Sickened by treatment of Iran

paky

Ive become quite sickened by the treatment of Iran by the international community. Its like Iraq all over again. The west building a case against Iran to justify a war and the EU involving us in this massive cospiracy. Yes there are problems with Iran but I dont think any invasion is justified and the scale of the conflict will be massive if there is one. I cant see why we can allow ourselves to be involved in this.

Fo Real

Have you been living under a rock for the past decade?

• Look how the Iranian government treated it's own citizens during the Green Revolution last summer
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to make regular threats against Israel and the USA ("wipe Israel off the map")
• He denied that homosexuals exist in Iran while speaking at an American university
• Iran are known sponsors of terrorism and fund insurgents to kill American and British soldiers in Iraq
• The country continues to pursue nuclear technology in defiance of international law

Iran should have been invaded in 2003, not Iraq.

halkar

Fo Real wrote: »

Have you been living under a rock for the past decade?

• Look how the Iranian government treated it's own citizens during the Green Revolution last summer
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to make regular threats against Israel and the USA ("wipe Israel off the map")
• He denied that homosexuals exist in Iran while speaking at an American university
• Iran are known sponsors of terrorism and fund insurgents to kill American and British soldiers in Iraq
• The country continues to pursue nuclear technology in defiance of international law

Iran should have been invaded in 2003, not Iraq.

You forgot Iran has Petrol and Gas :rolleyes:

paky

Fo Real wrote: »

Have you been living under a rock for the past decade?

• Look how the Iranian government treated it's own citizens during the Green Revolution last summer
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to make regular threats against Israel and the USA ("wipe Israel off the map")
• He denied that homosexuals exist in Iran while speaking at an American university
• Iran are known sponsors of terrorism and fund insurgents to kill American and British soldiers in Iraq
• The country continues to pursue nuclear technology in defiance of international law

Iran should have been invaded in 2003, not Iraq.

Are you kidding me?

• Wiping Israel off the map was taken out of context (to be honest I wouldnt care if it was)
• Homosexualuality was illegal in Ireland and europe not too long ago
• America and Britain are known sponsors of terrorism
• Iran continues to pursue nuclear technology...so what? Iraq did the same and got obliterated and guess what? no weapons were found.

Fo Real

paky wrote: »

• Wiping Israel off the map was taken out of context (to be honest I wouldnt care if it was)

Right, that says it all to me about what kind of person you are.
I won't be contributing to this thread again.

Good evening.

Macha

Fo Real wrote: »

[/LIST]
Right, that says it all to me about what kind of person you are.
I won't be contributing to this thread again.

Good evening.

Actually it was a mistranslation. He was talking about the fact that Iran doesn't recognise Israel as a legitimate government. The mistranslation of this into a military threat was a bit of Western propaganda.

john hanrahan

things in Iran not good but there are other countries in the middle east, asia or africa with issues which do not attract the same attention as Iran.

why should the west be bothered with Iran is Iraq any better because of the west's intervention? taking into account the lies we were told and the lives that were lost maybe not.

i remember an American president announcing that they had launched a nuclear attack on Russia, but thats not good enough reason for the Russians to invade.

if a foreign power decided that our goverment wasn't treating its people right and they didnt like our relationship with our neighbours, maybe we harboured terrorists, should we be invaded and a puppet government put in place?

north korea must be far worse but no talk of war, its inconsistent

a bit of a rant but i feel since the Iraq war i cannot believe the spin

starting an unnecessary war is a crime

Jumpy

Fo Real wrote: »

[/LIST]
Right, that says it all to me about what kind of person you are.
I won't be contributing to this thread again.

Good evening.

Erm, it actually says a tad more about yourself I think.

It was a deliberate mistranslation. You know the media hypes things up right? The news is not like a sort of "whats happening right now" encyclopedia. You have to do a bit of your own thinking.

Hazlittle

The sanctions prevent the merchant class from rising against the Republican Guard.

The hole anti-Iran thing is dumb.

Mahatma coat

Hazlittle wrote: »

The sanctions prevent the merchant class from rising against the Republican Guard.

The hole anti-Iran thing is dumb.

that is a Good point.

I still havent heard a Valid explanation of What give the US and its Lackies the Right to interfere in the affairs of another Soverign State.

Would someone like to explain it to us all.

FlutterinBantam

Sure.

The fact that most of the free world wouldn't want the mad mullahs in that neck of the woods with a nuclear bomb at their disposal.

I suppose you would be quite happy with that?


I certainly wouldn't.

SuperInfinity

Fo Real wrote: »

Have you been living under a rock for the past decade?

• Look how the Iranian government treated it's own citizens during the Green Revolution last summer
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to make regular threats against Israel and the USA ("wipe Israel off the map")
• He denied that homosexuals exist in Iran while speaking at an American university
• Iran are known sponsors of terrorism and fund insurgents to kill American and British soldiers in Iraq
• The country continues to pursue nuclear technology in defiance of international law

Iran should have been invaded in 2003, not Iraq.

This is exactly the type of retarded rhetoric the US has been spouting for years now. Congratulations on getting on board behind good ol', terrorist country who massacres millions of civilians for economic reasons on a regular basis, Uncle Sam.

Your example of the misquote is a well-known mistranslation of a statement that Ahmadinejad made YEARS ago, regular? What he said was that Israel shouldn't even be there on the map in the first place (I also believe it shouldn't, the Jews just came in and stole the Arab's land). That's your example of "regular"? You obviously don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about, apart from some pop-politics and soundbites you picked up so you could pretend you knew about politics, so I would just quit it before you embarrass yourself further. Get a CLUE.

He didn't say they have ZERO homosexuals, he just said that THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM LIKE THE US HAS THEM, THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF CULTURE OF IT AS THEY DO IT IN THE US. It's also worth mentioning that exclusive homosexuals DO NOT exist in the ANY other animal other than human beings, so even if he were saying zero homosexuals, it wouldn't be THAT absurd a claim to make. People believe in far stranger things. But he was NOT saying that anyway.

As for the people don't want Ahmadinedad... Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected president and the current consensus is that the majority of the Iranian people still want him. This is in stark contrast to the US president, who many don't want!!!! Are we to call Obama a dictator and the US a fascist or corrupt nation because of the Tea Party movement? We can point and say "hey look at all those people, they don't want their leader".

These are really the best sound bites you can come up with after years and years of it? Wow, if only we had time enough to mistranslate, misquote and misinterpret all of the things Obama and Bush have stated...

Mahatma coat

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Sure.

The fact that most of the free world wouldn't want the mad Rabbis in that neck of the woods with a nuclear bomb at their disposal.

I suppose you would be quite happy with that?


I certainly wouldn't.

FYP

SuperInfinity

Mahatma coat wrote: »

FYP

The rabbis already have them.

The only thing I can say in the mad Israel's favour is that I don't think they have the self-discipline to resist their routine massacre and cruelty of innocent Arabic civilians for long enough to gain the trust of the UN and the rest of the world.

If could do that then maybe they could escalate things and say something like the nuke was a defence, but as it is we're onto their ****.

old_aussie

paky wrote: »

Are you kidding me?

• Wiping Israel off the map was taken out of context (to be honest I wouldnt care if it was)

And there lies the problem

the_dark_side

Hazlittle wrote: »

The sanctions prevent the merchant class from rising against the Republican Guard.

The hole anti-Iran thing is dumb.

I hate to be a nerd, but its 'whole'

Clawdeeus

Im curious is there anyone who thinks Iran is being treated unfairly who also does not believe Israel is a terrorist state?

Seems to me that you are not looking for the (blatantly clear) reasons Iran is looked upon with suspicion and as a threat, all in a mad rush to lionise anyone who stands in oppostion to Israel or the West. Its a little sad.

Also, that is hardly the only time Iranian officials have used aggressive rhetoric, every week or so the top news on www.presstv.ir is one guy or another threatening the west with either defeat or some childish accusation of cowardise.

Its usually not some sort of threat to wipe Israel of the map, but can certainly be enough to demonstrate to any reasonable person that it should not be treated in the same way (say) Egypt or Syria are.

Homosexuals are hung in Iran, often publicly from cranes, so your right they are probably not found out and about as they would in the US.

Ahmadinejad won more votes in his main competitors home town than the competitor had working for him. Sure it might have happened. But then I doubt it. The irrelevance of the elections regardless make this a moot point.


You are really trying to defend Iran with regard to its gay-rights record and its devotion to democracy? You people stick a flag on that particular hill? Ridiculous.



"i remember an American president announcing that they had launched a nuclear attack on Russia, but thats not good enough reason for the Russians to invade."

Way to take that out of context. :rolleyes:

Clawdeeus

the_dark_side wrote: »

I hate to be a nerd, but its 'whole'

Dislike. Get out nerd. :pac:

Jeboa Safari

paky wrote: »

Are you kidding me?

• Wiping Israel off the map was taken out of context (to be honest I wouldnt care if it was)
• Homosexualuality was illegal in Ireland and europe not too long ago
• America and Britain are known sponsors of terrorism
• Iran continues to pursue nuclear technology...so what? Iraq did the same and got obliterated and guess what? no weapons were found.

so your upset about the thoughts of invasion of one country (which is led by a lunatic) but you wouldn't mind seeing another country getting wiped off the map...
Seems a bit hypocritical to me...

SuperInfinity

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Im curious is there anyone who thinks Iran is being treated unfairly who also does not believe Israel is a terrorist state?

Seems to me that you are not looking for the (blatantly clear) reasons Iran is looked upon with suspicion and as a threat, all in a mad rush to lionise anyone who stands in oppostion to Israel or the West. Its a little sad.

Also, that is hardly the only time Iranian officials have used aggressive rhetoric, every week or so the top news on www.presstv.ir is one guy or another threatening the west with either defeat or some childish accusation of cowardise.

The US are full of their aggressive rhetoric every single time they speak. You cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me that it's okay for the US and Israel to continually threaten war on their civilians and actually killing many of their civilians and yet it's not okay for the other side to say anything that you might stretch out in some ridiculous way to make it sound like a threat.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Its usually not some sort of threat to wipe Israel of the map, but can certainly be enough to demonstrate to any reasonable person that it should not be treated in the same way (say) Egypt or Syria are.

Syria are a part of the *cue creepy horror music* "axis of evil" remember? The US hates Syria just the same as it does Iran.

"any reasonable person", yeah by saying things like that you're just showing how childish and silly you are... saying anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't reasonable.

Where are these threats or aggressive statements anyway? To put it bluntly: put up or shut up.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Homosexuals are hung in Iran, often publicly from cranes, so your right they are probably not found out and about as they would in the US.

No, never at least not in modern times. It is THEORETICALLY a part of a wide range of punishments for PUBLIC displays of homosexuality, the same can be said for stealing etc. Iranians are allowed to do exactly as they please in their own private homes, they are never stopped from doing that. Ahmadinejad has said that homosexuals can freely practice in their own home himself.

A lot of this stuff is archaic legal wording and technicalities. I do agree that Iran has problems with how the death penalty option seems to be so possible (this perception propelled by western propaganda), but it is only gone through with in reality for crimes like murder. I'm sure in America we could find archaic law clauses that show that you could be hung for taking a neighbour's milk without asking or something as well.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Ahmadinejad won more votes in his main competitors home town than the competitor had working for him. Sure it might have happened. But then I doubt it. The irrelevance of the elections regardless make this a moot point.

So let's ignore the absolute worthlessness of your paragraph after your last sentence makes the rest of it completely redundant, you're just flat-out denying that a correctly done election in Iran was legitimate? It was done as fairly and openly as one in the US is. Few people dispute that. There are allegations of fraud in the US voting as well. You are thinking of places like Afghanistan where there actually be a big issue with it. I mean, you actually did well on your last point.. but this!!!

Clawdeeus wrote: »

You are really trying to defend Iran with regard to its gay-rights record and its devotion to democracy? You people stick a flag on that particular hill? Ridiculous.

"i remember an American president announcing that they had launched a nuclear attack on Russia, but thats not good enough reason for the Russians to invade."

Way to take that out of context. :rolleyes:

All of the Iranian "quotes" are taken ridiculously out of context and mistranslated as well. After all those years the best they can come up with is the ol' "wiped off the map" mistranslation. It's a bad joke.

Clawdeeus

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The US are full of their aggressive rhetoric every single time they speak. You cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me that it's okay for the US and Israel to continually threaten war on their civilians and actually killing many of their civilians and yet it's not okay for the other side to say anything that you might stretch out in some ridiculous way to make it sound like a threat.

Examples of what you consider aggressive and to be "full" of it. Because I have a feeling Im going to disagree with your definition.
I didnt say it was ok, you did. I merely pointed out Im not suprised when countries act negativly. That goes for both sides.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Syria are a part of the *cue creepy horror music* "axis of evil" remember? The US hates Syria just the same as it does Iran.

Whats your point? MY point was that Syria is treated differently, almost purely because it is not as aggressive, even though it is on the same "bad guys" list. Very easy for Iran to be in the same catagory.

Your confused as to why the US pushes for sanctions on a country that they (at least fear) are building nuclear weapons when it is common practice for their leaders to refer to it as "the great satan"? I dont think reasonable people would see why it is treated differently by the US, and by proxy her allies.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

No, never at least not in modern times. It is THEORETICALLY a part of a wide range of punishments for PUBLIC displays of homosexuality, the same can be said for stealing etc. Iranians are allowed to do exactly as they please in their own private homes, they are never stopped from doing that. Ahmadinejad has said that homosexuals can freely practice in their own home himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071902061.html
just a quick google search, again this is a moot point, there are plenty of other countries which treat gays awfully and are not sanctioned repeatadly, so I really dont see why you try and defend it/ deny it.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

So let's ignore the absolute worthlessness of your paragraph after your last sentence makes the rest of it completely redundant, you're just flat-out denying that a correctly done election in Iran was legitimate? It was done as fairly and openly as one in the US is. Few people dispute that. There are allegations of fraud in the US voting as well. You are thinking of places like Afghanistan where there actually be a big issue with it. I mean, you actually did well on your last point.. but this!!!

Just trying to pre empt the argument I knew you would make. Yes I am, I dont think it is too much of a leap of logic to say it was illegitimate when many constituencies reported 100%+ voter turnout, 100s of other 95%+ and no international monitors are allowed, followed by a massive clampdown on protestors looking for a recount. Its obvious you already have your mind made up, despite there being little evidence of a valid election, piles to the contrary.

Few deny it? Au contraire. Ill let you do a google.

Are you trying to say Iran is a functioning democracy? Again, this is not even relevant, I am merely pointing out that pretty much everything pro-Iran posted in this thread has so far been wrong. There is little evidence of a valid election, piles to the contrary.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

All of the Iranian "quotes" are taken ridiculously out of context and mistranslated as well. After all those years the best they can come up with is the ol' "wiped off the map" mistranslation. It's a bad joke.

Doubt it, although I do agree the "wiped off the map" quote is used to often.

Really its not hard to see why Iran is a target, it is aggressive (or is at least rumoured to be in Iraq, these alegations were made by Iraqi officials, before people start screaming "Western Propoganda"), consistantly antagonizes other states (going so far as to get into a diplomatic spat over the name of the Persian gulf recently), kicked IAEA inspectors from the country, and is a theocracy that brands itself as a "revolution" with express aims of exporting said revolution(ie its particular brand of political Islam). Whats more, it is a regional power. It may be just a strange, friendly state (maybe) but Iran does little to assuage the fears of world/ regional powers. Its leadership is much more interested in staying in power than furthering the people who live in the country. Seems to me its less an enormous western conspiracy to destroy Iran, and much more a reaction to Iranian behaviour (or at least their leaderships).

Also, Iran has alot more enemies that just the West, for example, any Arab countries.

sponsoredwalk

Fo Real wrote: »

Have you been living under a rock for the past decade?

• Look how the Iranian government treated it's own citizens during the Green Revolution last summer
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to make regular threats against Israel and the USA ("wipe Israel off the map")
• He denied that homosexuals exist in Iran while speaking at an American university
• Iran are known sponsors of terrorism and fund insurgents to kill American and British soldiers in Iraq
• The country continues to pursue nuclear technology in defiance of international law

Iran should have been invaded in 2003, not Iraq.

I'll just point out the following;

• Look how the Israeli government treats Palestinian citizens & has been doing for the past 60 years...
• The Israeli government have been sabotaging peace talks & peace attempts with the Arabs for years, including the Oslo process as a recently leaked audiotape has proven.
• They have denied Palestinian peoples rights while propagating myths about peace at many an American university & even the White House, even though the goals are subordination and sabotage.
• Israel are known sponsors of terrorism and have historically secretly funded Iran to kill soldiers in Iraq & have funded soldiers to kill men, women & children as they use white phosphorous on them in civilian apartment complexes.
• The country continues to pursue nuclear technology in defiance of international law.

What is the point of all this?

If we're going to feign moral reasons for all the Iran controversey then we should take these morals of ours & see how they apply to
something closer to home first... It doesn't stand up, none of the propaganda stands up as we continue to have similar policies ourselves (as members of the Western world).

This kind of inquiry could be done to the U.S. in a drastically more extreme way. Of course we could do these kinds of inquiries into Iranian, Iraqi, etc...
human rights violations but if we're to believe the global paradigm we don't speak for them. They are the enemy & we are the good guys...


Now, what about Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Rwanda, Gaza etc... where people live under horrendous conditions?
If the West is going to fix the world by championing democracy onwards we kind of have to do it right, don't you think? :rolleyes:

I think any attempt to rationalize Iran's policies on homosexuality or cutting people's hands off for stealing etc is despicable &
I vigorously reject any attempt to rationalize this, such as SuperInfinity's BS rationalizations, but there are many places in the world
where this stone age cr^p needs to be fixed & war isn't the way to fix it.
It wasn't war that brought an end to apartheid.
It wasn't war that gave women civil rights.
etc...
etc...


Iran should be boycotted by the whole world for it's policies on homosexuality alone, nevermind anything else.
Just as we should be boycotted for not putting the people of NATO in jail for what they did to Serbia with their humanitarian bombs...


Why is Europe so reserved in it's application of sanctions?
It's not like there is a lack of movement on behalf of people in noticing this cr^p going on...
http://www.iranhumanrights.org/
http://iranhr.net/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/iran/page.do?id=1381041


Read this. Europe is a shambles compared to people working on the ground. All they do is "express concerns"... :mad:
It's no wonder Iran just chose suspend talks...

It's as if Europe "Like's the Dead in Their Coffins"

Clawdeeus

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'll just point out the following;

• Look how the Israeli government treats Palestinian citizens & has been doing for the past 60 years...
• The Israeli government have been sabotaging peace talks & peace attempts with the Arabs for years, including the Oslo process as a recently leaked audiotape has proven.
• They have denied Palestinian peoples rights while propagating myths about peace at many an American university & even the White House, even though the goals are subordination and sabotage.
• Israel are known sponsors of terrorism and have historically secretly funded Iran to kill soldiers in Iraq & have funded soldiers to kill men, women & children as they use white phosphorous on them in civilian apartment complexes.
• The country continues to pursue nuclear technology in defiance of international law.

What is the point of all this?

If we're going to feign moral reasons for all the Iran controversey then we should take these morals of ours & see how they apply to
something closer to home first... It doesn't stand up, none of the propaganda stands up as we continue to have similar policies ourselves (as members of the Western world).

This kind of inquiry could be done to the U.S. in a drastically more extreme way. Of course we could do these kinds of inquiries into Iranian, Iraqi, etc...
human rights violations but if we're to believe the global paradigm we don't speak for them. They are the enemy & we are the good guys...


Now, what about Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Rwanda, Gaza etc... where people live under horrendous conditions?
If the West is going to fix the world by championing democracy onwards we kind of have to do it right, don't you think? :rolleyes:

I think any attempt to rationalize Iran's policies on homosexuality or cutting people's hands off for stealing etc is despicable &
I vigorously reject any attempt to rationalize this, such as SuperInfinity's BS rationalizations, but there are many places in the world
where this stone age cr^p needs to be fixed & war isn't the way to fix it.
It wasn't war that brought an end to apartheid.
It wasn't war that gave women civil rights.
etc...
etc...


Iran should be boycotted by the whole world for it's policies on homosexuality alone, nevermind anything else.
Just as we should be boycotted for not putting the people of NATO in jail for what they did to Serbia with their humanitarian bombs...


Why is Europe so reserved in it's application of sanctions?
It's not like there is a lack of movement on behalf of people in noticing this cr^p going on...
http://www.iranhumanrights.org/
http://iranhr.net/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/iran/page.do?id=1381041


Read this. Europe is a shambles compared to people working on the ground. All they do is "express concerns"... :mad:
It's no wonder Iran just chose suspend talks...

It's as if Europe "Like's the Dead in Their Coffins"

Whilst I agree Israel should face sanctions (and a Marshal Plan type fund set up for the Palestinian territories) I do not agree that the fact the West is far from perfect should prevent it from applying sanctions to regimes such as Iran's.

I also do not agree that military intervention should never be applied (this is in regard to NATO killing of civilians, which whilst sad is unavoidable in any real intervention) . Whilst it is a "what if" game, the war in Kosovo would almost certainly been bloodier had the application of extreme force from NATO not been used. No point in debating this, really it might have ended the next day without any more fighting, or it might still be going on. I dont believe allowing Serb soldiers free reign in another war untill another atrocity was commited was an option.

Another example where military force would almost certainly have saved lives was in Rwanda. What if the UN had moved on the (known about) stock piled weapons before everything went to hell. Certainly there would have been deaths but not the 800 000 that did occur through the international communities inaction.

sponsoredwalk

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Whilst I agree Israel should face sanctions (and a Marshal Plan type fund set up for the Palestinian territories) I do not agree that the fact the West is far from perfect should prevent it from applying sanctions to regimes such as Iran's.

I didn't really mean that. I think threats on behalf of the U.S. and Israel in the extremely hypocritican fashion they wage them is an insult
to humanity though & these things shold be dealt with by a functional & useful European Union & Court of Justice etc...
However, I think it's fair to say that they are useless & are basically allowing Iran to commit humanitarian atrocities & allowing the U.S. & Israel to threaten military intervention.
They need to do their job. It seems like European citizens need to show that they despise the way the E.U. deals with all of this & force them to grow a pair...

Clawdeeus wrote: »

I also do not agree that military intervention should never be applied.

Neither do I, it's a kind of necessary evil that must be rigorously questioned & challenged for it's justifiability.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Whilst it is a "what if" game, the war in Kosovo would almost certainly been bloodier had the application of extreme force from NATO not been used. No point in debating this, really it might have ended the next day without any more fighting, or it might still be going on.

A massive campaign of ethnic cleansing (known as Operation Horseshoe) was cited as the reason for the intervention.
Subsequent investigations and successful prosecutions by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia confirmed
that the Yugoslav security forces were responsible for crimes against humanity and massive human rights abuse against the Kosovar civilian population,
especially during the NATO bombing campaign[21], however the bombing had proven to rather lead to the escalation of the humanitarian crisis,
rather than prevent it, with virtually all of the crimes as per the ICTY's findings occurring during the bombing, and not prior to it.
link

I don't know what to make of it but this definitely shouldn't have happened & these people are criminals for what they've done.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Another example where military force would almost certainly have saved lives was in Rwanda. What if the UN had moved on the (known about) stock piled weapons before everything went to hell. Certainly there would have been deaths but not the 800 000 that did occur through the international communities inaction.

Most definitely.

dlofnep

While I do think that Iran is unfairly targetted when compared to other states, it does certain merit international pressure for a number of reasons.

1) It's human rights record is questionable, to say the least.
2) It is proving obstructive in regards to it's nuclear ambitions, be it weaponary or merely just fuel.
3) It subverts international revolution which seeks change in how the country runs.

With that being said, I can see why Iran feels targetted - as it compares itself to the treated Israel receives - which has 100's of undeclared nuclear weapons, and a human rights record as poor as Iran's.

So if we are to condemn Iran's record (which we should), we should use the same criteria across the board when placing sanctions on states. If Iran has sanctions placed upon it, then Israel certainly should also.

monosharp

old_aussie wrote: »

And there lies the problem

But wiping Iraq and Iran off the map is fine ?

old_aussie

the_dark_side wrote: »

I hate to be a nerd, but its 'whole'

The pot calling the kettle black :rolleyes:

Kev_ps3

dlofnep wrote: »

While I do think that Iran is unfairly targetted when compared to other states, it does certain merit international pressure for a number of reasons.

1) It's human rights record is questionable, to say the least.
2) It is proving obstructive in regards to it's nuclear ambitions, be it weaponary or merely just fuel.
3) It subverts international revolution which seeks change in how the country runs.

With that being said, I can see why Iran feels targetted - as it compares itself to the treated Israel receives - which has 100's of undeclared nuclear weapons, and a human rights record as poor as Iran's.

So if we are to condemn Iran's record (which we should), we should use the same criteria across the board when placing sanctions on states. If Iran has sanctions placed upon it, then Israel certainly should also.

They have a right to do what they want in their own country. The west has no right to tell that what is right or wrong. Its not like they are prefect:rolleyes:

monosharp

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Im curious is there anyone who thinks Iran is being treated unfairly who also does not believe Israel is a terrorist state?

Well that depends what you mean by terrorist state. I would certainly be very anti-the-current-Israeli-government-&-their-policies. I do believe many of the things they have done were illegal and reminiscent of Nazi behaviour towards certain groups in the third reich.

But I don't think that Israel should be 'closed down' and given back to the Arabs either. Both of these groups of people are there now and a solution needs to be found forced on them involving some kind of two state system.

Its obvious, everyone knows it, it needs to happen.

Seems to me that you are not looking for the (blatantly clear) reasons Iran is looked upon with suspicion and as a threat, all in a mad rush to lionise anyone who stands in oppostion to Israel or the West.

And what would they be ?

Bearing in mind that who is looked on with 'suspicion and as a threat' depends on who they currently have bad relations with. The Taliban were looked on as friends of the US not that long ago.

Also, that is hardly the only time Iranian officials have used aggressive rhetoric, every week or so the top news on www.presstv.ir is one guy or another threatening the west with either defeat or some childish accusation of cowardise.

Have you never heard the childish remarks coming out of American politicians ?

Homosexuals are hung in Iran, often publicly from cranes, so your right they are probably not found out and about as they would in the US.

Just to be 100% sure, are you trying to suggest that Iran is 'bad' because of their attitude towards homosexuals ? An opinion of which I would absolutely share with you.

If so can the US do something about Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Toga, Angolia, Cameroon, Burundi, Comoros, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauitius, Somalia, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland etc.

Oh wait ... these are all African countries.

hhmmm what about countries in the Americas ? These countries are pretty close to the US, maybe they can influence them.

Belize, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Lucia or Guyana.

Or what about the USA's great friends ? such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates or Afghanistan (which was apparently 'freed' by the US) Pakistan etc

What about all these 'good' countries ? Are they 'not bad' because of their laws against homosexuality ?

And couldn't the US do something about its own fundamentalist right-wing anti-homosexual religious nutjobs either ? Are these people not 'bad' ?

You see when you want propaganda to paint someone 'bad' or paint someone 'good' its very easily done.

If Iran was a 'friend' of the US like Saudi Arabia then that little homosexual issue probably wouldn't even make it into the news. Nor their theocratic nature nor any number of 'bad' things about them.

Clawdeeus

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

They have a right to do what they want in their own country. The west has no right to tell that what is right or wrong. Its not like they are prefect:rolleyes:

Actually, no all 3 of his points are not things countries have a right to do.

john hanrahan

as for wiping people of the map, the maps were drawn many years ago by the west primarily

i just think the rhetoric and spin is leading to war

some nations just love sending young men and women of to war

listening to hans blix yesterday on his advice to Blair and Rice ' did they want to send 250,000 soldiers in and find very little' obviously they did.

seamus

All other issues with Iran aside, documents released by wikileaks this week contain evidence that Iran have been providing support to the Taliban in Afghanistan in the form of weapons, money and anti-NATO fighters.

So Iran aren't entirely clean-cut in this. If you don't want a bloody nose, then don't get involved in other peoples' fights.

Clawdeeus

monosharp wrote: »

Well that depends what you mean by terrorist state. I would certainly be very anti-the-current-Israeli-government-&-their-policies. I do believe many of the things they have done were illegal and reminiscent of Nazi behaviour towards certain groups in the third reich.

But I don't think that Israel should be 'closed down' and given back to the Arabs either. Both of these groups of people are there now and a solution needs to be found forced on them involving some kind of two state system.

Its obvious, everyone knows it, it needs to happen.



And what would they be ?

Bearing in mind that who is looked on with 'suspicion and as a threat' depends on who they currently have bad relations with. The Taliban were looked on as friends of the US not that long ago.



Have you never heard the childish remarks coming out of American politicians ?



Just to be 100% sure, are you trying to suggest that Iran is 'bad' because of their attitude towards homosexuals ? An opinion of which I would absolutely share with you.

If so can the US do something about Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Toga, Angolia, Cameroon, Burundi, Comoros, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauitius, Somalia, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland etc.

Oh wait ... these are all African countries.

hhmmm what about countries in the Americas ? These countries are pretty close to the US, maybe they can influence them.

Belize, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Lucia or Guyana.

Or what about the USA's great friends ? such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates or Afghanistan (which was apparently 'freed' by the US) Pakistan etc

What about all these 'good' countries ? Are they 'not bad' because of their laws against homosexuality ?

And couldn't the US do something about its own fundamentalist right-wing anti-homosexual religious nutjobs either ? Are these people not 'bad' ?

You see when you want propaganda to paint someone 'bad' or paint someone 'good' its very easily done.

If Iran was a 'friend' of the US like Saudi Arabia then that little homosexual issue probably wouldn't even make it into the news. Nor their theocratic nature nor any number of 'bad' things about them.

I agree with you with regard to Israel, and I address the exact same point regarding the treatment of homosexuals, if you would just direct your attention to my last long post :P

Again, the US looks upon Iran as a threat because of its rhetoric and, to a lesser extent, its actions. It is the instigator of much of this "sickening treatment of Iran". I really dont get your point here, Im merely pointing out a very powerful country has very good reasons to put Iran on ice.

Also, to say Saudi Arabian abuses would be covered up/ ignored because they are an ally of the US is a little flipant, I can think of a few cases that made a big stir pretty much everywhere.

Also there is a big different between some right wing freaks hating homosexuals, and the systematic prosecution and killing of said group by the state.

Other than that, I agree with you pretty much, and said as much a few posts ago.

dlofnep

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

They have a right to do what they want in their own country. The west has no right to tell that what is right or wrong. Its not like they are prefect:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. If we are to condemn the likes of Israel for it's human rights record, then we can certainly condemn Iran's human rights record. There cannot be any pick & choosery when it comes to the basic human rights of people.

Kev_ps3

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. If we are to condemn the likes of Israel for it's human rights record, then we can certainly condemn Iran's human rights record. There cannot be any pick & choosery when it comes to the basic human rights of people.

What people and what basic human rights are you taking about? Im sure the vast majority of Iranian people live good lives. Im also sure there are people at the bottom who are treated very badly by the state, but that happens in every country in some shape or form. I not condoning it, but I find it beyond a joke that the west portrays itself as the good guy when in fact they are the worst of the worst. They have zero credibility wagging the finger at Iran.

dlofnep

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

What people and what basic human rights are you taking about? Im sure the vast majority of Iranian people live good lives. Im also sure there are people at the bottom who are treated very badly by the state, but that happens in every country in some shape or form. I not condoning it, but I find it beyond a joke that the west portrays itself as the good guy when in fact they are the worst of the worst. They have zero credibility wagging the finger at Iran.

That's whataboutery.

Human rights in Iran or less than desirable.

For example - it is impossible to live a free life in Iran as gay person - where it is punishable by death. Punishment in Iran does not meet even the most basic international human rights standards. Gender equality does not exist in Iran. Freedom of expression does not exist in Iran either.

Say what you will about the west (and it has it's own issues) - But I've never seen people punished by death for their sexual orientation.

Clawdeeus

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

What people and what basic human rights are you taking about? Im sure the vast majority of Iranian people live good lives. Im also sure there are people at the bottom who are treated very badly by the state, but that happens in every country in some shape or form. I not condoning it, but I find it beyond a joke that the west portrays itself as the good guy when in fact they are the worst of the worst. They have zero credibility wagging the finger at Iran.

Worst of the worst? You really believe that? Me thinks you should do more research.
All these were on a previous post, thanks Sponsoredwalk
http://www.iranhumanrights.org/
http://iranhr.net/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countr....do?id=1381041
And sanctions are not on them for human rights abuse, although Im sure it helps, its for flouting the IAEA, and neighbouring countires dont much like them exporting their revolution.

meditraitor

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Worst of the worst? You really believe that? Me thinks you should do more research.
All these were on a previous post, thanks Sponsoredwalk
http://www.iranhumanrights.org/
http://iranhr.net/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countr....do?id=1381041
And sanctions are not on them for human rights abuse, although Im sure it helps, its for flouting the IAEA, and neighbouring countires dont much like them exporting their revolution.

This is the funny thing, a little bit of history will show you that the revolution was infact forced on Iran and there are worse offenders of IAEA regulations within scud missile distance of IRAN.

It stinks to be quite honest.......

Laminations

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

They have a right to do what they want in their own country. The west has no right to tell that what is right or wrong. Its not like they are prefect:rolleyes:

Do you hold this view across the board for every country? Mugabe had theright? Chaucheskuhad the right? I think you've been watching too much Star Trek, but if you noticed even then they broke the Prime Directive countless times. Why? Cos it's a stupid blanket policy

Clawdeeus

meditraitor wrote: »

This is the funny thing, a little bit of history will show you that the revolution was infact forced on Iran and there are worse offenders of IAEA regulations within scud missile distance of IRAN.

It stinks to be quite honest.......

Your missing my point, and an Islamic revolution was hardly forced on them.

And it has been addressed multiple time that Israel should be sanctioned also, although Israel is treated in this regard in the same way as Pakistan and India, non signatories of the non-proliferation treaty. Also, Israel didnt make a habit of pissing off world powers.

Clawdeeus

Laminations wrote: »

Do you hold this view across the board for every country? Mugabe had theright? Chaucheskuhad the right? I think you've been watching too much Star Trek, but if you noticed even then they broke the Prime Directive countless times. Why? Cos it's a stupid blanket policy

I like that star trek thing. Im stealing it.

Laminations

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

What people and what basic human rights are you taking about? Im sure the vast majority of Iranian people live good lives. Im also sure there are people at the bottom who are treated very badly by the state, but that happens in every country in some shape or form. I not condoning it, but I find it beyond a joke that the west portrays itself as the good guy when in fact they are the worst of the worst. They have zero credibility wagging the finger at Iran.

Sorry where do you live Kev? I'm assuming it's in 'the West'? .....So you choose to live in 'the worst of the worst' - go fvcking live in Iran or China or North Korea, there must be a better alternative out there for you

dlofnep

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Also, Israel didnt make a habit of pissing off world powers.

I'm not so sure about that

Kev_ps3

dlofnep wrote: »

That's whataboutery.

Human rights in Iran or less than desirable.

For example - it is impossible to live a free life in Iran as gay person - where it is punishable by death. Punishment in Iran does not meet even the most basic international human rights standards. Gender equality does not exist in Iran. Freedom of expression does not exist in Iran either.

Say what you will about the west (and it has it's own issues) - But I've never seen people punished by death for their sexual orientation.

You judge country's on how they treat their own people, I judge country's how they threat humanity. The west invades and kills hundreds of thousands of people. Iran kills gays. I know which is worse.

dlofnep

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

You judge country's on how they treat their own people, I judge country's how they threat humanity. The west invades and kills hundreds of thousands of people. Iran kills gays. I know which is worse.

Is it not possible to judge all individually, on a variety of different issues?

I'm on the political left, and I have condemned western foreign policy on a number of occasions. You're preaching to the preached. But we're currently discussing Iran specifically, so why is it difficult for you to discuss Iran's flaws (of which there are many), without engaging in whataboutery? If I can do it - then anyone can.

Clawdeeus

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that

Your probablly right :P

Kev_ps3

Laminations wrote: »

Sorry where do you live Kev? I'm assuming it's in 'the West'? .....So you choose to live in 'the worst of the worst' - go fvcking live in Iran or China or North Korea, there must be a better alternative out there for you

When I say the west I mean it politically i.e invading country's like the US, UK, Isreal etc.
Ireland has been a victim of the west as much as Iraq or Afghanistan, if fact a far worse victim.

Clawdeeus

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

When I say the west I mean it politically i.e invading country's like the US, UK, Isreal etc.
Ireland has been a victim of the west as much as Iraq or Afghanistan, if fact a far worse victim.

It has also benefited immesurably by being part of the Western sphere.

Laminations

Just to give consistency to my views, Iran should face sanctions and Israel should face sanctions - however I've argued against boycotts of Israeli produce and I myself do not boycott Iranian produce, in fact I love their pistachio nuts.

And a cursory glace at freedom of the press stats and political freedom index would tell you Iran is not very comparable to Israel in this regard, although agression and human rights abuses may have similarities

Laminations

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

When I say the west I mean it politically i.e invading country's like the US, UK, Isreal etc.
Ireland has been a victim of the west as much as Iraq or Afghanistan, if fact a far worse victim.

Sorry Kev but you still live in the 'political' west by choice, ironically

Clawdeeus

Laminations wrote: »

Just to give consistency to my views, Iran should face sanctions and Israel should face sanctions - however I've argued against boycotts of Israeli produce and I myself do not boycott Iranian produce, in fact I love their pistachio nuts.

And a cursory glace at freedom of the press stats and political freedom index would tell you Iran is not very comparable to Israel in this regard, although agression and human rights abuses may have similarities

Id second that. Thanks for those links btw, couldnt remember for the life of me the name of Freedom House earlier.