Are Older Men in Thailand Trading Love for Financial Ruin

[webfact]

Iran trying to drive wedge between U.S., Europeans - UAE minister

By John Irish

 

FILE PHOTO - Minister of State for Foreign Affairs for the United Arab Emirates, Anwar Gargash, speaks at an event at Chatham House in London, Britain July 17, 2017. REUTERS/Neil Hall

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A senior United Arab Emirates (UAE) official warned European powers on Tuesday that it was offering Iran a glimmer of hope by trying to keep trade flowing, but that ultimately they would fall behind the United States' tough approach on Tehran.

 

The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain swiftly backed U.S. President Donald Trump's decision in May to withdraw from a 2015 international accord with Iran that curbed Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for loosening economic sanctions.

 

The Sunni Muslim-ruled states are at loggerheads with Shi’ite Iran, fighting a proxy war that has influenced conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

 

UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash told Reuters at the United Nations General Assembly he was concerned by the public differences between the remaining European signatories to the accord - France, Britain and Germany - and the United States. All of them agree that Iran's long-term nuclear activities should be curbed, its ballistic missile programme curbed and its regional influence reigned in.

 

"The faster we can bridge those opinions the better," Gargash said.

 

"The Iranians are counting on this and perhaps creating a wedge between Washington's approach and the European policy."

 

U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani exchanged taunts at the annual gathering of world leaders on Tuesday with Trump vowing more sanctions against Tehran and Rouhani suggesting his American counterpart suffers from a "weakness of intellect."

 

The European powers with China and Russia are desperately trying to salvage the nuclear deal and on Monday said they had agreed to set up a special payment mechanism to continue trade with Iran in an effort to skirt U.S. sanctions.

 

French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday the European efforts would not change the mind of companies that had already left Iran, but would try to provide some economic benefits to Tehran.

 

"Unfortunately the current disagreement over approach is not helpful and it is giving Iran a sort of lifeline and hope that it can skirt the various concerns that everyone has about Iran," Gargash said.

 

He said he believed that Trump's pressure policy that will see tougher sanctions restored on Nov. 5 would yield results and that within a year Iran could be at the negotiating table.

 

(Reporting by John Irish; editing by Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-26

[stevenl]

It is not Iran that is being divisive. The infighting between different fractions is the cause, and the USA is enlarging the divide by choosing sides in stead of working towards peace, and threatening others who are trying to bridge the divide.

[Esso49]

Another US lackey worried he could be on the wrong end of US aggressiveness.

[simple1]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

It is not Iran that is being divisive. The infighting between different fractions is the cause, and the USA is enlarging the divide by choosing sides instead of working towards peace, and threatening others who are trying to bridge the divide.

It is extraordinary the Trump Admin leaders are supporting MEK, cannot comprehend the Trump idiocracy.

 

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/07/20/why-trumps-hawks-back-the-mek-terrorist-cult/

[Pedrogaz]

I don't think the Iranians need to do anything to drive a wedge between the US and Europe...Trump is doing enough with his sanctions, his reneging on treaties, his endless banging on about NATO, his tariffs.

The US is simply not a trustworthy partner as Kim will find out when he has scrapped his nukes and finds himself invaded and regime-changed, like many Middle East partners in the past.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

It is not Iran that is being divisive. The infighting between different fractions is the cause, and the USA is enlarging the divide by choosing sides in stead of working towards peace, and threatening others who are trying to bridge the divide.

 

Yet another one of them either/or posts. It is perfectly possible for more than one side to be "divisive".

[Srikcir]

It's so confusing.

At the UN Trump railed against globalism - yet

• insists on global support from UK, EU, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. with his sanctions against Iran;
• demands respect for America's sovereignty while encouraging regime change in Iran while praising North Korea.
• criticizes China for IP theft and other unfair trade practices but blames China for its lack of assisting the US with getting denuclearization with North Korea.

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

It's so confusing.

At the UN Trump railed against globalism - yet

• insists on global support from UK, EU, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. with his sanctions against Iran;
• demands respect for America's sovereignty while encouraging regime change in Iran while praising North Korea.
• criticizes China for IP theft and other unfair trade practices but blames China for its lack of assisting the US with getting denuclearization with North Korea.

 

 

It's only confusing if one still expects consistency and rationality from Trump.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Morch

[bristolboy]

Well, this claim echoes the one that the UAE and Saudi Arabia once directed against Qatar:

UAE orchestrated hacking of Qatari government sites, sparking regional upheaval, according to U.S. intelligence officials

 

"The United Arab Emirates orchestrated the hacking of Qatari government news and social media sites in order to post incendiary false quotes attributed to Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, in late May that sparked the ongoing upheaval between Qatar and its neighbors, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Officials became aware last week that newly analyzed information gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed that on May 23, senior members of the UAE government discussed the plan and its implementation. The officials said it remains unclear whether the UAE carried out the hacks itself or contracted to have them done. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/uae-hacked-qatari-government-sites-sparking-regional-upheaval-according-to-us-intelligence-officials/2017/07/16/00c46e54-698f-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.3c415a2ec0e5

Edited September 28, 2018 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[stevenl]

43 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yet another one of them either/or posts. It is perfectly possible for more than one side to be "divisive".

Yet another one of them but but but ... posts. As usual deflection.

Edited September 26, 2018 by stevenl

[farcanell]

On 9/26/2018 at 8:17 PM, Morch said:

 

Yet another one of them either/or posts. It is perfectly possible for more than one side to be "divisive".

 

???? it’s hardly an either /or post, when the referenced post says;

 

On 9/26/2018 at 8:31 AM, stevenl said:

It is not Iran that is being divisive. The infighting between different fractions is the cause, and the USA is enlarging the divide by choosing sides in stead of working towards peace, and threatening others who are trying to bridge the divide.

 

Wow hey.... in highlighting the bits that are not either /or... but instead are indicative of more than one party at play, I damn near highlighted the entire post.

 

That said.... the take away is still that it’s not Iran that’s being divisive.

Edited September 28, 2018 by metisdead
Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yet another one of them but but but ... posts. As usual deflection.

 

Yet another irrelevant comment from a poster who can't make an argument stick. You give a free pass (based on what?) for one side, and lay the blame on another. Instead of actually trying to address the point, you issue yet another nothing post.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, farcanell said:

 

???? it’s hardly an either /or post, when the referenced post says;

 

 

Wow hey.... in highlighting the bits that are not either /or... but instead are indicative of more than one party at play, I damn near highlighted the entire post.

 

That said.... the take away is still that it’s not Iran that’s being divisive.

 

Addressed in my post above. The first comment was to the effect that "it is not Iran that is divisive". The comment is out of touch with Iran's actions and routine way of operating in the ME. In essence, it can be described as harnessing existing sectarian issues. 

 

If either of you wished to be even somewhat on mark, the comments would be along "not only", rather than exempting Iran from such labels. Now try reading my post again, please.

 

 

 

 

[farcanell]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Addressed in my post above. The first comment was to the effect that "it is not Iran that is divisive". The comment is out of touch with Iran's actions and routine way of operating in the ME. In essence, it can be described as harnessing existing sectarian issues. 

 

If either of you wished to be even somewhat on mark, the comments would be along "not only", rather than exempting Iran from such labels. Now try reading my post again, please.

 

 

 

 

 

Well put old son.... this is a far more engaging post than your earlier dismissive post.... thank you.

 

that said... “not only”... ok... I can get behind that, in regards to Iran’s routine MO in the ME... but this situation is not usual, and IMHO, Iran has been better behaved since 2015. That’s not to say choir boyish behavior (lol.... that old saying might need reviewing), but better behaved.

 

then Iran woke up one morning and found that without having done anything unusual (by known norms), it was in the poop again. thanks to don, then all of Iran’s enemies piled on to inflict maximum PR damage., as would be expected.

 

i firmly believe that Iran was becoming a better international player ( not one I’d ask to dinner, just yet... but better)... then these devisive comments start to get bandied about.

 

but all this is perhaps besides the point, because the OP fairly clearly points out that it’s the divisiveness of the other NNPP members, that’s an issue, in that they are trying to find ways to continue to support Iran, and honor their participation in the agreement, despite the US withdrawing, which Iran’s regional enemies support bigly.

 

so... it’s not Iran being devisive herein.... it’s about divisiveness between the European signatories and the US position, (egged on by regional allies.)... one side is dishing an agreement, whilst the other is attempting to honor its pledge... one side wants to talk about the best solutions and a productive way forward, the other has spat its dummy in the gutter

 

and yes... I know I’m going to regret using so many words ????????????

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, farcanell said:

 

Well put old son.... this is a far more engaging post than your earlier dismissive post.... thank you.

 

that said... “not only”... ok... I can get behind that, in regards to Iran’s routine MO in the ME... but this situation is not usual, and IMHO, Iran has been better behaved since 2015. That’s not to say choir boyish behavior (lol.... that old saying might need reviewing), but better behaved.

 

then Iran woke up one morning and found that without having done anything unusual (by known norms), it was in the poop again. thanks to don, then all of Iran’s enemies piled on to inflict maximum PR damage., as would be expected.

 

i firmly believe that Iran was becoming a better international player ( not one I’d ask to dinner, just yet... but better)... then these devisive comments start to get bandied about.

 

but all this is perhaps besides the point, because the OP fairly clearly points out that it’s the divisiveness of the other NNPP members, that’s an issue, in that they are trying to find ways to continue to support Iran, and honor their participation in the agreement, despite the US withdrawing, which Iran’s regional enemies support bigly.

 

so... it’s not Iran being devisive herein.... it’s about divisiveness between the European signatories and the US position, (egged on by regional allies.)... one side is dishing an agreement, whilst the other is attempting to honor its pledge... one side wants to talk about the best solutions and a productive way forward, the other has spat its dummy in the gutter

 

and yes... I know I’m going to regret using so many words ????????????

 

 

@farcanell

 

Dismissive posts for nonsense comments, nothing wrong with that. Don't see any complaints about the original post replied to, obviously.

 

Not clear on what situation, exactly, if "not usual". Issues relating to Iran sanctions and the resulting so-called Iran deal were on for years by now. Same goes for the diplomatic games involved. Similarly, it is not clear on what grounds Iran is seen as "better behaved". The only aspect were there was a change was with regard to its nuclear program - and that was a result of maintaining pressure, plus enforcing a strict inspections regime. Not a product of Iranian goodwill. In this sense, Trump's move was, IMO, a bad choice. When it comes to Iran's regional "activities" - nothing changed much. That you "firmly believe" Iran is becoming a "better international player" is nice, but not necessarily supported by a whole lot.

 

And no, the "woke up one morning bit" is incorrect. There was a strong opposition to the agreement even at the time it was signed, and that's one of the reasons it didn't go through as such a treaty ought to. The provisions for the US unilaterally withdrawing from the agreement were in place way before that "one morning". If that's not enough, Trump was rather persistent with regard to this issue, both on the campaign trail, and later on. It might have been a surprise that he acted on it, but not like warning signs weren't on long before that.

 

The OP doesn't actually use the word "divisive", it first appears in the post I replied to. Not a coincidence, IMO, as it doesn't accurately relate to the situation. Couldn't really get what you're on about with later comments (NNPP?).

 

But I think I do get your point, such as it is. Countries unhappy with the agreement lobbying for their views are "divisive", whereas Iran trying to get the best results isn't. I would urge you to do some reading on how related negotiations panned out. Asserting that Iran didn't try to exploit every possible disagreement among other parties to drive a better bargain is incorrect. Asserting it doesn't do so today is not based on a whole lot either.

 

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.

[farcanell]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@farcanell

 

Dismissive posts for nonsense comments, nothing wrong with that. Don't see any complaints about the original post replied to, obviously.

 

Not clear on what situation, exactly, if "not usual". Issues relating to Iran sanctions and the resulting so-called Iran deal were on for years by now. Same goes for the diplomatic games involved. Similarly, it is not clear on what grounds Iran is seen as "better behaved". The only aspect were there was a change was with regard to its nuclear program - and that was a result of maintaining pressure, plus enforcing a strict inspections regime. Not a product of Iranian goodwill. In this sense, Trump's move was, IMO, a bad choice. When it comes to Iran's regional "activities" - nothing changed much. That you "firmly believe" Iran is becoming a "better international player" is nice, but not necessarily supported by a whole lot.

 

And no, the "woke up one morning bit" is incorrect. There was a strong opposition to the agreement even at the time it was signed, and that's one of the reasons it didn't go through as such a treaty ought to. The provisions for the US unilaterally withdrawing from the agreement were in place way before that "one morning". If that's not enough, Trump was rather persistent with regard to this issue, both on the campaign trail, and later on. It might have been a surprise that he acted on it, but not like warning signs weren't on long before that.

 

The OP doesn't actually use the word "divisive", it first appears in the post I replied to. Not a coincidence, IMO, as it doesn't accurately relate to the situation. Couldn't really get what you're on about with later comments (NNPP?).

 

But I think I do get your point, such as it is. Countries unhappy with the agreement lobbying for their views are "divisive", whereas Iran trying to get the best results isn't. I would urge you to do some reading on how related negotiations panned out. Asserting that Iran didn't try to exploit every possible disagreement among other parties to drive a better bargain is incorrect. Asserting it doesn't do so today is not based on a whole lot either.

 

 

Para one... origional poster replied at post 10, to your dismissive post... you responded to that post at post 12, I think.... so your para one seems incorrect... and whilst it may have been a nonsense post to you, it was not to other ( I see 11 hearts as of now), and being flippant and dismissive is disrespectful to those 11 others, as well..... so that’s 12 peoples opinion reflected in post two, so again.... not nonsense.

 

meanwhile, on this issue, excluding post 8, which was good, but peripheral.... you have gained 1 heart ( plus my thanks for responding maturely at 13).... so arguably, the forum sees your POV as the nonsense one.

 

para two... opinions based on reading , or rather, not reading as much nastiness.... you can condemn them if you like

 

para three.... “woke up one morning” was allegorical.... way to much of a simplification.... but with the rest of the world saying “what the ****”, I’ll stand by that oversimplification

 

para four... the use of the word devisive was used in the very first post (following OP)..... so... not sure what your point is, but as a general point, describing the various comment etc, in the OP as devisive, seems fitting. Potatoe potatoe.... same thing by a different name, as opinions seem to be divided, and are being exacerbated by various comments.

 

nnpp.... my short for nuclear non proliferation.... sorry if that confused.... 

 

para five.... did I assert that Iran wasn’t pursueing the best deal for Iran?..... i shouldn’t have because that’s silly.... and irrelevant to the OP which is about the actions of other countries, moreso than the actions of Iran. (As described in para four of the OP)

 

Anyway.... that was fun.

 

 

 

 

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, farcanell said:

 

Para one... origional poster replied at post 10, to your dismissive post... you responded to that post at post 12, I think.... so your para one seems incorrect... and whilst it may have been a nonsense post to you, it was not to other ( I see 11 hearts as of now), and being flippant and dismissive is disrespectful to those 11 others, as well..... so that’s 12 peoples opinion reflected in post two, so again.... not nonsense.

 

meanwhile, on this issue, excluding post 8, which was good, but peripheral.... you have gained 1 heart ( plus my thanks for responding maturely at 13).... so arguably, the forum sees your POV as the nonsense one.

 

para two... opinions based on reading , or rather, not reading as much nastiness.... you can condemn them if you like

 

para three.... “woke up one morning” was allegorical.... way to much of a simplification.... but with the rest of the world saying “what the ****”, I’ll stand by that oversimplification

 

para four... the use of the word devisive was used in the very first post (following OP)..... so... not sure what your point is, but as a general point, describing the various comment etc, in the OP as devisive, seems fitting. Potatoe potatoe.... same thing by a different name, as opinions seem to be divided, and are being exacerbated by various comments.

 

nnpp.... my short for nuclear non proliferation.... sorry if that confused.... 

 

para five.... did I assert that Iran wasn’t pursueing the best deal for Iran?..... i shouldn’t have because that’s silly.... and irrelevant to the OP which is about the actions of other countries, moreso than the actions of Iran. (As described in para four of the OP)

 

Anyway.... that was fun.

 

 

 

 

I can't see his posts, and am really happy about that, but made a mistake and allowed to see one anyway. Now I only see them when quoted, like you just did.

 

Just want to add to your post that my use of the word 'divisive' comes from the OP, where is talked about 'driving a wedge', which is clearly dividing.

[Morch]

 

 

@farcanell

 

You may want to re-read the topic, and get a better handle on who posted what, when and in reply to whom. Perhaps cutting on them "para this", and "para that", or referencing posts by numbers would help some. Same goes for the rambling style of presentation, which go a ways toward muddying things.

 

And no, "likes" are not a good measure of a post's value - but of it's popularity. Hence, it is often that short, partisan and simplistic posts get a many "likes". Considering that on this forum the "like" clicker list to each given position is pretty routine, not all that telling as you assert.

 

In essence, your post is yet another nothing addition - nothing of substance provided to actually support your point of view. Going on about "like" counts, unspecified "reading", and stuff like "the rest of the world saying" are not it.

 

Divisive carries a more negative tone than driving a wedge, and would seem to imply some pre-existing unity. That's not exactly the case. The differences were there since the start. And all parties involved did their best to exploit them to their best interests. Painting things in a one-sided manner won't change that.

 

Regardless of your use of acronym, the comment in question would still be odd. You seem to be mixing a few issues. The topic is not exactly about all NPT signatories, but rather deals with JCPOA and other involved parties.

 

You can spin things however you like, but the topic heading is still Iran trying to drive wedge between U.S., Europeans - UAE minister. Cherry-picking a paragraph, presenting it out of context and asserting that's what the topic is about notwithstanding.

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

@farcanell

 

You may want to re-read the topic, and get a better handle on who posted what, when and in reply to whom. Perhaps cutting on them "para this", and "para that", or referencing posts by numbers would help some. Same goes for the rambling style of presentation, which go a ways toward muddying things.

 

And no, "likes" are not a good measure of a post's value - but of it's popularity. Hence, it is often that short, partisan and simplistic posts get a many "likes". Considering that on this forum the "like" clicker list to each given position is pretty routine, not all that telling as you assert.

 

In essence, your post is yet another nothing addition - nothing of substance provided to actually support your point of view. Going on about "like" counts, unspecified "reading", and stuff like "the rest of the world saying" are not it.

 

Divisive carries a more negative tone than driving a wedge, and would seem to imply some pre-existing unity. That's not exactly the case. The differences were there since the start. And all parties involved did their best to exploit them to their best interests. Painting things in a one-sided manner won't change that.

 

Regardless of your use of acronym, the comment in question would still be odd. You seem to be mixing a few issues. The topic is not exactly about all NPT signatories, but rather deals with JCPOA and other involved parties.

 

You can spin things however you like, but the topic heading is still Iran trying to drive wedge between U.S., Europeans - UAE minister. Cherry-picking a paragraph, presenting it out of context and asserting that's what the topic is about notwithstanding.

 

Lol

 

para one... writing “para one” allows all readers to quickly reference with absolute clarity, which of your remarks I am referencing in an attempt to remove any confusion.... as you ramble and obsfugate with a dearth of information.... a lot of which is irrelevant.... referencing issues in a debate, point by point, is normal... I’m sorry if this doesn’t suit your agenda to confuse and obsfugate

 

para two... ???????????? here was me thinking that “likes” where indicative of people agreeing with, or approving of a post.... being of a similar opinion etc..... oh... right.... alternative facts... ????

 

para three... in essence, my post is my opinion. My opinion, in my opinion, is as valid as any, supported by what I see happening. That’s how opinions work..... much like the UAE minister has made an opinion, based on what he sees, and his prejudice against his states enemy, which when you think about it, is a very biased opinion... ???????????? unlike mine. (Drop a percentage number on the amount of TV posts being opinion... it’s a large number... right?)

 

furthet.... your post that was the beginning of this debate (between us) was an unsupported opinion.... include that in your estimate of opinion posts.

 

para four... devisive is not nessesarily a worse way of saying driving a wedge... it’s simply less words to say a similar thing... if that one word description of the disunity that trump has created with his former fast and hard allies, is your point... it’s a poor argument to throw at another poster in such a dismissive and flippant way.

 

Para five... I’m not mixing issues.... I’m addressing your points... point by point ( paragraph by paragraph).... if this results in mixing of issues, it’s because of the way you rambled to your final paragraph.

 

which brings us to that final paragraph.... para six... I didn’t cherry pick a paragraph from the OP out f any agenda beyond demonstrating which parties the UAE minister was referencing... kinda logical in my mind

 

further... your quoting a byline to hook us readers... we often see that these are misleading, so I will direct you to another OP paragraph... (OP para 6)

 

“ the Iranians are counting on this and PERHAPS creating a wedge between Washington’s approach and the European policy”

 

theres your topic... that’s your quote about a wedge.....”perhaps” vs “trying” (vs doing?).... hardly spinning anything, on my behalf.... and... you may want to re read the topic to get a better understanding before asserting your point. (This may also avoid a charge of bickering and subsequent sensorship)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

 

 

@farcanell

 

I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to "obfuscating" or "dearth of information". Relying on past exchanges, your posting style doesn't seem to help even yourself follow the discussion, let alone the other party. Considering you've already managed a misunderstanding or two, well now....

 

Let's try again - popularity is not necessarily an indication of a post's veracity. If you're having trouble with the concept, look up "populism" or "partisanship". It is quite common for short, extreme and not necessarily correct posts to generate a whole lot of "likes". Says more about the posters clicking such, than posts actual value.

 

You are welcome to your opinion. It was, however, pointed to be based on little, and apparently no actual explanation forthcoming as to what it is based upon. And no, not all opinions are "as valid", sorry about that. I would venture that the UAE minister in question is somewhat more informed than yourself, regardless of his bias or interests. And no, my initial response to you was not an "unsupported opinion", Iran's conduct, agenda and activities are facts. Discussed and referenced on numerous topics.

 

Other than decreeing again that the two terms used are identical, there's not a whole lot to the "argument" your present. Having a rather good handle on poster's positions and style may have something to do with how his use of certain terms is perceived. You wish to ignore that, go right ahead - not into treating each and every post made by long term members as disconnected from their standing views. Kinda fitting you'd mention "flippant" there.

 

You are most definitely mixing issues. when you bring up some odd comment about NPT (or that other acronyms used) members. The NPT is a wide-membership agreement, so the reference used would include a whole lot of countries having little to do with the issue. You may have been thinking about something else, as suggested in my previous post.

 

You just try to follow the other poster's attempted spin, and cherry-picked the referenced bit in order to support that. As for bringing up the topic's heading - it was to highlight the other poster's spin attempt. May I point out my original posts, which had to do with all sides trying to exploit whatever they can in order to further their goals.

 

[farcanell]

On 9/26/2018 at 8:17 PM, Morch said:

 

Yet another one of them either/or posts. It is perfectly possible for more than one side to be "divisive".

 

Yes... let’s go back to your origional post.... there it is above. (One item at a time..... easy... simple... not confusing)

 

as I stated already, it was clearly not an either/ or post that you referenced.... it included mention of multiple sides... ergo, not either or, and that you try to spin it as such is ridiculous

 

and... as an aside, you put a lot of stock in an opinion made by a minister, about an enemy country.... who... once again, said “perhaps”... so... just maybe he’s not sure about it.... and provides about as much proof as I did.

 

damn... two items... my bad... 

 

anyway, if I have confused you with my posting “style”.... I’m amazed... lol

[Morch]

 

@farcanell

 

Seems like you just want to reply the whole topic over again...

 

Just to get this straight, your argument now is that if you repeat something it makes it  correct? You've already had your say, and it wasn't any better supported than the above. You can state "it was clearly" etc to your heart's content - doesn't make it so.

 

And no, I didn't put "a lot of stock" in the minister's words, that's a misrepresentation - what I actually asserted is that he's more informed than yourself with regard to these matters. Nothing in your posts so far suggests otherwise. But by all means, bring out any other straw-man you like.

 

As pointed out, I think you're managing to confuse yourself as well. Maybe something to think about instead of tossing in lame come-backs.