Is Reason from Unreasonable Still Reason?

[mike777]

"Eliminate the embargos and engage the Iranians in diplomacy."

 

Ty you for your polite and thoughtful response. Elections should be over issues such as this. :)

[Winstonm]

Winston please read the post just before yours.

 

 

"In short, Israel is (very rightly) worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, as it is close to 100% certainty that if they did obtain nuclear weapons they would be used against Israel. "

 

I have zero proof of this let alone proof that Iran wants a nuke, but at least this poster  seems pretty worried. If true I assume the fallout will kill many worldwide and may trigger a bigger war.

 

If we assume this is the general feeling of Israel I only hope and pray Winston is correct and Iran has no interest in making nukes.

It is curious to me that David Ben-Gurion was involved in what can only be described as "terrorist activities", and the PLO was held out as a terrorist organization for 25 years before gaining recognition.

 

My point is that terrorism is the violent arm of a political movement. I am not an expert on Iran or the middle east so I try to get my information from people who truly are experts in this area.

 

This quote,

 

For example, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezobollah's leader has said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel."

 

to me does not imply a certainty that Hezbollah would nuke Israel - it reads to me like a statement from someone who feels that Israel "stole" the Palestinian homeland and are thus non-deserving of the state of Israel.

 

It seems doubtful that the groups who would like to live in the land occupied by Israel would make that land inhabitable by using a nuclear weapon, not to mention the potential of damaging holy sites.

[mike777]

I am still trying to figure out why no one seems to really care that Mrs. Clinton is going to kill 70 million Iranians if they nuke Israel without a treaty or without Congress saying that it is ok. No one even worries about the global fallout and how many that will kill. So much for the rule of law and the voters say no problem and she wins Penn and may win Tuesday.

 

But talk about double standards, why cannot Iran have Nukes and use them in self defense. The USA has done so. Russia, UK, France China, Pakistan and India say they will do so.

The problem is not about self-defense. If Iran would only use them for self-defense this would be a non-issue. However, Iran is a regime which does not agree that Israel has a right to exist. If they could make nuclear weapons, they would CERTAINLY allow Hezbollah to obtain such weapons (Iran is a major sponsor of Hezbollah) - and Hezbollah would not hesitate to use any weapon they obtain in attempting to destroy Israel. See wikipedia's entry on Hezbollah. For example, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezobollah's leader has said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel."

 

 

In short, Israel is (very rightly) worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, as it is close to 100% certainty that if they did obtain nuclear weapons they would be used against Israel.

I note you say what the general, overall belief and feeling in Israel is if, I repeat if Iran wants to obtain nukes. They will try and wipe Israel off the map of the world.

 

My question is how convinced are the people of Israel, as of today, that Iran is actively trying to build a nuke? Again I am asking about the feelings or belief of the people of Israel. For example the vast majority think Iran does not want to build one or the vast majority believe that they are in the process of building one?

[mike777]

"It seems doubtful that the groups who would like to live in the land occupied by Israel would make that land inhabitable by using a nuclear weapon, not to mention the potential of damaging holy sites."

 

 

 

Well Winston you say this is doubtful, but if this poster's information is correct, the people of Israel feel it is 100%. If this poster is accurate about the belief in Israel I think it is naive at best to assume Israel will do nothing once the leadership believes Iran is building a bomb. Yes this is all based on belief.

[kenberg]

I don't know what will happen next, but in the early 80s Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq, and recently they bombed nuclear facilities in Syria. This could be a clue. Iran would be tough, even for the Israelis. But if the Iranians get nukes, it will be tougher. Maybe sanity will somehow prevail here, but that area of the world isn't much known for it. I don't see anything good coming along.

 

The thread began with questions about fairness. I seriously doubt either the Iranians or the Israelis think much in those terms. We can discuss what is fair of course, but it won't matter. Iran wants nukes. Israel aside, the world will do nothing to prevent this. So they will get them. So it seems. Maybe Israel will act, maybe not. Beats me.

[Winstonm]

and recently they bombed nuclear facilities in Syria.

 

Hey, Ken,

 

This is not meant as a slap against you in any way, but I find it interesting that you repeat the mantra that came for the White House and the MSM. I don't fault you for this, Ken, as most of us don't have time to dig around and question virtually any statement that is issued - but as that is basically a hobby of mine, it is easier for me to find the questions and contradictions.

 

Seymore Hersh in The New Yorker wrote an excellent piece questioning the Syrian nuke story - not that he said it wasn't a nuke facility, but there were many, many questions left unanswered and the proof offered was rather sparce.

 

But our MSM reported it as the White House claimed with no investigation or questioning....and now you repeat it and the next thing you know it is fact - whether or not it is true.

 

This is the world in which we now live - it feels as if we have gone through the looking glass and nothing is as it seems.

[luke warm]

and recently they bombed nuclear facilities in Syria.

 

Hey, Ken,

 

This is not meant as a slap against you in any way, but I find it interesting that you repeat the mantra that came for the White House and the MSM. I don't fault you for this, Ken, as most of us don't have time to dig around and question virtually any statement that is issued - but as that is basically a hobby of mine, it is easier for me to find the questions and contradictions.

 

Seymore Hersh in The New Yorker wrote an excellent piece questioning the Syrian nuke story - not that he said it wasn't a nuke facility, but there were many, many questions left unanswered and the proof offered was rather sparce.

 

But our MSM reported it as the White House claimed with no investigation or questioning....and now you repeat it and the next thing you know it is fact - whether or not it is true.

 

This is the world in which we now live - it feels as if we have gone through the looking glass and nothing is as it seems.

i feel the opposite, that most things are as they seem... you said in another post that you don't see conspiracy around every corner, and maybe that's true... but almost every post of yours implies that you see them around most corners

[kenberg]

Hi Winston,

 

No insult taken, not at all. Also, a certain lack of detailed knowledge on my part is readily conceded. For example, I don't know what the MSM is.

 

My thinking goes something like this:

 

1. It's difficult to be a major player in international politics w/o nukes and it seems clear that Iran sees its future as being a very major player.

 

2. Iran has made some pretty unequivocal statements as to its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Also difficult to do w/o nukes.

 

3. A recent intelligence estimate says that they think maybe Iran has stopped certain portions of a program to develop nuclear weapons. Without any expertise, it seems I can conclude that if they stopped it, then there was a program to stop. It would seem to follow that they want nukes and are held back only, if at all, by a consideration of possible consequences.

 

Of course I don't know what the Iranians are doing. It would surprise me greatly if they were not trying to develop nukes because such development would seem to be in keeping with their announced plans for Iran's place in the world. If I were the president of Iran, and if I had in mind making Iran the dominant force in the region while wiping out Israel, I would get me some nukes if I could. I imagine Ahmadinejad (I checked the spelling and am amazed to find I got it right on the first try) thinks the same way.

 

 

Ahmadinejad is often spoken of as if he were nuts. Well, nuts he may be, or maybe not so nuts, but if we take his apparent intentions at approximately face value, I would expect him to very much want some nukes. Roosevelt wanted nukes. DeGaulle wanted nukes. And many others. I suppose Ahmadinejad wants some of his own. I imagine he will get them. I am not at all confident that this would change if Ahmadinejad were replaced by someone who speaks less provocatively.

 

Btw, while I didn't see the Seymore Hersh story I may well look it up. I regard Mr. Hersh as a very worthwhile read. Thanks. And again, I don't regard disagreement as insulting at all.

 

Ken

[Elianna]

Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel hasn't. So Iran is subject to conditions under it, as a signatory nation, and Israel isn't.

 

Would that not indicate Iran are the good guys and anyone who is not willing to sign up to a glabal pact that is there to improve the safety of the world is not a good guy?

Signing up to a treaty and then breaking it is better than not agreeing at all in the first place? OK.

[jtfanclub]

Signing up to a treaty and then breaking it is better than not agreeing at all in the first place? OK.

Um, of course. You don't think so?

 

You'd rather, say, have a neighbor agree to pick up your paper while you're gone and then not do it, than have a neighbor say he can't do it?

 

I'd say in general that if somebody agrees not to do something and then does it, that it's worse than if somebody says they're going to do something and does it.

[matmat]

You'd rather, say, have a neighbor agree to pick up your paper while you're gone and then not do it, than have a neighbor say he can't do it?

i need to learn to read.... sorrs

[Winstonm]

and recently they bombed nuclear facilities in Syria.

 

Hey, Ken,

 

This is not meant as a slap against you in any way, but I find it interesting that you repeat the mantra that came for the White House and the MSM. I don't fault you for this, Ken, as most of us don't have time to dig around and question virtually any statement that is issued - but as that is basically a hobby of mine, it is easier for me to find the questions and contradictions.

 

Seymore Hersh in The New Yorker wrote an excellent piece questioning the Syrian nuke story - not that he said it wasn't a nuke facility, but there were many, many questions left unanswered and the proof offered was rather sparce.

 

But our MSM reported it as the White House claimed with no investigation or questioning....and now you repeat it and the next thing you know it is fact - whether or not it is true.

 

This is the world in which we now live - it feels as if we have gone through the looking glass and nothing is as it seems.

i feel the opposite, that most things are as they seem... you said in another post that you don't see conspiracy around every corner, and maybe that's true... but almost every post of yours implies that you see them around most corners

And you, Jimmy, have a tendency to apply the tag "conspiracy" to what has not been suggested as conspiracy.

 

I'm sure you read my post and I know you are intelligent - but to make clear what I said was that the White House claims were repeated by the mainstream media without question - where is conspiracy in that?

 

Ineptitude is not conspiracy; poor journalism is not conspiracy; laziness is not conspiracy; sloth is not conspiracy; ignorance is not conspiracy; stupidity is not conspiracy; misguided patriotism is not conspiracy.....

 

You may want to check with yourself to make certain you aren't simply applying the term "conspiracy" to any idea with which you disagree. :)

[Winstonm]

For example, I don't know what the MSM is

 

Ken, MSM is shorthand for MainStream Media - ABC, CBS, Time, Fox, etc.

 

I appreciate your input into these discussions - you usually have something worthwhile to add. You made a good point about most countries with bigger goals wanting nukes, so there may be a lot of truth in the concern of Iranian nukes.

 

There is no doubt Iran is not a friend of Israel; however, I believe the more pressing reason for Iran to want nukes is to neutralize Israel's advantage, not as a reason to start war but as a method to coerce a conventional confrontation - i.e., a middle-east cold war, so to speak.

 

There may be a handfull of kooks who might actually use a nuclear weapon, but that group is not in power and are holed up in caves and desert camps. I do not think anyone in power - whether Israeli or Iranian - would be foolish enough to actually use a nuclear first strike and end with mutual assured destruction.

 

What we hear is the rhetoric, the spin, the justifications for stopping Iran, but I believe the more simple truth is that behind all the spin Israel simply wants to be the only nuclear nation in the middle-east; having a nuclear Iran creates a situation where the choices are all-out nuclear war, conventional war, or detente.

Obviously, when two opposing countries are armed with nuclear weapons the overall chances of nuclear war dramatically increase, so world peace is threatened.

But instead of stopping Iran the same end could be had by removing the capabilities from Israel. Therefore, it seems to me that Israel simply wants to keep the advantage, and if it takes lying, deceit, or spin, that is justified for their national safety - I can certainly understand and empathize with those feelings and fears.

 

But for the long-term interest of all the middle east, one country cannot continue to hold a huge military advantage over all the others. And that is the conundrum of that region.

[Winstonm]

And again, I don't regard disagreement as insulting at all.

 

To be clear, the reason for pointing out your comment was simply to give an example of how the majority of Americans get their news - so was not intended as a personal disparagement but as a criticism of our news organizations.

 

What so few realize is how much doubt and puzzlement there is outside the mainstream media about this incident. The White House (you remember them, don't you, the guys who knew Sadam had WMD and knew where they were) suddenly comes out 8-9 months after the incident and says, "Oh, yeah, well Syria and N. Korea were in cahoots building a nuclear reactor and it was set to go online in 2 weeks, so Israel bombed it."

 

As Mr. Hersh points out, that may be completely accurate, but the timing of the announcement is extremely odd, and the facts comprising the "proof" are quetionable. Demanding a fuller and more comprehensive explanation and proof used to be part of journalism's job, but now they simply parrot the press release.

 

That type of cynical, questioning journalism is simply not mainstream anymore - mainly, IMO, because it is cheaper, and thus more profitable, to hire talking heads who look good and can read the headlines. As long as we tolerate and support that as "our" news, it will continue.

 

Me, "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" - (Network - 1979?)

[effervesce]

Winston please read the post just before yours.

 

 

"In short, Israel is (very rightly) worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, as it is close to 100% certainty that if they did obtain nuclear weapons they would be used against Israel. "

 

I have zero proof of this let alone proof that Iran wants a nuke, but at least this poster  seems pretty worried. If true I assume the fallout will kill many worldwide and may trigger a bigger war.

 

If we assume this is the general feeling of Israel I only hope and pray Winston is correct and Iran has no interest in making nukes.

It is curious to me that David Ben-Gurion was involved in what can only be described as "terrorist activities", and the PLO was held out as a terrorist organization for 25 years before gaining recognition.

 

My point is that terrorism is the violent arm of a political movement. I am not an expert on Iran or the middle east so I try to get my information from people who truly are experts in this area.

 

This quote,

 

For example, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezobollah's leader has said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel."

 

to me does not imply a certainty that Hezbollah would nuke Israel - it reads to me like a statement from someone who feels that Israel "stole" the Palestinian homeland and are thus non-deserving of the state of Israel.

 

It seems doubtful that the groups who would like to live in the land occupied by Israel would make that land inhabitable by using a nuclear weapon, not to mention the potential of damaging holy sites.

When their 'statements' have been backed up with suicide bombings and rocket bombardment of civilian areas, any less than paranoia about them obtaining nukes would be insane on Israel's part.

[Winstonm]

When their 'statements' have been backed up with suicide bombings and rocket bombardment of civilian areas, any less than paranoia about them obtaining nukes would be insane on Israel's part.

 

Consider this: Israel has nuclear weapons; Iran does not. Iran cannot confront Israel by conventional means as Israel could respond nuclear. What avenue is left for Iran to affect political change than terrorism?

 

Keep in mind that pre-Israel David Ben-Gurion also meddled in actions that could only be classified as terrorism. The PLO was considered a terrorist organization for 25 years. Terrorism is a politcally-driven activity.

 

No, the threat is not that Iran or terrorists will nuke Israel - if Iran gains nuclear weapons, they no longer have a need for terrorism - the threat is that the middle-east will find itself in a cold-war type situation, with two mortal enemies having the capacity to destroy each other.

 

The threat is that Israel would lose their nuclear advantage.

[barmar]

Consider this: Israel has nuclear weapons; Iran does not. Iran cannot confront Israel by conventional means as Israel could respond nuclear. What avenue is left for Iran to affect political change than terrorism?

Umm, diplomacy?

 

I've been tempted for a long time to start a thread asking why the world is so violent. Yes, violence is a natural reaction when we feel wronged or threatened, but most of us are taught as children to suppress this, and only fight as a last resort (and war should be a response to the most eggregious wrongs). I'll bet this was just as true for Sadam Hussein, Bin Laden, etc. What happens to these lessons when people take charge of countries or political movements? Are they sociopaths who managed to get too much power? Is it just the "power corrupts" principle?

 

But what about ordinary citizens -- why did a disputed election in Kenya result in violent protests? Surely these people know that there are more constructive ways to resolve the problem than inter-tribal massacres?

 

I realize this is a bit naive and idealistic. I'm just incredulous that supposedly mature people never learned how to "get along with others" -- it's a basic rule of civil society. Sure, there are some bullies who never grow out of it, but how do they become presidents of countries (hmm, maybe they bullied their way into the position)? Shouldn't world politics be better than a playground full of adolescents? It's like the world is run by people like Tony Soprano, who take hits out on anyone that gets in their way.

[kenberg]

And again, I don't regard disagreement as insulting at all.

 

To be clear, the reason for pointing out your comment was simply to give an example of how the majority of Americans get their news - so was not intended as a personal disparagement but as a criticism of our news organizations.

 

What so few realize is how much doubt and puzzlement there is outside the mainstream media about this incident. The White House (you remember them, don't you, the guys who knew Sadam had WMD and knew where they were) suddenly comes out 8-9 months after the incident and says, "Oh, yeah, well Syria and N. Korea were in cahoots building a nuclear reactor and it was set to go online in 2 weeks, so Israel bombed it."

 

As Mr. Hersh points out, that may be completely accurate, but the timing of the announcement is extremely odd, and the facts comprising the "proof" are quetionable. Demanding a fuller and more comprehensive explanation and proof used to be part of journalism's job, but now they simply parrot the press release.

 

That type of cynical, questioning journalism is simply not mainstream anymore - mainly, IMO, because it is cheaper, and thus more profitable, to hire talking heads who look good and can read the headlines. As long as we tolerate and support that as "our" news, it will continue.

 

Me, "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" - (Network - 1979?)

Can you give a link for the Hersh article. Instead of "Mad as Hell" I am right now "Busy as Hell" but I would like to read it in a few days if things settle down.

 

Whatever the reason for the Israeli action, actual nuclear facilities, supposed nuclear facilities, some other reason entirely, my point was that this action, and the earlier action against Iraq, give some clue (not a strict prediction) as to what might occur if Iran continues with its nuclear ambitions.

 

I am trying to judge as well as possible what is happening and what may happen. Iran wanting nukes seems to me to be a near certainty. Iran developing nukes seems highly likely. Israel acting seems, well, not unlikely.

 

The thought of a cold war scenario, as you suggest in another post above, with Iran and Israel playing the roles of the US and the USSR worries me greatly. When I was around 16, I was driving up a street and saw a friend at the other end driving down the street. We both moved towards the center and hit the gas. It was very close before we both steered away. We agreed it was a tie, and we very much agreed we were not interested in a tie-breaker. On the nuclear stage, I don't want a rerun of October '62.

 

Ken

[mike777]

I see open war has broken out again in parts of the Middle East as I watch CNN now. One does wonder if these groups could obtain nukes they may or maynot be willing to poison for a hundred years the very ground they want. One wonders if suicide by nukes is a viable option.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

 

Try this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02...11fa_fact_hersh

 

Some good comments on this thread and I, for one, appreciate the civility of tone amongst those have have disagreements.

 

I am trying to judge as well as possible what is happening and what may happen. Iran wanting nukes seems to me to be a near certainty. Iran developing nukes seems highly likely. Israel acting seems, well, not unlikely.

 

I think you summed it up well. The main concern I have in these issues is in examining what is real versus what is spun for agenda's purpose.

 

 

What happens to these lessons when people take charge of countries or political movements? Are they sociopaths who managed to get too much power? Is it just the "power corrupts" principle?

 

Good questions - maybe the definition of insanity should be wanting this kind of power. I have read a pychiatrist's opinion that George Bush displays the behavior of somene suffering Narcissistic Personality Disorder - perhaps, other than George Washington, who had the presidency thrust upon him, all others have had some degree of need to control or arrogance of the poor self imaged?

 

 

One does wonder if these groups could obtain nukes they may or maynot be willing to poison for a hundred years the very ground they want. One wonders if suicide by nukes is a viable option.

 

Yes, that is certainly a valid concern. The question is how much of a possibility?

I don't think the problem is so much in governments having nuclear arms as in the splinter groups having that access.

[kenberg]

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

 

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.

 

 

b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

 

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

 

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.

 

 

I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

[barmar]

I see open war has broken out again in parts of the Middle East as I watch CNN now. One does wonder if these groups could obtain nukes they may or maynot be willing to poison for a hundred years the very ground they want. One wonders if suicide by nukes is a viable option.

Sometimes the attitude may be "I want that land, but even more important, I don't want them to have it." So they'll sacrifice the land in order to wipe out the people who took it wrongly (in their opinion), if they don't see a viable way to take the land away from them.

[Winstonm]

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

 

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.

 

 

b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

 

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

 

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.

 

 

I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

I happened to be in 6th grade during this event and have memories of how tense was Mr. Sullivan, our teacher. Even though our day-to-day existence was business as usual, you could tell this wasn't the everyday crisis but something much more worrisome.

 

Your point about the Cuban missile crises is a good one - did the U.S. have any right to stop this transfer of arms? What about now? What if Russia or China elected to sell Iran nuclear missiles - would Israel or the U.S. have the right, duty, or responsibility to halt that sale?

 

The best solution is for no one to play - to outlaw nuclear weapons from every country, including the U.S.

 

It's either that or wait for Gort and Klaatu to show up and stop all the world's electricity for an hour....

 

Bonus points: Translate: "Gort. Klaatu barada nikto."

[Gerardo]

Wasn't he Klaatu?

[Winstonm]

Wasn't he Klaatu?

Yes, and it was Gort, not Gott. Thanks. Corrected above.