This ought to fire you up

[Enigma]

Ahh yes, another fine source of all things accurate and true. Of all that is rightous and and worthy of my time. Michelle Malkin.

You sure know how to bring a topic to a screeching halt....:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Enigma

You sure know how to bring a topic to a screeching halt....:rotfl:

You keep coming back here to say that.

Interesting. :hmm:

Actually, not.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I just love top secret attack plans.

LMAO..:rotfl:

[STEED]

As I recall from about this time last year folks were saying there will be a war with Iran and the troops will be going in soon. And here we go again, I would not be surprised to hear this again next year. :hmm:

[Enigma]

You keep coming back here to say that.

Well, someone has to be saying something I suppose. As opposed to parroting.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

(...)the basic moral principle of universality (that we apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others, if not more stringent ones - to paraphrase Noam Chomsky). Those that don't - at last count, all of them - should not be taken seriously.

I might be able to impugn this.

Prolonging the logic from this confused paragraph, that is, by taking it seriously, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei must not be taken seriously as neither accepts this basic moral principle of universality, therefore Iran does not have a right to attack the US/Israel.

To paraphrase (read:quote) Ayatollah Khamenei: “The only way to confront the Zionist enemy is the continuation and fortification of resistance and Jihad.”; "Talks with the United States have no benefit for us and are harmful to us." Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad do not grant Israel the right of existence they grant to Palestine, in short, their principles of existence are not universal. In other words, the line quoted here is self-contradictory.

An attack on Iran or vice-versa wouldn't have anything to do with "rights" anyway, but with necessity. But If we do want to qualify the parts involved, however, it is still clear which part offers, practices and believes in most and more important rights. This means that a supreme Iran would apply to others less rights (with or without quotes) than the US or Israel.

Still, there is no such thing as a basic moral principle of universality. Every moral principle must be universal, if not, it isn't a principle, much less a "moral principle". It is not its application that will make or break the universality of a moral principle but the moral principle itself, the universality must be contained in the principle itself, it is the principle that will qualify itself as universal self-evidently. Also, you cannot apply something that is universal in greater or smaller scales, quantities, intensities. A thing is either universal or it isn't. It can't be a more universal or less universal, so it's impossible to apply an universal principle more stringently to yourself than to others. One thing could approach universality more than others, but if it reached it, it would become universal, while others still wouldn't.

But very well, let's apply to others what we apply more stringently to ourselves: begin applying freedom of the press in Iran, then freedom of thought, expression and religion. Then let's make women equal to men in the legal codes. Next we should apply fair trials in Iran. Then apply massive privatization of the Iranian state to breakdown its power and empower its citizens. We should apply a system of free-enterprise so that Iranians do not depend on the state and on elected officials for everything. Enough? The list goes on.

Now, would this blog agree with this? Would this blog propose we demand or force the application of Democracy, Republicanism and Capitalism on Iran? I thought so. We almost forgot about letting Iran decide its own way didn't we? One who speaks of reciprocity only when it favours oneself does not speak in name of reciprocity at all but in that of opportunistic egoism.

Lastly it is important to note the point beneath the surface of the argument: "Those that don't - at last count, all of them - should not be taken seriously". This isn't about Iran or any bombing but about excluding competition and eliminating the voices that do not serve the author. One who seeks to be taken seriously by those who imagine themselves to be serious is trapped by the pressure and the limit of the group's opinion, of what is considered serious and what isn't. He is not a free thinker nor can conduct sincere investigation. To say that we should not take seriously anybody who meets (or fails to) this and that criteria is a totalitarian attempt to end the debate by silencing opposition, to eliminate discussion and to exclude freedom of thought. Accept being framed by the group or you won't be taken seriously. Exaggeration? Well, "at last count, all of them" were excluded. That means the ambition is as high as "all of them" goes and can be applied to "all of them".

I don't care the slightest if you take me seriously or not, but I will never turn down anything you have to say to me on the basis that I will not take you seriously because you think differently from me. Do not believe, however, that I will allow you to abuse this freedom I grant you so that you may deny it to me if ever in power. I will denounce your totalitarian nature before that, as I hereby denounce the totalitarian nature of the argument from the article linked to.

[geetrue]

I’m not debating anyone … I just want to add some truth

Hard earned lessons from World War II

Japan did not come to the bargaining table till they were defeated

Iran better not strike first …

“Some minds remain open long enough for the truth
not only to enter but to pass on through by way of a
ready exit without pausing anywhere along the route.”—
Sister Elizabeth Kenny, Australian nurse (1886-1952).

[U-533]

Originally Posted by geetrue

I’m not debating anyone … I just want to add some truth

Hard earned lessons from World War II

Japan did not come to the bargaining table till they were defeated

Iran better not strike first …

“Some minds remain open long enough for the truth
not only to enter but to pass on through by way of a
ready exit without pausing anywhere along the route.”—
Sister Elizabeth Kenny, Australian nurse (1886-1952).

Hallelujah!
You have just hit the nail on the thumb.

I'm not really comparing the Japanese to Whacked Out Terrorist after all they only had a certain religion that would (??Sacrifice??] themselves for glory.... With Iran and Iraq thats all they got.

Any way I agree with you, And Sister Elizabeth Kenny.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I just love top secret attack plans.

Exactly. If it's top secret, how the hell do they know about it? They don't.

It all comes down to the fact that any country prepares for any instance of any conflict. The fact the Isrealies prepare for a nuke scenario is part of what having nukes, bombs, or even any conventional or non conventional training is about. THey must be prepared for any action the government asks of the military.

Any idiot that doesn't think the Americans or Russians don't practice drills on launching their nukes at each other is living in fantasy land!

-S

[baggygreen]

Um, i think its more US and China rather than US and Russia. I think its pretty well established that were Russia to try anything, their rockets would more than likely home in on the Kremlin as well...

[Schatten]

As for the US nuclear missile training/planning you can be sure that they still run scenarios aimed at taking out Russian nuclear missile sites as well as the sites that still exist in the former USSR. Because you just can't ignore nuclear weapons even in countries that are being "nice" at the moment.

In the same vein I'm sure the Chinese sites are routinely planned/drilled against, as well as the Pakistani, Indian, French, etc. weapons facilities. Hell, I'm sure the US planners have contingency plans for even taking out Israel's nuclear arsenal, just on the off chance that the state of Israel suddenly collapses and someone like Hamas has the remote possibility of getting their hands on one of the weapons. That's a very unlikely scenario, but it should be planned for.

I mean if they aren't planning for such strikes on any or all of those targets, allied and pontentially hostile alike then they don't deserve to keep their jobs. Like I said you can't ignore any known nuclear weapon anywhere in the world, no matter who owns it and how much of a friend they are because things change and just because someone builds it, it doesn't mean they necessarilly will always have positive control over it.

As for the "top secret Israeli plan" up there, like it's been said if they aren't preparing for it then they don't deserve to keep their jobs in the IAF either. Whether or not it's likely is another story. I think that someone, be it Israel or the US, will have to deal with Iran's potential nuclear weapons capability at some point. Whether or not that's done with nukes, or even with conventional strikes remains to be seen, diplomacy is the best option sure but if that isn't going to work then you can't put up a blanket statement that "well we just simply can't even conceive of using military action let alone nukes against Iran" or that will both undercut your negotiating position (since they know there's no stick backing it up) or if military action is needed then your public will be up in arms because you said it was off the table.

Personally I don't have any problem with the IAF taking out Iran's nuclear sites. I mean just to get there they'd have to fly over at least one Muslim country, and if that (or those) countries let them then it sends a fairly strong signal to the rest of the Muslim world that it isn't necessarilly a non-Muslim vs. Muslim thing, but a non-insane nations vs. insane one thing. Publically they'd say the usual things, but privately you can bet your bippie that the Turks, Jordanians or Saudis would perfectly happy if Iran's nuclear ambitions went away, even if they had to swallow that the IAF (or USAF) did it.

At least that's how I see it at this point.

[Enigma]

I recall reading a book on how the Chinese military is basically designed to defeat the American military, on the premise that you target the biggest guy on the block as your benchmark for possible military opponents...

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

Um, i think its more US and China rather than US and Russia. I think its pretty well established that were Russia to try anything, their rockets would more than likely home in on the Kremlin as well...

Don't kid yourself. Cold war enemies tension have given way to smiles and Political Correctness. We are probably more under threat of nuclear war today than we were back when the Soviet Union existed.

-S

PS. Stephen Hawkings explains this possibility better than anyone.

[Enigma]

We are probably more under threat of nuclear war today than we were back when the Soviet Union existed.

I would agree that there is just as good a chance of nuclear conflict in the world today, but your suggesting that the US is at more of a threat from nuclear attack from Russia today than, say, pre-Detente?

C'mon.....

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Enigma

I would agree that there is just as good a chance of nuclear conflict in the world today, but your suggesting that the US is at more of a threat from nuclear attack from Russia today than, say, pre-Detente?

C'mon.....

It doesn't take rocket science to see the hostility, whether right or wrong against the US from Rissia. There is also hostility from the US to Russia. The enemies are not dead, just that they smile a lot now. Also, as Stephen Hawkings puts it, all it would take between our two countries is for one to simply mis-interpret the actions of the other and the switch could be thrown.

Another scenario that could spur this scenario is for example if the US developed a world changing technology like Nanotechnology and didn't share it. Imagine buying a perfect product on a molecular scale for pennies on the dollar. An example would be like a car - you can buy that Mercedes over there for $100K, or I can sell you this one at $10K that is perfect and doesn't need to go to the shop for a million miles and is guaranteed to never have a sqeak or rattle ever! You just destroyed the world economy overnight.

This is just one example of how a technology could cause a war like this.

-S