Intelligence agencies debunk the media hysteria on Iran

SamHarris · 09-03-2012 10:23pm

Jaafa wrote: »

The mere rumors of war with Iran has dominated US media and election talk for months now. And your suggesting that an actual war with Iran would go almost unnoticed? Really?

Dominated? Really? I think your seeing what you want to see.

Dont confuse what YOU care about with what OTHER PEOPLE care about.

The economy is and will dominate the election. Poll after poll has confirmed this. Do you have any evidence at all for the idea that US support for Israel is a major hanging point for a majority of the US electorate?

At the best of times foreign policy is low on the US electorates minds. As it is basically everywhere. Poll after poll has confirmed this to. Barring a full scale invasion of Iran this will remain the case.

The idea that the entire affair is merely a ruse by some government to distract the plebs from the dreariness of their lives is entirelly based on opinion. It is not hard to imagine why a nuclear Iran raises real concerns in the American government. Some crazy CT with no evidence is not required to explain it.

And in the event of a full scale invasion the attritional, boring and routine news of occupation and rebuilding will quickly take it from the front pages. Major manouvers would be over in a matter of weeks.

The same BS was used throughout our media when OBL was killed. The fact the election was years away and any bump would be long gone was disregarded in peoples attempts to be "savy" towards US policy. Again, no CT was required to explain that either. It seems to be the "goto" theory when people want to look intelectually superior and above the nonsense that distracts the masses from REAL PROBLEMS. Its not a very impressive idea Im afraid...

Jaafa · 09-03-2012 10:52pm

Are you denying that rumors and speculation about war with Iran has routinely made headline news in the US? Of course not as much as the economy, but still would it not be up there?

And you say even a full scale invasion would be a backburner story in a matter of a few weeks? Despite the fact that Afghanistan still makes headlines 10 years on? Come on there are far better arguments this, really now.

Here's a little exercise for you, type Iran war into Google, set the time-frame for a month and see how many results you get. 328,000,000 is the answer, from just the last month. Now hold on before you start yelling, just look at the first 3 pages or so. How many of them are US sites? Still not convinced? Press on the news only section, you get 15,000 hits from the last month. Again a quick look and you can see the majority are US and UK sites.

To claim that war with iran has not been a major topic in US media in the last few months is completely out of touch with reality. To claim that a full scale invasion of Iran would be a mere footnote in a few weeks is borderline insanity.

cyberhog · 10-03-2012 4:43am

Jaafa wrote: »

To claim that a full scale invasion of Iran would be a mere footnote in a few weeks is borderline insanity.

That is indeed a ludicrous claim. If the West invaded Iran all hell would break loose.

“Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,”

http://rt.com/politics/syria-iran-nato-rogozin-749/

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 3:01pm

Jaafa wrote: »

Are you denying that rumors and speculation about war with Iran has routinely made headline news in the US? Of course not as much as the economy, but still would it not be up there?

And you say even a full scale invasion would be a backburner story in a matter of a few weeks? Despite the fact that Afghanistan still makes headlines 10 years on? Come on there are far better arguments this, really now.

Here's a little exercise for you, type Iran war into Google, set the time-frame for a month and see how many results you get. 328,000,000 is the answer, from just the last month. Now hold on before you start yelling, just look at the first 3 pages or so. How many of them are US sites? Still not convinced? Press on the news only section, you get 15,000 hits from the last month. Again a quick look and you can see the majority are US and UK sites.

To claim that war with iran has not been a major topic in US media in the last few months is completely out of touch with reality. To claim that a full scale invasion of Iran would be a mere footnote in a few weeks is borderline insanity.

No I said BARRING A FULL SCALE INVASION IT WOULD NOT BE A MAJOR ISSUE IN THE ELECTION. US support for Israel is NOT a make or break issue for the vast majority of voters, again merely pointing out this has no basis in real evidence. I also took issue with this idea that the entire episode is some sort of ruse to distract people from their real problems. Again, patent bullsh*t given the power of nuclear weapons and the history of Iran and the US. It does not take much imagination to think of real reasons why it would be an issue for a US or Israeli administration.

Really I dont know how to make it much clearer than that. But if you want to debunk points no one made, sure knock yourself out.

And yes, the idea that Russia would do anything directly to help Iran in the event of a conflict is also completly false. Indirectly perhaps, but Russian leaders are under no illusion as to their relative power to the US under any measurable terms.

Jaafa · 10-03-2012 4:04pm

SamHarris wrote: »

No I said BARRING A FULL SCALE INVASION IT WOULD NOT BE A MAJOR ISSUE IN THE ELECTION. US support for Israel is NOT a make or break issue for the vast majority of voters, again merely pointing out this has no basis in real evidence. I also took issue with this idea that the entire episode is some sort of ruse to distract people from their real problems. Again, patent bullsh*t given the power of nuclear weapons and the history of Iran and the US. It does not take much imagination to think of real reasons why it would be an issue for a US or Israeli administration.

Really I dont know how to make it much clearer than that. But if you want to debunk points no one made, sure knock yourself out.

And yes, the idea that Russia would do anything directly to help Iran in the event of a conflict is also completly false. Indirectly perhaps, but Russian leaders are under no illusion as to their relative power to the US under any measurable terms.

Your memory fails you

And in the event of a full scale invasion the attritional, boring and routine news of occupation and rebuilding will quickly take it from the front pages. Major manouvers would be over in a matter of weeks.

Mr.Micro · 10-03-2012 4:22pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Seems to me like the "Iran isnt up to anything" crowd merely seeks to misrepresnt every argument against unrestrained proliferation as a call to attack Iran on the morrow.

The very idea that it should go completly unmonitered and unpunished is stupid in the extreme and should be disregarded immediatly, for very very obvious reasons.

Yet we have Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan in exactly that position.... completely unmonitored and totally unrestricted to proliferate their nuclear programmes one would presume? Bizarre or what. I suppose these four are less dangerous than Iran? Why is there no pressure for these states to me made accountable for the stability of the world?

RichieC · 10-03-2012 4:55pm

The US has averaged a war every year and three months over its entire history.

183 campaign ribbons on a 236 year old countries flag....

We fear Iran?

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 5:48pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yet we have Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan in exactly that position.... completely unmonitored and totally unrestricted to proliferate their nuclear programmes one would presume? Bizarre or what. I suppose these four are less dangerous than Iran? Why is there no pressure for these states to me made accountable for the stability of the world?

N Korea is under enormous sanctions.

So your argument is that because, say the US, does not push for sanctions equally on every nation that breaks the rules in this fashion their concerns regarding Iran bear no weight?

The reason is obvious - the same reason ISrael is censored more by the UN than, say, Sudan - it is not EASY to implement enormous sanctions on various nations and it therefore requires another nation that cares enough to mobilise support for such an action.

Hardly an excellent reason for a state to not call upon the law to be applied when a direct threat is perceived.

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 5:48pm

RichieC wrote: »

The US has averaged a war every year and three months over its entire history.

183 campaign ribbons on a 236 year old countries flag....

We fear Iran?

Yes yes, they are coming to get us next. Better go hide.

RichieC · 10-03-2012 5:56pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes yes, they are coming to get us next. Better go hide.

As long as they are only killing brown people and "the others" that's okay with you Sam. good to know.

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 5:56pm

Jaafa wrote: »

Your memory fails you

Your comprehension fails you - it will not remain a front page story for any enormous length of time. It will also not be a major election issue barring a full scale invasion. If an invasion DOES occur it will not remain front page news any longer than Iraq did.

My argument was that a war of that nature is not going to distract people from their real problems for a great length of time, as the poster claimed (and as is repeatedly stated here as though it is some clever insight into foreign policy). Very quickly the news cycle will move on. It always does. BUT come the election it will return as an issue.

Those two ideas are far from contradictory.

Mr.Micro · 10-03-2012 5:59pm

SamHarris wrote: »

N Korea is under enormous sanctions.

So your argument is that because, say the US, does not push for sanctions equally on every nation that breaks the rules in this fashion their concerns regarding Iran bear no weight?

The reason is obvious - the same reason ISrael is censored more by the UN than, say, Sudan - it is not EASY to implement enormous sanctions on various nations and it therefore requires another nation that cares enough to mobilise support for such an action.

Hardly an excellent reason for a state to not call upon the law to be applied when a direct threat is perceived.

The 4 nations I mentioned are a danger to world security with their nukes, there is no getting away from it. Its absolutely hypocritical to be constantly going after Iran, when eg. Israel does not appear to be fettered by any international laws, or even recognizes them. These 4 nations need to be pressured to sign up to the NPT with as much pressure as the West exerts
on Iran, or would not be too unpalatable?

RichieC · 10-03-2012 6:04pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The 4 nations I mentioned are a danger to world security with their nukes, there is no getting away from it. Its absolutely hypocritical to be constantly going after Iran, when eg. Israel does not appear to be fettered by any international laws, or even recognizes them. These 4 nations need to be pressured to sign up to the NPT with as much pressure as the West exerts
on Iran, or would not be too unpalatable?

Table 2. Countries with systematic violations of the International Law on Human Rights according to the 2010 HRI

Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Chad
China
Congo, DR
Egypt
Ethiopia
Equatorial Guinea
India
Iran
Israel
Kenya
Mexico
Morocco
Nigeria
Pakistan
Russia, Federation of
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Tunisia
Uzbekistan
Zimbabwe

http://escolapau.uab.cat/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=97&lang=en

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 6:05pm

RichieC wrote: »

As long as they are only killing brown people and "the others" that's okay with you Sam. good to know.

Wow, another blistering insight. You must be pretty proud of yourself to be able to see past what is said to the DEEPER MEANING of both policy and internet posts.

If you want to discuss how US foreign policy is now designed to attack the "brown people" knock yourself out and make a thread on the CT forum.

Im just sure the "brown people" are delighted your here to champion them. I just cant believe whitey still thinks its ok to do this!

Honestly why do you even bother commenting?

RichieC · 10-03-2012 6:08pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Wow, another blistering insight. You must be pretty proud of yourself to be able to see past what is said to the DEEPER MEANING of both policy and internet posts.

If you want to discuss how US foreign policy is now designed to attack the "brown people" knock yourself out and make a thread on the CT forum.

Im just sure the "brown people" are delighted your here to champion them. I just cant believe whitey still thinks its ok to do this!

Honestly why do you even bother commenting?

You excuse their never ending war by saying "well they are hardly going to attack us" - I'm sorry, Sam, is there any other way to read into that comment?

Jaafa · 10-03-2012 6:11pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Your comprehension fails you - it will not remain a front page story for any enormous length of time. It will also not be a major election issue barring a full scale invasion. If an invasion DOES occur it will not remain front page news any longer than Iraq did.

My argument was that a war of that nature is not going to distract people from their real problems for a great length of time, as the poster claimed (and as is repeatedly stated here as though it is some clever insight into foreign policy). Very quickly the news cycle will move on. It always does. BUT come the election it will return as an issue.

Those two ideas are far from contradictory.

Iraq (until last year) and Afghanistan have been the two biggest foreign policy talk points of every single major election in the US since they started, you admit this, so is it not conceivable that this allows politicians to spend a significant amount of time talking about these wars instead of the more pressing internal issues? And it also allows them to relate the wars to domestic issues. i.e saying we can't make spending cuts in the military because of the war on terror,Iraq and Afghanistan.

They still regularly make the headlines to this day outside of elections. Do you deny this? Even if the total combined talk of the two wars today only took up 10% of air time, would that not constitute a significant distraction to the public?

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 6:14pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The 4 nations I mentioned are a danger to world security with their nukes, there is no getting away from it. Its absolutely hypocritical to be constantly going after Iran, when eg. Israel does not appear to be fettered by any international laws, or even recognizes them. These 4 nations need to be pressured to sign up to the NPT with as much pressure as the West exerts
on Iran, or would not be too unpalatable?

Without a doubt they are and yes, it would be a fairer and perhaps more effective system if the sanctions etc were automatic and not designed with a "champion" in mind but it isnt, and the fact that the US does not protect, say, Myanmars rights to the same extent as its own is no barrier to pushing an issue. It isnt for anyone. Ireland does not champion S Korea's rights or wrongs as a nation either, but it still can protect its own interests. And that, ultimatly, is what international relations are all about.

Hypocrytical of whom? Why must the West or the US not look after its own interests on the international stage? Given how rife hypocrisy is at every level of government and in pretty much every international action it is a pretty weak shield for Iran to hold up against what, ultimatly, is the fear of nuclear holocaust.

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 6:22pm

Jaafa wrote: »

Iraq (until last year) and Afghanistan have been the two biggest foreign policy talk points of every single major election in the US since they started, you admit this, so is it not conceivable that this allows politicians to spend a significant amount of time talking about these wars instead of the more pressing internal issues? And it also allows them to relate the wars to domestic issues. i.e saying we can't make spending cuts in the military because of the war on terror,Iraq and Afghanistan.

They still regularly make the headlines to this day outside of elections. Do you deny this? Even if the total combined talk of the two wars today only took up 10% of air time, would that not constitute a significant distraction to the public?

Certainly, but again foreign policy is far down on the list of things people care about to begin with.

Distracting to the point where I believe it is the main reason for a war and, say, not legitimate fear of a theocratic state that describes the US as "The Great Satan" having the ability to build nuclear weapons at will? No, far from it.

We are not living in 1984 where no one notices people getting taken to camps because of the media blackout/ an all consuming war. IF it came to an invasion it would be a major issue, correct, I have stated that explicitly but it would not mean people are unaware of their own circumstances.

Your point that there is internal preasures for a war, such as a budget, is true but is a seperate point. Although they ARE making massive spending cuts in the military.

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 6:23pm

RichieC wrote: »

You excuse their never ending war by saying "well they are hardly going to attack us" - I'm sorry, Sam, is there any other way to read into that comment?

Yes thats exactly what I said. You really are too clever.

Mr.Micro · 10-03-2012 6:37pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Hypocrytical of whom? Why must the West or the US not look after its own interests on the international stage? Given how rife hypocrisy is at every level of government and in pretty much every international action it is a pretty weak shield for Iran to hold up against what, ultimatly, is the fear of nuclear holocaust.

That is just it. Its not only Iran that induces the fear of a nuclear holocaust, but the other 4 as well.

It is one thing a nation looking after its own interests, its another when it could be argued that it should not be there in the first place. Its difficult to be a mediator or facilitator, as in the case of the US, if it then does what its in its own best interests.

RichieC · 10-03-2012 6:40pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes thats exactly what I said. You really are too clever.

Yes yes, they are coming to get us next. Better go hide.

Indeed. Perhaps you can drop the sarcastic and arrogant tone and explain what is meant by this, since I'm obviously not getting it.

later12 · 10-03-2012 6:55pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes yes, they are coming to get us next. Better go hide.

Part of the problem with your dismissal of this statistic is that you are apparently quite content to set the world up into them and us are you not?

Otherwise what do you mean by them and us in the above sentence?

Not everybody is quite so content to do so.

US foreign policy has a far more extensive history of intervention than Iranian foreign policy. That is a fact. I don't consider American lives one iota more valuable than those of Iranians or Iraqis or Afghans, and if anything, I consider the former more dangerous.

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 7:56pm

RichieC wrote: »

Indeed. Perhaps you can drop the sarcastic and arrogant tone and explain what is meant by this, since I'm obviously not getting it.

Your right Im being excessivly facetious, sorry.

Its just I know your not really interested in discussing US foreign policy, your looking for an effigy to burn, your dislike of the place even stretches to its citizens for whatever reason (and judging by previous posts which I may be wrong on).

My position on America's wars is that I dont think looking at the history of a country (especially one as long as the states) and saying it is more "dangerous" than another nation based purely on this statistic has any validity. It has much much more to do with geography, economics but most of all (and this is the catch for the last 20 years) ABILITY than on any "danger" that its about to strike out at everyone for no reason. It tells you very little about the "danger" of a state in a general sense, you could no doubt name 200 countries vastly more "dangerous" to its citizens than the US is to them or its own.

Iran, N Korea and states like them are incredibly dangerous to those within their regimes power, it is merely because their power is so limited on the international stage that its "war count" is low, not because the regimes are dedicated to peace at all costs. You only have to look at the rhetoric in various countries for the proof of this.

Sure I disagree with the war on Iraq, does that mean I think that if the Ayatollah had the US military at its dissposal the world would be a peaceful place, because Iran has started a war in decades? Of course not. Thats a childs position.

If one were to use other measures of how "good" / "dangerous" a country/body is - say for example how much suffering is caused by its policies, there would be far more pressing matters. The EUs position on GM foods leading to malnutrition in 10's of millions unnecessarily based on nothing more than uninformed public opinion being one very obvious one. The Catholic churches postition on contraception has almost without doubt killed far far more people than US wars in the last few decades.

The meassure of "wars its been in" is entirelly too open and weak by any real standards. I can think of some "good" wars. I could also think of some scenarios where a war/invasion would no doubt saved many lives. Anyone could.

One thing that makes a nation more "dangerous", without a shadow, is an extremly strong martyr culture. You wont have to look further than Iran for one of those.

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 8:08pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

That is just it. Its not only Iran that induces the fear of a nuclear holocaust, but the other 4 as well.

It is one thing a nation looking after its own interests, its another when it could be argued that it should not be there in the first place. Its difficult to be a mediator or facilitator, as in the case of the US, if it then does what its in its own best interests.

Yes but in the case of individual countries, to a different degree.

What do you mean "should not be there"?

I dont think you could argue that the US should be a mediator or facilitator at the expense of being able to defend its own national interests. Especially when it is so clearly threatened, Iran's rhetoric does little to allay any american fears, all indications they seem to give is how they "would if they could" to both the US and Israel. The fact they are too weak to act upon their wishes, as is the case in the Arab world (according to polls) does not impress me as much as it seems to other people here.

Mr.Micro · 10-03-2012 8:53pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes but in the case of individual countries, to a different degree.

I consider all 4 states to be volatile to very volatile.

SamHarris wrote: »

I dont think you could argue that the US should be a mediator or facilitator at the expense of being able to defend its own national interests. Especially when it is so clearly threatened, Iran's rhetoric does little to allay any american fears, all indications they seem to give is how they "would if they could" to both the US and Israel. The fact they are too weak to act upon their wishes, as is the case in the Arab world (according to polls) does not impress me as much as it seems to other people here.

The US has set itself up as the world's policeman...then it wants to be seen as benign, as democracy loving, but not the same brand as it has at home for its own citizens. Its very hard to convince Iran that a peaceful end can be achieved when it was branded as part of the axis of evil by Bush. Not sure that that tag has been lifted.

Rhetoric comes from all sides and the US has too much baggage and vested self interest here to try to get a deal that will satisfy all parties. Whether people like it or not, Iran has to consider its defence, so long as it feels threatened, by the US, then of course it will/may pursue options that are unacceptable to other nuclear weapon owning nations, where such large quantities of nukes are safe in their volatile hands, but not in volatile Iranian hands.

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 10:10pm

later12 wrote: »

Part of the problem with your dismissal of this statistic is that you are apparently quite content to set the world up into them and us are you not?

Otherwise what do you mean by them and us in the above sentence?

Not everybody is quite so content to do so.

US foreign policy has a far more extensive history of intervention than Iranian foreign policy. That is a fact. I don't consider American lives one iota more valuable than those of Iranians or Iraqis or Afghans, and if anything, I consider the former more dangerous.

I only dismiss the statistic because it means nothing without context. It means everything to you because it suits your political grievances to do so. Nothing more.

Your extrapolation of that to mean that I place different values on different nationalities lives is exactly the type of hysterical BS that makes me not bother debating posts like this.

There are several reasons why restrictions on Iran might be wrong / unfair, Mr Micro makes some of them. "AMERICA IS THER REAL BAD GUYS DONT YOU SEE!?""!" Happens not to be obe of them.

It only holds water with those that already agree whole heartedly with you. Those that stick their flag into this particular hill tend to be the type, and this is depressingly common, that define every position they take by placing themselves firmly against whatever the US say they stand for. I couldnt be bothered to debate with people like that - they are exactly as fanatical as a bible basher or a far right nut job by any standard.

later12 · 10-03-2012 10:28pm

Not at all, you're elaborating on a point which is completely irrelevant as far as I can see. What I asked was why you used the terms they and us?

Do you not see that use of those pronouns to distinguish between American interveners and those who found themselves intervened upon, and dismissal of the latter group as people who are not 'of us' seems quite a leap?

What is 'us' supposed to mean?

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 10:29pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I consider all 4 states to be volatile to very volatile.

Perhaps, and I may even agree with you (certainly in the case of Pakistan and N Korea, and I believe the nuclearisation of Israel is entirelly unhelpful and potentially catastrophic) however that does not mean politicians do, nor does it mean that when a nation comes to act on the international stage it can throw itself around, seeking to sanction everyone hwo has broken the rules merely to lend legitimacy to their application elsewhere.

You must then believe every nation has forfited its right to object to nuclear proliferation, given that none have pushed these countries to any real degree?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The US has set itself up as the world's policeman...then it wants to be seen as benign, as democracy loving, but not the same brand as it has at home for its own citizens. Its very hard to convince Iran that a peaceful end can be achieved when it was branded as part of the axis of evil by Bush. Not sure that that tag has been lifted.

Perhaps in popular culture, but if one listens to debates amoungst its politicians they are never shy to ask "what is US interest here?" nor should they be. That people hold the US to a standard that no other country is held to is again not a reason that they cant legitimatly oppose the aquiring of a nuclear weapon by a state that is near constantly declaring it it's enemy. If Iran is unwilling to allow nuclear inspectors to confirm the claims they make purely because Bush put them in a list that amounts to little more than a rhetorical device then their unreasonablness should be clear to everyone.

The fact remains, and this is constantly ignored by those that claim Iran is not seeking weapons / its all a Zionist ruse for a war to distract people from the fact they dont have a job is that Iran can easily tomorrow remove all legitimacy from these sanctions by allowing the IAEA full access.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Rhetoric comes from all sides and the US has too much baggage and vested self interest here to try to get a deal that will satisfy all parties. Whether people like it or not, Iran has to consider its defence, so long as it feels threatened, by the US, then of course it will/may pursue options that are unacceptable to other nuclear weapon owning nations, where such large quantities of nukes are safe in their volatile hands, but not in volatile Iranian hands.

So you are opposed to nuclear non proliferation?

Well if you wish to disregard international law and merely argue that "everyone has a right to defend themselves with the actions they feel necessary" then what if Israel feels that to defend themselves a pre emptive strike is called for? Or a nuclear strike of their own? Who becomes the ultimate arbiter - the people of Ireland? Hardly. Either you argue rules should be followed or you dont, to argue that Iran can do what it wishes when it feels threatened you must then accept that others can do what they feel is necessary. Hardly an argument anyone wants to see played out for real.

SamHarris · 10-03-2012 10:40pm

later12 wrote: »

Not at all, you're elaborating on a point which is completely irrelevant as far as I can see. What I asked was why you used the terms they and us?

Do you not see that use of those pronouns to distinguish between American interveners and those who found themselves intervened upon, and dismissal of the latter group as people who are not 'of us' seems quite a leap?

What is 'us' supposed to mean?

"They" was refering to the States. It was very obvious from the post that I quoted IN the original post. "Us" because most of "us" are in Ireland. Really very simple.

Im afraid your trying to read into this a dehumanisation of "the brown people" - much like Richie, unfortunatly if you actually read my comment you will see it was a flipint dismissal of a post that had little merrit when one actually applied any thought to the matter. Much like this analysis of the use of pronouns actually.

So you would use the statement "we are being invaded!" if Iran were to be invaded by the US? Thats quiet a show of solidarity, Im afraid for those of us that dont spend our evenings in a drum circle it would merely be confusing.

later12 · 11-03-2012 2:06am

SamHarris wrote: »

"Us" because most of "us" are in Ireland

Precisely. And in your dismissal of RichieC's statistic, you were attempting to set "us" apart from those who have found themselves the subject of American intervention.

There is in implication there that the Irish ought be less concerned about American military or foreign policy intervention because it does not adversely concern Ireland (nor any band of nations with which you feel we might identify).

If one feels that each US military operation is a justified, creditable operation, then one may easily excuse such an extensive history of intervention the basis of repeatedly extraordinary circumstances.

If, on the other hand, one feels that the statistics (war every 1.3 years) are not in the USA's favour, and that such extensive history of unavoidable military operations is statistically improbable, then the notion that 'we' ought not be concerned becomes troublesome.

The only reason I imagine anyone might employ such an argument is because he or she feels that 'we' are lucky enough to be out of the firing line. I'm not sure that's an argument most people would be comfortable with.

Intelligence agencies debunk the media hysteria on Iran

Comments