[surveyor]

iranic

arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.

When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.

Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.

We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.

And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.

Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.

[surveyor]

iranic

arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.

When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.

Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.

We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.

And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.

Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.

[surveyor]

iranic

arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.

When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.

Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.

We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.

And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.

Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.

[surveyor]

iranic

arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.

When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.

Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.

We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.

And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.

Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.

[surveyor]

kim’s departure

Allan: I would love to see Kim leave a la Ferdinand Marcos. Probably in that instance I wouldn’t mind appeasement. Still, Marcos was under huge pressure and unless that similar pressure bears on Kim, I don’t see him leaving.

I will say I do disagree with you when it comes to North Korea being a bigger issue than Iran. I think Iran is bigger. Most people here are right that Kim is just a bully and a tyrant who’s just trying to con and blackmail the U.S. into giving him what he wants. Iran I think is different.

[surveyor]

kim’s departure

Allan: I would love to see Kim leave a la Ferdinand Marcos. Probably in that instance I wouldn’t mind appeasement. Still, Marcos was under huge pressure and unless that similar pressure bears on Kim, I don’t see him leaving.

I will say I do disagree with you when it comes to North Korea being a bigger issue than Iran. I think Iran is bigger. Most people here are right that Kim is just a bully and a tyrant who’s just trying to con and blackmail the U.S. into giving him what he wants. Iran I think is different.

[surveyor]

kim’s departure

Allan: I would love to see Kim leave a la Ferdinand Marcos. Probably in that instance I wouldn’t mind appeasement. Still, Marcos was under huge pressure and unless that similar pressure bears on Kim, I don’t see him leaving.

I will say I do disagree with you when it comes to North Korea being a bigger issue than Iran. I think Iran is bigger. Most people here are right that Kim is just a bully and a tyrant who’s just trying to con and blackmail the U.S. into giving him what he wants. Iran I think is different.

[surveyor]

kim’s departure

Allan: I would love to see Kim leave a la Ferdinand Marcos. Probably in that instance I wouldn’t mind appeasement. Still, Marcos was under huge pressure and unless that similar pressure bears on Kim, I don’t see him leaving.

I will say I do disagree with you when it comes to North Korea being a bigger issue than Iran. I think Iran is bigger. Most people here are right that Kim is just a bully and a tyrant who’s just trying to con and blackmail the U.S. into giving him what he wants. Iran I think is different.

[surveyor]

kim’s departure

Allan: I would love to see Kim leave a la Ferdinand Marcos. Probably in that instance I wouldn’t mind appeasement. Still, Marcos was under huge pressure and unless that similar pressure bears on Kim, I don’t see him leaving.

I will say I do disagree with you when it comes to North Korea being a bigger issue than Iran. I think Iran is bigger. Most people here are right that Kim is just a bully and a tyrant who’s just trying to con and blackmail the U.S. into giving him what he wants. Iran I think is different.

[surveyor]

nork options

One of my more radical solutions would be to blanket North Korea with tiny MP3 players with radios that accept South Korean news and radio stations. Haha. But among the more mundane solutions:

Put North Korea back on the state sponsored terrorism list (which Bush removed them from)

Stop any oil aid and frankly other aid. The Chinese will probably be forced to provide funds to North Korea in order to prop up the country. Otherwise it collapses and South Korea is their neighbor (and honestly, if they were smart they would do this anyways, because their freakin’ economy would go through the roof with South Korea next to them). I kind of like this option because it makes China spend money that it does not want to spend.

Regime change.

Push to have more economic trade between North Korea and its neighbors. Capitalism and economy is a very fundamental component to individual freedom and liberty. Once you are able to get that established, North Korea’s days as a dictatorship is finished. This part is easier said than done, but there might be a creative way to do this.

Start talks with Japan to have a missile defense system.

See? No wars in that format.

Personally I find it interesting that many people here would never “enable” bad behavior but are in favor of “enabling” North Korea… I realize it’s a country but there are certain principles in common. I think it’s better to starve the bear instead of making it bigger and stronger and more able to kill you.

[surveyor]

nork options

One of my more radical solutions would be to blanket North Korea with tiny MP3 players with radios that accept South Korean news and radio stations. Haha. But among the more mundane solutions:

Put North Korea back on the state sponsored terrorism list (which Bush removed them from)

Stop any oil aid and frankly other aid. The Chinese will probably be forced to provide funds to North Korea in order to prop up the country. Otherwise it collapses and South Korea is their neighbor (and honestly, if they were smart they would do this anyways, because their freakin’ economy would go through the roof with South Korea next to them). I kind of like this option because it makes China spend money that it does not want to spend.

Regime change.

Push to have more economic trade between North Korea and its neighbors. Capitalism and economy is a very fundamental component to individual freedom and liberty. Once you are able to get that established, North Korea’s days as a dictatorship is finished. This part is easier said than done, but there might be a creative way to do this.

Start talks with Japan to have a missile defense system.

See? No wars in that format.

Personally I find it interesting that many people here would never “enable” bad behavior but are in favor of “enabling” North Korea… I realize it’s a country but there are certain principles in common. I think it’s better to starve the bear instead of making it bigger and stronger and more able to kill you.

[surveyor]

nork options

One of my more radical solutions would be to blanket North Korea with tiny MP3 players with radios that accept South Korean news and radio stations. Haha. But among the more mundane solutions:

Put North Korea back on the state sponsored terrorism list (which Bush removed them from)

Stop any oil aid and frankly other aid. The Chinese will probably be forced to provide funds to North Korea in order to prop up the country. Otherwise it collapses and South Korea is their neighbor (and honestly, if they were smart they would do this anyways, because their freakin’ economy would go through the roof with South Korea next to them). I kind of like this option because it makes China spend money that it does not want to spend.

Regime change.

Push to have more economic trade between North Korea and its neighbors. Capitalism and economy is a very fundamental component to individual freedom and liberty. Once you are able to get that established, North Korea’s days as a dictatorship is finished. This part is easier said than done, but there might be a creative way to do this.

Start talks with Japan to have a missile defense system.

See? No wars in that format.

Personally I find it interesting that many people here would never “enable” bad behavior but are in favor of “enabling” North Korea… I realize it’s a country but there are certain principles in common. I think it’s better to starve the bear instead of making it bigger and stronger and more able to kill you.

[surveyor]

nork options

One of my more radical solutions would be to blanket North Korea with tiny MP3 players with radios that accept South Korean news and radio stations. Haha. But among the more mundane solutions:

Put North Korea back on the state sponsored terrorism list (which Bush removed them from)

Stop any oil aid and frankly other aid. The Chinese will probably be forced to provide funds to North Korea in order to prop up the country. Otherwise it collapses and South Korea is their neighbor (and honestly, if they were smart they would do this anyways, because their freakin’ economy would go through the roof with South Korea next to them). I kind of like this option because it makes China spend money that it does not want to spend.

Regime change.

Push to have more economic trade between North Korea and its neighbors. Capitalism and economy is a very fundamental component to individual freedom and liberty. Once you are able to get that established, North Korea’s days as a dictatorship is finished. This part is easier said than done, but there might be a creative way to do this.

Start talks with Japan to have a missile defense system.

See? No wars in that format.

Personally I find it interesting that many people here would never “enable” bad behavior but are in favor of “enabling” North Korea… I realize it’s a country but there are certain principles in common. I think it’s better to starve the bear instead of making it bigger and stronger and more able to kill you.

[surveyor]

nork options

One of my more radical solutions would be to blanket North Korea with tiny MP3 players with radios that accept South Korean news and radio stations. Haha. But among the more mundane solutions:

Put North Korea back on the state sponsored terrorism list (which Bush removed them from)

Stop any oil aid and frankly other aid. The Chinese will probably be forced to provide funds to North Korea in order to prop up the country. Otherwise it collapses and South Korea is their neighbor (and honestly, if they were smart they would do this anyways, because their freakin’ economy would go through the roof with South Korea next to them). I kind of like this option because it makes China spend money that it does not want to spend.

Regime change.

Push to have more economic trade between North Korea and its neighbors. Capitalism and economy is a very fundamental component to individual freedom and liberty. Once you are able to get that established, North Korea’s days as a dictatorship is finished. This part is easier said than done, but there might be a creative way to do this.

Start talks with Japan to have a missile defense system.

See? No wars in that format.

Personally I find it interesting that many people here would never “enable” bad behavior but are in favor of “enabling” North Korea… I realize it’s a country but there are certain principles in common. I think it’s better to starve the bear instead of making it bigger and stronger and more able to kill you.

[surveyor]

[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]

What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]

For a person who seems to value pragmatism, that’s a rather unsophisticated view, isn’t it? There are other options rather than invading and going to war with North Korea.

All we’re saying is that appeasement is not the answer and will more likely make the problem worse. It’s better for the U.S. to use those other options before being painted into a corner where the only option is military (where the situation in Iran is leading to).

Feeding the alligator hoping he’ll eat you last is never going to work.

[Author]

Posts