Tehran and a Nuclear Iran: Should we be worried and should war be an option?

[Nemesis]

Talk about this matter as if you were a member of the UN Security Council, The US Congress, British Parliament, etc. Discuss what can be done, what the situation is, and what Israel should be doing.

[TelecomClone]

We should consider military and economic sanctions.

I think that Iran is entitled to try to develop, internally, whatever it wants to develop - for whatever purpose. I also think that other countries are entitled to try to defend themselves against what they regard as mortal threats. Two (or more) nations, each acting well within their own rights, will sometimes be brought into direct conflict with one another by virtue of those motions. This is what militaries are for, wherever sophist diplomacy otherwise fails to determine a victor.

[Serotonin]

Put it this way, the brinkmanship between the U.S. and Iran is far too progressed to be resolved peacefully.

[Nemesis]

We should consider military and economic sanctions.

I think that Iran is entitled to try to develop, internally, whatever it wants to develop - for whatever purpose.
Even when that purpose is (and I quote) "to whipe Israel off the face of the map?"

[TelecomClone]

Even when that purpose is (and I quote) "to whipe Israel off the face of the map?"Sure, if they think it's justified. At the same time, I think that action fully justifies Israel and its allies in responding accordingly - by decapitating the Iranian action economically and militarily if not diplomatically. There is no world government and, until such a time that one is finally erected, nation states are sovereign and autonomous.

[nomir_dva]

Even when that purpose is (and I quote) "to whipe Israel off the face of the map?"

I wonder if Ahmadinejad isn't just trying to appease his constituents with rhetoric of that sort. And from their perspective, what, besides nuclear weapons, could act as any sort of deterrent against potential U.S. aggression? It's not in Iran's interest to get wiped off the map.

[Nemesis]

I wonder if Ahmadinejad isn't just trying to appease his constituents with rhetoric of that sort. And from their perspective, what, besides nuclear weapons, could act as any sort of deterrent against potential U.S. aggression? It's not in Iran's interest to get wiped off the map.
That's another piece to this whole big puzzle. If Iran strikes Israel with one, two or even three of the nuclear weapons that it's possible for it to potentially have, they've then given reason for Israel to launch dozens, if not hundreds of nukes in retaliation. So why is it threatening a hit on Israel in retaliation for any "evil act by the U.S."?

[Conan]

My college history professor used to say if another nuclear weapon hasnt been detonated within our lifetimes (the students) it would be a big accomplishment for all of humanity.

[TelecomClone]

I wonder if Ahmadinejad isn't just trying to appease his constituents with rhetoric of that sort.Even if he is, it illustrates that he's very reckless. Everyone knows that the Israeli government does not take statements like that lightly; even fooling around with such talk, as the head of a nation, is to flirt with a bloody nose. In that event, president Ahmadinejad as a markedly reckless leader with nuclear energy under his control remains significantly problematic for the world community. What else will he do to appease his constituents (how powerful are his constituents in reality)? What other reckless decisions might he shrug off? Et cetera.

[htb]

None of above. Aid the organized, youthful, pro-Western and pro-democratist student/worker resistance movements liberate Iran from the dead hand of Khomeinist fascism once and for all; let Iran go nuclear and become one of the most powerful free nations in the region.

[Nemesis]

None of above. Aid the organized, youthful, pro-Western and pro-democratist student/worker resistance movements liberate Iran from the dead hand of Khomeinist fascism once and for all; let Iran go nuclear and become one of the most powerful free nations in the region.
Would it really be that simple? The overthrow of a foreign nations government is a messy business. Ask Madrigal.

[TelecomClone]

None of above. Aid the organized, youthful, pro-Western and pro-democratist student/worker resistance movements liberate Iran from the dead hand of Khomeinist fascism once and for all; let Iran go nuclear and become one of the most powerful free nations in the region.President Ahmadinejad was democratically elected by a majority vote, was he not? If so, we'd be the fascists.

[Nemesis]

Also, I wonder what India's stance on this is. Hindus and Muslims are not exactly bosom buddies.

[Serotonin]

Also, I wonder what India's stance on this is. Hindus and Muslims are not exactly bosom buddies.

Good point. India and Pakistan will be heavily involved in the next big world conflict IMO.

[Nemesis]

Good point. India and Pakistan will be heavily involved in the next big world conflict IMO.
Another thing that makes me curious, is why China and Russia are threatening to veto UN sanctions. What exactly do they, or anyone but Iran for that matter, have to gain from a nuclear Iran?

Russia I'm surprised at, China I'm not, but with China, it does concern me. I don't know what it is, but China certainly does seem to enjoy pissing nations off, and they do seem to enjoy also throwing their new found influence around, but again, could it be oil? President Hu just flew directly from Washington talks with Bush to Riyadh (another slap in the face, but on different matters) to sign papers, securing oil for the country from the kingdom of the House of Saud. Why on earth would they need to support Iran for energy? Could they be protecting Iran just because they piss India off so much? These events all puzzle me, and quite frankly, make me quite worried about the future state of the world.

[nomir_dva]

I think that Russia in particular needs good relations with the Muslim world. There is a large and growing Muslim population in Russia, and when they get angry, Chechnya happens.

[Serotonin]

Or Beslan.

[htb]

Not "simple." Effectively permanent. And it would be insurrection more than anything. There is a glimmer of the Poles' Solidarity in those civil organizations.


President Ahmadinejad was democratically elected by a majority vote, was he not?No, not remotely. How can a field of candidates selected by an Islamist "ruling council" be considered pluralist? Or the culture in which that election took place, among the most tightly controlled in the world, be considered at all liberal?

[Nemesis]

Not "simple." Effectively permanent. And it would be insurrection more than anything. There is a glimmer of the Poles' Solidarity in those civil organizations.
I still think it sounds all too easy to be a good solution.

[TelecomClone]

I don't think that relations with Iran will do much to ease the Chechnyans or similar in Russia, and nor do I think Russia has demonstrated that it is very much interested in that sort of appeasement. Putin is hard line ex-KGB and would rather crush dissent with tanks - as we have seen. I think that Russia and China are interested in Iranian nuclear ambition primarily as a function of trade relations with the country. The Iranians, in developing a nuclear energy, are creating demand for a very profitable and highly specialized sort of trade - one which Russia and China are both equipped to cater to. Further, preferential treatment regarding Iranian oil will be to especially China's advantage.

[TelecomClone]

No, not remotely. How can a field of candidates selected by an Islamist "ruling council" be considered pluralist? Or the culture in which that election took place, among the most tightly controlled in the world, be considered at all liberal?Ruling council, multimillionaire bankroll, it's all the same. Must the restrictions placed upon their democratic process exactly mirror the restrictions placed upon ours in order to be legitimate?

[Nemesis]

Ruling council, multimillionaire bankroll, it's all the same. Must the restrictions placed upon their democratic process exactly mirror the restrictions placed upon ours in order to be legitimate?
And for that matter, where is it written that absolutely every government must be a democratically elected one? There have been more than a few competent and talented monarchs. Elizabeth and Victoria come immediately to mind.

[htb]

Must the restrictions placed upon their democratic process exactly mirror the restrictions placed upon ours in order to be legitimate?Surely. The two cannot be compared. I would suggest visiting Daneshjoo and Regime Change Iran. The democratist Iranian youth movement is very real. Google each; it's inspiring.

[dubbeltop]

Just picked up by spy sattelite:

An average US general sitting in an undisclosed location of the white house:

"Lets send in delta force to blow up the nuclear facility and then we blame the chinese for it."

OFF TOPIC
ps:the undisclosed location is always the toilet :)

[TelecomClone]

Surely.I don't think so. The Iranian democratic process is limited, boxed, specifically arrayed, as the American process is, and this is simply had in different respects. The effect is however the same - a democratic application to a nondemocratic state. In our case a constitutional republic, and in their case an Islamic republic.



I would suggest visiting Daneshjoo and Regime Change Iran. The democratist Iranian youth movement is very real. Google each; it's inspiring.Why would I want to do that? The existence of rebellious youth does not somehow invalidate the Iranian presidency, and I don't find naive idealism inspiring in any event. More like depressing.

[htb]

In our case, a constitutional republic and in their case an Islamic republic.That is a comparison of a veritably democratic nation and an authoritarian counterfeit, unfortunately. You can't pour syrup on dung and call it "pancakes," goes the saying. North Korea calls itself democratic and a republic, for goodness' sake. I had a similar impasse with Claverhouse; I don't quite see how polity cannot be set on a scale of absolute values with the preponderance of evidence delineating the two.


Why would I want to do that?That's right; doing so would help to demonstrate that the Islamist regime is unpopular, and thereby weaken your argument. ;)

[TelecomClone]

North Korea calls itself democratic and a republic, for goodness' sake.Straw man: the DPRK is nothing like Iran.



I had a similar impasse with Claverhouse; I don't quite see how polity cannot be set on a scale of absolute values with the proponderance of evidence delineating the two.No such absolute values exist in that domain, hence the insufficiency and ultimate failure of that kind of boolean measure.



doing so would help to demonstrate that the Islamist regime is unpopularNo, it wouldn't. Instead, it would demonstrate that recalcitrant youths exist - which doesn't come as a surprise in any country. And, certainly, does not invalidate the Iranian presidency.

[htb]

Straw man: the DPRK is nothing like Iran.It is for the purposes of simply referring to Iran as an "Islamic republic," as if that had any practical meaning. It is a totalitarian country that presents itself to the world as something that it is most certainly not.


No such absolute values exist in that domain, hence the insufficiency and ultimate failure of that kind of boolean measure.Gradations are eminently possible and there are those, principally NGOs and thinktanks, who with research and well-founded arguments codify such things.


No, it wouldn't. Instead, it would demonstrate that recalcitrant youths exist - which doesn't come as a surprise in any country.Iranians would say otherwise!

[Nemesis]

Iranians would say otherwise!
Are you an Iranian? Have you conversed with multiple Iranians from every demographic of the country? Saying that the Iranian president is wildly unpopular based upon an underground movement is like saying that a U.S. president of the 60's or 70's was unpopular based upon the black power movement.

[charred_heart]

Didn't India develop it's nuclear bomb in secret? Considering there's a black market for old soviet nuclear technology and many idle scientists who would love to get paid, I wonder why Iran was so public about it's nuclear program? I think having a monitered nuclear program is better than Iran going in secret for world stability. The last thing we need is nuclear war right now.

[TelecomClone]

there are those, principally NGOs and thinktanks, who with research and well-founded arguments codify such things.According to their arbitrary sociocultural standards, of course, which makes any sense of absolute integrity that one might wish to draw from such authority fully illusory. There simply are no absolute values in that domain, and we already judge on gradients.




Didn't India develop it's nuclear bomb in secret? Considering there's a black market for old soviet nuclear technology and many idle scientists who would love to get paid, I wonder why Iran was so public about it's nuclear program?Because it was exposed. They tried to hide the program, but were outed by nasty spying; and of course they still deny that they're going to make weapons with their weapons grade fissiles.

[charred_heart]

Because it was exposed. They tried to hide the program, but were outed by nasty spying; and of course they still deny that they're going to make weapons with their weapons grade fissiles.
seems I don't know much about the subject.

[Jacque]

Whatever political divisions Iran suffers from, they are all united behind this nuclear enrichment program. The world's Muslims are probably united behind them as well. From their perspective, it is seen as a technological breakthrough, not the act of war the western media has portrayed.

Without any assistance from the West, Iran is hailing this technology as an assertion of its independence and noncapitulation. This is true. After the 1973 oil embargo, the Treasury Department brought together American contractors and members of the House of Saud, actively facilitating the development of their infrastructure and military. To ensure that an oil embargo would never happen again, we intertwined our fate with the fate of these monarchs. The House of Saud, realizing the cyclical nature of despotic rule, embraced our assistance. And so the hatred began. National security was just an "externality" to the transaction, costs to be borne by new wars.

Upgrading our own nuclear arsenal, though, seemed awkwardly timed.

[zhang_bob]

How can you justify legally a war with Iran?


It is for the purposes of simply referring to Iran as an "Islamic republic," as if that had any practical meaning. It is a totalitarian country that presents itself to the world as something that it is most certainly not.

I think you will find it is officially Islamic Republic of Iran. Just like you will find Pakistan officially as Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

[Nemesis]

Didn't India develop it's nuclear bomb in secret? Considering there's a black market for old soviet nuclear technology and many idle scientists who would love to get paid, I wonder why Iran was so public about it's nuclear program? I think having a monitered nuclear program is better than Iran going in secret for world stability. The last thing we need is nuclear war right now.
Iran basically told us exactly when it enriched its uranium, followed by "we're going to wipe Israel off the map."

[zhang_bob]

Iran basically told us exactly when it enriched its uranium, followed by "we're going to wipe Israel off the map."I think the first bit ok, it the second bit I do not like.

[abathur]

China is growing, fast. China needs oil, and it needs it as cheap as possible. OUR oil use isn't forcing up oil prices all that much yet, there's still too much coming out of the ground to claim that, it's the WORLD oil use doing it.

It wouldn't shock me if China militarily defended Iran. And then took it over.

[mr. treat]

the only reason western countries are even concerned about iran is because of bad relations with the country. no one imposed sanctions on india when it DID develop the bomb, because the west likes india. why are china and russia against sanctions? because they have good relations with iran, and because they realize they can benefit from a healthy trade partner. honestly, does anyone here really believe iranian warheads would be launched at israel? fuck no, that's just a ridiculous fear-inspired and hate-mongering story the west propagates to inspire us to rise up against the iranian terror. unless one goes to iran, and asks the iranian people what they think about it, any opinion is baseless.

[htb]

I think you will find it is officially Islamic Republic of Iran. Just like you will find Pakistan officially as Islamic Republic of Pakistan.I think you will find that neither country is remotely a "republic," led a popularly elected representative body.

The argument against mine is one of moral equivalence and nominal interpretation. It is a bland sort of reductionism, an odd insistence on sameness despite signal differences. The argument is vulnerable to empirical analysis, for any survey of contemporary accounts of countries like Iran or North Korea or Pakistan -- any country having spent the balance of the last five decades under rigid authoritarianism -- will reveal that the countries' literal conditions belie whatever is claimed in title or constitution. At once, Iran becomes a nation of captives, its leadership unrepresentative and guilty of atrocities that should, I am confident, rise above the threshold of "arbitrary sociocultural standards."

The indifference to the Iranian desire for democracy is puzzling, especially when proponents of that ambition are easily accessible online, asking for Western support.

[zhang_bob]

I think you will find that neither country is remotely a "republic," led a popularly elected representative body.

Nor did I say they were, you dumb prick. Are you trying too dumb down INTP Central?

[htb]

Are you trying too dumb down INTP central?Erm, it's "to," actually. So dumbing down may be your purview.

I love your kind. One challenge and you just lose it. Come on, fellow, get mad.

[zhang_bob]

Erm, it's "to," actually. So dumbing down may be your purview.
Too - More than enough; excessively.

[htb]

"To" precedes an unconjugated verb, which is what you meant to do. "Too" is an adverb.

[Dr. Haight]

"And in the left corner, fighting out of Tooth Gap Gym, in blue shorts, with silverer tassels, representing the United Kindom.......ZZZZZZZZhangggg BOOOOOOOOB!"

"And the challenger, fighting out of the Telecomclone gym for pseudo-intellectuals, in the black shorts with pink stripes, representing the J in INTJ.....HHHHHHHHH the tbbbbbbbb!"

OK boy's, you know the rules: No hitting below the belt, no mom jokes, and please try to flame while staying on topic, or points will be reduced.
Now, let's see a clean fight.....ding, ding.

[zhang_bob]

"To" precedes an unconjugated verb, which is what you meant to do. "Too" is an adverb.
You sound like my english teacher, she said that I can`t start a sentence with the word 'And', so I said yes I can the Bible does.


"To" precedes an unconjugated verb, which is what you meant to do. "Too" is an adverb.I don`t give a shit about the order of words.

[htb]

representing the J in INTJF, actually. Strongly so. How about that.

[nomir_dva]

You sound like my english teacher, she said that I can`t start a sentence with the word 'And', so I said yes I can the Bible does.

I don`t give a shit about the order of words.

It's called an infinitive.

[zhang_bob]

I think they are using the other definition of republic.

[Tlalocone]

There is no need for more:dont: :sick: war.:hug::cheers: :puppy: :wave: happppy happppy

[Carebear]

Oh... you Americans have been fed so many lies...

I don't know where to start...

No, fuck this! After having written three different attempts to state my views in a deatached way, allways ending up with some completely off the chart Fe-post, I've decided to wait. I'll post something more constructive later.

(I HATE being this FEELY, but this issue touches my core values and leaves me totally unable to suppress the crusader inside me.) :mad:

[htb]

you Americans have been fed so many lies...If you mean to tell me that the Ayatollah Khomeini didn't have a mohawk under his turban, no deal.

[zhang_bob]

If you mean to tell me that the Ayatollah Khomeini didn't have a mohawk under his turban, no deal.The U.S did not try to stop him from getting power.

[Tlalocone]

Once Afghanistan, than(maybe still too) Iraq and now little 'Doubt Ya':devil: want to spankie(bomb down) Iran, mainly Tehera'n? the litlle 'ba...starr-ed.':banghead:

[zhang_bob]

Telalocone what does this mean. > Ha't persze, hogy nem e'rtjuk fe'lre egyma'st! Hogy vagy?

[Tlalocone]

Telalocone what does this mean. > Ha't persze, hogy nem e'rtjuk fe'lre egyma'st! Hogy vagy?

Literal and maybe mirror translation too, but: 'Of course(that) we don't misunderstand each other! How are you today, little eagle?'

Yar welcome. But please be-(a)ware of the south part-end of the city park

[Shimpei]

Telalocone what does this mean. > Ha't persze, hogy nem e'rtjuk fe'lre egyma'st! Hogy vagy?

I told him this a few days ago. It means: "Of course we don't misunderstand each other. How are you doing?"
You see, nothing interesting or ingenious for a signature.

[Shimpei]

Literal and maybe mirror translation too, but: 'Of course(that) we don't misunderstand each other! How are you today, little eagle?'

Yar welcome. But please be-(a)ware of the south part-end of the city park

NO LITTLE EAGLE INVOLVED!!!!!!!:whyi:

[Tlalocone]

NO Geronimo INVOLVED!!!!!!!:devil:
Taipei is the great taipan of Taiwan.:devil: :devil: :devil:

Why dontya confess to them that yar a girl?
E's mi a fra'sznak baj ha egy kicsit hu..lyi'tem a fontoskodo'
tengeren-e's csatorna'n tu'liakat? Csak vicceltem, ennyi az ege'sz nem kell felte'tlenu..l 100%-osan o"szinte'nek lenned/lennu..nk velu..k.
O"k nem m.dzs.r.k, vagy szerinted igen?

[zhang_bob]

Taipei is the great taipan of Taiwan.:devil: :devil: :devil:
:)

[Nemesis]

the only reason western countries are even concerned about iran is because of bad relations with the country. no one imposed sanctions on india when it DID develop the bomb, because the west likes india. why are china and russia against sanctions? because they have good relations with iran, and because they realize they can benefit from a healthy trade partner. honestly, does anyone here really believe iranian warheads would be launched at israel? fuck no, that's just a ridiculous fear-inspired and hate-mongering story the west propagates to inspire us to rise up against the iranian terror. unless one goes to iran, and asks the iranian people what they think about it, any opinion is baseless.
Okay, you do realize that president Ahmadinejad went on television and said that they would launch against Israel in retalliation of "any evil act by the U.S." don't you?

[ptGatsby]

Okay, you do realize that president Ahmadinejad went on television and said that they would launch against Israel in retalliation of "any evil act by the U.S." don't you?


I guess you are either with them, or against them, then?

[s'box]

The CIA sent a memo to Bush not all too long ago that said basically that Iran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons almost exclusively in response to perceived US agression. What does he do with this memo? threaten Iran more.

Iran has every right to pursue this course as much as the whole thing is awful. They are inbetween two nations occupied by the US which did nothing to provoke them, they've been labeled as evil along with one of those nations that was invaded, and they've been threatened constantly and feel the need to defend themselves. Its probably also fair that many of those in charge there still remember living under a US sponsored dictator who with the help of the CIA overthrew their last democratic government.

On top of all this, the country has terrible power shortages and most iranians would like to be able to turn the lights on more than once in awhile, something a nuclear reactor program would accomplish.

When it comes down to it, the west is giving Iran every reason possible for them to develop nuclear weapons and threaten them with, and no incentive to stop at all as it would simply leave them defenseless against an invasion that Bush won't even go and lie and say he wont attempt if he feels so inclined.

The only way out is to back off and remove american threats and presense and let the world meander on its own, perhaps help them with some power needs, which in turn means iran having nukes is nearly inevitable.

[mr. treat]

Okay, you do realize that president Ahmadinejad went on television and said that they would launch against Israel in retalliation of "any evil act by the U.S." don't you?

it's called sabre rattling. fact is, they will never do it, because it would be like signing their own death warrant. do you believe everything you see on tv?

edit: yeah, a chance exists that when they do enrich uranium, and then build a warhead, and then create some rockets, that they would launch a missile at israel. but that's about a 1 in a gazillion chance, and a long way off either way.

[Nemesis]

it's called sabre rattling. fact is, they will never do it, because it would be like signing their own death warrant. do you believe everything you see on tv?

edit: yeah, a chance exists that when they do enrich uranium, and then build a warhead, and then create some rockets, that they would launch a missile at israel. but that's about a 1 in a gazillion chance, and a long way off either way.
If you think you're qualified to make that assumption than more power to you.

[Superstring]

Wow, so that's what INTPc is like, huh? 15:9 people said "We should not be worried and not do anything."

That's pretty rediculous. Iran has been treated like a baby crying for more cookies over the last two years with these nuclear talks. They've been given every oppurtunity to pursue their ambitions of having nuclear power, and then crying like a fucking baby that they wouldn't have 'total control' over their own little operations. Anything barring them from the freedom to build 20 megatonne weapons (pictured here: )http://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/images/HydrogenBomb.jpg is a complete deal breaker. It shouldn't be though, if their ambitions were as peaceful as they say.

The Hitler/Iran/appeasement scenario is an obvious analogy, but it is a precious lesson of humanity earned by modern society: When political leaders talk shit about an entire other culture, it's not to be taken lightly, as though it were some asshole on the street giving their opinion as regular conversation. It's different, they're the leader of a nation, and their every wish just as easily becomes a snap decision. And, considering martyrdom is idealized by Islamic culture, wiping Israel off the earth, etc, these things should not be taken lightly when the weapon pictured above is so OBVIOUSLY something the nation's leader has such a hardon for.

And just because he wants to be all ballsy and shit doesn't mean he has the right to be. Picture this was some country like, say, Madagascar. Madagascar is on the verge of developing nuclear power, and while offered the oppurtunity to carry out their mission in a safe manner that will limit their ability to build nuclear weapons, they act all defiant and shit and say that no, THEY deserve to have all the nuclear freedom they want, THEY are Madagascar. It's the same with Iran, or any other country for that matter. No country should have them to begin with. Saying "other people have nukes, IRAN should be allowed too" is a fucking TERRIBLE idea. Shame on you, INTPc.

[TelecomClone]

Wow, so that's what INTPc is like, huh? 15:9 people said "We should not be worried and not do anything."

That's pretty rediculous.I agree. Although I would guess that it has more to do with a disconnect from politics - a disinterest - than with the genuine ideological naivety that it might otherwise suggest.




They've been given every oppurtunity to pursue their ambitions of having nuclear power, and then crying like a fucking baby that they wouldn't have 'total control' over their own little operations.I don't think that Iran is sobbing in a childish manner when they protest foreign intervention in their internal sciences; as I said earlier, no world government as of yet exists. Until such a time that one is erected, nation states are sovereign and autonomous - which means (in theory) being accorded self-determination. From Iran's perspective this is what they are being 'unfairly' denied, and this is why they are agitated.




And just because he wants to be all ballsy and shit doesn't mean he has the right to be.He's got the right, as the leadership of a sovereign nation, to represent his country in whatever manner his government decides is appropriate. Similarly, we've got the right to respond to his threats in whatever manner we deem appropriate. This is the nature of the interplay of autonomous nation states.




No country should have them to begin with.But countries do have them, and since the knowledge is not difficult to extrapolate from commonly known physical laws, more countries will have them in the future. As time goes on, it will eventually become impossible to prevent countries from developing nuclear power without the implementation of a world government and the obliteration of nation states. That's one option. The other is to follow Oppenheimer's theory, which posits that war will end entirely when each country can destroy the world; a theory that unfortunately presupposes rational actors, and is voided when religion is a state's mission.




http://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/images/HydrogenBomb.jpgAh. That is beautiful. Even though the destructive energy is mostly wasted harmlessly into the atmosphere, the thermonuclear detonation still stands as a dramatic example of the very beginning of what the human intellect is capable - how far beyond our immediate physical bounds we can bring ourselves through the application of logic to imagination. I find no image to be more inspiring.

[Carebear]

Good posts, Somnus, mr. treat, htb and nomir_dva.


Aid the organized, youthful, pro-Western and pro-democratist student/worker resistance movements liberate Iran from the dead hand of Khomeinist fascism once and for all; let Iran go nuclear and become one of the most powerful free nations in the region.

And htb, I think you're right. I don't know how Nemesis and TelecomClone got the notion that your suggestion = "the [US] overthrow of a foreign nations government", but I guess it reflects the official american foreign policy. "If we can't ignore or exploit it, we fight it."


President Ahmadinejad was democratically elected by a majority vote, was he not? If so, we'd be the fascists.

Well, if overthrowing a democratically elected president by majority vote is what makes a facist in your opinion, then sir, you're allready facists. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you could start by reading about Latin-America. In the case of Mr. Ahmadinejad however, you could argue that it was the US who got him elected in the first place. (Anyone notice where all the pre-2001 student riots and anti-theocracy movements in Iran has gone lately? They seem to have disappeared, replaced by fundamentalists...)
However, htb was not arguing any sort of military action I think, but rather continued and increased support (not air support) to the pro-democracy activists. It worked very well until the US declared war on Islam and put Iran in the axis of evil.


Are you an Iranian? Have you conversed with multiple Iranians from every demographic of the country? Saying that the Iranian president is wildly unpopular based upon an underground movement is like saying that a U.S. president of the 60's or 70's was unpopular based upon the black power movement.

You don't have to have talked to every Iranian to know that the system was unpopular. The simple fact that things were slowly changing to appease this movement shows that it wasn't simply a group of recalcitrant youths. But as stated before: Things changed after the War on Terror (percieved as the war on Islam) started, the same way the anti-Bush movement became quiet for a period and the support of the president skyrocketed after the 2001 attack on the US symbols of imperialism (percieved as a muslim attack on the american public).


Another thing that makes me curious, is why China and Russia are threatening to veto UN sanctions. What exactly do they, or anyone but Iran for that matter, have to gain from a nuclear Iran?

Hm... Well, it makes no sense at all if you see this from the perspective of the American media, and if that's your primary source of info (as I suspect), it'll take several books to explain the state of the world as I see it. However, since I know that you're truly interested in understanding this, Nemesis, I'll try to explain how I see this conflict in broad terms, and as thoroughly as I'm able to in one post.
I think the first premise you'll have to accept in order to understand, is that the US foreign policy is imperialist and not primarily interested in making the world a better place. If you don't accept this, I'll be unable to convince you in one small post.

Hm.. or maybe not... If you at least accept the premise that large parts of the world sees the US in this light, we're still on track. Further more, you'll have to accept the premise that Iran, China, Russia, Israel, India, the different EU states, the different arabic states and basically any major state is primarily acting according to it's own self interests. (This also means there's no muslim conspiracy to take over the world.) If you see it differently, we're not likely to ever agree.

If you however do agree with the premises, it's easy to explain the actions of the other states.
Russia and China has no interest in letting the US into Iran. When the US went into Iraq, one of the first things they did was declare that any oil contract the russians had with the Saddam regime was illegitimate and void. Letting them into yet another of their backyard countries to see the same happen again is out of the question. (Wouldn't the US veto Russian or Chinese military actions against e.g. Venezuela? Adding that Pres. Bush earlier this year went to China's old arch-nemesis Japan and addressed China, basically stating that they should let Taiwan get it's independence (reversal of US doctrine), it's no wonder proud China won't support the US. Besides, China is desperate for oil in order to support it's booming industry, why help an equally desperate rival get into one of the last major oil countries?

One of Hitler's main goals was to get the Middle-East, Persia etc, and the Soviet areas directly north of it (extremely mineral rich) because he believed world domination could only be achieved if you had them all . Now the US has military bases in most of these countries, and neither Russia, China, India nor the old european imperialists are comfortable with it. (I believe this to be a much more important factor in the German and French opposition to the invasion of Iraq than any moral objection was.)



Russia I'm surprised at, China I'm not, but with China, it does concern me. I don't know what it is, but China certainly does seem to enjoy pissing nations off, and they do seem to enjoy also throwing their new found influence around, but again, could it be oil? President Hu just flew directly from Washington talks with Bush to Riyadh (another slap in the face, but on different matters) to sign papers, securing oil for the country from the kingdom of the House of Saud. Why on earth would they need to support Iran for energy? Could they be protecting Iran just because they piss India off so much? These events all puzzle me, and quite frankly, make me quite worried about the future state of the world.

My take on it is that China deliberately pisses the US off because the US ignorantly pisses them off. China will decide the future of the USA, and knowing this (and hoping the US will realize), they push their limits, knowing they're practically untouchable. And yes, it's also about their desperation for oil. Peak oil is imminent, getting as much as possible before the rest realizes gives a huge advantage later on (which I suspect is the main reason for the entire US "War on Terror"). As for the future state of the world: It looks grave. For the western countries in any case.

Hope that gives you some possible explanations concerning the Russian and Chinese actions in relation to Iran.

Let's now turn directly to the centre of the issue; Iran.
Though the major countries in Asia and Europe might be queasy about a huge US precense in what they percieve as their backyard, it's mostly because of a concern with the balance of power. Imagine being Iran. A superpower they percieve as an imperialist has just declared a war on their national religion, invaded their neighbours to the east and west and seems to be driven by an insatiable hunger for a rare resurce Iran has aplenty. Or in other words: Imagine playing Civilisation or TotalWar and this is your status (you're playing Iran):

2078

The enemy has allready declared that you're evil, has had a 27 year old enmity with trade embargo against you, (your citicens are e.g. banned from downloading any material from any US web page), and you suspect that hadn't the war in Iraq gotten so bogged down, you and Syria would already have been American "colonies" by now. Now they've just started threatening you the same way they threatened Iraq a few years back, threats that were more than threats, since the invading forces were allready in place when the US first went to the UN. This aggressive threat at your doorstep has by the way already sent a huge proportion of it's spies into your country, by the way. Would you still believe that they came in peace?

Then they demand is that you refrain from doing something any other non-Islamic nation is allowed to: To build nuclear power plants. Why? Because you'll then have the possibility to secretly build weapons that previously have worked as a deterrent against attacks.

I have no illusions whatsoever about the motives of Iran. Nuclear power? Certainly! Nukes? Without a doubt. Hower only to increase political and military influence, much the same way as Israel (with it's more that 200 nukes) has done (and noone fears Israeli attacks). Iran represents no military threat against US, the same way Saddam never did. There's absolutely no way nukes can be used offensively without repercussions being so big it's not worth it for any nation. Terrorists, yes, since they are individuals, but a nation can never hide in a cave. And Iranian (or Iraqui) nukes in the hands of terrorists is simply unthinkable, since it would still be seen as a Iranian attack (and Saddam would even have had to worry about terrorists using the nukes against him, since that secular bastard wasn't that popular with many factions).

So instead of Iran waiting for the US to choose a time for an invasion, Iran starts building, knowing that the US is bogged down. Instead of an attack on some lame excuse ("prove that you're not hiding Osama Bin Laden"), the worst they can fear now is airstrikes. The US will indeed be able to harm them, but they'll harm their own interests even more in the process. In other words, Iran hopes the US is only rattling it's sabers, and are smart enough not to attack. When the US stood poised to attack Iraq, North Corea chose to do the same, and got away with it.


Okay, you do realize that president Ahmadinejad went on television and said that they would launch against Israel in retalliation of "any evil act by the U.S." don't you?


That's another piece to this whole big puzzle. If Iran strikes Israel with one, two or even three of the nuclear weapons that it's possible for it to potentially have, they've then given reason for Israel to launch dozens, if not hundreds of nukes in retaliation. So why is it threatening a hit on Israel in retaliation for any "evil act by the U.S."?

Iran currently has no nukes. If they hit Israel, it'll be with rockets and normal bombs, and hope Israel won't answer with nukes (in which case Israel would be seen as the devil by the whole world for starting a the worlds first nuclear war). However, this threat and any anti-Israel talk is probably only sabre rattling. Besides, it's based on a misconception. Many muslims believe the War on Terror is a Judeo-Christian war on Islam. By threatening Israel, they hope they in a way threaten the US. Saddam did the same in both wars.

My belief however, is that the US (in addittion to the president gathering votes from american Jews) is primarily using Israel as an excuse to be heavily present in the oil rich Middle-East. A threat against Israel won't deterr them.

[Carebear]

I don't think that Iran is sobbing in a childish manner when they protest foreign intervention in their internal sciences; as I said earlier, no world government as of yet exists. Until such a time that one is erected, nation states are sovereign and autonomous - which means (in theory) being accorded self-determination. From Iran's perspective this is what they are being 'unfairly' denied, and this is why they are agitated.



He's got the right, as the leadership of a sovereign nation, to represent his country in whatever manner his government decides is appropriate. Similarly, we've got the right to respond to his threats in whatever manner we deem appropriate. This is the nature of the interplay of autonomous nation states.



But countries do have them, and since the knowledge is not difficult to extrapolate from commonly known physical laws, more countries will have them in the future. As time goes on, it will eventually become impossible to prevent countries from developing nuclear power without the implementation of a world government and the obliteration of nation states. That's one option. The other is to follow Oppenheimer's theory, which posits that war will end entirely when each country can destroy the world; a theory that unfortunately presupposes rational actors, and is voided when religion is a state's mission.

I agree, and since Iran is has yet to violate the sovereignty of any other state the last decade, I see no reason why anyone would deny them whatever they want inside their own borders. Iran going on a nuclear offensive would ultimately destroy the country, why fear them more than Pakistan, Israel, India, Russia, China, North Corea or the US?

Hm.. come to thin of it, wasn't it the US military that wanted to start using "Mini" Nukes in Iraq if the going got tough? (I read something about a discussion along those lines immediately prior to the invasion.)

And why should Iran feel obliged to bend to the no-weapons-off-mass-destruction-rules of the country with more nuclear, chemical and biological weapons than anyone else?

[Superstring]

Ah. That is beautiful. Even though the destructive energy is mostly wasted harmlessly into the atmosphere, the thermonuclear detonation still stands as a dramatic example of the very beginning of what the human intellect is capable - how far beyond our immediate physical bounds we can bring ourselves through the application of logic to imagination. I find no image to be more inspiring.

I fully agree with the beauty part, but as for the 'harmless energy into the atmosphere' part, you're neglecting the radius of nuclear fission that extends 25 kilometers (15 miles) outward from the epicenter....

As for this 'world government' thing, I don't see how one's existance would be necessary for Iran to cooperate at all. There may not be a world government, but there is a world community.

[Superstring]

I agree, and since Iran is has yet to violate the sovereignty of any other state the last decade, I see no reason why anyone would deny them whatever they want inside their own borders.

:spam:


Iran going on a nuclear offensive would ultimately destroy the country,

Their culture idealizes martyrdom. Hence they wouldn't care about the reprcussions if they felt their nukes were being used for a just cause.

[htb]

And htb, I think you're right.Thank you. Realpolitik, detente -- it would seem that coexistence with tyrannical goverments, at the expense of security and the natural rights of those people encumbered with those governments, is what is fanciful.

Some posters here have scoffed at democratist organizations and their work. Dismissed out of hand? The following is the introduction to a 2005 publication by Freedom House:

"A major new study shows that nonviolent 'people power' movements are the strongest force in most successful transitions to democracy. The report focuses on 67 countries where dictatorships have fallen since 1972."

(http://65.110.85.181/uploads/special_report/29.pdf)

Compelling inasmuch as it is authentic.

[Superstring]

And why should Iran feel obliged to bend to the no-weapons-off-mass-destruction-rules of the country with more nuclear, chemical and biological weapons than anyone else?

:spam:

[Carebear]

:spam:

Spam indeed. But I forgive you.


"A major new study shows that nonviolent 'people power' movements are the strongest force in most successful transitions to democracy. The report focuses on 67 countries where dictatorships have fallen since 1972."

(http://65.110.85.181/uploads/special_report/29.pdf)

Compelling inasmuch as it is authentic.


I believe it is authentic, and yes, hardline politics generate the opposite results of what they intend. Without the hardline WW1 punishment of the german public, Hitler would never have gotten enough support to become dictator and start WW2.



There may not be a world government, but there is a world community.

There certainly is, and it's not in support of the US foreign policy these days.

[Superstring]

I believe it is authentic, and yes, hardline politics generate the opposite results of what they intend. Without the hardline WW1 punishment of the german public, Hitler would never have gotten enough support to become dictator and start WW2.



But let's not forget the help he got from pussy ass appeasment attitudes like yours, where you let some random, dissociated guilt get in the way of stopping something terribly wrong from happening. I'm reposting my post

[Superstring]

The Hitler/Iran/appeasement scenario is an obvious analogy, but it is a precious lesson of humanity earned by modern society: When political leaders talk shit about an entire other culture, it's not to be taken lightly, as though it were some asshole on the street giving their opinion as regular conversation. It's different, they're the leader of a nation, and their every wish just as easily becomes a snap decision......

.....just because he wants to be all ballsy and shit doesn't mean he has the right to be. Picture this was some country like, say, Madagascar. Madagascar is on the verge of developing nuclear power, and while offered the oppurtunity to carry out their mission in a safe manner that will limit their ability to build nuclear weapons, they act all defiant and shit and say that no, THEY deserve to have all the nuclear freedom they want, THEY are Madagascar. It's the same with Iran, or any other country for that matter. No country should have them to begin with. Saying "other people have nukes, IRAN should be allowed too" is a fucking TERRIBLE idea. Shame on you, INTPc.

[Carebear]

But let's not forget the help he got from pussy ass appeasment attitudes like yours, where you let some random, dissociated guilt get in the way of stopping something terribly wrong from happening. I'm reposting my post

Yeah yeah.

Iran!=Nazi Germany, and isn't similar in any relevant way. They have nothing to gain by going on the offensive, and everything to lose.

I'm not reposting, but you can scroll up and re-read it if you want.

[Serotonin]

The Hitler/Iran/appeasement scenario is an obvious analogy, but it is a precious lesson of humanity earned by modern society: When political leaders talk shit about an entire other culture, it's not to be taken lightly, as though it were some asshole on the street giving their opinion as regular conversation. It's different, they're the leader of a nation, and their every wish just as easily becomes a snap decision......

.....just because he wants to be all ballsy and shit doesn't mean he has the right to be. Picture this was some country like, say, Madagascar. Madagascar is on the verge of developing nuclear power, and while offered the oppurtunity to carry out their mission in a safe manner that will limit their ability to build nuclear weapons, they act all defiant and shit and say that no, THEY deserve to have all the nuclear freedom they want, THEY are Madagascar. It's the same with Iran, or any other country for that matter. No country should have them to begin with. Saying "other people have nukes, IRAN should be allowed too" is a fucking TERRIBLE idea. Shame on you, INTPc.

And I guess the U.S. "might as well" police this? What makes you think they'll do any better than the U.N?

Now, there's the attitude of "somebody has to stop them", and there's the attitude of "live and let live". Both have merit.

If Iran's nukes worry you so much then jump into the game and personally make an effort to stop them. Join the army, get into politics. Calling people out for not having the same attitude as you is lame, cheap and makes you look like a tool.

[Dr. Haight]

You know what they say in Iran?
United States = British Empire

Every nation has a system of propaganda. Just because one nation (ie. US) has a highly complex and sophisticated system for persuading it's citizens--and that of neighboring nations, evidently--that it is the one holding the correct position, does not mean, necessarily, that they are the "greater" or "better" nation; in terms of morals, ethics, and political philosophy.

[TelecomClone]

I don't know how Nemesis and TelecomClone got the notion that your suggestion = "the [US] overthrow of a foreign nations government", but I guess it reflects the official american foreign policy. "If we can't ignore or exploit it, we fight it."Actively funding, organizing, and otherwise supporting a revolutionary organization within a country that seeks to overthrow that country's current government is called warfare. Socioeconomic warfare as carried out by a government is no less warfare than is its military companion.



Well, if overthrowing a democratically elected president by majority vote is what makes a facist in your opinion, then sir, you're allready facists."Fascist" is simply to use htb's term. But to once again use that same terminology for the sake of ease, yes, we most certainly already are. Which is in part what makes all of this 'Iran is authoritarian and therefore invalidly governed' rhetoric that htb has been volunteering so patently absurd when predicated upon a comparison with the United States.






I fully agree with the beauty part, but as for the 'harmless energy into the atmosphere' part, you're neglecting the radius of nuclear fission that extends 25 kilometers (15 miles) outward from the epicenter...Something like 65% of a conventional nuke's destructive energy is radiated uselessly into the atmosphere. This is why, in an attempt to minimize that wastefulness, they tend to be geared as airbursts.



There may not be a world government, but there is a world community.Which is an anarchic environment, wherein each sovereign nation state is fully justified in doing whatever it is internally justified in doing. It is as such impossible to say that a country does not have the right to act in one way or the other, because that country is not subject to rule: there is no world government. Again, also as I've said earlier, this is how two (or more) countries can come into direct conflict with one another whilst each nevertheless acts justly and fully within its own rights to act. Whoever is left standing at the end defines blame. This conflicting dynamic is intrinsic to nation states themselves, as a global system.

[Nemesis]

Their culture idealizes martyrdom. Hence they wouldn't care about the reprcussions if they felt their nukes were being used for a just cause.
Don't you think it's a tad unfair to say that they wouldn't care? I do. They are people, you know.

Oh, and Carebear, you're the first person who sees the U.S. as imperialistic who has actually taken the time to explain it to me in a coherent fashion, AND you managed to do so without quoting a communist or some horrid underground rock band like "Strike Anywhere."

Your post made mountains of sense. I now have a new perspective with me, and it will only help me as I try my hand in the dog-eat-dog world of American politics. I see that this country is going down the tubes, and I want to try and do something about it.

Thank you :)

And I guess the U.S. "might as well" police this? What makes you think they'll do any better than the U.N?

Now, there's the attitude of "somebody has to stop them", and there's the attitude of "live and let live". Both have merit.

If Iran's nukes worry you so much then jump into the game and personally make an effort to stop them. Join the army, get into politics. Calling people out for not having the same attitude as you is lame, cheap and makes you look like a tool.
QFT

Which is an anarchic environment, wherein each sovereign nation state is fully justified in doing whatever it is internally justified in doing. It is as such impossible to say that a country does not have the right to act in one way or the other, because that country is not subject to rule: there is no world government. Again, also as I've said earlier, this is how two (or more) countries can come into direct conflict with one another whilst each nevertheless acts justly and fully within its own rights to act. Whoever is left standing at the end defines blame. This conflicting dynamic is intrinsic to nation states themselves, as a global system.
Agreed. I'm not sure how I would feel about a One World government, I would probably prefer something like giving the UN some actual power to govern, but I don't think that something like that or as radical as a OW government will happen until humanity as a whole finds a fully embodied common enemy.

[Superstring]

Don't you think it's a tad unfair to say that they wouldn't care?

No, I think it's a very relevant fact that would be wreckless to dismiss. They are people, but they are not just like you, they have radical beliefs.

Wow, Iran's president is scarier than I thought, he's been saying and announcing some really fucked up things in the last two weeks. Just read some of the stories about Iran at this British newpaper's website, The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2135387,00.html)

This man is the third antichrist, you heard it here first.

[Dr. Haight]

No, I think it's a very relevant fact that would be wreckless to dismiss. They are people, but they are not just like you, they have radical beliefs.


...like believing the jesus christ was the son of god, who rose from the dead in ghost like form, and will come back again to reign as king and savior, after the rapture, in which all the good christian folk will leave the earth, while lthe bad folk will remain to suffer during end-times, as described by revelations. And, oh yeah, the bad guys--in other words, non-christians--will live in perpetual torment, while the saved christians will live in heaven with their god for all of eternity. Yeah...that is pretty radical.
No wait, that's the good non-radical guy's.
Sorry, my bad.

[Superstring]

...like believing the jesus christ was the son of god, who rose from the dead in ghost like form, and will come back again to reign as king and savior, after the rapture, in which all the good christian folk will leave the earth, while lthe bad folk will remain to suffer during end-times, as described by revelations. And, oh yeah, the bad guys--in other words, non-christians--will live in perpetual torment, while the saved christians will live in heaven with their god for all of eternity. Yeah...that is pretty radical.
No wait, that's the good non-radical guy's.
Sorry, my bad.

He was also part of a satanist fraternity in college?

[Superstring]

Every nation has a system of propaganda. Just because one nation (ie. US) has a highly complex and sophisticated system for persuading it's citizens--and that of neighboring nations, evidently--

Yeah, evidently I've been brainwashed Haight. And evidently so has the rest of Canada? It's so obvious, with all those naiive, blindsighted things I said. I'm such a retard.

Let me tell you something: your country is the only one that suffered from severe deception, like say 2004 reelection time; the way people quoted those dumbass Bush slogans like fucking parrots about the "weaker" Kerry side, not realizing Kerry would be just as likely to succeed at fighting terrorism, if not more so. No other nation on the face of the earth approached anywhere near 50% support for Bush, hell maybe not even yours, but you should be thankful that they still stand by- yes, I'm going to say it- the right side, through the bad decisions. They only stand by for the money, but that's all the reason we need, or anyone else for that matter.

[Superstring]

You know what they say in Iran?
United States = British Empire

Every nation has a system of propaganda. Just because one nation (ie. US) has a highly complex and sophisticated system for persuading it's citizens--and that of neighboring nations, evidently--that it is the one holding the correct position, does not mean, necessarily, that they are the "greater" or "better" nation; in terms of morals, ethics, and political philosophy.

And how TF is this supposed to be an argument that Iran should be allowed to have nukes?

[Nemesis]

No, I think it's a very relevant fact that would be wreckless to dismiss. They are people, but they are not just like you, they have radical beliefs.
I think it's fair to assume that they are also different from eachother. Not every muslim is a proponent of violence, in fact I was under the impression that violence was denounced by the Qur'an. In fact, I'm sure it is. I have a few muslim friends who confirmed that for me. One of whom's parents are immigrants from Egypt. His mother yells at him in the thickest Egyptian Arabic accent I think any person has ever heard, and a father who played on the Egyptian National Soccer Team.

[Superstring]

I think it's fair to assume that they are also different from eachother. Not every muslim is a proponent of violence, in fact I was under the impression that violence was denounced by the Qur'an. In fact, I'm sure it is. I have a few muslim friends who confirmed that for me. One of whom's parents are immigrants from Egypt. His mother yells at him in the thickest Egyptian Arabic accent I think any person has ever heard, and a father who played on the Egyptian National Soccer Team.

Okay, maybe this will convince you:

"We are all obliged to keep alive the culture of martyrdom-seeking in the society." -Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Martyrdom is the peak of mankind's perfection and the martyrs enjoy the highest status of humanity in this world and the Hereafter." -Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[Nemesis]

Okay, maybe this will convince you:

"We are all obliged to keep alive the culture of martyrdom-seeking in the society." -Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
No. It doesn't. The fact that he thinks they're all obliged, doesn't mean that they feel obligated.

[Superstring]

No. It doesn't. The fact that he thinks they're all obliged, doesn't mean that they feel obligated.

He's the only one that needs to feel the obligation once he has the nukes. He must be stopped, there's no other choice. I think he was saying something a few weeks ago about "Britain's collapse is on Iran's agenda", The Times paper has quoted a lot of crazy shit he said.

[nomir_dva]

Okay, maybe this will convince you:

"We are all obliged to keep alive the culture of martyrdom-seeking in the society." -Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Martyrdom is the peak of mankind's perfection and the martyrs enjoy the highest status of humanity in this world and the Hereafter." -Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Presidents say a lot of meaningless things. Bush called himself a 'compassionate conservative.'

The basic point is that without nuclear weapons, Iran is defenseless against U.S. invasion. Bush included it in the Axis of Evil: one of those countries has been destroyed. Another has nuclear weapons and has not been destroyed. What should Iran conclude?

[Superstring]

The basic point is that without nuclear weapons, Iran is defenseless against U.S. invasion. Bush included it in the Axis of Evil: one of those countries has been destroyed. Another has nuclear weapons and has not been destroyed. What should Iran conclude?

It should have concluded that state-sponsored terrorism is a bad idea and renounce it...unlike what they've decided to do for the last 5 years.

[zhang_bob]

I feel the same way about people here.They think the same about you.

[Superstring]

They think the same about you.

Well, I proved a valid point by example; when somebody states an opinion on something serious, they like to think that what they say has intrinsic value.

Just like an INTPc'er will be somewhat attached to their opinion, so will the President of a nation like Iran. And, again; their opinion is far more serious than ours.

[Superstring]

or some horrid underground rock band like "Strike Anywhere."


:thelook:

Did you see my MySpace, and are you making fun of it? "First Strike" isn't about war, just for the record. (friendships gone terribly wrong)

[Carebear]

Don't you think it's a tad unfair to say that they wouldn't care? I do. They are people, you know.

Sure it's unfair. People are people. If you go around asking regular Americans how to solve world problems, it's not difficult finding people that state that the US should bomb any nation that dislikes america. (Several European, Canadian and Eustralian TV-shows have done this.) However, judging the US public by their extremists or by what their president states, is unfair. Bush is still in power because Amerians feel threatened. Ahmadinejad is in power in Iran because Iranians feel threatened (though unlike the uS president, the Iranian has considerably limited power, due to the fact that Iran is a theocracy).

Most Americans want nothing more than to live normal lives in peace. Most Iranians want the same. Same for Palestinians, Israelis or people from Ulster (Northern Ireland) for that matter.

Hawks use selected parts of the Quaran to show that muslims are war-hungry and want to spread Islam to the world, by force if necessary.
Hawks use selected parts of the Bible to show that christians and jews are war-hungry and want to spread Islam to the world, by force if necessary.



Oh, and Carebear, you're the first person who sees the U.S. as imperialistic who has actually taken the time to explain it to me in a coherent fashion, AND you managed to do so without quoting a communist or some horrid underground rock band like "Strike Anywhere."

Your post made mountains of sense. I now have a new perspective with me, and it will only help me as I try my hand in the dog-eat-dog world of American politics. I see that this country is going down the tubes, and I want to try and do something about it.

Thank you :)


And thank you for thanking me. :)

I'm glad I made sense to you, and though I won't dictate anyone's opinion of the state of the world, I feel it's important to try to help people understand different views before they make up their mind about matters. An INFP enneagram 9-thingy I'm certain.
Good luck saving the US from going down the drain, by the way. It's unlikely that it's still possible, but if things change radically with the next president (which I doubt) it might very well be that much can be done to reduce the damages to a minimum.


Personally, I'm equally apalled by US and Iranian foreign and internal politics by the way, but in this conflict, I have an easier time trying to understand the actions of Iran than those of the US. I simply can't see what the US can possibly hope to achieve with Iran, and if it was only sabre rattling, Iran called the bluff, so there's no reason to continue.



Agreed. I'm not sure how I would feel about a One World government, I would probably prefer something like giving the UN some actual power to govern, but I don't think that something like that or as radical as a OW government will happen until humanity as a whole finds a fully embodied common enemy.

I agree with you again. Strengthening the UN would be the best course of action IMHO but both Clinton and the two Bushes made it clear the US will only support a pro-US UN.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

"Western mainstream media, led by the Zionist New York Times, the BBC and the Washington-based neo-fascist Zionist organisation, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), have fabricated allegations against President Ahmedinejad. They alleged that President Ahmedinejad denied the Jewish holocaust took place and threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”. Of course, it was a fabricated lie and President Ahmedinejad did not say anything like this. In fact, none of President Ahmedinejad’ speeches (in Farsi) contain anything close to what has been magnified."
from: http://www.countercurrents.org/hassan040506.htm

Can somebody verify this either way? The article is rather opinionated, but it's a possible feat. There aren't many Farsi-speakers in the western world that listen to Ahmadinejad's speeches to contradict it.

[Nemesis]

:thelook:

Did you see my MySpace, and are you making fun of it? "First Strike" isn't about war, just for the record. (friendships gone terribly wrong)
No. I did not look at your MySpace. I just absolutely hate that band and think that they're utterly horrendous.

[Nemesis]

Sure it's unfair. People are people. If you go around asking regular Americans how to solve world problems, it's not difficult finding people that state that the US should bomb any nation that dislikes america. (Several European, Canadian and Eustralian TV-shows have done this.) However, judging the US public by their extremists or by what their president states, is unfair. Bush is still in power because Amerians feel threatened. Ahmadinejad is in power in Iran because Iranians feel threatened (though unlike the uS president, the Iranian has considerably limited power, due to the fact that Iran is a theocracy).

Most Americans want nothing more than to live normal lives in peace. Most Iranians want the same. Same for Palestinians, Israelis or people from Ulster (Northern Ireland) for that matter.

Hawks use selected parts of the Quaran to show that muslims are war-hungry and want to spread Islam to the world, by force if necessary.
Hawks use selected parts of the Bible to show that christians and jews are war-hungry and want to spread Islam to the world, by force if necessary.



And thank you for thanking me. :)

I'm glad I made sense to you, and though I won't dictate anyone's opinion of the state of the world, I feel it's important to try to help people understand different views before they make up their mind about matters. An INFP enneagram 9-thingy I'm certain.
Good luck saving the US from going down the drain, by the way. It's unlikely that it's still possible, but if things change radically with the next president (which I doubt) it might very well be that much can be done to reduce the damages to a minimum.


Personally, I'm equally apalled by US and Iranian foreign and internal politics by the way, but in this conflict, I have an easier time trying to understand the actions of Iran than those of the US. I simply can't see what the US can possibly hope to achieve with Iran, and if it was only sabre rattling, Iran called the bluff, so there's no reason to continue.



I agree with you again. Strengthening the UN would be the best course of action IMHO but both Clinton and the two Bushes made it clear the US will only support a pro-US UN.
I think that the only reason Bush is still in power right now is because we can't find a reason to impeach him. His nation-wide approval rating is 37% and in places like the Carolinas, which are heavily populated with the Christian Right, his approval rating is something on the order of 26%.

Honestly, I really hope he does do something stupid, so that people will just completely abandon the Republican party next election. The Christian right has been in power for about 6 years now, and look how far down they've managed to drag us. Maybe if our president wasn't a fucking retard we could handle having a Christian Right president, but GW is just not a good leader.

[zhang_bob]

They think the same about you.What happened to this quote?

[Superstring]

What happened to this quote?

That message you quoted me on was something I wrote this morning and deleted about 10 seconds afterward. I was rather surprised and dissapointed to find someone else had already read it (you bastard) but we can keep it alive in your quotation for the hell of it.

[Superstring]

No.

Ohkay, this song's lyrics are exactly parallel to this Iranian topic of discussion, and you had just quoted me so it made sense youd be making fun of my band. Didn't realize that was a real band..

[ptGatsby]

The basic point is that without nuclear weapons, Iran is defenseless against U.S. invasion. Bush included it in the Axis of Evil: one of those countries has been destroyed. Another has nuclear weapons and has not been destroyed. What should Iran conclude?


It should have concluded that state-sponsored terrorism is a bad idea and renounce it...unlike what they've decided to do for the last 5 years.



Following this logically, then the US should have concluded that calling a bunch of countries par of an "Axis of Evil", invading one of the them and destroying the infrastructure and generally threatening to use its force wherever it wants is a bad idea.

And probably should renounce it, unlike what they've decided to do for the last 5 years.

Countries that undergo revolutions at the hands of another have long memories. Very long memories. Iran has not forgotten what the US is willing to do... and they can see what this administration has done.

They are acting completely rationally at this point in time. They have applied the correct game theory and will probably continue to do so. The US has lost this battle; as far as I can tell, they have no exits left. Every conclusion has them losing more than the others stated goals.

Morality is secondary to survival. You never corner an enemy unless you want to know what they are capable of. They no longer have anything to lose... sanctions, reprisals, war? None of it carries any weight now.

[relaxo]

Bush was smart calling Iran part of the axis of evil. Now we can sit back, watch Iran sweat and make useless threats (this is a country that still can't drill for it's own oil without foreign help, and still imports 33% of it's gas because it cant' refine it, let alone even manage a nuclear program). Iran is playing right into the USA's hands by making all this noise.

There's probably no massive danger from the current rulers of Iran. The population doesn't really like them. 51% of the population are persian. The rest already feel they are ill treated. Sunni's are routinely oppressed, along with sufis. Kurds, arabs (who are carrying out terrorist campaigns in Iran), all feel oppressed. The last election was aknowledged as a fraud , controlled by the ruling tyrants to put a puppet islamist in power who could play up the external enemy thing to keep the population quiet while their economy sloths along and religious rulers collect money off high oil prices.

Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure can be bombed at will with little threat of any real retaliation. And if they do retailiate, it is easy to bomb them even more into submission.
With the USA's superior military technology it's most likely able to destroy government and military targets only, leaving the population to rise up with weapons sent in from Iraq.

[Nemesis]

With the USA's superior military technology it's most likely able to destroy government and military targets only, leaving the population to rise up with weapons sent in from Iraq.
Cause that plan worked out SO well in Iraq.

I was going to leave that post to Carebear to respond to until I read that last remark. I think that history has shown, that no matter what we think, we shouldn't assume that people are going to greet us with open arms, especially when it's in that part of the world.

[zhang_bob]

Cause that plan worked out SO well in Iraq.
:lol:

[Jacque]

Can somebody verify this either way? The article is rather opinionated, but it's a possible feat. There aren't many Farsi-speakers in the western world that listen to Ahmadinejad's speeches to contradict it.

I don't know why American journalism is in such a sad shape.

Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30: (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm)

"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[]]. [b]Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

[ptGatsby]

Bush was smart calling Iran part of the axis of evil. Now we can sit back, watch Iran sweat and make useless threats (this is a country that still can't drill for it's own oil without foreign help, and still imports 33% of it's gas because it cant' refine it, let alone even manage a nuclear program). Iran is playing right into the USA's hands by making all this noise.


You know very little about Iran, it would appear. Iran does not fit the images that are portrayed in the West. It is a large populous country with a whole lot of capital.

It can drill for its own oil, and it does. To quote;

In March 2004, President Bush extended sanctions originally imposed in 1995 by President Clinton for another year, citing the "unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security posed by Iran. The 1995 executive orders prohibit U.S. companies and their foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with Iran, while banning any "contract for the financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran." ?In addition, the U.S. Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) of 1996 (renewed for 5 more years in July 2001) imposes mandatory and discretionary sanctions on non-U.S. companies investing more than $20 million annually in the Iranian oil and natural gas sectors.

Just where do you think they are getting their capital exactly?


It imports? It exports the fourth most in the world. The US imports 11 million barrels of oil a day. Iran, if it does import anything, imports less than 1 million.

It doesn't refine? It has 9 refineries, totalling 1,466,000 bpd. That's a lot less than the US, though in proportion to how much fuel is consumed, is roughly the same. (US = 14,084,000 across the board, which may be more inclusive than Iran's). Yes, the US consumes roughly 14x as much oil as Iran. They can refine ~ 1/3 of the oil they extract, and all of the oil they consume. The US can refine 1.5 times the oil they extract, but only 70% of the oil they consume.

How do you know about the nuclear program? They have the technology, they resources... We'll see just how they 'manage', but its naive to believe that they can't. They are far more advanced than Iraq after 10+ years of sanctions.

--

Iran is in deep financial problems. It has sanctions on it. Its under a lot of internal and external political pressure. The US and other western countries are trying to undermine it, revolts are likely. It has a hostile army at its doorstop... or maybe even doorstops. It has plenty of problems... just not the ones you describe.

--



Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure can be bombed at will with little threat of any real retaliation. And if they do retailiate, it is easy to bomb them even more into submission.
With the USA's superior military technology it's most likely able to destroy government and military targets only, leaving the population to rise up with weapons sent in from Iraq.


Might makes right, I guess. I'm sure taking on heavily sanctioned and barely functioning countries is a good boost to ego... but Iran isn't like that. Nor would the world economy function very well with another huge chunk of oil out of production (2x as much as Iraq).

Its not as simple as 'lets go kick their ass'. You tried that... against a basicly defenseless country. It would be a declaration of war, unlike the pale 'friendly invasion' that was Iraq. The backlash would be huge. All I can say is... good luck with that.

[Carebear]

Cause that plan worked out SO well in Iraq.

I was going to leave that post to Carebear to respond to until I read that last remark. I think that history has shown, that no matter what we think, we shouldn't assume that people are going to greet us with open arms, especially when it's in that part of the world.

:rofl: (at the bold part)

I decided against responding any more to that post, since you and especially ptGatsby basically said it all.

Relaxo, are you even able to find Iran on a world map?
Or in other words, are you one of these guys?
http://www.blennus.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=718&Itemid=

[Nemesis]

http://www.blennus.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=718&Itemid=
:shock:

[Carebear]

:shock:

I know! Of course the map was tailored with country names written on the wrong locations, but still.. not knowing that France != Australia. :rofl:

[Nemesis]

I know! Of course the map was tailored with country names written on the wrong locations, but still.. not knowing that France != Australia. :rofl:
I just showed it to some friends of mine. American high schoolers in grades 9, 10, 11, 12 and even cousins as young as grades 6 and 5. They all knew immediately that these people were pinning the wrong countries. Now that's sad and gives me hope at the same time.

[Nemesis]

I find it interesting that this threads counterpart on NCen has gotten NO attention. I find it interesting.

[Architectonic]

I know! Of course the map was tailored with country names written on the wrong locations, but still.. not knowing that France != Australia. :rofl:

I think I'll have to change my location to North Korea. :rofl: