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

Commy

onelongsong wrote:

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.

almost every country in the world has WMD's. including and especially the US.

The US administration went from 'absolute certainty that Iraq will have nuclear capabilities in 1 year (Condo Rize)' to 'having the knowledge to perhaps one day have the capabilities to produce wmd's.' And that fits every country in the world. Using that criteria, the US could invade any country in the world, at any time...

CaterinaA

angelica wrote:

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.

Hi Angelica

I have not finished reading the thread yet, but this post caught my attention, 'cause you always come across to me as an extremely considerate person.

Although I agree with you on the benefits of multiculturalism and interculturalism, I must say that cultural relativism has a limit: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in its Articles 1&2states the following:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood",

and

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Hence, the gay hanging and persecution taking place in Iran (or any other country for that matter) is indeed a human rights violation, not just a matter of cultural differences. Furthermore, Iran is a UN member and that Declaration was approved by the whole General Assembly.

Peace Caterina

CaterinaA

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.

OK, about Iran being the one to blame for the two terror attacks that took place here in Buenos Aires: 1) Israel Embassy in 1992, and 2) 1994 AMIA, a Jewish community center. Almost all of the evidence gathered by the argentine team in charge of this investigation points towards the Iranian president of that time. So it is not as this is made up, a couple of months ago new evidence was presented and it presented even stronger evidence pointing at Iran.

Peace from Argentina
Caterina

enharmonic

Hold on a second. If the United States does not recognize the World Court for matters of International Law, why should Iraq be held to a higher standard? America is allegedly the standard bearer, no?

Last Exodus

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

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

I dont hate anyone...Hate is reserved for people that subscribe to White Supremacist sites...Know anyone who fits that bill Adolph?

Last Exodus

CaterinaA wrote:

OK, about Iran being the one to blame for the two terror attacks that took place here in Buenos Aires: 1) Israel Embassy in 1992, and 2) 1994 AMIA, a Jewish community center. Almost all of the evidence gathered by the argentine team in charge of this investigation points towards the Iranian president of that time. So it is not as this is made up, a couple of months ago new evidence was presented and it presented even stronger evidence pointing at Iran.

Peace from Argentina
Caterina

Dont confuse them with facts on this board. For some reason this board attracts a certain type of liberal, or more accurately radical type who deny any kind of misconduct against the United States or Israel or Jews. I dont know what it is, but facts dont seem to persuade anyone on this board when it comes to the United States, Israel, or Jews.

Last Exodus

enharmonic wrote:

Hold on a second. If the United States does not recognize the World Court for matters of International Law, why should Iraq be held to a higher standard? America is allegedly the standard bearer, no?

Because the international court is run by the god damn French. It's just another political forum. Further, the concept of "international law" as you would think it exists, doesn't. Every country has its own penal code to punish its criminals. International law as it pertains to crime, doesn't really exist. Typically the law of "to the victors go the spoils" usually applies in war time. Thus, after World War 2, Tojo, Hitler and their cronies stood trial. If the allies had lost, it would have been Chuchill and Roosevelt on trial. Similarly, since the west prevailed in the Balkans, and in Iraq, Milosevic and Sadaam go on trial. But there is no uniformally recognized court to try criminals. The court in the Hague was organized specifically for the Balkans. It did not exist before then. The US will not participate because it does not want to subject its leaders and soldiers to the scrutiny of the Europeans. And why should we? We have borne the brunt of the responsibility in keeping Europe free since 45, why should we be subject to ourselves their political whims now.

Perhaps we need to just do a little better at policing our own politicans so we dont have to worry about being policed by the Euros?

Commy

Last Exodus wrote:

Dont confuse them with facts on this board. For some reason this board attracts a certain type of liberal, or more accurately radical type who deny any kind of misconduct against the United States or Israel or Jews. I dont know what it is, but facts dont seem to persuade anyone on this board when it comes to the United States, Israel, or Jews.

its not that we (I) ignore the crimes of others, its just i focus my attention on my own gov't, something i am responsible for and can do something about. and in the case of the US we're dealing with far more serious crimes that have a greater impact on the world.

Last Exodus

Commy wrote:

its not that we (I) ignore the crimes of others, its just i focus my attention on my own gov't, something i am responsible for and can do something about. and in the case of the US we're dealing with far more serious crimes that have a greater impact on the world.

We have remedies in this country for dealing with our politicians who commit wrongs against the world and against our people. Its called Impeachment. However Congress seems to think impeachment should only be used against President's who lie about their sex lives, rather than to presidents who kill thousands under false pretenses. We elected our leaders, and we re-elected Bush even after we know wed been deceived. So who is to blame? We are! We voted for the guy or we voted for the wrong guy or we didnt vote at all.

catefrances

Last Exodus wrote:

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

that is the weakest argument i have ever heard from you Exodus. just read a newspaper? come on you can do better than that.

Last Exodus

catefrances wrote:

that is the weakest argument i have ever heard from you Exodus. just read a newspaper? come on you can do better than that.

I dont need to re-state his case. He made it. I dont need to make it again. Im simply saying the information he provided is readily available to anyone. Even people who only have enough attention span to read a newspaper or internet article, which are like gospel on this board...

Commy

Last Exodus wrote:

We have remedies in this country for dealing with our politicians who commit wrongs against the world and against our people. Its called Impeachment. However Congress seems to think impeachment should only be used against President's who lie about their sex lives, rather than to presidents who kill thousands under false pretenses. We elected our leaders, and we re-elected Bush even after we know wed been deceived. So who is to blame? We are! We voted for the guy or we voted for the wrong guy or we didnt vote at all.

that's true, but i was thinking more along the lines of general strikes and general social unrest. ultimately the people have the power-in any gov't, authoritarian, democratic, whatever...so we are ultimately responsible for their actions. we allow oursleves to be ruled, and so aer responsible for their actions. just like the people of Iran are responsible for their gov't's actions...

catefrances

Last Exodus wrote:

I dont need to re-state his case. He made it. I dont need to make it again. Im simply saying the information he provided is readily available to anyone. Even people who only have enough attention span to read a newspaper or internet article, which are like gospel on this board...

and i'm simply saying just cause it's in the newspaper that doesn't make it gospel.

gue_barium

CaterinaA wrote:

Hi Angelica

I have not finished reading the thread yet, but this post caught my attention, 'cause you always come across to me as an extremely considerate person.

Although I agree with you on the benefits of multiculturalism and interculturalism, I must say that cultural relativism has a limit: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in its Articles 1&2states the following:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood",

and

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Hence, the gay hanging and persecution taking place in Iran (or any other country for that matter) is indeed a human rights violation, not just a matter of cultural differences. Furthermore, Iran is a UN member and that Declaration was approved by the whole General Assembly.

Peace Caterina

By that criterion, every country on the planet is in violation, and so is a moot point in regard to this discusssion.

angelica

Hey, Rue. Thanks for the apology. I've been a little tense in this thread myself, and I also apologise if I've been harsh.

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.

I think our basic difference here is with a pre-emptive strike. In terms of discernment, what you call clear and present danger, I do not see as clear and present danger. Whose interpretation do we go by? Which one is truthful?

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.

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.

I would like to clarify my view on fear/reason. I am BIG on emotional intelligence as not only being a valid type of intelligence, but a highly valid type of intelligence, and one that I value greatly. In North America this form of intelligence is under-rated and down-graded. When people block feeling their feelings, those feelings end up distorting the persons ability to reason. In order for us to utilize this valuable tool--our emotional system, being our only direct feedback on how the environment is affecting us--we need to feel our feelings. When we actually feel and process our feelings, they pass through us and contribute to our ability to activate our wisdom. People with a high emotional intelligence are very wise people. Therefore, I'm a huge proponent of integrated intelligence.

Unfortunately, in North America, we focus on being objective at the expense of the development of our emotional intelligence. Yes, fear is a very important indicator that there is something going on that is alarming to us for self-preservation. However our emotions have been wired in us based on our life experiences, and not on what is really happening in Iran. The key is we need to feel and process our fear in order to get the wisdom from the process. The way many of us do it is what you are talking about--"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." When we do not deal with our fear, we project it on the other guy and we distort our own process. The other guy may be dangerous, he may not. We can't know, because we've just distorted our intelligence. And this is why everyone is pointing the finger at someone else.

Yes, fear serves an amazing process when used in a healthy way. If we block our fear and blame the other guy for it, we cripple ourselves, our view, and our own arguments. You are correct, being afraid of the guy you think trying to kill you is not part of the problem. That step is the first healthy step....the problem happens when you act on your fear, without having processed it by feeling it, and working it through reasoning. If you give yourself permission to act on fear that has not been processed, that is like acting blindly, and that can be very dangerous.

Think of your example, where someone is threatening to kill you. One option you gave is to go to the police. You then say another option is to preemptively incapacitate or kill him. You do realize that in North America, were you to do so, YOU would go to jail? And if you planned to kill this person in advance, it would be considered premeditated? Like I said earlier, to strike first makes you the aggressor and the person to be feared. When all along, you tell yourself it's someone else.

angelica

CaterinaA wrote:

Hi Angelica

I have not finished reading the thread yet, but this post caught my attention, 'cause you always come across to me as an extremely considerate person.

Although I agree with you on the benefits of multiculturalism and interculturalism, I must say that cultural relativism has a limit

I'm not referring to cultural relativism. I am not a relatavist. I'm referring to what is effective. We cannot force another country to accept our morals as wrong as we think they are, and as much as we'd like to force them to accept what we think is "right".

Although I agree with you on the benefits of multiculturalism and interculturalism, I must say that cultural relativism has a limit: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in its Articles 1&2states the following:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood",

and

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Hence, the gay hanging and persecution taking place in Iran (or any other country for that matter) is indeed a human rights violation, not just a matter of cultural differences. Furthermore, Iran is a UN member and that Declaration was approved by the whole General Assembly.

Peace Caterina

What do you think would be effective in holding Iran accountable?

To me, imo the "gay" aspect of NCfan's argument was just that--an argument attempting to garner support from the left-wing people on this board.

RavennaSeattle1911

Last Exodus wrote:

I dont hate anyone...Hate is reserved for people that subscribe to White Supremacist sites...Know anyone who fits that bill Adolph?

youre the biggest prick ever ever met on line -liar

ive never seen such a forum and the moderator does nothing

RavennaSeattle1911

Last Exodus wrote:

I dont hate anyone...Hate is reserved for people that subscribe to White Supremacist sites...Know anyone who fits that bill Adolph?

if i was moderator id fucking ban you for that

gue_barium

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

if i was moderator id fucking ban you for that

I suggest you two take this to PM's. I, for one, haven't seen any evidence from you of this sort of White Supremist kind of thinking. I think you're learning as you go about a lot of things. You're being interactive in your own personal way.

Last Exodus

catefrances wrote:

and i'm simply saying just cause it's in the newspaper that doesn't make it gospel.

and i dont disagree. i meant to imply that its basic knowledge that EVEN a newspaper could convey.