Reply to Panetta: Israel may attack Iran in April

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Panetta: Israel may attack Iran in April"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=TheManWithAUsername] [quote=jsteele]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".[/quote]
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.
[quote=jsteele]Clearly, the Iranian leadership has expressed extreme hostility to Israel.[/quote]
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.
[quote=jsteele]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.[/quote]
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.
[quote=jsteele][quote=TheManWithAUsername]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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
[quote=jsteele]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.[/quote]
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.
[quote=jsteele]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?[/quote]
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.

[quote=jsteele]I detest the attitude that discussions are contests like a football game or hockey match. Discussions should not have winners or losers…[/quote]
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

[quote=jsteele]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.[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics