Iran, The real issue, An open discussion

Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by openminded2011

 

While we're indicting the British, we're going to have to put Spain and France up in the dock, too. A lot of folks were in on that particular atrocity. And I guess that's one of those gut reactions I was talking about.

All of our ancestors are covered in each others' blood, and we can't stop pointing fingers. Not only because we still feel personally wounded somehow, but also because it makes our opponent look like an asshole by association when it is brought into the debate. Which is kind of a dirty trick.

So perhaps we worry less about grievances our grandparents harbored against each other and examine the present realities of the situation.

hell we might as well include the Romans as well ..for the record im dutch Irish not that it matters

reply to post by nenothtu


That's definitely one of the aspects that I find personally distressing, and if anything would draw me into the mosh pit shenanigans of these threads this would be it. The Iranian government comes across as the racist uncle who makes everyone really uncomfortable at holiday gatherings.

No one really ever is able to adequately explain or defend the rhetoric coming from the Iranian administration, because they can't. And that makes it difficult for people like me, who find bigotry off-putting, to see it from the other guy's vantage point.

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by sitchin

 

I as an Native American find your statement kind of Ironic, you " messed with our culture" about 200 some years ago. People in India, Ireland, and a slew of other countries would agree with me. For quite some time, the Brits pillaged any country their ships could reach. I do agree with you though, we should stay out of other peoples business. But after all, we learned this behavior from our mother country.

edit on 19-8-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by sitchin


Another thing I notice- and correct me if I'm wrong- is that people get like spooked horses around the word "empire". Look, the empire has been one of the primary models for social organization for a very long time.

Check this out:

Genghis Khan’s Y chromosome appears in 1 in 200 men today.

www.dispatch.com...

That my friends, illustrates the reality of the Empire. It's probably here to stay, so we better learn to transition it to a non-militarized model that favors provincial semi-autonomy and robust trade webs.

But even if you, the reader, disagree with me there^ (and I don't expect it to go down well with either side of this debate ), I hope you will consider at least that focusing on American imperialism is a lot like whipping out the "your ancestor vs. my ancestor" thing. It just muddies the waters, and casts a dim light on those participants in the conversation who happen to be Americans.

reply to post by SLAYER69
I agree, the only problem is I'm sure the Muslims don't. They do not want to talk, at least not after they get what they need. Egypt is showing the world what the Muslim Brotherhood is really about and its goals in takeing over the world as they will show in Syria and then Saudi Arabia.(my opinion).
The Muslim nation is on a role, with America's help it would seem, there one and only true belief at this time is serving Allah in Jihad agenst the none belivers, you can become an Muslim or you can die..................they do not want to talk about it, if nothing else you have to admire there strength in there belief's, if we as free people can't muster up this kind of strength then it will not end well, again, my opinion.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by nenothtu

 

That's definitely one of the aspects that I find personally distressing, and if anything would draw me into the mosh pit shenanigans of these threads this would be it. The Iranian government comes across as the racist uncle who makes everyone really uncomfortable at holiday gatherings.

No one really ever is able to adequately explain or defend the rhetoric coming from the Iranian administration, because they can't. And that makes it difficult for people like me, who find bigotry off-putting, to see it from the other guy's vantage point.

edit on 19-8-2012 by Eidolon23 because: .

Quote; "Allah is our objective; the prophet is our leader;the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope".
The Muslims seem to have a handle on there belief's and agenda................even if you don't, it has nothing to do with bigotry or someone's uncle.

reply to post by Battleline


As an American woman, I will freely own that Islamist extremism scares the bejeezus out of me (pardon the pun). The Taliban, for instance, does not have a great track record with the ladies. The idea of somehow finding myself living under Sharia Law appeals not at all.

However, I am very willing to consider that such groups represent a disproportionately powerful minority of Muslims. And that it is very likely that nationalism, greed and corruption fuel their spread with religion acting as a beard.

Uh, so to speak.

Originally posted by Battleline
The Muslims seem to have a handle on there belief's and agenda................even if you don't, it has nothing to do with bigotry or someone's uncle.

Oh, I agree, there's some Muslim scripture that gives me the willies too, but then, have you ever read Leviticus? Yowsa.

Anyway, explain to me how Iran's posture toward Israel has nothing to do with bigotry? I've got my popcorn ready to go.

The racist uncle thing was addressed to those who end up coming across as apologists for the bigoted statements of the Iranian administration, intending originally to defend Iran's rights to energy/arms.

reply to post by SLAYER69


The problem is infinitely more complex than that.

The problem with this thread, and others like it, is that it again sets the problem on the wrong rails. To have an accurate view of the situation, and make any assessment worth reading, one must break out of the false paradigm which sets nation against nation, political ideology against political ideology, and religion against religion.

You cannot really blame anyone for taking this approach, as that is how we were educated, under the shadow of the cold-war 'us v. them' ideology. The drama with this approach, the only one 99% are capable of, is that it is both wrong and misleading, the equivalent of pissing in a tea-cup.

So, there is no 'us' and there is no 'them'? Not quite. There is an 'us', the peoples of the world, who despite our differences are all in the same boat. Lets face it, many of the Syrians and Iranians our political class are itching to destroy are sentient, intelligent human beings....many of which anyone on this board could share a barbecue and cold beer with and thoroughly enjoy doing so. Why then are we about to kill each other?

So the 'them' can have their way. The whole of history is replete with peoples killing each other based on misunderstandings, outright lies and fabricated evidence. It is a trick so old one would think you would have to be stupid not to notice it, and yet...thread after thread demonstrate that we just don't get it. Some have an agenda, others are simply mislead, whatever the case, the little guy suffers and dies whilst others grow richer and more powerful.

The West lied its way into every war we ever participated in, and yet a cursory examination of the facts will show that so too did the countries we fought against. Iraq for example, classic bad guy v good guy scenario...yet was that the case? The truth is that Saddam, Blair and Bush have always been cosy, despite volumes of fake news purporting to show otherwise. They lied to us, Saddam lied to his people, and we killed each other, then argued about who was to blame. You will find it is the same in every single war you care to mention...

Did Muammar Gaddafi massacre his people? No, those were lies, Libyans know the truth and vastly supported him if you discount the factions he took power from who were patiently waiting their turn to rule again. Did we commit war crimes in Libya, fund killers and mercenaries and call them 'freedom fighters'? Yes.

So we have a 'good guys v bad guys scenario' ?

Again no, because Gaddafi did much worst than kill a few of his people, he betrayed the trust of all of them, he too was in cahoots with with our leaders in a war that has been planned for decades. But how can that be, if we killed him? We didn't, neither did we kill Saddam, or any of the others. Doubles, all of them. Co-conspirators do not kill each other, despite faking it for your benefit.

Don't you get it yet?

Here is the 'us v. them' scenario if you really need one. Leaders and rulers of the world, no matter their nationality, against peoples of the world, no matter their nationality. Them against us: now you have it.

Few of those who see through the lies in Syria see this. The Syrian people are behind their leader, and understand the lies of the western and other Arab press....: we have again funded the worst type of killers, mercenaries and ass-holes to plunder, rape, torture, kill and destroy their country, whilst pretending we want to protect them.

Yet few see that Assad is playing a double-game as well. The goal is to bring the middle-east, and every country on this planet under the same rule, and the leaders on the scene in this day and age all have their role to play.

The little guys will die and suffer and work for their miserable pittance, whilst arguing heatedly in pointless threads about who is nastier, whilst the objects of their discussions sip champagne in private meetings in places like Monaco or Switzerland at their expense, and discuss how many more they can, and will, offer up as ritual sacrifices to their dark lord, he who is to come.

Chaos is upon us, and few are aware of the depth and magnitude of it. The 'Black Awakening' is just around the corner, almost in sight, and the ruler whose rule will be the result of centuries of wars based on lies prepares to usher in his reign. A broken humanity will accept it ... or die.

Wake up, and work towards a much needed paradigm shift while you still have time.

reply to post by Eidolon23
I hate to keep using quotes,"there are no moderate Muslims, just stupied ones who don't know the implications of there own religion" and this might help; Quran 2:191-193.
It might help to know the Muslims and there belief's a little better..................being a woman and all, I hope you don't ever have to experiance them first hand, no punt intended.

For me it is very simple. Iran can do what they like until they plan or actually do something wrong. Nuclear Energy is dangerous and should be wiped from the planet, on the other hand no one can tell a sovereign country what they can and cannot do. As for the weapons, well when your neighbors all carry guns you dont run around with a knife in our pocket. Very simple logic here. Maybe they dont want to be bullied by countries that already have nuclear weapons. We treat our own citizens for the most part with a very good term "Innocent until proven guilty". president ahmadinejad may say some crazy # but that does not reflect the views of iranian citizens. You find if youve ever met one or will in the future youll find something out. they arent very different from us , go to school get a job, try to make that paper to provide for yourself and or your family. So I say just leave them the # alone until something happens.

reply to post by Battleline


I'm pretty conversant, actually.

But to pitch the majority that don't agree with hardliners as "stupid Muslims" is a little much, don't you think? Would you apply the same reasoning to Christian hardliners (and before you go there, yes I realize the Islamic brand of extremism is a lot more effed up than the present day X-tian model) and the moderate Christian majority? Are they just stupid Christians?

Im just going to get right to it, i think Iran should be left alone,as should Syria
we have already determined terrorism exists in every state,but i don't see foreign boots in America ,Israel or Britain

To the OP, if the U.S can have nukes and Israel can have nukes, why can't Iran also have nukes? Don't all nations have a right to defend their borders from hostile invaders?

The hypocrisy of the U.S and Israel never ceases to amaze.

All three countries are like children in sandboxes. They never stop arguing, throwing sand, etc.

(self snip.. Ooops)

Ignore and delete please

Originally posted by Eidolon23

Originally posted by Battleline
The Muslims seem to have a handle on there belief's and agenda................even if you don't, it has nothing to do with bigotry or someone's uncle.

Oh, I agree, there's some Muslim scripture that gives me the willies too, but then, have you ever read Leviticus? Yowsa.

Anyway, explain to me how Iran's posture toward Israel has nothing to do with bigotry? I've got my popcorn ready to go.

The racist uncle thing was addressed to those who end up coming across as apologists for the bigoted statements of the Iranian administration, intending originally to defend Iran's rights to energy/arms.

edit on 19-8-2012 by Eidolon23 because: .

I'm sorry I did not see your second post.

I am not religious, I choose to attempt to know the people that want to kill me as an "Infidel"

As far as a debate about Iran and Israel and who is a bigot I'm sure you are far better suited then I for that debate, I see it as a missdirection to the real agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood............sorry

We are over lapping post, again all Muslims are the same and belive in the Quran, when the time comes all Muslims will do as the Quran says or pay the price, if they don't belive that then they are stupuid let alone nieve

Here's another sore point.

As long as there has been religion, it has been spread at the point of a sword, and cemented in policy that encourages procreation. Usually this is where someone would whip out the Crusades, but let's just skip that part and admit that religions have mechanisms for self-perpetuation common to them all.

If I am finally putting my thoughts down on one of these threads, I will have to say here that what is going on with Jihadists reminds me a lot of the Ghost Dance movement, and also what happened to the Japanese near the end of WWII.

When a culture is being overwhelmed and assimilated whether by warfare or other means, it triggers a suicidal form of religious zeal.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Does Iran have a right to Nuclear energy? Yes!, IMHO.

I say no.

Here is my view on the matter, and it has nothing to do with the US or Israel, etc..

Who should have Nuclear Energy?

Well, first thing to consider is what could possibly go wrong with a Nuclear Plant.

Iran has earthquakes. Lots of them.

Probability is high for a nuclear plant disaster, a meltdown, like Japan, Chernobyl, or worse.

Given that possibility, those having nuclear plants should be expected to have a generally advanced industrial and technological infrastructure in place, to cope with a potential disaster.

Even Russia, and Japan, two of the most scientifically advanced nations on earth, had severe problems coping with a simple nuclear accident.

It is one thing, when you have all the expretise in-house, and the supporting industrial base to draw on, to provide a response solution to such an event.

It is quite another thing, when you're "importing" all your technology, and have to rely on outside help for any eventual accident.

What is Iran going to do, if an earthquake shakes up a Nuclear Plant? Beg Russia for help?

Who takes responsibility, for the radioactive material that crosses Iran's borders into its neighbor's territory?

Who will those people "sue" for the radiation damage to their lives, birth defects, disease, radioactive crops, etc?

Are they going to sue Russia, for providing the technology to Iran?

Is Russia willing to pay the bill? Or, will they say, it's not our problem, we "sold" it to Iran, it's their problem, they are the owners and users of the technology.

So, there should be some international consensus on the level of industrial and technological advancement a nation must have, that demonstrates a sufficient capability to respond adequately to a nuclear accident. So that neighboring countries are not put at risk, for the mistakes of that nation.


That, really, should be the only deciding criterion.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Here's another sore point.

As long as there has been religion, it has been spread at the point of a sword, and cemented in policy that encourages procreation. Usually this is where someone would whip out the Crusades, but let's just skip that part and admit that religions have mechanisms for self-perpetuation common to them all.

If I am finally putting my thoughts down on one of these threads, I will have to say here that what is going on with Jihadists reminds me a lot of the Ghost Dance movement, and also what happened to the Japanese near the end of WWII.

When a culture is being overwhelmed and assimilated whether by warfare or other means, it triggers a suicidal form of religious zeal.

I would agree but for this to be true someone would have had to be overwelming and assimilating Muslims for the last 2000 years and the Quran had no meaning tell just recently, just my opinion.

Amazing how many extoll the "right" arguement. Iran has the "right" to Nukes. The US doesn't have the "right" to say no to Iran.

Who decides the "rights"? A number of countries don't want Iran to be a nuclear power, many of them Muslim.

If there is one thing that makes me wonder at the real motive of it all is the lack of ANY rhetoric for the assasination of the Iranian president. NOT A WORD. Perhaps the easiest solution of all. Unlike Iraq, Saddam's two sons were even nuttier than he was. Not the case in Iran, either Israel or the US or even thwe Saudis could take out the president of Iran.
Clearly, this gives the people of Iran an opportunity to replace him with someone slightly less insane.hello??