Benjamin Netanyahu wants War and Mitt Romney

[Terxpahseyton]

There isn't one, but what pressing need is there for us to cripple Iran economically?

They have the will and basic means to be a serious rival over power in the Middle East. Israel not so much.

 

[Ajidica]

Sovereign democratic governments don't stage coup d'états and overthrow their elected officials. They simply replace or impeach them through legitimate constitutional means.

Or they, you know, overthrow them. I would think you were familiar enough with history for a few examples to come to mind.

But that clearly wouldn't occur because Mossedeq was actually "hugely popular" for nationalizing the oil industry:

Nationalization may have been popular, but then Mossadeq managed to win an award for "Most People Alienated in Shortest Time". He managed to annoy the anti-west clerics and peasants who supported him with his favorable view of western culture. The other groups simply weren't going to like him anyhow.

 

[WindFish]

They have the will and basic means to be a serious rival over power in the Middle East. Israel not so much.

So its a zero-sum game then?

 

[squadbroken]

So its a zero-sum game then?

Power is always a zero-sum game.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Nationalization may have been popular, but then Mossadeq managed to win an award for "Most People Alienated in Shortest Time". He managed to annoy the anti-west clerics and peasants who supported him with his favorable view of western culture. The other groups simply weren't going to like him anyhow.

"I would think you were familiar enough with history" to know how rarely that occurs. That democratically elected presidents who become unpopular are typically not overthrown by military coups without any external influence. Instead, they are merely not elected again except in extremely rare circumstances. That is unless a country like the US forces it to occur, usually because they are paranoid of the nationalizing of US-owned companies and/or "socialism". Not all of these governments were democratically elected, but many were:

Syria 1949
Iran 1953
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959
Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960-65
Iraq 1960-63
Dominican Republic 1961
Brazil 1964
Ghana 1966
Chile 1970-73
Argentina 1976
Afghanistan 1979-1989
Turkey 1980
Nicaragua 1981-1990
Iraq 1992-1996
Venezuela 2002

 

[Crezth]

If they'd have a vote they'd put similar people in power right now. They want a hard-line theocracy. Thats always going to be immoral and repressive by our standards. Heck, ultraorthodox sharia is extremely repressive but they want it. So let them have what they want.

I don't think there's much basis for that claim beyond the trite adage "people deserve their government." The Iranians are, first of all, not a homogeneous political blob. Especially during the time of the revolution, there was a fair number of people who were progressive in their mindset. Not progressive as you or I know it, per se, but definitely not fans of Islamic fundamentalism. They were actually active opponents, hence the, y'know, repression.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So its a zero-sum game then?

In political science it is one postulation that rivaling powers care primarily about relative power, not absolute power. Meaning a faction would prefer to gain less absolute power but more to the rivaling faction relative power than the other way around.
I suppose that would amount to a zero-sum game, and it makes sense. Because relative power will determine for what you can use it for.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't think there's much basis for that claim beyond the trite adage "people deserve their government." The Iranians are, first of all, not a homogeneous political blob. Especially during the time of the revolution, there was a fair number of people who were progressive in their mindset. Not progressive as you or I know it, per se, but definitely not fans of Islamic fundamentalism. They were actually active opponents, hence the, y'know, repression.

Emphasis mine.

Again, Iran is amazingly progressive compared to most any other country in the region. They once had a secular democratically elected government which should have been the model for the entire region. There are numerous individuals in Iran who are just as progressive as their Western counterparts despite numerous sanctions. Take science and technology, for instance:

Iran is an example of a country that has made considerable advances through education and training, despite international sanctions in almost all aspects of research during the past 30 years. Iran's university population swelled from 100,000 in 1979 to 2 million in 2006. 70% of its science and engineering students are women.[1] Iran's scientific progress is reported to be the fastest in the world.[2] Iran has made great strides in different sectors, including aerospace, nuclear science, medical development, as well as stem cell and cloning research.[3]

According to a report by SJR (A Spanish sponsored scientific-data data) Iran ranked 25th in the world in scientific publications by volume in 2007 (a huge leap from the rank of 40 few years before).[173] As per the same source Iran ranked 20th by total output in 2010.[174]

In 2008 report by Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Iran ranked 32, 46 and 56 in Chemistry, Physics and Biology respectively among all science producing countries.[175] Iran ranked 15th in 2009 in the field of nanotechnology in terms of presenting articles.[98]

In 2011, world's oldest scientific society and Britain's leading academic institution, the Royal Society in collaboration with Elsevier published a study named "Knowledge, networks and nations" surveying global scientific landscape. According to this survey Iran has the world's fastest growth rate in science and technology. During the period 1996–2008, Iran had increased its scientific output by 18 folds.

Omid satellite. Iran is the 9th country to put a domestically-built satellite into orbit and the sixth to send animals in space.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Form,

The fact that they have advanced and they have so many university students has far much to do with the goals of the state who funds the research and subsidizes the students. The goals of the state could have as much or more to do with securing better defenses as it does with progression or advancement.

It also shows the desire of the students to land guaranteed jobs building weapons and other tech in an otherwise moribund economy.

These things show very little about the progressiveness of the people or the government. This was a bad example, sorry.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Don't forget that satellites and rockets are dual purpose too.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Medical development, stem cell, and cloning research have military applications?

I think you can make anything out to be nefarious and evil if you try hard enough to do so. Take the Iranian engineer who tried to get into a Norwegian university and was denied due to his citizenship. He even found this website on the internet and responded to the comments I made about him.

Iran has just as much right to do scientific research into any field it wishes to do so, just like Israel does. They have even more right to do so because their government continues to be threatened by the only remaining superpower and a clearly rogue state.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

delete

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'd like to see a breakdown of research spending by percentage of budget before I'll accept that they spend as much on basic research or single use r&d as they do on dual use.

Plus how much of their 'advancement' is just catching up, reinventing the wheel, if you will. That they would have to do this is the result of sanctions. Which, again, is about meeting political goals AND maintaining parity.

If they weren't so stubbornly insistent on their nuclear program, the international sanctions wouldn't be so complete.

I have Iranian classmates, I know they aren't evil or want to all work on building missiles. I just feel your statement stretched reality a bit to make a point.

I'm not really posting on their right to research, just your assertion that they do it is evidence of how progressive they are.

 

[Crezth]

Iran's cultural progressivity and maturity are in spite of their oppressive regime, certainly not because of it.

You must understand I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for the Iranian people, as I do for all citizens of the world. But their government hurts them. It is utterly fatuous to point out the high percentage of women in STEM fields when they consider to suffer from political marginalization and a religious culture that diminishes their stature as human beings.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

But their government hurts them.

I have a feeling that what hurts them mostly are the sanctions.

 

[Crezth]

Sanctions don't send the Iranian people to fight and die in pointless wars and sanctions don't force women to cover their hair.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That response isn't very helpful. First - what pointless wars are you even talking about? Secondly - that is exactly the thing. I think you are grossly mistaken if you think that covering their hair is the prime trouble of Iranian women. A healthy economy (or the lack thereof) will have severally greater impact. Oppression of certain cultural elements isn't nice, but in this case it doesn't really determine what people actually are doing with their lives and how they manage in them. Quality of economic opportunities and public services do a lot more so I would argue. And both are not much swayed by covered hair. Especially in a culture where covered hair isn't as alien of an requirement as it is to our minds.

 

[Crezth]

First - what pointless wars are you even talking about?

Iran-Iraq. As I alluded earlier, this war was not an act of aggression on the part of Iran per se, but for the latter 6 years of its 8 year duration it was an offensive war on Iran's part, one that the Iranian government was not interested in negotiating on. This cost the lives of many young Iranians and it was, quite frankly, psychotic.

Secondly - that is exactly the thing. I think you are grossly mistaken if you think that covering their hair is the prime trouble of Iranian women.

It's symbolic. I could have said "the general exploitation of and discrimination towards women," which really should not be dismissed so readily considering that's, you know, half of all the people there.

A healthy economy (or the lack thereof) will have severally greater impact. Oppression of certain cultural elements isn't nice, but in this case it doesn't really determine what people actually are doing with their lives and how they manage in them. Quality of economic opportunities and public services do a lot more so I would argue. And both are not much swayed by covered hair.

Buh? In no way does the repression limit itself to hair or even gender. It affects both the genders and the morality police are an invasive, daily part of Iranians' lives. I wouldn't think to be conceited enough to assert that lifting sanctions would liberate them in any meaningful capacity, considering it certainly hasn't done so for a host of other tyrannies that we are quite friendly to.

Especially in a culture where covered hair isn't as alien of an requirement as it is to our minds.

Uh, they went thousands of years without that restriction. The whole "Islamic theocratic republic" thing is pretty new.

 

[del62]

I would say the best way to keep Iran from getting nukes is to take awy their incentive. The U.S. should just drop a nuke on Israel - incentive gone - problem solved.

How ingenious, Herr Hitl... ehm, never mind.

Soundl like Jilly is a bit of a genocide advocator

 

[Ajidica]

Iran-Iraq. As I alluded earlier, this war was not an act of aggression on the part of Iran per se, but for the latter 6 years of its 8 year duration it was an offensive war on Iran's part, one that the Iranian government was not interested in negotiating on. This cost the lives of many young Iranians and it was, quite frankly, psychotic.

Iran was persecuting an aggressive war for two reasons:
1) Iraq still held Iranian territory and had no intrest in making peace.
2) Iraq wasn't abiding by the UN ceasefire lines.
As a result, Iran felt it had to prosecute the war until their war aims were accomplished, plus they were sort of seeking revenge for Saddam's earlier atrocities whether the whole 'War of the Cities', the Tanker War, or gas attacks. While the 'human wave' tactics the Iranians used were bloody, they were the only real option open to them because of the arms embargo.
Plus, continuing the war was rather popular in Revolutionary Iran. Robert Fisk (British journalist) visited the country many times and support for the war was pretty universal among all classes. They were, after all, fighting against the 'Imposed War' which was started by a pro-West Arab secular dictator.
Lastly, the Revolutionary Iranian government wasn't exactly strong enough to suppress internal dissent and fight the war at the same time.