The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

has anyone else noticed that we are shaping up for war with Iran in a manner EERILY similar to the buildup to the Iraq war? We tell Iraq to prove they don't have WMD (prove a negative) They naturally, CAN'T prove they don't, so we use that as an excuse to attack.

Iran has been asked to prove that their program isn't for weapons.

When I first read that, i thought, that kind of demand for proof wouldn't fly on KMC, and we discuss star wars for crying out loud.

Dems, Repubs, they are all the same. War for profit, War without end.

Originally posted by truejedi
has anyone else noticed that we are shaping up for war with Iran in a manner EERILY similar to the buildup to the Iraq war? We tell Iraq to prove they don't have WMD (prove a negative) They naturally, CAN'T prove they don't, so we use that as an excuse to attack.

Iran has been asked to prove that their program isn't for weapons.

When I first read that, i thought, that kind of demand for proof wouldn't fly on KMC, and we discuss star wars for crying out loud.

Dems, Repubs, they are all the same. War for profit, War without end.

Its not argument from ignorance, there are indeed ways to tell if Iran was making a nuclear weapon or not. Suffice to say I doubt they are. What would they do with it? The moment they launch it at Israeli there would be a counter attack and then a lovely little fireworks display in the Middle East.

Originally posted by truejedi
has anyone else noticed that we are shaping up for war with Iran in a manner EERILY similar to the buildup to the Iraq war? We tell Iraq to prove they don't have WMD (prove a negative) They naturally, CAN'T prove they don't, so we use that as an excuse to attack.

Iran has been asked to prove that their program isn't for weapons.

When I first read that, i thought, that kind of demand for proof wouldn't fly on KMC, and we discuss star wars for crying out loud.

Dems, Repubs, they are all the same. War for profit, War without end.

The Iraq invasion was justified-sounding to the public, but turned out to be useless. At least an invasion of Iran would have self-confessed merit on behalf of Admadinejad. Wipe Israel off the map will you?

Originally posted by Autokrat
Its not argument from ignorance, there are indeed ways to tell if Iran was making a nuclear weapon or not. Suffice to say I doubt they are. What would they do with it? The moment they launch it at Israeli there would be a counter attack and then a lovely little fireworks display in the Middle East.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Its not argument from ignorance, there are indeed ways to tell if Iran was making a nuclear weapon or not.

not really. There are ways to prove that they ARE making one. No way they will be able to prove beyond a doubt that they are not. Like iraq, they will be accused of not being cooperative with instructors, or of hiding their weapons program.

Not that I doubt for a moment that they are building one. Build one and send it to the palestinians, and then after it goes off, absolutely deny knowledge that it ever existed.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Its not argument from ignorance, there are indeed ways to tell if Iran was making a nuclear weapon or not. Suffice to say I doubt they are. What would they do with it? The moment they launch it at Israeli there would be a counter attack and then a lovely little fireworks display in the Middle East.

When have you known Iran, or especially Ahmadinejad to be reasonable or logical?

Personally I don't consider Iran a threat. Ahmadinejad is obviously a headline grabber, something I imagine he does specifically since he knows its going to get him the attention he wants. What he is not is an idiot. Any nuclear attack on any country, anywhere, will result in Iran's destruction. Even Ahmadinejad, for all his provocative language knows that.

The real threat is North Korea, which happens to be run by a complete nut who does in fact have nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by truejedi
not really. There are ways to prove that they ARE making one. No way they will be able to prove beyond a doubt that they are not. Like iraq, they will be accused of not being cooperative with instructors, or of hiding their weapons program.

Not that I doubt for a moment that they are building one. Build one and send it to the palestinians, and then after it goes off, absolutely deny knowledge that it ever existed.

Except thats not how that fallacy works. It only works with something that can not be proven either way no matter what. God, and the indestructible teacup in orbit around the sun are examples of an argument from ignorance, because they are not falsifiable.

Iran producing nuclear weapons is indeed falsifiable because all we would have to do is send inspectors to look over their nuclear plants. Getting enough uranium and refining it to weapons grade is not something you just do with a snap of the fingers. Certainly not something they could do without the Russian inspectors currently stationed in Iran not noticing.

Originally posted by Autokrat
[B]Personally I don't consider Iran a threat. Ahmadinejad is obviously a headline grabber, something I imagine he does specifically since he knows its going to get him the attention he wants. What he is not is an idiot. Any nuclear attack on any country, anywhere, will result in Iran's destruction. Even Ahmadinejad, for all his provocative language knows that.

The real threat is North Korea, which happens to be run by a complete nut who does in fact have nuclear weapons.

And trying to prove G-d doesn't exist is hilarious.

Clicky, I thought this was amusing

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Awesome! Maybe there ARE some intelligent people in politics.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
While I agree North Korea is a huge threat, Iran is just as big. Anyone who repeatedly denies the Holocaust ever happened has a death wish.

I've been trying to see how these statements correlate.

Your first conclusion took me a second to find because the premises were lacking.

"Iran is just as big [of a threat]."

The above is your conclusion (one of them anyways), but below we will see your second and seemingly unrelated conclusion.

"Anyone who repeatedly denies the Holocaust ever happened has a death wish."

Really?

A = Categorical Syllogism, in this case being "anyone".

B = People that deny the holocaust.

C = People that have a death wish.

A that are B, must be C.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sensing some fuzzy logic here. A better way to phrase this would have been the following.

All the Iranian top leadership are people that deny the Holocaust.
All people that deny the Holocaust have a death wish.
Therefore, all Iranian top leadership have a death wish.

In this case lets label the following this way.

All A are B
All B are C
Therefore all A are C.

Anyways, enough the quick lesson on basic logic, what I'm really saying here is that your statement, well is baseless.

You are saying that Iran is just as big as a threat as North Korea because the leadership in Iran denies the holocaust and all people that deny the holocaust have a death wish. Which it is therefore implied (not written, but implied) to mean that Iran has no qualms about building a nuclear weapon and using it to say attack Israeli and start a nuclear war, because they deny the holocaust, meaning they have a death wish and therefore don't care about the possibility dying in a nuclear war.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I've been trying to see how these statements correlate.

Your first conclusion took me a second to find because the premises were lacking.

"Iran is just as big [of a threat]."

The above is your conclusion (one of them anyways), but below we will see your second and seemingly unrelated conclusion.

"Anyone who repeatedly denies the Holocaust ever happened has a death wish."

Really?

A = Categorical Syllogism, in this case being "anyone".

B = People that deny the holocaust.

C = People that have a death wish.

A that are B, must be C.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sensing some fuzzy logic here. A better way to phrase this would have been the following.

All the Iranian top leadership are people that deny the Holocaust.
All people that deny the Holocaust have a death wish.
Therefore, all Iranian top leadership have a death wish.

In this case lets label the following this way.

All A are B
All B are C
Therefore all A are C.

Anyways, enough the quick lesson on basic logic, what I'm really saying here is that your statement, well is baseless.

You are saying that Iran is just as big as a threat as North Korea because the leadership in Iran denies the holocaust and all people that deny the holocaust have a death wish. Which it is therefore implied (not written, but implied) to mean that Iran has no qualms about building a nuclear weapon and using it to say attack Israeli and start a nuclear war, because they deny the holocaust, meaning they have a death wish and therefore don't care about the possibility dying in a nuclear war.

That's the problem with being a pseudo intellectual. You over analyze something that is simple to understand and at the end of the day all you're doing is unnecessary mental masturbation.

Iran's leadership denies the holocaust. Anyone who denies the holocaust is a nutcase who doesn't deal in logic, justice, fairness, etc.
He, like anyone who denies the holocaust, cannot be reasoned with, or bargained with. Ergo, he's just as much of a threat as North Korea, if not more, because he doesn't see common sense or logic like you pretend to. So yes, in conclusion, it's unlikely the leadership of Iran cares about the repercussions of launching a nuclear attack, or even continuing to have nuclear programs.

That was fairly simple.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Iran's leadership denies the holocaust. Anyone who denies the holocaust is a nutcase who doesn't deal in logic, justice, fairness, etc.
He, like anyone who denies the holocaust, cannot be reasoned with, or bargained with. Ergo, he's just as much of a threat as North Korea, if not more, because he doesn't see common sense or logic like you pretend to.

Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust because Ahmadinejad is a politician in a Islamic nation dominated by hardliners and people unfavorable to Jews. I imagine that Ahmadinejad cares jack shit about the holocaust and more about the image he presents and retaining power, because politicians like power. It has nothing to do with the emotive terms (justice and fairness) you tossed into your argument. It has to do with the fact that Ahmadinejad wants to continue to appeal to his hardliner support. I imagine that Ahmadinejad himself probably doesn't want to attack Israeli, despite his statements about Zionism. What would attacking Israeli get him? Certainly not more power, no it would get him the wrath of the world's only superpower along with most of the western world. Ahmadinejad can endure their condemnation; however, he cannot endure a military invasion.

What you need to realize is most of the stuff politicians spout from their mouths is rhetoric designed for the sole purpose of inciting an emotional response from the electorate.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust because Ahmadinejad is a politician in a Islamic nation dominated by hardliners and people unfavorable to Jews. I imagine that Ahmadinejad cares jack shit about the holocaust and more about the image he presents and retaining power, because politicians like power. It has nothing to do with the emotive terms (justice and fairness) you tossed into your argument. It has to do with the fact that Ahmadinejad wants to continue to appeal to his hardliner support. I imagine that Ahmadinejad himself probably doesn't want to attack Israeli, despite his statements about Zionism. What would attacking Israeli get him? Certainly not more power, no it would get him the wrath of the world's only superpower along with most of the western world. Ahmadinejad can endure their condemnation; however, he cannot endure a military invasion.

What you need to realize is most of the stuff politicians spout from their mouths is rhetoric designed for the sole purpose of inciting an emotional response from the electorate.

That's possible. It's equally possible that Ahmadinejad believes that the holocaust never happened, and in doing so, shows us insanity, which makes argument about being reasoned with, valid.
In your argument, you make it appoint to insinuate that this is a belief of radical Islam, ergo Ahmandinejad is either denying the Holocaust because he truly believes it didn't happen, or he's denying it because it fits the agenda of radical Islam. In both cases, logic and reason is thrown out the window.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust because Ahmadinejad is a politician in a Islamic nation dominated by hardliners and people unfavorable to Jews. I imagine that Ahmadinejad cares jack shit about the holocaust and more about the image he presents and retaining power, because politicians like power. It has nothing to do with the emotive terms (justice and fairness) you tossed into your argument. It has to do with the fact that Ahmadinejad wants to continue to appeal to his hardliner support. I imagine that Ahmadinejad himself probably doesn't want to attack Israeli, despite his statements about Zionism. What would attacking Israeli get him? Certainly not more power, no it would get him the wrath of the world's only superpower along with most of the western world. Ahmadinejad can endure their condemnation; however, he cannot endure a military invasion.

What you need to realize is most of the stuff politicians spout from their mouths is rhetoric designed for the sole purpose of inciting an emotional response from the electorate.

Just because we know its rhetoric doesn't mean we give them a pass on saying it. Basically, ahmadinejad said it, its idiotic and shows an inability to understand even the most basic history lesson. In that case,should we treat him like he didn't say it, because it is rhetoric, or should we treat him like an idiot who has an inability to understand documented history?

I say the latter. You shouldn't let a man say whatever he wants, and then wiggle out of what he said, in the name of "rhetoric."

"Change you can believe in" is a good example, btw, of a rhetorical phrase, used to create an emotional response, but actually could stand for absolutely anything.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
That's possible. It's equally possible that Ahmadinejad believes that the holocaust never happened, and in doing so, shows us insanity, which makes argument about being reasoned with, valid.
In your argument, you make it appoint to insinuate that this is a belief of radical Islam, ergo Ahmandinejad is either denying the Holocaust because he truly believes it didn't happen, or he's denying it because it fits the agenda of radical Islam. In both cases, logic and reason is thrown out the window.

If it is the first case, then it would be illogical and rather delusional; however, the second case is not delusional at all. From a technical standpoint, Ahmandinejad's speeches about the Holocaust being untrue is false; however, Ahmandinejad isn't interested in speaking the truth, because Ahmandinejad is a politician. Ahmandinejad is interested in what is going to bring him the greatest possible result. If appealing to the hardliners that put him power will achieve that goal, than Ahmandinejad is going to do what any good politician would do, he's going to spout emotional and illogical shit that appeals to the right people. This is not unique to Iran, it is a rule of any leader anywhere. It happens here in America all the time.

Now, it is indeed possible that Ahmandinejad really does believe the crap that comes out of his mouth and really is planning to build a bomb and nuke Israeli and if that is the case, then I'm obviously wrong. However, until I see more proof otherwise, I rather think North Korea is a considerably more dangerous threat than Iran.

Originally posted by truejedi
Just because we know its rhetoric doesn't mean we give them a pass on saying it. Basically, ahmadinejad said it, its idiotic and shows an inability to understand even the most basic history lesson. In that case,should we treat him like he didn't say it, because it is rhetoric, or should we treat him like an idiot who has an inability to understand documented history?

I say the latter. You shouldn't let a man say whatever he wants, and then wiggle out of what he said, in the name of "rhetoric."

"Change you can believe in" is a good example, btw, of a rhetorical phrase, used to create an emotional response, but actually could stand for absolutely anything.

Sorry, double post.

This is the problem; you are an educated individual that probably looks at the statements most politicians say and critically pick them apart. The average voter does not do this. The average voter does not have the background in rhetoric, the average voter can't look at a sentence and figure out if the argument is valid or invalid, or inductive or deductive. The average voter is most likely an idiot.

Now, look at the hardline section of the electorate that put Ahmandinejad in power and then look at the hardliners in control of the government. Do you think they want to hear speeches about "change you can believe in" or do you think they want to hear speeches like "the Zionist aggressors need to be wiped from the face of the Earth" that paint the pure image of a strong Iran ready to aid the embattled Palestinians? The speeches and statements of politicians have little to do with logos and very much to do with the ethos and pathos.

Originally posted by Autokrat
If it is the first case, then it would be illogical and rather delusional; however, the second case is not delusional at all. From a technical standpoint, Ahmandinejad's speeches about the Holocaust being untrue is false; however, Ahmandinejad isn't interested in speaking the truth, because Ahmandinejad is a politician. Ahmandinejad is interested in what is going to bring him the greatest possible result. If appealing to the hardliners that put him power will achieve that goal, than Ahmandinejad is going to do what any good politician would do, he's going to spout emotional and illogical shit that appeals to the right people. This is not unique to Iran, it is a rule of any leader anywhere. It happens here in America all the time.

Now, it is indeed possible that Ahmandinejad really does believe the crap that comes out of his mouth and really is planning to build a bomb and nuke Israeli and if that is the case, then I'm obviously wrong. However, until I see more proof otherwise, I rather think North Korea is a considerably more dangerous threat than Iran. [/B]

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Wait wait, so because Ahmadinejad is a politician, whatever he says is automatically bullshit? Really? I guess every politician is 100% full of shit then, according to your logic. How do you know that he's NOT being truthful and at the same time appealing to the hardliners? You know, two birds with one stone?

I have a very difficult time believing that Ahmandinejad would ever really want to attack Israeli. Unless he possess of the same mentality of the suicide bomber, what does he stand to gain? Perhaps he does believe Israeli should be wiped off the map, but does that mean he would ever act on it? I doubt it, because whatever Ahmandinejad wants, he desires power. He wants authority, and attacking Israeli stands in very direct contrast to his continued political survival, as well as the survival of Iran as a nation. The moment Iran had a nuke in the air, there would be a response from Israel and probably the US. There would be no more Iran, just a smoking crater where Tehran used to be. To me it begs belief that Ahmandinejad would simply accept such an outcome as the good one.

Now, I do believe that Ahmandinejad would not oppose having a nuclear weapons, simply on the grounds that it would boost Iran's status to the coveted club of nuclear armed nations. However, this does not mean I think he really would use it. The very threat of a nuke is in and of itself, a powerful political weapon.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
North Korea is definitely dangerous but I see the biggest threat as being radical Islam and its allies.

On a whole I see the Islamic world, so called "moderates" included, as a threat to western civilization that does indeed outweigh the threat posed by North Korea; however, when Iran is individually compared to North Korea, I find that North Korea poses more evidence of being the greater threat. We know they have developed and tested nuclear weapons and it is possible they may eventually have a delivery system for them.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I have a very difficult time believing that Ahmandinejad would ever really want to attack Israeli. Unless he possess of the same mentality of the suicide bomber, what does he stand to gain? Perhaps he does believe Israeli should be wiped off the map, but does that mean he would ever act on it? I doubt it, because whatever Ahmandinejad wants, he desires power. He wants authority, and attacking Israeli stands in very direct contrast to his continued political survival, as well as the survival of Iran as a nation. The moment Iran had a nuke in the air, there would be a response from Israel and probably the US. There would be no more Iran, just a smoking crater where Tehran used to be. To me it begs belief that Ahmandinejad would simply accept such an outcome as the good one.

On a whole I see the Islamic world, so called "moderates" included, as a threat to western civilization that does indeed outweigh the threat posed by North Korea; however, when Iran is individually compared to North Korea, I find that North Korea poses more evidence of being the greater threat. We know they have developed and tested nuclear weapons and it is possible they may eventually have a delivery system for them. [/B]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33135910/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

but don't worry, someone is doing his darndest to fix the economy:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/33130143/ns/sports-olympic_sports/

Fiddling while Rome burns, anyone?