Too busy posting to learn the basic facts about the situation you’re posting about, eh?
Can’t quite say I sympathize, I’m afraid.
Too busy posting to learn the basic facts about the situation you’re posting about, eh?
He’s talking about alleged attacks through proxies such as Hezbollah and various Iraqi militias over several decades and equating that with Iran directly attacking the USA.
Conveniently forgetting of course that the USA armed Saddam and pointed him att Iran and the USA, through their proxy torturing sociopath puppet Shah waged war on the Iranian people for decades.
Except that the ‘basic facts’ are not as you present them. I assumed you meant this:
…I was wondering if you were going to clarify, or continue to be obtuse. It might make you feel superior to make vague statements and then browbreat me when I want you to clarify, but I honestly don’t think it casts you in a good light.
They are, you’re ignorant, and it behooves you to figure out the basic facts before discussing the topic. Your lack of basic knowledge is hardly me being “obtuse”. You should try figure out what the issues of the topic under discussion are before you ask someone to give them to you.
“I don’t know the basic facts, but I’m prepared to argue about them” is hardly a good starting point.
No, you’re calling proven attacks “alleged” because it makes dodging the facts easier. For example, trusting centuries of FBI man-hours on the Khobar Towers bombing over an anonymous guy on the internet who claims it’s only “alleged” seems to be a reasonably rational position. As is disbelieving said anonymous guy’s fictional claims, especially when he refers to the attacks as “alleged […] proxies” when the facts all show that the attacks were ordered, directed, trained, etc… at the highest levels of the Iranian government, and they used an organization which stated at its founding that it was in the service of the Iranian Supreme Leader.
Your claim that that doesn’t “equate” to Iran attacking US forces is, shall we say, rather obviously skewed towards a political agenda. Just as your mention of the Shah and the Iran/Iraq war both don’t answer the fact that despite attacks directly on US soldiers on multiple occasions, the US did not retaliate.
I suppose “But…the Shah!” has to be trotted out as a non sequitor at some point or another since “But… Clinton!” is another partisan dodge that’s not relevant.
Holy shit, you are seriously off your rocker, aren’t you?
And I’m not even talking about the points of your argument…you’re just seriously ‘out there’ socially, aren’t you?
That is because President McCain would deal with Iran much differently than Obama has been. President McCain would have refused to withdraw American troops from Iraq, despite the wishes of the Iraqi government. McCain would have handled Libya differently, in that he advocated the US taking the lead role in the air strikes rather than having the US simply support NATO missions. McCain has advocated attacking Syria.
On Iran, Obama has pretty much issued nonspecific statements that “all options are on the table,” prioritized sanctions, and avoided inflaming the situation with comments like “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” It is patently obvious that a McCain White House would take a more strident, aggressive position in Iran than Obama has.
In terms of the OP and Senator Paul’s insistence on adding a sentence to the bill, Harry Reid has it exactly right: a sanctions bill is factually and undeniably unrelated to any authorization to use force. Paul’s amendment is superfluous, unnecessary, extraneous, and nothing more than politicking for the press. The Congress deals with sanctions bills all the time – I can recall reading about bills for sanctions on Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and several other countries within the past several years. Does Senator Paul really see a need to clarify that a bill to extend sanctions on Myanmar for human rights abuses so that the President doesn’t use it as an excuse to bomb Rangoon? That’s just silly – a bill imposing economic sanctions is not a bill to authorize war, and it is disingenuous to portray it as such. Rand Paul is in the wrong here.
Not exactly the most gracious way for you to admit that you’re ignorant of the basic facts which inform the topic. Me, if I discovered that I lacked basic, prerequisite knowledge required to discuss an issue, I’d bow out and educate myself. But that’s just me.
I suppose that flaming in GD is another option.
You’re not allowed to insult other posters in Great Debates, so knock it off. And FinnAgain, while these comments do not break the rules directly, it would be more productive if you posted more facts and fewer statements like “you’re ignorant, and it behooves you to figure out the basic facts before discussing the topic.”
I guess it would have behooved me to figure out the basic rules of GD before I posted those comments.
Nah just kidding. I totally knew that.
Rand Paul may be wrong a lot but he is right here. You have to look at why the sanctions are being discussed. No politician put those other countries on an axis of evil; no Republican politicians were getting political points for salivating at the mouth over attacking any of those nations or people. Evidently, while all that sanctioning and cruise missiling in Iraq was going on in the 90s, some Republicans were eager to invade Iraq and used the best excuse they could find to do so. I think we are on that same path again, and see the increased sanctions, with only the weakest evidence that Iran is seeking these WMDs, as another way of enabling those who will happily exaggerate to bring us into war.
Also, these sanctions are going to be ineffective because Iran has plenty of other markets that will buy their goods.
But I’m not citing that fact as evidence in my favor. You are, and that’s why I made the comment. “A bunch of people think we are getting ready for war with Iran” does not make more likely that it’s happening- not when it isn’t happening.
I don’t think so. Parts of the far left are pretty sure a war is coming, and they would feel the same way if McCain were president. The difference is that if McCain were president, they might be right. I don’t support a war with Iran; I just don’t think one is coming. Bush didn’t spend years trying to build up support for tougher sanctions against Iraq because he felt only a war would accomplish his objectives. He started making a case for war, was convinced to spend a small amount of effort building international support, got the military in place (the military felt that a war could not start later than March because of the weather in Iraq) and had at it. The whole thing took a few months and it was obvious to some of us the entire time that it was coming. Like I said, Obama has spent years working on sanctions and is still not close to war. I’ve said before that I think Bush would have gone to war with Iran if he could have. But it was obvious even in the mid-2000s that with the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan both floundering, he couldn’t.
It says right in your link that development of those weapons dates back to 2007, so no, it doesn’t support the contention Obama is preparing for war with Iran. I’m no military expert, but even I can tell you that you don’t decide who you’re going to invade and then develop the weapons you need. That’s a long and expensive process. If you have a weapon you feel needs to be improved, you improve it.
As a quick reminder, Bush made that statement in January 2002. It’s now March 2012, and since he’s not the president and he’s not exactly a major influence on Obama, I don’t think it’s relevant.
I’m happy to give you a formal warning if you want one. In the meantime, debate like an adult or don’t post in this forum.
To borrow a phrase from Policy Mic article
Anyways, HuffPost puts it much more succintly that I ever could:
However, I’m impressed to see that the halo around Rand Paul has been effectively maligned to such a degree that it prevents self-assured rational people to look at evidence his words and conclude on their own, rather than to allow manufactured image to make a conclusion for them.
On the subject of “nobody calls for War with Iran” from the same HuffArticle (which is quote from JPost):
I’m overwhelmed by your arguments.
To be fair, in the same post you reference, I elaborated on the specifics of some of his ignorance in the context of refuting Tagos’ distortion of the historical record.
Development of the current generation of MOP’s was actually begun in 2002 and ramped up as a result of the problems dealing with hardened targets in Iraq (and to a degree, Afghanistan). Similar concerns lead to the creation of the MOAB.
Rather than fairly bizarre conspiracy theories (e.g. we’ve been preparing for bombing Iran for a decade, and we’re just really, really patient…), the fact that the military is, as always, preparing to fight the war they just fought is far more likely.
God, you’re a biased idiot.
What he added was totally reasonable and sensible and that’s the only reasonable way to interpret it.
Well, let me point out that you took the least relevant lines from my post and I certainly agree those specific lines you quoted do indeed fail to convince anyone. The reason is that those lines are superfluous to a debate and are rather childish and I’ll definitely make an effort not to pepper my posts with such a unnecessary points.
However, just in case you missed it, there are two cites there and two very specific quotes that I, perhaps in vain, expected to be read and understood.
Therefore, your counter argument is terribly weak and self-serving. (Something tells me you’ll come back with something even cleverer this time so I’m probably wasting my time appealing to your commons sense side of brain.)
Issuing a warning for personal insults. I don’t plan to issue any more notes in this thread, so any other insults will also result in warnings.
Believing that there is “only [one] reasonable way to interpret” a non sequitor, nonsensical addition to a bill about sanctions is, shall we say, not reasonable. The bill wasn’t about going to war. The bill didn’t authorize the use of force. Adding a bit about how we wouldn’t do what the bill wasn’t authorizing is, at best, the type of paranoid loonery that the Pauls are known for and, at worst, cynical political pandering designed precisely to play to the We’re Gonna Attack Iran Tomorrow (Established 2002 Group)[sup]tm[/sup] crowd.
You’re right that "La-la-la"s and comments about how everybody else is refusing to think do not bolster your case. As far as the quotes go: Paul’s amendment was grandstanding nonsense, and it’s pretty much going to remain grandstanding nonsense no matter how much someone else interprets it. The bill is primarily about financial sanctions on Iran and Syria. Iran is years away from the nuclear weapons that are alluded to in the bill, and Obama has not asked for authorization to use force against either country.