IraN

Quote:

---

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
The Indian dresses in traditional garb (tied to Islam. Iran tries to keep up the appearance of one faithful to the faith and the ancient culture it came from)

---

Very nice and quite fitting analogues in general, but I think this particular one is biased. Despite the fact the western style suit, shirt and tie is commonly worn all over the world, it's still a traditional European garb, in a certain sense. To be reasonable, for others than the Europeans and Americans (European descendants) it should be a decision to wear something else, when they choose the western style "business suit". So, it's very truthful to say that the Indians wear traditional suit and the Sheriff wears a traditional suit as well. Both according to their own traditions.

I won't quote that huge post but here is my take.

It is actually a very good example. My problem is I don't see what the US gains in being the sheriff (its easier to discern Iran though). Getting nuclear weapons would actually be a good thing for Iran. BUT I personally think that a leader should do what is good for the population and NOT the country. usually, its the same, but not in this case. the worst is, the WWII style nationalism that is reappearing makes people agree with making a country more powerful even if it means, in the long run, destruction.
Problem is like this... when you lift weights and get beefier, someone does something bad to you, the easiest solution is to beat the crap out of that person. regardless of the slight. Only, there is also the situation where you lift weights, think you are strong, try to fight someone and get your ass handed out to you. Or, there is a big guy stronger than you, you know it so you get your friends to beat him up. Or this big guy is so powerful that he pisses off people by simply existing. so you not only get your friends, but people you don't even know to beat him up.
Same can happen with countries (hopefully won't).

I meant more that people are manipulated throughout history and often rich men with great power have usually gained the most out of wars.

@masamuneehs: thanks for the tip[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Here are some examples:

1.) We went to war in Iraq. Now why would we make as much a big deal out of them having plans for nuclear weapons when other countries already have them (i.e. North Korea). There was probably some motavation including money (oil perhaps). I mean why would we choose to fight against Sadam first? Other countries already have nuclear weapons. Theres probably something in it for the heads of the government. And I mean its very easy to manipulate the people of this country. I mean their so naiive (im generalizing, of course not everyone is naiive). All you have to say is that they're badguys and already you have a bunch of southerners supporting the war.

2.) In the Mexican American war rich southern plantation owners wanted to gain land to gain more states and representatives in congress. Therefor they would have more power and would have been more able to support slavery. And only the rich white plantation owners would benefit from this. Even President Polk framed the mexicans to make them look like the badguys to get support for the war.

3.) A funny thing actually . Emperor Constatine used manipulation to end a war. What he did was, to since he was afraid of the rising christians, he joined the Roman religion and Christianity. Poeisedon's trident became the devils fork, *whoops, have to go. I'll continue this later*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by: God#2


3.) A funny thing actually . Emperor Constatine used manipulation to end a war. What he did was, to since he was afraid of the rising christians, he joined the Roman religion and Christianity. Poeisedon's trident became the devils fork, *whoops, have to go. I'll continue this later*

---

You didn't have time to elaborate but... it wasn't to end a war per say, but to prevent it (and keep the empire together). Christianity was an easy religion to follow and could more easily become a pan-imperial religion (which the Roman religion wasn't). A similar thing happened in China when the emperor adopted Buddhism (i think it was during the Jin dynasty, not sure). A state religion is very good for cementing an empire, and is similar in that regard to having a unique language.

Thx Darknodin for clearing that up.Anyway the emperor created a council. Whats funny is that he gave this council the task of making the decision of whether or not Jesus would be seen as divine in the new gospel ( Im getting all this information from the Da Vinci code, which my teacher told me that this information is true). Now that so many people think Jesus was a holy son of god, they worship the bible to the point where they will favor it over science and believe in anyhting the church says. You can find these people many books, in the biblical belt, and many places in Europe. But its not only the christians. The heads of terrorist organizations use god as well to manipulate people to join and cause more death and destruction. My point is that people are easily manipulated and I wouldnt be suprised if many wars were secretly fought for the benefit of a few already rich people.

EDIT: New development that apparently confirms the stories that Iran has rejected the offer from Russia.

Iran fins Russian nuclear comprimise unacceptable

I find the citation, from an unidentified Iranian diplomat to be the most important:
An Iranian diplomat cited by the Vremya Novostei daily said Iran wanted Russia to produce large-scale enriched uranium for the country, but needed a domestic uranium enrichment program to create "the basis for independence in the nuclear sphere." The diplomat also was not identified.

'independence in the nuclear sphere'. As far as I see that includes rejecting monitoring/control regulations by any international body (the UN). If that is the real plan Iran has (and I believe they have just as much right as any other rational nation to develop nuclear capability) then expect this issue to be dragged out for a very long time.

Older:
Over the past two days Iran and Russia have been trying to work out a deal that might be internationally accepted as a comprimise on Iran's development of nuclear capability.

The reports coming out of those meetings are quite confusing and sometimes contradictory.

Let's start with good news first, shall we?
This one is from Xinhua, and I have a hard time believing government endorsed press from China, but because China and Russia have somewhat 'teamed up' on the Iran issue, and because the two nations have pretty good relations, I'm tempted to believe the Chinese might have heard something first that hasn't yet reached others.

Iran reaches rough agreement with Russia

Not so positive news (Washington Post)
Hopes fade of deal with Russia

Nebulous news:
Russia press: Iran Diplomat says talks with EU will build off Russia dialogue
IndiaTimes - Talks to Continue
Brief US Coverage

http://english.people.com.cn/2...ng20060308_248759.html

US weighs in on the Iran issue. Basically the US wants Iran to not pursue ANY nuclear programs... see my metaphor above...

i just think its kind of humorous that the US is telling another country what they can and cannot do on their own land. The administration has a lot of balls to say that

Well, here's the latest on the situation:
The Ayatollah (the Supereme head of state for life and leader of the Iranian Revolution) has weighed in on the issue. Technically, his word is iron law for Iran, so unless he changes his mind this is their final stance on the issue.

This comes after several days of bargaining and tender proposals for comprimise, often headed by Russia.

Iranian Leader in Nuclear Hardline
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, insisted that Tehran's nuclear fuel programme is "irreversible" and any retreat would endanger the country's independence.

Also, the current conservative Prime Minister of Iran gave a defiant speech, asking the people of the world to listen to the voice of Iranians who chanted: "Nuclear energy is our absolute right."
Iranian PM Pledges Resistance

Things are going to get even uglier at this rate... Remember what I said way back when this first started: watch for sabotage if Iran doesn't fall in line with the other nations' demands...

USA has no right to attack Iran in the futur( we all know the USA is going to attack it). Rather than telling Iran what to do, the US should help Iran to build a nuclear plant in a safe way. So like that, we wont have a new "Tchernobyl"(sp?).

Edit:

Iran has joined 'club of nuclear countries': Ahmadinejad
Last Updated Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:48:02 EDT
CBC News

Iran has enriched uranium for the first time, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday about the critical step in developing a nuclear program.

But Ahmadinejad insisted that his country does not aim to develop atomic weapons.

"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he said in a nationally televised speech.

Ahmadinejad said the "laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants."

The United States and some European countries have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. But Tehran has said its nuclear program is only to generate electricity.

Ahmadinejad said Tuesday Iran "relies on the sublime beliefs that lie within the Iranian and Islamic culture. Our nation does not get its strength from nuclear arsenals."

Vice-President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the nuclear chief, said Iran has produced 110 tons of uranium gas. That gas is pumped into centrifuges for enrichment.

Despite the important step, Iran's announcement does not mean it is immediately capable of running a reactor or developing a nuclear weapon.

Iran has so far succeeded only in enriching uranium to a level needed for fuel on a research scale.

The enrichment process can take years to produce a gas rich enough in uranium-235 that it can be used to power a nuclear reactor or produce a bomb.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ear060411.html

Necroposting because this is some fucked up shit...

Active CIA Terror Cells Operate Inside Iran

Iran's Parliament Speaker: US Supporting Terrorist

Canadian coverage of the same

Not surprisingly, there's no US news coverage of this whatsoever. Everybody is still focused on that insignificant British hostage crisis. This is quite expected, since Bush has claimed multiple times that such clandestine operations would be a part of the US goal of "Shaping the Choices of Countries at Strategic Crossroads" (the exact language used in the military's Defense Report, which dictates the overall direction of US military operations for the next 4 years). But to get caught like this...

And yet somehow, its the iranians who're the threat to the world? Depsite all the coverups, all the wars, all the massacares, all the support of terrorist regimes, AND being the only country to have used nuclear weapons in the past, its still everyone else who would be a threat to the world and to freedom itself.

I can't believe the enitre US government hasn't been tried for war crimes. its fucking ridiculous.

Whats really scary is that, if these are the secrets that managed to leak out, think of whats still going on behind closed doors.

Although its always unsettling when you come across stories like this, you shouldn't be surprised that America is involved in terrorist activities. It needs these comparativley small operations to take place so that its wider colonial adventures in the world can occur. These sort of operations have been a vital part of US foreign policy since ages.

You have America as the main criminal, and then you get states like Pakistan who have effectivley been made nothing more than prostitutes by the tyrant rulers who lead them. Its support for rulers like these that breeds hatred for America amongst Muslims in the world.

Its a pity that a population as large as that of America is being brainwashed so easily by the gangsters and thugs who rule it against the Muslim world. Personally I don't think the situation will change in America from any internal forces, but rather an external influence is needed.

It's stuff like this that made me give up on a belief in absolute 'Justice' and things like that. It's much easier and realistic to just throw in behind a side and hope that they prevail over everyone else. That's what I see with this kind of thing. Conventional wisdom would call it hypocrisy to publicly bemoan the use of terrorist tactics to change people's ways, while supporting the use of those same tactics to change the ways of others.

The way I see it, the meaning of the word terrorism requires at least two parties, the actors and the target. And the word terrorism can only be applied by the target to the acts taken by the actors, any other use just doesn't make sense. If you grabbed a bunch of these CIA operatives they would never believe they were sponsoring terrorism, because by (my) definition no one can actually willfully commit acts of terrorism, they just commit acts against a target, and the target may deem those acts terrorism. When I applied this to the American 'War on Terror' it became the 'War on Terror (against America and her allies)'. This fit very well with what seems to be the goal...to stop any actions that might be taken that might be labeled as terrorism by the people of America. In the same way it is reasonable that Iran sees the CIA funding and aiding enemies of the Iranian government (which has been going on as far back as WWII) as supporting terrorism. But my definition, which probably isn't that far from the current administrations definition, that doesn't mean the American government is hypocritical for taking these actions, since, to America, nothing done by America can be considered 'terrorism (against America)'.

Now, this strategy can only be made to fit with the public if people could be made to stop believing in things like absolute right and wrong. If you think that there are some things that are simply wrong no matter the circumstances and you put 'terrorism' in that category then you have to be angry at pretty much anything but talk, because, from an 'absolute' perspective, taking action against a country to get that country to do what its government doesn't want is just terrorism.

Obviously this will never happen and plenty of people will disagree, which is why I think we should either pack up and go home staying out of everyone's business no matter what (including any and all genocidal despots), or just scorch the Earth until everyone that disagrees with us is dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Assassin

I can't believe the enitre US government hasn't been tried for war crimes. its fucking ridiculous.

---

There's an international court for war crimes. Unsurprisingly, the US isn't accepting of an independent body having authority to put them on trial.

Oh yea, i read all about that..It's a joke though, since the US is so pompus, they just shrug it off...i dont think the word "accountablity" exists in the lexicon of the rulers of this fair nation.