they've proven to be a hostile country. if they don't follow the rules they must be punished. or do we pick and choose who's allowed to break the rules?
sorry but that sounds ridiculous to me. First because We are definately a hostile country - and second because you suggest that somehow it is up to us to set the rules and enforce the rules for other soverign nations...
We don't .. No.
We merely exist with this country - our only excuse for talking about military action should be for our own security - and Iran poses no threat to our security.. and as was said before - they are well aware of the consequences they will face if they use nuclear force against us or israel or anyone else.
it doesn't make sense for it to just be for civilian energy consumption. iran has the world's largest reserve of natural gas. they could get by on natural gas for several centuries before running out. nuclear power is more expensive, worse for the environment, and more dangerous, given the risk of a meltdown. they want the bomb.
Well its simple. Networks of underground centrifuges are naturally meant to produce electricity only. how naive of me..
the gov't of Iran, as bad as it is, is about as much a threat to the world as Iraq was, which is to say almost none. The US on the other hand....
but you are right in way. they are trying to protect themselves, if indeed they are pursuing WMD's. But they are only doing so to protect themselves from a very powerful and dangerous superpower that has been involved in the region's affairs for over 60 years.
And there isn't much we can do about Iran, being Americans. The US gov't is something we can affect, and also much more dangerous to the world, and so we should be focussing our attention it anyway.
thats bullshit. weve never threatned Iran or any other middle eastern country with nuclear weapons. they are doing the same thing the north koreans are doing, building nukes to blackmail the west. they have no viable reason to all of a sudden need nuclear weapons to defend against Israel either. Iran and Israel have never engaged in war. Israel has only had conflict with the Sunni muslim states.
thats bullshit. weve never threatned Iran or any other middle eastern country with nuclear weapons. they are doing the same thing the north koreans are doing, building nukes to blackmail the west. they have no viable reason to all of a sudden need nuclear weapons to defend against Israel either. Iran and Israel have never engaged in war. Israel has only had conflict with the Sunni muslim states.
We haven't threatened them with nukes - true. But we certainly threaten them - with some very serious weapons capable of virtually making Iraneans extinct. They can see it by looking just across their border.
Is the United States going to continue to be the bad guy here? All diplomatic means are being used, and the Iranians continue to be belligerent. When Saddaam flouted the UN at least we gave him no fly zones and sanctions that really hurt. Well see what the UN does this time...My guess...NADA.
Lol, wow I just read the entire topic, and this is what I have to say...
First of all, the US has been trying to piss Iran off. This is seen several times, like when they keep kidnapping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, claiming they "supply terrorists" when there's no proof of that because in reality they just wanna find an excuse to prolong their stay in the Middle East. Iran has called for diplomatic talks with the US several times, which the US has denied, thus proving the US doesn't even want to talk to them and that they are completely against them. Also, Iran never threatened Israel, just said that it "should" be wiped off the map. It may still be bad, but look up the definition of a threat, and that is not it.
Also, there are many, many reasons Iran wants to search for nuclear energy. They definitely do NOT have enough oil for "centuries" as it's been significantly decreasing for a while, and they are a major exporter in oil. Nuclear energy is going to be needed in the future, what's wrong with them looking at the big picture?
Iran would never attack Israel or the US. Trust me, they'd wait for an attack first, though we all know the US would also rather them attack first. The US is trying to bait them towards an attack on them, or even Israel. Also, I don't know what you guys are talking about because if Iran and Israel went to war, Iran would win. But then the US jumps in and all hell breaks loose. We have Russia and China and all these other countries on the side, as well.
In the end though, the US has broken international law for so long, that it's quite hypocritical for anything to be said. and the US HAS threatened Iran several times and military tactics have been revealed, proving that US may be planning an invasion in Iran that would lead to World War III, but the US is fucking stupid.
Wait. You were the one who expressed the point that your quotes were not being addressed. I addressed them and now you are changing the subject? Let's get back to addressing your quotes. Please show me the imminent danger?
Maybe there is possible future threat. Maybe there is reason to keep our eyes open. Maybe there is plenty of reason to keep a level head and to continue assessing what is happening.
If you have evidence of imminent danger I would love to hear it.
i'm sorry, but i really don't think you addressed those quotes at all. what i read was very convoluted and (in my opinion) pretentious. i didn't mean to change the subject by citing the example of the rise of the nazis and how nobody seemed to take them at their word until it was too late. the lessons we all should have learned from the rise of hitler are these:
-never assume that someone is simply given to verbal hyperbole. when they talk about wiping you out, you take them seriously.
-just because someone expresses a will or desire that you find morally repulsive, that doesn't mean that they are being irrational.
-there is always someone else who is willing to do something that you are not.
i provided the quotes of iranian leaders because i'm arguing that they can't be trusted to behave as the communist states did with their nuclear weapons. the quotes serve as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of this.
i am sick and tired of everyone who disagrees with me on this simply repeating themselves like a broken record. if you think it doesn't matter that Rafsanjani said that it is acceptable for Iran to suffer a nuclear strike in order to annihilate israel, you're going to have to provide your own EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that shows how your reached that conclusion. For fuck's sake, don't just say "iran won't nuke israel cause they'll get nuked too" for the one billionth time, we all know this. It obviously doesn't end there.
the gov't of Iran, as bad as it is, is about as much a threat to the world as Iraq was, which is to say almost none.
Iran has been behind bombings and assassinations in Europe. It was responsible for the largest terrorist attack in South American history, the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed almost 100 people. Hezbollah launched its war with Israel last summer at Iran's behest to deflect attention from the un security council considering sanctions on Iran. Iran was also behind the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in the 90's.
Iran is already such a destabilizing force in the region and the world, it will only get worse if they have nuclear deterrence, even if they don't use the bomb preemptively.
Iran has been behind bombings and assassinations in Europe. It was responsible for the largest terrorist attack in South American history, the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed almost 100 people. Hezbollah launched its war with Israel last summer at Iran's behest to deflect attention from the un security council considering sanctions on Iran. Iran was also behind the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in the 90's.
Iran is already such a destabilizing force in the region and the world, it will only get worse if they have nuclear deterrence, even if they don't use the bomb preemptively.
All this is true, but alas, some things will never change in this world. Since the threats are being made to wipe a Jewish state off the map, no one cares. Im sure if Ahmadinijad threatened to wipe the US, or Canada, or Britain, or France off the map, Iran would already be a parking lot. The world has come so far since 1939...
All this is true, but alas, some things will never change in this world. Since the threats are being made to wipe a Jewish state off the map, no one cares. Im sure if Ahmadinijad threatened to wipe the US, or Canada, or Britain, or France off the map, Iran would already be a parking lot. The world has come so far since 1939...
if ahmadinijad threatened to wipe the US or canada or france or britain off the map, the respective governments of those countries would laugh at him. and rightfully so.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
if ahmadinijad threatened to wipe the US or canada or france or britain off the map, the respective governments of those countries would laugh at him. and rightfully so.
Also, Iran never threatened Israel, just said that it "should" be wiped off the map. It may still be bad, but look up the definition of a threat, and that is not it.
if you think ahmadinejad's 'map' sentence is the only time an iranian leader said anything about israel, you are sorely mistaken. you need look no further than this thread to find ample evidence that iran not only threatens israel, it is actively seeking israel's destruction through by any means possible.
Also, there are many, many reasons Iran wants to search for nuclear energy. They definitely do NOT have enough oil for "centuries" as it's been significantly decreasing for a while, and they are a major exporter in oil. Nuclear energy is going to be needed in the future, what's wrong with them looking at the big picture?
again, i don't think you read carefully enough. i didn't say they had enough oil for centuries. they have enough natural gas for centuries.
Iran would never attack Israel or the US. Trust me,
thats bullshit. weve never threatned Iran or any other middle eastern country with nuclear weapons. they are doing the same thing the north koreans are doing, building nukes to blackmail the west. they have no viable reason to all of a sudden need nuclear weapons to defend against Israel either. Iran and Israel have never engaged in war. Israel has only had conflict with the Sunni muslim states.
What do you expect? Let me remind you some of the things that were said after 911 :
"North Korea [...] Iran [...] Iraq [...] states like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."
Now consider that, following orders from God, W ordered to kick one of the three countries ass and actually did. And consider one of these countries is a neighbour to another country from the axis of evil.
I know it may seem stupid but if you try to see all this from the perspective of an Iranian. You have a very powerful country stating that you are the enemy and who just invaded your neighbour on God's orders. I know the president is being extremely provocative but his people are right to be afraid.
After saying all that I still think Iran should never have the bomb, because the stability in the region is frail. And though I doubt the UN will manage to come up with proper sanctions (the power of the veto, love it or leave it) I honestly hope the US and the EU can work together on this one to come up with correct negociations. I'm sure it's possible for them to convince Iran to forget all this with appropriate offers and the correct dose of intimidation (well I hope).
i am sick and tired of everyone who disagrees with me on this simply repeating themselves like a broken record. if you think it doesn't matter that Rafsanjani said that it is acceptable for Iran to suffer a nuclear strike in order to annihilate israel, you're going to have to provide your own EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that shows how your reached that conclusion. For fuck's sake, don't just say "iran won't nuke israel cause they'll get nuked too" for the one billionth time, we all know this. It obviously doesn't end there.
You're bound to meet people who disagree with you, on this subject or another.
My empirical evidence :
Russia has been selling weapons to Iran for many many years now. I'm sure (and I'm not the only one) that Iran bought missiles and at least one nuclear warhead by now. So I guess if they really felt like nuking Israel, and not just talking to cause even more turmoil in the region, they would have done it by now. And the reason they didn't is exactly what you heard for a billionth time "iran won't nuke israel cause they'll get nuked too".
If you fail to see the difference between a suicide bomber who life is miserable, manipulated and who has nothing to loose and the life of those in power in an extremely rich country you must be blinded by prejudice.
In the end we all hope a country like Iran will never have the bomb, though a report by the eu say it may be to late. I hope we still manage to negociate something with them.
-never assume that someone is simply given to verbal hyperbole. when they talk about wiping you out, you take them seriously.
I agree 100%. And as I said in my pretentious reply before, how we respond makes the difference between whether we are acting reasonably or based upon fear.
i provided the quotes of iranian leaders because i'm arguing that they can't be trusted to behave as the communist states did with their nuclear weapons. the quotes serve as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of this.
And yet, to make the leap from here to them being a direct imminent danger is an altogether different story. edit: there are many many people on the planet that I don't trust with my well-being. What action do you take against someone you don't trust? You cannot take offensive action, or it shows that YOU are the one who is the danger, based on your fears.
When we make leaps and jumps between evidence and proof and reason, such leaps will be based on all kinds of emotional arguments. And therein lies the problem that again, the ideas in our head about fear and paranoia are about us. The way to deal with this reasonably, responsibly, and without drawing even worse consequences for ourselves (escalating), wherein we are a distinct part of the problem, is to recognize and deal with our own emotions so that we can let them go and face a situation such as this with clear vision, reason, and a level head.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Is the United States going to continue to be the bad guy here? All diplomatic means are being used, and the Iranians continue to be belligerent. When Saddaam flouted the UN at least we gave him no fly zones and sanctions that really hurt. Well see what the UN does this time...My guess...NADA.
I think Iran is asking for justice...if they should stop their nuclear projects, why US can continue with their Nuclear plans??? I don´t think they are asking for something impossible, they want all the countries to do the same
Iran has been behind bombings and assassinations in Europe. It was responsible for the largest terrorist attack in South American history, the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed almost 100 people. Hezbollah launched its war with Israel last summer at Iran's behest to deflect attention from the un security council considering sanctions on Iran. Iran was also behind the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in the 90's.
Iran is already such a destabilizing force in the region and the world, it will only get worse if they have nuclear deterrence, even if they don't use the bomb preemptively.
Who do you get your morning briefings from? It is very easy to say Iran-this and Iran that, just like a lot of people say America-this and America-that when it comes to the CIA and their history of notoriously murderous bunglings and rabble rousing. What is the service in Iran that does these things? At least give us that.
I don't get why Israel gets all this money and weaponry from the US to protect themselves but yet at the end of the day they expect the US government/military to fight their battles.
Israel needs to sack up and deal with this situation like a responsible nation. Their stance on self-preservation is quite ridiculous from an objective POV.
So what? Live and let live. Your not suggesting ethnocentrism, are you--expecting the world live by your values, are you?
Are you planning on moving to Iran?
It sounds like you are unable to get your mind around an entirely different way of life.
What? You don't like them for their lifestyle and you think we need to put a stop to that?
I probably disagree with the way most of the people on this board live their lives. And some people I believe think in ways that are potentially dangerous. What do you suggest I do?
Trying to get us to rally based on this ethocentric gay thing just does not wash with me.
Give me a break... I know you are smarter than this. If standing up for the rights of the oppressed and trying to check aggressive regimes that aim to repress others is "ethnocentric" then I am guilty as charged.
Seriously, can you not see your hypocracy? So, according to you, Iranian leaders can excecute homosexuals for religous values, but I'm not allowed to hold the opposite view? They can act on their values by killing somebody, but I can't act on my values by trying to save their life? Why not, becuase there is an ocean between us? Because we all need to pretend as if other people don't exist? Because we should all fool ourselves into thinking that governments, not just people, but GOVERNMENTS that sanction this kind of behavior aren't any concern of mine??? Especially a government that is seeking nuclear technology and the potential to build bombs????
Do you not agree that we are all brothers and sisters, we are all related? Am I not supposed to care about the persecution of Iranian women, non-muslims or homosexuals? Am I not supposed to support foreign policies that would check a government that sanctions such persecution?????
I wonder if you would have told the same thing MLK Jr. in 1960... that he shouldn't be so ethnocentric. Just "live and let live Martin" If you don't like the way you're being treated, then just go somewhere else and leave these white folks be.... is that how it is???
Fuck it, one more thing....
What is up with your tendency to castigate me as "not understanding" something simply because I disagree with it? Especially when I'm not saying anything that isn't truthful? You have no evidence that I can't "get my head around" another way of life... quite the contrary, the reason I disagree with it is presicely becuase I understand it, which is pathetically obvious based on my arguments. That sort of empty arguement is a bit childish and revealing don't you think???
Give me a break... I know you are smarter than this. If standing up for the rights of the oppressed and trying to check aggressive regimes that aim to repress others is "ethnocentric" then I am guilty as charged.
No. Expecting others to live the way you culturally do is ethnocentric. And post after post, you seem to fit the bill. There is life beyond the ethnocentric stance. And that is the global perspective, where we are able to see numerous viewpoints and to comfortably hold them in our minds at one time. We don't have to like them, but we can accept them as they are. That is the only basis for actual understanding. If you think it's acceptable to force others to live your way, you show your imbalanced stance. Does it surprise you that other countries would like to defend against that stance?
Seriously, can you not see your hypocracy? So, according to you, Iranian leaders can excecute homosexuals for religous values, but I'm not allowed to hold the opposite value?
I'm afraid the hypocrisy you see is your own.
Do you not agree that we are all brothers and sisters, we are all related? Am I not supposed to care about the persecution of Iranian women, non-muslims or homosexuals? Am I not supposed to support foreign policies that would check a government that sanctions such persecution?????
If you care about them, learn about different cultural views and levels of human evolution. And about how we cannot force change on others because it doesn't work and is really merely a reflection of our own "issues". Once you learn that, maybe you will be freed up to find something effective to bring to the table.
I wonder if you would have told the same thing MLK Jr. in 1960... that he shouldn't be so ethnocentric. Just "live and let live Martin" If you don't like the way you're being treated, then just go somewhere else and leave these white folks be.... is that how it is???
Whatever justification you use, you cannot effectively justify the flawed premise you stand upon. The problem is not in your argument, it's the flawed foundation you stand upon.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What is up with your tendency to castigate me as "not understanding" something simply because I disagree with it? Especially when I'm not saying anything that isn't truthful? You have no evidence that I can't "get my head around" another way of life... quite the contrary, the reason I disagree with it is presicely becuase I understand it, which is pathetically obvious based on my arguments. That sort of empty arguement is a bit childish and revealing don't you think???
What you indicate is that you see the opposition through your own agenda, rather than indicating understanding by being....understanding. You fully understand your American viewpoint of Iran and the threat they pose to YOU. However you show that you don't understand the full truth. A partial truth is fine within it's own context, and yet it's a far cry from understanding the situation. You show that you don't understand their perspective, or the principles that underly where people are in their evolution, or effective ways of dealing with that. Until you acknowledge such facts you will not be dealing with the situation realistically, and it will show.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What you indicate is that you see the opposition through your own agenda, rather than indicating understanding by being....understanding. You fully understand your American viewpoint of Iran and the threat they pose to YOU. However you show that you don't understand the full truth. A partial truth is fine within it's own context, and yet it's a far cry from understanding the situation. You show that you don't understand their perspective, or the principles that underly where people are in their evolution, or effective ways of dealing with that. Until you acknowledge such facts you will not be dealing with the situation realistically, and it will show.
And what is the full truth? Or at the very least, what is it I don't understand about "the situation"?
No. Expecting others to live the way you culturally do is ethnocentric. And post after post, you seem to fit the bill. There is life beyond the ethnocentric stance. And that is the global perspective, where we are able to see numerous viewpoints and to comfortably hold them in our minds at one time. We don't have to like them, but we can accept them as they are. That is the only basis for actual understanding. If you think it's acceptable to force others to live your way, you show your imbalanced stance. Does it surprise you that other countries would like to defend against that stance?
I'm afraid the hypocrisy you see is your own.
If you care about them, learn about different cultural views and levels of human evolution. And about how we cannot force change on others because it doesn't work and is really merely a reflection of our own "issues". Once you learn that, maybe you will be freed up to find something effective to bring to the table.
Whatever justification you use, you cannot effectively justify the flawed premise you stand upon. The problem is not in your argument, it's the flawed foundation you stand upon.
Somebody needs to tell me how to cut out certain portions of posts and respond underneath them like you're doing.
Anyways, I fully agree with you that expecting somebody to live by your cultural values is ethnocentric. But that doesn't mean being ethnocentric is a bad thing - and on this, I'm sure you would agree.
For instance, by your definition, wanting Iran to stop hanging homosexuals is ethnocentric becuase as Westerners, we don't believe in that. However, we can both seethe superiority of our values here.
So ethnocentricity is not wrong, and it is not bad - when people challenge their own beliefs and hold a "global perspective" as you would say.
But challenging your beliefs to the point where you don't stand for anything, becuase you're scared you might be wrong - is just as bad as being a super-ethnocentrist who can't see other people's perspectives.
And what is the full truth? Or at the very least, what is it I don't understand about "the situation"?
When you are looking to understand the big picture, including the variables on the Iran side, you will find just what you are looking for. Until you are looking to uncover what's really going on, no matter what I tell you, you will not hear me.
This comes back to Abu's point. When people are looking to justify war they will do so. I can't stop you, anymore than you can stop Iran from making foolish choices.
Logic is an amazing tool, my friend. The problem is when we are looking to use it to justify our view, we will do just that. And we will miss out on the truth or the reality of the situation.
When you are truthfully caring about gay people in Iran, or human rights in general, rather than using Iran/gay-peopl as an argument, it will show.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What you indicate is that you see the opposition through your own agenda, rather than indicating understanding by being....understanding. You fully understand your American viewpoint of Iran and the threat they pose to YOU. However you show that you don't understand the full truth. A partial truth is fine within it's own context, and yet it's a far cry from understanding the situation. You show that you don't understand their perspective, or the principles that underly where people are in their evolution, or effective ways of dealing with that. Until you acknowledge such facts you will not be dealing with the situation realistically, and it will show.
What you indicate is that becuase you disagree with me, yet know I'm right, you are left with only one childish response - to claim I'm being prejudice.
If I were wrong you would have ample evidence to rebuke my statements, instead of giving us nothing more than your opinion, which we can both argue endlessly.
When you are looking to understand the big picture, including the variables on the Iran side, you will find just what you are looking for. Until you are looking to uncover what's really going on, no matter what I tell you, you will not hear me.
This comes back to Abu's point. When people are looking to justify war they will do so. I can't stop you, anymore than you can stop Iran from making foolish choices.
Logic is an amazing tool, my friend. The problem is when we are looking to use it to justify our view, we will do just that. And we will miss out on the truth or the reality of the situation.
When you are truthfully caring about gay people in Iran, or human rights in general, rather than using Iran/gay-peopl as an argument, it will show.
Some people settle disputes through conflict, welcome to 3 million years of human history and something we call "reality". You argue from a position that war is unjustifiable, which is a bit ethnocentric, don't you think?
The only thing that chaps my ass is that somehow think your logic and reasoning is both immune from perspective and superior to mine... (Maybe this is where the name Angelica comes from). But with every post, it’s easier and easier to slough it off.
Somebody needs to tell me how to cut out certain portions of posts and respond underneath them like you're doing.
At the beginning of the portion you want to quote, use the square bracket/quote/square bracket. At the end of the quote, you use square bracket/forward slash/quote/square bracket.
Anyways, I fully agree with you that expecting somebody to live by your cultural values is ethnocentric. But that doesn't mean being ethnocentric is a bad thing - and on this, I'm sure you would agree.
Being ethnocentric is fine if it is about abiding by your cultural laws and upholding them, and fitting in well within your culture. When you go beyond it being about you, to where you think you can impose that on someone else, I call it "bad". The reason is that it cannot work. You cannot expect another culture to give up what is ingrained in them--and is woven into the very fabric of who they are-- and discard who they are in order to take up what you'd like them to. You cannot expect them to suddenly know and understand emotionally/mentally/physically what is ingrained in you when it is not ingrained in them. To force change on others is crossing serious lines. When we do this on the world stage not only is it completely inappropriate, and going against natural law but, it hooks groups who feel they must create a backlash to keep your imbalanced, inappropriate behaviour in line, anyway they know how.
For instance, by your definition, wanting Iran to stop hanging homosexuals is ethnocentric becuase as Westerners, we don't believe in that. However, we can both seethe superiority of our values here.
Okay, I'll bite. As much as the idea that one is "superior" is a false, imbalanced perspective, and one that is part of these dysfunctional cycles, I will go with this. I see what you mean. Maybe you can understand this way. You might have a superior way to a five year old. I will grant you that your way is more evolved, in that you have been five and you have evolved beyond through numerous developmental stages. Can you force a five year old to be as mature as you are at your age? Would trying to do so work?
So ethnocentricity is not wrong, and it is not bad - when people challenge their own beliefs and hold a "global perspective" as you would say.
The majority of people in North America are ethnocentric. It has good and bad points. If you use your ethnocentric view to justify infringing on others, that is about your infringing behaviours and is inappropriate.
As I said, learning to see beyond the ethnocentric view is the next level of awareness. And many people have already honed such an awareness.
But challenging your beliefs to the point where you don't stand for anything, becuase you're scared you might be wrong - is just as bad as being a super-ethnocentrist who can't see other people's perspectives.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The fact that I see other people's perspectives allows me to make realistic judgments based on a wider perspective of the situation. It is the opposite of paralyzing my own perspective. It entitles me to make decisions knowing with reasonable certainty that my actions are aligned with all the valid variables in the situation. I grant you that there are many people who believe each view is correct and should be allowed to stand, thereby rendering themselves unable to act. I assure you I am not one of them. While I do believe all views are valid within their own context, I ALSO believe that there is universal law. Such law can be shown/proven by logical discernment and cause and effect. Therefore there ARE levels of what works in terms of effectiveness/non-effectiveness. When you've got universal law and effectiveness on your side, anything is possible in terms of productive change in the world.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What you indicate is that becuase you disagree with me, yet know I'm right, you are left with only one childish response - to claim I'm being prejudice.
If I were wrong you would have ample evidence to rebuke my statements, instead of giving us nothing more than your opinion, which we can both argue endlessly.
I'm not interested in blind logic. We both know we can go on endlessly. I'll stick with proven life principles, whether you want to acknowledge them or not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The only thing that chaps my ass is that somehow think your logic and reasoning is both immune from perspective and superior to mine
I'm as flawed and as subject to bias as the next guy. Reasonableness is it's own indicator. When my points are proven wrong by their unreasonableness, I fully accept that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
We don't .. No.
We merely exist with this country - our only excuse for talking about military action should be for our own security - and Iran poses no threat to our security.. and as was said before - they are well aware of the consequences they will face if they use nuclear force against us or israel or anyone else.
thats bullshit. weve never threatned Iran or any other middle eastern country with nuclear weapons. they are doing the same thing the north koreans are doing, building nukes to blackmail the west. they have no viable reason to all of a sudden need nuclear weapons to defend against Israel either. Iran and Israel have never engaged in war. Israel has only had conflict with the Sunni muslim states.
We haven't threatened them with nukes - true. But we certainly threaten them - with some very serious weapons capable of virtually making Iraneans extinct. They can see it by looking just across their border.
if you want to start waving the violation of international law flag, you might want to see who is looking back at you in the mirror.
from my window to yours
First of all, the US has been trying to piss Iran off. This is seen several times, like when they keep kidnapping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, claiming they "supply terrorists" when there's no proof of that because in reality they just wanna find an excuse to prolong their stay in the Middle East. Iran has called for diplomatic talks with the US several times, which the US has denied, thus proving the US doesn't even want to talk to them and that they are completely against them. Also, Iran never threatened Israel, just said that it "should" be wiped off the map. It may still be bad, but look up the definition of a threat, and that is not it.
Also, there are many, many reasons Iran wants to search for nuclear energy. They definitely do NOT have enough oil for "centuries" as it's been significantly decreasing for a while, and they are a major exporter in oil. Nuclear energy is going to be needed in the future, what's wrong with them looking at the big picture?
Iran would never attack Israel or the US. Trust me, they'd wait for an attack first, though we all know the US would also rather them attack first. The US is trying to bait them towards an attack on them, or even Israel. Also, I don't know what you guys are talking about because if Iran and Israel went to war, Iran would win. But then the US jumps in and all hell breaks loose. We have Russia and China and all these other countries on the side, as well.
In the end though, the US has broken international law for so long, that it's quite hypocritical for anything to be said. and the US HAS threatened Iran several times and military tactics have been revealed, proving that US may be planning an invasion in Iran that would lead to World War III, but the US is fucking stupid.
i'm sorry, but i really don't think you addressed those quotes at all. what i read was very convoluted and (in my opinion) pretentious. i didn't mean to change the subject by citing the example of the rise of the nazis and how nobody seemed to take them at their word until it was too late. the lessons we all should have learned from the rise of hitler are these:
-never assume that someone is simply given to verbal hyperbole. when they talk about wiping you out, you take them seriously.
-just because someone expresses a will or desire that you find morally repulsive, that doesn't mean that they are being irrational.
-there is always someone else who is willing to do something that you are not.
i provided the quotes of iranian leaders because i'm arguing that they can't be trusted to behave as the communist states did with their nuclear weapons. the quotes serve as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of this.
i am sick and tired of everyone who disagrees with me on this simply repeating themselves like a broken record. if you think it doesn't matter that Rafsanjani said that it is acceptable for Iran to suffer a nuclear strike in order to annihilate israel, you're going to have to provide your own EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that shows how your reached that conclusion. For fuck's sake, don't just say "iran won't nuke israel cause they'll get nuked too" for the one billionth time, we all know this. It obviously doesn't end there.
Most antizionists are antisemites
Iran has been behind bombings and assassinations in Europe. It was responsible for the largest terrorist attack in South American history, the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed almost 100 people. Hezbollah launched its war with Israel last summer at Iran's behest to deflect attention from the un security council considering sanctions on Iran. Iran was also behind the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in the 90's.
Iran is already such a destabilizing force in the region and the world, it will only get worse if they have nuclear deterrence, even if they don't use the bomb preemptively.
Most antizionists are antisemites
All this is true, but alas, some things will never change in this world. Since the threats are being made to wipe a Jewish state off the map, no one cares. Im sure if Ahmadinijad threatened to wipe the US, or Canada, or Britain, or France off the map, Iran would already be a parking lot. The world has come so far since 1939...
if ahmadinijad threatened to wipe the US or canada or france or britain off the map, the respective governments of those countries would laugh at him. and rightfully so.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I dont think George W and crew would laugh...
i can't help it if they're humourless mooks.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
if you think ahmadinejad's 'map' sentence is the only time an iranian leader said anything about israel, you are sorely mistaken. you need look no further than this thread to find ample evidence that iran not only threatens israel, it is actively seeking israel's destruction through by any means possible.
again, i don't think you read carefully enough. i didn't say they had enough oil for centuries. they have enough natural gas for centuries.
why should i trust you on this?
Most antizionists are antisemites
What do you expect? Let me remind you some of the things that were said after 911 :
"North Korea [...] Iran [...] Iraq [...] states like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."
Now consider that, following orders from God, W ordered to kick one of the three countries ass and actually did. And consider one of these countries is a neighbour to another country from the axis of evil.
I know it may seem stupid but if you try to see all this from the perspective of an Iranian. You have a very powerful country stating that you are the enemy and who just invaded your neighbour on God's orders. I know the president is being extremely provocative but his people are right to be afraid.
After saying all that I still think Iran should never have the bomb, because the stability in the region is frail. And though I doubt the UN will manage to come up with proper sanctions (the power of the veto, love it or leave it) I honestly hope the US and the EU can work together on this one to come up with correct negociations. I'm sure it's possible for them to convince Iran to forget all this with appropriate offers and the correct dose of intimidation (well I hope).
You're bound to meet people who disagree with you, on this subject or another.
My empirical evidence :
Russia has been selling weapons to Iran for many many years now. I'm sure (and I'm not the only one) that Iran bought missiles and at least one nuclear warhead by now. So I guess if they really felt like nuking Israel, and not just talking to cause even more turmoil in the region, they would have done it by now. And the reason they didn't is exactly what you heard for a billionth time "iran won't nuke israel cause they'll get nuked too".
If you fail to see the difference between a suicide bomber who life is miserable, manipulated and who has nothing to loose and the life of those in power in an extremely rich country you must be blinded by prejudice.
In the end we all hope a country like Iran will never have the bomb, though a report by the eu say it may be to late. I hope we still manage to negociate something with them.
And yet, to make the leap from here to them being a direct imminent danger is an altogether different story. edit: there are many many people on the planet that I don't trust with my well-being. What action do you take against someone you don't trust? You cannot take offensive action, or it shows that YOU are the one who is the danger, based on your fears.
When we make leaps and jumps between evidence and proof and reason, such leaps will be based on all kinds of emotional arguments. And therein lies the problem that again, the ideas in our head about fear and paranoia are about us. The way to deal with this reasonably, responsibly, and without drawing even worse consequences for ourselves (escalating), wherein we are a distinct part of the problem, is to recognize and deal with our own emotions so that we can let them go and face a situation such as this with clear vision, reason, and a level head.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think Iran is asking for justice...if they should stop their nuclear projects, why US can continue with their Nuclear plans??? I don´t think they are asking for something impossible, they want all the countries to do the same
Who do you get your morning briefings from? It is very easy to say Iran-this and Iran that, just like a lot of people say America-this and America-that when it comes to the CIA and their history of notoriously murderous bunglings and rabble rousing. What is the service in Iran that does these things? At least give us that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Israel needs to sack up and deal with this situation like a responsible nation. Their stance on self-preservation is quite ridiculous from an objective POV.
Give me a break... I know you are smarter than this. If standing up for the rights of the oppressed and trying to check aggressive regimes that aim to repress others is "ethnocentric" then I am guilty as charged.
Seriously, can you not see your hypocracy? So, according to you, Iranian leaders can excecute homosexuals for religous values, but I'm not allowed to hold the opposite view? They can act on their values by killing somebody, but I can't act on my values by trying to save their life? Why not, becuase there is an ocean between us? Because we all need to pretend as if other people don't exist? Because we should all fool ourselves into thinking that governments, not just people, but GOVERNMENTS that sanction this kind of behavior aren't any concern of mine??? Especially a government that is seeking nuclear technology and the potential to build bombs????
Do you not agree that we are all brothers and sisters, we are all related? Am I not supposed to care about the persecution of Iranian women, non-muslims or homosexuals? Am I not supposed to support foreign policies that would check a government that sanctions such persecution?????
I wonder if you would have told the same thing MLK Jr. in 1960... that he shouldn't be so ethnocentric. Just "live and let live Martin" If you don't like the way you're being treated, then just go somewhere else and leave these white folks be.... is that how it is???
Fuck it, one more thing....
What is up with your tendency to castigate me as "not understanding" something simply because I disagree with it? Especially when I'm not saying anything that isn't truthful? You have no evidence that I can't "get my head around" another way of life... quite the contrary, the reason I disagree with it is presicely becuase I understand it, which is pathetically obvious based on my arguments. That sort of empty arguement is a bit childish and revealing don't you think???
I'm afraid the hypocrisy you see is your own.
If you care about them, learn about different cultural views and levels of human evolution. And about how we cannot force change on others because it doesn't work and is really merely a reflection of our own "issues". Once you learn that, maybe you will be freed up to find something effective to bring to the table.
Whatever justification you use, you cannot effectively justify the flawed premise you stand upon. The problem is not in your argument, it's the flawed foundation you stand upon.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And what is the full truth? Or at the very least, what is it I don't understand about "the situation"?
Somebody needs to tell me how to cut out certain portions of posts and respond underneath them like you're doing.
Anyways, I fully agree with you that expecting somebody to live by your cultural values is ethnocentric. But that doesn't mean being ethnocentric is a bad thing - and on this, I'm sure you would agree.
For instance, by your definition, wanting Iran to stop hanging homosexuals is ethnocentric becuase as Westerners, we don't believe in that. However, we can both seethe superiority of our values here.
So ethnocentricity is not wrong, and it is not bad - when people challenge their own beliefs and hold a "global perspective" as you would say.
But challenging your beliefs to the point where you don't stand for anything, becuase you're scared you might be wrong - is just as bad as being a super-ethnocentrist who can't see other people's perspectives.
This comes back to Abu's point. When people are looking to justify war they will do so. I can't stop you, anymore than you can stop Iran from making foolish choices.
Logic is an amazing tool, my friend. The problem is when we are looking to use it to justify our view, we will do just that. And we will miss out on the truth or the reality of the situation.
When you are truthfully caring about gay people in Iran, or human rights in general, rather than using Iran/gay-peopl as an argument, it will show.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What you indicate is that becuase you disagree with me, yet know I'm right, you are left with only one childish response - to claim I'm being prejudice.
If I were wrong you would have ample evidence to rebuke my statements, instead of giving us nothing more than your opinion, which we can both argue endlessly.
Some people settle disputes through conflict, welcome to 3 million years of human history and something we call "reality". You argue from a position that war is unjustifiable, which is a bit ethnocentric, don't you think?
The only thing that chaps my ass is that somehow think your logic and reasoning is both immune from perspective and superior to mine... (Maybe this is where the name Angelica comes from). But with every post, it’s easier and easier to slough it off.
Being ethnocentric is fine if it is about abiding by your cultural laws and upholding them, and fitting in well within your culture. When you go beyond it being about you, to where you think you can impose that on someone else, I call it "bad". The reason is that it cannot work. You cannot expect another culture to give up what is ingrained in them--and is woven into the very fabric of who they are-- and discard who they are in order to take up what you'd like them to. You cannot expect them to suddenly know and understand emotionally/mentally/physically what is ingrained in you when it is not ingrained in them. To force change on others is crossing serious lines. When we do this on the world stage not only is it completely inappropriate, and going against natural law but, it hooks groups who feel they must create a backlash to keep your imbalanced, inappropriate behaviour in line, anyway they know how.
Okay, I'll bite. As much as the idea that one is "superior" is a false, imbalanced perspective, and one that is part of these dysfunctional cycles, I will go with this. I see what you mean. Maybe you can understand this way. You might have a superior way to a five year old. I will grant you that your way is more evolved, in that you have been five and you have evolved beyond through numerous developmental stages. Can you force a five year old to be as mature as you are at your age? Would trying to do so work?
The majority of people in North America are ethnocentric. It has good and bad points. If you use your ethnocentric view to justify infringing on others, that is about your infringing behaviours and is inappropriate.
As I said, learning to see beyond the ethnocentric view is the next level of awareness. And many people have already honed such an awareness.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The fact that I see other people's perspectives allows me to make realistic judgments based on a wider perspective of the situation. It is the opposite of paralyzing my own perspective. It entitles me to make decisions knowing with reasonable certainty that my actions are aligned with all the valid variables in the situation. I grant you that there are many people who believe each view is correct and should be allowed to stand, thereby rendering themselves unable to act. I assure you I am not one of them. While I do believe all views are valid within their own context, I ALSO believe that there is universal law. Such law can be shown/proven by logical discernment and cause and effect. Therefore there ARE levels of what works in terms of effectiveness/non-effectiveness. When you've got universal law and effectiveness on your side, anything is possible in terms of productive change in the world.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm as flawed and as subject to bias as the next guy. Reasonableness is it's own indicator. When my points are proven wrong by their unreasonableness, I fully accept that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!