Bush declines to exlude nuclear strike on Iran [Archive]

SarahK

04-18-2006, 7:01 PM

They already are researching the production of nuclear weapons in secret - past tense:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6784
Iranian scientists are secretly conducting crucial nuclear research and development, using university laboratories as cover to avoid international scrutiny, according to highly placed opposition supporters within the Islamic regime.

Teheran's Imam Hossein University, which is run on military brigade lines by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, is the main centre for experiments on nuclear weapon technology, the exiled National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) reported.

Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that Iran had successfully enriched uranium as it forges ahead with the nuclear programme, which he claims is intended solely to generate energy, but which the West believes is intended for atomic weapons.

The belligerent Iranian hardliner followed up that claim with a fresh diatribe against Israel, which he described on Friday as "a rotten, dried tree", which would be annihilated by "a storm". He has previously called for the country to be "wiped from the map".

Teheran is publicly flagging up its "peaceful" nuclear know-how in its showdown with the international community. But, at the same time, scientists with close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) were conducting secret trials on military aspects of the programme, opposition figures said.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, the NCRI official who revealed the existence of the clerics' clandestine nuclear programme to the world in 2002, told the Sunday Telegraph that the latest information came from the same sources within the regime's national security structure.

He named 21 professors and researchers involved in nuclear work at the Imam Hossein University, many of whom also hold senior IRGC posts, as proof that the Revolutionary Guards were running Iran's supposedly "civilian" nuclear programme.

The IRGC's influence in the regime has strengthened since the election last year of Mr Ahmadinejad, who was a brigadier general in its Quds (Jerusalem) Force, the wing linked to a series of international terror attacks.

In a sign of the importance of the Imam Hossein University, Iran's leader visited the campus in September for a briefing shortly after his return from the United Nations in New York, where he robustly defended Iran's nuclear ambitions.

In a photograph not previously published in Britain, the president is shown inspecting students in military cadet uniforms. He was told of "research achievements in the domains of defence and national security, basic sciences as well as technical and engineering fields", the Teheran-based Fars news agency reported.

Clandestine nuclear research is being led by scientists who were student radicals in the Islamic revolution that overthrew the last Shah in 1979, and share the activist background of Mr Ahmadinejad, 49.

Fereydoon Abbasi, 48, head of physics, who fought in the Iran-Iraq war, has overseen the transfer of several nuclear experts to the university from other institutions.

Other key figures include Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, 45, a nuclear engineer whom the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has unsuccessfully sought to question, and Mansour Asgari, 48, a laser expert. They both lecture at Imam Hossein, but are based at the Centre for Readiness and New Defence Technology, to which the IAEA has been refused access by the regime.

Dr Abbasi recently oversaw tests on the high-powered emission of neutrons by a neutron generator, Mr Jafarzadeh said. Other work is believed to focus on beryllium oxide (which has possible nuclear applications), laser-enrichment, nuclear trigger experiments and tests on bomb materials.

"Imam Hossein university has a top-notch nuclear physics department," said Mr Jafarzadeh. "The work they are doing there is crucial to the nuclear programme and it has never been inspected.

"While Ahmadinejad is proudly proclaiming the regime's uranium enrichment success, he is concealing the central role of the Revolutionary Guards corps and its Imam Hossein University in the secret rush to acquire the nuclear bomb."

The United States will urge its allies this week to consider punitive measures - including a freeze on assets, targeted sanctions and travel restrictions - against Iranian leaders. Senior officials from the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany meet in Moscow on Tuesday to discuss their response to Iran's announcement that it had joined the "nuclear club".

The declaration came the day before a visit to Teheran by Mohamed El Baradei, the IAEA chief, in a clear snub to the UN's atomic watchdog. The UN Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to halt all enrichment activity, but is divided over what to do if Teheran ignores the ultimatum.

The head of the Revolutionary Guards warned the US on Friday not to attack the Islamic republic, saying American troops in Iraq and the region were "vulnerable".

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, one of the regime's most powerful figures. "The Americans know that their troops are
vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error."
Plus this:
"Far closer to nuclear weapons than previously anticipated" (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6796)

World War 3's on it's way, Supreme Leader will have his way.

(The Supreme Leader (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/supreme_leader.stm), the unelected Islamic dictator of Iran's powers include the declaration of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran#Functions_and_duties_of_The _Supreme_Leader)..)

Seroth

04-18-2006, 7:30 PM

uhhh

1-20-09

Bush's Last Day

Yeah! And war with China and/or Iran, possibly both, is most likely inevitable, or at leas that is what I believe. Just think of it like this, almost every 10-15 years or so, there is some sort of major war in the world. We're getting pretty close to the next decade.....

Pisces

04-19-2006, 8:07 AM

I don't think China is anything to worry about, they are trying to convert people to Buddhism so they are easier to oppress and if everyone is Buddhist then China would have no soldiers, only weapons. I remember the great Buddhist empire...as soon as somebody decided to invade, it was destroyed because Buddhists don't fight back.

Seroth

04-19-2006, 10:24 AM

I think you are wrong there. they have been slowly building up their military and military technology. Check out their t98 tank. It has optical lasers that can blind sighting devices on enemy tanks, weapons,etc. just watch out.

Nuts

04-19-2006, 7:04 PM

So there you have it folks. Don't put it past president Bush to nuke another nation for not caving in to his demands.
Do you use a news filter? It seems that anything that might conflict with your warped world view doesn't seem to penetrate your thick skull. I mean, it's obvious to anyone that has been reading the news that the world is adamantly against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Russia: Iran Must Halt Uranium Enrichment (http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/19/ap2679521.html)
UN gives Iran 30 days to halt uranium enrichment (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10878)
China Envoy Urges Iran to Heed Criticism of Uranium Enrichment (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aPf7ivA9oDqc&refer=top_world_news)

Note to Desert Eagle: These are real news links. You'll note than none of my sources have "wiki" anything in the url.

I believe Iran has a right to seek nuclear weapons,
By whose standards? Iran signed the NPT, they agreed to suspend nuclear proliferation. Are you ignoring the crucial fact that the world has decided almost unanimously to cease the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

GenocideAlive

04-19-2006, 7:31 PM

I believe Iran has a right to seek nuclear weapons
I seem to recall you stating in at least 4 different posts that you can't believe how many tools will still support Bush despite that "he lied". You go on to rave about how stupid and blind people are because they continue to provide support to an agency that's intentionally duping them.

I am now facing somewhat of a conundrum with your "support" of Iran. They signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and say they're not creating nukes. However, it's obvious that they're lying. Why have you suddenly switched stances on liars involving the stupid and the blind? Or do you admit you're stupid and blind according to your own standard?

Desert_Eagle

04-19-2006, 7:38 PM

Do you use a news filter? It seems that anything that might conflict with your warped world view doesn't seem to penetrate your thick skull. I mean, it's obvious to anyone that has been reading the news that the world is adamantly against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Russia: Iran Must Halt Uranium Enrichment (http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/19/ap2679521.html)
UN gives Iran 30 days to halt uranium enrichment (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10878)
China Envoy Urges Iran to Heed Criticism of Uranium Enrichment (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aPf7ivA9oDqc&refer=top_world_news)

Curiously missing from those articles is "Russia, UN, and China prepared to nuke Iran." Also missing is the fact that both Russia and China have declared that military intervention and sanctions are the wrong way to go, but don't count on Nuts to give you the whole story. He opposes encyclopedias like wikipedia in favor of articles which put his position in the greatest light.

After all, we all know that if someone is opposed to something, they are prepared to use nuclear weapons to stop that. You know like how France opposses the Iraq war and is going to launch nukes at the United States.

As far as I can tell, your reply did not even begin to adress my sentence.

Note to Desert Eagle: These are real news links. You'll note than none of my sources have "wiki" anything in the url.

Your point?

So if wikipedia reported the exact same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_nuclear_program) it wouldn't be true simply because it came from wikipedia, right? Or you know like, when wikipedia sources all it's claims at the bottom, if it came from any of those 3 sources you posted it would be invalid because "wikipedia is invalid," right?

Gotta love your logic. Oh wait, you don't even have an arguement! I haven't ever seen you actually defend your remarks against any of the wikipedia articles I have posted. Not once have you demonstrated factual inaccuracy to any article I ever posted. Not once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_nuclear_program

But don't listen to wikipedia. Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons, according to Nuts argument anyways.

By whose standards? Iran signed the NPT, they agreed to suspend nuclear proliferation. Are you ignoring the crucial fact that the world has decided almost unanimously to cease the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Are you ignoring the fact that the great majority of nations are opposed to the US war in Iraq? Are you ignoring the fact that the United States is also a signatory and violated by giving nuclear secrets to Israel and providing B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey?

No, I'm not ignoring any of those facts. There is no "standard" for why nations who conducted nuclear testing prior to 1967 should have nuclear weapons and those who did not conduct weapons testing prior to 1967 should not. There is no ethical argument or reason given in the text. It simply says "we have a right to have nuclear weapons because we conducted our tests at the time this treaty was signed."

And if the world was so adamant about that they would be shocked that Israel has nuclear weapons, although there has never been any kind of UN investigation into this well known fact. They would also do something about North Korea, which they did not.

Let's also not forget that the UN has presented no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and Ayatollah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah) Ali Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei) issued a fatwa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa) forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. Technically speaking, Iran hasn't even violated the treaty, whereas the United States is in full breech of that very same treaty.

Sorry Nuts, your gonna have to come in from a differant angle. The legality side doesn't weigh well with the United States.

I seem to recall you stating in at least 4 different posts that you can't believe how many tools will still support Bush despite that "he lied". You go on to rave about how stupid and blind people are because they continue to provide support to an agency that's intentionally duping them.

I am now facing somewhat of a conundrum with your "support" of Iran. They signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and say they're not creating nukes. However, it's obvious that they're lying. Why have you suddenly switched stances on liars involving the stupid and the blind? Or do you admit you're stupid and blind according to your own standard?

Well simply because of the fact that the Iranian government does not collect my tax dollars. So I couldn't really give a shit what they do with their peoples money because it doesn't affect me. Iran has an inalienable right to nuclear technology. Their lies don't affect me, whereas Bush's lies have cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

And it's not obvious they are lying, where is the evidence that they are developing nuclear weapons? We have evidence that Bush lied, downing street memo, etc. Where is the evidence that Iran lied? The only way you would have evidence is if Iran actually had a nuclear weapon, which it doesn't.

GenocideAlive

04-19-2006, 9:19 PM

Well simply because of the fact that the Iranian government does not collect my tax dollars. So I couldn't really give a shit what they do with their peoples money because it doesn't affect me. Iran has an inalienable right to nuclear technology. Their lies don't affect me, whereas Bush's lies have cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Signed, sealed, and delivered to the GROSS CONTRADICTION COMMITTEE.

They're dealing with nuclear weapons, son.

Try Wiki'ing weapon.

Desert_Eagle

04-19-2006, 9:34 PM

Signed, sealed, and delivered to the GROSS CONTRADICTION COMMITTEE.

They're dealing with nuclear weapons, son.

Try Wiki'ing weapon.

By that same standard of reasoning, the United States also has nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should lookup nuclear weapons under wikipedia.

Non sequitur? I think so.

There is no contradiction. Having nuclear weapons does not translate to using nuclear weapons. Unless of course you are arguing that the United States presents a threat by possessing them.

Also, I'll remind you of the fact that no evidence has been presented that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

Nuts

04-19-2006, 10:24 PM

Curiously missing from those articles is "Russia, UN, and China prepared to nuke Iran."
Curiously missing from any credible source is that the United States is prepared to nuke Iran. It is illogical to remove any military option from the table, period. Since when does the refusal to rule something out indicate the desire or intent to use it?

Also missing is the fact that both Russia and China have declared that military intervention and sanctions are the wrong way to go, but don't count on Nuts to give you the whole story. He opposes encyclopedias like wikipedia in favor of articles which put his position in the greatest light.
I'm uncertain how this relates to your position. Perhaps you could explain how this helps to justify your claim that Bush is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The fact that China and Russia would prefer to use diplomatic measures (for the moment) does nothing to refute their desire to see Iran give up their nuclear ambitions.

As far as I can tell, your reply did not even begin to adress my sentence.
You claimed that Bush was imposing his will upon Iran utilaterally. I provided evidence to demonstrate that there are numerous countries that are making these requests of Iran.

Your point?

So if wikipedia reported the exact same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_nuclear_program) it wouldn't be true simply because it came from wikipedia, right? Or you know like, when wikipedia sources all it's claims at the bottom, if it came from any of those 3 sources you posted it would be invalid because "wikipedia is invalid," right?
I don't have the time to validate every single claim on wikipedia. Your inability to use actual news sources demonstrates a genuine inability to research a topic for yourself.

Are you ignoring the fact that the great majority of nations are opposed to the US war in Iraq? Are you ignoring the fact that the United States is also a signatory and violated by giving nuclear secrets to Israel and providing B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey?
Red Herring. We're discussing Iran. Making accusations against the U.S. will not lessen the guilt of Iran. Stick to the subject.

No, I'm not ignoring any of those facts. There is no "standard" for why nations who conducted nuclear testing prior to 1967 should have nuclear weapons and those who did not conduct weapons testing prior to 1967 should not. There is no ethical argument or reason given in the text. It simply says "we have a right to have nuclear weapons because we conducted our tests at the time this treaty was signed."
Why don't you ring the U.N. and explain your rationale to Kofi Annan. Perhaps you can help to convince 188 countries that the NPT is a meaningless piece of rubbish. The majority rules, so sorry.

And if the world was so adamant about that they would be shocked that Israel has nuclear weapons, although there has never been any kind of UN investigation into this well known fact. They would also do something about North Korea, which they did not.
Red Herring, please stick to the topic.

Let's also not forget that the UN has presented no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and Ayatollah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah) Ali Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei) issued a fatwa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa) forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. Technically speaking, Iran hasn't even violated the treaty, whereas the United States is in full breech of that very same treaty.
Dare I ask that you provide a source for this assertion? Perhaps a real news source?

Desert_Eagle

04-19-2006, 11:28 PM

Curiously missing from any credible source is that the United States is prepared to nuke Iran. It is illogical to remove any military option from the table, period. Since when does the refusal to rule something out indicate the desire or intent to use it?

It's on the table for us. It's not on the table for any of those countries.

And why oh why do you keep applying double standards? Might you use this same reasoning and apply it to your position on Iran?

I'm uncertain how this relates to your position. Perhaps you could explain how this helps to justify your claim that Bush is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The fact that China and Russia would prefer to use diplomatic measures (for the moment) does nothing to refute their desire to see Iran give up their nuclear ambitions.

Well for one thing I never claimed that they didn't wish to see Iran disarm (for the record, no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program). You just added that for some reason.

Secondly, Bush said it's on the table. That means hes prepared to use nuclear weapons if it comes down to that.

You claimed that Bush was imposing his will upon Iran utilaterally. I provided evidence to demonstrate that there are numerous countries that are making these requests of Iran.

False. I said "So there you have it folks. Don't put it past president Bush to nuke another nation for not caving in to his demands." I never said anything about "Bush is the only person who wants to see Iran disarm" or anything even remotely similar. I did however, say that Bush is the only one who has declared that nuclear weapons are an option. Perhaps you would like to adress my actual statements instead of straw men?

I don't have the time to validate every single claim on wikipedia. Your inability to use actual news sources demonstrates a genuine inability to research a topic for yourself.

False. Wikipedia is a spectacular source for current events. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise and point out factual inaccuracies in any articles I have posted, though.

Until then, you have nothing more than an unsupported assertion.

Red Herring. We're discussing Iran. Making accusations against the U.S. will not lessen the guilt of Iran. Stick to the subject.

I did, but it appears the point flew right over your head. The point had nothing to do with the Iraq war, but was adressing your specific statement "Are you ignoring the crucial fact that the world has decided almost unanimously to cease the proliferation of nuclear weapons?"

No I'm not ignoring that fact, but it seems you apply a double standard. The world also disagrees with the Iraq war, but you wouldn't use that as an argument against it. But for some reason it applies to disarming Iran? Why is that? You also forgot to adress the other part.

"Are you ignoring the fact that the United States is also a signatory and violated by giving nuclear secrets to Israel and providing B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey?"

That is a direct reply to "By whose standards? Iran signed the NPT, they agreed to suspend nuclear proliferation."

So did the United States, so whats your point? It's only a red herring if you expect us to ignore the fact that you are applying a blatant double standard. In that case, your argument is nullified for that reason.

Why don't you ring the U.N. and explain your rationale to Kofi Annan. Perhaps you can help to convince 188 countries that the NPT is a meaningless piece of rubbish. The majority rules, so sorry.

What are you sorry for? And again we see a double standard. The majority disagreed with the Iraq war but you don't apply that standard. I guess the majority rules sometimes? In that case, your argument is again nullified.

You gotta watch those double standards Nuts. They come back to bite you.

Red Herring, please stick to the topic.

This is very much relevant to the topic of non-proliferation and NPT signatories violating the agreement.

The fact that you apply double standards does not change this.

Dare I ask that you provide a source for this assertion? Perhaps a real news source?

You want me to prove a negative? I can, but do I have an obligation to?

You might argue that it would take me less time to go to cnn.com right now and prove you wrong. I would reply by saying that would violate the principle of burden of proof, and by the fact that you could just as easily refute that statement by providing evidence which contradicts it.

GenocideAlive

04-20-2006, 9:05 PM

By that same standard of reasoning, the United States also has nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should lookup nuclear weapons under wikipedia.

Non sequitur? I think so. More like Red Herring. Let's recap:

You state people follow Bush blindly and they're stupid because they continue to support him after he's lied to them.
I reply that you're supporting Iran's nuclear weapons program, even though they're lying about their intent
You claim the difference lay in that Iran's lies won't affect you, taking lives and costing millions of dollars.
I say that you're bullshitting when you claim that Iran's lies won't affect you, taking lives and millions of dollars is exactly what nuclear weapons, by design, are intended to do.
You retort that the US has nuclear weapons.That is non sequitur, I guess, but it's not on me. On your part, though, non sequitur, red herring, and pot and kettle applies nicely. All of these are logical fallacies that I can link to in wikipedia, if you can't figure it out yourself.
There is no contradiction. Having nuclear weapons does not translate to using nuclear weapons. Then please translate. Why would one create nuclear weapons, if not to use them to either nuke someone or bully them with the potential to use them? Either way, if threats don't work...
Also, I'll remind you of the fact that no evidence has been presented that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. I'll remind you of the fact that it's almost universally contended amongst the U.N. alliance of some 180 countries that Iran is indeed planning on creating nuclear weapons. The object is to prevent an unstable, religious fundamentalist whackjob country from obtaining the means to obliterate entire cities. Not to wait for them to finish an atomic bomb then gather evidence like Sherlock Holmes and thereby ask them to hand it over.

Desert_Eagle

04-21-2006, 10:46 AM

More like Red Herring. Let's recap:
You state people follow Bush blindly and they're stupid because they continue to support him after he's lied to them.
I reply that you're supporting Iran's nuclear weapons program, even though they're lying about their intent
You claim the difference lay in that Iran's lies won't affect you, taking lives and costing millions of dollars.
I say that you're bullshitting when you claim that Iran's lies won't affect you, taking lives and millions of dollars is exactly what nuclear weapons, by design, are intended to do.
You retort that the US has nuclear weapons.
That is non sequitur, I guess, but it's not on me. On your part, though, non sequitur, red herring, and pot and kettle applies nicely. All of these are logical fallacies that I can link to in wikipedia, if you can't figure it out yourself.

So you are saying that the United States, France, and Great Britains nuclear arsenals are taking lives and millions of dollars then.

I said Irans nuclear weapons won't take millions of dollars from me, and that is true.

You don't even know what your talking about apparently.

Then please translate. Why would one create nuclear weapons, if not to use them to either nuke someone or bully them with the potential to use them? Either way, if threats don't work...

Like I said several times, deterrance.

I'll remind you of the fact that it's almost universally contended amongst the U.N. alliance of some 180 countries that Iran is indeed planning on creating nuclear weapons. The object is to prevent an unstable, religious fundamentalist whackjob country from obtaining the means to obliterate entire cities. Not to wait for them to finish an atomic bomb then gather evidence like Sherlock Holmes and thereby ask them to hand it over.

No evidence has been presented.

GenocideAlive

04-21-2006, 11:26 AM

So you are saying that the United States, France, and Great Britains nuclear arsenals are taking lives and millions of dollars then.

I said Irans nuclear weapons won't take millions of dollars from me, and that is true.

You don't even know what your talking about apparently.
You don't have millions of dollars; I suggest you learn to construct a sentence.

The US, France, and Great Britian aren't at all equivalent to Iran: argument of equivalence fallacy.

Please address the points I raise and stop trying to pull the argument off into an irrelevant direction that points to gross logical fallacy.

Iran signed the NPT, and they are now seeking weapons against their signing and lying about it. You support this. Why is this any different than people supporting Bush after you claim he lied?
Like I said several times, deterrance. [sic]
When a country uses a nuclear weapon as a "deterrent", and then the threat fails, what is their recourse?
No evidence has been presented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_nuclear_program

the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency) (IAEA) believes that recent Iranian non-cooperation makes it impossible to conduct adequate inspections to ensure that the technology is not being diverted for weapons use. On February 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_4), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), the IAEA voted 27-3 to report Iran's program to the United Nations Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council)

If they're not making nukes, why won't they let the UN inspect their sites?

Desert_Eagle

04-21-2006, 1:45 PM

You don't have millions of dollars; I suggest you learn to construct a sentence.

Hence, Irans government won't be taking millions of dollars from me. GG :)

The US, France, and Great Britian aren't at all equivalent to Iraq: argument of equivalence fallacy.

Then thats your fault for making blanket statements without qualifiers or elaborating.

"taking lives and millions of dollars is exactly what nuclear weapons, by design, are intended to do."

Are you now saying that only applies in the case of Iran or...?

Iran signed the NPT, and they are now seeking weapons against their signing and lying about it. You support this. Why is this any different than people supporting Bush after you claim he lied?

1. No evidence Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
2. The United States is also in direct violation of the NPT, so that gives Iran the right.
3. Irans govenrment does not collect my tax dollars.

When a country uses a nuclear weapon as a "deterrent", and then the threat fails, what is their recourse?

To defend their country with nuclear weapons of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_nuclear_program

the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) believes that recent Iranian non-cooperation makes it impossible to conduct adequate inspections to ensure that the technology is not being diverted for weapons use. On February 4, 2006, the IAEA voted 27-3 to report Iran's program to the United Nations Security Council

If they're not making nukes, why won't they let the UN inspect their sites?

First of all, your contradicitng yourself by using wikipedia as a source. Now do you agree to it's validity?

Because that is their sovereign right. The IAEA reported them to the security council so they are no longer cooperating.

September 15, 2005: At a United Nations high-level summit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated Iran had the right to develop a civil nuclear-power programme within the terms of the 1970 treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. He offers a compromise solution in which foreign companies will be permitted to invest and participate in Iran's nuclear program, thus ensuring that it cannot be secretly used to make weapons. The majority of the U.S. delegation left during his speech, but the U.S./UN mission denied there was a walkout. [41]

November 5, 2005: The Iranian government approved a plan that allows foreign investors to participate in the work at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant. The cabinet also authorized the AEOI to take necessary measures to attract foreign and domestic investment in the uranium enrichment process. Xinhua

November 19, 2005: The IAEA released a report saying that Iran was still blocking nuclear inspectors from the United Nations from visiting for a second time a site known as Parchin military complex, where Iran was not legally required to allow inspections at all. IAEA Director-General Mohamed El-Baradei said in the report, "Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue." Separately, Iran confirmed that it had resumed the conversion of new quantities of uranium pursuant to its rights under the NPT, despite an IAEA resolution to stop such work. CNA

January, 2006: Iran provides the European negotiating side with a six-point proposal, which includes an offer to again suspend uranium enrichment for a period of 2 years, pending the outcome of continued negotiations. The offer is dismissed by the Europeans, and not reported in the Western press. atimes/ Middle_East/ HB07Ak01.html

January 31, 2006: The IAEA reports that "Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency . . . including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations" and lists outstanding issues. [42]

February 4, 2006: The IAEA votes 27-3 to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council. After the vote, Iran announced its intention to end voluntary cooperation with the IAEA beyond basic Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requirements, and to resume enrichment of uranium.

We haven't even established that Iran is in violation of the actual treaty. Meanwhile, the United States is in material breach, and has little room to speak.

GenocideAlive

04-21-2006, 2:48 PM

Hence, Irans government won't be taking millions of dollars from me. GG :)
Then thats your fault for making blanket statements without qualifiers or elaborating.
"taking lives and millions of dollars is exactly what nuclear weapons, by design, are intended to do." Are you attempting to play semantics games to avoid responsibility for your contradictory statements? Honestly if the best you can come up with is some weak amphibology and literalisms, I guess it is "GG".
Are you now saying that only applies in the case of Iran or...? Yes, I am saying that it only applies in the case of Iran, because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, signed the NPT, and is now attempting to gain them anyway. Are you attempting to equate the US, France, and Germany to Iran?
1. No evidence Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
2. The United States is also in direct violation of the NPT, so that gives Iran the right.
3. Irans govenrment does not collect my tax dollars. 1. There most certainly is evidence to their seeking nuclear weapons; they will no longer permit IEAE inspectors into their "peaceful" nuclear sites for complete inspections.
2. Please outline how the US is in any violation of the NPT, rather than making unsupported assertions.
3. Irans government possesses the capability to cost you money by bombing any of the US, which you will be taxed to renew.
to defend their country with nuclear weapons of course. There is no way to defend anything with a bomb.
Because that is their sovereign right. The IAEA reported them to the security council so they are no longer cooperating. What? They got reported for suspicion of having nuclear weapons, and so they stopped cooperating? When an inspection would dissolve any claims that any country had against them and would reveal their innocence and establish their credibility, they instead elect to "stop cooperating"? What do they have to hide?
We haven't even established that Iran is in violation of the actual treaty. RECAP--THEY WON'T LET US ONTO THEIR NUCLEAR SITE TO ESTABLISH SUCH. It's pretty fucking hard to believe that you keep positing and repositing that they're not in violation of the treaty, when any procedures that have been in place for the past 35 years to establish the presence of nuclear weapons has been suddenly disallowed. It does, however, make one hell of a "coincidence".

I repeat, it's hilarious that you keep accusing people of being Bush cronies with all this overwhelming evidence that he's a lying chump, but when Iran does the same thing, they're just pursuing their rights despite being in direct conflict with the NPT they signed. Either lying is a despicable characteristic for complacent morons or it's all part of a political viewpoint. If so, you need to join the ranks of the people you've labeled stupid and idiots.

Desert_Eagle

04-21-2006, 3:23 PM

Are you attempting to play semantics games to avoid responsibility for your contradictory statements? Honestly if the best you can come up with is some weak amphibology and literalisms, I guess it is "GG".

I made no contradictory statements. You on the other hand, have made several.

You assert "taking lives and millions of dollars is exactly what nuclear weapons, by design, are intended to do." Yet when I point out the fact that the United States, Great Britain, and France also possess nuclear weapons, you assert that these countries are not taking lives by possessing nuclear weapons. A self-contradiction. Your the one playing semantics.

Yes, I am saying that it only applies in the case of Iran, because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, signed the NPT, and is now attempting to gain them anyway. Are you attempting to equate the US, France, and Germany to Iran?

1. No evidence that Iran is attempting to seek nuclear weapons.
2. The are similar in that both have a right to nuclear weapons.
3. The US is in material breach of the NPT

1. There most certainly is evidence to their seeking nuclear weapons; they will no longer permit IEAE inspectors into their "peaceful" nuclear sites for complete inspections.

Speculation is not evidence. Unless you agree that Iraq had WMD simply because the Bush Administration said so.

2. Please outline how the US is in any violation of the NPT, rather than making unsupported assertions.

By giving nuclear weapons to NPT signatories in Europe. Specifically NATO countries.

3. Irans government possesses the capability to cost you money by bombing any of the US, which you will be taxed to renew.

And so does Israel, France, China, Russia, Pakistan, and India.

There is no way to defend anything with a bomb.

So the United States and Israel have nuclear weapons to attack other countries?

I think most military analysts would disagree with your assertion "there is no way to defend anything with a bomb."

What? They got reported for suspicion of having nuclear weapons, and so they stopped cooperating? When an inspection would dissolve any claims that any country had against them and would reveal their innocence and establish their credibility, they instead elect to "stop cooperating"? What do they have to hide?

Inspectors were trying to enter sites that Iran was not obligated to allow them in. There are other viable reasons for not allowing inspectors in, like national security and military secrecy. There could be spies within the inspectors who would reveal sensitive material.

RECAP--THEY WON'T LET US ONTO THEIR NUCLEAR SITE TO ESTABLISH SUCH. It's pretty fucking hard to believe that you keep positing and repositing that they're not in violation of the treaty, when any procedures that have been in place for the past 35 years to establish the presence of nuclear weapons has been suddenly disallowed. It does, however, make one hell of a "coincidence".

Iran has offered several times to allow inspectors in. The offer was rejected each time. And if Iran is in violation of the NPT please cite the specific article they have violated.

I repeat, it's hilarious that you keep accusing people of being Bush cronies with all this overwhelming evidence that he's a lying chump, but when Iran does the same thing, they're just pursuing their rights despite being in direct conflict with the NPT they signed. Either lying is a despicable characteristic for complacent morons or it's all part of a political viewpoint.

Iran isn't "doing the same thing." Iran isn't invading other nations for bullshit reasons. Iran has not violated the NPT because the NPT only deals with nuclear weapons.

And yes, it is "more wrong" if you will, depending on the situation. On one hand we have Iran who does not pose a threat to me in any way. On the other hand we have Bush starting wars with various countries that does significantly pose a threat to my financial and physical safety. Bushs lies affect me, Irans lies don't, therefore it stands to reason that I would be more concerned with Bush's lies being that he is the president of my country.

If so, you need to join the ranks of the people you've labeled stupid and idiots.

I would never join you.

Veeger

04-21-2006, 3:41 PM

I do believe that Iran will be our next target, I won't deny that. However, I don't see it happening anytime in the immediate future, at least not on our end. Our hands are still full in Iraq. It is getting better over there, but there's still a lot of work to do. Israel, on the other hand . . . if they can safely pull some of their forces away from the Pakistan front, may launch a preemptive strike. And they will knock Iran into the ground.

As GA said, you cannot defend anything with a nuclear bomb. All you can do is counterattack.

Iran has been flaunting itself in front of the world stage for a long while now. President Bush didn't call for any nation to be "wiped off the face of the Earth".

You say President Bush is a liar. If he was, then wouldn't he say, without trepidation, that nuclear weaponry were off the table, knowing it would keep people like you from panicking? He didn't. Clearly, he isn't as big of a liar as you make out he is. He has been misinformed from time to time (and, obviously, he is not the brightest crayon in the box), but what President hasn't? That certainly does not make him a liar.

Yet, being the "liar" that he is, he openly admitted that we are not against using our nuclear capabilities, if it comes down to it. Would you rather he say no, and then discover ten years from now that a contingency plan had been in play? You would have a field day with that, wouldnt you?

You assert "taking lives and millions of dollars is exactly what nuclear weapons, by design, are intended to do." Yet when I point out the fact that the United States, Great Britain, and France also possess nuclear weapons, you assert that these countries are not taking lives by possessing nuclear weapons. A self-contradiction. Your the one playing semantics.

I really, really, really want to understand how that is a contradiction. You've said that word a dozen times, and I fail to see any contradiction in anything you've pointed out.

"I don't think that word means, what you think it means."

EDIT: I had to correct a misquote, on my part. Thank you, Neo, for bringing it up before I was made a complete fool. I'm foolish enough as it is. :D

Desert_Eagle

04-21-2006, 4:06 PM

As GA said, you cannot defend anything with a nuclear bomb. All you can do is counterattack.

The best defense is a good offense.

You say President Bush is a liar. If he was, then wouldn't he say, without trepidation, that nuclear weaponry were off the table, knowing it would keep people like you from panicking? He didn't. Clearly, he isn't as big of a liar as you make out he is. He has been misinformed from time to time (and, obviously, he is not the brightest crayon in the box), but what President hasn't? That certainly does not make him a liar.

Misinformed my ass. He fixed the intelligence around the war.

Yet, being the "liar" that he is, he openly admitted that we are not against using our nuclear capabilities, if it comes down to it. Would you rather he say no, and then discover ten years from now that a contingency plan had been in play? You would have a field day with that, wouldnt you?

It's disheartening to see a president of the United States say he is prepared to use nuclear weapons against another nation.

really, really, really want to understand how that is a contradiction. You've said that word a dozen times, and I fail to see any contradiction in anything you've pointed out.

"I don't think that word means, what you think it means."

EDIT: I had to correct a misquote, on my part. Thank you, Neo, for bringing it up before I was made a complete fool. I'm foolish enough as it is

So the US is planning to take millions of lives, as are France, Great Britain, Israel, etc.?

GenocideAlive

04-21-2006, 4:20 PM

I made no contradictory statements. You on the other hand, have made several.

You assert "taking lives and millions of dollars is exactly what nuclear weapons, by design, are intended to do." Yet when I point out the fact that the United States, Great Britain, and France also possess nuclear weapons, you assert that these countries are not taking lives by possessing nuclear weapons. A self-contradiction. Your the one playing semantics.
I'm terribly sorry, but as I've pointed out, continue to point out, and will probably point out again, the United States, Great Britan, and France have nothing to do with Iran. Check wikipedia under the "pot and kettle fallacy", the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, and the "red herring" fallacy. We're talking about Iran's violation of the NPT. Stop trying to pass the buck.
1. No evidence that Iran is attempting to seek nuclear weapons.
2. The are similar in that both have a right to nuclear weapons.
3. The US is in material breach of the NPT
1. Repeating your argument over and over? Please see wikipedia's reference to the "Traveling Englishman fallacy". Iran is keeping out inspectors whose sole purpose is to determine their nuclear weapon status. They have no other reason to do so than to hide something.
2. A "right" to nuclear weapons? Where are these rights defined? Whom determined them? Is this some sort of wild appeal to emotion?
3. You continue to make unsupported assertions. Evidence or STFU, please.
Speculation is not evidence. Unless you agree that Iraq had WMD simply because the Bush Administration said so. Princeton Online Dictionary: Evidence--show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes...

It would seem to me that their behavior is damned good evidence.
By giving nuclear weapons to NPT signatories in Europe. Specifically NATO countries.
Wouldn't that mean that those countries are in violation of the NPT? I don't understand how you're trying to lump any action that would result in a violation of the NPT as an all-party violation. If you're on parole and not allowed to drink, and I hand you a drink, you're in violation of your parole. I'm not, because I'm not on parole.
And so does Israel, France, China, Russia, Pakistan, and India.

So the United States and Israel have nuclear weapons to attack other countries?

RED HERRING. POT AND THE KETTLE. TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT. Pick one. We're talking about Iran. Try your best to figure that out and stick to it.
I think most military analysts would disagree with your assertion "there is no way to defend anything with a bomb."
Unsupported assertion, appeal to authority, and argument from queerness. I don't particularly care what you randomly "think"--it doesn't make for fact nor relevance to this discussion. The simple fact is that a bomb is not used for defense.
Inspectors were trying to enter sites that Iran was not obligated to allow them in. There are other viable reasons for not allowing inspectors in, like national security and military secrecy. There could be spies within the inspectors who would reveal sensitive material.
WOW. So now Iran is protecting themselves from the horrible security-leaking inspectors, that have inspected the nuclear facilities of the rest of the world. Somehow, Iran has information that no-one else is privvy to and is just protecting their unique interests. Somehow I don't think that the inspectors are going to find anything in Iran that they haven't found in every other country to date.

And here's a news flash for your "not obligated" strawman--the Iranian government isn't obligated to allow the inspectors in any part of their nuclear facilities.
Iran has offered several times to allow inspectors in. The offer was rejected each time. And if Iran is in violation of the NPT please cite the specific article they have violated.
Consult the recent UN articles. Google, or I can post them later. I have a job.
Iran isn't "doing the same thing." Iran isn't invading other nations for bullshit reasons. Iran has not violated the NPT because the NPT only deals with nuclear weapons.
As I stated earlier, Bush lied, Iran is lying. What's the difference that you're positing? You keep flipping back-and-forth between "there's no evidence for them building nukes" to "they have every right to pursue nuclear weapons". Stating that they're not building nukes but they have every right is awful fucking close to an affirmation from a negative premise. Either they're doing it or they're not; if you keep riding the fence that hard you're going to get some splinters.
And yes, it is "more wrong" if you will, depending on the situation. On one hand we have Iran who does not pose a threat to me in any way. On the other hand we have Bush starting wars with various countries that does significantly pose a threat to my financial and physical safety. Bushs lies affect me, Irans lies don't, therefore it stands to reason that I would be more concerned with Bush's lies being that he is the president of my country.
Appeal to probability = GG the basis for your entire paragraph.

Desert_Eagle

04-21-2006, 5:13 PM

I'm terribly sorry, but as I've pointed out, continue to point out, and will probably point out again, the United States, Great Britan, and France have nothing to do with Iran. Check wikipedia under the "pot and kettle fallacy", the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, and the "red herring" fallacy. We're talking about Iran's violation of the NPT. Stop trying to pass the buck.

And I have answered, time and again, and will probably have to answer again, Iran has a right to violate the NPT because the United States did.

1. Repeating your argument over and over? Please see wikipedia's reference to the "Traveling Englishman fallacy". Iran is keeping out inspectors whose sole purpose is to determine their nuclear weapon status. They have no other reason to do so than to hide something.

That "something" isn't necessarily nuclear weapons, and there are other viable reasons. Iran has put deals on the table which were rejected.

2. A "right" to nuclear weapons? Where are these rights defined? Whom determined them? Is this some sort of wild appeal to emotion?

I determined and defined them.

3. You continue to make unsupported assertions. Evidence or STFU, please.
Princeton Online Dictionary: Evidence--show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes...

I've already told you. Perhaps you could show us some evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

It would seem to me that their behavior is damned good evidence.

Wouldn't that mean that those countries are in violation of the NPT? I don't understand how you're trying to lump any action that would result in a violation of the NPT as an all-party violation. If you're on parole and not allowed to drink, and I hand you a drink, you're in violation of your parole. I'm not, because I'm not on parole.

Obviously you don't know that much about the NPT. Giving nuclear weapons and secrets to nations that don't have them is material breach. Please read up more on the subject before you make yourself look like an ass. Thanks.

RED HERRING. POT AND THE KETTLE. TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT. Pick one. We're talking about Iran. Try your best to figure that out and stick to it.

Simply repeating "red herring" and "pot and kettle" isn't an argument, it's a subsitute when one is lacking.

You said "Irans government possesses the capability to cost you money by bombing any of the US, which you will be taxed to renew." without any qualifiers. Any nation with a nuclear weapon also has that capability.

Unsupported assertion, appeal to authority, and argument from queerness. I don't particularly care what you randomly "think"--it doesn't make for fact nor relevance to this discussion. The simple fact is that a bomb is not used for defense.

Do you think the Department of Defense would agree with you?

WOW. So now Iran is protecting themselves from the horrible security-leaking inspectors, that have inspected the nuclear facilities of the rest of the world. Somehow, Iran has information that no-one else is privvy to and is just protecting their unique interests. Somehow I don't think that the inspectors are going to find anything in Iran that they haven't found in every other country to date.

They found Iranian military/national security secrets in every other country? I doubt that.

And here's a news flash for your "not obligated" strawman--the Iranian government isn't obligated to allow the inspectors in any part of their nuclear facilities.

Right, which is why they didn't.

Consult the recent UN articles. Google, or I can post them later. I have a job.

Sure. I'll ask again, please cite the specific article of the NPT which Iran is in violation of.

As I stated earlier, Bush lied, Iran is lying. What's the difference that you're positing? You keep flipping back-and-forth between "there's no evidence for them building nukes" to "they have every right to pursue nuclear weapons". Stating that they're not building nukes but they have every right is awful fucking close to an affirmation from a negative premise. Either they're doing it or they're not; if you keep riding the fence that hard you're going to get some splinters.

What do you mean "flip flop?" These positions are not mutually exclusive, if you weren't aware.

While there is no evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, Iran still has a right to pursue them.

Appeal to probability = GG the basis for your entire paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Isn't it ironic how your entire position is based on the assumption that Iran will use nuclear weapons against the United States?

GenocideAlive

04-21-2006, 5:43 PM

Simply repeating "red herring" and "pot and kettle" isn't an argument, it's a subsitute when one is lacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Isn't it ironic how your entire position is based on the assumption that Iran will use nuclear weapons against the United States?
Isn't it ironic how I never stated once that Iran's purpose for getting nuclear weapons was to use them against the United States, yet you've formed a strawman for exactly that purpose? Anyway, your one-liners and blatant "because I say so" position has revealed itself sufficiently to bore me out of this "discussion".

Good day.

Desert_Eagle

04-21-2006, 9:49 PM

Isn't it ironic how I never stated once that Iran's purpose for getting nuclear weapons was to use them against the United States, yet you've formed a strawman for exactly that purpose?

What is your objection then?

Yoda

04-24-2006, 9:49 AM

Ok, as a first part, I do not know this entire story.

However I do not like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. Although many other countries have them, I would be more worried about Iraq since they are more likely to use them (for some reason). Any extremist-islamic society should not have atomic weapons.

The USA is powerful enough to take control of a country. But they can't remain in control. They are not going to rid Iraq of the suicidebombers and deluded islamicextremists any time soon... the people themselves cannot be "converted" simply by being conquered. There is not a real solution to this.

I am not comfortable with any nation, especially the USA, being a police force of the world. George W Bush seems to be able to do whatever he wants with impunity, (coming from invading Iraq despite it being opposed by the United Nations).

Just remembering from history, Franklin Roosevelt once envisioned a world with the USA, Britain and Russia using their combined armies as a police force. This collapsed due to the Russian side being treacherous and seizing control of most of the nations they took from the Nazis, which all contributed to the Cold War and an Arms race by everyone. Now instead of a 3-party system of world police, there is a 1 party system.

GenocideAlive

04-24-2006, 12:38 PM

His comments came four days before Friday's expiration of a Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors material for nuclear warheads.

Iran has rejected the demand, arguing it is entitled to the peaceful use of enrichment as a signatory to the treaty.

The IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, has accused Iran of failing to answer all questions about its nuclear program and reported the country to the Security Council for noncompliance with its demands.

"What has more than 30 years of membership in the agency given us?" Ahmadinejad asked.

"Working in the framework of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the agency is our concrete policy," he added. "(But) if we see that they are violating our rights, or they don't want to accept (our rights), well, we will reconsider."
Now Iran is considering withdrawing from the NPT and the IAEA altogether.

Do you still believe that their intent is peaceful?
--
4/23/06
Further update:
TEHRAN, Iran -
Iran threatened Tuesday to begin hiding its nuclear program if the West takes any "harsh measures" against it — Tehran's sharpest rebuttal yet to a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions.
They're not only going to withdraw from the IAEA and NPT, but they're going to begin hiding their nuclear program. Still think they're peaceful?

Desert_Eagle

04-25-2006, 1:54 PM

Now Iran is considering withdrawing from the NPT and the IAEA altogether.

Do you still believe that their intent is peaceful?
--
4/23/06
Further update:

They're not only going to withdraw from the IAEA and NPT, but they're going to begin hiding their nuclear program. Still think they're peaceful?

I'll repeat myself: What is your objection to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?

2. The USA is in material breach of the NPT

3. They threatened to withdraw only if action is taken against them, something any country, including the US, would do.

GenocideAlive

04-25-2006, 4:58 PM

I'll repeat myself: What is your objection to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

My motives are completely irrelevant to the thesis of my points. Not only do you have no proper reasoning for pursuing my motives, but it is considered a gross logical fallacy to attempt to change the direction of the debate using them.

Please continue the debate regarding IRAN, and not the US or my motives for questioning Iran's possession of nuclear weapons.
2. The USA is in material breach of the NPT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right_%28fallacy%29

Whether or not another country qualifies for a breach of the NPT is completely irrelevant to the topic of Iran being in breach of the NPT.

Please either create new material to obfuscate the discussion or stop repeating the same bullshit rhetoric that I have taken and 360 slam dunked in the trash can.
3. They threatened to withdraw only if action is taken against them, something any country, including the US, would do. So let me get this straight--they're going to continue their membership in an organization that they apparently don't approve of contingent upon the status of their judgement punished?

Wouldn't that be considered a relativist fallacy akin to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey argument?

If by the UN / IAEA / NPT you mean the organizations that will sympathetically look the other way while a poor country tries to make a better life for itself through atomic energy in privacy, then they are just reasonable organizations with the best interests of the poor involved: Iran approves.

Or if by the UN / IAEA / NPT you mean the organizations that ruthlessly persecute the Middle East and stick their nose in everything and unreasonably pursue any hint of possible ATOMIC WEAPONS violation no matter how little evidence is present or how fervently and honestly they deny that the sites that they won't permit IAEA inspectors proper examination: Iran disapproves.

This really looks like an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity where they will make out like "they're the poor, peaceful and persecuted Iranians that just want electricity while these Western Organizations try to keep the Arab man down".

When in reality, the facts are laid out on the table: They removed seals on nuclear-enrichment material and now won't permit IAEA inspectors in to sites to properly inspect their materials. If the UN / IAEA continue to demand compliance with the rules that IRAN AGREED to, Iran is going to withdraw because they will not comply nor benefit from continued membership.

And what purpose, pray tell, does continuing their operations in secret serve? Please explain, I'm confused. If they're a peaceful country with nothing to hide and they're not pursuing weapons, why are they suddenly withdrawing membership and threatening to begin nuclear programs in secret from at least 3 different organizations / treaties that are designed specifically to prevent weapons development?

And please, stop mentioning the US or other countries to justify Iran's crass violations of agreements. As I've said upwards of 3 times, it's completely irrelevant and party to at least 2 different logical fallacies. Good luck, otherwise.

Edit:

UPDATE:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

While the IAEA has found no "smoking gun" proving Iran wants nuclear arms, a series of reports have revealed worrying clandestine activities — like plutonium processing — and documents, including drawings of how to mold weapons-grade uranium metal into the shape of a warhead.

Kaizen

04-29-2006, 6:46 PM

GenocideAlive

04-29-2006, 10:38 PM

But they may be relative to the thesis of his points. It was an inquiry, not a refutation.
I don't give a monkey fuck if my motives are a voodoo incantation to summon a shower of gold from the sky, it has nothing to do with Bush, Iran, or the validity of their possession or pursuit of nuclear weapons. It's completely irrelevant.
But it is relevant if the US is going to take action for such a violation if they are equally in violation themselves. It would logically beg the question: "If a violation promotes the action of invasion or sanctions, will they equally apply those to themselves?" Since they obviously will not, this logically concludes the reason for invasion has nothing to do with a violation of the NPT.
False, false, and false. False. False...false. False?

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

We are debating the validity of Iran possessing or pursuing nuclear weapons. We are NOT debating the validity of the US possession of nuclear weapons, nor are we debating the validity of possible US invasion, nor are we debating the validity of possible US sanctions. These are all considered a Red Herring.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
It's really their choice, isn't it?
It most certainly is. However, if they're going to pretend that the organization's validity hinges on whether or not they're punished for a clear violation, they fall under the If-by-whiskey fallacy.
Haha who cares what fallacy it is? They are entitled to whatever they like.

Man, enough with the abuse of these fallacies.
So basically you're abandoning reason and logic in favor of "who cares they can do whatever they want". While I'm sure your case is very compelling for those under 13 and with IQs <75, grownups and non-retards are quite concerned with what is and isn't a fallacy and Iran's dishonest, untitled pursuit of nuclear weapons.
It's quite relevant in determining if such a violation is the real reason for war. If it occurs, that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

Here we have yet another fallacy, where you attempt to build footing for your bullshitisms solely on the basis of something occuring that very well may not occur. It hasn't occured, and whether or not it may happen 5 years from now does not lend you the ability to refute what is actually occurring using the possibility as a basis.

Thanks for posting, please read the IR rules. Good effort, keep trying.

Kaizen

04-30-2006, 12:12 AM

I don't give a monkey fuck if my motives are a voodoo incantation to summon a shower of gold from the sky, it has nothing to do with Bush, Iran, or the validity of their possession or pursuit of nuclear weapons. It's completely irrelevant.
It has to do with your position on Bush, Iran, and the validity of your views.

In order to discern (or convince) truth, DE must address your notion of truth, which may very well be a violation of ethos.

Thus he asks "what is your objection to Iran having nukes?" to address your viewpoint more effectively.

False, false, and false. False. False...false. False?

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right
If you actually understood the application of this fallacy, you'd realize you were making it incorrectly. The position is not that "the US is in violation, therefore Iran can be in violation," it is that if the US invades Iran based on violation even though they are in violation, then it goes to show that the position of the US to invade violators is not consistent; therefore, they will invade themselves (if they believe their viewpoint), or that Iran is not being invaded due to an NPT violation.

We are debating the validity of Iran possessing or pursuing nuclear weapons. We are NOT debating the validity of the US possession of nuclear weapons, nor are we debating the validity of possible US invasion, nor are we debating the validity of possible US sanctions. These are all considered a Red Herring.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
The validity of Iran possessing nuclear weapons cannot be discerned by looking at the NPT. Iran's right to nuclear weapons is a normative viewpoint derived from property rights. Addressing the NPT is clearly to address the punishment of violation.

NPT has no bearing on whether they have validity in gaining nuclear weapons, it only discerns the subjective viewpoint of possible validity/invalidity by other nations; thus, referring specifically to the issue of punishing invalidity via the NPT.

It most certainly is. However, if they're going to pretend that the organization's validity hinges on whether or not they're punished for a clear violation, they fall under the If-by-whiskey fallacy.

Another fabulous misunderstanding of the fallacy. For instance, the properties of alcohol do not change in that example from wikipedia with use or not with use. It is a constant. One can describe this constant in two seperate ways based on the constant properties it exihibits; the UN, on the other hand, will change its properties whether or not it punishes Iran. If it punishes, then it has given reason for its invalidity; in the case of booze, if it caused inebriation, it was always expected to cause inebriation and you can't subsequently consider it evil if you knew it was going to result in your getting drunk the whole time. But if it doesn't punish, it has not provided a reason for you to think it invalid.

Understand?

It's important to understand that fallacies are infact very complicated and not always applicable.

So basically you're abandoning reason and logic in favor of "who cares they can do whatever they want". While I'm sure your case is very compelling for those under 13 and with IQs <75, grownups and non-retards are quite concerned with what is and isn't a fallacy and Iran's dishonest, untitled pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Pointing out the fallacious reasoning of Iranian policy does nothing to (may I borrow your tired reply?) validate that Iran should or shouldn't have nukes.

If we are to concern ourselves with Iran's fallacious reasoning in order to find error in their ways in order, to what, invade? Wouldn't finding similar errors in reasoning on behalf of the United States nullify the view that those fallacies constitute invasion? (And no, this is not a "two wrongs don't make a right fallacy.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

Here we have yet another fallacy, where you attempt to build footing for your bullshitisms solely on the basis of something occuring that very well may not occur. It hasn't occured, and whether or not it may happen 5 years from now does not lend you the ability to refute what is actually occurring using the possibility as a basis.

Thanks for posting, please read the IR rules. Good effort, keep trying.
I never said they are conclusively going to war; I'm pointing out if they go to war based on these reasons it will be invalid. Again, this fallacy has nothing to do with my post:

US is probably going to invade Iran,
Therefore the US is going to invade Iran.

This is not the position my post addressed. It addressed if they go to war based on the violation, it will be an invalid reason.

No offense, but you have an embarassing understanding of logical fallacies. If you're going to claim fallacy in the future, please use a syllogism or clear statement of logic to show where the logic falls apart; otherwise, I am quite confident you'll just loudly proclaim "false false false" and then link to wikipedia and provide no explanation. If I see that in the future, I will consider it a concession of your inability to substantiate the fallacy.

[EDITED]

GenocideAlive

04-30-2006, 2:23 AM

It has to do with your position on Bush, Iran, and the validity of your views.

In order to discern (or convince) truth, DE must address your notion of truth, which may very well be a violation of ethos, since it's already been shown that you've lied. (Claiming strawman when no such occured to avoid argumentation.)

Thus he asks "what is your objection to Iran having nukes?" to address your viewpoint more effectively. Yes, and you implied they shouldn't have them because they may use them as I pointed out before.
"My ethos" - not the topic.
"My objection" - not the topic.
Bush - not the topic, nor the question asked.
Iran - the topic, but not directly involved in the question.
Validity of my views - hasn't been addressed because we're discussing Bush, and "my ethos". Circular logic ftw.

The topic is Iran. Not me. Move on, you've got nothing here other than your bullshitisms to avoid the truth of that fact.
If you actually understood the application of this fallacy, you'd realize you were making it incorrectly. The position is not that "the US is in violation, therefore Iran can be in violation," it is that if the US invades Iran based on violation even though they are in violation, then it goes to show that the position of the US to invade violators is not consistent; therefore, they will invade themselves (if they believe their viewpoint), or that Iran is not being invaded due to an NPT violation.
O RLY? When were we discussing the US invading Iran? Anybody? Quotes plz.
The validity of Iran possessing nuclear weapons cannot be discerned by looking at the NPT. Iran's right to nuclear weapons is a normative viewpoint derived from property rights. Addressing the NPT is clearly to address the punishment of violation.
Um, what? Since when is it a "normative" property right to possess nuclear weapons? Please point to any and all evidence you have supporting that. In the meantime, let's assume that if you agree to NOT make nuclear weapons and then turn around and do it anyway while lying, you're definitely in violation of more than just a treaty.
NPT has no bearing on whether they have validity in gaining nuclear weapons, it only discerns the subjective viewpoint of possible validity/invalidity by other nations; thus, referring specifically to the issue of punishing invalidity via the NPT.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the NPT was directly related to the issue, since Iran agreed to it. It's not like it was enforced upon them, they agreed to it. Why do they suddenly have the right to outright contradict their own agreement while lying and still have "normative" rights of propriety?

And I'm not entirely sure what makes the NPT "subjective" while the viewpoint that they're allowed to build nukes after agreeing not to is "normative". Nothing besides your own personal semantics Olympics, which I'm going to have to call Shenanigans.
Another fabulous misunderstanding of the fallacy. For instance, the properties of alcohol do not change in that example from wikipedia with use or not with use. It is a constant. One can describe this constant in two seperate ways based on the constant properties it exihibits; the UN, on the other hand, will change its properties whether or not it punishes Iran. If it punishes, then it has given reason for its invalidity; in the case of booze, if it caused inebriation, it was always expected to cause inebriation and you can't subsequently consider it evil if you knew it was going to result in your getting drunk the whole time. But if it doesn't punish, it has not provided a reason for you to think it invalid.
O RLY? Well, looking at the outline of the charter and the rulebook, you're not allowed to develop nuclear weapons behind everybody's back. Since they're a member, they're accountable to the rulebook and the charter. Retaining membership contingent upon a punishment that you deserve doesn't quite qualify as "giving a reason".

But then, you just said that alcohol can't be considered evil even though someone knew it'd get them drunk, and that exact logic was used in the canonized form of the if-by-whiskey parable. So if you wanted to prove your point with that analogy, unfortunately all you did was to prove mine.
It's important to understand that fallacies are infact very complicated and not always applicable.
More important than lecturing is actually reading the sources provided, so you don't make a total ass of yourself and totally blunder as you just did with your alcohol analogy. Understand?
Pointing out the fallacious reasoning of Iranian policy does nothing to (may I borrow your tired reply?) validate that Iran should or shouldn't have nukes.

If we are to concern ourselves with Iran's fallacious reasoning in order to find error in their ways in order, to what, invade? Wouldn't finding similar errors in reasoning on behalf of the United States nullify the view that those fallacies constitute invasion? (And no, this is not a "two wrongs don't make a right fallacy.")
When did we say we were going to invade Iran? Again, please point that out to me.
I never said they are conclusively going to war; I'm pointing out if they go to war based on these reasons it will be invalid. Again, this fallacy has nothing to do with my post:

US is probably going to invade Iran,
Therefore the US is going to invade Iran.

This is not the position my post addressed. It addressed if they go to war based on the violation, it will be an invalid reason.
So waitasec, now you're talking about going to war with the Iranians. When did we say we were going to war? When did going to war with Iran get brought up? It would appear that not only do you need to figure out the topic, but you need to write more clearly.
No offense, but you have an embarassing understanding of logical fallacies. If you're going to claim fallacy in the future, please use a syllogism or clear statement of logic to show where the logic falls apart; otherwise, I am quite confident you'll just loudly proclaim "false false false" and then link to wikipedia and provide no explanation. If I see that in the future, I will consider it a concession of your inability to substantiate the fallacy.
That sounds reasonable. In turn, I will aquiesce that you have no real substance to your argument; you apparently spend your time wording your attacks as poorly as possible, change the subject when things get dicey, and try to pretend that what you just brought up out of nowhere is anything we were discussing.

But of course, you're just a BF troll so not much else can be expected.

And as much as I can appreciate you coming to your boyfriend's rescue, I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw myself from this discussion. You're clearly going to continue obfuscating the topic and the points at hand until we're literally arguing about arguing. If DE no longer wishes to continue this discussion, then it is for all intents and purposes over. Your attempt at vicariously championing what you believe to be DE's cause is a copy of a copy and far too blurred and unpointed to produce anything useful.

Kaizen

04-30-2006, 4:17 AM

"My ethos" - not the topic.
"My objection" - not the topic.
Bush - not the topic, nor the question asked.
Iran - the topic, but not directly involved in the question.
Validity of my views - hasn't been addressed because we're discussing Bush, and "my ethos". Circular logic ftw.

The topic is Iran. Not me. Move on, you've got nothing here other than your bullshitisms to avoid the truth of that fact.
We're just talking about "Iran," people. Nothing specifically. Not DE's positions on the US invading them as per the title, nor his positions that Iran has a right to them. No, we're not arguing that you, well, let's have you speak for yourself:

"I'll remind you of the fact that it's almost universally contended amongst the U.N. alliance of some 180 countries that Iran is indeed planning on creating nuclear weapons. The object is to prevent an unstable, religious fundamentalist whackjob country from obtaining the means to obliterate entire cities. Not to wait for them to finish an atomic bomb then gather evidence like Sherlock Holmes and thereby ask them to hand it over."

That you are, what? Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but isn't GenocideAlive talking about Iran having and using nukes, as well as the UN "preventing" such a situation? (Otherwise known as invading Iran.) I see an endorsement of this position throughout the entire thread. So what are we talking about?

Oh! That's right! We're not just talking about basic Iran and say, it's economic system or the size of it's population, we're talking about Iran gaining nukes and how people in this thread feel about it!

Since you've been arguing the position of America, the violation of the NPT, and the right to "punish" Iran, is it out of line for DE to ask, after learning you indeed do not think Iran will attack America, about your objections about Iran having a nuke, then? It seems quite reasonable. You argue that Iran having a nuke is dangerous and not a benefit to the American people (referring to it as a "cost," infact. Which I should point out does show that you have asserted they will in fact attack America. It seems the lies don't stop), so how is DE now asking why you object and invalid question?

We know why its invalid: You're been slapped all over the map of logic and now you're lost. This is what happens when you pretend everything is a logical fallacy.

And as we see now, GenocideAlive has little vested interest in discerning truth in this thread; instead, he has a vested interest in merely defeating his opponents. That's why the constant references to absurd fallacies, the lying about his former positions, and the pretending that questions and assertions are irrelevant to the subject matter.

We're not talking about the US, the UN, Iran, nukes, invasions, nor the NPT. We're talking about Iran and it's ethnic groups and demographic breakdown. :)

O RLY? When were we discussing the US invading Iran? Anybody? Quotes plz.
Notice the thread title:

"Bush declines to exclude nuclear strike on Iran." - What does this imply? The US has tabled invasion as a possible strategy, but not only invasion, but nuclear invasion? Is the US invasion of Iran then acceptable subject matter?

Um, what? Since when is it a "normative" property right to possess nuclear weapons? Please point to any and all evidence you have supporting that. In the meantime, let's assume that if you agree to NOT make nuclear weapons and then turn around and do it anyway while lying, you're definitely in violation of more than just a treaty.
That's right, go look up "normative" in wikipedia and learn yourself a whole new philosophy in terms of looking at the world! The normative right I refer to is "property rights," and their moral owing to human beings. As much as I'd like to explain this in great detail, the subject matter is simply to long, but I will refer you to these essays that explain the foundation of property rights from a normative discipline:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html
http://www.mises.org/story/2120

And your last paragraph refers to the subject matter of "punishment" and subsequently the possibility of "invasion;" thus, they have no place in this debate since we're talking about the influences of pop culture on youth in Iranian culture!

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the NPT was directly related to the issue, since Iran agreed to it. It's not like it was enforced upon them, they agreed to it. Why do they suddenly have the right to outright contradict their own agreement while lying and still have "normative" rights of propriety?
Just as you have a right to that laptop in front of you; or your own body for that matter.

As for the agreement: It is a complete sham. Let's consider the situation of Iran signing that document that essentially takes away their ability to acquire the pure benefit of nuclear weapons: Why would they do it? Why would they voluntarily place themselves at a permanent tactical military disadvantage? What are the benefits?

Might the benefits possibly be a freedom from harm? Might the incentive to sign come the actions that may occur if they don't sign? Is this not akin to duress?

It's a masterful use of idiocy to claim this agreement must have been signed in good faith. It is a document that solidifies the superiority of the west at the expense of countries in the Middle East. The only conceivable way this would occur is if they had some form of a "gun" to their head forcing them to sign.

This destroys any moral position as related to retaliation given a violation of the NPT.

And I'm not entirely sure what makes the NPT "subjective" while the viewpoint that they're allowed to build nukes after agreeing not to is "normative". Nothing besides your own personal semantics Olympics, which I'm going to have to call Shenanigans.
Of course! Semantic olympics and "normative" rights! (I love teaching kids new words.)

What I am referring to is the subjective viewpoint in terms of how to deal with a violation of the NPT. Some may not care, some may, etc. So if you can point out that say, NPT violations are accepted by the US because they do them, then the US for instance, would not have a logical position in terms of punishing Iran.

Remember, you incorrectly labelled this very basic logical concept as a fallacy?

O RLY? Well, looking at the outline of the charter and the rulebook, you're not allowed to develop nuclear weapons behind everybody's back. Since they're a member, they're accountable to the rulebook and the charter. Retaining membership contingent upon a punishment that you deserve doesn't quite qualify as "giving a reason".
The point is if they enact punishment independent of evidence of a nuclear weapons program you so confidently claim is occuring behind everyone's back.

Do I label this the appeal to probability?

Iran is probably building a nuke.
Therefore Iran is building a nuke!

It seems you've fallen victim to your own bullshit(isms, as you say.)

But then, you just said that alcohol can't be considered evil even though someone knew it'd get them drunk, and that exact logic was used in the canonized form of the if-by-whiskey parable. So if you wanted to prove your point with that analogy, unfortunately all you did was to prove mine.

Sorry, replace "evil" with "was going to get you drunk and silly" and then the analogy is perfect. But you know your use of the if by whiskey fallacy was dead wrong anyway. If you don't, here's another analogy:

"Suzy thinks that if the government decides to kill and and her family that the government is bad, if it doesn't, it is fine."

"If the UN intervenes in Iran, then Iran will withdraw from the UN, if it doesn't, Iran won't."

I feel genuinely stupid talking about such a clearly logical statement. How you construed it as a fallacy is beyond me. You went on to define the different opinions related to the UN that had absolutely nothing to do with the statement.

More important than lecturing is actually reading the sources provided, so you don't make a total ass of yourself and totally blunder as you just did with your alcohol analogy. Understand?
Hahaha. You must feel awfully embarassed.

When did we say we were going to invade Iran? Again, please point that out to me.
It's on the table. You certainly think the UN will do it too, as you said: "The object is to prevent an unstable, religious fundamentalist whackjob country from obtaining the means to obliterate entire cities"

And not to mention, again, the title of this thread.

So waitasec, now you're talking about going to war with the Iranians. When did we say we were going to war? When did going to war with Iran get brought up? It would appear that not only do you need to figure out the topic, but you need to write more clearly.
Again, I refer you to the title of this thread.

In your fits of rage and ferverous insults, you would be wise to understand the content of this thread so posters like me can't make such obvious fools out of you. Beyond that, the insulting posts do nothing but invite retaliatory action against you. It might be wise to clean up your act a bit and engage in a respectful debate.

That sounds reasonable. In turn, I will aquiesce that you have no real substance to your argument; you apparently spend your time wording your attacks as poorly as possible, change the subject when things get dicey, and try to pretend that what you just brought up out of nowhere is anything we were discussing.
Point out one example of this.

But of course, you're just a BF troll so not much else can be expected.
Shall I link to the ad hominem fallacy?

And as much as I can appreciate you coming to your boyfriend's rescue, I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw myself from this discussion. You're clearly going to continue obfuscating the topic and the points at hand until we're literally arguing about arguing. If DE no longer wishes to continue this discussion, then it is for all intents and purposes over. Your attempt at vicariously championing what you believe to be DE's cause is a copy of a copy and far too blurred and unpointed to produce anything useful.
I was merely searching for some other information on this forum and I had to address your posts. They were simply too ridiculous to pass up. I've seen some nice backpedalling and genuine dishonest debating in my day, but the post you addressed at DE took the cake; not only that, but I fear you may have everyone on this forum fooled with your constant reference to fallacies when they rarely apply.

And of course you'll excuse yourself from this discussion. You're getting absolutely fucking obliterated.

Veeger

05-01-2006, 3:24 AM

It's really their choice, isn't it?

It is your decision to go rape a 10 year old, too. But you still get punished for it.

Might the benefits possibly be a freedom from harm? Might the incentive to sign come the actions that may occur if they don't sign? Is this not akin to duress?

Freedom from harm from who? Who was threatening them before this all started to go down? What countries were verbally assaulting, or physically fighting, Iran before the word "Nuclear" began to be thrown around?

Whether or not the NPT is a "sham", they still agreed to it. To back out of it is dishonorable (a word that is not used anymore, unfortunately), and requires action of some sort by the international community.

They do have the right to nuclear energy, and I will defend, with my life if necessary, that right. But, if there is even a slight chance that nuclear weapons could be manufactured, for the good of the world, those weapons need to be inspected, counted, inventoried, and carefully handled. From a national security issue, as an American citizen, I do not want unaccounted-for nuclear weapons loose in the middle east. I'm not blind, I'm sure there are already a few out there we don't know about, but even one more is too many. And from the international viewpoint, the UN must be very concerned as well. I'll give you a little hint -- if we are nuked, we are going to nuke back. Nobody, despite popular belief, wants that. Even in the back of their minds.

It is a strange world we live in, today. I remember not very long ago when nuclear disarmament was the hot issue. Now, we're defending a country's right to build new ones. How odd.

Genocide Alive is not a child, he is 26 years old. I do not like being spoken to condescendingly like that, and I will not allow another (even someone "at odds" with me) to be spoken of in the same manner. Respect him, whether or not he respects you. Let him make an ass of himself, if he so chooses. Don't make it obvious, for when you do, you become an ass yourself.

Desert_Eagle

05-04-2006, 5:57 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

My motives are completely irrelevant to the thesis of my points. Not only do you have no proper reasoning for pursuing my motives, but it is considered a gross logical fallacy to attempt to change the direction of the debate using them.

Please continue the debate regarding IRAN, and not the US or my motives for questioning Iran's possession of nuclear weapons.

I'll ask a 3rd time, what is your objection to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?

Ever since I introduced you to the logical fallacy you have been using them incorrectly and absurdly. Appealing toyour motives would be me saying "you don't want us to investigate Haliburton because you have large shares of stock in that company."

I asked a simple question and you are unable to answer it, but you did have the time to (incorrectly) cite a logical fallacy from a source that you claim is an invalid source (a self contradiction).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right_%28fallacy%29

Whether or not another country qualifies for a breach of the NPT is completely irrelevant to the topic of Iran being in breach of the NPT.

Please either create new material to obfuscate the discussion or stop repeating the same bullshit rhetoric that I have taken and 360 slam dunked in the trash can.

It's "completely irrelevant" how? As long as you are trying to make the point that it's such a terrible thing to be in breach of the NPT, giving examples of other nations in violation of the NPT is quite relevant to the topic of nations being in violation of the NPT.

So let me get this straight--they're going to continue their membership in an organization that they apparently don't approve of contingent upon the status of their judgement punished?

That sentence is not coherent.

Wouldn't that be considered a relativist fallacy akin to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey argument?

No, it's not. It does demonstrate your new-found admiration for the fallacies and wikipedia though. A bit overzealous however. You cite them incorrectly, often absurdly, and when they do not apply.

If by the UN / IAEA / NPT you mean the organizations that will sympathetically look the other way while a poor country tries to make a better life for itself through atomic energy in privacy, then they are just reasonable organizations with the best interests of the poor involved: Iran approves.

Or if by the UN / IAEA / NPT you mean the organizations that ruthlessly persecute the Middle East and stick their nose in everything and unreasonably pursue any hint of possible ATOMIC WEAPONS violation no matter how little evidence is present or how fervently and honestly they deny that the sites that they won't permit IAEA inspectors proper examination: Iran disapproves.

Iran has been pretty consistant in it's view of the IAEA, NPT, and the UN.

This really looks like an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity where they will make out like "they're the poor, peaceful and persecuted Iranians that just want electricity while these Western Organizations try to keep the Arab man down".

Yes, that is often the case. Western governments often try to portray themselves as enlightened "liberators" who are "bringing freedom" to "opressed peoples" in the Middle East. Propaganda goes both ways.

When in reality, the facts are laid out on the table: They removed seals on nuclear-enrichment material and now won't permit IAEA inspectors in to sites to properly inspect their materials. If the UN / IAEA continue to demand compliance with the rules that IRAN AGREED to, Iran is going to withdraw because they will not comply nor benefit from continued membership.

Iran is not cooperating beyond basic NPT requirements. They are still fully within the requirements set forth in the NPT.

And what purpose, pray tell, does continuing their operations in secret serve? Please explain, I'm confused. If they're a peaceful country with nothing to hide and they're not pursuing weapons, why are they suddenly withdrawing membership and threatening to begin nuclear programs in secret from at least 3 different organizations / treaties that are designed specifically to prevent weapons development?

Maybe because the world is threatening their known facilities?

And please, stop mentioning the US or other countries to justify Iran's crass violations of agreements. As I've said upwards of 3 times, it's completely irrelevant and party to at least 2 different logical fallacies. Good luck, otherwise.

The fact that the US is in violation of the NPT is quite relevant to this topic. We have not established the moral authority of the NPT yet, and in light of this fact, it's doubtful you ever will.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

While the IAEA has found no "smoking gun" proving Iran wants nuclear arms, a series of reports have revealed worrying clandestine activities — like plutonium processing — and documents, including drawings of how to mold weapons-grade uranium metal into the shape of a warhead.

We don't even have proof that such a document exists, or whether it is authentic or not.

I don't give a monkey fuck if my motives are a voodoo incantation to summon a shower of gold from the sky, it has nothing to do with Bush, Iran, or the validity of their possession or pursuit of nuclear weapons. It's completely irrelevant.

Nobody is asking about your motivations, you incorrectly assumed that for some idiotic reason.

I asked the simple question: What is your objection to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons? Notice the question is not why (though this too would be a valid question).

Your answer to that question is very much relevant to this debate continuing. If you don't have any objections, then we are in agreement! LOL retard. Hello?

False, false, and false. False. False...false. False?

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

We are debating the validity of Iran possessing or pursuing nuclear weapons. We are NOT debating the validity of the US possession of nuclear weapons, nor are we debating the validity of possible US invasion, nor are we debating the validity of possible US sanctions. These are all considered a Red Herring.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Genocide Alive is an interesting specimen. He can cite logical fallacies yet does not have the reasoning power to apply them to his own logic. That might explain why he incorrectly applies them.

"We are debating the validity of Iran possessing or pursuing nuclear weapons"

All right, define the standard of reasoning we are using here. What would make it "valid" or "invalid?"

It most certainly is. However, if they're going to pretend that the organization's validity hinges on whether or not they're punished for a clear violation, they fall under the If-by-whiskey fallacy.

There is no "clear violation." Irans cooperation with the IAEA thus far has been voluntary. The IAEA is only permitted to inspect declared sites. Thus according to the NPT most of the IAEAs findings were based on information which came through voluntary cooperation, and is not mandated by the NPT.

So basically you're abandoning reason and logic in favor of "who cares they can do whatever they want". While I'm sure your case is very compelling for those under 13 and with IQs <75, grownups and non-retards are quite concerned with what is and isn't a fallacy and Iran's dishonest, untitled pursuit of nuclear weapons.

1. No verifiable evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
2. Your entire post is a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

Here we have yet another fallacy, where you attempt to build footing for your bullshitisms solely on the basis of something occuring that very well may not occur. It hasn't occured, and whether or not it may happen 5 years from now does not lend you the ability to refute what is actually occurring using the possibility as a basis.

Thanks for posting, please read the IR rules. Good effort, keep trying.

See my point? His entire premise is an appeal to probability, the probability that if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, they will "probably" use them.

Note that his entire position doesn't make sense unless he uses this fallacy. Otherwise, he logically would have no objection to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

But he doesn't see that, he's too busy reading up on new logical fallacies that he has never heard of and applying them incorrectly to every situation he can think of. For instance if you had a weatherman predict, using double doppler radar and based on the season, windformations, atmospheric pressure, satellite images etc. that there would be rain tommorow, he would call that an appeal to authority and appeal to probability, as well as a non-sequitur. He's just starting to learn about logical fallacies so he wants to use them and apply them to every argument because he's still not familiar with them and unsure about when and where to use them.

My ethos" - not the topic.
"My objection" - not the topic.
Bush - not the topic, nor the question asked.
Iran - the topic, but not directly involved in the question.
Validity of my views - hasn't been addressed because we're discussing Bush, and "my ethos". Circular logic ftw.

The topic is Iran. Not me. Move on, you've got nothing here other than your bullshitisms to avoid the truth of that fact.

See? He can't be bothered to answer a simple question because it's "not the topic."

In that case I'm going to assume that we are in agreement, and you don't object to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Since it's irrelevant, this assumption cannot be objected to.

Um, what? Since when is it a "normative" property right to possess nuclear weapons? Please point to any and all evidence you have supporting that. In the meantime, let's assume that if you agree to NOT make nuclear weapons and then turn around and do it anyway while lying, you're definitely in violation of more than just a treaty.

Like the US?

O RLY? When were we discussing the US invading Iran? Anybody? Quotes plz.

Did you bother to read the title of this thread?

And as much as I can appreciate you coming to your boyfriend's rescue, I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw myself from this discussion. You're clearly going to continue obfuscating the topic and the points at hand until we're literally arguing about arguing. If DE no longer wishes to continue this discussion, then it is for all intents and purposes over. Your attempt at vicariously championing what you believe to be DE's cause is a copy of a copy and far too blurred and unpointed to produce anything useful.

You got owned

Veeger

05-17-2006, 9:51 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/17/iran.nuclear/index.html

Iran insists that it has a right under the 1968 NPT to produce nuclear fuel. But the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has called on Iranian officials to clear up unresolved questions about its intentions.

I thought this article was well written, and might clear up some of the confusion being expressed here. The problem is not that we are afraid that they "are" creating weapons, but it is the fact that they have not been completely clear on their intentions, and until those intentions are clearly explained to the international community, we will not be comfortable with their enrichment program.

ChaosZon

05-17-2006, 1:32 PM

That you are, what? Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but isn't GenocideAlive talking about Iran having and using nukes, as well as the UN "preventing" such a situation? (Otherwise known as invading Iran.) I see an endorsement of this position throughout the entire thread. So what are we talking about?

Oh! That's right! We're not just talking about basic Iran and say, it's economic system or the size of it's population, we're talking about Iran gaining nukes and how people in this thread feel about it!

Since you've been arguing the position of America, the violation of the NPT, and the right to "punish" Iran, is it out of line for DE to ask, after learning you indeed do not think Iran will attack America, about your objections about Iran having a nuke, then? It seems quite reasonable. You argue that Iran having a nuke is dangerous and not a benefit to the American people (referring to it as a "cost," infact. Which I should point out does show that you have asserted they will in fact attack America. It seems the lies don't stop), so how is DE now asking why you object and invalid question?

We know why its invalid: You're been slapped all over the map of logic and now you're lost. This is what happens when you pretend everything is a logical fallacy.

And as we see now, GenocideAlive has little vested interest in discerning truth in this thread; instead, he has a vested interest in merely defeating his opponents. That's why the constant references to absurd fallacies, the lying about his former positions, and the pretending that questions and assertions are irrelevant to the subject matter.

We're not talking about the US, the UN, Iran, nukes, invasions, nor the NPT. We're talking about Iran and it's ethnic groups and demographic breakdown.

Ah, I see the problem.

See Trav (Kaizen) and DE, besides being butt-buddies, have a problem responding to what people have actually said. They do enjoy their strawmen and badly-written, vaguely-worded incoherent harangues that let them play word games while deliberately failing to address anything of substance.

For example, you'll never hear Trav give an explanation as to why Iran should be given the benefit of the doubt after what Ahmadinejad has said about Israel, he'll go off on some irrelevant, incoherent, badly-written tangent about personal motives and trying to apply his narrow-minded economics-shaped worldview to a situation where religious ideology is the main catalyst. You'll note his heavy reliance on babbling on pointlessly about cost-benefit and such, a lot, while being completely unable to understand the religious motivation behind hardline Islamists. Despite his being an uber-smart atheist who takes great joy in telling his parents they're idiots for believing in God.

But I digress.

See the problem here is that Trav has automatically assumed that if someone says Iran is in the wrong and should be stopped, that means invasion, and invasion means Bushitler empire-building. By making this ridiculous assumption he can quickly shift focus away from Iran's obligations under the NPT (never mind DE's ridiculous and bizarre attempts to declare the US in violation of the NPT and then attempting to declare the NPT irrelevant and immoral anyway, what's going on there? Either the US can't object because it is also in violation, or the NPT is an immoral, invalid document and the US can't object. Not both. One or the other.) to a topic where he can obfuscate furiously.

DE and Trav are great ones for making badly-written, vague, incoherent posts about "logic" that lets them maintain a veneer of intellectual superiority while blatantly sidestepping the fact that the President of a country that has been oddly defiant and uncooperative on the issue of nuclear energy has 1) denied that the Holocaust happened and 2) called repeatedly for the destruction of a sovereign state, or alluded to the inevitable destruction of that state.

Trav and DE (although poor DE is apparently banned? What a shame) will never address those two issues. They will blather on endlessly about "logic" and eventually act like they've won after a 60-post thread in which maybe the first ten posts had anything whatsoever to do with the actual topic.

Now then, having talked a little bit about how DE and Trav are so amazingly dishonest, let's talk about Iran, finally.

Russia offered to enrich uranium, on Russian soil, to be shipped to Iran, put in reactors, and operated. Most of the cost (almost all of it) would be paid by the international community, not Iran.

This would basically guarantee what Iran says it wants - nuclear energy for electrical power generation - and at basically no price to Iran.

Yet Iran rejected this deal.

The newest European deal was to offer, straight up, to build and operate a reactor for Iran, inside Iran, using the most advanced technology available. Once again, nuclear power for Iran, at almost no cost to Iran!

What a great deal, huh? Apparently not. Iran has, once again, rejected a deal where it would get what it says it wants at almost no cost.

Why? If Iran accepted these deals, opened itself up just a bit to the West, dropped the genocidal rhetoric on Israel, within ten years the international community would probably say "Wow Iran what a good little country you've been, you know what here you just take it all over, we trust you guys."

Instead Iran seems hell-bent on forcing a confrontation between itself and its two rather skittish allies, China and Russia, and the US / Western Europe, right here and right now.

Why? I would suggest the answer can be found in a belief among certain Shiite Muslims that the 12th Imam is going to soon return to earth and begin the final battle against the forces of darkness. This belief also holds that normal Muslims can speed up the timetable of the 12th Imam's return by provoking worldwide war between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Guess what city is the center of this belief? That's right, the holiest city in Iran, Qom.

Guess who believes in this and visits Qom regularly? That's right, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And one final consideration: do you know who the real ruler of Iran is? Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khameini.

You know what Ali Khameini is doing right now? He's dying. Of cancer. He probably has less than five years left before he kicks.

So what we have is a country that says it wants one thing and rejects any deal offered that would give it that one thing in favor of trying to stare down the United States of America with George W. Bush as President?

DE and Trav try, have tried, and will try again to frame this issue in the context of their incoherent babble about the NPT and cost-benefit and economic imperialism and whatever buzzwords they've decided to use for the week - all irrelevant, as has been pointed out. We are n