Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll
not really. an Iraq overflight is merely one option, and the current Iraqi puppet government has little say anyway. some MIT students have already theorized that the Israelis could potentially do a massive airstrike which would destroy most of Iran's nuclear industry in 2007:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05...ving_eggheads/ |
When I wrote that American support was necessary, I meant political support much more than military. While the Iraqi government is weak, the Americans do still have to pay lip service to them, if only in the pretense that they are in the country as guests. Nothing will raise Iraqi hackles up as much as an Israeli attack using Iraqi airspace.
By the way, your article points out just how improbable a successful Israeli air strike on the Iranian facilities would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll
oh no lol. a stance like that makes the statement worthless. you can make all kinds of nonsensical negative claims and say "hey - it's your problem, prove me wrong". since you can make about infinitely many negative claims about w/e crap, only a fool would waste time and prove them all wrong. the point is that you must have some reason to make the negative claim. if you dont have any, it disqualifies your statement since its been simply invented out of thin air.
|
Parsimony dictates that the default condition for any position is negative. Instead of an idea being given credence until it's disproven, it's automatically assumed to be untrue until it is proven. As a matter of logic and practicality, this is a necessity lest we be paralyzed by the myriad of impossible and improbable ideas out there (such as the possibility of the U.S. planning a colony on Pluto).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll
and, by the way, I could prove it wrong.
|
Nobody is stopping you from doing so.
2008-11-24, 19:56
