Iran and 9/11 Investigations

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-07-20 10:21am

Durandal wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Do you really think the US would risk the economic backlash geenrated by nuking a country [or carpet bombing, whatever] with so much recent foreign investment?
Do you think Europe would risk the economic backlash generated by cutting the United States' economy out? You can't just sanction the US. It has too much influence on the global economy.

Nuking a country to the state of a parking lot is such an extreme action, never before seen in our history; who knows what the rest of the worlds reaction would be? That's why they'd never do it; too too extreme.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-07-20 10:24am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Durandal wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Do you really think the US would risk the economic backlash geenrated by nuking a country [or carpet bombing, whatever] with so much recent foreign investment?
Do you think Europe would risk the economic backlash generated by cutting the United States' economy out? You can't just sanction the US. It has too much influence on the global economy.
Nuking a country to the state of a parking lot is such an extreme action, never before seen in our history; who knows what the rest of the worlds reaction would be? That's why they'd never do it; too too extreme.

Actually, Stuttgart was pretty much flattened, so I guess we have seen that sort of thing before [maybe not to scale]. But regardless, Germany had it coming; Iran doesn't and so flattening Iran would rub too many bodies, countries and big businesses the wrong way without real evidence of imminent threat and or some other dirty thing.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-07-20 10:35am

so if i may play the Devil's Advocate BS, what happens when Iran test detonates a nuclear device? How do you react in the face of the threat of an radical Islamic theocracy armed with nuclear weapons? That would be far worse than say, Pakistan. at least the Paks have some secular element controlling the govenment and armed forces.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-07-20 10:38am

Col. Crackpot wrote:so if i may play the Devil's Advocate BS, what happens when Iran test detonates a nuclear device? How do you react in the face of the threat of an radical Islamic theocracy armed with nuclear weapons? That would be far worse than say, Pakistan. at least the Paks have some secular element controlling the govenment and armed forces.

Then you see VDV troopers and 82nd ABN troopers kicking doors in in
Tehran side by side

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-20 10:39am

Col. Crackpot wrote:so if i may play the Devil's Advocate BS, what happens when Iran test detonates a nuclear device? How do you react in the face of the threat of an radical Islamic theocracy armed with nuclear weapons? That would be far worse than say, Pakistan. at least the Paks have some secular element controlling the govenment and armed forces.

Isn't Iran's youth supposedly more progressive? I've heard a lot about the country having potential for becoming a modern, secular nation.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 10:41am

Col. Crackpot wrote:so if i may play the Devil's Advocate BS, what happens when Iran test detonates a nuclear device? How do you react in the face of the threat of an radical Islamic theocracy armed with nuclear weapons? That would be far worse than say, Pakistan. at least the Paks have some secular element controlling the govenment and armed forces.

If they did do something like that, it would be as a direct result of them thinking that the US is going to invade them. Think about it for a sec, right now, aside from the fact that we are already stretched too thin in Iraq, there is nothing to stop Bush from launching air strikes or even a full fledged invasion against Iran. Iran wants a credible deterrent and they'd probably see test detonating a nuke as the way to do it, although I feel it would probably backfire on them creating the very situation they want to avoid.

In any case, your feeling about the Iranian government are incorrect. They aren't suicidal and they are much more concerned right now about the growing anti-theocracy movement inside their own country, which will inevitably seize power. If Iran were to launch a WMD attack against anyone, the Imams would very quickly find themselves hanging form the tallest buildings in Tehran. Personally I feel a lot safer about a country like Iran having nukes than a country like Pakistan because I know that Iran isn't stupid enough to use them.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 10:42am

Durandal wrote: Isn't Iran's youth supposedly more progressive? I've heard a lot about the country having potential for becoming a modern, secular nation.

It's extremely progressive which is why all of this fear directed towards Iran is unfounded.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-20 10:42am

Isn't Iran's youth supposedly more progressive? I've heard a lot about the country having potential for becoming a modern, secular nation.

Yes, and the current regime is going to do its very best to prevent that from happening.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 10:48am

Joe wrote: Yes, and the current regime is going to do its very best to prevent that from happening.

Their best isn't enough, too much of their population that lives in the cities is far too well educated and the Universities themselves are a breeding ground for secular thought.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-07-20 10:56am

Col. Crackpot wrote:so if i may play the Devil's Advocate BS, what happens when Iran test detonates a nuclear device?

Dude what The Kernel said.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-07-20 11:10am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:so if i may play the Devil's Advocate BS, what happens when Iran test detonates a nuclear device?
Dude what The Kernel said.

Dude, no one is arguing that something like 70% of Iran's population is under 30 and therefore too young to remember the Shah, and are more progressive than the mullahs.

What we are suggesting, is what is really going to stop the world's most powerfull nation (the USA), especially with the current Administration in office, from going after Iran? The Bush propoganda machine did a marvelous job for the case against Saddam (just count the members who were sucked in on this board when others were actively providing evidence to counter WMD claims leading up to the war, go look at recent polls on how many Americans still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11)?

They've shown that they are more than happy to circumnavigate world opinion and law when it is inconvinient.

This 'line in the sand that they wouldn't dare to cross' reasoning isn't based on any facts on this Administrations tenure in the Whitehouse.

And just to clarify; when I said 'flatten' it, I was refering more to bombing infrastructre like the US did agains Serbia, and not nuclear winter (that was your assumption). You see Iran has these things to lose which Iraq didn't. It was weapons plants, manufacturing facilities, nuclear reactos and research centres (unlike Iraq which was left gutted after the last Gulf War).

Literally Iran would have too much to lose, and gain precious little.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-20 11:20am

If they did do something like that, it would be as a direct result of them thinking that the US is going to invade them. Think about it for a sec, right now, aside from the fact that we are already stretched too thin in Iraq, there is nothing to stop Bush from launching air strikes or even a full fledged invasion against Iran. Iran wants a credible deterrent and they'd probably see test detonating a nuke as the way to do it, although I feel it would probably backfire on them creating the very situation they want to avoid.

In any case, your feeling about the Iranian government are incorrect. They aren't suicidal and they are much more concerned right now about the growing anti-theocracy movement inside their own country, which will inevitably seize power. If Iran were to launch a WMD attack against anyone, the Imams would very quickly find themselves hanging form the tallest buildings in Tehran. Personally I feel a lot safer about a country like Iran having nukes than a country like Pakistan because I know that Iran isn't stupid enough to use them.

I would prefer for neither of them to have nukes, and so should you. But you can't stop a country from having nukes once they already have them; you can, however, stop them from acquiring them beforehand. Less nuclear proliferation is always in our interest, and Iran going nuclear will not discourage other countries in the Middle East from doing the same.

I don't trust the Iranians and we should do whatever we can to keep them from getting the bomb.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-20 11:25am

What we are suggesting, is what is really going to stop the world's most powerfull nation (the USA), especially with the current Administration in office, from going after Iran? The Bush propoganda machine did a marvelous job for the case against Saddam (just count the members who were sucked in on this board when others were actively providing evidence to counter WMD claims leading up to the war, go look at recent polls on how many Americans still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11)?

And you don't seriously think that the intelligence fiasco with Iraq is not going to affect future events, do you? It will be exceedingly difficult for Bush or anyone else to sell a preemptive war with Iran to the American people after what happened with the last war.

You may not be able to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants, but the American people at whose pleasure the U.S. government serves can.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-07-20 11:26am

Crown wrote:What we are suggesting, is what is really going to stop the world's most powerfull nation (the USA), especially with the current Administration in office, from going after Iran?

Fear. Fear of nuclear retaliation. And why? If it's true that Iran doesn't have links to 9/11, why bomb Iran? It'll just create more fundies, and solve nothing.

The Bush propoganda machine did a marvelous job for the case against Saddam (just count the members who were sucked in on this board when others were actively providing evidence to counter WMD claims leading up to the war, go look at recent polls on how many Americans still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11)?

They've shown that they are more than happy to circumnavigate world opinion and law when it is inconvinient.

Against a toothless tiger, yep. Iran isn't toothless but. Also, why bomb/flatten/invade Iran?

This 'line in the sand that they wouldn't dare to cross' reasoning isn't based on any facts on this Administrations tenure in the Whitehouse.

Ah, so just because they crossed the line in Iraq, they would keep crossing it? Sorry, that isn't logical.

And just to clarify; when I said 'flatten' it, I was refering more to bombing infrastructre like the US did agains Serbia, and not nuclear winter (that was your assumption).

Yes thank you for backpe-I mean clarifying.

You see Iran has these things to lose which Iraq didn't. It was weapons plants, manufacturing facilities, nuclear reactos and research centres (unlike Iraq which was left gutted after the last Gulf War).

Does it have the bomb too? Who knows? Should the US risk nuclear retaliation based on the "they don't have the means to deliver it" of the CIA, even after all those CIA fuck ups?

Literally Iran would have too much to lose, and gain precious little.

It's a gamble. But then again, geopolitics is always gambling peoples lives to further countries interests...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-07-20 11:28am

Joe wrote:I don't trust the Iranians

Why?

and we should do whatever we can to keep them from getting the bomb.

That's the exact kind of mentality which is pushing them to get it in the first place.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-07-20 11:39am

BoredShirtless wrote:Fear. Fear of nuclear retaliation. And why? If it's true that Iran doesn't have links to 9/11, why bomb Iran? It'll just create more fundies, and solve nothing.

Fear from whom? Islamofascists? Like they aren't gunning for the states as it is?

Against a toothless tiger, yep. Iran isn't toothless but. Also, why bomb/flatten/invade Iran?

If there is a genuine threat (or rather a percieved possiblitiy of there one day perhaps being a genuine threat for this Administration), the nature of pre-emptive strike is a well established possibility.

Ah, so just because they crossed the line in Iraq, they would keep crossing it? Sorry, that isn't logical.

Logic 101; I present evidence of someone behaiving irrationally. I conclude that the evidence suggest that this person will have a high probability of behaiving irationally in the future (based on previous documented evidence).

And you're comeback is; I believe that we can ignore the past, and say that they will suddenly come around to rational thinking.

You deranged?

Yes thank you for backpe-I mean clarifying.

Vying for the Village Idiot title back? I clarrified you earlier when you mistook 'flatten' for 'invade'. Don't blame me for infering things that aren't there.

Does it have the bomb too? Who knows? Should the US risk nuclear retaliation based on the "they don't have the means to deliver it" of the CIA, even after all those CIA fuck ups?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

The CIA's information on Iraq wasn't a question of the CIA exclusively fucking up, but the Whitehouse deliberately reaching a conclusion first and then running around and trying to find evidence later.

As for Iran's ability to deliver the fucking thing, they haven't even tested (dry test) any missile with the range to hit the US, and with the US's and Russia's early warning sat's, that is something that they could pick up.

It's a gamble. But then again, geopolitics is always gambling peoples lives to further countries interests...

No shit. And this Administration's record speaks for its self.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-20 11:43am

Why?

That you even require an answer to that question reveals the hopelessness of even trying to argue with you.

That's the exact kind of mentality which is pushing them to get it in the first place.

I don't care. Iran's security interests are not the interests of the U.S., nor should they be. An undemocratic Islamic theocracy that funds terrorism and has tried to upset our efforts in Iraq should not be given more leverage to do what it wants.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 11:59am

Joe wrote: I would prefer for neither of them to have nukes, and so should you. But you can't stop a country from having nukes once they already have them; you can, however, stop them from acquiring them beforehand. Less nuclear proliferation is always in our interest, and Iran going nuclear will not discourage other countries in the Middle East from doing the same.

I don't trust the Iranians and we should do whatever we can to keep them from getting the bomb.

That may have flown with me during the Clinton days but I am so disenfranchised with the current administration that I simply cannot get behind a preemptive attack against a nation that is not openly hostile to the United States. If I were in Iran's position and Bush had just attacked my neighbor without cause AND was looking for a reason to attack me too, I might consider developing nukes as a deterrent as well. Shit, it works for North Korea now doesn't it?

Besides, even if you completely discount the fact that having a nuke isn't the same as having a long-range delivery system for it, Iran simply isn't suicidal enough to launch a nuke at anyone. If you think otherwise, perhaps you'd like to show some evidence of it?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 12:00pm

Joe wrote: I don't care. Iran's security interests are not the interests of the U.S., nor should they be. An undemocratic Islamic theocracy that funds terrorism and has tried to upset our efforts in Iraq should not be given more leverage to do what it wants.

And that is a direct link to a nation bent on self-destruction? Please.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-07-20 12:05pm

Crown wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Fear. Fear of nuclear retaliation. And why? If it's true that Iran doesn't have links to 9/11, why bomb Iran? It'll just create more fundies, and solve nothing.
Fear from whom? Islamofascists? Like they aren't gunning for the states as it is?

I wonder how things would be if they truly were gunning for the states...the type of gunning they'd unleash after having been nuked, that is. Don't make the mistake of assuming Iran hasn't got surprises up its sleeve, or the ability to effectively retaliate if nuked.

Against a toothless tiger, yep. Iran isn't toothless but. Also, why bomb/flatten/invade Iran?
If there is a genuine threat (or rather a percieved possiblitiy of there one day perhaps being a genuine threat for this Administration), the nature of pre-emptive strike is a well established possibility.

But I said earlier "under todays circumstances", and put in italics that all bets are off if Iran gave the world a real reason to go after it.

Ah, so just because they crossed the line in Iraq, they would keep crossing it? Sorry, that isn't logical.

Logic 101; I present evidence of someone behaiving irrationally. I conclude that the evidence suggest that this person will have a high probability of behaiving irationally in the future (based on previous documented evidence).

And you're comeback is; I believe that we can ignore the past, and say that they will suddenly come around to rational thinking.

You deranged?

Are you an idiot? Iran and Iraq are completely different cases, don't be stupid.

Yes thank you for backpe-I mean clarifying.
Vying for the Village Idiot title back?

Don't be a chicken. Own up to the fact that when someone writes "flatten" without any conditions, then that's EXACTLY what a person reading would infer.

I clarrified you earlier when you mistook 'flatten' for 'invade'. Don't blame me for infering things that aren't there.

Pathetic attempt to score points of some other dialogue noted...and laughed at. What is this, high school?

Does it have the bomb too? Who knows? Should the US risk nuclear retaliation based on the "they don't have the means to deliver it" of the CIA, even after all those CIA fuck ups?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam

You really are an idiot. I was asking questions you tool, not stating conclusions which required proof.

The CIA's information on Iraq wasn't a question of the CIA exclusively fucking up, but the Whitehouse deliberately reaching a conclusion first and then running around and trying to find evidence later.

Strawman. Did I say the CIA holds exclusive rights to the responsiblity? Nope.

As for Iran's ability to deliver the fucking thing, they haven't even tested (dry test) any missile with the range to hit the US, and with the US's and Russia's early warning sat's, that is something that they could pick up.

But the possibility is still there. And so you have to weight the risks up against the rewards....which are?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-07-20 12:07pm

Joe wrote:
Why?
That you even require an answer to that question reveals the hopelessness of even trying to argue with you.

That's the exact kind of mentality which is pushing them to get it in the first place.

Why?

I don't care.

Well you should.

Iran's security interests are not the interests of the U.S., nor should they be. An undemocratic Islamic theocracy that funds terrorism and has tried to upset our efforts in Iraq should not be given more leverage to do what it wants.

Prove both those assertions please. And even if Iran does fund terrorism and meddles in Iraq....so? The US did that to Iran once, yet never nuked it too.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-20 12:08pm

The Kernel wrote:
Joe wrote: Yes, and the current regime is going to do its very best to prevent that from happening.
Their best isn't enough, too much of their population that lives in the cities is far too well educated and the Universities themselves are a breeding ground for secular thought.

Secular by Middle East standards which isn't the same thing as we mean. And it's going to take a lot more than just university students to turn Iran around; aside from them most of the population just wants a different degree of Islamic rule.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 12:09pm

I find it very amusing that the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in combat (against a civilian population no less) is going around and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with our foreign policy must have their finger on the nuclear trigger.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-20 12:12pm

The Kernel wrote:I find it very amusing that the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in combat (against a civilian population no less) is going around and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with our foreign policy must have their finger on the nuclear trigger.

Oh yes, because using them to bring about the end of World War for minimal casualties is of course the same as using them to bully others or perhaps even *gasp* terrorism.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 12:13pm

Stormbringer wrote: Secular by Middle East standards which isn't the same thing as we mean.

Well they certainly want a more secular and Democratic government then the one we openly endorsed under the Shah...

And it's going to take a lot more than just university students to turn Iran around; aside from them most of the population just wants a different degree of Islamic rule.

Where did you get that idea from?