Intelligence agencies debunk the media hysteria on Iran

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.

WakeUp · 11-03-2012 3:42am

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.

Hi Sam, I have been reading over your replies to other poster's some of what you are saying make sense and in some instances I would agree with some of it. Apologies for cherry picking certain replies from certain posts you have made which is what Im doing:)

Every nation on Earth has the right to look after their own interests I dont think you will find many people who will argue against it. From my own point of view its the method by which this is achieved that counts - countries do not have the right to lie, cheat, steal, kill and maim to achieve or look after their own interests they have no right to do that as was the case in Iraq which I seen you have already pointed out you were against Im not leveling that at you just using it as an example. Fear of a nuclear holocaust is back to the realm of pre-empting something that hasnt happened this is not a legitamate reason to attack another country and potentially trigger a much wider conflict that could affect all of us not just the nations directly involved.

That is attributing guilt before the alleged crime has even been committed which is ludicrous in the extreme and quite frankly nonsense. Perhaps there is a case for sanctions against Iran but as history has shown us what follows after the sanctions is war and that is the path we are threading. With regard to the sanctions it is the ordinary person on the street who suffer the most, 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration and as history has proven they were wrong about the WMD in Iraq. Israel is a nation with a vast a nuclear arsenal should their enemies not be fearing a nuclear holocaust??? considering they have plenty of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them in a first and second strike capacity?...

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.

Im not to sure if you are referring to a long or short history with regard to the States. For a country with such a short history of existance they sure as hell have been involved in a lot of wars and will continue to do so as a result of their sole super-power status. Perhaps "dangerous" is the wrong phrase that is used. Statistically the US are the "most likely nation to either start a war or be involved in a war" the figures dont lie. Saying the have no "validity" - replacing the phrase "dangerous" with "most likely nation to either start a war or be involved in a war" is disingenuous.

Claiming US war efforts or justifying them because of geography, economics and ability is just plain wrong - I think the words you are looking for are - regional hegomy ( wherever that might be), greed and an appetite for destruction. Saying that 200 more countries may be vastly more dangerous to its own citizens than the US may well be true but a couple of points if I may - there arent 200 countries in the world if we go by UN estimates although I accept the angle you are getting at Im just pointing that out. Certain countries may well be more dangerous domestically but unlike the US with their vast military might and interventionist doctrine they are no where near as dangerous to the wider world at large as the US is they just arent. And therein is the issue.

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

When a country like for example the US is prepared to send its men and women into illegal unfounded wars and kill the idigenous population is that not a form of de-facto martyrsm? Sending people to their graves intentionally as a result of lies and greed??

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.

Nations have to defend their national Interests all the time why is it that US when feeling threatened resort to the bomb? Plenty of nations around the world resort to politics and dialogue to resolve issues - the US sanction and bomb nations when they want something or "perceive" a threat. Im just wondering what you mean by "would if the could"??.. If by that you mean the Iranians would use a nuclear weapon against either of those nations I fail to see how you can say this with such certainty when a) they dont have the bomb b) by all accounts have no intention of building a bomb and c) no human being I know of has yet to develop an ability to peer into the future. Iran is many things but to claim they are weak is a misconception. Study the Iran - Iraq war when the Iraqis were backed by the West they maybe many things but the Iranians are not weak. They have a vast array of ballistic missiles and if they wanted to could reek havoc on Israel and US interests in the middle east without a nuclear bomb. Yet they havent.

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.

We dont know that Iran is attempting to make a bomb we dont know this yet people keep claiming it. They hold up Iranian rhetoric as an indication of upcmoing doom. Yet when Iran is labeled in the axis of evil and demonised you yourself claim it is nothing more than a "rhetorical device"? So when Iran speaks out its to be taken literally when the West threatens its a "rhetorical device". Im not sure the Iranians would perceive this as such.

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.

Leaving nuclear prolifieration aside which in my opinion no sane person should agree with Im sure you feel the same, Israel has no right to quote international law when they refuse to recognise it and adhere to it how can they possibly expect to be taken seriously. They refuse to disclose their own nuclear weapons yet trumpet Law and IAEA reports of said weapons and expect the wider world to agree with them. If they want to have the law on their side disclose their own weapons its quite simple. As a non-signatory with a nuclear arsenal they have no recourse to the law making any preemptive strike on the basis of self defence illegal.

Baring a UN resolution which will never happen Israel have two methods by which an attack against Iran would be legal.

1) If Israel suffers an armed attack at the hands of the Iranian government
2) under the anticipatory self defense doctrine

1 isnt going to happen which leaves 2.To invoke anticipatory self defense, Israel must show that the use of force by Iran is so imminent that only force would thwart such an attack its called imminent necessity. Israel has pointed to Iran's nuclear program and anti-Israeli rhetoric, this is insufficient to establish imminent necessity. If this were the legal standard, Iran would be perfectly justified in attacking Israel due to Israel's nuclear capabilities (which are not merely suspected) and aggressive anti-Iranian rhetoric. The fact that Israel does not like Iran or that it views it as a rogue state or even suspects it is up to something is not sufficient to justify Israeli military action against Iran unless directly attacked. This is international law and its why an unprovoked Israeli attack will be illegal they have no right to pre-emptively attack on their "suspicions" which is where we are as things stand.

SamHarris · 11-03-2012 4:10am

later12 wrote: »

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.

We are apart from them. Or did I miss something?

Are you implying the pronoun "us" should be used to describe everybody else in the world other than US citizens when talking about American foreign policy?

Very inspiring and a great show of solidarity, Im sure, but needlesly confusing given the context of the forums.

later12 wrote: »

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).

I hardly think its a revelation that Irish people would or should be more "concerned" if the US were to directly threaten Ireland. The idea that they would not be is ludicrous. Im not entirelly sure what your point is, or if you even have one.

This may come as a shock to you, but in 2003 the Irish government did not react as if the US had declared war on our republic. Nor did it leap to the aid of the Iraqi people. For all intents and purposes we acted like American intervention in Iraq did not adversly concern Ireland, and therefore we were less concerned than were we ourselves in the firing line.

It was extraordinary.

later12 wrote: »

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.

Yes foreign policy,internal politics, economics geography, relative power and circumstances can explain much more about the "danger" a nation poses to "us" than Richie's zero sum, simplistic statement about the amount of wars fought in the last 250 years.

You disagree? Not a fan of complexity then.

later12 wrote: »

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.

Perhaps you should stick to basic comprehension of what is explicitly said, rather than infering so very much from so very little. I explained the flipancy more thoroughly to Richie in another post.

I really should have ignored this entire thing after the third paragraph analysing my particular choice of pronoun...

SamHarris · 11-03-2012 4:38am

WakeUp wrote: »

Every nation on Earth has the right to look after their own interests I dont think you will find many people who will argue against it. From my own point of view its the method by which this is achieved that counts - countries do not have the right to lie, cheat, steal, kill and maim to achieve or look after their own interests they have no right to do that as was the case in Iraq which I seen you have already pointed out you were against Im not leveling that at you just using it as an example. Fear of a nuclear holocaust is back to the realm of pre-empting something that hasnt happened this is not a legitamate reason to attack another country and potentially trigger a much wider conflict that could affect all of us not just the nations directly involved.

In that particular instance I was not implying it was legitimate cause for an attack, rather that it was legitimate cause for the ongoing preasure through sanctions. Its my personal opinion that an attack would merely ensure Iran seeks a bomb, and lend the regime more legitimacy in the eyes of the world and (more importantly) its own people.

Apologies if I was unclear.

WakeUp wrote: »

That is attributing guilt before the alleged crime has even been committed which is ludicrous in the extreme and quite frankly nonsense. Perhaps there is a case for sanctions against Iran but as history has shown us what follows after the sanctions is war and that is the path we are threading. With regard to the sanctions it is the ordinary person on the street who suffer the most, 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration and as history has proven they were wrong about the WMD in Iraq. Israel is a nation with a vast a nuclear arsenal should their enemies not be fearing a nuclear holocaust??? considering they have plenty of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them in a first and second strike capacity?...

Just to clarify that Saddam DID have WMDs up untill (I think) 1997- 1999 or there abouts. The sanctions were in place because he did not allow monitors complete access - he later confessed that he feared attack from surrounding countries should the detterent of the WMDs be revealed as completly destroyed.

The argument that only the little people suffer is very valid, but then the question is raised as to "what can/should be done" when a state (or its leadership) is acting in a fashion that threatens both its own citizens and the international system as a whole.

If a powerful state (particularly the US) chooses to ignore the issue and merely trade as if it is a normal state amoungst others (even with arms embargoes) the massive wealth created quickly becomes another support to the dictatorship in place. The mere act of doing nothing supports the status quo.

Even the act of supporting those against the opposition can often have enormous negative consequences for citizens in the unfortunate country.

Merely pointing out it is much easier to point out the flaws in a particular policy towards a "rogue" state than to think of one that is effective and targeted.

WakeUp wrote: »

Claiming US war efforts or justifying them because of geography, economics and ability is just plain wrong - I think the words you are looking for are - regional hegomy ( wherever that might be), greed and an appetite for destruction. Saying that 200 more countries may be vastly more dangerous to its own citizens than the US may well be true but a couple of points if I may - there arent 200 countries in the world if we go by UN estimates although I accept the angle you are getting at Im just pointing that out. Certain countries may well be more dangerous domestically but unlike the US with their vast military might and interventionist doctrine they are no where near as dangerous to the wider world at large as the US is they just arent. And therein is the issue.

I honestly tought up untill right there that there was something like 250 countries on earth

I didnt even think about how massive that number is untill there. My bad.

My argument is merely that, historicaly speaking, a nations aggressivness tends to corelate much more to its power compared to those around them than it does to any inclination by its politics and people towards peace. I was merely taking issue with this insinuation throughout the thread that the Iranian regime is peace loving, as shown by its record towards war, whilst America is tyranical and war loving, again show by its own record. In my mind what it best illustrates is Americas relative dominance and Irans relative insecurity, surrounded by enemy states as it is.

Thats, obviously, opinion but it bears itself out in most historical cases that I can think of.

Ill address the rest later, thanks for the reply. Must snooze.

later12 · 11-03-2012 11:58am

SamHarris wrote: »

We are apart from them. Or did I miss something?

The entire point.

RichieC gave a statistic of a US war once every one year and three months throughout history. You then answered in a way that, as you admit above, sets 'us' apart from those in the firing line.

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?

SamHarris wrote: »

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

I assume when RichieC said "we fear Iran?" he meant we as human observers with a human stake in global conflicts.

However, your response seems to denote some sort of stupefaction at this sort of human concern, apparently not recognizing why an Irish person would say such a thing if not directly adversely affected him or herself. Presumably you see Ireland on a different tier in light of your reply, whose sarcasm implies we have nothing to worry about.

SamHarris · 11-03-2012 2:51pm

later12 wrote: »

The entire point.

RichieC gave a statistic of a US war once every one year and three months throughout history. You then answered in a way that, as you admit above, sets 'us' apart from those in the firing line.

I assume when RichieC said "we fear Iran?" he meant we as human observers with a human stake in global conflicts.

However, your response seems to denote some sort of stupefaction at this sort of human concern, apparently not recognizing why an Irish person would say such a thing if not directly adversely affected him or herself. Presumably you see Ireland on a different tier in light of your reply, whose sarcasm implies we have nothing to worry about.

OR it was a recognition of them massive disstance between us and any danger made in a flippant dismissal of a point I later explained in greater detail.

But if you want to continue inferring please go ahead. Im interested in what you think it tells you about my relationship with my parents :rolleyes: ?

later12 · 11-03-2012 3:14pm

SamHarris wrote: »

OR it was a recognition of them massive disstance between us and any danger

Oh yeah, shure they live over there.

We don't have to worry about anything beyond McCarthy's field.

That's exactly the sort of inward looking mentality I think is enormously unhelpful.

Intelligence agencies debunk the media hysteria on Iran

Comments