In fact it does. It shows that the current president of Iran is using the old tried and true blame outside aggressor for his failures. When Iran was undergoing economic boom, there wasn't a need as economic prosperity was legitimizing as a factor. South Korea is an excellent example of how economic prosperity stopped leaders from making bombastic threatening statements to their neighbors. It is not my fault you basically have no understanding in any way, shape, or form of political unity theory.No. It doesn't address what has been stated by all sorts of Iranian's, from president's to the ruling clerics, regarding annihilating Israel.
Pretty much. He's trying to blame Israel and the US for his failures. The real problem with Iran getting a weapon is that it will scare everyone else into getting weapons. Not that Iran will actually use it.Oh, I see...we just ignore their plain language and read into "annihilate Israel" that some Iranian leader is just playing the rhetoric game, huh?
Exactly. Now if you read the memo leaked from Harper (which you clearly didn't), Obama stated he had no intention of following through on that statement. Effectively he said it for votes. The same thing Iran's president is doing.Like Obama did when he promised to unilaterally re-open Nafta while backdooring the Canadians promising them that such declarations were rhetorical campaign devices?
I'm disappointed you take everything at face value without any critical thinking whatsoever.I'm disappointed that you grant state supporters of terrorism such benefit of the doubt.
You're a great example of why the American Public School System is a massive joke.
Amazon.com: Understanding Korean Politics: An Introduction (Suny Series in Korean Studies): Soong Hoom Kil, Chung-In Moon: BooksRight, South Korea booms because it stops threatening the Norks. Any empirical data proving this or are you working off of pure coincidence to guide your foreign policy expertise?
Go study South Korea. I have yet to lose a single argument about that yet.
Actually no you don't. You take it all at face value.No, I exercise judgment. And in my judgment, I don't grant state sponsors of terrorism such a high level of benefit of the doubt.
1) You ignore how economic prosperity in Iran's history reduced its statements
2) You ignore how economic prosperity in other country's history did the same
3) You ignore how failing economic times have pushed nations towards blaming outsiders.
Your entire argument is Iran will use it because he said it. You completely refuse to even acknowledge how economic prosperity or the lack of it changes how a government is viewed in terms of legitimacy.
Give me a reason why. And I agree with Bush that Iran wants and is trying to get a weapon. Oh wait. That just refutes you. (doesn't everyone?)I bet you don't even grant Bush an equivalent level of doubt, do you?
Ignorance. Explain to me why Iran would give them a weapon only to be on the receiving end of a nuclear missile launched from Israel or the US. As argued before, there are only really two sources, FSU states or Iran.Doesn't the absence of such examples bolster the case that to make good on their threats to wipe out Israel that they would use their proxy forces in Hamas and Hezbollah?
Logic, facts, history.WTF are you thinking?