OK, let's try again.

There are people who can clearly read between the lines of what people are "stating" and understand bullshit, propaganda, and loaded statements when they read them...

I take this to be a modest self-portrait. It is also a very convenient stance, is it not, to adopt in these discussions--a sort of dimestore deconstructionism--since it allows you to tease out the "real" meaning (vouchsafed you, I presume, by sheer intellect) and address the "bullshit, propaganda, and loaded statements" buried within your interlocutors' posts (or perhaps I should say "texts") whether or not these meanings are explicitly borne by the sentences you parse. Lesser men might be tempted to ascribe to posts just such hidden meanings as might lend themselves to crushing ripostes.

I see that we're still mining my earlier statement "My point was, they're being saved for the next election cycle. I hope for their sake [emphasis added--again] [Iran] can get their tactical nukes into production by then." The sentences seemed straightforward enough to me when I wrote them, but now I learn that they signal an "agenda" and a "motive," coyly suggested to be "self hatred." Wheels within wheels, forsooth! Since you mentioned debate techniques, let me congratulate you on yours, which appears to be to define the other party's terms on his behalf.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that he really is a man of "peace" and is against all war

I don't know why you should. Again, I've made no blanket statements about war or peace. I happen to think that the war we're about to launch is a piece of unmitigated thuggery, not significantly ameliorated by the fact that it's directed against the land of a smaller thug.

Why would a man of peace want a foreign country that has been hostile to ours in the past wish that they possessed nuclear weapons?

I take it you would prefer that the United Kingdom surrendered its atomic arsenal then? (The blue light indicates that a jest is intended and response is not expected--although come to think of it, Iran never burnt the White House.)

As a deterrent against us? That's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Okay, then I guess this is reasonable - but only if you assume we would be deterred, which is highly speculative at best

If Iran believes that this country has hostile designs on it--a perception this administration has been at some pains to convey--it is the only conceivable practical deterrent (unless you count submitting to American fiat as a palatable alternative for them), and Iran's leadership would be criminally negligent not to pursue it.

Do we appease tyrants and terrorist as policy or do we depose them? It's really quite simple

1) It really isn't.

2) (if I may be permitted my own little bit of deconstruction) Note how we (here rather loosely defined as the Bush junta) get to define these terms. Return with us to the sunny days of the Reagan administration, when political philosopher Jeanne Kirkpatrick was on hand to help us out here: a regime that tortured its subject populace was "authoritarian" if we liked the generals, "totalitarian" if we didn't; insurgents who blew up school buses were "terrorists" if they read from "Das Kapital" and "freedom fighters" if they had the CIA playbook tucked into their fatigues. On second thought, we're already there.

Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see

Apparently.

cordially,

PS--Why, thank you, CRC. It can be useful now and again in these dust-ups to have a seasoned brawler at one's elbow.