Friday, March 31, 2006

Iran's "Peaceful Use of Nuclear Fuel" Clarified Friday

Just to let you all know, this report confirms the lefts assertion that we bad Americans are wrongfully characterizing Iran as a warmongering state. Read this and you'll be "assured" as I am:

Iran Test Fires 'Radar Proof' Missle

Apparently, this missle can evade radars and hit several places at once, which means they are going to continue to use uranium enrichment for nuclear power plants only. Just because they test fire a missle doesn't mean they have intentions for any offensive use. They have a right to protect themselves too, right?

Your thoughts on the non-intentional test-firing of this missle?

29 Comments:

At 12:57 PM, Blogger Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

The bias of your attitude on this beggers belief but I have come to accept your utter refusal to see anything other than what you want to see on the matter of Iran.

Iran is allowed to have weapons you know? Owning weapons is not illegal and if you have weapons they need testing.

The timing of the test is clearly to make a statement that, inspite of the US/UK applying unreasonable, excessive and unfounded pressure relating to nuclear power developments in Iran and rattling many sabres, Iran rattle a sabre back and is saying it will not be bowed and if push comes to shove they will provide a tougher foe than Iraq.

 
At 2:34 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Doesn't matter.

 
At 6:11 PM, Blogger Sadie Lou said...

UL--
Do you sometimes have the feeling you're arguing against a talk radio personality instead of an actual person with their own, separate thoughts and ideas?
Just curious.

 
At 7:06 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Sorta. It's like talking to a wall in the back of a cave.

Daniel knows how to bloviate, insinuate, pontificate, and excoriate, but he doesn't know what it means to conduct a discussion based on argumentation.

On his own website, he states to me "Either contribute and engage in the facts I post, or you'll be deleted." Meaning in DHG language: "What I say is fact, either agree with me or put facts up to disprove me; you won't because all you do is put your bigoted statements up and you're never open to the truth, you homophobe."

That's what he means. So, if he's got the facts, and I'm so prejudiced and such a wingnut, then I ought to just agree with him.

"Whatever you say, Mr. Gill."

 
At 12:11 PM, Blogger Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Funny, you never respond to the points I make in my comments.

 
At 2:28 PM, Blogger Sadie Lou said...

How can he respond to the points you make in your comments? When does, he gets accused of making up facts and not addressing the "truth".
You are asking him to debate you with his hands behind his back and blinders on so that you can slap him around.
Doesn't sound fair.

 
At 2:55 PM, Blogger Shaw Kenawe said...

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
Funny, you never respond to the points I make in my comments.


Daniel,

UL did respond: "Doesn't matter."

He ignored your response which stated the perfectly accurate fact that Iran is allowed to have weapons.

That's a fact. We have nothing to say about a sovereign country having weapons to defend itself. Nothing.

I think UL is confusing having conventional weapons with nuclear weapons.

Just the way the Bush administration was "confused" about Saddam having aluminum tubes so that he could use them to build nuclear weapons. It was a lie. And that is a fact.

Bush's war in Iraq is a failure.

 
At 8:16 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

No, Shaw, I said it doesn't matter if Iran proves to be a tougher foe that Iraq.

As to your thoughts that Bush's war in Iraq a failure...it doesn't matter.

 
At 1:13 PM, Blogger Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

I think it's best if I don't come here anymore.

Sadie Lou: I've laid out facts here, he doesn't respond, the reason his hands are tied are his dong not mine.

I'm staying away, for the best I think.

 
At 4:01 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Daniel,

That's your choice...it's not mine. What you don't understand is the argumentation process. For instance, you say that:

"Iran is allowed to have weapons you know? Owning weapons is not illegal and if you have weapons they need testing."

I agree with you that a country has a right to defend itself, but that statement is not a fact. It's a right. In addition, you are arguing beside the point; my argument was not Iran has no right defend itself. The point I make is Iran is threatening its neighbors through their leader Mahmoud baby, and is testing missles with multiple targeting that flies undetected by radar. Those are facts, pertaining to my argument, which I see warrants close scrutiny by the US/UK and our allies.

You also try to divert attention away from the argument to the arguer, me, by stating that I'm biased and refuse to see things any other way. Of course I have a viewpoint, but that's immaterial to the argument.

You make an unfounded assertion by saying: inspite of the US/UK applying unreasonable, excessive and unfounded pressure relating to nuclear power developments in Iran,...How is it unreasonable, excessive and unfounded? You just assume it to be true.

Another matter that is immaterial to the argument is that Iran will be a tougher foe. Who cares? Does that mean we shouldn't confront them? I tell you, if we don't monitor the situation, we'll have another North Korea situation here that is more volatile than NK. In this respect, that's why I say it doesn't matter.

So, in your first comment you committed several fallacies:
1. ad hominem
2. arguing beside the point
3. naked assertions
4. arguing beside the point

Daniel, you're smart. Read up on logic and argumentation. You'll be the better for it and have greater staying power when the heat is on. And you won't succumb to taking things so personal as you currently do.

 
At 8:33 PM, Anonymous Kathleen said...

UL, Daniel and Cranky just love mocking you. They have developed their own little mutual admiration party. Cranky says the sky is falling and Daniel swears it's true. I remember reading on another blog that he hated coming to your blog, but was attracted to it so he could grind you into the ground. *laughing* His appearance here is of no consequence. Take for example the comments from Cranky on "that other blog" about "special educational opportunities." From all I have read from Cranky and Polanco, I can't imagine them as passive little parents agreeing to have their children participate in "special educational opportunities" that flew in the face of their moral and ethical beliefs.

 
At 9:03 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Kathleen:

Thanks for dropping by. I know they hang out together. They can say what they want. They love to bloviate but can't stand the heat when they're challenged. Then they resort to the typical ad hominem. They do THAT well, I must say.

 
At 6:48 AM, Anonymous Jasper said...

I'm pretty sure C.Y. and DHG are just plain crazy.

 
At 8:42 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Hey Jasper!

Crazy? Maybe. For sure they are angry because they're not getting their way: to be able to say whatever they want without any challenge. Not here, the common master logic won't let them be the demigods of truth.

 
At 5:54 PM, Blogger Shaw Kenawe said...

Doesn't matter.

 
At 7:24 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Shaw:

*LOL*

I guess you're right!

 
At 9:51 AM, Blogger Davo said...

Ah, I see, the 'united' States of central North America are the only ones "allowed" to have (and use) "weapons of mass destruction". Makes some sort of twisted sense, i guess.

 
At 4:34 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Davo:

Hey! Long time no see!

Sure, we can use them cuz we're so good. :P

Seriously, don't assume now, Davo. You might be making a moral equivalence here that cannot be supported. Are you thinking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Even if you can make a strong argument against the use of nukes on Japan, (which I would agree with you), Iran is doing something far different than we did.

Again, I don't justify the use of WMD's at all. Your moral equivalence is assumed to be true, not proven to be true.

I guess the question is, do nations have a right to develop WMD's for the express purpose of genocide? Or, for offensive means? On the other hand, how can we downsize our WMD stockpile without making ourselves vulnerable?

 
At 8:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess the question is, do nations have a right to develop WMD's for the express purpose of genocide? Or, for offensive means? On the other hand, how can we downsize our WMD stockpile without making ourselves vulnerable?

How could WMD ever be classed as DEFENSIVE! "You threw a rock at me therfore I can Sarin Gas your country". If anyone has a stockpile of WMDs its for offensive purposes. And by your argument NO ONE has a right to them.

Except the USA of course... It seems all rules like this excludes the USA... they are above all other countries... the argument is "we promise not to use them, honest, scouts honor".

It's just lucky that the USA WMD stockpile could never be used on it's own citizens.... (Hey that sounds like a great plot for a tv show)

Yeah the idea of "WMDs being used for evil" is totally fiction. The USA is beyond that right? Ask someone from a muslim country what they think about that before you answer.

 
At 12:23 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Dear "Without Name":

I must admit, your rock vs. Sarin gas exaggeration works rhetorically for those who don't think, but it is a stupid analogy ( Matter of fact, your heavy dependance on rhetoric without reason is your argument's undoing). There is no scenario on earth that fits what you describe.

There was this thing called the "Cold War." Remember? That may be before your time. Philosophically, it was a result of the "world of necessity," driven by technology. If you want to know more about this phenomena, I recommend you read Jacques Ellul's "Technology." The read is tough sledding, but he makes an incredibly important point (I know I'm taking more time than I ought since I'm not convinced you really give two hoots about what's true. However, for those folks who read this blogsite but rarely comment, my time is spent on them.)

Technology is not governed by morals. "Techne" is simply a matter of "means," and the justification for an increased technology is increased efficiency. So, technology drives us to make life easier and more efficient: to assimilate more information faster, cook food quicker, have better gasoline mileage in our SUV's, make more money helping people and save more money killing people. There are no morals in the drive for increased technology except those we bring to it. You may not like that, but this is the world in which we live that we have got to try and humanize with morality. It gets tough when our adversaries are using technology to find more efficient ways to kill us than we have for them; if we don't keep up with them as a deterrant, they WILL have the capability to wipe us out.

A couple of examples from history that illustrates my point: Hitler developed a jet fighter to gain superiority in the skies, the Allies had to develop one as well or else lose the war. Hitler tried to develop the nuclear bomb. Such is the testimony of Werner Von Braun, who defected to America and helped us develop the bomb sooner. The world of necessity dictates that if Hitler gets the bomb first, he'll use it for sure, ergo we're all dead. So we raced to get the bomb first in order to gain the ascendancy over Hitler to make sure he's dead. It's ugly.

You may not like the world of necessity, as I don't, but it's what we have to deal with. So technology drives mankind to develop more efficient means to kill people: WW1 and mustard gas; WW2 and flame throwers, jet aircraft and nukes; post WW2 hydrogen, plutonium and neutron bombs and biological and chemical weapons. So, the Cold War was a war that put us by necessity to build-up our weapons for a deterrant against the USSR.

Do you remember this at all? Do you deny the danger that lurks out there?

So now we have this upstart country called Iran, whose leader has given us his every intention of wiping Israel and the US off the map, yet pursue a peaceful use of nuclear energy. Does anyone with the rare quality of common sense see a problem here? What has history of the world of necessity to teach us? Look at Saddam...he had them and used them, the very weapons we supplied him with, along with the French and USSR. Evil men will use these weapons for an evil purpose.

Now, if you want to make a moral equivalence between us and Iran, you'll have a terrible time to substantiate it. You can bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but then you'd be committing the same fallacy of moral equivalence without proof.

My point is, you can bloviate all you want, if someone develops the capacity to destroy us and has given us the assurance that they will, we're going to have to do something, unless we want to sit around and sing "Kumbaya" and lament how evil America is. The "Kumbaya" approach, though it "feels so right" is impractical, fantasical, and a denial of reality possibly driven by cowardice. To me, this utopian approach is a luxury meant to stave off the envious hatred of our enemies. We sing "Kumbaya" and they slit our throats while we do. Messy...very messy.

So, I'm more inclined to try to make a moral impact on the world of necessity as it is than take the easy way out, as most utopians do, and blame Amerika and Bush. It's an idiotic and cowardly deathwish.

 
At 5:47 PM, Blogger Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

UL: Davo and the anon succiently exposed the prejudice of your beliefs regarding Iran and WMD, you then spent too many paragraphs using long words rather than deal with the isses, as always.

The facts stand:

Iran is not developing nuclear weapons

The US is applying pressure based purely on political beliefs rather than evidence of any weapons

Iran has the right to develop weapons if it wants

The statements regarding Israel were taking out fo context and related to Israel wiping Palestine off the map.

Deal with these, deal with them straight or don't talk something you can't cope with.

 
At 10:35 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

DHG:

Nope.

 
At 3:08 PM, Blogger Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Saying no to the facts makes you look bad.

 
At 4:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

UL: Interesting post. People probably call me slow but maybe you can help clarify the following.

We (the world) currently have a 'war on terror'. This is not a war on a country or region but rather a war on an relatively unknown group of people (don rumsfeld would call them a "known unknown"[1]). These people are geographically diverse, with cells everywhere (don rumsfeld would call them "unknown unknowns"[1])

So we assume that these Unknown Unknowns are planning to carry out terror attacks are going to use WMDs - dirty bombs, chemical weapons etc. The USA having a stockpile of WMDs does nothing to deter this group. Not only can you not find them but using a WMD to wipe them out is like burning down your house to kill a spider.

As far as I know we are only at war with that one entity right now.

Sorry I don't "bloviate", that's illegal in most states, even in the privacy of your own home.


[1]The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

 
At 9:14 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Anonymous:

I don't like the name "War on Terror" because that not what it is. It is a war on an ideology that I fear we are unable to combat effectively. It's a battle of ideologies that are religious, not doubt, but also of civilizations. A clash between the 7th century and 21st century. I also fear that the decadence in our culture is fueling their hatred of us, which is understandable, though their solution is absolutely unacceptable.

It's a huge mess that I think will lead to chaos. I'm not optimistic at the present means of combating it.

Ideological wars must ALSO be fought ideologically, and I don't think America has the teeth to latch on. I'm rambling a bit, but I can comment more later.

The UL

 
At 7:09 AM, Blogger Davo said...

.. and the evidence for escalation is .. ?

So, who started all this 'nuclear' crap.

 
At 11:42 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Who started the escalation? Perhaps Nimrod, back about 5000 B.C., when he developed the first bronze arrow tip.

 
At 3:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Davo:

UL's answer is "I don't want to admit who it is in a public forum as it may undermine previous posts and/or arguments."

Maybe UL is in training to be a politician?

 
At 8:19 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Okay, Anonymous is right. Darn it. We started it ALL!!!!! We want world domination so we can get all the oil for our SUV's. We hate Marxism, Monarchies, Maosim, Leninism, and we want to control the world, but make it look like we're the good guys. Darn it, Anonymous, you shor figgered me owt.

I really think you missed my point, like really did.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home