|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 15, 2009 23:02:21 GMT -8
Opinion:
Is the current unrest in Iran a good sign for the future of Iran?
Note, I'm not saying any of the violence is in itself good.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 16, 2009 7:39:32 GMT -8
Not good. In fact we have not seen the worst of it yet, and perhaps we wont. Most of the international press have one week passes, and will be leaving the country soon. It is then that the real backlash will take place. those that are protesting in the streets and opposing the outcome of the election are in for a rude awakening. This will be Tienanmen Square all over again.
This is why I believe Obama is so fool hearted to think that he can play nice with the Iranian government, and convince them to change their ways. The Iranian government and religious leaders are driven by ideology, and an extreme religious world view. Without quick decisive action soon, Iran will be armed with a nuclear weapon and will attempt to strike Israel or the US. The longer we wait to take action against Iran. the more deadly the outcome will be. perhaps the only hope left is that Israel will see the futility in waiting on the Obama administration, and the rest of the international community to take action, and will move on their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 16, 2009 9:38:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jun 16, 2009 12:07:21 GMT -8
Personally, I don't see why Iran shouldn't have the bomb.  (uh oh, apparently a provocation, beware!) As long as other nations such as USA, Russia, Israel, France, India, Pakistan, GB, North Korea etc. etc. think they have the right to build and possess such bombs, everybody has the right. The USA have no right at all to dictate Iran (or any other nation for that matter) what or what not they are allowed to do. If Iran is foolish enough to attempt a nuclear attack on Israel it will be their (Iran's) end. If Israel thinks it needs to attack Iran preventively, it's their business, not ours. As the cold war showed, there is reason to believe that no nuclear power will make use of their weapons as long as they run the risk of being attacked with nuclear weapons themselves. So for the time being I'm not buying the "they'll wipe out Isreal" story. Possessing an atomic bomb will certainly give Iran a stronger position in the region and in the world and of course it doesn't look like we will profit from this  . But as I said: If Isreal has the right to possess the bomb, Iran has the right too. It's as simple as that. And it's not like Israel is behaving like a rolemodel either. As a matter of fact, many of the settlers are as fanatic as someone can be. They don't differ much from ther palesteen counterparts. As for the current unrest: it's clearly a good sign. It reveals for the world to see that the Iranian people are not united behind their crazy leader. Even if many of them will experience a bloody backlash, the uprising itself remains a good thing. Every successful social movement faced violent opposition at the beginning, sad as this may be. I only hope that they'll have the stamina to break through. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 16, 2009 20:34:22 GMT -8
I'm somewhat divided on this issue, but I don't really think it's a question of "rights". I think it's a question of each country considering what is in it's own best interest. And for many countries around the world, it is not in their best interest to have a country like Iran (or rather, with a government like Iran's) with a nuclear weapon.
But the random card here is religious fervor and a possible desire to usher in doomsday.
Agreed that Israel isn't without fault. But I do believe that Israel is less likely to use a nuclear weapon than Iran is.
Agreed, but I fear Robin may be right as far as this ending more like Tiennemen square than the Boston Tea Party.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 17, 2009 7:00:44 GMT -8
Why should the world community not try and avoid a deadly and brutal war that would take the lives of countless innocent people? It is in the worlds best interest that Iran stop pursuing a nuclear weapon in order to avoid another mid-east war that would cause the world economy to sink into a deep and lasting depression. Without a doubt if Iran continues to manufacture a nuclear weapon, Israel will strike Iran. After that all bets are off. The middle east will explode in violence and Israel will be the target of the Muslim world's outrage and backlash. Iran's right to have a nuclear weapon ends when it started making threats against it's neighbors and putting the world community at risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jun 17, 2009 13:24:26 GMT -8
And for many countries around the world, it is not in their best interest to have a country like Iran (or rather, with a government like Iran's) with a nuclear weapon. Very true. But the difficult thing is that you can't just factor out the question of rights. See, if every country has a right to do what's in its best interest (a pretty selfish approach, by the way), Iran has a right to act in its best interest too. Now, Robin has a point when he says: But this point is only valid from our Western perspective. Let's face it: For a significant number of people in the arab world (perhaps the majority) Israel is a terrible bully, occupying their land and suppressing their brothers without any legal or moral right to even exist. And the USA are the most dangerous bunch of terrorists, constantly meddling in arab businesses and against muslim interests. In their perception of reality, it must feel like an overdue self-defense to construct a bomb. It is obvious that we don't share their perception of fairness and reality. But they don't share ours either. Ahmadinejad would counter Robin's statement as follows: "Not we are the ones who threaten our neighbours." I read a large interview with Ahmadinejad just a couple of weeks ago. He was constantly talking as if Iran was the victim of Western propaganda. Perhaps he sincerely thinks so, perhaps he knows better. Either way, I think it is obvious that many people in the Middle East think they are the victims and need the bomb. And let's not forget that Iran is still denying that they are constructing a bomb to begin with. I have some reservations to trust US estimations when it comes to such matters. It sure seems naive to believe Iran doesn't strive for the bomb, but we all remember the last time the USA were telling the world about weapons of mass destruction in that region... No, I don't want Iran to build that bomb. But I think we reaped just what we sowed. It is all relative. Who's good, who's bad? We say we are the good ones, they say they are the good ones. Lord only knows. I'm not convinced we have a right to put our self-interest above others. But I do believe that Israel is less likely to use a nuclear weapon than Iran is. According to Robin Israel will be the first to drop the bomb... Agreed, but I fear Robin may be right as far as this ending more like Tiennemen square than the Boston Tea Party. I fear that too. But I don't think the Iranian opposition should go into hiding. The history of mankind is full of people who were willing to sacrifice their integrity and even lives for a greater cause. And often they succeeded. Just imagine the Civil Rights Movement had resigned in face of the constant brutality they encountered each and every time they challenged Jim Crow. As a matter of fact, many Civil Rights scholars argue that it was precisely the violent backlash that caused the success of the movement. Because nothing could have caused more awareness and support than the images of police dogs ramming their teeth into non-violent protestors. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 17, 2009 14:54:51 GMT -8
However, much of the Muslim world does not want Iran to posses an atomic bomb either. Only small regions of the middle east have remained silent on the issue, and those are the ones controlled and funded heavily by Iran. Those would be parts of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Outside of Iran's influence the entire regions seems to agree with the west, that Iran should not acquire nuclear capabilities. (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and others)
I don't recall saying that. Taking military action is not the same as dropping "the bomb", implying the use of a nuclear weapon. I strongly believe that Israel would only do so if all else fails.
Could you unpack this a little bit? Can you explain how we have reaped what we sowed?
Its not all relative.
The world of moral relativism, and pacifism is the world of Neville Chamberlain. The world of moral clarity is that of Winston Churchill. Which one do you want to live in? The world cannot sit idly by while a Holocaust denier like Ahmadinejad, attempts to finish what Hitler started.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jun 18, 2009 1:39:41 GMT -8
I don't recall saying that. Taking military action is not the same as dropping "the bomb", implying the use of a nuclear weapon. I strongly believe that Israel would only do so if all else fails. Oops. With all the talk of nuclear weapons I interpreted your "Israel will strike" as a "nuclear strike". I should have read more carefully. My bad, sorry! However, much of the Muslim world does not want Iran to posses an atomic bomb either. Only small regions of the middle east have remained silent on the issue, and those are the ones controlled and funded heavily by Iran. Those would be parts of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Outside of Iran's influence the entire regions seems to agree with the west, that Iran should not acquire nuclear capabilities. (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and others) Agreed. The Muslim world is certainly not a homogeneous block. Power struggles, rivalry and malevolence are as vital in that region as anywhere else. But that doesn't change the truth of what I was saying: a significant number of people in that region hate Israel and the USA and have a very different perception of what is going on. We think we are right, they think they are right. So who's right now? Could you unpack this a little bit? Can you explain how we have reaped what we sowed? We have no business being there. I assume that the entire hatred we are receiving from that area ultimately roots in the fact that we are rightlessly poking our noses in their affairs. Had the USA been neutral like say, Switzerland, there had been no 9/11. This much is obvious, isn't it? And the list goes on. You can trace everything back to our presence in that region. Of course it is. Here we have a fundamental disagreement. This misjudgement is preventing you and everyone else holding this view from finding the right solutions, not only in this issue but in most other issues too. It is precisely because both parties believe that they are universally right that this conflict doesn't come to a halt. Are you familiar with the concept of social constructivism? The world of moral relativism, and pacifism is the world of Neville Chamberlain. The world of moral clarity is that of Winston Churchill. Which one do you want to live in? This kind of black and white thinking won't help anybody. Every case is different. To compare Ahmadinejad with Hitler is ludicrous. The world cannot sit idly by And why not? I erased the last part of your statement because I want to put emphasis on something else: why is the world supposed to solve the problems of that region? They are responsible for their situation. I KNOW that this concept resonates with you, for you too believe that it's not the state's business to solve the individual problems of its citizens. Israel and it's neighbours have to solve this on their own for crying out loud. I frankly don't see why any American blood should be spilled for the stubborness of the people in that area. If they are not civilized enough to work things out, if they think they must cave each others heads in, then so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 18, 2009 7:22:51 GMT -8
Of course we have business being there. For one, we are invited by many governments in the region. It was the west the pulled the middle east out of the middle ages. Technology that was introduce to them allowed them to exploit their natural recourses to enrich themselves, and they need the west if the want to sell their oil. The US and others involved in the middle east are protecting their investments and interests.
Well, I believe that Obama's views are in-line with yours, yet since he has taken office and implemented his foreign policy agenda, the problems with Iran, and N. Korea have continued to get worse. My fear is that you will get your way, and once again we will have to learn our lesson the hard way.
Not really, but I just read some information on the subject on Wikipedia.
you don't see any parallels between the two?
The region does not exist in a vacuum. Not to mention that our Allie, Israel has repeatedly asked us to stay involved, as well as other players in the region that don't want Iran to go nuclear. It is in the best interest of the world that the middle east not sink into total disaster which is what awaits them and us if we leave Iran alone. Not to mention there are other forces already at play in the middle east that must be neutralized. Russia is pushing Iran's nuclear program in an attempt to weaken the west. If all outside influence to to leave the region alone their may be an argument to stay out of their business. I don't believe that Iran would be able to produce nuclear capabilities with Russia's help. However this is not the case. We are a world economy and powerful nations are struggling for power as we move into the next era, and the US has an interest in protecting it's position.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jun 18, 2009 8:56:42 GMT -8
I think it's futile to keep on discussing. You're not on Jacob's list.  I'm out of here. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 18, 2009 9:22:54 GMT -8
You've joined the bandwagon, too, huh? So, you finally admit you're Lost, huh? Guys, I've been wanting to get in on this thread, but no time for it yet  (Imagine that!) |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jun 18, 2009 12:56:41 GMT -8
You've joined the bandwagon, too, huh? So, you finally admit your Lost, huh? I've been hooked on Lost since I returned from my year in Spain in 2006. My roomates are responsible for this. I avoided reading anything you guys posted in the "Lost-on-Lost-Thread" in fear of spoilers, cause I hadn't seen season 5 yet. But now I'm through. Where is that thread anyway? Can't find it. Your subforum system is more intransparent than that island... |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 18, 2009 14:15:40 GMT -8
When it comes to Lost references, I must plead ignorance. I have never seen an episode.
Well, I was tiering of the subject anyways. However I would be interested in your thoughts Josh.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 18, 2009 14:16:20 GMT -8
Soundings...Movies and TV...Lost on Lost Whew. That's complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 18, 2009 14:20:19 GMT -8
Lots of things going on here. First off, the idea of "rights" implies a creator*, so I'm not sure why you're supporting "rights"
Secondly, I didn't say "every country has a right to do what's in its best interest". I was just underlining that most countries (historically and realistically) do what is in their own best interest.
Call it selfish? Sure. That's the nature of the beast. Even at their most benign, countries rarely (and only temporarily) transcend selfishness*
Anyway, I don't think pursuing a nuclear weapon or even nuclear technology is in Iran's own best interest, although apparently some people in Iran think it is. The more sensible of them who think it is must see it as a bartering chip. The least sensible of them may see it as a ticket to the end of the world and the return of the 12th imam.
*Thank God for Jesus' kingdom which is "not of this world" and lasts forever.
* at least in the historical/ philosophical sense. But if not a creator, then at least a "rights" bestower. Who is the bestower in your mind?
be back..
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 18, 2009 14:36:45 GMT -8
Granted, the powers that be in Iran are riding on the emotions evoked by the injustices the Western powers/Israel have committed. We should own up to as much of that as is legitimate. But injustices don't justify the pursuit of an even greater potential injustice. I love it when you temporarily slip into your Judeo-Christian default mode  But, hey, it's not all relative. All you've been pointing out is that everyone's hands are dirty to some degree. That's not relativism. That's judging by a transcendant standard. You shouldn't be convinced of "rights" period coming from your philosophical vantage point. |
|
. But as I said: If Isreal has the right to possess the bomb, Iran has the right too. It's as simple as that. And it's not like Israel is behaving like a rolemodel either. As a matter of fact, many of the settlers are as fanatic as someone can be. They don't differ much from ther palesteen counterparts.
(Imagine that!)