Russian MP Says US To Attack Iran Late March

Forget it, you just puke up what passes for logic at your house, you don't answer any of the specific objections which are advanced against your bullshit thesis, you just repeat it, again, and again, and again . . . you don't debate, you just shout your opinion over and over again ad naseum . . . Dlowan is right, it's just like the tarbaby . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Forget it, you just puke up what passes for logic at your house, you don't answer any of the specific objections which are advanced against your bullshit thesis, you just repeat it, again, and again, and again . . . you don't debate, you just shout your opinion over and over again ad naseum . . . Dlowan is right, it's just like the tarbaby . . .

This post of yours contains 100% name calling, but no content which supports your case. I have asked a pertinent question, which you refuse to answer, under the smokescreen of all this name calling. I, on the other hand, am continuing to argue the case. I am not required in my answer, to allow you to dictate the form, nor am I required to fall into your traps. Your posts on A2K have frequenty declined to answer my specific points. Since I am continuing to argue the topic, but you have lapsed into irrelevant personal remarks, I win. When most of the A2K liberals encounter someone who can defeat them in debate, their very first choice seems to be to say, "It is beneath my dignity to argue with you because X," which is actually nothing more than a forfeit.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

This post of yours contains 100% name calling, but no content which supports your case.

That is a lie--i did not call you a single name. As for content to support my case, i've provided that for the last several posts, but you never address what i provide, so why bother to deal with your idiotic screed any longer.

Quote:

I have asked a pertinent question, which you refuse to answer, under the smokescreen of all this name calling.

Once again, you are lying, because i did not call you any names. Your "pertinent" question is a dodge with which you completely avoided the pointed objections to your last line of drivel. Both BLatham and i have pointed out that in the sixty years since the atomic attacks on Japan, nuclear weapons have proliferated explosively--from a handful to many tens of thousands--but none have fallen into the hands of terrorists, and none are known to have been sold. You have specified unstable, or despotic governments, or those which support terrorism--but when it has been pointed out that regimes of those various characters have developed nuclear weapons, you fail to respond. It is ironic and galling that you complain of a smokescreen, when you never respond to people's objections to your thesis.

You are offering speculation, hypotheticals and opinions. When anyone responds with concrete specifics of the real world, you ignore that, do not respond, and trot out your speculative hypotheticals again.

Quote:

I, on the other hand, am continuing to argue the case.

No, you are just repeating the same drivel over and over again. Chaning the terms doesn't alter the monotone character of your argument.

Quote:

I am not required in my answer, to allow you to dictate the form, nor am I required to fall into your traps.

When you puke up hypotheticals, and you get specific references to reality in rebuttal, you consider that a "trap?" That's hilarious, the more so as you claim to be a scientist. If an hypothesis does not stand up to factual testing, it is abandoned. What we have here, in a political discussion, is you abandoning the rules of evidence crucial to science. You posit a case, and then refuse to respond to evidence which contradicts your claim. You then attempt to characterize that as rhetorical tyrrany, as "traps." You'd never get away with sh!t like that if you were attempting to get a scientific hypothesis accepted in the community of those with scientific credentials.

Quote:

Since I am continuing to argue the topic, but you have lapsed into irrelevant personal remarks, I win.

No, you don't argue the topic. You puke up hypotheticals with which to avoid a discussion of reality, and completely ignore the examples advanced here which contradict your hypothesis. You also have failed completely to respond to the very cogent hypothesis advanced by several people here that any petty regime which uses or traffics in nuclear devices would be promptly crushed--you've never once responded to that, a logic far more compelling than your silly references to passing guns out in the neighborhood.

So, what will you win, Brandon? A toaster? A DVD player?

As i pointed out, it's just like the tarbaby with you, you just drone on and on, ignoring what is said to you, and whining about imaginary name-calling.

Bye, have a nice life, enjoy your new toaster . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
This post of yours contains 100% name calling, but no content which supports your case.

That is a lie--i did not call you a single name.

Not a lie. You can write a post that consists of name calling without calling me a name directly as here in your prior post:

Setanta wrote:

...you just puke up what passes for logic at your house...your bullshit thesis...Dlowan is right, it's just like the tarbaby . . .

Setanta wrote:

...Both BLatham and i have pointed out that in the sixty years since the atomic attacks on Japan, nuclear weapons have proliferated explosively--from a handful to many tens of thousands--but none have fallen into the hands of terrorists, and none are known to have been sold. You have specified unstable, or despotic governments, or those which support terrorism--but when it has been pointed out that regimes of those various characters have developed nuclear weapons...

My contention would be that we have been very lucky. It should be remembered that many of the current nuclear powers are at least semi-sane and pursue risk averse policies. However, as more countries, less stable countries, more despotic regimes enter the nuclear club, the likelihood of use will continue to increase to the point that it becomes very probable.

Setanta wrote:

...the very cogent hypothesis advanced by several people here that any petty regime which uses or traffics in nuclear devices would be promptly crushed--you've never once responded to that, a logic far more compelling than your silly references to passing guns out in the neighborhood....

Okay, let's say that Iran acquires nukes, gives a few to terrorists, and the terrorists destroy London. Perhaps the world would then destroy Iran if a connection could be proven. Iran would, of course, deny the charge supported by a cacophany of Western liberals. Theories would be advanced by at least a few kooks on A2K that Bush did it. Many countries that have taken provocative actions in history probably should have known that there would be retribution, yet a certain type of egotist is rarely dissuaded. Nothing in what you have said convinces me that a group like Al Qaeda, suddenly in possession of nukes, wouldn't use them.

Setanta wrote:

So, what will you win, Brandon? A toaster? A DVD player?

No, just the argument.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

[So, what will you win, Brandon? A toaster? A DVD player?. .

I'm thinking a pocket protector, slide rule, one blue sock, one brown sock, some polyester pants and a new bow tie. :wink:

0 Replies

While I dont know if Iran wants to build nuke weapons,I do know that there are missing nuclear weapons and weapons components.
Here are some examples...

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=qw1109500921198B236

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9710/01/russia.lebed/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40277-2004Aug27.html

From this last link...

"The only serious impediment to creating a nuclear weapon is acquisition of fissionable material -- highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium. In 1993 U.S. officials used ordinary bolt cutters to snip off the padlock that was the only security at an abandoned Soviet-era facility containing enough HEU for 20 nuclear weapons. In 2002 enough fissile material for three weapons was recovered from a laboratory in a Belgrade suburb. Often an underpaid guard and a chain-link fence are the only security at the more than 130 nuclear reactors and other facilities using HEU in 40 countries.

Allison says that at least four times between 1992 and 1999, materials usable in weapons were stolen from Russian research institutes but recovered. How many thefts have not been reported? The U.S. Cold War arsenal included what are known as special atomic demolition munitions, which could be carried in a backpack. The Soviet arsenal often mimicked America's. Russia denies that "suitcase" nuclear weapons exist, so it denies reports that at least 80 are missing. Soviet military forces deployed 22,000 tactical nuclear warheads -- without individual identification numbers. Who thinks all have been accounted for? Russia probably has 2 million pounds of weapons-usable material -- enough for 80,000 weapons.

In December 1994 Czech police seized more than eight pounds of HEU in a parked car on a side street. A senior al Qaeda aide's proclaimed goal of killing 4 million Americans would require 1,400 Sept. 11s, or one 10-kiloton nuclear explosion -- from a softball-sized lump of fissionable material -- in each of four large American cities."

And on this one...
http://www.milnet.com/cdiart.htm

We see our govt admitting that they lost some nuke material and never recovered it.

So,there is a very good possibility that there are some unaccounted for nukes floating around,with nobody knowing who has them or what their intentions are.

0 Replies

Brandon, you're the Momma Angel of the politics threads--you've never won an argument because you don't deal in reality, you deal in a religious belief in the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad. You speculate, and avoid anything like reality or facts--you're a religionist when it comes to matters political and historical, don't bother you with facts, you know what you believe. When you have been cornered, you accuse other people of name-calling, and when you can't even prove that, you attempt to suggest that ridiculing the idiocy of your argument equates to name-calling.

Then you declare yourself the "winner" or the "argument." You need to go pray for Bush, now, Brandon, he really needs all the help he can get these days.

0 Replies

Yup, he does. Washington Post has a dilly up front this morning, and then there is the Katrina revelations appearing today as well.

0 Replies

It's funny how some people are prophets and already know that Iran is definitely going to build nukes and defiantly is going to use them to attack Israel.

No doubt about. It's a giveme. I think all this information about Iran came from the same people who told the Bush warhawks about Iraq's WMD.

And of course there is the very logical argument of;
"Well you can't be to sure so better play it safe and attack them."
Yup, killing another 50,000-100,000 people is far better then doing nothing.

You would think that after Iraq people would learn how deceitful and conniving this administration is. Yet the Bush administration is throwing out the same barf about Iran that they did for Iraq and the same fools out there are lapping up the same puke.

BTW, the Bush administration says we may very well be in Iraq for the next 10-20 years. They also said Iraq is not like Vietnam. Well yes, there are no jungles in Iraq.

Here's another lie put out by Bush and Co. Iran and Syria are behind all the riots about those cartoons. Yep, only those two countries are responsible for all that trouble from Indonesia to North Africa. Guess that's another good reason to invade them.

Wonder how many dummies believe that?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon, you're the Momma Angel of the politics threads

^
Name calling.

Setanta wrote:

--you've never won an argument because you don't deal in reality, you deal in a religious belief in the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad. You speculate, and avoid anything like reality or facts--you're a religionist when it comes to matters political and historical, don't bother you with facts, you know what you believe. When you have been cornered, you accuse other people of name-calling, and when you can't even prove that, you attempt to suggest that ridiculing the idiocy of your argument equates to name-calling.

Then you declare yourself the "winner" or the "argument." You need to go pray for Bush, now, Brandon, he really needs all the help he can get these days.

Well, after ranting at me for not addressing your specific points, you apparently feel entitled to ignore mine. Another post from you filled with name calling but no argument, in response to my perfectly polite and dignified statement of opinion. In the world of debate, a response which does not contain an argument, no matter what its rationalization, is merely a forfeit. The conclusion has to be that since you will not support your position you cannot. Your ranting, and raving, and fuming, at my calm, polite (in this case at least), and clearly stated assertions is utterly inappropriate, and certainly does not prove your case.

0 Replies

"Another post from you filled with name calling but no argument, in response to my perfectly polite and dignified statement of opinion. In the world of debate, a response which does not contain..." A VERB

0 Replies

Brandon, when and if you ever address the objections to your idiotic thesis, raised pages ago by not simply me but others as well, you might get the respect you seem to think you deserve.

That you cannot or will not see that criticism of what you write is not a personal comment does not surprise me--you have no other basis upon which to defend your faith-based support of everything the Shrub says and does. Since you are either unable or unwilling to address the specific, reality-based objections raised here against your thesis, you are best advised to attempt to characterize this as a personal insult, and hope that others as deluded as you will be impressed with your rectitude and martyrdom--you have nothing else going for you, and certainly not a solid argument.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

"Another post from you filled with name calling but no argument, in response to my perfectly polite and dignified statement of opinion. In the world of debate, a response which does not contain..." A VERB

Like most of the A2K liberals, you will do anything rather than simply debate the topic in a dignified way. Tonight's offering is apparently to try to impeach the message by impeaching the messenger. I commend you on the high debating standards you follow.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Brandon, you're the Momma Angel of the politics threads

^
Name calling.

That's not very nice Brandon, to infer that being compared to Mama Angel is an insult. Pretty damn boorish if you ask me. Why don't you apologize to Mama Angel?

0 Replies

That's rich, coming from the king of nothing pertinent. You have not answered the objection that in sixty years or continuing nuclear proliferation, no bombs have been known to have been sold or given to terrorists. You have not addressed the pointed reference to the nuclear programs of despotic states, unstable states and states known to support terrorism which make a mockery of your hypothetical. You have not addressed the cogent point that any small state attempting to use nuclear devices, or selling them to militant groups, risk being obliterated, and know it full well themselves.

It's really hilarious and disgusting at the same time to see you parade your quasi-religious faith in Bush and all he does or even may do as logic. You have not indulged in anything but uninformed speculation. Hell, you even wrote of what might happen if several nations get nuclear weapons, apparently unaware taht several nations already do have nuclear weapons. You have not addressed any specific, concrete objection raised to your thesis. We are now in the crying and whining phase of your Bush-worship--Brandon the Martyr.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon, when and if you ever address the objections to your idiotic thesis, raised pages ago by not simply me but others as well, you might get the respect you seem to think you deserve.

That you cannot or will not see that criticism of what you write is not a personal comment does not surprise me--you have no other basis upon which to defend your faith-based

Certainly by now you have enough evidence to know that I am an atheist.

Setanta wrote:

...support of everything the Shrub says and does. Since you are either unable or unwilling to address the specific, reality-based objections raised here against your thesis, you are best advised to attempt to characterize this as a personal insult, and hope that others as deluded as you will be impressed with your rectitude and martyrdom--you have nothing else going for you, and certainly not a solid argument.

I have addressed your points about as much as you have addressed mine:

My Post

Unlike you, I've been polite this time around. I have given answers here which you could respond to but won't. You are refusing to continue an argument in progress based on a variety of assertions about my character. I have no interest in why you won't continue the argument, which has been perfectly calm and dignified on my side. Your rationalizations are irrelevant. If you will not support your side, then the objective decision must be that you cannot support it.

I await either your appropriate response to my perfectly polite assertions on the political topic, or your further inappropriate comments about me as a poster.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That's rich, coming from the king of nothing pertinent. You have not answered the objection that in sixty years or continuing nuclear proliferation, no bombs have been known to have been sold or given to terrorists. You have not addressed the pointed reference to the nuclear programs of despotic states, unstable states and states known to support terrorism which make a mockery of your hypothetical. You have not addressed the cogent point that any small state attempting to use nuclear devices, or selling them to militant groups, risk being obliterated, and know it full well themselves.

I addressed them here:

My Post

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Brandon, you're the Momma Angel of the politics threads

^
Name calling.

That's not very nice Brandon, to infer that being compared to Mama Angel is an insult. Pretty damn boorish if you ask me. Why don't you apologize to Mama Angel?

My corect identification if this as an example of name calling has nothing to do with my opinion of Momma Angel. Do you ever make on topic posts here in the politics area, or do you try to win for the liberals by lingering around the real posters making irrelevant snipes? Your teasing, little jibes, no matter how clever, Rolling Eyes

do nothing to show that your opinions are correct, and actually suggest the reverse.

0 Replies

You didn't address anything in that post. In that post you ignore what was already pointed out to you about the deterrant which exists against the irresponsible use of nukes by rogue states. You ignore in that post that it has already been pointed out to you that depotic states, unstable states and states sympathetic to terrorists already have nukes. You ignore that in the sixty years since Japan was nuked, nuclear weapons have proliferated exponentially, but have not been used since. You ignore the cogent argument advanced that the Persians simply want nukes as a plausible deterrant to Israeli or American objection.

That post addressed none of these concrete objections raised to your silly thesis, it simply restates your silly thesis. It's just like the religionist endlessly quoting scripture.

0 Replies

Well, if I may say a few words:

Back when we were worried about No. Korea's nuclear potential, fresh after Project Iraqi Freedom and after Bush's notorious Axis of Evil quip, I heard one analyst say that the ease with which Saddam was toppled would not go unnoticed by the leaders of those other Evil countries.

Would the U.S. march in on a country with the bomb? Not likely. Look at how we're tiptoing around No. Korea and, for that matter, Iran. The issue for them isn't whether we want them to have the bomb or not.

A lot of this discussion ignores the realpolitik of the situation. And Brandon, before you jump in and accuse me of saying it's OK for them to have the bomb, I'm not. I'm just explaining why the want it.

0 Replies

Russian MP Says US To Attack Iran Late March

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know