This is going to seem very elementary but it's a question that needs posing since it's all but ignored here. If America is saying Iran is a threat to the world if they possess nuclear weapons (they have none unlike Irael's approximately 200 warheads), wouldn't it be the height of hypocrisy to use nuclear weapons against them?
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/consequenc...an-readers.html
Or at all?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/politics...serland&emc=rss

For once TruthMarch, I agree with you completely. I don't see how we have the ground to tell Iran they can't develop their nuclear program. Will that increase the danger in the world? Yes. Will they be a larger threat? Yes. But until we get rid of ours, which isn't going to happen, what basis do we have to tell them they can't have them?

No matter who is sitting in the White House, I don't think there is a chance in the world that we would use nuclear weapons unless attacked first. The Pentagon is regularly tasked to plan for situations that will almost never happen. That's part of being ready for any and all contingencies. I'm sure somewhere we've got a plan to invade Canada if for some weird reason they became hostile, and we know that will never happen. It's nothing to panic about.

It's not just the idea of the US using nukes against a country they say can't have nikes that is unsettling. What's worse is when you place that hypocrisy into the Iraq theatre, where freedom and democracy and an anti-WMD platform is the accepted basis for the illegal US occupation.
But we have seen the hypocrisy in action already. The US using illegal WP weapons on civilians in Fallujah being the most obvious.

Well. I believe in realpolitik and as far as I am concerned, the USA can retain all the nuclear weapons it deems necessary where as the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is completely unacceptable.

I don't see this as hypocrisy, because I do not feel threatened by the USA where as I do feel threatened by Iran.

As far as I am concerned, any nation which has weapons capable of sending nuclear warheads against European city's is either a threat or a friend and Iran is no friend to any one.

The same was true for Saddam Hussein. I don't care if there were no WMD's, or if as has been claimed that those weapons were smuggled into Syria six weeks prior to the attack. Saddam Hussein was a credible threat, whether real or not makes no difference to me. He played a game of bluff and he lost.

In his stead the people of his country have their first ever chance for freedom and all things considered. If thats hypocrisy, then call me a hypocrite.


How is the occupation illegal given the democratically elected government of Iraq has requested the coalition remains.

Even the Danish forces, now much despised have been asked to stay by the government in Baghdad.

And, by the way, do you have a viable alternative? I'd love to hear about it.

Can your alternative protect Europe from nuclear threat?


edited to add:

I just read this... I think it demonstrates quite clearly the difference between Iran and the USA:

Link.

I can appreciate what you're saying but don't forget: my mind works in a fairly unorthodox manner here. I can see the whole spectrum. For instance, your comment, though you don't realize it and may not be willing to believe it, is hypocrisy with a capital 'H'. This is nuclear weapons we're talking about here by the way. It's insane we're discussing this so non-chalantly to begin with! Anyways, tell me what your argument is when someone in Iran says the very same thing about the US? After all, Iran's is under a direct immediate nuclear threat by the US and Iran's crime for being nuked is about something that isn't tangible and something people see as a threat further down the road. Maybe someone in Iran is feeling under threat and feels the US has the legitimate right to be the recipient of a nuclear attack? It's insane how people can't see both sides of the picture.
In closing, I wish to ask whether you believed all the same things about Iraq? Powell's discredited lie before the UN...Iraq's lack of WMD (like they always said)..etc......

You seem to have a very selective perspective for some one who claims to see both sides of the picture... Maybe your too young to remember the Cold War, or maybe you just don't consider the Soviet Union to have been such a great threat after all.

For my part however, I can clearly remember the Cold War and the feeling of fear which gripped Western Europe in the face of the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the hands of men who had demonstrated their ruthlessness in the past. I can also remember doing NBC warfare drills and being instructed as to how to minimalise the dangers of radiation.

I have also read the, now released Soviet plan of attack on Denmark and understood the threat in hindsight also. The Soviet Union had no interest in a land war in Denmark. Their plan was simply to annhilate the cities of Esbjerg and Odense and call upon Denmark to surrender. If the government had not done so within 24 hours they were going to nuke all the remaining cities.

Denmark has no nuclear weapons and thus would be powerless to retaliate.

THAT is the reality of nuclear warfare and I can tell you, clearly, that I do not take such things nonchalantly.

You say my position is hypocrisy... Well, I can inform you that Denmark still does not have nuclear weapons and we do not wish them either.

So, we are powerless to defend ourselves against a nuclear armed Iran and, like it was in the days of the Soviet Union, so it is again the United States of America which stands between us and a possible nuclear attack by people who clearly wish to threaten us as Mohsen Gharavian, Ali Larijani and President Ahmadinejad have made abundently clear.


Well, then I would have to question whether or not that person actually felt threatened. I do not give a fig for the opinions of religious or nationalist hysterics who look upon America as the 'great Satan', and I am sure these people feel 'threatened' because their own dictatorial/religious leadership has so filled them with bile and fear regarding America that they are not aware of, or not willing to recognize the true threat to their safety.

As for the rest of the population, I think its pretty clear now as to how people are treated in nations like Iran:

Link. (thanks bucket)



So what? Do you advocate we sit quietly and wait until Ahmadinejad has his finger on the button?


It all means nothing to me at this point. These are mere details that obscure the deeper truth.

We are clearly being threatened and we must defend ourselves. If that means being called a hypocrite then so what? I can live with that.

What I can't live with is a 100 kiloton warhead airbursting over my city.


edited for formatting

wouldn't it be the height of hypocrisy to use nuclear weapons against them?

At this point, nuclear weapons are our best deterrent. The US does not have large numbers of ground troops available to deploy to Iran (although, as I have said before, they could redeploy to get them).

Any talk to nukes at this point by the US is bluff and deterrent--to remind Tehran that the nuclear option is in our capability and is on the table. This issue IS that important because of the stated intentions of the government involved (to wit--eradication of a regional neighbor).

It would be utter stupidity on the part of the US military not to be prepared with any means necessary to combat this threat. I don't think anyone would seriously consider using nukes, however, unless a large-scale terrorist attack or some type of WMD attack occurred that was attributable to Iran.

What is this supposed to mean? That most people can't see both sides of an issue? Unless you have more information than the two links you provided in the first post I don't see how you can defend your position that what moif said is hypocrisy.


How does this make it hypocrisy. Would it not be hypocrisy if we were talking about machine guns instead?


I am not sure where you are getting this information. I certainly wasn't in the New York Times article you linked to and the blog you linked to doesn't really seem to be presenting it as news but as a hypothetical situation. It refers to The American Conservative as it's source. I didn't know anything about it so I checked out the website http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html . Seems like it's a very conservative POV. Can't tell for sure but it doesn't seem like a good place to get unbiased news. Unless you have more sources for this, statements such as "Iran's is under a direct immediate nuclear threat by the US" seems to be pushing things farther than they should go. After all the New York Times basically talks about it being a deterrent and not as a "Let's nuke Iran soon" policy.


How is it hypocrisy to say that I want my nation to have nuclear weapons as it has a proven track record and I don't want Iran to have them when they have a proven track record of terrorism, fanatics, etc. How is it hypocrisy to say we want it for ourselfs in the hands of responsible men and women, they want it to place in the hands of fanatics and terrorists.

I can see both sides of the story. Just because I can see why people like Hitler and Stalin did things doesn't mean I have to agree with them or be a hypocrite.


What do Powells' statements have to do with Iran/Nuclear Weapons??? You seem to be quick to see both sides of the story when it comes to matching your views but by golly Powell lied. No need to look at his side of the story no siree. He was a liar. He didn't have bad information or out of date information he deliberately misled the UN.(lie - Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. - www.dictionary.com)

For someone who is so against hypocrisy and whose "unorthodox" mind can see both sides of the issue you sure don't seem to be supporting your POV very logically to me. Instead of proclaiming how hypocritical everyone is and how hypocritical the US is for discussing Nukes as a deterrent can you support you claims with either facts or arguement? Simply saying something is so doesn't make it so.

TM Who do you feel is a greater threat to the US – Israel or Iran? Needless to say we would NOT attack them with nukes unless they used the WMD they are feverishly developing to kill Americans. Since this country is a major supporter of terrorism around the world a “get tough” statement is warranted. AND if you read the article you posted there are other good reasons for mentioning “tactical Nukes” (much smaller by the way, then strategic nukes).

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.

It is interesting that you would mention our "proven track record" versus their's. At least Iran hasn't used nuclear weapons. We have. Twice.

Aside from that, we can take a closer look at our record. In 1953, we overthrew the Iranian democracy in favor of a dictatorship. In 1979, they revolted against the dictatorship to make a democracy once again. Now, they have universal suffrage at age 15. This, combined with the current talk of renewed aggression against Iran, does not bode well with our ideology of promoting democracy in the Middle East.

If their popularly elected government wants to use nuclear weapons against us, how is that any different from us using nuclear weapons against them? It is no surprise that they don't like us. We have the "proven track record" of hypocrites.

Syfir

Because we have nukes. Yes, if we had machine guns, then said it was wrong for any other country to have machine guns, we would be hypocritical. That is what it means to be a hypocrite.

Now one can say hypocrisy in this situation is right, or one can say hypocrisy is wrong... but if someone can't see the hypocrisy.... then yes they have a problem seeing both sides and can only see from their rose tinted glasses.




Again the status quo defining the others and assuming that they agree to your definition. Are we evil because they veiw our actions as evil, if not then how can they be supporters of terrorist simply because we define them as such.

This is what it means to see both side... and Truthmarch is right... most of us do not do this or do it very little.

ALL humans are capable of seeing both sides, I doubt any human can do it in EVERY situation, but some of us can or should I say choose to do it more than others.

Oh yeah, last question. We are the only nation to use nukes to slaughter civilians... yet you made a statement of us having a "proven" track record.... what exactly has it proved??

You know what? I knew that this would be brought up when I made the statement. I hoped that when it did those that brought it up would be a little bit more thoughtful before they started using it as proof that "America's wrong because it used nukes" argument. Nope. Good old 21 century "thinking" trying to impose their world view on a different time and place.

Since "nukes=bad" then by using them America was wrong. Period. 100%. Forget any argument about seeing things from the other side there is never an excuse to use Nukes. Ever. Didn't think to actually research anything. Just thought I would rehash the old arguments. Syfir must be wrong because I am right.

Before you go throwing accusations around you had better get your facts straight first.

Have any of you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Have you visited Peace Park? Have you talked to anyone who was there or who lost relatives in the bombings? No? Then maybe you need to do that before you start spouting off about the evils of Nuclear weapons because of "slaughtered civilians".

I have seen arguments that the bombings ended the war quicker. I have seen arguments that they were unnecessary. To both of those arguments I say "arm chair quarterbacks" It is easy to say they weren't necessary because we now know that Japan had begun preparations to surrender. We have some indications that this information was available to the US forces. However what we can not understand is the how the sources were viewed by the US forces. Was it deliberate misinformation? Would the hardliners allow it to happen? Would the people accept it? It is easy to sit back and say the US was wrong to use the weapons, but you can't judge that. I can't either and I have lived in Hiroshima. I have been to Peace Park. I have been in the museum there and come out of there with the determination to never go back. It is not a happy place. But it is dedicated to one goal, never letting the world forget.

Depending on which statistics you believe, more civilians died in the firebombings of Tokyo than in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined yet no one complains that the raids there were unnecessary. I could go on and on about the difference between then and now but it all boils down to this:

Yes the United States has used nuclear weapons twice. The only country ever to do so against another country. However there were valid reasons for doing so. And more importantly:


We have NEVER done so since.

If the US were the hypocrites that some think we are we could have justified using them again somewhere against a non-nuclear power. There is always someone who believes in the "bigger hammer" theory. But we never have. We have only used them as a deterrent. And we have only used them as a threat against those who would use them against us.

We had concerns about the Soviet Union. Maybe they kept us from using them. But they also kept their side from getting them as well. Only a fool says that the spread of Nuclear Weapons is a good thing. Limiting them to those who already have them, especially those you can trust to NOT use them is not hypocrisy, it is common sense.

Let me put it this way. To say to someone smaller than you, "you are not allowed vitamins or food so that you can grow as strong as me and perhaps someday be able to beat me up" could be viewed as hypocrisy. To tell someone "you have vowed to kill me and have encouraged your friends to hate me and because of this I will not allow you to have a weapon you can use to kill me and mine" is not hypocrisy it is self preservation.

We have not said that Iran can not have weapons to defend itself. We have not said we are going to invade because they may be dangerous to their neighbors. We have said they have no valid reason to develop nuclear weapons which have no purpose other than to attack those who are not a threat to them. You can't use a nuclear weapon for defence. The reason the Soviet Union and the US were stalemated was because one could destroy the other. It wasn't that their invading forces would face nuclear weapons. Iran would destroy itself if it were to use the weapons. That's not a deterrent.

Maybe you have been to Hiroshima. Maybe you have been to Peace Park. At the exit to peace park museum there is a notebook to write your thoughts in. You sign your name and your country. You can flip through it and see what others from around the world have said. Two things stuck in my mind. The first is that a vast majority of the comments are positive. By this I don't mean that they are praising the bomb but that they are understanding of the meaning of the museum. I saw comments by people from the UK, the US, Japan and other countries, all saying things along the lines of "Let us never forget" "May it never happen again" and "let peace prevail" But the second is what affected me most. One comment was different from the rest. A person from Uruguay said "Death to Americans" He had learned nothing from the experience.

It is not hypocrisy to learn from the past and to know what should never happen again. It is not hypocrisy to take a knife from a child. It is not hypocrisy to plan to keep that horror from your own shores.

War is hell. There is nothing glorious about it. Can you blame a country for wanting it to end as quickly as possible? To use the best tool they have to stop it? Only if they don't learn from their actions. We learned. Has Iran?

I can agree with that statement. Proliferation starts when the small states arm themselves against the larger ones. It is a vicious circle.

You could also argue that any nation may use whatever force it deems necessary to protect those within its borders. Only when striking out against others should a third party intervene.

So for example should Israel jump the gun and start bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, it should pay a price for aggression.

Even if Iran achieves in building/buying a few nuclear warheads it would make no sense to bomb an enemy that has hundreds nor bomb an enemy that has none. The warheads would only achieve a useful existence should a first strike be used against them.

An unimpeded first strike is really what you are arguing. The right to make war and not suffer reprisal is what is at stake here.

Flaw number one in your argument:

It doesn't have to be "either-or" It can be both self-preservation and hypocrisy. I can agree that you feel endangered by Iran having nukes... but like MOIF said:



Well, MOIF is a hypocrite on this subject. But, Syfir you need to learn to live with it as well.


Hypocrisy


You believe that Iran shouldn't have nukes, while supporting us having nukes. Regardless if you feel it's saving your life or not, doesn't change the fact you are being hypocritical.

As to your red herring



So what??? You espouse we have proven track record in regards to having nukes... yet, we are the only ones who have used the bomb. If we use the bomb for valid reasons, then I guess Iran has every right to use the bomb for valid reasons as well. That is, unless you think only Americans can have valid reasons for dropping the bomb.



It is hypocrisy, because the whole time you are telling them they can't have a gun to kill you and yours.... you have your gun in their faces threatening to kill them and theirs.

That line in and of it self displays your inability to be objective...

You place the lives of you and yours before the lives of them and theirs. Now, I'll be the first to admit this is completely natural... but I do have the fortitude to admit it is also totally hypocritical.

The bombing DID end the war quicker. Japan had no intension of surrendering and we could have brought them to their knees with further conventional bombing (and killed more people than the nukes, and more Americans) coupled with an invasion.

In fact I have seen a History Channel documentary detailing a large section of the Japanese military trying to stop the Emperor from surrendering even after the nukes. There is no doubt the nukes shortened the war and saved lives on BOTH sides.

And if we had had the brains to use them in 1953 we could have freed millions of people who have since starved and lived in persecution .

Flaw number one in your argument - It doesn't have to be both it can be either or. I wasn't arguing that hypocrisy couldn't exist but that it didn't have to be. Some people seem to think it has to be hypocrisy. I personally don't think it is. If you think I am a hypocrite fine. You obviously didn't understand my argument.



Um sorry you make no sense here. You define hypocrisy and then don't support your definition of hypocrisy in any way that would show that I am being hypocritical. I said why I feel the US can have nukes and why I feel Iran can't. How is that professing something that I don't hold to?



Red Herring - Something that draws attention away from the central issue.

The argument I was making was that everyone seems to say that nukes are bad because of the "civilian slaughter". That is the argument I hear about them all the time, why it was wrong to use them. Yet they may not have even been the worst attack in regards to "civilian slaughter" That was the central point.



Straw man fallacy - a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Where did I ever say that I had my gun in their faces. Who said I was threatening to kill them and theirs.

It would seem to me that you are trying to read something into what I said that I did not say.



There you go again. Where did I say that? Talk about missing the forest for the trees. You may have read my post but you obviously lack the comprehension of what I said. This may be my fault in that I wasn't clear enough but sheesh.

Let me quote my last post -

"We have not said that Iran can not have weapons to defend itself."

"You can't use a nuclear weapon for defence."

"We have said they have no valid reason to develop nuclear weapons which have no purpose other than to attack those who are not a threat to them."

"Iran would destroy itself if it were to use the weapons" [as a defensive weapon]

"War is hell. There is nothing glorious about it. Can you blame a country for wanting it to end as quickly as possible? To use the best tool they have to stop it? Only if they don't learn from their actions. We learned. Has Iran?"

Now let me add a little bit of clarification.

1. Irans people are not the ones who would have the weapons but their leaders who have stated "Israel must be wiped off the map."

2. Yes I think we need nukes for a deterrent. Iran does not need them because we have never indicated that we would use them against a non-nuclear state. Therefore they don't need them as a nuclear deterrent.

What is hypocritical about that?

Let me put it another way since some people have said that we should see both sides.

Lets look at it from Irans point of view.

1. We can't beat Israel and it's allies as things currently stand because the US is a big bully.

2. We need a bigger stick in the form of nuclear weapons.

3. Should we ever use them we will be completely wiped out by retaliation from the US and/or Israel if Israel survives.

What good is having nuclear weapons if it doesn't help your survival? It comes down to the leaders of Iran holding their civilian population hostage so that they can . . . well accomplish nothing of value except to destroy two nations.

"Only a fool says that the spread of Nuclear Weapons is a good thing." That is what I said before and that is what I stand by now. I wish there were none in the world. However since it is out there needs to be a sword hanging over the heads of those who might use them. My final point and my most important of the last post was that if someone has to have have them I would prefer it to be the US. Not for my protection but because I believe that we have learned when to use them and when not to use them. I don't believe that Iran has.

You don't let children have guns. Especially children who are known to be unstable. Can adults make mistakes? Yes. But the chances are better that they won't. Do I worship Bush and company? No but they aren't the only ones with the responsibility. The arguments against the Iraq situation don't hold up with Iran. Especially not with stated intentions and actions of Iran, and a little more agreement among the world community about what needs to be done. So no I don't think I am a hypocrite. But if it make you feel better you can believe what ever you want.

I believe that most citizens should be allowed to have guns. I don't believe violent criminals should be allowed to have guns. According to TruthMarch and Droop, I must be a hypocrite.

This is, of course, a silly definition of hypocrisy. But let's say I am a hypocrite. I'll quote a character from Neal Stephenson's novel The Diamond Age:


Follow the link to read the rest of the quote. It's quite good.

(Edited for unnecessarily intemperate content.)

I don't believe Syfir is being hypocritical and certainly not by the definition that you are putting forward.

In fact by that definition I don't see how you can say I am a hypocrite either since by that definiation, I'd have to be saying the exact opposite of what I thought in order to qualify as a hypocrite.

My understanding of how the word 'hypocrite' relates to this topic is when a person does not extend to others the benefits s/he grants to him/herself.

If, however, hypocrisy is merely pretending to hold views one does not hold, then I can't see how either Syfir or I am a hypocrite at all... and in point of fact, I only said I don't care if I am called a hypocrite. I never said I was one. I personally do not see anything hypocritical in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of dictators.

If America is saying Iran is a threat to the world if they possess nuclear weapons wouldn't it be the height of hypocrisy to use nuclear weapons against them?

As you state it here, not necessarily. You can simply say the US is using targeted low level nuclear explosions as bunker busters to knock out buried nuclear facilities that can't be taken out by more conventional bombs. Using nukes to prevent nukes so to speak. The necessary corollary is that Iran is trying to make nuclear bombs and then is prepared to employ them as a first strike terrorist weapon. Both assertions are a matter of conjecture rather than proven fact.

Hypocrisy generally allies itself to moral inconsistency rather than simply descriptive behavioral inconsistencies. Self-defense, for instance, is perceived as operating on a separate plane to murder, although you may end up with the same means and same result.

On the other hand using the Juan Cole quote as the template I think hypocrisy would definitely be a correct characterization. Let's go back and read it.
Consequences of nuking Iran

We are talking here about using the nuclear option on a preemptive basis or based on retaliation due to no more than a guess as to Iranian involvement in an attack on us. Plus it would involve using nukes to attack a nonnuclear nation. Any nation operating this way would have to be considered a threat to the world because there are no clear guide lines for who and when we attack with nuclear weapons.

In the long term a nation that is unwilling to seriously consider a program to phase out nuclear weapons worldwide because it wants to retain a permanent advantage in the balance of terror is hypocritical. Somehow I don't think I have to explain that.

First, I have to concede a point to both MOIF and Syfir. I think you all are correct to neither of you meet the definition of being a hypocrite on this issue. I found myself forcing Syfir into the definition that does not fit, and after both of you called me on it... well... you two are right in my opinion.

In a debate, the term you can mean your side or even the side you are arguing. Just as we can be our side. But sometimes you can be you, and we can be just the couple people discussing.... it can get confusing.

Saying that... I can say you both support policy that is blatantly hypocritical, but I am not sure anymore that supporting hypocrisy, makes you a hypocrite, at least, not by the definition I have provided. It merely makes you a supporter of said policy.

Now the U.S. in the world theatre acts as an actor, as does Iran. It's policies are it beliefs. The U.S. as an actor obviously believes it is O.K. to have Nukes to serve as a deterrent and a weapon, because we have them, we have used them, and we will not take "first strike" option off of the table. So the U.S. in it's status as a global entity, is surely subscribing to hypocrisy by demanding that any other nation not be able to obtain weaponry that it already has.

Instead of being lazy and saying someone is a hypocrite for supporting hypocrisy, I'll just say "they support hypocrisy"

Syfir



No it can't be either-or. They can co-exist, they can exist independent of one another, but hypocrisy and self preservation will never be either or. Self preservation can only serve as a justification for hypocrisy.

Q: Why were you a hypocrite??
A: Because my life was endangered. (self-preservation)




maybe you should reread the course of the debate.


You made a statement that we have a proven track record with nukes.
Then others, to include myself, point out our record is the only record that has usage of nukes on it.
You go into some long story about the Peace Park and how we can sign our names in a book and how you've been there... and how we could have killed more people with firebombing and other conventional weaponry... I mean it was a lot to read and it didn't have anything to do with what did the track record prove.

I mean look at this statement you made:



What statement did I or or Know Paine make to even make you feel a need to make such a statement... not only did you have a red herring, but also a straw man.



Allow me to clarify:

You made this comment:


Now I was under the impression, forgive me if I am wrong... that this was an analogy. If it is not analogous, then it is pretty irrelevant to the debate, so I assumed that analogy was more likely. From there, I worked within your analogy to make my point of what I felt is hypocrisy. Here is how I broke down the analogy

you = Iran
me = U.S.
your friends= terrorist, or other arab factions
weapon = Nuke
me and mine = U.S./U.S. citizens/U.S. Allies/U.S. interests

I think this pretty much fits your analogy, let me know where I am wrong. Now I respond with:
Droop224


I'll break it down...

the gun = weapon = nukes
them and theirs = Iran/Iranian citizens/Iranian allies(not that they have any)/Iranian interests

Does it make sense now, if not I will further clarify.



Did I miss the forest?? Let's see what you said

again:



How will you stop them from having the weapon Syfir Well if you look at the memo, or other parts of the debate, it talks about using nukes for facilities that are unreachable by conventional weapons. It talks about using nukes to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, because that might endanger us.... or.... our allies.... or...... our interests. So when we do, what we do, to "not allow" them to have Nukes... will it involve violence??? will it involve death of Iranian citizens from our weapons??? will it involve the destructions of Iranian interests???


Am I still not seeing the forest, or do you understand your implications, yet??

So tell us all here... if you are not saying that we'll harm "them and theirs" how are we going to prevent them from gaining the weapon they want?? This will be interesting.

Also... have you noticed how often you have compared Iran to reckless children and us to responsible adults... It shows you feel yourself superior and them inferior.

Hypocrisy? Funny, but I don't recall anyone here saying:

"War is a blessing for the world and for all nations. It is God who incites men to fight and to kill.The Koran says, "Fight until all corruption and all rebellion have ceased." The wars the Prophet led against the infidels were a blessing for all humanity. Imagine that we soon will win the war. That will not be enough, for corruption and resistance to Islam will still exist. The Koran says, "War, war until victory!..." The mullahs with corrupt hearts who say that all this is contrary to the teachings of the Koran are unworthy of Islam. Thanks to God, our young people are now, to the limits of their means, putting God's commandments into action. They know that to kill the unbelievers is one of man's greatest missions."

Or so the late Ayatollah Khomeini told his nation in 1984, on the occasion of Mohammed's birthday. And, no, I don't call it hyprocrisy, I call it having that instinct for self-preservation. When our President starts speaking like that then we can speak of hypocrisy.

And, lastly, to correct the misinformed re Iran...women didn't have it nearly so bad under the Shah. They even served in Iran's Navy. Please see:

http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/women.html

And as that same link reports, it was in 1963 that Iranian women were given both the right to vote and to hold any elected office. So please spare me the nonsense about how it was the mullahs who believe that you can molest a four year old girl so long as you don't penetrate enough to take away her virginity [i.e., break her hymen], who are responsible for women's rights in Iran.

And for health/medical care under the Shah:

http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/health.html

And for education [and note the women]:

http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/educate.html

And, lastly, for the comparison of the rights of women under the Shah versus Khomeini, please see:

http://www.internews.org/visavis/BTVPages/...HistReview.html

All of which brings to mind my single political principle and its necessarily accompanying corollary: (1) give the people what they want, and (2) the people get what they deserve. And so they traded in the White Revolution for barbarism. And now they have to live with that result.

You know I don't talk just to hear my own voice. There was a point to the information. If all you got out of it was that we can sign a book then you missed the point again.


Let see...I said:


Next Know Paine said:


And you added:


You asked what it proved? You equated "use of nuke" = "slaughter civilians" Is it wrong to believe that you think nukes are bad or to equate your stand with much of the anti-nuke crowd who do believe the types of things in my quote you are questioning?

As you said "the term you can mean your side or even the side you are arguing." Maybe I got a little lazy myself but that is what it seemed to mean. One thing to keep in mind though is that it is not just you, me, and Know Paine here. Truth March seems outraged too:

He seems to think that WP=nukes. I don't agree with the whole WP issue myself but what about the firebombings of Tokyo. They are more relevant to the use of the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than the use of WP in present day Iraq don't you think? Especially on the scale of the destruction. THAT is why I brought up Tokyo.

As to the "long story about Peace Park" you obviously missed the point that you had asked for.

It proved that we could learn from past experience.

Ted said
Maybe because we had learned something from the previous use. The book that you seem so quick to dismiss as not proving anything was an example of what it did prove. You can look at the bombing and the results and learn about when to use it and when not to use it and come away with a feeling of responsiblity in preventing their use again or you can come away, as did one person, with out any understanding at all. "Death to Americans!" I have met people who lost family in the Hiroshima bomb. They were not bitter about the bomb. What right then does the person from Uruguay have? The purpose of park is not anti-Americanism but anti-bomb. America seems to have learned that as they have never used it again. The man from Uruguay? He seems to think that using the bomb to punish America would be a good thing. Just like Iran. That is the reason I included that.


[snip]

That is what this debate is about isn't it? Are they trying to get the weapon because we are "waving one in their face" or are we "waving one in their face" because they are trying to get the weapon? The point of the analogy was that we weren't trying to prevent them from defending themselves but we were trying to prevent them from getting a weapon we had not threatened them with previously.

As with any analogy it was not perfect.


I never said that we would not harm "them and theirs." What I said was "they have no valid reason to develop nuclear weapons which have no purpose other than to attack those who are not a threat to them." In fact I pointed out that them getting nukes would not be in the best interests of their civilians. One of the reasons would be that we are warning them that we do use nukes as a deterrent. That seems to be the only valid use of a nuke. What good is a deterrent if you don't intend to use it? All that is is a bluff.


Yes and no. I compared them to children in the case of nuclear weapons. And they are. They have not had the experience necessary to understand the consequences of their actions. All they want is the bigger toy. In this case the US is the adult. It has had the experiences. In this specific case they have shown themselves to be responsible. Is the US a saint? Definitely not. Is the US a hypocrite? In some cases yes. Is the US entirely right in this case? Probably not, but at least we know that the US isn't going to use the bomb recklessly. It has learned from the past. Iran hasn't. THAT is the point I continue to make.

Please excuse me because of the new post. I know that my posts tend to get longer and longer and so wanted to start a new one as I am moving on to some new points rather than just responding to others.

I want to expand on a concept I have mentioned earlier. Truth March has stated that it is hypocrisy for the US to want to prevent Iran from getting Nukes. To support this he has brought in other examples that he feels shows the US's hypocrisy in other areas. He also said that we should look at it from both sides. Fair enough. However I don't think that we are debating that the US has policy's that are hypocritical. We may not agree as to what they are but we aren't discussing those policy's but this one.

To look at it from the other side a good question would be "Why does Iran want nukes?"

1. To attack their enemies.
2. To defend their land.
3. To prove that they are as capable as other countries who have them.


Just a quick list and there could be more but I think that summarizes it fairly well.

Let address these in reverse order.

3. To prove that they are as capable as other countries who have them.

Bragging rights. That's what this comes down to. However it is unnecessary. If they were to stop right now they would have proven this. Look at the uproar at the UN and this whole debate. Why the uproar? Why would the US be threatening them if they couldn't do it?

2. To defend their land.

This is the worst reason possible. You can not use a nuke as a defensive weapon. As I stated in a previous post the US and USSR were not using nukes as a possible weapon to use against invading forces but as a mutually assured destruction deterrent.

Who is Iran going to use the nukes as a deterrent against? Israel maybe. However they don't need to defend against Israel. Israel has no interest in invading Iran. Israels nukes are deterrents of a different kind. "Invade us and we nuke you back to the stone age" I don't like Israel having nukes but they would seem to have a valid need for them as a deterrent. Iran doesn't. No one with in reach of their nukes would have a reason to invade them in any way that nukes would be a good deterrent.

1. To attack their enemies.

There are three ways to do this.
1. You are going to invade and need to soften up the opponent. Not a valid use of nukes as they are not a softening up weapon.

2. To destroy an enemy. In this case you want to get rid of Israel as you have stated many times. This is the best possible way to do it. You have no interest in invading Israel because they would probably beat you, especially if backed by the US. A nuke however solves the problem nicely. At least until nukes start raining down on you in retaliation. Not a valid choice then unless you are insane.

3. To be used in terrorist attacks against an enemy. Now it comes down to civilian casualties. How many are you willing to cause. You don't care as long as it can't be traced back to you. Except it can. Even easier than a conventional attack. Nuclear material is traceable in a way that limited supply makes possible. Conventional explosives are much harder to track down. So you again have nukes raining down on you in retaliation. Back to the whole insane issue.

So now let's look at it from the US's view point.

Iran wants nukes. There is no valid reason for them to have them as they will most likely end up destroying themselves and damaging another country or countries as well. There is no pressing need for them to have them from a national stand point. It actually goes against their interest to have them. Why do they want them then?

Please feel free to comment. I like constructive critiques.

I agree with Amlord that this is bluff and deterrence. The types of nuclear weapons we are speaking of are bunker busting bombs to target clandestine nuclear facilities, not nukes that level an entire city.




If you wish to truly see the whole spectrum in an "unorthodox manner", consider that the nuclear holding countries have been funding and offering technical support for Iran's nuclear program due to their participation in the NPT, of which they have a documented 18-year track record of surreptitiously violating.

Furthermore, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is close to the messianic Hojjatieh Society, which is governed by the conviction the 12th imam's return will be hastened by "the creation of chaos on Earth." According to Ahmadinejad: "The ultimate promise of all divine religions will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being (the 12th Imam), who is heir to all prophets. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace. Oh mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one."

So, we have effectively engaged in funding and supporting Iran's nuclear weapons program, albeit inadvertently. Of course this alone will likely compromise other NPT agreements worldwide and destabilize the middle east as well, but that's neither here nor there. If we can fund a nuke program for a government the issues official fatwas with a leader who believes that massive peace can only come through apocalyptic conflagration, shouldn't we support such programs for all other apocolyptic wishing religous cults around the world? Certainly we should at least permit them to develop such weapons...Why one and not the other? Governments are simply artificial constructs anyway....why stop there? Sheer hypocrisy on the face of it!

Mrs P- a small point of order- one of the Christian "happy endings" to thier bible is the battle of Armeggedon and the destruction of the current Mosque and replaced with the actual temple again, yadda yadda. Large groups of Christians believe this, and eaqerly await it, knowing they will be "caught up in the Rapture"- and these poeple are the #1 power bloc supporters of GW.

If one could reasonably, outside the US, make that link between GW and the religious right- it is about the same religious relationship that the President of Iran has with his Koran based beliefs.

I don't know if GW actually believes the stuff he says about religion, or if it is just lip service to keep his power base supporting him no matter what policy he implements- but the same implication of eagerness for the end of the world can be extraploated by anyone that is not pro-GW and is anti-religious right.

And once again, for all the huffing and puffing on our side- we are the only ones to have actually USED an atomic bomb (even if rightly so in our POVs) , and the fact that we go around invading any one we feel like, back horrible, despotic regimes (including, as you know, the one in Iran, the shah and all that bother) - makes the US the one that probably shouldnt be allowed Nukes.

I PMed you, but decided to respond here anyway:

When is the last time our government issued a fatwa (or the Christian equivalent)?

But again, that's neither here nor there. I'm proposing that we permit those apocolyptic loving Christian cults to hold nuclear weapons too. Anything less would be hypocritical, wouldn't it? If we don't permit them to own these weapons, why not? Why support and fund one cult's nuke programs over another? Any guesses as to how long we would last if this happened? Nukes in many hands increases the risk that they will be used. Nukes in the hands of a theocracy is dangerous beyond reason. Self preservation isn't hypocritical.

Syfir

Yes it is wrong. I made the comment to say "we used nukes to slaughter civilians" Japan was already militarily crippled. We wanted a surrender under terms that we would occupy and have a strategic foot hold. Like you say, their are different ways to slaughter civilians... so no "use of nuke" does not, necessarily= "slaughter civilians" But our track record with nukes was the slaughter of civilians. So you bringing up our "proven" track record seemed somewhat absurd. Since you've been to peace park... tell us.. did we slaughter civilians, with our nukes?? Are you arguing this???



No he does not equate nukes to WP. If I am wrong I hope he corrects me. It seems clear to me he is trying to illustrate more hypocrisy... which is the title of the debate. Using WP on enemy combatants is the equivalent of using chemical weapons.



If we learned so much why do we still have a first strike policy that law makers are reluctant to remove.



I'm not trying to hold you to a perfect analogy. I just wanted to be clear on why I made the comments I made, so that you wouldn't feel i was putting words in your mouth.

Whether the chicken came before the egg or the egg before the chicken is irrelevant at this point. The point is we've got a gun and they don't. They want one to be on the same field as us, or at least be able to negotiate from a position of strength. We don't want that, hence the hypocrisy. The nuke isn't as big of a deterrent if someone can say... i'll nuke you back. Iran won't use the nuke any more than U.S. would use the nuke against Russia.

Also there is Israel... who does whatever they damn well please... oh... and they have nukes, too. Not only that but let's not forget our incredibly STUPID president who says there is an "axis of evil" Guess who's on that axis... yeah... IRAN! Guess who was on that axis.. oh yeah... IRAQ!!! We all know that story. So now Iran has got the most imperialistic nation sitting on her border, making bases. And then there is someone like yourself... this is my perception/opinion from comments you've made... who seems to have an attitude of "Ya know, if they just do as they are told, we won't have any problems." Yeah, I can't think of any reason for someone to say... "I think I need a gun of my own"

Well... let me stop because I am going off topic.

here is a funny reversal, here you say:



the post before this you say:





Man, what a tangled web hypocrisy weaves.... So which is it... are we a threat to them or not.

Mrs. P



Agreed, self preservation is not hypocritical. Having a nuke while demanding another sovereign nation can not have them is hypocrisy. If nukes are wrong then we should get rid of them.


*** Syfir can you quickly explain the difference between warning Iran and threatening them??

Actually many people who are against nukes seem to think that while it does not necessarily mean that "slaughter civilians"="use of nukes" the opposite it true. That is "use of nukes"="slaughter civilians" If that is not what you mean you may want to be more clear especially when there is a vocal group that does mean that. I guess it comes back to the "you" doesn't necessarily equal "your side". Apologies if that is not what you meant.

I think that slaughter is a loaded word, but yes we did kill many, many civilians. I have not denied this. What I am pointing out is that there were many other ways to "slaughter civilians" used in World War 2 and the times need to be taken in to account when looking at their use. Yes we did use them. Yes we are the only ones to have done so. But we also have the longest history of NOT using them as well. You could interpret that as once having seen what they can do we have refused to use them even when we could have.

The question for discussion did not appear to be a general discussion of the hypocrisy of the United States but a specific one on nukes.:
If we are just discussing nukes why bring up WP at all unless your point is that WP=nukes? It is possible that I misunderstood his meaning but then he needs to be more clear and try to limit himself to the discussion at hand or at least warn us when he goes off topic.

Unless I am mistaken the so-called first strike policy is designed to only be used against weapons of mass destruction. Kind of late to be using them after you have been hit by a WMD. As I said previously, what good is a deterrent if you don't intend to use it? All that is is a bluff.

That is the big issue here isn't it. Why do they want the bomb? I gave my reasons why I thought there wasn't a valid reason for them to have the bomb. You can't know that Iran won't use it and everything points to them wanting to use it.

I am not a big fan of the bomb but someone has to have it. The bigger the country the better. Why? Because a bigger country has more resources and thus is less likely to use it because of a lack of other options. This is not to say that I am jumping for joy that anyone has it, but someone has to because the secret is out so why not us? That is the point.

No argument there. I previously said that I wish they didn't. I am not saying that they didn't have valid reasons but I don't think that those apply as much anymore but once they have them how do you convince them to give them up? That's one more reason not to want Iran to have them.

How does this invalidate any of my previous posts points about why nukes are not a valid choice?

Okay I can see your point except that you are wrong in that my attitude is "they just do as they are told, we won't have any problems." My argument has been strictly against their gaining nukes, which is what the debate started out as. My analogy was pointed towards saying they can't defend themselves would be hypocritical but saying they can't have nukes isn't. See my last post for my reasons on that.


I guess it comes down to threat vrs warning in the context of the discussion at hand. The "gun" in the form of a nuke. Are we a threat to them with conventional weapons? They certainly think so and not without reason. Did we ever threaten "them and theirs" with the use of nukes? No. We did warn them that we would consider the use of Nukes against specific military targets if they continued. To me that is much different than threating "them and theirs" especially when that was pointed out in the analogy. There is a difference from letting someone know that getting a gun could get them in trouble and walking up to someone and sticking a gun in their faces and saying "you and your family are going to die."

I can see how you could interpret my words the way you did but either way it is playing semantics to get the meaning we want out of them probably. I will stop grousing "stop putting words in my mouth" if you will stop accusing me of hypocrisy before you clarify what I meant. Deal?

(droop224 responding to Mrs. Pigpen)
Perfect world scenario. Not nagging you here, as I am in agreement with you as to this, if it were a perfect world. Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag. We could get rid of ours but who would follow our example? All we can do is try to limit their spread.


Quickly? That's hard for me obviously

Warning - If you continue to develop Nukes here is what the consequence will be.

Threatening - We are going to come kick your butt.

Yes very similar in some cases, but I am trying to keep it on the nukes issue rather than whole "axis of evil" issue. Yes Iran feels threatened by us, but the issue is/was about nukes and hypocrisy. Maybe that is where the misunderstanding has come in. The analogy was limited to the nuke issue.

Have we ever indicated that we would use Nukes in any way other than to warn them not to pursue nuclear weapon research? Even a first strike possibility as a deterrent? All of the other "axis of evil" crap (and I use that aimed at Pres. Bush and co. not at you) has nothing to do with nukes that I am aware of.

I don't know how accurate it was as a reflection of real life policy but one of the Tom Clancy books mentioned that we reserve the right to use WMD against WMD and since the only WMD we have is nukes thats what we would use.

The only discussions I have heard about the use of NW against not nuclear targets have been just that, discussions and they haven't gone very far.

Iran is a threat if they possess nuclear weapons. And, they are a threat if they do not.

Iran's leader has recently (on several instances) indicated that the Jewish holocaust of WWII did not exist. He also vowed (with a veiled threat that He'd be the one to see it through) that Israel would be wiped off the map.

In the 1930's, Hitler's ambitions with respect to the Jewish people and lands that he believed were the historically property of Germany were documented in his book "Mein Kampf". The West didn't pay much attention and millions died as a result of appeasing and then not stopping him soon enough.

History is repeating itself this time in the form of Islamist tin-pot dictators who's insanity would be far more dangerous than Hitler's given the force multiplier of WMD's such as nuclear arms.

We can pretend that Iran is not a threat. Or, we can confront them before it is too late.

This is not a question of "hypocrisy". It's a question of survival.

wouldn't it be the height of hypocrisy to use nuclear weapons against them?

Our argument is that if we allow them to create nukes, they may give them to terrorists, or directly use them against us Israel. Iran is an outspoken radically Islamic country, so I don't think that any of the undesirable occurences we list as possible actions by it, are really completely unplausible.

Would us nuking them be hypocritical?

To be hypocritical, is to ask something of someone else, that you are unwilling to do yourself.

Thereby, we are already being hypocritical to Iran, as we are asking them to deny themselves nuke, while we grant nukes to ourselves.

While I do define us as hypocritical, that is not the same as saying that I think we are wrong to possess nukes, or that we are wrong to try to deny possession of them to Iran. I am merely giving a literal answer to a direct question.

Would our argument itself be made invalid by us nuking them (I believe the question asked above was intended to be the equivalent of this one)?

Our argument can be summed up as, we don't want Iran to have nukes, because we think they'll use them, or hand them off to others who will use them. If we nuked Iran, that would be an act of use, and it would therefore show us to be no more responsible nuclear caretakers, then we purport Iran to be.

This topic, as the original post indicated, is not at it's surface anything really worth discussing. It is a reversal of our legitimate concerns regarding nuclear weapons if we decide to use them ourselves. The significance of this reversal of principle is heightened if that use is against a nation who does not even have nuclear weapons.

But this inquiry has opened another issue, calling on the integrity of the two countries in question. My initial attempt at pointing this out has somehow been mistaken for Cold War rhetoric. I am not suggesting that we eliminate our nuclear weapons when I draw a comparison between the histories of these two countries.

Given the respective histories of these two countries, who can be trusted more with nuclear weapons? We would most certainly choose whichever country is our own for the purpose of self-preservation. For this reason, it is necessary to at least attempt to remove our personal interests from the picture in order to approach the matter objectively. Our survival instincts often trump our empathy.

Imagine two countries, named A and B.

A has used nuclear weapons, but B has not. Brownie points for B.

A participated in overthrowing the government of B a half century ago. More recently, A has violently overthrown the governments of two countries bordering B, and maintains a military presence in the area. On the other hand, B has only had one major military conflict, and that was a direct response to an invasion from a neighbor. Brownie points for B.

A is supportive of the enemies of B. B is supportive of the enemies of A. This is a draw, no brownie points.

The commander in chief of A's military is elected to four-year terms, during which it is difficult to fire him. Since he cannot get a third term, his second term goes essentially unchecked. The commander in chief of B's military can be fired at any time by the publicly elected Assembly of Experts. I am tempted to give more brownie points to B for this, but I admit that I am not familiar enough with the internal politics of B to make a fair judgement on the effectiveness of their system of checks and balances. The fact that the experts are clergymen immediately raises skepticism.

The point here is that, despite some misconceptions that I have read in this thread, Iran is not a dictatorship. The President of Iran is not the commander in chief of their military. And even though we have legitimate concerns regarding our relations with them, and their relations with our other enemies, it is an error to insist that we are militarily safer than them when we have clearly shown that we are much more aggressive.*

*Please note that whether we have been "too aggressive" is another matter altogether, and I am purposely not addressing it here. The specific level of aggression in question is a relative one, strictly limited to the comparison of the specified parties.

Dingo I fail to see how you conclude the quote above deals with a “preemptive” strike. The words “in response to” make my point. This is merely saying what other presidents have said in the past. If a country supplies WMD to another country or organization and they use them against the US we will use nukes to reply. And it would not be a “guess” that tells us who attacked or supplied the material. The nuclear material made at any plant in the world can be identified definitively. That means if a nuke is used against us (or a dirty bomb) etc. we will know exactly where the nuclear material was made.

Ted, here's the quote again.


Nothing in here about establishing an Iranian connection. The whole approach appears to be reptilian. Anybody pulls another 911 and we attack Iran whether or not they have any provable involvement. Of course the attack doesn't have to be nuclear to induce a nuclear response. Furthermore assuming the attack was nuclear I don't get how radioactive material can be identified as country specific. Splitting atoms don't have a nationality. In any case the response would be presumably nearly instant so there wouldn't be time to determine its origins.

Let's be clear though, using the 911 analogy above they are talking about a nuclear response to a nonnuclear attack with no proof of an Iranian origin. So I go back to my original point, "Any nation operating this way would have to be considered a threat to the world."

Do you seriously think we would just nuke Iran without proof of their involvement? And use nukes? Who do you know in Congress on either side of the isle who would vote to approve that?

And ther IS a way to identify the source of nuclear material. Thus the meaning of the statement is – if we are attacked and IF we identify the material used as coming from your country we will hold YOU (Iran or any other country) responsible.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-3-2006-88038.asp

Pentagon Sets Up Robot Unit to Identify Source of Nuclear Attacks

Major Susan Idziak, a defense department spokeswoman, told The Guardian that the unit was called the Domestic Nuclear Event Attribution (DNEA) program and that it had been launched in 2000. It is made up of nuclear experts equipped with "specifically modified" robots for collecting and analyzing fallout at ground zero of any future attack by a nuclear device or a dirty bomb (radioactive material scattered by conventional explosives).

The program is principally intended as a contingency in the case of an attack on the US, but the team of experts and specialist robots could also be dispatched abroad in the event of an attack on an American ally.

Whatever the target, it would seek to identify isotopes in the fallout in an attempt to establish the particular "signature" of the radioactive material.

I have posted the quote from the Juan Cole site twice. I'm not going to do it again. As to the general question. When matters of security come up with a little hype you can sell just about anything to the American sheeple and thus their representatives. Just throw in some nice ambiguous clause like "if we have reason to believe that