US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making mil...

[Broomstick]

If Obama were to conclude that there is no choice but to attack Iran, he is unlikely to order it before the presidential election in November unless there is an urgent reason to do so. The question is whether the Israelis will hold back that long.

There is a school of thought – a suspicion, even – within the administration that Netanyahu might consider the height of the US election campaign the ideal time to attack Iran. With a hawkish Republican candidate ever ready to accuse him of weakness, Obama's room to pressure or oppose Netanyahu would be more limited than after the election.

"One theory is that Netanyahu and Barak may calculate that if Obama doesn't support an Israeli strike, he's unlikely to punish Israel for taking unilateral action in a contested election year," said Kahl. "Doing something before the US gives the Israelis a bit more freedom of manoeuvre.

The only way I can see Obama attacking Iran before the election is if actually shooting/bombing broke out between Iran and Israel. While the Republicans typically view the Democrats as vulnerable on military issues, portraying them basically as wussies, Obama having gotten bin Laden and the Predator drone assassinations makes it much more difficult to assert he's some sort of coward afraid to use force. Yes, I know about the moral and legal issues surrounding the drone assassinations, let's not do that debate all over again, I'm just pointing out that for the warhawks in the US they do color the view of Obama. Obama has successfully used military force to achieve goals without direct confrontation, which gives him a leg to stand on if he tries to take the stance that the US can oppose Iran without an invasion, that there are alternatives to direct confrontation. Would that be enough? I don't know, I can't recall a Democratic (or even a Republican) PotUS with those particular credentials, effective use of covert military force and remote drones to achieve ends.

However, the Americans are uncertain as to whether Israel is serious about using force if sanctions fail or has ratcheted up threats primarily in order to pressure the US and Europeans in to stronger action.

Brinkmanship:

the USA saying 'Iran,if you don't shape up, we might not be able to restrain Israel for much longer'. Indirect threat via slowly letting the situation slip out of control.

In 1981 Israel bombed and destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Given that history I see no reason to doubt that the Israelis are serious.

I know that many in the world think that Israel is a puppet of the US (or vice versa) but in fact the Israelis do retain their independence of action. They can and have acted contrary to US desires. If the Israelis are really determined to attack Iran there isn't really any way the US can stop them, short of bombing Israel which, for obvious reasons like they're an ally of ours (supposedly), us unlikely to happen.

Of course the two nations, even if agreeing in broad terms, are going to view the situation differently. It is highly unlikely an Iranian nuke is going to blow up on US soil (though god help the Iranians if one does) but Israel is a likely target for such an Iranian nuke. Note that I don't think Iranian would immediately drop an a-bomb on Israel if they had one, I do believe they would prefer to use it as a deterrent, particularly if they only had one or two.

Kahl said part of Washington's calculation is to judge whether Israel is seriously contemplating attacking Iran, or is using the threat to pressure the US and Europe into confronting Tehran.

I see no reason why both parts of that sentence can't be true.

Israeli pressure for tougher measures against Tehran played a leading role in the US Congresss passing sanctions legislation targeting Iran's financial system and oil sales. Some US and European officials say those same sanctions have also become a means for Washington to pressure Israel not to act precipitously in attacking Iran.

And... I don't have a problem with using sanctions in this manner, and the latter half of that quote is probably true. The problem is that sanctions seldom seem to work as intended, and may destabilize or push the Iranian government to an extreme it might not have had otherwise. Which is more likely to progress to war, an unsanctioned Iran with a healthy economy or a sanctioned Iran with a crashed economy and a pissed off populace?

The presidential election is also a part of Israel's calculation, not least the fractious relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, who has little reason to do the US president any political favours and has good reason to prefer a Republican in the White House next year.

Has Netanyahu seen the batshit crazies the Republicans are fielding this time around? Alright, I understand the Republicans do tend to favor Israel more than the Dems, and some of the right-wing religious nuts nearly worship it because its existence is a Sign of the End Times and they can't wait to get the Armageddon party underway. And there was every reason to believe a black Democrat with a bunch of Muslim relatives as well as Christian ones who spent a lot of his formative years outside the US might not be nearly as sympathetic to Israel as the average white Christian Democrat we've had in the past.

Netanyahu might well be right that a Republican in the US White House might be best for Israel.... but the problem is that it might be seen as a worse alternative for much of the rest of the world.

The Iranians have every right as a sovereign nation to build a nuclear power facility and if they fucking want to, nuclear weapons as a deterrent. As long as they aren't off shooting them at innocent civilians and countries that have made no overtures to attack them (I believe in first strike if the intel is strong enough) then voila. They can't hit the US and if they did launch something we would most likely intercept it.

Agreed.

One problem is that there are scary words coming out of Iran about how one of their neighbors has no right to exist and should be eliminated from the face of the Earth. This does tend to make the neighbors very, very nervous. Especially since so many of those same neighbors either remember the WWIII Holocaust when someone really did try to exterminate them en masse or are the direct descendants of such. It's sort of like smoking in a small room full of gunpowder and volatile chemicals, with the smoker adding more inflammables every hour or so. You can't help but wonder when, not if but when, the whole thing is going to blow up.

Now, I will be the first to admit I have no idea how likely it is that either Ahmadinejad or others in the Iranian government will act on their Scary Words. I do understand some of the stuff coming out of them is for domestic Iranian consumption. I understand politics requires bluster and hyperbole. I am also aware of recent attempted assassinations that have been laid at Iran's doorstep. I would be interested if someone with some actual knowledge of Iranian actions would chime in about this. If Iran had a viable nuke how likely would they be to use it?

And Israel? Are you aware that Iran is engaged in a proxy war with Israel, via Hezbollah? That Israel has a valid reason to be wary of a nuclear-capable Iran?

Just because Israel has every reason to be alarmed at an Iranian nuclear program does not negate that, as a sovereign nation, Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel does. Would you have used the same argument against Pakistan getting the bomb, that it would alarm nuclear-capable India? That was another powder-keg waiting to erupt and yet it did not. Both sides have gone back to glowering at each other and funding the Ministry of Silly Walks One can only hope that Iran and Israel maintain a similar level of nonviolent animosity. Given the recent “proxy war” alluded to by other posters, however, I am not hopeful.

Any since we're on the subject of someone being afraid of someone else with nuclear missiles if I'm not mistaken Israel already has nukes and has the capability of launching them from air, sea, or ground based silos. So why wouldn't Iran be equally nervous of an already nuclear capable Israel?

On the one hand, Israel has nukes and has never used them, which is a positive. Clearly, they aren't hell-bent on a nuclear first strike.

On the other hand, Israel has sent airstrikes against another soveriegn nation (Iraq, 1981) to prevent them from acquiring nukes. Equally clearly, Israel will conduct conventional first strikes if they so desire. Iran has every reason to fear at least conventional attack from Israel and see them as a belligerent adversary.

But this isn't just about Israel. Iran is also in conflict with the US, and has been since the Shah was deposed in 1979. They want nukes to deter the US from attacking/invading them. What possibly makes all this worse is that the US not only has nukes (and plenty of them) the US has also used them against people. Aside from that, the US has in recent decades invaded and more or less destroyed nations and there was pretty much fuck-all conventional forces could do to stop it. Granted that Iran and Iraq didn’t like each other and Iran probably wasn't at all sorry to see Saddam go, there was no way they could see that happen next door and not wonder if they would be next. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” doesn't always play out in the real world, sometimes it's “The enemy of my enemy is going to eventually finish with my enemy, then he's going to come over here and kick MY ass!” It makes sense that Iran would have some real fear of the US.

One constant the past 70+ years, however, is that the US does not engage in direct military confrontation with other nuclear powers. Proxy wars, yes. Espionage, spying, covert shit, yes, but not invasion or direct battle. Iranians aren't stupid, they know damn well that the US conventional forces are just as capable of fucking up their country as they were of fucking up Iraq. I think they're banking on the fact that if have a nuke it takes such an invasion off the table. It's a matter of national survival – if they have nukes the US won't destroy them as a nation, therefore, nearly any sacrifice will be worth it. I doubt sanctions are going to stop them. It would not surprise me if the Iranians think a US invasion/take down of Iran is inevitable if they don't have nukes, and if that's so, I don't think they view it as a choice, it's a necessity.

Rather like North Korea poured a shitload of effort into a nuke program – the whole world knows they have one now, even if it's a crude piece of shit. It's still a crude piece of shit that goes >BOOM< and spits radioactive fallout. They're in the club. They've got their magic defense against US invasion, the a-bomb.

Its totally absurd. France insisted on testing nukes into 1996 after the US-UK-China-Russia agreed a halt specifically because they didn't feel like they had enough data on modern designs yet. Israel has indeed been claimed to have some advanced small nuclear warheads, directional ones specifically for anti tank use, but this is nothing the US couldn't have built had it felt like back in the early 1960s.

You mean like the Davy Crockett? That was actually the 1950's.

Nobody (okay, nobody serious) is talking about invading Iran. Israel can't, the U.S. probably can't and certainly won't.

Nonsense – the US certainly could invade Iran. It doesn't because the costs (in several areas) greatly outweigh the benefits. If we get a Republican elected in November, however, that option certainly could be back on the table whether it's a good idea or not. Mitt Romney – arguably one of the saner choices for Republican PotUS this time around – is anti-Iran and very pro-Israel. Gingrich is, if anything, more anti-Iran than Romney.

For Iran, the best outcome of the US election would be Obama winning a second term.

All the discussion on shutting down their nuclear program involves air strikes. Israel could probably do the deed solo (unless, of course, Mr. Murphy comes along for the ride), but it would be a lot easier with the U.S. riding shotgun.

True. As noted, the Israelis have, in the past, done solo airstrikes to shut down a nuke program.

Actually, I've pretty consistently heard that they couldn't shut it down solo. The Iranians built the program under the assumption that Israel would happily attack it, so it's hardened and dispersed enough that air strikes aren't effective.

Also true – the Iranians are pretty good observers. Apparently, there is doubt the US could bomb the Iranian facilities into uselessness. The Iranians are VERY determined. I do believe they will get their a-bomb shortly whether the rest of the world approves or not. It seems to me, then, that the logical thing to do, if an Iranian bomb is inevitable, is to not go around pissing off the Iranians and fucking up their economy because a pissed off Iran destabilized by a fucked up economy is more likely to start trouble than a not so pissed off Iran with a healthy economy, but politically that doesn't seem feasible at the moment.

You realize of course that the Straits will be closed immediately and Iran will attack US forces in Iraq or Israel (depending on the party which attacked it in the first place), as bombings are an act of war? What then? Bomb them into the stone age without invading? Yeah.

Again, the capability is actually there – the US could kill every living thing in Iran via bombing. Of course, there would also be a massive cost to doing so. Thing is, no one really wants to do something like that. Which is good. You even point out a few of those immediate costs. Not that I think you, Stas, are doing this, but I get tired of people saying “Oh, X can't happen” when either it has happened, or the capability is actually there. There are very few circumstances that would lead to the US “bombing someone back to the stone age” but I can envision at least one event that could lead to such a thing

[Broken]

Does Israel even have the capacity to do real damage to the Iranian nuclear program? Unlike the strikes on nuclear plants in Iraq and Syria, Iran is a good deal further away. Is the Israeli air force large enough to carry heavy munitions for attacking hardened targets, suppressing air defenses, and the aerial refueling necessary to support those missions that far from their air bases? Not to mention the problems of not too friendly airspace between the two nations, namely Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I don't think Iraq has really even started rebuilding its air force (could easily be wrong though) or air defense network. However, could the Saudi monarchy even get away (internally) with looking the other way if Israel uses its air space to attack Iran? Or is Iraq weak enough and the Saudi's scared enough of an Iranian nuke to let them through?

[Sarevok]

Why is it Americas duty to defend Israel ? Let them handle the consequences of their own actions instead of dragging America and it's people into it.

[Broomstick]

It's not so much the distance from Israel to the locations of the Iran facilities that is the problem - yes, there are obstacles but I'm confident the Israelis could overcome them without too much trouble. The real problem is the distance from the surface down to where the research facilities are underground. The Iranians, having learned from the past, parked their nuclear program down deep, in hardened facilities. It's not so much "can we get the bombs there?" as "will the bombs actually have any effect after we drop them?"

A large nuke might be the only practical way to destroy the Iranian facilities at this point, but the odds of that happening are quite low. And the Iranians know it. They're betting that the US/Israel isn't going to try that, and I think they're probably right on that risk assessment.

[Broomstick]

Why is it Americas duty to defend Israel ? Let them handle the consequences of their own actions instead of dragging America and it's people into it.

America is funny about defending its allies and such. I mean, hell, we actively disliked the USSR yet still allied with them in WWII and put up with fucking Stalin because, you know, they were allies. (Until the war was over, then we weren't allies any more and the USSR was back to being The Enemy.) During the 20th Century the US seemed to actively like and enter into alliances that resulted in getting dragged into shit.

I'm reasonably sure that if the US hadn't been an ally and defender of Israel these past bunch of decades Israel wouldn't exist right now. However, I'm not going to enter into a debate about whether than is a good thing or not. I will merely state that the prospect of Israel ceasing to exist if the US doesn't help them out pushes all kinds of buttons in the overall America psyche, from love of the underdog to political influence of Jews in the US (not as great as rumored, but it does exist) to the fantasies of the evangelicals. And that's why the US has a "duty" to defend Israel.

[Grumman]

You of course can prove that Hezbollah doesn't operate inside Israel?

You want me to prove a negative? Sorry, not going to fly. How about you prove they do operate inside Israels borders?

Is there a meaningful difference between supporting an enemy based within your country, and supporting one based in a neighbouring country that makes cross-border raids and rocket attacks?

[Darth Wong]

Why is it Americas duty to defend Israel ? Let them handle the consequences of their own actions instead of dragging America and it's people into it.

America is funny about defending its allies and such. I mean, hell, we actively disliked the USSR yet still allied with them in WWII and put up with fucking Stalin because, you know, they were allies. (Until the war was over, then we weren't allies any more and the USSR was back to being The Enemy.)

I think you've got it backwards. America didn't fight alongside the USSR in WW2 because they were allies; America entered an alliance with the USSR because they were already fighting a common enemy in WW2.

During the 20th Century the US seemed to actively like and enter into alliances that resulted in getting dragged into shit.

Again, I think this is backwards. I think America tended to get into a lot of shit for ideological or political reasons, and they formed alliances pursuant to these goals. Take Vietnam for example: America did not send an army to fight communism because they were allied with South Vietnam; they allied with South Vietnam because they felt it was their God-given duty to fight communism wherever it sprouted in the world. They weren't dragged into shit by their alliances; they jumped head-first into the shit, and then they formed alliances with other people who were already swimming in it. When America does get dragged into a war, it's usually by corporate and economic interests, not international alliances.

I'm reasonably sure that if the US hadn't been an ally and defender of Israel these past bunch of decades Israel wouldn't exist right now. However, I'm not going to enter into a debate about whether than is a good thing or not. I will merely state that the prospect of Israel ceasing to exist if the US doesn't help them out pushes all kinds of buttons in the overall America psyche, from love of the underdog to political influence of Jews in the US (not as great as rumored, but it does exist) to the fantasies of the evangelicals. And that's why the US has a "duty" to defend Israel.

Precisely; it's ideological and cultural. The alliances are not the motivating factor.

[Block]

You of course can prove that Hezbollah doesn't operate inside Israel?

You want me to prove a negative? Sorry, not going to fly. How about you prove they do operate inside Israels borders?

You're the one who made the asinine claim, pretty sure the burden is on you. edit: Here's a hint, you're wrong. Look at the incidents that started the 2006 war, and look where they were.

[Darth Wong]

You of course can prove that Hezbollah doesn't operate inside Israel?

You want me to prove a negative? Sorry, not going to fly. How about you prove they do operate inside Israels borders?

You're the one who made the asinine claim, pretty sure the burden is on you. edit: Here's a hint, you're wrong. Look at the incidents that started the 2006 war, and look where they were.

I know this will be difficult for you, but don't be an idiot. The person who makes the positive claim always bears the burden of proof. The guy who says "this happened" always bears the burden of proof.

For example, if I say "Block murdered someone in 2008", I bear the burden of proof. You don't have to prove the counter-statement "no I didn't".

[Block]

You want me to prove a negative? Sorry, not going to fly. How about you prove they do operate inside Israels borders?

You're the one who made the asinine claim, pretty sure the burden is on you. edit: Here's a hint, you're wrong. Look at the incidents that started the 2006 war, and look where they were.

I know this will be difficult for you, but don't be an idiot. The person who makes the positive claim always bears the burden of proof. The guy who says "this happened" always bears the burden of proof.

For example, if I say "Block murdered someone in 2008", I bear the burden of proof. You don't have to prove the counter-statement "no I didn't".

So you're saying someone who makes a claim like, "The holocaust never happened" doesn't have to prove it? Despite all the evidence that's already in public record?

[Darth Wong]

I know this will be difficult for you, but don't be an idiot. The person who makes the positive claim always bears the burden of proof. The guy who says "this happened" always bears the burden of proof.

For example, if I say "Block murdered someone in 2008", I bear the burden of proof. You don't have to prove the counter-statement "no I didn't".

So you're saying someone who makes a claim like, "The holocaust never happened" doesn't have to prove it? Despite all the evidence that's already in public record?

(sigh) Let me explain this very slowly: the person who claims the Holocaust did happen does indeed bear the burden of proof. However, they have easily met that burden of proof already. Holocaust deniers do not have to prove that the Holocaust never happened, but they do have to recognize the evidence that has been brought forth by the Holocaust historians, who did in fact bear the burden of proof for their positive claims.

Holy fuck, are you ever stupid. The fact that you actually need this explained to you is just sad.

[K. A. Pital]

You realize of course that the Straits will be closed immediately and Iran will attack US forces in Iraq or Israel (depending on the party which attacked it in the first place), as bombings are an act of war? What then? Bomb them into the stone age without invading? Yeah.

Again, the capability is actually there – the US could kill every living thing in Iran via bombing. Of course, there would also be a massive cost to doing so. Thing is, no one really wants to do something like that. Which is good. You even point out a few of those immediate costs. Not that I think you, Stas, are doing this, but I get tired of people saying “Oh, X can't happen” when either it has happened, or the capability is actually there. There are very few circumstances that would lead to the US “bombing someone back to the stone age” but I can envision at least one event that could lead to such a thing

That was more of a sarcastic remark, actually. After what US did to Vietnam, I could easily imagine something like this happening again. Of course, the aforementioned problems won't go anywhere. But I just noted that a ground invasion would be likely to accompany such a massive campaign.

[Grumman]

To nip this in the bud:

Hezbollah militants kidnapped Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and killed three other Israeli soldiers in a July 2006 raid into northern Israel.

From a CNN article

[eyl]

You want me to prove a negative? Sorry, not going to fly. How about you prove they do operate inside Israels borders?

Here's an example off the top of my head:

A man seriously wounded while he was handling explosives in a hotel room in East Jerusalem last month was identified today as a would-be suicide bomber for Hezbollah, the Party of God, the authorities said.

Not in Israel, but not in Lebanon either:

Iran and Hezbollah were behind a plot to attack the Israeli embassy in Azerbaijan a year ago, according to a report published on Saturday in the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper said the trial in Baku began last week of two Lebanese and four Azerbaijanis on charges of terrorism, espionage and other offenses.

Then there's also the 1994 bombing of the AMIA building in Buenos Aires, the corss-border attack which killed three Israeli soldiers in 2000 (After the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon), and of course the 2006 cross-border attack which set of the secend Israel-Lebanon war.

I should also note that Iran has been sponsoring other organizations attacking Israel besides Hizbullah (such as Hamas).

Just because Israel has every reason to be alarmed at an Iranian nuclear program does not negate that, as a sovereign nation, Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel does. Would you have used the same argument against Pakistan getting the bomb, that it would alarm nuclear-capable India?

Strictly speaking, Iran gave up that right when it signed the IPT, which neither Israel, Packistan nor India did.

However, could the Saudi monarchy even get away (internally) with looking the other way if Israel uses its air space to attack Iran? Or is Iraq weak enough and the Saudi's scared enough of an Iranian nuke to let them through?

The Saudis (and most of the other Arab states) really don't want a nuclear-armed Iran. In the event, I suspect the Saudi radar network would suffer a mysterious temporary breakdown.

[Darth Wong]

To nip this in the bud:

Hezbollah militants kidnapped Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and killed three other Israeli soldiers in a July 2006 raid into northern Israel.

From a CNN article

Fair enough. However, the point remains that people need to understand the burden of proof. The person making the positive claim always bears that burden. You can't ask someone to prove that something did not happen. That's how America blundered into Iraq, remember? The warmongers demanded irrefutable proof that the WMD in Iraq did not exist.

[Thanas]

You want me to prove a negative? Sorry, not going to fly. How about you prove they do operate inside Israels borders?

Here's an example off the top of my head:

A man seriously wounded while he was handling explosives in a hotel room in East Jerusalem last month was identified today as a would-be suicide bomber for Hezbollah, the Party of God, the authorities said.

That one is from the nineties.

Then there's also the 1994 bombing of the AMIA building in Buenos Aires, the corss-border attack which killed three Israeli soldiers in 2000 (After the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon), and of course the 2006 cross-border attack which set of the secend Israel-Lebanon war.

Ok, that one is more recent, so while that is not proof that they continue to do this I will concede that they have operated in Israel in recent times.


Still not on the level of Israel sponsoring carbombs all over Iran, though.

[Block]

I know this will be difficult for you, but don't be an idiot. The person who makes the positive claim always bears the burden of proof. The guy who says "this happened" always bears the burden of proof.

For example, if I say "Block murdered someone in 2008", I bear the burden of proof. You don't have to prove the counter-statement "no I didn't".

So you're saying someone who makes a claim like, "The holocaust never happened" doesn't have to prove it? Despite all the evidence that's already in public record?

(sigh) Let me explain this very slowly: the person who claims the Holocaust did happen does indeed bear the burden of proof. However, they have easily met that burden of proof already. Holocaust deniers do not have to prove that the Holocaust never happened, but they do have to recognize the evidence that has been brought forth by the Holocaust historians, who did in fact bear the burden of proof for their positive claims.

Holy fuck, are you ever stupid. The fact that you actually need this explained to you is just sad.

No, because holocaust deniers are claiming that evidence is wrong, and if they make that claim they need to prove that what's commonly held as evidence is wrong. Just like if someone was going against what was commonly held to be right as far as the way Romans supplied water to their cities. You claim the old way isn't correct, a negative, you must provide proof of that or no one takes you seriously. As for your murder example, once the evidence reaches a certain point, yes I do need to prove that I didn't do it, or I go to jail because I have to prove that negative. In other words, claiming Hezbollah doesn't operate inside Israel, despite it being public record that they do, is a claim that you need to back up, or not be taken seriously.

This isn't always the case, things that can't be proven to exist or not exist or haven't been proven yet, the one claiming it exists needs to back up the claim, I agree. However, this doesn't apply to every situation universally. If you want to claim it does, whatever, your board your rules.

[Block]

To nip this in the bud:

Hezbollah militants kidnapped Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and killed three other Israeli soldiers in a July 2006 raid into northern Israel.

From a CNN article

Fair enough. However, the point remains that people need to understand the burden of proof. The person making the positive claim always bears that burden. You can't ask someone to prove that something did not happen. That's how America blundered into Iraq, remember? The warmongers demanded irrefutable proof that the WMD in Iraq did not exist.

They were given that proof at higher levels and chose to ignore it. There was enough evidence in the raw intel to prove that there were no active WMD programs inside Iraq, but that didn't fit the demands from higher up to build a case for war, so it was ignored or filtered in ways to make things more ambiguous than they actually were.

[Darth Wong]

So you're saying someone who makes a claim like, "The holocaust never happened" doesn't have to prove it? Despite all the evidence that's already in public record?

(sigh) Let me explain this very slowly: the person who claims the Holocaust did happen does indeed bear the burden of proof. However, they have easily met that burden of proof already. Holocaust deniers do not have to prove that the Holocaust never happened, but they do have to recognize the evidence that has been brought forth by the Holocaust historians, who did in fact bear the burden of proof for their positive claims.

Holy fuck, are you ever stupid. The fact that you actually need this explained to you is just sad.

No, because holocaust deniers are claiming that evidence is wrong, and if they make that claim they need to prove that what's commonly held as evidence is wrong.

Totally irrelevant to the question of who bears the burden of proof, moron. You're just changing the subject from "the denier bears the burden of proof" to "the denier should not ignore it when the claimant produces evidence".

Just like if someone was going against what was commonly held to be right as far as the way Romans supplied water to their cities. You claim the old way isn't correct, a negative, you must provide proof of that or no one takes you seriously.

You obviously don't understand what "negative" and "positive" mean in this context. "Held to be right" is not necessarily a positive claim. A negative claim could be "held to be right". A positive claim requires the existence of actions or entities.

As for your murder example, once the evidence reaches a certain point, yes I do need to prove that I didn't do it, or I go to jail because I have to prove that negative. In other words, claiming Hezbollah doesn't operate inside Israel, despite it being public record that they do, is a claim that you need to back up, or not be taken seriously.

(sigh) again, you demonstrate your stupidity. The prosecution still bore the burden of proof the whole time. If they never produced any evidence in the first place, you would be presumed innocent. In this case, after the prosecution meets its burden of proof, then you have to attack that proof. Even then, you are not actually proving that you didn't do it; you're just trying to poke holes in their evidence saying that you did do it. In principle, it is impossible to prove that you did not commit a murder in 2008. You can only poke holes in the evidence for you committing a particular murder, or demand that they produce evidence if they have not already done so.

This isn't always the case, things that can't be proven to exist or not exist or haven't been proven yet, the one claiming it exists needs to back up the claim, I agree. However, this doesn't apply to every situation universally. If you want to claim it does, whatever, your board your rules.

It doesn't take long, does it? I'm back a week, and people are already trying to slyly claim that I'm using my position to bully people into accepting false claims. You do that again, and I'll ban your ass without so much as another warning, because frankly, I am not interested in wasting time playing nice with assholes who pull out the "help help I'm being oppressed" card at every turn.

[MKSheppard]

That was more of a sarcastic remark, actually. After what US did to Vietnam, I could easily imagine something like this happening again.

Actually, a lot of the random bombing wasn't really random, but cued in by SIGINT from Airborne Radio Direction Finding (ARDF) EC-47s. Like for example, we found a major North Vietnamese command post near Khe Sanh, and dropped an entire ARC LIGHT on it. 1,300~ tons of bombs obliterated the CP and relieved a lot of pressure on Khe Sanh just as Tet was starting.

[Simon_Jester]

Any hard and fast rule about positive and negative claims gets complicated when put into practice.

Sometimes, proving a negative is easy- that's what modus tollens is for. "If it rains, then my hat will get wet, my hat isn't wet, therefore it isn't raining."

Sometimes, proving that an event could never happen is easy, if I'm willing to cut the bullshit and use inductive logic like a normal person: "gravity exists, therefore rocks will never fall up." Seriously, who doesn't believe that, or thinks it's worth questioning, except to make some joke or bizarre philosophical point?

Or even deductive logic: "There is no such thing as a square circle." It's not that I can't prove it, it's that it would be ridiculous to make a big production out of forcing me to prove it. Anyone with an IQ over about 80 should be able to tell that it's true without needing to demand the proof.

And sometimes, it's a matter of rhetoric whether a debater needs to prove a negative or a positive. If I'm arguing for mind-body dualism, is that a positive statement ("there is a mind that works independently of the body") or a negative statement ("the mind is not affected by the body")? And does it matter? Anything that could prove the positive statement would also prove the negative statement, and anything that could disprove the negative statement would disprove the positive statement.


If you've got a conversation like: "Prove that X did Y!"

"What, are you out of your mind, do you actually believe X didn't do Y?"

"I can't prove a negative! By default, X didn't do Y, unless you can prove it!"

Who's on the side of intelligence and reason in that conversation depends more on X and Y than it does on the logical structure of the argument. If the claim is "the Martians built the pyramids," the sensible person would default to assuming it's wrong. If the claim is "Joe breathed yesterday," then it's the other way around, and I'd be a fool to demand proof unless there's some weird extenuating circumstance.

Why waste time on the semantics?

That was more of a sarcastic remark, actually. After what US did to Vietnam, I could easily imagine something like this happening again.

Actually, a lot of the random bombing wasn't really random, but cued in by SIGINT from Airborne Radio Direction Finding (ARDF) EC-47s. Like for example, we found a major North Vietnamese command post near Khe Sanh, and dropped an entire ARC LIGHT on it. 1,300~ tons of bombs obliterated the CP and relieved a lot of pressure on Khe Sanh just as Tet was starting.

Of course, they probably obliterated everything within a mile of the CP, be it friendly, neutral, or hostile. So it still makes sense to talk about that happening again- a nation being "bombed into the stone age" by massive overkill strikes that wreck so much property and life that the place will need a generation or more to recover economically.

[Darth Wong]

That was more of a sarcastic remark, actually. After what US did to Vietnam, I could easily imagine something like this happening again.

Actually, a lot of the random bombing wasn't really random, but cued in by SIGINT from Airborne Radio Direction Finding (ARDF) EC-47s. Like for example, we found a major North Vietnamese command post near Khe Sanh, and dropped an entire ARC LIGHT on it. 1,300~ tons of bombs obliterated the CP and relieved a lot of pressure on Khe Sanh just as Tet was starting.

Of course some of it was targeted. But you know perfectly well that a lot of it was directed at regions rather than specific targets, and nobody particularly cared whether civilians got in the way.

[Sea Skimmer]

You mean like the Davy Crockett? That was actually the 1950's.

I meant SADM, the only suitcase nuke known to have had verifiable deployment. Davy Crocket BTW wasn't actually produced for live fire testing or deployment until the early 1960s even if the design was from the 1950s. The physically smallest US nuclear device ever tested was tested in the late 1950s as I recall, as a prototype for linear implosion which allowed for much smaller devices in turn, but one successful test really doesn't indicate a production ready technology. US only ended up using linear implosion on 155mm artillery shells in the 1960s, but on paper it could have allowed for nuclear weapons smaller then even SADM.

Of course some of it was targeted. But you know perfectly well that a lot of it was directed at regions rather than specific targets, and nobody particularly cared whether civilians got in the way.

They pretty much always had targets even if for some periods the goal was to attempt to cut the trail via creating belts of craters on top which we would also spray chemicals to make mud slippier from C-130s, then patrol the deforested strips by night. Demand for B-52 missions was basically unlimited from ground forces commanders and air power planners. The targets may not have been very worthwhile, but they existed and endless numbers of them could be found. Many were area targets, that's kind of related to the NVA and VC using large dispersed bases as well as the US having used so many airborne spread sensors.

[Darth Wong]

Any hard and fast rule about positive and negative claims gets complicated when put into practice.

Sometimes, proving a negative is easy- that's what modus tollens is for. "If it rains, then my hat will get wet, my hat isn't wet, therefore it isn't raining."

Actually, in that example you are still asking for positive evidence, ie- evidence of rain. You conclude that it's not raising because of the lack of evidence for rain (ie- the soaked hat).

Sometimes, proving that an event could never happen is easy, if I'm willing to cut the bullshit and use inductive logic like a normal person: "gravity exists, therefore rocks will never fall up." Seriously, who doesn't believe that, or thinks it's worth questioning, except to make some joke or bizarre philosophical point?

Again, the person claiming gravity exists does in fact bear the burden of proof. Sure, it's not absolute proof, but nothing is ever absolute proof. We just use the phrase "burden of proof" because it sounds better than "burden of substantial evidence". But yeah, even in the case of gravity, the person who claims it exists must provide the evidence. We just laugh it off because the evidence is so easy to provide, not because it's unreasonable to demand evidence.

Or even deductive logic: "There is no such thing as a square circle." It's not that I can't prove it, it's that it would be ridiculous to make a big production out of forcing me to prove it. Anyone with an IQ over about 80 should be able to tell that it's true without needing to demand the proof.

The concept of supporting evidence does not apply to mathematics, which we defined ourselves. We defined a circle to be a function in which all points (x,y) on a 2-dimensional plane are equidistant from a centre. In such a function, it is impossible to have corners. This is totally unlike a situation involving objective reality, which exists independently of our definition of it.

And sometimes, it's a matter of rhetoric whether a debater needs to prove a negative or a positive. If I'm arguing for mind-body dualism, is that a positive statement ("there is a mind that works independently of the body") or a negative statement ("the mind is not affected by the body")?

It's a positive statement. You are positing the existence of two separate entities where only one appears to exist. Your attempt to create a negative version of the same statement is bogus because it implicitly incorporates the positive statement. You cannot argue that the mind is unaffected by the body unless you first assume that the mind and body are two separate entities.

And does it matter? Anything that could prove the positive statement would also prove the negative statement, and anything that could disprove the negative statement would disprove the positive statement.

Your argument is unbelievably sloppy. You make statements which are carelessly defined, you argue that we should resolve them through common sense without demanding proof, and then you mumble that it doesn't matter anyway because it's all a game.

If you've got a conversation like: "Prove that X did Y!"

"What, are you out of your mind, do you actually believe X didn't do Y?"

"I can't prove a negative! By default, X didn't do Y, unless you can prove it!"

Who's on the side of intelligence and reason in that conversation depends more on X and Y than it does on the logical structure of the argument. If the claim is "the Martians built the pyramids," the sensible person would default to assuming it's wrong. If the claim is "Joe breathed yesterday," then it's the other way around, and I'd be a fool to demand proof unless there's some weird extenuating circumstance.

Why waste time on the semantics?

It's not just semantics. It is a recognition of when and where an idea requires an invention. It is in fact the heart of Occam's Razor, and it is actually very important. Your argument is a classic appeal to gut instinct, with vague justifications like "anyone smart person would ..." or "sensible person", etc. It's a good thing we have scientists who think more methodically than you do.

[Skgoa]

One problem is that there are scary words coming out of Iran about how one of their neighbors has no right to exist and should be eliminated from the face of the Earth.

If that were a credible argument, Iran should have attacke Israel and the US decades ago.