Iran enriches uranium to 20% - Page 2

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.

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.

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.

Wait, agents of the State see a reason to perpetuate and expand its despotic power? Shocking!

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.

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.

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?



Of course it is, because you say so.



You have to wonder why.



You have to wonder why.

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.

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.

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

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.

I repeat...don't tell me what I believe.

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

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



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.

Yeah, because that's the same. I said "check out this article." I never claimed it to be scientific polling data like Sammi did. Hell, I even put a disclaimer on Fox News articles for pete's sake.


Correct...according to the NPT. All nations are not created equal. Iran having a nuke is totally different than one of the above having one. Your inability to see that is exactly why someone like Ron Paul should and will never be elected President.

Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to move into your neighborhood. I'm going to get a gun for defense purposes. Me and some of your neighbors also. Including one of your neighbors that, every once in a while decides to come and attack your home. But we're going to all get together agree with each other that no one else can have guns for defense. Only we can. How does that sound?



Wow, the more you say, the more scared I get that there are lots of Americans and, worse, US politicians that think exactly like you.

The poll I quoted which prisonplanet.com linked to in its article was carried by The Congressional Connection Poll, conducted from Jan. 26 to Jan. 29 by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, surveyed 1,008 adults and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

This is no less "scientific" than any other poll that is quoted in the media as having a "scientific" basis. Perhaps you're confusing the message with the messenger again?


What exactly is the reason that you are so scared of Iran getting a bomb? Even if they did join the "nuclear nations", why would Iran be any more a threat against the United States than Pakistan, for example?

The most likely reason for the US getting "pissy" about Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons is because Israel is freaking out. A nuclear Iran it would necessitate a modification to the Mid East land and resources agenda as outlined by the DC "neoconservative" cartel... a group which is stacked with dual US-Israeli citizens... and also the Israeli hard-right's fringe agenda of eventually creating a "Greater Israel in the Lands East of the Mediterranean".

Then there's the issue of wars.The fighting in Iraq is over, for the US. The operations in Afghanistan are planned to end in 2013. Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria... they don't really cut it... those are not real men's wars... they're mere skirmishes or police actions. These pyschos need somewhere to hang their hats... and long term. If Iraq (whose military in 2003 was so degraded that nobody was in danger of invasion let alone the US!) took 8 years.. Iran will be a far more difficult and costly affair.. and could trigger a far wider conflict against nations with a far greater military capability than Iran.

But... even if the warmongers want to take out Iran, do the US people want Russia and China to become enemies, on account of the possible outcomes resulting from the disproportionate influence that Israel wields in DC and formulating US foreign policy?

On a hopeful note.. perhaps the US public is not quite as collectively stupid as they would wish. Or perhaps we're coming out of the "shocked and awed and stupefied" state that 9/11 left us in. Perhaps the public is finally waking up to the likelihood that the "endless war" program started in 2001 is one of the main factors that has led to our economic decline.

The GIF that perfectly describes America's foreign policy:

Don't they just!

*Patriot Act 1
*Patriot Act 2
*Homeland Security and TSA
*No Fly Lists
*Legalization of ethnic profiling
*TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System), reminiscent of surveillance in WWI
*Development of the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening Program (CAPPS-II).
*Military Commission Act
*Private individuals' Data mining by the NSA and others, "Stellar Wind"
*Special Registration requirement
*Suspension of Habeas Corpus
*Abolition of Posse Comitatus
*The evisceration of parts of the Bill of Rights, 1st and 4th Amendments specifically (Warrantless wiretapping, etc)
*Presidents Surveillance Program (PSP)
*Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
*Widespread Media censorship, for example, the "Clear Channel Memorandum"
*Preemptive war doctrine
*Extraordinary renditions
*Use of torture and other activities regarded as "war crimes" in civilized nations
*The construction of large-scale detention camps nationwide, justified by a so-called "immigration crisis"
*Widespread intolerance of dissent and protest
*The militarization of police forces
*Targeted assassinations
*NDAA - authorization of unlimited detention without charge or evidence....

and more....

Yes, they hated our freedoms before 9/11, and they relished taking them away afterwards. Thats what power-crazed politicians thrive on.

Sounds like your analogy sucks. Israel is the one surrounded by nations that want to push it into the sea.


Perhaps the word "created" is what has you scared here. Let me remove that and say that "not all nations are equal when it comes to having nuclear weapons." Do you still disagree?

Sounds like the point of the analogy went right over your head.



Yes.

Oh, by the way: Ayatollah..."Kill all jews, annihilate Israel."

Will you dismiss this because it's from WND? It directly quotes an Iranian website known to disseminate statements from the Ayatollah.

Let's see here. The article you linked to says that website they're linking to says:








It sure sounds like Iran is adopting the US and Israeli doctrine of preemptive war.

Help me here. I'm trying to navigate through the moral hypocrisy that you offer that says one nation is allowed to have nuclear energy but another is not. One nation is allowed to have defensive nuclear weapons but another is not. One nation is allowed to preemptively strike and destroy another's nuclear facilities but another is not.

This gets back to my analogy...which might be clearer now:

It's like I said that I can have guns for my own self-defense, but you cannot...and I can preemptively attack you if I think you're getting a gun and prevent you from getting one.

Do you see both the hypocrisy and the authoritarianism in this?

Bingo. But we are morally superior according to him, so he thinks we have the right to have such a policy but they don't.

It's okay, little girl. We're liberating you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxSleu-mnqQ

We're doomed. DOOOOOOMED!

Yeah, because that matters, especially when Iran is ruled by people that wish to facilitate the return of the 12th Imam, who can only come about during Armageddon. Gee, I wonder if attacking Israel and/or the U.S. might bring that about. \

What make you think that Iran wants to attack the US or Israel? The perpetual barrage of anti-Iranian propaganda unleashed by the heavily Israeli-influenced US corporate media, and a succession of government and defense officials?

This is a repeat of the Iraq-WMD-fiasco-lie fest. It's amazing how people can be brought around to a certain set of "thinking" that is based on nothing but knee-jerking, caused by the repetition, ad nauseam, of material that relates to fear, or outrage, or some other negatively charged emotion.

You have to hand it to the war-mongers: they have psychological manipulation of a mass population down to a fine art. It does, however, take a consolidated, complicit media to achieve this.. just as was the case in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and Germany during the decade long build-up to WWII and the duration of the war itself. Our own modern propaganda machine has probably evaluated that that there is still some mileage in the WMD issue.

The reality in all this, is the likelihood of Iran attacking the US or Israel, just for the hell of it, is virtually non-existent. Iran would get incinerated; the whole thing would be over and done with in a few hours, with Iran's major cities obliterated - leveled to smoking, glowing ruins.

The ayatollahs may not be exactly what we westerners tend to like... but they are not wishing the destruction of their country and people.

Try a mix of paranoia, xenophobia, bloodthirst and blind partisanship, in various quantities, perhaps.

Racist.


Yes, we've all been snookered. Iran poses no threat to anyone. Iran has not threatened Israel. Iran is not ruled by extremists. Iran is only responding to U.S. threats. Rinse. Repeat.


You just compared the U.S. to Soviet Russia in terms of media freedom. Wow.


Poor sammi, you just don't understand. There are powerful forces in Iran who WANT to bring on Armageddon. This is why Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. This is why Iran's threats cannot be ignored. However, it is also why military action is risky and should be a last resort. It's dangerous, but it might be the only way to keep Iran from getting the tools its extremist government needs to reach their goal.

"Iran wants to bring on Armageddon, and we'll go to war with them before we let that happen."