What will Iran bomb first?

[Matteo Martini]

Boy, you really want to talk about Chomsky don't you?

A bit off topic though.

just to remain off topic: is that you the person in the avatar?

 

[Matteo Martini]

There is not a single threat in your quotes - other than strongly disliking
Zionists, which isn't a surprise given his side of the isle. Try again.

Very nice avatar!!
I laughed for a while!!!!

1 & 2) True, but the issue stances the candidates take will also be influenced by the people. If the majority of us are pro-gun, the lefty will shift his position slightly more to the center. If majority are pro-choice, the righty will tone down the anti-Roe v. Wade rhetoric, and may continue to do so in office.

And where the people will make their opinion from?
From what they hear from the media.
And, who controls the media?

3) Our media is capitalist and not state-controlled, they will not even suffer being influenced if it doesn't earn them profit and ratings; as such they need to draw an audience. There's always a push-pull between what the media would like us to like and what we actually like...but most faults with our media are due to our general populace. In this chicken-egg scenario, the people come first, and the media follows. Sometimes the media tries an experiment and the public follows, but these are exceptions within the decades of the media conforming to the viewers.

As you said, your media (I would say, our media), are capitalist.
Which interest do they have to publish news that are in contrast to the corporations from which they get money, or the candidates from which they get interviews/money?

You're arguing the effects of our democracy, but it is a very free democracy. Obviously a lot freer than Iran, as well as maintaining itself as such for centuries longer than Iran's current incarnation.

Anti-Iran demagogues are usually wrong too about how heavily they call Iran undemocratic. But the truth is somewhere between what they argue and what you argue here. Ahmadinejad is not a dictator, and was elected relatively narrowly by a free, inclusive vote. The issue is that the list of candidates was overly controlled by the ruling Council of Guardians. And of course that the President's power is more puppet than real. And these are serious issues, as well as the CoG's outlawing of political parties, and obviously the inability to have direct elections for their seats.

On a democracy scale I'd say the US is about a 9, Iran about a 4.

If you are using a scale of 1 to 100, I agree.

 

[Dragoonster]

And where the people will make their opinion from?
From what they hear from the media.
And, who controls the media?

People make their opinions from all sorts of things--their education, family, friends, church, job, in addition to the media. It's far from the only input, particularly now with the internets.

As you said, your media (I would say, our media), are capitalist.
Which interest do they have to publish news that are in contrast to the corporations from which they get money, or the candidates from which they get interviews/money?

As far as I know they only get money from either ad-buying, or local affiliates. Yeah, some ad-buyers will pull ads if a station shows content they think is immoral or something, but that hasn't really led to self-censoring of news. The interviews thing is a problem, agree there and it does lead to some sucking-up of the press.

The media is far from perfect, and several in the media admitted after the Iraq War found no WMD that they were negligent by not digging deep enough or raising more questions. And they were right--they were part of the problem.

But I don't see an easy alternate option. Finding the truth depends on every individual, those who really want it will search all references. Those who don't and just want something to believe will continually watch the same broadcasters every day. Doesn't really matter how diverse the media is to those people, and unfortunately it's a lot of them. But even a perfectly objective media shouldn't be trusted.

If you are using a scale of 1 to 100, I agree.

It was 1-10. I didn't consider crazy stuff like say, a system run by 100% public referenda on every issue though, whose government has no lawmaking power...so if that's what you mean I guess your scale might be accurate. If the goal is workable, stable democracies, I'll go with my scale.

For what it's worth you've made good points but have taken this argument a bit beyond its limits.

 

[Matteo Martini]

People make their opinions from all sorts of things--their education, family, friends, church, job, in addition to the media. It's far from the only input, particularly now with the internets.

Your education in maths conveys little information to cope with the current situation with Iran.
Family, friends and people from job they all get info from the media, too.

As far as I know they only get money from either ad-buying, or local affiliates. Yeah, some ad-buyers will pull ads if a station shows content they think is immoral or something, but that hasn't really led to self-censoring of news. The interviews thing is a problem, agree there and it does lead to some sucking-up of the press.

I do not understand what you say.
I said that the sole fact that politicians give money to the media influences the media when giving info on that politician.

The media is far from perfect, and several in the media admitted after the Iraq War found no WMD that they were negligent by not digging deep enough or raising more questions. And they were right--they were part of the problem.

And, why they said that after the invasion was started, and not disputed that claim before that?

But I don't see an easy alternate option.

Me neither.

 

[Kopji]

Why this should happen in Iran and not, for example, the US (considering that the US has a far longer list of enemies and much more potential targets)?

Despite the many shortcomings of the US, you can hate our guts, call us names, spit on us, burn our flag, and yet sleep peacefully at night without worry that the US is going to send the morality police to haul you away in the night for it.

For Iranians critical of the way things are, there is no such peace. That is why they have a greater risk for catastrophe.

 

[RandFan]

Despite the many shortcomings of the US, you can hate our guts, call us names, spit on us, burn our flag, and yet sleep peacefully at night without worry that the US is going to send the morality police to haul you away in the night for it.

For Iranians critical of the way things are, there is no such peace. That is why they have a greater risk for catastrophe.

I can call George Bush an idiot, burn the national flag and hang out with gays and lesbians. Try doing that in Iran.

....oh, I forgot there are no gays and lesbians in Iran.

 

[Kopji]

Iran doesn't need enimies.

Three Mile Island accident

Chernobyl disaster

Where the hell are the anti-nuclear postestors when you need them?

Who the hell would have ever thought that liberals would come to embrace nuclear energy just by getting Iran interested.

Go figure.

I'm not really against nuclear power with the proper safeguards. Proper safeguards might be something like having Israelis running the reactor in Iran, and vice versa in Israel.

 

[Dragoonster]

Your education in maths conveys little information to cope with the current situation with Iran.
Family, friends and people from job they all get info from the media, too.

I was thinking more of history, government, geography, or anything which involved critical thinking or objectivity. Or the need to research evidence to support a paper.

I do not understand what you say.
I said that the sole fact that politicians give money to the media influences the media when giving info on that politician.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Politicians in the US do not give money to the media. Ever. (at least they aren't supposed to). The only thing they can pay for is advertisements.

And, why they said that after the invasion was started, and not disputed that claim before that?

I don't know exactly why. Maybe the media has gotten too soft, or wants too much to give each side of an issue equal time, even if one side is obviously full of it.

Me neither.

I wonder if the BBC is any better. Here in the US I'd really worry about a state-run or state-funded media, our politicians can be pretty slimy.

But our media doesn't make us any less of a democracy. At it's worst it just makes us kind of stupid.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I can call George Bush an idiot, burn the national flag and hang out with gays and lesbians. Try doing that in Iran.
[..]

You can call Bush an idiot, in Iran

 

[Matteo Martini]

Despite the many shortcomings of the US, you can hate our guts, call us names, spit on us, burn our flag, and yet sleep peacefully at night without worry that the US is going to send the morality police to haul you away in the night for it.

For Iranians critical of the way things are, there is no such peace. That is why they have a greater risk for catastrophe.

If you are talking about foreign people/leaders doing this, the American elite is not interested in people who burn flags, nor in people who spit.
But, try to go on a television program, and question the role of the US in the recent conflict in Georgia, or attack any of the power lobbies, and you will see..

 

[Matteo Martini]

I was thinking more of history, government, geography, or anything which involved critical thinking or objectivity. Or the need to research evidence to support a paper.

At first, I do not believe there is such a thing as an "absolute objectivity".
Nor, I believe that history as thaught is free of bias.
Just look for example at how they talk in Italy about the great times of the Roman Empire, or in the US about the age of the founding fathers.
But, this is not the main point.
The point is that what you have studied in school, is of little help to understand the current situation in Iran; and you can only learn from the media, unless you do not have much time or a friend near Tehran.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Politicians in the US do not give money to the media. Ever. (at least they aren't supposed to). The only thing they can pay for is advertisements.

How much 2 minutes of advertising space cost, on a national television, prime time?

I don't know exactly why. Maybe the media has gotten too soft, or wants too much to give each side of an issue equal time, even if one side is obviously full of it.

I guess why.
If some of the media had gone out saying that all the "evidence" of Iraq having WMD was a fabrication, they would have been put in the freezer:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-obama-putting-fox-news-in-freezer.html

I wonder if the BBC is any better. Here in the US I'd really worry about a state-run or state-funded media, our politicians can be pretty slimy.

Agreed that state-run media can be worse.

 

[Oliver]

I thought the same - because you have no point at all if there is no threat.
You know, the "Ahmadinejad-Holocaust-Nuke-Israel-Genocide"-type of threat
US politicians, Pro-Israel groups and some rapture-nuts are spewing all the time.

It does not exist ... one big, ridiculous exaggeration.

Am I wrong?

 

[RandFan]

Am I wrong?

Yes.

 

[Oliver]

Yes.

So demonizing something despite evidence is okay for you as a Skeptic?
Those are sad News, RandFan.

 

[RandFan]

So demonizing something despite evidence is okay for you as a Skeptic?
Those are sad News, RandFan.

Claiming that there is no evidence doesn't make you right.

 

[Oliver]

Claiming that there is no evidence doesn't make you right.

Claiming that suspicion does have an influence regarding the topic
does make you right.

However: As long Iran is a pretty non-intervening country in contrast
to those you think are "rightdoers", you don't have a point unless there
is a real threat.

So far, Iran didn't pose a real threat - despite the "Holocaust, Nuking off
the face of the planet, Genocide"-kind of threat the propaganda is trying
to portray.

Anyway: Propaganda and facts are two opposing issues, are they not?

 

[RandFan]

So far, Iran didn't pose a real threat...

Asserting something doesn't make it true.

People far smarter than you and I are quite concerned. These folks include countries friendly to Iran.

 

[Oliver]

Asserting something doesn't make it true.

People far smarter than you and I are quite concerned. These folks include countries friendly to Iran.

It should be the most easy thing in the world to point out
the actual threat coming from Iran. Yet, you refuse to point
it out. So I guess you don't want to go to the rational part
of the facts.

Why is that?

[And I'm not even offended by your stance]

 

[RandFan]

It should be the most easy thing in the world to point out the actual threat coming from Iran.

Why is the UN concerned? Why is Russia concerned? Iran has expressed some very strong rhetoric against Israel and is currently praising the terrorists.

You are right. That was pretty easy.

"Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It" --George Santayana

 

[Oliver]

Why is the UN concerned? Why is Russia concerned? Iran has expressed some very strong rhetoric against Israel and is currently praising the terrorists.

You are right. That was pretty easy.

"Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It" --George Santayana

So if everyone is concerned. About what? [other than losing the
dominance in the ME]

What is the threat, "RandFan"? Point it out: