Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The issue is that you're thinking of rules as absolutes. They aren't.

Though, if you're the sort of humanist you seem to be, it is unlikely that we'll ever agree.

What I don't understand is how you think 'results' change the 'meaning' of the rules of war. I thought that they were fairly clear in their intention. I understand (though do not agree) if torture was to ignore the rules of war, but not how it simply changes thier meaning.

Ah, ok. Reality changes the meaning of the rules of war. Humanity's own failures affect the meaning of 'no torture' such that we must account for those cases in which torture occurs, and direct them towards a 'positive' end. Results are simply our barometer for reality.

A similar dilemma has arisen for the UK government, in the case of US torture of Islamic prisoners which has produced potentially useful information. Should the information be used, even though it was obtained illegally?

The problem with a system such as advocated is that the armed forces and police, etc. are supposed to operate within the rule of law of the country to which they belong. Western law forbids torture, which is why the CIA were exporting prisoners to countries where it is allowed.

It would be impossible for a western commander to order his men to torture subjects, as that would be illegal under current law.

If they tortured the subject without orders, and he found out, he would be duty bound to have them prosecuted, regardless of the results.

Thus, if we wish our govt. and security forces to operate within the rule of law, the law on torture has to be relaxed to allow its use.

That brings back the dilemma that some people believe torture is always wrong, even if it can produce beneficial results.

The Bush government attempted to solve this dilemma by declaring that some extreme interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are not torture. That is avoiding the issue, though.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I think they shouldn't because it will create a major imbalance in terms of power structuring in the Middle East, which we can all agree will be a major bad thing.

Whereas bombing Iran will stabilise the region?

I don't think it'd be good for Iran to have the bomb, it isn't good for the region, isn't good for the world, and isn't good for Iran. However, there's a limit to quarantine and the consequences of military strikes are far worse than the benefits of possibly delaying Iranian nuclear ambition.

What Iran wants is local power and recognition of such. While you don't just hand over power, it's certainly possible for Iran to be allowed such power in the course of negotiations with the West - played well these talks could be built around Iran engaging more with the West and improving their own internal politics. An approach along those lines will be challenging, but it's the method most likely to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb, and the method that won't kill a load of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Israel is widely speculated to having nuclear weapons already, but this has never been substantiated and Israel, for whatever reason, has seen fit to keep silent on the issue.

Israel has the bomb. French scientists who helped the Israelis in developing the bomb have come out and said so quite directly. Their prep for use during the Arab Israeli war has been very heavily documented. Mordecai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician, provided substantial evidence of the program decades ago (he was then kidnapped by Mossad and kept in solitary for a decade or two - whatever you do in life don't piss off Mossad).

It's substantiated.

It's no secret that Israel was a nuclear power. Every weapon they wield in that region has been handed to them by some foreign influence or other wanting to stake their claim in the region. They

However, Israel has had plenty of opportunity to use "the bomb" with the same kind of diplomatic immunity to the wishes of the rest of the world, barricaded with excuses and nazi guilt making everyone else just have to accept that they will do their own thing.

Israel is not a power on its own and they all know this, 'thems' and 'usses' know this. They can ignore the wishes of the U.N. only to an extent. They have not, however, used "the bomb" so much as "the tank" in their border fights so far, because they know they will cut off their own power base if they go too far out of line. A tank blowing up a neighborhood is for some reason less aggressive than a bomb blowing up a city, but there it is.

It seems to be that Iran is like the second child... "how come he has a later bed time?..." Israel has a powerful military. Iran has 80s leftovers. Iran want's to be bigger in their neighbors eyes. That doesn't mean they want to use it, it just means they want to have it to show off.

I liken world politics to sandbox arguements between 6 year olds. Some of the fights occur because one guy doesn't like what the other guy said, or because some one had more toys, whatever. What the nuclear powers would be with such an infantile analogy (yes I meant that) would be like the playground lady with the whistle telling kids off for getting into fights. They are grownups watching over a bunch of bickering kids. If the grownup says 'No Akhmed, you can't have your lunchbox because we know you will just throw it at Abraham's head (or whatever)' then what is the kid likely to do? its not fair that cain gets a lunchbox but abel doesn't...

I hope, for the world, that some cultures would just grow up. Wan't to call me an elitist for saying that? I wan't my own culture to grow too. But my own culture isn't teetering on the brink of a nuclear hardon waiting to explode. Has been, but got over it, and grew up.

I think the difficulty with the torture question centers around a fundamental problem: we are supposed to be the 'good' guys, the ones who believe in freedom and rights. You can claim that it's too idealistic to discount evidence obtained using torture, but this current 'war on terror' is basically a clash of opposing ideologies. The more we come to resemble our enemies, the more pointless the war becomes.

sebster wrote:Whereas bombing Iran will stabilise the region?

Never said that. In fact, I expressed concern at that very same suggestion earlier in the thread. That being said, it shouldn't be taken off the table as an option.

sebster wrote:I don't think it'd be good for Iran to have the bomb, it isn't good for the region, isn't good for the world, and isn't good for Iran. However, there's a limit to quarantine and the consequences of military strikes are far worse than the benefits of possibly delaying Iranian nuclear ambition.

Your logic doesn't follow here. If a nuclear Iran isn't bad for all of that, we should only try to delay them from getting it?

sebster wrote:What Iran wants is local power and recognition of such. While you don't just hand over power, it's certainly possible for Iran to be allowed such power in the course of negotiations with the West - played well these talks could be built around Iran engaging more with the West and improving their own internal politics. An approach along those lines will be challenging, but it's the method most likely to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb, and the method that won't kill a load of people.

Maybe, but it could also be seen as the path to appeasement. You seem to place a greater importance on shying away from the risk of a war with Iran rather then actually denying them a nuclear weapon that could do far worse things to the region.

sebster wrote:Israel has the bomb. French scientists who helped the Israelis in developing the bomb have come out and said so quite directly. Their prep for use during the Arab Israeli war has been very heavily documented. Mordecai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician, provided substantial evidence of the program decades ago (he was then kidnapped by Mossad and kept in solitary for a decade or two - whatever you do in life don't piss off Mossad).

It's substantiated.

No it isn't. Conspiracy theorists consider it to be substantiated, but realists do not. That is widely agreed upon by, well anyone with a grasp of international politics. Is it widely speculated that they do? Yes. Is it likely? Highly probable. Has it ever been substantiated in any tangible way? No.

Never said that. In fact, I expressed concern at that very same suggestion earlier in the thread. That being said, it shouldn't be taken off the table as an option.

Are you referring to targeted strikes, aimed at their nuclear centers? Or are you talking about a fullscale intervention in the country?

Your logic doesn't follow here. If a nuclear Iran isn't bad for all of that, we should only try to delay them from getting it?

It's a matter of degrees. A nuclear Iran is a poor thing, and all available diplomatic and economic forces should be used to prevent it. However a full scale war within the borders of Iran would be likely to produce a similar result to anything the war would intend to prevent, while simultaneously destabilizing the region in a much more profound way than the slightly altered balance of international arms in the region produced by a single low grade nuclear device.

Maybe, but it could also be seen as the path to appeasement. You seem to place a greater importance on shying away from the risk of a war with Iran rather then actually denying them a nuclear weapon that could do far worse things to the region.

I question the idea of a nuclear weapon somehow irreparably damaging the region. A city is a city, this is not under dispute, but a full scale war can cause far more damage than to a single city, and international forces are already stretched thin dealing with two other unstable powder kegs.

No it isn't. Conspiracy theorists consider it to be substantiated, but realists do not. That is widely agreed upon by, well anyone with a grasp of international politics. Is it widely speculated that they do? Yes. Is it likely? Highly probable. Has it ever been substantiated in any tangible way? No.

There's only so much beating around the bush in regards to the presence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal that can work. In the last several years Israel has committed far more aggressive acts of conflict than Iran, and multiple acts of terrorism. Why does their nuclear arsenal not worry us? Why do we not focus more on a nuclear exchange between india and pakistan? Why is north korea ignored, while Iran maintains our full attention?

JEB_Stuart wrote:Your logic doesn't follow here. If a nuclear Iran isn't bad for all of that, we should only try to delay them from getting it?

Because its impossible to prevent them from getting it. Nonproliferation is a losing game insofar as the target state maintains the will to acquire nuclear technology.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Maybe, but it could also be seen as the path to appeasement. You seem to place a greater importance on shying away from the risk of a war with Iran rather then actually denying them a nuclear weapon that could do far worse things to the region.

He's right to do so; going to war with Iran would be incredibly stupid.

In any case, public opinion of international decisions (the only area in which appeasement is relevant) should always be seen as irrelevant. The mob is stupid.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
No it isn't. Conspiracy theorists consider it to be substantiated, but realists do not. That is widely agreed upon by, well anyone with a grasp of international politics. Is it widely speculated that they do? Yes. Is it likely? Highly probable. Has it ever been substantiated in any tangible way? No.

Actually, he's right. It has been substantiated, just not in an official capacity as defined by the Israeli state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Why is north korea ignored, while Iran maintains our full attention?

Jews are our friends, and Muslims are scary.

Jews are our friends, and Muslims are scary.

The japanese aren't our friends anymore and communists are no longer scary?

Communists are still scary, so are socialists, and capitalists. The Japanese are scary too, but only because of their sexual oddities.

Really, everything is scary all the time. Except apple pie. Though if that's served in a gourmet restaurant it becomes scary again.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Never said that. In fact, I expressed concern at that very same suggestion earlier in the thread. That being said, it shouldn't be taken off the table as an option.

Cool.

Your logic doesn't follow here. If a nuclear Iran isn't bad for all of that, we should only try to delay them from getting it?

I probably didn't make my point very clearly. I think that quarantine and military action can only delay a nation getting the bomb if they really want it. So instead I'm arguing to move to a new state of affairs where the status Iran desires can be gained through other means.

]Maybe, but it could also be seen as the path to appeasement. You seem to place a greater importance on shying away from the risk of a war with Iran rather then actually denying them a nuclear weapon that could do far worse things to the region.

It's appeasement if you simply give Iran things in exchange in response to them threatening to get the bomb. It isn't appeasement if you allow Iran the status and local power it demands, on condition of meeting internal reform standards. Want to chair a US sponsored regional economic development committee? Then undertake a formal review of electoral policies to ensure fair elections next time around.

Right now Iran is kept on the outer, so their means to achieving power can only be oppositional. I'm arguing to change the dynamic, give Iran a means of gaining power through becoming a more open country.

And yeah, I do place an importance on avoiding war, because it sucks when lots of people die. There are necessary wars, but this isn't anywhere near that.

No it isn't. Conspiracy theorists consider it to be substantiated, but realists do not. That is widely agreed upon by, well anyone with a grasp of international politics. Is it widely speculated that they do? Yes. Is it likely? Highly probable. Has it ever been substantiated in any tangible way? No.

I'm kind of disappointed you went with the 'people only believe that thing (Israel has the bomb) if there's something wrong with them (they're conspiracy theorists)'. It's a pretty lazy line of argument.

Again, we statements by French nuclear scientists that they helped Israel develop their bombs. We have photos released by an Israeli nuclear technician, that have have been verified by experts in the field. What more do you want?

sebster wrote:
Right now Iran is kept on the outer, so their means to achieving power can only be oppositional. I'm arguing to change the dynamic, give Iran a means of gaining power through becoming a more open country.

To be fair, that's unlikely to work until Khamenei dies. He believes that Iranian power, and security, are contingent upon independence through nuclear possession; civilian or military. And he isn't wrong. It's unlikely that we'll convince him to change his mind, though if we can stall until he kicks it (or until someone kicks him), we will be in prime position to extend our influence to a successor.

Our best bet, for the moment, is to hedge the bet towards a nuclear Iran. That means buffing up Iraq, enabling the Saudis in a nuclear sense, and finding a way to turn Kuwait into a US appendage. Oh, and turning a blind eye to the resultant Israeli air strikes on Syrian nuclear plant wouldn't hurt either.

dogma wrote:To be fair, that's unlikely to work until Khamenei dies. He believes that Iranian power, and security, are contingent upon independence through nuclear possession; civilian or military. And he isn't wrong. It's unlikely that we'll convince him to change his mind, though if we can stall until he kicks it (or until someone kicks him), we will be in prime position to extend our influence to a successor.

Simply changing the nature of discourse available to Iran will undermine Khamenei's position. I accept that it's an approach that won't solve the problem in the course of an election cycle.

In the meantime all effort should be taken to stall Iran's nuclear ambition, which doesn't have to be subtle or secretive, as any effort from Iran to develop the bomb is in breach of their signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. But the long term, lasting solution is to create a political environment in which Iran doesn't want the bomb.

Honestly, its difficult to determine whether or not Iran is even seeking the bomb. Public reports by the CIA, and NSA, seem to indicate that they are keeping it on the table, but that their nuclear program may very well be what they describe: civilian. Iranian academics seem to agree with this idea as well.

You are right though, its best to leverage against Khamenei's position; even if only to push possible successors.

Can we prohibit a country from nuclear arsenal? Yes. we can just give weapons to all of their neighbors.... "you wan't to join the club? good luck when your crazy neighbor gets it too..." that will ensure nobody will use it? Or if they do, then only the stupid countries will be blowing each other up. Proliferations is so stupid.

dogma wrote:Honestly, its difficult to determine whether or not Iran is even seeking the bomb. Public reports by the CIA, and NSA, seem to indicate that they are keeping it on the table, but that their nuclear program may very well be what they describe: civilian. Iranian academics seem to agree with this idea as well.

You are right though, its best to leverage against Khamenei's position; even if only to push possible successors.

You and Imadinnerjacket are the only ones making that statement. How does it feel to be a potential apologist for a dictatorship?

Is it just me or is Frazzled extra trolly today?

RustyKnight wrote:Is it just me or is Frazzled extra trolly today?

Lack of V8 juice most likely. I picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue.

No, I'm making that statement, and so are the CIA, and the NSA.

You don't seem to understand what fact, and reality are.

You would be right to request substantiation, but that's not you're doing.

Guitardian wrote:Can we prohibit a country from nuclear arsenal? Yes. we can just give weapons to all of their neighbors.... "you wan't to join the club? good luck when your crazy neighbor gets it too..." that will ensure nobody will use it? Or if they do, then only the stupid countries will be blowing each other up. Proliferations is so stupid.

It's a bit contrary to non-proliferation policy to hand out nukes like firecrackers. It might actually be illegal under the current treaties.

Clearly, developing nuclear power and weapons is a matter of (a) natural physical law (b) engineering expertise and (c) access to essential raw materials like Uranium. It's very hard to prevent a country from doing it, especially when some rogue states will help out others.

Any determined country can develop nuclear weapons if they want to. The Indians, Pakistanis, North Koreans, Israelis and South Africans all managed it.

KK has the right of it.

dogma wrote:No, I'm making that statement, and so are the CIA, and the NSA.

You don't seem to understand what fact, and reality are.

You would be right to request substantiation, but that's not you're doing.

Evidently the US government disagrees with you.
http://www.cnas.org/node/3867

The offer did not satisfy Western concerns about Iran's potential to make nuclear weapons. Iran, which denies it wants to make nuclear weapons, has declined to return to multilateral talks about its program.

Read before you post.

The US government agrees with me, almost to the letter, on Non-pro policy. As evidenced by my statements throughout this thread, and the article you foolishly linked to.

As ever, you don't pay attention.

Read this and you might have a leg to stand on.

You're claiming their use might not be for nukes. yet the US government is looking to do harder sanctions to stop nukes.

I like this quote at the beginning of the article

Efforts by the Obama administration to reach out to Iran have not produced a deal to halt Tehran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday, and the U.S. now appears closer to moving forward with potentially crippling new sanctions.

Here's what you said

Honestly, its difficult to determine whether or not Iran is even seeking the bomb. Public reports by the CIA, and NSA, seem to indicate that they are keeping it on the table, but that their nuclear program may very well be what they describe: civilian. Iranian academics seem to agree with this idea as well.

Frazzled wrote:You're claiming their use might not be for nukes. yet the US government is looking to do harder sanctions to stop nukes.

No, to stop the development of nuclear technology. Nuclear technology is not only used to build bombs.

Frazzled wrote:
I like this quote at the beginning of the article

Efforts by the Obama administration to reach out to Iran have not produced a deal to halt Tehran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday, and the U.S. now appears closer to moving forward with potentially crippling new sanctions.

Here's what you said

Honestly, its difficult to determine whether or not Iran is even seeking the bomb. Public reports by the CIA, and NSA, seem to indicate that they are keeping it on the table, but that their nuclear program may very well be what they describe: civilian. Iranian academics seem to agree with this idea as well.

Quote from the writer, not from a policy professional, or employed analyst. Read before you post.

Can't admit when you're wrong can you there Dogma. Oh well, about what I expected.

I'm not wrong at all. Everything I've said, on this page at least, has been factually correct. It isn't my fault that you're incapable of reading, or discussing something which you lack knowledge of.

dogma wrote:I'm not wrong at all. Everything I've said, on this page at least, has been factually correct. It isn't my fault that you're incapable of reading, or discussing something which you lack knowledge of.

Again with the insults. When you can't win, insult. Is that how it works in the gym?