Iran

Catsmokinpot

below is a letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to president bush, it touches on alot of subjects, including 11th september, the war on terror, the proliferation of nuclear arms, human rights, africa, globalisation and americas double standards. its a long read but bear with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900878.html

appart from the end piece about god and judgement day, which i would disregard purely because i dont believe in god in the way he does, but only sounds to me like a religious statement about the peace that can exist between our religions and not a religious extremist statement, and the rest of his letter is "on the ball" and i would agree with alot of his views, recently bush in a speech have been trying to call iran a "human rights violator" and saying they want equal rights for women in iran, but iran is one of the most progressive countries in the middle east should they not be targeting countries like saudi arabia?

i sometimes wonder if we're on the right side...

heres the letter, tell us what you think.

Mr. George Bush, president of the United States of America,

For some time now, I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. Those have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), the great Messenger of God,

Feel obliged to respect human rights,

Present liberalism as a civilization model,

Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,

Make "War on Terror" his slogan,

And finally,

work towards the establishment of an unified international community -- a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,

But at the same time,

Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women -- as occupation troops -- put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Of course, Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal; nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr. President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness?

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history, many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families. Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

Catsmokinpot

Mr. President,

I am sure you know how -- and at what cost -- Israel was established:

-- Many thousands were killed in the process.

-- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

-- Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for 60 years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique -- or at the very least extremely rare -- in recent memory.

Another big question asked by the people is "why is this regime being supported?"

Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) or Moses (Peace Be Upon Him) or liberal values?

Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands -- inside and outside Palestine -- whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are, also asking "why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?"

Mr. President,

As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in there dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations?

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc, must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr. President,

Don't Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected government are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, Why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hard-working, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth -- including minerals -- is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-a-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr. President,

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems -- and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services -- or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity -- some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the street, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way -- and was the justification -- for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly -- for the public to finally believe -- and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values?

Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

.

Catsmokinpot

Mr. President,

In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is "what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?"

As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist -- to a larger or lesser extent -- in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign -- paid from the public treasury -- be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention -- which I am hoping you will agree to some of it -- is:

Those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be consistently judged in the immediate and distant futures.

The people will scrutinize our presidencies. Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?

Did we intend to establish justice or just supported special interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship made a few people rich and powerful -- thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs?

Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?

Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?

Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?

Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it?

Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?

Did our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns, Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people's rights?

And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office -- to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets -- or not?

Mr. President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?

Where will this trend lead the world to?

How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?

How much longer will the specter of insecurity -- raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?

Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?

Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?

And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American government?

.

Catsmokinpot

Mr. President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) will be present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (Peace Be Upon Him). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is "monotheism" or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: (3.64) Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)

Mr. President,

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.

"To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases." "the Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds."

"The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court" "planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins" "He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors" "He is the Compassionate, the Merciful" "He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness" "He is witness to the actions of His servants" "He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast" "Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds" "A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants" and "A good land and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves."

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation and have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) has been quoted in Koran as well: (19.36) And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.

Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: "The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious."

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.

Divine prophets have promised:

The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined, The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nation and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man -- based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world -- that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets -- and improve our performance?

Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?

Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally represented?

Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr. President,

History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of men to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?

Is the situation of the world today comparable to that of 10 years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.

Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Mr. President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Reut14:40 05-09-06

.

growler

"We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Mr. President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things"

those few pargraphs alone are enough to convince me he's not trustworthy, less god more sense and we'd all be better off.

bonkey

growler wrote:

those few pargraphs alone are enough to convince me he's not trustworthy, less god more sense and we'd all be better off.

Indeed.

Having said that though, I had to read your post a second time to make sure I was right about who was writing to whom....they sounded almost like excerpts from some of Bush's speeches.

growler

bonkey wrote:

Indeed.

Having said that though, I had to read your post a second time to make sure I was right about who was writing to whom....they sounded almost like excerpts from some of Bush's speeches.

yeah but GWB doesn't mean it.

Catsmokinpot

growler wrote:

"We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Mr. President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things"

those few pargraphs alone are enough to convince me he's not trustworthy, less god more sense and we'd all be better off.

i completely agree. more sence less god, god is a more personal matter.

but cant we say the same can be said about both parties involved?

and what about the rest of it, he doesnt want a war between islam and christianity, but by america backing israel, (who is really in a war with islam), they are making a silent declaration.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) has been quoted in Koran as well: (19.36) And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.

all hes saying here is that we believe in the same god, but choose to worship him in different ways.

as we can see here he is not looking for war between faiths, hes a man of faith, but just because we do not share the same faith does that mean we should have less respect for what he has to say?

what did he say that you have Grievances with, other than his faith?

bush is saying iran is a regime that needs to change, and soon its going to be

"oh iran, really really bad people! lots of human rights violations! they need to be taken down!"
but wasn't it democratically elected? and he seems to be a sane enough person that the people of the country love and he doesn't support any terrorists, so whats the big problem?

astrofool

With regards to equality, wasn't there a case recently in Iran, where a woman was executed for retaliating to being raped?

The clerics are in charge of Iran, while they were "democratically" elected, it was only because most of their political opponents were prevented from running in the first place, just as the chinese government is elected by votes (i.e. tick the single box on that sheet of paper).

Catsmokinpot

astrofool wrote:

With regards to equality, wasn't there a case recently in Iran, where a woman was executed for retaliating to being raped?

The clerics are in charge of Iran, while they were "democratically" elected, it was only because most of their political opponents were prevented from running in the first place, just as the chinese government is elected by votes (i.e. tick the single box on that sheet of paper).

links?

growler

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i
all hes saying here is that we believe in the same god, but choose to worship him in different ways.

as we can see here he is not looking for war between faiths, hes a man of faith, but just because we do not share the same faith does that mean we should have less respect for what he has to say?

what did he say that you have Grievances with, other than his faith?

bush is saying iran is a regime that needs to change, and soon its going to be

"oh iran, really really bad people! lots of human rights violations! they need to be taken down!"
but wasn't it democratically elected? and he seems to be a sane enough person that the people of the country love and he doesn't support any terrorists, so whats the big problem?

Iran isn't a proper democracy, it just doesn't work, it has the trappings..elections and parliment, but ultimate authority rests with the clerics. It also controls the media and arrests dissenting voices.

His letter was, imo, a very amateurish attempt to appeal to the moderates and christians in the west, "act all reasonable" and they'll start to like me tactics, and I don't buy it for one minute after all the sabre rattling he's been doing.

And , anyone who so clearly has one eye on the next life, shouldn't be let anywhere where nuclear weapons, imo people who so strongly believe in an after life should not be given the opportunity to test their convictions on the rest of us. Even if he wass the most reasonable peace loving man in the universe I wouldn't be in favour of allowing the Iranian theocracy access to nukes. I don't believe in his or any god, such beliefs have killed enough millions thus far in human history, bringing him/her/ it, into the equation of global politics again is ultimately a very bad thing as it can only polarise opinion.

Catsmokinpot

i don't know about the woman being raped. but i do know how he was elected,

i have links here that say otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

there is alligations made by america that his election was a fix, but sure wasnt there alligations that bush's election was fixed? but no-one seems to remember that...

and heres an article about other alligations.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/iran-j02.shtml

President Bush admitted that he had “no information” on Ahmadinejad’s supposed role in the embassy takeover

i mean he may aswell have said i dont know anything about it but i may aswell say he did....

growler

take a look here and tell me how Iran is really a democracy.

astrofool

I haven't read the post, but you should not ever use Wikipedia to back up a political argument.

Link to the iranian woman story, she was being raped, and killed the man in self defence, at age 17. She was later hanged.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1859493,00.html

bonkey

growler wrote:

His letter was, imo, a very amateurish attempt to appeal to the moderates and christians in the west, "act all reasonable" and they'll start to like me tactics, and I don't buy it for one minute after all the sabre rattling he's been doing.

I thought it was more a very elegant reminder to the world that Iran and the US haven't enjoyed direct contact in 27 years.

But hey...each to their own.

jc

astrofool

A couple of links to what happened with the last election in Iran:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2467617

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2350093

Now, bear in mind, it was happening like this before the nuclear thing really kicked off, these links are from stories in 2004 when Iran's clerics really started to make their play for power and control (the reformists had been winning before this).

Catsmokinpot

growler wrote:

take a look here and tell me how Iran is really a democracy.

your acting like america doesn't have any problems with corruption. america isn't a real democracy... there is only two parties, both heavily lobbied by industries, who have sway in the way things are run. look at all the court cases linking members of government to corporations now..... the constitution can be changed without a referendum so the people dont get to decide key issues that are the fabric of society. they still have the death penalty (you wouldn't be let into europe with that), they spend most of their tax money on weapons to go and invade other countries. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending
how many totalitarian regimes has it supported? it even supported saddams regime when they were attacking iran.

america is not righteous and its not a free country

and as for "clerics" or the "council of guardians" running the country, they have something like this in england, "the house of lords" that aren't elected by the people. and in america they have a similar system, cant remember what its called.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2350093

as for this link which talks about "Appeals that go unheard" what about the appeals to the senate about having an investigation into the alligations that george bush rigged his first election? lots of peoples appeals went unheard.

a US multinational corporation Bechtel privatised the rain water in bolivia and they got the government to make it illegal to collect rain water, the people used to have to spend half their weekly wage just for water. it caused rioting and death and violence. eventually the people won and the corporation had to pull out, but none of them got arrested by american freedom fighters....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/links.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/business/story_fdh210700.shtml

and now guess who's helping rebuild iraq?
bechtel

their website wrote:

Bechtel’s culture is grounded in integrity and respect. At Bechtel this means adhering to the highest standards of ethical business culture. Our reputation for adhering to these standards is one of our most valuable assets. We stand by everything we do.

Reconstruction in Iraq
Read about the latest milestones in this major undertaking for the U.S. government.

:rolleyes:

listen, the middle east isn't pissed off at europe its pissed off at america, they aren't pissed off because americans are free and they hate freedom, they are pissed off because of america interfering in the middle east i.e. helping israel suppress palestine. and they are suppressing palestine, why do you think poor bastards are going blowing themselves up.

granted there are extremist elements, and they suck but ireland had its extremist elements when they were fighting the english. i don't condone any of it, but its a natural reaction that all people give

and im not saying that iran hasn't got any problems, but it is a progressive nation, they have lots of kinks to iron out, the same as we did not so long ago.

I haven't read the post, but you should not ever use Wikipedia to back up a political argument.

Link to the iranian woman story, she was being raped, and killed the man in self defence, at age 17. She was later hanged.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/N...859493,00.html

and why didnt you read it? everyone else seems to. and it doesnt look like it was tamperd with or disputed.

what difference does it make about the girl?
and don't think by saying that i don't think its horrible because it is, but america still executes on average of 75-80 people per year(they executed 98 people in 1999).

alan gell was released after spending a decade on death row, because the prosecuting attorneys withheld information that proved his innocence, even when this came to light he was kept on death row for two years before they released him.

regardless of figures, the death penalty is wrong no matter what way you look at it. it is not a deterrence from crime, and its no punishment. and it puts across the message that killing is ok. if you kill someone because the law says its ok to kill someone that has killed another person, that makes you a killer therefore you deserve the death penalty.

astrofool

Because you're an idiot if you're going to use Wikipedia to back up political arguments, its good for a reference, or a quick read, but not good for anything political.

So, at the very least, you're admitting that Iran is as bad, if not worse than america? And to compare the house of lords, to the clerics which act as a dictatorship in Iran is laughable. We have the Seanad here which performs the same job as the House of Lords. America's equivelent is probably the Supreme court, but of all democratic countries, America is probably the one with the most elected by the people officials of all of them, and at worst, there's a 50/50 chance of a different government being in power at each election, which is a far greater chance of having change than we'll ever have in Ireland.

And if someone has been convicted, then of course they'll wait until the new evidence proving innocence has been submitted and is real, and gone through the procedures (allowing for appeal process etc.) before releasing them.

The middle east is just as scared of Iran as America is, and most certainly don't want to see them become a nuclear power, you forget that muslims have a habit of fighting amongst themselves, just as much as they fight the Americans, Iran and Iraq were at war for years.

Iran was becoming a progressive nation, until two years ago, when the clerics stopped most of the reformist candidates from competing in the elections and created their own government to rule. Until the clerics are demoted to the same status as the Queen is in England, then Iran will not be a free or progressive country, and just as likely to bomb Saudi Arabia as it is Israel if they don't comply with the cleric ideals.

Catsmokinpot

astrofool wrote:

So, at the very least, you're admitting that Iran is as bad, if not worse than America? And to compare the house of lords, to the clerics which act as a dictatorship in Iran is laughable. We have the Seanad here which performs the same job as the House of Lords. America's equivelent is probably the Supreme court, but of all democratic countries, America is probably the one with the most elected by the people officials of all of them, and at worst, there's a 50/50 chance of a different government being in power at each election, which is a far greater chance of having change than we'll ever have in Ireland.

the supreme court has replaced god with the dollar to control people. so has the rest of the US government, they're all heavily involved with industries who have their own agenda. Which is not the people (what the government was made for)

for example, a corporation called Monsanto created a growth hormone rBGH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBGH#Related_legal_actions
which was found to cause cancer in humans, through consumption of treated cowsmilk.

3 reporters for a television show (a fox television show) decided to do a story uncovering all of this information. they were asked then threatened by Monsanto to pull the story they have fax evidence of this. and a contract that the corporation had printed out that they should never talk about it, the reporters told them where to go. then they asked would they change the story to depict a less damaging story that the public would swallow. then she was told by the editor of the fox station to pull the story or edit heavily it, (remember bush's brother is head of fox) or else they would be fired. the head writer for the story also has fax evidence of this. she took them to court, won, and then was over-ruled by the supreme court, because of a technicality. as people have to achieve something called "whistle blower status" in Miami and she didn't qualify and although the evidence was all there Monsanto wasn’t prosecuted. and reclaimed the compensation from the woman who was fired. and so did fox.

because there was no law prohibiting the television station from requiring its reporters to lie and as such the reporters were not protected by whistleblower status.

and to this day in America, the known cancer causing growth hormone rBGH is legal, but is illegal in japan, the european union, canada and newzealand, and more are making it illegal. the findings of the report have never been challenged by Monsanto

now tell me America cares about its people.

id like you to read about the house of lords and tell me how it differs from the council of guardians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_lords
of course they don’t have as much power as they once did. because we learned, and we corrected this.

im not forgetting Muslim clerics have vested interests in conserving the way of life of Islam. but they will learn, if we let them.

and no, im saying you can't use the fact iran has the death penalty as evidence that they are an "evil dictatorship" because America upholds the death penalty, and it doesn't matter who you kill, the death penalty is wrong.

women's rights are progressing in Iran. granted they aren't half as good as our rights but I remember not too long ago we didn't show much regard for women. but we learned by ourselves. without having others values imposed on us.

we had problems with the way our countries were run, but we learned. it took us a long time, but we learned. and we did it ourselves.

now imagine this, you belong to a country, which has a system of government, which the people are used to, a way of life that the people are used to. then foreigners come over and try to impose their beliefs which aren’t yours, on to you. how would you like it? sounds familiar doesn’t it?

isn't it a countries right to self determination? didn't we want that? don't we still want that? Iran has never once supported terrorism, they have never once attacked us, yet we are talking about Iran as if we want to attack them, because if we don’t they will attack us?

america want's to impose its beliefs on Iran and control Iran. even though there are far worse actual dictatorships, and "evil regimes" which america has actually aligned themselves with. and of whom we paint pretty pictures about in the news. e.g. Saudi Arabia. now that’s a place with no human rights.

democracy wasn't started like that, democracy was started by the people themselves coming together and saying we want to change, change isn't going to come to those who don't want it. and although many do, many don’t either, and who are we to say how they should live.

and they will learn eventually without any help. unless you’re saying they are different to us in some way?

Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest human rights violators in the world. they haven’t changed anything about their legal system in over 1400 years, since the foundation of Islam. but the Americans have their hand in Saudi’s pocket and Saudi Arabia can cut that hand off. iran is making huge steps in its legal and judiciary systems compared to the systems of old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_arabia#Human_Rights

you don't see America trying to free the Saudis. America wants to control the middle east they want control of Iran. because if they develop nukes, America is less able to boss them around.

astrofool wrote:

And if someone has been convicted, then of course they'll wait until the new evidence proving innocence has been submitted and is real, and gone through the procedures (allowing for appeal process etc.) before releasing them.

the evidence was official police reports from the police station Gell was being held, in custody, in another county, the night that he was supposed to have committed the crime. no appeal should be needed.

astrofool wrote:

The middle east is just as scared of Iran as America is, and most certainly don't want to see them become a nuclear power, you forget that Muslims have a habit of fighting amongst themselves, just as much as they fight the Americans, Iran and Iraq were at war for years.

Iran was becoming a progressive nation, until two years ago, when the clerics stopped most of the reformist candidates from competing in the elections and created their own government to rule. Until the clerics are demoted to the same status as the Queen is in England, then Iran will not be a free or progressive country, and just as likely to bomb Saudi Arabia as it is Israel if they don't comply with the cleric ideals.

don't you mean "people" and not just muslims fight amongst themselves, now who's an extremest? branding all muslims with the same iron.....

I know about the Iraq/Iran conflict. i know alot about the whole middle east issue, i think you should have a look at it too, you might learn something. I think that if anyone is going to bomb anyone it will be Israel who bombs Iran.

growler

Catsmokinpot wrote:

your acting like america doesn't have any problems with corruption. america isn't a real democracy... there is only two parties, both heavily lobbied by industries, who have sway in the way things are run. look at all the court cases linking members of government to corporations now..... the constitution can be changed without a referendum so the people dont get to decide key issues that are the fabric of society. they still have the death penalty (you wouldn't be let into europe with that), they spend most of their tax money on weapons to go and invade other countries. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending
how many totalitarian regimes has it supported? it even supported saddams regime when they were attacking iran.

america is not righteous and its not a free country

and as for "clerics" or the "council of guardians" running the country, they have something like this in england, "the house of lords" that aren't elected by the people. and in america they have a similar system, cant remember what its called.
.

so you think Iran is as democratic as the US ? :rolleyes:

Granted its not a perfect system, in fact I imagine its pretty much unworkable to have a true democracy anywhere large than a small village, but given a choice between the US version and the Iranian I'll take the US everyday, it may be the lesser of two evils but it is a far better system.

Your comparison with the Seanad, House of Lords and the Guardian Council is laughable for reasons too numerous to mention.

From the rest of your post you seem to be having an anti american anti-capitalist rant, I thought you wished to discuss the merits of the letter you quoted ? The individual actions of corporations are not a refection on the US government, businesses are governed by the laws of the states tehy operate in, they will try to make as much money as they can, that is their reason for existence. Granted examples like Bechtel and the rain water show how lacking in morality many of them are, but then again without foreign investment in countries like Bolivia they cannot develop, allowing Bechtel to "ban the collection of rainwater" is down to a failure of (the democratically elected and probably corrupt) Bolivian politicians and their laws, I don't expect businesses to operate "morally" , it would be nice if they did, but not as profitable for their shareholders.

The Monsanto case is another example of a failure of the laws, but the press freedoms allowed to us in the west, through TV and and uncensored internet, ensure the story still got out. Try publishing a story about corrupt clerics in Iran and see how far you get before you "dissappear".

astrofool

Anything legal has to go through a process of checks and balances, people just can't be released with immediate effect. All sorts of things can happen such as people sharing a name, or looking similar, and not that this happened in that case, but it could have. And remember, he wasn't put to death, indeed, the execution date would have been suspended until the new evidence was dealt with.

You come across entirely with an anti-american agenda, rather than arguing what Iran has done right. Iran was heading towards sexual equality, and more every day freedom, until the ultra conservative, non-elected islamic clerics stepped in and removed any reformers from the political process.

Iran has stated that it wants to usher in a new islamic movement throughout the world, while this is most probably sabre rattling, it is another reason why the rest of the world is worried about it.

Also, if Iran tomorrow stopped making material suitable for nuclear bombs, and proved it, then all the threats against bombing Iran would be dropped. Of all the "evil" regimes in the world, Iran is the only one pursuing nuclear ambitions as openly, even N. Korea has stepped back from the brink.

And, no, I meant muslims fight amongst themselves, because you seem to be coming across that they are all doe-eyed with each other, and its big bad America who is making them cry. Of course people fight with each other, but thats too obvious a statement to make, along the lines of "I have hands to type with".

You're right that the middle east is going to have to grow up with regards human rights, and freedoms, and that includes Israel.

And on your last comment, I'd hazard a guess that i'd probably know about ten times as much as you about political situations around the world, and

Stop using Wikipedia as your source of proof, you would be laughed out of the building in any serious form of debate for that.

bonkey

astrofool wrote:

even N. Korea has stepped back from the brink.

Where do you get that notion from?

bonkey

astrofool wrote:

Stop using Wikipedia as your source of proof, you would be laughed out of the building in any serious form of debate for that.

Actually, in any serious form of debate, someone would go to the trouble of establishing whether a claim held any truth or not, rather than attacking it purely on the basis of its source. Ideally, they'd refute it showing that a more reliable source (or more euqally-reliable sources) contradicts it, or that the reasoning using the alleged facts were false.

People would be delighted to see you use an unreliable source in a more serious debate, because it would mean that you'd be more often open to proveable contradiction.

The reverse of your claim is true, however. Its only in comparatively non-serious debate (like we have here) that you can get away with simply laughing a source away.

jc

astrofool

I'm talking about this deal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1778002,00.html which, while faltering, at least brought it back from being on the verge of aircraft strikes. I was in China when the deal was going on (on a holiday), and it was interesting to see it from a Chinese point of view, especially as they brokered it essentially.

While i'm a great advocate of Wikipedia in most circumstances, having been heavily involved in academic work for the past year, its use as a statement of facts in anything which can have an opinion, is wrong, due to it's nature.

Catsmokinpot

so you think Iran is as democratic as the US ?

Granted its not a perfect system, in fact I imagine its pretty much unworkable to have a true democracy anywhere large than a small village, but given a choice between the US version and the Iranian I'll take the US everyday, it may be the lesser of two evils but it is a far better system.

Your comparison with the Seanad, House of Lords and the Guardian Council is laughable for reasons too numerous to mention.

yes the us is fascism with a veneer of democracy, everything is heavily privatised, the needs of the majority aren't met.

if you are going to go through life saying well id rather choose the lesser of two evils, good luck to you, i can't im not a hypocrite.

when the house of lords first started The House of Lords was an unelected body of 724 members : two archbishops and 24 bishops of the established Church of England ("Lords Spiritual") and 699 members of the Peerage ("Lords Temporal"). Lords Spiritual serve as long as they continue to occupy their ecclesiastical positions, whereas Lords Temporal serve for life. Members of the House of Lords are known as "Lords of Parliament".

i was comparing the council of guardians to the old house of lords. these were spiritual leaders at the start who had huge sway as to how things were done, do you homeork m8

growler wrote:

From the rest of your post you seem to be having an anti american anti-capitalist rant, I thought you wished to discuss the merits of the letter you quoted ? The individual actions of corporations are not a refection on the US government, businesses are governed by the laws of the states tehy operate in, they will try to make as much money as they can, that is their reason for existence. Granted examples like Bechtel and the rain water show how lacking in morality many of them are, but then again without foreign investment in countries like Bolivia they cannot develop, allowing Bechtel to "ban the collection of rainwater" is down to a failure of (the democratically elected and probably corrupt) Bolivian politicians and their laws, I don't expect businesses to operate "morally" , it would be nice if they did, but not as profitable for their shareholders.

The Monsanto case is another example of a failure of the laws, but the press freedoms allowed to us in the west, through TV and and uncensored internet, ensure the story still got out. Try publishing a story about corrupt clerics in Iran and see how far you get before you "dissappear".

talk about the merits of the letter yes. and i feel the global has allot to do with it. as that is what the scope of this letter is. people are replying with things like "i don't trust a word he says" and i actually think he talking allot of sense. so i will defend that. and part of that is pointing out the lies that america goes spreading across the news.

yes, i am anti American government and foreign policy. they don't care about their own people, and they don't care about anyone else. i have nothing against the american people there are some really nice people in that area.

im not anti-Semitic against jews (my great grandfather is jewish) i do however believe what israel is doing is completely wrong.

i have nothing against iran, although i believe they were stuck in a different time for a while, but they are catching up to us.

i do however have a problem with all the dictatorships that bush is supporting by doing nothing, and by consorting with them.

I don't expect businesses to operate "morally" , it would be nice if they did, but not as profitable for their shareholders.

so, your saying morals aren't as important as profit?

and no, the reporters story wasn't published on fox news they didn't win the case the case is ongoing. the people weren't told the government didn't do what was right for their own people, the gave precedence to business, that's fascism.

now ill take this quote

The individual actions of corporations are not a refection on the US government

your right, but the failure to act on corporations that take a stance such as this, shows yet again, a failure of the government to act on its idea of "morality" which it's imposing on others.

failure of laws is a failure of government, so how can the pot call the kettle black? no matter which is the lesser of two evils. that's a completely hypocritical position to take.

astrofool wrote:

Anything legal has to go through a process of checks and balances, people just can't be released with immediate effect. All sorts of things can happen such as people sharing a name, or looking similar, and not that this happened in that case, but it could have. And remember, he wasn't put to death, indeed, the execution date would have been suspended until the new evidence was dealt with.

if that person was innocent, and a prosecutor was lying i wonder have there been innocent people killed by the death penalty, id say so there is no proof, but there are debated cases. and im sure back in the day allot of the black community was persecuted wrongly.

astrofool wrote:

You come across entirely with an anti-american agenda, rather than arguing what Iran has done right. Iran was heading towards sexual equality, and more every day freedom, until the ultra conservative, non-elected islamic clerics stepped in and removed any reformers from the political process.

all these rumours are being spread by america, the simple fact is iran elected a leader that doesn't want to be part of the global community, they also want to start trading oil in euros instead of dollars (petrodollars). they seek nuclear power so that america can't **** with them. yes there is some problems the country still has but your a hypocrite if you don't think every democracy had the same problems they are having when they first started. even america was a huge human rights abuser when it was a fledgling democracy

astrofool wrote:

Iran has stated that it wants to usher in a new islamic movement throughout the world, while this is most probably sabre rattling, it is another reason why the rest of the world is worried about it.

Also, if Iran tomorrow stopped making material suitable for nuclear bombs, and proved it, then all the threats against bombing Iran would be dropped. Of all the "evil" regimes in the world, Iran is the only one pursuing nuclear ambitions as openly, even N. Korea has stepped back from the brink.

korea have nukes now, or at least they were doing nuclear tests.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/09/16/nkorea.blast/index.html
and now america cant **** with them or impose its imperialism on them.

ill say it again, iran hasn't once said it was seeking nuclear weapons, it wants nuclear power.

they havent once supported terrorists, infact they completely opposed the 11th of september attacks, and immediately offered its condolences. they haven't once attacked any of us.

so how are they a threat?

they are not extremist muslims, if they were they would have human rights like saudi arabia does.

astrofool wrote:

And, no, I meant muslims fight amongst themselves, because you seem to be coming across that they are all doe-eyed with each other, and its big bad America who is making them cry. Of course people fight with each other, but thats too obvious a statement to make, along the lines of "I have hands to type with".

You're right that the middle east is going to have to grow up with regards human rights, and freedoms, and that includes Israel.

i dont like the hypocracy of the western world give with one hand, and take away with the other. people like you are hypocrites. you hold up the ideals of one country and look down on another, and ignore when the country you support doesn't live up to your expectations. "oh their muslims they're incapable of ruling themselves" which is what your getting at.

astrofool wrote:

And on your last comment, I'd hazard a guess that i'd probably know about ten times as much as you about political situations around the world, and

Stop using Wikipedia as your source of proof, you would be laughed out of the building in any serious form of debate for that.

and as for your last comment, id hazard a guess that i probably know 20 times more than you do on the subject. you didnt try to prove me wrong did you? and prove that wikipedia was wrong.

dont give me bull**** about wikipedia being wrong, if you want another source for the saudi's human rights abuses here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4754169.stm
http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/sau-summary-eng
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/saud-a26.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/032800-01.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41731.htm
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=saudia

wikipedia.org is one of the best sources for information on the internet, when something is edited alot they give you a big notice that it has been edited, eg, george W. bush article, has been tampered with so many times, if the info on iran was so wrong why has no-one contested it?

also it would give a warning about wether the bias of an article is questionable i always check for that, and there is other sources but wikipedia is the best summarised source and easiest to read anywhere.

in conclusion you both make me sick with your hypocritical bull****

bonkey

astrofool wrote:

I'm talking about this deal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1778002,00.html which, while faltering, at least brought it back from being on the verge of aircraft strikes.

That article suggests not that N.Korea pulled back from the brink, but rather that the US realised it had to do an about-face in its stance in order to make any progress.

The article talks about the US softening its hardline stance and entering into the negotiations for a peace-treaty that N.Korea has been insisting are the way. Possible problems it lists include the N.Korea's likely unwillingness to accept any conditions in such negotiations such as human rights reforms.

Nowhere does it suggest that N.Korea did anything to bring us back from the brink. It suggests rather that the US changed its position. Given that I doubt very strongly you'll suggest the threat of airstrikes came from N.Korea, it seems that what you're saying is that the (alleged) threat of strikes against North Korea were averted by the nation which would have carried out these strikes deciding not to do so and to instead consider engaging in the dialog that North Korea has been insisting must be a part of any solution.

The only brink I can see that we came back from was the one that the media were trying to hype into existence, and now that they're no longer focussed on N.Korea the alleged brink no longer exists. Instead, we have the world and its aunt telling us we're on the brink of war because the US has said that it will never declare "come what may, there is nothing that will make us attack Iran".

And lets facce facts here...this is what the US is saying. This so-called refusal to take anything off the table is just double-speak. For a start, I cna pretty-much guarantee that complete genocide of the Iranian people is off the table. I'd also guess that enslavement (actual, not literal) of the nation is also off the table. I'm pretty certain that a first-strike reduce-the-oilfields-to-glass nuclear attack is also off the table.

So when the US says nothing is off the table, clearly it doesn't mean that nothing is off the table, but rather that it will not commit itself to saying things like that under no circumstances will it consider a military / first-strike / nuclear option.

Does this mean war is inevitable? I'm highly skeptical. I see it more as an sabre-rattling move equivalent to some of the Iranian comments.

Does it mean the Iranians need to back down? Well....just look at that link you gave for the NK again. They insisted time after time that they would not just kowtow to US demands....and the most positive move is that this has made the US reconsider that maybe it should try actually negotiating in terms of what the NK is asking for.

It would seem to me that if this was what brought NK back from the brink, then what needs to happen with Iran is that the US needs to realise it has to have direct negotiations with them, and that they will have to be negotiations and not just a reiteration of previous US' demands with a larger carrot attached.

its use as a statement of facts in anything which can have an opinion, is wrong, due to it's nature.

Lets not get too sidetracked here, but I feel you're still overstating your case.

The validity of an opinion should be dependant on the validity of the information it uses, not the how highly regarded the source of that information may or may not be.

If someone, for example, uses a mathemetical argument, it doesn't matter if the maths were printed in "Loons Weekly Craziness" or in some peer-reviewed mathematics paper. The validity of the argument rests on the validity of the mathematics, not on where it was published.

Its correct that just because Wikipedia says something doesn't mean its true, and if you aren't going to do additional research you're in danger of being wrong. But at the same time, just because wikipedia isn't always correct doesn't mean that what it asserts is necessarily untrue, and it would be equally dangerous to assume something is untrue without also doing additional reasearch.

Yes, one should be wary of using wikipedia as one's only source of information, but thats no greater a mistake than someone dismissing information based purely on their dislike of the source and an unwillingness to actually go and look to see if the allegations hold up or not.

If it is lazy to use wikipedia as a source, it is equally lazy to dismiss an argument because wikipedia is the source.

You can replace "lazy" in the above sentence with whatever you like - wrong, risky, stupid....its still going to be true.

growler

Catsmokinpot wrote:

yes the us is fascism with a veneer of democracy, everything is heavily privatised, the needs of the majority aren't met.

if you are going to go through life saying well id rather choose the lesser of two evils, good luck to you, i can't im not a hypocrite.

when the house of lords first started The House of Lords was an unelected body of 724 members : two archbishops and 24 bishops of the established Church of England ("Lords Spiritual") and 699 members of the Peerage ("Lords Temporal"). Lords Spiritual serve as long as they continue to occupy their ecclesiastical positions, whereas Lords Temporal serve for life. Members of the House of Lords are known as "Lords of Parliament".

i was comparing the council of guardians to the old house of lords. these were spiritual leaders at the start who had huge sway as to how things were done, do you homeork m8talk


in conclusion you both make me sick with your hypocritical bull****

The US is not a fascist state.


Am I correctly interpreting your comment to mean that f you have a choice of two evils, you'd rather chose the greater evil in order not to be a hypocrite?

I fail to see the relevance of comparing what the old HOL has to do with the current Guardian Council, what's in the past isn't particularly relevant since your initial comparison was in the present tense. Do your homework , or better still come up with a valid and current comparison where a democracy is answerable and veto-able (such a word?) by an unelected body.

I am sorry that I am causing you to feel unwell, can you point out some of my hypocrisy please?

Catsmokinpot

growler wrote:

Am I correctly interpreting your comment to mean that f you have a choice of two evils, you'd rather chose the greater evil in order not to be a hypocrite?

I am sorry that I am causing you to feel unwell, can you point out some of my hypocrisy please?

no, your not correctly interpreting my comment, im saying that i neither support nor oppose iran, but i do think they deserve the right to self determination. I will not support another country in its stead because they are the lesser of two evils, evil is evil. there is no difference.

America of today is bad, because the people in power at the moment have their own interests in mind, and no one else's not even its people, if it was interested in freeing countries it would be going after the worst violators first. they themselves are human rights violators, example: guantanamo bay and abu ghraib. they are just as bad as iran. if not worse because they hide behind the ideals of a good nation, and they hide behind their people.

and on top of that they wont allow any of their army to go up in front of the UN war crimes commission..... a slight admission of guild i think.

so how do they have the right to tell iran what to do, they are hypocrites.

you are a hypocrite for seeing all of this and saying "well the lesser of two evils is ok with me" and whilst saying that you uphold values of truth, justice, and are anti-human rights violations. i believe every man and woman on this earth is capable of learning from, and will learn from his/her mistakes, interfering in peoples beliefs and customs causes problems, and supporting oppressive regimes like israel is a bad idea. people aren't willing do deviate from their beliefs when they are forced upon them, i iran is doing some bad, but they are making progress, invading them or attacking them will set that progress back more than anything. it encourages conservative elements to be more conservative.

I fail to see the relevance of comparing what the old HOL has to do with the current Guardian Council, what's in the past isn't particularly relevant since your initial comparison was in the present tense. Do your homework , or better still come up with a valid and current comparison where a democracy is answerable and veto-able (such a word?) by an unelected body.

omg do i have to spell it out to you, islamic nations are not physically or mentally less evolved than us but they do seem to be less socially evolved than us. i.e. the way countries are run, the laws they have. but they have made the first steps, when england became a constitutional monarchy/democracy they too had problems, the hereditary lordships being one of them. iran has similar systems to what england had but i believe they will change, i don't think i ever compared them to a present house of lords which is completely different, but if it came across that way, im sorry. im just asking that you show some consideration to a fledgling nation, and not be on the side of imperialists who want to push their views on others.

If you force a child to do something they don't want to do and they will resent you for it. if you tell a child the consequences and say well you make your own decision, the child will respect you for it at the end of the day.

but i would however compare them to the supreme court, which is ruled by money (slightly different to god in the fact that god *could* be the creator of all things. but, power over people none the less)

growler

so Iran is a "fledging nation", less "evolved" socially, childlike and generally not quite there yet in terms of a functioning democracy, but you still think they should have nuclear weapons despite all the potential risks that that involves for their immediate and not-so-immediate neighbours on this planet ?

Well if you're willing to risk them making a mess of it all in a great big mushroom cloud of glory, fair play to you, personally I wouldn't. I'd far rather not have to watch Iran / the planet learn from Iran's mistakes, in fact I wholly support the idea that if you don't allow them to make a nuclear
mistake we'd all be better off for it ( in, we've been down the nuclear road once before and I don't want to see any "god told me to do it" merchant having access to a red button.

Iran isn't making progress it's going backwards, thanks largely to the coruption of its last, liberal regime, but also to the clerical elite who do not want to progress, progress means change, and change is not in their collective god fearing interests.

Why do you think that Islamic nations are less evolved anyway, they live on the same planet, drink the same water, (should be able to) read the same papers and websites etc. , why have they radically differing views on , human rights, personal freedoms, democracy etc. ?

"America is bad" is a laughable generalisation, worthy of Southpark.

I agree with you that the world is far from prefect and that the US is far from
perfect in it's ( selectively applied) pursuit of a free world, howeve despite the abuses, the imperfections, the collteral damage, dollar driven motivations and side stepping of international law, I still believe that american / western / secular / democratic / capitalist system is far preferable than any other system on offer today. While flawed it is the lesser of two ( whatever number currently are on offer) evils.


" you are a hypocrite for seeing all of this and saying "well the lesser of two evils is ok with me" and whilst saying that you uphold values of truth, justice, and are anti-human rights violations."

where did I say all that exactly ?

Catsmokinpot

growler wrote:

so Iran is a "fledging nation", less "evolved" socially, childlike and generally not quite there yet in terms of a functioning democracy, but you still think they should have nuclear weapons despite all the potential risks that that involves for their immediate and not-so-immediate neighbours on this planet?

Well if you're willing to risk them making a mess of it all in a great big mushroom cloud of glory, fair play to you, personally I wouldn't. I'd far rather not have to watch Iran / the planet learn from Iran's mistakes, in fact I wholly support the idea that if you don't allow them to make a nuclear
mistake we'd all be better off for it ( in, we've been down the nuclear road once before and I don't want to see any "god told me to do it" merchant having access to a red button.

Iran isn't making progress it's going backwards, thanks largely to the coruption of its last, liberal regime, but also to the clerical elite who do not want to progress, progress means change, and change is not in their collective god fearing interests.

omg you really do try to twist and contort things around don't you.

and by the way, you say that israel has to cop on to itself? yet you deplore what iran is doing? israel has nukes aswell you know.

you think they are all crazy, i dont, anyone knows that NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE DANGEROUS, and Iran aren't just going to start flinging them over the border at us, pakistan is a great human rights abuser, its not even a democracy, but they aren't firing nukes over this way, jesus they even pulled back from the brink with india. listen, america are making a big deal out of something that isnt really that big of a deal. they were worried about Korea, and wanted to tell them what to do, and probably would have invaded if they weren't invading iraq, all iran have said is they want nuclear technology which is understandable for a newly industrialised country. and now america are in a position that they can invade, iran is right next to iraq, there is no problems involved with launching an attack.

america is the only country that has used nuclear weapons in wartime. even though many skeptics including the then 5 star general eisenhower, commander of the ground forces who later became president disagreed with the dropping of the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki, and said it wouldn't have shortened the war in the pacific because the japanese were trying to surrender during the summer of that year. but he was overruled by truman.

in the letter when President Ahmadinejad was talking about god, he was using god in his philosophy, he was talking about differences being only skin deep he was talking about both our faiths having the same values, he wasnt saying that we are going to put a jihad on your asses. the people who do that are a mionority. when he said "when the day of judgement comes" he wasnt saying that he was going to bring you to that day, he was emploring the president to look back on his life, and see the wrong that his administration and alot of administrations before his have done. the lies and hypocracy.

and when i said child like state its not that they are childish, but that their democracy is in its infancy, THIS DOESNT MEAN THEY DONT KNOW THAT NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE DANGEROUS. these people dont want to die, they don't have allah on their minds 24/7, these people are normal just like us, they have families, they have bills to pay, they aren't concentrating on the next life, i think if anything they just wan't america off their backs, they aren't planning a war, they don't want a war with america, america knows this, they even said they know this, what they are afraid of is that it wont be secure enough and rogue islamic extremist groups will steal the nukes.

i think america wan't control over iran and their oil, but ofcourse they won't say that. they will probably turn around and say "we want to free iran", like they wanted to free iraq, who was apparently supporting al qaeda in afghanistan, even though saddam hated al qaeda.

why would anyone use nuclear weapons against any of us? think about it man these people aren't stupid, they don't think that if they throw nukes at us, we wont throw nukes back. they haven't once said they would attack america, or even implied it. or any of their allies. they said however they would defend themselves which i think is their right. nuclear weapons are a deterrance.

growler wrote:

Why do you think that Islamic nations are less evolved anyway, they live on the same planet, drink the same water, (should be able to) read the same papers and websites etc. , why have they radically differing views on , human rights, personal freedoms, democracy etc. ?

i didnt say less evolved. i said less socially evolved. look as we spread out over the planet, we have different needs different beliefs, but social structures and law systems. evolve at different paces, look at europe for instance, france was a republic long before england, long before the rest of the world. does that mean they should have gone and invaded england as soon as they found what they thought was the right way to live? the people in these countries that didnt change - didnt collectively see the need for change. the people in iran have, this is why they have setup a democracy. but 100% perfect change doesn't just happen over night. you are nieve to believe that it does, does that mean we should put trading sanctions on them? does that mean we should invade their country? does that mean we should tell them what to do?

the conservative government over in england was one of the wors't governments in existence. they didn't approve of change at all, they went over and suppressed india, ireland, and a host of other countries, they wanted everyone and everything to stay the same, class systems, corporal punishment the death penalty. but slowly, liberal values won over, people learned and people are still learning.

even after the war of independance in america, after that war conservative elements in the government didnt completely free the slaves, they setup sharecopping, watered down version of slavery. they still had white only bars, shops, blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, they got blacks locked up, they had lynch mobs, they did everything just because of race.

if more people gave less of a fúck about what other people thought and did, and stopped interfering where the weren't wanted, then the world would be a better place.

growler wrote:

"America is bad" is a laughable generalisation, worthy of Southpark.

I agree with you that the world is far from prefect and that the US is far from
perfect in it's ( selectively applied) pursuit of a free world, howeve despite the abuses, the imperfections, the collteral damage, dollar driven motivations and side stepping of international law, I still believe that american / western / secular / democratic / capitalist system is far preferable than any other system on offer today. While flawed it is the lesser of two ( whatever number currently are on offer) evils.

Mkay.... so, when you want to do something and you get someone else trying to make your decisions for you do you like it? so how is it wrong to defend your point of view. and don't say its not as simple as that because it is. Americas government is bad. we dont have to just accept the way things are and just say oh well, thats the way it is, no-one makes any progress that way. and we will never move foreward, you're slowing down the progress of all mankind by thinking that way.

america have a terrible and self centered foriegn policy, they have very little compassion for the sick and hungry in their country, if there was a country like that in europe, it wouldnt be let into the european union because of its backwards policies.

growler wrote:

" you are a hypocrite for seeing all of this and saying "well the lesser of two evils is ok with me" and whilst saying that you uphold values of truth, justice, and are anti-human rights violations."

where did I say all that exactly ?

when you say iran isnt a propper democracy and iran have some of the worst records of human rights abuse, your actually saying, i uphold the values of truth justice and im anti human rights violations. oh but then you say this

growler wrote:

but given a choice between the US version and the Iranian I'll take the US everyday, it may be the lesser of two evils but it is a far better system.

so what your basically saying is "ill let america attack iran (who doesnt want to attack the US or europe), but ill ignore what america does, and ill go one better ill stand by while they act like hypocrites aswell"

that makes you a hypocrite.

Catsmokinpot

im not saying iran is a cool place to live, or its legal system is right or anything like that, because they do need to change, and i believe that with encouragement instead of sanctions they will change. but how can you justify saying that the US can make Iran or iraq or anyone, do they want them to, change to suit their needs, and all the while using the reason "these nations are bad and need to be good", even though they are doing the same by same imposing force on others, and opressing others. they are doing exactly what they are accusing the others of... this is just wrong, its hypocracy, and you are wrong.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Doctor Fell

Going back to the original post, yes I found myself in total agreement with what was said. I think he raised some very relevant and important issues/questions about America's behaviour, and highlighted GWB's and America's hypocrisy very clearly. I've no problem with his religious vibes either, as he is clearly showing up Bush as a hypocrite, as he is a Christian but clearly doesn't practice what he preaches. And why shouldn't Iran develop nuclear technology like the USA, Israel etc? As he said, scientific endevour shouldn't be stopped just because it could be used for weapons purposes. And besides, who are the USA to preach about nuclear abstention? I abhor nuclear weaponry like any sane person, but I can understand why faced with the aggression of USA/Israel, they might feel the need to develop such weapons as a deterent. After all, isn't that the excuse every nation uses to develop such weapons? If the USA offered to de-nuke their own arsenal then they would be in a position to preach to Iran. But lets be honest, they are a super-aggressive violent nation (foriegn policy-wise, I have many great American friends!!), so why should Iran buckle to their bullying tactics?
Its a pity more world leaders don't speak the truth like the Iranian president did.

growler

Catsmokinpot wrote:

why would anyone use nuclear weapons against any of us? think about it man these people aren't stupid, they don't think that if they throw nukes at us, we wont throw nukes back. .

and if they don't have any nukes then the problem of them initiating a nuclear attack and any western retatliation will never arise. Simple. Letting them have access to such weapons only creates potential for a nuclear conflict in a region that is already volatile, why run such a risk if it an be avoided ?

Catsmokinpot wrote:

they haven't once said they would attack america, or even implied it. or any of their allies. .

they threatened or implied a threat to international shipping in the straits of hormuz.

If they are willing to threaten international oil shipments with their conventional weaponry then giving them access to bigger bombs only improves their ability to threaten as well as being a deterrant.

bonkey

growler wrote:

and if they don't have any nukes then the problem of them initiating a nuclear attack and any western retatliation will never arise. Simple.

Simple? Tell that to the Iraqis. No nukes, but the issue of western retaliation still arose.

Letting them have access to such weapons only creates potential for a nuclear conflict in a region that is already volatile, why run such a risk if it an be avoided ?

Since the invention of the nuclear bomb, Europe has enjoyed the longest peace-time stretch since, oh, the days of the Roman Empire.

America's "nuclear deterrant" policy works on the idea that nuclear weapons deter people from attacking. They enforce a peace, not endanger one.

America's nuclear deterrant policy works so well, in fact, that they're busy designing new bombs at the moment, so they can keep their arsenal up to date.

they threatened or implied a threat to international shipping in the straits of hormuz.

Iran has been threatened (directly or implied) by the US ever since they overthrew the US-backed Shah over 20 years ago. Whats your point? That all of a sudden, Iran is untrustworthy because they're not just lying down and accepting US animosity like a good little doggy?

If they are willing to threaten international oil shipments with their conventional weaponry then giving them access to bigger bombs only improves their ability to threaten as well as being a deterrant.

Indeed. Its not all that unlike the US making these "no option is off the table" sabre-rattling noises really.

See, this is what gets me.
The US is bending over backwards, telling us how bad it would be for Iran to get nukes. Why? Because if they got them, they could use them to threaten other nations....just like the US is doing to Iran itself right now.

So basically the threat that we need to prevent is that Iran would be able to implement foreign policy in a manner similar to the US.

If this is a problem, then it should be equally problematic that the US not only can engage in this type of coercion, but is engaging in it.

If the US still maintained that its nuclear arsenal would never be used as part of a first-strike doctrine, and only ever in response to a WMD attack (Chem, Bio or Nuke, and not necessarily just aimed at the US), and wasn't looking at building things like mini-nuke bunker-busters etc.....then this argument would be credible.

I see nothing credible in one nation saying that the threat is allowing a second nation to engage in these bullying tactics. If these tactics are unacceptable on the world stage, then don't use them. By using such tactics, the US has tacitly acknowledged that nuclear threats are a valid and legitimate international negotiation tool.

growler

bonkey wrote:

Simple? Tell that to the Iraqis. No nukes, but the issue of western retaliation still arose. .

but no nuclear retaliation, perhaps I should have stated that.

bonkey wrote:

Since the invention of the nuclear bomb, Europe has enjoyed the longest peace-time stretch since, oh, the days of the Roman Empire..

It would be overly simplistic to lay the last 70 years of peace entirely at the door of a nuclear threat, there were many other factors involved.

bonkey wrote:

Iran has been threatened (directly or implied) by the US ever since they overthrew the US-backed Shah over 20 years ago. Whats your point? That all of a sudden, Iran is untrustworthy because they're not just lying down and accepting US animosity like a good little doggy?..

I believe the current Iranian regime's ideology and leadership to be untrustworthy when it comes to nuclear weapons.. yes. Arming one more middle eastern country is likely to lead to the arming and/or sharing of nuclear technologies with even more countries in the region, it would be understandable for the Saudis, Egyptians, Iraqis to seek nukes to maintain the status quo. Given their political volatility, ethnic divisions, numerous armed militias / terrorist groups with unsavoury goals it seems like a massive risk to take, a risk not only to our energy supplies in the west (which is significant) but to the people of the middle east. What if Afghanistan had nuclear technologies during the Taleban days, do you think they would have had any qualms about sharing their toys with Osama ? or would you rather wait and see and run the risk of such weapons falling into the wrong hands, with potentially murderous consequences for western cities / israel ?

bonkey wrote:

See, this is what gets me.
The US is bending over backwards, telling us how bad it would be for Iran to get nukes. Why? Because if they got them, they could use them to threaten other nations....just like the US is doing to Iran itself right now.

So basically the threat that we need to prevent is that Iran would be able to implement foreign policy in a manner similar to the US..

Its entirely understandable why the US and indeed the West, is keen to maintain the present world order, for entirely selfish reasons. But its not just the US who don't want the Iranians to have this technology, not one European country does either. The Russians aren't too bothered, no out of some innate sense of justice, but for their own, entirely selfish reasons too.

One has to draw the line somewhere, a few superpowers has been sufficient to keep the world from large scale war for some time now, adding more superpowers to the mix increases the risk of one of them doing something stupid. If I were a political / military risk assessor I would think Iran would have to be in the top 10 countries I would not want to see have nukes. Strategically because of their ability to threaten the entire middle eastern oil reserves, their borders with the very volatile Afghanistan and Iraq, and ideologically because of their religious leanings.

Hobbes

growler wrote:

I believe the current Iranian regime's ideology and leadership to be untrustworthy when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Why?

I would of thought Pakistan would be more serious a threat of someone letting a nuke off then most of the other countries.

growler

Hobbes wrote:

Why?

I would of thought Pakistan would be more serious a threat of someone letting a nuke off then most of the other countries.

Musharaf is a fairly astute military leader, he's unlikely to oversee a nuclear strike (presumably you mean against India, the traditional enemy?) since India can retaliate in kind. They both already have nukes so no point in debating the pros / cons of that, it maintains the status quo and has stopped what would otherwise have developed into a large scale conventional war over Kashmir.

Musharaf and his military are also US allies, are actively tackling their domestic islamists as part of the war on terror, the current regime itself is not a threat to the west. If fundamentalists held more sway in pakistan, I'd agree with you that they represent such a threat.

bonkey

growler wrote:

but no nuclear retaliation, perhaps I should have stated that.

Perhaps...

Its (unfortunately) not necessarily true. The US has recently made noises about not limiting its use of nuclear weapons to retaliatory strikes nor to strikes (retaliatory or otherwise) against nuclear nations.

In other words, they're slowly trying to set themselves a new standard of "when we feel we need to".

It would be overly simplistic to lay the last 70 years of peace entirely at the door of a nuclear threat, there were many other factors involved.

If it is overly suimplistic to suggest that it is only nuclear that has held the peace in Europe, it is equally overly simpluistic to suggest that simply possessing nuclear weapons somehow forms a credible threat of use. W

hat basis forms this credible threat? Everyone with nuclear weapons, no matter how desperate a corner they've been in, no matter how p1ssed off with anyone else they've been, no matter how despotic or unhinged the people in charge....they've all come to the same conclusion: using them is a bad idea.

The only nation who clearly disagrees with this policy at present is not Iran.

I could understand someone arguing that Iran was becoming or had become as significant a threat as the US, but how one nation openly saying "we won't rule out nuking you" is less of a threat than another nation saying "we only want this for peaceful purposes" (even where we don't believe them) is simply beyond me.

I believe the current Iranian regime's ideology and leadership to be untrustworthy when it comes to nuclear weapons.. yes.

So they're untrustworthy. OK. Are they suicidal? Make no mistake - thats the implication of use of nuclear weapons. While people are quick to point out how willing to die these alleged lunatics are, its amazing how rarely they commit suicide.

I'm not talking about the fanatical "foot-soldier" equivalent, now, I'm talking about the leaders.

Leaders use the death of others and the willingness of others to die. It is unbelievably rare for a leader to engage in an action which guarantees their own death. Its almost unheard of for a leader to engage in an action which almost certainly guarantees the death of their nation. The only leaders who can come close to deliberately and knowingly doing something like that...are people backed into corners with no other options. Rhetoric abotu hating Israel is all well and good, but exactly how many leaders and nations have already thrown themselves on their swords over this irrational hatred they apparently share? Thats right: exactly none.

Arming one more middle eastern country is likely to lead to the arming and/or sharing of nuclear technologies with even more countries in the region, it would be understandable for the Saudis, Egyptians, Iraqis to seek nukes to maintain the status quo.

I don't question the merit of preventing nuclear proliferation. I question the method by which the US is supposedly trying to achieve this goal.

I question the belief that the way to prevent such prolioferation is for the US to continue to modernise its nuclear agenda and further its own desires to make "battlefield nukes" and to make nuclear threats in order to prevent said proliferation....especially when every move it makes towards nuclear-enabled nations shows that having nukes is a far, far preferable position to deal with the US from than either trying to get them or simply not having them.

Given their political volatility, ethnic divisions, numerous armed militias / terrorist groups with unsavoury goals it seems like a massive risk to take,

It strikes me as unbelievably risky to continue to send the message that is currently being sent. I'm not saying do nothing, I'm saying do something else.

I'm the first person to agree that we don't want a nuclear-weaponised-world. I'm just never going to agree that the existing policies aganist proliferation are a smart way to avoid that eventuality, especially when we've seen how they've already failed.

a risk not only to our energy supplies in the west (which is significant)

If that was genuinely a concern, then we should be working to alleviate our reliance on said supplies....not working to ensure we can enforce the continuation of supply.

What if Afghanistan had nuclear technologies during the Taleban days, do you think they would have had any qualms about sharing their toys with Osama ?

Yes. I do, actually.

If these nations would be so quick to hand over nuclear technology, why have they been so slow to hand over chemical and biological tech? Why haevn't they handed over straight-forward radioactive material for "dirty bombs". Or, if they have, why haven't these terrorists widely used them?

As you said about peace in Europe...I don't believe its that simple.

or would you rather wait and see and run the risk of such weapons falling into the wrong hands, with potentially murderous consequences for western cities / israel ?

I would rather that we woke up and realised that the current policy mechanism has failed, is continuing to fail, and ultimately cannot prevent this type of doomsday scenario. I'm not even convinced they're an effective method of delay, nor that they're the only (nor even necessarily the most significant) factor preventing nuclear proliferation.

Its entirely understandable why the US and indeed the West, is keen to maintain the present world order, for entirely selfish reasons.

I'm glad we're agreed its selfish as opposed to righteous, correct or justified

But its not just the US who don't want the Iranians to have this technology, not one European country does either. The Russians aren't too bothered, no out of some innate sense of justice, but for their own, entirely selfish reasons too.

You notice who's absent from that list? The biggest threat people keep tellnig us a nuclear Iran would post is to Israel and yet Israel is keeping schtum about its opinion.

I wonder why it could be?

Given their utter lack of reticence to make clear that attacks on them would result in retaliation in kind and so forth in the past, one really has to wonder if they're as worried about Iran nuking them as the US and Europe claim to be.

Personally, I can see numerous reasons why Iran's enrichment policy is undesirable to the west, even if its not for weapons research. For that reason, I don't take the opposition of the EU as necessarily significant.

One has to draw the line somewhere,

That doesn't mean that everywhere the line can be drawn is equally good.

a few superpowers has been sufficient to keep the world from large scale war for some time now,

I would say that ever since we went from a few superpowers to effectively just one that large-scale war has beome less and less distant.

adding more superpowers to the mix increases the risk of one of them doing something stupid.

People often do stupid things when they're threatened. The more the US uses its "only military superpower" weight to bully other nations around and to selfishly preserve the world order that suits it, the more likely is that someone will do something stupid.

If I were a political / military risk assessor I would think Iran would have to be in the top 10 countries I would not want to see have nukes.

If I were a political / military risk assessor, I would be evaluating strategies to forestall / stop nuclear proliferation. I would certainly be looking to move away from the notion that some nations are "safe(r) bets" when it comes to nukes, and others aren't.

Look at Pakistan. Some years ago, Myusharraf was a despotic dictator who couldn't be trusted. Today, he's a valuable US ally who gets rewarded for denying international wishes and developing nuclear weapons as well as the nuclear program resulting in proliferation.

So is Pakistan a safe bet? Is Pakistan in ten years time a safe bet? There are no safe bets, there are just ones which look less risky.

Strategically because of their ability to threaten the entire middle eastern oil reserves, their borders with the very volatile Afghanistan and Iraq, and ideologically because of their religious leanings.

Yup. Iran is well positioned. Its the kinda strategic positioning that makes a nation powerful.

Hey...wouldn't it be great if there was another US-backed coup in there, and democracy got replaced by a US-friendly despotic leader. That would make everything safe again, cause all that power would be in the "right" hands.

Maybe even safe enough to allow Iran to have nukes.

jc

growler

bonkey wrote:

Yup. Iran is well positioned. Its the kinda strategic positioning that makes a nation powerful.

Hey...wouldn't it be great if there was another US-backed coup in there, and democracy got replaced by a US-friendly despotic leader. That would make everything safe again, cause all that power would be in the "right" hands.

Maybe even safe enough to allow Iran to have nukes.

jc

Not impossible and no doubt the preferred solution for the West, and for many in Iran.

I agree with you that I am being entirely selfish in my views. I wouldn't trust Iran with nukes because it is led by God botherers who (although you seem assured of their instinct for self preservation) have publicly declared themselves to have legions of volunteer suicide bombers. I don't want Iran to be able to hold western economies to ransom because they could disrupt the oil trade because that would very negatively impact on my life (and many others in Europe and the West). I don't actually have a problem with the US being the only interventionist superpower because I, "broadly speaking" , agree with their aims (though not always their methods). I don't want to see further nuclear proliferation, and I certainly don't want to see it profilerate in the middle east given the present trend towards a popular shift in ideologies towards fundamentalism.

You argue that nuclear weaponry is a threat only and no one will use it in the knowledge that it will invite their destruction, but I say why risk it at all ? The risk of someone starting a nuclear war if they don't have nukes is 0, the risk if they do is somewhat greater.

Iraq was unfortunate in that there was no WMD to justify the invasion, I can only hope that such military intervention will not happen again given the popular western dissatisfaction with what went on. The Iraqi precedent has done a lot of damage to the UN / Security council authority. If Iran comply with the UN then there should be no reason for them to be subject to military intervention.

Gurgle

growler wrote:

Iraq was unfortunate in that there was no WMD to justify the invasion,

Sorry, what?

As in the people of Iraq were unfortunate because Saddam had destroyed the WMD and could they could have done with them when they were invaded?

Or the US was unfortunate because they invaded a soverign nation under false pretences, against international law and against the UN and failed to find a justification afterwards?

growler

Gurgle wrote:

Sorry, what?

As in the people of Iraq were unfortunate because Saddam had destroyed the WMD and could they could have done with them when they were invaded?

Or the US was unfortunate because they invaded a soverign nation under false pretences, against international law and against the UN and failed to find a justification afterwards?

I don't understand your 1st sentence.

but

it was unfortunate in that it set a terrible precedent by the US and allies, it was unfortunate in that the invasion should never have happened, it was unfortunate in that it removed in the eyes of the ME and much of the west, any kind of perceived moral authority from the US in acting as a global policeman, it was unfortunate because had it not happened then the world might be more likely to support actions against Iran (or next nation tht may actually have wmd).

bonkey

growler wrote:

it was unfortunate because had it not happened then the world might be more likely to support actions against Iran (or next nation tht may actually have wmd).

If I understand what you're saying correctly, its unfortunate that the world has been alerted to the tactic of invading someone who doesn't have nuclear WMDs as now there would be more objections if it was used against Iran????

Is there (credible) proof that Iran even has an active nuclear weapons program? Or are we really looking at another "trust us...they do".

growler

bonkey wrote:

If I understand what you're saying correctly, its unfortunate that the world has been alerted to the tactic of invading someone who doesn't have nuclear WMDs as now there would be more objections if it was used against Iran????

Is there (credible) proof that Iran even has an active nuclear weapons program? Or are we really looking at another "trust us...they do".

There is no proof that Iran is currently seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. My point was that if they were to, given the intelligence failings in the Iraqi situation, the world (as in western public) would be more skeptical and less likely to support military intervention to stop it. Such reluctance, understanable in light of the mess made of Iraq, gives the initiative to those wishing to develop WMD. The "intelligence" leading to the iraqi invasion was obviously false, or manipulated by parties to pursue an anti saddam agenda. Admittedly the US may ignore the mistakes made in Iraq anyway and accept less than 100% proof as sufficient evidence for military intervention.

Hobbes

growler wrote:

There is no proof that Iran is currently seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Latest reported intel puts Iran at creating a Nuclear weapon that would be a threat in 10 years time.

bonkey

growler wrote:

My point was that if they were to, given the intelligence failings in the Iraqi situation, the world (as in western public) would be more skeptical and less likely to support military intervention to stop it.

Ok. That much I get.

I just don't get how from this one can conclude that the right thing to do is then to start trying to stop them from doing something we don't even know that they are doing.

Surely instead the US et al should be building credibility back up by making sure the next time it goes after someone it can offer slam-dunk non-mushroom-cloud-smoking-gun proof that there's a dangerous weapons program about.

I really don't get the "we made a mistake, so this time where we don't even have a mistaken belief to back us up we should make sure". What are they gonna say? We know you've no WMDs, don't think you've a program, so we're gonna invade to make sure?

Seriously...sending such a message is reinforcing the notion that if you have nukes you're safe but of you don't then you're fair game....even if you're not researching them!

growler

Hobbes wrote:

Latest reported intel puts Iran at creating a Nuclear weapon that would be a threat in 10 years time.

not that they're likley to be allowed get to that point.

growler

growler wrote:

I don't understand your 1st sentence.

but

it was unfortunate in that it set a terrible precedent by the US and allies, it was unfortunate in that the invasion should never have happened, it was unfortunate in that it removed in the eyes of the ME and much of the west, any kind of perceived moral authority from the US in acting as a global policeman, it was unfortunate because had it not happened then the world might be more likely to support actions against Iran (or next nation tht may actually have wmd).

I just don't get this kind of logic. The US lead invasion of Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraq had indeed had WMD's. Why? What justification is that? In what way had Iraq presented itself as a threat to Western or even eastern countries in the last 20 years? There was none. With the exception of the attack on Kuwait which the US intervened on (which i still don't understand why), Iraq hadn't created an armed conflict with anyone (unless you include Iran previously). [India/Pakhistan had a nice little conflict going on for decades, and yet neither side was decided to be a threat to the world. Why? They have very strong religious beliefs]

So where does this certain knowledge that if Saddam had WMD's he would have used them? As said earlier, a number of eastern nations have chemical/biological weapon knowledge, and yet that hasn't been used to near its potential.

And then we get back to Iran. All religious aspects aside. Where is the practical evidence that has generated the distrust in Iran?

Could they be Media generated or released by the US government? Its not as if either have been very forthcoming with actual evidence of threats. Have we seen more evidence like was presented before the invasion of Iraq, or have the US government learnt its lesson and resorted to rumormongering, which seems alot more effective............ :rolleyes:

growler

Deleted User wrote:

I just don't get this kind of logic. The US lead invasion of Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraq had indeed had WMD's. Why? What justification is that? In what way had Iraq presented itself as a threat to Western or even eastern countries in the last 20 years? There was none. With the exception of the attack on Kuwait which the US intervened on (which i still don't understand why), Iraq hadn't created an armed conflict with anyone (unless you include Iran previously). . :rolleyes:

think you've answered your own question there.

So in your eyes its perfectly acceptable to invade another nation simply because they were at war sometime in the last 20 years? Sure, in that case, the majority of Africa, S. America, and a fair number of other nations should have been pacified, sorry, I mean brought the joys of freedom and democracy, by US means.

Just wondering though... How does Iran fit in, since it hasn't been started any wars in the last 20+ years..? Where does the automatic disqualification of any trust come into it?

The only distrust I can come up with is ...lets say..... they have threatend to wipe Israel off the map and they have supplied the insurgents in Iraq with arms and money. If you look at it that way the U.S. are entitled to have some mistrust of Iran and their current regime.

InFront

Deleted User wrote:

The only distrust I can come up with is ...lets say..... they have threatend to wipe Israel off the map and they have supplied the insurgents in Iraq with arms and money.

Are you going to back that up?