[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You really ought to stop using so many logical fallacies in your posts. It really distracts from your occasionally decent response. This particular one is an To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. It is "convenient" because these other powerful nations have owned and been responsible with their nukes. That gives them some moral authority. Iran hasn't had an opportunity to demonstrate responsible use and isn't complying with international demands for transparency. This weakens their moral grounds. It's pretty obvious.

International demands? Or just Western demands? Appeal to majority much?

The argument against Iran centers "They won't open up to inspectors and it's dangerous to Israel". So let's flip it the other way. Israel won't open up to inspectors and it's dangerous to Iran. "One rule for me, another for thee" is a legitimate concern concerning law, morals, ethics.

Since the only way to demonstrate responsibility with something is to have it, it can't be a prerequisite for ownership. Soviet Russia/China were extremely repressive/powerful in relation to Iran, and developed their nuclear programs with no oversight, without WWIII. Suddenly Iran is different. That's a fallacy. Separately, claiming that historically, other countries showed restraint so therefore they have moral standing to judge others, is an appeal to tradition.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Munglik To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I meant giving them up completely.

I know. I got that. I was only saying that Russia and America have too damn many - that is equally as retarded as giving them up completely.

[Munglik]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I know. I got that. I was only saying that Russia and America have too damn many - that is equally as retarded as giving them up completely.

They have never been the most subtle of countries.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

International demands? Or just Western demands? Appeal to majority much? (1) The argument against Iran centers "They won't open up to inspectors and it's dangerous to Israel".(2) So let's flip it the other way. Israel won't open up to inspectors and it's dangerous to Iran. "One rule for me, another for thee" is a legitimate concern concerning law, morals, ethics.(3) Since the only way to demonstrate responsibility with something is to have it, it can't be a prerequisite for ownership. Soviet Russia/China were extremely repressive/powerful in relation to Iran, and developed their nuclear programs with no oversight, without WWIII. Suddenly Iran is different. That's a fallacy. Separately, claiming that historically, other countries showed restraint so therefore they have moral standing to judge others, is an appeal to tradition.(4)

1) I'm not sure, but I think that Pakistan and India wouldn't be too keen on Iran having nukes as well. Russia seems to be the only one flocking to Iran's aid. Considering that even the Arab League is not really throwing in with Iran on this issue - yeah, it's an international thing. Your imagination is taking over again.

2) Why are you so fixated on Israel? Do you hate Jews? Are you terrified of the "Zionists"? What Israel does, in no way justifies Iran having nuclear weapons.

3) Yes, Israel poses a threat to Iran. But that is a separate issue. A nuclear armed Iran is not the appropriate answer.

4) Cold War. You must be very young and relatively unfamiliar with history. No one wants to allow the same conditions to evolve again where a standoff can escalate the way it did. You seem to want to allow history to repeat itself.

Once again, considering the actions of the UN and others around the world, you and your opinion is sort of alone (appeal to the masses) - but sometimes being different ain't so good.

[deconspire]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I look at results. I "follow the money". I pay little attention to rhetoric. The reason leadership goes to war and the reasons they give their people for going to war are almost always divergent. The only trickery here is rhetoric.

Yes yes, I agree with you here. But it also appears that you are falling prey to confirmation bias. You are one person on the internet reducing the reasons for war into one all-encompassing idea and making a very strong claim that it is the definitive reason without providing any established research. There are many well-respected published polysci and logistics people that would disagree with you. The only problem I have is that you are postulating this idea as if it were fact, rather than the hypothesis or opinion that it is.

BTW...I've read through this thread and I haven't seen you write a post that deals expressly with your opinion on the topic that the OP established. It's pretty obvious you think Iran should have them, but I would like to see a fully-formed coalescent opinion with reasons on the matter, rather than having to link together bits and pieces throughout the thread. Not asking just so I can argue and tell you you're wrong (what do I know?), but because I am genuinely interested.

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	2) Why are you so fixated on Israel? Do you hate Jews? Are you terrified of the "Zionists"? What Israel does, in no way justifies Iran having nuclear weapons.

Just as I was thinking you were better than this. Sad.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just as I was thinking you were better than this. Sad.

Sorry to disappoint. I already called Israel a spoiled brat but Intellijent seems to have an unhealthy fixation on Israel and uses that as the crux of his argument to justify allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The math doesn't add up. The stuff he is spouting is shockingly similar to stuff I've read on Jihadist blogs. Lots and lots of accusations, much of it clearly from his imagination, and completely ignores (or sickly twists) any objective information shared. Therefore, one possible conclusion is that he is, in fact, anti-Semitic. So I had to ask.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1) I'm not sure, but I think that Pakistan and India wouldn't be too keen on Iran having nukes as well. Russia seems to be the only one flocking to Iran's aid. Considering that even the Arab League is not really throwing in with Iran on this issue - yeah, it's an international thing. Your imagination is taking over again.

When you start following current events let me know.

Russia, China, Iran, Japan, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey are all bucking US/NATO sanctions on Iran . NATO nations comprise a mere 13% of the world population. China and India alone comprise nearly 40%

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	2) Why are you so fixated on Israel? Do you hate Jews? Are you terrified of the "Zionists"? What Israel does, in no way justifies Iran having nuclear weapons.

So what would justify them having weapons? Or rather, what justifies anyone else trying to deny them weapons? Since apparently, according to this thread, the only reason justifying them NOT having them is Israel's supposed safety being called into question. I didn't bring Israel up.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	3) Yes, Israel poses a threat to Iran. But that is a separate issue. A nuclear armed Iran is not the appropriate answer.

Who gets to decide? Why? As I pointed out, your previous answers to this rest on logical fallacies.

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

4) Cold War. You must be very young and relatively unfamiliar with history. No one wants to allow the same conditions to evolve again where a standoff can escalate the way it did. You seem to want to allow history to repeat itself. Once again, considering the actions of the UN and others around the world, you and your opinion is sort of alone (appeal to the masses) - but sometimes being different ain't so good.

The Cold War was created because of the chain reactions of world interventionism in first WWI and then WWII. If an Iranian - Israeli conflict broke out, regardless of nuclear weapon usage, it can turn into WWIII for the same reasons WWI happened. The beginning of the 21st century is looking very much like the beginning of the 20th century. A US or Israeli strike on Iran would most likely be the equivalent action of the assassination of the Archduke.

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry to disappoint. I already called Israel a spoiled brat but Intellijent seems to have an unhealthy fixation on Israel and uses that as the crux of his argument to justify allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The math doesn't add up. The stuff he is spouting is shockingly similar to stuff I've read on Jihadist blogs. Lots and lots of accusations, much of it clearly from his imagination, and completely ignores (or sickly twists) any objective information shared. Therefore, one possible conclusion is that he is, in fact, anti-Semitic. So I had to ask.

Do I need to go back through this thread and show that in every instance the overriding concern over Iran possessing nuclear power is the potential for them to carry on enrichment to weapons grade level and than nuke Israel/commit "genocide"? Who has the unhealthy fixation?

Separately, apparently every time I say "Israel =/= Jews", and "Zionism =/= Jews", must get glossed over. Which is a lot. Which tells me you don't actually read. While resorting to charges of Anti-Semitism and invoking Godwin's Law (which is pretty much lowest of the possible low in Ad homs and comparison fallacies), you (or anyone else) have yet to build any logical case for intervention in Iran. You brought up Ghaddafi and then asked me how it applied to Iran. The OP brought Israel into the conversation (and the Israeli Government/ lobby is the one discussing unilateral strikes anyway), and you were one of the ones crowing about Israeli danger, yet I have an "unhealthy fixation on Israel". Do you see the recurring problem here?

[Polymath20]

The Cold War was created because of the chain reactions of world interventionism in first WWI and then WWII. If an Iranian - Israeli conflict broke out, regardless of nuclear weapon usage, it can turn into WWIII for the same reasons WWI happened. The beginning of the 21st century is looking very much like the beginning of the 20th century. A US or Israeli strike on Iran would most likely be the equivalent action of the assassination of the Archduke.

Finally you're reaching some logical conclusions. This is a legitimate concern - and freely allowing Iran to pursue nuclear energy (or weapons) would seem to facilitate this very escalation you outlined.

	and you were one of the ones crowing about Israeli danger

You have a very good imagination.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Finally you're reaching some logical conclusions. This is a legitimate concern - and freely allowing Iran to pursue nuclear energy (or weapons) would seem to facilitate this very escalation you outlined.

That is a non-sequitur. Since the purpose of the strike would be to prevent it from happening, why would them gaining a weapon escalate it? Regardless of Iran's nuclear capabilities, both Russia have China have both openly stated that Iran's resources are a matter of their respective national interests, and the bucking of the sanctions by numerous countries have essentially been the same statement, made with market actions instead of open statements.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You have a very good imagination.

I retract that. Your overriding concern is the spectre of global war. Look at the real players then.

[deconspire]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When you start following current events let me know. Russia, China, Iran, Japan, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey are all bucking US/NATO sanctions on Iran . NATO nations comprise a mere 13% of the world population. China and India alone comprise nearly 40%

US/NATO sanctions are not as important as UN sanctions, nor are they indicative of what the rest of the world thinks about Iran having nuclear power. And last I heard (in 2012) India simply said it wasn't going to expand its sanctions. And I'd assume the only reason is because they get 12% of their oil from Iran. At any rate the only countries that voted against the UN's Security Council Resolution #1929 were Turkey and Brazil (with a wise no-vote from Lebanon).

[Seraphim]

Er, no. Christianity spreaded through violence and force. When the Islamic Empire took over countries the people were not forced to practice Islam or were they stopped from practicing their own religion. During the time of Muhammad, he sent a letter to Julius Caesar asking him to convert to Islam, this is according to the Seerah (the life of Muhammad), apparently Caesar wanted to convert but his ministers or whatever convinced him not to. Look at how the Jews treated the Palestinians. There are bombing of Churches but many Muslims are against that not supporting it. Can you show me the line that says so that Muslims should start killing Jews? .

And of course the Seerah is truthful history, not religious propaganda. Try reading histories whose historians were free of religious influence, rather then Muslim histories. You'll find a major difference in perspective.

Please note I stated 'alleged' line in the Quran. The president of Iran claimed the story existed. Others have denied it. Since I don't know, and different Muslims have made different claims, I say 'alleged'.

Was Ahmadinejad's statement correct? You tell me.

Irregardless, he made the comment, which was my point. It's accuracy is irrelevant to demonstrating his mindset.

[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by deaconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

US/NATO sanctions are not as important as UN sanctions, nor are they indicative of what the rest of the world thinks about Iran having nuclear power. And last I heard (in 2012) India simply said it wasn't going to expand its sanctions. And I'd assume the only reason is because they get 12% of their oil from Iran. At any rate the only countries that voted against the UN's Security Council Resolution #1929 were Turkey and Brazil (with a wise no-vote from Lebanon).

CR#1929:

Adopting resolution 1929 (2010) by a vote of 12 in favour to 2 against (Brazil, Turkey), with 1 abstention (Lebanon), the Council also requested the Secretary-General to create a panel of experts to monitor implementation of the sanctions. Annexed to the text containing the fourth round of sanctions imposed on Iran were measures directed against 41 new named entities and individuals, including one scientist and enterprises linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and the defence industry, as well as banks and the national shipping line.

Iran now boasts a robust domestic defense industry, and was already an outlier in world banking. Not very painful at all. Russia and China were content to play along when it didn't matter.

That was also the 2010. The new round of economic sanctions are not only not sticking, they are obviously dividing what originally looked like a consensus, but was clearly superficial.

US/NATO/Israel have been shooting themselves in the foot over the Middle East for a long time. As western powers spiral into insolvency, a last gasp at remaking the globe/resetting the clock by instigating WWIII certainly is a possiblity.

[Contrarian]

Not sure if Iran should have a nuclear reactor and or weapons? Perhaps you should read the following and decide for yourself:

"Close allies of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been accused of using supernatural powers to further his policies amid an increasingly bitter power struggle between him and the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Several people said to be close to the president and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested in recent days and charged with being "magicians" and invoking djinns (spirits). Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as "a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds". The arrests come amid a growing rift between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei which has prompted several MPs to call for the president to be impeached."

-Saeed Kamali Dehghan
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 May 2011 14.23 EDT

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Thoughts anyone?

Also, I am pretty sure that Julius Caesar and Muhammad did not coexist as Muhammad was born some five or six hundred years after Caesar's death.

[Seraphim]

. "Close allies of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been accused of using supernatural powers to further his policies amid an increasingly bitter power struggle between him and the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Several people said to be close to the president and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested in recent days and charged with being "magicians" and invoking djinns (spirits). Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as "a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds". The arrests come amid a growing rift between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei which has prompted several MPs to call for the president to be impeached." -Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 May 2011 14.23 EDT To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Thoughts anyone? Also, I am pretty sure that Julius Caesar and Muhammad did not coexist as Muhammad was born some five or six hundred years after Caesar's death.

Another Islamic story has it he sent the letter to Heraclius, emperor of the Byzantine empire, rather than Ceaser. Just doing a little research from Islamic sites. History records him as a Christian leader who fought against Islam. Some Islamic histories claim he wrote a letter announcing his belief in Mohamed. Theere is no evidence such a letter ever existed. They can claim whatever they wish in attempt to validate their version of history.

---------- Post added 02-22-2012 at 02:37 PM ----------

The Iranian president is not long for his position. Despite Khamenei's earlier claim that absolute power is not Islamic, he seems ready to grab it.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The invasion of mainland Japan was as unnecessary as the dropping of the atomic bombs.

And I am sure this informed opinion is backed up by countless historical facts.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And I am sure this informed opinion is backed up by countless historical facts.

There is plenty of information on this. Volumes in fact. I'll keep it simple with this tidbit:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The opinion of the Commander in Chief of Pacific Forces (CINCPAC) for the United States and Allied forces during World War II.

I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life... We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything. On the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as quoted by his widow, who also stated that he had "always felt badly over the dropping of that bomb because he said we had Japan beaten already" in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth (1995) by Gar Alperovitz

[12ax7]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Since the only way to demonstrate responsibility with something is to have it, it can't be a prerequisite for ownership. Soviet Russia/China were extremely repressive/powerful in relation to Iran, and developed their nuclear programs with no oversight, without WWIII. Suddenly Iran is different. That's a fallacy.

So essentially, you don't think Iran's religious stance with respect to Israel will significantly affect their nuclear policy should they obtain nuclear weapons? Not in any offensive capacity anyway? Their issues do not present a more unstable condition than cold war Soviet Russia?

You have posted many times to this end, but I still haven't seen why that is, other than
1. Western media is biased
2. Iran is acting in self-defense.
neither of which prove that Iran is not led by fanatics who may make a first move.
I, for one, would also like to see a post that establishes your opinion so we can see why you would consider the world no less safe with a nuclear Iran.

Thanks for keeping this discussion civil, I am learning a lot.

[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by 12ax7 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So essentially, you don't think Iran's religious stance with respect to Israel will significantly affect their nuclear policy should they obtain nuclear weapons? Not in any offensive capacity anyway? Their issues do not present a more unstable condition than cold war Soviet Russia? You have posted many times to this end, but I still haven't seen why that is, other than 1. Western media is biased 2. Iran is acting in self-defense. neither of which prove that Iran is not led by fanatics who may make a first move. I, for one, would also like to see a post that establishes your opinion so we can see why you would consider the world no less safe with a nuclear Iran. Thanks for keeping this discussion civil, I am learning a lot.

Is it possible that Iran's might be seeking a nuclear weapon? Sure. Is it possible that Iran's leadership might commit national suicide by unilaterally striking Israel? Highly unlikely. Even so:


Excluding "greater powers interest", there is no objective difference between a strike on Iran and a strike on Israel. This genocide talk is purely uninformed quackery. The respective regimes do not like each other. Neither has yet pulled the trigger, but it really doesn't matter who does until someone does. Innocent until proven guilty.

However, taking "greater powers interests" into consideration, this is a an extremely dangerous game of strategic chicken, from a global perspective, and it is the US/NATO/Israeli interests that are forcing this confrontation with China/Russia/unconfirmed military allies.

History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. As I have stated before, the beginning to the 21st century is looking very much like the beginning to the 20th century. If Iran or Israel were to strike each other, that's unfortunate enough. However, it shouldn't turn into WWIII. Let the idiots "off" each other, if that be the case. No need for external involvement. But it most likely will turn into WWIII, because the greater powers insist on their "game of thrones".

[Shahira]

Originally Posted by Seraphim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And of course the Seerah is truthful history, not religious propaganda. Try reading histories whose historians were free of religious influence, rather then Muslim histories. You'll find a major difference in perspective. Please note I stated 'alleged' line in the Quran. The president of Iran claimed the story existed. Others have denied it. Since I don't know, and different Muslims have made different claims, I say 'alleged'. Was Ahmadinejad's statement correct? You tell me. Irregardless, he made the comment, which was my point. It's accuracy is irrelevant to demonstrating his mindset.

It cannot all be made up. I still have the book but I can't find it. Not all historians are unbiased they are actually the opposite long time ago not just only Muslim historians are. That line which some scholars claim is that on the Day of Judgement that a Jew would hide behind a rock/tree and that the rock/tree would say that there is a Jew hiding behind me, nothing about saying kill the Jew. But there is no line in the Quran stating that so I don't think he's statement is correct. He was stating it never said that he WILL wipe every Jew off the face of the Earth.

Originally Posted by Contrarian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not sure if Iran should have a nuclear reactor and or weapons? Perhaps you should read the following and decide for yourself: "Close allies of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been accused of using supernatural powers to further his policies amid an increasingly bitter power struggle between him and the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Several people said to be close to the president and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested in recent days and charged with being "magicians" and invoking djinns (spirits). Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as "a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds". The arrests come amid a growing rift between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei which has prompted several MPs to call for the president to be impeached." -Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 May 2011 14.23 EDT To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Thoughts anyone? Also, I am pretty sure that Julius Caesar and Muhammad did not coexist as Muhammad was born some five or six hundred years after Caesar's death.

Was looking for the textbook so I just typed what I could remember looked for it again and I couldn't find it so I just googled both and looked at the the dates of their births and deaths which proves your point. Maybe it was someone else. Never trusted or liked that school.

Originally Posted by Seraphim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Another Islamic story has it he sent the letter to Heraclius, emperor of the Byzantine empire, rather than Ceaser. Just doing a little research from Islamic sites. History records him as a Christian leader who fought against Islam. Some Islamic histories claim he wrote a letter announcing his belief in Mohamed. Theere is no evidence such a letter ever existed. They can claim whatever they wish in attempt to validate their version of history. ---------- Post added 02-22-2012 at 02:37 PM ---------- The Iranian president is not long for his position. Despite Khamenei's earlier claim that absolute power is not Islamic, he seems ready to grab it.

I think maybe that was the story and I was getting mixed up. It has said that Muhammad tried to convince an emperor and that the emperor was going to but his consultants, friends or whatever convinced him not and fight against the Muslims. There is no evidence but that doesn't neccesarily mean that the story is not true it just cannot be proven but doesn't make it a lie.

[Polymath20]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Not that it is directly relevant, but a country that hinders democratic processes through fear and media control - this speaks against the trustworthiness of the leadership. To me, this also speaks against how responsible such leaders would be with even more power at their fingertips. Again, Iran most definitely can have a nuclear power station, if they play ball with the IAEA... but they aren't...

[zibber]

If I had the world's biggest rogue vigilante state breathing down my neck & looking to make me the next bogeyman to keep people docile regarding the military industrial state, I'd sure as fuck seek to enrich some goddamn uranium.

[VF1J]

Can anyone remind me which country is spending $32 million on bunker buster bombs? I'm pretty sure it was a country that is not Iran.

[12357]

	Originally Posted by idoj To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... People have to get past Nationalism... That's why people first language is so important To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

?

[Traverser]

Gerald Celente makes a good point for the Iranians NOT having a nuclear power plant...based on uranium...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Of course, I see nothing wrong with them pursuing their present course, but it does merit some consideration on their part, apart from the fact that thorium reactors are far cleaner and safer. One less pretext for the U.S. to go to war, the better (not that the powers that be aren't beyond outright deception).