Panetta: Israel may attack Iran in April
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Let's be clear, you could not locate a direct quote by an Iranian leader saying that he would like to eradicate the US and you now believe it is unfair to say that Iranian leaders have expressed such a desire. Yet, you justified the assassination of Iranian scientists because you take them at "their word that they would gleefully eradicate us if they could." So, your justification has simply melted away, but the conclusion which it justified remains? You are doing a pretty good George W. Bush imitation with your developing rationalizations. First, killing scientists was supposed to be a better alternative to an all out war. Then, assassinations were justified because Iranian leaders said they want to eradicate us. Now, assassinations are justified because you "believe my government’s conclusion that Iran has been sponsoring terrorism for decades." So, you support killing civilian scientists -- which is an act of terrorism -- because Iran sponsors terrorism? Wouldn't Iranians be justified in saying that you are their enemy and would consider a major terrorist attack against them if you were empowered to execute one? Personally, I would not believe a single damn thing my government says when it comes to foreign policy. Have you already forgotten the lies that were told about Iraq? Clearly, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
Your confusing my reason with my evidence supporting that reason. The reason I support espionage and assassination to interfere with Iran's nuclear program is that I believe there is a significant danger that Iran will do something terrible with a nuclear weapon. That terrible thing could include using it on us, Israel, or someone else. Since the best evidence of that threat would be statements to that effect, I went there. I correctly stated that their words support my belief as relates to Israel, and incorrectly stated that as relates to the U.S. I could have stopped there, b/c I don't want Iran nuking Israel or anyone else, but I went to the next best evidence as relates to us, namely their suspected actions.
Yo' mama is doing a pretty good George W. Bush imitation! I know you're W, but what am I? Etc.
First and still. Or do you disagree? Want to stand up and cast your vote for war? I've been wondering with which of my premises you actually disagree.
Nope. See above. I wouldn't support assassination over statements any more than I would support shooting a unarmed schizophrenic making impotent death threats. They're justified because there is reason to believe that Iran is in fact dangerous. And when I first said "us" I was clearly referring to our country and Israel. You seem to doubt Iran's hostility to the U.S., which I understand, but I hope you don't question their hostility to Israel.
Stop pretending that I'm switching justifications. I'm giving multiple reasons - which exist concurrently - to accept my justification: It's better to take these actions than to accept the risk that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, which will create a significant risk that they will use it somewhere. You and I apparently disagree on the definition of "terrorism." Actually I think you disagree with just about everyone who isn't playing a BS word game. The purpose of those assassinations isn't to coerce or to induce terror. Would it have been "terrorism" if we had been able to execute a few hundred al-Qaeda leaders instead of bombing the shit out of an entire country? It doesn't really matter - call it terrorism if you want. If you're going to use the term that broadly, then I'll say that the "terrorism" of killing these strategically valuable scientists (if in fact they are) is far better "terrorism" than, say, killing a bunch of random people in a market, so no, the Iranians wouldn't be justified. By (ab)using the term "terrorism," you obviously want to equate these things - do you really believe they're the same? Do you believe it was also terrorism when partisans in WWII assassinated an officer or blew up a rail line? Where are drawing the lines? Anyway, I don't think they're looking for justification, which is one big point of disagreement here. It's amazing to me that you continue to write as if Ahmadinejad might get riled up enough to do something. He seems pretty riled up to me already. I think his weaknesses are restricting him quite a bit more than is his amicability.
That's sounds dramatic and counter-culture, but it makes discussion difficult. I've never been to Iran, and I've never met Ahmadinejad - how do I know they're real? Some claims are more believable than others. Several administrations have made this claim over decades, citing multiple specific instances.
I can see that you're just dying to argue with someone who advocates for invading Iran. It's a big world - go find that special someone. I'm not him, and all your pretending won't make it so. |
Anonymous
Considering that attacking the US would be logistically difficult for Iran (how would they get it here) and suicidal, it's quite absurd to suggest that this is a likely outcome of Iran's nuclear program, especially when one considers that the US doesn't even believe Iran is building a nuclear weapon at this time. Ditto attacking Israel, which would also entail the deaths of all Palestinians there along with many Lebanese and Jordanians and possibly some Egyptians. What Iran wants if they were to pursue a nuclear weapon in the future is probably the same deterrent that Israel has had for decades. Another country with nuclear weapons is not a desirable outcome, but it is the logical outcome of Israel's own nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad it should be noted does not hold the power in Iran. So even though he's a moron (remember the "there are no gays Iran" of his Columbia University speech that drew incredulous laughter and he denies the Holocaust), he doesn't have his finger on the button. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
I hesitated to enter a discussion with you because I have see how you have responded to others in the past. You really act like any disagreement is some sort of personal insult. You write paragraph after paragraph without really saying anything, but rather simply acting irritated that someone bothered to object to what you wrote. But, let me make a few more points to further clarify my position. 1) While Ahmadinejad has made some idiotic statements, the statement most widely attributed to him -- that he would like to destroy Israel -- he, in fact, never made. For a fuller explanation of how a non-fact has become a fact in so many people's mind, see this: http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/ahmadinejad-once-again-fails-to-call.html or this: http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/ahmadinejad-censored-distorted-in-us.html 2) There is no reason to believe that Iran behaves any more irrationally then any other country. While you perceive Iran as innately hostile to the US, the facts are that it is the US that has marshaled military forces along Iran's border, it is the US that has shot a Iranian civilian airliner out of the sky killing all aboard, it is the US that flies drone missions over Iran in violation of international law, it is the US that has invaded and occupied Iran's neighbors, and it is the US whose leading politicians constantly make bellicose threats to attack Iran. To the extent that Iran in a threat to the US, one must rightly consider whether that is a cause or an effect. 3) You support the assassination of Iranian scientists because you "believe there is a significant danger that Iran will do something terrible with a nuclear weapon." But, let me ask you this: a) what evidence do you have that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon? Here is Leon Panetta as recently as last month: "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/09/panetta-admits-iran-not-developing-nukes/ b) what evidence do you have that killing a small number of scientists will, in fact, prevent or delay a nuclear weapon from being developed (f one were even being developed)? I am not sure that either of us has evidence either way, but I think its reasonable to suggest that those who support killing civilians should have a higher bar to meet. c) what evidence do you have Iran would behave differently than any other country that has nuclear weapons? If you are going to go back to your list of quotations -- most of which did not say what you seem to believe they said -- please provide a source for those quotes so that they can be fairly evaluated. I simply have to comment on one more sentence from your last post: "Several administrations have made this claim over decades, citing multiple specific instances." I cannot read this without a feeling of deja vu. This sounds exactly like the sort of thing that supporters of the Iraq invasion repeated ad nauseum about Iraq's WMD program. I'll remind you that that program turned out not to exist. Now, let me posit another theory. What if the hostility between the US and Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. What if the issue is simply which of us has the bigger dick? Even without nuclear weapons, Iran has the size, population, wealth, and motivation to be a major player in the region -- a regional hegemon if you will. Iran could easily dominate Iraq which currently has a Shia-led government. Bahrain and Kuwait and parts of Saudi Arabia have large Shia populations. Iran would not have to engage in military actions to achieve influence in these areas. Iran's relationship with Hizballah in Lebanon extends its influence to Israel's northern border. In the petroleum market, it can play a significant -- and in the eyes of the US -- counterproductive role. So, what if the US policy to prevent Iran from achieving the sort of influence of which it might be capable is to simply "bitch slap" Iran periodically? To keep Iran under pressure and continually demonstrate its weakness in order to undermine its stature in the region. In fact, when Iran can't even develop a civilian nuclear power plant without being subject to a regime of international inspections, outside interference, and other hurdles not faced by governments elsewhere, that is one giant bitch slap. The repeated killing of Iranian scientists may or may not slow down or prevent a nuclear program, but it certainly highlights weaknesses in Iranian security, adding further humiliation to a regime that has suffered many humiliations. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
Smuggle it in. That part is presumably far easier than developing it.
Maybe. Probably. They wouldn't have to take credit, and we've been somewhat unpredictable in our response to terrorism.
I prefer not to gamble on predictions of the behavior of hostile nutty people. Building a weapon, or developing a program? Why wait for the last step? To the degree that we don't think that they're working toward that end, by definition I wouldn't support action to interfere with it.
I agree with all of that, but as I said, I'd rather not bet on it at these stakes.
You're out of my depth here. If you have reason to believe that the leadership as a whole is significantly more rational and reliable, I'm sincerely happy to hear it. |
Anonymous
| It's a shame this topic devolved. I was just getting enough bandwith to put something decent together. Oh well. |
Anonymous
| I do not want to go to war. I am tired of it. US should make it clear that if Israel wants to attack Iran, it will be their war. We will not get involved and will place sanctions on both parties. US intelligence thinks Israel is poking at Iran with a stick, trying to get them to do something dumb, so the US will have to respond. We have bigger problems, like how Iran hacked and took control of one of our drones. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
Amazing. Look back at the beginning of our exchange, specifically the last paragraph of your 13:43 post, and tell me who started the shit here. Find me something before that point that fits your characterization of me. I even tried to pull us out in my next post by calling you on it, but you had to keep the BS going.
"You're a dick, and it's really beneath me to engage with you, but I'm going to do it anyway." Nice way to hedge your bets - if you win the argument, you win, and if you lose, it's because I'm an unreasonable jerk who never really says anything. You've found an awful lot to respond to in all my meaningless babble.
I read the pieces, which regard two particular incidents. Are you saying that the many quotes attributed to him are all inaccurate? Here's a bunch: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/04/questions-about-ahmadinejad-apos-s-famous-quote/9872/ If that's what you're saying, I'm not equipped to judge the translations and not up for the major research project of checking the context of every one of those. But the first question would be whether you actually think they're all false or distorted.
I would trace back our responsibility for the hostility further back than that. As with most countries, I see some of it as a natural reaction to our behavior and some of it as internally generated; I'd say the same thing about our hostility to others. I'd rather we work toward peace. But I support the position that nuclear weapons are in a class by themselves (or at least a very small class), and outside of normal negotiation.
I never said they were. I support assassination, etc. to interfere with a nuclear program. To the degree that there's no program, that position of mine is obviously irrelevant. I obviously don't support the indiscriminate assassination of all physicists or similar. If your point is that the development of nuclear power is very different than the development of nuclear weapons (per the article), I appreciate that but I'd rather take action now. I don't believe that Iran would develop the technology and then decline to work on the weapon.
As you seem to acknowledge, that's unprovable either way. I don't see why you would question that the death of scientists working on a program would delay that program. If they wouldn't be missed, why would they be on the project in the first place?
I don't see where you established that most of the quotes I gave meant something different. Regardless, as I said, I believe that they support terrorism, that they abhor Israel, and that they hate us somewhat less. That's what makes them distinct, though unfortunately not unique. I obviously don't have access to the intelligence regarding their support for terrorism, and we apparently disagree on our government's trustworthiness on that point. I'm shocked if you'll disagree that they have expressed extreme hostility to Israel, but sorry, I'm not going to go over every single anti-Israel quote to explore it's reliability. We're doing what we can in forming opinions. If the phone call were mine to make, I'd be more careful with the assassination decision, and the good news is that I'd presumably have access to much better information, along with the time to consider it all. I appreciate that you think the bar should be higher when murder is considered. In this disagreement and in our last, you have seemed to take the position that one should not support such action, even as an armchair statesman, unless one has perfect certainty. One of my points in both of these disagreements has been that we casually support all kinds of policies that can have far worse impact.
Personally, I actually don't remember that kind of statement at all. I think it's perfectly legitimate to doubt our government to a far greater degree than I do here. We're all making our very difficult judgment calls on their trustworthiness on different issues; trusting them on some particular issues doesn't necessarily make me someone a rube.
That's a perfectly reasonable theory. I didn't say that our government's motivations are all pure, etc. But just because some or all of the reasons are bad doesn't mean that the action is bad. There's a good argument that the North didn't care about slavery, but I'm nonetheless glad they ended it. Re your theory and its bases, we're not uniquely moral, but that doesn't mean we're totally amoral. I think there are several world governments morally superior to ours, but there are many, many more that are morally inferior. So I think our motivations are mixed in many areas. Again, you seem to be treating me like I'm Sean Hannity. I don't believe that we were created by God to benevolently rule the world with the sword and bible. But I think it's equally absurd to say that governments don't differ in morality or that we're relatively immoral, if either is your position. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
None of the quotes provides a source so it is impossible to verify context. However, they all follow a similar formula, which I can paraphrase as this: "The Zionist state is the root cause of conflict in the region and its aggressions are creating hostility. Eventually, as a result of that hostility and other historical factors, the Zionist regime will cease to exist". These are not threats to eliminate Israel. Just statements concerning something he believes to be an historical inevitability. If a US leader says "Eventually the Castro regime in Cuba will cease to exist", is he threatening to wipe out the Castro regime? I don't think so.
Clearly, the Iranian leadership has expressed extreme hostility to Israel. Equally clearly, Israeli leaders have expressed extreme hostility to Iran. I am not sure why either of those realities requires the US to be hostile to Iran.
I certainly try very hard not to support such policies. But, nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right. Justifying a bad policy because we have worse policies doesn't seem particularly wise.
Of course governments differ in their morality. I vehemently disagree with the current Iranian government. This website has a green stripe across the top signifying my support for the Iranian opposition. There was a brief trend of websites taking this symbolic step some time ago. DCUM may well be one of the last remaining websites continuing to do it. But, my hostility toward the current Iranian regime does not mean that I will condone the killing of their scientists which I believe is morally wrong, pragmatically ineffective, and practically simply a step toward escalation. In fact, if killing Iranian scientists solved the problem as you seem to suggest, why would Panetta be predicting that Israel would attack Iran in April? I want to end this post by responding to this quote from the beginning of your post:
I detest the attitude that discussions are contests like a football game or hockey match. Discussions should not have winners or losers. This is not a debating club. Discussions are for sharing points of view and information. You have stated that you support the killing of Iranian scientists and provided a list of justifications for that support that I believe to be overly reflective of US propaganda. My intention is not win some sort of contest, but only to suggest that you consider that the policy you support may not be as effective as you imagine and that the justifications you provide may need to be questioned more than you seem to be willing. |
Anonymous
|
And?
When WWIII starts, which country will be the first to defend Israel? I wonder . . .
|
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
I disagree that that’s a fair paraphrase of them overall, though some fit that. Just look at the first one on that page. Or look at these phrases: “must be wiped off the map;” “the Islamic world and the region must mobilize to remove this problem;” ''God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime....” That’s not just the language of historical inevitability. I understand you questioning the translation and the context, but from what we see here I don’t know how you can seriously say that he was just making predictions.
Yeesh. So why did you waste our time with all that? “Extreme hostility” vs. “wants to destroy them” – I don’t see a meaningful difference there.
Who said they did? You’re still putting up straw men. I’m not even sure what that phrasing “requires the US to be hostile” means. I said I support particular actions for particular purposes. I never said or suggested that anyone must do anything or that reasonable people couldn’t disagree.
Aaaaaand I didn’t do that. Talk about out of context. I was comparing the commitment to understanding the policies, not the policies themselves. I was clearly talking about the limited time and energy we all have to devote to these questions. One could say – reasonably enough – that we shouldn’t even impotently express support for any violent policy without very careful examination, but I think that’s a cop-out. (I’m not saying you said that.) A powerful nation’s failure to act can be worse than its actions.
Fine; no one is asking you to. You’re the one jumping on me. I think it’s a tough question, on which moral and reasonable people can disagree.
That’s ridiculous. Where did I suggest that killing a few Iranian scientists “solved the problem?” Quote that for me. IMHO, nothing with solve the problem; we’re just delaying the inevitable, hopefully for a long while, or if we’re lucky until there’s a regime change.
I agree with this far more that you probably imagine. For decades, this has stood out in my memory as one of the few most repulsive book titles I’ve seen: http://www.gerryspence.com/howtoargue.html
That’s the fairest thing you’ve said to me since your first post. I believe that you oppose win/lose in principle, but none of us is perfect, and in this exchange you haven’t lived up to your principles. From early on, you went personal and snide. Your posts – including this last one – have been filled with straw men. When I see that, especially the latter, I suspect that someone is just trying to win. I’m happy to move on to more pleasant interactions, but I’ll ask you to read over your posts and look at the approach you took with me. Needless to say, I can be just as big a prick as you, but I don’t pretend that my targets are being oversensitive. |
Anonymous
|
I'd love to go on at length about this also but I don't have time right now and I just want to say that I completely agree with Jeff that the tone of the US discourse in this area is increasingly reminiscent of the way the population was conditioned in 2003 to accept the need to invade Iraq.
The WSJ just had a front page article discussing US fears of ties between Shiite Iran and Wahhabi Sunni Al Qaeda, which seems about as insightful as connecting, say, Napoleon with Genghis Khan because they were both despots who conducted invasion campaigns. When was the last time we were duped into believing that a despotic regime had ties with Al Qaeda, folks? That it had WMD that threatened us on our soil? The rhetoric that Ahmadinnejad uses is solely designed to appeal to a very narrow base throughout the region that has nothing better to do than fantasize about Israel's demise. It is no more genuine or earnest than Bush's assertion's that the terrorists who attacked us did so "because they hate our way of life." IMO one of the biggest (epic) mistakes that Americans (and to some extent, some of the dumber individuals in the leadership--usually neocons of some kind) make over and over again in foreign policy assessments is assuming that ruthless, despostic regimes who oppose us are irrational. The second biggest mistake is assuming that the seemingly toadying despotic regimes we prop up somehow love us or worship our glorious "way of life" instead of pursuing their own agenda--until everything eventually blows up in our face. |
Anonymous
| Anyone starting a war now must be stupid |
Anonymous
Are you saying you think they their place as subordinates and will (or should) be after that what is Americas agenda? Americas agenda is self serving for the needs of America. The other nations need to look after their own interests. Sometimes they arrive at the negotiating table thinking that they are equals |
Anonymous
| We should follow US interest, not Isreal's interest. They are not he same. Obama has to put Isreal on a leash. We should reduce the aid we send Isreal b/c our days of being a sugar daddy are over. |