Ed Ofama... On Iran

[bikerdruid]

US US US... You really should seek a therapist about that, it's not healthy to obsess like that.

dude...this thread is about the US and their attitude to iran.
did you miss the OP?

 

[Pardalis]

You can't even try.

Oh well.

 

[bikerdruid]

You can't even try.

Oh well.

ah, you did miss the OP?
care to address the topic?
(which is 'the US and it's attitude to iran')

 

[Pardalis]

ah, you did miss the OP?
care to address the topic?
(which is 'the US and it's attitude to iran')

That's not the topic, Darth Rotor writes much better than that.

 

[bikerdruid]

That's not the topic, Darth Rotor writes much better than that.

you missed the OP, then.
pity.
it was a nice piece,too.
profane spoonerisms berating america's politicians for their war-like stance towards iran.
that is the topic.

 

[AlBell]

...

does the u.s. have a history of breaking treaties?
yes, or no....it's simple.

No, it isn't a simple yes or no. When US interests so dictate, we break treaties.

Screw NWO, Canada, and for that matter everyone else.

 

[AlBell]

I'll make a deal with you. We can uphold and enforce the NPT, right after the war trials for G.W. Bush, some of his administration, and the top military officials concludes.

Heck, I'll even go a step further and say they can happen concurrently. Conduct the war crime trials while we enforcing the NPT. Why wait?

Deal?

You by chance live in a NATO country?

 

[AlBell]

That's funny ...

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Don't let the door hit ya ...

 

[citizenzen]

Sanctions are already on the table, sanctions agreed by all major countries at the UN ...

Sanctions are fine. It's the invasions I have a tough time with.

I knew that we could come to some kind of agreement.

Am I going too fast for you?

No. You're doing just fine. Thanks for asking.

 

[bikerdruid]

No, it isn't a simple yes or no. When US interests so dictate, we break treaties.

Screw NWO, Canada, and for that matter everyone else.

we can take that as a, "yes, the US does have a history of breaking treaties."

hand wave all you wish.
facts are facts.
the US simply cannot be trusted to keep its word.

 

[AlBell]

Damn shame we haven't made Canada a state.

 

[bikerdruid]

Damn shame we haven't made Canada a state.

is that an attempt at a derail?

 

[respect]

I'll make a deal with you. We can uphold and enforce the NPT, right after the war trials for G.W. Bush, some of his administration, and the top military officials concludes.

Heck, I'll even go a step further and say they can happen concurrently. Conduct the war crime trials while we enforcing the NPT. Why wait?

Deal?

Wow, this is the most utterly absurd post I have seen on this forum which says a lot.

By this standard, if Britain attacked France and started killing all of their Jews the former Axis Powers would have to stand by and watch the genocide unfold, they wouldn't want to be hypocrites would they?

Do you actually believe that a nuclear Iran is justified because the US broke treaties with Native Americans?

 

[citizenzen]

Do you actually believe that a nuclear Iran is justified because the US broke treaties with Native Americans?

Let me answer that with a quote from AlBell ...

No, it isn't a simple yes or no. When US interests so dictate, we break treaties.

Screw NWO, Canada, and for that matter everyone else.

So likewise, when Iran's interests dictate, I'm not surprised when (if) they break theirs.

Is it "justified"? Apparently. Because it seems the only justification needed is a country's own self-interest.

Personally, I find that a loathsome justification. But I am an American. So it's almost become natural for me to accept it.

 

[respect]

Let me answer that with a quote from AlBell ...




So likewise, when Iran's interests dictate, I'm not surprised when (if) they break theirs.

Is it "justified"? Apparently. Because it seems the only justification needed is a country's own self-interest.

Personally, I find that a loathsome justification. But I am an American. So it's almost become natural for me to accept it.

If the justification is self interest then America's willingness to obey or break treaties is irrelevant. You are shifting your claim here.

Although it seems dubious to claim that it is in Iran's self interest, depends what the consequences are. They might fancy themselves as becoming the dominant power in the Middle East, but a serious beat down is what they might get instead.

 

[citizenzen]

If the justification is self interest then America's willingness to obey or break treaties is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant to compare nations when they behave in similar ways?

 

[respect]

Why is it irrelevant to compare nations when they behave in similar ways?

If Iran's justification to break a treaty is that it is in their self interest to do so, it is completely irrelevant whether or not the US has broken one or more treaties. Put another way, would self interest cease to be a valid motive for Iran if the US has never broken a treaty?

Additionally, many nations consider it to be in their self interest for Iran not to become nuclear armed, especially Israel, Egypt and the Arab nations.

So by that standard, the much larger collective group of nations who don't want a nuclear Iran should invade to protect their self interests.

The hypocrisy standard is beyond stupid, do you really believe that the former Axis Powers should never interfere with genocide because they once attempted it themselves?

 

[citizenzen]

If Iran's justification to break a treaty is that it is in their self interest to do so, it is completely irrelevant whether or not the US has broken one or more treaties. Put another way, would self interest cease to be a valid motive for Iran if the US has never broken a treaty?

What I think you're missing here is that this is a forum. I'm not speaking to Iran. I'm speaking to other people with opinions about Iran. So when those people express horror and dismay and want to condemn Iran for (possibly) acting in their own self interest and breaking a treaty, it seems germane to me to point out that the "leader of the free world" and the nation most likely to take on the task of militarily confronting Iran DOES THE VERY SAME THING!

Now I understand if you don't want to see that as relevant. I know there are a lot of people into America being "exceptional" and above little issues like this. But I'm afraid that I don't share your opinion on that. And in a forum, where a variety of viewpoints are put forth, you're just going to have to see mine on occasion. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[respect]

What I think you're missing here is that this is a forum. I'm not speaking to Iran. I'm speaking to other people with opinions about Iran. So when those people express horror and dismay and want to condemn Iran for (possibly) acting in their own self interest and breaking a treaty, it seems germane to me to point out that the "leader of the free world" and the nation most likely to take on the task of militarily confronting Iran DOES THE VERY SAME THING!

Now I understand if you don't want to see that as relevant. I know there are a lot of people into America being "exceptional" and above little issues like this. But I'm afraid that I don't share your opinion on that. And in a forum, where a variety of viewpoints are put forth, you're just going to have to see mine on occasion. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that America or any other nation has never engaged in quasi to outright hypocrisy.

However, it is irrelevant to current events. For example, if the American government took action to break up a human trafficking ring, would you start screeching that they, and anyone who supports their actions, is being a hypocrite because slavery used to be legal in America? Or would you behave in a grown up manner and recognize that a past wrong does not justify a current wrong and acknowledge that stopping slavery and human trafficking going on currently and in the future is a worthwhile goal even though many of the countries opposed to such atrocities now once participated in them in the past?

A nuclear Iran could cause a lot of potential problems, whether or not the nations opposed have done hypocritical things is irrelevant to that. It is an issue to be addressed on its own merits, there is no need or advantage to looking for moral equivalence with America or any other country. Basically your claim is, "Iran is a doody head but so is America." America's status as a doody head is neither here nor there in terms of whether or not it is a good idea to stop Iran's doody head behavior and how to go about it if it is.

 

[citizenzen]

For example, if the American government took action to break up a human trafficking ring, would you start screeching that they, and anyone who supports their actions, is being a hypocrite because slavery used to be legal in America?

No ... not because slavery used to be legal ... over 150 years ago.

If America was still involved in human trafficking (as they are still involved in breaking treaties when they feel it's in their best interest) and their leaders were debating and possibly planning to attack the country that was involved in human trafficking, then yes, I'd stand up and say, "you idiots are BOTH DOING THE SAME THING!!!"

But you wouldn't, huh?

Edit: See, that's the key for me ... that we're debating and possibly planning to attack another country over something we do ourselves. As I said before, if you want to impart sanctions, I'm all for it. If you want to exert diplomatic or economic pressure, no big deal. But the U.S. doesn't like namby-pamby tactics like that. We want to use our military to strike Iran. And that I find deplorable.