Iranian President planning apoclaypse on August 22nd?

[artist]

Let's have some specifics of how he's going to do this before we contemplate the mass murder of millions of innocents (remember - I'm addressing the "why can't we carpet bomb Tehran and other Iranian cities" proposal) to prevent it.

Would you mind showing me where I said I wanted that to happen?
I do feel taking out their nuclear facilities would be justified - NOT blanket carpet bombing.

[x-y-no]

Let's have some specifics of how he's going to do this before we contemplate the mass murder of millions of innocents (remember - I'm addressing the "why can't we carpet bomb Tehran and other Iranian cities" proposal) to prevent it.

Would you mind showing me where I said I wanted that to happen?
I do feel taking out their nuclear facilities would be justified - NOT blanket carpet bombing.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were saying that. But the context of the longer exchange with Derek is that he earlier proposed exactly that.


(these discussion board conversations do get complicated, dont they)


I'd still like to see what evidence there is for the claim that "Iran's presidents design is not to hit our nuclear facilities, but to wipe us & Israel out, period."

There's his bellicose rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map, of course, but you are aware that this was a paraphrase of a thirty year old speech by Ayatollah Khomeni, right? IOW, it's par for the course in political speech in the area. That doesn't excuse it, but it does call into question just how much of an active plan it constitutes.

And where's the plan to eliminate us? It seems even less substantive.


So to the extent there's anything there, it's pretty thin. And by out best intelligence estimation (God knows how good that is) they're years off from getting even one nuclear weapon, let alone the massive arsenal it would take to put in force a serious plan to eliminate both Israel and the United States.

Consider, also, that both Israel and the US have vary large second-strike nuclear capabilities. Anyone who seriously contemplates "eliminating" either of us, or even coming close to doing so, has to be truly suicidal. I assure you the respose to a nuclear attack, even a relatively small one, on either of us would be massive beyond conception. There's no doubt these men know this.

So while I certainly don't look forward to the idea of a nuclear Iran and I certainly think we and our allies should do everything reasonably possible (where "reasonably possibe" could conceivably at some point include military action but at the moment I just don't see how that would work) to prevent it, I don't see that it's the end of the world. What it would be is a significant reshaping of that part of the world, but unfortunately that seems already to be happening to Iran's benefit anyway.

[artist]

at least it would set back their goals for quite some time. I do not trust him, nor Russia, and they are somewhat -allies-. True, maybe he, himself, may not have the authority to strike us or Israel, but who is to say, he wouldn't use his authority to get into those places and direct a takeover of such? I am not one to jump too easily, but this man scares me, along with the alliance he is making with NK and Russia. Yes - we should wait to see what happens, but I would much rather be fighting him offensively, rather than defensively. No - I am not saying to attack right now - but I do believe he needs to be watched like a small tyrannical child does.

[Derek Ortt]

My point is is that I am not willing to take any chances when it comes to a nuclear Iran (or NK for that matter, but we're too late on that one)

My other contention is that we could seem as weak by only a pinprick attack, further emboldening our enemy (as the 1998 raid on Afghanistan did)

[x-y-no]

at least it would set back their goals for quite some time. I do not trust him, nor Russia, and they are somewhat -allies-. True, maybe he, himself, may not have the authority to strike us or Israel, but who is to say, he wouldn't use his authority to get into those places and direct a takeover of such? I am not one to jump too easily, but this man scares me, along with the alliance he is making with NK and Russia. Yes - we should wait to see what happens, but I would much rather be fighting him offensively, rather than defensively. No - I am not saying to attack right now - but I do believe he needs to be watched like a small tyrannical child does.

Well I can't quarrel much with any of that. I certainly don't trust Ahmadinejad or Putin or any of quite a few other world leaders. But working out some sort of peaceful coexistence, sometimes easy, sometimes uneasy, is pretty much the whole business of international relations.

[x-y-no]

My point is is that I am not willing to take any chances when it comes to a nuclear Iran (or NK for that matter, but we're too late on that one)

My other contention is that we could seem as weak by only a pinprick attack, further emboldening our enemy (as the 1998 raid on Afghanistan did)

So what's your response to my drunken neighbor analogy? Do you contend it's invalid? If so, why? If not, what's the moral calculus?

[Derek Ortt]

well,

your neighbor has never directly threatened you on a continuous basis. If he was threatening to kill your family on a repeated basis, you would have the right to defend yourself if the situation arose.

IMO, the stiuation is very close to arising where we need to defend ourselves

[x-y-no]

I think you're sidestepping the analogy. I was making analogs between my neighbor and the Iranian government and between my neighbor's wife, children and pets and the innocent citizens of Tehran and other Iranian cities.


Let's posit that my neighbor has indeed made repeated threats. To my mind, that still would be no justification for my attacking innocent members of his family (wife, children, pets). By my offered analogy, threats (and threats alone) uttered by the Iranian government are not justification for the murder of the innocent citizens of Tehran and other major Iranian cities.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Okay, I'm going to play a little role of "devil's advocate"... big surprise huh!

Jan, you post a pretty good analogy, but it does have some weaknesses that do not make it altogether comparable to our situation with Iran--although I admit it's a pretty good compaction of the story. A more complete analogy, using pretty much the same players, plus a few new ones, would be as follows:

You have this often drunken, bellicose neighbor, who never misses an opportunity to cast slurs in your direction, or at you and your family...including some pretty harsh outright threats. You have this nice family...a large one... living in a very BIG house,... while his, a few houses down, is much smaller. One day, a "relative" of this neighbor actually does attack your house--even kills a family member. Now while it is true this neighbor in question didn't do it himself, he certainly wasn't sorry that it happened, and, if anything, has on numerous occasions revelled in your tragedy--AND continued spewing his threats and hate. You even see him making purchases and carrying into his house supplies of explosives and other armaments, not equal to those you possess, but certainly capable of doing your family/house some damage. He continues in his drunken tirades of impending doom for you and your family... and you even manage to capture one or two individuals trying to break into your house... or making plans to attack your house--these are also relatives of this neighbor, and you also are highly suspicious of the neighbor in question having played a possible role in putting them up to it... his is a proven record of actually having helped others to break into another "neighbor's" house (this one a friend of yours), and having done him great harm; you now are living every day with the realization that this "neighbor" is just not going to shut up, and apparently either he, or his relatives, are going to continue to try to harm you and your family. And now he's bragging about getting a new supply of even bigger and better weaponry to "wipe out" you and your family.... How do you think you'd deal with this guy? (No fair "calling the cops"...cuz their just ain't any in this burb )

I know, that's a LOT more complicated, but it's shown that way only to illustrate that the machinations involved here are just that--immensely complicated. Yours was a good approach at looking at things in a different perspective; I simply felt a little more details had to be added. I make no suggestions as to what or how I would respond, as I'd already stated, this sitution is incredibly complex. Actually, I found Kevin's previous post to be a pretty good summation, but I, also, make absolutely no claim to know everything about the myriad intricacies at play in this extremely volatile region.

A2K

[x-y-no]

I freely admit yours is a more complete analogy, A2K. And I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I'd say the same moral calculus regarding the citizens of Iranian cities applies in your version as well as it does in mine.


Anyways ... off to the Dolphins game ... another day gone by and we still haven't solved the world's problems.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well Go Dolphins!... as long as they're not playing the Saints or the Steelers!

A2K

[Skywatch_NC]

Well Go Dolphins!... as long as they're not playing the Saints or the Steelers!

A2K

WOO...*wipes brow*...*glad he didn't mention the Panthers!*

[x-y-no]

Well, it's after 7pm Tehran time on August 22nd, and still no cataclysmic events.

Looks like it was just a bunch of blowhard rhetoric for local consumption, just like I thought.

[conestogo_flood]

I thought tonight marks the celebration of the prophet Muhammed's flight over Israel, and a bright light as he ascended back to Heaven over Jerusalem. I read in the paper that Iran might re-create that light over Jerusalem when its dark there.

[coriolis]

Details at 11:00

[conestogo_flood]

Details at 11:00

What is that supposed to mean?

[kevin]

I thought tonight marks the celebration of the prophet Muhammed's flight over Israel, and a bright light as he ascended back to Heaven over Jerusalem. I read in the paper that Iran might re-create that light over Jerusalem when its dark there.

Through what, a nuclear attack on their second most sacred site?

[conestogo_flood]

I thought tonight marks the celebration of the prophet Muhammed's flight over Israel, and a bright light as he ascended back to Heaven over Jerusalem. I read in the paper that Iran might re-create that light over Jerusalem when its dark there.

Through what, a nuclear attack on their second most sacred site?

He did promise Muslims they will soon be rejoicing, so either they'd be rejoicing from something else, or the light appearing in the sky over Jerusalem. Wait, then if Jerusalem is their second most sacred site, does that mean that they wouldn't target the city? But, doesn't Iran want the destruction of Israel, so it's not like it's a big deal to them if they destroy Jerusalem or not. Who knows.

[coriolis]

Details at 11:00

What is that supposed to mean?

U.S. local television news programming is usually at 6:00 pm and 11:00 pm. If there's a story in progress, they will often mention it in the early news and say "Details at 11:00." It's sort of a common phrase here if you don't have the complete story about something, or if something isn't finished yet.

[x-y-no]

Details at 11:00

What is that supposed to mean?

U.S. local television news programming is usually at 6:00 pm and 11:00 pm. If there's a story in progress, they will often mention it in the early news and say "Details at 11:00." It's sort of a common phrase here if you don't have the complete story about something, or if something isn't finished yet.

Yes ... as in "Giant asteroid to strike Earth at 10:45! Details at 11."