Your refusal to accept anything you don't like is not my fault. You refuse to accept that your argument is without critical thinking is not proof that I have failed to demonstrate your lack of it. It is proof you fail to accept that it is proof. Similar to how creationists refuse to accept an old year despite the evidence that is millions of miles tall.
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.
Seriously? And you have the chutzpah to claim that I cannot think critically?
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.
You cannot even keep your arguments straight. Before you argued that stopping such antagonistic behavior led to economic prosperity:
If we study the Koreas, there is a clear distinction when South Korea stops accusing and threatening North Korea: it's economy took off and legitimacy was derived from economy prosperity
Now you're saying it's economic prosperity before stopping the antagonistic behavior.
Get your arguments straight, would ya?
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?
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.
That's not the real problem. It is one of the problems.
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.
Obama was lying to us during the 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.
I'm disappointed you take everything at face value without any critical thinking whatsoever.
I'm disappointed that you play with strawmen.
You're a great example of why the American Public School System is a massive joke.
When you demonstrate how I am characteristic of that then you'll be on to something. Until then, you just attacking me personally rather than presenting an argument.
Go study South Korea. I have yet to lose a single argument about that yet.
Maybe cuz you're arguing out both sides of your mouth, as I clearly demonstrated above?
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.
Actually no you don't. You take it all at face value.
If you say so. :roll:
1) You ignore how economic prosperity in Iran's history reduced its statements
You have presented no such examples. You posted a comment about such an experience but provided neither dates or empirical data. Try again.
2) You ignore how economic prosperity in other country's history did the same
You have provided none.
3) You ignore how failing economic times have pushed nations towards blaming outsiders.
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.
Your entire argument is Iran will use it because he said it.
No, my argument is that we cannot simply ignore the rhetoric as you intend us to do.
You completely refuse to even acknowledge how economic prosperity or the lack of it changes how a government is viewed in terms of legitimacy.
No such argument was presented and even if it were it's simply not relevant as an explanatory device for Iran's rhetoric.
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?)
You missed my point. And, no, you didn't just refute anything I said. 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.
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.
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. You're presuming an autmatic response of nuking Iran that I just don't see being realistic.
Those are important. Please be sure to present them when you have them.
