Yes we did.

The Iranians could not have known in 2002 that Saddam had no WMD, any more than the US could have known it, nor had the US issued military threats against Iran.

They sure could have known that the reasons given for the Iraq war weren't good ones. I did, as did many others. Iran likely understood the factions involved in Iraq a lot better than we did. What we left Iran with was the fact we are willing to invade one of the Axis of Evil under weak premises even if it is a huge detriment to us.

Really? Name-calling? Whatever happened to your pretense that you were interested in intellectual debate?

I have no idea what you're referring to with "pretense" of not name calling ... are you sure you're on the right forum (or at least in the right decade)?

Huh? Whatever made you think I "said there was no threat?"

"Iran's R&D program followed exactly the steps one would expect in an R&D program."

"What threats did the US make against Iran or North Korea?"

I think you may be getting to the point where your argument is so absurd that I can just leave you to debate yourself. In response to my criticism of Cheney, you argue he was right and the threat posed by US invasion to Iraq made Iran hold off on their nuclear program for a while. You also claim there was no threat at all, and R&D was never affected.

If you are not debating the Iranian motives for developing a nuclear power/nuclear wepaons program, then I guess we have nothing further to debate.

The statements were explicitly about the effects of the Iraq invasion on Iranian motives. Discussing them is obviously discussing Iranian motives, as is discussing Iranian motives which I have been doing in each post. You seem to be very confused.

I really don't care what Wallace said, since he wasn't an Iranian decision-maker at the time, and offers no evidence beyond a feeble attempt at post hoc ergo prpter hoc.

Wallace's response to Cheney was what you decided to attack, so obviously you cared about it. You just forgot what Wallace was responding to, and thus took his response as something other than what it was. At worst, Wallace made a slight factual error (no centrifuges). He was right to point out to Cheney that Iran's nuclear program did not stop. Cheney was the one m aking a ****ing stupid statement to try to pretend the Iraq invasion wasn't a horrible waste.

If you were quoting the OP, then you need to say so. If you fail to do so, it is incredibly lame to try to blame me.

No, it's quite deserved for you to be laughed at for not recognizing Cheney's statement. It's also worthy of pointing out how you didn't realize what Cheney's statement was, given that you chose to attack Wallace's refutation of that statement. It helps explain why you misinterpreted Wallace's statement.

[Dinner]

We have known since 2003 that our invasion of Iraq and threats to invade Iran were why Iran was seeking a nuclear bomb. They saw it as the great equalizer which would insure no one ever invaded them.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

We have known since 2003 that our invasion of Iraq and threats to invade Iran were why Iran was seeking a nuclear bomb. They saw it as the great equalizer which would insure no one ever invaded them.

of course... it's not rocket science. well... I guess for iran it still is HAHAHA

[grumbler]

I think Iranians are people, and people generally don't want to be bombed or invaded. I think the Iranian government wants to stay in power, like all governments do. I think in both regards they have long term memory. That's the extent of my "projection" onto the Iranians, and I feel very sure that my assessment is correct.

None of these have anything to do with nuclear weapons. As you note, "people generally don't want to be bombed or invaded" and yet not every country has a nuclear program. This assertion is meaningless in the context of our discussion.

It's not relevant if it was more or less than before/after. Clearly we have made threats before/after ... and it is the sum of all the threats we make that at any given time is going to be taken account by Iran. ("memory")

What threats did we make "before?"

What is relevant is if it was a threat or not. Cheney claimed it was a threat that worked. Wallace pointed out it didn't work. Reality sides with Wallace. You side with Cheney (sometimes) and other times against him.

Cheney' ex post facto claims are not relevant, since these claims weren't apparent to the Iranians when they were making their decisions, in the 1990s, to resume work on the Iranian nuclear program. Iran did blink in 2003, as i ahve shown, but resumed full-scale development in 2006. I don't "side" with Cheney or Wallace; I side with the facts.

It was a threat to Iran to have us in Iraq. It was a threat to show we would invade one of "the Axis of Evil" which Iran was included in.

According to you, it is a threat to Iran to have the US exist. Whatever. the fact of the matter is that the evidence shows that Iran had a nuclear program before the US invasion, slowed it and offered extraordinary inspections immediately after the invasion, and stopped the inspections and accelerated the program again in 2006.

They sure could have known that the reasons given for the Iraq war weren't good ones. I did, as did many others. Iran likely understood the factions involved in Iraq a lot better than we did. What we left Iran with was the fact we are willing to invade one of the Axis of Evil under weak premises even if it is a huge detriment to us.

The US had already fought one war with Iraq, so anyone who was surprised that there was a second war when Hussein refused to meet his obligations under the peace treaty that ended the first war was just not paying attention. Iran was paying attention. the Iranians knew, however, no mater how much Cheney might bluster otherwise in 2015, that the US could not invade Iran. Airstrikes, sure. Invasion, no.

I have no idea what you're referring to with "pretense" of not name calling ... are you sure you're on the right forum (or at least in the right decade)?

Okay. Fair enough. You aren't interested in intellectual discussions. I will drop out of any discussions that devolve into name-calling.

I think you may be getting to the point where your argument is so absurd that I can just leave you to debate yourself. In response to my criticism of Cheney, you argue he was right and the threat posed by US invasion to Iraq made Iran hold off on their nuclear program for a while. You also claim there was no threat at all, and R&D was never affected.

I am noting that the Carnegie Endowment's report on the topic (already quoted, but apparently unread by you)

Between 2003 and 2005—against the backdrop of the U.S. invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—France, Germany, and Britain (the EU-3) led a diplomatic effort to resolve the nuclear crisis. Iran, sobered by the fact that the United States had just defeated an Iraqi army in three weeks that they had fought to a standstill over eight years, initially agreed to suspend its enrichment program. It also voluntarily implemented the IAEA’s Additional
Protocol, which allows for more intrusive inspections, for more than two years. But as the situation in Iraq began to deteriorate, turning in Iran’s favor, oil prices began to soar, and the EU-3 failed to bridge the gap between Iran and the United States, Tehran’s leaders grew emboldened enough to reject what they believed to be the West’s underlying objective: to get them to permanently give up their right to enrich uranium. On August 8, 2005, in
the final days of Mohammad Khatami’s presidency, Iran restarted uranium conversion at its Isfahan facility.

You are the one making the claim that Cheney's comments are significant. I am the one noting that his statements have no bearing on the discussion, as they are after-the-fact and self-serving.

The statements were explicitly about the effects of the Iraq invasion on Iranian motives. Discussing them is obviously discussing Iranian motives, as is discussing Iranian motives which I have been doing in each post. You seem to be very confused.

I am not confused at all. You seem to think simultaneously that
(1) Cheney's comments in 2015 affected Iranian decision-making in 2003, and
(2) that Cheney's comments are wrong.

The Cheney issue is a red herring. His statements in 2015 did not, in fact, affect Iranian decision-making in 2003.

Wallace's response to Cheney was what you decided to attack, so obviously you cared about it. You just forgot what Wallace was responding to, and thus took his response as something other than what it was. At worst, Wallace made a slight factual error (no centrifuges). He was right to point out to Cheney that Iran's nuclear program did not stop. Cheney was the one m aking a ****ing stupid statement to try to pretend the Iraq invasion wasn't a horrible waste.

I noted that Wallace was committing a classical logical fallacy, as indeed he was, and also noted that he was even factually in error. You seem to be offended by these observations. whatever. At least you don't try to argue that my observations were, in fact, wrong. Feel free to bash Cheney all you wish; his comments are not relevant to the issue, so i ignore what he said.

No, it's quite deserved for you to be laughed at for not recognizing Cheney's statement. It's also worthy of pointing out how you didn't realize what Cheney's statement was, given that you chose to attack Wallace's refutation of that statement. It helps explain why you misinterpreted Wallace's statement.

I don't care what Cheney said, for reasons repeatedly stated. Further, you can't make me care about what Cheney said, because you cannot make his statements relevant.

[grumbler]

We have known since 2003 that our invasion of Iraq and threats to invade Iran were why Iran was seeking a nuclear bomb. They saw it as the great equalizer which would insure no one ever invaded them.

You have known that. I knew that the Iranians were seeking a bomb even before the invasion of Iraq. I have known that Iran was seeking a bomb for at least as long as Saddam was seeking one.

[Kidlicious]

Oerdin learned everything he knows from NPR radio.

[ricketyclik]

NPR

[Bereta_Eder]

Ottoman - ****ed 1821
Nazi - ****ed 1944
US - ****ed ? only a matter of time (altrhough I would say, 1974 and 1981)