Perhaps in YOUR OPINION. Are you suggesting your contexts change often? Once again, outside of one) a mushroom cloud and two) an admission by Iran, what's left? Since I don't advocate a current invasion (as noted, what??? half a dozen times now???), your point is once again moot. But you still persist from the flawed angle of invasion? Or, will you now say you are not doing so, for kicks and grins? Perhaps you should join the EU and inform them of your vast skills to do such? With your reasoning, I bet they would see the light, no?
Does this mean that there is no reason for not signing the treaty, except the fact that officials from Bush government would not like to be arrested for war crimes ?
http://www.expatica.com/source/site...n warns EU against 'harsh' actions in dispute Gee, I wonder what "other nuclear projects" that could mean? Nuclear powered choo choo trains? How about a nuclear powered Betty Crocker cake mix factory? I bet it could mean just about a million other things Shame on the world for thinking a country whose leader recently said: http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=782 might be a terrible threat with nuclear weapons! It's all just one big misunderstanding, of course.
Where is this enormous amount of information please post it? In my opinion to the degree as I can see where OTHERS around the world could see it as not fact, I as well try looking at both ends something you appear to refuse to do. The US or anyone of our allies posts or has an opinion on your side of things and it appears you take that as fact even when in reality it's only speculation. Nope not at all, show me where it has. I may have added to try to show my opinion on things a bit better, but not changed it. Again having patriotic views, love for ones country, etc is totally different than looking at things logically from the facts laid out. I don't see how you are having such a problem with this, or how you'd even attempt to accuse of having it both ways. The only way I've been able to conclude you feel this way is you allow your patriotism to cloud your judgement regularly so in reality you have no actual opinion of the facts other than your loyalty to the country and or adminstration. Nope there are actually many ways, including Iran pulling out of any nuclear treaties, forcing inspectors out totally, many other ways that could point to a better conclusion. The facts laid out are extremely weak at best in this thread. Again you keep trying to counter with why I bring up invasion, the point of this thread and those who might be reading it was 'Operation Iranian Freedom' and invasion of Iran. Your points continue to try to back up the merit of an invasion even if you yourself are not stating it is for invasion. Since the thread originated from an invasion stand point that is the primary focus of my posts and will continue to carry it as such in my posts. Don't think this or much of your 'argument' is even worth responding to anymore as it's obvious you feel one way, show ways that makes something not an 'absolute fact' and you'll simply post crap like 'why don't you tell the EU' that isn't an argument anyone above first grade would be expected to make
Wow that's the smoking gun, saber rattling and stating they will get more decisive makes it absolutely fact that it's nuclear weapons. Nope not a misunderstanding, never sad Iran was 'good' I'm debating the merit of the supposed facts of the nuclear weapons, or attempt for nuclear weapons, don't see how this even fits into the discussion to be truthful.
Rather than just tossing out an accusation like that, shouldnt you provide a reason why you would assume such a thing? All I see is this... "You are wrong because I believe that in my opinion you are wrong"
I've tossed many of them out, the facts Gtech keeps trying to post as facts are not facts. He has also accused me of having it both ways from showing my patriotic view versus my view when looking at it from both sides, yet you have a problem with me posting this. WOW I'm literally in shock. You have got to be kidding me? I agree on much of what Gtech has said and have stated as much. I am simply showing where certain items are not fact, anyone with any reading comprehension can see it is not an ABSOLUTE FACT.
The same info in this thread, which you have made claim to disputing. Once again, it's not my side, it's the world's side. This is not a US only issue. Somehow, I've repeatedly failed to communicate that to you in a manner that you would be able to grasp. I don't need to, your posts have already left that conclusion. I won't waste my effort on it either, as you will simply "reclarify" things. The only one talking about patriotism is you. I doubt the IAEA and EU share in US patriotism. For some reason, you continue to push this, as well as the flawed invasion point. Apparently you consider them your Aces. The problem with that is, I'm not playing poker. Whose talking a better conclusion? "could point?" So you are not sure? Short of a mushroom cloud or admittal, what else is there? I do agree though, the "facts" you've laid out are extremely weak at best. No, I know why you bring up invasion. It's your ace in the hole. As I've pointed out many times now, that's not my position. And since "we" (that is, you and I) are the ones currently debating, it's between us. Not you and the "thread." Where the thread originated from has no bearing on what "we" are debating. Continue to carry it, and I will continue to point out the flaw with it in the context of debating with me on the issue. Nice attempt to reclarify though I'm not the one that needs the mushroom cloud or an outright admittal to know the EU and IAEA, along with most of the rest of the world, is concerned with Iran's nuclear program being used for nuclear weapons. Your desire for either of those absolute facts is your problem, not mine. Not the EU, the IAEA, the US or most of the rest of the world who is concerned. Personally, I find that alone, quite satisfying
Gtech just a suggestion if you're ok with it, how about we both post our overall opinions on the situation, and where we feel there are disagreements? There honestly is not that much difference, the main difference I see in the opinions is you are much more willing to take anything on the US or pro US stance where I at least appear to look into both sides, or am I wrong here? ---edit your new post trully is far reaching to distort, but I'm still up to the offer of restating opinions instead of going back and forth such as this. If not I'll gladly respond to the above as I trully feel it's not factual and is extremely distorted.
You should be in shock! To suggest I've mentioned anything about patriotism, let alone yours, is incorrect. I guess you are just not going to let patriotism, or invasion, go. What "absolute fact(s)?"
http://www.expatica.com/source/site...n warns EU against 'harsh' actions in dispute Gee, I wonder what "other nuclear projects" that could mean? Nuclear powered choo choo trains? How about a nuclear powered Betty Crocker cake mix factory? I bet it could mean just about a million other things Shame on the world for thinking a country whose leader recently said: http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=782 might be a terrible threat with nuclear weapons! It's all just one big misunderstanding, of course.
HAHAHAH!! This is great! Now I just need some beer and popcorn. "Absolute fact" LMAO! hrl you crack me up man.
I didn't say you said anything about it, simply that you obviously do not get the difference between me having patriotic views and then logical views. Patriotic views such as the US is the greatest and has never done anything wrong, logical views such as the US is a great country but even ourselves have been guilty of crimes against humanity in the past. There is a difference, I don't see what the problem is here. The 'absolute facts' is meant twoards the supposed items in this thread that shows it has to be with all certainty nuclear weapons, when there is just as much information to dispute this. This does not make it an 'absolute fact' or a fact in any way shape or form. It is speculation, it could be correct speculation but it is not a fact, what is so hard to understand about that? Again absolute facts, such as you attempted the VX argument, it was speculation not 'FACTS' OR 'COLD HARD FACTS' OR 'ABSOLUTE FACTS'!
Now that you've reclarified it again, I completely see the need to bring up patriotism in every post, as if I've made an issue of it. It all makes sense now. Crimes against humanity always illicits patriotism to me. Completely my fault. I thought "we" were debating. I had no idea you were debating with the thread itself. I'm sure you'll understand how I could have mistaken that. In fact, I'm not really talking to you right now, but the thread in general I still stand behind that VX argument. I have no reason to discount someone who is considered an expert with chemical wmd. Although I was quite sure it was not mouthwash and hair dye that al qaida was bringing forth as good samaratans
The info on the thread I am not disputing it saying it is not correct, I am disputing it stating it is speculation not anything to make 100% proof it's a nuclear weapon. If I'm wrong here please point to the smoking gun? It is not the entire worlds view, but even if it is I fail to see how that disputes where I show an item used as proof is speculation and not a 100% certainty. Uh huh, so you don't have any in particular. Or if I did change my opinion of which I don't believe I have wouldn't that be a good thing in a discussion? Someone willing to budge a little bit and not be set in stone, otherwise what's the point? Again HUH? The only reason I bring up patriotism is in one post I placed my feelings about my patriotic view and then my logical view from the facts as at least I know them, of which you continue to accuse me of having it both ways. I'm not using my patriotic view as a basis to defend any other point, simply your attack that one can not have patriotic views and logical views of a given situation. Of which I'm trying NOT to be distorted by my patriotic views but look at the facts as they are. Again huh? Far far reaches, I am not stating it's a fact that Iran is only interested in nuclear technology only for power, simply stating where it could be viewed yet again by me, others or the rest of the world as a reason and why the reasons brought up that it can only be used for weapons don't hold much water. Nope again totally wrong it is totally relevant, would it make you happier if after each statement I make a notice that this is not Gtechs views? It still goes to the matter of the overall discussion. Again worried is a bit different than proof now isn't it?