America... Spying on Americans

Debra_Law wrote:

Tico's dishonesty knows no shame.

Okay, you explain how my summary differs in any material way from what he said.

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

Tico's dishonesty knows no shame.

Okay, you explain how my summary differs in any material way from what he said.

Statement:

If Iran is violating international law by pursuing its nuclear energy program, then the U.N. should take action against Iran.

Tico's Summary of Statement:

We should remain hostage to the whims of Russia and China concerning the issue of Iran's nuclear energy program.

If you can demonstrate how the statement and your summary of the statement mean exactly the same thing to the satisfaction of the participants on this thread, then I'll apologize for stating that you are shamefully dishonest.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Well, thank 'god' for small favors.

What does it mean when an atheist thanks "god"?

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

Tico's dishonesty knows no shame.

Okay, you explain how my summary differs in any material way from what he said.

Statement:

If Iran is violating international law by pursuing its nuclear energy program, then the U.N. should take action against Iran.

Tico's Summary of Statement:

We should remain hostage to the whims of Russia and China concerning the issue of Iran's nuclear energy program.

If you can demonstrate how the statement and your summary of the statement mean exactly the same thing to the satisfaction of the participants on this thread, then I'll apologize for stating that you are shamefully dishonest.

Now THAT is dishonesty!

Tico's Original Question:

Is allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons something we should allow to occur?

Debra Law wrote:

Iran is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. They are seeking to develop the country's energy program for peaceful use to meet the needs of the Iranian people.

Bullshit. Thinking like that is another reason why your party cannot be trusted with national security. You are advocating a policy that would have the natural result of nuclear proliferation.

Key Provisions of the NPT

Under Article I, the nuclear weapon states undertake not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Under Article II, each non-nuclear-weapon state pledges not to receive, manufacture, or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive assistance in their manufacture.

Article III obliges each non-nuclear-weapon state to accept comprehensive international safeguards through agreements negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The intent of these safeguards is to deter and detect the diversion of nuclear material for nuclear explosive purposes.

Under Article IV, parties may engage in peaceful nuclear programs in a manner consistent with Articles I and II and are expected to assist the nuclear programs of other parties, with special attention to the needs of developing countries.

Article VI obligates all parties to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to ending the nuclear arms race at an early date, to nuclear disarmament, and to achieving a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Article VII recognizes the right of any group of states to conclude regional treaties ensuring the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.

How are you going to PREVENT Iran from developing its nuclear energy program?

Well, I've taken no position with regard to the manner of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but have indicated military force might be necessary.

Is allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons something we should allow to occur? Do you think a nuclear Iran is acceptable?

Cyclop's Full and Complete Answer:

it isn't our place to allow or disallow another country to do anything that does not violate international laws. If they are in violation of international laws (and you are willing to hold the US and Israel responsible for their violations as well, btw), then the UN should take action against them.

1, it isn't our place to allow or disallow another country to do anything that does not violate international laws. If they are in violation of international laws (and you are willing to hold the US and Israel responsible for their violations as well, btw), then the UN should take action against them.

and

2, yes (for power-generation purposes).

Tico's Summary of Full and Complete Answer:

Basically, it sounds like your answer is: "Yes ... unless the international community says we shouldn't."

Basically, it sounds like your answer is: "Yes ... unless the international community says we shouldn't."

So, in effect you suggest we should remain hostage to the whims of Russia and China concerning this issue. That certainly sounds a lot like the approach Kerry promoted, and one of the many reasons he's not in the White House today.

I do not believe that is the course of action this country should, or will, take.

Now, we're stating that Iran might have nuclear weapons at some point in the future, and we may have to go to war? To stop terrorism? This makes sense to you, Tico?

Cycloptichorn

How typical of you to misrepresent again. It's a full-time job for everyone to wade through all your dishonest misrepresentations, deceptions, and lies. That's probably why people allow you to get away with your repeated dishonesty so often because holding you accountable is time consuming and derails the thread.

Ticomaya wrote:

Tico's Original Question:

Is allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons something we should allow to occur?

You're not telling the truth. You posed a two-part question.

Although you are currently ignoring the entire context in which this discussion has taken place in order to further your agenda of dishonesty and derailment, those of us who respond to your ridiculous questions and statements do not ignore the context.

For many pages, we have been discussing Iran's nuclear energy program. Iran is seeking to develop its nuclear technology for peaceful uses. If I remember correctly, you said that was "bullshit."

For the record, I believe everyone understands that Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). You have noted in a couple of your posts that U.N. and the IAEA are investigating Iran to ensure compliance with the NPT. The U.S. Department of State has summarized the key provisions of the NPT as follows:

Quote:

Key Provisions of the NPT

Under Article I, the nuclear weapon states undertake not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Under Article II, each non-nuclear-weapon state pledges not to receive, manufacture, or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive assistance in their manufacture.

Article III obliges each non-nuclear-weapon state to accept comprehensive international safeguards through agreements negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The intent of these safeguards is to deter and detect the diversion of nuclear material for nuclear explosive purposes.

Under Article IV, parties may engage in peaceful nuclear programs in a manner consistent with Articles I and II and are expected to assist the nuclear programs of other parties, with special attention to the needs of developing countries.

Article VI obligates all parties to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to ending the nuclear arms race at an early date, to nuclear disarmament, and to achieving a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Article VII recognizes the right of any group of states to conclude regional treaties ensuring the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.

It is not in violation of international law (e.g., the NPT treaty) for Iran to develop its nuclear capabilities for peaceful uses. In fact, under the NPR, the United States has an obligation to assist Iran to develop its nuclear energy program. The intent of the NPT is to prevent the diversion of nuclear material for nuclear explosive purposes.

As of February 2006 Iran formally announced that uranium enrichment within their borders has continued. Iran claims it is for peaceful purposes but England, France, Germany, and The United States claim the purpose is for nuclear weapons research and construction.

Although you have no proof that Iran is seeking to acquire WMDs, you have repeatedly stated that you not believe that Iran intends to confine its program to peaceful uses. According to you, "allowing" Iran to develop its nuclear energy program is the same as "allowing" Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Take the case of Iran. Iran is an NPT party. It has a safeguards agreement in force. It has signed the Additional Protocol, but continues to delay the early ratification to which it committed last fall. It claimed it would act as if the Protocol were in force, pending ratification, although the March 30, 2004 IAEA Note indicates that Iran continues to try to circumscribe access. It remains for the IAEA to say whether Iran's performance has improved since - we are doubtful.

It is clear now that for 18 years, while portraying itself as in full compliance with the NPT, Iran violated safeguards, engaged in deception and denial, and conducted undeclared, clandestine experiments in all sensitive aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Iran's pattern of deception and denial continued even after the commencement of investigations by the IAEA; we believe it continues to this day. Iran grudgingly admits to facets of its sprawling secret nuclear program only when confronted with evidence that disproves its previous denials. In at least one instance, it delayed an inspection until it could "sanitize" the facility in order to conceal evidence of its unsafeguarded enrichment activities from the IAEA.

Last year I spoke based on U.S. information. This year the IAEA has confirmed these facts. The conclusion is inescapable: Iran is continuing to dissemble and deceive. In the two years since Iran's clandestine program first came to light, and six months after the IAEA Director General confirmed Iran's "breaches of its obligations to comply" with its safeguards agreement, cooperation only comes grudgingly and in response to having been caught. As the IAEA has confirmed, many troubling questions about Iran's nuclear activities remain unanswered.

Legitimate peaceful nuclear activities do not require denial and deception. The NPT regime contemplates the possibility of providing nuclear assistance to those who abide by their Treaty commitments and seek assistance for genuinely peaceful purposes. No country with peaceful nuclear intentions needs to engage in the duplicity and dishonesty that characterize Iran's relationship with the IAEA. Iran still claims that it has no interest in nuclear weapons. At the Second Preparatory Committee, in 2003, we heard several statements from Iranian representatives that Iran's nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. Evidently, we were to believe that Iran's covert, nuclear program was peaceful - contrary to ample evidence of military involvement and weapons intentions. The United States believes that the facts, taken as a whole, show that Iran intended to develop nuclear weapons, and that this intent coupled with the clandestine activities reported by the IAEA lead to the conclusion that Iran has violated Article II as well as Article III of the Treaty. How long will the international community accept Iran's dissembling and deceit regarding these violations of core obligations?

When asked this question:

Debra Law wrote:

How are you going to PREVENT Iran from developing its nuclear energy program?

You responded as follows:

Ticomaya wrote:

Well, I've taken no position with regard to the manner of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but have indicated military force might be necessary.

You have repeatedly equated Iran's development of its nuclear energy program with acquiring nuclear weapons, and it is within this context that you have repeatedly posed your ridiculous question in a multitude of formats, the last time as a two-part question:

Ticomaya wrote:

Is allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons something we should allow to occur? Do you think a nuclear Iran is acceptable?

You claimed that Cyclops responded as follows:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cyclop's Full and Complete Answer:

it isn't our place to allow or disallow another country to do anything that does not violate international laws. If they are in violation of international laws (and you are willing to hold the US and Israel responsible for their violations as well, btw), then the UN should take action against them.

You are being dishonest again, Tico. Cycloptichorn's full and complete answer is this:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

1, it isn't our place to allow or disallow another country to do anything that does not violate international laws. If they are in violation of international laws (and you are willing to hold the US and Israel responsible for their violations as well, btw), then the UN should take action against them.

and

2, yes (for power-generation purposes).

Cyclops clearly responded that it is acceptable for Iran to develop its nuclear technology for "power-generation purposes." Cyclops clearly responded, if Iran was violating international law (e.g., pursuing its nuclear energy program in a manner that diverts nuclear material for nuclear explosive purposes in violation of the NPT), then the U.N. should take action against Iran.

I set forth the relevant substance of Cyclop's response to your two-part question into one succinct sentence:

If Iran is violating international law by pursuing its nuclear energy program, then the U.N. should take action against Iran.

Ticomaya wrote:

Tico's Summary of Full and Complete Answer:

Basically, it sounds like your answer is: "Yes ... unless the international community says we shouldn't."

You're being dishonest again. The above was not your full and compete answer. The following is your full and complete answer:

Ticomaya wrote:

Basically, it sounds like your answer is: "Yes ... unless the international community says we shouldn't."

So, in effect you suggest we should remain hostage to the whims of Russia and China concerning this issue. That certainly sounds a lot like the approach Kerry promoted, and one of the many reasons he's not in the White House today.

I do not believe that is the course of action this country should, or will, take.

You were dishonest and misrepresented Cyclop's response to your question to mean "we should remain hostage to the whims of Russia and China concerning this issue."

Cyclops response cannot possibly be construed to mean what you said it means.

When he accused you of twisting his statements to build a strawman, you denied your blatant wrongdoing. In doing so, you were dishonest again when you stated:

"Explain how my summary differs in any material way from what you said. I simply restated your answer -- accurately," and "My summary was accurate. That's exactly what you said."

We're still waiting for you to explain how you could accurately summarize Cyclops statement (if Iran violated international law, then the U.N should take action against Iran) to mean "we should remain hostage to the whims of Russia and China concerning this issue."

Or, you could be honest for a change and admit that you misrepresented Cyclop's statement for the purpose of building a ridiculous strawman.

Of course it can, because that's what he said: "it isn't our place to allow or disallow another country to do anything that does not violate international laws."

Restated: "We can't do anything about Iran's nuclear weapons unless the international community says we can."

Nothing I said following my summary -- in the second and third paragraphs -- modifies my summary in any material way. It is all consistent with the essence of his beliefs (i.e., we can only operate if the International community says we can). The effect of doing so would make us hostage to the whims of Russia and China.

It is not false and ridiculous. You mis-stated my argument in your summary, changed the wording in order to make it sound weak and 'Euroweenie' as you said, in your quasi-macho speak.

This is a complete mis-representation of my argument.

My argument is, and has been, that unilateral action on our part is directly comprable to a citizen taking the law into their own hands. We are not comprable to a policeman in any way, shape or form.

This is not an accurate restatement:

Quote:

Of course it can, because that's what he said: "it isn't our place to allow or disallow another country to do anything that does not violate international laws."

Restated: "We can't do anything about Iran's nuclear weapons unless the international community says we can."

I mean, how can you not see that those are not the same concept at all?

In the first, my accurately written argument which, in fact, didn't need to be re-stated by you at all, I was pointing out that we are not, in fact, the policeman of the world, and it isn't our place to run around acting like it; I can't bomb my neighbor's house because he's buying rifles I don't like.

This is the wrong attitude to have in general, even if is does become neccessary to take action against my neighbor some time in the future! This is the entire point of what I wrote. Not that we are bound by the UN; you think I'm a fool, Tico? They can't stop us if we want to act unilaterally! This is obvious, in that we are the most powerful person on the block, with all the weapons and most of the money!

I've never said we can't handle the Iran problem without the UN. I'm sure we could. Just that it isn't a good idea to start pretending that one isn't bound by the same laws, regulations, rules, morals, and ideas as you expect other countries to uphold!

This

Quote:

Nothing I said following my summary -- in the second and third paragraphs -- modifies my summary in any material way. It is all consistent with the essence of his beliefs (i.e., we can only operate if the International community says we can). The effect of doing so would make us hostage to the whims of Russia and China.

Is not the essence of my beliefs. Please desist from saying this immediately, because what you are doing is replacing my argument - that we aren't the policeman of the world, and shouldn't act like it - with the argument that you want to be arguing against: that we are bound by China and Russia's opinion, as you keep stating.

I refuse to allow you to reframe the argument in such ridiculous terms. I am most specifically not saying what you are saying, and I find it insulting that you would twist the frame of the conversation to this point, and argue it as if I'm some sort of surrender-monkey. F*ck that! I'm tired of having my Patriotism questioned by War Hawks. I remember your lies and mistakes from the last time you guys screwed things up terribly, and I'm not buying it at all. I'm also not buying your contention that I'm some kind of Pussy for not being gung-ho about a war with Iran.

It takes more strength to attempt to do things the right way; the legal and morally correct way, the one in which you act as you would wish others to act. Not less strength. Any idiot with planes and bombs can flail about. It takes real skill and strength to not do so, and still achieve your objective. Do you understand this, and the other, concepts I have presented to you?

Don't mis-represent my argument again.

Cycloptichorn

No, you just think the US should sit back and wait for the UN to act, and if the UN doesn't act, we should not take action unilaterally. Is that a mischaracterization of your beliefs? If so, how so? And if it is, why are you so incensed about my stating your beliefs in stark terms (albeit in a way you would prefer not to look at them)?

euroweenie:[/size]

A European, or American who wishes he/she were European, with an ultra-liberal view of the world, who believes that the United States should roll over like a bunch of pussies and become testicle-less Socialist wimps like they are.

Exampe: John Kerry is a Euroweenie.

We should wait for the UN to act. We are a member of the UN, after all. If we don't show respect to the UN, how can we expect other countries to do the same? If the UN decides not to take action, and we decide to take action, we certainly can do so; it isn't as if we could be stopped. But we cannot escape the consequences of doing so, that other countries begin to see us as much of a problem as the Islaamic countries that are supposedly causing the problems.

The UN, the concept of having a world governing body for dealing with international incidents, has been around for how long? 60 years? And you people are ready to give it up and throw the whole thing away, because it hasn't worked well so far.

Start thinking about the future! It would be far, far better for our nation's future to claim the Top Role at the UN, rather than disdain it at every turn. The UN isn't going away, we aren't going back to Isolationism, and the Global Society is already here through the internet. Face the facts and stop pretending that the US has carte blanche to do whatever we want, whenever we want it, in the name of stopping someone from maybe getting a weapon which many, many other countries have, and hasn't done anything wrong with said weapon yet.

I hardly need to remind you who the only country with a proven track record for attacking people with Nuclear weapons is.