> The Yell wrote:

> Why invade iran? If we destroyed its military and its oil economy that would break it.

Here's the problem:

The moment you try to break Iran's military, Hezbollah wakes up.  Or, at the very least, whatever military officials manage to dodge the initial strikes would wake up and resort to terrorist attacks.

The results?

1: Missiles launched from Iran across the border into the Iraqi oil fields.
2: Terrorism in other places around the world.
3: Here's the biggie: An Iranian ship slips by US fleets and manages to lay some mines in the Strait of Hormuz, shutting down a big portion of oil exports.

It's the asymmetrical war we need to worry about.

Although I do agree that breaking their economy would do them in.  In fact, I think they're done in already, and we just need to sit back and watch.

> lmperial wrote:

> This question is flawed.

To me, the outcome and the action must be justified in lue of the scenario.

But in the overall's the outcome.

But again it depends on the choice and what it pertains to, sometimes the action, but more then naught the outcome.

How is the question flawed when I put in the "both" portion for just such an occassion as your answer?

I would hate to be one of the humanitarian workers who, surrounded by hungry people, opens up these packages to find bars of soap...

"Um... go on, it's tasty, and rich in vitamin A!"

Alright, look... Iran isn't the hotshot it was a year ago.

Oil prices are falling.  Food prices are rising.  Iran's economy has been dependent in large part on oil, and now oil most recently isn't able to handle the load.

That means one of three things:

1: Iran will focus its funds on keeping the population happy, slowing down its nuclear program.
2: They'll do the opposite, and risk popular overthrow of the government due to lack of economic support.
3: They'll be forced to come to the international community for help.  And guess what the US and EU will want them to shut down in order to get economic assistance. 

Pretty much the same, actually.  I'm horribly utilitarianist. 

Justinian, doesn't that mean that you can't value anything whatsoever, including:

Your own happiness,
Any other individual,
Any potential consequence whatsoever, for that matter.

Hell... having NO "oughts" means that you essentially justify everything.

At some point, you have to cross the line and say "I value something."  Otherwise, you don't actually do anything.

Recount!

Happy Halloween!

Interesting!  Will make a gynormous post about this later. 

Sorry to bring this slightly off/on topic, but must slightly distract things:

Rooster, you're joining a debate team?  Details, details!