If the U.S. Preemptively struck Iran

[Kelzie]

You cannot make other people free. You can show them how to be free, and you can give them the tools they need... but until they free themselves the best you can hope to accomplish is to transfer ownership.

Besides, the history of our interventions in Iran does not suggest that we are very good-- or very interested-- in improving human rights for Iranians.

I don't agree in the slightest. Principles can be taught. A government can be installed that supports public education for all-Iran certainly has the funds for that-with punishment for parents that don't comply. It's what we do in the US after all. Once the women are educated, the problem is basically solved.

You can give people freedom. How many Iraqis voted again? And does it really matter what the government's goals are as long as women are no longer slaves?

 

[Kelzie]

Surely upholding international law would be a better way to protect human rights then illegally flattening other countrys?

I see. So upholding a country's right to treat its citizens however they want is more valuable than promoting human rights. You must have been a big supporter of the genocide in Darfur.

 

[cherokee]

Perhaps you are unaware of the way Iran is run? Women are as good as slaves. The punishment for homosexuality is public stoning. Is this a regime that you think should exist on earth? Do you think any country has the right to subject half its population to slavery? I don't.

Kelzie, you left out a teen girl can be executed for being raped..

 

[Volker]

Perhaps you are unaware of the way Iran is run? Women are as good as slaves. The punishment for homosexuality is public stoning. Is this a regime that you think should exist on earth? Do you think any country has the right to subject half its population to slavery? I don't.

I have no idea where you have this from. The status of women in Iran is not comparable with the status of slaves and I wonder if there are stonings in Iran at all, I don't think, stonings are legal there.

 

[Volker]

I don't agree in the slightest. Principles can be taught. A government can be installed that supports public education for all-Iran certainly has the funds for that-with punishment for parents that don't comply. It's what we do in the US after all. Once the women are educated, the problem is basically solved.

The Iranian women are educated, many of them have university or college education.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Perhaps you are unaware of the way Iran is run? Women are as good as slaves. The punishment for homosexuality is public stoning. Is this a regime that you think should exist on earth? Do you think any country has the right to subject half its population to slavery? I don't.

Iran ISNT liberal, its incredibly conservative, way too conservative.

Do you even know what conservative means? How on earth can you even imply Iran is liberal when its one of the most conservatives countries on the planet?

con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

 

[Kelzie]

I have no idea where you have this from. The status of women in Iran is not comparable with the status of slaves and I wonder if there are stonings in Iran at all, I don't think, stonings are legal there.

Oh you think do you? Well I think you should learn a little more about the country before you offer such opinion.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is engaged in a major crackdown on gays and gay sex, including executions of those found guilty of engaging in “homosexual acts.” Homosexual acts are considered a capital crime in Iran.

Iranians found guilty of gay lovemaking are given a choice of four death styles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword, or dropped from the highest perch. According to Article 152 of Iran’s penal law, if two men not related by blood are found naked under one cover without good reason, both will be punished at a judge’s discretion.

The Islamic Republic’s crackdown on gays drew world outrage and protests after the hanging for “homosexual acts” of two teenagers — one 18, the other believed to be 16 or 17 — on July 19 in the city of Mashad.

LA Weekly - Shame of Iran

The Guardian Council has defied parliament and rejected an international treaty which aims to eliminate discrimination against women....Despite enjoying greater freedoms than many other Islamic countries, Iranian women are treated as second class citizens.

In the courts they are worth half the value of men, have fewer rights in divorce and child custody and need their husband's permission to work or travel abroad.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran women's bill rejected

A good place to begin educating yourself on the "equal" status of women in Iran would be here:

Women's Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran

 

[Kelzie]

Iran ISNT liberal, its incredibly conservative, way too conservative.

Do you even know what conservative means? How on earth can you even imply Iran is liberal when its one of the most conservatives countries on the planet?

con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

Dude, what are you talking about? Seriously, I have no idea. I never said, implied, or insinuated that Iran was liberal. I don't even know how you got that idea.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

No LIBERALS on this site have expressed solidarity with the Mullahs, true.

THere are countless individuals who describe themselves as liberal who do, however, and until these people show that they have an understanding of actual liberal VALUES rather than just indulging in mindless reactionary politics, they shouldn't call themselves liberal.
The term liberal is not used the same way in Europe and the US.

The term liberal is not used the same way in Europe and the US.

That you would accuse Kelzie of induging in "conservative tactics" only idicates the reactionary, dogmatic and simplistic degree of your own politcal viewpoints.

No, it only shows that he thought she used conservative tactics.

You know, Volker is right on this one, thanks. I will explain you the difference.

In Europe.

Conservative=Someone who favor traditional values, tending to oppose change, moderate and cautious.

Liberal=Someone who is not limited to established, traditional, orthodox and authoritarian attitude, views, dogmas. He is free from bigotry and generally pro change.

So basically in Europe it will be.
A conservative=no change, at least no big change. Looking to the past.
A liberal=pro change, often big change. Looking to the future.


In America its quite different.

A conservative=A retarded war monger shithead
A liberal=Shitfaced liar.

:roll: :shock: :doh

 

[Red_Dave]

I see. So upholding a country's right to treat its citizens however they want is more valuable than promoting human rights. You must have been a big supporter of the genocide in Darfur.

No im all for humanitarian intervention so long as its both legal and genuine, however humanitarian intervention has nothing to do with the bush adminstrations stance towards Iran. If Bush was opossed to theocracy he wouldnt back it in saudi-arabia.

 

[Kelzie]

No im all for humanitarian intervention so long as its both legal and genuine, however humanitarian intervention has nothing to do with the bush adminstrations stance towards Iran. If Bush was opossed to theocracy he wouldnt back it in saudi-arabia.

So let me get this straight...if Bush invaded Darfur, overthrew the government and installed a working, peaceful democracy but for a reason other than human rights, you would oppose it? That's so...silly.

 

[Kelzie]

You know, Volker is right on this one, thanks. I will explain you the difference.

In Europe.

Conservative=Someone who favor traditional values, tending to oppose change, moderate and cautious.

Liberal=Someone who is not limited to established, traditional, orthodox and authoritarian attitude, views, dogmas. He is free from bigotry and generally pro change.

So basically in Europe it will be.
A conservative=no change, at least no big change. Looking to the past.
A liberal=pro change, often big change. Looking to the future.

That's a rather shallow definition. You just explained liberal and conservative as far as they apply to the rate of change spectrum. As concerns politics however, this definition is rather useless. Let me help.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]

Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservatism is a political philosophy that favors traditional values. The term derives from the Latin, conservāre, to conserve; "to keep, guard, observe". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have different goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope that clears things up.

In America its quite different.

A conservative=A retarded war monger shithead
A liberal=Shitfaced liar.

:roll: :shock: :doh

Well, this part is correct at least.:lol:

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Dude, what are you talking about? Seriously, I have no idea. I never said, implied, or insinuated that Iran was liberal. I don't even know how you got that idea.

Really, what about this exchange then?

(its direct contact with quotation to the last posting, in correct order)

Let me just say I am extremely disappointed in all you liberals who believe women should be treated as property and homosexuals should be stoned. Disappointed, but not surprised. Any move for increased human rights is a move I support.

Sorry, but your message is strange. what are you talking about?
I am Liberal and I certainly don't believe homosexuals should be stoned, and I don't believe women are property. what are you talking about?
How doe this effect an attack on Iran? Very confused.

Perhaps you are unaware of the way Iran is run? Women are as good as slaves. The punishment for homosexuality is public stoning. Is this a regime that you think should exist on earth? Do you think any country has the right to subject half its population to slavery? I don't.

 

[Kelzie]

Really, what about this exchange then?

(its direct contact with quotation to the last posting, in correct order)

Yeah. Still don't know what you're talking about. I was chiding the liberals on this forum for not standing up for what they believe in by opposing conservatism in Iran.

 

[Goobieman]

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]

Just so long as we're clear that this is the definition of Classical Liberalism, what we today in the US would call Libertarianism.

Modern American Liberalism differs significantly.

 

[Volker]

Oh you think do you? Well I think you should learn a little more about the country before you offer such opinion.

No, you offered an opinion and you did not back it up. I said, I think, because there has been a moratorium in place for many years.

The penal code includes provisions for the stoning, or lapidation, of women and men convicted of adultery. In 2002 the head of the judiciary announced a moratorium on stoning. There were several subsequent reports of sentences of stoning imposed by judges, including two during the year, but no proof of these sentences being carried out. A woman's rights group claimed "Fatemeh" was sentenced to stoning in May for adultery and murder. On October 15, domestic press reported that "Soghra" was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, as well as given a 15-year prison sentence for complicity in murdering her husband.

That's why I think, carrying out of stonings are not legal.

Iran

A good place to begin educating yourself on the "equal" status of women in Iran would be here ...

I did not say "equal status", I said, their status is not comparable to slaves.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

That's a rather shallow definition. You just explained liberal and conservative as far as they apply to the rate of change spectrum. As concerns politics however, this definition is rather useless. Let me help.

Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope that clears things up

I am quite familiar with those terms too, but the basic of a liberal and a conservative is what I am talking about.

Reading your description(which I have read several times before), certainly makes me proud to be liberal.

 

[Kelzie]

No, you offered an opinion and you did not back it up. I said, I think, because there has been a moratorium in place for many years.

That's why I think, carrying out of stonings are not legal.

Iran[/url.

Oh I see...homosexuals are just hung now. Thanks for pointing out that glaring error. That makes it better. :roll:

I did not say "equal status", I said, their status is not comparable to slaves.

You are right. In America at least, slaves counted for 2/3. In Iran, women only count for 1/2.

 

[Kelzie]

I am quite familiar with those terms too, but the basic of a liberal and a conservative is what I am talking about.

The basic definition in what? A non-political setting? What's the point of that?

Reading your description(which I have read several times before), certainly makes me proud to be liberal.

You and me both.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The basic definition in what? A non-political setting? What's the point of that?

You and me both.

Its also a political definition..

 

[Kelzie]

Its also a political definition..

Not really. If it were, the definition of liberal and conservative would be constantly changing, even more than they do already. Pro-lifers would actually be liberals according to that definition because they are the ones hoping for a change.

 

[Vader]

If the US would attack tomorrow, I would question if it was actually preemptively. I don't see Iranian troops massing in the Caribbean Sea or other kinds of preparations for a war against the US.

There is conclusive proof that Iran has been arming Iraqi Insurgents. Therefore, Iran IS commiting acts of war against the US at this time. As such, a preemtive stike would put an end to such activity.

I realize your state-owned news agency doesn't print such material but it IS A GIVEN FACT.

P.S. An attack on Israel would lead to several arab contries being nuked out of existence.

 

[Volker]

You are right. In America at least, slaves counted for 2/3. In Iran, women only count for 1/2.

It looks like you are trying to belittle American history here. Women in Iran go skiing if they have the money, they study, they can have a profession, earn their own money, they can vote, this is not less than a slave in America.

 

[Kelzie]

It looks like you are trying to belittle American history here. Women in Iran go skiing if they have the money, they study, they can have a profession, earn their own money, they can vote, this is not less than a slave in America.

How am I trying to belittle American history?

Slaves could go skiing, they could study, they could have a job and money...if their master's would let them. Like Iran. Unlike Iran, American slaves counted for 2/3 a vote. In the Iranian justice system, women only count for 1/2.

Are you honestly trying to defend Iran's treatment of women? I am morally disgusted.

 

[Red_Dave]

So let me get this straight...if Bush invaded Darfur, overthrew the government and installed a working, peaceful democracy but for a reason other than human rights, you would oppose it? That's so...silly.

Ild have my misgivings about it , to put it lightly, but wouldnt actively oposse it unless it was certain to make the situation worse.I certainly wouldnt be mourning the demise of the sudanise government but if this happend tomorrow i would be concerned about the fact that.

1 It was being done illegally. Whenever a powerful state like america or the uk go agaisnt international law and get away with it this sets a dangerous precedence that they are above the law. Darfur could be dealt with through the proper legal channels [though these channels are certainly in need of reform]

2 If this other reason got in the way of humantairian concerns this would lead to problems.

If a premptive strike on Iran would actually help things then your argument may have held some wait. It wouldnt liberate the iranian people.It would merely escalate conflict between Iran and America before it was even necessairy to do so.