The Situation in Iran

[PunkMaister]

F.D.R And Ronald Reagan respectively are the 2 US presidents I admire the most. Kennedy comes third only because he just did not last long enough to enact most of what he intended...

[sonofccn]

That assumes that it is possible at all to determine good from bad. Can you prove that it is possible? Prove that there are things that are recognised ultimately as bad and things that are recognised ultimately as good. Considering that you have already referred to Nihilism, that should be interesting.

Very little if anything is reconized world wide but I never claimed it was. I claimed there was right and wrong regardless of what any regimes says. I disagreed on universial rights not that thier is morality that others chose to obey or disobey. Murder is wrong regardless if it happens in Germany or Iran. Do you disagree WILGA?

I champion the idea that there is no natural right, no absolute right and wrong.


I champion the idea that every peoples can have their own opinion of what is right and wrong, considering their history
- as long as they do not think that it is right to foist their opinion on other peoples.

Bzzzzzzt! These two statments can not be held at the same time. If you champion that there is no wrong or right you can not believe foistering your opinion on someone else to be wrong. That is an absolute which you claim not to beleive in. On the other hand if you do believe in absolutes and believe it's wrong to project your belifs on to others I must ask why oppression doesn't rate higher on your personal belief list. So WILGA which do you actually believe in?

I champion the idea that democracy (to a certain extent) is the right for the German peoples.


I champion the idea that democracy is not automatically the right for all peoples on the world.

So animals should get rights just because but flesh and blood humans are negotiable. All people deserve freedom WILGA unless you believe there is a fundimental differnce between people.

Correct: if you would have hed superior fire power there wouldn't have been a Cold War. There would have been a Third World War. Millions would have died.
The war may have ended with the occupation of Europe and Asian through the USA. The of you championed freedom and liberty of many peoples would have ended. The self-determination of peoples would have ended. You would have dictated how they are supposed to live.

As opposed to the millions that perished due to communism?

2. Your grasp of reality is weak. Following WWIII we would have liberated Eastern Europe and set them up to form thier own goverments which we more or less did after the fall anyway. You may have noticed Russia is not a puppet state to us.

Can you prove it. Honestly, you are claiming things about the rest of the world that, if it would be true, would make them all barbarians. Is this really your opinion? That the rest of the world is barbarian and only the USA ist civilised? Can you prove it?

Where did I say that? I listed two countries as examples, China and Russia. I did point out having the power to forge a new Roman empire and not doing it indicated something and it was a starting point, you know what starting point means correct?, but I never claimed anything regarding Europe as a whole. I happen to think the British are very civillised.

Because, as far as I can see, the USA is not better. It is a nation that not only has enough WMDs to extinct mankind several times, but the first and only nation who has used nuclear weapons against humans - two times. It's also the biggest seller of weapons and it sells its weapons to what you would call the most evil regimes in the world. At the same time, it is the nation with the most out of area military operations since 1950. Some of them, but only the absolute minority, were humanitarian operations. It supports, what you would call the most evil regimes in the world as long as the attitude of their dictators are beneficial for American interests. It sabotage democratic gouvernments if they have an attitude that is adverse for American interests.

1. Those two bombs saved American lives. It also saved the lives of the Japanese but I particularly care about the Americans.

2.True we do sell the most and we do sell to shady characters but then so does everyone else. France and Germany sold more to Iraq preinvasion than We did for instances and the Russian made AK-47 is a mainstay of third world nations. I never claimed we were saints, which for some reason we are expected to be.

3. We supported the soviets during WWII because it was in our interest. I'll support anyone if it allows us to pursue our interests, just like all other nations, including years WILGA, do and have done since time immortal.

During the World War II, neither Great Britain nor Germany has had nukes.


If both nations would have had nukes, World War II would probably not have happened because it would have resulted in mutually destruction.


Germany of today is not Great Britain.


I do not want that Germany, neither the Germany from today nor Nazi Germany, has nuclear weapons. But I also do not want that Great Britain or any other nation has nuclear weapons.

I was using it as an example. Imagine a country like Nazi germany today. Would you want them to have nuclear weapons?

Cheating on an election is an internal affair.
Besides, do you have any prove that it was cheated? The opposition is claiming it. But do they have any proof? (I do not say that it was not cheated. But I do also not say that it was cheated. Because I have no evidence for the one or other possibility.)

You asked for a sign of bad behavior, to identify bad countries. I'd call being despotic a good sign and who the hell cares if it's inside it's borders are not? Does evil stop being evil across border lines?

Suppressing it's own people is also an internal affair. If the Iranian peoples are really wanting democracy, they have to fight for it and have to pay with blood to value it. It can not be donated because such a democracy will not endure.
Besides, the suppressing of it's own people has started after the last intervention of the USA in 1953, when the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq was deposed.

1.I really call suppression your own people a sign of being a bad country.
2. Do you ever think that maybe the Iranians would like some help? You know in the form of funds and bullets maybe?
3. What occured in 1953 is not material to what is occuring now. I fail to see why you brought it up.

I have no doubt that the current regime does not harbour pleasant thoughts concerning Israel. And? The current regime in the USA does not harbour pleasant thoughts concerning Iran or North Korea.
As long as Iran does not attack Israel or prepares an attack, it can think what it wants.

Some us of are afraid it won't stay thoughts.

Bad nation? It's again you, who decides what a bad nation is?

Any one with actual morals WILGA. We are reaching for a pretty basic idea here. Is tryanny good or not.

Being cruel and abusive to other nations grants not total power. You have to have total power or at least be stronger than the nations you are being cruel and abusive to. But you don't honestly want to argue that being cruel and abusive to other nations is - according to the American legal principles - right, do you?

1. you said being cruel and abusive would cause other nations to rebel no matter what. I was simply pointing out that according to human history they don't overall. The big man who treats others like fodder tend to gain absolute power.

2. I was not citing favor for the idea, merely correcting a flawed thought process.

Do you have any prove that Iran sponsors terrorism?
Correct is that Iran sponsors Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Mahdi army. But it does not view these groups as terrorist. If we continue that path, we will soon argue what's the difference between a terroristic group and freedom fighters or resistance fighters. Considering that a 1988 study by the United States Army found that there are over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism” and that the concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of terror against them, that would be a very controversial debate.

In the interest of avoid an even bigger pointless debate let's cut to the brash tacks. Iran pays people who in turn attack other nations, specificly Isreal, which Iran has issues with. So depsite them not sending tanks out they have been conducting warfare against various nations for a long time. Is that simple enough?

The Korean war has started 1950 and an armistice was signed 1953. Why is this war supposed to have any relevance in this debate?

You said Korea never invaded another country. They did in S.Korea. They started the whole thing.

1% of the German GDP is still more than what most other nations have. Fact is that Germany has the sixth largest defence spending. Only the USA, UK, France, China and Japan have higher defence spendings.

Well I'd rate three maybe four of those nations armed forces as superior. The UK has some force projection and China is working on that last I heard. China also has the largest army and is highly trained to boot.

And now look what the USA with all its defence spendings can do. It is not able to pacify Afghanistan or Iraq. Now imagine what would happen if USA would attack Germany. Yes, maybe it would win a war. But it would get a very bloody nose.

No not a bloody nose, not in the actual defeating of Germany. We lost the bulk of our losses in the pacifying not conquring phase. Iraq fell like a deck of cards and had some of the best equipment Russia, France and China could equipe it with. Germany would fall similarly.

No. I do not want to act nice and friendly towards people who want to kill us. But I do not want to attack people, regardless of their opinions, as long as they do not attack me or another nation or are preparing an attack on me or on another nation. I have not only the choice between be nice and friendly or attack them. There are other ways too.

Preparing for war? That almost sounds like you support preemptive strikes WILGA.

And as I have said already: to threat them will only make them more determined to get nuclear weapons. And sooner or later they will get them. You simply can't put enough fire power on the borders of each nation and the more you are threatening other nations and ignoring international law, the more nations will get determined to get nuclear weapons as a guarantee for their sovereignty.

Justifying thier desires is not going to help the problem WILGA. Actually if other nations actually feared that we would topple them for having nukes, as in no warnings no diplomacy just wham-bam, most nations would derail any thoughts on the subject. Your nation in ash tends to risk sovereignty more than staying on the tyrant's good side. The Tarkin doctrin. Cruel but effective.

Yes, what the USA is doing is official policy. What has happened in the UN was the fatuities of a few and not official policy. After it become public, it was investigated and prosecuted. That's the difference between official policy to the USA.

You cited Nixion and Clinton. Neither were offical policy. If you are regarding our forgien policy, well for someone who believes in no wrongs or rights you have a very definate opinion on something. As to UN I'm glad it's not offical policy to create slush funds and starve Iraqis. That doesn't change the fact that the "watchdogs" are either all blind until after it spilled out into public knowledge, or all on the take. Maybe they got all the offenders, maybe they didn't. The clean up was in house and I'll prefer to "err on the side of caution" and assume they can't be trusted until proven otherwise.

Prove it! Give examples! Show that it is really a system wide corruption and not only the fatuities of a few. Show that UN peacekeepers have a nasty tendency to take advantage of the people they are supposed to help. Not only a single example. If it is supposed to be a nasty tendency, you have to show that it happens almost every time.

I don't really need to link an example of oil for food do I? Anyway for a basic recap of UN blunders here you
go.

If you would be really interested in policy and the UN, you could have found that yourself.

It was more along the lines of a rhetorical question WILGA. However you appear to prefer false peace as long as your are not directly affected.

It's not the goal of the UN to say other peoples how they have to life. It's not the goal of the UN to spread the American way of life. It's not the goal of the UN to enforce American interests. And it's not the goal of the UN to form a kind of planetary government or to unite all nations in a kind of federal state or confederation.

1. I never told it to tell people how to live. In fact I want the opposite, to free people to decide how to live.

2. I didn't realize freedom and liberty were only American beliefs.

3. I never said enforce American interests. Freeing people is hardly an American centric interest.

I do not like the fact that women are stoned to death. But as the women of our nations have fight for their emancipation, the women of other cultures have to do it themself. It will never be accepted and will never endure if you impose such values on them

It's hard to fight for emancipation when they stone you for minor infractions like being a rape victem, or being a witch. They might you know need a few guarrentees that they won't end up dead.

Especially if the USA does not has any credibility regarding such an issue. After all, woman suffrage was only incorporated into the United States Constitution 1920.

Do you really not see the slightest moral differnce with denying women the right to vote and killing them? Hell the US could have denied woman suffrage until 1990 and still be morally superior.

The UN would not have worked if the Soviet Union would not have become a permanent member of the security council. It's as easy as that. Have you read something about the failings of the League of Nations?

Theleague failed because it didn't send out anyone to kill the various nutjobs in power in the late twenty and thirties. It was a toothless organization. Having the soivet Union on board the UN ensured nothing was ever agreed to, at least not until any proposal was whittled down to a powerless condemation. NATO was much more important to keeping world peace than the UN.

You have claimed to be the world police. But there was and is not such a position in the first place that you could usurp it at all.

Do you think it's an offical UN position or something? It doesn't come with a title or pay or benifites or anything else. We simply are the blokes who every turns to in a pinch. Some invades we show up. Natural disaster we are the first on the scene. No one else has the power or desire to do it.

And you were allied with the Soviets and with China during the World War II. But you have very quickly accomplished it to alienate both nations with your arrogance.

???? That statment no sense.

And you have not fought the Soviets during the Cold War. That's why it is called Cold War and not a World War III.

Did you notice the word war in it's title as opposed to peace? The Cold War was a war WILGA fought for generations. The world would have been better if we said the hell with it and invaded in 1945 but instead we fought a long costly war to keep the Soviets from engulfing Westeran Europe. Just because it was fought without bullets didn't make it any less of a conflict.

know what's a metaphor is. But my points stands. The USA arrogates the position of legislative, executive and judiciary. It wants to decide what is wrong and what is right. It wants to decide which nation is doing something wrong and which nation is doing something right. I wants to decide which nation it to be punished and which nation is not to be punished. And it wants to decide what the punishment has to entail. The USA does not seek consensus with the 192 other nations of this planet because it is so arrogant that it thinks it knows what is the best for all. On a national level, such an attitude would be called dictatorship.

1. Since you have declared that you don't believe in wrong and right maybe it's a good thing the USA does.

2.It simply groups productive nations and nations that tend to want to stirr up trouble, like N. Korea.

3.Does morality only exist in consensus for you? If those 192 nations agreed that all those of a certain color were non human and must be exterminated would you agree with? Would that be moral?

4. WILGA you don't believe in wrong or right so how can you object to a dictatorship? You are applying a moral absolute on something which you claimed you don't believe in.

Why do you claim now that the USA is the closet thing this planet has to protectors. Do you protect the planet? Against what? Who wants you as a protector? Really, the most people on this Earth are hating the USA. You have seen the people in TV burning a US flag? They neither do want you as a police nor as a protector.

I didn't just claim now. Being the protector and World Police are one and the same. It's been that way since the fifties. We spend the bucks to do it and at least attempt to live up the loft goals we set of being a nice all around guardian.

2. We protect the poeple on the planet WILGA, you know the important part.

3. Want and need are too differnt things WILGA.

How does that come?

Why do even nations - like Canada or these in Europe - which have no direct disadvantages from the U.S. exploits - nations which were and are allied with the U.S. - nations which owe the U.S. very much - have now an increasing bad opinion of the U.S.?

That has to have a reason.

And that reason is not that the whole world but the U.S. is stupid and that they all aren't able to see what great things the U.S. are doing.

A poll? Why would I care about a poll? This is not a populatiry contest. I don't paticularly care if every nation hates us. That in itself does not change the facts. As I said for better or worse. You may dislike us, you may hate the way we act or what we believe but that doesn't change the fact that we are the largest hombre and try to do the right thing.

What you have done is not considered self defence any more. Your right for self-defence is over when the attack is over. Self-defence is only to ward off an attack. It's not a justification to do what you have wanted to do a long time ago if it goes farther than it is necessary to ward off an attack.

It's the ward of further attack bit. I don't want to be attacked, ever again. I want to stop the bad guys before they attack. You are of hte belief we should only repulse an attack and than wait which since we are fighting an asymetrical war means suffering hundreds, thousands or millions of deaths for a token sum of dead enemies. That isn't how you win a war WILGA.

There is an article in which a legal opinion is presented, which is similar to my own legal opinion, I have made 2001.

Which is all it is an opinion. One made apparently focusing on legality rather than actual survival. If I had to chose between obeying the law and staying alive I say change the law.

Is now illogical behaviour, caused maybe by national pride, a casus belli?

By itself? No. Illogical behavior, coupled with grudges, disregard for people, and atomic technolgy? Maybe.

Besides, maybe they may have enough oil but wants to sell it because it brings more money. Maybe they know that their oil is limited and do not want to start nuclear research only after it is exhausted. Maybe they know that the usage of oil is bad for their environment and don't want to use is any more in the long run. Each explanation would be possible.

1.Sell it to who? Thier other oil rich nieghbors who are starting to get nervous about them pursuing nuclear technology? Risking it's soverginty against the West who have been trying to stop this for years in addition to Isreal who has blown up reactors before.

2. Oil running out is more a belief of the West than middle east. It is highly doubtful that is motivating them in additoin to the above mentioned risks Iran is bring down on itself.
3.No. They do not care about the enviroment. I can't beleive you typed that with a straight face.

Until now, the Iran has not shown that it is really willing to attack the USA or Israel.

You mean besides takings hostages in the embassy and funding guys who do the attacking right?

Yes, I can understand that you think that the CIA, who was not able to prevent 9/11 and who has lied regarding the WMDs of Iraq is so much more trustworthiness than an international organisation who has until now never erred.

1. The CIA is hardly fool prove but it's only human as I believe you said WILGA.

2. Do you have evidence they lied or merely were incorrect. Those are two differnt statments.

3. Never erred? The IAEA typical response is that no the nation in question doesn't have a nuclear program followed by oops they are 3-6 months from having hte capacity to build a nuke.

That's why I have two further article for you:

Wow an unamed source claiming to be from the CIA. Evidence that is not. At least the second one actually has a name and states his position through he merely seemed to say we can't be sure. Unfortantly in the CIA sort of work I don't think you are ever sure. Of course not being sure swings both ways. We don't know they arn't building nukes.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I'm glad most people understand that keeping out of it is the way to go.

I don't mean to pry but if I may ask why do you believe we should stay out of it? JMS and Flectarn basicly cited it would aid the regimes statments that the unpleasentness is artificlly generated.

For the same reason he probably thinks we should just allow N.K to roll over S.K and part of Japan as they have always wanted. The Japs are just dirty capitalists as are the S.Koreans and as such they deserve to die just like Americans and all libertarians in the face of this planet. That's the liberal way of thinking nowadays anyhow...

Well let's make it clear. I don't really care much about this thread, but you sir and your idiotic accusations and strawmen, you're annoying me. That you have the intelligence of a potato is not my problem, but I'm still going to report your shit.