Iran Already Has Nukes?

[itgoesboom]

Show me the example of the Iranian suicide bomber. Still waiting. What was his name? Where did he bomb? Who did he bomb? Take your time. (Hint: you're going to be a loooooooooooooooooong time looking, I think he's somewhere near Jimmy Hoffa).
[/URL]

I showed you an article, that if you were willing to read the quote, told that Iranian citizens are signing up to be suicide bombers. 15,000. Iranian. Suicide Bombers.

Read the article. Read what I posted.

As for the rest of your rambling, I won't argue with someone who won't aree that kidnapping and taking hostages is terrorism.



I.G.B.

 

[Helmetcase]

I showed you an article, that if you were willing to read the quote, told that Iranian citizens are signing up to be suicide bombers. 15,000. Iranian. Suicide Bombers.

It'll be a first. Suicide bombers have been overwhelmingly Sunni. The Iranians are Shia. If it comes to pass, great. The Iranians have certainly supported terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, but it would be remarkable if they themselves began aggressively pursuing a Sunni-style political terrorism approach to the West. This is why I asked you if you knew the difference between Shia and Sunni. I see the answer is "no." Don't feel bad, apparently GWB didn't either when he took office.

Read the article. Read what I posted.

I'd rather read some examples of you understanding the MidEast beyond what you read on Newsmax.

As for the rest of your rambling, I won't argue with someone who won't aree that kidnapping and taking hostages is terrorism.

You're misreading me, I'm not saying that the Iranians aren't capable of terrorism, clearly they've been involved in supporting terrorist activities in the past. But you're making some conflations that aren't supportable by the facts. For example, it was YOU who said "only Muslims were on the 9/11 planes." That's true, but it ignores the fact that NONE were Shia and NONE were Iranian. Terrorist do take hostages but not everyone who takes hostages is a terrorist. Girls eat ice cream, but not everyone who eats ice cream is a girl.

What I'm getting at is that your approach talks about the Iranians as though they're the same kind of threat as other terrorist threats we're facing or have faced, and that's inaccurate.

 

[SIGarmed]

[sarcasm]Yes it's really that simple.[/sarcasm]
Well,...yeah, it is. And let's not ignore the elephant in the room--why are we even discussing it? Because when your credibility is strained, it's a little difficult to drum up support for what it would take to do anything other than lob Tomahawks at Iran.

Elephant in the room? It's not my fault that commi...er so called "progressives" or liberals have no backbone.
You are obviously from the anyone but Bush camp and your credibility is already shot. Please refrain from posting your propoganda. Leave it at the DU.

You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Optical Serenity]

Optical Serenity, we're not talking about the "Gee, I wish I could go to a movie!" type of Iranian citizen. We're talking about the Iranian government, which has been a State sponsor of terrorism (money and training) since the fall of the Shah.

Is the guy who hires an assassin less guilty than the assassin?

Art

Good point Art. Certainly no secret for people to point out that Iran has sponsored terrorism in the past with the Hezbollah.

 

[Helmetcase]

Elephant in the room?

Hey, that flash of light and loud thud was the point flying over your head. The elephant was the fact that the WMD fiasco hurt our credibility vis a vis intelligence gathering. Not whatever the hell it is you're griping about.

It's not my fault that commi...er so called "progressives" or liberals have no backbone.

We have plenty of backbone, including the backbone to call people out on their bull????. But if you want to degrade this conversation to ad hominem personal attacks, I'm sure that's fine. It's further testament to your inability to formulate a coherent, defensible argument--if what I'm typing has you so riled up that you have to engage in personal attacks, that says a lot more about you than me.

You are obviously from the anyone but Bush camp and your credibility is already shot.

No, I'm from put the truth before personal and party line agendas camp. Why else would I have a pro-RKBA blog? My credibility is above reproach, and you damn well know it. Why else bother with such ad hominem attacks?

Please refrain from posting your propoganda. Leave it at the DU.

You're not fooling anyone.

Since you can't actually rebut any of my arguments and haven't posted anything other than personal attacks in your post, I'd say it's you that needs to refrain from posting propaganda. Talk about not fooling anyone...keep up the good work--making biased, incoherent blowhards look bad is my specialty.

 

[SIGarmed]

Hey, that flash of light and loud thud was the point flying over your head. The elephant was the fact that the WMD fiasco hurt our credibility vis a vis intelligence gathering. Not whatever the hell it is you're griping about.


We have plenty of backbone, including the backbone to call people out on their bull????. But if you want to degrade this conversation to ad hominem personal attacks, I'm sure that's fine. It's further testament to your inability to formulate a coherent, defensible argument--if what I'm typing has you so riled up that you have to engage in personal attacks, that says a lot more about you than me.

No, I'm from put the truth before personal and party line agendas camp. Why else would I have a pro-RKBA blog? My credibility is above reproach, and you damn well know it. Why else bother with such ad hominem attacks?


Since you can't actually rebut any of my arguments and haven't posted anything other than personal attacks in your post, I'd say it's you that needs to refrain from posting propaganda. Talk about not fooling anyone...

The truth hurts doesn't it?

 

[Helmetcase]

What truth would that be? The truth that I keep making you look bad? It doesn't hurt one bit.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Umm, neither of you are doing your respective cases any good. The only thing you've established is that you disagree with each other. Perhaps you could return to rational debate instead of name calling...


Can either of you provide sensible reasons for or against allowing Iran to posses nukes?

Can either of you name sound reasons why I/you/we personally would be better/worse off if Iran had the ability to turn entire cities into smouldering craters whenever it wants to?

 

[SIGarmed]

What truth would that be? The truth that I keep making you look bad? It doesn't hurt one bit.

Oh you know? The truth about those who like to pretend that the hostage taking in 1979 wasn't an act of terrorism. Typical revisionist leftists love to change history or warp things to their own reality. You expect anyone to actually take you seriously and then you call others blow hards? Give me a break.

What points were you actually trying to make? Convincing others that the past never happened?

Try harder.

 

[Helmetcase]

Umm, neither of you are doing your respective cases any good. The only thing you've established is that you disagree with each other. Perhaps you could return to rational debate instead of name calling...

For the record I've done no such thing, I've simply objected to him doing that as a debate tactic, and pointed out how ineffectual it is. Glad you noticed though. (ok, ok I did make the barb about incoherent blowhards...but I didn't address him specifically, and as noted below I am actually making arguments and not attacking people).

Can either of you provide sensible reasons for or against allowing Iran to posses nukes?

Sensible reasons to prevent Iran to prevent nukes--they're a known terrorist supporting state that engages in inflammtory rhetoric about our allies in the region.

Sensible reasons to not prevent them from acquiring nukes--it might well prove to be impossible in the long run, and bombing them might strengthen their lunatic theocratic fringe and making internal reform from more moderate, younger Iranians harder to come by.

 

[Helmetcase]

Oh you know? The truth about those who like to pretend that the hostage taking in 1979 wasn't an act of terrorism.

I've already stipulated several times that Iran is a terrorist state. Some dude in Penna. took a hostage the other day. Are Pennsylvanians terrorists?

Typical revisionist leftists love to change history or warp things to their own reality. You expect anyone to actually take you seriously and then you call others blow hards? Give me a break.

You expect people to take you seriously when you say others have no backbone or are engaging in propaganda?

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Sigarmed, I'm frankly disappointed with your response. You suggest that Helmetcase go to the DU. If anyone's comments don't belong on The High Road, it is yours. I see nothing of any substance in your reply; I only see you resorting to personal attacks. If you have a point, you should take the time to make it. Any reasonable person following this exchange would conclude that you have no point.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Man, NOBODY has had a point these past few posts.

This is a worthwhile discussion. Until now it's been intelligent and informed. I hope you two knuckleheads haven't gotten this thread closed down...

 

[SIGarmed]

Sigarmed, I'm frankly disappointed with your response. You suggest that Helmetcase go to the DU. If anyone's comments don't belong on The High Road, it is yours. I see nothing of any substance in your reply; I only see you resorting to personal attacks. If you have a point, you should take the time to make it. Any reasonable person following this exchange would conclude that you have no point.

You have a right to an opinion. I've pretty much made a point but you probably don't like it. If anyones comments don't belong here it's those of the revisionists. Of course I didn't enter the thread to have to respond to naysayers, but I make no apologies.

 

[Helmetcase]

Man, NOBODY has had a point these past few posts.

This is a worthwhile discussion. Until now it's been intelligent and informed. I hope you two knuckleheads haven't gotten this thread closed down...

There are some important points. Iran does have a connection to terrorism, but not a history of tactical agression against neighbors. Point: they're probably a decade away from having a bomb, but they're a wealthy modern nation with the smarts to eventually find the means to have one unless we preemptively go to war against them...which might be extremely, extremely costly and cause serious headaches for decades...generations even.

Pointing out the TRUTH--even uncomfortable truths like "Iran doesn't have a history of tactical aggression against neighbors"--isn't revisionism.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Man, NOBODY has had a point these past few posts.

I disagree, Roland. I think Helmetcase brings up some good points that need to be considered in something as heart-attack-serious as declaring a war with a country that will be much more formidable than the insurgency in Iraq. Also, he kept the level of discourse on the high road, which Sigarmed most definitely did not.

 

[Camp David]

Pointing out the TRUTH--even uncomfortable truths like "Iran doesn't have a history of tactical aggression against neighbors"--isn't revisionism.

Would you consider Iran's Hostagetaking on November 4, 1979, from the United States Embassy in Tehran, agressive?

Would you consider Iran's Caspian Sea gunboat threats; i.e., July 23, 2001, when an Iranian gunboat and two jets challenged a research vessel working on behalf of British Petroleum (BP)-Amoco at the Araz-Alov-Sharg field in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea, agressive?

If Iran does not have a history of agression, which I disagree with but let's go with the assumption, it sure has one now, with Iran's bigmouth Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouting off lately... I'll predict he gets squelched quick and it may come compliments of the USAF...

 

[Helmetcase]

Would you consider Iran's Hostagetaking on November 4, 1979, from the United States Embassy in Tehran, agressive?

Sure, it was a mob mentality move. But it's not an example of tactical (military) aggression against a neighbor.

Would you consider Iran's Caspian Sea gunboat threats; i.e., July 23, 2001, when an Iranian gunboat and two jets challenged a research vessel working on behalf of British Petroleum (BP)-Amoco at the Araz-Alov-Sharg field in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea, agressive?

I'd consider it sabre rattling. But you're missing the point. Iran does NOT have a history in modern times of attacking Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Armenia, etc., and the other countries in it's sphere of influence. There's a difference between that and being linked to terror groups. It's a different kind of threat.

If Iran does not have a history of agression, which I disagree with

Feel free to disagree, that's your right and at least you're doing it politely, but I'd like to see an example of modern Iran attacking a neighbor. Remember, Saddam attacked them. With our blessing.

but let's go with the assumption, it sure has one now, with Iran's bigmouth Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouting off lately... I'll predict he gets squelched quick and it may come compliments of the USAF...

I've already stipulated the same. There's a case that a blowhard rattling a sabre like that is asking to get Osirak'ed. But it won't be as simple as Osirak.

 

[Camp David]

Sure, it was a mob mentality move. But it's not an example of tactical (military) aggression against a neighbor...

Helmutcase... waiting for Iran to be aggressive could be fatal! As I recall, Bill Clinton didn't think Al Qaeda would be aggressive either; guess he was wrong! The United Nations has counseled Iran to cease its nuclear ambitions and it has continued its clear attempts to build a bomb... Iran, which is sitting on rather sizable oil resources, has no need for nuclear energy, so its nuclear bomb building is, in itself, a clear threat to its neighbors, most especially Israel.

Personally Iran's smackdown is long overdue; kicking its soccer team off the World Cup schedule is not a fitting punishment. Targeting and destroying Iran's uranium and plutonium enrichment plants is.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I disagree, Roland. I think Helmetcase brings up some good points that need to be considered in something as heart-attack-serious as declaring a war with a country that will be much more formidable than the insurgency in Iraq. Also, he kept the level of discourse on the high road, which Sigarmed most definitely did not.

Eh, if you say so.

Here's what I'm interested in: Why on earth would we consider it to be in our best interest to let Iran have nuclear weapons? So far all I've heard is that invading Iran would be difficult and costly (true) and that Iran isn't really a terrorist state (demonstrably untrue).

Is there anything new to add to the discussion?

 

[Helmetcase]

Helmutcase... waiting for Iran to be aggressive could be fatal! As I recall, Bill Clinton didn't think Al Qaeda would be aggressive either; guess he was wrong!

Holy red herrings batman! Actually BC and AG thought that AQ would be the biggest threat we faced going forward. We can only wish the succeeding administration payed attention to their admonishments. But if we get off on that tangent, this thread will be a trainwreck.

The United Nations has counseled Iran to cease its nuclear ambitions and it has continued its clear attempts to build a bomb... Iran, which is sitting on rather sizable oil resources, has no need for nuclear energy, so its nuclear bomb building is, in itself, a clear threat to its neighbors, most especially Israel.

Kinda like saying you don't need a gun. You have the right to one, and they have the right to develop cleaner energy sources. They're swimming in crude but refinining it is a different story. Frankly I think everyone should start steering toward energy sources that don't fog up the air. I do agree that they should be discouraged from using that tech for nukes, but we've already established that. My question is whether the genie will get out of the bottle anyway.

 

[Camp David]

Actually BC and AG thought that AQ would be the biggest threat we faced going forward...

Bull in its purest form; but let's not bicker about it here!

... they have the right to develop cleaner energy sources...

Is environmental cleanliness what the Iranian Mullahs say they want, or to remove Israel from the face of the earth? You decide!

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Here's what I'm interested in: Why on earth would we consider it to be in our best interest to let Iran have nuclear weapons?

Here's the great leap of (ill)logic in this entire discussion: who is arguing that it is in our best interest to let Iran have nuclear weapons? I believe Helmetcase thinks we may act in Iran, and does not disagree with such action. He's just saying we need to be smart about how we do whatever it is we end up doing, and not just go in like a bunch of half-bright cowboys. Part of that is knowing who and what we are dealing with. If you make your tactical plans based on the gross misconception that the Persian Shiia are just like the Arab Sunni, you've already got one huge strike against you before you even lift a finger.

This is serious business and it cannot turn into a Rumsfeld-esque fustercluck or it will escalate into a devestating world war, one which we will lose.

 

[Helmetcase]

Bull in its purest form; but let's not bicker about it here!

I'm reminded of Condi before the committee, "I believe it was a report titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US'".

Is environmental cleanliness what the Iranian Mullahs say they want, or to remove Israel from the face of the earth? You decide!

Heh. I'm sure it's the latter, but the 3rd world countries that are emerging economic powerhouses are using fossil fuels, and it'll make our contribution to air pollution seem like a fart in the wind when that part of the world starts demanding the power usage we have hear. If we can get India, China, CIS, Iran, and the rest of the most populous countries in the world to use CLEAN, non-Chernobyl nuke plants, that's a good thing. Nukes are the answer...we just gotta make sure they use em for power plants and not making the Israelis glow in the dark. Not saying that we can really do that...but I'm not sure we can prevent them from getting nukes at all. We sure didn't prevent the Israelis, the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Indians, or the North Koreans either. Our record on that in the last 50 years is...spotty at best.

 

[Helmetcase]

This is serious business and it cannot turn into a Rumsfeld-esque fustercluck or it will escalate into a devestating world war, one which we will lose.

Thanks!

LB said it a lot eloquently than I did...but yeah, that's what I'm trying to get across.

Thanks for the brainboost.