Does War With Iran Mean Global Conflict?

[Inspector]

Since it appears you're just re-stating your argument, I will simply let mine stand as well.

[The Wrath]

Okay, don't forget your basketball.

And I didn't just "restate" my argument. I clarified some things that you obviously misunderstood, since you think I called for a "moratorium on nukes." If I didn't in fact call for such a thing, your argument breaks down, since it was based on the idea that I was calling for the same thing that Truman and other "cowards" called for.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Moose

[Inspector]

Okay, don't forget your basketball.

I'm afraid the meaning of that phrase in this context escapes me.

And I didn't just "restate" my argument. I clarified some things that you obviously misunderstood, since you think I called for a "moratorium on nukes." If I didn't in fact call for such a thing, your argument breaks down, since it was based on the idea that I was calling for the same thing that Truman and other "cowards" called for.

I disagree. Simply put, you are citing as a reason not to use nukes the construct which was created by Truman and the cowards. I don't care what you call it ("moratorium") - what you're talking about is the very same thing. Your restatement doesn't disprove this.

I'm not saying you're one of the cowards who created it - I'm saying that the construct is here, like it or not, and you are citing its existence as reason to refrain.

I, on the other hand, am saying that the construct is harmful to us and no matter the consequences, we need to be rid of it. We'll need to create new reasons why Russia shouldn't nuke Chechnya; i.e. the reasons that ought to have been used in the first place.

Will this be difficult? YES. It is a pickle, I will grant you. But the reason why it is difficult is because Truman's kind of cowardice has consequences, and one of them is the difficulty that occurs when finally asserting ourselves.

This is why such moral cowardice is so very damaging - because it makes doing the right thing harder.

Note that the same exact process applies to self-defense in general. If we had killed just a few Islamists way back in the 60's, we might have stopped the whole thing cold. But the longer we act as cowards, the bigger the slaughter eventually has to be to defeat the enemy (i.e. convince him of our non-cowardice).

Just like with nukes, yes there is a negative effect from all the years of BS. But the solution is absolutely NOT to avoid the negative effect by continuing with the BS. That would only be digging ourselves deeper into the hole. You don't leave a rotten, infected band-aid on because it hurts to rip it off.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Inspector

[Robert J. Kolker]

Just like with nukes, yes there is a negative effect from all the years of BS. But the solution is absolutely NOT to avoid the negative effect by continuing with the BS. That would only be digging ourselves deeper into the hole. You don't leave a rotten, infected band-aid on because it hurts to rip it off.

The First Law of the Hole: Put the shovel down!

Bob Kolker

[The Wrath]

I'm afraid the meaning of that phrase in this context escapes me.

And you're completely misconstruing everything I've said. Saying "doing be so hasty to use nukes" is not the same thing as saying "don't use nukes at all." If you can't understand the difference, that's not my problem.

[D'kian]

I've been thinking. Suppose The Iranian mullahs who run things aren't entirely irrational. Let's say they are at least semi-rational enough not to want to be at the wrong end of a nuclear attack, be it by Israel or America (and I'm not convinced they are). Would they nevertheless be more likely to attack some other country conventionally if they had nukes?

For example, suppose they invaded Saudi Arabia, or one of the largely muslim southern former Soviet republics, thinking they won't face any interference from America or Europe because Iran now has nukes to deter them with.

[Inspector]

And you're completely misconstruing everything I've said. Saying "doing be so hasty to use nukes" is not the same thing as saying "don't use nukes at all." If you can't understand the difference, that's not my problem.

I haven't misconstrued anything. The distinction you're making is not relevant to the argument we're having. Whichever one of those things you're saying, I have identified the source ("the construct") and put forward an argument for why that source is invalid and damaging. (And gee, thanks for the explanation of the basketball thing.)

[The Wrath]

I haven't misconstrued anything. The distinction you're making is not relevant to the argument we're having. Whichever one of those things you're saying, I have identified the source ("the construct") and put forward an argument for why that source is invalid and damaging. (And gee, thanks for the explanation of the basketball thing.)

I must have accidentally deleted that part of my post, but I originally included an explanation. It's a play on the phrase "take your ball and go home."

As for everything else, let's just agree to disagree.

[Inspector]

Okay, if it was an accident then I withdraw my sarcasm. And then we agree to disagree for the rest.

[The Wrath]

I've been thinking. Suppose The Iranian mullahs who run things aren't entirely irrational. Let's say they are at least semi-rational enough not to want to be at the wrong end of a nuclear attack, be it by Israel or America (and I'm not convinced they are). Would they nevertheless be more likely to attack some other country conventionally if they had nukes?For example, suppose they invaded Saudi Arabia, or one of the largely muslim southern former Soviet republics, thinking they won't face any interference from America or Europe because Iran now has nukes to deter them with.

That's actually my primary concern. I doubt that we would personally be afraid of Iran's ability to hit the US with nukes, but they certainly have the ability to hit our allies and draw us into a conflict. As I said earlier, I don't like Saudi Arabia's influence in the region, but I'll take it over Iranian influence any day.

Okay, if it was an accident then I withdraw my sarcasm. And then we agree to disagree for the rest.

Agreed. Diplomacy at work.