The things that they've said about and their intentions towards whom?

Not at all Ron. My respopnse was facetious in turn.

Those who foregt the past are doomed to repeat it. We did not forget, hence our reminders of Chamberlin and our "lazy rhetoric" of appeasement.

Does it? Years of no intervention in Iraq have turned into action resulting in a dead Saddam Hussein who can no longer manufacture WMD's, send funds to families of suicide bombers among Hamas, and eliminted the possibility of him distributing to terrorist groups any WMD's he may have subsequently manufactured. Years of no intervention in Iran are resulting in them rapidly manufacturing nukes. Yup, chit-chatting with them is going to help alot.

why are you playing coy, j? i didn't hide the ball at all when i first said it. the reason i raised it was for the same reason that lawyers don't represent themselves (unless traffic violations are involved in which case Ron Mexico is still undefeated ).

I object; I am just as much an emotionless robot as J

I'm not being coy, I just want to be sure I understand. Apparently I do; Straw is Jewish, and therefore his motives are suspect. We can't trust him to put the interests of America first when we talk about national security and the middle east - dual loyalties and all that.

Unbelievable.

great. thanks to us, he can make less than zero.


where's the support for this? is this a "dick cheney told me so" moment?


i'm going to kill my cat to prevent the possibility of him getting the dog pregnant.


perhaps we should've done this before instead of producing fodder for my snide comments.

oh king of the ad hominem what will i do?

it's not that his motives are suspect. heck, i agree with the logic of them. i simply want to have him consider factors which may be contributing to a differing decision breaking-point than mine.

Maybe we should have all the Jewish posters on BOL identify themselves so that we could be sure to consider that fact when we analyze where their decision breaking points are.

j, in the post right before you started this witch hunt, i explained my rationale to straw.

do you think that the OJ jury was a robotic as you are purporting to be? face it j, unsaid things have an impact on people's decision-making processes.

if you want to play some hide-the-ball by creating a "ron is an anti-semite" tangent, you are only showing how superficial you really are; you are a politico--there is a bigger battle being fought in these political threads than just the iran issue. ron is liberal so let's bring him down.

I really hope you are just kidding or being a PITA with respect to Hussein sneding $25,000 per suicide bomber to Hamas family members. If not, you have completely lost any remaining credibility to debate issues. And your rebuttal to the possible distribution of nukes to terror groups, I mean this is precisely why conservatives consider liberals to be too soft on the evils in the world.

I don't see any post here where you explain to straw why you made sure to point out that he's Jewish. You've explained it to me, and I appreciate the candor.

What this has to do with OJ, I have no idea.

I'm not interested in playing hide-the-anything with you, Ron. I saw a sinister couple of posts, and wanted to clarify that it was as outrageous as I thought.

amlf, i was talking about the 9/11 and that other commission's finding of hussein's links to terrorism.


so saddam who was found to not have an active wmd program for some years much less a nuke program all of a sudden would materialize as a distributor of nuclear weapons?! i mean, this is precisely why people like YOU are labeled as fear-mongerers. give it a rest.

umm, i'm talking about the iran issue regarding negotiations, not your witch hunt. since i know that straw is jewish, i was asking if his religion had anything to do with his apparent desire to not seek to negotiate when we (the US) haven't given them a chance. but we live in a world where only the muslims can have an emotional pining for other religions and where blacks and whites all view each other as colorless humans (the OJ reference).


you call it sinister. i call it reflective of reality that isn't hidden by the "you can't say that" pc world where what people really think can only be said off the record.

j, i'm about the most un-sinister person in the world.

I'm sure that you are a very non-sinister person. However, I think this reflex you've just shown is disturbing.



As I said, unbelievable.

huh?

asking somebody when should we invade over like 4 pages and not getting a reason other than we should despite the presence of possible, functional alternatives--alternatives that we haven't even tried because they are "illegitimate" (what a great record that you have, mr. united colors of benetton) and don't warant that respect even if it means us having to be the 'bigger man'-- i ask if a deeper root cause has something to do with his reluctance to pursue an alternative and i am anti-semitic? sorry j, it was just a question because i hate beating around the bush.

but for you, it is a politcal ball to run with.

why don't you go back to "all muslims want to create a caliphate around the world" ville and tell me what the irony looks like from there?

I'll do that, as soon as you can show me where I've ever implicated all Muslims. My concern, consistently voiced, is with the Islamofascists.

I don't see where Straw has a single time said we must invade. I saw him call for tough economic sanctions, which you then said were too tough and an act of war. I saw him suggest that we work the Russian angle harder. But never once, despite at least twenty such implications by yourself, did I see him suggest that invasion was the only option. I think Straw's of roughly the same mind I am: it is unacceptable for Iran to have the bomb, and we must do whatever it takes to avoid that, steadily increasing the pressure on the mullahs, and with force as our last resort.

And guess what, Ron? I'm not even Jewish.

whatever j. why do i even bother with you? you are so 2-faced it's not funny. i would write a rebuttal but what's the point? (ok, i will say the following because it relates to mt 2-faced comment)


i don't see how this is incompatible with anything that i think or have said. but because it's me, it's different.

If it's not different from what your opinion is, WHY HAVE YOU BEEN ARGUING WITH HIM FOR A MONTH ABOUT IT?

I'm not two-faced, Ron. I think that even my critics would acknowledge I'm consistent. If you think you're seeing two faces, maybe it's a result of your ever-changing stance on every issue.

Iran says near unity with EU in some nuclear areas

So my conservative colleagues, how is the EU appeasing Iran today?

From reading the story, it appears that the "united view" is Iran's desire to talk rather than have any real action taken against it, and European preference for the same. Solana: "no great breakthrough...general terms...didn't enter any specific discussions..."

tactics, j, tactics. we know that nuance isn't your strong suit.

You said that you agree on the tactics. I listed them as, "whatever it takes to avoid [Iran acquiring the bomb], steadily increasing the pressure on the mullahs, and with force as our last resort." You responded, "i don't see how this is incompatible with anything that i think or have said."

We know that reading comprehension and clarity of thought isn't your strong suit, so if this needs revising, please advise.

no j, that's called a "policy". i agree that we cannot allow iran to have a bomb. i think that we need to apply pressure and i certainly think that force should be a last resort in light of our iraq crusade.

where i differ is: negotiation (we haven't tried it because they are illegitimate. i think this could be perceived as very disrespectful and offensive and quite counterproductive); and types of pressure (i think that some sanctions would be tantamount to an act of war so if war is the last resort, then you are being disingenuous). the OP had an article about dissention in the ranks. i posts some articles intimating that some of the mullahs won't cut off their nose to spite their face. you seem to perceive them to be al quaeda. i differ in my assesment there.

are you ready to discuss or do you want to continue to play hide the ball? please advise.