Iran: P5+1 Overcomes American Enemies, Achieves Nuclear Pact

Well, yet again Bells you are not being honest. You claimed, “His assertion was correct. There is a record of continued abuse and mistreatment. This is very well established and it was one of the hurdles the Obama administration had to overcome to get them to the table. It is something Clinton's administration also tried to address during his term in office.” His assertion was, “continual grudge material” over a 62 year period. As previously pointed out to you, even if everything you asserted were true and unmitigated, which it is not, the incidents you mentioned only covered a period of 8 out of 62 years. So where is your proof for the remaining 54 years? My point being, you and Ice are prone to making overly simplistic and overly generalized assertions which are just flat our wrong and both of you have no qualms with lying or bullying to cover yourselves.

Actually, as I said before, you went off topic. It was an obfuscation attempt on your part. If you would care to stay on topic, I would be happy to answer any relevant question.

Well the coup as repeatedly cited in this thread was a single secular event. Now if you want to blame the US for the Shah’s reign from 1953 to his overthrow in 1979 that is only a 26 year period. That doesn’t get you to the 62 years Iceaura asserted. So even an elementary student should know 26 years is seriously short of 62 years. So no, as previously pointed out, neither you nor Iceaura have proven Iceaura’s assertion of “continual grudge material” over a 62 year period.

Hmm, so it’s obvious I have not read the links is it? Well here is the problem as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, even if everything you and Iceaura cited were completely true, not cherry picked and unmitigated, which as previously pointed out it isn’t, it’s far from the “continual/continuous grudge material” over a 62 year period which is Iceaura’s and now your assertion. Your links don’t trump basic math, that is the unfortunate fact you are trying to obfuscate.

Well that is particularly rich coming from you. The only ones dismissing realities around here are you and Iceaura. The issue isn’t why Iran is the way it is, that would be a long discussion and it wouldn’t be limited to the last 62 years. Iran didn’t just happen over the course of the last 62 years. As has been repeated with almost every post, the issue is Iceaura’s assertion and now your assertion that the US has provided Iran with a “continual” flow of “grudge material” spanning 62 years. You and Iceaura have a penchant for grandiosity and drama which reflects a basic lack of knowledge and isn’t amenable to rational discourse.

This is what you wrote, “Speaking of bias, you are only interested in the wrongs by the Republicans while ignoring everything else.”. So are you now telling me you are a closet Republican?

Have you been paying attention to this thread or to the Ferguson thread, or the Baltimore thread, or to the lynching thread, in which you attempted to rescue Iceaura from his silly illogical and blatantly false posts? So are you and Iceaura closet Republicans? Is that what you are telling me?

Yeah, while proofs may not be important to you and Iceaura, but proof really is important. Name calling and other personal attacks and fallacious arguments are not proofs. Additionally, this isn’t my personal view of history. It’s the historical record. It’s about basic math.

Here is the problem with your links and “proofs”, they don’t prove what you need to prove as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. And no amount of name calling, bullying and other illogical arguments (e.g. straw man) or other obfuscations will paste over that basic fact.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you over the course of this discourse, if everything you have posted and referenced with links were absolutely true, not cherry picked, and not mitigated by facts you failed to mention, which isn’t the case, you still have a large several decade hole which has not been supported with, you know, evidence.

Here is are some of the problems with your links, they don’t say what they are represented to say, this is quite common with Iceaura’s links or they don’t support your argument or you cherry pick through them ignoring unpleasant but important facts. Let’s look at a recent example.

Iceaura was challenged to provide evidence of his assertion the US installed Saddam as leader of Iraq. Iceaura wrote, “Joe, the US installed Saddam in the first place, and helped him in all his early adventures in dictatorship.” Iceaura offered the following as proof, “If you don't know the basics of US relations with Iran and Iraq, Google is your friend.” Well Google isn’t Iceaura’s friend. Because a basic google search will not reveal a credible source which backs up Iceaura’s assertion the US installed Saddam as leader of Iraq. And you have offered many links which, at best, ignoring Iran was the first aggressor in most of those incidents, fall well short of proving the 62 year period at issue. It’s just basic math. What you and Iceaura tried to do is "burry with bullshit" and hope no one notices.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Joe, your inner Republican is showing.

This sort of inhumane pedantry is the last resort of the desperate.

Given that the situation we find ourselves in is a direct derivative of unbroken American policy throughout that sixty-two year period, that the nuclear weapon desired by Iran, feared by the rest of the world, and all of its concomitant geopolitics and human suffering, is part of this continuous chain of events, you really are taking the abuser's line of defense. That the bully abused a victim on Tuesday and Friday and Wednesday next does not mean all of fifteen minutes of abuse; for the victim, those experiences permeate, and loom throughout.

If you are one whose family is harmed by the bullying, this is last year, last week, last night; the sanctions are still in place and doing harm.

If you are the bully, of course you want to point out that you haven't actually thrown a punch in a while. And, you know, your victims aren't supposed to worry about your cronies constantly threatening them. Because, you know, you aren't punching the victim right now.

That you need to erase the humanity of Iranians from consideration in order to subject history to its classic exclusivism, its most infamous and observable error, really does undermine any pretense of credibility about the line you've taken.

You know, if you add up all the time the adulterous politician spent in bed with his mistress, it's true, he didn't cheat on his wife "for years". An hour here, thirty minutes there. Sure, the events took place over the course of five years, but it only adds up to cheating on his wife for a couple days.

We can do that all day, you know.

And you do know. You're not stupid, Joe.

The only real question is why.

Every once in a while, your inner conservative shows through, and the common element is that you're throwing down on behalf of bullying.

What's the attraction?

I occasionally recall my elementary school principal, a man named Jim Denton, who used his office to protect and promote bullying. His lecture to minority students was that they needed to try harder to fit in. Easy enough to say, but harder to do when what stands out is one's skin color, or the shape around their eyes. I usually tell that story to remind why it wasn't actually shocking when Asian Americans in Portland got some attention in the mid-nineties for a rising trend of changing their appearances in order to fit in; bleaching hair, colored contacts, even surgery to reshape the face, and some attempts to alter skin color. But there is another point, as well, and that's more important here. To the one, I am painfully aware of diversity among living and historical narratives; to the other it is self-evident that some such narratives require extraordinary accommodation in order to maintain a pretense of integrity sufficient to warrant consideration, argument, or action. The abuser's defense is one of those narratives that requires extraordinary accommodation, i.e., that people living in a given circumstance should accept and interpret the events and ideas denigrating their daily lives according to the desires and needs of those who profit by such suffering and deprivation really is an unfair demand.

And in truth, I think you know this.

Which only leads us back to the question of why. A diversity of historical narratives is one thing, but why insist so fiercely on promoting a self-interested, observably dysfunctional assertion of history?

There is no valence at which your argument is not invested wholly in the simple proposition of, because you say so.

And, you know, it really is a weird thing to see. I remember living amid the bully's narrative; it was the way my generation was taught to see the world around us. And I've watched elements of it break, and have always found it striking to observe people scrambling to preserve the narrative or rebuild the broken components. You know, every once in a while, you find yourself reminding some hardline conservative that you're no average liberal, and recall being a Republican in a time you and I might find reason to wax nostalgic about these days. I mention this because while the bully's narrative was once pretty much the atmospheric norm, it is the bully's defense these days because more and more people are discarding it. This is a very conservative relic of the way things used to be, and I think you know exactly why it doesn't work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shove your troll stick.
Everything you've posted with "then" here has been bullshit as well. The "if - then" construction is sort of a tag you use, and you use it exactly as Fox News uses it - to preserve deniability while asserting falsehoods.

Relevance? You were responding to my post, which you quoted. Why the rant on Obama and Baluchistan an other matters unrelated to anything I've posted here?

You wouldn't be trying to imply, by juxtaposition, that anything I posted was somehow in conflict with any of that stuff you mentioned, would you? Because that would be dishonest, and trolling, and revelatory of your motives and approach here. Perish the thought.

It isn't reasonable to take that as an honest confusion on your part, a misread of something I've posted. That's a flat, stone cold, three dollar, gilt framed, fully intentional lie. You are lying, and you are a liar.

You haven't made that search.

Here's some suggested key words: cia saddam iraq power // us support saddam coup // saddam rise to power // saddam hussein biography

You keep thinking you are doing that, and people should take you seriously when you do, but you are not making sense in this thread generally: why are you trying to assert that the US litany of crimes and abuses regarding Iran consist of one event that ended 62 years ago, and why do you think being in the Cold War somehow excuses even that one event? It's utter nonsense, this position of yours, a bizarre departure from the real world.

And in the absence of another reasonable explanation for this odd leave-taking of history and sense, the obvious one proposed earlier remains: the US faction that wants to derail diplomacy and intensify the US military conflict with Iran has been promulgating the "crazy Iran" meme for a long time, as agitprop, and this belongs to that effort.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"It's a tarp."

My god. Have I been put on the Axis of Joe? Seriously, that never stops being funny.

I would love to reply to that, if only there were a way of excising the crazy. I'm sure there's some kind of logic in there. Now I am apparently also on the Axis of Fox. I love American binary politics! It has certainly never driven anyone to the brink of a paranoid meltdown.

I think this comment has to go in the "what's iceaura up to now?" pile. You know, the pile where you're now just being dishonest.

There's a certain sense of entitled derangement, sure, but regarding Baluchistan I'm being asked to believe that, while ranting all over the horrible agitprop against Iran, you somehow have forgotten the subject of agitprop itself: critquing Iran's human rights record would certainly count as "agitprop" in your agitprop. It's just that it doesn't jive particularly well in your aaah! agitprop! motif. Is there something else you'd like to try that, while obscure, sounds a little more cogent? Go on, have another go.

Oohh... this is a tough one... what's iceaura talking about now? Hmm... think, think! I'll say: no. But only because you're letting your imagination run the remainder of our discussion here, so that most of what comes out is going to be train of the inexplicable. I'd ask what you're referring to, but there is the danger you might try to tell me, so let's let that one slide.

Indeed! Perish it! Or... not... ? If it perishes now, are you going to want it back for your Russian Reversal round? I assume this is coming up.

I will - again, for your edification, and this may take some time - restate my initial position, which has apparently nearly single-handedly caused your grand mal freakout: is it not reasonable to think that a large part of the institutional anger of Iran towards the US is due to the subversion of their economy during the Shah years? To which I later added: Sure, the Iranians are probably, given their history, going to try to cheat on this. Let's hold off declaring victory and, since I have been asked, there really are better deals possible. Endquote. That's it. Tiassa has bitched that the latter position implies a bake my cake for me which I will then eat political philosophy, which is some reasoned bitching in the larger picture. I'm just not sure how it figures in your mobile Inquisitorial process.

Now, before your blood starts to boil, take some time with those ideas. Come to grips with it. Think about it. Ask yourself: "What is Geoff trying to say? Is it basically exactly what he's written above, or do the voices in my head have a different interpretation? And how reliable have they been, ultimately?"

Or, keep winding onward, because the latter is far more fun than an genomics assay the likes of which I have no idea how to conclude.

I have, again, not the foggiest what you are on about. But, speaking of misreads... might want to take a look just above heeere... Just saying.

I'm trying to see in what way I should be offended by the paranoid prevarications of iceaura. Hm.

 

You are not being asked anything about Baluchistan by me, except why you would bring it up in response to my posting here. And you've answered that.

No such rants from me are visible. You are ranting, I am not.

False statement, deliberately posted. No critique of Iran's human rights record is relevant to anything I've posted here. The only agitprop I've mentioned is the "crazy Iran" meme Joe attempted and you supported, and that is a US - and Israeli, of course, but we avert our attention - meme.

And I will again point out that is not the original "position" addressed by any of my posts, and claims otherwise are falsehoods.

That is you trying to pretend that my responses to you have been to some kind of reasonable posting on your part, instead of the little slide-step backing of Joe's agitprop I actually called you out on, or the various flatly false statements about my posting you indulged your inner troll in along the way.

That's you, trying to walk the nasty back behind the barn.

Yes, you do. There wasn't a single line of any post of mine addressed by your little rave there, and you know it. You came up with that from scratch, not confusion, and that's called lying.

And it comes in on top of this, none if it honest posting in good faith:

 

The honest-to-God bad-faith dealer

Weasel wording. Next.

Do you really believe that?

Do you now think you're the only person in this argument? This is getting deeply silly. My point was that Iran has a poor social record at best and, as a fascist theocracy, is not entirely trustworthy. There's no point in deliberate obfuscation, iceaura. Why are you doing it?

False. Prove immediately, please.

And either of these are relevant to me because.... ? Explain.

Weasel wording/figurative strawman. It was my stated compromise position between your and (purportedly) joe's position. You immediately 'addressed' it in another oblique weasel wording approach and promptly freaked out.

I deleted the remainder of the weasel wording; what is this new tack with you, exactly? What's left doesn't make any kind of sense: it's hard to see how taking up a middle ground between two opposite viewpoints is unreasonable, with some exceptions.

Never tried it but it sounds devilishly saucy, you old rotter. Huzzah.

Oh, utterly. I mean, restating the exact position I had at the start, and have maintained throughout, surely constitutes making it up from scratch and lying in so many ways. Surely I wouldn't have expressed those same exact two opinions over and over again throughout the thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ir...ieves-nuclear-pact.151894/page-4#post-3317820
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ir...ieves-nuclear-pact.151894/page-4#post-3317990
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ir...ieves-nuclear-pact.151894/page-4#post-3318039
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ir...ieves-nuclear-pact.151894/page-5#post-3318398

See? You're so right! I must have just made all that up. And gone back in time a little. Sure.

I'm not convinced you know what that phrase means. Or, you might know, but perhaps prefer to feign ignorance. I mean, you do realize that all those comments are in essentially complete correspondance, right? Or are you having some trouble with the concepts of "all" vs. "major"?

Iceaura, as a rule, I tend not to notice you. By which I mean, I kind of blow through most of your work, assuming that it's probably reasonable and defensible. But what I'm getting now is that this assumption of mine just isn't so. I mean, to run with an actual bad faith argument this long, and then accuse me of bad faith just beggars belief. It strains my credulity in the basic goodness of the human psyche past anything I've encountered at SF so far. No, seriously.

In the long, drag-out misrepresentational melodramas that have gone on here at SF, nothing has really approached this level of absurd Russian reversal. (I did say a Russian reversal round was coming up, didn't I?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Psychic!) It's stark and clear and unambiguous. I mean, yes, it's projection and weaseling and strawman - that's the meat of it - but there's so much less chaff around it that the bullshit signal is so much clearer. It's Dolby sound versus gramophone.

So, in a way: thanks. I was feeling really jaded and unprogressive and uncertain today, and now I'm just not. I feel a world better. I know that most of what people throw around is bullshit, but it is actually so refreshing to have it just out in the open, requiring no sifting or sorting. In fact, it has actually (at this point in the writing) restored my faith in the human psyche, because it's an example of how - Myuu be praised - sometimes bullshit just sits there and stinks without any pretension to being anything else.

And that is a beautiful thing. So thankyou.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanking you for your 'refreshing contribution', I remain,

GeoffP

 

No. That's not what weasel wording looks like. It's a direct and specific response.

It's a negative assertion, made in illustrative context three or four times now, in response to your attempts to bring in Iran's propaganda, Iran's bad behavior, Iran's justifications, Iran's whatever, rather than deal with your abetting of Joe's agitprop way back when. You prove the contrary.

Yep. Try rereading your stuff. Try quoting a rant from me.

There is no such "compromise" position. You misrepresented my posting and Joe's position, in response to being called out on your support for Joe's posting. Joe posted the "crazy Iran" meme, and you backed it. Now you are pretending I objected to some "position" you have in the Iranian treaty matter.

Pretending that position of yours, as implied (not repeated or stated) in that post I quoted, had anything to do with my posting, was and is in bad faith. The post itself, in its list of rhetorical questions intended to be taken as some kind of response to the quoted post, as therefore implying the quoted post dealt in those matters, was dishonest.

You do. By introspection, for example when you are typing a list of rhetorical questions you know have nothing to do with the post or poster addressed.

The Crazy Iran take, neatly blowing off 62 years of bad US behavior while simultaneously priming the pump for military confrontation, threat, and potential assault of Iran, has done considerable damage to the US. It's setting up to do more - potentially, a lot more. It's probably more dangerous to the US than Iranian nuclear weaponry. It needs to be fought.

 

Well you see, no one but you has said anything about Iran being crazy. That is a straw man you are peddling. Though I do find a bit ironic that folks like you who claim to be for women's rights, gay rights, etc. have gone to such extremes to defend a country which executes people for being gay and is highly repressive with a 6 rating (2nd most repressive) from Freedom House. First, where is your evidence of this 62 years of continual grudge material you claim exists. You have been repeatedly challenged to produce the evidence and you have repeatedly failed to do so, because you can't, else you would have done it by now. Not even your protector has been able to produce the evidence. Where is your evidence the US is "priming the pump for military confrontation" and assault. When Iranians fired on US naval vessels, that was an act of war. When Iran mined the Persian Gulf and a US naval vessel struck and Iranian mine, that too constituted grounds for war. Baby Bush had an opportunity to invade Iran after 9/11 but instead he invaded Iraq which was a bonehead move all too typical of Baby Bush. The US has had plenty of opportunity and cause to invade Iran if it wanted, but it has repeatedly failed to do so, probably because it has no such designs. So where is your evidence to back up this new assertion? Let me guess, it's with the other "evidence" you have been challenged to produce in this and many other threads, it only exists between your ears.

The problem Iceaura is you are way outside the bounds of reality and reason which is quite common with you. You live in a world of overly of the exaggerated and misrepresented and are not tethered by the bonds of reality or honesty. The irony here is that you are doing the same things, using the same tactics, Republican entertainers, politicians, sycophants, and ditto heads use, of course your beliefs are different. But aside from the differences in beliefs, you are exactly the same. You are not being dishonest. I hate it when Republicans do it, I hate it when so called liberals do it too.

Now before you go misrepresenting my positions again, as I have said in this thread many times, I support Mr. Obama's nuclear arms agreement. It makes sense and it is certainly better than military intervention. And more than that, it is a opportunity to build badly needed trust. But the odds are against the agreement working. There are folks, powerful folks, on both sides who oppose the agreement and who will do everything possible to subvert it (e.g. Israel, Republicans, Mr. Supreme Leader, etc.). It will be difficult and it may not work. But it is worth a try. I hope it works and is a precursor to better times and better relations between Iran and the world. Time will tell. War isn't a good option, it never has been a good option.

 

You might be right at that. It does look more like a continuum fallacy. We'll add that to the overall false dilemma you're running with.

The posts I posted show the contrary quite explicitly. The interpretation you're desperately seeking to mine out of it is pure invention.

I did. You're still clearly emotionally wrought about this issue.

You mean the one I posted and repeated nearly verbatim throughout the thread? Gosh. I had no idea the compromise position meant Joe was right. So that'll be a false equivocation, too.

Classic, deliberate misinterpretation. Specious, best case. Derivative. 'The answer lying between either stance' clearly means that a probable historical compromise position exists between your 'continually supplied with fresh grudge material' vs. Joe's 'grudge from 62 years ago'. It addresses the dilemma exactly. Your post was utterly in actual bad faith, which you then accused me of, all because iceaura didn't like the feeling of being talked down to by someone s/he doesn't care for. 'Troll stick', indeed: you've been trolling the entire time. Nice ethics there.

But your real point - the 'take-home message' that spawned, in part, this latest round of intellectual disjunct - is here:

I see. And so anything that sounds remotely like war drum thumping must also be fought, wherever it lies outside of your position. Logic need not apply. Gotcha. False dilemma in practice. Nice job.

 

What is to be expected if US Congress kills the deal? None of the others was very interested in imposing sanctions as they are hurt much more economically than the US is (No cheap oil from Iran, being one mechanism, but trade in general with Iran was killed as well as financial gains with construction projects in Iran.)

I expected most if not all will simply cease to enforce the sanctions that now exist, but perhaps not openly say they have terminated all their sanctions against Iran. IE congress killing the deal may be just what Iran is hopping for.

What do you think will happen if Congress kills the deal?

 

According to Kerry, our partners in the deal will walk away from sanctions, and Iran could go back to processing nuclear fuel without us having any say in the matter.
Despite all appearances, you ain't gotta be crazy to be a member of congress.

 

Status quo ante but with modifications as you suggest. Who enforces the sanctions anyway? Surely not all countries will do so. I don't suppose it would be too hard to set up a dummy company and have them carry out work in Iran.

In the meanwhile, Iran continues whatever breakout work they are or are not doing, to whatever breakout deadline does or does not exist, whatever date it does or does not exist at. It's an open question.

 

I don't know that our partners will walk away, but a lot of folks want to trade with Iran, including moi.

Iran could go back to building a nuke with or without the agreement. If Iran goes back to building a nuke, the deal is off and the sanctions come back. I don't see where the world has much to lose.

 

Some are by-passed by barter. For example, Iranians drink a lot of tea. Some Indian ships delivered it and returned with Iranian goods. Most trade with Iran is paid for and the funds move thru the SWIFT system - can't be hidden. If Congress kills the deal, funds going to Iran via SWIFT, will surge 50 or more fold.

The rush by all our European "friends," including England, to join China's AIIB despite strong pressure on them not to, shows how little influence the US still has on global finance.

 

No, Geoff, the contrary would be me discussing agitprop from Iran or some other non-US sourcs. You haven't quoted me doing that. The posts you posted that are not quotes are of course your own lookout, and in this thread your own inventions - they show nothing about my posting.

No, you didn't. And your language is and has been significantly more emotionally loaded than mine.

But the quoted from me was not referring to your dishonest "compromise", it was referring to your dishonest repetition of your "position" as if I had ever addressed it. You are now dragging these irrelevancies from one context to another, when they belong nowhere in response to my posting here.

That one is distinguished by being fraudulent in its first employment as well, and denied (twice so far) in that context as well - as noted, there is no such compromise involving my actual posting and Joe's claim at issue: you misrepresented my post, and Joe's posting, to set up your "compromise" and cover your abetting of Joe's agitprop. You created the "dilemma" you pretended to address. You have repeated that, despite correction, and now extend the fiction to an unrelated posting of mine. This is taking on an air of comedy.

Why not deal with my posts as they are written, instead of railing about stuff I haven't posted, errors of logic I haven't made, and so forth.

Halliburton was doing that for years, including nuclear technology - it wasn't even a dummy corporation, just a foreign branch. If recall serves they tried to cheat the Iranians in some kind of oil rig deal, got kicked out - but they'd be welcome back under the right circumstances, no doubt. May be already are.

 

You do have a penchant for contradicting yourself, so which is it, did Halliburton set up dummy companies or just branches and where is your evidence? Where is your evidence Halliburton tried to cheat Iranians? You are really good at accusing others, but really bad at backing them up with evidence and reason.

 

I want you to make the plain statement of your personal belief in Halliburton's virtue right here. I want you to type the words that say you, personally, need clear and convincing evidence of Halliburton's dealings with Iran over the years, that you personally have no knowledge of any such behavior by Halliburton, and that you personally are unable to find such evidence on the internet despite have spent more than 25 seconds with a search engine.

 

This isn't about me or my beliefs, I have made no assertions with respect to Halliburton. This is about you supporting your assertions with credible evidence. So where is it?

 

If everybody who says the sky is blue has to provide the evidence, discussion ceases. I'm just going to assume that anyone here who so completely unfamiliar with American foreign policy regarding Iran and Iraq that they don't know anything about Halliburton can pick up the basics with a half minute keyword search.

 

We are not talking about blue sky. We are not talking about every one. We are not talking about American foreign policy. We are discussing your Halliburton assertion. And a half a minute search doesn't support your assertion.

The bottom line here is you have been making stuff up, representing it as fact, and posting it, and you have been doing it for a long time and it spans many threads. This goes way beyond simple occasional mistakes.