THE REASON THAT US WONT OPEN DISCUSSIONS WITH IRAN IS:?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He wants to invade them all.

And anyone who doesn't, supports the continued subjugation of women.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, i share your shame.

I suggest, however, that he supports invasions in which he himself will not have to go in harm's way.

0 Replies

Read on, Set. Your tu quoque position has been thoroughly addressed here and on the other active Iranian thread. I didn't introduce the suffrage of Iranian women; I objected when Friedman claimed it didn't exist, and then again when other posters tried to brush over it as if that lie shouldn't be exposed.

0 Replies

That's it Set, if tu quoque doesn't work; fall back on ad hominem.

0 Replies

That was no tu quoque, O'Bill, because i have not turned your argument back on you. I have not ascribed to you an argument which embodies a criticism which i am leveling at you, which is what constitutes a tu quoque fallacy. It's nice that you are sufficiently adroit to read about logical fallacies, but it's too bad that you don't know how to apply them.

You have, in this and other threads, consistently criticized Iran for the treatment of women. I don't for a moment deny that they mistreat women, and my response is not a tu quoque fallacy because i have not accused either you or the United States of the consistent mistreatment of women.

What i accuse you of is a much simpler offense--hypocricy. You object to the treatment of women in Iran, you object to the brutality of the Persian regime, and you have in the past objected that the brutality of the former Ba'athist regime in Iraq justified the invasion of that nation. But you don't apply the same standard to other nations which are either our allies, or simply are not on the "hit list" of the Idiot in Chief on Pennsylvania Avenue.

The difference between Iraq, Iran and the Sudan for example, is that the slaughter in the Sudan has been much, much more horrendous, and continuously consistent for more than 20 years than in either of the two former nations--but there is not petroleum in the Sudan. That's the problem, O'Bill, in letting conservative pundits do your thinking for you. You may discover from time to time that they haven't given you all the information you need for an intelligent assessment.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That's it Set, if tu quoque doesn't work; fall back on ad hominem.

There was not tu quoque, because i did not accuse you of that which you have accused others of; there was not ad hominem, because i did not make personal remarks rather than address your remarks--i addressed your remarks directly without reflections on your character.

Sadly, it is all to common to see that you accuse me (as you do others) of making a personal attack on you at that point in an argument at which you have failed to sustain your point.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's it Set, if tu quoque doesn't work; fall back on ad hominem.

There was not tu quoque, because i did not accuse you of that which you have accused others of; there was not ad hominem, because i did not make personal remarks rather than address your remarks--i addressed your remarks directly without reflections on your character.

As usual Set, you'd rather appear to be winning an argument, than actually examine what's been written.

Friedman stated that Iran's brand of Muslim faith respects women. We both know this isn't true. I objected... and the response I received was a tu quoque argument about other guys being worser. You continued on that track.

Whether or not I'm a member of the armed forces has no bearing on the accuracy of my ideas. This is clearly an attack on my person; not my argument and is therefore equally clearly argumentum ad hominem. No amount of childish wordplay will change this simple fact.

Setanta wrote:

Sadly, it is all to common to see that you accuse me (as you do others) of making a personal attack on you at that point in an argument at which you have failed to sustain your point.

The point I set out to prove is that contrary to Friedman's assertion; Iran does indeed mistreat women, and I made the case in spades. "Sadly" your apparent desire to argue for the sake of argument leads you to make idiotic statements that are vividly untrue.

As for you charge of hypocrisy, again, your failure to either read what's been written (or understand it) has led you make ridiculously absurd assumptions. You need only go back two pages to find a post of mine that clearly indicates all of your posturing about my singling out Iran or blindly following the idiot in chief is profoundly false. Here, I'll grab one for your edification.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
It seems to me that sanctions and isolation usually harm the very people you are trying to help, all the while cementing the hold of the offending regime, making your final choice, regime change, all the more difficult. It also seems to me that we would need to do this to many, many different countries. So far we have Iran and Saudi Arabia on the list. Where else?
I agree sanctions and isolation are terrible solutions... but I suspect they'd make ample warnings were a systematic strategy put in place and adhered to. The list of worthy candidates is long, but would shorten considerably if actions were actually taken; rather than just empty threats and population starving sanctions being acted upon. A short list for the warning board might consist of Sudan, North Korea, Syria, Burma, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Swaziland, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Laos, Vietnam, Gabon, Angola, Egypt, Cameroon, Tunisia, Chad, Central African Republic, Mauritania, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirate, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Maldives, Transnistria, Pakistan, and Libya, to name a few. Unfortunately China's probably too tough to finish the job as is Russia, though Putin grows increasingly suspect. Lots of work, but it's work that needs to be done. It is a shame on us all that the citizens of so many countries have to subsist on a few dollars a day while their Dictators live in the lap of luxury. To the extent a Tyrant is to blame; a Tyrant should be removed... and they should be assisted in trying again. Over and over, until the Tyrants are banished from this earth forever; and no sane person would seek to be one. It is, IMO, the only strategy for peace on earth. You could call it, "no human left behind". Food on this planet is plentiful, and no one should go without.

While there's plenty of room for disagreement with my opinions; your charge of hypocrisy is as unsupported as your denial of the tu quoque and ad hominem above. Why not mount an actual argument against my opinions instead of making a fool out of yourself with rampant denials and accusations that are utterly unsupportable.

0 Replies

This is the reason that supporting these F**KTARDS is unconscionable, Bill.

Quote:

Report Says Pentagon Manipulated Intel

Report depicts Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence before U.S. invasion of Iraq

(AP) A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/ap/politics/mainD8N67L6O1.shtml

It's high time for an impeachment, just to allow the American people the opportunity to do the right thing. Then a War Crimes Tribunal. People died because of these lies.

Where is the sense of shame, where is even a scintilla of remorse, one iota of morality, among these rightwing apologists?

0 Replies

So you're ready for Dick Cheney to take the helm? Laughing

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

So you're ready for Dick Cheney to take the helm?

The first double impeachment, Bill, and I'm sure even you hope the last.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
So you're ready for Dick Cheney to take the helm?

The first double impeachment, Bill, and I'm sure even you hope the last.

You are beyond delusional if you think I'd trade George or Dick in for Nancy Pelosi.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

JTT wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
So you're ready for Dick Cheney to take the helm?

The first double impeachment, Bill, and I'm sure even you hope the last.

You are beyond delusional if you think I'd trade George or Dick in for Nancy Pelosi.

That's what has been my argument from the get go in these political threads, Bill; the delusional nature of these people who support such lies, such treachery, such duplicity, such perfidy, such "you name it if it's bad".

I think that this pretty much confirms that despite all the rhetoric, you are not much more than a slavering, pandering Bushnik. How does any sane person support all they have wrought?

0 Replies

I noticed in previous posts something that occurs in Australia also. People who voice disagreement with American foreign policy, are shouted down and labelled as 'anti-american', when in simple fact most of said people voicing disagreement, are just really concerned at what's happening in the world and want it to change - without any like/dislike of american people being involved. I notice that the 'anti-american' tag (in Australia at least) is used purely as an attempt to stifle debate. Attempting to silence critics with such can only ever lead to a skewed/weaker democracy (if such attempts succeed), for healthy debate and accountability are central to the health of our democracies.

That said - back to the topic :

Is anyone aware of the debate going on, over what will happen to the US economy if the Middle East start selling their oil in Euro's? (The Middle East used to sell oil exclusively in US Dollars). Iran now sells in Euro's (last I heard).

Are you aware of how the rate of oil production in Iraq can effect the price of World Oil...giving the controller of Iraqi oil incredible economic leverage against Middle Eastern governments (among other things - it can help insure petrol is sold in US dollars)

Are you familiar with how and why the US government supports foreign dictators that it considers allies (whether or not they brutally suppress opposition, violate human rights, oppress women etc)?

Does anyone know why the US keeps Saudi Arabia as an ally in the ME, and why it even needs an ally there?

Are you familiar with the Shah of Iran? How he came to power, and how and why he was toppled?

Are you familiar with how most of the current governments & national borders of the Middle East came into being (largely due to England and France after WW1)?

Do you know why the US Govt supported Afghan during the Soviet Invasion, how they called on 'all muslims' to defend 'Afghanistan', trained the mujahideen, set up the funding for the organisation, and sowed the seeds that became Al Qaeda?

Are you familiar with the $3B 'aid' given each year to Israel, which accounts for the large porportion of claimed US foreign aid?

Do you know that the US/UK blockade of Iraq, between the two wars, cost the lives of 500,000 children (according to UN figures), and probably the lives of 1,000,000 Iraqi's all up. (any quick search will give you results) eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
And how America supplied the chemical weapons with Saddam used against the Kurds, and supplied the weapons that Iraq used to fight the war with Iran? (and supplied Iran some weapons also).

Are you familiar with why so much of Latin America 'dislikes' America, how US/Western involvement has established huge unpayable loans, impoverished nations while reaping their natural resoucres (last I heard, the sum the 3rd world owes the Western World is at the $3,000,000,000 ie 3 Trillion mark)

There's more, but there are many books on the subject, many websites, and if people really want to find out, they really need to do so for themselves, not because I, or anyone else, posts something 'controversial'.

US foreign policy, as far as I can see, hasn't changed too much from how it's been working over the last few decades. I can't say the real reason for the US not talking to Iran, but I can almost guarantee that it's won't be for any publicly presented reason.

PS. Just so you know, I don't think Australia is any Angel. It has in the past, stood by while Indonesia slaughtered 200,000 East Timorese (to whom, in WW2, Australia said 'we never forget our friends'), and when East Timor gained independence, Australia moved in and started mining it's natural gas. Death Stats are UN figures. It seems a similar slaughter is occuring in West Papua, which has some of the biggest mines in the world...and a year ago, when 20 or so assylum seekers landed on Australian Shores, our governments reaction was to change the laws so that such an 'embarrassment' could never happen again.

A shame. In many ways the people of Australia and US share a lot in common, and a genuinely nice people. Our governments don't always act as we should expect though.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
JTT wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
So you're ready for Dick Cheney to take the helm?

The first double impeachment, Bill, and I'm sure even you hope the last.

You are beyond delusional if you think I'd trade George or Dick in for Nancy Pelosi.

That's what has been my argument from the get go in these political threads, Bill; the delusional nature of these people who support such lies, such treachery, such duplicity, such perfidy, such "you name it if it's bad".

I think that this pretty much confirms that despite all the rhetoric, you are not much more than a slavering, pandering Bushnik. How does any sane person support all they have wrought?

I suppose that's a logical conclusion in your hyper-polarized delusional world. But no lucid thinker could make the illogical leap from preference to devotion. I'd rather see John Kerry running the country than Nancy Pelosi, too... does that mean I'm devoted to him as well?

vikorr: I don't think much of your list is news to many here, nor what it has to do with either the thread topic or the tangents. I've yet to see anyone on this thread deny the United States has a long history of frequently doing the wrong thing, supporting the wrong guy, and contradicting itself almost constantly in foreign policy.

0 Replies

Quote:

vikorr: I don't think much of your list is news to many here, nor what it has to do with either the thread topic or the tangents. I've yet to see anyone on this thread deny the United States has a long history of frequently doing the wrong thing, supporting the wrong guy, and contradicting itself almost constantly in foreign policy.

Hi

I was indeed coming from a tangent, so please forgive me if it wasn't very clear.

In the thread, I didn't see anything that resembled a legitimate reason for the US not talking to Iran.

Contrasting that to the war in Iraq, I remember watching on TV all the public reasons given for the war, and thinking them most likely to be lies - because the reason kept changing, and the actions differed to the words(even if they were bought by so many people). I have since thread 4 credible books and/or theories (that is, the theorist presented credible reasons, with history/quotes/political/religious/geographical explanations to back it up), but none that offer what I thought to be a definitive/conclusive reason for the invasion of Iraq.

My previous post is my way of saying that so much of US foreign policy is murky. I don't see Iran being any clearer at the moment.

The possibility of the rest of the middle east following Iran's decision to sell it's oil in Euro's may be one reason why the US is not talking to Iran (If I remember right, some other Middle Eastern countries are increasing their Euro stocks, and the EU is actually their biggest trading partner).

Iran did help (some) in the battle against the Taliban/Al Qaeda (they didn't want them in their country). And Iran, rightly, should be concerned about the civil war in Iraq. And the possibility of nuclear weapons in the hands of someone who wants to 'wipe Israel of the map' is not something anyone should want to contemplate...but that last is what the US should want to talk about (I would presume).

So there's more for the US to talk about than not. Why then is it not talking?

0 Replies

nimh, I am reading your posts of the 2nd and 3rd February. I have noted before that you write a trenchent and reasoned post and then leave it there, an oasis amongst angry diatribes and immediate rush-ins. Yours are comments I read and think about.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

JTT wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
JTT wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
So you're ready for Dick Cheney to take the helm?

The first double impeachment, Bill, and I'm sure even you hope the last.

You are beyond delusional if you think I'd trade George or Dick in for Nancy Pelosi.

That's what has been my argument from the get go in these political threads, Bill; the delusional nature of these people who support such lies, such treachery, such duplicity, such perfidy, such "you name it if it's bad".

I think that this pretty much confirms that despite all the rhetoric, you are not much more than a slavering, pandering Bushnik. How does any sane person support all they have wrought?

I suppose that's a logical conclusion in your hyper-polarized delusional world. But no lucid thinker could make the illogical leap from preference to devo[tion. I'd rather see John Kerry running the country than Nancy Pelosi, too... does that mean I'm devoted to him as well?

Did you vote for Kerry, Bill? The question, which you're pretty damn good at avoiding, not on a tico scale but good, was; how can any sentient, moral human being support those responsible for the inhumane deat and destruction that these scoundrels have heaped upon the people of Iraq.

vikorr: I don't think much of your list is news to many here, nor what it has to do with either the thread topic or the tangents. I've yet to see anyone on this thread deny the United States has a long history of frequently doing the wrong thing, supporting the wrong guy, and contradicting itself almost constantly in foreign policy.

And yet, if you'll note, Bill, that these same people are those very hypocrites who frequently chastize other countries for their war crimes, genocide, etc. If you were the moral person you often suggest, you'd hold your own to the same standard of behavior that you want to hold others to.

Why did Bush remove Americans from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice? Because he knows that many Americans have done things that could easily and fairly be adjudicated in a war crimes tribunal.

Further, you'd have a country with "a long history of frequently doing the wrong thing, supporting the wrong guy, and contradicting itself almost constantly in foreign policy" in charge of f**king up other people's lives and property. How stupid is that, Bill?

The track record of the USA is abysmal. Stop trying to fix things that you have only succeeded in ROYALLY phucking up.

0 Replies

Just a note on this issue of 'If you don't support the removal of the Iranian regime, you support the oppression of women'.

This is correct on only the very most surface argument possible. Any even slightly indepth look reveals such rhetoric to be incredibly narrow minded and thoughtless in terms of the sheer scope of human missery a military intervention would cause (and 'human missery' is what you are talking about when you refer to 'oppression of women' is it not?)...in other words, it is not just the oppression of women one must consider before attacking a country...the cost in human misery as a whole must be considered.

Saddam proved that it is virtually impossible to assassinate a leader who knows how to avoid assassins. As a side note, most middle eastern, and many african countries presidential security forces were trained by UK (and presumably US - most I know of were by UK...notably thair SAS). So special forces 'interventions' against many countries are simply unlikely to work.

For many countries (eg Nth Korea, Zimbabwe, Iraq) blockades are proven not to work. To remove such leaders, the only resort is invasion.

Iraq (and Vietnam, and Somalia even) proves that for many countries, invasion is not a cut and dried formula (it never was, but some need to be informed of such). Invasion can cost the lives of countless hundreds of thousands, into the millions of civilians of the invaded country. It will destroy infrastructure vital to health (and more will die). It will destroy the manufacturing sector and more infrastructure,and countless people will become destitute (more so than if already). The removal of the leader will create a power vacuum. The US may try to fix this by installing a puppet government (it's unlikely that any US installed govt will ever be seen as legitimate), with no guarantee that it will survive the withdrawal of the US forces (many US Backed govt's have been toppled). In the power vacuum, more people will die, until an unknown leader takes the reigns - which

Quote:

may lead to worse oppression of women

than prior to the invasion.

So you have the possibility (impossible to argue otherwise) of worse oppression of women, ON TOP OF :

-possibly MILLIONS of dead (vary from small to large, according to country),
-Huge loss to infrastructure
-Loss of huge numbers of jobs
-increased/MASS Poverty
-dramatically increased CRIME (especially violent crimes)
-increased weapons smuggling
-ongoing health problems,
-internal struggle for power (which may go on for years even after an 'leader' comes to power) - so more dead people

How then, can anyone in good conscience, invade a country (ie cause all of the above negatives) simply for the sole reason that it oppresses women?

I may not like oppression of women, but that doesn't mean I can in good conscience cause a much greater scale of human suffering.

0 Replies

Iran is one of the "axis of evil," and Bush is the immature head of state who said "I'm a uniter, not a divider," and "war is the last option." Some people still believe him.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Just a note on this issue of 'If you don't support the removal of the Iranian regime, you support the oppression of women'.

Do the 'quotes' mean you are quoting someone else's straw man; or is that your own?

The balance of your post is not unlike Nimh's argument a few pages back. Well thought out, and quite compelling. I don't happen to agree with your conclusion, however. I remain convinced that a pro-people foreign policy would, in the long run, cause infinitely less human suffering. I suspect it would in the medium run as well, though there can be no question there'd be a spike in the short run.

We are not the only people capable of pondering the devastation of war. Enemies of people can do so as well and would be more likely to if they believed the threat was imminent. Among the reactions of Iranians for instance; is a whole lot of people who'd like the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad to shut the hell up and shut the centrifuges down. The footage of Iraqis holding up the blue finger (after voting) in the face of tyranny was real. No one is denying that war is pretty much always worse than any form of peace... but that's not a valid comparison. Until the final chapter has been written; we can't yet know that the Iraqis will emerge worse off. We can't yet know if the Iranian Resistance won't storm the gates in an attempt to overthrow the A-holes that put them in harm's way.

We don't know, because it's never been tried, if a foreign policy that put every murderous dictator on notice wouldn't result in changes to their own policies to stay out of the gun sights. Such a strategy would likely kill millions and millions of people... but could save Billions. Is it really so far fetched that people can't even fathom a world without tyranny? Is it somehow noble to just accept that certain people by virtue of being born on the wrong side of some arbitrary line in the sand are sentenced to a life of heinous oppression? Really? When a woman is buried up to her shoulders and stoned to death for having had sex with the wrong person; is that not a crime against us all? 6 Billion people turn the blind eye to such acts and I for one am ashamed of it. Logic tells me there really isn't anything you or I can do to protect people around the globe from such atrocity, save speak out against it, and vote our conscience.

The man who sits in the Oval Office can not make such a rationalization. Neither can the other leaders in this country and abroad. Collectively, they do have the power to protect the vast majority from organized, State Sponsored atrocity. Their positions exist for no greater purpose... and it's high time their behavior reflected it. I repeat, for the edification of the hyper-partisan among us; that no, I don't think President Bush is the man with the plan, or that he even necessarily gives a rat's ass. However; insofar as his decisions tend towards cutting the chains of oppression, I'll support them. Insofar as his decisions continue to turn the blind eye to the vast majority of human suffering, I'll continue to deplore them. Show me a leader with a better plan to free the oppressed masses, and I'll bust my ass to elect him.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Such a strategy would likely kill millions and millions of people... but could save Billions.

Further, you'd have a country with "a long history of frequently doing the wrong thing, supporting the wrong guy, and contradicting itself almost constantly in foreign policy" in charge of f**king up other people's lives and property. How stupid is that, Bill?

The track record of the USA is abysmal. Stop trying to fix things that you have only succeeded in ROYALLY phucking up.

You only want to sacrifice "millions and millions of people" for your little experiments. How noble of you Dr Mengele.

0 Replies

THE REASON THAT US WONT OPEN DISCUSSIONS WITH IRAN IS:?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know