Iran

lealdragon · January 21, 2008, 12:46pm

Why is something that is wrong on a personal level (bullying someone else, controlling them, even being violent, for your own comfort and luxury) ok on a national level?

<hr>

No one said anything about disregarding the oil connection.

It takes a true leader to understand the big picture, acknowledge blowback (which none of the other candidates do), study history (which none of the other candidates do), have the wisdom to not repeat past mistakes (which none of the other candidates do), have the mental capacity to understand how all these issues interact (which none of the other candidates do), be a true statesman capable of negotiating with the rest of the world instead of just trying to bully them, while being firm when necessary, and…while understanding the volatility of the current situation, be enough of a visionary to solve the root issues and effect a long-term solution instead of just continuing the status quo.

<hr>

HSisOverrated: I agree that you should apologize to Akahmed. And thanks to bullet for showing a wonderful example of how to politely and respectfully disagree.

gottaloveucla · January 21, 2008, 1:25pm

This would not be strategic, this would be a “moral” reason.

First of all the name is Ahmadinejad. Second of all I had a question for you. Of course 4-6 million Jews died in Eastern Europe in a genocide that was perpetuated by Germany and its European allies. Also, if you recall in World War I, 1.5 million Armenians died in a genocide commited by Turkey. We deny the Armenian Genocide. What’s the difference? We argue that is politically expedient to deny the Armenian Genocide because Turkey is our ally. So why can’t Iran deny a genocide for their own political expediency.

Again these our moral reasons, not strageic reasons. Value is the give-away.

Here’s a quick question. Israel has started many wars in its history, more than Iran. Can you name one war where they fought to protect OUR interests? They didn’t send troops in the Persian Gulf War or the Iraq War. They went AGAINST our interests in the Suez Canal and the Osirak Reactor.

Again, it seems most of your reasons that hold water fall under what all would define as moral, not strategic.

mathwiz · January 21, 2008, 2:22pm

Let me say this. Even though I was born in the US and have lived most of my life here, I’m Iranian, I’m proud to be Iranian, I’m proud of my country, I like it better than the US, and I’m not a “religious bigot” as many have implied. I will defend my country to the last breath if need be.

The Israel issue is not as simple as “Iranians hate Jews Period” as some of you have implied. Ever since the Crusades, the West has been trying to take Palestine from the Middle East. After WWII, they uprooted many many Palestinian families to make room for Jews. Now, if someone came to your house and kicked you out so that a Muslim family could stay in your house, live in your house, and own your house, how would you feel? We don’t hate Jews, we just don’t like that they’re living on our property and we’re not.

Iran is not making nuclear weapons. They don’t need them. They already are important and have enough leverage on the US as it is. Nuclear weapons would be suicide. Would you walk into a police station with an unregistered, unwelcomed, gun?

Iran is as much as a democracy as is the US. Their constitution was ratified soon after the Iranian Revolution, much like the US Constitution. US has 3 branches of government, Iran has 5. And all 5 have checks and balances. Every position in the government is either elected directly by the people (like US voting for senators) or elected directly by bodies that were elected by the people (like US voting for electors who vote for President, or the President appointing Supreme Court Justices). Now, there are differences here and there, but until you actually do some RESEARCH beyond the propaganda being spread about Iran, please don’t call us “religious bigots.” It makes you look very uncivilized.

To the OP: Iran is a very nice, very beautiful country.

UCLAri · January 21, 2008, 3:22pm

mathwiz,

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate invasion stopper. It is entirely possible, and rational, that Iran would be seeking them. While I don’t believe it is in the US’s interests to see Iran with nukes, I certainly see why Iran would consider them.

Except that every single decision can be vetoed (overruled) by the Supreme Ruler. Except that every single person running for office has to be vetted by the Supreme Ruler. Except that it is NOT truly democratic. Iran is, at best, a quasi-democracy. It is definitely one of the more democratic regimes in the region, but until you ditch the absolute authority of the ayatollah and the Council of Guardians, it is NOT a democracy along the same lines of the United States (which is not necessarily the best example of a democracy to begin with.)

<hr>

gottaloveucla,

I don’t know that the US’s official stance is to DENY the Armenian genocide. In fact, I have yet to see any real policy stance by the Congress or President on the issue. Lack of a stance is not denial, it’s just a wishy-washy dance around the issue. Ahmadinejad flat out DENIED the Holocaust. Sure, he had good political reasons to do so at the time, but I have yet to see any American leaders say to the world with bravado that there was never an Armenian genocide.

As far as your arguments for realism go, realism is somewhat flawed to begin with…

fundingfather · January 21, 2008, 3:52pm

You certainly can not be talking about Ron Paul? If so, he must have skipped the history associated with the most horrendous war the world has ever known. The position of isolationism that he is pushing is a direct replay of the “America First” crowd of the 1930s. Most people came away from that episode with the knowledge gained through 60 million deaths that you can’t just hide behind your nation’s borders and wish the world’s troubles and evils away. Ron Paul obviously did not learn that lesson.

lealdragon · January 21, 2008, 4:18pm

Oh good heavens, not the tired old ‘isolationist’ argument AGAIN.

Respectfully, ff, may I suggest you actually read some of Ron Paul’s own words instead of just listening to the biased mainstream media which has been feeding the ‘RP is an isolationist’ lie to the public. And get educated on the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism.

Ron Paul has a greater command of history and its lessons, including the important issue of blowback, than all the other candidates put together.

[YouTube</a> - Isolationism vs Non-Interventionism: Ron paul Explains](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM)

[Exposing</a> the True Isolationists by Ron Paul](<a href=“http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul401.html]Exposing”>Exposing the True Isolationists - LewRockwell)

lealdragon · January 21, 2008, 4:21pm

Neither is the US. We are a republic, with representational govt. We don’t elect our leaders directly, but have representatives do it for us. It’s a myth that our votes directly elect our leader; they don’t.

fundingfather · January 21, 2008, 4:31pm

What do you mean by “our” property. When did Iran ever own the land that is now Israel - except when Nebuchadrezzar conquered it (and as I recall treated the Jews rather badly? Which point in history does the official ownership of the land begin? The problem is that no matter which timepoint you choose, there will be an aggrieved group of people. Your comment concerning “our property” is precisely why the rest of the world is wary of Iran’s intentions and why tensions will always exist. Not until Iran and the Arabs are willing to peacefully co-exist with the Jews will there be any hope for peace.

bulletandpima · January 21, 2008, 4:34pm

OK, Bullet back again from seeing “Cloverfield” with the kids. Great popcorn movie (i.e. easy way to shut down the brain and have fun for two hours), BTW, but I’m sure I’ll be paying for it tonight with some frightened kids not wanting to sleep!

<hr>

Leal,
I’ll guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. FF summed up my feelings pretty succintly. I just think our interests in that region are too important to ignore or avoid, which seems to me to be RP’s preferred policy for that area. The thought of a major conflict in that area, whether started by Isreal, Iran, Hezbollah, whoever, will have way too many significant impacts to our national security via keeping the oil flowing. Was I using an arguement that my comfort is more important than keeping the moral high ground? Perhaps. But most likely my analogy didn’t clearly get my point across that EVERYTHING in this country and theglobal economy is dependent on having access to that demon oil.

Let’s just consider this case closed between us and move on, OK? (BTW, I still like other areas RP espouses, especially the reduction of government in everyday affairs, which I feel should be the primary plank of the Republican platform. He justn’t hasn’t sold me on some of his other views. But then again, no candidate on the Republican ticket has me feeling aglow yet, either. I still want Dave Barry to run. We might continue down the tubes, but at least we’ll laugh as we head there! )

<hr>

gottaloveucla,

You missed my point about Isreal entirely. What started out as a moral obligation to defend Isreal in the 40s and 50s quickly turned into a strategic apsect during the 60s when the two sides in the Middle East became pawns in the cold war. Your tendency to hunt-and-pick single sentences out of a paragraph in order to prove a point is the sieve that doesn’t hold water in this case. (Context, my boy. Context)

Now, onto a history lesson:

You seem to forget that during the first 30 years of Isreal’s existence, the major conflicts in the region were started by Isreal’s Arab neighbors, in particular The 6 Day War in 67, and the Yom Kippur War in 73. It took quite a while for Isreal’s neighbors to realize that they couldn’t push Isreal out to sea in a major head-to-head confrontation. The Arab nations were forced to change their stategy to one of supporting low-intensity conflict measures, in this case mostly through support of terrorist activities against Isreal, and the occasional shelling they “conveniently” attribute to radical groups within their borders.

As to Isreal not supporting us. Remember the little conflict in 1990 called Desert Storm? Remember how Sadam decided not to shoot his Scud missiles at our forces, but instead tried to draw Isreal into the conflict by sending these terror weapons their way? Why? He hoped to draw Isreal into the conflict, in the hopes that the Arab nations in our coalition would withdraw support (and troops, and staging locations, and money, etc.) because the saw “Evil Isreal” acting agressivly against an Arab brother. Do you think Isreal would have listened to anyone else but us if asked not to retaliate? Simple answer: No. They knew the strategic significance to us to stay out, even when attacked, and they showed their courage and freindship to this nation by displaying restraint (it also helped that they knew the efforts we went through to remove this threat to them).

As to the reactor mission: who do you think gave them the intelligence to target this facility? We can publically state that we were against it, but we all know that privately we cheered them on there way as they removed this threat to the region. And who do you think quietly told the rest of the Arab world to “let it go”? The knew that retaliation against Isreal would be met with harsh circumstances.

No, Isreal has always been a friend and ally to the US. Sometimes they act in they’re own best interests and not in the way we would prefer, but there hasn’t been a single nation in that region who has supported our interests there more than Isreal.

fundingfather · January 21, 2008, 4:40pm

“Respectfully, ff, may I suggest you actually read some of Ron Paul’s own words instead of just listening to the biased mainstream media which has been feeding the ‘RP is an isolationist’ lie to the public.”

I have heard Paul’s views from his own mouth in the debates with no media filtering. They are almost exactly the same as that of the America First crowd during the 30s… He seems to think that because he wants to trade with other countries that he is not an isolationist. Well, so did the America First crowd. One of the leaders of this group was Arthur Vandenberg - he started with the same views of Paul and after/during the war realized that he was 100% wrong. What do they say about people who learn from their mistakes versus those who cling to their ideological views?

bulletandpima · January 21, 2008, 4:47pm

Here’s the post where I apologize, especially to HSisOverated and gottalovUCLA for confusing you two. I guess I really did shut off my brain when I watched “Cloverfield”!

I edited my previous post to make more sense to the fact that I should have repsonded to gottaloveUCLA.

lealdragon · January 21, 2008, 4:52pm

OK.

Oh gosh, you’ve heard some 30-second soundbites?

I invite you to listen to him when he has at least 10 minutes to talk, to fully explain his position. I also invite you to read the article I posted above.

You will probably still disagree with his policies, but you might at least be more accurate in your terminology.

fundingfather · January 21, 2008, 5:11pm

“Oh gosh, you’ve heard some 30-second soundbites?”

What kind of communicator is he if, in the course of a several minute response in a debate, he sends his audience off on a 180 degree different view than what he truly espouses? I read the link that you included and it doesn’t counter anything that he has said in the debate.

lealdragon · January 21, 2008, 6:15pm

I didn’t say it would counter it; I said it would better explain his position.

From reading your previous posts, I doubt that there would be anything I could say, or Ron Paul could say, that would change your mind. You have a different mindset. (It was never my intention to convince you of anything anyway, but only to get the terminology accurate.) So I will leave it at that, and we can just agree to disagree, ok?

UCLAri · January 21, 2008, 7:13pm

You missed my point entirely. I said that the US is already a bad example of democracy. However, the US not being a good example of democracy doesn’t make Iran one. Outside of just trying to “stick it to me,” what point does your comment really have?

And the only leader that is not directly elected in the US is the POTUS. Senators have been directly elected since 1913. Other than that, which offices actually have intermediaries? You can argue against the primary system (and do it well,) but at least we get SOME choice in the executive, unlike in most parliamentary systems. Not that that’s necessarily better, but it’s different.

But really, this just seemed like a “stick it to 'em” comment to me.

BTW, you badly misuse the word republic. Republic, at least in modern political theory, merely refers to a state where the “government’s political power depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed.” To that end, nearly every modern democratic state is in some way republican. I think that if you actually look at what political theorists talk about, you find that republicanism is often seen as the opposite of autocracy. Therefore, while the People’s Republic of China calls itself a “republic” it is an autocracy in de facto terms.

UCLAri · January 21, 2008, 7:19pm

As far as the political expediency of being allied with Israel goes, it’s probably no different from being allied with Japan in a post-Cold War world: sure, we probably haven’t the same large threat to ally against anymore, but the alliance still serves a purpose. In the case of Israel, it’s a strategic partner in intelligence-- it’s pretty clear that Mossad does things that Langley does/cannot do.

I know this doesn’t fly with a more “fluffy” view of things, but sometimes cold hard reality wins over what’s right. International relations is much closer to Hobbes than Rousseau.

razorsharp · January 21, 2008, 9:21pm

Here is an example to show the weakness of the Iranian President:

[Iran</a> Leader Under Fire for Gas Shortages](<a href=“http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UAB1DO2&show_article=1]Iran”>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UAB1DO2&show_article=1)

Iran

CONNECT WITH US