Saturday, May 10, 2008

Austin Mayor: Obama will give Iran a pass on the first strike

That's about all I can gather from this post by So Called Austin Mayor, and I'll copy it here in full.
Obliterate = Atomic Death

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel]. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, April 22, 2008

A glimpse of actual atomic obliteration of a civilian population.
So Iran's Ahmadinejad makes good on his call to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and turns Tel Aviv into one of these photos, and the world should not retaliate? That's all I can figure is Austin's point. It's a gruesome position for Obama supporters to take.


Dr Bermangolu said...

This one is pretty stupid even by your low standards.

1. Iran has not threatened to nuke Israel. This is just one of those little things put out their by you and your neo-con buddies to scare people.

2. If Israel is in such danger, they can very well nuke Iran first themselves. Unlike Iran, Israel has both nukes and a delivery system. You know this, of course.

3. If Iran ever did fire a nuke at Israel, the world would retaliate and Iran and everyone else knows this. This is why you have to invent a "crazy Muslim" theory, because Iran in fact is not a credible threat. So you have to create an incredible threat.

So-Called Austin Mayor said...

Mr. Baar,

Perhaps I set my standards too high, but in order for me to take an argument seriously, that argument must meet a few minimum standards.

First, the argument must not engage in deliberate logical fallacies -- in this case a classic straw man argument.

I did not say "an Iranian first strike should go without retaliation." I did not even suggest that "We just let Iran wipeout six million Jews Isreal (sic)" To my knowledge, no one -- including Sen. Obama -- has made such a suggestion.

Rather, I suggest that a first strike by Iran against Israel should not necessarily result in the United States of America killing the SEVENTY-ONE MILLION humans living in Iran. Because that is what Clinton's threat to "Obliterate" Iran means.

Which brings me to my second minimum requirement for taking an argument seriously: that its proponent demonstrate a familiarity with the definitions of the key terms used in the argument. In this case, the term in question is "obliteration".

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "obliteration" as "To do away with completely so as to leave no trace." Houghton Mifflin is even more succinct: "To destroy all traces of." In other words, "utter destruction." Of 70 million innocent people.

Yes, innocent.

Which brings me to my third requirement for taking a purported argument seriously: It must be, at minimum, internally consistent.

On one hand you approve of "obliterating" the people of Iraq for actions the state of Iraq. But on the other hand you seem to understand that the state of Iraq is actually controlled by a few unelected men, i.e. the Assembly of Experts or as you so cleverly called them "Iran's Mad Mullahs". (But not so mad as to carelessly invade Iraq.)

Those 86 men -- and those 86 men alone -- determine the Supreme Leader of Iran. The Supreme Leader, in turn, is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, Iranian state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are also appointed by the Supreme Leader.

When civilians have no role in determining who becomes the commander-in-chief -- the man who declares war and peace, and who mobilizes the armed forces (including hypothetical nuclear weapons) -- they cannot be morally responsible for his decisions. They are not guilty of the crimes perpetrated by their unrepresentative leaders. They are, in other words, innocent.

Any argument that holds civilian citizens morally responsible for decisions that they did not and could not make or even influence -- upon penalty of atomic death! -- is either internally inconsistent or grotesquely hypocritical.

You've earned the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Baar, so I presume your argument's logic is merely, but fundamentally, flawed.

But fear not Bill, you are remarkably consistent in one aspect: Your willingness to bang the drums of war and risk the lives of others to promote your geopolitical fantasies. U.S. troops, Iraqi men, women and children and now Iranian civilians -- no price is too high for others to pay for a neoconservative's hegemonic dreams.

so-called "Austin Mayor"