Quoting a well-known expression, meaning “a waste of good effort” can only be considered a personal insult by a childish mind. I originally assumed you were only doing your job by responding to a complaint by someone else who doesn’t know the difference - but now I’m not so sure.
And how do you feel about that?
I feel people who make personal insults should be bounced out of the place, but quoting well-knowing sayings that refer to a situation, NOT against someone, doesn’t pose any insult to anyone - unless its’ language is vulgar, of course.
After Bushe’s FP–Project for the New American Century– any Nation would be insane NOT to develop nuclear armaments if they are so capable.
So yes, I am all for Iran to be able to defend itself. Their regime would be nuts not to do so.
Fuck all sanctions.
So how does “a waste of good effort” apply if the effort wasn’t good?
By the way, vulgar language is not in itself offensive (or at least the standards of this board as I have observed is that it isn’t offensive enough in itself to justify moderator comments, barring a few very specific expressions), so I think I can casually state that theocratic dictatorship is a fucking suck-ass shitty way to govern.
Of course, also in keeping with the standards of this board, I am prepared to elaborate and articulate my reasoning. Frankly, I’d be rather disappointed if casual vulgarity pushed out other forms of expression. That’s the bailiwick of youTube commentary.
Jesus! You got that right.
Two points that seem to be the underlying theme.
- “to promote American global leadership.”
Has the world been asked if they want Americans leading us or is this to be another one of those 4th. or 5th. Reich kind of proposals?
- “a … policy of … moral clarity.”
I assume it won’t be the world’s collective definition of what morals might constitute, nor an American conviction through democratic principles that spell out those “morals”, not even a Christian-based theological adaptation of the Ten Commandments … but the American global leadership who’ll be putting down the terms in blood … ie. one Fascist American, his business associates, and his capos. :mad:
Ain’t Jesus. Not even close as I am an atheist – but you need be neither to see The Truth in Iran.
I agree with you. Iran is between a rock and hard place. Both the rock and the hard place require them to sleep with one ear down - but they have to choose just the same.
While having an ear on a rock isn’t very pleasant it’s better than having an ear on a hard place which has an American boot pressing your head down onto the OTHER ear, making it hard on both sides of your head simultaneously.
I am not sure how Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons translates into a means to defend itself from the reality of PNAC/neocon preferences for aggressive US policy toward Iran.
Iran must be 1000 years away from having the capacity of nuclear wespons that reached a level of deterrence by assured mutual destruction that was reached between the Soviet Union and the US back by the Sixties.
What if Iran truly desires only peaceful use of nuclear power and all this talk of needing to defend themselves from the likes of John Bolton actually makes an extremist neocon like John Bolton seem to be the slightest bit of reasonable?
Why give America’s aggressive extremists against Iran any touch of reasonableness and sensibility by believing sutomatically this part of all their propaganda.
Iran is denying it wants the bomb. Why not take a non-neocon approach and test and verify whether that is true?
I’m trying to remember how long it was after Israel had the bomb when it finally admitted it - or if they ever have admitted it - and why they waited so long to go public. Is it possible they had no reason at all, just thought it was fun?
I don’t disagree with you that there are far too many Americans who ignorantly believed what your impression of Americans seems to suggest.
However a clear majority of Americans polled during the first two and a half months of 2003 were very much mostly concerned about WMD’s. Sixty percent of Americans asked at that time favored allowing the UNSC to be given all the time needed to disarm that regime through the peaceful process of ongoing international inspections. So unless you have polling or other data suggesting that most Americans were more impressed by war hype than a desire to disarm a historically belligerent dictatorship by all peaceful means possible before resorting to war.
I believe most Americans feel the same way with regards to Iran right now - there remains a preference for peaceful resolution if Iran’s scales back its belligerent tone as it appears they have attempted to do.
It is because Americans are mostly predisposed to diplomatic solutions in response to moderation and cooperation by historically hostile states such as Iran is why those opposed to peaceful resolution must first repress the news about Iran’s recent gestures toward moderation and willingness to cooperate with the IAEA etc, is so overbearing in the media. It’s what made what the 76 US Senators chose to react to call for new sanctions despite Iran’s moderation so egregious and extreme in my view. It is an attack on moderation an peaceful resolution of this stands off.
Worse is that it’s not their fault because the ignorance you speak of is misinformation (fabricated, bred and nurtured by government) - controlled and supported by the population through “everybody knows that XXX …” false info.
That’s good news and I can only take your word for it because the various discussion forums where Americans participate do nothing to support your view. But I respect your words.
I’d like to ask if you are aware that the U.S. government halted the inspection in the very last hour when it was clear the Team was about to give Irak a clean bill of health?
” a historically belligerent dictatorship”
You are now actively contributing to those ”far too many Americans who ignorantly believe that my impression of Americans seems to suggest”.
”its belligerent tone”
Here once again you are taking the tone that sticks in the throat of those whose future we have on the table.
***”historically hostile states such as Iran”. ***
You see. You can’t help it. Do you really think anyone would be willing to cooperate with you if you insist on repeating lies and misinformed accusations?
Your response here, though cordial to me, is decidedly hostile towards Iran. That is not how to seek solutions to problems or create an open dialog. But you see, just as I said in my opening sentence …… it isn’t your fault.
THE SIMPLE BOTTOM LINE … The U.S. is hinting, “We’ll forgive you if you bla. bla. bla.” You don’t understand what I’m saying, do you. The way forward vis-à-vis the U.S. and Iran is for the U.S. to ask Iran to forgive THEM. Not the other way round. Naturally, if you have been dumbed-down by your government (as your comments indicate) then how can you see the situation for what it really is?
Absolutely is my response to your second question. And thank you specifically for respecting my words. I will certainly endeavor to respect your words even as I explain to you which words I disagree with. I believe most of my disagreement is primarily disagreement as to degree not wholesale disagreement with what you are saying.
But on the general American’s public preference for peaceful disarmament through the inspection process I agree with you that so many forums don’t reveal what the actual polls revealed at the time.
This comes from a CBS Poll that was taken about mid to late February 2003. It is typical of much of the established polling at that time.
{Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?}
(Total) (Republicans) (Democrats)
Take military action fairly soon: 35% 55% 23%
Give weapons inspectors’ time: 60% 38% 75%
I believe we could apply that general sentiment to the US public on Iran today and if a similar poll were taken it would be higher to give the IAEA more time to verify compliance and allow this six month interim deal a chance to work.
So, Riga, can any of the current circumstances be blamed on the Iranians? Are they even 10% responsible? 5%?
What about the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany? Do they need to beg forgiveness, too? What about Argentina, Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar, Slovakia, and Tanzania? All signers of UNSC Resolution 1737. Do they all need to beg forgiveness, too? Or is just the mean ol’ USA that has to do so?
Well which of those countries has been the meanest to Iran?
Oh, and Canada of course. It bears 2.346% responsibility in this.
What, just for rescuing those American diplomats from a hostage-minded mob? Yeesh!
You realize you’re just inviting people to argue that Iran should have the bomb because China invaded Tibet, Russia invaded Georgia, France is currently busy oppressing brown people in Mali, and we can’t ever forget the British oppression of America.
Oh, strike that last one.
But actually, those would be refreshing arguments compared to, “The biggest state sponsor of terrorism is right because Iraq.”
I don’t understand.
“The CIA is right because Iraq.” What does that mean?