A nuclear Iran would endanger world stability

[Q24]

I would say it's pretty obvious that Iran's goal is nuclear weapons.

And I bet you thought it was “pretty obvious” that Iraq had WMDs too. Recent history has taught us that a hunch and dubious intelligence is not enough to justify a war. I guess that some people don’t learn. Anyhow, you still have not answered the question of how Iran can reasonably prove the non-existence of some speculative nuclear weapons programme of which there is no evidence to begin with. I’ve asked what, three times now? It is obvious that you have no answer and are just being unreasonable.

Not really a failure, more like a desire not to change the subject. We were discussing whether Iran initiated a conflict with Israel. Call Americans terrorists, say we support terrorists, knock yourself out; it won't really change a thing. I've noticed a pattern in discussions about Iran's support of terrorist groups: the Iranian defenders always change the subject.

You were the first to bring up the subject of Iranian support to ‘terrorists’ in post #12. You were also the first to mention the word, “Hamas”. It is you who raises the subject every time in these discussions. I have demonstrated how your criticism is completely unbalanced in the greater scheme of things. Now you can’t answer for your bias in singling out Iran and the easy option is to drop the subject. Fair enough, but I’ll call you out on it every time. Perhaps it’s something that you could have a think about.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

And I bet you thought it was “pretty obvious” that Iraq had WMDs too. Recent history has taught us that a hunch and dubious intelligence is not enough to justify a war. I guess that some people don’t learn. Anyhow, you still have not answered the question of how Iran can reasonably prove the non-existence of some speculative nuclear weapons programme of which there is no evidence to begin with. I’ve asked what, three times now? It is obvious that you have no answer and are just being unreasonable.

Not really. I didn't know whether they had WMD or not. The "WMD" reason for the war was WMD programs, not modern, ready-to-use WMDs.

You were the first to bring up the subject of Iranian support to ‘terrorists’ in post #12. You were also the first to mention the word, “Hamas”. It is you who raises the subject every time in these discussions. I have demonstrated how your criticism is completely unbalanced in the greater scheme of things. Now you can’t answer for your bias in singling out Iran and the easy option is to drop the subject. Fair enough, but I’ll call you out on it every time. Perhaps it’s something that you could have a think about.

Singling out?? We're discussing whether Iran was the one who initiated the conflict with Israel. What exactly do you want me to say, other than what they did to initiate the conflict (mainly support, arm, fund and train Israel's enemies)?

[J.B.]

Are you sure Israel wasn't gunning for them from the start?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Are you sure Israel wasn't gunning for them from the start?

What do you mean?

[J.B.]

Do you know the history of the conflict, all the way to the beginning? Are you sure Israel wasn't threatening them along with everyone else in the region before Iran started supporting Hamas?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I don't see how Israel was threatening anyone at the beginning. But even if they were, how does that give Iran the right to initiate a conflict with Israel without being considered the initiator/aggressor?

[J.B.]

You don't "initiate" a conflict without throwing your own troops into the ring. The conflict was already there, between Hamas and Israel. Iran weighed in and picked a side. That's /not/ initiation. Initiation will happen if Iran starts sending soldiers.

[MARAB0D]

What does that have to do with anything? Let me put it simply:

- Israel does not attack Iran in any way.

- Iran decides to support, arm, fund and train Israel's enemies.

Who is the aggressor here? Who initiated the conflict between Iran and Israel? And no, no amount of blaming America will answer that question.

There is no aggressor here at all. Get back to definition! Every strong country arms and supports someone, this is not aggression! Have you ever heard of Russia accusing US, UK, France, Italy and Japan in aggression? Meanwhile they in 1918 introduced the troops into Russia, sealed the ports and were supplying the White Guard during the Civil War up to 1922 - but this was seen as "intervention", not as "aggression", as there was no strict definition of "aggression" existing those days yet, and they did not participate in open hostilities, so it could not be even interpreted like that. What happens between you and Iran is the same as when you accuse someone, trying to steal your wallet, in murder.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

You don't "initiate" a conflict without throwing your own troops into the ring. The conflict was already there, between Hamas and Israel. Iran weighed in and picked a side. That's /not/ initiation. Initiation will happen if Iran starts sending soldiers.

There is no aggressor here at all. Get back to definition! Every strong country arms and supports someone, this is not aggression! Have you ever heard of Russia accusing US, UK, France, Italy and Japan in aggression? Meanwhile they in 1918 introduced the troops into Russia, sealed the ports and were supplying the White Guard during the Civil War up to 1922 - but this was seen as "intervention", not as "aggression", as there was no strict definition of "aggression" existing those days yet, and they did not participate in open hostilities, so it could not be even interpreted like that. What happens between you and Iran is the same as when you accuse someone, trying to steal your wallet, in murder.

You're talking semantics now. Let me put it in even simpler terms: Who attacked first (be it directly or indirectly): Iran or Israel?

Edited March 2, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[J.B.]

They're escalating the problem a tiny bit, sure. They should certainly revoke that 3 million and try spending it on useful things, like the medical isotopes their nuclear program is currently meant to create.

[J.B.]

There was no attack, even indirectly. An indirect "attack" would be doing something to **** with Israel's allies, I mean actually mess them up. Yes, Iran is supporting terrorists, but they aren't telling Hamas where to hit us, or even to hit us. They're supporting people who feel the same way they do, and are taking action on it. Until Iran starts making command decisions for Hamas, or sending their own soldiers to attack Israel or her allies, they're not "attacking" at all.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

They're escalating the problem a tiny bit, sure. They should certainly revoke that 3 million and try spending it on useful things, like the medical isotopes their nuclear program is currently meant to create.

3 million? Try hundreds of millions.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

There was no attack, even indirectly. An indirect "attack" would be doing something to **** with Israel's allies, I mean actually mess them up. Yes, Iran is supporting terrorists, but they aren't telling Hamas where to hit us, or even to hit us. They're supporting people who feel the same way they do, and are taking action on it. Until Iran starts making command decisions for Hamas, or sending their own soldiers to attack Israel or her allies, they're not "attacking" at all.

Many argue that Iran has achieved proxy control of Hamas and Hezbollah. Why do you think Israel is hesitant to attack Iran? One of the reasons is, should Iran be attacked, they would unleash Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel.

[J.B.]

Many "argue" that, but Israel has other reasons for not attacking. They have a war on the home front as it is with the Palestinians, and if Israel makes /any/ hostile moves against any of the terrorist supporting nations, they'll all attack.

And I know that someone in one of the other Iran threads said it was only 3 million. I just can;t remember which thread yet.

Edited March 2, 2010 by J.B.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

And I know that someone in one of the other Iran threads said it was only 3 million. I just can;t remember which thread yet.

Oh it's much more, not counting the weapons and military training.

This is an overview of Iran's relationship with Hamas.

[MARAB0D]

You're talking semantics now. Let me put it in even simpler terms: Who attacked first (be it directly or indirectly): Iran or Israel?

Iran and Israel have not traded any bullets yet, but you already say the nose is bleeding. And what is "an indirect" attack? When one leader spits in direction of another? In short your stand on Iran strongly resembles one very old fable, author of which I would leave to your education to determine

The Wolf and the Lamb

That innocence is not a shield,

A story teaches, not the longest.

The strongest reasons always yield

To reasons of the strongest.

A lamb her thirst was slaking,

Once, at a mountain rill.

A hungry wolf was taking

His hunt for sheep to kill,

When, spying on the streamlet's brink

This sheep of tender age,

He howled in tones of rage,

"How dare you roil my drink?

Your impudence I shall chastise!"

"Let not your majesty," the lamb replies,

"Decide in haste or passion!

For sure It's difficult to think

In what respect or fashion

My drinking here could roil your drink,

Since on the stream your majesty now faces

I'm lower down, full twenty paces."

"You roil it," said the wolf; "and, more, I know

You cursed and slandered me a year ago."

"O no! how could I such a thing have done!

A lamb that has not seen a year,

A suckling of its mother dear?"

"Your brother then." "But brother I have none."

"Well, well, what's all the same,

It was some one of your name.

Sheep, men, and dogs of every nation,

Are wont to stab my reputation,

As I have truly heard."

Without another word,

He made his vengeance good—

Bore off the lambkin to the wood,

And there, without a jury,

Judged, slew, and ate her in his fury.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Who provided funds, arms and training to the other's enemies: Iran or Israel?

[MARAB0D]

Who provided funds, arms and training to the other's enemies: Iran or Israel?

I gave you the examples of one country funding and arming the enemies of the other country! If not enough look at Taiwan - US does not fund it because it owes money to it, but it sells it the weapons against its another creditor, China. Whats the difference with what Iran is doing? China does not say US is an aggressor, it says US is a dishonest borrower!

[MARAB0D]

Just to resume all this, PI - the times when US or someone on behalf of US could proclaim the things which you are proclaiming here ARE OVER. Your country is a bankrupt, it has to borrow more from China to carry a projected war with Iran, but hardly China would give you a cent for this purpose. You are only dreaming here a pipe dream, left from the times of Bush-junior, being unaware that the world has changed a bit since. You concerns now must be not about Iran but about the new pushbike you may soon need desperately. Dont make yourself ridiculous, your Roman Empire did not work out!

Edited March 2, 2010 by MARAB0D

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Again, you're talking about America. What does the United States have to do with this?

Let me ask you one last time, “Who provided funds, arms and training to the other's enemies: Iran or Israel?”

And, if your response includes any word other than "Iran" or "Israel", this discussion is over.

[The Silver Thong]

Again, you're talking about America. What does the United States have to do with this?

Let me ask you one last time, “Who provided funds, arms and training to the other's enemies: Iran or Israel?”

And, if your response includes any word other than "Iran" or "Israel", this discussion is over.

You want to dictate answers to your questions now Let me ask you, who provided Iraq and Israel with weapons? My answer is not Iran or Israel but America. The answer to your very pushy question is America. How did Isael get the bomb? who upset the balance of power in the ME? If your answer is anything but the U.S. we are done

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I really don't understand why you people can't stop talking about America. We're talking about the conflict between Iran and Israel. Saying the US arms Israel is relevant to the conflict between America and Iran, not the conflict between Israel and Iran.

[The Silver Thong]

I really don't understand why you people can't stop talking about America. We're talking about the conflict between Iran and Israel. Saying the US arms Israel is relevant to the conflict between America and Iran, not the conflict between Israel and Iran.

So you admit you have no understanding of America's involvement? How was present day Israel established?

[MARAB0D]

Again, you're talking about America. What does the United States have to do with this?

Let me ask you one last time, “Who provided funds, arms and training to the other's enemies: Iran or Israel?”

And, if your response includes any word other than "Iran" or "Israel", this discussion is over.

Where do you see the discussion??? With the same success you could be asking who chilled down Gulf Stream and refusing to have any other answers than Iran.

However in your refuse to even mention USA in this so-called "discussion", I can see now some new sense. Aren't you by chance spinning with the target to initiate a sole Israeli attack on Iran with USA being not involved? As soon as you dont say you are an Israeli, but an American, then this apparently must work to American interests, am I right? Is the plan to have Israel wiped off and thus save US budget from the regular payouts to it? And the second goal of course is a final demonization of Iran - barbarians, terrorists, destroyed an innocent country for just a little bombardment of illegal nuclear sites! And then Iran would have no more nukes and US can take it with bare hands, 4 million barrels per day is not some lousy 2 million of Saddam! Am I correct?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Yes, you are, Sherlock.