If you were POTUS, how far would you go to deny Iran nukes?

[Kanastrous]

The fact is, they don't like Israel, but Israel is highly unlikely to conquer them. We, on the other hand have a good chance of doing just that, if nothing stops us ( like the possibility of nukes frying our armies ).

That sounds like it would mean nuking the formations while they're assembling to launch an attack. Which means most likely using nukes on the soil of Afghanistan (a Muslim country) or more likely Iraq, not just a Muslim country but a majority Shi'a one. Or, worst of all, using nukes on their own soil, *after* an invasion is underway. None of which seem likely.

[Posner]

That sounds like it would mean nuking the formations while they're assembling to launch an attack. Which means most likely using nukes on the soil of Afghanistan (a Muslim country) or more likely Iraq, not just a Muslim country but a majority Shi'a one. Or, worst of all, using nukes on their own soil, *after* an invasion is underway. None of which seem likely.

I thought that it is considered more acceptable from an international perspective to use nukes on your own soil. But then you have to worry about what your domestic reaction will be to pumping your own land full of radiation.

Elfdart, I love your avatar. It makes me feel like Sean Connery himself is throwing scorn and derision around.

[Lord of the Abyss]

You mean people just like his fellow Americans ?

You are first attempting to equate the United States and Iran in the field of direct human rights abuse, which is laughable. This does not prove an equivalency of rationality or competence vis-à-vis possession of nuclear weapons.

Oh, please. Outside our own borders we are quite barbaric. As for rationality - America is dominated by a religion that thinks the end of the world is a GOOD THING. If anything, Muslims, even fanatical ones, are LESS likely to engage in large scale self immolation. They want to win, not to reduce the world to rubble.

You may be secondly attempting to excuse Iranian behavior without first convincing anyone why we should go about foreign policy as if the primary objective is to remedy perceived moral imbalance. If this is so, your argument is therefore, “America has been bad, so we shouldn’t act when others do things we dislike. We really deserve it.”

No; in that case I'd be calling for bombing our own cities to wreckage, which I'm not. The point is that I have moral problem with mass murdering people to keep them from what looks to me like a perfectly rational course of action.

Please. Saddam tried cooperation; he's dead, and Iraq is laid waste. I think they've figured out that America doesn't respond to reason, or cooperation, or negotiation; only sheer force.

The number of people who understand the nuances of Saddam’s failed strategy, particularly outside the West, is probably insignificant. The sentiment, even in Europe, was that Saddam had no grounds for cooperation. Everyone agreed that he probably did have nuclear weapons; they simply doubted the wisdom of doing anything about it. Their “big beef” was that they were neither consulted nor listened-to, not that the United States was being pig-headed in ignoring Hussein’s multiple unconvincing olive branches. For all that he vacillated, Saddam played a very ineffective game of throwing open the doors and rolling out the red carpet.

Garbage. Few if any people thought he had nuclear weapons. We invaded BECAUSE we were sure he didn't. As for the world's opinion, as I recall the consensus was that maybe he had some decaying stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and no way to replace them. Saddam tried everything he could to reason with us, and to prove he had nothing; our response was to attack as soon as possible, to make sure that inspectors didn't come back with the report that he was telling the truth. And to drive right past the soon-to-be-looted Iraqi Army armories to get as fast as possible to the offices of the Oil Ministry.

The reason they need nukes is because we have been their enemies for decades - and were their enemies before the Islamist revolution - and they have no reason to think we are going to suddenly stop.

What will nuclear weapons do for them? Do you believe that invasion is imminent? Are you convinced that Obama is somehow more likely to “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” than George W. Bush? Let’s do try to build up our evidence here.

Obama's election and the damage Bush did to us gives them a 4-8 year breathing space. This is still the same country that elected Bush twice; they have no reason to think we won't elect another warmonger in the future.

Actually, through most of the 1990s, Iran was rarely in the news, and interest revived only after 11 September 2001 – for good reason.

Yeah, they had candlelight vigils in sympathy. How vile of them.

Iran is the source of a lot of heartache in the region.

But not as much as America is, by a long shot.

The fact is, they don't like Israel, but Israel is highly unlikely to conquer them. We, on the other hand have a good chance of doing just that, if nothing stops us ( like the possibility of nukes frying our armies ).

That sounds like it would mean nuking the formations while they're assembling to launch an attack. Which means most likely using nukes on the soil of Afghanistan (a Muslim country) or more likely Iraq, not just a Muslim country but a majority Shi'a one. Or, worst of all, using nukes on their own soil, *after* an invasion is underway. None of which seem likely.

Don't be ridiculous. If they are being invaded by an army intent on their destruction, of course they'll use nukes. Just as we would, just as anyone would.

[Axis Kast]

It's not a red herring to point out that Iran is not a predatory state like some of its neighbors and some of its enemies.

Except, you know, when Iran calls for Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East, promising Sharia law for all. Terrific, that.

So the Iranians' decision to take back two of their own islands and doing so without killing a single person (except four of their own men), and the Shah's decision to throw the Kurds under the bus show that country to be a ruthless aggressor against its neighbors. By the way, both of those incidents were back when the Shah was in charge, and he was an American stooge.

Iran gobbled those islands because there was nobody to stop them from doing it except a few police officers. It’s the epitome of exploitation: stealing from the week to enrich oneself.

The Shah’s decision to “throw the Kurds under the bus?” No. The Shah’s decision to force Iraq to sign an unequal treaty by stoking the first of violence? Yes.

The Shah was an American client, not an American stooge. He was always a lot more comfortable with the Soviet Union than we might have liked, and the CIA walked on pins and needles to please him, ultimately leading to his downfall. The Shah’s crippling self-doubt and the Byzantine politics of his court were idiosyncrasies for which the United States was not responsible. As I recall, a certain Allende was also fond of hearing what his Soviet advisers had to say. Did that make him a stooge and a traitor?

Hezbollah is the only group in Lebanon that was able to resist the invasions by Israel and drive the US Marines out in 1983. Good for them. To the degree that the Iranians back Hezbollah, good for them, too. If you think Lebanon is a train wreck now, just think what the place would be like if Israel still occupied the country and set up its little Phalangist Quisling state in the south.

An invasion that actually had some legality because it responded to violence that the Lebanese government was absolutely powerless to prevent.

We’ve had the “quisling” argument before, and despite your ability to deploy invective, you’ve never been able to explain why we should fault Israel for stepping into a void left behind by the Lebanese government, which effectively abandoned the South. When Saad Hadad was first sent down, it was on an Israeli boat, and carrying Israeli pay for his Lebanese troops. By the consent of the men in Beirut. But gradually, he was forgotten.

Lebanon is a train wreck thanks to the intervention of external forces that have names other than just “Israel.” Hezbollah today holds the government hostage, and many of the men who fought for the South Lebanese Army were slaughtered when the Israelis pulled out. But I guess murder out of hand is okay, if Elfdart doesn’t think you’re a standup sort of guy who “fights the good fight” against the United States.

You have a lot to explain. Like why we should believe that Lebanon was in good shape before the Israeli incursions past the River Litani. Like why we should accept that the Lebanese government held writ over a region (South Lebanon) that it chose to leave to the PLO. Like how what Hezbollah does is of any benefit to the average Lebanese, who is more worried about personal safety than “sticking it” to Israel.

The reason Bush didn't attack Iran is because short of nuking the place or a full-scale invasion, there's no practical way to do anything about Iran's nuclear program. Thanks to Bush's other disasters, he didn't have the means to launch an invasion.

Substantiate the idea that we someday will have the means to launch an invasion with a reliable chance of a happy outcome, for a worthwhile cost.

All those things apply in spades to Pakistan, yet there's almost none of the hyperventilating you see about Iran. The war whores aren't worried that Iran is going to build nukes and start flinging them around the Gulf. They're worried that once Iran has them, they can tell their neighbors, the US, the EU and anyone else to fuck off.

There’s plenty of concern. It’s just that you can’t take nuclear weapons away from those who already have them. This is another red herring, though. Reminding us that Pakistan “got away with it” isn’t evidence that they’re safe or reliable stewards.

Please address the arguments posed to you. If you wish to go on tangents and play with logical fallacies, save it until the end.

Oh, please. Outside our own borders we are quite barbaric. As for rationality - America is dominated by a religion that thinks the end of the world is a GOOD THING. If anything, Muslims, even fanatical ones, are LESS likely to engage in large scale self immolation. They want to win, not to reduce the world to rubble.

Last time I checked, we haven’t been trying to bring about the end of the world. Let me check again, though. I might have missed the mushroom clouds.

No; in that case I'd be calling for bombing our own cities to wreckage, which I'm not. The point is that I have moral problem with mass murdering people to keep them from what looks to me like a perfectly rational course of action.

A rational course of action for Iran, and an acceptable threat to the personal security of the citizens of the United States of America, may be different things.

You’ve never dealt with the points I made to Elfdart regarding the dangers inherent in the rise of New Nuclear Weapons States. Although I think we’re now past the time at which bombing makes good sense, I don’t regard Iran’s imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons as a positive development for global security, or a real guarantee of their safety, which is already effectively assured by factors of geography and size.

Garbage. Few if any people thought he had nuclear weapons.

The best intelligence of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, and many of Iraq’s own commanders would have begged to differ with your attitude. The idea that Saddam possessed an arsenal was less contentious (by far) than what he was likely to do with it, or whether a military solution was the preferable one.

We invaded BECAUSE we were sure he didn't. As for the world's opinion, as I recall the consensus was that maybe he had some decaying stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and no way to replace them. Saddam tried everything he could to reason with us, and to prove he had nothing; our response was to attack as soon as possible, to make sure that inspectors didn't come back with the report that he was telling the truth. And to drive right past the soon-to-be-looted Iraqi Army armories to get as fast as possible to the offices of the Oil Ministry.

Just like in 1991, huh? The truth is, we’ve invaded a country with confirmed biological and chemical weapons stocks. (We even tried to eliminate the infrastructure in a pre-war barrage that was ultimately very unsuccessful.)

Saddam tried everything he could to reason with us – while maintaining sufficient ambiguity to keep the Iranians and his own underlings confident that he still had something up his sleeve. After years of confirmed prevarication and non-compliance. He began telling half-truths only after a long and prosperous career as a liar.

Obama's election and the damage Bush did to us gives them a 4-8 year breathing space. This is still the same country that elected Bush twice; they have no reason to think we won't elect another warmonger in the future.

Except that Bush didn’t invade Iran. He didn’t even bomb them. Explain again why Americans looking at the problem are likely to believe that there is a good chance for success there. The claim that we’re a crazy bunch of sons of bitches who are one day at all likely to “come down hard” on Iran is foolish. In fact, once Iran acquires nuclear weapons (and they will), there’s nowhere to go but up. And, if they chose not to, relations would also begin to improve sharply.

Yeah, they had candlelight vigils in sympathy. How vile of them.

They also supported terror. But I guess that doesn’t matter if your enemy is Israel.

But not as much as America is, by a long shot.

Fixing our mistakes, and allowing Iran to go unpunished for its misdeeds, can be mutually exclusive. There is no law of moral equivalency which recommends the nuclear weapon as a salve for having to endure American foreign policy.

So, in the end, what we have here are two people who can't seem to read proper arguments; who want us to repay moral blood-debt by permitting a general travesty to everyone's security, and who refuse to admit of the moral culpability of Hezbollah or other anti-Israeli organizations for the problems in Lebanon. No. Let's just blame the South Lebanese Army, which did commit heinous acts, but was not always a loose canon, and was sometimes even kept in line by the Israeli Defense Force.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The reason Bush didn't attack Iran is because short of nuking the place or a full-scale invasion, there's no practical way to do anything about Iran's nuclear program. Thanks to Bush's other disasters, he didn't have the means to launch an invasion.

Substantiate the idea that we someday will have the means to launch an invasion with a reliable chance of a happy outcome, for a worthwhile cost.

Since when have we CARED if an invasion was likely to turn out well ? Vietnam didn't. Iraq didn't. We invaded anyway.

Oh, please. Outside our own borders we are quite barbaric. As for rationality - America is dominated by a religion that thinks the end of the world is a GOOD THING. If anything, Muslims, even fanatical ones, are LESS likely to engage in large scale self immolation. They want to win, not to reduce the world to rubble.

Last time I checked, we haven’t been trying to bring about the end of the world. Let me check again, though. I might have missed the mushroom clouds.

Jerry Falwell spent years tring to convince Ronald Reagan to launch a nuclear war in order to bring about the end of the world. The Right has shown consistent hostility to protecting the environment in part because many of them think that either the end of the world is coming and we don't need to care, or because it is our God given duty to kill all life and thereby set the stage for Jesus to come back ( James Watt being an example of the latter ). One motivation for support of Israel and the conquest of Iraq is an attempt to fulfill Biblical prophecy about the end of the world.

No, they obviously haven't succeeded in destroying the world; that doesn't mean they aren't trying.

No; in that case I'd be calling for bombing our own cities to wreckage, which I'm not. The point is that I have moral problem with mass murdering people to keep them from what looks to me like a perfectly rational course of action.

A rational course of action for Iran, and an acceptable threat to the personal security of the citizens of the United States of America, may be different things.

And in what way is it a threat to us ?

You’ve never dealt with the points I made to Elfdart regarding the dangers inherent in the rise of New Nuclear Weapons States. Although I think we’re now past the time at which bombing makes good sense, I don’t regard Iran’s imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons as a positive development for global security, or a real guarantee of their safety, which is already effectively assured by factors of geography and size.

It will help increase the stability of the region and by extension of the world by curtailing the biggest threat and source of instability around - us.

Garbage. Few if any people thought he had nuclear weapons.

The best intelligence of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, and many of Iraq’s own commanders would have begged to differ with your attitude. The idea that Saddam possessed an arsenal was less contentious (by far) than what he was likely to do with it, or whether a military solution was the preferable one.

Again, garbage. Everyone knew he had no such thing. THAT'S WHY WE INVADED.

We invaded BECAUSE we were sure he didn't. As for the world's opinion, as I recall the consensus was that maybe he had some decaying stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and no way to replace them. Saddam tried everything he could to reason with us, and to prove he had nothing; our response was to attack as soon as possible, to make sure that inspectors didn't come back with the report that he was telling the truth. And to drive right past the soon-to-be-looted Iraqi Army armories to get as fast as possible to the offices of the Oil Ministry.

Just like in 1991, huh? The truth is, we’ve invaded a country with confirmed biological and chemical weapons stocks. (We even tried to eliminate the infrastructure in a pre-war barrage that was ultimately very unsuccessful.)

Yeah, right. An occasional rusty gas shell buried in the desert doesn't qualify as "confirmed biological and chemical weapons stocks".

Obama's election and the damage Bush did to us gives them a 4-8 year breathing space. This is still the same country that elected Bush twice; they have no reason to think we won't elect another warmonger in the future.

Except that Bush didn’t invade Iran. He didn’t even bomb them. Explain again why Americans looking at the problem are likely to believe that there is a good chance for success there. The claim that we’re a crazy bunch of sons of bitches who are one day at all likely to “come down hard” on Iran is foolish. In fact, once Iran acquires nuclear weapons (and they will), there’s nowhere to go but up. And, if they chose not to, relations would also begin to improve sharply.

Unlikely. America is irrationally hostile to them, mainly for not properly sucking up to us. And the fact that we conquered Iraq is perfectly adequate evidence that we are " crazy bunch of sons of bitches who are one day at all likely to “come down hard” on Iran"

Yeah, they had candlelight vigils in sympathy. How vile of them.

They also supported terror.

And so do we. But it doesn't matter since we are America, right ? We do it, it's justified; anyone else does, it's not.

But not as much as America is, by a long shot.

Fixing our mistakes, and allowing Iran to go unpunished for its misdeeds, can be mutually exclusive. There is no law of moral equivalency which recommends the nuclear weapon as a salve for having to endure American foreign policy.

That's a matter of practicality, not morality. America has demonstrated that the only thing it respects is force.

[Rogue 9]

June 13, 1982. You may want to check your history before you make such a demand that confidently.

Nice try you dishonest little prick. Iran chasing Saddam Hussein's invading army back across the border isn't an invasion.

Actually, yeah, it is. It may have been justified, but you asked about the last time they invaded another country, and that was it. It doesn't matter who shot first; Iran's armed forces crossed into Iraqi territory, and that, by definition, constitutes an invasion. Don't blame me if you don't know the meaning of the word you used.

[Axis Kast]

Since when have we CARED if an invasion was likely to turn out well ? Vietnam didn't. Iraq didn't. We invaded anyway.

Are you shitting me?

We must care, per the parameters of your argument, or it matters not at all whether Iran has a weapon of mass destruction.

And operations in both Vietnam and Iraq were launched in confidence of victory. In war, one side must often be proven wrong about the likelihood of a successful outcome. Asserting that wars “went wrong” is not evidence that they were begun without a care.

Jerry Falwell spent years tring to convince Ronald Reagan to launch a nuclear war in order to bring about the end of the world.

Which then Ronald Reagan went and did, proving that the Christian Right is as much a threat as you insist, correct?

No, they obviously haven't succeeded in destroying the world; that doesn't mean they aren't trying.

Yet here is Obama, pledging to steward the environment, and the United States has not deployed a nuclear weapon in anger since 1945. Oops. There goes your theory. Better run and catch up.

And in what way is it a threat to us ?

People miscalculate. Threats are misperceived. Industrial accidents and technical malfunctions occur. Unreliable individuals are entrusted with responsibilities they do not merit. This is what possession of a nuclear weapon brings.

Militaries are poor stewards of the nuclear balance and its peace dividend. The Pakistanis apparently believe that a nuclear balance creates a “window” for “limited war.” Will Iran decide that its nuclear weapon is a Get Out of Jail Free Card behind which it can ramp up support for a range of terrorist groups? Will it become a more aggressive interloper in Iraq? How survivable will Iran’s weapon be? If it is widely perceived to be vulnerable to a first-strike, that may increase incentives for early use in the event that Iran feels threatened by Israel or others.

Conditions are simply not “ripe” for mutual assured deterrence to hold reliably in certain situations. Between India and Pakistan, for one. Iranian leaders, too, are hard-pressed to relate to their American counterparts.

It will help increase the stability of the region and by extension of the world by curtailing the biggest threat and source of instability around - us.

How? You haven’t yet proven that there will be war. In fact, arguments have been laid out warning that Iran may prove a frequent victim of nuclear crises largely its own making, and that there could be a negative outcome – greater belligerence.

Yeah, right. An occasional rusty gas shell buried in the desert doesn't qualify as "confirmed biological and chemical weapons stocks".

In 1991, the United States worried a great deal about whether or not we would face WMD. Soldiers were inoculated. Ultimate threats were placed on the table. A massive air campaign was undertaken to attempt to neutralize known components in that infrastructure. Your ignorance is no excuse.

Unlikely. America is irrationally hostile to them, mainly for not properly sucking up to us. And the fact that we conquered Iraq is perfectly adequate evidence that we are " crazy bunch of sons of bitches who are one day at all likely to “come down hard” on Iran"

Prove this irrational hostility and its roots in a sense of impotency. Prove that we are not actually concerned about Iran’s role as the major state sponsor of terrorism in the world; its repeated threats against an American ally; and its enormously important geopolitical position.

The fact that we “conquered” Iraq has to be understood in context. There was a different set of prevailing circumstances; a different balance of power. By your logic, Russia must also be shaking in its boots.

And so do we. But it doesn't matter since we are America, right ? We do it, it's justified; anyone else does, it's not.

Why are you so wound up about American terror? If you are upset with our foreign policy, we can talk about it. That doesn’t make it right, or proper, to dismiss the failings of others as inconsequential.

That's a matter of practicality, not morality. America has demonstrated that the only thing it respects is force.

What makes you think a nuclear weapon is the only force conducive to “protecting” Iran from loose-canon, no-justification attacks?

[Lord of the Abyss]

June 13, 1982. You may want to check your history before you make such a demand that confidently.

Nice try you dishonest little prick. Iran chasing Saddam Hussein's invading army back across the border isn't an invasion.

Actually, yeah, it is. It may have been justified, but you asked about the last time they invaded another country, and that was it. It doesn't matter who shot first; Iran's armed forces crossed into Iraqi territory, and that, by definition, constitutes an invasion. Don't blame me if you don't know the meaning of the word you used.

That's nitpicking. In context, Elfdart clearly was talking about aggressive war; not pushing an invader past it's border and keeping on going.

Since when have we CARED if an invasion was likely to turn out well ? Vietnam didn't. Iraq didn't. We invaded anyway.

Are you shitting me?

We must care, per the parameters of your argument, or it matters not at all whether Iran has a weapon of mass destruction.

Because nuclear weapons are the exception to us not caring.

And operations in both Vietnam and Iraq were launched in confidence of victory.

And in both cases we had no reason to think victory would happen. Which just underlines that Iran is right to be afraid.

Jerry Falwell spent years trying to convince Ronald Reagan to launch a nuclear war in order to bring about the end of the world.

Which then Ronald Reagan went and did, proving that the Christian Right is as much a threat as you insist, correct?

Because - THAT TIME - he didn't take the advice of his loony advisor.

No, they obviously haven't succeeded in destroying the world; that doesn't mean they aren't trying.

Yet here is Obama, pledging to steward the environment, and the United States has not deployed a nuclear weapon in anger since 1945. Oops. There goes your theory. Better run and catch up.

And is Obama a Christian fundie ? And will he be President For Life ?

And in what way is it a threat to us ?

People miscalculate. Threats are misperceived. Industrial accidents and technical malfunctions occur. Unreliable individuals are entrusted with responsibilities they do not merit.

And that will cause the weapons to magically teleport themselves into America and detonate ? You were just talking about how they couldn't even hit Israel with one.

It will help increase the stability of the region and by extension of the world by curtailing the biggest threat and source of instability around - us.

How? You haven’t yet proven that there will be war.

Because I don't know that there will. If for no other reason that I don't know if they will manage to build nukes and thus stave us off; or if we will collapse hard enough beforehand that we aren't capable of bullying the whole planet anymore.

Yeah, right. An occasional rusty gas shell buried in the desert doesn't qualify as "confirmed biological and chemical weapons stocks".

In 1991, the United States worried a great deal about whether or not we would face WMD. Soldiers were inoculated. Ultimate threats were placed on the table. A massive air campaign was undertaken to attempt to neutralize known components in that infrastructure. Your ignorance is no excuse.

And after that there were years for anything left to decay, and swarms of inspectors destroying everything they could find.

Unlikely. America is irrationally hostile to them, mainly for not properly sucking up to us. And the fact that we conquered Iraq is perfectly adequate evidence that we are " crazy bunch of sons of bitches who are one day at all likely to “come down hard” on Iran"

Prove this irrational hostility and its roots in a sense of impotency. Prove that we are not actually concerned about Iran’s role as the major state sponsor of terrorism in the world; its repeated threats against an American ally; and its enormously important geopolitical position.

Because we've been hostile to them for decades - they are a threat ( to the extent they are ) because we worked hard to make them one. Because we've responded exactly the same to attempts to negotiate as we do to threats. Because we support terrorism ourselves, so obviously we have no actual problem with it.

As for it's "enormously important geopolitical position", at least for the US specifically Canada is in a position at least as important; should we start making threats at them too ?

The fact that we “conquered” Iraq has to be understood in context. There was a different set of prevailing circumstances; a different balance of power. By your logic, Russia must also be shaking in its boots.

Of course not - THEY have nukes.

And so do we. But it doesn't matter since we are America, right ? We do it, it's justified; anyone else does, it's not.

Why are you so wound up about American terror?

That's a matter of practicality, not morality. America has demonstrated that the only thing it respects is force.

What makes you think a nuclear weapon is the only force conducive to “protecting” Iran from loose-canon, no-justification attacks?

History.

[Axis Kast]

Because nuclear weapons are the exception to us not caring.

No, they aren’t.

George Bush didn’t bomb Iran for a reason. They are quite safe from the threat of American invasion. Because Iran is such a large and populous country, they could probably be quite safe even if enormous American manpower and equipment resources were not tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And in both cases we had no reason to think victory would happen. Which just underlines that Iran is right to be afraid.

Hm. Who am I going to believe? The weighed experience of the war planners working for the United States Department of Defense, or Lord of the Abyss?

Nobody plans to lose a war. We came close to finding successful formulas in Vietnam; we were cheated out of victory by political and grand-strategic considerations, not an absolute stacking of the deck from the outset. Tet was a last gasp, you see.

Because - THAT TIME - he didn't take the advice of his loony advisor.

You can’t even provide a quote.

And is Obama a Christian fundie ? And will he be President For Life ?

Why don’t you tell us who the fundamentalist President of the United States will be in the next four years. Your argument is literally that Iran deserves the bomb to put off a future megalomaniac who would otherwise try to destroy the world. I’ve read trash airplane novels with more convincing plotlines.

And that will cause the weapons to magically teleport themselves into America and detonate ? You were just talking about how they couldn't even hit Israel with one.

Who said anything about the United States? Why would we want a nuclear weapon to explode almost anywhere in the world? Why would we want a “loose” nuclear weapon on the move, and out of effective, rational control, in such a powderkeg of a region, with its porous borders?

I didn’t say that Iran couldn’t hit Israel with a bomb; I said that the Iranians might perceive that they were under an imminent threat when, in fact, that was not the case, and thus decide to “use it or lose it.”

Because I don't know that there will. If for no other reason that I don't know if they will manage to build nukes and thus stave us off; or if we will collapse hard enough beforehand that we aren't capable of bullying the whole planet anymore.

You have to prove convincingly that the price of prohibiting them a nuclear weapon will be a costly war. Or else it is correct to lament the outcome as unfortunate and undesirable because of the various new problems it creates.

And after that there were years for anything left to decay, and swarms of inspectors destroying everything they could find.

Periodically tricked and led astray. But by moving on to make another argument completely, you’ve conceded my original point – we invaded a nation with known WMD stocks, and were prepared to “take the hit.”

Because we've been hostile to them for decades - they are a threat ( to the extent they are ) because we worked hard to make them one. Because we've responded exactly the same to attempts to negotiate as we do to threats. Because we support terrorism ourselves, so obviously we have no actual problem with it.

In what fashion did we make them into a threat? We did not enjoin them to seize an embassy, violating a major tenet of international law. We did not force them to funnel men, money, and guns into Lebanon so that they could suborn peace.

They haven’t offered to negotiate. Iran spends most of its time rejecting proposals out of hand. They’ve exhausted even those governments that once opposed sanctions – up to the point that they are now under three consecutive rounds.

We have plenty of problem with terrorism. Your exclamations that the United States is guilty of the same crime do not detract from the fact that what Iran is doing is wrong. Al Capone was responsible for more mayhem and law-breaking than a guy picked up off the street for assault last night. Do we let the later go, because somebody else did worse?

As for it's "enormously important geopolitical position", at least for the US specifically Canada is in a position at least as important; should we start making threats at them too ?

We are concerned with Iran because its reckless behavior may one day endanger vital energy resources – something that is possible due to location. Our European and Japanese allies are only too pleased that we have taken up the mantle, although the former sometimes elect to disagree on the manner in which we discharge that public service.

Of course not - THEY have nukes.

You need to prove that Iran is equally as vulnerable as Iraq. American war planners don’t believe so.

It’s an absolutely vital question, and an honest one. Why do you refer to every argument that Iran does bad things with the rejoinder, “So does the United States”? It’s a red herring. We aren’t discussing the right and proper methods of American foreign policy; we are discussing threats. The Ayatollahs would have endorsed the spread of violent revolution and extremism, even if there wasn’t a Great Satan to resent over the Shah. Look at how out-of-touch they are with the Iranian people.

History.

*cough* Pakistan and Kargil. *cough*

[Lord of the Abyss]

Because nuclear weapons are the exception to us not caring.

No, they aren’t.

George Bush didn’t bomb Iran for a reason.

Because Iraq didn't turn into the easy occupation that he expected. And because Iran didn't respond the way he wanted to his provocations.

And in both cases we had no reason to think victory would happen. Which just underlines that Iran is right to be afraid.

Hm. Who am I going to believe? The weighed experience of the war planners working for the United States Department of Defense, or Lord of the Abyss?

The Department of Defense ? You mean the people who LOST ?

Because - THAT TIME - he didn't take the advice of his loony advisor.

You can’t even provide a quote.

From a thirty or so year old conversation between two dead lunatics ? Do you have any idea how much comes up when you google for Reagan, Falwell, and terms like Gog and Magog ?

And is Obama a Christian fundie ? And will he be President For Life ?

Why don’t you tell us who the fundamentalist President of the United States will be in the next four years.

Yeah, because Iran is suppose to never think ahead.

Because I don't know that there will. If for no other reason that I don't know if they will manage to build nukes and thus stave us off; or if we will collapse hard enough beforehand that we aren't capable of bullying the whole planet anymore.

You have to prove convincingly that the price of prohibiting them a nuclear weapon will be a costly war.

Don't be silly. Nothing else we could do would stop them.

And it's interesting how I have to "prove" all these things about hypothetical situations, but you think it's just fine for America to kill and destroy just because something we don't like MIGHT happen.

And after that there were years for anything left to decay, and swarms of inspectors destroying everything they could find.

Periodically tricked and led astray.

Again garbage. They found and destroyed essentially everything.

But by moving on to make another argument completely, you’ve conceded my original point – we invaded a nation with known WMD stocks, and were prepared to “take the hit.”

But not nukes.

Because we've been hostile to them for decades - they are a threat ( to the extent they are ) because we worked hard to make them one. Because we've responded exactly the same to attempts to negotiate as we do to threats. Because we support terrorism ourselves, so obviously we have no actual problem with it.

In what fashion did we make them into a threat?

We supported the Shah, just like we supported so many other tyrants. And when he gets overthrown - SURPRISE ! The new regime doesn't like us very much.

They haven’t offered to negotiate.

Yes, they did. Bush said 'No'.

We have plenty of problem with terrorism. Your exclamations that the United States is guilty of the same crime do not detract from the fact that what Iran is doing is wrong.

But it does mean we have no problem with supporting terrorism, or we wouldn't do it.

Of course not - THEY have nukes.

You need to prove that Iran is equally as vulnerable as Iraq. American war planners don’t believe so.

The same war planners that have gotten us into disastrous wars before.

It’s an absolutely vital question, and an honest one. Why do you refer to every argument that Iran does bad things with the rejoinder, “So does the United States”?

Because if we do it, we have no right to demand that other's don't. And because your handwaving it away as unimportant demonstrates your moral bankruptcy.

History.

*cough* Pakistan and Kargil. *cough*

Pakistan is irrelevant; we are speaking of America. We attack countries without nukes. We don't attack countries with nukes. It is therefore rational for any country that America might desire to attack to acquire nukes.

[Axis Kast]

Because Iraq didn't turn into the easy occupation that he expected.

The military resources required for both activities are rather distinct. You have no evidentiary grounds on which to say that Iran escaped falling victim to bombing because American military resources were unavailable, even though I agree that the cost of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has made it more difficult to contemplate activities elsewhere.

The simple reality is that Bush was probably told exactly what it is already possible for you to divine from open-source research on Google: we haven’t got a good handle on the extent and location of Iran’s comprehensive nuclear infrastructure, and operations are already far enough along that they could reconstitute within a short period of time. Meaning that a military option can’t help us achieve desired policy goals.

I’m also curious to have you explain how Iran was “supposed to respond,” and where you’re getting your information about Bush’s motives. You do realize that the Europeans are well out ahead of us in accusing Iran of hiding something, correct?

The Department of Defense ? You mean the people who LOST ?

Are you mentally unfit? There is a world of difference between invading a country without first doing the math, and losing a war due to poor execution. In Vietnam, it is widely acknowledged that the United States won the shooting war but failed to maintain sufficiently public backing to press hostilities to a satisfactory conclusion.

From a thirty or so year old conversation between two dead lunatics ? Do you have any idea how much comes up when you google for Reagan, Falwell, and terms like Gog and Magog ?

Then you shouldn’t have any trouble finding them.

Yeah, because Iran is suppose to never think ahead.

There’s a difference between thinking ahead and believing that a future American president might even possibly contemplate setting the world aflame in order to hasten the Resurrection. The former is intelligent conduct; the second requires that you make preparation to visit a mental health ward.

Don't be silly. Nothing else we could do would stop them.

And it's interesting how I have to "prove" all these things about hypothetical situations, but you think it's just fine for America to kill and destroy just because something we don't like MIGHT happen.

I’m on record, at least three or four times in this thread, insisting that we should not attack Iran to prevent them from building a nuclear weapon.

I do not, however, believe that it will have a positive net effect on global security. In order to make that argument, you must make a convincing case that Iran will probably be subject to invasion if it does not acquire a nuclear weapon, which brings with it all sorts of disturbing new problems that you have yet to address.

Nuclear arsenals are dangerous. Iran is a newcomer to the field. There will be false alarms. There will be technical malfunctions. There may be war scares – especially because Iran is maladapted to understand Western policymakers, and vice versa. There may be breakdowns in command-and-control: Iran’s weapons are under the control of the Revolutionary Guard, a military organization that inducts members on the basis of their ideological extremism.

Considering that I have made the case to you why Iran is safe from invasion without a bomb, you must now make the case to me that this is untrue, and thus worth suffering the above risks in order to thwart.

Again garbage. They found and destroyed essentially everything.

After years of bullfuckery. The smart bet, in other words, was that they had something. Which is another thing, again, from whether or not they were a danger that needed immediate military attention.

But not nukes.

Pakistan has become involved in a shooting war despite the fact that its opponent has nuclear weapons.

Syria and Egypt threatened Israel’s material existence despite its possession of a nuclear arsenal that was ultimately put on high alert.

These are cases that should leave Iran leery that they are buying permanent freedom from American influence or even entanglement. I am not interested in giving them total freedom-of-action, although it is certain in their interest that they have it. But a nuclear weapons is somewhat of less requirement when one considers that Iran is quite safe from invasion for geopolitical reasons.

We supported the Shah, just like we supported so many other tyrants. And when he gets overthrown - SURPRISE ! The new regime doesn't like us very much.

The Shah was a deeply flawed individual, but at the end of the day, you’re still dismissing the entire Lebanese plight by shifting the focus to American crimes when I invoke Iranian. We obviously don’t support terrorism – we don’t even believe that what we do is properly defined as terrorism. While I may agree that we should “clean up our act,” I find it astounding that you are so willing to sacrifice the Lebanese on your moral alter, just because it appeals to you that the United States and Israel receive a bloody nose. You’re another one of those flagellants, forever guilty that we play the game of nations. Instead of just calling for a change in how we structure the rules, you cheer every time we are bloodied and thwarted. There is no crime so bad that it cannot be forgiven, if only it is to our detriment, huh?

The same war planners that have gotten us into disastrous wars before.

And who have won others.

I should add that it wasn’t war planners, but politicians, who botched Vietnam, and that, this time, the consensus is that it’s not a war worth fighting.

Because if we do it, we have no right to demand that other's don't. And because your handwaving it away as unimportant demonstrates your moral bankruptcy.

This is a straight-out misrepresentation. I said no such thing about unimportance. It merely offends you that I choose to isolate the problem of American failings from the issue of the threat and harm posed and done by Iran.

It’s fine and well to talk about eliminating Guantanamo, reforming how we process enemy combatants, doing something constructive for the environment, etc., etc., but if we ignore the rise of those who wish to do us harm, and ignore their acquisition of weapons dangerous not only to ourselves, but to everyone in the region, we only invite bad outcomes.

But I'm tempted to say that you probably hope and pray for bad outcomes every night, as long as they have a big: "To the United States" states stick on them. Am I far wrong? Talking about your hopes for our failure is amusing. What do you think will happen when we step off the world stage? Do you really believe that the next hegemon will be a better governor, or that multipolarity holds the key to getting problems solved? Was the Cold War world better than the world today? How about the world before 1945?

[Lonestar]

Is preventing Iran from acquiring nukes worth losing American energy security and risking an even more dramatic economic crash?

In Shep's defense the OP is how FAR would you go, not whether or not that's your first option.

[Spyder]

Joint nuclear power plant program in exchange for agreeing not to build any weapons and regular inspections. Iran solves their energy problems, the public hates America a little less and you have qualified personal onsite making sure they aren't building another Chernobyl. Then if they start building nukes, yank support as per the agreement and their nuclear infrastructure which was dependant on American engineering suddenly collapses under its own weight.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The Department of Defense ? You mean the people who LOST ?

Are you mentally unfit? There is a world of difference between invading a country without first doing the math, and losing a war due to poor execution. In Vietnam, it is widely acknowledged that the United States won the shooting war but failed to maintain sufficiently public backing to press hostilities to a satisfactory conclusion.

Which was inevitable.

Yeah, because Iran is suppose to never think ahead.

There’s a difference between thinking ahead and believing that a future American president might even possibly contemplate setting the world aflame in order to hasten the Resurrection. The former is intelligent conduct; the second requires that you make preparation to visit a mental health ward.

Yeah, riiiight. But somehow assuming that Iran's leaders are suicidally crazy is perfectly sensible ? American exceptionalism at work; OUR leaders are perfectly reasonable, no matter how they foam at the mouth and follow a religion that promotes global destruction. And everyone else in the world is required to agree with that.

I do not, however, believe that it will have a positive net effect on global security. In order to make that argument, you must make a convincing case that Iran will probably be subject to invasion if it does not acquire a nuclear weapon, which brings with it all sorts of disturbing new problems that you have yet to address.

The "convincing case" is that we DID conquer Iraq.

Considering that I have made the case to you why Iran is safe from invasion without a bomb, you must now make the case to me that this is untrue, and thus worth suffering the above risks in order to thwart.

Because we don't have the right to mass murder people over hypotheticals. And because given our history and attitude it's perfectly rational for them to fear invasion. That's the sort of thing we do.

Again garbage. They found and destroyed essentially everything.

After years of bullfuckery. The smart bet, in other words, was that they had something.

No, it wasn't. Which is why outside of America no one thought he had anything.

But not nukes.

Pakistan has become involved in a shooting war despite the fact that its opponent has nuclear weapons.

Syria and Egypt threatened Israel’s material existence despite its possession of a nuclear arsenal that was ultimately put on high alert.

These are cases that should leave Iran leery that they are buying permanent freedom from American influence or even entanglement.

Why ? None of those examples are America. America is a nation of bullies and cowards; we attack only those we think can't hurt us.

But a nuclear weapons is somewhat of less requirement when one considers that Iran is quite safe from invasion for geopolitical reasons.

Just like Germany in the 30's would never attack it's biggest trading partner, France ?

We supported the Shah, just like we supported so many other tyrants. And when he gets overthrown - SURPRISE ! The new regime doesn't like us very much.

The Shah was a deeply flawed individual, but at the end of the day, you’re still dismissing the entire Lebanese plight by shifting the focus to American crimes when I invoke Iranian. We obviously don’t support terrorism – we don’t even believe that what we do is properly defined as terrorism.

Of course we do; we support groups in Iran that our own State Department labels terrorists. And we've supported and trained torturers and death squads all over the world.

While I may agree that we should “clean up our act,” I find it astounding that you are so willing to sacrifice the Lebanese on your moral alter, just because it appeals to you that the United States and Israel receive a bloody nose. You’re another one of those flagellants, forever guilty that we play the game of nations. Instead of just calling for a change in how we structure the rules, you cheer every time we are bloodied and thwarted. There is no crime so bad that it cannot be forgiven, if only it is to our detriment, huh?

What do the Lebanese have to do with anything ? This conversation is about America and Iran.

The same war planners that have gotten us into disastrous wars before.

And who have won others.

I should add that it wasn’t war planners, but politicians, who botched Vietnam, and that, this time, the consensus is that it’s not a war worth fighting.

There's plenty of blame to go around for Vietnam. The military had a hefty dose of it.

It’s fine and well to talk about eliminating Guantanamo, reforming how we process enemy combatants, doing something constructive for the environment, etc., etc., but if we ignore the rise of those who wish to do us harm, and ignore their acquisition of weapons dangerous not only to ourselves, but to everyone in the region, we only invite bad outcomes.

The biggest threat to the region is us, not Iran.

But I'm tempted to say that you probably hope and pray for bad outcomes every night, as long as they have a big: "To the United States" states stick on them. Am I far wrong? Talking about your hopes for our failure is amusing. What do you think will happen when we step off the world stage?

The world will probably become more stable, more peaceful without America bullying everyone, stirring the pot right and left, and selling weapons like candy.

Joint nuclear power plant program in exchange for agreeing not to build any weapons and regular inspections. Iran solves their energy problems, the public hates America a little less and you have qualified personal onsite making sure they aren't building another Chernobyl. Then if they start building nukes, yank support as per the agreement and their nuclear infrastructure which was dependant on American engineering suddenly collapses under its own weight.

Which is exactly why Iran would never, ever go for it, even if they never intended to build weapons. Why would they deliberately give their worst enemy the ability to wreck their infrastructure without even having to use bombs ?

[Axis Kast]

Joint nuclear power plant program in exchange for agreeing not to build any weapons and regular inspections. Iran solves their energy problems, the public hates America a little less and you have qualified personal onsite making sure they aren't building another Chernobyl. Then if they start building nukes, yank support as per the agreement and their nuclear infrastructure which was dependant on American engineering suddenly collapses under its own weight.

Although I'd make the same offer, Iran is very unlikely to accept. Securing this kind of deal would have been easy, if it's what they were after, but permitting full-spectrum inspections, and full cooperation with the IAEA, is absolutely a non-starter for Tehran. I should also point out that they already have a domestic nuclear industry capable of sustaining construction of a bomb.

Which was inevitable.

Are you familiar with the rules that govern debate? They require that you actually substantiate your arguments, rather than just make resolutions. Please kindly explain why the collapse of South Vietnam was "inevitable," rather than the result of Johnson's strategic timidity and abysmal public diplomacy.

Yeah, riiiight. But somehow assuming that Iran's leaders are suicidally crazy is perfectly sensible ? American exceptionalism at work; OUR leaders are perfectly reasonable, no matter how they foam at the mouth and follow a religion that promotes global destruction. And everyone else in the world is required to agree with that.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the problem lies in your comprehension rather than that you are simply a bald-faced liar.

I have not accused Iran's top leadership of being suicidally crazy. On the other hand, you have failed to provide the quote that was supposed so "easy" to find. Your assertion that American presidents invest in apocalypse-theory and intend to work to bring it about... is just that: an assertion, unsupported by empirical evidence.

The "convincing case" is that we DID conquer Iraq.

Where an utterly different set of circumstances prevailed. Iraq was far more vulnerable to invasion than is Iran. Its military was decrepit, its coffers bare, its leader despised.

Because we don't have the right to mass murder people over hypotheticals. And because given our history and attitude it's perfectly rational for them to fear invasion. That's the sort of thing we do.

Who did we invade before 2003? You're saying that Kuwait didn't merit liberation in 1991? That we were on the wrong side of things in Somalia in 1994? In Grenada, the date of our invasion is now a public holiday. Panama is demonstrably better-off without Manuel Noriega. North Vietnam was a cesspit; while we arguably suborned democracy during the 1950s, millions of Vietnamese, and most of the country's multiple ethnic minorities, saw only the promise of death and privation in a Communist take-over by 1975. And North Vietnam fought a dirtier war than we did.

You continue to insist that invasion is "our bag," but your appeal to history is shallow. Iran doesn't have the makings of a viable target; we haven't directly tackled an enemy on such a scale since 1945. And we've held back, when nuclear weapons are at stake, during the most hawkish presidency in the history of this country.

Now, please kindly address the problems of command-and-control and crisis stability presented, or concede.

No, it wasn't. Which is why outside of America no one thought he had anything.

This has been thoroughly debunked in the past. According to David Kay, speaking before Congres in 2004, "Prior to the war, my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction. I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war – certainly the French President Chirac, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German intelligence certainly believed that there was WMD." That's from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office website's record of Jack Straw's speech to the House of Commons re: the Committee established to review intelligence on WMD (February 4, 2004).

Why ? None of those examples are America. America is a nation of bullies and cowards; we attack only those we think can't hurt us.

This isn't the schoolyard. Nobody willingly attacks an opponent that can cause them enough grief to make the whole effort a net loss.

Not to mention that your very assertion that we won't attack in the event that somebody can do us a very bad turn only strengths my position -- which is that Iran is safe, due to the fact that an invasion would be extraordinarily costly. Indeed, our experience in Iraq has probably soured us on similar undertakings for a good, long time.

Just like Germany in the 30's would never attack it's biggest trading partner, France ?

That's an economic rationale against war, not a geopolitical one.

Of course we do; we support groups in Iran that our own State Department labels terrorists. And we've supported and trained torturers and death squads all over the world.

As I've said -- we shut our eyes to things like this and called them freedom fighters, and their victims the stooges of Communism. But this is all, again, your red herring.

America's record is immaterial. Iran's behavior is bad. American misbehavior does not suddenly make it "okay" for Iran to do what it does. But you insist on leading us astray. Whenever somebody tries to talk about what Iran has done to prove itself malign, you screech about the United States. You won't even come out and admit that you've got some warped moral calculus. You're just stonewalling at this point.

What do the Lebanese have to do with anything ? This conversation is about America and Iran.

The Lebanese are very pertinent. They pay for Iran's sponsorship of terrorism. With their lives and with their livelihoods. You can work for change in American foreign policy, sure, but one of the consequences of giving Iran nuclear weapons is that you run the risk of emboldening them to take actions that might normally inspire military retaliation short of invasion. A nuclear weapons state is a curious thing; it is rarely advisable to rock the cradle of a newcomer to the club. Especially one that's untested.

The biggest threat to the region is us, not Iran.

Funny. The Gulf States didn't step up their purchasing in 2006 out of worry over American behavior. If the United States is working hard to quell conflict in Iraq, what has Iran been caught doing?

The world will probably become more stable, more peaceful without America bullying everyone, stirring the pot right and left, and selling weapons like candy.

Actually, there will be even more reason to ignore human rights abuses: so that the various new competitors for world power status can curry favor with new strongmen. At least the United States actually aspires to a degree of moral leadership. Turning the clock back to pre-1918 is just asking for creation of "exclusion zones" tantamount to colonial spheres-of-influence. A problem in Central Africa, you say? What to do? I'm not sure! We'll have to ask France, of course! After all, that's "their" sandbox.