Iran enriches uranium to 20%

1356710

Comments

  • muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,227member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Sorry but the thing you fail to see is this thing called productivity and effectiveness.



    If I accomplish more in ten days than you do in twenty, that means I'm more productive.



    Productivity and accomplishment is how you measure effectiveness, not vacation days.



    The problem with the comparison is taking a strawman, vacation days and applying it against the measure of whether a leader is effective.



    Bush was profoundly effective, so much so that Democrats increasingly became enraged at his accomplishments. They voted for his measures and bills, having read the same intellegence and then claiming he lied.



    On the flip side, if someone is not competent and is in fact lazy, and polarizing, then being on task at that more often doesn't make them a better leader, just the opposite. If they are applying a bad strategy for a longer period and are less productive, that isn't a virtue.



    I work at $100 an hour and earn $1000 in 1.2 days of labor. You work at $10 an hour and take 2.5 weeks. It doesn't mean I'm lazy. It means I'm more productive.



    Look at the governing majorities and how they grew for Bush most of his term. Look at the legislation passed. We are still debating his tax cuts three years after he has left office. That is effective. The only things Obama has undertake have made things worse and the debate is about how to overturn it.



    I am in awe of your skill at ignoring questions, deflecting arguments, obfuscating, data-mining, and when all else fails, reinventing history. Truly astonishing. And I'm so relieved to hear that extended debating of an action is the true validation of its effectiveness.



    I'm going back to the technical side of the forum where I belong, safe in the knowledge that you have all this stuff figured out.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    I am in awe of your skill at ignoring questions, deflecting arguments, obfuscating, data-mining, and when all else fails, reinventing history. Truly astonishing. And I'm so relieved to hear that extended debating of an action is the true validation of its effectiveness.



    I'm going back to the technical side of the forum where I belong, safe in the knowledge that you have all this stuff figured out.



    Since your entire contribution to the thread has been only a couple questions and a bunch of name-calling, I'm sure you'll be missed.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Since your entire contribution to the thread has been only a couple questions and a bunch of name-calling, I'm sure you'll be missed.



    You could always threaten him with stricter sanctions, measures, and follow-up actions to try to get him to change his behavior to your liking.



  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,264member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    You could always threaten him with stricter sanctions, measures, and follow-up actions to try to get him to change his behavior to your liking.







    I could but in that analogy the UN (Appleinsider mods and board operators) are not funded primarily by me, nor do I undertake most of their actions with my resources but their banner.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Wait, agents of the State see a reason to perpetuate and expand its despotic power? Shocking!
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    We ought to think carefully about sanctions in Iran:



    Quote:

    Peter M. Lawrence writes that sanctions give leaders enhanced control over restricted supplies, which enhances their powers of patronage. He mentions Idi Amin and Uganda as an example. After finishing my article, I thought of the usual negative which is that leaders are able to blame internal problems that they may be responsible for on the sanctions. They also can rally the people around an enemy who has created the sanctions. These negatives increase the power of the existing regime, rather than weaken it. Let's not forget the oil-for-food program that Saddam Hussein used to his benefit. That program was a follow-on to sanctions and meant to ameliorate them.



    I'm wondering if they ever really worked. Cuba? Not really. Iraq? Nope. Libya? No. Iran? Probably not.



    Why not take a radical approach to Iran? Open up trade with them. Allow the people of Iran to see that we have wonderful goods and services to trade with them. Goods and services that make their lives better and more enjoyable. Let the internal regime of Iran be the one to try and stop this trade and exchange of ideas. See what happens then!



    P.S. We should do the same with Cuba by the way. Long overdue for that.



    P.P.S. I'd like to take a moment to point out the irony of a nation (the US) that harbors a fair amount of protectionist tendencies using the threat of cutting off trade to a nation as a weapon. In fact it is interesting to observe what cutting off trade to countries (e.g., Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, etc.) does to the common people in those countries. It should give us pause.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    We ought to think carefully about sanctions in Iran:







    I'm wondering if they ever really worked. Cuba? Not really. Iraq? Nope. Libya? No. Iran? Probably not.



    Why not take a radical approach to Iran? Open up trade with them. Allow the people of Iran to see that we have wonderful goods and services to trade with them. Goods and services that make their lives better and more enjoyable. Let the internal regime of Iran be the one to try and stop this trade and exchange of ideas. See what happens then!



    P.S. We should do the same with Cuba by the way. Long overdue for that.



    P.P.S. I'd like to take a moment to point out the irony of a nation (the US) that harbors a fair amount of protectionist tendencies using the threat of cutting off trade to a nation as a weapon. In fact it is interesting to observe what cutting off trade to countries (e.g., Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, etc.) does to the common people in those countries. It should give us pause.



    Agree with you 100 percent here.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    We ought to think carefully about sanctions in Iran:







    I'm wondering if they ever really worked. Cuba? Not really. Iraq? Nope. Libya? No. Iran? Probably not.



    Why not take a radical approach to Iran? Open up trade with them. Allow the people of Iran to see that we have wonderful goods and services to trade with them. Goods and services that make their lives better and more enjoyable. Let the internal regime of Iran be the one to try and stop this trade and exchange of ideas. See what happens then!



    P.S. We should do the same with Cuba by the way. Long overdue for that.



    P.P.S. I'd like to take a moment to point out the irony of a nation (the US) that harbors a fair amount of protectionist tendencies using the threat of cutting off trade to a nation as a weapon. In fact it is interesting to observe what cutting off trade to countries (e.g., Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, etc.) does to the common people in those countries. It should give us pause.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Agree with you 100 percent here.



    Disagree completely. We've eased relations with Cuba to an extent, and the result has been a stronger dictatorship that can now use American dollars to fund itself. Doing the same with Iran is utterly naive. It goes back to Paul's belief that we just talk to everyone and are nice to them, they'll be nice to us. But here's the thing: They are not going to be nice to us. The hatred of the US in these regimes is beyond engrained. They simply don't share the same values, which is the basis of reaching peace diplomatically. It worked to an extent with the Soviets because there were as afraid of WWIII as we were, and couldn't compete with us economically. It won't work with a regime that hates not just the US, but the Western world as well. You're dealing with people in the Middle East that want nothing more than to the see the West (which they see as evil, corrupt and full of infidels) fall, and the Muslim world to rise. That's their goal.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Disagree completely. We've eased relations with Cuba to an extent, and the result has been a stronger dictatorship



    To say that Cuba's dictatorship is now stronger than it has been in the past just ridiculous. I have no idea what you mean by "eased relations with" them? Is that the same thing as opening trade as I proposed?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Doing the same with Iran is utterly naive.



    Of course it is, because you say so.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    They are not going to be nice to us. The hatred of the US in these regimes is beyond engrained.



    You have to wonder why.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    ...a regime that hates not just the US, but the Western world as well. You're dealing with people in the Middle East that want nothing more than to the see the West (which they see as evil, corrupt and full of infidels) fall...



    You have to wonder why.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    You have to wonder why.







  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Disagree completely. We've eased relations with Cuba to an extent, and the result has been a stronger dictatorship that can now use American dollars to fund itself. Doing the same with Iran is utterly naive. It goes back to Paul's belief that we just talk to everyone and are nice to them, they'll be nice to us. But here's the thing: They are not going to be nice to us. The hatred of the US in these regimes is beyond engrained. They simply don't share the same values, which is the basis of reaching peace diplomatically. It worked to an extent with the Soviets because there were as afraid of WWIII as we were, and couldn't compete with us economically. It won't work with a regime that hates not just the US, but the Western world as well. You're dealing with people in the Middle East that want nothing more than to the see the West (which they see as evil, corrupt and full of infidels) fall, and the Muslim world to rise. That's their goal.



    You're projecting. Seriously. You hate them. You want nothing more than to see them destroyed. So that's the only kind of understanding you can have about how they might feel about us.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    You're projecting. Seriously. You hate them. You want nothing more than to see them destroyed. So that's the only kind of understanding you can have about how they might feel about us.



    Fuck off, tonton. Don't tell me what I believe.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Fuck off, tonton. Don't tell me what I believe.



    Deny it. You show that belief with every sentence you write. Just because I've made a point, you tell me to fuck off. Nice. Are you going to point a gun at me so I cower from your strength now?



    What a little boy.
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    You're projecting. Seriously. You hate them. You want nothing more than to see them destroyed. So that's the only kind of understanding you can have about how they might feel about us.



    That is exactly how they successfully sold the "war on terror" to the (majority of) the American people. Unfortunately, most people were too scared not to appear "patriotic" to their peers, and said nothing, rather than get perpetually pecked at. Now that 10+ years has passed and the lies, deceptions, duplicity and astronomical expense has become apparent to most people - barring the most gullible (or bloodyminded) "Bill O'Reilly" type of neo-brownshirt hold-outs... and the public's acceptance of the agenda is starting to wear thin.



    “In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” Mark Twain
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    A (probable) war with Iran does not sit well with the American public right now, despite all the propaganda in the media in recent months. Only 13% and 17% of the American public support covert action and military action respectively against Iran.



    That's scary. Whenever the public don't want a war, something happens that rapidly get them to change their minds. I think we all know what that might mean... since it seems to work every time.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    A (probable) war with Iran does not sit well with the American public right now, despite all the propaganda in the media in recent months. Only 13% and 17% of the American public support covert action and military action respectively against Iran.



    That's scary. Whenever the public don't want a war, something happens that rapidly get them to change their minds. I think we all know what that might mean... since it seems to work every time.



    Indeed. Countdown time to a dirty bomb threat in New York City or Los Angeles or DC, suspect arrested, threat diverted at the very last moment, we got lucky this time, "linked to Iran" and the public buys it hook line and stinker.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Deny it. You show that belief with every sentence you write. Just because I've made a point, you tell me to fuck off. Nice. Are you going to point a gun at me so I cower from your strength now?



    What a little boy.



    Quote:

    You're projecting. Seriously. You hate them. You want nothing more than to see them destroyed. So that's the only kind of understanding you can have about how they might feel about us.



    I repeat...don't tell me what I believe.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    A (probable) war with Iran does not sit well with the American public right now, despite all the propaganda in the media in recent months. Only 13% and 17% of the American public support covert action and military action respectively against Iran.



    That's scary. Whenever the public don't want a war, something happens that rapidly get them to change their minds. I think we all know what that might mean... since it seems to work every time.



    Prisonplanet? Really. As for me, I don't support military action in Iran unless absolutely necessary to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Prisonplanet? Really.



    That's rich from a guy whop posts links to WorldNetDaily!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    As for me, I don't support military action in Iran unless absolutely necessary to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon.



    Of course. Because the only ones that are allowed to have nukes are the U.S....and Russia...and India...and China...and Pakistan...and France...and the United Kingdom...and Israel.



Sign In or Register to comment.