Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Isreal and American forces ready to attack Iran within days

1…6791112…21

Comments

  • #242
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You asked me to prove that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, did you not? That is asking me to prove a negative, is it not? That is a logical fallacy is it not?

    Sigh.

    Clearly it is finger puppet time.

    No it's not a logical fallacy. And its not demanding you prove a negative. You said "Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons" I asked you to provide the evidence to support this statement.

    If you had said something like "No one has shown Iran has a nuclear weapons program", or "There's no conclusive evidence of Iran's nuclear program" and if I said "Well prove that they don't have a nuclear program". Then yup, I'm asking you to prove a negative, ding ding ding, and this weird detour down pedantry way would be over.

    But thats not what happened here. You said
    Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons
    . You've set yourself up here, the next question which I asked how do you know that for sure.

    You'd have been better off saying "show me evidence Iran has nuclear weapons" (Well in fact we'd all have been better off if you hadn't decide to get your knickers in a twist over this and try and engage in some cheap point scoring for the sake if it, but hey we're here now, so lets make the best of it)

    You've made the bold declaration that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, end of discussion, unequivocal statement of fact, no ambiguity, no doubt, no wriggle room, it's not open for debate. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, sure as day follows night, water is wet, and every odd numbered Star Movie is crap etc....

    All I've asked you is to explain how you are confident to chisel in stone, as statement of fact that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. Period.

    See people who actually know what Logical Fallacies actually are avoid such unequivocal statements because of this.



    PS BB if the above isn't enough to let you know that you should probably drop this, I should point out that I have kindly declined not to bother asking you about the second have of your sentence
    Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't a viable threat to anyone

    Because theres a whole box of fun to had in finding out what your definition of viable threat is.


  • #243
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Di0genes wrote: »

    Could you perhaps let me, and the IAEA know your source to state unequivocally that Iran doesnt have a weapons program.

    Thanks.

    What is your position on the issue, do you believe Iran has a weapons program with the end game being them building nuclear weapons? If the answer to this question is yes perhaps you could let us all know your source.


  • #244
    Andrew33
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    All world politics can be brought back down to kindergarden schoolyard level,
    The US has said that "nobody else" will have nuclear unless they say so,
    America(Nth) is the bully in the yard. The funny thing is, they provided the expertise in a lot of the so called "renegade" countries and now they're itching to start war in these countries cos it suits their defence industry! Its a f**kin joke. Sell a country arms and then invade that country for having said arms. This is what we are being sold as a free democratic world.


  • #245
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    WakeUp wrote: »
    What is your position on the issue, do you believe Iran has a weapons program with the end game being them building nuclear weapons? If the answer to this question is yes perhaps you could let us all know your source.

    I don't know is the answer. It's possible. Iran's rhetoric on nuclear weapons is, well I wouldn't say whimsical it's certainly contrary. While Iran has signed non proliferation treaties, several senior clerics are talked about the necessity of using nuclear weapons and acceptable under Islam law. The IAEA don't know. Iran has rejected an EU offer to provide them with enriched Uranium, preferring to develop their own enrichment program.

    It's a complicated issue, and therefore coming out with unequivocal statements like "Iran has no Nuclear weapons" Polarises both sides, and doesn't help the debate.


  • #246
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Don't believe the hype. Vice President Joe "I am a Zionist!" Biden addressing his masters.

    Biden+chabad.jpg



    http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=9537&alias=vice-president-meets-chabad

    Wasn't claiming that Biden hasn't met Jewish groups in the past month or so. Indeed from the little bit in the link, it could be reassurance because of the poor relations at the moment.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Andrew33
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Thats a pretty dumb way to work out track records. Its like trying to work out who'll win the premiership based on one day of results.

    What the hell are you smoking?? not the same thing at all, USA are the ONLY nation in HISTORY to use nukes against another country. They used nukes against Japan AFTER the Japs had surrendered.


  • #248
    tallus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,324 ✭✭✭tallus


    Andrew33 wrote: »
    What the hell are you smoking?? not the same thing at all, USA are the ONLY nation in HISTORY to use nukes against another country. They used nukes against Japan AFTER the Japs had surrendered.

    Sorry for going off topic here, I'm quoting from wikipedia,(not the most reliable source I know) but it appears that the bombs were dropped before the surrender.
    On August 6 and 9 respectively, the Americans dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    The surrender ceremony was held on September 2 aboard the U.S. battleship Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, officially ending World War II.


  • #249
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    tallus wrote: »
    Sorry for going off topic here, I'm quoting from wikipedia,(not the most reliable source I know) but it appears that the bombs were dropped before the surrender.

    Of course they were dropped before Japan surrendered, why the hell would they drop them after. The nukes ended ww2 quicker than it would otherwise have ended, and saved countless allied soldiers lives.


  • #250
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    digme wrote: »
    Israeli government desperately needs the distraction from the flotilla massacre, and the US government desperately needs the distraction from the unfolding catastrophe playing out in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond.

    I read this today:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25928.htm


  • #251
    tallus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,324 ✭✭✭tallus


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Of course they were dropped before Japan surrendered, why the hell would they drop them after. The nukes ended ww2 quicker than it would otherwise have ended, and saved countless allied soldiers lives.

    :confused:

    Isn't that what I was referring to ?


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    tallus wrote: »
    :confused:

    Isn't that what I was referring to ?

    Sorry that was more directed at Andrew33


  • #253
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Diogenes banned for a week, on account of incessant disrespect to other posters


  • #254
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I don't know is the answer. It's possible.

    Fair enough.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Iran's rhetoric on nuclear weapons is, well I wouldn't say whimsical it's certainly contrary.

    Are you talking about the Iranian governments rhetoric in relation to Western nuclear weapons?.....
    Di0genes wrote: »
    While Iran has signed non proliferation treaties

    This should be highlighted. Israel is a non-signatory of the NPT. The US turns a blind eye to the fact that Israel is a non-signatory of the NPT.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    several senior clerics are talked about the necessity of using nuclear weapons and acceptable under Islam law.

    Are these clerics current members of the Iranian government? because personally I cant see their policy makers being so stupid as to make it so easy for the West to justify an attack by making statements like that. Do you have anything in print I could have a look at? Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi wrote a book in 2005 "The Islamic Revolution, a Surge in Political Changes in History," only a certain amount of copies where printed and it wasn’t circulated widely. The Associated Press got a copy of the book in June of this year and in it according to them he eludes to the fact that the West does not have the right to deny other countries what he calls “special weapons” as a deterrent to balance things up. He would be the most influential cleric I can think of to speak off them, assuming “special” means nuclear, although he says nothing about the “necessity of using” them. He is not a member of the government and is not involved in the policy decisions of Iran. He is considered a hardliner albeit a dangerous one but every country has them. The stance of extreme hardliners in Iranian politics and the military (IRGC in particular), with regard to nuclear deterrence, can be traced back to the Iran/Iraq war when Iran suffered greatly at the hands of Western supplied chemical & biological weapons, that is engrained in their minds something the hardliners will never forget or likely forgive.
    As far as I am aware nuclear weapons are outlawed in Islamic Law. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, has repeatedly denied that Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons because Islam forbids weapons of mass destruction.
    Khamenei has reportedly issued a fatwa, or religious decree, saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    The IAEA don't know.

    True, nobody knows for sure what the Iranian’s plan to do not just the IAEA although I obviously accept that they are in a better position than most to make assumptions. At the moment it is just conjecture on the part of the IAEA, US and Israel nothing more.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Iran has rejected an EU offer to provide them with enriched Uranium, preferring to develop their own enrichment program.

    Brazil and Turkey brokered a counter proposal in Tehran on May 17 under which Iran would send its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for research reactor fuel to be supplied later.
    But the world powers cold-shouldered that proposal and voted through a fourth set of sanctions instead, which had the effect of further tightening financial and military restrictions on Tehran and pissing them off even more. I don’t agree with nuclear weapons, nuclear research, nuclear anything. But they have every right to reject what they see fit to reject at the end of the day it’s their country and their resource.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    It's a complicated issue

    Agreed.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    and therefore coming out with unequivocal statements like "Iran has no Nuclear weapons" Polarises both sides, and doesn't help the debate.

    I would disagree with the above for a number of reasons. Everybody is in agreement at this present moment in time including the US, that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Are they going to build nuclear weapons in the future? Who knows for sure but I hope not, enough of the horrible things in the world already. Not only do they not have nuclear weapons at the moment, they don’t have the capability to deliver such a weapon even if they had it. That statement as of the present day would appear to be correct. I don’t think it polarises the debate on the contrary actually, it highlights the fact that Iran is being threatened and sanctioned on numerous assumptions, all of which as things currently stand, are yet to be verified and proven to be true, but as you said yourself it is a complicated issue and nobody is denying that. The world does not need another major war it needs to be avoided at all costs, this needs to be sorted out diplomatically the stakes are too high.

    Even if their end game is the construction of such a weapon does this still give the West the right to attack them? This is the fundamental question. Who are the US and Israel to decide who gets what and such. I don’t agree with Iranian law to be honest I think the majority of their policies are stuck in the stone age infact that’s probably unfair to the stoneage dudes they where all about survival, not upholding terrible laws (Iran) or fcking each other over for a percentage( The West) Again though it is their country, their way of life and their rules the West has no right to interfere or attempt to force western values(if they can be even called that) upon them. This includes dictating to them about their nuclear program.


  • #255
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    You still haven't answered my question, how come they haven't used them since then?

    That is like saying saying the convicted paedophile living down the road isn't a paedophile anymore because he hasn't fiddled with any kids in the last while.


  • #256
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You asked me to prove that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, did you not? That is asking me to prove a negative, is it not? That is a logical fallacy is it not?

    You can still give evidence without proving it unequivocally.


  • #257
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Of course they were dropped before Japan surrendered, why the hell would they drop them after. The nukes ended ww2 quicker than it would otherwise have ended, and saved countless allied soldiers lives.

    So kill 2 or more yellow people to save 1 white?

    You are completely ignoring the fact that the lives they "saved" were professional soliders. The lives the took were of innocent men, women and children.

    As for "why the hell would they drop them after"

    Why the hell did the do this to Dresden?
    http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

    If your honest with yourself you'll find the answer to your question in your answer to my question.


  • #258
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    You can still give evidence without proving it unequivocally.

    True. But I have no interest in playing games while I am being insulted. Here is excerpts from a 2007 CIA investigation.
    We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program
    We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007
    We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
    Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.
    We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be
    technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this
    is very unlikely.
    • We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.

    (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
    We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

    http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf


  • #259
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    K-9 wrote: »
    Wasn't claiming that Biden hasn't met Jewish groups in the past month or so. Indeed from the little bit in the link, it could be reassurance because of the poor relations at the moment.

    The poor relations are just for show. The US has unconditional love for Israel.
    Speaking today at a reception for her Israeli counterpart, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice vowed that the United States would remain eternally committed to ensuring Israel’s regional military superiority and promised that they would continue to shield Israel from diplomatic fallout for its behavior at the United Nations.
    rice.jpg US Ambassador Susan Rice (left)

    “As U.S. President Barack Obama pledged, we will continue U.S. efforts to combat all international attempts to challenge the legitimacy of Israel—including and especially at the United Nations,” Rice declared.
    Though the US military subsidies go back decades and cost several billion dollars annually, the use of America’s veto power at the United Nations to shield Israel from critical (or even inconvenient) resolutions remains the far more valuable pledge, particularly with the nation’s current right-far-right coalition government so fond of flouting international expectations.
    ˜
    http://news.antiwar.com/2010/07/15/us-envoy-vows-to-shield-israel-militarily-and-diplomatically/


  • #260
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So kill 2 or more yellow people to save 1 white?

    You are completely ignoring the fact that the lives they "saved" were professional soliders. The lives the took were of innocent men, women and children.

    As for "why the hell would they drop them after"

    Why the hell did the do this to Dresden?
    http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

    If your honest with yourself you'll find the answer to your question in your answer to my question.

    It was ww2, total war where anything was going, the axis weren't exactly angels either. I'm not defending what happened to Dresden, don't think it was necessary at all, but that was also before Germany surrendered, not after.

    And the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings may have saved more lives than if the the war had dragged on regardless, and of course a country is going to want to save the lives of its own citizens first. Are you suggesting that a soldiers life is less equal because they are a soldier? Alot of them were drafted too remember


  • #261
    Torakx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Alot of people also spent time in prison in allied countries because they refused to commit murder.I have met some of these people myself and dont think they were lying.
    My point is murder is optional and the innocents caught in bombings are not willing participants.
    Yes that bomb may have prevented willing participants from killing each other and innocent bystanders but alot of innocent people were killed for their sake.
    Neither the war or the bomb can be justified.But what happened happened and all we can do now is learn from it and take nukes off EVERY land mass by order of the UN or whatever world regulations most have agreed to.
    Starting with the countries that have been testing them and using them.
    Or any countries at the moment who are engaged in war.

    Also at this day and age countries should be settling arguements online, maybe best of 3 in counterstrike :D


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You are completely ignoring the fact that the lives they "saved" were professional soliders. The lives the took were of innocent men, women and children.


    Well your wrong there, Conscription was a massive part of WW2.


  • #263
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Well your wrong there, Conscription was a massive part of WW2.

    Conscription doesn't change the fact that they were trained, armed and paid - Professional soliders.

    They had the option of being conscientious objectors.

    Apparently, the only ones doing the killing were pschyopaths.
    In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: “Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges” (Grossman, p. 4).



    Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths.
    http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/02/02073.html


  • #264
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    I think you should brush up on your WW2 history before you continue with your blindingly stupid statements.


  • #265
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    I think you should brush up on your WW2 history before you continue with your blindingly stupid statements.

    OK. Go on I'm listening...


  • #266
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    It was ww2, total war where anything was going, the axis weren't exactly angels either. I'm not defending what happened to Dresden, don't think it was necessary at all, but that was also before Germany surrendered, not after.

    And the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings may have saved more lives than if the the war had dragged on regardless, and of course a country is going to want to save the lives of its own citizens first. Are you suggesting that a soldiers life is less equal because they are a soldier? Alot of them were drafted too remember
    '

    (sorry - missed this post earlier)

    I'd like to ask you is it morally wrong to drop a nuclear bomb twice on civilian cities without exception?


  • #267
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    I think you should brush up on your WW2 history before you continue with your blindingly stupid statements.
    "I believe that you may be mistaken. Are you sure of your facts?"

    See? It's easy to be polite. Give it a try in future.


  • #268
    Lab_Mouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,219 ✭✭✭Lab_Mouse


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So kill 2 or more yellow people to save 1 white?
    In war yes BB.Its you thats putting the racial overtones on it.
    War is sh1t.Its not suppose to be nice.Its not nice.

    I think the fact that a nuke has never been used since is testament to the horror of it.Even the warmongers in countries like the states,russia,china,israel wouldnt use it unless as a last resort i.e assured mutual destruction.

    What has me worried is countries run by religious nutjobs like israel and pakistan have it.Its the same reason I wouldnt like Iran to get nukes or afghanistan.Irrespective of your views on the states/israel Iran is hardly a role model for democracy freedom of rights and that country itself also sponsors proxy armies/terrorist groups


  • #269
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    '

    (sorry - missed this post earlier)

    I'd like to ask you is it morally wrong to drop a nuclear bomb twice on civilian cities without exception?

    Yes it is 'morally, wrong I think, but in war morals go out the window. America and the Allies duty was to win the war. And the reason a second one was dropped was because the Japanese wouldn't surrender after the first.


  • #270
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    The poor relations are just for show. The US has unconditional love for Israel.


    http://news.antiwar.com/2010/07/15/us-envoy-vows-to-shield-israel-militarily-and-diplomatically/

    Again, I'm not surprised at that either. Pressure is being put on Israel as regards the blockade, from both the US and the EU. That's all I was saying, nothing less, nothing more.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #271
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    US attacks Iran, within 22 days, good man Digme.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055971258


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement