War In Iran

[vimothy]

But why is that the question? why isn't the question: "if the US were stay nuclear ..."? or "if russia were stay nuclear ..."? or "if israel were stay nuclear ..."? or "if the UK were stay nuclear ..."?

For a start the US, russia, israel or the UK have historically been VASTLY more belliciose than Iran. Of course past performance is rarely a good predictor of future performance, but why should one loose sight of this fact?

Your question betrays a strong bias in favour of the existing powers (Might is right?)

Doesn't this exactly sum up the problem with this position?

borderpolice, in the interests of a rather twisteed notion of "fairness" you are arguing for nuclear proliferation. Should we sit idle while dictatorial lunatics arm themselves with nukes? Do these regimes have a mandate from their citizens? Does their drive for nuclear bombs express popular will?

 

[vimothy]

Oliver your site looks brilliant. Hopefully I'll get the chance to mine it properly soon. Are all the articles there yours?

Thank you. Yes, I wrote all of it. I used to be quite energetic and engaged!

Are you not writing stuff anymore then? A definite shame, if true.

 

[bassnation]

Doesn't this exactly sum up the problem with this position?

borderpolice, in the interests of a rather twisteed notion of "fairness" you are arguing for nuclear proliferation. Should we sit idle while dictatorial lunatics arm themselves with nukes? Do these regimes have a mandate from their citizens? Does their drive for nuclear bombs express popular will?

no-one wants further proliferation, but why would anyone want to listen to a bunch of lying hypocrites with huge nuclear arsenals?

 

[vimothy]

(It goes without saying that a lot of Muslim countries (although not Iran directly, I think) have good reason to resent Israel, of course.)

Your responses are all v. thoughtful, Mr Tea, but I don't understand this: in what sense do many Muslim countries have good reason to resent Israel? Because Israel didn't loose wars fought against them?

 

[borderpolice]

Oh, here we go again - I don't hold Western goverments responsible for all the bad things in the world, therefore I'm a mindless drone brainwashed by propaganda.

(1) Nobody is asking you to "hold Western goverments responsible for all the bad things in the world".

(2) the world as it is now has been shaped to suit what has been perceived as in the interest of the west -- usually by force. the west has had alternative courses of actions (e.g. not to invade Irak, Chechnya, Lebanon), whereas the dominated regions have had fewer alternative courses of action -- with freedom comes responsibility.

Can you please credit me with the intelligence to form my own opinions?

(3) All our opinions about foreign policies (including my own) are essentially produced by what we read in the various mass media. That's worth repeating.

Iran seems to be sounding a lot less belligerent lately but it wasn't long ago that it pledged to "wipe Israel of the map"

Maybe they said so, maybe not, i'm not sure. In any case, the use has been trying to wipe Iran of the map for several decades. Just a few years ago, the US killed upwards of a million Iranians, through its proxy ally Iraq (surely agreed upon with Israel). Did Iran ever attack the US? Just a few weeks ago, Israel invaded Lebanon, aka, tried to wipe Lebanon off the map. Why do you wine only about Iran then? Whatever happened to fairness and equality?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Because the lying hipocrits are less likely to use them than the mad mullahs?

I don't think anyone's defending the current status quo as an ideal situation, but I think it's ridiculous to say "Iran should have nukes because America and Israel have nukes and it's only fair". Obviously America isn't exactly a positive force for global stability and peace but I can garruantee you they are not about to start chucking nukes around. The same cannot be said of certain other countries.

Edit: in response to borderpolice's point 3, yes, I obviously have to rely on the media to find out what's going on in the world, given that I can't personally be everywhere at once. But I get most of my news from the BBC which, I think, is as agenda-free as any big news corporation can be. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think the BBC is only telling me what Western governments want me here, otherwise how would I be aware of, for example, Israel's completely illegal war against Lebanon?

Iran has categorically stated that it wants to destroy Israel. It supports Hizbullah, whcih is dedicated to destroying Israel. As I said before, I'm certainly not holding up Israel as any kind of innocent victim here, far from it, and I'm also aware of the role the US has had in the region - but this discussion is about nuclear weapons, which bring a whole new level of seriousness to regional conflicts.

 

[crackerjack]

"(2) the world as it is now has been shaped to suit what has been perceived as in the interest of the west -- usually by force. the west has had alternative courses of actions (e.g. not to invade Irak, Chechnya, Lebanon), whereas the dominated regions have had fewer alternative courses of action -- with freedom comes responsibility."

The west invaded Chechnya and Lebanon?

 

[borderpolice]

What the fucking fuck?!

In what sense does having troops stationed in a country mean the US rules it?

Isn't that obvious? Troop presence constrains the freedom of decision of local government.

Does the US administration make decisions about UK health policy, for e.g.?

I don't know. The US instituted the privatisation of health care in irak, apparently one of the first measures after the invasion.

More importantly, ruling doesnt mean making EVERY decision about the ruled country. There are too many decisions to make. GW Bush probably doesn't decide what car the governor of california may drive. Nevertheless Bush rules over schwarzenegger.

Power in institutions works by subsidiarity.

Did stationing troops in Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion constitute an invasion of sovereign muslim soil, as per bin Laden?

Kuwait was a US satellite before the invasion, as is well-known.

 

[Mr. Tea]

In any case, the use has been trying to wipe Iran of the map for several decades. Just a few years ago, the US killed upwards of a million Iranians, through its proxy ally Iraq (surely agreed upon with Israel).

No, the Iraqis killed those Iranians. Can we please humanise the Iraqis to the extent that, when an Iraqi fires a gun and kills someone, *he* is responsible for that death, regardless of who may have given him the gun?

I'm not defending America's support of Iraq in the 80s, obviously. I'm just asking that you don't hold America solely responsible (see? we're back here again) for a war that was fought, at the end of the day, between two Islamic states in the Middle East.

 

[vimothy]

Your concept of stability is biased, presumably reflecting the place where you live. If you had been a resident of one of the places where the imperial powers fight their proxy wars, e.g. afganistan, iran, irak, lebaon, palestine, chechnya, you'd have realised that there is no stability. it behooves you well, to consider the plight of others and not just wealthy westerners.

Quite, and I think you would probably have a lessw one dimensional view of Western powers as well, were that the case. Iran, for instance, is an imperial power, with proxies, spheres of influence and regional ambition. It behooves you also to consider the possibilty that these non-westerners are not only victims but actors in their own right, and that vice as well as virtue is distributed across the races.

(1) they regularly use nuclear weapons in tests.

(2) they regularly use there other weapons, just as deadly, c.f. Irak. Iran has not done this for over 2000 years.

1 has been addressed, 2 is wrong. Iran has not used conventional weapons for 2000 years? Leaving aside the issue of the age of the modern state of Iran, and its repression of its own citizens (not undertaken without weapons), hasn't Iran taken part in some pretty horrific wars? Why else is Iran's demographics so badly screwed?

The reason you believe this is because the western mass media tells you this story all the time.

The same media that used to go on about the weapons of mass destruction in irak just a few years back, the same media that is owned and steered by the same power elite that finances the current western governments.

We're all such idiots, naturally ...

 

[matt b]

Your responses are all v. thoughtful, Mr Tea, but I don't understand this: in what sense do many Muslim countries have good reason to resent Israel? Because Israel didn't loose wars fought against them?

this might help:
http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/jewsfjustice.cfm

 

[vimothy]

no-one wants further proliferation, but why would anyone want to listen to a bunch of lying hypocrites with huge nuclear arsenals?

Do you include yourself in that category?

 

[bassnation]

Do you include yourself in that category?

just to be clear:i'm not calling you a hypocrite and i very much doubt you have a huge personal nuclear stockpile.

 

[vimothy]

Maybe they said so, maybe not, i'm not sure. In any case, the use has been trying to wipe Iran of the map for several decades. Just a few years ago, the US killed upwards of a million Iranians, through its proxy ally Iraq (surely agreed upon with Israel). Did Iran ever attack the US? Just a few weeks ago, Israel invaded Lebanon, aka, tried to wipe Lebanon off the map. Why do you wine only about Iran then? Whatever happened to fairness and equality?

Can you actually support any of this?

 

[borderpolice]

Doesn't this exactly sum up the problem with this position?

borderpolice, in the interests of a rather twisteed notion of "fairness" you are arguing for nuclear proliferation.

I am arguing against nuclear proliferation. You argue for nuclear racism, whereby some states are allowed (the established powers), the rest must remain unarmed, hence at the mercy of the powerful west, as has been the case since ... well, if you want a number, what about 1471.

The point is: as long as "the others" have nukes, it is rational for "us" to have nukes.

Should we sit idle while dictatorial lunatics arm themselves with nukes?

are you talking about Bush? Olmert? Putin?

Do these regimes have a mandate from their citizens?

are you talking about Bush? Olmert? Putin?

Does their drive for nuclear bombs express popular will?

are you talking about Bush? Olmert? Putin?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well for one thing its creation caused a huge Palestinian refugee crisis, many of whom were forced into neighbouring countries, which can't have been very welcome. Israel's attacks on Lebanon have been discussed here before. Plus there's the simple resentment factor that there's this new country sitting there like a cuckoo chick in a nest, receiving huge quantities of unconditional aid from the world's wealthiest country while the rest of the region is largely third-world, with countries often suffering trade embargoes.

 

[vimothy]

i'm not calling you personally a hypocrite. i thought we were talking about governments.

No, I know - of course we are talking about governments, I'm just trying to allude to the fact that there is all sorts of difference included within government, i.e. that they're not all lying assholes (although surely some of them are).

 

[vimothy]

No, the Iraqis killed those Iranians. Can we please humanise the Iraqis to the extent that, when an Iraqi fires a gun and kills someone, *he* is responsible for that death, regardless of who may have given him the gun?

Yes please, for god's sake!

 

[Mr. Tea]

I am arguing against nuclear proliferation. You argue for nuclear racism

I wondered how long it would be before the 'R'-word made an appearance.

I, personally, don't think it's racist to believe that a nuclear-armed US isn't about to start lobbing nukes all over the place while at the same time feeling uneasy about a theocratic dictatorship with an appalling human rights record getting hold of the Bomb.

 

[borderpolice]

Iran, for instance, is an imperial power, with proxies, spheres of influence and regional ambition.

Iran isn't yet an imperial power, for a start it doesn't have nukes.

It behooves you also to consider the possibilty that these non-westerners are not only victims but actors in their own right, and that vice as well as virtue is distributed across the races.

I am perfectly aware of this. as i am perfectly aware of the imbalance of power between
those in power and those that are not. what matters is who has the luxury of choice.
to illustrate: i attribute slavery to western (especially french, dutch, spanish and portuguese) imperialism, and that's where the guilt is. nevertheless, i know full well, that the slaves were mostly captures and sold by africans. But the latter acted under the power of the former. hence the latter had less choice than the former. the situation is similar today: as long as Iran is surrounded by extremly hostile powers, it is rational for iran to arm itself to the teeth. it is the responsibility of those hostile powers to deflate their own power and threat level, so it is no longer necessary for iran to arm itself.

Why is this so hard to understand.

hasn't Iran taken part in some pretty horrific wars? Why else is Iran's demographics so badly screwed?

Please consider who started these wars?