|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 16, 2013 14:55:39 GMT
To assert that Iran has "never advocated" the destruction of Israel, but merely the destruction of "the 'Zionist State,'" seems disingenuous in the extreme. According to your own words, too many Palestinians (at least, those in a position of power) have no real interest in a two-state solution; instead, they would prefer a "one-state solution" in which the Jews would be subsumed, thereby (effectively) destroying the Jewish state...
In fact the statement that it was "Zionism" as opposed to "Israel" that was being addressed is based upon what former Iranian President Ahmadinejad stated repeatedly but was changed to "Israel" by the "intepretors" for the Western press sources. We can also note that he stated that all of those living in "Palestine" which include Israel, the occupied territories, and Gaza be allowed to vote on a one-state or two state solution. This was never done in 1948 and the "Palestinian People" (Arabs, Jews and Christians) were denied the Right of Self-Determination by the unilateral creation of Israel by Zionist Jews.
As for the eventual end of the Jewish State of Israel that is already a foregone conclusion based upon the demographic projections for Israel. By 2048 the majority of Israeli citizens will be Arabs, not Jews, and based upon the power of the vote the Jewish State of Israel is going to be abolished. The Zionists of Israel can only prevent this by an ethnic purge and possible holocaust similar to Nazi Germany before they lose control based upon democracy as they will eventually lose at the polls otherwise. The writing is already on the wall and the Zionists in Israel are well aware of it.
The question is what, if anything, are they going to do about it. I don't think the world will stand for another ethnic purge and holocaust similar to the Nazis purge in Germany.
Your fervid determinism--the end of the Jewish state is "a foregone conclusion," absent "another ethnic purge," according to your own words--speaks volumes about your position. As for your "demographic projections," one is reminded of similar conclusions, as regarding the US in 2050 or 2060, that are passed off as pure fact, as though the "trends" that lead to these conclusions are set in concrete... |
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Dec 17, 2013 4:11:45 GMT
(1) What happened in the eighteenth century, as regarding Iran--or even in the 1980s--is hardly the point here. Rather, Iran's continually stated desire to destroy Israel (as well as its finger-in-the-eye actions toward the US--never mind its incendiary rhetoric) define this country, in its present incarnation, as an aggressor state. (2) To define a community as any group of people having "humanity" in common--which strikes me as enormously tautological--is to characterize it in a way so broad as to make everyone a part of the same "community."
Given the actions of the USA (and the UK,) Iranian attitudes to us (and in particualr the US) are hardly surprising. We overthrew their elected government and installed one of the world's most brutal dictators in its stead (have you ever heard of Savak, formed under the guidance of the CIA) - did you think they were going to erect statues in our honour?
If you think there is tautology involved in the phrase 'human community', then I fear you do not understand the word. (You do know that one can have an otter community, as well as an ant community, do you not?) Perhaps it is this lack of familiarity with the English language which leads you to describe the concept of a world community as fictitious. You may possibly care to consider these words from John Donne - "No man is an island, entire of itself." We are all, to put it in Donne's words "...involved in mankind." And there certainly is a common human experience and condition.
|
|
|
|
Post by italianec on Dec 17, 2013 12:27:45 GMT
1. Presidents of perverts and their assistants.
2. Story epic, about kings barabasovyh.
Read more on:http://m1-maverik.livejournal.com/
If that write on maverik@tut.by, or Skype maverik2478.
And then I often block and can write on my behalf.
So the interest.
With respect Volodya Italianec
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 17, 2013 15:09:29 GMT
(1) What happened in the eighteenth century, as regarding Iran--or even in the 1980s--is hardly the point here. Rather, Iran's continually stated desire to destroy Israel (as well as its finger-in-the-eye actions toward the US--never mind its incendiary rhetoric) define this country, in its present incarnation, as an aggressor state. (2) To define a community as any group of people having "humanity" in common--which strikes me as enormously tautological--is to characterize it in a way so broad as to make everyone a part of the same "community."
Given the actions of the USA (and the UK,) Iranian attitudes to us (and in particualr the US) are hardly surprising. We overthrew their elected government and installed one of the world's most brutal dictators in its stead (have you ever heard of Savak, formed under the guidance of the CIA) - did you think they were going to erect statues in our honour?
If you think there is tautology involved in the phrase 'human community', then I fear you do not understand the word. (You do know that one can have an otter community, as well as an ant community, do you not?) Perhaps it is this lack of familiarity with the English language which leads you to describe the concept of a world community as fictitious. You may possibly care to consider these words from John Donne - "No man is an island, entire of itself." We are all, to put it in Donne's words "...involved in mankind." And there certainly is a common human experience and condition.
(1) Iran's rhetoric, post-Khomeinist Revolution, certainly marks it as an aggressor state. (Its prior record--dating back to the time that it was known as "Persia"--is quite irrelevant.) (2) It is my understanding that the Iranian people do not loathe the US; it is only the mullocracy in Tehran that does. So your words about "Iranian attitudes" toward the US appear to be misplaced. (3) What I said, more precisely, was this: "To define a community as any group of people having 'humanity' in common--which strikes me as enormously tautological--is to characterize it in a way so broad as to make everyone a part of the same 'community.'" I will reiterate that point: To assert that any group of humans that has humanity in common constitutes a "community," is tautological. (4) Whereas it is certainly true that "[n]o man is an island unto himself," I would certainly not extend that to a belief in some sort of (very!) broad communitarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 18, 2013 17:19:18 GMT
(1) Iran's rhetoric, post-Khomeinist Revolution, certainly marks it as an aggressor state. (Its prior record--dating back to the time that it was known as "Persia"--is quite irrelevant.) (2) It is my understanding that the Iranian people do not loathe the US; it is only the mullocracy in Tehran that does. So your words about "Iranian attitudes" toward the US appear to be misplaced. (3) What I said, more precisely, was this: "To define a community as any group of people having 'humanity' in common--which strikes me as enormously tautological--is to characterize it in a way so broad as to make everyone a part of the same 'community.'" I will reiterate that point: To assert that any group of humans that has humanity in common constitutes a "community," is tautological. (4) Whereas it is certainly true that "[n]o man is an island unto himself," I would certainly not extend that to a belief in some sort of (very!) broad communitarianism.
Dispite the so-called "political rhetoric" Iran has remained a non-aggerssor nation and it was the United States that supported the aggressing nation (Iraq) during the Iran-Iraq War. It is estimated that about 2.5 million people, mostly innocent civilians, died because of the war of aggression by Iraq against Iran that the US supported.
I have yet to find any indication that Iran has EVER proposed the invasion of one country by another country and certainly Iran has not been accused of doing this by anyone. It certainly hasn't made any statements related to attacking (or invading) except in self-defense in the event that Israel were to attack it.
2) It is true that for the most part the average Iranian does not loath the United States but it is false to believe that the "mullocracy in Tehran" loaths the United States. There has never been any indication of that. What the "mullocracy in Tehran" loaths is the hypocrisy of US foreign policy which is very evident to everyone with the possible exception of Americans that refuse to address it. The United States has acted as a shield for Israel preventing Israel from virtually ever being held accountable by the UN Security Council.
For example the US leads the efforts to prevent Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons while completely ignoring the fact that Israel already has nuclear weapons and is the only Middle East nation currently representing a nuclear weapon threat to the other nations in the Middle East. The US may trust Israel to not use nuclear weapons but not a single nation in the Middle East supports that belief. Israel is a nuclear weapon threat to every single nation in the Middle East and the US blocks any efforts to disarm Israel of it's nuclear weapons.
3) Repeating the same fact over and over again does qualify as being "tautological" but it doesn't change the fact. If people were not opposed to the "facts" then the same statement would require endless repetition. We live in a "World Community" and that is a fact of life and our actions as a nation are judged by the other nations and people of the world. That's a simple fact that really should be so self-evident as to not require repeating.
4) We are a sovereign nation but that does not imply, nor has it ever implied, that we're not a part of the world community as well. While what we do within our borders is fundamentally "our business" what we do outside of our borders is the "world's business" and that fact cannot be disputed. Every CIA operation, every US military act of foreign interventionism, and every action the US takes as a member of the UN and related to our treaties with other nations is rightfully subjected to scrutiny by the other nations and people of the world.
Remember, for example, that when former President Bush denied the protections of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions for those captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq he was violating a treaty that the US has with all signatory nations of the Geneva Conventions and that is subject to world scrutiny. When President Obama authorizes the extra-judicial execution of a person in foreign nation he's not only violating US law but also International Law that prohibits international assassinations.
The really sad fact is that Americans should be the ones providing the most critical scrutiny of the actions of the US government, far more critical than any "foreigner" might consider, but we're not doing that. We "ignore" the hypocrisy in our foreign policy. We don't hold our political leaders to complaince with International Laws and Treaties and don't even hold them accountable to US law and the US Constitution. Some complain about the scrutiny of "foreigners" while forgetting that we're the one's that really aren't being critical enough of the actions of our own government. If we were then the actions of our government would be above reproach by any foreigners.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 19, 2013 15:15:56 GMT
(1) Iran's rhetoric, post-Khomeinist Revolution, certainly marks it as an aggressor state. (Its prior record--dating back to the time that it was known as "Persia"--is quite irrelevant.) (2) It is my understanding that the Iranian people do not loathe the US; it is only the mullocracy in Tehran that does. So your words about "Iranian attitudes" toward the US appear to be misplaced. (3) What I said, more precisely, was this: "To define a community as any group of people having 'humanity' in common--which strikes me as enormously tautological--is to characterize it in a way so broad as to make everyone a part of the same 'community.'" I will reiterate that point: To assert that any group of humans that has humanity in common constitutes a "community," is tautological. (4) Whereas it is certainly true that "[n]o man is an island unto himself," I would certainly not extend that to a belief in some sort of (very!) broad communitarianism.
Dispite the so-called "political rhetoric" Iran has remained a non-aggerssor nation and it was the United States that supported the aggressing nation (Iraq) during the Iran-Iraq War. It is estimated that about 2.5 million people, mostly innocent civilians, died because of the war of aggression by Iraq against Iran that the US supported.
I have yet to find any indication that Iran has EVER proposed the invasion of one country by another country and certainly Iran has not been accused of doing this by anyone. It certainly hasn't made any statements related to attacking (or invading) except in self-defense in the event that Israel were to attack it.
2) It is true that for the most part the average Iranian does not loath the United States but it is false to believe that the "mullocracy in Tehran" loaths the United States. There has never been any indication of that. What the "mullocracy in Tehran" loaths is the hypocrisy of US foreign policy which is very evident to everyone with the possible exception of Americans that refuse to address it. The United States has acted as a shield for Israel preventing Israel from virtually ever being held accountable by the UN Security Council.
For example the US leads the efforts to prevent Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons while completely ignoring the fact that Israel already has nuclear weapons and is the only Middle East nation currently representing a nuclear weapon threat to the other nations in the Middle East. The US may trust Israel to not use nuclear weapons but not a single nation in the Middle East supports that belief. Israel is a nuclear weapon threat to every single nation in the Middle East and the US blocks any efforts to disarm Israel of it's nuclear weapons.
3) Repeating the same fact over and over again does qualify as being "tautological" but it doesn't change the fact. If people were not opposed to the "facts" then the same statement would require endless repetition. We live in a "World Community" and that is a fact of life and our actions as a nation are judged by the other nations and people of the world. That's a simple fact that really should be so self-evident as to not require repeating.
4) We are a sovereign nation but that does not imply, nor has it ever implied, that we're not a part of the world community as well. While what we do within our borders is fundamentally "our business" what we do outside of our borders is the "world's business" and that fact cannot be disputed. Every CIA operation, every US military act of foreign interventionism, and every action the US takes as a member of the UN and related to our treaties with other nations is rightfully subjected to scrutiny by the other nations and people of the world.
Remember, for example, that when former President Bush denied the protections of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions for those captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq he was violating a treaty that the US has with all signatory nations of the Geneva Conventions and that is subject to world scrutiny. When President Obama authorizes the extra-judicial execution of a person in foreign nation he's not only violating US law but also International Law that prohibits international assassinations.
The really sad fact is that Americans should be the ones providing the most critical scrutiny of the actions of the US government, far more critical than any "foreigner" might consider, but we're not doing that. We "ignore" the hypocrisy in our foreign policy. We don't hold our political leaders to complaince with International Laws and Treaties and don't even hold them accountable to US law and the US Constitution. Some complain about the scrutiny of "foreigners" while forgetting that we're the one's that really aren't being critical enough of the actions of our own government. If we were then the actions of our government would be above reproach by any foreigners.
(4) Your condemnation of the US for "block[ing] every effort" seize Israel's nuclear weapons does not appear to be balanced by a similar condemnation of Russia or China for acting as Iran's protector.
(5) Your insistence that the US is a part of some (entirely fictitious) "world community" is a point on which we are evidently destined to disagree. So there is probably no point in our pursuing this any further.
(6) Your appeal to "International Law" also suggests a major problem. I would just note that no law may command respect--or even be viewed as valid--absent a law enforcer. And since there is no international body that mught act as this enforcement mechanism (thankfully!), the entire concept of "International Law" is invalid, as far as I am concerned.
What the US does--and not just "within [its] borders," either--should not be subject to a permission slip issued by "The World Community."
(1) There appears to be an implication in your words--and please correct me if I am mistaken--that the "tyrranical rule" of the Shah was worse than the theocratic authoritarianism of the current mullocracy in Tehran. Is this seriously what you believe? (2) If ever there was an instance of my wishing, fervently, that both sides could (somehow) lose, it was the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. Whereas it may have been a mistake to treat Iraq as The Good Guys, it would have been equally wrong to suppose that Iran represented The Good Guys. (3) To assert that Iran has not "EVER" (caps in original) suggested that it might invade another country is to refuse to read between the lines--even just a little--as regarding its rhetoric concerning Israel. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 20, 2013 10:38:19 GMT
It is a straw horse argument when addressing "relative tyranny" between successive regimes. Was Mohammad Reza a tyrant? Absolutely. Is the current theorcracy in Iran also tyrannical? Absolutely. The problem is that the United States supported the tyranny under the Shah of Iran and the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a revolt of the Iranian People against tyranny that was justifiable. Rarely does a revolution against tyranny not result in a new form of tyranny replacing the previous tyranny. That is not the issue as instead the issue is the US support for tyranny.
I would agree with the proposition that the US should not have backed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and would also support the proposition that the US should not have supported Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, both tyrannical nations, in the Gulf War. The invasion by Iraq of Kuwait was a "War Between Tyrannical Nations" virtually identical to the Iran-Iraq War and the US should not be supporting tyrannical governments.
When it comes to so-called threats by Iran of attacking Isreal the phrase "reading between the lines" can be translated into "I'm making this up" as it is based solely upon opinion that is unsupported by actual statements. Add to the problem is the consistant mis-translation by the US news media of the statements where "Israel" replaces "Zionist" in statements made about the tyrannical regime in Israel today and it grossly misrepresents what has been said. Based upon the actual statements made about Israel, predominately by former Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the Iranian position has called for a democratic solution to the problem of "Palestine" be it a one-state or two-state solution. Iran has not advocated war as a means of resolving the conflict. The Iranian position has always been "Let the Palestinians that includes the Jews, Arabs and others living in the All of Palestine decide their own fate based upon democracy."
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 20, 2013 14:54:12 GMT
It is a straw horse argument when addressing "relative tyranny" between successive regimes. Was Mohammad Reza a tyrant? Absolutely. Is the current theorcracy in Iran also tyrannical? Absolutely. The problem is that the United States supported the tyranny under the Shah of Iran and the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a revolt of the Iranian People against tyranny that was justifiable. Rarely does a revolution against tyranny not result in a new form of tyranny replacing the previous tyranny. That is not the issue as instead the issue is the US support for tyranny.
I would agree with the proposition that the US should not have backed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and would also support the proposition that the US should not have supported Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, both tyrannical nations, in the Gulf War. The invasion by Iraq of Kuwait was a "War Between Tyrannical Nations" virtually identical to the Iran-Iraq War and the US should not be supporting tyrannical governments.
When it comes to so-called threats by Iran of attacking Isreal the phrase "reading between the lines" can be translated into "I'm making this up" as it is based solely upon opinion that is unsupported by actual statements. Add to the problem is the consistant mis-translation by the US news media of the statements where "Israel" replaces "Zionist" in statements made about the tyrannical regime in Israel today and it grossly misrepresents what has been said. Based upon the actual statements made about Israel, predominately by former Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the Iranian position has called for a democratic solution to the problem of "Palestine" be it a one-state or two-state solution. Iran has not advocated war as a means of resolving the conflict. The Iranian position has always been "Let the Palestinians that includes the Jews, Arabs and others living in the All of Palestine decide their own fate based upon democracy."
(1) Actually, some tyrants are worse than others. When the US sided with Stalin against Hitler almost three-quarters of a century ago, this may have provided an example of this. (2) Kuwait was invaded by Iraq; and for no good reason, but merely for Saddam Hussein's lust to acquire more territory (just as Hitler had a similar lust in 1939). So I believe the US was quite justified in its response. (3) Your complaint as concerning the "constant mis-translation" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words begs the question: Are you expert in the Farsi language; so much so, in fact, as to be able to speak with authority when you claim that numerous translators are "constant[ly]" translating the former Iraqi president's words wrongly? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 20, 2013 16:43:26 GMT
(1) Actually, some tyrants are worse than others. When the US sided with Stalin against Hitler almost three-quarters of a century ago, this may have provided an example of this. (2) Kuwait was invaded by Iraq; and for no good reason, but merely for Saddam Hussein's lust to acquire more territory (just as Hitler had a similar lust in 1939). So I believe the US was quite justified in its response. (3) Your complaint as concerning the "constant mis-translation" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words begs the question: Are you expert in the Farsi language; so much so, in fact, as to be able to speak with authority when you claim that numerous translators are "constant[ly]" translating the former Iraqi president's words wrongly? (1) The US did not go to the aid of the USSR in it's war against Germany in WW II. The US went to war against Germany because Germany declared war on the United States. The US did support the military opperations of the USSR against Germany as the US and Britian were incapable of defeating Germany while the USSR was able to accomplish that with or without the assistance of the United States although US assistance unquestionably helped the USSR. The USSR defeated Nazi Germany and not the US and Britian that were merely involved in a diversonary attack in Western Europe to draw of German forces from the Eastern Front. All of the major battles of WW II against Germany were actually on the Eastern Front with the USSR. In any case the United States should not be tyrannical nor should it support tyranny by any government. It certainly did support tyranny by the Shah of Iran and of that there is no historical dispute. (2) Iraq invaded Kuwait over claims of slant drilling by Kuwait into the Iraqi oil reserves. Iraq actually notified the US of it's impending invasion prior to invading Kuwait and, when the US did not object, then proceeded with the invasion. The US could have simply stopped the invasion by objecting when Iraq addressed the issue before actually invading. Personally I don't believe in going to war over oil but others do and certianly Iraq believed it had just cause for invading Kuwait. It isn't like Iraq didn't have a "reason" but instead is whether that reason was justifiable. Some would say yes and others would say no but a "reason" did exist. (3) I'm not an expert on Farsi but those that are have repeatedly pointed out the mis-translation and even the US news media has pointed it out on occasion that the literal translation is "Zionism" as opposed to "Israel" in different articles. Anecdotally I also have Iranian friends here in the US that have mentioned the mis-translation by the US news media and they do speak Farsi but obviously that cannot be documented. This still doesn't dispute that even with the mis-translation the primary proposals by Iran related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have all been based upon a democratic vote of the People that should have occurred in 1948 but did not occur. To oppose the Iranian proposal for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is basically to oppose a democratic solution to the problem because that is what Iran has been proposing for many years. That has not been "lost in translation" as the US news media has repeatedly reported on that proposal. It's even noted in Wikipedia (with citations). Of course the US is complicit in perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as United States has consistantly blocked any UN Security Council resolution to enforce UNSC 242 with it's permanent member veto authority in the Security Council. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 21, 2013 15:33:58 GMT
(1) Actually, some tyrants are worse than others. When the US sided with Stalin against Hitler almost three-quarters of a century ago, this may have provided an example of this. (2) Kuwait was invaded by Iraq; and for no good reason, but merely for Saddam Hussein's lust to acquire more territory (just as Hitler had a similar lust in 1939). So I believe the US was quite justified in its response. (3) Your complaint as concerning the "constant mis-translation" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words begs the question: Are you expert in the Farsi language; so much so, in fact, as to be able to speak with authority when you claim that numerous translators are "constant[ly]" translating the former Iraqi president's words wrongly? (1) The US did not go to the aid of the USSR in it's war against Germany in WW II. The US went to war against Germany because Germany declared war on the United States. The US did support the military opperations of the USSR against Germany as the US and Britian were incapable of defeating Germany while the USSR was able to accomplish that with or without the assistance of the United States although US assistance unquestionably helped the USSR. The USSR defeated Nazi Germany and not the US and Britian that were merely involved in a diversonary attack in Western Europe to draw of German forces from the Eastern Front. All of the major battles of WW II against Germany were actually on the Eastern Front with the USSR. In any case the United States should not be tyrannical nor should it support tyranny by any government. It certainly did support tyranny by the Shah of Iran and of that there is no historical dispute. (2) Iraq invaded Kuwait over claims of slant drilling by Kuwait into the Iraqi oil reserves. Iraq actually notified the US of it's impending invasion prior to invading Kuwait and, when the US did not object, then proceeded with the invasion. The US could have simply stopped the invasion by objecting when Iraq addressed the issue before actually invading. Personally I don't believe in going to war over oil but others do and certianly Iraq believed it had just cause for invading Kuwait. It isn't like Iraq didn't have a "reason" but instead is whether that reason was justifiable. Some would say yes and others would say no but a "reason" did exist. (3) I'm not an expert on Farsi but those that are have repeatedly pointed out the mis-translation and even the US news media has pointed it out on occasion that the literal translation is "Zionism" as opposed to "Israel" in different articles. Anecdotally I also have Iranian friends here in the US that have mentioned the mis-translation by the US news media and they do speak Farsi but obviously that cannot be documented. This still doesn't dispute that even with the mis-translation the primary proposals by Iran related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have all been based upon a democratic vote of the People that should have occurred in 1948 but did not occur. To oppose the Iranian proposal for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is basically to oppose a democratic solution to the problem because that is what Iran has been proposing for many years. That has not been "lost in translation" as the US news media has repeatedly reported on that proposal. It's even noted in Wikipedia (with citations). Of course the US is complicit in perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as United States has consistantly blocked any UN Security Council resolution to enforce UNSC 242 with it's permanent member veto authority in the Security Council. (1) The specific reason why the US went to war against Germany in WWI is irrelevant. The fact is that we sided with one tyrant against another tyrant. (2) To observe that Iraq had a "reason" to invade Kuwait--it is just that "some" would consider it a bit less than "justifiable"--seems cynical in the extreme. One might as well note that Hitler had a "reason" for attempting to exterminate the Jews (and Gypsies, and others), but that it is merely a subjective opinion as to whether these actions were "justifiable." (3) You continue to fall back upon the false distinction between Israel and what its most belicose adversaries term "the Zionist State." Simply put, Israel is a Jewish state; and I would thoroughly oppose any proposal to transmute it into something different--either now or ever. (4) Your stated fealty to "a democratic solution" confuses democracy with undiluted majoritarianism--something that our Founders never did. (For the record, I am in favor of democracy--as in a constitutional republic--but foursquare opposed to pure majoritarianism.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 23, 2013 13:03:19 GMT
1) The reason for going to war is most certainly relevant but I will also acknowledge that assisting the USSR was assisting a tyrannical nation and that should be generally opposed. We don't know what would have happened had the US gone to war against Germany and not assisted the USSR. Would more Americans have died? Would the USSR become a world power with vast political reach? The outcome would most certainly have been quite different.
The fact remains though that the US went to war against Germany in "self-defense" after Germany declared war against us. We did not go to war against Germany in defense of the USSR or even the UK in 1941.
2) There are always rationalizations for going to war but we can note that there is only one legitimate reason and that is self-defense when another nation attacks or invades a country. All other so-called "reasons" whether it was Germany invading Poland in 1939, Iraq invading Kuwait in 1991 or Israel invading Egypt in 1967 are "rationalizations" that are unjustifiable.
3) Any nation founded upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, social status, gender, or other invidious criteria that divides the people of the nation into "groups" is inherently tyrannical. Those that are a part of the "selected" group in power will always oppress those not in the selected group. This is true regardless of whether this is "officially" a foundation of government (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, etc.) or a case of de facto division of power (e.g. the US where WASP males have held power since the founding of the nation and every "group" other than WASP males have historically been oppressed in America).
The "Zionist" have always oppressed the non-Jewish people of Palestine from the first day the European Jews began to immigrat toe Palestine and continue to do so as the Nation of Israel that is founded upon the "race, religion, ethnic heritage" of the Jewish People and Israel is inherently tyrannical just like Iran is inherently tyrannical.
The invidious division of a nation always results in tyranny, period.
4) I actually laugh at those that believe "democracy" is always the solution as we know that pure "democracy" always results in the oppression of the minority by the majority by government unless safeguards of the Rights of the People take precedent over the powers of government. We have a Republic in the United States as opposed to a pure democracy and even here there is still historic oppression of minorities under the laws of the land because "people" will vote for tyranny so long at it doesn't target them personally.
There are times though when the "vote of the People" is of extreme importance and this predominately relates to the sovereignty of the People. Vietnam should have been reunited in the 1950's based upon the proposed vote when the French rule was overthrown by the Vietmanese People. The vote was a part of the French withdrawal and yet for nefarious political reasons (backed by the US) the vote did not take place and the Vietnamese People were divided and the Vietnam War was the result. In the end Vietnam was united because of the military power of N Vietnam that was able to overcome the power of the United States (the same military power that had defeated the French).
In Palestine when the British decided to end their authority as the "Mandatory" in 1948 the People of Palestine (Arabs, Jews, and others living there) should have been allowed to vote on UNGA Resolution 181 to determine the future of "their" nation. Their sovereignty (i.e. all of the People of Palestine) was violated when they were denied that Right to Vote.
Of course the UK was perhaps the worst possible nation to select as the "Mandatory" over Palestine and Transjordan at the end of WW I. The UK was a "colonial" power that was completely inept at being able to establish a foundation for government in either Transjordan or Palestine based upon the principle of "modern government" that was their assigned responsibility under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. That is, of course, a different story that would require much discussion in it's own respect.
*********************
Back to the point. Israel has nuclear weapons and is considered to be more of a nuclear threat to the nations of the Middle East than Iran that doesn't have nuclear weapons. The other Middle East nations don't want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons but of even more concern to them is the dismantling of Israel's nuclear weapons. That's why all of the nations in the Middle East support the Middle East WMD Free-Zone treaty Except Israel!
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 23, 2013 15:13:04 GMT
1) The reason for going to war is most certainly relevant but I will also acknowledge that assisting the USSR was assisting a tyrannical nation and that should be generally opposed. We don't know what would have happened had the US gone to war against Germany and not assisted the USSR. Would more Americans have died? Would the USSR become a world power with vast political reach? The outcome would most certainly have been quite different.
The fact remains though that the US went to war against Germany in "self-defense" after Germany declared war against us. We did not go to war against Germany in defense of the USSR or even the UK in 1941.
2) There are always rationalizations for going to war but we can note that there is only one legitimate reason and that is self-defense when another nation attacks or invades a country. All other so-called "reasons" whether it was Germany invading Poland in 1939, Iraq invading Kuwait in 1991 or Israel invading Egypt in 1967 are "rationalizations" that are unjustifiable.
3) Any nation founded upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, social status, gender, or other invidious criteria that divides the people of the nation into "groups" is inherently tyrannical. Those that are a part of the "selected" group in power will always oppress those not in the selected group. This is true regardless of whether this is "officially" a foundation of government (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, etc.) or a case of de facto division of power (e.g. the US where WASP males have held power since the founding of the nation and every "group" other than WASP males have historically been oppressed in America).
The "Zionist" have always oppressed the non-Jewish people of Palestine from the first day the European Jews began to immigrat toe Palestine and continue to do so as the Nation of Israel that is founded upon the "race, religion, ethnic heritage" of the Jewish People and Israel is inherently tyrannical just like Iran is inherently tyrannical.
The invidious division of a nation always results in tyranny, period.
4) I actually laugh at those that believe "democracy" is always the solution as we know that pure "democracy" always results in the oppression of the minority by the majority by government unless safeguards of the Rights of the People take precedent over the powers of government. We have a Republic in the United States as opposed to a pure democracy and even here there is still historic oppression of minorities under the laws of the land because "people" will vote for tyranny so long at it doesn't target them personally.
There are times though when the "vote of the People" is of extreme importance and this predominately relates to the sovereignty of the People. Vietnam should have been reunited in the 1950's based upon the proposed vote when the French rule was overthrown by the Vietmanese People. The vote was a part of the French withdrawal and yet for nefarious political reasons (backed by the US) the vote did not take place and the Vietnamese People were divided and the Vietnam War was the result. In the end Vietnam was united because of the military power of N Vietnam that was able to overcome the power of the United States (the same military power that had defeated the French).
In Palestine when the British decided to end their authority as the "Mandatory" in 1948 the People of Palestine (Arabs, Jews, and others living there) should have been allowed to vote on UNGA Resolution 181 to determine the future of "their" nation. Their sovereignty (i.e. all of the People of Palestine) was violated when they were denied that Right to Vote.
Of course the UK was perhaps the worst possible nation to select as the "Mandatory" over Palestine and Transjordan at the end of WW I. The UK was a "colonial" power that was completely inept at being able to establish a foundation for government in either Transjordan or Palestine based upon the principle of "modern government" that was their assigned responsibility under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. That is, of course, a different story that would require much discussion in it's own respect.
*********************
Back to the point. Israel has nuclear weapons and is considered to be more of a nuclear threat to the nations of the Middle East than Iran that doesn't have nuclear weapons. The other Middle East nations don't want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons but of even more concern to them is the dismantling of Israel's nuclear weapons. That's why all of the nations in the Middle East support the Middle East WMD Free-Zone treaty Except Israel!
(1) I agree that it is hard to say just what, precisely, would have have been the upshot if the US had not entered WWII against Germany--it is a bit like one's speculating as to what would have happened if the Confederacy had (somehow) prevailed in the American Civil War--but I believe it was right for the US to oppose the Nazis, regardless of whether the motives for our doing so were entirely pure. (2) Although I agree with your (apparent) point that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was ultimately unjustified in invading Kuwait, I do not agree that the only justification for going to war is "self-defense when another nation attacks or invades a country." If country X assaults country Y's vital self-interests--for instance, if Iran were to suddenly close the Strait of Hormuz, thereby threatening the West's ability to maintain functioning economies-- that would amount to a legitimate reason fot going to war, in my opinion. (3) Your view that " ny nation founded upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, social status, gender [huh? how might a single-gender society last for more one generation, anyway?]...is inherently tyrranical" is one that simply ignores the historical context of the founding of Israel. The Jewish people have been hunted down for millenia, following the Diaspora--the Holocaust being the ultimate example of this desire of some to annihilate the Jewish people--so it should be understandable enough that many (including those of us who are non-Jews) would want to make it very difficult for history to repeat itself in this regard.
(4) We agree, apparently, that "pure" (plebiscitary) democracy is not ideal. As the old saying goes, it essentially amounts to two foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner.
(5) To declare that North Vienam "was able to overcome the military power of the United States" seems a bit disingenuous, to say the least. The US fought the Vietnam War halfheartedly--"with one habd tied behind its back," as it has often been expressed--and did not lose, therefore, to a superior military force, but to a lack of political will. (6) I believe the reason that so many Middle Eastern countries desire the "dismantling of Israel's nuclear weapons" is clear enough: Arab-majority states (which most others are--Iran's being an exception) are not especially congenial to a Jewish-majority state. Note: I do not know why the color of the type changed at one point--it was entirely unintentional; and I have tried to change it to black, but without success--so please disregard this little glitch. The change in color is not intended to signify anything; it is merely an accident. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 25, 2013 0:04:12 GMT
(2) It is my understanding that the Iranian people do not loathe the US; it is only the mullocracy in Tehran that does. So your words about "Iranian attitudes" toward the US appear to be misplaced. If he means, the Iranian government, he's correct; anything else would be wrong. However, the greater realisation is, the Iranian people, the ones who would most suffer from a war, are innocent bystanders and would become the victims of any possible war. We've seen what American stupidity did to Iraq, let's try to avoid a repeat. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 25, 2013 15:10:49 GMT
(2) It is my understanding that the Iranian people do not loathe the US; it is only the mullocracy in Tehran that does. So your words about "Iranian attitudes" toward the US appear to be misplaced. If he means, the Iranian government, he's correct; anything else would be wrong. However, the greater realisation is, the Iranian people, the ones who would most suffer from a war, are innocent bystanders and would become the victims of any possible war. We've seen what American stupidity did to Iraq, let's try to avoid a repeat. Even if one believes that Saddam Hussein was innocent of having WMDs--and I continue to believe that it is quite possible that he simply spirited these weapons across the border (perhaps to Syria) prior to the outbreak of hostilities--this begs the question: For how much longer will some continue to use the Iraq War as a justification for the belief that American intelligence is always wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 25, 2013 22:41:28 GMT
If he means, the Iranian government, he's correct; anything else would be wrong. However, the greater realisation is, the Iranian people, the ones who would most suffer from a war, are innocent bystanders and would become the victims of any possible war. We've seen what American stupidity did to Iraq, let's try to avoid a repeat. Even if one believes that Saddam Hussein was innocent of having WMDs--and I continue to believe that it is quite possible that he simply spirited these weapons across the border (perhaps to Syria) prior to the outbreak of hostilities--this begs the question: For how much longer will some continue to use the Iraq War as a justification for the belief that American intelligence is always wrong? Saddam's WMD were taken to Syria on snowy Christmas eve. A special airbourne convoy was arranged and, so as to keep it away from America's massive local intel, they used stealth reindeer, Rudolf guiding the way using infra red navigational technology mounted in his nose. Perhaps, considering how much surveillance there was, America missed that little trick. That magical journey apart, please tell me how the invasion of Iraq has improved the situation in that country, made the world safer and how a similar invasion of Iran would be any better or any less of a total mess. |
|
