Originally posted by S2
View Post
Timing matters, this year or the year after I see Israel acting without the US.
Two years and after I see the US maybe getting involved. That will be a completely different ball game.
Should Israel wait until then in the hopes that whatever attack that follows will be much stronger. That would be relying on the US to defend Israel and isn't a given.
Originally posted by S2
View Post
The prize is in seeing how defendable a position is or not. That is what i'm trying to do. Construct models to see how well they can hold up. This method is quite good at arriving closer to the truth and a forum is the ideal place in which to do it in.
The beauty is once such positions are identified, it doesn't matter how many disagree, only thing that matters is whether they can counter :)
Originally posted by S2
View Post
Using google is easy, its the reading, comprehending, coherently articulating and when queried, substantiating/defending that is challenging.
Originally posted by S2
View Post
If you mean wrt to resolutions then there isn't an issue here as they've not vetoed any.
Originally posted by S2
View Post
Why should Iran care ? If the global opposition unites against them then they are in a weaker position. So long as Iran can divide the opposition they can maintain their current stance.
They don't want to be reduced into a NoK, where they have to negotiate for food. Could this be a strong incentive for Iran not to ever test, weaponise or leave the NPT.
Originally posted by S2
View Post
To locate defendable positions, arguments from both sides, have to be played off the other party. You've given me two solid points to throw at the pro-iran crowd, but i've only got half a semi-defendable point to throw at you for the moment
In addition to spin & dissembling there is also those legal entanglements you mention. You say its one sided but i think both parties are engaging in it. I see lots of exaggeration in the vocabulary used amongst western advocates. For instance
- they talk about violations instead of compliance or cooperation. Bolton was talking this way back in 2004.
- they talk about weapons as if Iran is going to get them tomorrow and is actively engaged in doing so.
- they push the supposed irrationality of the IRI regime to the point i wonder whether its them thats being more irrational instead. Gaddafi & Saddam were both rational, perhaps less so when it came to their own people but certainly with respect to other countries. The main distinction between the former two & the IRI regime is that they were reckless as well. This is why they're no longer around. They were unpredictable and best gotten rid off.
So the distinct pattern i can discern is the narrative is one step ahead of reality. The motive is to increase urgency, pressure and build consensus.
Do you just ignore them or examine whether they hold any substance. From your stance it would seem a good knowledge of UN sanctions along with the IAEA reports is all that is necessary to make your case. But IAEA reports aren't invulnerable to spin.
This is a hellishly difficult topic to get to grips with. If it ever enters into your presidential debates then it will become even more politicised than presently. Forget being objective at that point, unless you have a good command of the basics you are blind and open to manipulation.
On to the root issue of enrichment and whether Iran can do so or not. The argument offered is Iran has given up any rights because they have been non-cooperative. This carries the implicit conclusion that Iran never had a right to enrich in the first place. A lot is made about this point from the Iranian side. Is there any substance or not.
Originally posted by S2
View Post
if no progress is made then what you say is likely.
Comment