The Tumult in Tehran

[Husker_x]

THE PROTESTERS have been routed from the streets of Tehran, but the political turmoil in Iran continues unabated behind the scenes. The authority of both the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is being overtly challenged by religious and secular elites. Given the internal tumult and uncertainty, it looks increasingly doubtful that the regime will respond meaningfully to the Obama administration's deadline of late September to discuss curtailing its nuclear program or risk what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called "crippling sanctions."

 

In the past weeks, the regime has pressed ahead with its Stalinist mass show trial, a sickening spectacle in which prominent figures who protested the outcome of the disputed June 12 presidential election are undergoing a ritualized humiliation that has further embittered the opposition. Reading what for all the world looks like coerced confessions, some of the defendants, accused of conspiring with Western powers to foment a "soft revolution," may face execution. Hard-liners allied with Mr. Ahmadinejad, furious at allegations that protesters were not only beaten but raped in prison after the elections, are calling for the arrest of the main opposition presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi. And prosecutors moved this week to shutter the country's two main reform parties. So much for Iran's claims to pluralism and democracy.

 

At the same time, the revolutionary leadership is facing intensified opposition. As reported by The New York Times, a group of clerics has challenged the standing of Mr. Khamenei -- an event that would have been unthinkable a few months ago -- by issuing an anonymous letter calling him a dictator and insisting that he be ousted. The country's senior judicial official named a bitter critic of Mr. Ahmadinejad to the powerful position of prosecutor general. Mr. Ahmadinejad, for his part, nominated a list of loyalists to fill ministerial posts in his government, defying key parliamentary leaders who had insisted that competent professionals anchor the cabinet.

 

If all that raises the question of who in the Iranian government would be worth negotiating with, those doubts were reinforced the other day by the now-you-see-it, now-you-don't remarks of Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh. After state television reported that Mr. Soltanieh declared Iran ready "to take part in any negotiations with the West based on mutual respect," the ambassador announced a few hours later that he had told state TV no such thing. The flip-flop may have been just confusion, or it may have been a symptom of a key official serving more than one master in Tehran. Either way, it underscores the challenge for Washington in engaging with a regime of questionable legitimacy, dubious lines of authority and an uncertain grip on power.

 

LINK

 

--------

 

We're between a rock and a hard place with this Iran situation. Many clocks are ticking. We had best hope that the internal unrest clock rings before the nuclear weapon emerges. In either case, this tyrannical, theocratic situation is unsustainable, and it's a pity that our president couldn't manage even the slightest show of solidarity with the people in Iran's last sham of an election.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The US could start by minding its own business, yet I hardly think that it would make up for the years of meddling in Iran's affairs. The longer they continue to do so, the worse it will be. Starting now might be a good time and seeing as how this country is broke as a joke, yet still funding and fighting wars all over the globe, I hardly believe another conflict would be beneficial. I hate to say it but blowbacks a b@tch!!

[Husker_x]

The US could start by minding its own business, yet I hardly think that it would make up for the years of meddling in Iran's affairs. The longer they continue to do so, the worse it will be. Starting now might be a good time and seeing as how this country is broke as a joke, yet still funding and fighting wars all over the globe, I hardly believe another conflict would be beneficial. I hate to say it but blowbacks a b@tch!!

 

Would that the world were so black and white. Unfortunately the blowback isn't likely to be felt by us as much as our Israeli allies, the new Iraqi government, and the middle east as a whole. I'm sorry that you feel the tyrannical oppression of a theocratic state led by a madman isn't anyone's business but Iran's. I would advise you update your politics to reflect the realities of a post-nuclear world.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The US could start by minding its own business, yet I hardly think that it would make up for the years of meddling in Iran's affairs. The longer they continue to do so, the worse it will be. Starting now might be a good time and seeing as how this country is broke as a joke, yet still funding and fighting wars all over the globe, I hardly believe another conflict would be beneficial. I hate to say it but blowbacks a b@tch!!

 

Would that the world were so black and white. Unfortunately the blowback isn't likely to be felt by us as much as our Israeli allies, the new Iraqi government, and the middle east as a whole. I'm sorry that you feel the tyrannical oppression of a theocratic state led by a madman isn't anyone's business but Iran's. I would advise you update your politics to reflect the realities of a post-nuclear world.

I have and the reality is that all this madness is caused by government. In reality it is you who needs to update your views. Do you really believe that meddling aound, trying to to rule the world, subjecting everyone to your ideals and killing whoever disagrees is a sane and logical solution? Talk about medieval!!

 

Also, you still didn't answer on how any future wars will be funded?

[Husker_x]

The US could start by minding its own business, yet I hardly think that it would make up for the years of meddling in Iran's affairs. The longer they continue to do so, the worse it will be. Starting now might be a good time and seeing as how this country is broke as a joke, yet still funding and fighting wars all over the globe, I hardly believe another conflict would be beneficial. I hate to say it but blowbacks a b@tch!!

 

Would that the world were so black and white. Unfortunately the blowback isn't likely to be felt by us as much as our Israeli allies, the new Iraqi government, and the middle east as a whole. I'm sorry that you feel the tyrannical oppression of a theocratic state led by a madman isn't anyone's business but Iran's. I would advise you update your politics to reflect the realities of a post-nuclear world.

I have and the reality is that all this madness is caused by government. In reality it is you who needs to update your views. Do you really believe that meddling aound, trying to to rule the world, subjecting everyone to your ideals and killing whoever disagrees is a sane and logical solution? Talk about medieval!!

 

Also, you still didn't answer on how any future wars will be funded?

 

Why should I account for how a future war will be funded when I hope to God it doesn't come to that? If it came to that suddenly all your bleating idealism about anarchy would have us baking in a nuclear fire. I don't have time for the world as I'd like it to be. I'm too busy trying to understand it as it exists. The following choice, if our enemies get their way, is NOT the following: Go to war and cause mayhem, or refuse war and live in peace. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

One is forced to assume by your response that you have a hopelessly misguided view about the intentions of our enemy. Among Americans you're in fairly safe company when you talk about freedom and property and individualism and blah blah blah, but to a theocrat, a fundamentalist, they're not interested in your ideas. Their ideas are all that matters, and, a nice bonus, you will be executed for dissent if they have their way.

 

Abolishing the government of the United States would do absolutely nothing to change your situation.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Why should I account for how a future war will be funded when I hope to God it doesn't come to that? If it came to that suddenly all your bleating idealism about anarchy would have us baking in a nuclear fire. I don't have time for the world as I'd like it to be. I'm too busy trying to understand it as it exists. The following choice, if our enemies get their way, is NOT the following: Go to war and cause mayhem, or refuse war and live in peace. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

One is forced to assume by your response that you have a hopelessly misguided view about the intentions of our enemy. Among Americans you're in fairly safe company when you talk about freedom and property and individualism and blah blah blah, but to a theocrat, a fundamentalist, they're not interested in your ideas. Their ideas are all that matters, and, a nice bonus, you will be executed for dissent if they have their way.

 

Abolishing the government of the United States would do absolutely nothing to change your situation.

 

Do you really hope for no future wars? Is it that why you propose interference? Your proposal could be a safe assumption if the facts of history didn't point out that meddling in other's affairs always leads to conflict, no matter how small or large. Since that is the case, how is it that you propose the US government goes about paying for the conflict that will arise?

 

You claim to be busy trying to understand the world as it exists, yet the views you express prove that you refuse to look at the actions that cause the world to be what it is today. Why is that? Since war always breeds mayhem, what would be so insane about giving peace and freedom a chance?

 

As far as the intentions of the US enemies, I'm well aware they plan to do as much harm as possible, just as the US plans the same. Why is it do you suppose they are enemies of the US? Don't even try to say freedom or any such babbling nonsense, because you know as well as I that it's not true. You also bring up that theocrats and fundamentalist are not interested in anyone's ideas of freedom, but what do you suppose it is that gives them the power to execute and abolish those who dissent? A safe guess would be the power of government.

 

Also, how would the abolishment of US government not change my situation?

[Husker_x]

 

Why should I account for how a future war will be funded when I hope to God it doesn't come to that? If it came to that suddenly all your bleating idealism about anarchy would have us baking in a nuclear fire. I don't have time for the world as I'd like it to be. I'm too busy trying to understand it as it exists. The following choice, if our enemies get their way, is NOT the following: Go to war and cause mayhem, or refuse war and live in peace. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

One is forced to assume by your response that you have a hopelessly misguided view about the intentions of our enemy. Among Americans you're in fairly safe company when you talk about freedom and property and individualism and blah blah blah, but to a theocrat, a fundamentalist, they're not interested in your ideas. Their ideas are all that matters, and, a nice bonus, you will be executed for dissent if they have their way.

 

Abolishing the government of the United States would do absolutely nothing to change your situation.

 

Do you really hope for no future wars? Is it that why you propose interference? Your proposal could be a safe assumption if the facts of history didn't point out that meddling in other's affairs always leads to conflict, no matter how small or large. Since that is the case, how is it that you propose the US government goes about paying for the conflict that will arise?

 

You claim to be busy trying to understand the world as it exists, yet the views you express prove that you refuse to look at the actions that cause the world to be what it is today. Why is that? Since war always breeds mayhem, what would be so insane about giving peace and freedom a chance?

 

As far as the intentions of the US enemies, I'm well aware they plan to do as much harm as possible, just as the US plans the same. Why is it do you suppose they are enemies of the US? Don't even try to say freedom or any such babbling nonsense, because you know as well as I that it's not true. You also bring up that theocrats and fundamentalist are not interested in anyone's ideas of freedom, but what do you suppose it is that gives them the power to execute and abolish those who dissent? A safe guess would be the power of government.

 

Also, how would the abolishment of US government not change my situation?

 

I did not advocate intervention. It may be unavoidable if the present course is not altered, but economic sanctions in a fragile regime such as Iran's could very well work if enough countries play ball (though I won't count on the Chinese). And yes, I avidly hope there is never another war again, but unfortunately I don't live in la la land. We have been dealing with Islamic fascism since Muhammad and his successors crusaded across the middle east. When you have an enemy that won't be reasoned with, your options are narrowed to two, and both are grim.

 

Your second paragraph is so naive it borders on insulting. Give peace and freedom a chance? What the hell does that even mean? If you want to walk to Tehran and release a white dove in front of Ahmadinejad, please, by all means. But don't be surrendering on the behalf of the rest of us.

 

Lastly, and although I'm so bored with this 'government ruins everything' tripe that it's causing a dull ache in my head, the United States does not want to harm the people of Iran. So long as the administration which enslaves the people continue to seek a nuclear weapon to be used in the destruction of our allies (as well as us if they get the technology), it is a moral imperative that our nation stand against it by any means necessary. These fundamentalists do not need a government to engage in acts of war, terrorism, or suppression. Their warped religion alone gives them motivation and organization to accomplish that (see Europe's minority Muslim laundry list of problems). And while our chess game with communism did us no favors in this, I reiterate, this conflict has been going on for centuries, and as far back as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in our national history.

 

Abolishing the United States would not save you from Islamic fascism. It would only leave you naked and alone when they proceeded with their jihad regardless.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Why should I account for how a future war will be funded when I hope to God it doesn't come to that? If it came to that suddenly all your bleating idealism about anarchy would have us baking in a nuclear fire. I don't have time for the world as I'd like it to be. I'm too busy trying to understand it as it exists. The following choice, if our enemies get their way, is NOT the following: Go to war and cause mayhem, or refuse war and live in peace. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

One is forced to assume by your response that you have a hopelessly misguided view about the intentions of our enemy. Among Americans you're in fairly safe company when you talk about freedom and property and individualism and blah blah blah, but to a theocrat, a fundamentalist, they're not interested in your ideas. Their ideas are all that matters, and, a nice bonus, you will be executed for dissent if they have their way.

 

Abolishing the government of the United States would do absolutely nothing to change your situation.

 

Do you really hope for no future wars? Is it that why you propose interference? Your proposal could be a safe assumption if the facts of history didn't point out that meddling in other's affairs always leads to conflict, no matter how small or large. Since that is the case, how is it that you propose the US government goes about paying for the conflict that will arise?

 

You claim to be busy trying to understand the world as it exists, yet the views you express prove that you refuse to look at the actions that cause the world to be what it is today. Why is that? Since war always breeds mayhem, what would be so insane about giving peace and freedom a chance?

 

As far as the intentions of the US enemies, I'm well aware they plan to do as much harm as possible, just as the US plans the same. Why is it do you suppose they are enemies of the US? Don't even try to say freedom or any such babbling nonsense, because you know as well as I that it's not true. You also bring up that theocrats and fundamentalist are not interested in anyone's ideas of freedom, but what do you suppose it is that gives them the power to execute and abolish those who dissent? A safe guess would be the power of government.

 

Also, how would the abolishment of US government not change my situation?

 

I did not advocate intervention. It may be unavoidable if the present course is not altered, but economic sanctions in a fragile regime such as Iran's could very well work if enough countries play ball (though I won't count on the Chinese). And yes, I avidly hope there is never another war again, but unfortunately I don't live in la la land. We have been dealing with Islamic fascism since Muhammad and his successors crusaded across the middle east. When you have an enemy that won't be reasoned with, your options are narrowed to two, and both are grim.

 

Your second paragraph is so naive it borders on insulting. Give peace and freedom a chance? What the hell does that even mean? If you want to walk to Tehran and release a white dove in front of Ahmadinejad, please, by all means. But don't be surrendering on the behalf of the rest of us.

 

Lastly, and although I'm so bored with this 'government ruins everything' tripe that it's causing a dull ache in my head, the United States does not want to harm the people of Iran. So long as the administration which enslaves the people continue to seek a nuclear weapon to be used in the destruction of our allies (as well as us if they get the technology), it is a moral imperative that our nation stand against it by any means necessary. These fundamentalists do not need a government to engage in acts of war, terrorism, or suppression. Their warped religion alone gives them motivation and organization to accomplish that (see Europe's minority Muslim laundry list of problems). And while our chess game with communism did us no favors in this, I reiterate, this conflict has been going on for centuries, and as far back as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in our national history.

 

Abolishing the United States would not save you from Islamic fascism. It would only leave you naked and alone when they proceeded with their jihad regardless.

So, it's ok that the US maintains and develops nuclear weapons, but nobody else can!! How hypocritical is that?

 

Oh, I forgot the US is so noble, the beacon of freedom and the hope for all humanity and they're just Islamic Fascists. What about the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Fascists that call this country home? What about the one's in office, actually making the decisions. It must be our Constitution that's holding them back right!!

 

Also, what is it about sanctions that does not advocate intervention? Interfering with their ability to trade is intervention just the same. Or is their good and evil intervention also!!

[Husker_x]

 

Why should I account for how a future war will be funded when I hope to God it doesn't come to that? If it came to that suddenly all your bleating idealism about anarchy would have us baking in a nuclear fire. I don't have time for the world as I'd like it to be. I'm too busy trying to understand it as it exists. The following choice, if our enemies get their way, is NOT the following: Go to war and cause mayhem, or refuse war and live in peace. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

One is forced to assume by your response that you have a hopelessly misguided view about the intentions of our enemy. Among Americans you're in fairly safe company when you talk about freedom and property and individualism and blah blah blah, but to a theocrat, a fundamentalist, they're not interested in your ideas. Their ideas are all that matters, and, a nice bonus, you will be executed for dissent if they have their way.

 

Abolishing the government of the United States would do absolutely nothing to change your situation.

 

Do you really hope for no future wars? Is it that why you propose interference? Your proposal could be a safe assumption if the facts of history didn't point out that meddling in other's affairs always leads to conflict, no matter how small or large. Since that is the case, how is it that you propose the US government goes about paying for the conflict that will arise?

 

You claim to be busy trying to understand the world as it exists, yet the views you express prove that you refuse to look at the actions that cause the world to be what it is today. Why is that? Since war always breeds mayhem, what would be so insane about giving peace and freedom a chance?

 

As far as the intentions of the US enemies, I'm well aware they plan to do as much harm as possible, just as the US plans the same. Why is it do you suppose they are enemies of the US? Don't even try to say freedom or any such babbling nonsense, because you know as well as I that it's not true. You also bring up that theocrats and fundamentalist are not interested in anyone's ideas of freedom, but what do you suppose it is that gives them the power to execute and abolish those who dissent? A safe guess would be the power of government.

 

Also, how would the abolishment of US government not change my situation?

 

I did not advocate intervention. It may be unavoidable if the present course is not altered, but economic sanctions in a fragile regime such as Iran's could very well work if enough countries play ball (though I won't count on the Chinese). And yes, I avidly hope there is never another war again, but unfortunately I don't live in la la land. We have been dealing with Islamic fascism since Muhammad and his successors crusaded across the middle east. When you have an enemy that won't be reasoned with, your options are narrowed to two, and both are grim.

 

Your second paragraph is so naive it borders on insulting. Give peace and freedom a chance? What the hell does that even mean? If you want to walk to Tehran and release a white dove in front of Ahmadinejad, please, by all means. But don't be surrendering on the behalf of the rest of us.

 

Lastly, and although I'm so bored with this 'government ruins everything' tripe that it's causing a dull ache in my head, the United States does not want to harm the people of Iran. So long as the administration which enslaves the people continue to seek a nuclear weapon to be used in the destruction of our allies (as well as us if they get the technology), it is a moral imperative that our nation stand against it by any means necessary. These fundamentalists do not need a government to engage in acts of war, terrorism, or suppression. Their warped religion alone gives them motivation and organization to accomplish that (see Europe's minority Muslim laundry list of problems). And while our chess game with communism did us no favors in this, I reiterate, this conflict has been going on for centuries, and as far back as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in our national history.

 

Abolishing the United States would not save you from Islamic fascism. It would only leave you naked and alone when they proceeded with their jihad regardless.

So, it's ok that the US maintains and develops nuclear weapons, but nobody else can!! How hypocritical is that?

 

Oh, I forgot the US is so noble, the beacon of freedom and the hope for all humanity and they're just Islamic Fascists. What about the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Fascists that call this country home? What about the one's in office, actually making the decisions. It must be our Constitution that's holding them back right!!

 

Also, what is it about sanctions that does not advocate intervention? Interfering with their ability to trade is intervention just the same. Or is their good and evil intervention also!!

 

Look, I don't know you, so I'm going to avoid personal attacks, but I want to be perfectly honest with you. I don't know where you get your ideas about the world, or the place of the United States in history. I don't know if you read Howard Zinn or got enlightened in a sociology class once, but anyone who cannot tell the difference between theocratic fascism and the diplomatic stance of the United States against Iran in 2009 must be willfully ignorant.

 

Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon under any circumstance. This isn't a philosophical pissing contest between Huskerboard.com members. This is life and death. It could very well change the world, and not for the better.

 

But in any case, if you disagree with me, fine. You have that right. But it's obvious that discussing this issue is like trying to discuss evolution with a creation scientist. There is no easy choice in this. Now you can gamble with peoples' lives––potentially millions of them––but you'd damn well better be prepared to lose, because it's almost certainly going to happen.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Why should I account for how a future war will be funded when I hope to God it doesn't come to that? If it came to that suddenly all your bleating idealism about anarchy would have us baking in a nuclear fire. I don't have time for the world as I'd like it to be. I'm too busy trying to understand it as it exists. The following choice, if our enemies get their way, is NOT the following: Go to war and cause mayhem, or refuse war and live in peace. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

One is forced to assume by your response that you have a hopelessly misguided view about the intentions of our enemy. Among Americans you're in fairly safe company when you talk about freedom and property and individualism and blah blah blah, but to a theocrat, a fundamentalist, they're not interested in your ideas. Their ideas are all that matters, and, a nice bonus, you will be executed for dissent if they have their way.

 

Abolishing the government of the United States would do absolutely nothing to change your situation.

 

Do you really hope for no future wars? Is it that why you propose interference? Your proposal could be a safe assumption if the facts of history didn't point out that meddling in other's affairs always leads to conflict, no matter how small or large. Since that is the case, how is it that you propose the US government goes about paying for the conflict that will arise?

 

You claim to be busy trying to understand the world as it exists, yet the views you express prove that you refuse to look at the actions that cause the world to be what it is today. Why is that? Since war always breeds mayhem, what would be so insane about giving peace and freedom a chance?

 

As far as the intentions of the US enemies, I'm well aware they plan to do as much harm as possible, just as the US plans the same. Why is it do you suppose they are enemies of the US? Don't even try to say freedom or any such babbling nonsense, because you know as well as I that it's not true. You also bring up that theocrats and fundamentalist are not interested in anyone's ideas of freedom, but what do you suppose it is that gives them the power to execute and abolish those who dissent? A safe guess would be the power of government.

 

Also, how would the abolishment of US government not change my situation?

 

I did not advocate intervention. It may be unavoidable if the present course is not altered, but economic sanctions in a fragile regime such as Iran's could very well work if enough countries play ball (though I won't count on the Chinese). And yes, I avidly hope there is never another war again, but unfortunately I don't live in la la land. We have been dealing with Islamic fascism since Muhammad and his successors crusaded across the middle east. When you have an enemy that won't be reasoned with, your options are narrowed to two, and both are grim.

 

Your second paragraph is so naive it borders on insulting. Give peace and freedom a chance? What the hell does that even mean? If you want to walk to Tehran and release a white dove in front of Ahmadinejad, please, by all means. But don't be surrendering on the behalf of the rest of us.

 

Lastly, and although I'm so bored with this 'government ruins everything' tripe that it's causing a dull ache in my head, the United States does not want to harm the people of Iran. So long as the administration which enslaves the people continue to seek a nuclear weapon to be used in the destruction of our allies (as well as us if they get the technology), it is a moral imperative that our nation stand against it by any means necessary. These fundamentalists do not need a government to engage in acts of war, terrorism, or suppression. Their warped religion alone gives them motivation and organization to accomplish that (see Europe's minority Muslim laundry list of problems). And while our chess game with communism did us no favors in this, I reiterate, this conflict has been going on for centuries, and as far back as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in our national history.

 

Abolishing the United States would not save you from Islamic fascism. It would only leave you naked and alone when they proceeded with their jihad regardless.

So, it's ok that the US maintains and develops nuclear weapons, but nobody else can!! How hypocritical is that?

 

Oh, I forgot the US is so noble, the beacon of freedom and the hope for all humanity and they're just Islamic Fascists. What about the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Fascists that call this country home? What about the one's in office, actually making the decisions. It must be our Constitution that's holding them back right!!

 

Also, what is it about sanctions that does not advocate intervention? Interfering with their ability to trade is intervention just the same. Or is their good and evil intervention also!!

 

Look, I don't know you, so I'm going to avoid personal attacks, but I want to be perfectly honest with you. I don't know where you get your ideas about the world, or the place of the United States in history. I don't know if you read Howard Zinn or got enlightened in a sociology class once, but anyone who cannot tell the difference between theocratic fascism and the diplomatic stance of the United States against Iran in 2009 must be willfully ignorant.

 

Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon under any circumstance. This isn't a philosophical pissing contest between Huskerboard.com members. This is life and death. It could very well change the world, and not for the better.

 

But in any case, if you disagree with me, fine. You have that right. But it's obvious that discussing this issue is like trying to discuss evolution with a creation scientist. There is no easy choice in this. Now you can gamble with peoples' lives––potentially millions of them––but you'd damn well better be prepared to lose, because it's almost certainly going to happen.

 

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest either. You have every right to your beliefs and the right to express them as well. However, its fairly obvious that you hold an extremely biased and nationalistic viewpoint in regards to the United States place in history and I'm merely suggesting that I disagree with it.

 

I'm not gambling with anyone's life nor would I ever attempt to. How you got that from what I've stated is beyond me. Is allowing individuals to make choices freely and to be held accountable for those choices somehow related to wishing to rule others and decide their fate? Sorry, but they aren't even in the same ball park.

 

If I disagree with something you say, I try my hardest to show why and I merely wish that you would extend me the same courtesy. Calling my viewpoint ignorant merely shows that you have no proof to the contrary. If the viewpoint I hold is so wrong, prove it to be so without resorting to namecalling.

[T_O_Bull]

 

Why should I account for how a future war will be funded when I hope to God it doesn't come to that? If it came to that suddenly all your bleating idealism about anarchy would have us baking in a nuclear fire. I don't have time for the world as I'd like it to be. I'm too busy trying to understand it as it exists. The following choice, if our enemies get their way, is NOT the following: Go to war and cause mayhem, or refuse war and live in peace. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

One is forced to assume by your response that you have a hopelessly misguided view about the intentions of our enemy. Among Americans you're in fairly safe company when you talk about freedom and property and individualism and blah blah blah, but to a theocrat, a fundamentalist, they're not interested in your ideas. Their ideas are all that matters, and, a nice bonus, you will be executed for dissent if they have their way.

 

Abolishing the government of the United States would do absolutely nothing to change your situation.

 

Do you really hope for no future wars? Is it that why you propose interference? Your proposal could be a safe assumption if the facts of history didn't point out that meddling in other's affairs always leads to conflict, no matter how small or large. Since that is the case, how is it that you propose the US government goes about paying for the conflict that will arise?

 

You claim to be busy trying to understand the world as it exists, yet the views you express prove that you refuse to look at the actions that cause the world to be what it is today. Why is that? Since war always breeds mayhem, what would be so insane about giving peace and freedom a chance?

 

As far as the intentions of the US enemies, I'm well aware they plan to do as much harm as possible, just as the US plans the same. Why is it do you suppose they are enemies of the US? Don't even try to say freedom or any such babbling nonsense, because you know as well as I that it's not true. You also bring up that theocrats and fundamentalist are not interested in anyone's ideas of freedom, but what do you suppose it is that gives them the power to execute and abolish those who dissent? A safe guess would be the power of government.

 

Also, how would the abolishment of US government not change my situation?

 

I did not advocate intervention. It may be unavoidable if the present course is not altered, but economic sanctions in a fragile regime such as Iran's could very well work if enough countries play ball (though I won't count on the Chinese). And yes, I avidly hope there is never another war again, but unfortunately I don't live in la la land. We have been dealing with Islamic fascism since Muhammad and his successors crusaded across the middle east. When you have an enemy that won't be reasoned with, your options are narrowed to two, and both are grim.

 

Your second paragraph is so naive it borders on insulting. Give peace and freedom a chance? What the hell does that even mean? If you want to walk to Tehran and release a white dove in front of Ahmadinejad, please, by all means. But don't be surrendering on the behalf of the rest of us.

 

Lastly, and although I'm so bored with this 'government ruins everything' tripe that it's causing a dull ache in my head, the United States does not want to harm the people of Iran. So long as the administration which enslaves the people continue to seek a nuclear weapon to be used in the destruction of our allies (as well as us if they get the technology), it is a moral imperative that our nation stand against it by any means necessary. These fundamentalists do not need a government to engage in acts of war, terrorism, or suppression. Their warped religion alone gives them motivation and organization to accomplish that (see Europe's minority Muslim laundry list of problems). And while our chess game with communism did us no favors in this, I reiterate, this conflict has been going on for centuries, and as far back as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in our national history.

 

Abolishing the United States would not save you from Islamic fascism. It would only leave you naked and alone when they proceeded with their jihad regardless.

So, it's ok that the US maintains and develops nuclear weapons, but nobody else can!! How hypocritical is that?

 

Oh, I forgot the US is so noble, the beacon of freedom and the hope for all humanity and they're just Islamic Fascists. What about the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Fascists that call this country home? What about the one's in office, actually making the decisions. It must be our Constitution that's holding them back right!!

 

Also, what is it about sanctions that does not advocate intervention? Interfering with their ability to trade is intervention just the same. Or is their good and evil intervention also!!

 

Look, I don't know you, so I'm going to avoid personal attacks, but I want to be perfectly honest with you. I don't know where you get your ideas about the world, or the place of the United States in history. I don't know if you read Howard Zinn or got enlightened in a sociology class once, but anyone who cannot tell the difference between theocratic fascism and the diplomatic stance of the United States against Iran in 2009 must be willfully ignorant.

 

Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon under any circumstance. This isn't a philosophical pissing contest between Huskerboard.com members. This is life and death. It could very well change the world, and not for the better.

 

But in any case, if you disagree with me, fine. You have that right. But it's obvious that discussing this issue is like trying to discuss evolution with a creation scientist. There is no easy choice in this. Now you can gamble with peoples' lives––potentially millions of them––but you'd damn well better be prepared to lose, because it's almost certainly going to happen.

 

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest either. You have every right to your beliefs and the right to express them as well. However, its fairly obvious that you hold an extremely biased and nationalistic viewpoint in regards to the United States place in history and I'm merely suggesting that I disagree with it.

 

I'm not gambling with anyone's life nor would I ever attempt to. How you got that from what I've stated is beyond me. Is allowing individuals to make choices freely and to be held accountable for those choices somehow related to wishing to rule others and decide their fate? Sorry, but they aren't even in the same ball park.

 

If I disagree with something you say, I try my hardest to show why and I merely wish that you would extend me the same courtesy. Calling my viewpoint ignorant merely shows that you have no proof to the contrary. If the viewpoint I hold is so wrong, prove it to be so without resorting to namecalling.

 

 

Finally we agree on something SOCAL.

T_O_B

[Husker_x]

 

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest either. You have every right to your beliefs and the right to express them as well. However, its fairly obvious that you hold an extremely biased and nationalistic viewpoint in regards to the United States place in history and I'm merely suggesting that I disagree with it.

 

I'm not gambling with anyone's life nor would I ever attempt to. How you got that from what I've stated is beyond me. Is allowing individuals to make choices freely and to be held accountable for those choices somehow related to wishing to rule others and decide their fate? Sorry, but they aren't even in the same ball park.

 

If I disagree with something you say, I try my hardest to show why and I merely wish that you would extend me the same courtesy. Calling my viewpoint ignorant merely shows that you have no proof to the contrary. If the viewpoint I hold is so wrong, prove it to be so without resorting to namecalling.

 

I'll try this one last time, then I think I'll have said it every way I can say it. The elements of Iran which hold sway over the electoral process despise the United States and Israel. While it appears a much more secular and progressive (by their standards) element won the election, the theocrats maintained power anyway. They are in the process of acquiring a nuclear bomb. They will not be reasoned out of it. Their hatred stems, by their own words, from a deeply sadistic cultural and religious motivation to annihilate the enemies of Islam. I do not deny that our middle eastern foreign policies of the past have aided in their zeal, but it is not the primary cause, and can be historically demonstrated as such, because we have been dealing with these types since the founding of our country and before. Yes, I am proud of this country. You may call this nationalistic bias, but a great hobby of mine is studying the history of the world, and while the United States has made its share of mistakes––which no one denies, by the way––you cannot in all intellectual seriousness discount what this political experiment has brought to and done for the world.

 

But back to the main topic. Here is my point: If we do nothing, allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, we have every reason to believe that it will be used. Now I ask you, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to publicly, but are you willing to live with the consequences of that? I realize your voice means little in foreign policy, but I also think that the stances you take in life mean something. Drudging up the past and tracing the course of events that brought us to this moment holds no weight in discussions of the future. Frankly we're between a rock and a hard place. Both acting and not acting have far reaching consequences. And while intervention at this stage is probably premature, the day may soon come where someone is going to have to make a call. If it were you, what would you do? So far your answer is a simplistic fairy tale: Let people make choices and be held accountable. Really? Does that choice include decimating a large city? Accountable to who?

 

I'm happy to hear your side of the story, but I have yet to see you go into any detail about any facet of anarchy. You more or less assume everything will go according to plan, and your only 'evidence' of this is vague generalities about the crimes of varying governments. On this issue specifically you seem to demonstrate either a puzzling coldness towards the hard reality of the situation, or simply misunderstand it. Either way, it's a less than convincing position, but if I've misunderstood you, please have at it again and maybe I'll grasp it better. I don't mean to be patronizing; I simply have no idea where you're coming from. Anarchy, even if practically possible within the next year in our country, would do nothing at all to prevent the possible atrocity coming down the pike in the middle east. And anarchy isn't possible in the next year. So what's your strategy? What's our out here?

 

Enlighten me.

[Husker_x]

bump