Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Is So Bad About Iran?

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

    Again: You are correct, you did not use the term. That does not mean that it is not appeasement. Appeasement is when one side gets nothing from the other. As such what have we gotten from Iran in this case? Do we have proof they stopped development of a weapon? Do we have proof they did not continue to try to develop a weapon?

    We have more assurances that they halted their program than we had before. Prior to the agreement, it seemed the countdown to "when they will have a nuke" was a daily event. That seemed to have stopped.

    But regardless, simply trying to work out a deal isn't "appeasement".



    Reagan was negotiating from a position of power as he knew that the USSR's capabilities had been reduced so much that their threats were ineffective other than nuclear war and even that prospect was severely reduced due to the conditions of the nuclear weapons in the hands of the USSR.

    Comparing the negotiations between the two strongest superpowers on earth and one superpower and a third rate country is like comparing apples to dung beetles.

    So if the USSR had no effective threat other than nuclear war, that's fine for Reagan to negotiate with them from his position of power. But if Iran has no effective threat other maybe getting a bomb someday, Obama was appeasing them?

    That makes no sense.


    I am aware of what a strawman is. Just because you choose to label the Obama agreement with Iran something other than appeasement does not make it so, nor does it make my argument a strawman. The argumentative fallacy, if there is one here, is your failure to account for the view points of others.

    I made no reach, I stated the first thing that came to my mind: Chamberlain and "No War In Our Time!" because that is what I see when I read and hear the reactions of those who supported Obama's agreement with Iran. We got nothing concrete in the agreement, mere words from people who have been more than willing to export their brand of worship and governance with the point of a sword. Very similar to what Chamberlain got from Hitler (forgive my Godwin but it is appropriate).

    You can call it what you want, if I choose to see what you call (whatever you choose to call it) as appeasement it does not make me wrong, nor you correct, thus your claim of strawman is incorrect. Appeasement is merely a synonym, one that I choose to use and one that came readily to mind (without reaching one iota).

    Tomato, tomahto...
    Your "point of view" was to assess MINE as appeasement when I said no such thing. That's the textbook definition of a strawman argument. You can try to dance around it, but that's exactly what you've done here.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by onelife View Post
      What is so bad about Iran other than the fact that they don't sell their oil in US Dollars?

      President Trump's hardline stance seems to be counter productive if the goal is to curb Iran's nuclear programs. Hurting the people of Iran through economic sanctions is not helping reduce anti-American sentiment in the country or the region.

      The price of oil is going up as a result of American sanctions against Iran and Venezuela and Russia is capitalizing on that as a counter-measure to sanctions imposed against them.

      What is the point of all this anti-Iran rhetoric and why now?
      It's another stupid distraction and waste of American blood and money.

      That's what's so bad about it.
      He has escaped! Youtube , ​Murika , France

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

        Again: You are correct, you did not use the term. That does not mean that it is not appeasement. Appeasement is when one side gets nothing from the other. As such what have we gotten from Iran in this case? Do we have proof they stopped development of a weapon? Do we have proof they did not continue to try to develop a weapon?
        ...
        So, if Iran was to abandon the Euro and start trading its oil in US Dollars, would that be considered appeasement on Iran's part?
        The human species is an outcrop of this planet. The damage we do to this planet, we do to ourselves. It is in the hands of this generation to turn this disastrous situation around. ~Sadhguru

        Comment


        • Originally posted by onelife View Post

          So, if Iran was to abandon the Euro and start trading its oil in US Dollars, would that be considered appeasement on Iran's part?
          It would certainly be an indicator of some willingness to engage with the US, both diplomatically and economically.
          Last edited by Red Ant; 05-15-2019, 03:32 PM.
          Keep the company of those who seek the truth, and run from those who have found it.

          -- Vaclav Havel

          The Universe is unimaginably vast. For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.

          -- Carl Sagan


          Life - the way it really is - is a battle not between Bad and Good but between Bad and Worse.

          -- Joseph Brodsky

          Comment


          • Originally posted by guido61 View Post

            We’re still holding a grudge over the hostages from 40 years ago?
            This
            __________________________________________________ _________
            arcadesonfire:
            And even if I were complaining about Democrats in general, I think it's healthy to critique one's own kind
            ______________________________________________ _________
            guido61: Nobody wants to be around No Fun Trump
            __________________________________________________ ______
            Zig al-din: The whole concept of a polite political dialogue is an oxymoron
            _____________________________________________ _________
            ​prolurkerguy: Knee jerk + soap box = injury waiting to happen

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Red Ant View Post

              It would certainly be an indicator of some willingness to engage with the US, both diplomatically and economically.
              So if they make any moves towards us it's "an indicator of some willingness to engage with the US, both diplomatically and economically", but if we do the same towards them, it's "appeasement"?

              Explain to me how 'propaganda' works again?
              Last edited by guido61; 05-15-2019, 04:29 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                So if they make any moves towards us it's "an indicator of some willingness to engage with the US, both diplomatically and economically", but if we do the same towards them, it's "appeasement"?

                Explain to me how 'propaganda' works again?
                It works like this: from the moment of its creation, rhe Islamic Republic of Iran has been overtly and implacably hostile towards the US. One might say hatred of the US was one of the principles it was founded upon. As such, if they were interested in rapproachment, it would be incumbent on them to show good faith. As the stated object of their hostility, it is not incumbent on the US to make any moves to show good faith, as the US has absolutely no indications of the Islamic Republic acting in good faith towards the US, ever. And for the previous administration to assume that Iran was going to abide by the guidelines and inspection regime of the treaty - and to reward them purely on the basis of promises, before any of this supposed compliance could be verified - strikes me as irresponsible naivete, at best.
                Keep the company of those who seek the truth, and run from those who have found it.

                -- Vaclav Havel

                The Universe is unimaginably vast. For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.

                -- Carl Sagan


                Life - the way it really is - is a battle not between Bad and Good but between Bad and Worse.

                -- Joseph Brodsky

                Comment


                • To the OP
                  Do you not understand that Iran funds and supports the military defense of Palestine and it’s allies against the apartheid state of Israel?
                  That’s why they are so bad.

                  (Love the use of the word ‘we’ in this thread)
                  __________________________________________________ _________
                  arcadesonfire:
                  And even if I were complaining about Democrats in general, I think it's healthy to critique one's own kind
                  ______________________________________________ _________
                  guido61: Nobody wants to be around No Fun Trump
                  __________________________________________________ ______
                  Zig al-din: The whole concept of a polite political dialogue is an oxymoron
                  _____________________________________________ _________
                  ​prolurkerguy: Knee jerk + soap box = injury waiting to happen

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Red Ant View Post

                    It works like this: from the moment of its creation, rhe Islamic Republic of Iran has been overtly and implacably hostile towards the US.
                    No doubt. But we had that coming, to be honest. Heck, we'll still all butthurt because they took some hostages 40 years ago. But compare that to us actually engineering a coup of their government and installing our puppet to run their country!

                    One might say hatred of the US was one of the principles it was founded upon. As such, if they were interested in rapproachment, it would be incumbent on them to show good faith. As the stated object of their hostility, it is not incumbent on the US to make any moves to show good faith, as the US has absolutely no indications of the Islamic Republic acting in good faith towards the US, ever. And for the previous administration to assume that Iran was going to abide by the guidelines and inspection regime of the treaty - and to reward them purely on the basis of promises, before any of this supposed compliance could be verified - strikes me as irresponsible naivete, at best.
                    Of course it is incumbent upon us to make moves to show good faith. it has to work both ways. We will never get anywhere if we only insist upon the other side making all the necessary rapproachment. 40 years of complete isolation only resulted in them being on the verge of being a nuclear power. Obviously that wasn't working. Almost ANYTHING would have been a better move at that point. I've always been a student of the Corelone school on these matters: Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.

                    Trust, but Verify, as Reagan said. Or Distrust but Verify as Hillary Clinton put it about Iran. Was the Obama deal perfect? Obviously not. But that it moved them further back from being on the brink of nuclear weapons and doing it with the involvement of so much of the rest of the world was a good thing.

                    Certainly much better than Trump's "do whatever the opposite of what Obama did/I'd rather go it alone than with the assistance/approval of any allies" attitude.

                    I do think Obama was too eager to simply cut a deal. But OTHO I liked that he wasn't operating simply from the position of Whatever Bebe Likes Is Good With Me, either.

                    Comment


                    • We're still holding a grudge for hostages taken 40 years ago.

                      But if you finance Al Qaeda/ Daesh incubation centers, otherwise known as Wahabi madrassas, schools, and mosques all around the globe for decades inspiring millions of disaffected Muslim guys to join jihadi groups and murder Westerners, Shia and whoever else they feel like in the most barbaric manner possible, culminating in the attack on the Twin Towers in New York and then countless IS atrocities and genocide against Christians, Yazidis, Jews, Shia, and other groups in Iraq, burning people alive in cages and decapitating journalists on video?? NO PROBLEM. That's ok with us because we're allies, buddies, pals, BFFs.

                      And you can also do everything in your power to turn Indonesia into a raving Sunni jihadist training camp where once it was the bastion of moderate Islam! That's fine. Just don't you dare take hostages 40 years ago and then have the gall to assert your own strategic imperatives in what is your own territory and has been for millennia. American leaders and their apologists might get upset....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by jorhay1 View Post
                        To the OP
                        Do you not understand that Iran funds and supports the military defense of Palestine and it’s allies against the apartheid state of Israel?
                        That’s why they are so bad.

                        (Love the use of the word ‘we’ in this thread)
                        Israel/palestine is a sideshow. The Shi'a-Sunni struggle is the main event.

                        And Zig is right, in a sense... in hindsight, the US might have done better to pick the other horse in the race, but the Islamic Revolution took that option away.
                        Keep the company of those who seek the truth, and run from those who have found it.

                        -- Vaclav Havel

                        The Universe is unimaginably vast. For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.

                        -- Carl Sagan


                        Life - the way it really is - is a battle not between Bad and Good but between Bad and Worse.

                        -- Joseph Brodsky

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Red Ant View Post

                          Israel/palestine is a sideshow. The Shi'a-Sunni struggle is the main event.

                          And Zig is right, in a sense... in hindsight, the US might have done better to pick the other horse in the race, but the Islamic Revolution took that option away.
                          Is there ever any doubt?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Red Ant View Post

                            Israel/palestine is a sideshow. The Shi'a-Sunni struggle is the main event.

                            And Zig is right, in a sense... in hindsight, the US might have done better to pick the other horse in the race, but the Islamic Revolution took that option away.

                            Iran is simply not a threat in any way, shape, or form to the US. Nor will it ever be. Nukes or not.
                            __________________________________________________ _________
                            arcadesonfire:
                            And even if I were complaining about Democrats in general, I think it's healthy to critique one's own kind
                            ______________________________________________ _________
                            guido61: Nobody wants to be around No Fun Trump
                            __________________________________________________ ______
                            Zig al-din: The whole concept of a polite political dialogue is an oxymoron
                            _____________________________________________ _________
                            ​prolurkerguy: Knee jerk + soap box = injury waiting to happen

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by onelife View Post

                              So, if Iran was to abandon the Euro and start trading its oil in US Dollars, would that be considered appeasement on Iran's part?
                              Your single-minded concentration on your personal bete-noir is tiresome but I will answer:

                              I do not care how Iran trades its oil. That is there choice. If it effects the US then so be it.

                              A question to you is this: Why do you seem to support a repressive government so much? Is it because it seems to spit in the face of the US or because you feel that they deserve respect in the world even after their recent history?

                              Your seeming support of a despotic regime in order to express your biases toward the US kinda smacks of hypocrisy and flies in the face of the "Peaceful World" you normally espouse.

                              In this case I think you chose a wrong example (Iran) in an effort to try to belittle the US. It not only exposes you as a person who seems to have a gripe with the US and will cherry-pick anything in order to voice your gripe, but it also (again) shows that you do not seem to be above hypocrisy when trying to promulgate your own political biases.
                              Sprinkles are for winners...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                                We have more assurances that they halted their program than we had before. Prior to the agreement, it seemed the countdown to "when they will have a nuke" was a daily event. That seemed to have stopped.

                                But regardless, simply trying to work out a deal isn't "appeasement".
                                Do you have any proof that Iran did not continue to work on their nuclear program in secret? Perhaps you are taking their word for it? I know it is difficult to get things by inspectors as evidenced by the scads of success stories starting way back when the SALT Treaties were signed.

                                The government of Iran would like nothing better than to spread their version of Islam to every corner of the world. Just as Hitler wished to spread his vision of society to the world.

                                Obama tried to appease, much in the same manner of Chamberlain. Just as Trump is doing with NK. This was not a deal, this was a "Swing At The Fences" and hope to hit a home run, just as Chamberlain's "Peace In Our Time" appeasement was.


                                Originally posted by guido61 View Post
                                So if the USSR had no effective threat other than nuclear war, that's fine for Reagan to negotiate with them from his position of power. But if Iran has no effective threat other maybe getting a bomb someday, Obama was appeasing them?

                                That makes no sense.
                                You, again, are comparing apples to cockroaches. The USSR was the second most powerful nation on the planet while Iran is a third world country. While both were/are led by despotic governments the USSR was not trying to punch above its weight class, nor was dealing with them having to go down a weight class and treating them as equals. Nuclear weapons aside, the USSR had a much stronger economic base, a much stronger military, much more natural resources, etc...On par or even superior to the US. They, along with us, also had the ability to blow up the world in nuclear fire.

                                Iran has...oil and the Shiite brand of Muslim religion.

                                So yeah, Obama was appeasing them. Those that agree with Obama's choice were also agreeing with appeasing a third-rate country who have contributed very little to the world at large recently.

                                Originally posted by guido61 View Post
                                Your "point of view" was to assess MINE as appeasement when I said no such thing. That's the textbook definition of a strawman argument. You can try to dance around it, but that's exactly what you've done here.
                                You are mistaken in that I was not refuting an argument (your argument) that was not present, I was interpreting your argument and responding to it based upon my interpretation. A Strawman is a dishonest, purposeful act of ...deflection and not actually relevant to the debate or original statement.

                                I was not deflecting, I was rebutting based upon my interpretation of your words. How I interpret your words is not a strawman, it is an interpretation. I interpreted your words as appeasement. If you do not wish your words to be interpreted as such then couch your words in such a way that they cannot be interpreted in any other manner than what you desire.

                                Just because you define my interpretation as a Strawman does not make it so. I see things differently than you, thus I am going to interpret things differently, and view things differently than you. To not take into account that other's interpretations and viewpoints may cause them to see things in a different light, and for you to, (at least), not accept them as differing viewpoints without labeling them in a derogatory manner, is intellectually (as far as the debate) dishonest.

                                This is how I could choose to view your claim: Your claim of "Strawman" is merely an effort to get me to "Shut Up" because I disagree with you.

                                That in itself could be incorrect and I allow for that, thus I merely see your assertion as one that is, in this case, misinformed.
                                Sprinkles are for winners...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X