Time to kick Iran

Oliver said:
I'm not talking about a theocratic political system
Click to expand...

Yes you are. That's what theocracy means. If you mean something else, then use a different word. But don't blame me for your incorrect use of English.

Oh, and dictatorship is not synonymous with theocracy. While most theocracies are dictatorships, most dictatorships are not theocracies. So your mention of Saddam and Castro was, well, just plain stupid. You started off poorly, Oliver, and you're doing worse now.
 
Very interesting discussion.
I do not want to bother you guys, but I see the problem from a different perspective.
I think all these problems with Iran are due to a lack of international cooperation on the problem.
Basically, had Russia and China agreed to stop Iran, Ahmadinejad had to go back in few days.
But, there is no cooperation between the East ( Russia and China ) and the West ( US, Germany, UK and France ).

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/03/news/russia.php
http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/irancrisis/more_stories/10014303.html

Basically, there is not even cooperation between the west, as there is a range of positions among the EU members.

Another point, India also refused to collaborate in isolating Iran.
http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/irancrisis/more_stories/10014303.html

Not to speak about Islamic countries, which maybe do not like the the current Iranian administration, but like even less the current US administration.

With this situation standing, trying to isolate Iran is an impossible task for the US, this is why their strategy is not working.

The real problem is not, then, whether Iran is a danger or not for the world community, but, why the world community is not so eagerly willing to cooperate with the US
 
An interesting article:

American intelligence agencies and other sources found that the economic measures the international community has adopted to coerce Iran to change its ways are futile. Although Iranian banks found it temporarily difficult to close international transactions, it appears that they have overcome the hurdle.

Even trading between oil-rich Iran and other countries of the world hasn’t significantly slowed down, if at all. Although the initiatives taken to halt or cancel direct and indirect investments in the Iranian economy bore some fruit, they were insufficient to undermine the regime's stability.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3445153,00.html
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes you are. That's what theocracy means. If you mean something else, then use a different word. But don't blame me for your incorrect use of English.

Oh, and dictatorship is not synonymous with theocracy. While most theocracies are dictatorships, most dictatorships are not theocracies. So your mention of Saddam and Castro was, well, just plain stupid. You started off poorly, Oliver, and you're doing worse now.
Click to expand...


Actually: No.

I threw the term "Theocracy" into the room to see if you will
bite since you have no good argument for Iran being a smaller
threat than Israel.

Oh, may I add that Nazi-Germany wasn't a theocracy and Iran
has no dictator? :rolleyes:
 
Oliver said:
Actually: No.

I threw the term "Theocracy" into the room to see if you will
bite since you have no good argument for Iran being a smaller
threat than Israel.
Click to expand...

In other words, you were never being honest to begin with. Furthermore, Israel never agreed not to have nukes, so you've hardly countered my actual argument. Rule one of holes, Oliver: when you're in one, stop digging.

Oh, may I add that Nazi-Germany wasn't a theocracy and Iran
has no dictator? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nazi Germany was not a theocracy, that is indeed correct. Iran does have a dictator, though. If you ever thought otherwise, you're more clueless than I thought. Are you smart enough to figure out his name?
 
In defense of Oliver

Now I feel compelled to write this, as I have seen this behaviour over and over.
Basically, I do not agree with everything that Oliver says, but I found what he writes interesting, not trivial, often very well documented, and expressed in an uninsulting way.
Now, instead of being happy for having a point of view which is different from the usual one, in this forum, it seems to me that you guys are not interested in getting the core of his opinion, and to work on this.
That, does not mean that you have to agree with all he says, just take note of an interesting opinion.
What I see, is most of the people, just engage him in matters of minimal importance, for example, the meaning of the word " theocracy ", instead of try to analyze his opinion in full, which makes me wonder if the hidden ( and subconscious ) intention of this forum is to discuss and welcome different opinions, or to support each other opinions, bashing all the others.
Now, I may be wrong, and I may not be the person who writes this, I just felt the need to clarify how I think.
 
Matteo Martini said:
What I see, is most of the people, just engage him in matters of minimal importance, for example, the meaning of the word " theocracy ", instead of try to analyze his opinion in full, which makes me wonder if the hidden ( and subconscious ) intention of this forum is to discuss and welcome different opinions, or to support each other opinions, bashing all the others.
Now, I may be wrong, and I may not be the person who writes this, I just felt the need to clarify how I think.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, let me tell you how I think. Oliver has one primary interest here at JREF. Critisizing the US. He does so by refusing to see any argument that is contrary to his world view. On top of that his arguments are poorly defined and his documentation is often poor.

I start threads critical of America and Bush. I join in critisism of my country and Bush by people who are not American. I'm fine with that. I really am.

I don't care for a guy who won't debate in an intellectually honest way. I don't have any respect for him. I have tried to cut him a lot of slack and tried to help him but he is impervieous to it all.

Oliver, IMO, is pathological in his view of America. He's a nice sort. I wouldn't mind having a beer with him but I don't have much use for his regular and single minded attacks against the US.

What's the point? I know what his position is on any subject before he announces it and I can actually make an argument in support of his postion better than he can. Not only that but I can be reasoned with.

So, of what value is Oliver to the JREF? I'll tell you, he's good practice. I don't expect anything I say to sway him. I'm just interested to see what arguments he can muster.

If a person wants respect they have to earn it.
 
RandFan said:
Fair enough, let me tell you how I think. Oliver has one primary interest here at JREF. Critisizing the US. He does so by refusing to see any argument that is contrary to his world view. On top of that his arguments are poorly defined and his documentation is often poor.

[..]
Click to expand...

Wait one second.
Well, yes, Oliver can be biased, but, trust me, he is much more in line with the way of thinking of many Europeans, Japanese, South Americans, not to mention Arabs that I have met.
And, I did not meet thousands of them, but, I would say I have met quite a " statistical significative " sample of them.
Now, Oliver can be mono-tematic, and criticize America 95% of the time he posts.
So what?
Does this make his posts less interesting?
Maybe is criticizing America, as he sees that, for this very topic, his positions are quite different from the rest of the ( mostly American ) public of the posters of the JREF.
I also, when I find the majoity of the posters who have an opinion different from mine, keep posting in that direction until I really get the meaning of why so many people think different.
Please, remember that Oliver` s way of thinking is in minority here, but probably not in a Brazilian, French, Japanese, Korean, Italian forum.

Now, I do not expect you to agree with Oliver, not even to respect him, but to try to deal with him looking at what he says, yes, that you should do.
Please, look at post number 983.
Oliver posted a very interesting question:
" I understand very well that the US has thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran isn't allowed to even have one "
That is an interesting, and very legitimate question that not only Oliver, but a lot of people outside the US are asking.
Why the US yes and Iran no?

Disclaimer
I do not think that Iran sould have nuclear weapons.
I think that Iran should be prevented, maybe even with the use of force, to get nuclear technology
End of disclaimer

Now, if you look at the replies to this very interesting question:
- Ziggurat missed completely the point, saying that Iran had agreed not to have any.
So, even better, why should not Iran have nuclear technology if they even signed the NPT?
- Pardalis did not answer;
- Gurdur made fun of him;
- Jsiv did not reply;
- ..
you see what I mean..
Now, I do not agree that Iran should have nukes, but I would have replied like this:

It is currently too dangerous for Iran to have nukes.
It is not fair, maybe, to prevent them to have nuclear technology, but, considering that many extremists are living in Iran, the lack of civil freedoms in Iran, the speeches of Mr. Ahmadinejad about " death to Israel ", many people would not feel confortable having a nuclear Iran.

As you see nobody addresses the point Oliver was making..
 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
Now, Oliver can be mono-tematic, and criticize America 95% of the time he posts.
So what?
Click to expand...
Criticism followed by an actual discussion would be fine, but he's not interested in actually learning anything. He's still claiming it is against the law in the US to swear, for example.
 
Matteo Martini said:
In defense of Oliver

Now I feel compelled to write this, as I have seen this behaviour over and over.
Basically, I do not agree with everything that Oliver says, but I found what he writes interesting, not trivial, often very well documented, and expressed in an uninsulting way.
Now, instead of being happy for having a point of view which is different from the usual one, in this forum, it seems to me that you guys are not interested in getting the core of his opinion, and to work on this.
That, does not mean that you have to agree with all he says, just take note of an interesting opinion.
What I see, is most of the people, just engage him in matters of minimal importance, for example, the meaning of the word " theocracy ", instead of try to analyze his opinion in full, which makes me wonder if the hidden ( and subconscious ) intention of this forum is to discuss and welcome different opinions, or to support each other opinions, bashing all the others.
Now, I may be wrong, and I may not be the person who writes this, I just felt the need to clarify how I think.
Click to expand...

RandFan said:
Fair enough, let me tell you how I think. Oliver has one primary interest here at JREF. Critisizing the US. He does so by refusing to see any argument that is contrary to his world view. On top of that his arguments are poorly defined and his documentation is often poor.

I start threads critical of America and Bush. I join in critisism of my country and Bush by people who are not American. I'm fine with that. I really am.

I don't care for a guy who won't debate in an intellectually honest way. I don't have any respect for him. I have tried to cut him a lot of slack and tried to help him but he is impervieous to it all.

Oliver, IMO, is pathological in his view of America. He's a nice sort. I wouldn't mind having a beer with him but I don't have much use for his regular and single minded attacks against the US.

What's the point? I know what his position is on any subject before he announces it and I can actually make an argument in support of his postion better than he can. Not only that but I can be reasoned with.

So, of what value is Oliver to the JREF? I'll tell you, he's good practice. I don't expect anything I say to sway him. I'm just interested to see what arguments he can muster.

If a person wants respect they have to earn it.
Click to expand...

Matteo Martini said:
Wait one second.
Well, yes, Oliver can be biased, but, trust me, he is much more in line with the way of thinking of many Europeans, Japanese, South Americans, not to mention Arabs that I have met.
And, I did not meet thousands of them, but, I would say I have met quite a " statistical significative " sample of them.
Now, Oliver can be mono-tematic, and criticize America 95% of the time he posts.
So what?
Does this make their posts less interesting?
Maybe is criticizing America, as he sees that, for this very topic, his positions are quite different from the rest of the ( mostly American ) public of the posters of the JREF.
I also, when I find the majoity of the posters who have an opinion different from mine, keep posting in that direction until I really get the meaning of why so many people think different.
Please, remember that Oliver` s way of thinking is in minority here, but probably not in a Brazilian, French, Japanese, Korean, Italian forum.
Click to expand...
WildCat said:
Criticism followed by an actual discussion would be fine, but he's not interested in actually learning anything. He's still claiming it is against the law in the US to swear, for example.
Click to expand...




:popcorn2
 
WildCat said:
Criticism followed by an actual discussion would be fine, but he's not interested in actually learning anything. He's still claiming it is against the law in the US to swear, for example.
Click to expand...

Who cares of what he is interested to do?
I am interested in learning myself from Oliver ( as well from RandFan, you and everybody else ).
And, if somebody starts to post incoherent posts, just send him f*** **f, like I did with Ion..
 
Matteo Martini said:
...trust me, he is much more in line with the way of thinking of many Europeans, Japanese, South Americans, not to mention Arabs that I have met.
Click to expand...
Why is this important? Are you arguing ad populum.

Now, I do not expect you to agree with Oliver, not even to respect him, but to try to deal with him looking at what he says, yes, that you should do.
Click to expand...
If and when Oliver will argue in an intellectually honest way I will respect him. Not until. I'm sorry Matteo but there is a limit to being obtuse and obfuscating. I don't have to pretend that the guy doesn't do that. He does.

Please, look at post number 983.
Oliver posted a very interesting question:
" I understand very well that the US has thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran isn't allowed to even have one "
That is an interesting, and very legitimate question that not only Oliver, but a lot of people outside the US are asking.

Why the US yes and Iran no?
Click to expand...
Sure, and I'm willing to engage Oliver to some degree. The problem is that I don't expect him to take my posts seriously or consider what I have to say. Discussion or debate with Oliver is like discussion and debate with a see and say.
  • He's robotic.
  • He's single minded.
  • He can't be swayed by argument even when the facts are against him.
Disclaimer
I do not think that Iran sould have nuclear weapons.
I think that Iran should be prevented, maybe even with the use of force, to get nuclear technology
End of disclaimer

Now, if you look at the replies to this very interesting question:
- Ziggurat missed completely the point, saying that Iran had agreed not to have any.
So, even better, why should not Iran have nuclear technology if they even signed the NPT?
- Pardalis did not answer;
- Gurdur made fun of him;
- Jsiv did not reply;
- ..
you see what I mean..
Click to expand...

Folks at JREF are fair. They get tired of individuals that are not interested in contributing to a discussion but are here simply for their ego.

Oh, BTW, just so you know, there used to be 3 pro-American posters that were treated much worse than Oliver. Jedi Knight, American and Genghis Khan. Search American and REO Speedwagon sometime. That guy got hell day in and day out. I helped give it to him.

It has nothing to do with pro-American or anti-American. It has to do with whether or not a person will discuss issues honestly and not keep bringing up the same tired arguments day in and day out.

Oliver doesn't care what the answers are. If he did he would figure out when he is out of gas.

Let me ask you a question, there are a lot of people on this forum whose politics are diametrically opposite of mine, people I debate with, people I discuss things with, why don't they treat me the way Oliver is treated?

Why don't I treat them the way I treat Oliver?
As you see nobody addresses the point Oliver was making..
Click to expand...
When Oliver is willing to act like an adult then he will be treated as one.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Why is this important? Are you arguing ad populum.
Click to expand...

This is an extremely interesting reply.
Then, you do not think that the opinion of many Europeans, Japanese, South Americans, not to mention Arabs is important?

RandFan said:
If and when Oliver will argue in an intellectually honest way I will respect him. Not until. I'm sorry Matteo but there is a limit to being obtuse and obfuscating. I don't have to pretend that the guy doesn't do that. He does.

[..]

When Oliver is willing to act like an adult then he will be treated as one.
Click to expand...

OK.
Taken note.
 
Matteo Martini said:
This is an extremely interesting reply.
Then, you do not think that the opinion of many Europeans, Japanese, South Americans, not to mention Arabs is important?
Click to expand...
Of course. What that significance is, is another thing.

Matteo, how do you know what the opinion of many Europeans, Japanese, South Americans and not to mention Arabs is?

If these people really believe that George Bush is a devil then I'm more worried about the leadership of those countries and their adherence to superstition than anything.

Taken note.
Click to expand...
I like Oliver. He has a very good disposition and never, that I can recall, loses his temper. I can't say that about me.

I'll tell you what. I'll be much more careful to listen to what he has to say and give him the benefit of the doubt and respond in a more objective manner and try and be less antagonizing.

Thanks for being willing to bring it up.
 
RandFan said:
Of course. What that significance is, is another thing.

Matteo, how do you know what the opinion of many Europeans, Japanese, South Americans and not to mention Arabs is?

If these people really believe that George Bush is a devil then I'm more worried about the leadership of those countries and their adherence to superstition than anything.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, they do not believe George Bush is the devil, but, almost 90% of the non-Americans I know, have a negative disposition ( to say the least ) against the current ( and past ) American administration.
You should take this into consideration ( not my opinion, but polls in other countries )
 
Matteo Martini said:
This is an extremely interesting reply.
Then, you do not think that the opinion of many Europeans, Japanese, South Americans, not to mention Arabs is important?
Click to expand...

It is straight forward; ad populum is a logical fallacy. RandFan was correct in calling it what it is. It does not make a difference to the facts if these opinions are of any "importance." That is an emotional argument. At one time, a lot of people believed the Earth was flat, but it didn't change the fact that the Earth is not flat.

Argumentum ad populum
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:

"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."

"For thousands of years people have believed in Jesus and the Bible. This belief has had a great impact on their lives. What more evidence do you need that Jesus was the Son of God? Are you trying to tell those people that they are all mistaken fools?"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#populum
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom