More lies from Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/15/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

More lies from Iran on their nuclear program.

I suggest three options

1. Blame America/Bush/Globalisation/Capitalism/the Illuminati
2. Support Iran's right to violate international treaties
3. Suggest some non-unilateralist, non-coercive diplomatic solution
4. Suggest nothing, but complain about whatever the US does

Seriously, lets hear some ideas.

 

its no less dangerous than america's testing of nuclear weapons. why should it be america who gets to police the world, when they are guilty of what they claim to be fighting?

 

So, you would rather Iran or North Korea "police the world" as you out it? I hope you know your shi'ite or ju'che philposophy, then. And everyone knows, Iran is a religious paradise, and North Korea a worker's paradise. Everything would just be PERFECT if the stupid old US just stopped trying to keep all these maniacs in line, huh?

 

Nice cultural and moral relativism you have there robo. Sadly for your hypernationalistic blindness, washington is the one which has shown itself the most internationally militant and destructive maniac beyond any other nation in the world over the past half century. Try learning just how many countries we have attacked and how many hundreds of thousands we have killed directly or supported brutal regimes in so doing.

No one country has any unilateral "right" to act as global policeman. Such thinking is nothing but the application of a new slogan to what is nothing more than "might makes right" aka Imperialism.

 

no, i would rather not have that.

why is our way of life better than everyone else's? i'm sure many north koreans and iranians and countless hordes of other groups that reside on this planet believe Americans live shitty lives... well, you know what, i'd rather not have them convert me to their lifestyle just because they think its right.

your logic is that of the nazis and stalin. i bet you're proud of yourself.

 

Why is it ok for Amierka to have all these nukes but if developing countries have them, it's NOT ok?
Can people NOT SEE that Amerika is a bigger terrorist than Iran?
Ugh, fucking corporate whores.

 

My point, soulrebel, is that I would rather live as I am, than have a tyrranical, megalomaniacal, or fanatical dictatorship force their systems upon me. If there were not the threat of US nuclear weapons, you don't think Iran, North Korea, et al, wouldn't try to enforce ther systems upon the world? People DIE trying to flee DPRK and Iran every day. People DIE trying to GET TO the US. So tell me, whose system would you rather live under? You can try to equivocate, but the truth is in the numbers. Where are people fleeing FROM, and where are they trying to GET TO. Of course, if you've never lived under REAL tyrrany, REAL oppression, it is easy to equivocate. But their really IS a difference. If you can't see that, then I suggest trying out one of the paradises for yourself. By the way, Stalin and Hitler practiced genocide on the scale never before, and never since, seen by the world. If you can actually compare them to the US, then there is really no point in trying to reason with you. You are either mentally ill, or completely ignorant. Either way, I see no point in wasting any more of my time.

 

Sure, why not let every tin-pot banana republic dictator have nukes? What harm could possibly come from that?

 

that's really hypocritical of you.. why do you want to force your beliefs on other nations, then?

i doubt it.

and thousands of people die in the u.s. everyday.

i'd rather live in england.

why not focus more on fixing up america?

and you have?

nobody mentioned genocide. what i am comparing is how hitler got the german people to believe that the jews were the cause of all their problems, and how the bush administration is blaming the muslims. see a pattern going here.... no, of course you dont.

i am neither.

so be it, its not my problem if you let ignorance control you.

 

Why would he?

 

Actually, I have lived under real tyrrany. Fortunately, I was able to escape and make it to the US. I don't agree with Bush on many things, but the fact is I would rather live in the US than anywhere else. I don't think the US should force its way of life anywhere, but I am glad that they have the means to discourage other nations from doing so. And England--that's like the US-Europe Division! Same difference. They have been in lockstep with the US since day one.

 

The best idea is that we as individuals stop supporting the death-drive funeral-march of Western Civilization.

Don't do any work that increases the economic power of the psychotic West.

Remember, the tragedy of Iran, and the whole Middle East, begins with the grasping anal-retentive psychosis of the Western Psyche.

Remember, the International Court of Justice ruled against the West, and in Iran's favor, when they nationalized their OIL resources.

That's when the CIA over-threw Iran's beloved Prime Minister, Dr.Mossadeq.

That's when the USA installed the Shah and his torturing, murdering, CIA trained, SAVAK.

That's what led to the Iranian Revolution and the tragedy of Iran.

That's why Iranians know, like all Middle Easterners know, that their only defence against the USA and the West is Nuclear Weapons.

Thank the grasping West!!

 

OK, so the survey says the correct response to Iran violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty and potentially building nuclear weapons is:

Blame America - 4 votes - Soulrebel, LickHerish, Nathan11, m6m

Support Iran's right to violate international treaties - 4 votes - Soulrebel, LickHerish, Nathan11, m6m

Suggest some non-unilateralist, non-coercive diplomatic solution - 0 votes

Suggest nothing, but complain about whatever the US does - 4 votes - Soulrebel, LickHerish, Nathan11, m6m

Special awards: LickHerish, for getting in the first personal attack and making no reference whatsoever to the topic at hand (as a result his votes have been assigned by inference), Soulrebel for being the first to compare his debating opponent to the Nazis, Nathan for calling people "stupid corporate whores" yet being too uninformed to know "why is it ok for Amierka to have all these nukes but if developing countries have them, it's NOT ok?" - try reading the text of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Oh and m6m, who suggests that the way to respond to a Iranian nuclear bomb is to stop the "grasping anal retentive death-drive funeral-march of Western Civilization".

And yet you probably think it takes a vast conspiracy to keep "progressive" voices out of the media.

==================

You know, its a bit funny because when I put "blame america" as an option, it was supposed to be a sarcastic joke about "progessives" who think that blaming america is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem. Yet that's exactly what people did.

 

Well, america's actions don't exist in a vacuum. It may be pointless bitching to you, but to some people, it's understanding the cause and effect relationship of our imperialist, meddlesome foreign policy. If you ignore it, you'll have problems. Sort of like forgetting that it was our policy that really set Saddam up, leading to two wars we fought with him. (by the way, you basically put "blame america" twice in your list of options).

As far as the topic at hand, I'm for the diplomatic solution, but then, that's generally the only rational option you listed, so there ya go. leading the vote, perhaps? I don't know much about these matters to suggest specific action, but clearly we can't face the prospect of another war right now, even a multilateral one. It shouldn't even be an option, at least not one very much considered.

Anyways, the people there are voting, so at least any war plans can't be presented under the whole "bringing democracy to Iran" because they have it. Might not be what we want it to be, but hey, that'd democracy.

Interesting to think about though: with Afganistan to the east, and Iraq to the west, both full of American troops (and chaos), it's easy to see Iran becoming a major power in the area while also giving understanding to why they might want to be thinking about defending themselves.

 

For some people, cause and effect means everything bad in the world must somehow be America's fault. The US did not put Saddam in power, he was armed by France, China, and Russia, and he went and created his own wars. In another example, its pretty hard to see what is imperialistic and meddlesome about alleviating mass starvation in North Korea with food aid, yet we are rewarded with a covert nuclear weapons program and constant threats of war. The US was also the largest provider of food aid to Afghanistan while Al Queda was a guest of the Taliban and plotting 9/11.

Also, I was trying to distinguish between "blame america for all the worlds problems" with "criticise all solutions proposed by america without suggesting anything realistic of your own", two equally useless but quite distinct versions of reflexive anti-americanism.

Apparently leading the vote was not good enough, as it got zero votes. I proposed a reasonable, easy, multilateral, peaceful solution and people still chose the "I hate America" option. The problem with the non-hate america option is that is required people to actually suggest a policy, and as we all know policies have weaknesses which can be criticised and what fun is that? Better to just complain about America.

Iran is not a democracy. But nobody wants war with Iran, at most there would be military strikes against the sites associated with the nuclear program, and even that is highly unlikely. But I wonder - does anyone regret that the French nuclear reactor in Iraq was bombed and destroyed? Anyone look back and wish it had been completed?

Kind of you to sympathise and make excuses, but they started the program long before the US arrived in either country. In fact before they probably would have justified it based on the threat of Saddam, who actually HAD attacked them.

 

Just as equally as head in sand flag wavers like yourself avoid all civic responsibility whatsoever at any cost and simply regurgitate ad naseum how all evil is somehow unconnected to America in any way.

You wonder why noone here other than the handful of other trolls takes you seriously. All you have ever done is mock and slander the rest of us who see how inseparable the prevailing global conditions are from both our own consistently duplicitous foreign policy and our own more recent national example in declaring international conventions and treaties "quaint" and "inapplicable" to anything Washington wishes to pursue.

Face it boy, you are the arch hypocrite here and I'll thank you to not include my name in your posts or your ridiculously slanted polls. If you wish to infer anything, infer that I consider you every bit as onerous as the traitors in our government whom you regularly defend.

 

Oh and hard as it may be for you to put historic references into full context PB, try finishing your point...

...at the behest of and in the furtherance (respectively) of Washington and its own foreign policy objectives, namely retaliating against Khomeni for overthrowing their previously servile puppet (and savagely brutal tyrant) The Shah and weakening Iraq in the process.

Kinda removes your ideological ammo when the actual geopolitical agendas are included. Guess One day youll have to confront the harsh truth that every intervention lauded in their day by myopic sheeple like you only generates a further mess upon the basis which future administration(s) can spin new pretexts for repeating the destructive and manipulative process.

One can hardly blame the residents of Arab/Islamic lands for not sharing your smug armchair presumptions about the magnanimity of US intentions or the results of its interventions.

 

I think that the best solution is covert special-ops and funding of Iranian pro-democracy groups. Y'see, because of the wars that Saddam fought with Iran, there is a huge youth bubble. These people are very pro-western and very pro-democracy.
I don't think that a military invasion and forceful removal of the mullahs would be a very good idea, i think that it would turn our supporters in Iran against us. For some reason people don't like being shot at by US troops because of confusing signs at road blocks, and they don't appreciate their houses being blown up.
I think that if we help the already burgening pro-democracy movement seize power, then we could act as peace-keepers and not invaders. Peace-keepers are alot better imho.
So, do i get a point for a diplomatic solution?

 

One vote from Eugene, one from me and I'm going to infer a vote from Robostiltzkin. I'm going to add a category for "Mindless rants mixed with personal attacks" for LickHimSelf, and give him three votes since he's done it three times.

 

LOL. You do whatever floats your boat ostrich boy. God forbid you should ever have to critically examine let alone even question the much more flagrantly destructive actions of our own homeland throughout the world. No, much easier to screech about Iranian boogeymen with nukes and "what should be done". Anything to preserve your criminal status quo, regardless of how many suffer because of it.

Add three more, as if it means anything.