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

We are of course talking about American foreign policy, whenever we are talking about Iran and Halliburton.

You keep making that assertion without checking to see it it's true. Do I have to once again provide you with a list of keywords? Try "Halliburton", Halliburton Iran, Halliburton Iran oil rig, Halliburton Iran nuclear, - even the Wiki article on Halliburton covers the well known and obvious stuff. The first page is sufficient, two or three of the first six links will work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I sigh. I really do. The contrary as in that my posts consisted of exactly what I said they did. You have produced no evidence that shows me backing up Joe's 'agitprop', let alone war. Stop evading, deliberately misrepresenting and changing the goal posts. It isn't suddenly okay in service of a greater meme - a meme, incidentally, with which I happen to largely agree.

They illustrate quite handthat you lied, and seemingly deliberately, about my comments on this thread. So they have quite a bit to do with your fraudulent behaviour on the thread.

That would be much more amusing if I did not think you really believed it.

"Quoted"?

Anyway, changing goal posts, as expected. My message has remained constant. Yours has undergone several hysterical flips thus far. How about just keeping your contributions honest and objective instead of the massive trolling?

I was about to ask you that very question. Why the constant, bitter digression? Why these constant fallacies and baiting? Because you think that expressing an opinion on an issue of distant relevance to those war drums constitutes fightin' words, apparently. Again: why the rage? Do you think I am going to demand war with Iran?

Well, heck, I'd love to take you at your word here, but under the circumstances I don't think that's possible. You should be making an effort to back up each statement of fact you make. Personally, I think it's likely, but as it's coming from you I have to question it at this point, because the source providing it is questionable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I quoted the exact post, in the first place, way back there, in which you backed up Joe's agitprop with your slippery rhetoric. That's how this started, with me posting evidence and calling you on it. Your subsequent attempts to make the topic your "position" or whatever are not and never were honest. Your continual insults are in the service of your denial, as well - although the thug trick of projecting one's faults on anticipated accusers, wrongfooting them, works better with more care for plausibility.

So you, too, claim to regard the reminder of Halliburton's well known Iranian history as "my word", a dubious matter new and strange to you that rides on my credibility (rather than the other way around). That is, you are posting as if you didn't know, already, the facts of the situation - despite your familiarity with so much if Iran's behavior over the years, and your concern with America's foreign policy in everything related to Israel. And we take that how, in your expectation?

Your approach here lacks subtlety, is your problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I read about this much of your post and no more: same as above. What started the trouble is that I accidentally bruised your ego, for which I apologized. The entirety of my point was that a flamewar was about to start - and it did, in at least one unanticipated direction - and that it was probably justifiable to think that the Shah business might have a significant part in it. That's it. Since then, it's been evasion and weaseling on your part to dredge up some kind of troll issue out of it, while massively trolling yourself: numerous errors of logic, massive dishonesty, and poor faith, which you had the gall to accuse me of. The issue has been entirely of your own creation, and entirely of your ego. I'm disinterested in your ego piece, iceaura, and I do distantly remember some of your other erratic works, so this conversation is done. I'll try to keep it from colouring my future expectations of you.

 

This started when I called you on your support for Joe's posting of the "Crazy Iran" meme.

No, that wasn't it. I was specific about "it".

You misrepresented and continue to misrepresent Joe's post about the "Shah business", and you misrepresented my posting, and in doing so you deflected the discussion from my observation that you had abetted Joe's retailing of a standard US agitprop meme - "Crazy Iran". The flamewar, meanwhile, is mostly contained within your posting - a couple of sentences from me in reaction don't come close to balancing your contributions in that respect, which include the initial launch. So if you really want to damp it down, there's an obvious tactic available to you.

 

Except, Joe never had a "Crazy Iran" meme...oops.

The only one who has consistently misrepresented anything is you my dear Iceaura and your misrepresentation (i.e. lies) isn't confined to just this thread. You have a long history at Sciforums. You claimed the US "installed" Sadddam as leader of Iraq and you offered a Wikipedia article on the history of Iran as proof. But the article you referenced didn't validate your assertion. You said Halliburton was kicked out if Iran because it was found screwing Iran. You stated a quick google search would prove your assertion. But a quick google search doesn't prove your assertion. Probably because you are just flat out wrong in both cases. You made it up. You asserted the US has provided Iran with 62 years of "continual" grudge material, which after several pages of text, many days, and the intervention of your spiritual or biological mother and a massive obfuscation effort (which is the norm), neither of you have been able to prove. In another thread you offered the DOJ report as evidence of your assertions with respect to an incident in Ferguson, but as with everything else you with you, the DOJ report doesn't say what you said it said. As with almost all your assertions, your "evidence" doesn't support your assertions. In another thread, you insisted alleged lead poisoning was evidence of police racism, which was another thing you have yet to prove. In another recent thread you said you looked at the creditor conditions imposed on Greece and found most of the conditions would not help and would hurt Greece and not help it. You accused the IMF of imposing draconian demands upon poor little Greece, never mind the fact the IMF is the only institution calling for Greek debt relief. You were repeatedly challenged to name the onerous provisions you "looked" at. You have yet to do that. You have quibbled over words, words which mean the same thing. In another thread you said Greece had debt that was 5 years past due and should be written off ASAP. But when I challenged you to produce evidence of this debt and used the word default, instead of proving it, you denied it and fussed over the meaning of the word default. If you don't pay your bills, you are in default, and if you don't pay them for 5 years you are really deeply into default. You have made assertions about Greek debt and represented you has some kind of ability to determine was good and what was bad for Greece, that is fraudulent. What you have done is what you always do, obfuscate while adding more lies to cover previous lies and scapegoating others. You have misrepresented and sometimes contradicted yourself (e.g. Greek debt). And let's not forget you have consistently misrepresented my positions and the things I have written, and I could go on and on.

Iceaura, you lie. You are not credible. And you write a lot of whacky stuff. That is the bottom line. If you were a Republican you would fit in well with the boys and girls over at Fox News. I too have largely ignored your posts over the years.

 

Finally. No more nonsense about some absurd reductionist trope. Finally the actual matter: it took but four short pages. Cheap at twice the price, some would say.

Now: I believe, as I've written, that Iran is a fascist theocracy, because it is. However, that doesn't actually translate into "Crazy Iran". There's a not terribly subtle difference between these things. It might have looked a little crazier when Ahmendinejad was in charge, because he's kind of a Jerry Falwell figure, as I understand it, but in point of fact he was more a domestic terror than an international one.

Neither is "Crazy Iran" (CI) really a talking point in this specific discussion: some people might well believe in CI, but none of those people are here and simply put it is quite possible to want or even advocate better monitoring of Iran's nuclear process - you know, like Obama does - without buying into CI. And that's all there is. I think where you're getting confused is that, as you assign CI to the talking points of other people, you genuinely think that those people believe in it in this forced false dichotomy of either outright war or unconditional credulity; and neither have I created those things. I expressed a little doubt about some of Iran's international behaviour and was instantly consigned to the "Joe Agitprop Squadron". I don't even feel that he's actually flying such a squadron; we have expressed, I think, some doubt about Iranian intentions and that is quite a legitimate point. I am in neither camp today; I think on basis of this point we can end the "pigeonholing round" of this competition and head right on to the swimsuits and the talent show. I hope this makes that clear.

Now: what is it you are attempting to achieve with the CI meme, anyway? I presume it as "CI, therefore attack Iran", but Tiassa has attempted to equivocate those doubting the complete benevolence of Iranian intentions with morons who suppose that Iran, ever having acquired a nuclear weapon - their ability to do so and timeline being largely uncertain, as are their intentions - would immediately use it. This is a stupid and childish portrayal, designed to troll legitimate opinion into silence. It has no place on a discussion forum. It is rather that any nation in possession of such weapons could use them in a variety of ways and for a variety of strategies - your nation springs to mind here - such as power projection and implicit defense of internal fascism (i.e. North Korea). It is possible, also, but much, much more distally, that a nation could use such a weapon if faced with some unpredicted set of circumstances, or say where the presumed leverage of its use far outweighs potential response. With a (probably) nuclear Israel on the Med, there are few scenarios in which any such attack could be envisioned: not none, but conceivably some, and it is utterly beholden on those of us in place at this moment to protect NPT to continue to do so and to consider the possible results of failing to do so. There is a reason for NPT and unless your real hope is for Iran to actually get a nuke (which you have, actually, implied at least once) then there is no reason under the sun to call supporting vigilance "Crazy Iran". (Unless Obama is crazy too, perhaps?) Make such equivocation and I will ridicule your arguments; that is my deterrence strategy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes. I could stick it out and force you to eventually engage the actual question, which has apparently happened. They do say patience is the key to diplomacy.

 

Edit: and I add, a persistent expression of the "you think human beings from Iran are crazy" does seem to equivocate with "Why can't they have a bomb? They'd be careful with it. You just think human beings from Iran are crazy." Come right out and say what you want; although, in fairness, you largely did in that one post up there somewhere.

 

Oh, and finally: my first actual comment, which drove you a little wild, was just that it was possible for Iran to hold a nationalistic grudge about the Shah/oil business, yes for 62 years. I followed up my supposition with the point that I felt such a grudge would be therefore legitimate. Brits still chant "two world wars and one world cup", and the cup was about a fucking soccer game, for crying out loud. If it enters into the Iranian national character, well, there you go, then; fair enough.

Fair enough?

 

A Question of Fitness (i)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Self-described "liberal Republican" Will Saletan may be the last of a dying breed. Indeed, his Republican credentials are observably questionable because, amid the spectacle of GOP opposition to the P5+1 nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran, he finds himself unable to hop on the right-wing trolley:

If Republicans win the White House next year, they'll almost certainly control the entire federal government. Many of them, running for president or aspiring to leadership roles in Congress, are trying to block the nuclear deal with Iran. This would be a good time for these leaders to show that they're ready for the responsibilities of national security and foreign policy. Instead, they're showing the opposite. Over the past several days, congressional hearings on the deal have become a spectacle of dishonesty, incomprehension, and inability to cope with the challenges of a multilateral world.

When the hearings began more than a week ago, I was planning to write about the testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. But the more I watched, the more I saw that the danger in the room wasn't coming from the deal or its administration proponents. It was coming from the interrogators. In challenging Kerry and Moniz, Republican senators and representatives offered no serious alternative. They misrepresented testimony, dismissed contrary evidence, and substituted vitriol for analysis. They seemed baffled by the idea of having to work and negotiate with other countries. I came away from the hearings dismayed by what the GOP has become in the Obama era. It seems utterly unprepared to govern.​

As you might imagine, the review only goes downhill from there. A brief summary of the "lowlights":

(1) North Korea ― Secretary Kerry explained how the P5+1 negotiations aimed to correct problems with previous nonproliferation agreements, such as with North Korea, but Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) didn't seem to understand, taking all of a week to come up with the rejoinder, "How did that North Korean deal work out for you?"

(2) Israel ― With Republicans more interested in sound bites from politicians than, say, the sober assessments of former Israeli intelligence officials, we should not be surprised that Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) could only respond to Secretary Kerry's discussion of those supportive sober assessments by sputtering, "That wasn't even in the newspaper!" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a presidential candidate, dismissed the opinions of the intelligence experts because they weren't elected officials.

(3) IAEA ― Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX02) misquoted National Security Adviser Susan Rice; Secretary Kerry corrected him. The next day, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-TX) took up the issue again, leading to this memorable exchange:​

Inhofe: OK, I will give you her quote and make sure it is in the record here .... “She said six days ago she had seen it and reviewed it, and that Congress will get to see it in a classified session.”

Kerry: Senator, you are quoting Congressman Poe, and—

Inhofe: Who is quoting her. This is quotation marks.​

(4) EMPs: This really is a strange tale↱, with Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) purporting to know more about certain things than Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Saletan, for his part, muses:​

The most disturbing thing about this exchange isn't Cruz's obnoxiousness. It's his intellectual confidence in the face of his own ignorance. He doesn't know the slightest fraction of what Moniz knows about EMPs. Either Cruz doesn't understand this difference between himself and Moniz, or he doesn't care. He hasn't even taken the trouble to read the full transcript. And when he's given a complex scientific answer to a simplistic, politically crafted question, he rejects it. Can any thinking person, after reading this exchange, feel comfortable with Cruz as president?​

(5) Sanctions: Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) apparently has trouble with colloquialisms. That is to say, "snapback" is apparently a shorthand term for the quick process by which sanctions are reimposed against Iran in response to violations of the P5+1 agreement, but since the colloquialism doens't actually appear in the agreement, Mr. Sullivan seems to think the process it describes does not exist. And then he went on to explain that it didn't matter anyway, because the agreement couldn't do what it said it would do because it took years to do it without an agreement. "But Sullivan ignored the implication of his own argument", Saletan notes. The Alaska Republican argued the difficulty of persuading our international neighbors to reimpose sanctions; he wishes to kill the deal on the pretense that those neighbors would be happy to maintain the sanctions. In the larger context of the sanctions question, this is itself a problematic point for Republicans; the line of attack is often self-contradictory.​

―End Part I―​

 

A Question of Fitness (ii)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

[... continued ....]

(6) Pariahs: The nearest we might figure this argument is that some manner of zero-sum game is afoot, in which Iran and the United States Congress must necessarily trade labels. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) complained, "You have turned Iran from being a pariah to now Congress being a pariah". Sen. James Risch (R-ID) lamented that, "if we don't go along with this, then we are going to be the isolated pariah character". The latter has some merit, but in that case Republicans have done it to themselves.​

These Republicans speak as though they don't understand that the Iran talks involved seven countries. The obtuseness isn't confined to backbenchers. Corker chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rep. Ed Royce, who protested at the Tuesday hearing that the deal gave Russia and China "a say in where inspectors can and cannot go," chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Do Republicans understand that international sanctions require international support and that when everyone else in the talks finds terms they can agree on, we can't hold out for our own terms and expect sanctions to persist?​

(7) Bad Guys: Simply put, under this argument no war would end until one side was entirely exterminated. Rep. Dave Trott (R-MI11) aimed for a business slogan: "You can't do a good deal with a bad guy." Saletan, to the other, wonders about the obvious question: "Have any of these men ever heard of Ronald Reagan?"

(8) Indifference: A powerful arrogance rears its head, though this is nothing new among Republicans. Start with the basic Republican formula for compromise: We tell you what to do; you do it. You see? Compromise. Everybody has a part to play. Why won't you do your part? It is hardly a "Republican" phenomenon, but is also largely a conservative device. We saw it in Northern Ireland, when the IRA would only be allowed to the table in order to negotiate an end to the conflict if they surrendered first. The same process plays out in Palestine, with Palestinians often being expected to concede everything in order to be allowed participate in negotiations. What part of history suggests this actually works? And now Republicans want the same with Iran. In other words, negotiating a solution means Iran should give the United States everything Republicans want, remaining indifferent at best toward the Iranians, and plainly indifferent toward the world community.​

Wrapping up the hearing, Graham demanded that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter answer a simple question: "Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?" When he didn't get the prompt answer he wanted, Graham thunderously answered the question himself: "We win!" He sounded like a football coach delivering a pep talk. The differences between football and war—what "winning" means, and what it costs—didn't enter into his equation.​

(10) Patriotism: For whatever reason, Saletan pretends surprise that Republicans would denigrate Secretary Kerry's military service. No, really.​

Cruz: Gen. Soleimani, the head of the al-Quds forces, has more blood of American service members on his hands than any living terrorist. Under this agreement, the sanctions under Gen. Soleimani are lifted. Now, Secretary Kerry said to the families of those men and women who gave their lives, who were killed by Gen. Soleimani, we should apologize ....

Kerry: Sir, I never said the word apology. I never mentioned apologize. I said we should thank them for their extraordinary service. I never said the word apologize. Please, don't distort my words.

Cruz: Secretary Kerry, it is duly noted you don't apologize to the family members of the service members who were murdered by the Iranian military.

Kerry: That's not what I said, senator. [I said] I thank them for their extraordinary service and I would remind them that the United States of America will never take the sanctions off Qasem Soleimani.

Cruz: Sir, I just want to clarity. Do you apologize or not?​

And so it goes. You know. Just as long as we all recognize that GOP opposition to the P5+1 agreement is pretty much down to making shit up.

Oh, wait, when did they ever have anything else?

There is the idea that political opposition, as a fundamental reality, is necessary. Indeed, history suggests it not simply axiomatic, but inevitable.

There is also a question of whether any particular political opposition actually has functional merit. This is a question Americans skip over far too often.

It would behoove everyone to take note of Republican incoherence. Proper, genuine opposition would serve the nation better.
____________________

Notes:

Saletan, William. "Not Fit to Lead". Slate. 31 July 2015. Slate.com. 3 August 2015. http://slate.me/1OMdHu2

Benen, Steve. "The Senate EMP Caucus takes shape". msnbc. 29 July 2015. msnbc.com. 3 August 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1I2xpjc

―Fin―​

 

Shove your troll stick.

Every attempt to shift the discussion with me to your "position" on Iran is a waste of your time. You keep trying, I keep calling you on it, forever.

Your support for Joe's posting of that agitprop meme was my "talking point". I quoted your post, and called you on it.

The rest of your post there is noise, as far as relevance to my posting. If I were to address it, it would be only to trace your continued support for the "Crazy Iran" meme through your various dissimulations, but that's more work than I want to put into this. So I haven't done it. If you want to post paragraphs about the various aspects of your take on Iran, sure, go ahead. But don't act as if you are replying to me or discussing my objection to your post supporting Joe's agitprop meme. Don't lead by quoting me.

You don't need to "presume" anything - I've posted the objection to that meme several times on this thread. You could just read. Once again: it is being used by the US (and Israeli) propagandists to derail US diplomacy and force military confrontation only.

The central point is that the US is in the wrong in its dealings with Iran. Has been for decades. Iran's hostility toward the US is not some kind of grudge left over from something that happened and was over more that sixty years ago - that would be crazy. Iran is not crazy, Iran is under siege.

 

You have been repeatedly asked not to define exactly what is Joe's agitprop and you have consistently failed to do so. So, what is the agitprop Joe allegedly posted? Joe asked you to support your assertion the US provided 62 years of "continual" grudge material. You have also repeatedly failed to produce evidence to support that assertion.

Except unlike you GeoffP has some very good points, he's credible, and unlike you he isn't making stuff up.

You are not making any kind of sense. The central point is your credibility and dishonesty.

Another poster cited, the US engineered coup which over threw the Mossadegh government some 62 years ago as a cause for the current animosity between Iran and the US. That event has often been cited by many people as a primal cause for the continued animus between the two states. I responded with the observation that 62 years is a long time to hold a grudge and somehow you turned that into a meme. Your assertion was way over the top and unsupportable and you misrepresented my position. But it's what you do. As GeoffP has pointed out it isn't unreasonable to think people can hold grudges for 62 years or longer, just look to Israel and Palestine. By the way holding grudges over prolonged periods doesn’t make one crazy. It happens.

As I said before, no one side is completely free of guilt here and the relationship between Iran and the US is certainly more complicated than you seem willing or capable of comprehending. Iran has certainly given the US and the world cause for concern. Its continuing support of terrorism is one that easily comes to mind, its threats to international commerce being another, and its attempts to build nuclear weapons being another. Iran has caused so much concern even its strongest trading partners have participated in the current embargo (e.g. France, Russia, China, et al) leveled at Iran. And one of the things I find amazing in your continued support of a nation which is quite repressive and claims it doesn't have any homosexuals and where homosexuality can be punishable by death. You are being more than a little hypocritical. And I wouldn’t characterize preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power as unjustifiable or wrong, nor would Iran’s dearest trading partners which have taken identical measures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Nor would I call US efforts to defend international shipping in the Persian Gulf from Iranian attacks as untoward as you seem to think it is. The US has every right to defend international trade and to defend its ships from Iranian attacks and threats.

Also as I have posted before in this thread, I support this agreement for the reasons previously given. So your assertion that I am trying to subvert the agreement is a lie. It is fairly tale thinking to believe, as you do, that only one side (i.e. the US) is responsible for the animus between the two states. It's a little more complicated than that, something you have great difficulty understanding. Both sides have contributed to the animus. At some point, both sides must stop living in the past and begin a new relationship if they want a better tomorrow. And the same can be said of the Israel - Palestinian relationship. They need to stop blaming each other for real or perceived transgressions of the past and begin working together for their mutual benefit and building a better future. This agreement may very well fail, but it’s better than nothing.

 

Jeez
Guys
Take it out into the playground.

 

Nowhere have I posted any assertion that you know what you're doing when you post agitprop memes.

What you did was directly and obviously imply - and subsequently restate clearly, several times, complete with insults for more reality based worldviews - that the subsequent 62 years of continual US backed and US imposed abuse of Iran and Iranians did not happen. That is, your obvious point, which you have since repeatedly made and defended, was that Iran has been holding a grudge for more than 60 years based primarily on that single event. That's what you mean, for example, by "primal cause".

That would be a kind of crazy, and as Geoff pointed out a characteristic serious craziness of tyrannical and evil and illegitimate governments, who are fond of using propaganda based in hyperbole and exaggeration and reinvocation of grievances of the long past, to keep their grip on power.

The presentation of Iran as crazy, seriously crazy, based on denial of US behavior and Iran's actual circumstances past and present, is currently being used in the US to undermine all attempts at diplomacy with Iran, and limit US relations with Iran to hostile and military confrontation. You furthered that effort, posted that meme.

 

LOL..well that's good, but no one has accused you of that...oops.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have been repeatedly challenged to show the "meme" you have accused me of posting.

 

Oh, then you should be able to prove that, but you can’t because that is not what happened. This is what you posted, “Iran has been continually supplied with fresh grudge material, the entire time.” And you posted this, “So instead of 62 years of holding a grudge, we have 62 years of severe and continual abuse”.

Self-defense isn’t normally considered abuse. And you have been unable to prove your assertion of 62 years of abuse, along with your other assertions. If it happened as you alleged, then why haven’t you been able to prove it?

This is what I posted, “Well it was a little more complicated than that, there was this thing called the Soviet Union and a nuclear arms race and the Cold War.

At any rate 62 years seems like a long time to hold a grudge. The Allies didn't bear a grudge against the Axis powers for that long.

Dictators need someone to hate. It's easy to blame, it's a little more difficult to be accountable and responsible.”

Where is the insult in that exactly? With respect to the 62 years of continual abuse, for the umpteenth time, where is it? That is your allegation, support it. What you have done is point to a handful of incidents, but it doesn’t come anywhere close to 62 years as you allege, even the were all perfect examples of abuse, which they are not per previously posted material.

And you think that makes sense? I’ve read your paragraph a couple of times and cannot make any sense of it.

Well here is the rub; the only one who has said Iran is crazy is you. This is your straw man, so own it. No one here has presented Iran as crazy. No one has denied US behavior or Iran’s “circumstances” past or present. And the only one posting memes is you. This is you going off the deep end again. Where is this meme you keep accusing me of posting? You have been repeatedly asked to back that assertion up and you have repeatedly failed to do so. I have been very consistent here and I certainly don’t agree with those who oppose this agreement. I have explicitly stated I support the agreement several times now. The bottom line is you are making stuff up again.

PS.
What you have done is demonize the US and whitewash Iran. That is intellectually dishonest, it isn't honest period! The US - Iran relationship is a little more complicated than that. Both countries have reason to distrust the other.

 

They're baaaacck....

I'm trying to imagine in what way this is so, or how it connects. My attempt to shift the discussion to my position on Iran is a waste of time. My attempt to have a rational discussion rather than work on whatever is denting your ego is a waste of time?

Okay, I'm going to have to ask you which post you're referring to here. This will probably save a lot of time.

Whoops. Quoted you again there. I've already dismissed the CI meme. It's not a playable card here, for reasons I've described. The world is not divided into drum beaters and pacifists. People are not children.

I thank you for your candor. But did you not understand what I wrote above?:

​

Your position does indeed translate into precisely the false dichotomy I warned about earlier: you just avoided coming out and stating the conclusion to your proposition. Again, by sheer definition, opinion on this is not divided into "CI Therefore Attack Iran" vs. "Not CI therefore leave Iran alone". Joe and I are not "US or Israeli propagandists". There are innumerable positions between these points, and if you are functionally unable to see that, then there is little else to be said. This is recurring problem with a number of discussions on SF. Perhaps it would behoove us all to step back when these conflicts get out of hand and consider this point; which is actually what I said earlier. Or perhaps this is a specific issue of high emotional irrationality for you for whatever personal reason. Again, calm down: carrying doubts about the intentions of a fascist theocracy based on their domestic and international record is not "CI Therefore Attack Iran", which I'll abbreviate to CITAI. CITAI does exist, it's just that it's not being proposed or advocated here.

And that's fine. Again, no one is advocating CITAI that I can see. I am advocating a little more skepticism.

 

Actually I think this might be one of the gentler flamewars, or at least in my experience.