If the U.S. Preemptively struck Iran

[Kelzie]

Well, I have lttile trouble with the argument that the UN should only consist of democratic states -- but as international law exists outside the UN, membership of the UN isnt really relevant. I have to seperate the idea of "free people" from "sovereign" as it presumes that only states with "free people" enjoy the rights held by states. A state is a state, and is it sovereign because of its status as a state, the liberty of its people notwitstanding.

It was just an example, I certainly don't think the UN should only consist of democratic states.

A sovereign state does not have to have free people to be sovereign. It could be argued fairly well that Nazi Germany wasn't "free", but it was sovereign. The government merely has to have the support of the people. Granted, the easiest way to tell if a government has the support of the people is elections, but that's not the only way.

I think there needs to be a separation between what I believe and what is reality. I believe that states that are sovereign need not give un-sovereign states any recognition. And why should they? Anything the government does might not be the will of the people. The most stable thing to do would be to overthrow the government and allow the people to put in one that represents them.

In reality, there are dozens on states that aren't sovereign. And of course we do business with them. It certainly is easier than getting our hands dirty.

Well, that's fine -- but if a 'state' isnt 'sovereign', what is it?

They don't have popular sovereignty, but they have territorial sovereignty. Basically they have the ability to control the area (though some states even suck at that).

 

[Goobieman]

They don't have popular sovereignty, but they have territorial sovereignty. Basically they have the ability to control the area (though some states even suck at that).

Ok... So why isnt territorial sovereignty sufficient to be 'protected' under 'international law'?
Why do only states with 'popular sovereignty' enjoy that protection?

 

[Kelzie]

Ok... So why isnt territorial sovereignty sufficient to be 'protected' under 'international law'?
Why do only states with 'popular sovereignty' enjoy that protection?

Man, I hate these kind of questions. It's like being asked why killing another person is wrong. I don't know, it just is.

I would rather live in a world where governments are accountable to their people than one where they are not. Assigning international recognition to states with "popular sovereignty" would go a long ways to that ends. Recognizing all states as equal, regardless of how they treat their people, would not.

 

[Goobieman]

Man, I hate these kind of questions. It's like being asked why killing another person is wrong. I don't know, it just is.

I would rather live in a world where governments are accountable to their people than one where they are not. Assigning international recognition to states with "popular sovereignty" would go a long ways to that ends. Recognizing all states as equal, regardless of how they treat their people, would not.

I would love to live in that world, too, and I don't have a problem with thiking more highly of countries that have democratic governments -- indeed, I find the UN to be a farce as it gives weight to countries rules by despots.

But that's not the same arguing those countries dont have any standing under any form of "international law".

 

[GarzaUK]

Seeing as a democracy isn't supposed to prevent crime, I fail to see how this is relevant.

Well the Government is supposed to prevent the things I listed. And the Iraqi government is Democratic is it not?

If they do not have equal opportunites than it is not a democracy. That does not mean a democracy can't work.

So then according to your statement, the US was not a democracy until black people could vote?

My point is that when quick fix democratic ME state vote they tend to vote for non-liberal agendas that prevent and even punish progressive thought and will most likely end up a dictatorship . Democracies historically are more sucessful when created internally without outside influence.
Remember it took us centuries to come to where we are today. Putting an x on a piece of paper does not create progression, it is ideas of people, it is revolutions.

Plenty of buyers? Seeing as the vast majority of the world's capital is concentrated in the West, I am curious where these other buyers will come from.

China, India, Japan just for starters. The former two are gobbling up oil at a increasing rate.

Which is why I find it unlikely that a purely democratic Egypt will bar people from using it. It generates quite an income for a relatively low amount of work.

If the people of Eygpt vote, they will vote for America's enemies, the ones America as been fighting for 7 years. Or do you assume that by making a mark on a piece of paper, things will magically get better and everyone will embrace American values. If you think this, you truely are mistaken. American values do not appeal to the Islamic religion or at least Islamic religion in the ME or at least not yet.

We forget? Democracy is not "fragile". It is however dirty. Especially in the beginning. People have to get their hands dirty and sweat and argue and it doesn't always look perfect in the beginning. That doesn't mean a) that it's impossible or b) that only certain people are "ready" for it.

Democracy is fragile, it collapses all the time around the world. Look at Venezuala (spelling), how many times has democracy collapsed in Africa? Many times. In Iraq it is collapsing as we speak. Lebanon's democracy has grinded to a halt. Thailand had a military coup. Your right it does take time to build stable democracies. However if you spread democracy in the ME, Bin Laden and his cronies will stand to gain, (who will then seek to undermine democracy in a place of power), not the free world. This is how this part of the world has worked for decades.

I want a world of free liberal democracies as much as you do. But there is idealism and then there is realism. The Neo Con idea of a liberal western style ME is dead Kelzie, I thought that would be obvious by now.

We're discussing the ME, it's doing fine in Latin America and in parts of Africa. It's a work in progress.

African democracy is corrupt to its eyeballs. Honestly Africa would probably I've been better off staying part of European Empire and slowly, but surely with European money being left with stable low corrupt self governance. Europeans left too fast.
Latin Democracies have a nasty habit of doing a "Hugo Chavez" and again corruption (while not as bad as in Africa) is still there.

I'd be willing to bet it's for a government that can actually control its borders.

I hope your right. But unfortunately Hezbollah has grown very popular with the Lebonese since the war, so I wouldn't hold my breath. People can vote, but sometimes they don't vote for the right choice.

 

[dragonslayer]

Uh, the reason most of the people from the US probably believe that is because its true.

Look at the track record of our present government. They have lied about everything, why in the name of God should we Americans believe Bush when he says that Iran is great threat?

Bush bashed in the head about Iraq. We know that Bush lied. He stood on the tv and said there were WMD in Iraq. He was told this 6 mos before he ordered our country to attack Iraq for no reason. To believe Bush is to believe the words of a Nut.

Only stupid people would ever consider Bush credible. I believe that Bush is lying about Iran, just like he lied about Iraq.

Even if Iran makes an atomic weapons how does that make Isreal with all its Atomic Weapns and the USA with all its Atomic weapons, plus the most powerful military in the world vulnerable.

Why does Bush want to start another War? Doe he have a complex where he likes to order people to die at his orders?

 

[The Mark]

Look at the track record of our present government. They have lied about everything, why in the name of God should we Americans believe Bush when he says that Iran is great threat?

Bush bashed in the head about Iraq. We know that Bush lied. He stood on the tv and said there were WMD in Iraq. He was told this 6 mos before he ordered our country to attack Iraq for no reason. To believe Bush is to believe the words of a Nut.

Only stupid people would ever consider Bush credible. I believe that Bush is lying about Iran, just like he lied about Iraq.

Even if Iran makes an atomic weapons how does that make Isreal with all its Atomic Weapns and the USA with all its Atomic weapons, plus the most powerful military in the world vulnerable.

Why does Bush want to start another War? Doe he have a complex where he likes to order people to die at his orders?

Ok, NOW I'm scared. :shock: :notlook:

 

[RightinNYC]

Even if Iran makes an atomic weapons how does that make Isreal with all its Atomic Weapns and the USA with all its Atomic weapons, plus the most powerful military in the world vulnerable.

Do you really not know the answer to this question?

Hmmmmm, lets step back and think for a second. Why could iran getting hold of nuclear weapons be dangerous?

Its not like they have a history, continued to this day, of smuggling arms to terrorist groups. It's not like they desire the annihilation of Israel. And it's not like doing said terrorist groups would use said nuclear weapons if they received them.

 

[EAGLE1]

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.

In that case, why are you wanting to attack Iran? Surely there are much more tempting targets out there?

 

[Kelzie]

In that case, why are you wanting to attack Iran? Surely there are much more tempting targets out there?

There are. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. But alas, I can only comment on the situation I am given.

 

[EAGLE1]

Do you really not know the answer to this question?

Hmmmmm, lets step back and think for a second. Why could iran getting hold of nuclear weapons be dangerous?

Its not like they have a history, continued to this day, of smuggling arms to terrorist groups. It's not like they desire the annihilation of Israel. And it's not like doing said terrorist groups would use said nuclear weapons if they received them.

Oh its got a history does it? Well thats it then, launch all missiles and batten down the hatches. Would Iran be the only country with a history? The US has a history of continued expansion until the 20th Century and continued interference in the affairs of relatively democratic nations since its own civil war. Interference in Iran itself is a prime example. Israel has a history of continued expansion through settlement creep and 'building facts' since its foundation. Many other countries also have nasty histories. Perhaps the US and Israel and all these other countries should be struck first?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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'll remind you that the Shah introduced womens suffrage to Iran. Now women are stoned to death for sex outside of marriage.

 

[EAGLE1]

There are. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. But alas, I can only comment on the situation I am given.

Yes alas. But it seems you want to attack Iran not because it poses a clear and present danger but because of it human rights record, Id like to know why Iran gets your attention before all those other nasty regimes in the world? Also, have you paused to consider the human rights of those humans you'll be bombing when you direct your cruise missile to its target?

 

[The Mark]

Oh its got a history does it? Well thats it then, launch all missiles and batten down the hatches. Would Iran be the only country with a history? The US has a history of continued expansion until the 20th Century and continued interference in the affairs of relatively democratic nations since its own civil war. Interference in Iran itself is a prime example. Israel has a history of continued expansion through settlement creep and 'building facts' since its foundation. Many other countries also have nasty histories. Perhaps the US and Israel and all these other countries should be struck first?

If Iran is knowingly (if indirectly) attacking US troops in Iraq, then it would make logical sense to me for the USA to counterattack.

1. Iran attacks USA.
2. USA dislikes being attacked, so
3. USA attacks Iran.

Quite simple.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh its got a history does it? Well thats it then, launch all missiles and batten down the hatches. Would Iran be the only country with a history? The US has a history of continued expansion until the 20th Century and continued interference in the affairs of relatively democratic nations since its own civil war.

What Democratic countries have we attacked or interfered in?

Interference in Iran itself is a prime example.

Mossadeq dissolved parliament and granted himself dictatorial emergency powers. Not exactly Democratic.

Israel has a history of continued expansion through settlement creep and 'building facts' since its foundation.

Israel has a history of granting land for peace only to be attacked again.

Many other countries also have nasty histories. Perhaps the US and Israel and all these other countries should be struck first?

By who? I think the Europeans would need a set of balls to do that first, of course it would be status quo for European nations to attack Democratic nations and support dictatorships.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Look at the track record of our present government. They have lied about everything, why in the name of God should we Americans believe Bush when he says that Iran is great threat?

We captured two members of the Quds forces of the elite revolutionary guard in Iraq who answer directly to the Ayatollah, one of which was a director of operations, we have also found mounting evidence that the IEDs are coming from Iran with the direct knowledge and support of the Iranian government.

 

[EAGLE1]

I'll remind you that the Shah introduced womens suffrage to Iran. Now women are stoned to death for sex outside of marriage.

Ah yes the Shah, that great emancipator. Here's his view on women direct from the horses mouth;
" Women are important in a man’s life only if they’re beautiful and charming and keep their femininity and ... this business of feminism, for instance. What do these feminists want? What do you want? You say equality. Oh! I don’t want to seem rude, but.. you’re equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability ... You've never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach. You've never even produced a great chef. And if you talk to me about opportunity, all I can say is, Are you joking? Have you ever lacked the opportunity to give history a great chef? You've produced nothing great, nothing! … You're schemers, you are evil. All of you."

If only they could learn from the past, bring back the SAVAK and another Resurrection one party state under the next in line to the Peacock throne. Would that placate you?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ah yes the Shah, that great emancipator. Here's his view on women direct from the horses mouth;
" Women are important in a man’s life only if they’re beautiful and charming and keep their femininity and ... this business of feminism, for instance. What do these feminists want? What do you want? You say equality. Oh! I don’t want to seem rude, but.. you’re equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability ... You've never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach. You've never even produced a great chef. And if you talk to me about opportunity, all I can say is, Are you joking? Have you ever lacked the opportunity to give history a great chef? You've produced nothing great, nothing! … You're schemers, you are evil. All of you."

If only they could learn from the past, bring back the SAVAK and another Resurrection one party state under the next in line to the Peacock throne. Would that placate you?

A) What the hell does this have to do with the fact that under the Shah women were granted equal suffrage?

B) The Shah was the head of state, it was his right to dismiss Mossadeq, Mossadeq dissolved parliament and granted himself dictatorial powers, and nearly destroyed the Iranian economy due to his nationalistic and socialist economic policies, the Shah modernized the Iranian economy and Iranian agriculture, granted equal rights to women, and was a staunch ally of both Israel and the U.S., under the Mullahs, the Iranian economy has been thrown back to the middle ages, women are stoned to death for sex outside of marriage, and their national pass time is burning the American flag while simultaneously chanting "death to the great satan, and the little satan." And let's not even get into how the revolutionary guard is far far worse than the SAVAK ever was. So yes if it was a choice between the current regime and the Shah, I would choose the Shah everytime.

 

[EAGLE1]

If Iran is knowingly (if indirectly) attacking US troops in Iraq, then it would make logical sense to me for the USA to counterattack.

1. Iran attacks USA.
2. USA dislikes being attacked, so
3. USA attacks Iran.

Quite simple.

Fair enough. What do you think of this logic?;

1. USA attacks Iran in 1953. Subverts emerging democracy and installs Shah with little native support.
2. People throw off the Shah over 1979-1981. Fearing US counter revolution Iranian Islamic revolutionaries take the US embassy.
3. Iraq attacks Iran, Iran fights back. To prevent Iranian victory the US helps Iraq defend itself.
4. Iran supports interests counter to US policy throughout the ME ever since.

Quite simple.

 

[EAGLE1]

A) What the hell does this have to do with the fact that under the Shah women were granted equal suffrage?

B) The Shah was the head of state, it was his right to dismiss Mossadeq, Mossadeq dissolved parliament and granted himself dictatorial powers, and nearly destroyed the Iranian economy due to his nationalistic and socialist economic policies, the Shah modernized the Iranian economy and Iranian agriculture, granted equal rights to women, and was a staunch ally of both Israel and the U.S., under the Mullahs, the Iranian economy has been thrown back to the middle ages, women are stoned to death for sex outside of marriage, and their national pass time is burning the American flag while simultaneously chanting "death to the great satan, and the little satan." And let's not even get into how the revolutionary guard is far far worse than the SAVAK ever was. So yes if it was a choice between the current regime and the Shah, I would choose the Shah everytime.

Ok youve gave alot of accusations against Mossadeq, so lets take it piece by piece.
It was the Shah's right to dismiss Mossadeq? Oh you mean the issuing of the firmans? These were decrees that was of very dubious legality since in democratic Iran only the Parliament could hire and fire prime ministers.

Besides, ask yourself. If the the overthrow of Mossadeq was all so legal why was the CIA and MI6 so involved in black propaganda, fomenting riots and paying off military and Parliament members?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ok youve gave alot of accusations against Mossadeq, so lets take it piece by piece.
It was the Shah's right to dismiss Mossadeq? Oh you mean the issuing of the firmans? These were decrees that was of very dubious legality since in democratic Iran only the Parliament could hire and fire prime ministers.

No in Iran the Prime Minister was appointed by the Shah and then voted on by the Parliament, but the Shah was still allowed to dismiss him.

Besides, ask yourself. If the the overthrow of Mossadeq was all so legal why was the CIA and MI6 so involved in black propaganda, fomenting riots and paying off military and Parliament members?

Did the overthrow of Mossadeq change the Iranian government? Was the Constitution dissolved? It wasn't a coup it was a counter-coup to cut off Mossadeq before he could become the full Iranian dictator, again Mossadeq dissolved Parliament, granted himself dictatorial powers, and consistently violated the Iranian constitution.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Oh its got a history does it? Well thats it then, launch all missiles and batten down the hatches. Would Iran be the only country with a history? The US has a history of continued expansion until the 20th Century and continued interference in the affairs of relatively democratic nations since its own civil war. Interference in Iran itself is a prime example. Israel has a history of continued expansion through settlement creep and 'building facts' since its foundation. Many other countries also have nasty histories. Perhaps the US and Israel and all these other countries should be struck first?

The US is the country with the shortest history, which might be why these extreme rightists are so bad at understanding history. Anyways, they think the US is the only country in the world, thus they overlook human history and history of other countries, thus easy to support wars.

 

[RightinNYC]

Oh its got a history does it? Well thats it then, launch all missiles and batten down the hatches. Would Iran be the only country with a history? The US has a history of continued expansion until the 20th Century and continued interference in the affairs of relatively democratic nations since its own civil war. Interference in Iran itself is a prime example. Israel has a history of continued expansion through settlement creep and 'building facts' since its foundation. Many other countries also have nasty histories. Perhaps the US and Israel and all these other countries should be struck first?

Fortunately, neither the US or Israel is smuggling arms to terrorist groups that suicide bomb civilians.

 

[RightinNYC]

The US is the country with the shortest history

Actually, the US is the oldest Constitutional Republic in the world.

God, don't they teach history to you Europeans?:lol:

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Actually, the US is the oldest Constitutional Republic in the world.

God, don't they teach history to you Europeans?:lol:

You and your paperwork.. Europeans have only lived in the US for less than 600 years, Europeans have lived in Europe for thousands of years, no wonder we have a more developed society intellectually.

We have seen suckers like the US come and go, but in the end its always Europe who decides.