Iran

Nailec · Mar 20, 2009, 12:53 PM

i feel like wanting some of your opinions on this country and its future.

do they build a bomb?

should obama and the rest of the west really try to cooperate with iran or should there be even more isolization?

will the elections (they are relatively free in iran) bring any changes there?

do u know good articles on this issue?

do you give a shit anyways?

etc.etc.

Variable · Mar 20, 2009, 03:21 PM

Any problems that the world has with Iran will most certainly not be fixed by Obama. Seeing as how the US is the cause of all the dam problems in the first place.

Nailec · Mar 20, 2009, 06:02 PM

u mean the iranian nuclear program (if it exists, but i believe so) is a reaction on being sourrounded by american outposts?

Nailec · Mar 20, 2009, 06:04 PM

oh. do you think that european ambassadors would have more luck in diplomacy with the iran regime? (including russia)

Starz · Mar 20, 2009, 06:36 PM

Quote from: Nailec on Mar 20, 2009, 06:02 PM
u mean the iranian nuclear program (if it exists, but i believe so) is a reaction on being sourrounded by american outposts?

Iran is a member of the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and has insisted that is acting in accordance with NPT.

According to the NPT regulations, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) must support NPT members to acquire the technology that is needed to enrich Uranium, for peaceful purposes.

Iran has not been supported to do so, and now Iran is making these facilities by it's own scientists, and in accordance with NPT. But the USA likes you to believe otherwise...

1. Iran is a member of the NPT.
2. All members of the NPT have the right to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes.
3. Based on the NPT, Iran must be given the right and support to have the Uranium Enrichment facilities.

It is not logical to have one set of NPT regulations, but yet Iran gets treated differently. If there is a set of regulations all members must be treated in the same way, otherwise you have violated your democratic values.

Iran IS a member of the NPT and officialy does NOT have any Nukes. But Israel has got Nuke Warheads and is NOT a member of the NPT!

Now you tell me who is a threat to the world?

One of the most sought after leaders in Iran in the last 60 years was Dr. Mossadegh. His Governoment was removed from power by direct intervention of the US and UK.
They replaced Dr. Mossadegh by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (who dictated over Iran from the early 1950s to 1979) because Dr. Mossadegh had nationalized the Iranian Oil Industry!

The US is claiming to support democracy but how come the US removed Dr. Mossadegh from power and supported Pahlavi who dictated Iran for 3 decades? Is this the meaning of democracy lol? So what happened to the rights of the Iranian nation when the US removed Dr. Mossadegh from power?

Nailec · Mar 20, 2009, 07:33 PM

Iran has been supported to build nuclear reactions until 1979. then the islamic revolution changed the circumstances. (as you pointed out: the USA had influence on the change of the political system in iran)

after the revolution however Iran defined itself as a country that hates the USA and Israel. Kidnapping, support of terrorists in lebanon and palestine.

in addition Ahmadinedschad has threaneted Israels existence multiple times. so y should they still be supported to build their reactors? btw. Iran still has trading relationship at least to some german companies.

many of the things you say explained the iranian nuclear program, but they dont justify it.

i am not really sure what to do with all the threatening coming from Iran. perhaps its just used to protect the Iranian identity and to deflect from inner problems. but i wouldnt go with the risky way and let them do what they want.

yep Israel posseses nuclear power, but they dont threatened anybody. not sure y they are not member of the NPT. but sadly enough this (and the nuclear bombs in possession of pakistan and india) are certanly a huge reason for other nations to get the bomb.

wither-I · Mar 20, 2009, 07:39 PM

well stated my friends

Variable · Mar 21, 2009, 01:25 AM

You guys are asking the completely wrong questions. Instead of asking if Iran should be allowed to have nukes or not. You should be asking, who in the fuck has the right to tell another sovereign nation what to do? You guys are saying words like "allowed". Well, they are "allowed" to have nukes because they are their own country. No other country is really "allowed" to tell them what to do. How would you like if if another country would not "allow" your country to do something? I believe one nation has the right to boss around another nation after they have conquered it. I believe that is called imperialism, not democracy.

wither-I · Mar 21, 2009, 01:30 AM

Quote from: Variable on Mar 21, 2009, 01:25 AM
You guys are asking the completely wrong questions. Instead of asking if Iran should be allowed to have nukes or not. You should be asking, who in the fuck has the right to tell another sovereign nation what to do? You guys are saying words like "allowed". Well, they are "allowed" to have nukes because they are their own country. No other country is really "allowed" to tell them what to do. How would you like if if another country would not "allow" your country to do something? I believe one nation has the right to boss around another nation after they have conquered it. I believe that is called imperialism, not democracy.

exactly.

Nailec · Mar 21, 2009, 01:15 PM

you are asking the wrong question, too.

having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.

wither-I · Mar 21, 2009, 02:48 PM

Quote from: Nailec on Mar 21, 2009, 01:15 PM
you are asking the wrong question, too.

having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.

all nukes aside, the bullies are the bombs.

Livewire · Mar 21, 2009, 04:17 PM

(So Far Away)
-A Flock Of Seagulls

Variable · Mar 21, 2009, 06:05 PM

Quote from: Nailec on Mar 21, 2009, 01:15 PM
you are asking the wrong question, too.

having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.

And calling people war criminals based on preemption is not a moral issue? I think the millions of dead Iraqis who died based on preemptive war ( aka their country did nothing wrong but still got bombed ) would totally agree that sanctions and wars based on preemption is a very big moral issue here.

Nailec · Mar 21, 2009, 08:42 PM

do agree. as u know there has been a lot of protest against this preventive war because of that.

anyways. in saddams name war crimes and crimes against humanity have been commited.

in the sense of human rights it was right to stop that.

i know that human rights obviously have not been the main reason for the us troops to invade iraq as they would have to invade multiple other countries in the world including themselves

but how long would you wait? until the bomb is dropped? until antisemitism becomes destructive once again?

Variable · Mar 22, 2009, 10:03 AM

The movie minority report comes to mind.

If you want to go around policing the world. Then thats your opinion. But you dont know if you are right about how the world should be policed. You don't know if what you think might become, will actually become, if you stop it before it happens. Yeah, there is a lot of potential evil out there. Always has been, always will be. But trying to control it, is asinine. You can't see into the future to know what really would have happened. And you also cant see into the future to see the consequences of your actions should you take them.
How long would I wait? Ill wait till they fuck with me. Israel is their own independent and sovereign nation. Israel is perfectly capable of protecting itself without my help. I don't feel the need to fight another mans fight. Know what I mean?

wither-I · Mar 22, 2009, 06:56 PM

Quote from: Variable on Mar 21, 2009, 06:05 PM
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 21, 2009, 01:15 PM
you are asking the wrong question, too.

having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.

And calling people war criminals based on preemption is not a moral issue? I think the millions of dead Iraqis who died based on preemptive war ( aka their country did nothing wrong but still got bombed ) would totally agree that sanctions and wars based on preemption is a very big moral issue here.

Quote from: Variable on Mar 22, 2009, 10:03 AM
The movie minority report comes to mind.

If you want to go around policing the world. Then thats your opinion. But you dont know if you are right about how the world should be policed. You don't know if what you think might become, will actually become, if you stop it before it happens. Yeah, there is a lot of potential evil out there. Always has been, always will be. But trying to control it, is asinine. You can't see into the future to know what really would have happened. And you also cant see into the future to see the consequences of your actions should you take them.
How long would I wait? Ill wait till they fuck with me. Israel is their own independent and sovereign nation. Israel is perfectly capable of protecting itself without my help. I don't feel the need to fight another mans fight. Know what I mean?

trey... thank you, for everything

Nailec · Mar 22, 2009, 08:56 PM

your "everyone for himself"-attitude is not, what i expected from you.

someone points a gun on someone you love and threatens to pull the trigger.

you wouldnt stop him or her until the actually shot?

btw: a threat itself is an immoral action as it causes a disadvantage on the side that is threatened.

i will later write something to your total inadequate comparision between what is the idea of Minority Report and how we atually judge in political events. (i am sure if you would think about it for 5 minutes my post will not be necessary)

Variable · Mar 23, 2009, 04:33 AM

Look. Comparing a social contract to the love of one human to another is a bit silly. If I go to Texas to see my mom and sister and some ass hole points a gun at them, he's getting two to the chest one to the head way before he pulls the trigger. Of course. But I have no such unconditional love for one social contract to the other.

A government is set up for a reason. In the case of the United States and Israel it was set up based on the philosophy that all men are born free. All men are free to do as they please. Farm, paint, exercise, rape, kill, steal...ect ect. You can do as you please. Because you are free. But this also means that all other men are free to do the exact same. So since humans obviously don't want to be rapped, murdered, or burglarized, they looked for a solution. AKA the social contract. I will give up all of my freedoms to hurt people, as long as they give them up too. Thus became government.

This governments responsibility is only to the people in which it has a social contract ( citizens ). Government has no control of, or responsibility to anyone who is not their citizen. Let me say that again with emphasis. Government has no control of anyone who is not their citizen .

So my government ( the U.S.A. ) has no control over anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. Unless that is, you want to force your social contract onto other people or governments.

Imperialism is defined as "the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries......."

So if I demand that my government tell another government what to do, for whatever reason. I am an imperialist. And my friend, I am no imperialist. I believe in leaving other foreign countries with sovereign governments and their own social contracts, alone. Because I want mine to be left alone. The only time I want to have to worry about another social contract is when it threatens mine on my land. AKA war. But to try to preemptively stop war with...war. Seems a bit silly. Until you yourself see the mangled dead bodies. Then suddenly preemption on such a large scale becomes evil in the purest sense of the word.

tarkil · Mar 23, 2009, 04:40 AM

Damn Trey, I couldn't agree more with you... I just had to state that fact...

Variable · Mar 23, 2009, 04:55 AM

Its because I'm high.

Quote from: wither-I on Mar 22, 2009, 06:56 PM
Quote from: Variable on Mar 21, 2009, 06:05 PM
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 21, 2009, 01:15 PM
you are asking the wrong question, too.

having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.

And calling people war criminals based on preemption is not a moral issue? I think the millions of dead Iraqis who died based on preemptive war ( aka their country did nothing wrong but still got bombed ) would totally agree that sanctions and wars based on preemption is a very big moral issue here.
Quote from: Variable on Mar 22, 2009, 10:03 AM
The movie minority report comes to mind.

If you want to go around policing the world. Then thats your opinion. But you dont know if you are right about how the world should be policed. You don't know if what you think might become, will actually become, if you stop it before it happens. Yeah, there is a lot of potential evil out there. Always has been, always will be. But trying to control it, is asinine. You can't see into the future to know what really would have happened. And you also cant see into the future to see the consequences of your actions should you take them.
How long would I wait? Ill wait till they fuck with me. Israel is their own independent and sovereign nation. Israel is perfectly capable of protecting itself without my help. I don't feel the need to fight another mans fight. Know what I mean?

trey... thank you, for everything

and hey man. I'm just glad to have people who are actually interested in intelligent conversation. I'm just glad to have people who will actually read my post. And I'm glad to have people who will give me post to read.