The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

stroller · 19-09-2007, 12:11 AM

Thanks for the red, dude, sorry not everyone agrees with you.

Not sure what Chamberlain's got to do with any of this, though.

Let me come back to your earlier post:
You put forward the fallacious argument that the only alternative to attacking Iran is Iran's nuclear enarmament, then proceed to imply that this is what everyone disagreeing with you wants, labeling them "nutjobs".

I hope you'll come up with better reasoning in future.

chinthee · 19-09-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Thanks for the red, dude, sorry not everyone agrees with you.

Not sure what Chamberlain's got to do with any of this, though.

Let me come back to your earlier post:
You put forward the fallacious argument that the only alternative to attacking Iran is Iran's nuclear enarmament, then proceed to imply that this is what everyone disagreeing with you wants, labeling them "nutjobs".

I hope you'll come up with better reasoning in future.

Ok, let's take this argument out to its logical conclusion according to you.

Iran is appeased. The are allowed to proceed unabashed. They develop both Nuclear power and weapons. They then become the dominant influence in the middle east.

They assert their brand of Islam throughout the middle east, causing de-stablization of the other muslim countries. In essence they become the dominant leader and ruler of middle east oil supply.

Are you happy with this Stroller? Wait a minute, I didn't ask if you are Iranian did I?

keda · 19-09-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by keda

Btw we're trying to have a sensible discussion about serious issues, so please contribute and stop making a damn nuisance of yourself.

Indeed, perhaps you could set an example and respond to comments without deliberatly misunderstanding and launching personal attacks?

Thanks for the red, troller, I have responded with a green in line with my policy of loving thy neighbour even if he does happen to be an inbred with delusions of infallibility...and oh yes, anytime you feel a need be loved you know where to send your reds, eh?

keda · 19-09-2007, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

Are you happy with this Stroller? Wait a minute, I didn't ask if you are Iranian did I?

nah the troller's no parsi, but might as well be.

stroller · 19-09-2007, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

Ok, let's take this argument out to its logical conclusion according to you.

Hmm, I didn't know I was leading towards a conclusion, just pointing out the flaws in your arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

Iran is appeased. The are allowed to proceed unabashed. They develop both Nuclear power and weapons. They then become the dominant influence in the middle east.

They assert their brand of Islam throughout the middle east, causing de-stablization of the other muslim countries. In essence they become the dominant leader and ruler of middle east oil supply.

Sounds like your fears and fantasies, got nothing to do with anything I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

Are you happy with this Stroller? Wait a minute, I didn't ask if you are Iranian did I?

No, I am rather disappointed with your response. Rational thought isn't your strength, is it?
Why on earth would you ask me if I was Iranian?

stroller · 19-09-2007, 12:44 AM

Hmm, what was this about trying to have a "serious discourse", keda?
Nothing but personal attacks and insults in your last posts, but don't worry, I won't delete, since there would be a storm of "sTROLLER is misusing his mod powers" all over the place. And it's better others can see and judge, n'est pas?

chinthee · 19-09-2007, 12:45 AM

^^ Ok, let's summarise shall we?

1. You support Iranian appeasement.

2. You support that appeasement leading to Iranian domination of the middle east.

3. You think Iranian domination is a good thing, for whatever reason.

If not, please refute.

stroller · 19-09-2007, 12:52 AM

Why should I refute something you state but I haven't said?

Start to make sense and I'd be happy to give it my best shot.

chinthee · 19-09-2007, 01:01 AM

Really, with over 12,000 posts I would expect a much better game from Stroller. Maybe he's under the weather?

stroller · 19-09-2007, 01:06 AM

No, waiting for a comment from you which recognises what I posted, did not say, and allows me to engage in a meaningful way.

chinthee · 19-09-2007, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

No, waiting for a comment from you which recognises what I posted, did not say, and allows me to engage in a meaningful way.

What? You need to be spoon fed? Think for yourself and defend yourself or be called a coward.

stroller · 19-09-2007, 01:19 AM

You are an aggressive poster who doesn't like to read before responding.

I will "defend" myself when and if (and chances are getting slimmer) you come up with some reasoned argument based on my comments or presented facts, rather than ramblings and attacks on what you wish my position was.

chinthee · 19-09-2007, 01:23 AM

^ Ok, let's take it slow and easy, and take deep breaths. I don't want to incite anybody here.

1. do you support Iranian appeasement?

2. If so, do you support that appeasement leading to Iranian domination of the middle east.

3. If Iran ends up dominating the middle east, do you think Iranian domination is a good thing, for whatever reason.

Fair enough?

stroller · 19-09-2007, 01:43 AM

No need to be condescending.

1. I believe the situation can be resolved without going to war and attacking Iran, though the possibility needs to be considered. No more unilateral invasions by the US or anyone else. No attacks if there is any doubt about the necessity or feasability.
2. and 3. No.

I also respect other opinions, i.e. Iran have a right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, which personally I'd rather not see because of the possibility of misuse, and the opinion that Iran has a right to develop nukes to fend off the US and Israel, though again, I personally don't support this because of the possible consequences.

keda · 19-09-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keda

I'm sure you were living in the future then as you believe you are now. I cannot say what they were focusing on, I thought it was many things and in particular the nasty djoos bashing your peaceloving mates in real time, but tx for the education, glad to learn they were also rounding up those pesky Germans, but thought they were tamed by then and not still cause for concern as some are now.

And sure, only the djoos cash in, never your buddies.

Go on then, you haven't asked in a few days if I've taken my medication.

First off, the above quoted post was not edited and is now as it was before, except that I clicked on edit instead of quote.

Next, this post is in context to both the thread and also the troller, who butted in to insert caustic and banal remarks, which as I stated in another post resulted in it going off topic and into a many-sided personal squabble.

Next, until troller's entry, several posters were having a serious discussion about different angles of the same topic. Again, not off topic.

Next, this post was a direct response to troller's deliberate or misguided but certainly characteristic tendency to control the flow and sidetrack very much on-topic comments that displease him...after all, he's the one with the baton.

Next, the troller started a new thread in MKP entitled "Djoos & meds", using my nic as the thread starter, which is both offensive and, again characteristically, childish.

Next, I hope when he falls off his high horse, it fvcking hurts!

chinthee · 19-09-2007, 01:51 AM

^^ Glad to see you back Stroller. Ok, how long do you give Iran on appeasement channel? How many excuses do you accept. How close to the edge do you take it?

*edit: and Iran will take it to the absolute edge.

stroller · 19-09-2007, 02:01 AM

The one taking this off-topic is you, keda. See posts #226, #227, #243,#244 and last (I hope) #255

Continue in the critique thread.

stroller · 19-09-2007, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

Glad to see you back Stroller. Ok, how long do you give Iran on appeasement channel? How many excuses do you accept. How close to the edge do you take it?

As long as it takes. I am thinking of the precedence in Iraq, where the stakes were raised through propaganda and the co-alition invaded, against the disapproval of many, including UN weapons inspectors.
We must not let this scenario repeat itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

How close to the edge do you take it?

That is a good question I cannot answer. As I said, all possibilities need to be explored, but I certainly don't jump in excitement about the remarks of the French guy, and it wasn't an announcement of readiness to go ahead at all.

chinthee · 19-09-2007, 02:11 AM

^ "As long as it takes" usually means as long as it takes for Iran to become a nuclear threat. Appeasement by any other name is just appeasement. Again, Neville Chamberlain.

Sorry, history won't repeat itself this time.

19-09-2007, 01:51 AM	#256 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033	^^ Glad to see you back Stroller. Ok, how long do you give Iran on appeasement channel? How many excuses do you accept. How close to the edge do you take it? edit: and Iran will take it to the absolute edge. Last edited by chinthee : 19-09-2007 at 02:03 AM.*

19-09-2007, 12:11 AM	#241 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	Thanks for the red, dude, sorry not everyone agrees with you. Not sure what Chamberlain's got to do with any of this, though. Let me come back to your earlier post: You put forward the fallacious argument that the only alternative to attacking Iran is Iran's nuclear enarmament, then proceed to imply that this is what everyone disagreeing with you wants, labeling them "nutjobs". I hope you'll come up with better reasoning in future.

19-09-2007, 12:44 AM	#246 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	Hmm, what was this about trying to have a "serious discourse", keda? Nothing but personal attacks and insults in your last posts, but don't worry, I won't delete, since there would be a storm of "sTROLLER is misusing his mod powers" all over the place. And it's better others can see and judge, n'est pas?

19-09-2007, 12:45 AM	#247 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033	^^ Ok, let's summarise shall we? 1. You support Iranian appeasement. 2. You support that appeasement leading to Iranian domination of the middle east. 3. You think Iranian domination is a good thing, for whatever reason. If not, please refute.

19-09-2007, 12:52 AM	#248 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	Why should I refute something you state but I haven't said? Start to make sense and I'd be happy to give it my best shot.

19-09-2007, 01:01 AM	#249 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033	Really, with over 12,000 posts I would expect a much better game from Stroller. Maybe he's under the weather?

19-09-2007, 01:06 AM	#250 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	No, waiting for a comment from you which recognises what I posted, did not say, and allows me to engage in a meaningful way.

19-09-2007, 01:19 AM	#252 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	You are an aggressive poster who doesn't like to read before responding. I will "defend" myself when and if (and chances are getting slimmer) you come up with some reasoned argument based on my comments or presented facts, rather than ramblings and attacks on what you wish my position was.

19-09-2007, 01:23 AM	#253 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033	^ Ok, let's take it slow and easy, and take deep breaths. I don't want to incite anybody here. 1. do you support Iranian appeasement? 2. If so, do you support that appeasement leading to Iranian domination of the middle east. 3. If Iran ends up dominating the middle east, do you think Iranian domination is a good thing, for whatever reason. Fair enough?

19-09-2007, 01:43 AM	#254 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	No need to be condescending. 1. I believe the situation can be resolved without going to war and attacking Iran, though the possibility needs to be considered. No more unilateral invasions by the US or anyone else. No attacks if there is any doubt about the necessity or feasability. 2. and 3. No. I also respect other opinions, i.e. Iran have a right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, which personally I'd rather not see because of the possibility of misuse, and the opinion that Iran has a right to develop nukes to fend off the US and Israel, though again, I personally don't support this because of the possible consequences.

19-09-2007, 02:01 AM	#257 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	The one taking this off-topic is you, keda. See posts #226, #227, #243,#244 and last (I hope) #255 Continue in the critique thread.

19-09-2007, 02:11 AM	#259 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033	^ "As long as it takes" usually means as long as it takes for Iran to become a nuclear threat. Appeasement by any other name is just appeasement. Again, Neville Chamberlain. Sorry, history won't repeat itself this time.