Whoops. Posted same post twice. Sorry about that. I was trying to edit my old one and accidentally posted twice.
Oh, absolutely, the analogy was rough and ready and a bit sloppy. The basic point was that we’re not going to be launching any totally unprovoked attacks against Iran (or any other nation) any time soon.
It’d be a very hard claim to make, actually. All signs point to Iran having dissolved most of its relationship with AQ after 9/11. There is some weirdness going on with several high ranking AQ schmucks that Iran has been keeping under loose house arrest, but no, I don’t think there are currently any operational linkages. The point I was making was more that Iran is willing to work with opposing groups if it means they can hurt common enemies.
Well, the explosives training and such clearly tied Iran to AQ (which, IIRC, was my original claim, that they were tied together pre-9/11). But yeah, anybody who tells you that they’re working together now had better have a hell of a cite.
Wow, so I guess we’re settled on our disagreements. I never thought the discussion would go that nicely since the discussion was getting a bit ugly.
Heh. For my part, I gave up on a certain poster acting reasonably and didn’t see the point in trying to convince them to see certain things more rationally.
So by rationally and reasonably you mean I shouldn’t have noticed what another poster was arguing, and pointed it out… when his own words were continually confirming my claims?
Yeah, how very unreasonable and irrational. I guess the next time someone says, in his own words, that he’d support anybody nuking up to oppose America, and the people who he’s supporting in that instance are brutal theocrats… that he’ll support anybody as long as they oppose America and in that specific situation, he supports brutal theocrats if they’ll oppose America and thwart the will of their own people.
How krezzy of me, using a poster’s own words to point out what they’re saying.
I guess we just have a radically different understanding of what the phrases “in his own words” and “support” mean.
No, we don’t. Your apologia is just weaksauce.
In his own words, he said
Thus, he’d support “ANYONE” who’d arm their country with nuclear weapons and point them at the US. As for specifically supporting the Mullahs even though it meant that they were actively thwarting the will of their own people:
So even in his denial, he affirms that he supports the Mullahs’ policy of directly thwarting the will of their own people towards peace and warm relations with the US, and supports them nuking up.
So, sorry, no. It’s not a difference of opinion, terminology or analysis.
He clearly and unambiguously said he’d support anybody in their attempt to nuke up specifically so that they could point nuclear weapon at his own home, and clearly and unambiguously said that the Iranian people should continue being fucked over by their leadership; while Iranian citizens want peace and warm relations with the US, Iranian leaders should deliberately ignore those wishes and push their country closer to war.
All in his own words.
QED.
He didn’t use the word “support” or any word synonymous with it. If you are playing chess and say that your opponent “should” use the Karamazov defense as a counter, that doesn’t mean you want him to.
Again, no use of the word “support” or any word synonymous. And in fact, unlike in the previous example, this quote doesn’t even address the thing you are talking about.
If by “clearly and unambiguously” you mean “putting words in his mouth and making shit up”.
The words you quoted from him bear very little relevance to the words you used to describe the quotes.
Now maybe he is some kind of terrorist loving Iranian trying to kill your grandma (see I can put words in your mouth too!), and you know that for a fact. That might explain your seemingly unwarranted viciousness. However, nothing I have seen him say here is evidence of that - certainly not anything you have quoted in defense of that position.
Yes, that’s a compelling argument.
You may or may not be right about his “true feelings”. But I think you are way off base in your parsing of the specific examples of what he has written. At the very least, your ideas of “clearly and unambiguously”, “support”, and “in his own words” are laughable in their resemblance to reality.
Before I go through this again, are you honestly and truly claiming that Der does not, in regard to the course of actions of the Mullahs, both in acting diametrically opposed to the will of their own people in and nuking up:
(1): promote their interests or cause
(2): uphold or defend their course of action as valid or right while advocating for it
(3): argue for his view that they’re doing the right thing
Honestly?
He said, in his own words, agrees with them and that they should do it.
That’s support.
Um… yes it does. He specifically says that the Mullahs are doing the right thing because the Iranian people are too brainwashed to know truth from fiction anymore, and because of that they want peace with the Evil United States[sup]tm[/sup]. That is, he specifically supports the Mullahs’ plans even though the Iran people themselves oppose them.
That means, he specifically supports theocracy and nuking up and opposes democracy and warming relations.
Again, clearly and unambiguously this means he supports that course of action. That means he supports the continued dominance of the theocratic thugs who run Iran despite the fact that the Iranian people want change.
You are, at the point of defending a political viewpoint all about crusading against the Iranian people’s own desires for peace. Think about that for a moment.
You are offering up an apologia for a policy of utter inhumanity.
That the claims made were also packed with fiction about how we uncritically support Israel or how I must want to murder and enslave the Iranians (as proven by the fact that I want peace with them) should be a good clue as to what sort of position you’re offering up an apologia for.
Honestly… on one side the Iranians themselves want peace. On the other, Der is opposing them and yet claiming to be for peace… via giving nukes to a major sponsor of genocidal terrorists.
(oopsie, he’s just saying it shouldn’t happen and that the opposite should happen, he never used the word “oppose” or another single word that is its synonym :rolleyes: )
One wonders what he’d have to say to be supporting something in your view.
‘It’s good, they should do it even if their own people object’ evidently doesn’t even count as support in your view. How much more enthusiastic does he have to get? “It’s awesome they should totally do it?” “It’s the bestest thing ever in the history of the world, and the only right course of action is that they should do it?”
It’s hard to imagine any clearer case of supporting a policy than affirming its rightness and saying that it should continue.
Since to uphold or defend as valid or right, to argue for, to promote the interests or cause of something… is kind of the very definition of support
Well, sort of, but not exactly. I think his posts are more of an example of reflexive hatred of America than support of anything. No doubt a secular democracy who closed its legislative sessions with “Death to America!” would be equally fine.
It is interesting that mullahs who really do want to impose theocracy on the rest of the world are A-OK, while Israel and the US, who don’t, are the epitome of evil. Apparently hatred of religion and religious folks is trumped by hatred of America.
An interesting variant on the idea that diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggie” while reaching for a bigger stick.
This I have to to disagree with, since he has specifically stated the opposite:
I don’t think ‘promote’ is applicable here
I don’t think ‘advocate’ is applicable here. I wouldn’t say he defends nuking up as ‘right’, but yes he is validating it.
Right in universal moral terms no. Right in terms of ‘strategically beneficial to them’ yes.
And even supposing he is supporting nuking up, he’s specifically stated that he thinks it’s the correct strategy for all nations to nuke up if they want to keep the US from acting aggressively towards them. He’s not singling out Iran here, except merely in the sense of that Iran is the focus of this OP. So the particular merits of Iran aren’t relevant to his suggestion about nuking up. And he said he’s not supporting the regime, but the people.
OK please stop that. You can’t keep saying “in his own words” and then paraphrase (not well I might add). If you’re going to make those sorts of charged claims, quote him directly.
Agrees with them and that they should do it.
That’s support.
Support implies a personal stake in the outcome. In his original post with regards to that, all of his statements were qualified. He didn’t say “I think they should” or “I wish they would” or really involve himself at all. Nor did he use evaluative phrase like “right thing to do” or “be justified in”. He expressed everything in terms of Iran’s own interests: “to defend themselves”, “for their national survival”, “self interest”.
Eh… maybe. I was thinking you were paraphrasing again, but it appears you were actually drawing a conclusion, which does make what you said more relevant to the quote than I previously stated.
Well… he doesn’t specifically state it, but he does imply it - but not in the unviersal sense of right, only in the limited specific sense of ‘right for the Iranian people’s interests of self defense’.
I wouldn’t use the word support, but he does seem to suggest that nuking up is in the Iranian people’s self defense interests, even if they don’t believe so.
Woah there. Took a little leap of logic. Besides the issue of ‘support’ not being the optimal word to use, there’s the issue of supporting a specific thing someone does isn’t an indication of support for every other aspect of their lives. He thinks that nuking up is a good strategy for self defense for any country’s people and is completely unrelated to the form of government. He’s also specifically rebutted you with regards to supporting theocracies or religion in general, and also specifically rebutted your assertion that he would refuse to condemn Iran’s theocracy specifically.
He thinks nuking up is a good self defense strategy for any country.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain;10374008 and opposes democracy[/QUOTE]
Where did he mention his opposition to democracy?
I would argue that he sees nuking up as a necessary step to warming relations.
Assuming we called this support, supporting a specific action as being in the best interests of self defense of a nation’s people does not imply unconditional support for the government of those people.
My contribution to the actual issue has been minimal. Most of my arguments have been related only to what I saw as needless bad mouthing of someone based on prior conceptions of the person or imaginative reading and not the actual things they wrote in this thread.
Now you’re reading into what I write? lol Which specific policy do you think I’m apologizing for? My argument here is only about your treatment of DT, and your debating ethics. The only thing I’ve agreed to in terms of the actual thread issue is the idea that some of the US’s actions could appear threatening and untrustworthy to other nations. This makes no implications about what actions or policies I think other countries should have, or whether I think DT is correct or wrong, other than considering his statements about the international perception of the US plausible.
That was “clearly and unambiguously in his own words” an ironic statement, to show you the silliness of your assertion that he loved the theocracy.
Well, we disagree about exactly what the position is. I don’t offer any apologia for your version.
That’s a fine piece of sophistry there. If you support a person’s goals but not their methods, are you supporting or opposing them? What if you support someone’s survival whether or not they want to survive or are acting in interest of their own survival? Would you consider that support or opposition?
Nuking up was specifically stated as being for the purpose of preventing US aggression. You and I may not think that it’s the best method for achieving that goal. You and I may not think that is the same goal that the Iranians or the regime have in mind for nuking up. But that doesn’t make DT a supporter of them or any of their goals other than the one goal he specifically stated.
Well him actually stating such a thing would do nicely. Clearly and unambiguously, you are not good at making correct assumptions about the implications of DT’s statements, since he has specifically rebutted several of your interpretations of what he wrote, and so should stick only to his actual statements.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain;10374008It’s hard to imagine any clearer case of supporting a policy than affirming its rightness [/QUOTE]
He affirmed it’s strategic value. That’s not the same thing as support or affirming universal rightness.
Oh, I agree. Without the “America is teh uber evile!!!” bit, Der wouldn’t support theocrats. But as long as the theocrats are going to nuke up in order to oppose America, he supports them up to the point of saying fuck the Iranian people, the Mullahs can continue to impose their wishes for bad relations with the US all they want.
Or trumped by the fact that the US is a Superpower with a long history of using violence to achieve its ends and Iran is a powerless shit-heap with no chance whatsoever of transforming the yappings of a mid rank political figure into a bite of any sort and one that has been involved in no wars of aggression.
You referring to Iran, or Amadinijhad?
Because if you’re claiming that Iran has never engaged in any wars of aggression, it’s simply untrue. They tried to impose Khomenism on Lebanon by force via Hezbollah, after all. During which time they bombed the American and French peacekeeping forces (the Americans, at least, I know for a fact were non-combatants). They bombed American military forces in Saudi Arabia at the Khobar Towers in another act of aggression that, to be fair, didn’t turn into a war because we didn’t retaliate.
Yes, his argument is Janus-faced.
He can’t say that he’s not supporting the regime when he explicitly says that the regime should nuke up and thus be hostile to America even though its own people want to be on good terms with America and don’t want nukes if they get external aid.
It’s sophistry, bullshit, a rhetorical dodge to then say that although you’re supporting the Mullah’s agenda and opposing the Iranian people’s wishes that you’re not really supporting the theocrats and opposing the people.
And yes, he is promoting their course of action as the right one, advocating for it as the right one, and saying they should it. All of that means he supports them.
Yes, that was my point. He will, by his own admission, support anybody and everybody as long as they oppose America via nuclear power. In this case, it puts his argument in bed with the brutal theocrats of Iran, and against the Iranian people themselves. I don’t see that as making it any better. After all, one of the major blunders of US foreign policy has been supporting bastards because they were opposing other bastards we liked even less.
It’s funny that in his strident opposition, Der’s position has pretty much become the same as those he hates so much.
The particular merits are noteworthy, because America does not attack friendly nations, the Iranian people do not want nukes and they do want to be friends with us. And the claim that he’s not supporting the regime, but the people, is horseshit. You can’t support the people by opposing what they want.
That Der’s argument requires such molestations of logic should tell you whether or not it’s worth defending.
No.
I will not stop pointing out the semantic content of his claims with 100% accurate paraphrases. Especially since his argument is fundamentally deceptive with claims of supporting the Iranian people by alleging that they’re unable to tell truth from lies and need his paternalistic guidance and the rule of the Mullahs whose policies they overwhelming reject.
Absolutely untrue. And I already cited the definition.
Yes, except Der’s political claims are based on a fiction, an argument of America as some Platonic Evil Force. And, again, his argument is fundamentally Janus-faced. The Iranian people themselves have decided what they want, and what’s in their best interest. He says something else should be done, and then claims it’s in their best interest.
Again, telling adult citizens of their own sovereign country that they’re not allowed to have self determination because you’re going to play Daddy is exactly the sort of policy that Der rails against, when he’s not endorsing it. His argument has become what he was arguing against.
Never claimed that it meant he supports them in every little detail. I’m not sure on his views on whether they should have hummus or babaganoush, for example.
But yes, I’ve already provided proof that the Iranians want their political direction to change. From embracing democracy to giving up their nuke program to warming relations with America and Israel. He opposes that, and supports the Mullahs’ continued rule. Because if they stopped ruling, the Iranian people would get to decide their own future, and relations would improve between our nations. And Der does not want that. He wants a global armed nuclear camp with missiles pointed at every American man, woman, and child.
Peace with Iran makes his goal of a world on the edge of nuclear annihilation an impossibility. Again, think about that, the position you’re offering up an apologia for demands nuclear proliferation on a scale never before seen in all of human history. It would have every nation and failed-nation state on the planet, from Somalia to Sudan in possession of nuclear weapons.
That he claims giving Somali warlords nuclear weapons would lead to peace doesn’t mean that’s what his argument actually supports. Just like if a young child came to you and told you that he was going to water your flowers with bleach, whatever his intentions or protestations, the outcome of his plans would be to kill the flowers.
No.
You are confusing a denial with a rebuttal. And a denial that’s gainsaid by the rest of the argument, to boot.
He supports the Mullahs and opposes the Iranian people with paternalistic, infantalizing rhetoric. He then claims that he doesn’t actually support the Mullahs, while going on to say that he opposes the Iranian people having self determination and supports the Mullahs continued tyranny represented by ignoring the vast majority of their citizens, and supports their aggressive stance, replete with nukes.
His denial rings hollow.
There was no rebuttal.
In the part I quoted, where the vast majority of Iranians oppose the Mullahs theocratic rule, want warm relations with the US and Israel and are willing to give up their nuclear program. But he supports the tyrany of the Mullahs as they disregard the will of the people. That’s opposing democracy.
That his argument is based on an absurd fantasy where America will attack any nation on Earth, even ones eager to be friends with us, doesn’t change what political groups he is actually supporting, and which he is actually opposing.
Yes, his argument is based on fiction, as I’ve noted.
Anybody who’s been paying attention knows that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is quite likely to trigger surgical strikes against Iran if not all out war. We’ve also seen that we have nothing like warm relations with North Korea, for example.
I mean, come on… the idea that instead of letting the Iranian people decide their own future, make peace with Israel and the US and eliminate their theocracy… the theocracy should still call the shots and get nuclear weapons? Does that sound like a recipe for warm relations? Does someone aiming a nuclear weapon at you sound like a recipe for warm relations?
I am not concerned with what Der thinks, or how he rationalizes his position, or his argument’s flights of fantasy about how we offer uncritical support of Israel or would invade a friendy nation or whatever. What I am concerned with is the actual effect of his politics, which is to keep the Iranian people oppressed and in an escalating conflict that could have deadly repercussions, while he supports the theocrats in their unwillingness to let the Iranian people chart their own nation’s course.
…
An apologia is not the same as to apologize for something.
Der supports both the goals (hostility to America and Israel and nuking up) and the methods (denying the political will of their own citizens and ruling over them with an autocracy).
No sophistry.
You can’t ignore that in supporting the Mullahs nuking up, he must, perforce, support them in their anti-democratic stance, support them denying the vast majority of Iranians’ desire for peace, etc…
You can’t.
They’re not seperate.
When dealing with a janus-faced argument, I look at semantic value, not the bullshit facade. By your own standards, Der would have to admit that the Moral Majority “rebutted” his claims that they’re not moral or in the majority. Because, ya know, they said so.
Seriously, if you confuse patently obviously bullshit denials with an actual logical rebuttal, there’s nothing else to be said.
Anyways, I’ve made my case. You can continue your apologia for Der’s brutal and inhumane policies of oppressing the Iranian people, I’m done arguing. Der’s posts aren’t worth discussing in the first place and I was foolish to respond in the first place.
That’s a broad misrepresentation of what I’m doing. Especially since I don’t agree that DT holds those policies. If I argue that a person means X, not Y, that can hardly be considered an apologia for Y.
As far as your other arguments, you don’t seem to understand the difference between analyzing what someone’s own concept of what they believe and intend to mean by saying something are, and analyzing the actual merits of their beliefs.
You were foolish to respond in the fashion that you did, sure. By engaging in ad hominem attacks you just made yourself seem more irrational and inhumane than the person you were arguing to be irrational and inhumane, and lost the chance to appear to be the more reasonable party.
That’s not to say I agree with DT (other than on one minor point mentioned earlier) or am unaware of the general bias in what he says, or disagree with with anything that you have said (on the thread topic). It’s just to say that ignoring the merits of the content itself, by the heated and personal way you attacked DT, he came across as the more reasonable person.
If instead of misrepresenting his views (saying he supports things which he does not believe are the result of his views) and attacking his character, you could have simply pointed out the flaws in his arguments as stated and come across as a more reasonable person. Instead you made it seem like you had an axe to grind and a cross to bear and that makes everything you said worthy of much more scrutiny than it probably deserves on it’s own merits.
But I’ll cut you some slack. You seem rational so far in other threads that I’ve noticed, and even somewhat rational in this thread when you aren’t addressing DT. I’m guessing you are holding some kind of grudge against DT for interaction you’ve had in other threads and are letting that blind you to reasonable discourse with him here.
From what I’ve seen in this thread, DT is saying that the Iranian regime is correct to obtain nukes, and is saying he supports the mullahs in this, as they know better about the US threat than the Iranian people.
FinnAgain is basically right.
Maybe he expresses himself rather more adamantly that I would, but he’s hardly being irrational.
And that’s pretty consistent with DT’s past assertions as well. In fact, my guess is that if he wanders back in he’ll essentially confirm the fact that he DOES think Iran should pursue nukes…in order to protect them from the evil US’s diabolical designs, etc etc. He really does believe that.
-XT
Yeah… I believe that solving the problems in the Middle East is the single most important foreign policy goal of the 21st century. It was the single most important foreign policy goal of the 20th century (from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire on down), and the world as a whole royally fucked it up.
I don’t want to go another century like this. I don’t want my children’s children’s children to have to grow up in this kind of a world.
And I honestly believe that the Iranian people themselves are the key to solving most of the whole mess.
Imagine, if you will, that within the next 48 months a totally spontaneous, grass-roots, bloodless revolution takes place in Iran. The people declare that all of their leaders, from the Supreme Leader on down, will be voted for in regular elections. They force their leaders to abandon their nuclear program in exchange for normalized economic relations and foreign aid, and Iran’s economy begins to boom with foreign investment and perhaps even tourism dollars (the country itself has lots of gorgeous vacation spots). The Iranians then fulfill their expressed wishes of peace and good relations with the US and Israel both, as a nation that is aggressively seeking peace would not be turned down by even the most hawkish of American or Israeli governments.
Then, once that is established, Iran would cease funding, arming, training and giving safe haven to Hamas and Hezbollah. They would even help the rest of the world uncover all the hidden Hezbollah cells (experts estimate the Hezbollah has penetrated both North and South America, Africa, Europe and parts of Asia).
With Hezbollah and Hamas neutered, the process of engaging in real, honest negotiations between Israel and the PA could take place again. A negotiated settlement along the lines of UNSCR 242 would be reached, with equitable land, water and agricultural rights for both parties (Jordan might even be persuaded to partition off some of the original Mandate territory it now holds along the Jordan river in order to boost the new Palestinian state’s agricultural and water resources, although it would require advances in irrigation technology that the Israelis could probably help with, as they’ve got some of the most advanced irrigation technology in the world. ) The US would also be able to come down hard on Israel and demand a total settlement freeze without making it politically unpalatable in America to come down hard on Israel while Katushas and mortar shells are falling on it like rain.
Along with helping solve the I/P conflict, Lebanon would no longer be severely destabilized by Iran’s support of Hezbollah. True democracy might have a chance to flourish there. Syria, as well, would be forced to seriously rethink its support of Hezbollah as it would then be the sole sponsor, and uniquely vulnerable to retaliation as Israel could ‘reach out and touch it’ in a way that it cannot currently with Iran due to the distances involved.
To be sure Wahabism/Salafism would still be virulent and dangerous ideologies, and the battle for the soul of the Middle East would be far from over. But it would be a very, very good start. I’d like to take my children to see the walls of Jerusalem without having to worry about them being blown to pieces.
And yes, I believe that the argument that Iran should, instead, keep to an aggressive posture, possibly bring on a war by developing nukes, stifle the wishes of the vast majority of its citizens and see the theocrats keep calling the shots… is an utter abrogation of our responsibilities and duties as citizens of this planet.
/$.02