JonS Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Dude. Really. You have got to stop with the Stawmen and the false dilemmas. Every single post of yours has contained examples of one or both. Also, why is Israel the only country worth protecting from possible nuclear attack? India and Pakistan have had several very hot wars, while China and India have had at least one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Wait - do you know what a logical fallacy is? Do you know why using them isn't a really great idea? There is a pretty good summary here, but the cliff-notes version is ... By definition, arguments with logical fallacies are invalid Invalid. That's bad, m'kay? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Oh stop with the straw man. It's so tired. Has India's government suggested the destruction of the Chinese goverment? Has Pakistan suggested the same with regard to India? Are you making relevant, or silly comparisons? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 As for India and Pakistan, they don't seem to be governed by Islamic fundamentalists bent on the destruction of Israel. What does Israel have to do with any of this? AFAIK Israel is not allowing inspectors to their facilities, so apparently they are not concerned about nuclear proliferation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 WTF. We know Isreal has nuclear weapons. What are you talking about, and who do you suppose they are sharing their technology with? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 What does Israel have to do with any of this? I didn't know this was so complicated, but I'll spell it out. Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Iran's goverment has espoused the destruction of the Israeli state, and presumably the liquidation of most of it's Jews. The aggressive wars of '48 and '67 tend to buttress this claim. Is this not happening, or do you just not care if it does happen? What is your view? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Iran's goverment has espoused the destruction of the Israeli state, and presumably the liquidation of most of it's Jews. The aggressive wars of '48 and '67 tend to buttress this claim. WTF? Iran invaded Israel in 1948 and 1967? :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I didn't know this was so complicated, but I'll spell it out. Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Iran's goverment has espoused the destruction of the Israeli state, and presumably the liquidation of most of it's Jews. The aggressive wars of '48 and '67 tend to buttress this claim. Is this not happening, or do you just not care if it does happen? What is your view? So anyone should be able to have nuclear weapons and use them as long as they promise not to use them on Israel? An interesting, although a little bit Israel-centric view. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 WTF? Iran invaded Israel in 1948 and 1967? :eek: You bet. And Saddam was the mastermind of 9/11 attack too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Why are the Iranian apologists bending over backwards to ignore the rhetoric that comes out of that country? Because, since they can't stop Iran from nuking Israel, or Israel from nuking Iran preemptively for that matter, best to just ignore the whole thing and hope it goes away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Because, since they can't stop Iran from nuking Israel, or Israel from nuking Iran preemptively for that matter, best to just ignore the whole thing and hope it goes away. We "ignore the whole thing" when it comes to Israel's, Pakistan's, and India's nukes. So why not be consistent? Why is Israel getting nuked any worse than anyone else getting nuked? The fallout problem for us will be about the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 We "ignore the whole thing" when it comes to Israel's, Pakistan's, and India's nukes. So why not be consistent? Well, I think we are. Why is Israel getting nuked any worse than anyone else getting nuked? The fallout problem for us will be about the same. So true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Why are the Iranian apologists bending over backwards to ignore the rhetoric that comes out of that country? Because it fairly much matches the rhetoric that came from the Bush administration and Israel. Of course, they don't deal with 'evil people' though. Rhetoric is rhetoric. And if there is one great commonality with the USA and the MIddle East it's in the way that over-the-top rhetoric holds such an important place in politicking to the local electorate. Taking at face value Ahm-in-a-jihad's tub thumping about wiping out Israel is just as pointless as believing that Obama is capable of putting "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well, the problem is, the Israelis believe Ahm-in-a-jihad. And obviously, were prepared, and are preparing, to act on it. So you can play Bush HitlerMcChimp political games all day, but it's really beside the point, they are not. When the US fighter jets are gone from Iraq, there's a pretty good chance of a war starting right up. And it just might get the US off the list of being the only nation to use a nuke. Which will no doubt, leave us all just thrilled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 At the very least, we can expect Iran to step up guerilla/terrorist efforts to undermine the Iraqi government once the US troops go. Should the Iranians be nuclear capable at that time, it further complicates the situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Yes. The Israelis having nukes has certainly complicated the process of achieving peace in the ME. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well, the problem is, the Israelis believe Ahm-in-a-jihad. And obviously, were prepared, and are preparing, to act on it. So you can play Bush HitlerMcChimp political games all day, but it's really beside the point, they are not. When the US fighter jets are gone from Iraq, there's a pretty good chance of a war starting right up. And it just might get the US off the list of being the only nation to use a nuke. Which will no doubt, leave us all just thrilled. I rest my case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 When the US fighter jets are gone from Iraq, there's a pretty good chance of a war starting right up. What - between Israel and Iraq? OR Israel and Iran? Or between Iran and Iraq?? Between DR Congo rebels and Rwandan Govt? I don't see Iran trying anything on in Iraq - they won't want the US to have any obvious reason for coming back in force. I don't see anyone in the mid-east planning a war of conquest against Israel - or at least not any more so than in hte last 10-15 years. Isael has nukes - its neighbours know this and undoubtably believe Israel would use them - that would see the end of a few hundred million Moslems in Teheran, Damascus, Cairo, Rhyadh, etc! No doubt they would be accorded martyr status by the living (the ol' vigin production line would be working overtime in heaven that day!! :/) but Mecca and Medina would probably become glass craters too, and that plus the relief efforts from the Christian west would probably see the end of Islam in its current form. Of course we all assume Israel would be destroyed - more certainly if the invading forces do have nukes. In the case of such a catastrophe IMO there's nothing to be happy about unless you're an Islamic extremeist for whom the number of martyrs isirrelevant and perhaps the more the better! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Iran's goverment has espoused the destruction of the Israeli state, and presumably the liquidation of most of it's Jews. No. President Ahmadinjehad has called for 'wiping Israel off the map'. You may be interested to know that he doesn't have the constitutional power to do that. Or to sanction any use of external military force at all. That power rests with the Supreme Leader, who is a far more cautious and less bellicose cat. Your impressions are based on the typical conflation and ignorance generally shown by people with sod all understanding of the Middle East. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Oh good. Nothing to worry about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Oh good. Nothing to worry about. There you go with the straw man again. There is always cause for concern about the Middle East, that the Israelis or Arabs will do something rash and there will be large scale bloodshed. It's just that the particular scenario that's got you in such a froth is not as likely as you are making out. It might in fact be a red herring to draw attention away from some much more likely problem. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Just out of curiosity then, what is the most likely problem in your estimation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadberz Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I wonder what the Arabs will do if the Persians do indeed develop nuclear weapons. I'm kinda curious if an oil field can still be used after sustaining a nuclear blast. I am not at all worried about the Israelis, they can take care of themselves. The Arabs, I'm not so sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I wonder what the Arabs will do if the Persians do indeed develop nuclear weapons. Begin making loud noises about how Moslems should all work together for common goals. I'm kinda curious if an oil field can still be used after sustaining a nuclear blast. Most of the oil is still underground and unless a deep-ground penetrating warhead was used would be unaffected. The pumps and pipelines would be destroyed/damaged, so production would be crippled temporarily. My guess is that it would most likely be the oil loading terminals that would be targeted as they would present the most concentrated and thus lucrative targets, especially if you don't have a lot of warheads to throw around. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I wonder what the Arabs will do if the Persians do indeed develop nuclear weapons. I'm kinda curious if an oil field can still be used after sustaining a nuclear blast. I am not at all worried about the Israelis, they can take care of themselves. The Arabs, I'm not so sure. Indeed the Saudis have far more to be worried about. Nobody likes them anyway, and Iran is just a short boat trip away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.