Okay, so what do we have here? This doesn't even make sense. You post a naked assertion that I allegedly lack the ability to exercise critical thinking skills (I guess based on the fact that you don't agree with my comments). You then accuse me of not being willing to accept argument I don't agree with because I noted that you failed (obviously) to demonstrate how I lack such an ability to exercise criticl thinking skills. Then you proceed to instruct me to simply accept such naked assertions as facts.
Only you Jmak would look at it that way. I pointed out that your entire argument is based on superficial statements made by one man during a period of economic weakness. I also pointed out that you ignored a vast wealth of history showing how economic weakness often leads to such statements. Not my fault you can't put two and two together.
You cannot even keep your arguments straight. Before you argued that stopping such antagonistic behavior led to economic prosperity:
Can you read? I never argued such a thing. You are in fact lying. What I did state was that economic prosperity in South Korea lead to the disuse of such statements. For Iran the economic change from prosperity to woes caused bombastic statements. Not my fault your reading comprehension needs to go back to school.
Get your arguments straight, would ya?
You only say that due to your inability to comprehend written words.
Both quotes state that economic prosperity lead to a reduction on such statements.
"South Korea is an excellent example of how economic prosperity stopped leaders from making bombastic threatening statements to their neighbors."
" South Korea stops accusing and threatening North Korea: it's economy took off and legitimacy was derived from economy prosperity"
Let's see. I state both times that economic prosperity lead to the disuse of statements. Look up the definition of "When" (among others).
Pray tell, where did I say two different things?
BTW - you're simply repeating yourself here re: Iran blaming someone else to gain legitimacy. I responded to that by asking why you granted Iran such benefit of the doubt. Well?
Because it's one of the
oldest tools in political unity? So old that it dates back to the Babylonian era. Blaming an outside aggressor for why your situation sucks is as old as time.
That's not the real problem. It is one of the problems.
In terms of a nuclear Iran that is the real problem. Iran alone with a nuke isn't that bad. Everyone else trying to get one is.
Obama was lying to us during the campaign.
Well
duh. Name me a politician that doesn't lie during their campaign.
If you say that is the same thing that iran's Prez is doing then you're saying Iran's Prez is lying, too. Hence, Iran's motivation ain't a rhetorical device as you say it is.
Come again? It is a rhetorical device. Obama said it to get votes here. Iran's president is doing it in Iran to maintain power and support as well as deflect criticism for his failures.
I'm disappointed that you play with strawmen.
Show me how you don't do that exactly that. You are taking his statements superficially without any critical thinking as to why or incorporating any history whatsoever into your argument.
Until then, you just attacking me personally rather than presenting an argument.
It furthers my argument that you are not critically thinking.
Meanwhile, South Korea's economic prosperity may have coincided with the lessening of tensions with the Norks, but that was not a requisite condition for economic improvement. It's a coincidence.
No one argued that reducing statements lead to economic development. You failed to understand the definition of the word "when." What I actually stated and what you failed to comprehend is that states reduce bombastic statements when they derive legitimacy from other factors. South Korea did it through economic prosperity. President Rhee often clamored to invade the North. President (or shall I say dictator) Park did much of the same during his early years. As the economy took off and South Korea GDP flew past North Korea the statements effectively stopped. The past two presidents had extremely open and polite statements to the North offering aid and development. Quite a change from "Let's invade the Communists up North." Hardly a coincidence.
You do. You ignored the circumstance of the past Iranian president. You ignored other historical precedents. You ignore how leaders utilize political unity to maintain support. You ignore how economics is a legitimizing or de-legitimizing factor (See Zimbabwe).
You effectively pretend as if the only thing that actually counted was superficial statements.
No critical thinking. All face value.
You have presented no such examples. You posted a comment about such an experience but provided neither dates or empirical data. Try again.
You really have absolutely no experience in this do you?
Iranian Economists Denounce Ahmadinejad's Economic Policies, Contradict Recent Official Statements
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blames George Bush and Zionists for financial woe - Times Online
LOL he blames US!
Iran: Ahmadinejad Deriving Power From Rhetoric - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2009
Good article.
Mohammad Khatami - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ahmadinejad's Achilles Heel: The Iranian Economy
Ahmadinejad's economic policies certainly can be blamed for the current increasing inflation and unemployment
Guess who's economy is in the toliet!
Apparently you are now pretending South Korea doesn't exist! Not that I'm surprised. You are in fact JMak.
No, I have simply disagreed with you that failing economic times in contemporary Iran have led it current leadership to ratchet up the annihilate Israel rhetoric. Iran has possessed this annihilation attitude for decades. It's nothing contemporary and has nothing to do with its current economic conditions.
Care to look at the past president of Iran?
Iran Under Khatami: Weapons of Mass Destruction, Terrorism, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Oh wait. You won't.
Yeah
totally the same. :rofl:spin:
No, my argument is that we cannot simply ignore the rhetoric as you intend us to do.
Because he said stuff! Great argument there. Let's pretend that historical data suggesting that increased economy prosperity changes a government's look towards better relations with its enemies as evident by the last Iranian administration doesn't exist. Let's pretend that South Korea's 50 years of history doesn't exist. Let's pretend political unity theory doesn't exist despite obvious applications of it in the US everyday. Let's just PRETEND all of that doesn't exist.
No such argument was presented and even if it were it's simply not relevant as an explanatory device for Iran's rhetoric.
Why is not relevant? Did President Rhee really intend to invade the North? No. Did President Park intend to invade the North? No. But Iran totally does
despite the past administration showing you to be dead wrong.
You missed my point. And, no, you didn't just refute anything I said.
Incorrect.
You don't accept that anyone refutes anything you ever say. This is apparent from your posting history. That of course doesn't make your view correct.
I simply noted that you grant Iran's autocratic leadership an major benefit of the doubt and based on your comments regarding Bush I concluded that you grant Iran's leadership far more benefit of the doubt than your own President. Citing a single instance of agreement with Bush doesn't foul up my point.
It's not just the benefit of the doubt. What Iran is doing is virtually textbook. Having problems at home? Blame an outside enemy. Having economic collapse that you help cause? Blame an outside enemy. Having political instability and decreasing support? Blame an outside enemy. Where have I seen this before? Oh right, virtually every nation's development from dictatorships to economic wealth and democracy. The past administration showed that increasing economic wealth greatly tempered its views and actual actions towards Israel. As the FAS article states, no intelligence operations from Iran against Israel have been found during the last administration's tenure. Want to bet how many the current president has? :2wave:
I doubt that contemporary American leadership would default to a nuke strike against Iran should a nuke go off in Israel given the current level of angst and anxiety about using conventional weapons in conventional wars.
Obama? Probably not. Bush. Maybe.
You're presuming an autmatic response of nuking Iran that I just don't see being realistic.
Maybe not instantly. But it would be quick. Furthermore, Iran knows that it cannot eliminate all of Israel's 2nd strike capacity. There is a reason Israel bought 3 Dolphins from Germany and spent billions of Shekels working to rapidly produce a special mount for a small nuclear warhead on its Dolphin based cruise missiles. The Jews ain't dumb and neither are the Iranians.
Those are important. Please be sure to present them when you have them.
Well, I can't meet your definition when you define them as anything you don't like.
