1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by JohnRM, Jun 12, 2010.

  1. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,544
    Hanging homosexuals and teenage girls is not an atrocity?

    In your fantasy world only the US and its allies are capable of atrocities, I am quite sure.
     
  2. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Son of Huehuecoyotl

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    15,165
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, at times you seem to lump me in with the far-right people who believe America can do no wrong; you know, the kind that'd defend the US even if it openly massacred thousands of people for no reason other than they could. I'm not talking deaths from war like in Iraq, but actual willfull slaughter.

    Hmm. I suppose Iran's just more clingy to their past than the rest of them, but then again, they are fiercely religious, so it makes sense.

    What is friendly to liberal democracy is, in my opinion, ultimately friendly to the US. We don't need to maintain puppet stats in Iraq and Afghanistan; so long as they elect leaders who support liberal ideas, the countries will always flock to us - that or Europe - by default. And we would hopefully actually stand up for our principles and agree to keep their regimes intact; that's the catch: the US would have to have genuine supporters of liberal policies in office.

    Obviously Cubans don't hate us too much if they're such a nice source of illegal - if only technically until they reach shore - immigrants.

    I didn't create a strawman. First, I used a question mark, so I wasn't implying that to be your position but asking a question based on what I heard rather than jumping to conclusions. Second, a strawman isn't just implying a position; it's forgetting the opponent's original comments and debating the implied position instead.

    Think this: Person A advocates legalising marijuana based on several logical reasons. Their opponent, B, says that legalising all drugs would be disastrous for society. They have committed a strawman that's vastly harder to defend, by a) saying A supports full legalisation, and b) arguing against that idea instead of A's real ideas.

    Well yes, I never argued we shouldn't try and fix the above issues.

    Though as a proponent of free enterprise, I can't say I approve of governments - foreign or domestic - being able to seize property.

    Wait. What?

    You were arguing against arbitrary restrictions on the people's will, then turn around and support the Constitution? How can you do that? I mean sure, we can change the Constitution through a lengthy amendment process... but then what's the deal with Iran being a similar democracy that could do just the same?

    And those laws have as much weight as jaywalking; for all intents and purposes, they might as well not exist. Laws are pointless without anyone to enforce them and might as well not be there, as they are anarchy-esque and require goodwill on everyone's part without enforcement. The point being: not everyone's going to follow laws out of principle. Coercion is the basis of law and order.

    The difference is... we no longer do it. We've moved on.

    And wait, what?

    You say the government of Iran is popularly-supported, and then say the Iranians as a whole do not support the government's policies in some regard? I can understand priorities in politics, but if people being executed for such pointless reasons isn't a priority for Iranians, I find my belief in Iranian democracy waning very fast.

    Oh good lord. :lol:

    I suppose you are correct... but the protestors themselves still wanted moral support from Obama, did they not?

    Let's not forget the Iranian gov't twists ANYTHING into "US intervention!!!" ...even when we commit to not doing squat.

    There is hope then.

    This is why it's best to let Israel take the fall for it and reap any benefits, i.e. we condemn them, gain more Iranian support, can finally cut off the leech that is foreign aid to Israel, etc.

    Not to mention, while he likes to compare the US and Iran's atrocities, the US has long since gotten rid of such horrific executions.

    While we're at it, we should demonise Europe and every other nation for having engaged in backward behavior at some point; whatever happened to all the gays being burned at the stake in Europe? Not good enough? Happened too long ago?
     
  3. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    That is obviously not what I meant. Certainly they are atrocities but are not practiced on a wide scale, at least as far as I know. How many homosexuals and teenage girls have been hanged, and by whom? How many has the government itself hanged instead of a local mullah practicing Sharia law?

    Was the United States government at the time responsible for the lynchings of blacks and homosexuals in this country? Was the president for letting it happen?

    In case you haven't noticed, the far-right tries to paint Iran as evil incarnate, being in the "Axis of Evil" and all. I claim the vast majority of that is imagined instead of real. There are far worse countries in this world and some of them are our allies. Iran doesn't hold a candle to Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan when it comes to Sharia-inspired atrocities.

    You are also missing a reactionary warmongering president in office. Have you heard Obama recently talking about toppling any "axis of evil"? How about Clinton? How about many "liberals" at all for that matter.

    It wasn't that long ago. There are many people stil alive who remember their own relatives being hanged in front of them. And there are many who would like to continue the practice even today.

    Do you think the Holocaust deaths are no longer relevant to any topic because they happened over 50 years ago?

    And don't you think the US has commited more recent atrocities, such as directly causing the deaths hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis by starting an illegal war on the basis of lies, much less all the people who died previously due to sanctions? Or is that too far in the past to count anymore? What about atrocities in Vietnam? The distant past? Water over the dam?

    If the subject is the atrocities perpetuated by the RCC and others, it is very much germane to the discussion.

    Is it "demonizing" to actually study and remember history instead of perpetually repeating the mistakes of the past?
     
  4. lovett

    lovett Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,570
    Not really. America isn't popular in Iran; moral support would have been counter-productive. It would have identified the indigenous Iranian freedom movement with an external and hostile foreign power. That destroys their credibility.

    No, you haven't really grasped my point here; any attack is going to unite Iranian behind the current regime. It doesn't matter if that attack is from America or Israel. The effect is going to be the same.

    Now obviously if any attack is absolutely necessary for some reason or other, America would be better off letting Israel take the fall. But neither is going to help liberalise and democratise Iran. Indeed quite the opposite.
     
  5. Oishi

    Oishi Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    M.M., PH
    If you believe in transmigration then he's probably here already, but not as Saddam Hussein. I doubt he/her remembers their past life once you passed another realm of existence, in which it is said that the human realm is the worst among the other five realms.
     
  6. The Imp

    The Imp Kinslayer

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,573
    Location:
    Pentos
    ... the Saudi's better be prepared to deal with a revolution then, because I seriously doubt the Saudi populace will be very happy.

    Which means, if this is true, the Saudi's view the Iranians getting a nuke as being more of a threat then insurrection.
     
  7. amadeus

    amadeus Large Marge sent me

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    35,225
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    You underestimate how tight a grip the Saudi state security force keeps on the country, Imp.
     
  8. The Imp

    The Imp Kinslayer

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,573
    Location:
    Pentos
    Yea, when up against the usual grab bag of terrorists. It is another thing to face down a revolution and the potential for a coup. Combine that with the potential for the Iranians to retaliate and try to close off the Straights of Hormuz, and you have a tough task ahead for the Saudi security forces.
     
  9. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,746
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    Conservatives must really like Ahmadinejad to advocate a course of action that would ensure his continued popularity in Iran, not just amongst the urban and rural poor but amongst the populace in general.

    Then again the beast needs to be fed. So it makes sense.
     
  10. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Son of Huehuecoyotl

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    15,165
    Gender:
    Male
    To be fair, Clinton was fairly interventionist during his term in office, even if he did it for more humanitarian reasons than Bush from what I did. That tends to be the big difference between Democratic and Republican interventions - Democrats tend to keep the people they're occupying in mind, whereas Republicans tend to only care about whatever benefits the USA.

    No, not at all. I'm just against using past situations and treating them as present situations, you cannot compare segregationist America with modern Iran, because segregationist America does not exist anymore. Modern Iran does.

    That said, some countries like Turkey do need to come to terms with their past; sure, all countries do bad things. But the son is not to blame for the sins of his father. They have no reason other than perhaps pride to be so in denial.

    Sure, the atrocities are recent. That doesn't mean I encourage them now or in the future. The past is meant to help gather evidence of what works and what does not, and what should not be repeated. It's not argument in and of itself, however.

    Whether the US committed atrocities or not, I don't think we should commit any in the future. This is why wars - never mind expenses, of course - are rarely ever a good idea, as you'll likely kill as many, if not more, civilians as actual enemies.

    No, and I'm not advocating forgetting the past. But you can't compare to the past to the present when they're clearly different. Comparing Iran and America is just flat out unfair based on the idea we did similar things how many years ago.

    Also, I think it's wrong to judge a nation based on its past actions if it has moved past them. Modern Germany is not the Third Reich and America is not in the pre-1960s anymore.

    Think of it this way: if Europeans critique capital punishment in America, would a valid reply be "Well, Europe did it before, so they're in no position to judge." No, I would think not. They ARE in a position to judge, by merit of not doing it anymore. They have shed their practice, and thus have the right to say that the practice is barbaric, regardless if they are correct or not.

    If those protesters however, were in the majority, and as a majority asked for American moral support of their cause, logically, the minority's view of them being puppets wouldn't matter, as the majority would have the power in numbers and eventually politics.

    Well darn then. There really is nothing to do besides wait it seems.

    I'm a bit impatient when it comes to results, though.
     
  11. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,544
    Iran is as bad as all of those if not worse. They certainly hang the most gays, and this practice is authorized and encouraged by the government. I don't have to remind you of Ahmadinejad's position wrt to homosexuals in Iran.

    The Iranian government is indeed one of the most evil in the world, and freedom-loving people everywhere should hope for its destruction.
     
  12. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Son of Huehuecoyotl

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    15,165
    Gender:
    Male
    Form is the truest type of libertarian though: he is non-interventionist in addition to any economic/social principles he might have; freedom from government, freedom from eachother, freedom from another nation's government.

    Therefore, I imagine he's quite torn on what to believe about Iran's future; from what I gathered, he wishes Iran to make its own destiny... regardless if that's compatible with liberal democracy or not. You probably saw this was a major source of disagreement; maybe I'm just arrogant, but I think that without liberal democracy, you cannot truly choose your own destiny, and therefore liberal democracy must eventually spread everywhere.
     
  13. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,544
    Don't get me wrong, I am quite opposed to any attempt to invade Iran as well. I just don't sugar coat things like our fellow Ahmadinejad apologists do here. The Iranian regime is dictatorial, murderous and medieval. The Ayatolah deserves to be executed a thousand times for his countless crimes, and if he one day gets what he deserves I for one will celebrate. Ahmadinejad deserves exactly the same fate.

    Does that mean the US (or whoever) should invade Iran, at the cost of tens of thousands of lifes if not more? Certainly not. I would not rule out a limited air strike against nuclear facilities, but an all out invasion is just stupid. The fact that I oppose an invasion, however, is no reason to engage in the sort of idiotic arguments that Formaldehyde was using: "Iran is not that bad, they're better than Israel or the US!". That's just wrong.
     
  14. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    "To be fair", Clinton didn't invade and occupy a sovereign country on the basis of lies while claiming that it and two other countries constituted the "axis of evil". While there are indeed a few "liberals" who do advocate warmongering almost as much as the ultraconservatives, hopefully none of them will every close to the White House. So I think you can just forget about invading evil countries and installing fake democracies in their place until another reactionary gains the highest office in the land. And quite likely even then, it will likely only occur after another devastating terrorist attack which had nothing to do with it.

    Of course they are. And the Brazilian government is obviously one of the best.

    Spoiler :




    I don't see anybody here 'apologizing' for Ahmadinejad's occasional tirades and anti-Semitism. Strawman much?
     
  15. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,544
    I don't recall defending the Brazilian government, and I don't see what that has to do with anything.

    At any rate, the crimes mentioned were practiced by the military regime, which became extinct almost 25 years ago. And they pale in comparisson to those of the Iranian regime, which still lives.

    The Amnesty Law, which is criticized in the text you posted, was vital to guarantee a peaceful transition to democracy. And Amnesty was granted both to the military who tortured and to the left-wing terrorists. People only talk about punishing the military, but what about the other side?

    Personally, I would love to see the Amnesty Law revoked so we can throw half of our leftist politicians in jail for their acts of terrorism in the 70's, including the presidential candidate of the Worker's Party.
     
  16. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    So you admit they too are "evil" and should be deposed for the good of all humanity as well?

    Yet the people who committed the atrocities are still not being punished, largely due to the acts of the current administration. Or did you miss the fact that this is indeed still a current event? That the news story has a date from last week?

    Of course it was. All such clear abrogations of justice are frequently "vital" for some excuse or another. And you mean the citizens of your country they tortured and killed? What "evil" acts did they supposedly commit to cause these fascists to torture and execute them?

    It's funny how you seem to be so willing to address the supposed atrocities of the left in the most vehement manner while typically trying to downplay those of the right as you just did above.
     
  17. hossam

    hossam Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478
    Location:
    Texas
    is this how ww3 starts? i always thought it would be because of china or russia, but i suppose i should have always known israel would be at the heart of ww3
     
  18. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,544
    The current Brazilian government is indeed evil and should be deposed. I have said that numerous times; Lula should be impeached for his rampant corruption and failure to act in Brazil's best interests. But he has no blame whatsoever for the crimes of a dictatorship that ended more than two decades ago, and which he opposed.

    The current admnistration actually tried to change the Amnesty Law to allow the military to be punished, but the Supreme Court said that changing the Law without prior approval by Congress is illegal. And the administration respected that, which is praiseworthy. Separation of powers and all that, you know?

    In 1985 the Army was still in control. They were willing to step back, but not if as soon as they did the civilians started throwing them in jail. The Amnesty Law was a good compromise and has worked perfectly. Note that we are probably the most stable democracy in South America.

    Throw them both in jail as far as I care.
     
  19. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    You certainly seem to have a very lengthy list of sovereign governments to be overthrown. By any chance are there any conservative or fascist governments on that list?

    Haven't you stated more than a few times that Lula's administration really isn't all that bad? Or have you revised your opinion over the course of time?

    Does that mean they all should be deposed? Or isn't stability really that important as a criteria?
     
  20. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,544
    The Iranian government is quite conservative and fascistoid.

    Hi, my name is Luiz. I hate Lula and always have.

    Hum, I never said anything about deposing governments for lack of stability. I merely pointed out that the compromise that enabled the Army to step down from power in Brazil worked really well, to the point that we don't suffer at all from the chronic instability of other South American nations.
     

Share This Page