Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Syria has and would start anothier conflict with its neighbor Israel. SA wouldn't. 659779[/snapback] That's your measure of "rational"? Stop agreeing with me, Joe. Please. Go count your !@#$ing tupperware or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 That's your measure of "rational"? Stop agreeing with me, Joe. Please. Go count your !@#$ing tupperware or something. 659788[/snapback] Yes, to me it's irrational for a nationstate to initiate a war of extermination like Syria has int he past. As far as I can tell, SA has never done so. Another interesting point for yout o look at is the Baath party's historical connections to Nazism. I saw a pretty cool show on it a few weeks back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Yes, to me it's irrational for a nationstate to initiate a war of extermination like Syria has int he past. As far as I can tell, SA has never done so. Another interesting point for yout o look at is the Baath party's historical connections to Nazism. I saw a pretty cool show on it a few weeks back. 659793[/snapback] A war of territory, not of extermination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 A war of territory, not of extermination. 659805[/snapback] riiight. Keep telling yourself that they wouldn't have exterminated the Jews in 73 if they had won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 About as much as I trust the Chinese, Pakistanis, or North Koreans, and we're not doing much about them. But as long as Israel has nukes, it seems unfair to deny them to Muslim states to allow them to have a MAD deterrent. We should call for a nuclear free Middle East. 659454[/snapback] Thats a dangerous road the world is going down, when other countries build the bomb in the name of deterrance.........I remember watching a frontline show called ''loose nukes'' in the late 90's.......And with iran building the nukes, I believe some people in their nuke industry would sell it to potential terrorist.....The future looks BRIGHT..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 riiight. Keep telling yourself that they wouldn't have exterminated the Jews in 73 if they had won. 659809[/snapback] '73 was a war of territory, trying to recapture the lands conquered in '67. '58 and earlier, you may be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Why does this keep focusing back on Israel? Perhaps we should discuss pulling our support of Israel so we can better placate Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Why does this keep focusing back on Israel? Perhaps we should discuss pulling our support of Israel so we can better placate Iran? 659990[/snapback] Because according to JSP, Israel = rational, Iran = irrational. Of course, if you're Iranian, it's the other way around. But that's just because Iranians are too irrational to realize they're irrational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Because according to JSP, Israel = rational, Iran = irrational. Of course, if you're Iranian, it's the other way around. But that's just because Iranians are too irrational to realize they're irrational. 660014[/snapback] Israel doesn't espouse publically or privately the elimination of entire nations. Israel doesn't sponsor terrorism. Israeli students never took Americans hostage. Gee, I wonder why I think Israel is rational and Iran's irrational? Quite frankly, I could care less what an Iranian thinks. Their actions tell me all I need to know about what they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Israel doesn't espouse publically or privately the elimination of entire nations. Israel doesn't sponsor terrorism. Israeli students never took Americans hostage. Gee, I wonder why I think Israel is rational and Iran's irrational? Quite frankly, I could care less what an Iranian thinks. Their actions tell me all I need to know about what they think. 660025[/snapback] And thus, not only do you reduce the definition of "rational" to "thinks like me", but you manage to create a nice circular argument whereby the Iranians are irrational because they think differently than you, hence you can ignore what they think because they're irrational. Typically, it's more useful to examine why people think what they do, and try to understand why they think it's rational, than just dismiss it because it's different. But it's easier to just dismiss people, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 And thus, not only do you reduce the definition of "rational" to "thinks like me", but you manage to create a nice circular argument whereby the Iranians are irrational because they think differently than you, hence you can ignore what they think because they're irrational. Typically, it's more useful to examine why people think what they do, and try to understand why they think it's rational, than just dismiss it because it's different. But it's easier to just dismiss people, I guess. 660038[/snapback] I do that all the time, and it gets me ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 And thus, not only do you reduce the definition of "rational" to "thinks like me", but you manage to create a nice circular argument whereby the Iranians are irrational because they think differently than you, hence you can ignore what they think because they're irrational. Typically, it's more useful to examine why people think what they do, and try to understand why they think it's rational, than just dismiss it because it's different. But it's easier to just dismiss people, I guess. 660038[/snapback] Uh, wait a minute. Do you think hostage taking, support for Hamas and threatening nuclear genocide in the name of Islam are rational? Again, what does it matter WHY they think the way they do? All that matters is how they ACT on the way they think. Example: I can dream abotu strangulating my boss all I want, but if I go and DO it, it becomes something different altogether. At that point do you think my boss' family should try and "understand" why I thought the way I did? thanks for your opinion, but that's all it is. AN OPINION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Uh, wait a minute. Do you think hostage taking, support for Hamas and threatening nuclear genocide in the name of Islam are rational? Again, what does it matter WHY they think the way they do? All that matters is how they ACT on the way they think. Example: I can dream abotu strangulating my boss all I want, but if I go and DO it, it becomes something different altogether. At that point do you think my boss' family should try and "understand" why I thought the way I did? thanks for your opinion, but that's all it is. AN OPINION. 660056[/snapback] No, you're wrong. Strategically speaking, if you want to modify someone's behavior to your benefit, you attack the motivations. The reason people attack the actions is because it's easier. The problem is you effect a short term solution that in the longer term makes things worse. Our problem (and not limited to us) is the ingrained desire for the short term solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 No, you're wrong. Strategically speaking, if you want to modify someone's behavior to your benefit, you attack the motivations. The reason people attack the actions is because it's easier. The problem is you effect a short term solution that in the longer term makes things worse. Our problem (and not limited to us) is the ingrained desire for the short term solution. 660085[/snapback] OK, so...the immediate problem is you have a radical fascist Islamist state on the doorstep of gaining nuclear weapons. To me, that needs more than a long-term solution. Is it not possible to solve the short-term problem as well as the long-term one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 OK, so...the immediate problem is you have a radical fascist Islamist state on the doorstep of gaining nuclear weapons. To me, that needs more than a long-term solution. Is it not possible to solve the short-term problem as well as the long-term one? 660090[/snapback] The correct long term solution is the correct short term solution. And, it's not going apeshit and bombing people. As I said, it's hard. To complicate things is the very difficulty of dealing with Iran, compared to other nations. If our government considers this to be an actual clear and present danger, it needs to make a full court press in engaging others to develop a true carrot and stick approach that both gives Iran incentive to modify behavior and truely enforce penalties when it doesn't. We can not and should not do that unilterally. Sadly, some of the Iraq situation is/was the same problem. We never would have gone to war there had there been actual support and enforcement from the rest of the global community in "containing" Sadaam. The UN is not the venue for this. People with knee jerk reactions regarding Iran are no different than those with knee jerk reactions about anything else. They haven't studied the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 The correct long term solution is the correct short term solution. And, it's not going apeshit and bombing people. As I said, it's hard. To complicate things is the very difficulty of dealing with Iran, compared to other nations. If our government considers this to be an actual clear and present danger, it needs to make a full court press in engaging others to develop a true carrot and stick approach that both gives Iran incentive to modify behavior and truely enforce penalties when it doesn't. We can not and should not do that unilterally. Sadly, some of the Iraq situation is/was the same problem. We never would have gone to war there had there been actual support and enforcement from the rest of the global community in "containing" Sadaam. The UN is not the venue for this. People with knee jerk reactions regarding Iran are no different than those with knee jerk reactions about anything else. They haven't studied the problem. 660103[/snapback] Well, that's easier said than done given that the Iranians' puppetmasters in Russia and China won't ever allow anything to get done. It's all well and good to talk about uniting the world community in true enforcement. I would have happily accepted this with Iraq and would with Iran as well. The issue is, the world won't (or doesn't desire to) play along at all. I want a real solution, one that will make the world safer for my daughter. Do you believe in your professional opinion that the Chinese and Russians will ever allow Iran to be halted in their progress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Well, that's easier said than done given that the Iranians' puppetmasters in Russia and China won't ever allow anything to get done. It's all well and good to talk about uniting the world community in true enforcement. I would have happily accepted this with Iraq and would with Iran as well. The issue is, the world won't (or doesn't desire to) play along at all. I want a real solution, one that will make the world safer for my daughter. Do you believe in your professional opinion that the Chinese and Russians will ever allow Iran to be halted in their progress? 660106[/snapback] Actually, yes. If there is something in it for them. Google Russian-China oil and gas deals. I'd be more concerned with France and Germany's support. Google those two re: trade numbers. Russia, is/has/and always will talk out of both sides of their mouth but in fairness did have a viable solution to the Iranian enrichment program. Iranians blew them off. Also, not my "professional" opinion. Just my opinion. But I have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express on occassion. Also, as a PS and BTW - I'm glad we aren't seeing anyone actually buying off on this "peaceful means" BS. Even here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Hey, it worked for Ronnie. On more than one occasion. !@#$ this problem...Im still trying to figure out why the geniuses at Trek outfit George Hincapie's bike at Paris-Roubaix with a substandard fork which snapped and ruined the big man's season. Thats probably Bush's fault too. No..wait.....HALLIBURTON! 657261[/snapback] What happened to Hincapie? Also is fancy pants Lance going to head up the team this year or has he decided to hang up his bike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted April 13, 2006 Author Share Posted April 13, 2006 Why do I even bother... Bush Bad. Anything and everything is nothing more than Bush Bad. I wish I could turn my brain off and become a blind Bush Bad lemming like you and anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically a Bush apologist. That thinking thingy is sooooo hard. 657006[/snapback] Ok, first, let me admit that the post you are responding to is inebriated tps. Damn! I spent 4 hours at Coles, then got on the computer--I need a breathalizer control on this thing. So, yes, I was a little over the top on the response you responded to. That said, you're over the top a bit on the Bush bad thing. I don't say bush is bad, rather, it's his administration and advisors. Also, many of my posts are about his economic policies which are based upon "reagonics." On the other hand, yes, I believe this administration is one of the worst on record. It's hard to find something good about them. HELL, what is it that the right posts? Democrats are idiots or have no policy. IN fact the most common responses are "Bush bad" "halliburton" etc. You guys don't even try to respond most of the time, all you do is change the subject because these guys are so bad. I was not a Clinton supporter either. i post negative things about bush because I hope to try and convince the right that the the right is just as bad as the left. I think most of us here probably agree on many things, and want to see an administration that responds to the average American. I only wish we--the right and the left--could come together and get rid of the one party system that rules this country... Ok, yes, I've been drinking tonight too...so if my post is contradictory...I have an excuse...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Ok, yes, I've been drinking tonight too...so if my post is contradictory...I have an excuse...... Give it up. I stay drunk and no one lets me use that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts