Ghostbear wrote:Meaningless, you have to analyze what the most probable and logical cause is, which I have made my case for. Quote parts of it, and tell me where you disagree.
Not exactly. You don't have to show that Iran will most likely use a nuclear weapon, just that there's a non-negligible chance that they will. And if we're weighting probabilities by number of casualties involved, then (assuming that an Iranian response to an Israeli air strike wouldn't kill more than a few hundred people), we only need a .1% chance that Iran is going to use a nuclear weapon. Are you here to tell me that, through their statements of genocide, funding of groups whose purpose is to commit genocide, and programs to acquire the means to better commit genocide that there is not even a .1% chance that Iran is going to use a nuclear weapon?
Don't insult me. You can't just say something is argued from ignorance, you have to prove it. Do so, or stop saying it.
I don't think you know what an argument from ignorance is. I'm not saying you're ignorant, it's a particular kind of logical fallacy. It's the fallacy of saying "because I can think of no other explanation, mine must be true." It's like people who argue that God exists because they can't think of another way for the universe to have come into existence, or when O'Reilly says "tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that."
Find me something that necessitates that they are. Why is only one side of the argument required to provide proof? For that matter, why 3 sigma? Why not 2, or 10, or something other measure? If you're going to demand specific numbers for rationale, again, you need an explanation for those numbers.
See above calculations. Adjust them a bit as necessary, the principle holds.
All I've seen you say is "they claim their purpose is to commit genocide, and Iran gave them rockets". If you gave a better argument, link to it or just requote it instead of merely saying it exists. You can say you've already explained it before, but obviously you have not done so to a satisfactory level if people keep bringing the points up. If you still think you have, then requote yourself- I have not see a better argument from you on this matter, and I am not at all satisfied with "they totally said they want to commit genocide", because, as I have said however many times, they have not backed up that rhetoric with action in any appreciable amount.
I've already addressed these arguments.
In that very last post, I made my argument for why their lack of attempted genocide is because of a non-desire to commit genocide (or at least, a non-desire to commit genocide at the costs that they, the leadership of Iran, would incur). Again, if you disagree, quote parts of it and say why.
Your explanation is valid. But so is mine.
The Iranian population doesn't care now, sure; how would they feel if we built a bunch of military bases in Iran? The US isn't friends with other nations for the chance to be friends, we expect something in return, as dickish as it is. And why was Iraq an enemy? Because we made them one- they were just as much jackasses when we supported them as when we opposed them. Nuclear weapons won't defeat a revolution, but they might forestall one happening (hence, the mention of Pakistan: other nations invest in preventing their government's collapse).
I doubt that the Iranians would hate the current regime more or less if there were US military bases there. The majority that doesn't support Ahmedinejad, to my knowledge tends to be either pro-West or apathetic.
You say this like they can just show up with a hallmark card that says "Sorry we were resentful about that time you ousted our democratically elected government, and then provided weapons to a country that invaded us, who then used chemical weapons against us. Will you be our friends now? -xoxo Iran", and everything will all be sunshine and puppies from then on. Why would Iran become friends with the west? The last time we were friends, we were dicks to to them, and then made them into a global pariah. Saying they should just become our friends again completely ignores history, which is a pretty important tool to take into account, especially for such a contentious region. They know that being our friend doesn't help them, because they already tried it! Seriously, don't ignore history when reaching your conclusions.
I expect Iran to take action to make reparations for its misbehaviour. Otherwise its being self-destructive. Being a friend of the US may not be a guarantee for safety, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Iran can afford to risk a few air strikes over the years for the potential ability to completely prevent invasions- how is that not a valuable resource for them? They have every reason to believe that, if they're going to get invaded over their nuclear program, that even if they abandon all aspirations for nuclear weapons and let in inspectors and all that, that they will still be a valid target for invasion (again, and again and again again: Iraq. Their neighbor, not even a ten years ago- they aren't blind to what happens right outside their doorstep!). From their perspective, if the prospects of an invasion are just as likely no matter what they do, then being able to yell "don't invade us or we'll nuke your armies!" and being able to actually back that threat up with action is very very valuable.
I've addressed this several times.
You are completely misrepresenting my argument if you think I said Iran needs nuclear weapons. They have a justified reason to believe that they will benefit from possessing nuclear weapons- that does not mean they need them, or even that I want them to have them, merely that I think them acquiring them would not be the end of the world, nor would it be the end of Israel.
The concern isn't for the Iranian population, but the people holding power in Iran, and keeping Israel occupied at minimal cost to themselves (how many times do I have to mention that?).
How many times to I have to address it, as I already have many many times?