0
   

Iran's threat. Iraq's threat. The same old BS or not?

 
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 03:26 pm
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 06:14 pm
farmerman wrote:
O'Bill said
Quote:
Farmerman: Thanks for the further clarification, but you never answered if what I wrote struck you as false?

I was trying to use undisputed evidence that, yes, what you wrote struck me as false. The cancer rates from the Marshall Islands is several times greater than the regional norms and clusters arround thyroid, bone, leukemias and childhood cancers that seem to reflect mutagenic properties induced by radiosisotopes (specific ones) upon previous generations .

itll be another hundred fifty years or so before the atoll is habitable. Anybody who wants to experience diving in the Bikini atoll is engaging in an irresponsible act that, when our society gets working as many want it, insurance companies will be charging outrageous premiums or will deny coverage .
So, while it has nothing to do with Saddam, it does go to the issue of credibility.
Farmerman; I respect your opinions and appreciate your insight and expertise, but there's nothing false about my statement and your "credibility" slight is out of line. A simple Google search produced an array of links to diving at Bikini Atol, just as I thought I remembered. Here is one example that even promotes a couple of Hotels on the Marshall Islands.

http://bikiniatoll.com/divetour4.html

My original post on this subtopic was addressing a suggestion that Israel would be in some grave danger because of their proximity to Iran (or vise versa) in the event one nuked the other... This isn't necessarily the case nor would it be for India/Pakistan for that matter. Of course it wouldn't do them any good, but it certainly isn't the danger some make it out to be.

Btw, I'm sure I share your disgust for what was done to the indigenous populations in the Marshall Islands as well as our lack of reparations for same. Your case is compelling but doesn't really address the degree of danger I referenced.


Setanta wrote:
Your argument, which appears to be what O'Bill was advancing and which seems to be what McG is advancing, is that having effected "regime change" in Iraq, there will never, ever be any reason in the future to fear that anyone in Iraq will develop womd, world without end amen.
Pure fantasy from the mind of Setanta. Go on ignoring the fact that no one said never, and that this was already pointed out to you. Go on accusing others of specious logic while transforming their arguments into weaker, indefensible positions and then grandstanding about how much smarter you are. This is textbook Strawman building, and since you love accusing others of building them so much; perhaps it's time you learn the definition. Click here.

Quote:
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.


Setanta wrote:
There is not only no reason to believe that, but your example of the Israeli attack on Baghdad in 1978 gives good reason to believe that the thesis is fatally flawed.
Only if one indulges in Setanta's fantasy that opponent's words should be promoted to absurd extremes. Otherwise; a rational person could conclude that the nukes Saddam nearly created prior to the first Gulf War may well have been completed and used prior to that action, had his ambitions not been thwarted. Idea
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 06:29 pm
In the news.

Quote:
Iran dispute 'long way' from military solution: US army chief
Mar 24 10:11 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

The top US military officer said here that Washington does not consider military action as an immediate option to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

"Iran is a long way from needing any kind of military solution," General Peter Pace, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said in an interview with the NTV news channel during a visit to Turkey.

"The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia-- other countries, certainly the Turkish government -- are all working to persuade the Iranian government to function in a way that is not dangerous or threatening to its neighbors, to have power, but not nuclear weapons power.

"There are many more things to be done politically and diplomatically before anybody, any country, considers some kind of a military option," he said.

Pace denied media speculation that the United States might be seeking the use of Turkish military bases for a possible strike on Iran, Turkey's eastern neighbor.

Earlier in the day, Pace addressed a conference on global terrorism in Ankara, and on Thursday met Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the chief of general staff, General Hilmi Ozkok.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 05:54 am
Quote:
Security Council Pressures Tehran
Iran Is Urged to Halt Uranium Enrichment

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 30, 2006; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS, March 29 -- The Security Council called on Iran Wednesday to suspend its uranium enrichment program within 30 days, ending three weeks of deadlock between Western powers and Russia and China over how to pressure Tehran to prove its nuclear efforts are not aimed at making weapons.

The 15-member council unanimously adopted a nonbinding statement on Iran after the United States and five other key countries finished difficult negotiations on its wording. The statement does not commit the United Nations to action against Iran and was written to avoid language that might clearly set the stage for sanctions or subsequent military moves -- the sort of direct pressure that Russia and China have declined to support.


source
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:13 am
A step in the right direction, Revel. More voices= Better chance Iran will recognize the true position they're in. I wish Russia and China would stop playing games and give the words some teeth. Larger coalition= better chance no force will be necessary.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:31 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Your argument, which appears to be what O'Bill was advancing and which seems to be what McG is advancing, is that having effected "regime change" in Iraq, there will never, ever be any reason in the future to fear that anyone in Iraq will develop womd, world without end amen.


Pure fantasy from the mind of Setanta. Go on ignoring the fact that no one said never, and that this was already pointed out to you. Go on accusing others of specious logic while transforming their arguments into weaker, indefensible positions and then grandstanding about how much smarter you are. This is textbook Strawman building, and since you love accusing others of building them so much; perhaps it's time you learn the definition.
Quote:
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. (URL removed as needless to the refutation)


I know and have long known the meaning of a strawman. That you choose to misapply the term here does not sustain your accusation. My point throughout this thread, and which i was making when i addressed someone else, was that the invasion of Iraq, and any invasion and occupation of Iran which might be attempted, cannot guarantee that either of those nations will never develop and deploy womd. I'm not constructing a strawman, because i have not asserted that you claim the simple invasion of Iraq and the establishment of a putatively democratic government will assure us of eternal freedom from such a threat--i used the verb "to seem," as in "seems to be" and "to appear" as in "appears to be" precisely because i was not stating for a fact that that is what you contend. The rest of your response is simply snide vitriol, complete with derogatory characterizations of the style of my presentation, and suggestions that you are better informed about logical fallacies than am i.

My argument has been and remains that military action cannot provide anything other than a temporary assurance that no womd will be developed or deployed, unless provision is made for permanently, militarily occupying the target nations. Failing that, the use of military means such as was done in Iraq is only a temporary palliative, which provides no longer term solution to the problem of an alleged threat to our nation (no proof has ever been forthcoming that Iraq possessed womd, nor that Iraq intended to target the United States; no proof is presently forthcoming that Iran intends to target the United States with womd). Basically, here, you have indulged in the sort of sneering personal attack of which you are so fond of accusing me.

Quote:
Setanta wrote:
There is not only no reason to believe that, but your example of the Israeli attack on Baghdad in 1978 gives good reason to believe that the thesis is fatally flawed.


Only if one indulges in Setanta's fantasy that opponent's words should be promoted to absurd extremes. Otherwise; a rational person could conclude that the nukes Saddam nearly created prior to the first Gulf War may well have been completed and used prior to that action, had his ambitions not been thwarted. (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)


You are by inference suggesting that i am not a rational person, part and parcel of your decision to indulge in the sort of invidious characterization of one's interlocutor of which you are fond of accusing me. My point was that the Israeli attack on Baghdad in 1978 failed to end the program to produce womd by the Ba'athists in Iraq, and therefore not only does not prove that military action is effective, but can be inferred to demonstrate that such military actions are ultimately ineffective, precisely because they cannot permanently guarantee an end to attempts to develop and deploy womd.

A stirling example of the pot and kettle conundrum, however.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:41 am
Never, ever, permanently guarantee etc. If that's all you're stating, why bother spending so much energy pointing out the obvious? In other news; water is wet, stone's are hard and bricks are heavy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:57 am
The reason to bother is that people have suggested that military action against Iran would be an effective response to the allegation that they are devoloping womd. I dissent from that view, and am stating my case, whether or not you are charmed by the process. It is additionally worth noting, once again, that there is no evidence that Iraq possessed womd at the time of the invasion, or that they intended to use them on the United States; and, once again, that Iran intends to develop and deploy womd for the purpose of using them on the United States. Given the contents of the UN charter, which one hopes you read, we have no justification on that basis to allege a proximate threat and attack them. Given our history and the allegation that we are a nation that values equality and justice, we have no basis for such action without irrefutable evidence of a proximate threat. The most which can have ever been said about Iraq and womd, or which can now be said about Iran and womd, is that the threat was to Israel. Personally, i don't consider that justification for military action, either.

Your sneers are hilarious, though--so sophomoric.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 06:32:38