War In Iran

[vimothy]

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.

Well, personally I think that your position is racist: those poor little muslim victims, unable to act for themselves withouty the dead hand of the West heavy on their shoulders, only want to play like the big boys and have their own warheads ...

are you talking about Bush? Olmert? Putin?

None of the above; why don't you answer the question?

[WTF does Putin have to do with any of this by the way? Rusia ain't no Western state]

are you talking about Bush? Olmert? Putin?

None of the above; why don't you answer the question?

are you talking about Bush? Olmert? Putin?

None of the above; why don't you answer the question?

 

[borderpolice]

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 don't hold such naive views. I also don't believe in the tooth fairy.

I'm not defending America's support of Iraq in the 80s, obviously.

I'm afraid you are defending America's support of Iraq in the 80s, by trivialising it's impact and responsibility.

 

[vimothy]

I am arguing against nuclear proliferation.

Except you're not, and that's what we're discussing here.

 

[vimothy]

I don't hold such naive views. I also don't believe in the tooth fairy.

borderpolice, I was being antogonistic before, but now I am not so sure: that sounds very much like racism to me. Iraqi's don't have agency of their own?

 

[vimothy]

(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.

Don't you want to dig a bit deeper? Why do you only get your info from MSM? And surely you have some critical facullties.

 

[borderpolice]

Well, personally I think that your position is racist: those poor little muslim victims, unable to act for themselves withouty the dead hand of the West heavy on their shoulders, only want to play like the big boys and have their own warheads ...

This is getting silly. I am discussing politics, not individal citizen action. In politics, agency requires power. Iraq/Iran has a lot less power than the west, hence a lot less agency.

None of the above; why don't you answer the question?

My question were an answer, but you didn't get it. Let me spell it out: there is no reason (other than western mass-media propaganda) to believe that the iranian leadership is any more irrational than those leaders that i mentioned. The western powers have manouvered Iran into a position, where building up a nuclear arsenal is the only reasonable and rational policy. The west has fucked Iran again and again and again. And they are in the process of doing so once more. maybe it's time for the western powers to stop their imperial ways and try something more constructive?

 

[vimothy]

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

Nukes are neither here nor there. By that logic, the British Empire was not an empire.

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.

Good point: who freed the slaves (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.

That's why there was no slave trade in Africa before the white man got there and fucked everything up, as per bloody usual.

hence the latter had less choice than the former.

That's just a daft rationalisation.

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.

I thought you said you didn't believe in the tooth fairy?

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.

That's right, because developing countries have no agency or control over their own actions.

Why is this so hard to understand.

A load of old bollocks, something like that?

Please consider who started these wars?

Give support then.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I don't hold such naive views. I also don't believe in the tooth fairy.



I'm afraid you are defending America's support of Iraq in the 80s, by trivialising it's impact and responsibility.

What are you talking about? It's "naive" to credit people with free will and agency? And I'm "trivialising" the impact of American involvement (by failing to absolve Saddam's Iraq of all responsibility in its war with Iran?), therefore I'm defending it?

I'm going to take vimothy's line here and say that you appear to think Muslims/Arabs/Middle-Easterners incapable of doing anything without being either goaded, bribed or threatened into doing it by the big bad West.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Let me spell it out: there is no reason (other than western mass-media propaganda) to believe that the iranian leadership is any more irrational than those leaders that i mentioned.

Bollocks. The leaders of America, Britain and Israel do not preside over countries where a woman can be publically hanged for the crime of allowing herself to raped. That's pretty damn 'irrational'.

 

[borderpolice]

Can you actually support any of this?

yes. read any mainstream western media outlet, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk on the lebanon war, or consider history books on how the US disposed a democratically elected government in Iran or the iran/iraq war??

 

[vimothy]

Bollocks. The leaders of America, Britain and Israel do not preside over countries where a woman can be publically hanged for the crime of allowing herself to raped. That's pretty damn 'irrational'.

There is also a woman awaiting execution in Iran for the crime of having an affair. Her husband and another man killed her lover. They received six years in prison. She will be buried up to her brests in the ground and pelted with stones (of a specified size; wouldn't wanrt her to die too quickly) until dead.

I linked to a campaign for her somewhere in this thread.

 

[borderpolice]

sorry vimothy, our discussion has degenerated too far. Maybe it's my fault?

be that as it may, i'm not confident that i would benefit from discussing this further so i will drop out. if you decide to write something more substantial i'm happy to resume discussion.

 

[vimothy]

yes. read any mainstream western media outlet, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk on the lebanon war, or consider history books on how the US disposed a democratically elected government in Iran or the iran/iraq war??

Oh come on mate, why don't you do it yourself instead of just making vague declarations?

 

[vimothy]

sorry vimothy, our discussion has degenerated too far. Maybe it's my fault?

be that as it may, i'm not confident that i would benefit from discussing this further so i will drop out. if you decide to write something more substantial i'm happy to resume discussion.

Fair dos: you're probably right. None of this was meant as a personal attack on anyone, btw, I just like to argue and debate and think these are important issues which should be argued and debated. Plus, I'd rather discuss with people who disagree with me than people who's views match my own.

Good arguin wiv ya bro

 

[borderpolice]

Bollocks. The leaders of America, Britain and Israel do not preside over countries where a woman can be publically hanged for the crime of allowing herself to raped. That's pretty damn 'irrational'.

Yes that's terrible. I do not endorse the current iranian government. as a staunch atheist, i have no sympathy for any form of religious regime. I would love to see it gone, as would many iranians. However, I also assume that there is a systematic connection between the trajectory of iranian politics and western imperialism. I would like to remind you that the iranian revolution was a reaction against the US-imposed shah.

In the US the probability to be in prison is vastly larger if you are black than if you are white. In the US you can get thrown into jail for smoking plants. That's also irrational. Should that allow jamaica to attack the US?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Sorry b-p, but that sounds a lot like someone without a leg to stand on bowing out of an argument.

I think vimothy and I have more or less conclusively shown that Iran, as a theocratic dictatorship with one of the world's worst human rights records, is led by people significantly more 'irrational' than our own dear Blair and Bush. I don't think either of us is holding either of those two as a model of an enlightened, progressive leader, but there's a big gap between that and being a murderous, mysogynistic religious lunatic.

 

[matt b]

There is also a woman awaiting execution in Iran for the crime of having an affair. Her husband and another man killed her lover. They received six years in prison. She will be buried up to her brests in the ground and pelted with stones (of a specified size; wouldn't wanrt her to die too quickly) until dead.

I linked to a campaign for her somewhere in this thread.

what a dumb line of argument- because other countries act irrationally, we don't? tell that to the innocent people who have been shot because they're a) foreign b) bearded c) carrying a chair leg (take your pick), just to highlight one issue.

 

[crackerjack]

what a dumb line of argument- because other countries act irrationally, we don't? tell that to the innocent people who have been shot because they're a) foreign b) bearded c) carrying a chair leg (take your pick), just to highlight one issue.

that's ridiculous. Those were mistakes, Iran's brutlaity is a policy choice.

 

[matt b]

that's ridiculous. Those were mistakes, Iran's brutlaity is a policy choice.

debateable, but not rational though, were they?

 

[Mr. Tea]

that's ridiculous. Those were mistakes, Iran's brutlaity is a policy choice.

It's not like it's an illicit but tolerated police abuse, either - it's official policy.