or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › We're going to have to attack Iran
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

We're going to have to attack Iran - Page 4

post #121 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I know you're not actually advocating this, but I would just like to point out that the use of the term "effectively", when used to describe a strategy with geo-political ramifications, has to include more than just immediate results.

Certainly, a nuclear strike would be "effective" in fucking up Iran. However, assuming our goals in the region go beyond standing on a pile of rubble screaming "Boo-yah!!! Who's your daddy, now, bitches!!!!", it would be amazingly "ineffectual" with regards to things like stabilizing the region, lessening the violence in Iraq, dealing with terrorism, increasing strategic alliances, or convincing the rest of the world that we aren't more-or-less insane, and therefor to be resisted by every means in every instance.


Point is war with Iran is not practical. Any strategy affective enough to effect success would be two impractical.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #122 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

Point is war with Iran is not practical. Any strategy affective enough to effect success would be two impractical.

Right. I just want to advocate for enlarging the definition of "success" to the point where it doesn't even make any sense to use it in the same sentence as "war with Iran", yeah?

Because there really isn't useful distinction to be made between "lots of dead bad guys" and "massive, uncontrollable blow-back".

It's like that old joke about jumping off a building and deciding half way down that "everything is fine so far". Just not a very practical use of "fine".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #123 of 207
From the worst President thread, that either slipped by or no one thinks is important,


Quote:
Sunni militants are being armed with Iranian-made munitions, US military spokesman Maj Gen William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6546555.stm

Now,

Quote:
With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...487785,00.html

Desperate measures or what.
post #124 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Sunni militants are being armed with Iranian-made munitions, US military spokesman Maj Gen William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad.

Uh-oh...it's back.

Let's try something different. Today we hear that the holiest Shi'i shrine in the Islamic world - as well as one of the masterpieces of world architecture - has been blown up.

So: who by?

Shi'i?
Someone else who wants to cause tribal division?

Let's say it was Sunnis.

The argument is that these same Sunnis are being funded by the Shi'i...to kill Shi'i and destroy Shi'i shrines...that is the argument right?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #125 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Uh-oh...it's back.

Let's try something different. Today we hear that the holiest Shi'i shrine in the Islamic world - as well as one of the masterpieces of world architecture - has been blown up.

So: who by?

Shi'i?
Someone else who wants to cause tribal division?

Let's say it was Sunnis.

The argument is that these same Sunnis are being funded by the Shi'i...to kill Shi'i and destroy Shi'i shrines...that is the argument right?

The incompetence of this is unbelievable.
We know shrines and mosques are targets. Where was security??? Amateurs!!

The US army can't protect an fffing church...what the f.
Petraeus should immediately resign over this and indeed that should be used as a case for impeachment as well.

BTW the Iraqi army is equipped with American weapons .... and a lot of American weapons are used to attack US troops as well.
post #126 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I know you're not actually advocating this, but I would just like to point out that the use of the term "effectively", when used to describe a strategy with geo-political ramifications, has to include more than just immediate results.

Certainly, a nuclear strike would be "effective" in fucking up Iran. However, assuming our goals in the region go beyond standing on a pile of rubble screaming "Boo-yah!!! Who's your daddy, now, bitches!!!!", it would be amazingly "ineffectual" with regards to things like stabilizing the region, lessening the violence in Iraq, dealing with terrorism, increasing strategic alliances, or convincing the rest of the world that we aren't more-or-less insane, and therefor to be resisted by every means in every instance.

I agree with you here. I also disagree that a nuclear option would be the only way. We could launch a massive air campaign, which is what I believe we will end up doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Nope.

I say we send in Jimmy Carter again. He has such a great track record.

Dude, now there is a man that knows how to judge a President!


Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

Point is war with Iran is not practical. Any strategy affective enough to effect success would be two impractical.

Disagree. If we reach the determination that Iran will go forward with its program no matter what peaceful option is used, we may have to attack. And if we do, it won't be a regime change operation. Oh, they'll be blow back. But the real question is whether or not that will be worse than a nuclear-armed Iran. I say it won't be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Uh-oh...it's back.

Let's try something different. Today we hear that the holiest Shi'i shrine in the Islamic world - as well as one of the masterpieces of world architecture - has been blown up.

So: who by?

Shi'i?
Someone else who wants to cause tribal division?

Let's say it was Sunnis.

The argument is that these same Sunnis are being funded by the Shi'i...to kill Shi'i and destroy Shi'i shrines...that is the argument right?

The Iranians are arming the Taliban, once again, because the Shi'i are putting their dislike of the Sunnis behind their desire to fight Western forces. I'll keep saying it until you listen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

The incompetence of this is unbelievable.
We know shrines and mosques are targets. Where was security??? Amateurs!!

The US army can't protect an fffing church...what the f.
Petraeus should immediately resign over this and indeed that should be used as a case for impeachment as well.

BTW the Iraqi army is equipped with American weapons .... and a lot of American weapons are used to attack US troops as well.

1. Agreed.

2. Most Democrats and Republicans support Petraeus, and there is no evidence that his actions or inactions are responsible for letting the bombing happen.

3. Impeachment? Man, it's like you jerk off to that word. Impeachment requires a criminal act. Look it up.

4. "A lot?" Care to provide some info on that? And if true, does it mean Iran is not supplying anti-American forces?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #127 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


4. "A lot?" Care to provide some info on that? And if true, does it mean Iran is not supplying anti-American forces?

What do you think they shook on?
post #128 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

What do you think they shook on?

You have to be kidding. So you think that they are using American weapons as provided in the mid 1980s....pre-Gulf War I?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #129 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Uh-oh...it's back.

Let's try something different. Today we hear that the holiest Shi'i shrine in the Islamic world - as well as one of the masterpieces of world architecture - has been blown up.

So: who by?

Shi'i?
Someone else who wants to cause tribal division?

Let's say it was Sunnis.

The argument is that these same Sunnis are being funded by the Shi'i...to kill Shi'i and destroy Shi'i shrines...that is the argument right?

Fuck the shrines.
Did you miss the second quote?

Quote:
Quote:
With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...487785,00.html

The first quote was The Sunnis are being funded by the Iranians to kill Americans.
Now the American Commanders think it's a good idea to fund and arm these same Sunnis.

So what the fuck is the truth.
Has History not taught anything to these pinheads?

How fucked up is this getting?
post #130 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The Iranians are arming the Taliban, once again, because the Shi'i are putting their dislike of the Sunnis behind their desire to fight Western forces. I'll keep saying it until you listen.

No, you'll keep saying it until there are dead Iranians and an Iraqified Teheran showing every night on your beloved Fox News which you will presumably be too busy ogling with your pizza and a six-pack to comment.

But I am listening I assure you - I'm listening very hard because I am trying desperately to understand the mentality of the hive-mind that can not only buy into an insanely convoluted pile of bullshit that would not by-pass the critical faculties of a syphilitic gorilla but can actually trumpet their insanity with all the panache of a lobotomised town-crier screaming through a megaphone from the top of the Eiffel tower.

One more time: If the Shi'i are arming the Sunni to fight the US then who the fuck are the Shi'i fighting in the civil war if not the Sunni??????.

And another thing: if you knew anything about Iraq and the Shi'i at all - apart sucking up from the regurgitated wet-dreams of O'Reilly and co - then you would know it is the Shi'i that are stopping the US falling into a bloodbath.

Sistani has repeatedly called for peace after each outrage and he did it again after this latest bombing.

They don't need to arm anyone - especially not to blow up their own holiest shrines (I can see why you are so obsessed with this though as it is a US tactic and perhaps you can't imagine any other method) - all Sistani would need to do would be to issue a fatwa that Shi'is should opppose the US (the fact that he does the opposite is to his eternal credit and the fact you do not even register this is to your..... well.....it's normal) and that would be game over.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #131 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

No, you'll keep saying it until there are dead Iranians and an Iraqified Teheran showing every night on your beloved Fox News which you will presumably be too busy ogling with your pizza and a six-pack to comment.

But I am listening I assure you - I'm listening very hard because I am trying desperately to understand the mentality of the hive-mind that can not only buy into an insanely convoluted pile of bullshit that would not by-pass the critical faculties of a syphilitic gorilla but can actually trumpet their insanity with all the panache of a lobotomised town-crier screaming through a megaphone from the top of the Eiffel tower.

One more time: If the Shi'i are arming the Sunni to fight the US then who the fuck are the Shi'i fighting in the civil war if not the Sunni??????.

And another thing: if you knew anything about Iraq and the Shi'i at all - apart sucking up from the regurgitated wet-dreams of O'Reilly and co - then you would know it is the Shi'i that are stopping the US falling into a bloodbath.

Sistani has repeatedly called for peace after each outrage and he did it again after this latest bombing.

They don't need to arm anyone - especially not to blow up their own holiest shrines (I can see why you are so obsessed with this though as it is a US tactic and perhaps you can't imagine any other method) - all Sistani would need to do would be to issue a fatwa that Shi'is should opppose the US (the fact that he does the opposite is to his eternal credit and the fact you do not even register this is to your..... well.....it's normal) and that would be game over.

First, back off with the ad hom attacks. It's not needed and you're better than that.

Secondly, I think we're discussing two different issues here. Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, you're right...Iran arming Sunnis doesn't make sense. But in Afghanistan, the Iranians wish to expel NATO and more specifically, the US. I agree that on the surface, it doesn't make sense. But their desire to expel us outweighs the obvious religious differences and motivations.

Last: You are hardly the one who should be considered the arbiter of what intelligence with respect to Iran's activities is accurate or inaccurate. I've said before...it doesn't matter what the US finds is going on with Iran, you'll dismiss it because you are blatantly pro-Iranian and anti-US government. I believe the scenario I used before was that if Iran attacked and sunk a US carrier with no provocation, you'd find or invent provocation. That's where you live on this issue.

It all goes to your world view: You really think Iran is acting in the interests of world peace. To you, it really is the US and Israel that are the aggressors. That's a view that doesn't add up when one looks at the facts. Oh sure, one can argue that a military strike is not needed, or that the US shouldn't be the one concerned about it or policing the situation. But the facts remain: Iran is developing nuclear power and possibly nuclear weapons against UN resolutions. Iran took hostages in international waters (and that is a cold, hard fact confirmed by GPS and Iran's own switching of coordinates after that same data was released). Iran has indicted Iranian-Americans for what amounts to treason. Iran's government sponsors and provides resources for global terrorism. Iran sponsors anti-American rallies in its school systems. President Tom is anti-semitic and a holocaust denier. He has made statements that ARE threatening to Israel, no matter what your twisted version of those statements are. Even assuming you were right about them, he's still obviously anti-Israel and anti-West.

So my question after all of this is: What is Iran's culpability and responsibility in all of this? Or, are they acting as they should and in accordance with what you feel is normal and reasonable behavior for a nation-state? I realize your view of US actions, so let's not go there.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #132 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, back off with the ad hom attacks. It's not needed and you're better than that.

Wasn't a conscious effort - apologies if necessary.

Quote:
Secondly, I think we're discussing two different issues here. Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, you're right...Iran arming Sunnis doesn't make sense. But in Afghanistan, the Iranians wish to expel NATO and more specifically, the US. I agree that on the surface, it doesn't make sense. But their desire to expel us outweighs the obvious religious differences and motivations.

Well, I disagree. The religious differences are everything. It's like saying the Palestinians fund Israel in order to achieve some greater end.

Really, think about it; if one believes something to such an extent that one would give one's life for that belief then surely there can be no question of compromise?

I am willing to concede one thing though; there may be elements in the Iranian Government that are diverting funds in such a way as you say but these would not be 'Iran' anymore than 'Iran-Contra' was the US.

People feather their own nests and maybe some cadre of generals sees the chance of furthering some agenda of their own....perhaps even stage a coup. Perhaps the 'funders' are enemy agents or sleepers. There are many possibilities.

Quote:
Last: You are hardly the one who should be considered the arbiter of what intelligence with respect to Iran's activities is accurate or inaccurate. I've said before...it doesn't matter what the US finds is going on with Iran, you'll dismiss it because you are blatantly pro-Iranian and anti-US government. I believe the scenario I used before was that if Iran attacked and sunk a US carrier with no provocation, you'd find or invent provocation. That's where you live on this issue.

Well, for now you are pretty much right. Nothing could convince me that Bush or Blair would tell the truth on Iran in any circumstances. They never have yet.

But I do like to think that I will start with a clean slate with the new POTUS - at least temporarily.

[quote]It all goes to your world view: You really think Iran is acting in the interests of world peace. To you, it really is the US and Israel that are the aggressors. That's a view that doesn't add up when one looks at the facts. Oh sure, one can argue that a military strike is not needed, or that the US shouldn't be the one concerned about it or policing the situation. But the facts remain: Iran is developing nuclear power and possibly nuclear weapons against UN resolutions. Iran took hostages in international waters (and that is a cold, hard fact confirmed by GPS and Iran's own switching of coordinates after that same data was released). Iran has indicted Iranian-Americans for what amounts to treason. Iran's government sponsors and provides resources for global terrorism. Iran sponsors anti-American rallies in its school systems. President Tom is anti-semitic and a holocaust denier. He has made statements that ARE threatening to Israel, no matter what your twisted version of those statements are. Even assuming you were right about them, he's still obviously anti-Israel and anti-West.

Well, I am anti-Israel and (to a certain degree) anti-west and I think this is a perfectly legitimate positin to hold. Presumably you are anti-Iran....how is that better? Or worse? It isn't...they are choices we make. This is still a democracy. Just.

Having said that though, I don't actually support the Iranian regime - you seem to think I do.

My points are essentially two:

1) The US is lying about Iran to start a war
2) I wish to see another mass slaughter and rape of a country (one I happen to love - the country and people that is, not the regime) avoided.

That's all there is.

If you want a detailed discussion on why the Iranian regime is wrong then I'm your man. Strangely I have never even seen a sniff of such a thing here and I sure as hell am not going to start a thread on it as it will turn into a winger wankfest.

But the fact is the regime is oppressive and needs to be changed. Just not by the US and not into the US's idea of 'Freedom' Iraq-stylee.

Quote:
So my question after all of this is: What is Iran's culpability and responsibility in all of this? Or, are they acting as they should and in accordance with what you feel is normal and reasonable behavior for a nation-state? I realize your view of US actions, so let's not go there.

Yes, on the international stage I think they have not transgressed any bounds. And I think they are very careful not to - they know far better than anyone else that one false step will serve up the US all the justifications they need for 'regime-change'.

The fact that the US has found no such justification - after years of searching - proves there is none. I mean all this 'internationally'.

Domestically, of course Iran needs reform. I would argue that Ahmedinejad only rose to power because of US sabre-rattling and he has been bad for the economy, bad for the ordinary people and just plain bad.

Even above that, I would say that Iran needs a non-western open society and needs it fast. Even if they get that though and still do not subordinate themselves to the US and lick Israeli ass they will still be in the cross-hairs.

It's not about freedom with the West - it's about control. Always has been....and that's what I oppose. Proudly.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #133 of 207
Thread Starter 
seg:

Quote:
Well, I disagree. The religious differences are everything. It's like saying the Palestinians fund Israel in order to achieve some greater end.

Really, think about it; if one believes something to such an extent that one would give one's life for that belief then surely there can be no question of compromise?

I am willing to concede one thing though; there may be elements in the Iranian Government that are diverting funds in such a way as you say but these would not be 'Iran' anymore than 'Iran-Contra' was the US.

People feather their own nests and maybe some cadre of generals sees the chance of furthering some agenda of their own....perhaps even stage a coup. Perhaps the 'funders' are enemy agents or sleepers. There are many possibilities.

No it's not like Palestinians funding Israel. It's actually totally different. It's a totally separate nation that Iran is not in conflict with. I think the reason we're having difficulties here is that you don't believe Iran "has it in" for the US and the West. I do, for a lot of reasons. I believe it to the point where I have no trouble with the notion that they will fund the Taliban in order to expel Western forces, even if it means overcoming religious differences.

Quote:
Well, for now you are pretty much right. Nothing could convince me that Bush or Blair would tell the truth on Iran in any circumstances. They never have yet.

And that's ridiculous. It is easy to dehumanize one's opposition though. Worked in WWII.

Quote:
But I do like to think that I will start with a clean slate with the new POTUS - at least temporarily.

Why? Somehow I bet you'll change your tune if a Thompson gets elected. Then it will be "he's a Republican. I can never trust Republicans."

Quote:
Well, I am anti-Israel and (to a certain degree) anti-west and I think this is a perfectly legitimate positin to hold. Presumably you are anti-Iran....how is that better? Or worse? It isn't...they are choices we make. This is still a democracy. Just.

Having said that though, I don't actually support the Iranian regime - you seem to think I do.

My question is first, why are you anti-Israel? I have my gripes with their policies too, believe me. That said, they are an ally and I believe Israel has a right to exist.

Secondly, being anti-West is not a valid opinion. It's an insane opinion, actually. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine to criticize the West's polcies, but to embrace the demise of the West? Is that what you mean?

Third, I'm not anti-Iran. I'm anti-extremism within their government. By all accounts the people of Iran are wonderful. The culture is wonderful. I just take issue with the government's oppresion and the way it conducts itself in world affairs. I also think that the conduct is based, in part, on religous extremism and a true hatred of the West...not just for its actions, but because we will not convert as the their holy book requires.

Fourth: I'm well aware of your notion of your nation being just barely a democracy. There is little to support your position though. By all accounts your Democracy is thriving...you just disagree with what it's doing. There is more surveillance in public places, more security, etc. But freedom of speech is alive and well. No?

Quote:
My points are essentially two:

1) The US is lying about Iran to start a war
2) I wish to see another mass slaughter and rape of a country (one I happen to love - the country and people that is, not the regime) avoided.

That's all there is.

If you want a detailed discussion on why the Iranian regime is wrong then I'm your man. Strangely I have never even seen a sniff of such a thing here and I sure as hell am not going to start a thread on it as it will turn into a winger wankfest.

But the fact is the regime is oppressive and needs to be changed. Just not by the US and not into the US's idea of 'Freedom' Iraq-stylee.

1. There is really no evidence of that whatsoever.

2. A "mass slaughter and rape." Come on. That is patently absurd. The US has not done that in Iraq, whether or not things have gone well. That was never the goal, and regardless of the security situation, I would disagree those terms apply.

3. Well we agree it needs to be changed. And if Iran was only oppresing its people, I would agree we should not get involved. But Iran is doing far more than that. It's aggressive. It's violating international law. It's run by religious extremists. It's a terror supporting state. It is becoming a direct threat to the US and her allies in the region, partcularly Israel. And if it gets a nuke, then the equation changes considerably. Given President Tom's actions, one has to wonder how balanced the man is. That's what we need...an unbalanced, anti-semitc dictator with a nuclear weapon. Awesome. So you see, I think it IS our problem.

Quote:
Yes, on the international stage I think they have not transgressed any bounds. And I think they are very careful not to - they know far better than anyone else that one false step will serve up the US all the justifications they need for 'regime-change'.

What about defying the UN on the nukle program? Are you fucking shitting me, sir?

Quote:
The fact that the US has found no such justification - after years of searching - proves there is none. I mean all this 'internationally'.

Years of searching? Why are you convinced of that? And what is our Top Secret Motivation? Oil? World-Domination?

Quote:
Domestically, of course Iran needs reform. I would argue that Ahmedinejad only rose to power because of US sabre-rattling and he has been bad for the economy, bad for the ordinary people and just plain bad.

I think that's purely speculative. And I disagree we've been sabre-rattling. We've been very careful with our rhetoric, actually.

Quote:
Even above that, I would say that Iran needs a non-western open society and needs it fast. Even if they get that though and still do not subordinate themselves to the US and lick Israeli ass they will still be in the cross-hairs.

It's not about freedom with the West - it's about control. Always has been....and that's what I oppose. Proudly.

1. Why non-Western, and what does that mean to you?

2. If freedom does not exist in the West...if it's not value it espouses, then where does it exist? And what motivation other than oil do we have to "control" Iran?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #134 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

seg:

No it's not like Palestinians funding Israel. It's actually totally different. It's a totally separate nation that Iran is not in conflict with. I think the reason we're having difficulties here is that you don't believe Iran "has it in" for the US and the West. I do, for a lot of reasons. I believe it to the point where I have no trouble with the notion that they will fund the Taliban in order to expel Western forces, even if it means overcoming religious differences.

I think Iran opposes western influence - rightly so imo - and this can cause the West to interpret this as resistance to the West which it is not necessarily.

Having said that, the US interference which led to the Revolution and the depravity of the Shah still loom large in the mind

Quote:
And that's ridiculous. It is easy to dehumanize one's opposition though. Worked in WWII.

It's not a question of dehumanizing - it's merely the facts. Dodgy dossiers, 45 minute claims, yellowcake. All lies.

Of course Bush and Blair get others to lie for them so strictly speaking you are right. But then Charles Manson never actually killed anyone and most Mafia Dons never actually explicitly order a killing with a full page announcement in the New York Times.

Quote:
Why? Somehow I bet you'll change your tune if a Thompson gets elected. Then it will be "he's a Republican. I can never trust Republicans."

I'm sure I will....Republicans are a specific and limited 'type'. But that does not stop me having an open mind clear of prejudice and bias when I see one. The fact that this state is disappated within minutes (seconds even) by objective observation of this breed should not stop me being objective even though I know exactlyhow the specimen under observation will behave.

Quote:
My question is first, why are you anti-Israel? I have my gripes with their policies too, believe me. That said, they are an ally and I believe Israel has a right to exist.

I am anti-Israel for the same reason I would be anti-Nazi had I been around in WW2. I hate fascists.

It seems fascism is actually a disease which can be passed by the oppressor to the oppressed who then become opporessors in their turn...

Quote:
Secondly, being anti-West is not a valid opinion. It's an insane opinion, actually. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine to criticize the West's polcies, but to embrace the demise of the West? Is that what you mean?

I find it valid.

And it's not really a question of hastening the demise as such...my loyalty is to LIFE and the West is on the way out. You are merely a Nero fiddling (haha) while Rome burns.

But Rome had to die - all civilizations do. I merely do not wed myself to one or derive my security from one so I think we should embrace the next phase....

Quote:
Third, I'm not anti-Iran. I'm anti-extremism within their government. By all accounts the people of Iran are wonderful. The culture is wonderful. I just take issue with the government's oppresion and the way it conducts itself in world affairs. I also think that the conduct is based, in part, on religous extremism and a true hatred of the West...not just for its actions, but because we will not convert as the their holy book requires.

There is some religious extremism, true. There's a lot of it about. There's many other things to and they seem to co-exist ok. It's like the US in that - there is religious extremisnm there too but also many other things. They balance out.

Quote:
Fourth: I'm well aware of your notion of your nation being just barely a democracy. There is little to support your position though. By all accounts your Democracy is thriving...you just disagree with what it's doing. There is more surveillance in public places, more security, etc. But freedom of speech is alive and well. No?

For now, yes. But things can change. The same thing could be applied to germany in the 30s. how long did it take to get free speech stopped? 15 years maybe.

Quote:
1. There is really no evidence of that whatsoever.

I think there might be.

Quote:
2. A "mass slaughter and rape." Come on. That is patently absurd. The US has not done that in Iraq, whether or not things have gone well. That was never the goal, and regardless of the security situation, I would disagree those terms apply.

Rape of the COUNTRY - although obviously rape of women too but that is not what I said. I think it applies well enough.

Quote:
3. Well we agree it needs to be changed. And if Iran was only oppresing its people, I would agree we should not get involved. But Iran is doing far more than that. It's aggressive. It's violating international law. It's run by religious extremists. It's a terror supporting state. It is becoming a direct threat to the US and her allies in the region, partcularly Israel. And if it gets a nuke, then the equation changes considerably. Given President Tom's actions, one has to wonder how balanced the man is. That's what we need...an unbalanced, anti-semitc dictator with a nuclear weapon. Awesome. So you see, I think it IS our problem.

You say it supports 'terror' - maybe it just supports people who use violence. So does the US.

While I think 'Tom' may be an anti-Semite I have yet to see the money-quote. Ditto Holocaust Denial.

Quote:
What about defying the UN on the nukle program? Are you fucking shitting me, sir?

Haven't we done this before?

Quote:
Years of searching? Why are you convinced of that? And what is our Top Secret Motivation? Oil? World-Domination?

No. it's just business.

Quote:
I think that's purely speculative. And I disagree we've been sabre-rattling. We've been very careful with our rhetoric, actually.

[Really??


Quote:
1. Why non-Western, and what does that mean to you?

2. If freedom does not exist in the West...if it's not value it espouses, then where does it exist? And what motivation other than oil do we have to "control" Iran?

Will answer this isn 20 mins or so - Mrs Segovius is screaming at me......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #135 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You have to be kidding. So you think that they are using American weapons as provided in the mid 1980s....pre-Gulf War I?

Weapons do not just disappear. 27 years is not a long time for a gun. Indeed WW2 ordinances are still as dangerous as they were then.
I am not sure if the Iranians are manufacturing weapons. It might just be that the one's they supply are American or Russian. They are not known for their great guns. Iran is known for pearls and gold mostly.
post #136 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Mrs Segovius...

Do tell.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #137 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I think Iran opposes western influence - rightly so imo - and this can cause the West to interpret this as resistance to the West which it is not necessarily.

If that's what it was doing, it would be one thing. I think it's more.
Quote:
Having said that, the US interference which led to the Revolution and the depravity of the Shah still loom large in the mind

And he was worse than what we have there now?

Quote:

It's not a question of dehumanizing - it's merely the facts. Dodgy dossiers, 45 minute claims, yellowcake. All lies.

Of course Bush and Blair get others to lie for them so strictly speaking you are right. But then Charles Manson never actually killed anyone and most Mafia Dons never actually explicitly order a killing with a full page announcement in the New York Times.

OK, dehumanizing is a bit extreme, but I was using that word for effect. I realize that you'll never trust or Blair, so there isn't much point to going further with that line of discussion. I would just ask that you look at evidence objectively, regardless of your opinion of them.

[/quote]

I'm sure I will....Republicans are a specific and limited 'type'. But that does not stop me having an open mind clear of prejudice and bias when I see one. The fact that this state is disappated within minutes (seconds even) by objective observation of this breed should not stop me being objective even though I know exactlyhow the specimen under observation will behave.[/quote]

That's absurd. And you're engaging in dehumanizing again, at least to an extent. In the least you're making a caricature out of your political opposition so you don't have to view them as they really are. Convenient. Not necessarily a good idea.


Quote:
I am anti-Israel for the same reason I would be anti-Nazi had I been around in WW2. I hate fascists.

It seems fascism is actually a disease which can be passed by the oppressor to the oppressed who then become opporessors in their turn...

Israel is fascist? It's the most free, most Democratic country in the Middle East. I agree they've conducted themselves badly in many cases and made stupid decisions, mistakes, etc. But fascists?


Quote:


I find it valid.

And it's not really a question of hastening the demise as such...my loyalty is to LIFE and the West is on the way out. You are merely a Nero fiddling (haha) while Rome burns.

But Rome had to die - all civilizations do. I merely do not wed myself to one or derive my security from one so I think we should embrace the next phase....

Wow. The West is on its way out. That's an interesting concept. If so, why is this a good thing? Why is the decline of Democracy and the highest standard of living in the history of the planet a good thing? And why, exactly, do you think it's on the way out? I agree all civilizations die, but I'm not sure I see the evidence as of yet...unless you're talking about the potential for Muslim extremists to take over the globe.

Quote:

There is some religious extremism, true. There's a lot of it about. There's many other things to and they seem to co-exist ok. It's like the US in that - there is religious extremisnm there too but also many other things. They balance out.

The religious extremism in the US, if you can really call it that, is nothing like what is ofund in the Middle East in general. And Iran's extremism clearly doesn't balance out, as evidenced by their conduct on the world stage and by the oppression of their own people.

Quote:
For now, yes. But things can change. The same thing could be applied to germany in the 30s. how long did it take to get free speech stopped? 15 years maybe.

When I see real oppression and removal of liberties, I'll let you know. When freedom of speech stops, you'll have a point. But a lot of things "can happen" or could happen...that doesn't mean they will.

Quote:

I think there might be.

Such as?

Quote:
Rape of the COUNTRY - although obviously rape of women too but that is not what I said. I think it applies well enough.

Duh. I know what you meant. We still haven't raped anything. We've poured 400 billion into the country. We've raped ourselves, if anyone.


Quote:
You say it supports 'terror' - maybe it just supports people who use violence. So does the US.

We do support people who use violence. Sometimes violence is justifiable, and sometimes it's not. We've certainly made our share of mistakes in this regard. But Iran supports terror as a matter of policy. Funding groups that support deliberate violence against civilians is supporting terror.

Quote:

While I think 'Tom' may be an anti-Semite I have yet to see the money-quote. Ditto Holocaust Denial.

He hasn't come out and said it. Then again, all Hitler did was say he needed breathing room.

Quote:

Haven't we done this before?

Yes, and I still don't see how you can make the statement you did. They are not complying....in direct contradiction to you point about them playing nice to avoid regime change.


Quote:
No. it's just business.

You'll have to clarify that for me. I assume you're referencing the military-industrial complex.



Quote:
Really??


Yes. Look at our official statements. We've continually said that while all options are on the table, we want to solve it diplomatically. At least that was the case until recently. It may be changing now that Iran has upped the ante and essentially taken more hostages.

Will answer this isn 20 mins or so - Mrs Segovius is screaming at me......[/QUOTE]

No problem. The Mrs can be a powerful motivator.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Weapons do not just disappear. 27 years is not a long time for a gun. Indeed WW2 ordinances are still as dangerous as they were then.
I am not sure if the Iranians are manufacturing weapons. It might just be that the one's they supply are American or Russian. They are not known for their great guns. Iran is known for pearls and gold mostly.

I thought you'd back off this or have some excuse, but you're continuing on full-bore in true moronic fashion.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #139 of 207
Quote:
all Hitler did was say he needed breathing room.

Whoa. SDW2001, same old shit, different day.

I suggest that you read Mein Kampf.

Quote:
The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it? If you cut even cautiously into such an abscess, you found, like a maggot in a rotting body, often dazzled by the sudden light - a kike!

Blood mixture and the result drop in the racial level is the sole cause of the dying out of old cultures; for men do not perish as a result of lost wars, but by the loss of that force of resistance which is continued only in pure blood. All who are not of good race in this world are chaff.

- Adolf Hitler

Hitler wasn't creating an industrial form of Feng Shui, he was eradicating a whole human race off the face of the earth because he despised them.

It's when you use flippant comments like these that deflate your whole argument.

No, I don't think that Bush/administration despises Iran. I certainly hope they don't use tactical nukes either. That would lower this country to the lowest levels.


The Horrors of Nuking Iran


Quote:
As the death clouds created by our missiles move remorselessly across the face of Asia, cities will riot. Whole nations will erupt. Puppet governments from Morocco to Malaysia will fall in a hail of bricks and bullets. American businesses will be burnt to the ground. American tourists will be lynched in the streets. And with Pakistans nuclear missiles now in the hands of radiation-poisoned men with dead and dying parents, wives, and children, who knows where the next mushroom clouds will be?

What is certain is that China and Japan will instantly dump all of their dollars on what remains of the world money market before an evil American cloud brings death, destruction, and deformity raining down on their own populations. And that dumping of trillions of dollars of American debt will mean the end of the American economy as we know it. In the flash of a nuclear blast, we will be like Germany at the end of World War I. And then, God save us and forgive us... all.

I am a senior psychologist. I am a tough-minded scientist. And this is what the facts of psychology and science tell me will happen if we let Our Fearless Leader nuke Iran.
post #140 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Whoa. SDW2001, same old shit, different day.

I suggest that you read Mein Kampf.



Hitler wasn't creating an industrial form of Feng Shui, he was eradicating a whole human race off the face of the earth because he despised them.

It's when you use flippant comments like these that deflate your whole argument.

No, I don't think that Bush/administration despises Iran. I certainly hope they don't use tactical nukes either. That would lower this country to the lowest levels.


The Horrors of Nuking Iran

That we could bomb Iranians "back to their caves" or use bunker busters to destroy their nuclear infrastructure is dangerous enough in it's ramifications.

WWIII, military draft, worldwide energy infrastructure chaos, followed by worldwide economic chaos, followed by SDW being shipped off to fight in Iran.

Works for me!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #141 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I thought you'd back off this or have some excuse, but you're continuing on full-bore in true moronic fashion.

That is your argument?????

Just please tell me where the weapons that the Iranians are contributing coming from.
post #142 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

When I see real oppression and removal of liberties, I'll let you know. When freedom of speech stops, you'll have a point.

I can't believe you wrote those two sentences without even a hint of irony.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #143 of 207
Did I mention that Iran's economy is on the ropes, and that slow, steady pressure is the obvious choice?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #144 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

That is your argument?????

Just please tell me where the weapons that the Iranians are contributing coming from.

You have to be kidding. But, I sadly don't think you are. Where do you think they come from?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #145 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I can't believe you wrote those two sentences without even a hint of irony.

Don't take everything so seriously.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #146 of 207
Thread Starter 
Oh look, now the IAEA and Mohammed E.B. have gone totally political.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

He should not be addressing he issue of an attack. That's not his job. The head of the IAEA should not be making political determinations like that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #147 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

That is your argument?????

Just please tell me where the weapons that the Iranians are contributing coming from.

Well, I'll jump in since you-know-who won't.

Iran's weapons may come from Russia, China

Quote:
But experts said Tuesday it appears much of the technology came from Russia and questioned Iran's claims about the weapons' capabilities.

Personally, I think they're coming from this guy...

post #148 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Don't take everything so seriously.

Yeah. Good advice in a discussion of whether or not we ought to bomb Iran.

And seriously, dude. Let me know when freedom of speech is stopped.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #149 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yeah. Good advice in a discussion of whether or not we ought to bomb Iran.

And seriously, dude. Let me know when freedom of speech is stopped.

You got it!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #150 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. Why non-Western, and what does that mean to you?

It's all contextual....in relation to the current situation 'non-western' would mean Iranian.

Not even 'Islamic' per se but 'Iranian'

My opinion is that cultures should evolve their own forms of 'freedom' which are essentially just responses and soutions to their own forms of 'non-freedom'.

For example, the original Islam of Muhammad was (in one sense) a response of desert nomads to oppression and other problems from within the own culture. Religion is just like any ideology - it comes into being to address perrceived problems and these problems are - imo - local.

When Islam spread to other cultures it took on the flavour of the culture itself and was no longer the 'desert nomad' Islam - which is why in Spain it was sceince based and in Iran manifested as beautiful art, neither of these aspects were from the 'desert' phase but both were culturally based.

Groups like the Taleban want to impose their own culturally based solutions on other cultures. And so do the US. The solution must be to help Iranians (or Iraqis) find their own solutions. If you try to impose a 'western solution' you get Iraq.

Quote:
2. If freedom does not exist in the West...if it's not value it espouses, then where does it exist? And what motivation other than oil do we have to "control" Iran?

It's an irrelevant diversion....perhaps it exists nowhere. I cannot think of anywhere. But that is not the point, it could exist.....

Motivation? One word: Israel.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #151 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It's all contextual....in relation to the current situation 'non-western' would mean Iranian.

Not even 'Islamic' per se but 'Iranian'

My opinion is that cultures should evolve their own forms of 'freedom' which are essentially just responses and soutions to their own forms of 'non-freedom'.

For example, the original Islam of Muhammad was (in one sense) a response of desert nomads to oppression and other problems from within the own culture. Religion is just like any ideology - it comes into being to address perrceived problems and these problems are - imo - local.

When Islam spread to other cultures it took on the flavour of the culture itself and was no longer the 'desert nomad' Islam - which is why in Spain it was sceince based and in Iran manifested as beautiful art, neither of these aspects were from the 'desert' phase but both were culturally based.

Groups like the Taleban want to impose their own culturally based solutions on other cultures. And so do the US. The solution must be to help Iranians (or Iraqis) find their own solutions. If you try to impose a 'western solution' you get Iraq.



It's an irrelevant diversion....perhaps it exists nowhere. I cannot think of anywhere. But that is not the point, it could exist.....

Motivation? One word: Israel.


I think that first part is exceptionally misguided, and well, wrong. I've always thought that when someone says that we're "imposing" freedom on a culture. Freedom, by its nature cannot be imposed. Notice I didn't say "shouldn't" be imposed. I said couldn't. Freedom means the ability to choose one's path, exercise one's personal judgment, worship as one chooses, speak freely, etc. Granted, there are degrees of freedom, but for the most part it either exists or it doesn't. In Iran, it doesn't.

My point is that freedom is not necessarily going to develop naturally, nor are the ideals I espoused above exclusively American and/or Western. So when you say "non-Western," I have to disagree. It's not Western to believe in those ideals of freedom. It's simply that those ideals exist in the West more so than they do in Middle and even Far East.

Now, I can understand your potential opposition to specific cultural influences: Western music, food, clothing, pop culture and even forms of Democratic government. If Iran is to be free, it must choose and develop these in its own way. That said, they may just choose (in part) to adopt some of these Western influences on their own. It's not as if they are inherently bad because they are foreign to the Iranians. It's a two way street, as well. Just because Iran is not a "free" country so to speak, that doesn't mean we can't take and adopt elements of their culture here, if we wish.

Finally, I don't think that the question of freedom's existence is a diversion at all. My feeling is that if you think it exists nowhere, then perhaps you are not aware or choose not to see the places on this earth where it doesn't exist. Moreover, I think you're failing to compare those places with your own free society, which comparatively is far more free that you either realize or give credit for.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #152 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think that first part is exceptionally misguided, and well, wrong. I've always thought that when someone says that we're "imposing" freedom on a culture. Freedom, by its nature cannot be imposed. Notice I didn't say "shouldn't" be imposed. I said couldn't.

I agree that you cannot impose it. But you need to address that issue with Mr Bush and his cronies who actually do believe it can be imposed and have an orchestrated policy based on doing so. That fact that they are incompetent and it fails is irrelevant - it is still their belief.

Quote:
Freedom means the ability to choose one's path, exercise one's personal judgment, worship as one chooses, speak freely, etc. Granted, there are degrees of freedom, but for the most part it either exists or it doesn't. In Iran, it doesn't.

Freedom (imo) does not mean this. Freedom (again imo) is an inner state that prevents one from being a subservient sheep to an authority which will always exist.

This authority may range from malevelent to benign or from liberal to totalitarian but it ALWAYS exists and the main question is the degree to which one thinks for oneself in the face of it.

On a societal level the question is more one of the degree to which the society in question accepts and promotes this ideal of freedom of the individual.

There are many restrictive laws and oppressive institutions in Iran but - strangely - the people there are actually more free on the level I describe.

Of course the government is restrictive but many people oppose it and are free....conversely in the US the society is 'free' but most people are far more sheep-like than anyone you'll find in Iran.

Quote:
My point is that freedom is not necessarily going to develop naturally, nor are the ideals I espoused above exclusively American and/or Western. So when you say "non-Western," I have to disagree. It's not Western to believe in those ideals of freedom. It's simply that those ideals exist in the West more so than they do in Middle and even Far East.

They exist in the West more because the ARE western. Unfortunately the Islamic World is now in decline and does not express itself in terms of 'freedom' - were it to do so then the way in which it would do this would be very different than the Western model. Not better or worse - just different.

The last time that the Islamic world expressed itself genuinely in its own way was in Medieval Spain when Jews. Christians and Muslims all lived together in a harmonious co-existence. However this 'freedom' was not based on 'democracy' as the West is now, imo freedom can exist without democracy (which is a Western concept) and the two are not interchangeable ideals as the West often seems to believe.

Quote:
Now, I can understand your potential opposition to specific cultural influences: Western music, food, clothing, pop culture and even forms of Democratic government. If Iran is to be free, it must choose and develop these in its own way. That said, they may just choose (in part) to adopt some of these Western influences on their own. It's not as if they are inherently bad because they are foreign to the Iranians. It's a two way street, as well. Just because Iran is not a "free" country so to speak, that doesn't mean we can't take and adopt elements of their culture here, if we wish.

I agree up to a point. But I think that -for example - the Western practice of advertising and marketing are essentially a form of 'changing someone's mind' and as such (I would argue) they bypass freedom.

For example, if I chosse a new car out of my own taste it is freedom. If I choose it because I have been induced to believe (perhaps falsely) that it will get me shagged senseless every Friday night or perhaps just because my hero Mr X has one then this is not 'freedom'.

These techniques should especially not be used on countries where the populations are unfamiliar with them as they will be more vulnerable to manipulation. This is in no way freedom.

Quote:
Finally, I don't think that the question of freedom's existence is a diversion at all. My feeling is that if you think it exists nowhere, then perhaps you are not aware or choose not to see the places on this earth where it doesn't exist. Moreover, I think you're failing to compare those places with your own free society, which comparatively is far more free that you either realize or give credit for.

It exists nowhere. I can see that.

My point is that the places where it LEAST exists are often on the side of the US. Saudi for example, Pakistan as another.

Conversely, somewhere like Syria (which is on the 'axis of evil' hitlist) is far more free than many other places.

I can guarantee you that you could be in bed with a beautiful woman (Muslim or Christian as you like) with your alcoholic beverage of choice bought from a local bar and then go to a Christian Church to repent before doing it all over again, all within hours of touching down on the runway at Damascus - should your tastes run to such things.

Women don't have to wear hijab, there is a massive Christian community and alcohol is freely sold everywhere. For that Syria is labelled 'not free' or whatever the term is.

Saudi oth - well, you know what happens for having alcohol, looking at women and you know there are no Churches on pain of death right?

My point is that there is some hypocritical BS going down and things are not what they seem on the surface....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #153 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I agree that you cannot impose it. But you need to address that issue with Mr Bush and his cronies who actually do believe it can be imposed and have an orchestrated policy based on doing so. That fact that they are incompetent and it fails is irrelevant - it is still their belief.

I disagree that Bush is trying to "impose it." As I said, I don't think that's even possible. Of course, if we run off toppling regime after regime for the purpose of installing a new government, you have a point. But we're not doing that. There were many other reasons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even if we do go to war with Iran, I don't hear the kind of talk "about regime change. Do you?

Quote:
Freedom (imo) does not mean this. Freedom (again imo) is an inner state that prevents one from being a subservient sheep to an authority which will always exist.

This authority may range from malevelent to benign or from liberal to totalitarian but it ALWAYS exists and the main question is the degree to which one thinks for oneself in the face of it.

On a societal level the question is more one of the degree to which the society in question accepts and promotes this ideal of freedom of the individual.

That sir, is crazy. You seem to have this perception of almost all people in the world being sheep...except for yourself of course, and you're a free thinker! There are certainly sheeple in the world, I agree. You just seem to think that there a lot more of them than perhaps there really are. And only you and your band of free thinking liberals seem to be able to tell the difference. Sort of a self-reinforcing delusion, I suppose.

But directly speaking, I disagree that freedom is the ability to not have to follow some false authority or what not. It's the ability to choose one's destiny and live one's life as one sees fit. If one is too stupid or too lazy to be free thinker, that is that "one's problem.

Quote:
There are many restrictive laws and oppressive institutions in Iran but - strangely - the people there are actually more free on the level I describe.

Of course the government is restrictive but many people oppose it and are free....conversely in the US the society is 'free' but most people are far more sheep-like than anyone you'll find in Iran.

I think what you're saying is that you perceive the Iranians to be more "Free thinking" and less willing to follow the herd. They're certainly not more free in their daily lives not by any stretch of the imagination.

You then further share a perception of US society, one that frankly baffles me. We have dissent all over the place in the US. We have written and oral opinions galore, on the web, in print, on TV. Our entire culture is based on individualism (and to a fault, according to some).

Quote:
They exist in the West more because the ARE western. Unfortunately the Islamic World is now in decline and does not express itself in terms of 'freedom' - were it to do so then the way in which it would do this would be very different than the Western model. Not better or worse - just different.

The last time that the Islamic world expressed itself genuinely in its own way was in Medieval Spain when Jews. Christians and Muslims all lived together in a harmonious co-existence. However this 'freedom' was not based on 'democracy' as the West is now, imo freedom can exist without democracy (which is a Western concept) and the two are not interchangeable ideals as the West often seems to believe.

Democracy is about self-determination and self-governance. The earliest forms of Democratic government were Greek, yes? That's not exactly "West," but whatever. My point is that true freedom cannot exist without democracy, because without Democracy there is no self-determination en masse. List any form of government you like...they are ALL oppressive compared to Democracy. Notice I didn't say Jefersonian Democracy. I just said Democracy in general.

Quote:
I agree up to a point. But I think that -for example - the Western practice of advertising and marketing are essentially a form of 'changing someone's mind' and as such (I would argue) they bypass freedom.

For example, if I choose a new car out of my own taste it is freedom. If I choose it because I have been induced to believe (perhaps falsely) that it will get me shagged senseless every Friday night or perhaps just because my hero Mr X has one then this is not 'freedom'.

These techniques should especially not be used on countries where the populations are unfamiliar with them as they will be more vulnerable to manipulation. This is in no way freedom.

That's a particularly bizarre notion. Advertising is not a Western phenomenon. It's a capitalistic one. Seems that what you are really taking issue with is capitalism and the profit motive itself, not Western ideals per se. The problem with that is that as much as you hate Viagra ads and Burger King commericals, capitalism works. Sure, it needs to be regulated, but the profit motive and private enterprise solve problems and provide abundance. I fail to see what you would condemn them wholesale...no pun intended.

But the notion that somehow the poor people of the Middle East are not sophisticated enough to understand advertising is particularly odd, and I think racist as well. I have my issues with the corporatization of the entire globe as well, but that doesn't mean I condemn the profit motive and consumerism in general. They in large part are good things. They've provided the Western World with a standard of living beyond anything in history. Why is that a bad thing? And why wouldn't you want the poor (literally) peoples of the Middle East to have the same thing? When left to their own devices, peoples all over the world have chosen to engage in free commerce, pop culture, etc. What is the problem?


Quote:
It exists nowhere. I can see that.


Right...except in your stupendously independent mind. Seems just a tad arrogant to me.


Quote:
My point is that the places where it LEAST exists are often on the side of the US. Saudi for example, Pakistan as another.

Conversely, somewhere like Syria (which is on the 'axis of evil' hitlist) is far more free than many other places.

I can guarantee you that you could be in bed with a beautiful woman (Muslim or Christian as you like) with your alcoholic beverage of choice bought from a local bar and then go to a Christian Church to repent before doing it all over again, all within hours of touching down on the runway at Damascus - should your tastes run to such things.

Women don't have to wear hijab, there is a massive Christian community and alcohol is freely sold everywhere. For that Syria is labelled 'not free' or whatever the term is.

Saudi oth - well, you know what happens for having alcohol, looking at women and you know there are no Churches on pain of death right?

My point is that there is some hypocritical BS going down and things are not what they seem on the surface....

But that's not your point. Not at all. You were taking issue with the West vs. the East. You were taking issue with the sheeple and hive mind of the US vs. the awesomely free Iranian populace.

Now, if it's a secondary point, it's one I could partially agree with. It's true that one of the US's great hypocrisies is to talk of freedom and then engage with a state like Saudi Arabia. Totally agree with that. It's also one reason we need to get off the Saudi crack pipe known as Oil.

However, while your scenario of everyday life in Syria may be accurate, I don't judge freedom solely based on my ability to get stone drunk and laid on a Friday night (if I did, you would concede and proclaim me the Most Free Man, Ever).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #154 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree that Bush is trying to "impose it." As I said, I don't think that's even possible. Of course, if we run off toppling regime after regime for the purpose of installing a new government, you have a point. But we're not doing that. There were many other reasons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even if we do go to war with Iran, I don't hear the kind of talk "about regime change. Do you?

Not much any more but that is probably because they have fucked up the project. I used to hear it a lot and the people who were driving it - as well as those who mindlessly parrotted it - are still at large.

Quote:
That sir, is crazy. You seem to have this perception of almost all people in the world being sheep...except for yourself of course, and you're a free thinker! There are certainly sheeple in the world, I agree. You just seem to think that there a lot more of them than perhaps there really are. And only you and your band of free thinking liberals seem to be able to tell the difference. Sort of a self-reinforcing delusion, I suppose.

Hmm....you're starting to gibber a little...

I know many people who are not sheep as it happens.

But actually I am using the term interchangeably with 'right-wing supporter' so however many of them there are; that's your number.


Quote:
But directly speaking, I disagree that freedom is the ability to not have to follow some false authority or what not. It's the ability to choose one's destiny and live one's life as one sees fit. If one is too stupid or too lazy to be free thinker, that is that "one's problem.

Ok, let's accept that definition. I would argue that you do not have the ability to not have to follow some false authority or what not.

Nor do you have the ability to choose one's destiny and live one's life as one sees fit.

What you do have is CHOICE - a lot of choice granted and the menu is impressive and massive but someone somewhere draws up that menu for you, they decide what goes on it and what stays off it for you and because it would take you a lifetime to work through the choices you believe them when they tell you it is freedom.

But it is not freedom for you and is even less so if you happen to be black, gay, the wrong class, disabled, of a strange religion....

Your freedom is merely a list of choices which someone draws up for you and you happen to believe is all there is because by amn accident of birth you happen to not want any of the choices excluded from the menu.

Fair enough. But don't call it freedom - it is an equivalent of an agoraphobic being put under house arrest. Sure, he would never have left the house anyway and sure, he may be better off as he is now looked after by the State but to call it 'freedom' is a brawling obscenity and when extrapolated to other people and cultures who MAY want to leave the house it is a major crime.

Quote:
I think what you're saying is that you perceive the Iranians to be more "Free thinking" and less willing to follow the herd. They're certainly not more free in their daily lives not by any stretch of the imagination.

That's what I said.

Though actually they are more free in some ways. They are free because they know their rulers are corrupt and oppressive - most people in the West do not believe this about their own rulers but it is nevertheless true.

They are free because they can see through their Government's propaganda. Most in the West - you for example - cannot even see there IS a Western propaganda.

They are more free because they are more 'real' - instead of living lives of inertia centering around the next visit to the mall and what make of refrigerator to buy in order to keep up with Mr Jones next-door, they are living 'on the edge'.

Instead of doping their lobotomized atrophied braincells with 'Big Brother' and 'American Idol' they are perhaps thinking of how to read a subversive book, how to organize the next demonstration, how to be REALLY free in fact.

Quote:
You then further share a perception of US society, one that frankly baffles me. We have dissent all over the place in the US. We have written and oral opinions galore, on the web, in print, on TV. Our entire culture is based on individualism (and to a fault, according to some).

There is no dissent.

Get back to me when the cars start burning on the street.

Quote:
Democracy is about self-determination and self-governance. The earliest forms of Democratic government were Greek, yes? That's not exactly "West," but whatever. My point is that true freedom cannot exist without democracy, because without Democracy there is no self-determination en masse. List any form of government you like...they are ALL oppressive compared to Democracy. Notice I didn't say Jefersonian Democracy. I just said Democracy in general.

The Western system is based completely on the Greek that's where it comes from. Via the Arabs in Spain actually so there is also a large amount of Islamic influence in the West (not enough though obvioulsy) and I think you'll find that the Western model is generally regarded as being essentially based on that of the Greek with Islamic accretions.

Quote:
That's a particularly bizarre notion. Advertising is not a Western phenomenon. It's a capitalistic one. Seems that what you are really taking issue with is capitalism and the profit motive itself, not Western ideals per se. The problem with that is that as much as you hate Viagra ads and Burger King commericals, capitalism works. Sure, it needs to be regulated, but the profit motive and private enterprise solve problems and provide abundance. I fail to see what you would condemn them wholesale...no pun intended.

There is advertising and advertising. Actually you are technically correct because the sort I refer to has its roots in Chinese research.

In the Korean war many US prisoners were found to have converted to Communism whilst being held as POWs. After the war they were examined and the techniques they were subjected to were isolated. These are surprisingly few and you can research this - it's very interesting.

Basically from the 60s on these techniques were used in advertising and still are. They over-ride choice by manipulating desire. This has a knock-on effect to society.

Actually I am a capitalist and am not above using certain manipulative techniques in a business setting. It is when applied to groups and cultures that I object.

Look at Germany in the 30s for example - certain techniques facilitated the rise and support of the Nazis. The German people did not 'choose' Hitler. Nor did they 'choose' to oppose Hitler. They were deprived of power. That is what is happening in the West now imo - NOTE, I mean to a different end than that of the Third Reich... in this case it is essentially beningn in comaprison and aimed towards profit rather than totalitarianism.


Quote:
But the notion that somehow the poor people of the Middle East are not sophisticated enough to understand advertising is particularly odd, and I think racist as well.

It would be but that is not what I said.

They have not been exposed to it wholesale and therefore do not have an immunity. YOu should visit the region - you would see what I mean.

Quote:
I have my issues with the corporatization of the entire globe as well, but that doesn't mean I condemn the profit motive and consumerism in general. They in large part are good things. They've provided the Western World with a standard of living beyond anything in history. Why is that a bad thing?

Depends on certain variables:

1) Who you are
2) Whether you do indeed partake of these 'advantages' - not everyone does
3) What the price tag actually is when the bill arives
4) Whether we will ever see the bill of whether it will just be deducted from our accoount at exhorbitant interest rates.

Quote:
And why wouldn't you want the poor (literally) peoples of the Middle East to have the same thing? When left to their own devices, peoples all over the world have chosen to engage in free commerce, pop culture, etc. What is the problem?

I would not want them to 'have the same thing' if the price was the 'death of their own thing'.

And it is.


Quote:
Right...except in your stupendously independent mind. Seems just a tad arrogant to me.

I do it well though no?


Quote:
But that's not your point. Not at all. You were taking issue with the West vs. the East. You were taking issue with the sheeple and hive mind of the US vs. the awesomely free Iranian populace.

Can't answer this - you're wigging out again......it's incomprehensible...

Quote:
Now, if it's a secondary point, it's one I could partially agree with. It's true that one of the US's great hypocrisies is to talk of freedom and then engage with a state like Saudi Arabia. Totally agree with that. It's also one reason we need to get off the Saudi crack pipe known as Oil.

Yes but neither of us should hold our breath...well, you can if you want

Quote:
However, while your scenario of everyday life in Syria may be accurate, I don't judge freedom solely based on my ability to get stone drunk and laid on a Friday night (if I did, you would concede and proclaim me the Most Free Man, Ever).

Nor me....actually it is one of the things in Syria that make me sometimes ponder whether the jihadis may not have a valid point.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #155 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Not much any more but that is probably because they have fucked up the project. I used to hear it a lot and the people who were driving it - as well as those who mindlessly parrotted it - are still at large.



Hmm....you're starting to gibber a little...

I know many people who are not sheep as it happens.

But actually I am using the term interchangeably with 'right-wing supporter' so however many of them there are; that's your number.

We're getting nowhere on this point and you're being exceptionally vague. Moving on.

Quote:

Ok, let's accept that definition. I would argue that you do not have the ability to not have to follow some false authority or what not.

Nor do you have the ability to choose one's destiny and live one's life as one sees fit.

What you do have is CHOICE - a lot of choice granted and the menu is impressive and massive but someone somewhere draws up that menu for you, they decide what goes on it and what stays off it for you and because it would take you a lifetime to work through the choices you believe them when they tell you it is freedom.

But it is not freedom for you and is even less so if you happen to be black, gay, the wrong class, disabled, of a strange religion....

Your freedom is merely a list of choices which someone draws up for you and you happen to believe is all there is because by amn accident of birth you happen to not want any of the choices excluded from the menu.

Fair enough. But don't call it freedom - it is an equivalent of an agoraphobic being put under house arrest. Sure, he would never have left the house anyway and sure, he may be better off as he is now looked after by the State but to call it 'freedom' is a brawling obscenity and when extrapolated to other people and cultures who MAY want to leave the house it is a major crime.

Oh, come the FUCK on! Really. That had got to be one of wackiest things I'v heard anyone say on AI. Who draws up this "menu?" What's on it exactly? Seriously, that is a flawed metaphor if I have ever heard of one.

First, choice IS freedom. That is, choice with respect to one's own life. Now, if you're talking about the US two-party political system, that's a good point and one I acknowledge fully. But I don't think that's what you mean here.

Secondly, your comment about being black, gay, etc: That's talking-point rubbish. Blacks in this country now have more rights than whites do. Institutionalized racism has practically been eliminated. Oh sure, there is still "racism" and outmoded attitudes. But a black person looking for a white collar job? He's got an advantage for Chist's sake? Want a loan for a small business? You can get special minority loans! And subsidized housing! Oh, and you can get social services easier too.

As for being gay: It's true that gays don't have the same rights heterosexuals do. But that's because the implication that being gay is akin to being black is dubious. Many people consider some gays to be exercising an element of choice in their orientation. Not all gays, but some. In any case, the rights are coming anyway. Other than full-out marriage, gays have basically the same rights as anyone else, other than openly serving in the military.

Quote:
That's what I said.

Though actually they are more free in some ways. They are free because they know their rulers are corrupt and oppressive - most people in the West do not believe this about their own rulers but it is nevertheless true.

They are free because they can see through their Government's propaganda. Most in the West - you for example - cannot even see there IS a Western propaganda.

They are more free because they are more 'real' - instead of living lives of inertia centering around the next visit to the mall and what make of refrigerator to buy in order to keep up with Mr Jones next-door, they are living 'on the edge'.

Instead of doping their lobotomized atrophied braincells with 'Big Brother' and 'American Idol' they are perhaps thinking of how to read a subversive book, how to organize the next demonstration, how to be REALLY free in fact.

Man, you REALLY hate consumer culture, don't you? Really though, I think you're wrong. I think most people in American know full well their government has corruption in it. Look at the recent approval polls of Congress, for example.

But as for people being lobotomized, well there are certainly those folks out there. It's true we focus on what's going on in our personal lives, family, etc...but that is one thing America is all about and I support it. I totally disagree that being free means reading a subversive book or organizing a demonstration.
Most people are too busy producing and taking care of their families to get involved in that, and for the most part that is fine and not worthy of your scorn. I go to work and teach children. I earn a living and am able to support myself in return. I spend time with family and friends. And yes, I do get politically active. But I'm no less free due to my lifestyle than you are. Part of freedom is being free to live the way one chooses, not being told by your government to take to the streets with signs written in the language The Infidels to stage a demonstration.


Quote:
There is no dissent.

Get back to me when the cars start burning on the street.

So violent and destructive dissent is the only dissent that matters? Man, you really might be crazy.


Quote:
The Western system is based completely on the Greek that's where it comes from. Via the Arabs in Spain actually so there is also a large amount of Islamic influence in the West (not enough though obvioulsy) and I think you'll find that the Western model is generally regarded as being essentially based on that of the Greek with Islamic accretions.

Great. Thanks.


Quote:
There is advertising and advertising. Actually you are technically correct because the sort I refer to has its roots in Chinese research.

In the Korean war many US prisoners were found to have converted to Communism whilst being held as POWs. After the war they were examined and the techniques they were subjected to were isolated. These are surprisingly few and you can research this - it's very interesting.

Basically from the 60s on these techniques were used in advertising and still are. They over-ride choice by manipulating desire. This has a knock-on effect to society.

Actually I am a capitalist and am not above using certain manipulative techniques in a business setting. It is when applied to groups and cultures that I object.

Look at Germany in the 30s for example - certain techniques facilitated the rise and support of the Nazis. The German people did not 'choose' Hitler. Nor did they 'choose' to oppose Hitler. They were deprived of power. That is what is happening in the West now imo - NOTE, I mean to a different end than that of the Third Reich... in this case it is essentially beningn in comaprison and aimed towards profit rather than totalitarianism.

OK, but I'm still not sure I see the overall point. I certainly agree that advertising has become massive in scope and frequency, but I don't know how that harms consumers...especially those in the middle east (which was your original point).



Quote:
It would be but that is not what I said.

They have not been exposed to it wholesale and therefore do not have an immunity. YOu should visit the region - you would see what I mean.

How 'bout you just clarify. I'm kinda broke this week.

Quote:
Depends on certain variables:

1) Who you are
2) Whether you do indeed partake of these 'advantages' - not everyone does
3) What the price tag actually is when the bill arives
4) Whether we will ever see the bill of whether it will just be deducted from our accoount at exhorbitant interest rates.



I would not want them to 'have the same thing' if the price was the 'death of their own thing'.

And it is.

[/quote[

It doesn't depend on who you are. It's just not guaranteed. The system we have provides opportunity whereas many others don't. If people take advantage, they do. If they don't, they don't. That's the point...it's personal responsibility.

As for the price tag: You're being rather vague here again. You could be speaking of the deficit and debt I suppose. I'd ask you to be more specific.

Quote:
I do it well though no?

Yep, ya do.

Quote:

Can't answer this - you're wigging out again......it's incomprehensible...

You made this statement:

My point is that there is some hypocritical BS going down and things aren't the way they seem on the surface.."

I said this wasn't your point at all. Your point was Iranian/ME freedoms vs. American/Western ones.

Quote:
Yes but neither of us should hold our breath...well, you can if you want

Agreed. But not so much on the holding my breath thing. I live breathing.


Nor me....actually it is one of the things in Syria that make me sometimes ponder whether the jihadis may not have a valid point.

That's going a bit far. I'm just saying that without Democratic government, personal freedom could or can be an illusion. In fact, isn't this the real point you were making anyway?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #156 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post


There is no dissent.

Get back to me when the cars start burning on the street.

You're partially correct that more people are interestined in who's on American Idol than what their government is up to, but when is violence and destruction of private/public property a required, or even useful part of protesting? These people would have something to say on the matter:







Perhaps the west has advanced beyond the need for violent protests? (football fans not withstanding... )

If you really need violence as an example, there's always the Anti-Globalization groups.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #157 of 207
What the hell do you do with Iran after you attack it?
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #158 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

What the hell do you do with Iran after you attack it?

Relocate Texas there. That'll solve most of America's problems.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #159 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Relocate Texas there. That'll solve most of America's problems.

The sheep blindly lap up the stereotypes of Texas.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #160 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Relocate Texas there. That'll solve most of America's problems.

How dare you... you brisket-hating bastard!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › We're going to have to attack Iran