|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2007 : 09:03:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Mycroft, you were the one that brought up the experts as though I were hiding something.
Your interpretation. I made note of your failure to link to a source because I think it's unusual to do so. I was also curious about your reasoning behind that decision, which you have answered. At no time did I say you have any sinister motives for that decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
What they said is immaterial to the point I was making, and you've yet to explain why it was material to what I was saying.
The portion of the article you quoted bashes our current administration not for being wrong about not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons, but for having a different opinion from thirty years ago. How could it be immaterial that the policy from thirty years ago was also wrong? It's irrational to bash someone for changing their mind on a policy that's wrong unless your intent is to just bash them no matter what.
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 09:03:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And the truth is Counterpunch is a biased source, and that editorial you cite is purposefully misleading in its facts, not the least of which is that the US hasn't built any nuclear bunker-buster bombs.
Yes, I see where I'm wrong now. I didn't post a link that shows that the sky is blue. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 09:11:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"The shah made a big convincing case that Iran was going to run out of gas and oil and they had a growing population and a rapidly increasing demand for energy," Sick said. "The mullahs make the same argument today, but we don't trust them."
The point of the article was to say that somehow Iran needed nuclear power then, but they don't need it now.
That has nothing to do with nuclear experts agreeing it's a dumb idea to give it to them. I agree. Who wouldn't except Westinghouse and whomever did end up selling it to them? You still haven't explained why you thought I had some sinister motive in hiding this paragraph. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 02/26/2007 09:12:26 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 09:28:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The portion of the article you quoted bashes our current administration not for being wrong about not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons, but for having a different opinion from thirty years ago.
Even I did not say the Ford administration wanted the Shah to have nuclear weapons. Straw Herring! Nobody wants them to have any today, including the Iranians. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 10:08:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
All sources are biased sources and you evidently use yours to wrap the herring you love so well, instead of reading them.
In a technical sense, yes, all sources are biased. Some sources try not to be biased and achieve some degree of success. Counterpunch is not among them.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
You are building a strawman argument. What I said is that the U.S. (edited to say U.S. gummint) has no business bullying people who abide by international law and who abide by treaties, since they do not abide by international law and treaties themselves.
Iran is a signatory to nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Developing a bomb is a violation of those treaties.
That the US does not abide by these same treaties is a matter of opinion. An opinion certainly held by Counterpucnhand Eric Ruder, its openly socialist editorialist, but not generally shared by those bodies that actually decide what is or is not a violation.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
A better analogy would be to have Al Capone telling people that they should obey the anti-liquor laws.
If Al Capone really did tell people to obey anti-liquor laws, that would have hurt his own criminal empire, right? If Al Capone were so obviously acting against his own self-interest, that would be a good thing, right? |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 10:15:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In a technical sense, yes, all sources are biased. Some sources try not to be biased and achieve some degree of success. Counterpunch is not among them.
I really have not had much experience with Counterpunch, I don't know. I have not found them to be incorrect on any subject, however. Maybe you have, and you can illustrate that.
Some sources that I'm more familiar with, like 'Z' Magazine, acknowledge that they are biased, while trying to present facts.
What we're trying to discover here, is whether or not you attempt to present facts, and acknowledge your bias, or whether you just blow smoke by talking about liars and red herrings. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 10:19:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Iran is a signatory to nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Developing a bomb is a violation of those treaties.
That the US does not abide by these same treaties is a matter of opinion.
There is no evidence that Iran is building a bomb. There is evidence that the U.S. has built bombs. They are both signatories to the same treaty. What is your point? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 10:26:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Yes, I see where I'm wrong now. I didn't post a link that shows that the sky is blue.
Wow. Dead horse and a straw man.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
"The shah made a big convincing case that Iran was going to run out of gas and oil and they had a growing population and a rapidly increasing demand for energy," Sick said. "The mullahs make the same argument today, but we don't trust them."
The point of the article was to say that somehow Iran needed nuclear power then, but they don't need it now.
Let's cut to the chase. Try to avoid throwing out new red herrings such as US policy of 30 years ago and your opposition to the US having a nuclear arsenal, and see if you can concentrate on Iran for a moment:
Does Iran need nuclear energy? Sitting on top of the worlds third largest reserves of oil and the largest supply of natural gas (the biggest drawback being that it's difficult to transport, meaning it's perfect for local use) do you believe they need to develop nuclear energy?
Exactly how much credibility do you ascribe to Iranian Mullahs who claim not to want nuclear weapons? After years of turning down compromise after compromise, of thumbing their nose at the EU and the US, exactly how likely do you think it is that they're being honest?
What exactly is it about this theocracy that makes you trust it on its word alone, while every other government on the earth is assumed to be duplicitous and dishonest?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
That has nothing to do with nuclear experts agreeing it's a dumb idea to give it to them. I agree. Who wouldn't except Westinghouse and whomever did end up selling it to them?
What does Westinghouse making money thirty years ago have to do with policy decisions today? You keep bringing this up as though we're all supposed to shake our heads saying, ”Oooh, bad! Bad Westinghouse! Bad capitalist! We must atone for these capitalists sins by looking the other way while Iran builds nuclear weapons!”
There is no logical connection between Westinghouse making money thirty years ago and if Iran developing nuclear technology today is a good idea. It's just another of your red herrings; a distraction from the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
You still haven't explained why you thought I had some sinister motive in hiding this paragraph.
I never said you had a sinister motive, only that it's revelation points out a flaw in your reasoning. If Iran having nuclear technology was a dumb idea thirty years ago, then it makes zero sense to fault anyone for being against it today. Especially if you do it by comparing today to thirty years ago.
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 10:37:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
Iran is a signatory to nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Developing a bomb is a violation of those treaties.
That the US does not abide by these same treaties is a matter of opinion.
There is no evidence that Iran is building a bomb.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1677542,00.html
quote:
Originally posted by GorgoThere is evidence that the U.S. has built bombs. They are both signatories to the same treaty. What is your point?
Under treaty the US (as well as any other nuclear power) is allowed to maintain and update its existing arsenal, which is what it has done. While there are some that argue that updating is the same as developing new weapons if it improves an old weapons ability, it is at best a technical argument that's not shared by the bodies responsible for enforcing the treaties. It does, however, make a nice little propaganda hook.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 10:39:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If Iran having nuclear technology was a dumb idea thirty years ago, then it makes zero sense to fault anyone for being against it today. Especially if you do it by comparing today to thirty years ago.
Iran says it needs nuclear energy, just like it said it did when Ford was president. Iran is entitled to nuclear energy, just like it was when Ford was president. Iran is part of the NPT, which allows for that. The U.S. has no business telling people that obey treaties and obey international law that they can't continue to do so, while they ignore treaties and disobey international law.
All your other nonsense is just nonsense and smoke. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 11:15:38 [Permalink]
|
| Okay, I'll look into this a little closer. I see your biased corporate media source is repeating the lie that Ahmaninejad wants to wipe Israel off the map. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 11:19:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Iran says it needs nuclear energy, just like it said it did when Ford was president.
Do you agree, yes or no?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Iran is entitled to nuclear energy, just like it was when Ford was president.
This seems to imply that you are for the proliferation of nuclear technology? True or false?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Iran is part of the NPT, which allows for that.
It does, but the issue is that Iran is doing more than that.
quote:
Originally posted by GorgoThe U.S. has no business telling people that obey treaties and obey international law that they can't continue to do so, while they ignore treaties and disobey international law.
Do you know what a Tu quoque fallacy is?
"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html
quote:
Originally posted by GorgoAll your other nonsense is just nonsense and smoke.
Your constant repeated tactic is to draw attention away from Iran by attacking the United States. This is illogical. If what Iran is doing is right or wrong is a different issue from what the United States (or France, Equador, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Taiwan, Egypt, India or any other nation) is doing. The issue is Iran. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 11:26:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Okay, I'll look into this a little closer. I see your biased corporate media source is repeating the lie that Ahmaninejad wants to wipe Israel off the map.
Unbelievable! You say that even though none of the sources I cite make that claim!
For the record, there is nothing corporate media about mideastweb dot org, and the Guardian is generally considered to be biased against corporate/government interests.
In perusing this thread, I noticed a few other pertinant questions you seem to have missed. Maybe I'll keep them as a file and keep reposting them every time you post without adressing them:
Let's cut to the chase. Try to avoid throwing out new red herrings such as US policy of 30 years ago and your opposition to the US having a nuclear arsenal, and see if you can concentrate on Iran for a moment:
Does Iran need nuclear energy? Sitting on top of the worlds third largest reserves of oil and the largest supply of natural gas (the biggest drawback being that it's difficult to transport, meaning it's perfect for local use) do you believe they need to develop nuclear energy?
Exactly how much credibility do you ascribe to Iranian Mullahs who claim not to want nuclear weapons? After years of turning down compromise after compromise, of thumbing their nose at the EU and the US, exactly how likely do you think it is that they're being honest?
What exactly is it about this theocracy that makes you trust it on its word alone, while every other government on the earth is assumed to be duplicitous and dishonest?
|
|
|
 |
|
Iranian Manhattan Project speeds along
