I agree. Last Christmas we gave Rav our heart but the very next day he gave it away. This year, instead of that crap let’s do something different. 
No. I’m referring to elucidator’s post just as as he’s presented it.
One cannot stand by, as Iran has done, being treated in the fashion the U.S. has done, witnessing the illegal American invasion of Irak ON A BOLD LIE - seeing Israel too arming itself to the teeth, all the while stealing land from the Palestinians, the U.S. once again taking a threatening stance and well … I just don’t have the patience or stamina to list it all … yet expecting Iran to kowtow and play by the rules? Jesus wept! Iran’s situation (even Sharia Law) is in direct response to the U.S. destroying the Democratic government of Iran and squeezing its balls ever since.
Iran has one fundamental goal above all others and that is to rule itself without the U.S. or the UK raping the place as it did in the past. Everything that has happened in Iran since Operation TP Ajax, BUT MOST PARTICULARLY since the Islamic Revolution, has been a check and balance exercise in falling dominos, keeping the Americans at bay, thrusting and paring against Washington to maintain its way of life, taking drastic measures when nothing else seems to work.
You don’t like Iran’s “mandatory state of distrust of the West” but Iran had a functioning Democracy till the CIA systematically crushed it, and so they can’t afford to make any mistakes that will put them back under U.S./UK dominance.
To put it another way, the Islamic world has seen the self-proclaimed leaders of Democracy destroy and/or rob one country after another its natural resources … Cuba, Mexico, the rest of Latin America, Iran, Irak, practically all of Africa, etc. Now, if I were an Iranian how in hell can I be expected to convince my people that Democracy is the way forward with such an in-your-face record of treachery perpetrated by “Democratic” nations?
So your request that I define “amends” and “friends” ought not need answering. By my reckoning, Iran has several free kicks coming to them, and if I were in a position of influence I’d put on the kettle and be asking Iran’s forgiveness.
There is a new ploy afoot. Making claims that I agree with something that there is nothing here that supports the claim. I won’t respond to unsubstantiated posts.
I have cited Ravenman agreeing with Magiver. I disagree vehemently with Magiver and with Ravenman’s agreement with Magiver. How that turns into my agreeing with Ravenman that Obama is splitting hairs on Iranian sanctions. I have also explained how the claim that Obama is splitting hairs does harm to the process of diplomatic resolution and could lead to military action as the extremists desire.
No one has responded to that point.
Thanks for the clarification.
So you get this weird ambivalence, where someone actually agrees with you, more or less, but you kinda wish he didn’t? Yeah. I can relate.
Yes. But you failed to take into account to his most pertinent observations, those being …
Your last statement is not true or even moderately close to who at this time I am calling extremists. Search the word ‘belligerence’ because my position is absolutely consistent on threatening the use of force and in this case strong sanctions to obtain diplomatic results that cannot otherwise be achieved. Calling for sanctions is not extreme in response to unlawful and threatening defiance and belligerence as Iran has a record we have seen. The belligerence, non-cooperation of the unlawful nation in my view is what should determine if and when and how much either use of force or tough sanctions should be applied.
Tough sanction are already applied against Iran and I have stated my full support for them. Those are called existing sanctions and Iran was belligerent when those sanctions were put into affect. They get credit in my view for forcing the Iranian belligerent hand to begin the recent offer of moderation.
So in all cases including all my preceding arguments and this one, when the belligerent nation becomes cooperative and less extreme and cooperates as Iran is now doing, it becomes extreme only on our part if the reaction is what John Bolton and way too many US Senators are doing when they call for more tougher sanctions despite Iran’s moves to moderation by Iran.
You are wrong Ravenman. You need only read my posts on this thread containing the words belligerent or moderation. I certainly hope you will do that.
Not that I want to defend you but Ravenman has a habit of misquoting people then neglecting to admit it once you point out his mistake. Well, let us hope they’re mistakes and not something more sinister.
Ravenman does not agree with me nor do I nor have I ever agreed with the particular point in question. Ravenman is attempting to muddy the waters because 95% of his arguments with me are failures of reason and mostly unsubstantiated fact fact.
You agreed with me until you decided to change your position, probably just to make personal insults at me, which are failing.
See? You agree with me, now you have changed your tune.
Thanks,
You will notice if interested that Raveman has refused to cite the posts where he gets what he attributes to me. That should put an end to it but it hasn’t so far.
The argument on topic I am trying to stay with is that saying crap like enforcing existing sanctions as Obama is doing is on a par with what the extremist Senators want which is adding new tougher sanctions and enforcing them.
Ravenman calls that splitting hairs and my point is that public opinion such as that can derail the diplomatic process by weakening Obama for being hypocritical for enfircing new sanctions.
No go back and look, you want it both ways including the part where I said I would not agree with you. You are saying Obama is splitting hairs on this. So you are deviating from the qualification where I said I agree with if you meant it that way. You do not mean it the first way because you insist that Obama is splitting hairs.
I clearly told you I disagree with you on that.
Read my full statement that you cited.
You two guys are going to go down in history as the only men every to be nominated for “Nag of the Year Award”.
No, I’m right. You agreed with me when you finally read what I wrote. Then you decided to pick an argument where there was none. You need to go back and read what you wrote, because there’s no justification for your flip flopping or forgetting what you have already said.
Does anyone take W’s side on this issue? The answer is no. You agreed with me now you’re trying to take it back.
If and only If Ravenman tells me he dissagrees with Magiver do I agree with him. I used If in both stements. The first I agreed “IF” X is true. The second I agreed “IF” Y is true. Come to find out Ravenman wants both to be true. Trouble with how “IF” works is not my problem.
If Ravenman is still arguing that Magiver is right and still thinks Obama is splitting hairs then I never agreed with him and specifically as I stated in the cite Ravenman is now referring to that us the truth.
I understand: you just don’t want to agree with either me or Magiver, regardless of what we are saying. You are arguing against the person, not what we are saying; because it’s clear you do not understand what either one of has said. This is a fact and not an opinion. You flip flop just so you don’t agree with a particular person without caring what they are saying; just like you decide to support Obama with no thought for what he is actually saying.
Oh, well, when you put it like that, my sympathy for Iran wells up from the soles of my feet to… whatever’s immediately above the soles of my feet.
My dislike doesn’t really matter. It just means I lack motivation to be generous. It’s not specific to Iran though - any totalitarian theocracy gets the same.
Convince them? By propagandizing and terrorizing and arbitrarily executing?
Meh, if I were, I’d be smuggling in lots and lots of small satellite dishes to give the Iranian people access to western media, including James Bond movies and Baywatch episodes and other fun stuff, so that when the Iranian government has to go to increasing lengths to jam the ever-changing signal, the Iranian people (and particularly the younger generation) will recognize it for the oppressive smothering killjoy it is. Meantime, I don’t really care if they develop a weapon they can’t possibly use without being destroyed in return.
In other words, I wasted an hour of my earnest time.
I guess, since it was hardly a secret that Iran’s government was repressive. Heck, the Iranian government poses more of a threat to the Iranian people than the U.S. or U.K.