home
How To Blunder Into Authorizing War With Iran | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

that is about as intellectually dishonest (none / 0) (#24)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 07:38:17 PM EST
as  I have ever seen you get.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Molly and complex subjects (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 08:17:18 PM EST
Molly B.. how are you? Glad to see you are still kicking..

First, my reference, of course was to the MADD strategy. Squeaky understood that and came back with  what we need is for Iran to have nukes so they can use a MADD strategy.

Problem with this, of course is that the folks running Iran aren't rational, and could decide to launch on the US and Israel any time they opt for the paradise and 72 virgins options.

Sorry if that was to complex for you.

[ Parent ]

Let me simplify (none / 0) (#27)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 09:10:55 PM EST
I have spent the last month preparing an embezzlement case. Paying clients are more important than blog debates.

This

And you have just said that you think it is okay for Iran to have the bomb.
Now given that the current President of Iran has declared that he wants to destroy Israel, is arming Hezabollah, a dedicated enemy of Israel and denies that the Holocaust happened....And has declared that the US is evil.....

Will you please tell me why a reasonable person would not believe that you are anti-Jew? And anti-US?

Has Zero to do with the doctrine of Mutual Asured Destruction. It seems to be simplistic reasoning on par with General Jack D. Ripper's theory of an "international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

No Molly B (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:16:26 AM EST
Glad to know you've been making money. Hope the case went well.

Now, please follow:

Ernesto had commented that:

It was fairly clear that Ronnie Regan supplied the Afghan mujahadeen with Stinger missiles to take down Soviet helicopters in Afganistan in the 1980s. Should the USSR have launched nukes at the U.S. back then?

My following comment was in direct reference to MADD. Ernesto has made the same comment before regarding our aiding OBL. And I have noted that many on the Left has used the moral equivalency argument regardung the West and the Soviet Union. I wrote:

Only if they wanted to be destroyed themselves. (MADD - added)

Remember, war is just an extension of diplomacy.

Of course we undersatnd that everythig to you is equal, and there was no "wrongness" in the Soviet Union. Thereforw we should never have resisted their expansion.

This same philsophy is the bedrock of the Islamists and anti-Israel Left.

Enter squeaky:

"Only if they wanted to be destroyed themselves." (Quoting me.

Who would have ever guessesd it: ppj makes a case for Iran to have the bomb

Of course that isn't what I said. I simpy said that if the Soviets launched based on our aiding OBL (Per Ernesto) that we would have launched on them. (MADD)

Now. Given Squeaky's well known position that we must not attack Iran, and his belief that if Iran had nuclear weapons they would be in a position to execute a MADD strategy, thus preventing us from attacking, I concluded that he wants Iran to have nukes. Especially since his endorsement was so enthusiastic.

Who would have ever guessesd it

As I said, it was a little complex, so I do forgive you for your snark since I know you were unaware of the past comments, etc....

[ Parent ]

What Part of (none / 0) (#35)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:27:48 AM EST
I'm still in the complaint stage. I expect to file in the next two weeks. So I won't be fully participating here for awhile.

Now on to the subject at hand...

What part of accusing Squeaky of being "Anti-American" and "Anti-Jew"  (sic) in the context of that thread do you not comprehend as being intellectually dishonest?

You further wade into the deep muddy by creating a straw man argument as to what Squaky's position is (structured to fit your accusation).

Let me give you an example of what you are doing that maybe you can understand.

Here is a variation on the syllogism you are creating:

  1. Bush and Cheney set up the OSP to to manipulate intelligence to claim to the American people that Saddam was an immediate threat to America and might have a nuclear bomb. It was a deliberate lie.

  2. Bush and Cheney covertly outed a classified CIA agent for the sin of being married to someone who cast doubt on their claims that Saddam had tried to recently purchase yellowcake. This compromised other intelligence agents, by outing a CIA front which in turn exposed other classified agents.  The net effect of this acts compromised American security

  3. Bush and Cheney used threat of a "war on terror" (sic) to imprison American Citizens indefinitely without a trial on the executive branch's say so, compromising our 200 plus year old constitution.

  4. In consideration of premises 1, 2 and 3, it cannot be denied  that Bush and Cheney hate American values and America.

  5. Jimakappj supports Bush and Cheney in the actions described in the first 3 premises.

  6. Therefore it cannot be denied that Jimakappj hates America and American values. Why do you hate America and American values Jimakappj?

There is no diffence in the syllogism I just constructed about Jimakappj and the you one you constructed about Squeaky.

Do you see the similarities? Do you understand why it is intellectually dishonest?

BTW, WHY do you HATE America?


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

How To Blunder Into Authorizing War With Iran | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft