Israeli: Iran bought missiles from N.Korea

Wurm

You may not be religious, but you seem to have backed the BushCo's on Iran on many posts of yours about the topic. So quit your lying and/or disingenuousness, al a' wolfux.


When the hell have I supported banning anyone here merely on the basis of disagreeing with me??? Here is yet another example of you inventing fallacies out of whole cloth.

And, WTF does Galloway have to do with this?

Carrera, you really need to get a grip.

__________________
"Bush is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

- John Dean, former Counsel to the President (Nixon)

The aim of big corporations is to separate fools from their money all of the time and ordinary folks from their money most of the time. The rest of us must fend for ourselves.

Carrera

"When the hell have I supported banning anyone here merely on the basis of disagreeing with me??? Here is yet another example of you inventing fallacies out of whole cloth. "

I won't be discussing this issue of Iran any further for the simple reason my arguments are subject to censorship and I'm in a no win situation as a result. Yes, Wurm, I'm afraid you do support banning and censorship since you choose to debate with me on a basis where you know my hands are tied. Let's recall what Limerickman posted. Here it is:

"I told you then and I am telling you now again - that this sort of stuff won't be tolerated."

"This sort of stuff" isn't a case of me using abusive language, insulting anyone, threatening folks or doing anything beside expressing a view. Therefore, as I said before, "No comment!"

Let me add one more thing: I would love to take you guys on in a bike race to see how good you really are (especially Fred, for that matter who blows his own trumpet). As I say, in real life you can't simply ban the opposition to make life easier. There is no banning the cyclist ahead of you in a race and no cocoon where you can surround yourself by yes men.
Food for thought.

Carrera

"Carrera, you really need to get a grip."

Yes, on my handlebars. I'm off to do my training ride.

wolfix

Wurm, you said that you put me on your "ignore list." Please follow through.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

Wurm

Yet more of your pretzel logic?

__________________
"Bush is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

- John Dean, former Counsel to the President (Nixon)

The aim of big corporations is to separate fools from their money all of the time and ordinary folks from their money most of the time. The rest of us must fend for ourselves.

Carrera

Wurm, your logic is also a bit distorted since you seemed very quick to classify me as a neo-conservative when you ought to know by now I happened to oppose the Iraq War. Many of my postings have also taken on a very anti-religious theme and neo-cons base their views on radical Christianity.
Neither have I called for full-blown war against Iran. What I did state, as my own opinion, is that Europe must unite and demand Iran end its nuclear program - period. After having made this statement and other statements I was virtually attacked by a pack of wolves
At one time I also suggested (as an absolute last resort) that I would support military strikes against Iran which is different to an actual war. I referred to simply taking out those nuclear facilities or specialist operations to disarm those facilities. I still take that line, in fact.
I did add many reasonable concessions, though. I admitted this crisis probably wouldn't have come about were it not for the Iraq War. I proposed the U.S. offer Iran a set peace deal and immunity from attack if it co-operates.
However, the problem is whenever I appear to be reasonable and attempt to view the two sides of this argument, I get savaged, called a neo-con and threatened with being banned if I attempt to defend myself verbally.
Surely, Wurm, as an alleged liberal, you should defend my right to hold an opinion? Would it be right for me to lie and misrepresent my views simply to be more popular.

wolfix

Wurm is not a liberal. Wurm is a man who projects his life's failures on the government. He sits around reading the conspirecy websites on the internet instead of taking charge of his own life.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

Wurm

The problem I'm having is the leap you made to me supporting "unfair banning", merely by my having a discussion with you here. I would say that IF you were to get kicked, it would be due to your own actions and NOT from a posse looking to hang you.

Sorry Carrera, but you always seem to want it both ways. Favoring an attack on Iran when they have not attacked US interests is the current Neo-Con mantra; whether Iran has WMD's or does not, it is still supporting illegal aggression.

You sleep with dogs, you get fleas.

__________________
"Bush is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

- John Dean, former Counsel to the President (Nixon)

The aim of big corporations is to separate fools from their money all of the time and ordinary folks from their money most of the time. The rest of us must fend for ourselves.

Carrera

Clearly what I've tried to convey to you is that you're entitled to your views and ideology and I'm entitled to mine. Meantime, feel free to quote any posts made by myself in the past where I may have verbally abused other people, threatened violence or used bad language.
I have never myself called for either you or Darkboong or Fred to be banned as I figure I'm hopefully mature enough to stand my ground or shrug off any insults that come my way.
I accept you obviously don't agree with me over Iran but I'm quite willing to accept these points where we differ. But why shouldn't I be entitled to my own views? These views are namely that I personally consider a nuclear armed Iran to be a very undesirable prospect, to put it mildly.
P.S., Wurm, how many neo-cons do you know who believe the following?:
(1) Gender equality and equal rights for women.
(2) Multi party secular democracy.
(3) Tolerance of gays and lesbians and other groups.
(4) A free press and the right to free expression.
(5) Working rights, minimum wage and trade unions.
(6) An end to the death penalty and social protection against poverty.
(7) Black civil rights and equality.
(8) ZERO TOLERANCE of "intolerance" and deportation for immigrants who won't accept the above as social criteria.
(9) Socialism and working-class rights.
Now, ask yourself how the Iranian clerics view gender equality, the death penalty, gays and lesbians, free press and secular liberty?
How come the clerics seem to be being painted as "liberals" while I'm supposed to be the dinosaur around here?

Carrera

"The problem I'm having is the leap you made to me supporting "unfair banning", merely by my having a discussion with you here. I would say that If you were to get kicked, it would be due to your own actions.."

It's like a boxing match where the ref penalises me for body punches but lets you off for blows below the belt, thumbing and gouging.

Carrera

On this occasion, Wurm has indeed been guilty of intolerance although I would class Darkboong as being even worse. Not that I dislike Darkboong as an individual or anything like that but I do think he projects himself as a liberal when he falls a long way off the mark actual liberalism.
Rod Liddle has an angle on this I'll try and explain in my own way:
Imagine that "A" believes in the death penalty, doesn't believe in equality of women, believes gays and lesbians are living against God's laws, loathes prostitution, doesn't believe in the free press and is an arch-conservative.
"B" sees himself as a liberal and feels threatened by the views held by "A". In fact, "B" is so horrifed by "A" that he wants to see "B" kicked out of the country and not tolerated in society unless "B" agrees to keep his views to himself and not attempt to enforce those views on others within society.
"C" classifies himself as far more liberal than "B" and is more horrified by "B"'s apparent intolerance than by the original "A" (our arch-conservative). "C" views himself as so liberal and tolerant that he will go so far as tolerating "A"'s intolerance but would never tolerate the dreaded "B" (who is viewed as a stone-age reprobate).
Ironically we can arrive at a point where "C" becomes so liberal that he somehow becomes illiberal. That is, he becomes prepared to demonstrate his liberal credentials by tolerating intolerance - ironically the opposite views of liberalism per se.
So, that's why "B" will always criticize "C" but rarely take a poke at the original "A" which is a kind of paradox.
I feel sure Rod Liddle feels the same way and interestingly he has written for both the Guardian as well as the Spectator.

darkboong

I have told you (and others) that I am an Anarchist on several occasions. Last time I checked a dictionary Liberals and Anarchists were not the same thing.

Now, about that evidence regarding your outrageous claim that Iran was "dangerous" and "unstable" ? Where is it ? Any chance of publishing a link to an article, or mentioning a source ? You wouldn't even have to post the body of the article if you did that.

__________________
Free Beer !

Carrera

QUOTE:
"Mr Ahmadinejad is reinforcing the point that he is willing to negotiate with anyone, including the US president, to avoid conflict over the nuclear issue, our correspondent adds.
The US and Iran have not had diplomatic relations since Washington severed ties with Tehran after Iranian students occupied the US embassy there and took 52 Americans hostage in 1979.
The White House has said it is "unaware" of a letter from Mr Ahmadinejad."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/4983868.stm

If it's true, the U.S. should meet the Iranians half-way and offer them a deal -negotiate a deal that would end the stand-off. I don't see the point in chest-pounding and blustering if the Iranians really do seek compromise.
As I said, the U.S. could offer Iran guarantees it won't be attacked if it allows Russia to follow up on the enrichment program on Russian soil. That would allow Iran to possess nuclear energy which is what it apparently seeks.
If Bush simply buries his head in the sand and doesn't offer Iran any deal then he'll be left with few allies.
It's a matter of compromise so let's hope Iran is serious in its attempt to communicate and that Bush will also get off his high horse.

Carrera

I decided to close that particular line of discussion as the odds were very much against me. I had yourself, Wurm, Fred and others all tearing me to strips at once.
As for the arnarchy issue, I explained above that I view myself as a liberal in as much as I'm against the death penalty, believe in female equality, socialist values, secularism and tolerance. None of those values strike me as belonging to the neo-conservative sphere.
I never saw my views as being unreasonable as I did make it clear Iran should be offered protection from attack if it co-operates and that we should pull troops out of Iraq immediately.