U.S. Hikers held in Iran

[NBVegita]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/10/iran.us.hikers/index.html?hpt=T2

 

Ok after reading the story, do you find it to be injustice that they're being held, or sheer stupidity on their part?

 

Personally I think you're a plain idiot to be going to Kurdistan and decide that you're going to take a hiking trip to the Iranian border. I don't care if you didn't mean to cross the border, you're a plain idiot for going there in the first place.

 

That is tantamount to driving through the Bronx with the confederate flag painted on the side of your car and looking for sympathy because you were assaulted.

 

Honestly they should be happy to be alive. Iran could have easily just killed them and disposed of the bodies and we never would have known what happened.

 

Now I'm not saying that Iran wouldn't welcome (on some level) travelers from the U.S., through legal means, but if you enter any country in the Middle East illegally, intentionally or not, you have a death wish.

[»Xog]

v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,vvvvvvvvvvvv,v,v,v,v,v,vv,v,v,v,,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,vv,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,, ok i got tired

 

 

 

on topic: they stupid

[BDwinsAlt]

Sounds like the whole "I'm American, I can do what I want because I'm better than the rest of the world" coming out.

[Aileron]

Long post follows. However, I made it entertaining.

 

 

Look, Iran is wrong in this. Here's why:

 

They know that 3 idiot hikers wandering around the mountains does not United States intelligence gathering make. We have multibillion-dollar spy satellites, UAVs, stealth aircraft, Special Forces guys on camels, Airborne Sappers, snipers who can sit still for a month in the field in a gillie suit wearing diapers so they don't have to get up and take a leak, etc. Also, those are just the *UNCLASSIFIED* intelligence assets that we *tell* the world we have.

 

In Iran's mind, they are facing increasing hostility from the US. This is due to all the UN sanctions they are getting hit with lately. The UN, according to the League of Non-Aligned Nations doctrine, is in the US' pocket. That's right...they think that the same UN that said 'F.U. Bush' when we invaded Iraq and owes New York a billion dollars worth of unpaid parking tickets has somehow been under our complete and total domination the whole time. They can't seem to grasp the fact that 'No, France and Germany don't give a damn what the US has to say, but they *still* nevertheless don't like the idea of Iran trying to start Armageddon any more than the US does'. They come to ridiculous conclusions over how the world community works because they have always been on the outside looking in. They have noticed the world has been pushing them out of the global community, and have decided it is easier to blame the big bad US than admit that maybe there is a *reason* most countries in the world don't want to be Iran's friend.

 

Anyway, our intellectually challenged exploration team has become a pawn in their political game. Iran isn't dumb enough to think they are spies, and even if they did, they would have given them back to us by now. By contrast, the last time we caught a Chinese spy (post-Cold War) he was free and back in China by this amount of time, and that spy actually did get too close for comfort to our aerospace tech. He wasn't walking around on some remote mountains in the ass end of nowhere.

 

So, Iran wants something else which I can only guess at. Maybe they intend to use the hikers as defacto hostages in hopes that we will let Iran take two more steps towards starting WW III in exchange for getting the lowest common denominator of our gene pool back. Maybe they want to use them as proof so they can complain to their LoNAN friends about how the evil US is spying on them, reminiscent of 'help! help! I'm being repressed!' in MPatHG. Maybe they like to broadcast on FAR about how their big-bad security force outwitted the fiendish infidel secret agents spying on a pile of rocks, pretending that the Iranian people still actually believe the crap on FAR and aren't on the streets shouting 'Death to the Dictator'. Or, maybe they locked them up initially to get the answers, and now that they have the answers, are too lazy to go back to the jail cell, unlock it, and set the hikers free.

 

Point being the hikers are idiots because they allowed themselves to become pawns in an international political chess game that has the potential to get them killed, just to go on a hike in the mountains which could have been done in many less politically volatile places around the world. I mean, they could have hiked in the Rockies and run the risk of drifting into Canada, but instead...

 

However, this is an international political chess game that Iran shouldn't be playing in the first place, so Iran, not the hikers, are being the true idiots here.

[SeVeR]

In Summary: America is great, everyone else is evil.

 

Just realised I didn't need to read that to know what it was going to say.

[Aileron]

You know, that post right there sums up everything I hate about you people. I brush up on current events and world politics, and post a long and well-thought out article on the subject, and what do you do?

 

You don't read it, you 'summarize' it. Furthermore you don't even bother to summarize it correctly. An accurate summary of my post would be 'Both Iran and the hikers are idiots.'

 

You have *NEVER* supported your argument...ever. Instead, you have created this Straw Man fallacy which you claim is the conservative point of view, but is in reality a point of view held by no sane individual. Then, every time you want to prove a point, you shove this cartoon point of view out in front of us and prove its wrong. Ofcourse it is wrong! That whole point of view is something you constructed for the explicit purpose of being something you can defeat easily! It is a charismatic fallacy, but it doesn't really prove anything.

 

Xenophobia is wrong. The other extreme is pretending the world can just hold hands and sing kumbaya. Those two points of view are held by a scant few individuals. In the middle of those two extremes lie points of view which real people actually believe. You are not the political focus of balance in the universe, far from it, and even if you were, that doesn't mean that any opinion to the right of yours is equivalent to the xenophobic extreme. In fact, you are pretty far to the left, and there is plenty of room between you and the right winged extreme.

 

 

 

For sh__s and giggles, I'll do the same trick that you have played for the past three years:

 

To summarize SeVeR's post: The moon is made of cheese.

 

Clearly the moon is not made of cheese, so therefore the opposing point of view is wrong and everything I say is gospel.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Aileron

[NBVegita]

I'm by no means stating that Iran is in the "right".

 

I'm stating that these hikers are complete and utter idiots.

 

See I personally set the blame on hikers. I mean that's like know there is this mean dog on the street. He's behind a fence and is known to bite/harm people. Now you decide for giggles to climb that fence. Whoops, you fall off the top into the dogs yard, now you get attacked. To me, the dog isn't to blame, it's the idiot who got close enough to the dog to let it bite him/her.

 

I know there are politics involved that make it more complicated than that, but you're got it coming for messing around near/in a country like Iran.

[Aileron]

That analogy doesn't hold. A dog isn't sentient and can't be held accountable to have human understanding. Iran's government is composed of sentient human beings who have decided to turn their country into a political hot spot. You are writing Iran off as being a part of the world where despotism just happens as if it were a natural phenomenon like cold climate or chronic rain, and are forgetting that it is the *people* who run Iran that make it the place that it is.

[SeVeR]

You know, that post right there sums up everything I hate about you people. I brush up on current events and world politics, and post a long and well-thought out article on the subject, and what do you do?

 

You don't read it, you 'summarize' it. Furthermore you don't even bother to summarize it correctly. An accurate summary of my post would be 'Both Iran and the hikers are idiots.'

 

You have *NEVER* supported your argument...ever. Instead, you have created this Straw Man fallacy which you claim is the conservative point of view, but is in reality a point of view held by no sane individual. Then, every time you want to prove a point, you shove this cartoon point of view out in front of us and prove its wrong. Ofcourse it is wrong! That whole point of view is something you constructed for the explicit purpose of being something you can defeat easily! It is a charismatic fallacy, but it doesn't really prove anything.

 

Xenophobia is wrong. The other extreme is pretending the world can just hold hands and sing kumbaya. Those two points of view are held by a scant few individuals. In the middle of those two extremes lie points of view which real people actually believe. You are not the political focus of balance in the universe, far from it, and even if you were, that doesn't mean that any opinion to the right of yours is equivalent to the xenophobic extreme. In fact, you are pretty far to the left, and there is plenty of room between you and the right winged extreme.

 

 

 

For sh__s and giggles, I'll do the same trick that you have played for the past three years:

 

To summarize SeVeR's post: The moon is made of cheese.

 

Clearly the moon is not made of cheese, so therefore the opposing point of view is wrong and everything I say is gospel.

I guess you're asking me to elaborate on my post. You accuse me of being extreme and claim yourself as being in the middle ground, yet your post is clearly painting America as the good guy and Iran as the bad guy, with everyone else to be at fault in some way. I on the other hand am claiming your warped one-sidedness, and whether I am right or wrong, my criticism of you cannot make me extreme. Do I really need to quote you to prove my point? You cover France and Germany as being guilty of evil inaction through bitter jealousy of American power, China as a surreptitious untrustworthy sleeping dragon, and Iran as the epitome of all that is unjust. Your middle ground is red, white and blue mate. Not once have you said America is in the wrong, or even that they could be in the wrong. So when I summarise your post with the implication that you think America is blowing flowers out of their ass while the rest of the world is plotting against you, then I think I am giving your post more thought than it deserves, which would be to not post at all. Elaborate enough?

 

There would be no point in contending anything you've said because firstly you would never listen, and secondly because there is no black-and-white in this issue. There is no black and white for anyone in the middle ground. Everything you've said is as uncertain as an Agnostic, so that is my argument against you, prove you're right or admit where you stand, but don't claim to be anywhere other than staunchly in the camp of Uncle Sam. You accuse me of not reading your post, I obviously did, and even said so in my reply. What I claim to be the conservative point of view is not a Straw Man, it's you, you are what I have come to associate as a raving conservative, and that is probably to the detriment of most conservatives out there. Your post demonstrates xenophobia, or at least extensive distrust, for the whole bloody world it seems.

 

Tell me how I am "pretty far to the left"? What actual evidence is there of this, or have you just painted a picture of me like you have of the rest of the world? I trade stocks, am I anti-capitalist? I criticise Communism as being unable to allow man to compete in the way our biology dictates, my whole philosophy is based on natural selection. I support British sovereignty over the Falklands. I support the building of more nuclear power stations. I despise most environmentalists who don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps your own government and media should stop supporting liberals in Iran and promoting their cause on the basis that they are liberal?

Edited March 14, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

You accuse me of being extreme and claim yourself as being in the middle ground, yet your post is clearly painting America as the good guy and Iran as the bad guy, with everyone else to be at fault in some way.

 

I didn't get that at all from his post. You have a history of misinterpreting posts about Iran. I didn't bother reading your reply further.

[Aileron]

SeVeR, yet again, you are placing an opinion on me.

 

You cover France and Germany as being guilty of evil inaction through bitter jealousy of American power

 

Alright, let's look at that claim. Here is what I wrote concerning France and Germany:

 

The UN, according to the League of Non-Aligned Nations doctrine, is in the US' pocket. That's right...they think that the same UN that said 'F.U. Bush' when we invaded Iraq and owes New York a billion dollars worth of unpaid parking tickets has somehow been under our complete and total domination the whole time. They can't seem to grasp the fact that 'No, France and Germany don't give a damn what the US has to say, but they *still* nevertheless don't like the idea of Iran trying to start Armageddon any more than the US does'.

 

The claim that I was attacking is the doctrine of the League of Non-Aligned Nations, which Iran is a leading member, who's leaders have made multiple comments in the past about the UN being dominated by the US. I cited the UN's opposition to the OIF as evidence to the fact that the LoNAN doctrine is wrong. If the UN were under US domination as Iran and her allies claim, the Security Council would have fallen under the Bush umbrella, and OIF would have been a UN operation.

 

I neither called France and Germany apathetic nor jealous. The point I was making was that those countries have their own political agenda which is clearly distinct than the political agenda of United States. As a UN Security Council member and the dominant economy in Europe, the fact that these countries' agenda is that different from the US' agenda shoots holes in the LoNAN claim which was the subject of the paragraph.

 

To bridge the gap between 'France and Germany have a different agenda than the US', and 'France and Germany are apathetic and jealous', you would have to insert the claim that the US' political agenda is somehow golden and incorruptible. If I made such a claim, that argument would hold, because being different from something that is profoundly holy indeed makes something evil. But without the golden claim, different is just different.

 

However, I did not make the claim that the US' political agenda is golden and incorruptible. You inserted that claim into my argument. The claim is clearly untenable and something that is easy for you to defeat. Hence why I say you are using the straw man fallacy. I proved that the LoNAN statement that the US dominates the UN is false, and you in turn argue against a claim which I did *not* put forward concerning the morality of France and Germany's foreign policy.

 

 

 

That is the only example I am going to hit for brevity's sake. Suffice to say, much of your post consisted of 'you believe this' and 'you believe that', ending with an accusation of me being xenophobic. Given the number and nature of the claims that you have inserted into my argument your argument is not only straw man but also circular, because you inserted claims which amount to xenophobia into my set of premises from the beginning.

 

Since 'summaries' are popular in this thread, a decent summary of your post would be 'Aileron is a xenophobe because I believe he is.'

 

To that I say:

 

Please stop inserting opinions into my argument. It's illogical and also downright rude.

 

Yes, you are using a Straw Man argument. That is in fact such a clear example of a straw man argument that a philosophy professor could print your post and put it in a textbook.

 

and finally:

 

Everything I say is right because SeVeR thinks the Moon is made out of cheese.

[SeVeR]

I was referring to this sentence:

They can't seem to grasp the fact that 'No, France and Germany don't give a damn what the US has to say, but they *still* nevertheless don't like the idea of Iran trying to start Armageddon any more than the US does'. They come to ridiculous conclusions over how the world community works because they have always been on the outside looking in. They have noticed the world has been pushing them out of the global community, and have decided it is easier to blame the big bad US than admit that maybe there is a *reason* most countries in the world don't want to be Iran's friend.

But then, you could have been talking about the League of Non-Aligned Nations and not France/Germany. It was difficult to differentiate between who you were referring to when you said "they". I concede that you meant something else. It's not an opinion from me, it's what I genuinely thought you said.

 

However, my point is actually the same, there are over a hundred countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, and you are describing all of them as jealous and apathetic. Why is this? Is it because those countries have their own political agenda which is clearly distinct from the political agenda of United States? You don't give the LoNAN claim any attention, you just call them jealous, and if you seriously think the UN's view on Iraq wins your argument then you are sorely mistaken. The UN did nothing about Iraq, they couldn't because the US and her allies determine policy in the Security Council in that regard. If the war was illegal in the eyes of the UN then the UN should pass sanctions or threaten military action on the US. They didn't, they made an empty statement to remain credible and appease the masses. The Iraq issue makes LoNANs point, not yours. You also seem to think that France and Germany disagree with the US on many issues and that this makes the LoNAN claim defunct. All you've said on the issue before is France and Germany don't care what the US have to say and that their political agenda is different. Both points mean squat without some explanation as to specific disagreement. You said yourself that these two countries agree with the US on Iran. So does this support LoNANs claim?

 

So as I originally said you are claiming: "America as the good guy and Iran as the bad guy, with everyone else to be at fault in some way."

 

Just about everyone else is the League of Non-Aligned Nations. Yes I summarised a bit, but 100+ countries makes up most of the rest of the world, and you covered China separately for me anyway. I think that part of my quote is covered.

 

Now it's quite clear you paint Iran as the bad guy with your ridiculous Armageddon talk, but what about your good ol' America?

However, I did not make the claim that the US' political agenda is golden and incorruptible. You inserted that claim into my argument.

1. Your claims about the League of the Non-Aligned Nations directly result from their disagreements with the US. By painting the League in a bad light you can only be referring to the US as the good guys.

2. You refer to the US as stopping Armageddon by threatening Iran. Clearly this opinion of yours paints the US as the good guys.

3. You talk about how Iran thinks the US is spying on them. You say it in a sarcastic tone as if to say that the US is above this, would never do it, and is never wrong.

4. You continually refer to the US as "we" and "our".

5. You miss every opportunity to say anything remotely bad about the US. For example, maybe the US is spying on Iran and they are wrong to do so? Maybe Iran is developing civilian nuclear power as there is no evidence to the contrary, and maybe the US are wrong do assert the opposite with no evidence to back it up? Maybe the US is incriminating Iran based on ulterior motives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5346524.stm)? Maybe the US does dominate the UN, they obviously have economic and political power that many countries would not want to get on the wrong side off?

 

Anyway, by painting Iran in such a bad light you obviously see the US as the "Armageddon" saviours of man-kind, who are battling against the world to see justice done. Am I right or wrong here?

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding earlier. I wasn't trying to insert opinions into your post, I genuinely thought you said that. It would fit because France/Germany are not the world powers they used to be.

Edited March 15, 2010 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

That analogy doesn't hold. A dog isn't sentient and can't be held accountable to have human understanding. Iran's government is composed of sentient human beings who have decided to turn their country into a political hot spot. You are writing Iran off as being a part of the world where despotism just happens as if it were a natural phenomenon like cold climate or chronic rain, and are forgetting that it is the *people* who run Iran that make it the place that it is.

 

Yes there are people running Iran, but the problem is that you can't hold every person/country up to the same standards of the U.S./Western countries and then act shocked when they do what they've done historically. If I take a vacation to Afghanistan/SA/Iraq and get kidnapped by , it is my fault for putting myself in the situation. If I decide to try to help people out in Darfur/Burma and I get kidnapped/killed, it's my fault for putting myself in that situation. If I go hiking near/in the border of a country that is openly against my country and get kidnapped, it's my fault for putty myself in that situation.

 

I think there is this whole new age movement about "Don't worry about the consequences of your actions" and I was raised under the concept "Don't be a dumb ass"

 

I remember back in college, close to campus there was this park that was always renown for being a very bad place to be. Every 2-3 weeks we'd get a notice of a rape that occurred in the park because some girl would be walking through the park alone at 2:30 in the morning after the bars closed. To me that is completely her fault, based on the "dumb ass" rule.

 

Ultimately you can try to blame everyone else who doesn't hold up to your standards of civility, but the problem is that the world does not work that way. If you willingly put yourself in a situation where you could use a small amount of logic to realize that it is not a good situation to be in and something bad happens to you, it is your fault for putting yourself into that situation to begin with.

[SeVeR]

Couple that with the fact that the US has a history of spying and CIA intervention in Iran. The CIA even toppled from power a democratically elected Iranian leader in 1953, installing the Shah to power, who ruled so violently that in 1979 the Iranian revolution took place. Iran has every reason and justification to regard the US with immense distrust. Perhaps this more than a differing quality of civility is the principle reason for strict rules against Americans "drifting" across into Iranian territory.

[Aileron]

Veg, I think it was clear from my original post I still think the hikers are fools. But even in your rape park example, if police ever caught one of those rapists, the rapist would be held ultimately responsible for the event.

 

 

1. Your claims about the League of the Non-Aligned Nations directly result from their disagreements with the US. By painting the League in a bad light you can only be referring to the US as the good guys.

 

I claimed that the LoNAN claims didn't stack up. I didn't paint them in a 'bad light', only called their opinion flawed. The US dominates the international political scene with a lot of real-world power. We use that real-world power to affect the UN, but the UN is not our tool and does not enhance our power. The US is powerful *in spite of* the UN, not *because of* it. LoNAN is being fools by attacking the UN because the UN is the UN General Assembly vote is almost all of the power they have. They saw a branch they are standing on.

 

2. You refer to the US as stopping Armageddon by threatening Iran. Clearly this opinion of yours paints the US as the good guys.

 

I said the US doesn't like the idea of Iran starting Armageddon. Frankly we don't like the idea of *anybody* starting Armageddon, and many nations agree with us on that point. I didn't portray the US as good guys. Anyone can be motivated to take out the bad guys for the motive of self-preservation. A really fine point is that it doesn't portray Iran as the bad guy either. What France, Germany, and the US don't like is the *idea* of Iran starting Armageddon. Whether Iran is actually trying to is secondary to the fact they have convinced much of the west that it is their intention.

 

3. You talk about how Iran thinks the US is spying on them. You say it in a sarcastic tone as if to say that the US is above this, would never do it, and is never wrong.

 

On the contrary we almost certainly are spying on Iran. Spying isn't wrong, though Iran certainly has the right try to stop our attempts. Spying can reveal truth which can stop or mitigate wars.

 

However, enter the common sense test. The US is a rich and technologically advanced country with a top-notch military for the clandestine services to recruit from, and Iranian government officials know this. If the hikers were our spies, they would have been skilled, well equipped, would blend in, and would have been around something that would be of interest to us, of which they are not. Iran isn't holding spies. They are holding hikers. More importantly, Iran *knows* they are holding hikers and are keeping them locked up *anyway*.

 

Now before you go extending that sentence to mean all sorts of things about me accusing the people with the keys of being the anti-christ, let me point out that there can be a lot of good reasons to lock up uninvited interlopers. If some fool walked into your bedroom while you were making whoopie with your girl, you would probably punch his clock out first and ask why he was there later. Under extreme enough circumstances it would not have been wrong for Iran to kill the hikers and make it look like an accident.

 

However, holding three people who clearly aren't spies this long under espionage charges is the wrong answer. They are playing this game clumsily and making themselves look like a bunch of fools, and the longer this goes on, the worse it gets for them.

 

4. You continually refer to the US as "we" and "our".

 

Yes, the US is my country of citizenship. To use 'they' when referring to a group one belongs to is grammatically incorrect. To use 'they' in referring to powerful members of the government falsely displaces ownership of responsibility. We elected them. We are responsible for the decisions they make.

 

5. You miss every opportunity to say anything remotely bad about the US. For example, maybe the US is spying on Iran and they are wrong to do so? Maybe Iran is developing civilian nuclear power as there is no evidence to the contrary, and maybe the US are wrong do assert the opposite with no evidence to back it up? Maybe the US is incriminating Iran based on ulterior motives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5346524.stm)? Maybe the US does dominate the UN, they obviously have economic and political power that many countries would not want to get on the wrong side off?

 

To answer your questions in order: See block 3. Off-topic. Off-topic. See block 1.

 

 

So, in conclusion. Remember that I called Iran 'idiot' and pointed out 'this is a game they shouldn't be playing'. That doesn't mean 'evil' or 'dangerous'.

 

Point being, in brinkmanship international politics, Iran sucks. They suck so much at making friends that they have most of Europe siding with the US against them when Europe is inclined to snob the US. Right now, the only world powers which are holdouts are Russia and China, and Russia's starting to turn against Iran too. They have the entire world convinced that they want to build nuclear weapons, their only *significant* (barely) allies are Venezuela and North Korea, which are both extremely far from Iran geographically. At home they have people protesting in the streets, and on western broadcasts we gloat about it. They are getting b**ch-slapped in the UN and can't even figure out why. Then, while all this is happening, they decide that the best way to add icing on to the cake is to create a big international incident involving hikers.

 

They suck. They should let the hikers go, take the UN b**ch-slapping, accept the fact that the US is the economic powerhouse of our time, accept that they aren't going to be able to change that, go home, and re-think how they want to portray themselves. Maybe they should read some history books about people who played the game right and learn from them.

 

Right now, all they are doing by pulling this cr*p is causing themselves to lose more faster.

[SeVeR]

You say the LoNAN claims don't stack up but you say this is due to jealousy: "they have always been on the outside looking in. They have noticed the world has been pushing them out of the global community, and have decided it is easier to blame the big bad US".

 

Any conclusion you make that implies you have direct knowledge of what is going on the heads on political leaders is going to be a conclusion built without foundation. So to make a baseless claim in support of the United States (as the LoNAN claim is against the US and the UN), you must be talking from a position of prejudice.

 

If you think Iran is starting Armageddon, then by virtue of the worlds agreement that Armageddon is a bad thing, you can only be saying that someone acting to prevent Armageddon is "good".

 

I don't think Iran is starting Armageddon so I don't think the US is doing the right thing. I also find this "guilty until proven innocent" routine deplorable.

 

Spying isn't wrong, though Iran certainly has the right try to stop our attempts. Spying can reveal truth which can stop or mitigate wars.

Your lack of morality astounds me. Did you learn this at the CIA school for espionage?

 

You know, torture can also stop wars. Would you say torturing the Grand Ayatollah would be worth knowing if he plans to nuke Israel? Assassination can also stop wars. Genocide would do the trick too.

 

Russia being closer to the US has coincided with them moving away from Iran. A cynic might say a deal has taken place behind closed doors. Iran don't have the world convinced they want to build nukes. The right-wing American media is convinced because the American government is making lots of noise about it... that translates to most of America being convinced. Britain wants their special relationship to continue with the US, and France/Germany are possibly jealous of that relationship, or they've simply bought the US agenda, or they don't give a damn about Iran and are just doing what is in their interests... because that's the key point, it is in a countries interests to side with America. Who else other than American allies "think" Iran wants nukes.

 

Does this hiker situation happen in other countries without being reported? You know it probably does happen all over the world. It would probably happen in America if I entered your borders without a visa wouldn't it? So why the media frenzy. For that matter how did the media even get this story?

 

It's very relevant to this debate and not at all off-topic to remark upon the US false incrimination of Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5346524.stm) because it establishes an ulterior motive for being hostile towards Iran. Why is the US so desperate to incriminate Iran?

 

History is important as well, as remarked upon in my last post, Iran has every reason to distrust the US. The US performed a crime of massive proportions against Iran and it's people, and that can never be forgiven, especially as the Iranian revolution that followed put in power the same regime that currently reigns there.

[NBVegita]

Actually, historically assassinations and genocides start wars, not prevent them.

 

My point is that regardless of if they would be breaking the law, the person who puts themselves in a bad situation knowing it's bad is more at fault in my book.

[SeVeR]

can =/ will.

 

EDIT: What i mean is just about any act of immorality can have a positive effect. Ever heard of "the ends don't justify the means"?

 

Should spying be something done by everyone just because it might prevent wars? It might cause wars too, but who cares right?

Edited March 16, 2010 by SeVeR

[SeVeR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8570842.stm

 

Speak of the devil. Turkey obviously aren't convinced Iran wants to build a bomb.

 

You gotta love General Petraeus: "Tehran's weapon development programme appeared to have suffered delays. It has, thankfully, slid to the right a bit and it is not this calendar year, I don't think"

 

Wow, that comment assumes Iran wants a nuke and is building one covertly. CAN ANYONE ELSE SMELL THE BULLSHIT!?!?!?

[Dr Brain]

Wow, that comment assumes Iran wants a nuke and is building one covertly. CAN ANYONE ELSE SMELL THE BULLSHIT!?!?!?

Wow, that comment assumes Iran doesn't want a nuke and isn't building one covertly. CAN ANYONE ELSE SMELL THE BULLSHIT!?!?!?

[SeVeR]

Actually, it doesn't.

 

I don't expect you to figure out why it doesn't.

 

If anyone else other than Dr. Brain wants to ask why it doesn't, then feel free, and I'll assume the answer is one that evades more than just simpletons.

[NBVegita]

Actually, when you read it:

 

If assuming nuclear weapons = bullshit

wouldn't assuming no nuclear weapons = not bullshit?

 

I know there is a middle ground, but usually if you're going to take the middle of the road you would say something like:

 

"I don't believe that you can validly state that Iran is, or is not, pursuing nuclear weapons based on the information we have today."

 

Stating:

 

"Wow, that comment assumes Iran wants a nuke and is building one covertly. CAN ANYONE ELSE SMELL THE BULLSHIT!?!?!?"

 

In defining very strongly that assuming they are building a weapon is "idiotic"(my own word not yours), if you strongly oppose one side of the argument they will assume you're taking the other side. Of course that coupled with the fact that you have previously asserted (multiple times) that Iran is not planning to build nuclear weapons, I don't believe his assumption is invalid. I would say that the comment alone does not necessarily define that you don't believe they are planning to build a nuke, but the fact that you have already stated that you don't, you can't really take that comment as playing the "middle ground".

 

Oh and the other hand: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm)

 

 

The IAEA has Iran's Natanz fuel enrichment plant under its surveillance and in presenting his latest report in September 2009 Mr ElBaradei said: "Since my last report, the Agency has continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has co-operated with the Agency in improving safeguards measures at the Fuel Enrichment Plant and in providing the required access to the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) at Arak for purposes of design information verification.

 

"On all other issues relevant to Iran's nuclear programme, however, there is stalemate. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council, nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol. Likewise, Iran has not co-operated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues, detailed fully and completely in the Agency's reports, which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme."

 

The IAEA also reports that Iran is not cooperating with its request for an answer to questions about possible studies on nuclear warheads carried out in the past. On 26 November 2009, Mr ElBaradei said the discussions on this issue had reached a "dead end."

 

These past studies - which Iran calls fabrications - have caused concern in that Iran appears to have examined how to design a nuclear warhead.

 

 

Oh and for the Turkish president, a direct quote from your article:

 

"Countries with nuclear weapons are not in a position to turn to another country and say: 'You are not supposed to produce nuclear weapons,'"

 

That is kind of a contradiction. In one breath he states that he doesn't want to see weapons in the middle east, but on the other hand he wants them to be able to produce them. I guarantee that whether or not they are trying to today, if there was no U.N. resolution against producing nuclear weapons, Iran would already be producing them today.

Edited March 17, 2010 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

Christian Nutter: Do you believe in God?

Me: No.

Christian Nutter: Then you must believe with certainty that he doesn't exist.

 

Exactly the same principle. When I talk of General Petraeus' bullshit I am referring to it's use as negative propaganda against Iran. His comment talks about something that assumes certainty in something else he is not talking about. It's bullshit, it's propaganda.

 

So you see, for me to assume the opposite would make me a complete hypocrite. You know I am agnostic, and you know I object strongly to Christians, so you should realise I object to people assuming certainty when there is none... even more so when it has the kind of influence this comment will have.

 

EDIT - my apologies for replying too quickly:

Oh and for the Turkish president, a direct quote from your article:

 

"Countries with nuclear weapons are not in a position to turn to another country and say: 'You are not supposed to produce nuclear weapons,'"

 

That is kind of a contradiction. In one breath he states that he doesn't want to see weapons in the middle east, but on the other hand he wants them to be able to produce them. I guarantee that whether or not they are trying to today, if there was no U.N. resolution against producing nuclear weapons, Iran would already be producing them today.

I think it's quite reasonable to say that people should have a right to something, but that they shouldn't choose to have it. Perhaps that is the current consensus in the gun-control debate.

 

-EDIT- And before giving credence to anything Dr Brain says, maybe you should see the tone of all his recent posts. I think I've turned the guy into my own personal troll since that tax topic. Quite amusing really.

Edited March 17, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

Christian Nutter: Do you believe in God?

Me: No.

Christian Nutter: Then you must believe with certainty that he doesn't exist.

 

You're analogy doesn't hold, because you didn't say "No." You said, in the analogy, that the idea of God is "BULLSHIT". Turning around and saying it might be true after all makes you a hypocrite.

 

-EDIT- And before giving credence to anything Dr Brain says, maybe you should see the tone of all his recent posts. I think I've turned the guy into my own personal troll since that tax topic. Quite amusing really.

 

I'll admit that I lost all respect for you in that topic when you resorted to personal attacks on myself, my education and my parents. My tone doesn't make my posts any less valid. The fact that you're the only frequent (flaming) liberal poster means I typically have to reply to you.

[NBVegita]

I think it's quite reasonable to say that people should have a right to something, but that they shouldn't choose to have it. Perhaps that is the current consensus in the gun-control debate.

 

I think there is a much different debate. A lot of people (concerning gun control) believe that ALL weapons should be banned from civilian use. My personal opinion is to allow all civilians (based on mental and criminal background checks) have weapons but regulate it so that everyone can't own a tank per say. In this case its quite the same as my opinion. No one is trying to state that they want to deny new countries (as in countries who cannot currently produce nuclear weapons) the ability to have a powerful and expansive military, simply that they don't want them to have nuclear weapons.

 

I think 95% of the people who are even pro gun would agree that you wouldn't want people running around with mortars and missile launchers, predators, tanks ect.

 

I agree as a whole with your point that just because you have the right to do something that you will choose to exercise it. Yet very similar to my views on gun control, when you're talking about a power that could destroy the planet (As one nuke fired would not be the only nuke fired, be it from that country or others) you have to take special considerations.

 

Sever, there is a huge difference between:

 

"Christian Nutter: Do you believe in God?

Me: No.

Christian Nutter: Then you must believe with certainty that he doesn't exist."

 

and

 

"Christian Nutter: I am pretty sure God is real.

Me: Wow, that comment assumes God is real. CAN ANYONE ELSE SMELL THE BULLSHIT!?!?!?"

 

And don't dare say you can't see the difference. As I stated in my above post, your comment was not very indicative of taking the middle ground. Does it absolutely mean you don't take the middle ground? No. But the tone in which you make that statement would, the majority of time, come from someone taking the opposite viewpoint.

 

So you see, for me to assume the opposite would make me a complete hypocrite. You know I am agnostic, and you know I object strongly to Christians, so you should realise I object to people assuming certainty when there is none... even more so when it has the kind of influence this comment will have.

 

I would say that the comment alone does not necessarily define that you don't believe they are planning to build a nuke, but the fact that you have already stated that you don't, you can't really take that comment as playing the "middle ground".

Edited March 17, 2010 by NBVegita