The Situation in Iran

[sonofccn]

If I say all nations are equal on the international level, I do not mean that they are all the same. Yes, there are nations in which I wouldn't want to live. But that's irrelevant. There are also people who have opinions whith which I agree and other people have opinions whith which I do not agree. There are families in which I would want to live and families in which I wouldn't want to live. There are saints and there are villains. But all are equal before the law.

And it is the same with nations. Only that, whilst municipal law is hierarchical or vertical in its structure (meaning that a legislature enacts binding legislation), international law is horizontal in nature. This means that all states are sovereign and equal. The doctrines of legal equality, territorial sovereignty, and independence of states, became definitive to international law in Europe. These principals were recognised in the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and became the foundation for the treaties of Osnabrück and Münster. This doctrin was also incorporated into the UN charta:

* Article 1, clause 2, 1. half-sentence reads as follows:
The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights.
* Article 2, clause 1 reads as follows:
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.



The acceptance of this doctrine is necessary to maintain international peace and security. If you have here another opinion be aware that you are not only propagandising the "might of the strongest". That has nothing to do with right and justice and is not beneficial to a peaceful and free world (which is not conquered by the strongest who has eliminated each opposition and thus has created peace by absolute and unchallenged domination).

If you complain that nations are wanting nuclear weapons (nations who, contrary to the USA, have not attacked other nations) you have to assure them that you will not attack them. No nation wants nuclear weapons to attack the USA because they know that they can not win such a war. They want them as a guarantee for their sovereignty because they hope that they will not be attacked if they have nuclear weapons.

And it is time that this is understood because the USA will not prevent that such nations, who have to fear to be attacked by the USA, sooner or later will have nuclear weapons. The USA could not prevent that Israel, Indien, Pakistan or North Korea have developed nuclear weapons and if other nations are determined to develop them too, they will sooner or later.

The solution can not be to threat them with war - and make them all the more determined - but to show them that they will not need nuclear weapons because the USA will never attack them.

1. It is and was a flaws idea to equate a thugocracy with a Western style democarcy. That implies there is no definative true or correct form of goverment when we know this is not the case.

2. Superior firepower is the only way to maintain peace, coupled with superior morality, anything else is a cruel joke.

3. Since nations are not equal, as example Nazi Germany vs Great Britain, certain nations can not be allowed to have greater firepower based upon their observed behavior. Iran is one of those countries.

4. You appear to have some twisted view of the world that if your nice they will be nice back. In reality they are blood thirsty killers who pounce on weakness. You are alive basicly because the USA has devoted vast sums of money defending you from the very people you want to disarm in front of.

If it is corrupt then only because the permanent members of the security council, first and foremost the USA, are corrupt. How often could the UN not act because the USA have vetoed a resolution of the security council?

Of course. I forget we were the ones who did the oil for food scandal or sold food meant for displaced refuges on the black market. I mean the blame couldn't possibly be laid to the vast, bloated and largely from nonWestern democratic countries beauracracy who are for all intents and purposes are the UN. Oh wait. We didn't have a hand in that, not of course to say the security council is blameless. Allowing China and Russia, and france, in was a mistake from the get go. They don't share much in the way of goals with the US or Europe in general.

Developing WMD and breaking treaties are not a casus belli. Otherwise each nation would be justified in attacking the USA who has developed and still is developing WMDs and with that violates several internation treaties.

The differnce is we are the police. We need those guns to fight the bad guys, people who would like to kill guys like you. THey are the bad guys and as such we shouldn't hand them armor piercing rounds and RPGs.

To attack another nation is a casus belli. But Iran has, contrary to the USA, not attacked another nation. And Iran has not developed nuclear weapons nor is it currently developing nuclear weapons. What's your point?

Actually you considered 9/11, a direct attack, not to be cause for war so obviously to be attacked is not valid. As to my point...you believe a nation floating on oil, with virtually zero infrastructure worthy of the name is developing atomic technology for the good of it's people? A nation with a bit of a grudge against a very close nation. Why because the UN, which has failed at every task it has been assigned, said so?

Yes, there are things that are worthy fighting for.
If my own nation is unjustified attacked, I think it is worth fighting to defend it.
If another nation is unjustified attacked by a third nation, I think it is worth fighting to defend the attacked nation.
And here it ends. Fighting to defend something is ok. Fighting to attack something is not ok.

So what about defending democracy in Iran? It is oppressing it's own people and you want to sit on the sidelines basking in false moral superiority? JMS and Flectarn cited actual real counter points reflecting that never clear cut reality we call life. You seem to argue that as long as it contained within it's own country whatever they do is fine up to and including genocide. I believe that whenever it does not contradict our interest we should spread democracy and libtery and support it to the hilt.

[Who is like God arbour]

It is and was a flaws idea to equate a thugocracy with a Western style democarcy. That implies there is no definative true or correct form of goverment when we know this is not the case.

With other words, you are propagandising the "might of the strongest".
You decide what is the definitive truth and the correct form of government.
You decide which nation is good and which nation is bad.
You decide which nation is entitled to certain rights (e.g. the right to have superior fire power) and which nation are to be combated.

Superior firepower is the only way to maintain peace, coupled with superior morality, anything else is a cruel joke.

An interesting claim. But its not substantiated. Why is superior fire power the only way to maintain peace? I have always thought that during the Cold War peace was maintained because no side had have superior fire power.

And who decides who has the superior morality? You?

Since nations are not equal, as example Nazi Germany vs Great Britain, certain nations can not be allowed to have greater firepower based upon their observed behavior. Iran is one of those countries.

In what way shows the example of Nazi Germany vs. Great Britain that nations are not equal? What has the one to do with the other?
And who says which nations are allowed to have greater fire power? You?

Regarding Iran, which behaviour should be considered? Iran has, contrary to the USA, not attacked another nation. Please take note of that fact.

And to equate Iran with Nazi Germany is an insult for the victims of the latter. Iran has done nothing that could be equated with the things, Nazi Germany has done. And compared with allies of the USA (e.g. Saudi Arabia or Pakistan), Iran is a civilised nation.

You appear to have some twisted view of the world that if your nice they will be nice back. In reality they are blood thirsty killers who pounce on weakness. You are alive basicly because the USA has devoted vast sums of money defending you from the very people you want to disarm in front of.

I do not believe that if I'm nice to all others, all others are nice to me. I have never insinuated such a thing. Even if you are nice to others, they can be not nice to you. But fact is, that if you are not nice to others, they will not be nice to you.

And it is again an interesting claim that they are blood thirsty killers who pounce on weakness. But its not substantiated. Why do you think such thing? Fact is that neither Iran nor North Korea have, contrary to the USA, attacked another nation. What's your evidence thatthe people of Iran or the people of North Korea are blood thirsty killers who pounce on weakness.

Why do you think that I would be dead if the USA would not wage wars worldwide? Germany is ready to defend them self if it is attacked. It has shown in history that it is a force to be reckoned with. To attack Germany would be stupid. But nobody wants to attack Germany and it does not need the USA to defend it from someone who does not want to attack it.

I have never said that I want to disarm Germany. Why do you ignore that part of my last post:

• Yes, there are things that are worthy fighting for.
  If my own nation is unjustified attacked, I think it is worth fighting to defend it.
  If another nation is unjustified attacked by a third nation, I think it is worth fighting to defend the attacked nation.
  And here it ends. Fighting to defend something is ok. Fighting to attack something is not ok.
  It's the same in my private life. I fight to defend myself and others when authoritarian help is not available. I never fight because I want something another possess or because another has a different opinion or life style I do not like.

I'm not showing weakness because I don't behave like a bully. Who thinks that and thinks that I would allow an attack on me or another, will very fast get a nasty surprise.

Of course. I forget we were the ones who did the oil for food scandal or sold food meant for displaced refuges on the black market. I mean the blame couldn't possibly be laid to the vast, bloated and largely from nonWestern democratic countries beauracracy who are for all intents and purposes are the UN. Oh wait. We didn't have a hand in that, not of course to say the security council is blameless.

I'm not saying that the UN is perfect. Humans are working there and these humans are deliberately and undeliberately making mistakes. But that is not an institutional flaw. It's the same problem each other organisation has too. Or do you think that the US President should be abolished because of the Watergate scandal or the Lewinsky scandal?

Allowing China and Russia, and france, in was a mistake from the get go. They don't share much in the way of goals with the US or Europe in general.

The UN is not an organisation from and for the USA. It's an international organisation from and for all nations. It's not the goal of the UN to enforce the US goals.

And to allow China and Soviet Union (Russia existed again only after 1990) into the security council was the only way that the UN could have worked at all. I recommend that you read something about the failings of the League of Nations.

The differnce is we are the police. We need those guns to fight the bad guys, people who would like to kill guys like you. THey are the bad guys and as such we shouldn't hand them armor piercing rounds and RPGs.

Who says that you are the police? Who has made you to the police?

And even if I would accept that you are the police, there would still have to be a legislative and a judiciary. Are you that too? Does this mean that you alone can enact binding legislation, decide, who has violated them, execute them and decide, if one has violated them, how to punish them and execute the punishment? As far as I know, that violates even American legal principles.

And why would the police need nuclear weapons? Do you want to fight the bad guys with nuclear weapons?

Actually you considered 9/11, a direct attack, not to be cause for war so obviously to be attacked is not valid.

9/11 was a crime of a criminal international organisation - not a military attack of another nation. The Taliban or Afghanistan has had nothing to do with that attack.

And even if one would consider 9/11 as an attack, it was over. No further attacks were imminent. That's where the right of self-defence ends.

As to my point...you believe a nation floating on oil, with virtually zero infrastructure worthy of the name is developing atomic technology for the good of it's people?

Prove the opposite!
Or do you think now that your unsubstantiated believe, ignoring all contrary reports of the IAEA, is enough to justify a war?

A nation with a bit of a grudge against a very close nation.

To have a grudge against another nation is not a casus belli.
The USA have a grudge against many other nations and have indeed WMDs and are developing further WMDs. Do have other nations now have a justification to attack the USA?

Why because the UN, which has failed at every task it has been assigned, said so?

Though the IAEA reports to both the General Assembly and the Security Council, it is established independently of the United Nations under its own international treaty (the IAEA Statute).
And, if you are claiming something, it is at you to prove it. Or do you think now that your unsubstantiated believe, ignoring all contrary reports of the IAEA, is enough to justify a war?

[sonofccn]

With other words, you are propagandising the "might of the strongest".
You decide what is the definitive truth and the correct form of government.
You decide which nation is good and which nation is bad.
You decide which nation is entitled to certain rights (e.g. the right to have superior fire power) and which nation are to be combated.

If as people we can't determine good from bad than we deserve to wiped out and replaced. I champion freedom and liberty. You champion...?

An interesting claim. But its not substantiated. Why is superior fire power the only way to maintain peace? I have always thought that during the Cold War peace was maintained because no side had have superior fire power.

And who decides who has the superior morality? You?

1. If we had superior firepower thier wouldn't have been a cold war, half of europe wouldn't have been abandoned for fifty odd years, and the world would have been a better place.

2.The countries that could conqure but choose not too would be a good starting point. China and Russia for example would really like to expand thier terriroty but are hampered by outside factors.

In what way shows the example of Nazi Germany vs. Great Britain that nations are not equal? What has the one to do with the other?
And who says which nations are allowed to have greater fire power? You?

It's simple. The United Kingdom has nukes. Do you want a country like Nazi Germany to have nukes? If both are equal, if both viewpoints and thoughts are morally the same than you should have no qualms.

Regarding Iran, which behaviour should be considered? Iran has, contrary to the USA, not attacked another nation. Please take note of that fact.

Cheating on an election, supressing it's own people, funding terroism. The fact that the USA has fought wars for it's survival are irrevelent to this discussion WILGA.

And to equate Iran with Nazi Germany is an insult for the victims of the latter. Iran has done nothing that could be equated with the things, Nazi Germany has done.

The key point however is yet. Something tells me the current regime does not harbor pleasent thoughts concerning Israel. However it was an example of a bad nation, would using the Soviets feel better to you?, I was not directly comparing the two nations at that moment in time.

I do not believe that if I'm nice to all others, all others are nice to me. I have never insinuated such a thing. Even if you are nice to others, they can be not nice to you. But fact is, that if you are not nice to others, they will not be nice to you.

And it is again an interesting claim that they are blood thirsty killers who pounce on weakness. But its not substantiated. Why do you think such thing? Fact is that neither Iran nor North Korea have, contrary to the USA, attacked another nation. What's your evidence thatthe people of Iran or the people of North Korea are blood thirsty killers who pounce on weakness.

Why do you think that I would be dead if the USA would not wage wars worldwide? Germany is ready to defend them self if it is attacked. It has shown in history that it is a force to be reckoned with. To attack Germany would be stupid. But nobody wants to attack Germany and it does not need the USA to defend it from someone who does not want to attack it.

1. Actually being cruel and abusive to other nations grants you total power. The Soviets didn't get a lot of backlash from the Warsaw group nor did Atilla want for brides, gold or power. No one crosses the big dude who isn't afraid to kill.

2. Iran: Sponsors terroism. N. Korea: Korean war.

3. Germany spends 1% of GDP on it's miltary. On the real world scale it's an insect. Russia, a nearby nation which a hankering for it's old Soviet empire, would squash just like one as well. Then of course the fact that without our help Germany would be part of the Soviet empire period and than the annual crisises which the US military is first responders too bringing food and medical. When Germany can usurp America's job you can talk until than I'd stay quiet on the military front.

I have never said that I want to disarm Germany. Why do you ignore that part of my last post:

Yes, there are things that are worthy fighting for.
If my own nation is unjustified attacked, I think it is worth fighting to defend it.
If another nation is unjustified attacked by a third nation, I think it is worth fighting to defend the attacked nation.
And here it ends. Fighting to defend something is ok. Fighting to attack something is not ok.
It's the same in my private life. I fight to defend myself and others when authoritarian help is not available. I never fight because I want something another possess or because another has a different opinion or life style I do not like.



I'm not showing weakness because I don't behave like a bully. Who thinks that and thinks that I would allow an attack on me or another, will very fast get a nasty surprise.

Maybe not disarm in the literal sense but you want to act nice and friendly towards people who want to kill us. I'd suggest putting enough firepower on thier border and telling them to drop the nuke program.

I'm not saying that the UN is perfect. Humans are working there and these humans are deliberately and undeliberately making mistakes. But that is not an institutional flaw. It's the same problem each other organisation has too. Or do you think that the US President should be abolished because of the Watergate scandal or the Lewinsky scandal?

1. Funny you had no such qualms regarding America. YOu thought it was super corrupt but the UN is excused after it has done some pretty hienes crimes.

2. You cite two examples roughly three decades apart that involved either a lying president or a lying or a small cabal of people. I'm talking about a system wide corruptioin which far worse consequences than either two examples you cited. UN peacekeepers have a nasty tendency to take advantage of the people they are supposed to help.

he UN is not an organisation from and for the USA. It's an international organisation from and for all nations. It's not the goal of the UN to enforce the US goals.

And to allow China and Soviet Union (Russia existed again only after 1990) into the security council was the only way that the UN could have worked at all. I recommend that you read something about the failings of the League of Nations.

1. What is the purpose of the UN. Why does it exist? For the kind of souless peace where we turn a blind eye while the Soviets starve thier own people or to build a better world were a woman in the middle east isn't stoned to death for being raped. I prefer nations that share that world building goal as opposed to pointless bickering and wasting money.

2. I was refering to Russia which still holds a place on the security council, through of course we never should have let the Soviets on either. They will never agree with us, they follow a very impertilistic goal. If we have nothing in common, no shared goals what will be accomplished?

Who says that you are the police? Who has made you to the police?

And even if I would accept that you are the police, there would still have to be a legislative and a judiciary. Are you that too? Does this mean that you alone can enact binding legislation, decide, who has violated them, execute them and decide, if one has violated them, how to punish them and execute the punishment? As far as I know, that violates even American legal principles.

And why would the police need nuclear weapons? Do you want to fight the bad guys with nuclear weapons?

1. We were made the police when no one else decided to step up for freedom. No one wanted to fight the cold war, everyone wanted to be nice to the Soviets, be friends. They wanted to show them that we could be friends. Which in itself makes me believe humanity is suicidal by nature.

2. It's called a metaphor. We are not literaly police, we don't even have a super sized giant badge, but we are for better or worse the closet thing this planet has to protectors. Check this planet's roster. The only other nations that can come close to what we possese in projection ability tend to be of the authoratian mind set. China crushes it's own people beneath tanks, do you really think they wouldn't do something similar to you if given the chance?

3. The police need to be as armed as the villians they fight. Nukes are just one more weapon in our arsenal.

9/11 was a crime of a criminal international organisation - not a military attack of another nation. The Taliban or Afghanistan has had nothing to do with that attack.

And even if one would consider 9/11 as an attack, it was over. No further attacks were imminent. That's where the right of self-defence ends.

Your international organization had assets in various nations. We went after a few. I fail to see how you can consider paramilitary jihadists a criminal organization, through they traffic in crime as well, but that is beside the point on this score. My main beef is that we were attacked and you seem to believe we should have simply stayed on the defensive just waiting to see what else those guys might throw at us. I wonder if you would feel the same if someone attacked your nation.

Prove the opposite!
Or do you think now that your unsubstantiated believe, ignoring all contrary reports of the IAEA, is enough to justify a war?

Answer my question. Give me a logical answer and I'll change my mind WILGA. It's a good question. They have all the power they could ever want and thier developing a dangerous and in comparisoin unstable technology.

To have a grudge against another nation is not a casus belli.
The USA have a grudge against many other nations and have indeed WMDs and are developing further WMDs. Do have other nations now have a justification to attack the USA?

The regime of Iran might feel differnt and they are ultimatly the ones you would have to persuade. I'd would do it by reminding them that any hostile actions would reduce thier nation to a grease stain. You want to go there smiling and shaking hands.

Though the IAEA reports to both the General Assembly and the Security Council, it is established independently of the United Nations under its own international treaty (the IAEA Statute).
And, if you are claiming something, it is at you to prove it. Or do you think now that your unsubstantiated believe, ignoring all contrary reports of the IAEA, is enough to justify a war?

I stand corrected. It's a completly differnt useless organisation. They sure did a bang up job on N. Korea too. Now do you have any national countries intelligence reports on teh subject. I'm more willing to buy into what the CIA believes or the British, French, German equivilent than a checkless organization.

[sonofccn]

whoops chalk that up to my fault. I found my last reponse to...nebulous and altered it to be more exacting.

Sorry WILGA.

[GStone]

Nobody is asking for a full military invasion so your argument of being spread too thin doesn't hold any water whatsoever.

Really. So, the fact our economy is shit couldn't have anything to do with it? And the fact we are already spread thin across the whole world without being in afghanistan and iraq doesn't have anything to do with it?

It is an option in the poll that was rejected far and wide

Really? By who?

what irks is that liberals think that the best way to deal with issues is to not to deal with them at all!

Right, we should be in everyone's business when we can't get our own act together. And hey, crack open a book and you'll see we pretty much fuck up everything when we stick our noses in other countries to build nations. Look how well Iraq turned out to be over the last few decades. We did a bang up job there.

God I'm glad you guys were not in power during WWII! Because if you had been the Axis powers would just rolled and conquered the whole planet unopposed and Jews, Gypsies and so son would be lampshades by now

Fuck you.

heck myself included being of mixed race I would have never even had the chance of being born.

As am I. 8 different nationalites. 4 colored races, 4 white and I look white. So, suck my dick.

But I guess that's the kind of world that liberals daydream about perhaps for the looks of it. The most radical elements of liberalism sure do...

I'll believe I'm your definition of a liberal when you take a history course and pass it more than barely.

[PunkMaister]

With other words, you are propagandising the "might of the strongest".
You decide what is the definitive truth and the correct form of government.
You decide which nation is good and which nation is bad.
You decide which nation is entitled to certain rights (e.g. the right to have superior fire power) and which nation are to be combated.

If as people we can't determine good from bad than we deserve to wiped out and replaced. I champion freedom and liberty. You champion...?

Liberals champion nothing but self hatred and self destruction. When someone asks who has the higher morality when choosing between someone that is as close to Hitler as anyone has ever come to be and the US. I'm more than certain that liberals would have loved for Hitler and the axis powers to have won. In their sick, twisted little minds we would be far better off as no more Jews as all would be soap now so no Israel to worry about, same goes for gypsies and all undesirables off course homosexuals are exempt for the most part of this as a lot of Nazis were homosexual to begin with something the liberals also conveniently ignore and deny, oh well...

[Flectarn]

. Allowing... france, in was a mistake from the get go. They don't share much in the way of goals with ... Europe in general.

wait, what?

[PunkMaister]

. Allowing... france, in was a mistake from the get go. They don't share much in the way of goals with ... Europe in general.

wait, what?

You heard it France! why? France has always followed an agenda of it's own for the most part separate from the interests of the rest of Europe and the U.S put together.

[sonofccn]

. Allowing... france, in was a mistake from the get go. They don't share much in the way of goals with ... Europe in general.

wait, what?

Actually France was a bit of a joke. In the vein of murder, theft and jaywalking. I also think they a very loud nation with a superiority complex and do think France gets in the way just not to the same league as Russia or china.

[Flectarn]

. Allowing... france, in was a mistake from the get go. They don't share much in the way of goals with ... Europe in general.

wait, what?

Actually France was a bit of a joke. In the vein of murder, theft and jaywalking. I also think they a very loud nation with a superiority complex and do think France gets in the way just not to the same league as Russia or china.

speeking of very loud nations with superiority complexes that get in the way of things...

well i was going to come up with some of the more prominant examples of the US doing this, landmine treaty, ICC, Kyoto, dispoportiante share of Security council vetos ect. but it don't feel like looking for links

[sonofccn]

wait, what?

Actually France was a bit of a joke. In the vein of murder, theft and jaywalking. I also think they a very loud nation with a superiority complex and do think France gets in the way just not to the same league as Russia or china.

speeking of very loud nations with superiority complexes that get in the way of things...

well i was going to come up with some of the more prominant examples of the US doing this, landmine treaty, ICC, Kyoto, dispoportiante share of Security council vetos ect. but it don't feel like looking for links

We don't have a superiority complex. We really are that important :) Compare with France which after WWII when we offered them a spot despite them being for all intents a third world nation, initially rejected it because they felt we were not treating them with the proper respect they deserved. It goes down hill from there.

[Cocytus]

Punkmaister: Surely you can find a way to disagree with people without impugning their patriotism or morality. What if I said I feel conservatives wish for another 9/11 so they can say "I told you so." What if I said I feel conservatism is motivated by, and derives its power from, the promulgation of hatred, bigotry, racism, fear, intolerance, paranoia and xenophobia? What if I said I feel conservative foreign policy is motivated by their need to "get revenge" for 9/11 by spilling Muslim blood (any Muslim will do.) What If I said conservatives used 9/11 as a hatemongering political tool, not giving two shits about the death toll (since New York and Washington are chock full of liberals and gays anyway, and who cares if those die. They aren't human like you) only caring about it insofar as they could use it to their own ends i.e. anytime someone questions the legality or morality of their warmongering, reply with "have you forgotten 9/11?" What if I said I see little difference between the hatemongering filth that carry the Repulican banner (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly etc.) and the terrorists they claim to oppose. Would any of that offend you?

It should, and rightly so. Why then do you demonize everyone with whom you disagree. My father is a Vietnam Veteran Army Colonel and former Soviet intelligence analyst. He knows two former Joint Chiefs personally. He ascribes no glory to war, and asks none for his actions. He hates the Bush Administration and believes we should keep our nose out of Iran. For that, would you label him a hater of America? Or a Nazi sympathizer?

He'd tear you a new asshole right quick, and you'd get a third from me.









Now, on to the discussion. Given the disastrous history of US intervention in Iran, I feel its best to stay out for the time being. We can't intervene militarily in any case, since the military is stretched as it is, and I'm a bit loathe to supply weapons, considering the last people we armed to resist an authoritarian regime turned into the Taliban. Our ouster of Mohammed Mossadegh was the worst foreign policy decision we ever made with regards to Iran. We ousted him for nationalizing the Iranian Oil Industry (so profits would go to, you know, Iranians instead of Britons). The ouster lead to the installation of Shah Reza Pahlavi, which in turn lead to the Iranian Revolution when he became a dictator with his abolition of the multiparty system in 1975. (So, if we're going to blame Carter for not stopping it, let's remember to include Eisenhower for creating the conditions that lead to it.) The CIA, after having deposed Mossadegh, trained the Iranian KGB, called SAVAK, which was guilty of numerous crimes including torture and the murder of the Shah's political opponents.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 64,00.html

I'd have to say, given how well our interventions have worked in the past, we stay out of it this time. Association with the United States is a kiss of death for Iranian politicians, and an open invitation for the government to crack down far more brutally than it has. That the people flooding the streets hate Ahmadinejad does not necessarily mean they would welcome US intervention. If, however, they ask for our help, then by all means give it to them.

Here: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... 08_rpt.pdf

This is a poll of Iranian public opinion. I encourage everyone to read through it. IF you really do champion democracy, and you've noticed the majority of domestic support for nuclear power generation, (not necessarily nuclear weapons) then your issue with the nuke program should stop then and there. IF you really do champion democracy, you accept that those who have it may make choices with which you disagree. Even if Ahmadinejad is replaced, the nuclear program will likely continue as an expression of the will of the Iranian people.

[PunkMaister]

Punkmaister: Surely you can find a way to disagree with people without impugning their patriotism or morality. What if I said I feel conservatives wish for another 9/11 so they can say "I told you so." What if I said I feel conservatism is motivated by, and derives its power from, the promulgation of hatred, bigotry, racism, fear, intolerance, paranoia and xenophobia? What if I said I feel conservative foreign policy is motivated by their need to "get revenge" for 9/11 by spilling Muslim blood (any Muslim will do.) What If I said conservatives used 9/11 as a hatemongering political tool, not giving two shits about the death toll (since New York and Washington are chock full of liberals and gays anyway, and who cares if those die. They aren't human like you) only caring about it insofar as they could use it to their own ends i.e. anytime someone questions the legality or morality of their warmongering, reply with "have you forgotten 9/11?" What if I said I see little difference between the hatemongering filth that carry the Repulican banner (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly etc.) and the terrorists they claim to oppose. Would any of that offend you?

It should, and rightly so. Why then do you demonize everyone with whom you disagree. My father is a Vietnam Veteran Army Colonel and former Soviet intelligence analyst. He knows two former Joint Chiefs personally. He ascribes no glory to war, and asks none for his actions. He hates the Bush Administration and believes we should keep our nose out of Iran. For that, would you label him a hater of America? Or a Nazi sympathizer?

Not everyone I disagree with just the liberals specially the most hardcore ones. But if you need proof that Liberalism is the closest thing to a mental disease just listen to this call to Michael Savage on regards that we should have tried to comprehend Hitler instead of going to war against him.

I do not believe for a second that your father is either a Nazi sympathizer or anything like that nor are you I feel that you both might be a bit misguided when it comes to this but nothing like that but there are liberals that feel and do very much as I have said, I deal with them a lot on websites like YouTube for example which seems to attract the lowest denominators for mankind possible...

[Cocytus]

I deal with them a lot on websites like YouTube for example which seems to attract the lowest denominators for mankind possible...

Heh heh, I don't suppose I can argue with that :)

I guess the moral is that the extremes of either side is a bad place to be. Some of the things that pass the lips of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly sound pretty diseased. A long time ago, when I was working for a contractor who was an avid devotee of Limbaugh, some of the things I heard sounded pretty out there. Don't get me wrong, I loved the contractor as a person, but boy his taste in radio drove me nuts.

[GStone]

Not everyone I disagree with just the liberals specially the most hardcore ones. But if you need proof that Liberalism is the closest thing to a mental disease just listen to this call to Michael Savage on regards that we should have tried to comprehend Hitler instead of going to war against him.

And, as has been said, wanting to stay out of iran is not a 'most hardcore liberal' idea.

I do not believe for a second that your father is either a Nazi sympathizer or anything like that nor are you I feel that you both might be a bit misguided when it comes to this but nothing like that but there are liberals that feel and do very much as I have said, I deal with them a lot on websites like YouTube for example which seems to attract the lowest denominators for mankind possible...

And part of my spirituality involves Judaism...and you called me a nazi appeaser/sympathizer only because I don't think we should be involved in iran. The next time you want to insult someone, make sure you can separate topics.