Is the United States gearing up for an attack on Iran?

[Enigma]

Alsoo could the extra 20,000 troops be for Iran. Time will tell.

I have to say, this would be political suicide, not to mention our final osticizing from the world community. Besides that, 20'000 plus what we have there now is not near enough to take on Iran. The only way they could pull that off is be lying to the American people and the world about why the troops are there, and we both know the President doesnt lie or mislead.

[Seth8530]

Rofl do i detect humour. But it is true that that is political suiside. I sopose you are correct.

[baggygreen]

To use 20,000 troops in iran is to sign a death warrant for each and every one. To invade Iran would involve a multinational effort much like the first gulf war. The troops are going there to fight the insurgency, probably mainly to reinforce massive sweeps across suburbs.

Iran will be taken down a notch (if anyone in the US leadership has the brains) by airstrikes.

[Chaotic42]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

To use 20,000 troops in iran is to sign a death warrant for each and every one. To invade Iran would involve a multinational effort much like the first gulf war. The troops are going there to fight the insurgency, probably mainly to reinforce massive sweeps across suburbs.

Iran will be taken down a notch (if anyone in the US leadership has the brains) by airstrikes.

Well, the problem is that Europe wouldn't do anything substantial until the Iranian border runs through Paris. I can't forsee Europe ever contributing substantially to an attack on Iran.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Chaotic42

Well, I've heard a lot of people compare the situation with Iran to the situation with Germany in the 30s. Everyone knew they had to be stopped, but no one did anything until it was almost too late.

I don't know of anything good or helpful to the rest of the world that's coming out of Iran, and we have to worry about our interests.

Originally Posted by baggygreen

thats just the thing mate, you've said it well - iran is just like germany.

History keeps repeating, because people are the same throughout time. we are nasty, vile, destructive things. because basic human nature doesnt change throughout the ages, history repeats. It happens because we allow ourselves to forget the past lessons learnt, and so have to learn it again.

Hands up who wants to be the new neville chamberlain???

Originally Posted by Schatten

I agree with pretty much everything said about the parallels between Germany in the '30s and Iran right now.

Making parallels and comparisions isnt an argument. Every conflict is different in both essence and detail. Just because history teaches lessons and tends towards repetition doesnt make the world a ****ing photocopier.

[Chaotic42]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Making parallels and comparisions isnt an argument. Every conflict is different in both essence and detail. Just because history teaches lessons and tends towards repetition doesnt make the world a ****ing photocopier.

Really? I don't think anyone knew that. Thanks for stating the obvious, I don't know what we'd do without you.

Care to highlight the differences that you see between Iran today and Germany years ago?

[CCIP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law

[baggygreen]

[quote=Chaotic42

Really? I don't think anyone knew that. Thanks for stating the obvious, I don't know what we'd do without you.

Care to highlight the differences that you see between Iran today and Germany years ago?[/quote]

potential response: They speak a different language. they look different. Different religion. different place. they live today. They dont have hitler.

************************************************** *************

lol chaotic, i know id be lost without him mate, suppose you would be too.

No, they arent one and the same. mercifully. Problem is, there are enough similarities in the situation for comparisons to be drawn! Whats worse is that the vocal minority want to follow exactly the same path of pacifism. Got us a long way last time didnt...

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by CCIP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law

You know mate, i reckon in this case its probably a good thing - it means that people arent forgetting lessons learnt in the past.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by CCIP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law

I suggest you read carefully and in full what you linked to.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I suggest you read carefully and in full what you linked to.

Indeed:

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[2] that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Otherwise this would be an arbitrary rule, a law in the juridical sense.

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves also to impose an upper bound on thread length in general.
It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's Law (in the above sense) will be unsuccessful. This is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception".

As demonstrated by this thread.

Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. Instead, it applies to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations to Hitler or Nazis

Were the comparisons of Germany and Iran mentioned earlier inappropriate, inordinate or hyperbolic?

Originally Posted by Chaotic42

(...) compare the situation with Iran to the situation with Germany in the 30s. Everyone knew they had to be stopped, but no one did anything until it was almost too late.

"Everyone" obviously means everyone else or everyone that knows "they had to be stopped". Same with "no one", "no one" who didn't "do anything untill it was almost too late". But the situations aren't detailed. It could be the situation of the color of Apples in Germany and Iran, the weather, anything. Valid and invalid.

Originally Posted by baggygreen

(...) thats just the thing mate, you've said it well - iran is just like germany

(...) people are the same throughout time. we are nasty, vile, destructive things. because basic human nature doesnt change throughout the ages, history repeats. It happens because we allow ourselves to forget the past lessons learnt, and so have to learn it again.

Hands up who wants to be the new neville chamberlain???

What is exaggerated here is the language and not the similitude drawn. Iran is "just like" Germany, but right after, "people are the same throughout time", "basic human nature doesn't change". What is being considered "just like" is "basic human nature", that's what "people...throughout time" have in common, what's "the same". To reject this as inappropriate or inordinate we need to know what he means with "basic human nature". If he means that people both in 1930's Germany and today's Iran are humans, a valid comparison can be made. If he means "nasty, vile, destructive things" these elements in both 1930's Germany and today's Iran can be compared. Since he mentioned the passage of time (throughout time) it seems obvious to me that when he says "history repeats" he doesn't mean that the same situation repeats itself literally. "Who wants to be the new neville chamberlain" is clearly not a literal statement. If Chamberlain was to repeat himself or to be exactly the same nobody could become the "new" Chamberlain. To put it in a little less informal form: who wants to repeat Chamberlain's role in this similar situation?

Originally Posted by Schatten

I agree with pretty much everything said about the parallels between Germany in the '30s and Iran right now.

This one speaks of "parallels". If more than one parallel can be drawn, it's valid. I'm not going over the validity of the parallel he mentioned. Suffice to say he's actually agreeing with the quotes above which contain more than one parallel, at least two of which being valid.

So, the comparisons in the first quote are unknown, I'll not draw any conclusions based on my ignorance of them, they could be any and all previous comparisons of Iran and Germany which include the appropriate and the inappropriate ones, though I suppose, even though it isn't stated, that Chaotic doesn't intend to include the inappropriate ones. The comparisons possible in the second quote are perfectly fine, it is not the similitudes that are exaggerated but baggygreen who uses an exaggerated language to express himself. Unless we want to discuss texts, sentences, words and letters that do not relate to any idea, thought, intuition, experience or reality we must strive to understand what people meant to say, what they attempted to say and not their imperfect form of expression. There is one parallel exposed in the third quote which is also a post of agreement with the other two. In all three quotes valid comparisons (or parallels) are presupposed. Analyze Iran and find the parallels in 1930's Germany. And I don't see where it is suggested that history would literally repeat itself exactly as it happened before, with Blitzkrieg exactly like it happened (including the defects and errors), D-day, Mauser rifles, SS divisions, B-17 bombing formations, Convoys and Wolfpacks, etc.

Proof for some of this is baggygreen's 2nd post from mine:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

No, they arent one and the same. mercifully. Problem is, there are enough similarities in the situation for comparisons to be drawn! Whats worse is that the vocal minority want to follow exactly the same path of pacifism. Got us a long way last time didnt...

Again, this "exactly" is exaggerated. It will not be actually exact. But similar or approximate. The language is exaggerated and informal but baggygreen is a real person, not a text sentence, with a real message to convey that we can understand if we don't detract into pure nominalism.

[baggygreen]

um

wow.

Im impressed.

It took me literally (not exaggeratedly) 10 minutes or more to read, reread, and begin to think i comprehended it! That is an impressive piece of work.

In attempting to emulate the level of intellect shown, i would argue that an exaggeration is in the eye of the beholder, with the exception of something perhaps like "there were 29999999999999 people at the local under 9s afl match last weekend".

Of course, that wouldnt work and it would appear as though i was coming across as a bit of a smartass, which of course i am!

Moving along, that is an exceptionally well thought out response, which must have taken a bit of time to compose!

If i've understood it correctly, then the basic gist of the post is that Goodwins Law being applied here isnt quite an appropriate application. I think.

[mapuc]

If Todays Iran is equal to the NaziGermany ind the mid 30's and beginning of the 40's, then Israel must be, what England was then.

Markus

[Fish]

Good news? :hmm:

Published: January 19, 2007
TEHRAN, Jan. 18 — Iran’s outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in its nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure.
Just one month after the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on the president to stay out of all matters nuclear.
In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the supreme leader — who has final say on all matters of state — might no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West.
It is the first sign that Mr. Ahmadinejad has lost any degree of Ayatollah Khamenei’s confidence, a potentially damaging development for a president who has rallied his nation and defined his administration by declaring nuclear power Iran’s “inalienable right.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/wo...th&oref=slogin

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I suggest you read carefully and in full what you linked to.

Had I not done that, and many months ago at that, I would not have linked.

I had presumed you weren't the only one allowed to link things in a semi-sarcastic fashion :p