So now that Iran has clearly violated International Law...

angelica

reborncareerist wrote:

Why does the issue of Iran always have to come down to someone playing the cultural bias card?

I think it kind of goes with the territory of using the cultural card to 'justify' an argument against Iran.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

I think it kind of goes with the territory of using the cultural card to 'justify' an argument against Iran.

It's not the culture that is causing such a problem. It's Iran's attempt to influence the region with it's religous views and striving for nuclear capabilites to ensure their ability to do so that is the problem.

Nobody is saying bomb Iran becuase they are a theocracy. That discussion didin't come up until Iran made efforts to obtain nuclear capabilites.

Last Exodus

gue_barium wrote:

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.

Rue's statements about Iran aren't even debatable. They are fact. Just read a newspaper.

angelica

NCfan wrote:

It's not the culture that is causing such a problem. It's Iran's attempt to influence the region with it's religous views and striving for nuclear capabilites to ensure their ability to do so that is the problem.

Nobody is saying bomb Iran becuase they are a theocracy. That discussion didin't come up until Iran made efforts to obtain nuclear capabilites.

When you brought up the gay stuff and the theocracy stuff--the cultural-ethnocentric issues--I called them out.

I understand the validity of general concerns regarding Iran. Even the concerns re: human rights and the ramifications of them having a theocracy. I just don't accept us projecting our own cultural beliefs on others and expecting them to live up to them.

Last Exodus

thelowlightargentina wrote:

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

The UN has already passed resolutions sanctioning Iran for its conduct. To be fair, the Europeans and even the Russians made offers to Iran that would allow them to use Nuclear facilities for energy if Iran agreed to inspections and to require Iran to dispose of the nuclear waste products that are created from a nuclear energy plant, in Russia, so that Iran would not have the material necessary to build a bomb. Iran said no. That doesn't tell u something? They could have had their plants for energy, but they chose to retain their plants to make weapons. This isn't even in dispute which is why today, they are living under UN sanctions. (albeit meager ones).

RockinInCanada

Last Exodus wrote:

The UN has already passed resolutions sanctioning Iran for its conduct. To be fair, the Europeans and even the Russians made offers to Iran that would allow them to use Nuclear facilities for energy if Iran agreed to inspections and to require Iran to dispose of the nuclear waste products that are created from a nuclear energy plant, in Russia, so that Iran would not have the material necessary to build a bomb. Iran said no. That doesn't tell u something? They could have had their plants for energy, but they chose to retain their plants to make weapons. This isn't even in dispute which is why today, they are living under UN sanctions. (albeit meager ones).

Are your claims that they their plants make weapons a claim or truth. More fear mongering...otherwise I agree with the rest of your statements.

I feel that the Iran has an issue that they are being treated different from other nuclear powers....meaning why do they have to under-go inspections when other countries with fully operable nuclear facilities do not.

It is a dangerous game they are playing and I for one see issues stemming from both sides...Iran has this notion that they want to be treated equally as other countries which is justifiable to me. However the world see's their inaction to allow inspections and that stuff as they are hiding something, which is related to theocracy in the country if you ask me.

In all honesty it is a very interesting conflict right now, lets hope that those in power make the wise and correct decisions on handling the issue.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

When you brought up the gay stuff and the theocracy stuff--the cultural-ethnocentric issues--I called them out.

I understand the validity of general concerns regarding Iran. Even the concerns re: human rights and the ramifications of them having a theocracy. I just don't accept us projecting our own cultural beliefs on others and expecting them to live up to them.

I hope we have learned that from the Iraq debacle. I think at this point, US foreign policy is just hoping to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The cultural changes can come later and from within.

RockinInCanada

NCfan wrote:

I hope we have learned that from the Iraq debacle. I think at this point, US foreign policy is just hoping to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The cultural changes can come later and from within.

The way it should be done....that is how postive cultural changes occurs that is from within....not outside force...a point I have re-iterated about Iraq for the last three years.....

onelongsong

NCfan wrote:

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.

i have to agree with you on a couple points. i'm so tired of hearing what iran is doing and how it threatens us. for more years than i care to remember. we'll put murderers away for life because they threaten society yet it's wrong to do that when the number reaches a certain amount. the world has a right to live in peace. the world has a right to police people that threaten that peace. iran makes bombs meant to kill american soldiers. if it wasn't for this the war would be over. what is irans purpose for trying to extend the war in iraq? common logic dictates that they are keeping us busy while they build their defences. this is the only thing of value they get out of it.
so if we need to police this country because they broke the laws everyone else has agreed to abide by; i don't see a problem with it.

rebornFixer

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

The way it should be done....that is how postive cultural changes occurs that is from within....not outside force...a point I have re-iterated about Iraq for the last three years.....

An outside force only increases the political power of the problematic elements in a society ... We are seeing that right now. No matter how many insurgents are killed in Iraq, and no matter how many other Iraqis the insurgents kill, the focus remains on a foreign troop presence. If Iran were to be invaded, it would just strengthen fundamentalist Islam the world over. More women would get stoned for doing things like playing sports, and more angry young men here in North America would start plotting to behead our politicians. I've really started to believe it ... As much as war against these people can seem justified at times, it is not going to work in the long run. Societies in the Middle East need to be left alone, to evolve.

Rue D'Awakening

gue_barium wrote:

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 would imagine the service that does these things is the Revolutionary Guards, an elite branch of the Iranian armed forces similar to Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards or Hitler's Waffen SS.
And I get my "briefings" from jtic.janes.com
you need to subscribe to use it, but it's infinitely more accurate and helpful than some angry berkeley post-grad's blog.

RavennaSeattle1911

Last Exodus wrote:

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/21/iran.nuclear/index.html

so why do you hate iranians so much?some of the nicest people in the world are iranians

onelongsong

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

so why do you hate iranians so much?some of the nicest people in the world are iranians

why do some people hate americans? some of the nicest people around are americans. the americans are always there to help when disaster strikes no matter where it is.

NCfan

reborncareerist wrote:

An outside force only increases the political power of the problematic elements in a society ... We are seeing that right now. No matter how many insurgents are killed in Iraq, and no matter how many other Iraqis the insurgents kill, the focus remains on a foreign troop presence. If Iran were to be invaded, it would just strengthen fundamentalist Islam the world over. More women would get stoned for doing things like playing sports, and more angry young men here in North America would start plotting to behead our politicians. I've really started to believe it ... As much as war against these people can seem justified at times, it is not going to work in the long run. Societies in the Middle East need to be left alone, to evolve.

I think this is a great point. Given the world's new standard for restrained warfare, there is virtually no way to completely destroy dangerous political/religious movements like we could in the past.

As seen in the war in Lebanon this past summer, Israel couldn't destroy Hizbollah without resorting to unrestricted aerial bombing among other tactics - all of which would quickly be condemed by world observers.

So we have to figure out a new way to undermine these elements. I think if we have enough time, new technologies in communication will allow people around the world to figure each other out much better - without having to listen to politically influenced speak from self-serving politicians/religious leaders.

I think we have the time to just wait for many countries to move in a more progressive direction, but when it comes to one of them trying to develop a nuclear weapon, we have to draw the line.

rebornFixer

NCfan wrote:

I think this is a great point. Given the world's new standard for restrained warfare, there is virtually no way to completely destroy dangerous political/religious movements like we could in the past.

As seen in the war in Lebanon this past summer, Israel couldn't destroy Hizbollah without resorting to unrestricted aerial bombing among other tactics - all of which would quickly be condemed by world observers.

So we have to figure out a new way to undermine these elements. I think if we have enough time, new technologies in communication will allow people around the world to figure each other out much better - without having to listen to politically influenced speak from self-serving politicians/religious leaders.

I think we have the time to just wait for many countries to move in a more progressive direction, but when it comes to one of them trying to develop a nuclear weapon, we have to draw the line.

For sure ... There is still going to be times when force is required, in response to certain actions. But generally, because of the rules of warfare you mentioned and for other reasons, proactive approaches like Bush's attack into Iraq are a bad idea. Ditto with another attack into Lebanon.

Rue D'Awakening

angelica wrote:

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 believe that acting reasonably and basing your actions upon a fear are not always mutually exclusive. i believe israel's situation with iran right now is exactly just such a situation.

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.

then our disagreement over this statement above comes down to a disagreement on the justness of preemption. i believe that in some cases, preemption is justified. what action do you take against someone you don't trust? well, it depends. have they threatened you repeatedly with death? are they seeking the means to that end? if the answer to both of those questions is yes, then i believe you are justified in taking preemptive action against them, whether they mean it or not. free speech does not protect that which constitutes a clear and present danger. if an individual threatens to kill another individual, there are consequences and actions taken against he who threteans regardless of the circumstances. iran can and should be held responsible for what its government says and does. it's just tragic that so many of the people in iran are so much more rational than their government but powerless to change it.

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.

so basically what you're saying here is that "evidence and proof and reason" are wholy separate from "fear and paranoia". this reminds me of patrick swayze (sp?) in the movie 'donnie darko'. you're saying the only correct reaction to what iran's leaders are saying should be anything but fear, because for you, fear inherently originates from somewhere other than reason. to go back to the two individuals example again, if i am being threatened with death by another person, who i believe is seeking the means to kill me, it's not irrational for me to be afraid. being afraid does not then make me "a distinct part of the problem". i shouldn't deal with my fear, which is a primal instinct whose reason for being is for my self-preservation, i should deal with he who seeks my demise.

now, there are a couple ways i can do this. i can go to the police, i can get to where my threatener can't reach me, or i can preemptively incapacitate or kill the threatener. if i'm israel, and iran is the threatener, then i can't go to the police because the world of nation-states is anarchic. sure, there's the UN, but to fit the UN into this analogy, the UN is a corrupt cop who turns a blind eye to everything, eats donuts and writes parking tickets. i can't go to where my enemy can't reach me, because i can't abandon my home. the remaining option is to strike first.

angelica

Rue D'Awakening wrote:

i believe that acting reasonably and basing your actions upon a fear are not always mutually exclusive. i believe israel's situation with iran right now is exactly just such a situation.



then our disagreement over this statement above comes down to a disagreement on the justness of preemption. i believe that in some cases, preemption is justified. what action do you take against someone you don't trust? well, it depends. have they threatened you repeatedly with death? are they seeking the means to that end? if the answer to both of those questions is yes, then i believe you are justified in taking preemptive action against them, whether they mean it or not. free speech does not protect that which constitutes a clear and present danger. if an individual threatens to kill another individual, there are consequences and actions taken against he who threteans regardless of the circumstances. iran can and should be held responsible for what its government says and does. it's just tragic that so many of the people in iran are so much more rational than their government but powerless to change it.



so basically what you're saying here is that "evidence and proof and reason" are wholy separate from "fear and paranoia". you're saying the only correct reaction to what iran's leaders are saying should be anything but fear, because for you, fear inherently originates from somewhere other than reason. to go back to the two individuals example again, if i am being threatened with death by another person, who i believe is seeking the means to kill me, it's not irrational for me to be afraid. being afraid does not then make me "a distinct part of the problem". i shouldn't deal with my fear, which is a primal instinct whose reason for being is for my self-preservation, i should deal with he who seeks my demise.

now, there are a couple ways i can do this. i can go to the police, i can get to where my threatener can't reach me, or i can preemptively incapacitate or kill the threatener. if i'm israel, and iran is the threatener, then i can't go to the police because the world of nation-states is anarchic. sure, there's the UN, but to fit the UN into this analogy, the UN is a corrupt cop who turns a blind eye to everything, eats donuts and writes parking tickets. i can't go to where my enemy can't reach me, because i can't abandon my home. the remaining option is to strike first.

I will be out until later this evening. I will respond to your reply then.

Rue D'Awakening

angelica wrote:

I will be out until later this evening. I will respond to your reply then.

looking forward to it. and sorry for using the word pretentious earlier. that was unjustifiably harsh and i don't mean it.

Commy

NCfan wrote:

Well then why don't you try looking at it objectively then.

1 - Who cares what percentage of Americans think about anything... I bet most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map, what does that prove?

right, who cares what the people think, its not like this is a democracy or anything...

2 - Nobody was concerned about Iraq's military, we were concerned about two things. We thought they had WMD's and just like Afghanistan, Iraq had large lawless expanses of land where terrorists could hide and plot against the US - and we had every reason to believe Saddam would be simpathetic to their cause.

ok, but Saddam Hussein did not allow dissent. That's the thing with dictators, they tend to torture and kill anyone who disagrees with them, or might even consider disagreeing with them. He sure as hell didn't allow religious fanatics to run around his country with wmd's. After the invasion, Iraq has become that lawless haven for terrorists, but that's a result of the US invasion, not through any act of Saddam.

the US created the very environment they were claiming to be against. either extreme hypocrisy or they had other motives for the war...

onelongsong

Commy wrote:

right, who cares what the people think, its not like this is a democracy or anything...


ok, but Saddam Hussein did not allow dissent. That's the thing with dictators, they tend to torture and kill anyone who disagrees with them, or might even consider disagreeing with them. He sure as hell didn't allow religious fanatics to run around his country with wmd's. After the invasion, Iraq has become that lawless haven for terrorists, but that's a result of the US invasion, not through any act of Saddam.

the US created the very environment they were claiming to be against. either extreme hypocrisy or they had other motives for the war...

iraq had WMD. it's proven by the chemical weapons used to kill that village. we just haven't found the WMD cuz we waited and gave hiim enough time to hide them. just as we'll do in iran.