|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'll take Leaf's word over yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course you will. You will likely defend Leaf's allegations to the death, and even raise your voice in uncontrolled outrage while doing so. I in turn will reject and dismiss your position because everything you think you know relies on Leaf's post-career recollections and allegations.
Further, you seem to be arguing that the Iranian govt -- indeed, the entire right-thinking world, if America is truly analogous to Nazi Germany -- has a just cause to wage war against the United States and, of course, Israel, the latter certainly representing Tehran's position today. Therefore, you are making a case for war, and other acts-of-war, including justifying Iran's seizing the American embassy and holding its diplomatic personnel hostage in 1979, just from the other side. At the end of the day, then, your position, and the results it produces, do not differ from an American or Israeli hawkish position. Is this your intention? If not, consider modifying your allegations and rhetorical style. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Of course you will. I in turn will reject and dismiss your position because everything you think you know relies on Leaf's post-career recollections and allegations. |
Unfortunately for you, Mr. Leaf (as the CIA's chief analyst on Iran during the Shah's dictatorship) is more qualified to present a version of what happened than you are.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Further, you seem to be arguing that the Iranian govt -- indeed, the entire right-thinking world, if America is truly analogous to Nazi Germany -- has a just cause to wage war against the United States and, of course, Israel, the latter certainly representing Tehran's position today. Therefore, you are making a case for war, and other acts-of-war, including justifying Iran's seizing the American embassy and holding its diplomatic personnel hostage in 1979, just from the other side. At the end of the day, then, your position, and the results it produces, do not differ from an American or Israeli hawkish position. Is this your intention? If not, consider modifying your allegations and rhetorical style. |
That whole paragraph is incoherent babble.
Who says America is analogous to Nazi Germany?
I'm against anyone attacking anyone. In short, I'm against anything detremental to the lives and limbs of our brave men and women in military uniform, and I'm against anything that causes $600/barrel oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="RJjr"][quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
That doesn't mean the US is responsible for everyt
| Quote: |
| The CIA and Mossad trained SAVAK and we financed them. |
As I said before it doesn't mean the US and Israel were responsible for everything they did. and SAVAK hated Khomeni types who were worse.
| Sunday Herald (Scotland) wrote: |
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defence Dep-artment documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.'
This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chem ical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.
Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licences issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programmes.' |
that doesn't change that most of Saddam's weapons were from the USSR and France.
By the way were those items chemcial and biological weapons when the US had them?
Or did they have other purposes .
Anyway Iran went after the US before the US let Saddam buy anything.
| Quote: |
| Yes, most of the time, but this decade has been one collossal phuck-up, just like the Vietnam War. |
the cold war was tough.
| Quote: |
| No, we went to Vietnam. Over 50,000 Americans died while we were there. How many Americans were killed by Vietnamese after we left? Zero. Defensive war my ass. |
cold war was defensive cause the Soviets were out to destroy the US.
North Vietnam killed just as many and North Vietnams invasion of South Vietnam was illegal.
By the way why are you in Korea ? What is the difference between the Korean war and the Vietnam war?
| Quote: |
| Men in my family farmed before the Cold War and after the Cold War. I'd probably be here farming even if the Cold War hadn't happened. |
who knows you might be working in a collective farm.
| Quote: |
| Paul Wolfowitz, one of the instigators of the war in Iraq, says the invasion was about of oil. Alan Greenspan also says it's about oil. Nearly all of us understand the war is about oil, and it makes our invasion of Iraq eerily similar to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. |
Greenspan later backtacked on that claim
| Quote: |
Greenspan Backtracks On Iraq War Oil Claim
NEW YORK, Sept. 17, 2007 |
| Quote: |
We've already caused more Iraqi deaths than Saddam did, and there's no guarantee that the religious fanatics who will take over will be any better than Uday and Qusay. |
Saddam would have killed off the Kurds . and invaded Kuwait
The US isn't reponsible for deaths by the insurgents . IF all of Iraq would just surrended to the insurgents then they wouldn't attack.
By the way RJR you don't even know my history.
Anway this war the real reason for the war.
| Quote: |
4 March 2008
Stratfor�s analysis of US reasons for invading and occupying Iraq
Filed under: Iraq & Afghanistan Wars, iran, possible war with � Tags: enduring bases, iraq war, strategic forecasting, stratfor � Fabius Maximus @ 12:01 am
Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (aka Stratfor) has built a well-deserved reputation for reporting, analysis, and forecasting geopolitical events. But just as valuable, I believe that they provide a reliable window into the thinking of US corporate and political elites. In this respect they have proven especially prescient about Iraq. Five years after the invasion most Americans do not understand why we are there, which Stratfor clearly saw even before the first airstrikes. We planned to occupy Iraq and build bases from which to project power throughout the Middle East. For more on this see yesterday�s post.
This widespread blindness of Americans about the goals of this long and expensive war is one of its many anomalies. Needless to say, none of this has surfaced in the Presidential campaign � despite its record length and unprecedented media coverage. Best not to confuse and upset the proles.
Here are excerpts from Stratfor�s reports on Iraq, from before the invasion. Note the increasing focus on bases.
�Smoke and Mirrors: The United States, Iraq and Deception� (21 January 2003)
However, attacking and occupying Iraq achieves three things:
It takes out of the picture a potential ally for al Qaeda, one with sufficient resources to multiply the militant group�s threat. Whether Iraq has been an ally in the past is immaterial - it is the future that counts.
It places U.S. forces in the strategic heart of the Middle East, capable of striking al Qaeda forces whenever U.S. intelligence identifies them.
The Bush administration � has excellent strategic reasons for wanting to conquer Iraq. The government has chosen not to enunciate those motives for a simple reason: If it did, many of the United States� allies would oppose the war. Washington�s goal - the occupation of Iraq - would strengthen the United States enormously, and this is something that many inside Washington�s coalition don�t want to see happen. Therefore, rather than crisply stating the strategic goal, the government has tried to ensnare its allies in a web of pseudo-legalism.
�Iraq: Is Peace an Option?� (25 February 2003)
The strategic challenge is tremendous. After Sept. 11, the United States did not have a war-fighting strategy. The strategy that was first adopted - a combination of defending the homeland and attacking al Qaeda directly - has proven difficult if not ineffective. Al Qaeda is a sparse, global network operating in a target-rich environment. A defense of the homeland is simply impractical �
Washington�s decision to redefine the conflict was driven by the ineffectiveness of this response. The goal has been to compel nations to crack down on citizens who are enabling al Qaeda � Invading Iraq was a piece of this strategy. Iraq, the most strategic country in the region, would provide a base of operations from which to pressure countries like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Iraq was a piece of the solution, but far from the solution as a whole. Nevertheless, the conquest and occupation of Iraq would be at once a critical stepping-stone, a campaign in a much longer war and a proof of concept for dealing with al Qaeda.
�Iraq War Plans� (11 March 2003)
In early September 2002, Stratfor published a war plan series in which we laid out four possible U.S. strategies for invading Iraq. The war aims listed at that time consisted of
Replacing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein�s regime with one compatible with U.S. interests.
Maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq so that it remains a counterweight to Iran, and so that nationalist ambitions by ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq do not disrupt U.S.-Turkish relations.
Eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction by having total direct access to all of Iraq.
Changing the perception of American effectiveness in the Islamic world.
Destroying collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Minimizing U.S. casualties.
We since have added a seventh war goal, which is to create bases within Iraq for future power projection in the region.
�After Iraq: The Ongoing Crisis� (23 April 2003) � This the formula for our goals that they have used since this date.
Stratfor has argued that the United States had two fundamental reasons for invading Iraq:
To transform the psychology of the Islamic world, which had perceived the United States as in essence weak and unwilling to take risks to achieve its ends.
To use Iraq as a strategic base of operations from which to confront Islamic regimes that are either incapable of or unwilling to deny al Qaeda and other Islamist groups access to enabling resources.
This does not mean that Stratfor�s people are magicians. Our intentions have been clear from the beginning, which is why I say we are blind not to see it. From �Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq�, New York Times (20 April 2003):
The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.
American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/stratfor-iraq-goals/ |
Anyway RJR the US is at war cause the Bathists , the KHomeni followers and the Al Qaedists won't give up their war.
Let them give up their war and then there won't be any problem.
By the way RJR if you care so much for US soldiers then why do you apologize for the Iranian regime that been targeting them for more than 20 years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
North Vietnam killed just as many and North Vietnams invasion of South Vietnam was illegal.
By the way why are you in Korea ? What is the difference between the Korean war and the Vietnam war? |
How was our invasion of Vietnam more legal than the Vietnamese invasion of Vietnam?
Why am I in Korea? I didn't know I was. Am I? I don't think either war was in America's national interest and I wish the American soldiers who died in Korea and Vietnam were alive and playing with grandchildren today.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| By the way RJR if you care so much for US soldiers then why do you apologize for the Iranian regime that been targeting them for more than 20 years? |
I have no apologies for the Iranian regime, especially since I bear no guilt for the wrongs they've committed. They've clearly done a lot of things they shouldn't, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that my own country hasn't caused problems in Iran. In fact, I believe that if our government and the British government hadn't gotten Mosaddeq overthrown, we'd be looking at a vastly different Iran today not ran by crazy religious assholes.
In any case, Iran and Israel are each major problems for the USA. Iran wants our soldiers to bleed and our economy to suffer, while Israel bleeds our soldiers by using them as proxies and drains our economy by leaching billions of dollars from American taxpayers.
If Israel and Iran want to fight each other, maybe they'll destroy each other if we're lucky. I'd like to see our ships come home with our soldiers on them before that war starts, because Israel is counting on American soldiers to absorb the casualites instead of its own soldiers.
Our taxpayers and military can't afford anymore sacrifice for foreign nations when our dollars and soldiers are needed right here in the USA. It's time to rebuild America and get some mass transit built, alternative fuels developed, and our debt reduced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="RJjr"][quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
| Quote: |
| How was our invasion of Vietnam more legal than the Vietnamese invasion of Vietnam? |
well the communists ought not to have tired to conquer them.
| Quote: |
| Why am I in Korea? I didn't know I was. Am I? I don't think either war was in America's national interest and I wish the American soldiers who died in Korea and Vietnam were alive and playing with grandchildren today. |
of course but if the US doesn't fight the cold war then the Soviets conquer the US. You can't pick and choose and monday morning QB at will.
| Quote: |
| I have no apologies for the Iranian regime, especially since I bear no guilt for the wrongs they've committed. They've clearly done a lot of things they shouldn't, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that my own country hasn't caused problems in Iran. In fact, I believe that if our government and the British government hadn't gotten Mosaddeq overthrown, we'd be looking at a vastly different Iran today not ran by crazy religious assholes. |
sure the US made mistakes in the cold war but you can't pick and choose. IF the US didn't fight it at all the Soviets would have won.
| Quote: |
| In any case, Iran and Israel are each major problems for the USA. Iran wants our soldiers to bleed and our economy to suffer, while Israel bleeds our soldiers by using them as proxies and drains our economy by leaching billions of dollars from American taxpayers. |
I don't think the US ought to give Israel 3 billion a year the US can't afford it.
Of course the US spends about at least that much keeping forces in South Korea.
That being said you think that Iran and Al Qaeda would make nice if the US didn't give Israel 3b a year?
and anyway why ought the US give in to Al Qaeda , the Bathists or the Khomeni followers?
Al Qaeda fights for the Caliphate, Saddam and Khomeni wanted to conquer the mideast.
They would use mideast oil to blackmail the US. You think the US ought to just let them have it? Why?
| Quote: |
| If Israel and Iran want to fight each other, maybe they'll destroy each other if we're lucky. I'd like to see our ships come home with our soldiers on them before that war starts, because Israel is counting on American soldiers to absorb the casualites instead of its own soldiers. |
Iran wants to conquer the gulf and the mideast. Why ought they be allowed to do so?
| Quote: |
| Our taxpayers and military can't afford anymore sacrifice for foreign nations when our dollars and soldiers are needed right here in the USA. It's time to rebuild America and get some mass transit built, alternative fuels developed, and our debt reduced. |
Just above you said the war was about oil ? So you are changing the blame for the war now?
The US economy can not function to its potential if it is under threat.
At any rate s not sacrficing for other nations it is fighting to force Bathists , Khomeni lovers and Al Qaedists to give up their war. Why ought the US give in to them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| well the communists ought not to have tired to conquer them. |
I wish North Vietnam wouldn't have invaded South Vietnam either, as a lot of lives of good human beings were lost. But at the same time, the communists' victory didn't cause "dominos to fall" and America go communist the way everyone worried.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| of course but if the US doesn't fight the cold war then the Soviets conquer the US. You can't pick and choose and monday morning QB at will. |
The USSR would've never conquered the US. If they couldn't conquer Afghanistan right next door, how would they have crossed the ocean and conquered the US with 10 times the number of armed badasses ready to kick Soviet azz?
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| sure the US made mistakes in the cold war but you can't pick and choose. IF the US didn't fight it at all the Soviets would have won. |
Well, I just did. But again, the USSR would've never conquered the US. If they couldn't conquer lowly Afghanistan right next door, how then would they have crossed the ocean and conquered America with so much military technology and with 10 times the number of guntoting Patriots ready to rumble?
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| That being said you think that Iran and Al Qaeda would make nice if the US didn't give Israel 3b a year? |
$3,000,000,000.00 could help a lot of Americans pay their mortgage. But when was the last time Israel gave a phuck about Americans?
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Just above you said the war was about oil ? So you are changing the blame for the war now?
The US economy can not function to its potential if it is under threat. |
Oil is the factor that got many on board, but the war was also broadly promoted by the Israel-firsters in American politics (not to be confused with most Jewish-Americans who were overwhelmingly against the invasion of Iraq).
The Iraq War is actually a pretty understandable phuck up. The first war in Iraq looked like a cakewalk, so most Americans thought the second war in Iraq would simply be a rerun. I think most Americans thought the war would last two or three months and the price of oil would fall. But now that we've seen the price of oil go from its pre-Iraq invasion price of $30 a barrel to its current unprecented price of $139 since the invasion of Iraq, a new precedent has been set that strongly suggests that the price of oil will skyrocket if is we expand the war to OPEC's #2 oil producer.
While I'm certainly not a fan of the assholes running Iran, the economies of both America and the world in general are on the brink right now with record oil prices. I think it's a crapshoot on how high oil prices would go in a war with Iran, but I think we can agree that it's certain that the economies of everywhere in the world (except for the neo-Stone Age village discovered in Brazil) would be devestated by whatever the new oil price would be.
As an aside, another factor that nobody seems to mention is food prices. They've gone up astronomically in the past year and I think we need to ask ourselves how many people in the world would starve, if any, should we (or less likely, Israel alone) attack Iran. I mean, poor people in Bumfuck may not be our people, but they're still human beings that should be taken into consideration.
Last edited by RJjr on Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:58 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rjr: you read history backwards and pass today's judgement over yesterday's decisions as if yesterday's people saw all that we see from today's perspective.
About as unsophisticated as it gets. I have freshman students who approach the Cold War's origins and its subsequent course more maturely than that.
This seems worth repeating, as it apparently comes as news to you...
| Gopher wrote: |
...go back to June 1950.
North Korea invaded South Korea, with Stalin's backing and Mao's knowledge. The Truman Administration concluded that this, unlike Czechoslovakia, proved that the international Communist conspiracy would no longer settle for subversion but rather had now decided to embrace open conquest to achieve its goals. Truman responded by remilitarizing the United States via NSC-68, by dispatching a massive army to counter this invasion, by dispatching a naval force to protect Taiwan, which the Theater Commander, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, called "an unsinkable aircraft carrier," and by funding the French fight against the Vietminh in Indochina.
This, in the Truman Administration and its successors' minds, checked the Communist advance, and stabilized strategic Japanese and French positions for the Cold War's duration.
The situation escalated, globally, I mean, and it spun out of control, especially Eisenhower through Reagan, and especially after Fidel Castro helped bring the Cold War to Latin America and the Caribbean. But, in the Vietnamese case, there was a clear policy: containment -- at least until Nixon restored relations with Mao's China and made Southeast Asian security largely irrelevant. |
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Rjr: you read history backwards and pass today's judgement over yesterday's decisions as if yesterday's people saw all that we see from today's perspective.
About as unsophisticated as it gets. I have freshman students who approach Cold War history more maturely than that. |
Okay, today's price of oil is $138.54. What will the price of oil be if the US and/or Israel attack Iran? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
| Okay, today's price of oil is $138.54. What will the price of oil be if the US and/or Israel attack Iran? |
What issue or issues exactly are you discussing here, on this thread? The Cold War's origins? Whether the Americans ought to have intervened in Southeast Asia? Iranian-American relations post-1950s? The Russians in Afghanistan? Whether the Israelis dominate American foreign policy formulation? What will become of the price of oil if the United States and/or Israel attacked Iran? Hard to follow you, you jump around so much. Please articulate the specific issues you want to discuss and I will respond once you do that.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:07 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| RJjr wrote: |
| Okay, today's price of oil is $138.54. What will the price of oil be if the US and/or Israel attack Iran? |
What issue or issues exactly are you discussing here, on this thread? Please articulate them and I will respond to those. |
I've asked you what the price of oil will be if the US and/or Israel attack Iran. It doesn't get much simpler than that, Gopher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are asking me to predict the future, then. No, I do not do that. Guess we are finished now.
Best.
Mises: as far as the issue you raised when you created this thread, I think "maybe." But multiple alternatives/possibilities still remain.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:10 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
You are asking me to predict the future, then. No, I do not do that. Guess we are finished now.
Best. |
You want Iran to be attacked and you don't even want to take into consideration the price of oil. I've probably taught Kindergartners more mature than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
| You want Iran to be attacked... |
Show me where I ever said anything even hinting this. I believe I have already offered my views on the issue "Should the United States attack Iran?" multiple times here.
Your style is sloppy enough. I might ask whether you were BLT come back if I did not know better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| RJjr wrote: |
| You want Iran to be attacked... |
Show me where I ever said anything even hinting this. I believe I have already offered my views on the issue "Should the United States attack Iran?" multiple times here.
Your style is sloppy enough. I might ask whether you were BLT come back if I did not know better. |
This thread is about Israel attacking Iran. If you tried to offer an opposing view, you weren't very articulate. That's not surprising coming from a guy who wrote the following jewel of a babbling paragraph:
| Gopher wrote: |
| Further, you seem to be arguing that the Iranian govt -- indeed, the entire right-thinking world, if America is truly analogous to Nazi Germany -- has a just cause to wage war against the United States and, of course, Israel, the latter certainly representing Tehran's position today. Therefore, you are making a case for war, and other acts-of-war, including justifying Iran's seizing the American embassy and holding its diplomatic personnel hostage in 1979, just from the other side. At the end of the day, then, your position, and the results it produces, do not differ from an American or Israeli hawkish position. Is this your intention? If not, consider modifying your allegations and rhetorical style. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
