Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

[luiz]

As you pointed out, the Genie is already out of the bottle. And Iran having nuclear weapons will likely stop rogue states like Israel and the US, whih actually do commit real atrocities instead of perceived ones, from committing even more.

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.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Perhaps I do on occasion. Have I been inaccurate about what you have posted thus far?

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.

That is definitely not true. Chile isn't openly against us. Neither is Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, the Phillipines, or many others. Even Vietnam doesn't appear to hate us anymore, although they certainly have enough reason to do so given our past behavior saving them from a supposedly evil form of government.

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.

Not to mention we aren't talking about installing dictators in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. They were our puppet "democratically elected" leaders, although there really isn't any difference. Lack of free choice is lack of free choice.

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.

That is certainly one example which has. There are obviously a few others, such as Cuba.

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.

And what were you just apparently saying about creating absurd strawmen?

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.

We don't seem to mind them at all as long as they aren't opposed to our own preconceived notions of what must be "right" and what must be "wrong" e.g. being pro American corporations and interests while being opposed to governments which may try to seize those offshore holdings.

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.

Thanks, but not in my country. Fortunately, we have a constitutional provision protecting us from foreign-born actors becoming the president.

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?

Fortunately, we have international laws to protect us from people who think they know best.

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.

Did you forgot we lynched blacks and homosexuals ourselves in the past 50 years? We aren't that much more civilzed than some of them are. And I don't think the average Iranian supports that sort of behavior any more than the average American did 50 years ago.

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.

Saddam Hussein is coming back from Hell with Satan to rule the world.

Oh good lord.

What do you think happens when a belligerent foreign power (and that is certainly how the US is perceived) starts bankrolling a political group within a country like Iran? It completely discredits the groups, which is precisely why Obama and the west in general have not supplied weapons to any of the political movements withing Iran. Not that these movements want weapons; they don't want civil war or armed insurrection. It's this funny notion of peaceful protest.

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.

As it happens, Iran is liberalising. And its authoritarian governmental structure is getting less and less unsustainable. As you identify, that's because of the urbanized educated and unhappy Iranian youth.

There is hope then.

So if you must advocate military attacks on Iran, or interfering in Iranian politics, don't pretend this is going to help them. Don't think this is going to speed along the process of liberalization and democratization; it's going to do quite the opposite. If you really think their nuclear programs pose an existential threat to Israel or western interests that's a reason for military action; but it's not going to make Iran more liberal.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Hanging homosexuals and teenage girls is not an atrocity?

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.

And those laws have as much weight as jaywalking; for all intents and purposes, they might as well not exist.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

 

[lovett]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Oishi]

Saddam Hussein is coming back from Hell with Satan to rule the world.

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.

 

[The Imp]

... 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.

 

[amadeus]

You underestimate how tight a grip the Saudi state security force keeps on the country, Imp.

 

[The Imp]

You underestimate how tight a grip the Saudi state security force keeps on the country, Imp.

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.

 

[aelf]

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.

 

[Tani Coyote]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

[luiz]

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.

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.

 

[Tani Coyote]

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.

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

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.

 

[Formaldehyde]

To be fair, Clinton was fairly interventionist during his term in office...

"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.

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

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

Spoiler :

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 7, 2010 (IPS) - A case against Brazil in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for violations of human rights committed by the 1964-1985 military dictatorship, and the country's failure to bring those responsible to trial at home, are a smear on the image of an emerging power that has taken on an increasingly prominent role on the international stage.

"How can Brazil present itself as an international leader if it is incapable of trying those who have violated the human rights of its citizens in the name of the state?" Beatriz Affonso, a lawyer with the Centre for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), asked IPS.

In public hearings held May 20-21 in San José, the armed forces of Brazil were accused of the arbitrary detention, torture and forced disappearance of 70 people, including members of the Communist Party and local peasant farmers, as part of the "Guerrilla of Araguaia" operation carried out between 1972 and 1975 in the Araguaia valley in the northern Brazilian Amazon jungle state of Pará.

The operation went unacknowledged by the armed forces for many years. But what happened there was gradually pieced together by survivors, witnesses, and a few military documents that came to light.

In the hearings, "we showed that Brazil has failed to live up to international law," said Affonso.

Since the return to democracy in 1985, successive governments have taken the position that the amnesty, which protects members of the former military government from being tried for extrajudicial killings, torture and rape, helped bring about reconciliation after 21 years of dictatorship.

The Lula administration sent 20 representatives to the May hearings, to defend its stance against investigating the crimes committed by the de facto regime.

"The amnesty law is the main legal hurdle to putting those accused of human rights violations in the dock," Elizabeth Silvera e Silva, a leader of the Grupo Tortura Nunca Mais (Torture Never Again), told IPS.

I just don't sugar coat things like our fellow Ahmadinejad apologists do here.

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

 

[luiz]

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

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.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't recall defending the Brazilian government, and I don't see what that has to do with anything.

So you admit they too are "evil" and should be deposed for the good of all humanity as well?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

 

[hossam]

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

 

[luiz]

So you admit they too are "evil" and should be deposed for the good of all humanity as well?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

It's funny how you seem to be so willing to address the supposed atrocities of the left in the most vehement terms, while typically trying to downplay those of the right.

Throw them both in jail as far as I care.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The current Brazilian government is indeed evil and should be deposed.

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?

Note that we are probably the most stable democracy in South America.

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

 

[luiz]

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?

The Iranian government is quite conservative and fascistoid.

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?

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

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

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.