PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

Catawba said:

By your reasoning, the US would then be responsible for the killing of innocent civilians by all those that we have provided funding to. In which case, we would be a bigger threat to innocent civilians around the world than Iran.

Click to expand...

It's not just funding that makes the difference. But to answer what I think is the important part of your question:

If we supply arms to someone knowing full well what they're going to do with them then, yes, we're responsible. And we have a dark history when it comes to that subject. The CIA did some pretty nasty things during the Cold War to keep Russian influence at bay. You might also look up Operation Ajax (1953).

Catawba said:

From your article, from the Israeli National News source:

"A poll released Thursday said that 81% of Israelis oppose a solo Israeli attack against Iran."

Isn't that what Adam's poll said?

Click to expand...

I wasn't denying that - but the article I cited has a little more information on the subject. For example, is really wasn't clear in his article if the Israeli's were in America or Israel, which is why I went looking for a better source. I found a better source, I posted it. Are you complaining?


Ed:
With Iranian nuclear knowledge it's not just "innocent civilians" at risk, it's a whole country full of innocent civilians. Actually, it's two countries full because sure as hell if a nuke is hand delivered into Israel by some terrorist you can bet Israel will bomb Iran and ask questions later.

MoSurveyor said:

It's not just funding that makes the difference. But to answer what I think is the important part of your question:

If we supply arms to someone knowing full well what they're going to do with them then, yes, we're responsible. And we have a dark history when it comes to that subject. The CIA did some pretty nasty things during the Cold War to keep Russian influence at bay. You might also look up Operation Ajax (1953).

Click to expand...

Or, our support to Saddam in attacking Iran.

I wasn't denying that - but the article I cited has a little more information on the subject. For example, is really wasn't clear in his article if the Israeli's were in America or Israel, which is why I went looking for a better source. I found a better source, I posted it. Are you complaining?

Click to expand...

No, not at all. It provides backing for my position, thanks!

Ed:
With Iranian nuclear knowledge it's not just "innocent civilians" at risk, it's a whole country full of innocent civilians. Actually, it's two countries full because sure as hell if a nuke is hand delivered into Israel by some terrorist you can bet Israel will bomb Iran and ask questions later.

Click to expand...

Since Iran has not indicated in the past they have a death wish, I have no reason to believe they would become suicidal if they have a nuclear weapon. In the absence of nuclear disarmament by all nations, I actually think it would make the region more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons, as Iran would have less reason to be frightened into taking irrational actions against Israel.

Catawba said:

Since Iran has not indicated in the past they have a death wish, I have no reason to believe they would become suicidal if they have a nuclear weapon. In the absence of nuclear disarmament by all nations, I actually think it would make the region more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons, as Iran would have less reason to be frightened into taking irrational actions against Israel.

Click to expand...

You might want to read more about Islamic/Jewish relations and history, especially just after WWII, before you go too far down that road.

But you've again missed the point. I'm not convinced Iran's nuclear knowledge and/or weapons would remain in Iran. If they thought they could get away with it they just might nuke Tel-Aviv by proxy; And considering YOUR viewpoint, that they're not responsible for Hamas et al, they just might think they can get away with it. I doubt they're stupid enough to launch a missile from Iran, which it seems is the only possibility you're considering.

MoSurveyor said:

You might want to read more about Islamic/Jewish relations and history, especially just after WWII, before you go too far down that road.

Click to expand...

If we are talking about potential threat based on the past, none can hold a candle to the US. We are responsible for more civilian deaths in modern history than is Iran.

But you've again missed the point. I'm not convinced Iran's nuclear knowledge and/or weapons would remain in Iran. If they thought they could get away with it they just might nuke Tel-Aviv by proxy; And considering YOUR viewpoint, that they're not responsible for Hamas et al, they just might think they can get away with it. I doubt they're stupid enough to launch a missile from Iran, which it seems is the only possibility you're considering.

Click to expand...

That's the case for any country with nuclear weapons. Are we going to strike all countries with nuclear weapons because of the possibility that terrorists could get their hands on a nuclear bomb from that country?

What if Israel decides to smuggle a nuclear bomb into Iran? What if the US decides to smuggle a nuclear bomb into Iran? What if Pakistan decides to smuggle a bomb into Iran to make everyone think that Israel/US was behind it.

As long as there are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons around the world, there is always going to be possibility that somebody could get access to one that shouldn't have access.

Unless all the superpowers are prepared to follow through with the nuclear disarmament requirements and Israel is prepared to disarm its nuclear arsenal, it is unrealistic to think that the non-nuclear states are going to abide by the agreement.

MoSurveyor said:

That would make you very old now if you were old enough to remember it! Pretty sure the old units had a UN flag.

But aren't there US forces still in S.Korea or has the world moved on without me?

Click to expand...

I think they fly the US flag. I once visited a US base, before I went to the US briefly. They flew the US flag. I think there aren't other foreign bases here, certainly no UN bases. That, and the South Korean flag too next to the US ones

ecofarm said:

I really think you ought not presume my reasoning. Frankly, you putting words in my mouth is laughable.

Click to expand...

here's a chance to actually offer something yourself, then. show us what EVIDENCE you have to support the claim that iran is funding, supplying and training terrorists in iraq that target Americans

ecofarm said:

Perhaps he meant 'Americans'. The Iranian army/super-guard funds, supplies and trains terrorists in Iraq that target Americans as well as civilians. That's a fact, right? 'American interests' could also work regarding Hez, Hamas and who knows what in Africa and Pakistan.

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

If we are talking about potential threat based on the past, none can hold a candle to the US. We are responsible for more civilian deaths in modern history than is Iran.

Click to expand...

You just don't get it and I guess you never will. I'm happy that your personality is such that you never have and never will hold a grudge. You've lived a charmed life indeed never to have been PO'es at anyone.

(Ed: Yes, if anything that makes the US a big target for revenge - and, indeed, we are exactly that in some parts of the world. Thank you for proving my point.)

Catawba said:

That's the case for any country with nuclear weapons. Are we going to strike all countries with nuclear weapons because of the possibility that terrorists could get their hands on a nuclear bomb from that country?

What if Israel decides to smuggle a nuclear bomb into Iran? What if the US decides to smuggle a nuclear bomb into Iran? What if Pakistan decides to smuggle a bomb into Iran to make everyone think that Israel/US was behind it.

As long as there are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons around the world, there is always going to be possibility that somebody could get access to one that shouldn't have access.

Unless all the superpowers are prepared to follow through with the nuclear disarmament requirements and Israel is prepared to disarm its nuclear arsenal, it is unrealistic to think that the non-nuclear states are going to abide by the agreement.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about someone stealing a bomb (or the material to make one), I'm talking about Iran handing one over (or the material to make one) for use against a specific target. Israel isn't out to take control of Iran because the Jews once controlled that part of the world. The same cannot be said in return. Islam once ruled the area where Israel is now and Iran wants the Jews out of there. Like I said, READ SOME HISTORY. Until then it's useless to talk to you about it.

MoSurveyor said:

You're actually THERE so if you don't mind answering:
Do the US forces over there fly the UN flag or just the US flag or ...?

Click to expand...

Proud South Korean said:

Well, I wasn't alive back in the 1950s....so.....

Click to expand...

I do not think a person needed to be alive in the 1950's to know which flags fly with US forces in South Korea.


Army celebrating at Yongsan Garrison in the Republic of Korea – A fireworks display culminated a day-long July 4th celebration


20 February 2009. USAG-Yongsan

Great work - Thanks, Connery! (I swear I'm still stupid sometimes when it comes to the Net.)

UN flag right next to the US flag.

justabubba said:

here's a chance to actually offer something yourself, then. show us what EVIDENCE you have to support the claim that iran is funding, supplying and training terrorists in iraq that target Americans

Click to expand...

Let's do this your style. Prove they are not or I'm just gonna have to stick with the facts.

ecofarm said:

Let's do this your style. Prove they are not or I'm just gonna have to stick with the facts.

Click to expand...

spoken like the scientist you claim to be: prove a negative

i will stick with the belief that your post was nothing more than a wishful opinion, that you have no basis to conclude that iran is supplying, funding, and training hamas in iraq to kill American troops

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

(snip)

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Just thought this might help.

:coffeepap

justabubba said:

here's a chance to actually offer something yourself, then. show us what EVIDENCE you have to support the claim that iran is funding, supplying and training terrorists in iraq that target Americans

Click to expand...

Would you insist on proof of a Hezbollah/Iranian connection? It's pretty easy to show Hezbollah had fighters in Iraq and most Western countries agree Hezbollah is at least partially backed (financed and supplied) by Iran. If you're looking for either Hezbollah or Iran to openly admit a connection then I won't bother because they won't.


Israel doesn't have nukes, either.

There's no question that Iran is funding, supplying and training anti-western/American interests in Iraq. I've no idea where Justabubba came up with "Hamas in Iraq"; discussion of Israel should be in the mideast section.

ecofarm said:

There's no question that Iran is funding, supplying and training anti-western/American interests in Iraq. I've no idea where Justabubba came up with "Hamas in Iraq"; discussion of Israel should be in the mideast section.

Click to expand...

here is where i found the reference, in your post. i have been trying to get you to offer any proof of your assertion that iran is supplying, training and funding those who are killing our troops in iraq:

ecofarm said:

Perhaps he meant 'Americans'. The Iranian army/super-guard funds, supplies and trains terrorists in Iraq that target Americans as well as civilians. That's a fact, right? 'American interests' could also work regarding Hez, Hamas and who knows what in Africa and Pakistan.

Click to expand...

you keep offering up opinions as if they are facts. such as this
so, either provide proof of what you assert, or accept that you offer nothing to this debate other than unfounded opinion

EagleAye said:

How can you be so sure?

Click to expand...

All you have to do is look at the regional politics. Hammas, Hezbollah, Israel would likely get involved. If it happened from the us first without a strike against the USA it may be seen add a legitimate call for jihad. Turkey would be pulled in which would be messy, Syria may or may not be stable but you know they would be involved in some way since Iran is one of its only allies.... The Emirate I don't think I need to go on

If you want concrete proof of Iran-Hezbollah connection i'm sure theses public info of it on the CIA fact book

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
-- George Orwell, 1984

justabubba said:

here is where i found the reference, in your post. i have been trying to get you to offer any proof of your assertion that iran is supplying, training and funding those who are killing our troops in iraq:

Click to expand...

I am also wondering how this is different from our support of Iraq in their attacks on Iran??? Or our funding of Israel when they attacked Iraq?

NDAA was just broadcast via the internets megaphone to scare OWS, most of dat **** is already in the Patriot Acts. I did not get my daily dose of FEAR today, with scares of more war and false nuke threats in bold font headlines, designed to keep you little people in your place to paralyze you even though there is no nuclear threat. Which websites are not neocon/govnmnt megaphones? A day with more tabloid ****e and "celebs" , with a "news" media that treats Bachmann as a serious subject. Get out and protest people. OWS must grow! Ya know those millions at Obamas inaguration? Well what if the same people showed up in the Capitol again, but to forcibly remove, by the nape of the neck, those corrupt Senators and Reps from OUR buildings and we just take over?

Kane, are you serious? You simultaneously back OWS and Obama? Pull your head out man. OWS is supposed to hate the "BIG BANKS" yet you support a guy who bailed them out and has been the largest recipient of their campaign contributions. Please do some research before you let party trump principle.

Bartlebee06 said:

Kane, are you serious? You simultaneously back OWS and Obama? Pull your head out man. OWS is supposed to hate the "BIG BANKS" yet you support a guy who bailed them out and has been the largest recipient of their campaign contributions. Please do some research before you let party trump principle.

Click to expand...

well, it appears somebody needs to pull their head out
in reply to what is now in bold font, notice how wrong you are:

On October 3, 2008, the Senate passed the $700 billion bank bailout bill. ...

Click to expand...

the presidential election was the following month
guess what that means regarding who was president when the banks got their bailout
i did the research for you. now tell us about your party and your supposed prinicples



Bank Bailout Bill - What Exactly Was in the Bank Bailout Bill

The emperor Obama has no clothes. The transparency of the oligarchy and our sham USA democracy has become all too apparent.

- Oil Companies blatantly hiding and censoring the U.S. media after spills ...

- Nuclear Power blatantly censoring the poisons and dangers from the free world ...

- Military warmongers hiding behind Nobel Prizes and muppet TV news hosts hiding their slaughter behind Newspeak and words like "freedom" ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hooray for fake and phony journalism!

Hooray for illusionary freedom of the press and fake political rallies!

Jon Stewart defends George W. Bush on MSNBC


"Stewart said Bush "is not a war criminal," and said he believed the former president's assertions about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq were what Bush "truly believed" at the time.

Jon Stewart defends George W. Bush on MSNBC - The Washington Scene - TheHill.com


"In contrast, host Rachel Maddow has in the past suggested that the Bush administration knowingly misled the American public about the imminent threat from Hussein's weapons program. She has also argued on air that U.S. actions during the Iraq war violated the Geneva Conventions, making the Commander-In-Chief, technically, a war criminal.

Jon Stewart behaves exactly like lamestream media pro-war hacks, and its not accidental.No war criminal in the WH, and he agreed yesterday with Sarah Palin, right wing hatespeech is not to blame for AZ shooting, just a "lone nut."Stewart has his lamestream media talking points all in order as he performs his role as $6 million dollar man for Uncle Sam.

Kane said:

. . . .

Click to expand...

Too simplistic. Many don't say no to all wars, just reckless and harmful wars. You have to have exact situations to compare properly.