From your POV, maybe. Certainly not from mine. It is a trend I have seen in my over ten years in the SDMB. Give the US or Israel – especially the latter – too much grief about the way they are behaving and boom, you become member/persona non grata to TPTB. So no, I am not trying to insult anyone as much as I am calling them as I see them. Something I have done since the day I arrived here and will continue to do for as long as I am.
You (general you) don’t appear to notice just how protective you are of Israel and how much leeway you give its defenders. Seriously, it is ridiculous that if you say Israel punches way above their weight in US politics, it somehow becomes both a polemical and anti-Semitic statement, especially in light of the facts that overwhelmingly prove the case. Of course, those that do – bring those facts to light – are typically either self-hating Jews and/or flat out anti-Semites.
Not much else I want to say other than the fact that, overall, I’ve enjoyed my time here due to the very fact that almost nothing is off topic here. With one obvious exception.
Do I stay or do I go? Not asking for suicide by mod, but rather that if I can’t/won’t be allowed to say my piece, no point in staying.So keep pulling those cards out – nice touch, BTW. Football’s a great place to learn how to argue win or lose.
Appreciate your quick response. I’ll attempt to adhere to your rules, but that is not a promise. Guess it’s your call how much of me you can take – and that’s no dare. It is being true to myself.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
From your POV, maybe. Certainly not from mine. It is a trend I have seen in my over ten years in the SDMB. Give the US or Israel – especially the latter – too much grief about the way they are behaving and boom, you become member/persona non grata to TPTB. So no, I am not trying to insult anyone as much as I am calling them as I see them. Something I have done since the day I arrived here and will continue to do for as long as I am.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but that is just horseshit. Plenty of 'dopers have and continue to give the US grief, and in many cases rightfully so. Plenty have and continue to give Israel grief as well, and in many cases rightfully so. It’s complete BS that you are getting smacked down for badmouthing Israel here or in past threads on this topic.
What’s ridiculous are your drive by links to purely speculative sites, many of which have a certain slant to them. We are all snide, and this topic seems to bring out the worst in everyone, regardless of side, since it’s such a rancorous topic…but you pour more personal venom into it than just about anyone else. Not venom directed at the arguments of folks you don’t agree with, but venom directed AT the people you don’t agree with…especially Finn, but not solely him. THAT is what you are being busted for. You’ve been here long enough to know the ropes…attack the post and the argument, not the poster. You can call the argument idiotic…you can’t call the poster one. Seriously, who do you think you are bullshitting here with your claim that posting anti-American/anti-Israeli viewpoints are forbidden by the mods, and that they protect folks who argue the contrary. I mean, really?? Here on the 'dope??
That’s entirely up to you, but you might want to consider that you are letting this particular topic get too personal, and maybe you should take some time off. That’s what I did when things got to be too personal and I started accumulating warnings (contrary to your apparent beliefs, we defenders of the US and Israel are far from protected). I’d hate to see you go, FWIW.
I’m not sure why the rude response. You earlier said you agreed with some of Atzmon’s statements that Walt defended. I was just asking which ones you were referring to.
Have you forgotten?
If so, I’ll repost them here.
So, which of the quotes that Walt defended do you agree with?
There are still numerous unanswered problems with the Iran nuclear apologists.
To begin with, they haven’t demonstrated that Iran actually needs nukes for self defense. The closest they’ve come is vague accusations that Iran is in danger and/or Spoke’s map. Oddly enough Spoke does not use his map to claim that Qatar is in danger, so obviously mere proximity to the US’ military forces is not a cause for alarm. Likewise, the fact that Iran would have nothing to worry about from the US or Israel if it simply stopped funding Hezbollah and Hamas and instituted the Additional Protocols has not been sufficiently answered. No credible reason has been offered for why either Israel or the US would want to attack an Iran whose nuclear program was certified 100% peaceful by the IAEA and which wasn’t using international terrorists as proxy forces. What’s more, the fact that Iran has already attacked the US several times, with no US military response, has been handwaved when it’s even been addressed. We are only left to conclude that even given clear justification the US has chosen not to strike back on multiple occasions. But we are assured that, absent any justification, the US might still attack. This passes neither the smell test nor common sense.
Balanced against that we have a claim from Red that “AIPAC/Israel” are somehow controlling US public opinion through “propaganda”. The method, vectors, impact and nature of this “propaganda” is unclear, but Red has neither retracted nor supported his claim of manipulation by Zionist forces. Given recent clams that Iran/Hezbollah attempted the assassination of Israeli ambassadors, rather than offering the choices of “they’re right/wrong”, Red offered the possibility that Israel was engaged in a false flag operation. As of yet he has provided absolutely no support, at all, for that innuendo.
Faced with the facts and the lack of any cogent, let alone compelling counter argument, the only clear conclusion is that Iran has no actual need of a nuclear weapon and their continued defiance of their obligations under the NPT as well as their continued support of Hamas and Hezbollah leave them vulnerable to distinctly negative consequences.
I’d certainly agree. Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons. But, then, the U.S. doesn’t really need all of our aircraft carriers. Half the current number would still protect the U.S. against invasion.
Iran (or its leadership) want nuclear weapons. It’s a prestige thing. It would make them “members of the club.” They reason that it would lend weight to their views, and that their threats would be more credible.
What I am not convinced of is that they comprehend the responsibility that Mutually Assured Destruction puts upon a nation. I am not sure that they could refrain from the temptation to saber-rattling, as they have done for years now, without realizing that nuclear saber-rattling is of a very different character than non-nuclear saber-rattling.
My opinion is that wiser heads would prevail, and their acquisition of nuclear weapons would compel them to adapt their rhetoric. They would be forced to “grow up, already.” But, obviously, there is no way to know this.
What it boils down to is that the acquisition of nuclear bombs means that Iran becomes more powerful.
The question we need to ask ourselves is, is this a country who we want to become more powerful? Is this a country who can be trusted with that power?
Can a country where people are executed on the basis of their sexual orientation be trusted with it?
Can a country whose leadership has a black-and-white mentality that their enemy (Israel) should just be wiped off the map completely - whose right to exist it does not acknowledge - be trusted with it?
Can a country that is potentially on the brink of very serious social unrest be trusted with it?
All of those things are true of Iran. This is something everyone needs to consider.
Its not any other country’s position to trust or not trust Iran’s responsibility to possess nukes. They are their own sovereign state. Period.
And I think the earlier-quoted Stephen Walt bends over backwards to avoid being accused of anti-semitism…of course to no avail. I suppose if even Finkelstein gets smeared, Walt shouldn’t expect anything different, Harvard or no Harvard.
I have to question if you understand the meaning of ‘false flag operation.’ The article you linked to makes no accusation of it being a flase flag operation and presents no evidence that it was. At best it notes that Iran and Hezbollah aren’t the only potential suspects.
[QUOTE=Spoke]
Glenn Greenwald’s take: U.S. Media Takes Lead on Iran
[/QUOTE]
Do you consider him an unbiased source? Do you believe that the UN and the IAEA is in on the…what? Conspiracy to attack Iran and do something to them? If so, I have to ask…why? Why would the US need to go through these kinds of convolutions? Why would we be holding Israel back when we could simply turn them loose with our without our blessing? Why would we be bothering with trying non-military means, such as the sanctions? Why is Europe going along with them? Can you explain the underlying logic here, because it doesn’t really make much sense to me.
You do not understand the Bill Hicks routine. It was about us arming nations that we later went to war with. We have not armed Iran with nuclear weapons. Further, while “propaganda” appears to be a rallying cry when people have no actual argument, the fact that people want to paint Iran as a victim is yet again spurious. Absent their support for Hamas and Hezbollah and their nuclear program, Israel and the US would have no problems with it. If it actually attempted to make peace with Israel rather than supporting not one but two genocidal organizations who threaten Israel, it would enjoy the same status as Jordan. Faced with the fact that Iran could have peace tomorrow if it wishes it, some people instead choose to demonize the United States.
While we’re on the subject, do you have a retraction on the subject of Iran’s attacks on US military forces? About about which you claimed that Iran did not participate, when the record clearly shows that the attacks were directed, authorized, equipped with explosives, etc… by the highest levels of power in the Iranian government? Do you have a cogent response as to why the US did not retaliate even when attacked by Iran, multiple times, to the tune of hundreds of dead US soldiers, but now Iran must fear and attack if they disarmed and stopped supporting international terrorism? Please not “we attacked Iraq” is a non sequitor, not a response.
Can you actually craft a reason why we would suffer multiple Iranian attacks, which had a death toll of hundreds, and not retaliate… but now you believe we would attack them for no reason and so they need nukes? Silence and responses alleging that the 1980’s and 1990’s do not count will be an admission of failure on your part. Do you actually have an argument?
You did not answer any of XT’s substantive questions and instead responded only to his preamble, and then only with boilerplate. You have also not answered to the extreme flaws in your analysis of how the US/Israel are threatening Iran. Can we conclude that you have no answers to these questions and wish to concede that your position is unsupportable?
[QUOTE=Spoke]
No. He is biased in favor of peace.
[/QUOTE]
Ah…well, perhaps he should write a piece telling the Iranians that they are being idiots then, and that they should give up their ambitions to build nuclear weapons they don’t need? Perhaps indicate to them that it might be a good thing for them to join the community of nations and stop doing all this militant shit?
I mean, if he REALLY is biased in favor of peace, and all. You should write him and tell him that he’s missing the peace boat…as well as being pretty much in denial.
What nukes? Do you have conclusive proof they have them? Regardless, it’s a moot point, since you still seem to gloss over the fact that Israel never signed the NNPT, so they could develop nukes if they want too. Considering that if they DO have them no one really even knows for sure, and considering that they are at least marginally more stable (being a democracy and all) than Iran, I’m not seeing why they WOULD have to give the things up, even if we all assume they have them.
