Originally posted by Henry_Pym
What happened to "my students got this?"No faith in them. It's a strawman to assume because I'm not a pushover like you two I'm a crazed warmonger
They got it on the last page; you were incorrect, really that simple. Iran has every right to respond to a boat entering its waters. Luckily clear heads prevailed, Iran saw it wasn't an intentional entry into their oceanic borders and quickly released the sailors unharmed.
It was a good day for both Iran and the US; that's how it should be seen.
Bardock is doing nothing but attacking your position that the Iranians need to be held to higher account than they have. If multiple people seem to find his angle of attack credible, then you should perhaps consider your own credibility. Regardless, throwing around 'straw man' comments is never conductive to a debate and a post like "Ok straw man again, you're just making yourself look foolish." is actively useless. Like I say, if you feel like that, don't post.
Originally posted by Robtardso if the police pulled you out of your car, and took pictures of you at gun point with your hands on your head and then made you apologize for driving over the speed limit; that's fine?
They got it on the last page; you were incorrect, really that simple. Iran has every right to respond to a boat entering its waters. Luckily clear heads prevailed, Iran saw it wasn't an intentional entry into their oceanic borders and quickly released the sailors unharmed.It was a good day for both Iran and the US; that's how it should be seen.
Originally posted by Ushgarakno he isn't. He claimed I'd find issue if roles were reversed.
Bardock is doing nothing but attacking your position that the Iranians need to be held to higher account than they have. If multiple people seem to find his angle of attack credible, then you should perhaps consider your own credibility. Regardless, throwing around 'straw man' comments is never conductive to a debate and a post like [b]"Ok straw man again, you're just making yourself look foolish." is actively useless. Like I say, if you feel like that, don't post. [/B]
My credibility is formed on the basis of international law, He is arguing from a stance of pseudo morality.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
so if the police pulled you out of your car, and took pictures of you at gun point with your hands on your head and then made you apologize for driving over the speed limit; that's fine?
You're comparing US civil law with international foreign laws; that's silly.
The Iranians have a right to respond to a perceive threat, just like any other country. If taking pictures was the worst those sailors suffered while being held for about a day, I considering it a US win.
Originally posted by Henry_PymIf you're too dumb to understand what an example is then you're beyond help. 👆
The ship drifted into their waters. You are an idiot to compare that to flying a bomber over a city. not a boat that isn't working.
Anyway, you admit that the boats went into Iranian waters. So unless you can find some statute that states that a nation doesn't have the right to detain foreign entities that enter their territory, why not just do the intelligent thing and concede that Iran had every right to detain the boats and personnel? 👆
You are CLAIMING that basis and you are not believed. Bardock was simply attacking your credibility as part of attacking your position. You're mistaken if you think it is strawmanning. Regardless- like I told you, I don't want to see posts about meta-arguing. Engage or do not. If you don't think Bardock is being reasonable in the argument, ignore him.
That's all there is to it.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
If you're too dumb to understand what an example is then you're beyond help. 👆Anyway, you admit that the boats went into Iranian waters. So unless you can find some statute that states that a nation doesn't have the right to detain foreign entities that enter their territory, why not just do the intelligent thing and concede that Iran had every right to detain the boats and personnel? 👆
Are we sure they went in Iranian waters. From what I read, the Iranians jacked the GPS equipment from the boat, that would have told the true unbiased story.
Originally posted by Tzeentchno you made an exaggerated comparison... Ok, not the same thing unless you view a derelict ship and an active bomber as the same threat level.
If you're too dumb to understand what an example is then you're beyond help. 👆Anyway, you admit that the boats went into Iranian waters. So unless you can find some statute that states that a nation doesn't have the right to detain foreign entities that enter their territory, why not just do the intelligent thing and concede that Iran had every right to detain the boats and personnel? 👆
Here is the link. I heard this on Fox yesterday as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/world/middleeast/iran-holds-us-navy-boats-crew.html?_r=0
They stole the GPS equipment, so they are going to hide the truth.
"The semiofficial Fars news agency in Iran said that the boats had illegally traveled more than a mile into Iranian waters near Farsi Island, the site of a major Iranian naval base. It said that members of the Revolutionary Guards Navy had confiscated GPS equipment, which would “prove that the American ships were ‘trespassing’ around in Iranian waters.â€