Iran and the right to defend themselves

BluePlanet

anymore wrote: »

Your bias and prejudice against the US, a very common Irish phenomenon, isnt a substitute for some knowledge of the the history of Korea over the past fifty odd years.

Well, the Koreans weren't invited to the Potsdam Conference dividing their country.
I believe it was USA that proposed the 38th parallel.

conorhal

BluePlanet wrote: »

That about sums it up huh?

"I support a morally bankrupt Corpo-fascist states that abuse it's own citizens and wage war on other countries based on whims.
I believe that the only states that 'have the right' to possess weapons of mass destruction are Western ones."

Are you willfully ignorant or just stupid. I clearly said that I don't support the right (sic) of ANY state to possess weapons of mass destruction, and consider it a bad thing for any western state to possess one, and WORSE for any unstable, theocratic, undemocratic state to aspire to doing so.


I" believe that I know what's best politically, including political structures of other counties and cultures in the world."

I (and every right thinking enlightened person) do. I believe that secular, human rights based democratic government is the best form of available government to ensure the security and prosperity of it's people. I believe in the cultural values of The Enlightenment and their adoption as the principles of the French revolution. I believe you to be a deluded eejit that would cut off his nose to spite his face because he is so warped by hatred for US foreign policy that you would literally excuse kim jong il and his likes any atrocity if it served your ideological argument, making you as morally bankrupt as the fascists you support. If you hate the west so much why don’t you try living in Iran instead, you know, where you can join all theior other communist revolutionaries languishing in their prisons?


"I enjoy my materialist Americana and don't understand that capitalism requires someone else provide the exploited labor and resources."

But you've not a word of criticism for the kind of exploitation and abuse that takes place in Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan ect? Your moral relativism sickens me.

The Saint

conorhal wrote: »

fascist...

I really think you need to look up the definition of fascism instead of throwing incorrectly around in hyperbole.

BluePlanet

conorhal wrote: »

Are you willfully ignorant or just stupid. I clearly said that I don't support the right (sic) of ANY state to possess weapons of mass destruction, and consider it a bad thing for any western state to possess one, and WORSE for any unstable, theocratic, undemocratic state to aspire to doing so.

Let me get this right, in your opinion its worse for one state to aspire to wmd, than it is for another to actually have them? Even when they've used them in the past against civilians AND are currently making implicit threats against that aspiring one?
Bizarre, though decidedly imperialist of you.

conorhal wrote: »

I (and every right thinking enlightened person) do.

So every "right thinking person", hold's the view that other countries political structures are inferior or bad, and that only Western philosphy and political structures are the "correct ones".
Sounds intolerant to me tbh, probably a touch of racism in there too.
Is it any wonder people in the ME are rather dubious of Western interference there?

conorhal wrote: »

that you would literally excuse kim jong il and his likes any atrocity if it served your ideological argument

I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks as they are against the charter here.
But to be pedantic, i do not literally or otherwise exuse Kim Jong Il of any atrocity. I have only rationalised why NK prefers to arm themselves with nukes.
I also made the point that researching/developing nukes is probably not responsible for famine.

Scofflaw

Can we calm it down a bit, please? Particularly you, conorhal.

moderately,
Scofflaw

conorhal

The Saint wrote: »

I really think you need to look up the definition of fascism instead of throwing incorrectly around in hyperbole.

Well, that depends on your definition.
A quick wikipedia or google will tall you that fascism is defined as:

A radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.

That sounds exactly like Iran or North Korea's style of governance to me. The assumption that facism is a right wing or left wing ideology is a fallacy, it's a quite flexible ideology that can be theocratic too.

BluePlanet

conorhal wrote: »

Well, that depends on your definition.
A quick wikipedia or google will tall you that fascism is defined as:

A radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.

That sounds exactly like Iran or North Korea's style of governance to me. The assumption that facism is a right wing or left wing ideology is a fallacy, it's a quite flexible ideology that can be theocratic too.

Nationalism and Theocracy are not the same things.
Iranian parties are not particularly nationalist.
Not sure about NK but i reckon it's similar.
People there want a united Korea, that's not quite the same thing as Nationalism.

anymore

BluePlanet wrote: »

Well, the Koreans weren't invited to the Potsdam Conference dividing their country.
I believe it was USA that proposed the 38th parallel.

It is only the presence of US that has prevented Nr Korea from over running Sth Korea thse past fifty years, you are aware of that surely ! Yet you continue to treat the US as some kind of ' Bogey Man.

BluePlanet

anymore wrote: »

It is only the presence of US that has prevented Nr Korea from over running Sth Korea thse past fifty years, you are aware of that surely ! Yet you continue to treat the US as some kind of ' Bogey Man.

It's just that I see the Korean penninsula under China's "Sphere of Influence" rather than America's.
Oh wait, maybe it's only America that gets one of those!

conorhal

BluePlanet wrote: »

Nationalism and Theocracy are not the same things.
Iranian parties are not particularly nationalist.
Not sure about NK but i reckon it's similar.
People there want a united Korea, that's not quite the same thing as Nationalism.

True, nationalism and theocracy are not the same thing, but whenever you hear Ahmadinejad speak, often what he says is couched in very aggressively nationalistic language. From space programs to weapons testing everything is for the "greater glory of Iran" this or "our nations pride" that. And nobody but nobody demands a more fervent 'grin till your face cracks' kind of nationalism then North Korea. Everything, when it's not in deference to the personality cult of Kim, is an endless parade designed to inspire unquestioning nationalistic fervor. Both nations heavily promote a kind of simplistic, triumphalist nationalism of the kind plugged by War Bond sales-men or the likes of Dev here in the 50's, but we were no more 'comely maidens dancing at the crossroads' then the Korean marchers are 'grateful and smiling, happy citizens of a great communist nation'.

eoin5

conorhal wrote: »

4) Iran have never been shy about supporting terrorism and terrorist groups. They are a fascist regime. They are ruled by islamist ideologues with no care or consequence for their own people and.. well I could go on (and on), but the gist of what I'm saying is that they are exactly to kind of people that you don't want with their finger on the button.

You can make a statement like this for any country:

Ireland has its roots in terrorism, the current regime is an oligarchy with strong ties to expansionist multinational corporations in the west. There is no free speech in ireland and it has direct references to religion in its constitution. They supported the illegal terrorist war against the Iraqi nation. These are not the people who you want with the finger on the button.

I'm not saying all of that is definitely true, but neither is what you say about Iran. No-one has any right to stand on the soap-box and preach about whos better.

conorhal

eoin5 wrote: »

You can make a statement like this for any country:

Ireland has its roots in terrorism, the current regime is an oligarchy with strong ties to expansionist multinational corporations in the west. There is no free speech in ireland and it has direct references to religion in its constitution. They supported the illegal terrorist war against the Iraqi nation. These are not the people who you want with the finger on the button.

I'm not saying all of that is definitely true, but neither is what you say about Iran. No-one has any right to stand on the soap-box and preach about whos better.

What you say is true(ish).

I don't believe that western democracy is perfect, far from it, especially when you look at the sorry state of affairs that our own nation is in at the moment, but i'll go with (that warmongering but very quotable) Churchill who remarked, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government ...except all the others that have been tried.”

However, I stand by my claim as broadly true, "some animals are more equal than others" as Orwell said, and so it is that some statements are 'more true' than others.
You can say that 'there is no free speach in Ireland, and justifiably cite our restictive libel laws, but there is a world of a difference between that fact and the reality of speaking your mind in North Korea, where the slightest dissention, true or not, verifiable or not, will see you put againt a wall and shot. It's all a bit Matthew 7:3 (yep, I'm even going to get quotey again) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" In other words, North Korea is a big 'effin plank.
I have a real loathing for arguments that trade in moral equivalency, as if one wrong cancels out another. I believe that we should all be held accountable to a basic moral standard, we may at times fall short, but that does not excuse somebody else or justify their behavior.
I don't think for example that we should inter and torture Limerick criminals just because America hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay, nor would I accept that as a defense if we did do something like that. It must be very depressing for a political dissident in Iran or N. Korea to hear that attitude.
After all, how can you expect us to maintain our own standards if we assert that they have no value?

BluePlanet

conorhal wrote: »

but there is a world of a difference between that fact and the reality of speaking your mind in North Korea, where the slightest dissention, true or not, verifiable or not, will see you put againt a wall and shot.

Total red herring.
No one here has argued that other countries need to emulate NK.
Freedom of speech and treatment of opposition have absolutely nothing to do with the right of countries to defend themselves against war mongering nuclear powers.

conorhal

BluePlanet wrote: »

Total red herring.
No one here has argued that other countries need to emulate NK.

I didn't argue that, I was arguing that univeral human rights should not be viewed as subjectively admissable.

Freedom of speech and treatment of opposition have absolutely nothing to do with the right of countries to defend themselves against war mongering nuclear powers.

I don't believe for a second believe that there are N. Korean troops on the boarder of S. Korea to keep the 'war mongering nuclear powers' out, I believe that they are there to keep their own people in, as tends to be the case with such highly militarized dictatorships.

BluePlanet

conorhal wrote: »

I don't believe for a second that there are N. Korean troops on the boarder of S. Korea to keep the 'war mongering nuclear powers' out, I believe that they are there to keep their own people in, as tends to be the case with such highly militarized dictatorships.

I didn't say anything about NK standing army whatsoever.
Are you suggesting NK developed nukes to aim them at their own citizens?
Bizarre.
Whether NK is a "military dictatorshp" or not is entirely moot in a discussion about the right of Iran to defend itself.

RandomName2

eoin5 wrote: »

When I hear most people on the Iranian nuclear issue they seem to be thinking along the lines of a new North Korea. While they definitely arent internationally innocent, they have been messed with so much with operation Ajax and the 10 year war and whatnot that I'm not surprised that would want to become a nuclear power from just wanting to defend themselves.

The nuclear deproliferation treaty has only got gestures from the bigger countries, a promise here and a nuclear sub there. I dont like it but I can see why they would ignore it.

Why should they give in to international pressure?

Why should France and the British Empire stand in the way of the Reich's rearmament of the Rhine? Is it not their own backyard?

For too long international sanctions and cultural pressure has been heaped upon the Germans. Sure, under the new nationalist-socialist regime they are no longer a democracy; but that is separate from their legitimate desire to defend themselves. Okay, I know that their leader (the Führer, I believe he's called) has called for the extermination of Jews, but those are merely hollow words that address a rightful indignation at the economic turbulence his country suffered less than a decade ago. So I say to hell to international condemnation: allow Hitler to arm the Rhineland, and defend Germany, if he so likes.

The same with the Reich's attempts to build up her armed forces. This has been done surreptitiously till this point - and can you blame them with the sabre rattling from the Western Allies and the Red menace in the east? Germany is hemmed in by enemies and is hamstrung in its attempt to have anything resembling a modern army, whilst her neighbours are free to build up forces, as large as they like, with no restraint. Even if Germany is given the freedom accorded to the other European powers, she will only achieve a parity with them, which she rightly deserves.

BluePlanet

Unfortunately your analogy doesn't quite fit, as the rearmament of the Reich took place shortly on the heels of WWI.

While Iran has been recovering from a war instigated by USA's friendly: Saddam.

conorhal

BluePlanet wrote: »

I didn't say anything about NK standing army whatsoever.
Are you suggesting NK developed nukes to aim them at their own citizens?
Bizarre.
Whether NK is a "military dictatorshp" or not is entirely moot in a discussion about the right of Iran to defend itself.

The standing army is there to suppress ,and ensure the compliance, of the citizenry. The nukes are there to ensure their isolationist stance and to make N.K. a member of a very small club that, as long as their standing army can control the general population, can never be held accountable for whatever atrocity they care to perpetrate against their own citizens. Like starving millions of them to death for example. They are there to ensure everybody tempers their critisism of N.K. and as an occasional blackmail ploy to extract some hard currency (when they're not busy printing it themselves) from the West.
I think that whether or not N.K. is a "military dictatorship" is entirely relevant to a discussion about the right of Iran to defend itself because Iran is employing the same dictatorial tactics as N.K. to ensure that it’s bankrupt and discredited administration can hang on to power indefinitely. At the same time as persuing and increasingly isolationist policy like N.K., they too want a saber to rattle and a political bargaining chip that they can use to deflect any criticism or their actions. It's a silly and stupid ploy that can only end badly after a lot of suffering by the general population at the hands of their leadership.

RandomName2

BluePlanet wrote: »

Unfortunately your analogy doesn't quite fit, as the rearmament of the Reich took place shortly on the heels of WWI.

While Iran has been recovering from a war instigated by USA's friendly: Saddam.

Thank God Saddam waged war upon them. As Kissinger said, shame they couldn't both lose. I suppose Saddam did lose in the end though by overplaying his hand. Fortunately Saddam was denied nuclear weapons by a preemptive Israeli military action, otherwise forcing him out of Kuwait (or possibly Saudi Arabia :eek:) would have been impossible.

Germany may have just emerged from WW1: but they argued that they were forced into that war by circumstances and that their own economy was torpedoed by events outside of their control. The point was not to look at the cause of their grievance, but at their response. Military dictatorship, attempts at world domination, and the Holocaust were not appropriate reactions to the fall of the Weimar economy or the harsh terms of surrender from WW1. Harsh military crazy dictatorship in Iran, which actively seeks the annihilation of Israel and annexation of Iraq is something that should not be allowed have nuclear weaponry. If only everything in life was so simple to answer :rolleyes:

wes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Harsh military crazy dictatorship in Iran, which actively seeks the annihilation of Israel and annexation of Iraq is something that should not be allowed have nuclear weaponry. If only everything in life was so simple to answer :rolleyes:

Iran isn't trying to annex Iraq, and there is no proof to support such a claim.

Iran isn't seeking to annhilate Israel, now there President called for regime change, which make him as bad as Bush.

There is no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear program.

RandomName2

wes wrote: »

Iran isn't trying to annex Iraq, and there is no proof to support such a claim.
Iran isn't seeking to annhilate Israel, now there President called for regime change, which make him as bad as Bush.
There is no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear program.

Apart from the Iranian invasion of Iraq.
Apart from Iran's promise to annhilate Israel
Apart from Iran's attempt to gain nuclear weaponry
Apart from the fact that Ahmadinejad is a dictator with the backing of a fundamentalist Shiite Church that has a stranglehold upon the state of Iran...

You are absolutely correct. They did call for a regime change.

http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?ID=355&t=IRAN'S-PRESIDENT-AHMADINEJAD-&-ADOLF-HITLER

wes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Apart from the Iranian invasion of Iraq.

Never happened, Iraq invaded Iran.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Apart from Iran's promise to annhilate Israel

Fiction, they called for regime change.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Apart from Iran's attempt to gain nuclear weaponry

There is no evidence of a active nuclear program.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Apart from the fact that Ahmadinejad is a dictator with the backing of a fundamentalist Shiite Church that has a stranglehold upon the state of Iran...

No, the Supreme Leader would be the dictator actually. You don't seem to know much about the Iranian political system.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are absolutely correct. They did call for a regime change.

http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?ID=355&t=IRAN'S-PRESIDENT-AHMADINEJAD-&-ADOLF-HITLER[

A bad translation, he compared Israel to the Soviet Union, which collapsed, and as such was talking about regime change, and not genocide, as incorrectly asserted by yourself.

BluePlanet

It's like these threads bring readers of The Sun and watchers of Fox News out of the woodwork.

RandomName2

wes wrote: »

Never happened, Iraq invaded Iran.

Fiction, they called for regime change.

Ahmadinejad calls Israel a "rotten, dried tree," that will be annihilated by a storm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-121922046.html

The radical president who in December called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” said on Friday that the Jewish state was “heading towards annihilation”.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/special-wire/iran-s-ahmadinejad-says-israel-close-to-annihilation-06774.html

Iran’s Ahmadinejad says “evil” Israel will be “annihilated”
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/iran-s-ahmadinejad-says-evil-israel-will-be-annihilated-07166.html

err... etc.

Iran launched an invasion of Iraq in 1982 which eventually reached a stalemate. Since the fall of Saddam they have continually interfered in the politics of the country, killing numerous coalition soldiers.

But hey, if you support Iran, you support Iran. Death to the shah, communists, zionists and imperialist infidel, etc.

wes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ahmadinejad calls Israel a "rotten, dried tree," that will be annihilated by a storm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-121922046.html

I am not registering to see that article.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The radical president who in December called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” said on Friday that the Jewish state was “heading towards annihilation”.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/special-wire/iran-s-ahmadinejad-says-israel-close-to-annihilation-06774.html

Thats the same story as above....

RandomName2 wrote: »

Iran’s Ahmadinejad says “evil” Israel will be “annihilated”
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/iran-s-ahmadinejad-says-evil-israel-will-be-annihilated-07166.html

Yes, and he mentioned the regime earlier in the article, which is what he is talking about.

RandomName2 wrote: »

err... etc.

Well, seeing as your sources are called Iran focus, I do find them questionable.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Iran launched an invasion of Iraq in 1982 which eventually reached a stalemate. Since the fall of Saddam they have continually interfered in the politics of the country, killing numerous coalition soldiers.

All you claims here factually incorrect. Iraq started the war, not Iran. This is a well known fact.

There is no proof of the claims made by the US regarding Iranian support of insurgents in Iran.

RandomName2 wrote: »

But hey, if you support Iran, you support Iran. Death to the shah, communists, zionists and imperialist infidel, etc.

I don't support Iran, but I do take issue with false claims such as yours.

RandomName2

wes wrote: »

All you claims here factually incorrect. Iraq started the war, not Iran. This is a well known fact.

We all know that Iraq started it. I didn't bother producing tons of articles which said the same thing, particularly ones produced in Israel, which might be considered biased.

wes

RandomName2 wrote: »

We all know that Iraq started it. I didn't bother producing tons of articles which said the same thing, particularly ones produced in Israel, which might be considered biased.

Yes, and Iran was defending itself during that war. I fail to see how this is a mark against them, they have a right to defend themselves.

anymore

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's like these threads bring readers of The Sun and watchers of Fox News out of the woodwork.

Are the readers of these papers the ones who produce all these anti Israeli threads ?
Problem is that a growing number of irish people are seeing for themselves the consequences of constantly placating the terrorists of this part of the world; we see it every time we head to an airport ! That is not something The Sun can be blamed for. Fox News cant be blamed for the slaughter of 9/11 or the mass murders in the UK or any of the suicide mass murders perpertrated by Islamic terrorists globally. The SUn and Fox may be biased, they may distort news for thier own advantage. They do not brainwash kids into turning themselves into human bombs or spend years firing rockets at civilians or murdering thier politicial opponents. So who does ? We know Iran finances terror internationally. Fox doesnt, nor does the Sun. Fox and the Sun may leave a bad taste in ones mouth, they do not leave corpses.

Nodin

anymore wrote: »

Are the (...........) they do not leave corpses.

Iran is not linked to those events. They are Shia and considered apostate by the Jihadists. Shia muslims are a regular target of their attacks - far more than Westerners. Please at least try to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the subject.

Nodin

anymore wrote: »

Are the(........) leave corpses.

And as I posted earlier -

Iran is not linked to those events. They are Shia and considered apostate by the Jihadists. Shia muslims are a regular target of their attacks - far more than Westerners.

Why are you posting the same thing twice, when you've already been shown that you are in error, and without addressing the refutation?