Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why The Iranian "Threat" Makes Me Laugh.

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:34:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As a libertarian who believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, I've been getting a lot of criticism from my friends and most other people I talk politics with in recent months for not caring about the "Iranian threat."

The argument for pre-emptive war against Iran to prevent them from developing nukes seems to be as follows - Iran, it is said, might be close to developing nuclear weapons, and this would change the entire world as we know it for the worse. In fact it might even create World War 3. Israel will be wiped off the face of the map immediately. And America will be in constant danger... After all, the Iranian government's top priority is to completely obliterate Western society and culture - especially America, because they're so fundamentally opposed to our apparent freedom and prosperity- and stamp out every bit of Democracy in the world, to replace it with Shariah law.

Anyone who seriously believes that garbage is not thinking logically or is simply unaware of certain historical facts. Here are 7 reasons why there is no real Iranian threat:

1) America hasn't been attacked in 70 years.

2) Iran hasn't attacked/invaded another country in over 100 years.

3) We dealt with our greatest enemies, the Soviet Union, without violence for decades, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons. They also had an extremely powerful military force. Now we're fretting day and night about near third world countries with no real armies and navies because they could possibly be on the verge of developing their FIRST nuclear weapons?

4) The same thing was said about Iraq. Anyone who said that maybe a pre-emptive military strike/invasion was too hasty and irresponsible, because it hadn't been sufficiently proven that a) Saddam had WMDs b) Saddam intended to use said WMDs against us... was labeled as either insane or anti-American or a terrorist sympathizer, etc. But who was right in the end?

5) If my memory serves me correctly, America could blow up the entire world about 20 times if it so pleased. What country would willingly attack us, knowing that we could obliterate anything that lives within their borders in a matter of hours? Certainly not a country that nobody has confirmed even possesses one nuclear weapon. Even if you think the Iranians are evil or stupid or both, they're not suicidal. At least not to the point that they'd willingly forfeit the lives of every single Iranian and have Iran wiped off the face of the earth forever.

6) Finally, anyone who doesn't favor a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to prevent them from acquiring Nukes can rest assured they'll be accused of hating Israel and being anti-semitic. Don't we have an obligation to protect our "closest ally?" Well, first of all, as far as I know we have no treaty with Israel, so we shouldn't be sending our kids to die for their safety. Also, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons - I'm pretty sure over 300. Knowing that nobody's proven that Iran has even one, that Israel has hundreds, that we've historically been close allies of Israel, and that all the West would side with Israel over Iran.... Why in the world would they bother attacking Israel? Also, they've never called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Anyone who says the Iranian government has done so is either lying or unaware of the truth.

7) Though Ron Paul gets a lot of sh!t for saying this: why wouldn't it be natural for Iran to want to develop nukes? Look what happened to Gaddafi's Libya and Hussein's Iraq. If I were an Iranian government official I would be pushing for nukes just to ensure that Iran doesn't suffer the same fate. To not do so would be totally irresponsible on their part. And we've pretty much caused that justifiable fear, that without nukes they're vulnerable. If you were an Iranian, given our history of toppling comparatively weak and unarmed regimes, why the hell would you not want to develop a nuclear weapon?

I think when you consider the historical context/facts of the situation - that we haven't been attacked in 70 years, that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 100, that the Soviets had 40,000 nukes but we dealt with them peacefully - and use common sense/logic - we could destroy the entire world about 20 times over, so to attack us would be suicide for an entire country - it's obvious that the Iranian threat is completely non-existent. Just like Iraq proved to be, this is clearly fabricated by the powers that be to feed the ever hungry military industrial complex, the warmongers, the special interests that profit from wartime.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:39:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gambler's fallacy much?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:39:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, God.

Houston we have an idiot.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:41:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I should add that #s 1) and 2), namely that America hasn't been attacked in 70 years and that Iran hasn't attacked another country n over 100, don't necessarily prove that there is no Iranian threat... But they are sobering reminders that historically, the modern U.S. doesn't get attacked and historically Iran doesn't attack other countries. And though I think those 2 facts combined show that the U.S. is probably not in any serious danger from Iran, they should be considered in combination with the other points and not by themselves.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:41:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:39:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Gambler's fallacy much?

I have pointed out that a few of my opponent's points may be fallacies (though it may be argued that they are not independent events). I HAVE WON THE ARGUMENT.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:44:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:34:05 PM, jat93 wrote:
As a libertarian who believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, I've been getting a lot of criticism from my friends and most other people I talk politics with in recent months for not caring about the "Iranian threat."

The argument for pre-emptive war against Iran to prevent them from developing nukes seems to be as follows - Iran, it is said, might be close to developing nuclear weapons, and this would change the entire world as we know it for the worse. In fact it might even create World War 3. Israel will be wiped off the face of the map immediately. And America will be in constant danger... After all, the Iranian government's top priority is to completely obliterate Western society and culture - especially America, because they're so fundamentally opposed to our apparent freedom and prosperity- and stamp out every bit of Democracy in the world, to replace it with Shariah law.

Anyone who seriously believes that garbage is not thinking logically or is simply unaware of certain historical facts. Here are 7 reasons why there is no real Iranian threat:

1) America hasn't been attacked in 70 years.

2) Iran hasn't attacked/invaded another country in over 100 years.

3) We dealt with our greatest enemies, the Soviet Union, without violence for decades, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons. They also had an extremely powerful military force. Now we're fretting day and night about near third world countries with no real armies and navies because they could possibly be on the verge of developing their FIRST nuclear weapons?

4) The same thing was said about Iraq. Anyone who said that maybe a pre-emptive military strike/invasion was too hasty and irresponsible, because it hadn't been sufficiently proven that a) Saddam had WMDs b) Saddam intended to use said WMDs against us... was labeled as either insane or anti-American or a terrorist sympathizer, etc. But who was right in the end?

5) If my memory serves me correctly, America could blow up the entire world about 20 times if it so pleased. What country would willingly attack us, knowing that we could obliterate anything that lives within their borders in a matter of hours? Certainly not a country that nobody has confirmed even possesses one nuclear weapon. Even if you think the Iranians are evil or stupid or both, they're not suicidal. At least not to the point that they'd willingly forfeit the lives of every single Iranian and have Iran wiped off the face of the earth forever.

6) Finally, anyone who doesn't favor a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to prevent them from acquiring Nukes can rest assured they'll be accused of hating Israel and being anti-semitic. Don't we have an obligation to protect our "closest ally?" Well, first of all, as far as I know we have no treaty with Israel, so we shouldn't be sending our kids to die for their safety. Also, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons - I'm pretty sure over 300. Knowing that nobody's proven that Iran has even one, that Israel has hundreds, that we've historically been close allies of Israel, and that all the West would side with Israel over Iran.... Why in the world would they bother attacking Israel? Also, they've never called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Anyone who says the Iranian government has done so is either lying or unaware of the truth.

7) Though Ron Paul gets a lot of sh!t for saying this: why wouldn't it be natural for Iran to want to develop nukes? Look what happened to Gaddafi's Libya and Hussein's Iraq. If I were an Iranian government official I would be pushing for nukes just to ensure that Iran doesn't suffer the same fate. To not do so would be totally irresponsible on their part. And we've pretty much caused that justifiable fear, that without nukes they're vulnerable. If you were an Iranian, given our history of toppling comparatively weak and unarmed regimes, why the hell would you not want to develop a nuclear weapon?

I think when you consider the historical context/facts of the situation - that we haven't been attacked in 70 years, that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 100, that the Soviets had 40,000 nukes but we dealt with them peacefully - and use common sense/logic - we could destroy the entire world about 20 times over, so to attack us would be suicide for an entire country - it's obvious that the Iranian threat is completely non-existent. Just like Iraq proved to be, this is clearly fabricated by the powers that be to feed the ever hungry military industrial complex, the warmongers, the special interests that profit from wartime.

First, we hadn't been attacked in almost 70 years before 9/11.

Second, your main argument requires Iran to be lead be sensible, sane, people.

To say the least, it is are not.

The dictato-erm, I mean president of Iran has several times stated his wish to destroy the USA, and Israel. And tell me why again they shouldn't have nukes?

But what you don't seem to realize the sot is that their leadership, is essentially suicidal. They are willing to die, but they want to take as many as possible with them.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:44:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:41:57 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:39:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Gambler's fallacy much?

I have pointed out that a few of my opponent's points may be fallacies (though it may be argued that they are not independent events). I HAVE WON THE ARGUMENT.

In essence, yes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:46:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:44:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:34:05 PM, jat93 wrote:
As a libertarian who believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, I've been getting a lot of criticism from my friends and most other people I talk politics with in recent months for not caring about the "Iranian threat."

The argument for pre-emptive war against Iran to prevent them from developing nukes seems to be as follows - Iran, it is said, might be close to developing nuclear weapons, and this would change the entire world as we know it for the worse. In fact it might even create World War 3. Israel will be wiped off the face of the map immediately. And America will be in constant danger... After all, the Iranian government's top priority is to completely obliterate Western society and culture - especially America, because they're so fundamentally opposed to our apparent freedom and prosperity- and stamp out every bit of Democracy in the world, to replace it with Shariah law.

Anyone who seriously believes that garbage is not thinking logically or is simply unaware of certain historical facts. Here are 7 reasons why there is no real Iranian threat:

1) America hasn't been attacked in 70 years.

2) Iran hasn't attacked/invaded another country in over 100 years.

3) We dealt with our greatest enemies, the Soviet Union, without violence for decades, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons. They also had an extremely powerful military force. Now we're fretting day and night about near third world countries with no real armies and navies because they could possibly be on the verge of developing their FIRST nuclear weapons?

4) The same thing was said about Iraq. Anyone who said that maybe a pre-emptive military strike/invasion was too hasty and irresponsible, because it hadn't been sufficiently proven that a) Saddam had WMDs b) Saddam intended to use said WMDs against us... was labeled as either insane or anti-American or a terrorist sympathizer, etc. But who was right in the end?

5) If my memory serves me correctly, America could blow up the entire world about 20 times if it so pleased. What country would willingly attack us, knowing that we could obliterate anything that lives within their borders in a matter of hours? Certainly not a country that nobody has confirmed even possesses one nuclear weapon. Even if you think the Iranians are evil or stupid or both, they're not suicidal. At least not to the point that they'd willingly forfeit the lives of every single Iranian and have Iran wiped off the face of the earth forever.

6) Finally, anyone who doesn't favor a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to prevent them from acquiring Nukes can rest assured they'll be accused of hating Israel and being anti-semitic. Don't we have an obligation to protect our "closest ally?" Well, first of all, as far as I know we have no treaty with Israel, so we shouldn't be sending our kids to die for their safety. Also, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons - I'm pretty sure over 300. Knowing that nobody's proven that Iran has even one, that Israel has hundreds, that we've historically been close allies of Israel, and that all the West would side with Israel over Iran.... Why in the world would they bother attacking Israel? Also, they've never called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Anyone who says the Iranian government has done so is either lying or unaware of the truth.

7) Though Ron Paul gets a lot of sh!t for saying this: why wouldn't it be natural for Iran to want to develop nukes? Look what happened to Gaddafi's Libya and Hussein's Iraq. If I were an Iranian government official I would be pushing for nukes just to ensure that Iran doesn't suffer the same fate. To not do so would be totally irresponsible on their part. And we've pretty much caused that justifiable fear, that without nukes they're vulnerable. If you were an Iranian, given our history of toppling comparatively weak and unarmed regimes, why the hell would you not want to develop a nuclear weapon?

I think when you consider the historical context/facts of the situation - that we haven't been attacked in 70 years, that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 100, that the Soviets had 40,000 nukes but we dealt with them peacefully - and use common sense/logic - we could destroy the entire world about 20 times over, so to attack us would be suicide for an entire country - it's obvious that the Iranian threat is completely non-existent. Just like Iraq proved to be, this is clearly fabricated by the powers that be to feed the ever hungry military industrial complex, the warmongers, the special interests that profit from wartime.



First, we hadn't been attacked in almost 70 years before 9/11.

Second, your main argument requires Iran to be lead be sensible, sane, people.

To say the least, it is not.

The dictato-erm, I mean president of Iran has several times stated his wish to destroy the USA, and Israel. And tell me why again they shouldn't have nukes?

But what you don't seem to realize the sot is that their leadership, is essentially suicidal. They are willing to die, but they want to take as many as possible with them.

Fix'd junk.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:46:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:41:57 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:39:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Gambler's fallacy much?

I have pointed out that a few of my opponent's points may be fallacies (though it may be argued that they are not independent events). I HAVE WON THE ARGUMENT.

Can either of you explain the fallacy I've committed? I'm unfamiliar with Gambler' fallacy.

Also, I should note that none of my points were meant to be taken alone. They should all be taken cohesively because all true. I.e. to say that because America hasn't been attacked in 70 years there is no Iranian threat is of course ridiculous. But that, combined with how often they've attacked other countries, combined with what should be a natural desire for nukes for self-protection, combined with how easily we could destroy them if they so much as touched us....... Hopefully you see my point.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:47:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, we hadn't been attacked in almost 70 years before 9/11.

Second, your main argument requires Iran to be lead be sensible, sane, people.

To say the least, it is not.

The dictato-erm, I mean president of Iran has several times stated his wish to :destroy the USA, and Israel. And tell me why again they should have nukes?

But what you don't seem to realize the sot is that their leadership, is essentially :suicidal. They are willing to die, but they want to take as many as possible with :them.

Ok, done fixing stuff.....I think..
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:49:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:44:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:41:57 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:39:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Gambler's fallacy much?

I have pointed out that a few of my opponent's points may be fallacies (though it may be argued that they are not independent events). I HAVE WON THE ARGUMENT.

In essence, yes.

In essence no, because I made 7 points that are to be taken together, not isolated. I don't believe that because America hasn't been attacked in 70 years there is no Iranian threat. Nor do I believe that because Iran hasn't attacked anyone else in 100+ years there is no Iranian threat. I think those combined with logic - like, the observation that we could blow up the world 20 times over which the Iranian government obviously knows.... just for starters - make a compelling case against a pre-emptive war in Iran.

Nice try, but you'll have to do a bit better than just say "gambler's fallacy much?" to debunk this argument.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:50:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:49:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

1) America hasn't been attacked in 70 years.


... 9/11?

Thats what I said in my post, which he seems to be ignoring.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:50:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:49:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

1) America hasn't been attacked in 70 years.


... 9/11?

9/11 was a terrorist attack. NOT affiliated with any government. (Besides, the vast majority of the 9/11 attakers were Saudis.) Not an official act of war by any country. Sorry, I should have clarified... No country has attacked America in 70 years.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:53:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:50:58 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:49:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

1) America hasn't been attacked in 70 years.


... 9/11?

9/11 was a terrorist attack. NOT affiliated with any government. (Besides, the vast majority of the 9/11 attakers were Saudis.) Not an official act of war by any country. Sorry, I should have clarified... No country has attacked America in 70 years.

Yes you should have. You looked terrible there for a minute.

And no countries have attacked us in 70 years because we deal with them before they can, like we are doing with Iran.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:56:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:50:58 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:49:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

1) America hasn't been attacked in 70 years.


... 9/11?

9/11 was a terrorist attack. NOT affiliated with any government. (Besides, the vast majority of the 9/11 attakers were Saudis.) Not an official act of war by any country. Sorry, I should have clarified... No country has attacked America in 70 years.

Your still ignoring my post......
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:58:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:44:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:34:05 PM, jat93 wrote:
As a libertarian who believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, I've been getting a lot of criticism from my friends and most other people I talk politics with in recent months for not caring about the "Iranian threat."

The argument for pre-emptive war against Iran to prevent them from developing nukes seems to be as follows - Iran, it is said, might be close to developing nuclear weapons, and this would change the entire world as we know it for the worse. In fact it might even create World War 3. Israel will be wiped off the face of the map immediately. And America will be in constant danger... After all, the Iranian government's top priority is to completely obliterate Western society and culture - especially America, because they're so fundamentally opposed to our apparent freedom and prosperity- and stamp out every bit of Democracy in the world, to replace it with Shariah law.

Anyone who seriously believes that garbage is not thinking logically or is simply unaware of certain historical facts. Here are 7 reasons why there is no real Iranian threat:

1) America hasn't been attacked in 70 years.

2) Iran hasn't attacked/invaded another country in over 100 years.

3) We dealt with our greatest enemies, the Soviet Union, without violence for decades, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons. They also had an extremely powerful military force. Now we're fretting day and night about near third world countries with no real armies and navies because they could possibly be on the verge of developing their FIRST nuclear weapons?

4) The same thing was said about Iraq. Anyone who said that maybe a pre-emptive military strike/invasion was too hasty and irresponsible, because it hadn't been sufficiently proven that a) Saddam had WMDs b) Saddam intended to use said WMDs against us... was labeled as either insane or anti-American or a terrorist sympathizer, etc. But who was right in the end?

5) If my memory serves me correctly, America could blow up the entire world about 20 times if it so pleased. What country would willingly attack us, knowing that we could obliterate anything that lives within their borders in a matter of hours? Certainly not a country that nobody has confirmed even possesses one nuclear weapon. Even if you think the Iranians are evil or stupid or both, they're not suicidal. At least not to the point that they'd willingly forfeit the lives of every single Iranian and have Iran wiped off the face of the earth forever.

6) Finally, anyone who doesn't favor a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to prevent them from acquiring Nukes can rest assured they'll be accused of hating Israel and being anti-semitic. Don't we have an obligation to protect our "closest ally?" Well, first of all, as far as I know we have no treaty with Israel, so we shouldn't be sending our kids to die for their safety. Also, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons - I'm pretty sure over 300. Knowing that nobody's proven that Iran has even one, that Israel has hundreds, that we've historically been close allies of Israel, and that all the West would side with Israel over Iran.... Why in the world would they bother attacking Israel? Also, they've never called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Anyone who says the Iranian government has done so is either lying or unaware of the truth.

7) Though Ron Paul gets a lot of sh!t for saying this: why wouldn't it be natural for Iran to want to develop nukes? Look what happened to Gaddafi's Libya and Hussein's Iraq. If I were an Iranian government official I would be pushing for nukes just to ensure that Iran doesn't suffer the same fate. To not do so would be totally irresponsible on their part. And we've pretty much caused that justifiable fear, that without nukes they're vulnerable. If you were an Iranian, given our history of toppling comparatively weak and unarmed regimes, why the hell would you not want to develop a nuclear weapon?

I think when you consider the historical context/facts of the situation - that we haven't been attacked in 70 years, that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 100, that the Soviets had 40,000 nukes but we dealt with them peacefully - and use common sense/logic - we could destroy the entire world about 20 times over, so to attack us would be suicide for an entire country - it's obvious that the Iranian threat is completely non-existent. Just like Iraq proved to be, this is clearly fabricated by the powers that be to feed the ever hungry military industrial complex, the warmongers, the special interests that profit from wartime.



First, we hadn't been attacked in almost 70 years before 9/11.

9/11 attacks were not done by any official government, as I said in another post, they were independent terrorist actions, and besides most were Saudis.... My point is that it's been 70 years since any country actually officially attacked/invaded America. PRESUMABLY when we're talking about the whole Iranian threat, it's the threat of their country attacking/invading us.... NOT some terrorist group unaffiliated with the Iranian government attacking/invading us. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

Second, your main argument requires Iran to be lead be sensible, sane, people.

To say the least, it is are not.

The dictato-erm, I mean president of Iran has several times stated his wish to destroy the USA, and Israel. And tell me why again they shouldn't have nukes?

Where has the President of Iran stated his wish to physically destroy the USA and Israel? As far as I know he has not done so. I await proof.

But what you don't seem to realize the sot is that their leadership, is essentially suicidal. They are willing to die, but they want to take as many as possible with them.

Watching a bit too much Fox News I see. Can you give me proof that their leadership is suicidal? And that we have reason to believe that they would literally give up every single life in their country in order to attack America? That's bullsh!t, they would never do that, and if you don't recognize that you're not thinking clearly. No government will willingly destroy itself and all its country's inhabitants in order to attack America. They're not all retarded, as much as Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannity want you to believe they are.

My bottom line: proof?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:59:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:46:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:41:57 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:39:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Gambler's fallacy much?

I have pointed out that a few of my opponent's points may be fallacies (though it may be argued that they are not independent events). I HAVE WON THE ARGUMENT.

Can either of you explain the fallacy I've committed? I'm unfamiliar with Gambler' fallacy.

Also, I should note that none of my points were meant to be taken alone. They should all be taken cohesively because all true. I.e. to say that because America hasn't been attacked in 70 years there is no Iranian threat is of course ridiculous. But that, combined with how often they've attacked other countries, combined with what should be a natural desire for nukes for self-protection, combined with how easily we could destroy them if they so much as touched us....... Hopefully you see my point.

I hope the degree to which I was mocking him was clear.

The Gambler's Fallacy generally has to do with believing events that are independent will influence each other. This can mean that you are losing, so you believe that you have a higher chance of winning the next time. Alternatively, you are winning so clearly you have higher luck right now and should continue winning. Of course, in the arguments you've provided, whether or not we have been attacked for the last 70 years would not be independent over time, as we clearly have had a gradually smaller and smaller chance of being involved in military conflicts on American soil.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:02:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:39:57 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Oh, God.

Houston we have an idiot.

Wow. I'm clearly not an idiot, as I backed up my contentions with facts and logic. This post did was the epitome of unnecessary, and did absolutely nothing to further the intelligent d/honest discussion I obviously want to have. Come on, that's so elementary school. If you want to have any respect on this site you should probably try being something other than an obnoxious, pretentious, juvenile troll. It's no surprise that that's what 99% of people here perceive you as.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:06:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
#6. Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!

http://www.cracked.com...
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:06:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:56:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:50:58 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:49:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

1) America hasn't been attacked in 70 years.


... 9/11?

9/11 was a terrorist attack. NOT affiliated with any government. (Besides, the vast majority of the 9/11 attakers were Saudis.) Not an official act of war by any country. Sorry, I should have clarified... No country has attacked America in 70 years.

Your still ignoring my post......

How? Pretty sure I addressed it. My point with saying that no country had attacked us in 70 years combined with the fact that Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 100 (as far as I know) was to say that it is historically unlikely that we would be in danger from Iran. (I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ALONE DOES NOT SERVE AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE IRANIAN THREAT. It's just sobering historical context). How do the attacks on 9/11, which were carried out by terrorists independent of any official government, disprove that? In fact how is it relevant at all to the danger the Iranian government poses to America?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:06:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, we hadn't been attacked in almost 70 years before 9/11.

9/11 attacks were not done by any official government, as I said in another post, they were independent terrorist actions, and besides most were Saudis.... My point is that it's been 70 years since any country actually officially attacked/invaded America. PRESUMABLY when we're talking about the whole Iranian threat, it's the threat of their country attacking/invading us.... NOT some terrorist group unaffiliated with the Iranian government attacking/invading us. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

Ok, then I guess we haven't. However, why is that a case for why we shouldn't take down a threat, before thousands, if not millions, die?


Second, your main argument requires Iran to be lead be sensible, sane, people.

To say the least, it is are not.

The dictato-erm, I mean president of Iran has several times stated his wish to destroy the USA, and Israel. And tell me why again they shouldn't have nukes?

Where has the President of Iran stated his wish to physically destroy the USA and Israel? As far as I know he has not done so. I await proof.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll try and find a good source for his America comments as well for later.

But what you don't seem to realize the sot is that their leadership, is essentially suicidal. They are willing to die, but they want to take as many as possible with them.

Watching a bit too much Fox News I see. Can you give me proof that their leadership is suicidal? And that we have reason to believe that they would literally give up every single life in their country in order to attack America? That's bullsh!t, they would never do that, and if you don't recognize that you're not thinking clearly. No government will willingly destroy itself and all its country's inhabitants in order to attack America. They're not all retarded, as much as Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannity want you to believe they are.

My bottom line: proof?

I guess what this depends on is he same argument for my point on him wanting destroy America, and Israel. While I can't prove that he is insane, I can prove that he has stated several time how he wants to destroy America, and Israel. And that is not someone we want with nation-destroying weapons.

I'm looking for a source right now, and I'll post a find them.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:10:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:34:05 PM, jat93 wrote:

3) We dealt with our greatest enemies, the Soviet Union, without violence for decades, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons. They also had an extremely powerful military force. Now we're fretting day and night about near third world countries with no real armies and navies because they could possibly be on the verge of developing their FIRST nuclear weapons?

without violence? lmao, what books are you reading? Vietnam, Korea? ..ringing a bell?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:10:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.ynetnews.com...

http://articles.cnn.com...

I think that works for now.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:11:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:53:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
And no countries have attacked us in 70 years because we deal with them before they can, like we are doing with Iran.

The way it tends to work:

1. We invade a country with some turmoil.
2. There is a lot more violence in said country, along with more hatred towards America.

Either we're the greatest at preemptive strategy ever, or the invasion causes the violence and hatred. Which do you think it is?

Hint: The military is run by government.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:11:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 10:06:22 PM, mongoose wrote:
#6. Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!

http://www.cracked.com...

Seen this before, awesome stuff.

Here's the part of the article pertaining to Iran for those that don't want to click the link. I urge Oberherr and Lordknuckle to read this and get back to me. (Btw, this debunks the whole "Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel" thing):

"That's why Ahmadinejad isn't in charge -- Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is. Despite a title that sounds like an overcompensating member of the Wu-Tang Clan, Khamenei has been running the show for years. See, unlike our president, Ahmadinejad doesn't control Iran's nuclear strategy, armed forces or even foreign policy.

Ahmadinejad is more like the Joe Biden of Iran -- he says stupid things that embarrass the country, but the guy in power thinks he's a good enough sh!t, so he keeps him around. Though even that gives President Spell-Check a little too much credit, because Ahmadinejad isn't even the second most powerful guy in the country.

Try 14th. In addition to Lord Sexgantic Ayatollah Khamenei, he's outranked by the 12 members of the Guardian Council, which sounds like something out of the extended Star Wars universe, but actually functions more like Ahmadinejad's boss. They can shoot down his ideas via veto and get to decide who runs for president in the first place.

As the Iranian people know, Ahmadinejad doesn't even have the power to get women into soccer games (one of his campaign promises in 2007), and he has become increasingly unpopular among the masses with every day in office.

The problem is that the West pays such an unreasonable amount of attention to Ahmadinejad that according to political experts, it's one of the only things keeping him relevant in Iran. Despite a failed economic policy, and the fact that he's pissed of the Ayatollah so much that experts don't expect him to finish his second term, the Iranian people feel like they have to pay attention to him because America is paying attention to him. And America is paying attention to him because his job title sounds impressive to us.

OK, but even if Ahmadinejad isn't in charge, the real leaders are religious hard-liners who hate America. So Iran is still a threat, right? Actually, their annual military budget is around nine billion dollars, which puts them behind the powerhouses like Greece and Australia. In terms of per capita spending, Iran is dead last in the gulf region. Nuclear weapons aren't a concern, either, as U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran has halted its program.

Making your enemies seem like unbalanced lunatics is just an old propaganda trick. For instance, remember that comment about wanting to wipe Israel off the map? According to the people who translated the statement in the first place, it was translated worse than a Final Fantasy game, due to "time pressure to produce a translation quickly." It would be more accurate to say Ahmadinejad wanted to see a regime change, which is a pretty common statement in global politics."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:12:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 10:11:28 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:53:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
And no countries have attacked us in 70 years because we deal with them before they can, like we are doing with Iran.

The way it tends to work:

1. We invade a country with some turmoil.
2. There is a lot more violence in said country, along with more hatred towards America.

Either we're the greatest at preemptive strategy ever, or the invasion causes the violence and hatred. Which do you think it is?

Hint: The military is run by government.

I fail to see your point....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:14:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 10:10:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:34:05 PM, jat93 wrote:

3) We dealt with our greatest enemies, the Soviet Union, without violence for decades, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons. They also had an extremely powerful military force. Now we're fretting day and night about near third world countries with no real armies and navies because they could possibly be on the verge of developing their FIRST nuclear weapons?

without violence? lmao, what books are you reading? Vietnam, Korea? ..ringing a bell?

Did we or did we not ever militarily attack the Soviet Union in order to do something about the fact that they, our sworn enemies at the time, had 40,000 nuclear weapons? Yes or no? This is my point. And, they were absurdly more powerful than Iran is. Like, 100000x more powerful.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:16:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 10:14:32 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 10:10:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:34:05 PM, jat93 wrote:

3) We dealt with our greatest enemies, the Soviet Union, without violence for decades, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons. They also had an extremely powerful military force. Now we're fretting day and night about near third world countries with no real armies and navies because they could possibly be on the verge of developing their FIRST nuclear weapons?

without violence? lmao, what books are you reading? Vietnam, Korea? ..ringing a bell?

Did we or did we not ever militarily attack the Soviet Union in order to do something about the fact that they, our sworn enemies at the time, had 40,000 nuclear weapons? Yes or no? This is my point. And, they were absurdly more powerful than Iran is. Like, 100000x more powerful.

When it comes to nukes, you don't need many.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 10:19:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 10:14:32 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 10:10:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 9:34:05 PM, jat93 wrote:

3) We dealt with our greatest enemies, the Soviet Union, without violence for decades, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons. They also had an extremely powerful military force. Now we're fretting day and night about near third world countries with no real armies and navies because they could possibly be on the verge of developing their FIRST nuclear weapons?

without violence? lmao, what books are you reading? Vietnam, Korea? ..ringing a bell?

Did we or did we not ever militarily attack the Soviet Union in order to do something about the fact that they, our sworn enemies at the time, had 40,000 nuclear weapons? Yes or no? This is my point. And, they were absurdly more powerful than Iran is. Like, 100000x more powerful.

A U.S spy plane in the U-2 incident fell over soviet territory,...they refused to return it.

In the missile crisis, USSR planted nukes in Cuba, we told them to get them out or we invade, Khruschev gave specific orders for CUBAN officials to nuke the U.S at their discretion if we ever invaded the island.

these were dangerous military faceoffs.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault