Iran has no interest in Obama's olive branch.

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
With the Soviet Union we comforted ourselves that God is on our side. That may come back to haunt us as Allah may have other ideas. I don't enjoy the thought of fighting people anxious to get to heaven.

I'd personally blame it on "religious people" collectively for believing any place on earth is "the holy land" and actually fighting over it.

Is it not incredibly stupid to simultaneously believe that God created the infinite universe and everything in it in his infinite power, but has a favorite speck of dust on one isolated planet that he designates as the holiest place in the universe?

The fanaticaly religious really are simply that - deluded and frightened

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Wow, talk about a straw man. You use the term 'the affairs of other countries' and then when I ask you if you really mean any other countries including any country that might pose a real and immediate threat you pretend I'm speaking as though I'm paranoid of Iran and then implied I was suggesting you don't believe is self defense when in fact that was exactly what I asked you if you believed or not. If you want it to be obvious that you mean Iran I suggest you think about what you say and not say something like all countries when you're talking about a specific one. That bit of logical inconsistency is exactly why I questioned what you said. Do you mean Iran or all other countries and all other cases? I especially am in doubt in your case because you are, in my opinion fanatical in your absolutes like the absurd notion that fanaticism in the pursuit of justice isn't fanaticism when we all know that justice is represented by a scale.

And since I was speaking about general principles self defense vs pacifistic isolationism the last time this or that happened is immaterial. You claim you're talking about Iran but it was pretty clear, I think, that I was talking about principles and ideas.

I took your question about me defending myself against an aggressor as an assumption that a non-interventionist foreign policy equates to a lack of defending one's self. That is absurd and goes even further than the illogical notion that a non-interventionist foreign policy equates to isolationism.

The only references to pacifism and isolationism are coming from you, not me, and they certainly are not the "principles and ideas" that I support. It is a common straw man argument that, years ago, was used by Republicans, and now that Obama is in office and dealing with Iran, I guess are used by Democrats. This is the dumb argument that has brought to the front lines the question of "how to deal with Iran," instead of the question we should first ask ourselves, "why should we be dealing with Iran."

Is it really fanatical to think we should use our military only to defend ourselves and our borders? Is it really fanatical to think that economic sanctions and their enforcement are acts of war? Is it really fanatical to think we should follow our constitution?

I don't think so. I think what is fanatical is to believe that we can use our military might to fight ideas. I think it is fanatical to believe Iraq was ever a threat to the US. I think what is fanatical is to believe that even a nuclear Iran is any more of a threat to the US than any other nuclear nation. I think it is fanatical to believe it is moral to take taxpayer money and send it overseas to other nations. I think it is fanatical to accuse people like myself of supporting pacifism and isolationism when we speak out against our murdering of people overseas.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta laugh my head off with the BMW540i6speed comment of "Rhetoric is power... "

When we consider Ahmadinejhad effect, not only did that motor mouth alienate almost everyone in the world, his support in Iran dropped like a stone also.

For every Cassius Clay who shot off his mouth and then backed it with deeds, there are thousands of idiots who shot off their mouth and forgot to back it with any deeds. Lets see, do any of remember Kadaffi bragging about his line of death, and one US bombing raid shut him up for 25 years.

But this overall thread conclusion of "Maybe Bush's policy was right?" is totally absurd and wrong.

I think many both the US and Iran really want better US Iranian relations, but the way Obama went about was totally the wrong way to do it. Because it presupposed total US innocence and total Iranian guilt. Something no rational unbiased observer believes from the evidence of past behaviors.

Its not that rhetoric is power, its more choose your words carefully or they will backfire on you.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But this overall thread conclusion of "Maybe Bush's policy was right?" is totally absurd and wrong.

I think many both the US and Iran really want better US Iranian relations, but the way Obama went about was totally the wrong way to do it. Because it presupposed total US innocence and total Iranian guilt. Something no rational unbiased observer believes from the evidence of past behaviors.

:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

b: I took your question about me defending myself against an aggressor as an assumption that a non-interventionist foreign policy equates to a lack of defending one's self. That is absurd and goes even further than the illogical notion that a non-interventionist foreign policy equates to isolationism.

M: I was asking you for your position.

The only references to pacifism and isolationism are coming from you, not me, and they certainly are not the "principles and ideas" that I support. It is a common straw man argument that, years ago, was used by Republicans, and now that Obama is in office and dealing with Iran, I guess are used by Democrats. This is the dumb argument that has brought to the front lines the question of "how to deal with Iran," instead of the question we should first ask ourselves, "why should we be dealing with Iran."

M: Again, I was asking what you meant. The literal implications of what you said, and we now know you didn't mean that, have to result in foolish pacifism and isolation. I introduced those because those were where your comment logically lead if taken at face value, which I did not do since I asked if that was what you meant.

b: Is it really fanatical to think we should use our military only to defend ourselves and our borders?

M: I don't know. It depends on how literally you take that. I might fly over one state to bomb another that I knew was about to do that to me.

b: Is it really fanatical to think that economic sanctions and their enforcement are acts of war?

M: Doesn't Hamas have as its stated goal the destruction of Israel. Would sanctions be justified then?

b: Is it really fanatical to think we should follow our constitution?

M: It is not sacred text, you know. It can be amended. Other than that what one person thinks the Constitution is another may disagree.

b: I don't think so. I think what is fanatical is to believe that we can use our military might to fight ideas.

M: Our ideals are our best weapon, in my opinion.

b: I think it is fanatical to believe Iraq was ever a threat to the US.

M: Yup

b: I think what is fanatical is to believe that even a nuclear Iran is any more of a threat to the US than any other nuclear nation.

M: Almost but not quite, in my opinion. A country in the firm grips of a madman who wants Armageddon, is in my opinion a potential danger and I am not fully convinced that such madness doesn't hold sway there. I would want some assurances here starting with dialog to convey my concerns. I would not allow a madman to have knife and turn my back.

b: I think it is fanatical to believe it is moral to take taxpayer money and send it overseas to other nations.

M: I believe we have a republic with elements of democracy.

b: I think it is fanatical to accuse people like myself of supporting pacifism and isolationism when we speak out against our murdering of people overseas.

M: I think you spoke in a way that opened up questions that implied that was exactly what you believed, a notion so crazy I asked for clarification, and of course I confined my question to a just war so there should be no question in your mind whatever that I suggested you defend murder.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Almost but not quite, in my opinion. A country in the firm grips of a madman who wants Armageddon, is in my opinion a potential danger and I am not fully convinced that such madness doesn't hold sway there. I would want some assurances here starting with dialog to convey my concerns. I would not allow a madman to have knife and turn my back.

You sound like Bush.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Almost but not quite, in my opinion. A country in the firm grips of a madman who wants Armageddon, is in my opinion a potential danger and I am not fully convinced that such madness doesn't hold sway there. I would want some assurances here starting with dialog to convey my concerns. I would not allow a madman to have knife and turn my back.

You sound like Bush.

Your saying I sound like Bush means very little to me. For one thing Bush and I would agree on millions of things. For another, just saying something doesn't make it true. Lastly, what I said, is not anything like what Bush would say on that topic, in my opinion.