|
Post by Jaga on Jan 7, 2008 19:48:56 GMT -7
Yes, it is OK, because Israel is a democratic country ruled by sensible people elected by the majority, wheras Syria and Iran are ruled by tyrants and fanatics. I already heard somewhere else the opinion that.... democraties have right to invade non-democraties to change their system. Iran had elections in which the current president was elected. Maybe the elections were not super-pure democratic but they were democratic enough. What about Saudi Arabia, what about Pakistan? Why the US let Pakistan to have nuclear weapons, why US is a friend with totalitarian regime there? Why the US was a friend with Iran's szach? Why the US is a friend with Saudi Arabia where women cannot even drive the cars? You cannot have such a double standard everywhere and then always excuse Israel and Pakistan for their actions but blame Iran on everything.
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 8, 2008 14:57:50 GMT -7
O.K. F.B.I.
|
|
Pawian
European
Have you seen my frog?
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by Pawian on Jan 8, 2008 15:33:43 GMT -7
Mike, you are driving me mad with those shortenings!!! Can`t you be more specific at times? Which one did you really mean by FBI: Firm Believer in Islam or Full Blooded Indian? ?
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 21, 2008 0:40:40 GMT -7
Here is an editorial in Saudi Arabia which is very critical about policies of Am. administration to confront Iran militarly (for the good of Israel):Our region is not short of bloodshed and instability. Iraq, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territories and Afghanistan are all scenes of past and present conflicts where largely innocent blood has flowed in plenty. We do not need yet another dangerous conflict. That is why it was so sad, even depressing, to hear US President George W. Bush use his visit to the Gulf to continue his saber-rattling against the Iranians — and over a nuclear weapons program which his own intelligence chiefs say Tehran abandoned five years ago. To any dispassionate observer, US military action against Iran is unthinkable. Unfortunately the Bush administration’s record since 9/11 has not only embraced the unthinkable but more dangerously, it has embraced it in an unthinking fashion. To continue such dire warnings was inconsiderate given that Bush was the guest of Gulf states which are on Iran’s doorstep. Such warnings were not what we wanted to hear. As Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told his Canadian counterpart Maxime Bernier this week in a message that he then repeated to French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner — confrontational behavior by Washington toward Iran was not the answer. If Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states had a problem with Iran concerning its nuclear program, then they would talk to Tehran as neighbors should. Before Bush’s Middle East visit, White House briefers were telling correspondents that the president would be pushing the Israelis for a Palestinian settlement in return for Arab backing of a tough stance with Iran. It was suggested that Israel might be more tractable if the “Iranian nuclear threat” were removed. But the linkage simply is not there ... www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=105662&d=15&m=1&y=2008Whatever threat Iran may constitute, now or in the future, must be addressed peaceably and through negotiations. The consequences of further war in the region are hideous, not least because they are incalculable. Even Bush, with the ruin of Iraq before him, must surely see that. Yet in his confrontational remarks about Iran, he offers no carrot, no inducement, no compromise — only the big US stick. This is not diplomacy in search of peace. It is madness in search of war.
|
|
Pawian
European
Have you seen my frog?
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by Pawian on Jan 21, 2008 1:05:46 GMT -7
I already heard somewhere else the opinion that.... democraties have right to invade non-democraties to change their system. I would put it differently - democracies have the right to defend themselves against non-democratic fanatic governments. Jaga, you should study more on Iranian political system. This is a theocratic republic! It reminds the system which existed in the Soviet Union and socialist block - the party chose candidates and only then people could "vote" for them. The President is elected by universal suffrage for a term of four years. Presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians prior to running in order to ensure their allegiance to the ideals of the Islamic revolution.Following the election of the reformist Hojjat ol-Eslam Mohammad KHATAMI as president in 1997 and similarly a reformist Majles (parliament) in 2000, a campaign to foster political reform in response to popular dissatisfaction was initiated. The movement floundered as conservative politicians prevented reform measures from being enacted, increased repressive measures, and made electoral gains against reformers. Starting with nationwide municipal elections in 2003 and continuing through Majles elections in 2004, conservatives reestablished control over Iran's elected government institutions, which culminated with the August 2005 inauguration of an ultra-conservative layman as president.It is the heritage of the past. I suppose the USA wanted to have Pakistan as an ally in the East to counterbalance India with her socialist inclinations and communist China or Afghanistan. To counter balance other states which were strongly allied with the communist block, e.g., Iraq, Syria bought thousands of tanks from communist Poland. To have a strategic foot hold in Sauid Arabia which was already used during the operation Desert Storm in 1991. Can you say that the operation was unjust? We only blame Iranian leaders for their scary rhetoric. Tehre were guys who used scary rhetoric in the past and then they switched to actions with disastruous consequences. Once bitten, twice shy.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 21, 2008 12:44:49 GMT -7
I would put it differently - democracies have the right to defend themselves against non-democratic fanatic governments. Every country has a right to defend itself is attacked. When Kuweit (non-democracy) was attacked by Iraq even the US defended this non-democratic country. But... no any country have a right to invade another country on false pretenses like the US did with Iraq or Israel with Lebanon. Jaga, you should study more on Iranian political system. This is a theocratic republic! +++According to the constitution, Iran's political parties are free and a multi-party system rules the country. But, due to some problems which arouse shortly after the Islamic revolution, the activities of different political parties were restricted in Iran and presently there is no active party in the country. +++ The theocratic system in Iran have more democratic aspects than for instance Saudi Arabia. Women have more right in Iran. Therefore I was upset to hear Cheney talk about how bad Iran is for women as one of the reasons that the US needs to attack this country. Cheney is friend (like Bush also) with Saudi Arabia. Don't you see a double standard there? Besides the impulse for the Islamic revolution in Iran was given by the fact the US was supporting corrupted government of Szach. We only blame Iranian leaders for their scary rhetoric. Tehre were guys who used scary rhetoric in the past and then they switched to actions with disastruous consequences. Once bitten, twice shy. It is mainly the current president of Iran. Whatever he says against Israel - it is magnified out of proportion and it serves as the impulse for Israel to go after Iran. I am not sure to what extend his retoric is prompted by the fact that Israel pushes for the attack of Iran so much. Why they do it?
|
|
Pawian
European
Have you seen my frog?
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by Pawian on Jan 21, 2008 14:53:19 GMT -7
Every country has a right to defend itself is attacked. When Kuweit (non-democracy) was attacked by Iraq even the US defended this non-democratic country. Hmm, I think the United Nations ordered them to do it.... Hmm, I think the Hezbollah invaded Israel with their rockets first. Hmm, I think it doesn`t matter so much . In the past, when there was a communist block, Poland had a more democratic communist system than the Soviet Union..... and??? Hmmm, I think there is a draw. Iranian, Israel and American verbal belligerence has been expressed by words so far. It looks like war but it is still cold. It seems the state of cold war is pemanent in the Middle East. Those guys enjoy it. But, do you think that G. Bush will help unleash another war at the dawn of his presidency? Hmmm, I think it didn`t matter. The revolution would take place without American support too. Hmm, again I must repeat - once bitten, twice shy. There was a guy in history who said many things against Jews which was treated lightly and we all know how it finished. Hmm, I think they are worth each other.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 21, 2008 15:32:06 GMT -7
+++ Hmm, I think the Hezbollah invaded Israel with their rockets first.+++ no, the real "justification" was a kidnapping of two israeli soldiers, something which happen back and forth all the time. Even Hitler found a justification to invade Poland (the alleged attack of Poles to the radio station in Silesia). +++ Why the US is a friend with Saudi Arabia where women cannot even drive the cars?+++ +++ To have a strategic foot hold in Sauid Arabia which was already used during the operation Desert Storm in 1991. Can you say that the operation was unjust?+++But this means a double standard. The US is a friend with Saudi Arabia and then the US is ready to invade the other nation just for the same or even lesser sins that Saudi Arabia has. It is as like we looked through the fingers (przez palce) at our friends sins, but we would not forgive the same sins to our enemies. The truth is that Iran helped the US with the attack at Iraq, or at least it was symphatetic since it was never friends with Iraq. I read somewhere about it! You probably know that when Iraq, with Saddam in charge, attacked Iran - the US was on Iraq side How can you explain that??? Iran never attacked another country first! The US did not trust Iran since the muslim revolution is seen as a country which the US lost influence in. So they feel that they just do not control it. +++I am not sure to what extend his retoric is prompted by the fact that Israel pushes for the attack of Iran so much. Why they do it? +++ Hmm, I think they are worth each other. +++good point, I agree.
|
|
Pawian
European
Have you seen my frog?
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by Pawian on Jan 21, 2008 16:11:23 GMT -7
Hmmm, me thinks I can see a lot of American self-hating attitude in this thread hahahahahahahahahahahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 21, 2008 23:02:23 GMT -7
from Am. press: www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/21/bush-determined-to-strike-in-iran/Bush Determined To Strike In IranThe Wall Street Journal ran an article last week (subscription req’d) that Bush was using an investigation into a 1994 terrorist attack on a Jewish Community Center in Argentina as a way to continue to strain and maintain pressure on Iran. The only problem? There’s no real evidence that Iran was involved in the bombing: (I)t is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the case against Iran over the AMIA bombing has been driven from the beginning by US enmity toward Iran, not by a desire to find the real perpetrators. Evidence? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence. Nobody could anticipate the president initiating a pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation on trumped up evidence, could they? Oh…wait…
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Jan 22, 2008 16:32:57 GMT -7
Yes, it is OK, because Israel is a democratic country ruled by sensible people elected by the majority, wheras Syria and Iran are ruled by tyrants and fanatics. I already heard somewhere else the opinion that.... democraties have right to invade non-democraties to change their system. If they have proof that these non-democracies on the long term might impose a threat towards the democratic allies and fairly moderate (also moderate authoritarian) befriended regimes in the region where these non-democracies gain to much influence. It's just a matter of tough and rational calculated Machiavellistic Geopolitics, and it has nothing to do with the justice, ethics or human rights. Some weak or strong democracies can be a bigger danger to peace, prosperity and stability in the long term than some " mild" dictatorships or moderate authoritarian regimes. For instance the Militairy coups in Algeria and Turkey that were directed against the electorian victories of Islamist movements, and Pilsidski's coup d' etat in 1926 against a weak Polish (national) democratic government in a dangerously instabile young Polish democracy with political assasinations. Again Geo-politics, after the second world war the USA replaces the British as colonial power in the region. The American helped Saudi Arabia to built it's oil based economy. The American Militairy Industrial Complex earns a great deal from it's sells to the Saoudi's who have large armed forces for such a small country. Secondly Saudi Arabia is the heartland of islam and via good relations or ties with the keepers of the Islamic holy places, the Americans have influence in the Islamic world, from Indonesia to Marocco. The US was a friend with Iran's szach, because his regime was installed by the Americans in the fiftees, and the Szach's regime was pro-Western for a long time, and actually one of the few Middle-eastern regime in that period that was friendly with Americans allie in the region, Israel. The Iranians controlled the Persian gulf, and they were the biggest country (in the sense of land and population) in the region. Ofcourse Iranian oil was important too. That's true Jaga, but again that is foreign policy, American geopolitical strategic thinking and pragmatism. Pakistan is a very dangerous country, because it has an ambiguous stance, as allie and as one of the biggest hiding grounds for terrorists. Israel is sometimes like a teenager who likes to experiments with alcohol and drugs, sex and violence. The USA, Europe and the UN are the weak parents. Pieter
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 22, 2008 21:14:57 GMT -7
Pieter, agreed, very good analysis and I liked your metaphors
|
|