Time to kick Iran

[jsiv]

I certainly hope Norway has plans drawn up for how to take down Sweden if it becomes necessary.

 

[Oliver]

Yes, information from an irrelevant source is always persuasive. Thanks.

Good luck with that.

I see - non-patriotic non-American Sources are irrelevant...
So that's how you ended up in a "quagmire" ... I understand ....

 

[Oliver]

That isn't news. I bet the Pentagon has lots of different plans for how to hit Iran. Probably have a one-week blitz plan, a one-night blitz plan, a one-month blitz plan, and a no-down-payment, easy monthly installment blitz plan. Planning is part of their job. The more plans they have, the more options policymakers have. Having a plan doesn't mean that they're intending on implementing any particular plan. But at least we've got a plan. Tell me: if Iran refuses to back down from its nuclear ambitions, does Germany have a plan for how to deal with Iran? No, I don't think so. Unless "let's hope the Americans do something about it" counts as a plan.

The official Statements about Iran from the German minister of foreign relations are here:

http://www.germany.info/relaunch/politics/speeches/021907.html

 

[RandFan]

I see - non-patriotic non-American Sources are irrelevant... So that's how you ended up in a quagmire ... I understand ....

Again, you are being dishonest. I have accepted and agreed with the criticisms made by Darat, The Fool, AUP, Zep and many other non-American sources.

You are simply wrong and are making a strawman. Not surprising of course.

 

[jsiv]

I have a simple question, Oliver.

Do you think Norway is justified in having plans drawn up and ready for various attack (and defense) scenarios against nations that could potentially become a threat in the future (be it Russia, Sweden, Liechtenstein, or anyone else)?

 

[Oliver]

Again, you are being dishonest. I have accepted and agreed with the criticisms made by Darat, The Fool, AUP, Zep and many other non-American sources.

You are simply wrong and are making a strawman. Not surprising of course.

No - I was paraphrasing the fact that the US-Media lacks to criticize
themselves. That's indeed how you ended up in a "quagmire". And the
funny thing about that is that no one got his ass kicked since or for
9/11. You probably know that the US got all sympathy in the world
after the attacks - including mine.

But the Bush administration managed it to kick these sympathies to
death. And that's because selfish interests - not in the name of the
Americans like you.

So if you think that my nuisance is "dishonesty", you are free to hold
this opinion. But I don't agree with the Idea that I'm anti-American
just because the lack of actions against the current Administration
bothers me.

 

[Oliver]

I have a simple question, Oliver.

Do you think Norway is justified in having plans drawn up and ready for various attack (and defense) scenarios against nations that could potentially become a threat in the future (be it Russia, Sweden, Liechtenstein, or anyone else)?

No - and neither do I care about Germanies plans in case of a threat.
But we know from the current administration that this aren't empty
words - that's why I complained to the white house if you missed that
speech:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/29/bush-ramps-up-iran-rhetoric-warns-of-nuclear-holocaust/

It's sick to declare an enemy that doesn't pose a threat to themselves.
Don't you agree?

 

[jsiv]

No - and neither do I care about Germanies plans in case of a threat.

[...]

It's sick to declare an enemy that doesn't pose a threat to themselves.
Don't you agree?

No, I don't agree. At all.

I would be angry if the people I elected to run the country didn't plan for all possibilities, including possible future armed conflicts with various nations -- especially those that show signs of being a higher risk. That is their job, and the world changes very fast. One must be prepared.

Are you seriously of the belief that one shouldn't start drawing any plans until after the bombs start dropping and potentially make your assets unavailable?

 

[RandFan]

So if you think that my nuisance is "dishonesty", you are free to hold
this opinion. But I don't agree with the Idea that I'm anti-American
just because the lack of actions against the current Administration
bothers me.

Again, you are being dishonest. I never said your "nusance" is dishonesty. I'm saying your specific actions are dishonest. When you take what I say and turn it around to mean something else that is dishonest.

As for America, if there was some degree of proportionality, if you cared about any of the many other serious problems in the world ALONG WITH your concern about the American administration then you would have some credibility.

• There is Genocide in Darfur.
• Iran is a serious concern to many in the world community.
• North Korea suffers from serious human rights abuses.
• Palestine and Israel are locked in a struggle that is causing great harm to the people of those countries.

Please feel free to critisize America.
Please feel free to critisize America.
Please feel free to critisize America.
Please feel free to critisize America.

But demonstrate that your critisism is born of a sincere interest in the welfare of humanity and not just a pathological obsession with a Democracy that has a constitution, free speech, free press and term limits for its leaders.

No, its not perfect but we have proven capable of righting our wrongs (see Watergate, see George Bush's low poll numbers).

You unwillingness to post as if these are not indeed facts is what makes you dishonest.

 

[Oliver]

No, I don't agree. At all.

I would be angry if the people I elected to run the country didn't plan for all possibilities, including possible future armed conflicts with various nations -- especially those that show signs of being a higher risk. That is their job, and the world changes very fast. One must be prepared.

Are you seriously of the belief that one shouldn't start drawing any plans until after the bombs start dropping and potentially make your assets unavailable?

What "Higher risks" to America? Are you kidding me?
Explain:

 

[jsiv]

What "Higher risks" to America? Are you kidding me?
Explain:

What's that?

We were talking about whether you believe Norway was justified.

 

[Oliver]

Again, you are being dishonest. I never said your "nusance" is dishonesty. I'm saying your specific actions are dishonest. When you take what I say and turn it around to mean something else that is dishonest.

As for America, if there was some degree of proportionality, if you cared about any of the many other serious problems in the world ALONG WITH your concern about the American administration then you would have some credibility.

• There is Genocide in Darfur.
• Iran is a serious concern to many in the world community.
• North Korea suffers from serious human rights abuses.
• Palestine and Israel are locked in a struggle that is causing great harm to the people of those countries.

Please feel free to critisize America.
Please feel free to critisize America.
Please feel free to critisize America.
Please feel free to critisize America.

But demonstrate that your critisism is born of a sincere interest in the welfare of humanity and not just a pathological obsession with a Democracy that has a constitution, free speech, free press and term limits for its leaders.

No, its not perfect but we have proven capable of righting our wrongs (see Watergate, see George Bush's low poll numbers).

You unwillingness to post as if these are not indeed facts is what makes you dishonest.

You don't understand:

"The average criminal is black, 25 years old and male".

Your logic is that we should attack or imprison all these guys because
they pose a threat to you.

That is no fact whatsoever. Once Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons,
you're factually right to say they are a threat. But to say "All Threats are middle-eastern,
Anti-Israeli and muslim" then you're falling into the "Black, 25, male" fallacy.

Do you understand my logic?

 

[Oliver]

What's that?

We were talking about whether you believe Norway was justified.

We talk about that once Norway acts preemptively, Jsiv.
As long it's defense based of "in case of a real threat", I'm completely fine with that...

 

[jsiv]

Once Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons,
you're factually right to say they are a threat

I don't think you understand what the word "threat" means.

 

[RandFan]

Your logic is that we should attack or imprison all these guys because they pose a threat to you.

No, that is not my logic at all.

My logic is that we should use proportionality in our efforts.

Read it again.

{jeez}

Do you understand my logic?

Yes, I understand that it is spurious.

How do you go from "proportionality" to "all"?

Slow down Oliver. Not only are your arguments wrong but you are compounding your error with poor reading comprehension.

 

[Oliver]

I don't think you understand what the word "threat" means.

Threat means: "Hey ho - it's me, Ahmadinejad. I will attack the US once I have
Nuclear Weapons ... Woo Hoo!"

Well, what is the threat in your opinion? Isn't Russia with all it's nuclear weapons
a threat anymore - after US-Citizens were scared about the nuclear threat for
decades?

You know what I mean - please don't play dumb just to disagree...

 

[Oliver]

No, that is not my logic at all.

My logic is that we should use proportionality in our efforts.

Read it again.

{jeez}

Yes, I understand that it is spurious.

How do you go from "proportionality" to "all"?

Slow down Oliver. Not are you only are your arguments wrong but you are compounding your error with poor reading comprehension.

"Proportionally".

Does that mean to interfere preemptively? If so, you indeed fall into the
"You know what, that guy is black, 25 and male as well".

Explain the Iranian threat to me ... in "Proportionally" terms ...

 

[RandFan]

"Proportionally".

Does that mean to interfere preemptively? If so, you indeed fall into the
"You know what, that guy is black, 25 and male as well".

Explain the Iranian threat to me ... in "Proportionally" terms ...

Yes, like you would understand it if I did.

I'd prefer to talk to some adults for awhile now if you don't mind.

 

[Oliver]

Yes, like you would understand it if I did.

I'd prefer to talk to some adults for awhile now if you don't mind.

So you're not even able to explain an "imaginary" threat to a non-adult person.
Well, I see... Your wisdom is endlessly ...

 

[jsiv]

Well, what is the threat in your opinion? Isn't Russia with all it's nuclear weapons a threat anymore - after US-Citizens were scared about the nuclear threat for decades?

Russia is certainly still a threat, which is why we spend millions on preemptively sending out fighter jets and navy ships to watch them virtually every day.

Sweden isn't a threat today, but it could quickly become one if the world changes, so it makes perfect sense to plan for the possibility. That is why we have a military.

You know what I mean - please don't play dumb just to disagree...

I am not "playing dumb" or picking on you, I'm just pointing out that your alternative interpretation of words is a serious problem that makes debate difficult.


threat (thrĕt)

n.

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

You do not have to actually attack someone to be a threat.