This is one of the most intelligent disagreements I've ever seen. Kevork keeps the conversation centered on the most important questions. There is strong affection and solidarity between all three, allowing even for laughter at the absurdity of the false news and a nuanced strategic discussion since the goal is the same for all. I was glad to hear Seyed apologize for his long-winded answers and falling into 'professor syndrome'--a malady near all men suffer from, imo.
But in the end, I think he's being an apologist for Iran's inaction. Vanessa, your comparison to Russia trying to placate the West when the Maidan happened was apt. On a plane yesterday, one of those self-important men took the middle seat (unnecessarily because it wasn't a full flight) and then goaded me, through his assumption I knew nothing, into an argument about economics, which led to the RICS and Ukraine. His perspective was that we shouldn't 'allow' a big bad country like Russia to invade little Ukraine. I went into the history and he didn't know who Victoria Nuland was, but was glad that Trump would be putting an end to the conflict. After many more futile points, I convinced him to let me read my book.
Leaving the flight, I complimented the woman sitting in front of me on her beautiful red curly hair. We fell into conversation in the airport and she said, "I was listening to your discussion. You just kept coming back with history, facts and logic in the most calm, reasonable way. I was texting my daughters and saying, 'This woman behind me is amazing!' Are you a professor?" It made my day! Glad that we are both not professors and used to sycophantic students hanging on our every words, and instead can make our points and go back to a good book!
I learn so much from these three people
This is one of the most intelligent disagreements I've ever seen. Kevork keeps the conversation centered on the most important questions. There is strong affection and solidarity between all three, allowing even for laughter at the absurdity of the false news and a nuanced strategic discussion since the goal is the same for all. I was glad to hear Seyed apologize for his long-winded answers and falling into 'professor syndrome'--a malady near all men suffer from, imo.
But in the end, I think he's being an apologist for Iran's inaction. Vanessa, your comparison to Russia trying to placate the West when the Maidan happened was apt. On a plane yesterday, one of those self-important men took the middle seat (unnecessarily because it wasn't a full flight) and then goaded me, through his assumption I knew nothing, into an argument about economics, which led to the RICS and Ukraine. His perspective was that we shouldn't 'allow' a big bad country like Russia to invade little Ukraine. I went into the history and he didn't know who Victoria Nuland was, but was glad that Trump would be putting an end to the conflict. After many more futile points, I convinced him to let me read my book.
Leaving the flight, I complimented the woman sitting in front of me on her beautiful red curly hair. We fell into conversation in the airport and she said, "I was listening to your discussion. You just kept coming back with history, facts and logic in the most calm, reasonable way. I was texting my daughters and saying, 'This woman behind me is amazing!' Are you a professor?" It made my day! Glad that we are both not professors and used to sycophantic students hanging on our every words, and instead can make our points and go back to a good book!