Iran.

The Core RPGC Main Forum
41

Iran is a different beast because it openly supports terrorism, which is a greater concern. I don’t care too much about the hostages/POWs, Iran is adding to the conflict by holding them, but the possibility of another country having nuclear weapons (especially one that supports terrorism), is bad. With Russia and China, yes they had different idealogies and they led to our conflicts, but they were still a state with concerns for its well being. Hell, we were able to still work things out with Russia, but Iran just denies everybody and is pretty much unwilling to compromise. Also, this incident may have some skewed information, however, there is a lot fo other stuff that Iran is doing that has upset the entire West and has countries other than the US and UK taking action.

Hell, I’m not even supporting bombing them. I’m just saying that there are valid concerns over Iran.

Also, it isn’t agains the geneva convention to show POWs on TV.

42

If a used car salesman convinces you repeatedly that his cars are as good as new, and then every time it turns out that he lied, thus causing you to lose large amounts of money, you’re not going to say, “Well, just because he lied all those times has absolutely no bearing on this time, because every car has its own circumstances,” you’re going to find another salesman. Yes, it is conceivably possible that just this one time, he actually does have a great deal – possible in the sense that it’s “possible” for a piano to fall on your head while you walk to work – but nonetheless, you’re still not going to agree to the deal based on his word, you’re only going to agree if there exists irrefutable evidence that he’s not a liar, and even then you’d probably decide not to buy from him just to be on the safe side. But all of Bush’s dark mutterings about what “could” happen are just scaremongering that is not backed up either by objective reality or by recent history.

And by the way, in Sudan it’s also not as simple as one side committing genocide against another. The “rebels” also commit atrocities, as has even been documented in sporadic newspaper articles here and there. In a few years, once the dust clears and people stop trying to make political capital out of that issue, it’s quite possible that we’ll find out that it was also closer to a civil war in which civilians were caught in the middle. Much like the Balkans, when NATO fabricated outrageous claims of “genocide” to support its invasion of Serbia.

Yes, but the whole point is that, while those conflicts were going on, there was any number of people foaming at the mouth to the effect that, no, Communism is so different from any other ideology in history that there is no way to negotiate with Russia. And if those people had had their way at the time, those conflicts would have turned out much worse than they had. As late as 1991, Paul Wolfowitz was seriously calling for a war with Russia. The only reason we were ever able to “work things out” (sort of) with Russia is because the American government, for once, ignored him and all the other freaks who wanted to start a war on the grounds that “all Russians are crazy” and made some moves to show that it was amenable to negotiation. Even Reagan showed that he was willing to talk toward the end of his otherwise disastrous presidency.

If Iran is “unwilling to compromise,” then what about Bush? He refuses to accept any scenario other than total and unconditional compliance with every single one of his demands, which are totally unreasonable and go far above and beyond Iran’s obligations under international law. Maybe you don’t like the NPT and you think it doesn’t go far enough, but nonetheless, it is legally binding whereas Bush’s whims are not. And under the NPT, every single country in the world has the inalienable right to nuclear energy and uranium enrichment. Furthermore, by having invaded Iraq, Bush has also shown that he will start a war regardless of whether or not his demands are met, as long as he thinks he can win easily. If you were an average Iranian who knew of these facts, but didn’t know much more about America than that, then you would also probably suppose that Bush is driven by “messianic religious zeal” and cannot be reasoned with by any means other than force, and therefore you might support Iran’s decision to escalate the conflict.

43

Like I said, the analogy is no longer concise, and I don’t think there’s any point veiling the argument in an analogy unless it clarifies through its simplicity. But I would like to defend the notion that the middle schooler made it “as difficult as possible” to search him: Hans Blix maintained till the end that he and his men were not allowed sufficient free rein in their inspections. This is part of the reason why inspections were taking so long.

The analogy aside, your argument rests on one premise: that Britain’s presence in Iraq is illegitimate. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. But either way, that does not give <i>Iran</i> the authority to seize British ships that <i>may</i> be on its waters. Moreover, I think we agree on this! As you said, Iran should have let the British sailors go immediately. So Britain’s justifications for being in Iraq are irrelevant to this case.

Next, you claim that Britain’s reliance on international law is “weak and hypocritical.” The “hypocritical” argument is specious. Britain’s crimes against Iraq do not rectify Iran’s crimes against Britain. Recasting Iran as a vigilante rather than an aggressor does not improve their position. The “weak” argument is even more specious, since you yourself discourage Britain from taking the strong position: that of retaliating for damages done. So you would leave Britain in this weird position where neither pointing to the law nor retaliating is acceptable, and instead have them – what? – do nothing. Retreat, even. If my logic is “gangsta-rap logic,” yours is the hippie logic of “give peace a chance, even if nobody else does.”

Finally, with regards to the “equanimity, rationality, and moderation” comment, you’re misrepresenting me. I said the vast number of <i>Westerners</i> who expect one another to suffer offenses peacefully, <i>or</i> to react with excessive violence, are degrading the West’s reputation for “equanimity, rationality, and moderation.” The rational response to an offense is to seek damages from the offender; the moderate response is to limit your demands to roughly the damage done; and the equanimous person does not allow oversentimentality or violent anger to interfere with his rational moderation.

44

Your premise is that Iran committed crimes against Britain in the first place. This premise appears to be based mainly on the dubious proposition that Britain is “respected and powerful,” and that solely because of this alleged fact, seizing British sailors is a “crime” even if they were in Iranian waters. This is where the gangsta-rap logic is: “It doesn’t matter if I step on your turf or not, you can’t diss me because I have more homies. However, you can never step on my turf to any degree, because you have fewer homies.”

Let us review the events. Britain was present in a disputed territory to which Iran has a claim. Both the claim and the territory have nothing to do with Britain, and Britain had come there as an aggressor, while also having made threats and hostile declarations against Iran previously. From these facts, it is not entirely unreasonable to suppose (though of course it’s not a proof) that Britain really had been trespassing. These circumstances certainly do not give Iran “authority” to detain British sailors, but they do considerably muddy up the question of whether Iran or Britain “cut in line first.” So, under these circumstances, we <i>do</i> in fact need to determine exactly where the boundary is, and whether the sailors were on Iran’s side, in order to determine which of the “punks” is at fault. If it is determined that Iran crossed into Iraqi waters, then it would be fair to require proportional compensation from Iran; if not, not; and if the border does not exist or is poorly defined, it would be best to just reach some kind of “settlement out of court.” Whether or not Britain is “respected and powerful” is, in this case, irrelevant.

45

Two years ago Iran was judged to be 10 years away from the bomb. Doesn’t it seem a bit seedy that right now, when the support for the administration’s Iraq fiasco is plummeting Iran becomes a target again?

Let’s keep in mind N. Korea was also portrayed as a country you can’t negotiate with. They got the bomb. And the U.S. rediscovered diplomacy. Iran has threatened with war but so did Olmert and Bush.

Every powerful nation choses the parties it considers legitimate. The hypocrisy of the West doesn’t really help because it projects an image of non-reliability, the way we think of the “rogue states” (excuse my terminology).

46

And Iraaaaan, Iran so far awayy-eeeyaaayyy, I couldn’t get awayeee.

47

I’m not saying he should be wholly discounted, just that namedropping Aristotle should most certainly not equal agreement; just because he would agree with something does not make it a good idea.

While I can’t advise specific publications, I find reading a few articles with opposing slants, in addition to some more neutral articles, can improve understanding more than one might think.

48

"ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. "
Threatening to invade a nation if it doesn’t meet your demands, as we did with Iraq, is dictionary definition terrorism. Our government not only openly supports terrorism, but bases a good portion of our foreign policy around it.

I agree that anyone having nuclear weaspons is bad, but telling Iran they can’t when we do is inane. Terrorism is supported by essentially every government in the world. It’s just never terrorism to those who are doing it, since they’ve always got a “noble cause” behind their actions. Iran supports Islamic terrorists, who use different weapons in their terrorism due to different resources and have different motivations than America.

As recently as the Iraq war, America has been wholly unwilling to compromise with international bodies, as well. President Bush, especially, has been notoriously stubborn, but past presidents and government officials have had their fair shares of diplomatic stubbornness.

49

Actually, while Iran is a signator of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, they’re not allowed to have nukes. The US is. It’s one of the pillars of the treaty. If Iran wishes to have nukes, they should withdraw from the NPT. There’s various other parts of it, but no, while Iran is a part of the NPT, they can’t have nukes. And the US has to make steps towards disarmament (achieved partly through various other treaties such as START, SALT, and SORT).

50

By the treaty, they may have to, but I disagree with the treaty if it allows us as signors to possess nuclear weapons while other signors may not.

51

Its not the US’ job to step in and stop genocide. Its the UN’s job. If the UN doesn’t do it, blame bureaucracy, politics and lack of leadership.

52

The US isn’t the only one allowed to have nukes under the NPT. There are five recognized nuclear powers under the treaty (United States, UK, France, China, and Russia). There’s various reasons for the five being allowed to keep nukes while making an effort to disarm, but probably the main one was they already had nukes. It’s easier and more politically viable to allow them to keep their nuclear weapons while saying they have to disarm over time rather than just flat out saying they can’t have them. If you don’t like it, blame the Irish.

And whether you disagree with that aspect of the treaty or not, it is the current law. As long as Iran’s a part of it (and they can withdraw at any time, they just need to give a 90 day notice), they are beholden to not possessing nukes. It’s all a part of the non-proliferation pillar.

53

I know it’s more pragmatic, and probably wouldn’t work any other way. I’m just upset at the way politics work, more than the specific treaty. If you built nukes before it, you can go ahead and keep them so long as you give some bullshit scam about disarming; “Yes, of course. We’re disarming at a steady rate of 0.06 bombs per year.” It’s essentially ensuring that the countries that were more powerful when it was created stay more powerful. On the other hand, forbidding them from joining until they disarm isn’t ideal either; then they won’t even have to make that bullshit scam of disarming, and at least that’s something.

Just because it is the current law doesn’t mean it’s right. That said, I agree that if Iran wants nukes, it should leave. Building nukes in an organization against building nukes it like showing up drunk to a women’s temperance meeting, only not very funny.
I agree that they should leave the treaty if they continue, I just think it’s kind of arrogant and wrong of us (or any of the other 5 nations mentioned above) to lambaste them for it when we’re given special permissions in the treaty, especially since we’re still barely following it. We may be “making an effort to disarm,” but it sure as hell isn’t much of one. Well, that’s subjective and I’m pessimistic, so that may not be entirely fair.

54

In reality, calling the NPT “current law” is bullshit because anyone can say “ok I’m part of the NPT” and then spontaneously remove themselves from it at their convenience.

The west doesn’t care about nukes so much that it wants all nukes abolished. Just nukes in the hands of people that might aim it at them. Example: India vs Pakistan. The west essentially endorsed both parties’ novel form of birth control. And even then, no one’s going to start launching pre-emptive nuclear attacks on anyone for the simple reason I just named: the retaliation would make their entire country glow in the dark for 10 000 years before they had the time to find out if the missile actually hit its target.

Finally, saying that the US, Russia and China are making an honest effort to disarm is a joke. Especially with the kind of talk we’ve been having from the Bush administration in the past few years in regards to weapon development and the undoubtable reaction from Russia.

55

Speaking of oil, why bomb Iran, when we can hit it in the wallet? The squeeze on Iran’s oil fields could be a very effective way to make Ahmadinejad more receptive to the international demands.
U.S. sanctions in place since the seizure of the American Embassy in 1979 have prevented U.S.-based oil companies from operating in Iran, but companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, France’s Total and Italy’s Eni have invested there, some heavily.
It looks like a new campaign to dry up financing for oil and natural gas development is underway. The efforts by U.S. and its allies to persuade international banks and oil companies to pull out of Iran threaten dozens of projects. According to Iran’s deputy oil minister, many European banks, which had accepted financing some oil industries projects, have recently canceled them.

Besides, Iran’s oil and natural gas industry has some domestic problems. One of the largest World’s oil producers, Iran has to import about 40 percent of its gasoline because it lacks refining capacity.
It spends $20b per yea,15% of its economic output, on gasoline subsidies to appease its population. This is a recipe for disaster - a double-digit domestic demand growth and declining production.
Sitting on 11% of the world’s oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia, Iran’s current output is 3.9 million barrels a day (of which 2.5m are exported), versus over 6m barrels in the '70s. One economist even predicts Iranian energy exports could dwindle to zero by 2015 without a sufficient influx of outside investment or dip in domestic consumption. Paradoxically, the current economic situation validates Iran’s need to develop an alternative source of energy.

Speaking of the Cold War, here is a little memento from the 60’s. The last page is significant - now that the old enemy is vanquished, there is almost a visceral need for a new one.
http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/v17_20_12.html

…prepare for the fight that may lie ahead of you…

Speaking of Geneva Convention, it was mentioned that “forcing” the female sailor to wear a chador (headscarf) violates her religious rights. I wouldn’t know anything about that, since I was born and raised as a Godless commie.

56

Enforcement, validation, and the voluntary nature of it will always be, unfortunately, the weaknesses of international law, especially in regard to multilateral weapons conventions. As far as they go, the NPT is probably the toughest of the three NBC weapon conventions. The CWC might be of similar strength; I honestly don’t know much about it. It may be considered a weak law, but it is still the law.

India, Pakistan, and Israel, though, were never a part of the NPT. So, they’re not and never were beholden to any of its provisions. That’s one of the above mentioned general weaknesses of international law; it’s hard to enforce law if countries never submit themselves to the law. South Africa actually had a program and dismantled it fully to comply with the NPT and IAEA. I also seem to remember Libya giving up its secret program a few years ago, but that memory is a little fuzzy.

The history of weapons agreements tends to be a laundry list of failures. I guess it’s better to have them and hope fewer nations cheat, while also attempting to create a channel for diplomacy, than to have none at all and let force dominate.

57

Russia and America were able to not destroy eachother in the Cold War because they are both culturally and intellectually European and Christian societies, which means they place great emphasis on secular, humanistic pursuits such as art, rational philosophy, and talking to girls, rather than the fundamental religious metaphysics and sorcery practiced by the leaders of modern Arabia and Persia. Mutually Assured Destruction is less scary when you believe that afterward you’re getting 72 everlasting virgins and a river of wine all to yourself. I would rather the various mullahs and abdullahs of the desert sands did not (out of some cosmic sense of “fairness”) have equal ability to destroy New York, Paris, and Rome as we have to destroy their silly, non-representationally-decorated centers of nihilism and depravity.

I apologize sincerely if my instinct for self-preservation does not meet with your critieria of cultural relativism and political correctness.

58

The great thing about Russia is that it can be portrayed as either “European, Christian, one of us” or “Oriental, Communist, one of them” depending on which country the speaker hates at the moment. And the useful idiots have such a short attention span that they never remember the switch from one to other.

The claim that “We can never talk to X because X is inherently depraved and insane, and only we ever act rationally” is older than time itself and typically used to avoid civil discussion in the absence of valid arguments. A skill well-cultivated by Internet trolls, such as yourself.

59

Why <i>yes</i>, every middle-easterner only has two basic principles in their heathen, wacko religion:

  1. Death in the name of Allah will get you 72 everlasting virgins and a river of wine
  2. Destruction of America

I’m so glad you have a thorough understanding of some ethnocentric and vague notion of a collective lump sum of their backwards, shamanic culture.

60

It’s a good thing Sil apologized in advance or we might have had some sort of misunderstanding on our hands!