Iran

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

No, the "I win" was to prove you wouldn't want me to have the last word, that was really me baiting you.

Grats, you are the internets puppet master.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Your method of debate ekiM is you elude to conclusions, then dodge away from them when you're called on it.

"Elude to conclusions" doesn't mean anything. Assuming you meant allude, you're clearly wrong. In the thread about atheism I was very clear and you were utterly unable to articulate a logical argument. In the Iraq thread I was very clear what my conclusions were and, unlike you, posted some hard and sourced evidence to back it up. In both those threads I made my conclusions clear and you ignored them and hallucinated some new ones for me you felt more comfortable arguing against.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

This Iran post is a classic example, you've posted how many times and completely ignored the thread's content.

In this thread I have been very clear that I am not going to debate anything with you. Can't really be an example of debating style, then.

This doesn't mean I'm not gonna respond to other people in threads you post in. This doesn't mean I'm not gonna respond to your lame digs.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

All you can do is complain about me. Either debate the issue or please stop posting.

I'm complaining about you becuase you're making lame and unsubstantiated attacks on me. Stop attacking me when I've made it very clear I don't want to talk to you and I'll stop defending myself.

[tu!]

*no comment*

[Circuitous]

Does anyone here besides Scuzzy think he wasn't baiting? Seriously?

[puppychow]

...and IRAN, IRAN so far away....couldnt get away (dododododododo).

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by Circuitous

Does anyone here besides Scuzzy think he wasn't baiting? Seriously?

I don't think he was baiting.
Here's why:

bait·ed, bait·ing, baits

1. To place a lure in (a trap) or on (a fishing hook).
2. To entice, especially by trickery or strategy.
3. To set dogs upon (a chained animal, for example) for sport.


Hmm... that doesn't sound like what Scuzzy was doing. Lets look at the definition for "asking" since that would be thoughts as to what scuzzy did.

ask

1. To put a question to: When we realized that we didn't know the answer, we asked the teacher.
2. To seek an answer to: ask a question.

Well there you have it. The very basic defintions of the words Scuzzy used sort of proves him right.
I know that you guys like a good argument sometimes, but for my lazy ass at least read the other guys post before arguing about it and making accusations. It gets boring to read that way. I'm interested in everyones opinons, especially since in this particular area most of you are better educated than myself. But seriously, I just had to post the definition of the word "ask" in order to prove something.

[Circuitous]

So you're saying he didn't have a strategy there, to try and pull halo/ekiM into this shit as well as the others?

Well, alright. No point debating about a debate that doesn't even need to exist. That's thrice-retarded.

[Dospac]

Damn, at the start of page 5 or 6, this thread was looking up! "Israel might already have nukes though, I'm not sure.. ya'll heard about that?" A promising turn of events, but alas thrown to the wayside.

Instead of make a cohesive argument, I'll just state a few fun facts which I'm sure you guys know but are just meant to point out the absurdity of this poll and this tough.. hard.. difficult.. impossible(whaa?) choice we face now with Iran.

-Iran approached the US secretly after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, attempting to open communications with the Bush administration. They were ignored. Their offers continued into the public realm over the years but the US leadership refused to participate or listen, at first just cuz, and later placing the precondition on any negotiations about their nuclear program that Iran would have to shut down their nuclear program before we negotiated with them about having one.

-Israel has nuclear weapons. They got them from us loong time ago. We secretly armed the Israelis with nukes. Not how to make them, or the resources to do so(though we also did this!). We just flat out gave them 100s of nukes. We got caught with our pants down when Israeli sources leaked this. Israel is still not recognized by the UN as a nation with nuclear weapons(as was pointed out earlier).

-I repeat, we secretly armed Israel with nuclear weapons, creating a rogue nuclear power in the middle of the region.

-Oh but they haaaaaaaaate Israel, it's so not fair! 'The enemy' has leaders who might be trying to get nukes, and if they were to do so, might pose a threat to Israel or the US? What the fuck would we do if they got nuclear weapons. Holy shit man, if a country that we didn't like or get along with got nukes, and they were also illegally occupying a neighboring region(ohho was I talkin about Israel or the US there? Does it even matter? har!).. Fuck man I don't know what we would do!! That would be some rough shit...

I don't think I even need to go further, though there is a whole lot more we fucked up on that directly relates to this current situation haha.. wow. Yes.. Yesssss. Feel the goodness everyone.

As to what we should do about Iran, I would start with listening to what they have to say and helping them towards achieving their peaceful goals. Their government won't hand out nukes as party favors if we're also invited to the party.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

In the atheism thread you were debating something completely different then I was, why you couldn't see that was beyond me. I tried, very patiently, to explain it to you, but you could not comprehend it.

The majority of our conversation was an attempt by you to articulate your argument, such as it was. You failed. You also failed to grasp numerous basic logical points. I know exactly why you can't comprehend this - you aren't too bright.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

In the Iraq thread I pointed out how you'd choose to quote part of material and take one conclusion and assume that an entire supposition was true, which it wasn't. I pointed that out, you didn't like it, so we agreed to disagree.

When forming opinions you ignore the available evidence. For example, the Senate report's conclusion on Salman Pak was very clear - there was absolutely no credible evidence that Al Qaeda were trained in Iraq. Any rational person would think it reasonable to conclude "Al Qaeda were not trained in Iraq" from this. You then triumphantly seized upon this conclusion as a demonstration of how I was dishonestly twisting the evidence to support my conclusion. You called me dishonest for drawing the rational conclusion that accorded exactly with the report's conclusions. That was the point where I realised you are beyond help.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I understand you can't accept other peoples beliefs, opinions, and arguments so therefor people who aren't "just like you" must be hallucinating.

I understand that you'd like to pretend that, but it's simply untrue. I often have productive exchanges of opinion with people who hold wildly different opinions from myself. I'm never going to be doing the same with you because you don't base your opinions on evidence or logic which means productive debate with you is impossible. I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not the only one around here who has this opinion of you.

This could run and run but it comes down to me not wanting to debate with you because I think you're a moron. You can disagree, or make lame claims that I'm afraid of matching wits with an unarmed man, if you like. I don't really give a toss.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

CLASSIC example. You're screaming bloody murder that this was the senates conclusion on Salman Pak, which I have never doubted. I completely agree that's what they said about Salman Pak, hell I fucking quoted it back to you, including the lines you conveniently left out.

I left them out because they weren't germane to the point - there is no reason whatsoever to think that Al Qaeda were trained in Iraq. You continue to imply I was somehow being dishonest by not quoting the entire thing. This is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

However, what you completely fail to read in that report is the CIA openly stated that the Iraq Intelligence Service completely scrubbed Salman Pak of all useful intelligence. You're arguing a senate conclusion that I'm not arguing, and I have no freaking idea why. Let's see, they scrubbed it clean, so there's no credible evidence, yeah, those statements are consistent. You just decide to conclude that since it was scrubbed clean that absolutely nothing happened at Salman Pak, it must have been a fucking Taco Bar.

There's no credible evidence from any source that Al Qaeda were trained anywhere in Iraq. You continue to imply that because no evidence was recovered from Salman Pak that we don't really have any idea whether Al Qaeda were trained in Iraq or not and either interpretation is equally valid. This is ridiculous.

The Salman Pak site itself is not the only source of intelligence relating to possible training of Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. The Senate report is quite clear that there has been no evidence that supports the idea that Al Qaeda were trained in Iraq recovered from anywhere in Iraq; or from any credible human source; or from the interrogation of any of the many captured Al Qaeda operatives. Other parts of the report make it very clear that there is no reason to believe that there was ever any co-operation between Iraq and Al Qaeda at all. The only rational conclusion is that Al Qaeda were not trained in Iraq. To imply that I am being dishonest when I state this conclusion is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

We've been over this ekiM. I'm far beyond the highschool games of "my god I must have the majority opinion to be popular, I just gotta have friends!!!". You can play that game, keep up appearances, whatever, I'm happy being who I am, not who they want you to be. I know that sentence probably would motivate someone like you to fall into line, I'm just at a different point in my life. Thanks though.

You're don't think rationally. What a non-conformist.

I'm sure you're very happy with how you are. Great. This doesn't mean I'm interested in talking to you.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Any of you UN sanctions people care to finally join the real conversation and explain how UN Sanctions are going to work this time?..... anyone...? ... anyone?..... Bueller?.... Mervaka?....

Gee, I wonder why people aren't interested in debating things with you. Maybe the problem is on all of their ends?

[fishBurger]

Originally Posted by ekiM

This doesn't mean I'm interested in talking to you.

This is page 8. I think it does mean you are interested in talking.

Seriously though, the danger with Iran is not that theyre going to build big ICBMs with "IRAN THE COUNTRY" painted on the side and launch one at the US... we'd probably take that sucker down quicklike, and turn Iran into a parking momentarily. The problem is their political, monetary, and arms supplying support for extremist groups who arent afraid of civilian violence. The closer Iran gets to nuclear capability, the closer Hezbollah gets to custom nukes to go. That is bad.

petty opinionating on the US (wild cowboy jackasses!), the UN (sissy euro jackasses!), the UK (distinguished jackasses with accents!), and whoever else doesnt really matter... but you guys seem to be enjoying it so here's to page 9!

[YomMamasHouse]

No Scuzzy it definitely is you, ekiM is correct. Arguing with you is a tedious endeavor with no possible gain in sight. ekiM has broken down your style of arguing and it is fairly obvious no good can come of discussion with you. I can hardly believe he has been able to segment some of your arguments and address them seeing as most of them are so dreadfully incoherent and not really making a point one way or another which can be argued with.

The main problem is the whole putting arguments that you can deal with into other people's mouths thing. Stop it and you might have some people talking with you.

[Everything]

Now now children, stop arguing over the internets...

[Sidd]

Why would anyone be interested in discussing this with you when you have the preconceived notion that UN sanctions "have obviously never worked in the past."?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Sidd

Why would anyone be interested in discussing this with you when you have the preconceived notion that UN sanctions "have obviously never worked in the past."?

Can you name one that did work? Seriously.

Fishburger, Iran's support of Hezzbollah is just one example of why Iran should not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.

[Player]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I think it has more to do with having no expectation that UN Sanctions will work and no way to explain how they will, but feeling happy in the fact that they choose a non-violent option.

I chose 'UN Sanctions' and then stated in my post that all options should be used. You should be able to deduct from this my opinion of the situation.

[BinaryLife]

Ok, I didn't want to get involved in the specifics. But the mis-interpriations aren't coming from Scuzzy's side. He is trying to discuss, and you guys are trying to argue. There's a difference in the meanings for those two words.

So many people take it personally when someone disagrees with them. They think it's an attack on their character. The point of discussing these things is to express the mind and learn a little about more about a topic you're interested in. To see what the other side has to say, so see how that compares. Maybe they read different magazine, maybe they have different info. Being wrong really just means that you're learning something you didn't think was true.

I stopped arguing like that on these boards because no one understands that and they get all uptight and turn things into a flame war. The flames are just subtle. If you want to be sure that someone understands you then speak clearly. If you're pissed off that they didn't then take what you said, and take what they said and line them up. Explain it, make it more clear from the beginning instead of crying about it.

Back to the point at hand. As I've said before; Iran has a right to develop power for itself. They have a right to choose any power they wish. And for the record the US government is thinking about building more nuclear power plants because it would be cheaper, cleaner and safer than the current fuels. (They would only need to build 400 more power plants to cover the nation.)
The problem is fear. The fear comes from the possibilty that Iran will make bombs instead of light bulbs. They don't need ICBMs to get those bombs into the US. They can just ship one to the white house and blow it up when it gets there (exageration). The fear is legitimate, and real. I still haven't officially decided, but I'm certainly leaning on not letting them have a damn thing. I'm just not ready to jump to agressive invasion to stop them. I think there has to be another way.

But here's the fun part. I don't really have to think of another way. Our administration does. That's the scary thing. Bush has to think about this. We should all send him some asprin and some advil for the comin headache. Also a children's dictionary, and a map so that he knows where Iran is and doesn't bomb australia by accident.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You did vote for Sanctions, but your option was to wait for them to create a nuclear weapon... meaning you didn't feel the sanctions would really do anything. Your answer seemed more tuned to the "let them have them" variety. I'm looking for anyone who voted for Sanctions and can outline how they'd be effective.

On top of that would be, as has been mentioned previously, how you can depend on those Sanctions to be effective when there isn't much (if any) of a track record of success for those types of actions in the past.

[Player]

I chose all the options, not just 'UN Sanctions' and 'Do Nothing, they should be allowed to have nuclear weapons'...

Basically, I do not care for this situation.

[Sidd]

UN sanctions imposed on Iraq failed to directly topple Saddam, but they crippled the Iraqi economy and military. They certainly made a military invasion much more straightfoward. I'd have to class this as "effective".
They also caused the deaths of 500 000 Iraqi children (UNICEF figure), so I can hardly say I support sanctions.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Sidd

UN sanctions imposed on Iraq failed to directly topple Saddam, but they crippled the Iraqi economy and military. They certainly made a military invasion much more straightfoward. I'd have to class this as "effective".
They also caused the deaths of 500 000 Iraqi children (UNICEF figure), so I can hardly say I support sanctions.

Are you referring to the results of the "Oil for Food" program that was actually funneling money to allow Hussein to continue building his personal wealth? Do you believe the UN Sanctions are actually culpable in this? Also, what portion of the UN actions were actually complied with by Iraq?