Time to kick Iran

[Oliver]

They don't just do nothing Oliver. I wish it were as easy as that. I'm by no means sure that Ahmadinejad will employ nuclear weapons against Israel. Actually I think it's more likely that Iran will use the nuclear option to bolster its position in the region and gain the same immunity as Kim Jong-il has. But it's very dangerous to just rely on the worst case scenario not to happen - that particular strategy already failed in Iraq. I'd be glad if Ahmadinejad announces tomorrow that the whole Jew-hating thing was just a joke between friends. But I seriously doubt that this is going to happen.

If the Iranian Government plans to protect themselves against Government that are interfering and deinstalling their Governments, I say that they have every right to protect themselves, too. Just like America and Israel does it the same way. Or do you think the Iranians are less worthy - because instead the Christian Right they have the "Islam-Left".

Plus, you have to consider the propaganda effect of his speeches and behavior. I already mentioned Goethe's Zauberlehrling in another thread. You already know about the Palestinian Martyr mouse. From what I've read, Jew bashing has become part of the education in some Middle Eastern countries. The problem is, even if Ahmadinejad is just rationally exploiting the scapegoating tactic to gather public support, the populace might take him seriously. They already take The Protocols of the Elders of Zion seriously.

Yes. I see that and consider this as a problem. However - making threats against them doesn't solve the situation. Friendship with these people would.

This is not about fear Oliver. It's about vigilance. Try to get that distinction into your head, please. And at the risk of invoking Godwin's law, you do know what happened not too long ago in our own country, when the deluded writings of an aspiring dictator were not taken seriously. There even was a small number of foreign diplomats who had actually read the book and tried to warn their governments about what might happen, but they were simply dismissed in order to buy "peace in our time".

You might forget that they have a Jewish Community, too - and even an accepted one. So until they're going to start a Reichsprogromnacht, you shouldn't draw too much lines between History and today.

Yes, Iraq was no threat to the Western world, at least in the short term. But: We know that for sure only in hindsight, and Hussein definitely was a threat to his own people in any case. Of course it would all have been much easier if the West had teared down the "Realpolitik" of pandering to nasty dictators much earlier. It's a real mess now, and there are still a lot of dictators' asses to kick. The US will just have to sit this through. You of all people should be glad about this, since it means that America's military resources are bound in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Yes - Saddam was a pain for major parts of their society. But unfortunately there are much terrible Dictators around the world. That wasn't an issue at all. It was the excuse to gain sympathy towards the Iraq-Politics.

Some people might not be willing to wait until it's too late. And Oliver, it's not as though there were no actions. Do you know about the little colored plastic keys to Heaven the suicide kids in the Iran-Iraq war were equipped with? I thought culture was important to you. Don't you think we've got an incredibly nasty culture here, a culture which shouldn't be conserved but fought?

Says who? The Zionists chose to take a seat within the Bee-hive by declaring the state of Israel. Why is that our problem at all if they can't deal with the consequences. They are free to build their Israel everywhere else, too. The problem is that the fundies don't care about peaceful solutions.

So why shouldn't we accept Muslim fundies but Israeli and Christian fundies are just fine for us. That doesn't make sense from a neutral point of view, does it?

 

[jsiv]

If the Iranian Government plans to protect themselves against Government that are interfering and deinstalling their Governments, I say that they have every right to protect themselves, too.

They do have every right to defend themselves, as long as they haven't done anything to warrant an attack.

The "problem" is that Iran has expressed desires to do more than just protect themselves. The stronger Iran's military is, the more difficult it becomes for other countries in the region to oppose them. In other words, it also deters anyone from interfering with Iranian hegemony.

The whole direction they want to take the region is somewhat undesirable. Certainly from a human rights perspective. By the way, figured out that Iran does infact have a legally mandated dress code yet?

 

[Oliver]

They do have every right to defend themselves, as long as they haven't done anything to warrant an attack.

The "problem" is that Iran has expressed desires to do more than just protect themselves. The stronger Iran's military is, the more difficult it becomes for other countries in the region to oppose them. In other words, it also deters anyone from interfering with Iranian hegemony.

The whole direction they want to take the region is somewhat undesirable. Certainly from a human rights perspective. By the way, figured out that Iran does infact have a legally mandated dress code yet?

So what's the difference between the Saudis and the Iranians.
Would the Iranians be our friends, too - if we would treat them like the Saudis?
Would the Saudis complain about Israel, too - if we would treat them like the Iranians?

Do you see any connection between treating someone as friend and treating someone as being the "Axis of Evil"?

 

[Oliver]

Sure. That's an accurate description of Iran. Their sponsorship of Hezbollah? Pay no attention to that.

Piece of what?

A. Yeah, the US are de-installing and trying to deinstall their regime since decades. Don't pay attention to that. And don't bother that their reply might be to support Hezbollah.

B. Piece of Peace

 

[jsiv]

So what's the difference between the Saudis and the Iranians.
Would the Iranians be our friends, too - if we would treat them like the Saudis?

They don't seem to want to be "our" (actually the US) "friends", in the way that the Saudis are, no. Instead, they want everyone out of the region so they can become the dominant power.

Would the Saudis complain about Israel, too - if we would treat them like the Iranians?

If there was no incentive to back off, they may very well. Someone with more knowledge about Saudi would have to answer that.

 

[Giz]

Says who? The Zionists chose to take a seat within the Bee-hive by declaring the state of Israel. Why is that our problem at all if they can't deal with the consequences.

Perhaps they didn't feel welcome in Germany anymore?

 

[Oliver]

They don't seem to want to be "our" (actually the US) "friends", in the way that the Saudis are, no. Instead, they want everyone out of the region so they can become the dominant power.

If there was no incentive to back off, they may very well. Someone with more knowledge about Saudi would have to answer that.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree based on my personal experiences. Once you respect another person, no matter how outlandish his views are, you build a bridge to this person - which is the base to find a common ground.

Now I wouldn't say that the Saudis and Americans are friends. But both parties make a lot of money - which isn't what a real friendship is about, but it works, too.

Concerning Iran: If the US would have took the opportunity to build up friendly relations instead trying to kick every Government down there they don't like, the Iranians most probably wouldn't be that paranoid about them, would they? (Asking other readers views, too)

 

[Giz]

No. Until they attack their Neighbors they're nothing but a theoretical threat. And yes, I understand the ones who try to portray it otherwise - but they are basically saying: "The average criminal in the US is 25, male and black. Sorry, we have to preemptively put you into prison because you're 25, male and black."

Or, bit more accurately:
1) He's said he want's to put a cap in his neighbours ass,
2) Is trying to get a gun,
3) Neighbour (and friends) would rather he didn't get a gun.


Caveat: This analysis is only guaranteed in the real world and may not be applicable in Oliver-world.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the Iranian Government plans to protect themselves against Government that are interfering and deinstalling their Governments, I say that they have every right to protect themselves, too.

Why? They don't have any right to be the government in the first place. They rule without consent. And before you claim that they're a democracy, or a republic, they aren't: the mullahs represent the real power, they are unelected, and the elected officials are only elected from among those the mullahs approve. This is not government with consent of the population. It is a religious dictatorship. So the government doesn't have any right to exist in the first place.

But all that is rather beside the point anyways. As a practical matter the right to defend themselves is of no real consequence next to the ability and the will to defend themselves. THAT is what Iran has.

Or do you think the Iranians are less worthy - because instead the Christian Right they have the "Islam-Left".

Damn, you're a clueless moron sometimes, Oliver. Do we have an unelected Supreme Leader for the US? No, we do not. Do priests and ministers get to screen all candidates for elections, and only allow those whom they consider acceptable to even run for office? No, we do not. Do we have a group of unelected clerics who can veto any legislation Congress passes? No, we do not. Do these differences matter? Do they create a difference in the legitimacy of our respective governments? Yes, Oliver, they really do. Your attempts to draw parallels between the US and Iran are pathetic, Oliver. Simply pathetic. You're a bad stereotype of ignorant leftist knee-jerk anti-americanism.

 

[jsiv]

Iranian morals police arrest 230 in raid on 'satanist' rave

Police arrested 230 people and seized drugs, alcohol and 800 illicit CDs after raiding the event in Karaj, 12 miles west of Tehran. Those arrested included young women in skimpy and "inappropriate" clothing, officers said.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Iranian morals police arrest 230 in raid on 'satanist' rave

I didn't know people raved to Ozzie Ozbourne's music. I really am out of touch.

DR

 

[Matteo Martini]

Quite frankly. I understand what the anger on both sides is about - and I understand why they shout "Death for Israel", even if this is a stupid argument for politicians to promote. And it also somehow reminded me to the "Axis of Evildoers" speech from Gee-DoubleWoo - even if he formulated it more wisely. (I see you, Pardalis )

Well, I would say it is not only a " stupid " argument, but also a dangerous one, when said in a nation, where a lot of fundamentalists live.
So, I was thinking, maybe you see the evil in the U.S. foreign policy ( which I also see ), but you do not like to see the evil in the Iranian foreign policy, too?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Of course OBL is not a nice guy. But at least he's not making crap up to get his fellow nuts support. So his anger against the west makes sense to some degree. The Terroists-Axis-of-Evil-Propaganda doesn't.

I do not get it " he's not making crap up to get his fellow nuts support ".
Do we agree that OBL is a criminal?
A big one?
And, worst of all, he gave America the excuse to invade Iraq?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, I see the difference. But since we are talking about different cultures here, both representations make sense in their own way if I include these differences. And yes, I know you are offended because you don't understand-/agree with -what I just said.

I do not get it really..
You mean, that, in the Iranian culture, it is OK to say that " Israel should be wiped off the map ", or " Death to Israel ", as it is their way to say things?
Or, something like that?
You think that Iranians are like under-developed people, that can only speak that way?

 

[RandFan]

Well, the fact that it was legal, until recently, to assassinate a foreign leader is more or less a fact, is not it?

Relatively recently. Assuming so what is your point? This was not the only thing you agreed with BTW.

 

[RandFan]

You are ironic, here?

?

The video was demonstrably simplistic, shallow and racist. Here, put the same words in Bush's mouth and replace Iran for Israel.

 

[RandFan]

Helping to overthrow the Iranian government was for what reason other than imperialism?

The exact same reason we didn't anex West Germany the way the Soviet Union annexed East Germany. We wanted Iran to become a Democracy. We thought a Democracy would be better for the Iranians, the US and the world.

It worked for the Germans and the Japanese. We thought it would work for other nations. If we wanted an empire West Germany would have been a US territory.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Relatively recently. Assuming so what is your point? This was not the only thing you agreed with BTW.

Who is BTW, in first place?
My point is that is bad, to assassinate foreign leaders ( unless it is a foreign leader of a country you are at war against, and, even in that case, I would have any reserves ), it is even worse that it was ( until recently ) legal.

 

[Matteo Martini]

?

The video was demonstrably simplistic, shallow and racist.

The video was taken during one of Mr. A' s speeches in front of a large crowd.
What is wrong with that?

Here, put the same words in Bush's mouth and replace Iran for Israel.

Did George W. say " death to Iran "?
Do I have to defend George W., now?

 

[Matteo Martini]

The exact same reason we didn't anex West Germany the way the Soviet Union annexed East Germany. We wanted Iran to become a Democracy. We thought a Democracy would be better for the Iranians, the US and the world.

Maybe, the best way to export democracy in Iran is not by a war..
Look at how well it worked out with Iraq..