• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

The current state of Iran is a product of western societies sanctioning bad behavior by not holding current governments accountable for there human rights abuses as long as they give us what we want . The routes of fundamentalist Islam has its routes in Iran in particular in the 1950s with the abusive regime  of the Shah . Compound this further with foreign support of Israel and the backing of abusive regimes in Saudi Arabia , its no wonder that Arabs view the west with suspicion and  contempt . Oh and lets not forget about the crusades , the west has brought its own brand of poison  to the middle east  too often .
    Iran wants nuclear power and the bomb as a defence against the other state in the middle east that has an advanced nuclear program with several weapons , Israel . Call it keeping up with the Jones , or in this case the Goldbergs , misguided foreign policy by several nations without  thought  for the ramifications has created this situation . How can it be resolved ? , a war would not solve anything , just create future pretexts for future conflicts . This Iraq fiasco has shown that countries can be defeated but not conquered ,  a war with Iran would be devastating for both sides and in the end would not offer a more secure environment . Sure you just throw a couple nukes in there done deal , for today but in 10 , 20 years this will come back to haunt the west .
    Pre emptiveness will solve nothing  , misguided  policies by chicken-hawks [ people who would not fight when they were asked , but are willing to commit others to the fray ,i.e.; Bush ,Cheney ] . Iran needs to be dealt with but not by military intervention , if they want nuclear power  , so be it  . Thorium based nuclear reactors offer the capability to generate electricity but do not generate U 235 or weapons grade plutonium . Dealing with Israel , is a must they need to give up there nuclear weapons and the US needs to suspend military aid in order to secure a lasting peace . We can  not pick sides , objectivity is a must  if dealings with Iran are to succeed .
   
 
What if they say they dont want thorium reactor's ? What is your next course of action ?
 
                                                    Take away Israels nuclear capability and re offer the thorium reactors.
 
Cannonfodder said:
                                                     Take away Israels nuclear capability and re offer the thorium reactors.

Thats positively brilliant...why didnt anyone think of that before ?

::)

Earth to canonfodder....

Bottom line is that Iran is a signatory to the NPT
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/
 
Fair enough, in the interests of analysis, what would Canada do if the Chinese destroyed the USA and then invaded Canada? 

I do love nightmare scenarios.  ;D

Let's try this one on for size.  China invests in Alberta Tarsands.  (It's happened you say?)  Alberta is short of labour (Rumour to that effect) Chinese company applies to bring their own labour force into Canada to service their project.  Their project also includes a pipeline to Prince Rupert.  To secure their investment they import their on Private Security firm with responsibility for the Oilsands project, the pipeline and the load out terminus at Prince Rupert.  (How many bodies would that take do you reckon?)

They start pumping more than Canada wants to export.  Whose oil is it again?
 
Sorry aesop081  , the nuclear genie  has been let out of the bottle  , information flows from country to country without interuption . Iran is next in line for capability  , who will be after ? , building a nuclear bomb is not rocket science but it also requires alot of specialty items like uranium and if you haven't been paying attention it is getting harder and harder to come by . Countries  like China and India are building reactors at a pace that will soon out strip current supply . Canada , and Australia , the major suppliers of uranium , are trying to find more mineable deposits  . Countries that have uranium reserves will be very reluctant to part with it .
 I offered an original idea and all you can comeback with is that Iran is a signatory , wow there is a news flash , put stock into existing treaties , give me a break . Deal with the realities as they exist on the ground , Israels nuclear capability has created an arms race in the Middle East . In order to solve the problem , Israel needs to be dealt with objectively and brought into line .
 
Cannonfodder said:
 I offered an original idea and all you can comeback with is that Iran is a signatory , wow there is a news flash , put stock into existing treaties , give me a break . Deal with the realities as they exist on the ground , Israels nuclear capability has created an arms race in the Middle East . In order to solve the problem , Israel needs to be dealt with objectively and brought into line .

My point with NPT is that Iran is a signatory and the rest of the international comunity has an obligation to demand its compliance.  In case you yourself need a "news flash", israel, India and pakistan are not.  Therfore, to what line should Israel be brouht to ?  Also your idea of " take away nikes from Israel " is propesterous as it doesnt pass the reality check.  if you wish to offer a solution to all this canonfodder, it should at least be plausible.  You do not meet this criteria.  Israel does not even acknowledge having nuclear weapons to begin with and even if they did, their geopolitical and military reality all but guarantee that they would never accept those terms. 

You are the one saying to "deal with the reality on the ground" yet you are the first one to ignore them.



 
  In case you have not noticed Iran has been cornered in the international communities effort to bring it into compliance . Treaties mean nothing if they are going to develop a nuclear bomb there is nothing that short of going to war will prevent them . This pounding of Arabic states when they try to get on a level footing with there neighbours will have dire consequences for the future .One cannot say it is okay for  country A to have the bomb because they are in line with our interests but country  B can not have  the bomb because they may be a threat to our interests .
 
  The NPT was signed under the Shahs rule and is  perceived as Western restriction to Iran's development . Treaties mean nothing there just empty gestures , to place your faith in them is fool hardy and naive . A secure settlement will only be reached if the Israel  nuclear capability is addressed , if not Iran will go nuclear and there is very little we can do about it .
 
Cannonfodder said:
   In case you have not noticed Iran has been cornered in the international communities effort to bring it into compliance . Treaties mean nothing if they are going to develop a nuclear bomb there is nothing that short of going to war will prevent them . This pounding of Arabic states when they try to get on a level footing with there neighbours will have dire consequences for the future .One cannot say it is okay for  country A to have the bomb because they are in line with our interests but country  B can not have  the bomb because they may be a threat to our interests .
 
  The NPT was signed under the Shahs rule and is  perceived as Western restriction to Iran's development . Treaties mean nothing there just empty gestures , to place your faith in them is fool hardy and naive . A secure settlement will only be reached if the Israel  nuclear capability is addressed , if not Iran will go nuclear and there is very little we can do about it .

The original treaty may have been signed under the shah but :

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. [8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

Therefore your assertion that the NPT was somehow seen as opressive by The Iraninan regime is ungrounded by the fact that less than a year ago, Iraninan authorities re-afirmed their countrie's participation in the NPT.  While north Korea has openly rejected the treaty, Iran has not.  The terms of the NPT were review every year until 2005 and Iran has not sought to change it.  rather it chose to support the treaty as it was therefore obligating it to abide by its terms.


I'm not placing my faith on the effectiveness of the treay but rather on the fact that the NPT gives the international community the leagl and moral obligation to opose Iran's nuclear ambition. Treaty entered bu sovreign states for the basis of international laws. In your posts i detect somewhat of an anti-Israel bias that , IMHO, makes you position untenable.  The solution to Iran's nuclear plans does not lie with the removal of Israel's weapons as this will never happen. You idea of offering a different type of reactor to Iran while disarming Israel amounts to Munich all over again.


 
Well, let's be realistic. Why would China want to destroy the US? Moreover, why would China want to invade Canada? If you believe the reason for this would be for them to acquire the natural resources we have, they would not need to invade us. They would get them the say way other countries do. By purchasing them. There is only one country on the planet with the geographical ability to invade us, and that's the US.

I do not suggest that we stop doing business with the US. We couldn't, and there would be nothing to gain from it. However, it is a fundamental of business or investing to have a diverse portfolio. You don't invest all your retirement savings with one company. What do you do if they go bust? Canada can, and should be conducting more business with the Asian markets. We don't owe anything to the US that they don't in turn owe to us. That is, the consideration and loyalty that goes along with being national friends. But our first responsibility must be to ourselves. The beauty of it is, we can do both. We do not need to "pick sides". Because China is beginning to rival the US on the world stage does not make it our enemy. The "us & them" mentality is necessary and unavoidable sometimes, but it should not be embraced so readily.

Economics have been the predominant motivation for conflict in the past, and no less so today. However, governments play less of a role these days then they did a few decades ago. MNC's have usurped a great deal of power from national governments, particularly(although not limited to) with regards to foreign policy. Why take by force when you can have through trade?

To summarise, I think the risk of Canada being invaded by the Chinese is equal to the threat of swarming killer bees that were have supposed to have been up here by now.

All power fades, and all empires fall. The place the US holds in the world right now is temporary. They will not be the dominant power forever. If the US really wants to cheat history, and not fade into disarray and obscurity like every other empire before them, they need to figure out how to integrate themselves into a changing world. To this end, I have two hopes. One that there is no excessive destruction and death for any nation's people, and two, that Canada does not get dragged down with them.




S_Baker said:
Fair enough, in the interests of analysis, what would Canada do if the Chinese destroyed the USA and then invaded Canada? 

Conduct Partisan operations, really what could Canada do if the Chinese decided to take what they wanted?  The UK can no longer defend Canada.  Russia, maybe, or sue for peace?  I think it is fair to say that many nations would love to get a piece of North America if something happened to the US.
 
a_majoor said:
Thinking that Iran is somehow constrained by "Realpolitik" WRT nuclear weapons is a pipe dream. When their President openly calls for the destruction of Israel, and claims the arrival of the Mahdi is immanent (in Islamic theology, this is similar the Christians proclaiming the return of Jesus Christ and the day of Judgement), the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who are proclaiming the Apocalypse is more than just "scary". A military "head shot" against their nuclear facilities, government institutions and revolutionary guard is probably the best possible solution we have now, unless the Iranian population can rise up en mass and overthrow their opressors.

Whereas nuclear weapons in the hands of a Western religious zealot are somehow preferable? Hey, I haven't noticed Iran participating in any unilateral acts of international aggression lately, but I haven't read the news reports yet today. The thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of people that spout off about "good" and "evil" and "evil-doers" and other non-thinking, sensationalist rhetoric disturbs me too, but I'm not about to argue for the invasion of the US because of it.

Lenin proclaimed "World Revolution",  Hitler wrote extensively about what he planned for Europe, and Imperial Japanese policy was fairly well known in the first half of the 20th century, and surprise!, they did their best to carry out their stated intentions. Intelligence commonly looks at capabilities rather than intentions, which may be one of the traps we have fallen into, in any "rational" universe, Iran is completely unable to carry out any of its stated intentions. Indeed Osama Bin Laden stated the reason for the 9/11 attacks was explicitly to provoke the United States into war, while not a rational act by any means, this played directly into his belief system (based on observed American behavior in the 1990s, he felt America was a "paper tiger", and he believed US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on would not only be slow, grinding and unsuccessful, but would also lead to an uprising throughout the Islamic world.)

9/11 was an entirely rational act from the perspective of an adversary of the US. Not only did it inflict levels of damage greatly disproportionate to the resources invested but it provoked a response that has alienated "the enemy" (to him the US) from its traditional allies and from a sizeable portion of the world, not to mention the domestic conflict this reaction brought about in the US. 9/11 was not unfeasible or irrational - it was entirely the opposite - both feasible and rational, especially when one considers OBL (and other leadership calibre AQ members) continued existence (assumedly). Iranian aggression is unfeasible insofar as it is impracticable without bringing about the destruction of Iran and the guaranteed deaths/detainment of its leadership. It's irrational insofar as the level of damage suffered would far, far outdo the level of damage wrought - especially on a personal level vis a vis the Iranian leadership.

Iran is not Nazi Germany, nor the Soviet Union or Imperial Japan - it has neither the capabilities nor the grandeur of intent or historical circumstances which all three possessed in such a conjunction that their ambitions were practicable. As for Iranian intent, I stated earlier that I believe their intent to be deterrence, which seems to me to be the most glaringly obvious reason for obtaining nuclear weapons at this juncture. When one factors their current situation with past US policies and practices towards Iran (Mossadegh, the Shah, Iran-Iraq War, etc.), such an intent is hardly irrational or unwarranted.

WRT economics, there are large challenges facing the West (not just the United States), but adversary often unleashes creative solutions and allows merit to come forward when the status quo fails. Statist solutions to the economic problems haven't worked, but given the limited challenges we have faced so far, the system has been able to continue to function. Place a large shock and innovative solutions like President Bush's proposed reworking of Social Security or the privatization of Canada's health care system become not only desirable but absolutely necessary.

Absolutely necessary? If you're part of the Chicago school, I guess...

For those people who are arguing the primacy of Asian or other non-European/Western cultures, just read your history. The Chinese invented paper currency, gunpowder, sailed huge armadas in the Indian Ocean and so on, but who actually took over the world? These other cultures are internally focused, and while this gives them a certain longevity and internal stability, this does not tranlate into their long term advantage. One might ask why these Chinese fleets did not establish colonies in India, the Arabian Peninsula, the east coast of Africa, or Indonesia, when there is unambiguous evidence they had actually visited these places?

I'm not quite clear on what your point is here - "we're the best because we conquered, slaughtered, and subjugated better than everyone else"?

aesop081 said:
In your posts i detect somewhat of an anti-Israel bias that , IMHO, makes you position untenable. 

By that logic, should I hold all your arguments defunct because of your anti-Iranian bias?
 
No one seems unduly worried about the nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States, the UK, France, only moderately worried about Russia (who is in charge of those things over there?) Israel and China, somewhat more worried about Pakistan and India....

Notice a trend? Stable constitutional governments with the rule of law are not a threat. As we slide down the scale, the threat increases until we get to rogue states like Iran and North Korea, which are unconstrained by law, precedent or rules.

9/11 may have been designed to provoke a certain reaction, but the fact remains that the AQ is scattered, no further attacks have taken place against North America (for now), and the establishment of consensual democracies underpinned by the rule of law is proceeding in Afghanistan, Iraq, and reestablishing itself in Lebanon, certainly counter to the goals of establishing a Caliphate, and indeed the true answer to the many pathologies of the region. Autocrats, Socialists and Jihadis and Theocracy's are united in the realization that democratic societies are a threat to their existence through example to the oppressed people. Historically, the last fling of brittle authoritarian regimes is often a desperate gamble on some military adventure in order to deflect attention from the deteriorating conditions at home, and also to fix blame for what is going wrong. You might believe the Iranians are rational, but we could also be looking at a nuclear version of the "last 10 days" in the bunker, only with nuclear weapons.

My economics are actually more towards the Austrian school, but simply looking around at the ever increasing wait times, diminishing levels of service and watching Canadians who have the ability and will going to the US or now India to get medical procedures done, rather than wait several years in pain tells me this system does not work. Socialized medicine is like Socialized groceries, without competition you will be lining up for your ration of health care or bread.

When it comes to the relative staying power of civilizations, the West has marshalled and used the resources available more efficiently than anyone else. True, we haven't been very nice about it in the past, although I might wonder how the Aztec conquest of Europe would have played out if such a thing was possible. The Chinese, with many advantages, were unable to capitalize on them, and so English is the language of business and aviation, the Metric system is the only system universally recognized for science and industry etc. etc.
 
a_majoor said:
No one seems unduly worried about the nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States, the UK, France, only moderately worried about Russia (who is in charge of those things over there?) Israel and China, somewhat more worried about Pakistan and India....

Notice a trend? Stable constitutional governments with the rule of law are not a threat. As we slide down the scale, the threat increases until we get to rogue states like Iran and North Korea, which are unconstrained by law, precedent or rules.

The same "sky is falling" predictions were made about India, Pakistan, China, and probably even South Africa when they first obtained nuclear weapons but it didn't fall and the world's still here. Now it's Iran and North Korea - Chicken Little's back, heralding their nuclear ambitions as harbingers of the apocalypse. Same script, different cast. The risk posed by either state once in possession of nuclear weapons has been blown out of proportion, not surprisingly, by the people that stand to lose the most (control and influence wise) by such possession - the nuclear powers, most especially in the West. If you've got a stick with which you can beat the other apes over the head, you don't really want them to get their own sticks.


9/11 may have been designed to provoke a certain reaction, but the fact remains that the AQ is scattered, no further attacks have taken place against North America (for now), and the establishment of consensual democracies underpinned by the rule of law is proceeding in Afghanistan, Iraq, and reestablishing itself in Lebanon, certainly counter to the goals of establishing a Caliphate, and indeed the true answer to the many pathologies of the region. Autocrats, Socialists and Jihadis and Theocracy's are united in the realization that democratic societies are a threat to their existence through example to the oppressed people. Historically, the last fling of brittle authoritarian regimes is often a desperate gamble on some military adventure in order to deflect attention from the deteriorating conditions at home, and also to fix blame for what is going wrong. You might believe the Iranians are rational, but we could also be looking at a nuclear version of the "last 10 days" in the bunker, only with nuclear weapons.

I like the "last 10 days" reference (seriously). I see what you're saying about the dying throes of regimes, but the same was said of Saddam and look what happened there. I don't put too much stock into the "democracies" in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly the latter. Improvement has been made, undoubtedly, but the real test will be when there isn't a huge foreign military presence shoring up the government. Another big test will be what happens when (or if) an Iraqi or Afghani government adopts policies or practices in contradiction of US wishes - I have a feeling that such an eventuality would bring about a distinct change in US attitudes (and actions) towards Iraqi and Afghani democracies.

The Caliphate ambition has always been unrealistic and I doubt the emergence of "democracies" in Iraq and Afghanistan (or Palestine and Lebanon) makes it any more unrealistic than it already was. The established regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Syria, etc. provide just as much of a stumbling block (if not moreso) to that ambition than any of the aforementioned transition states.

My economics are actually more towards the Austrian school, but simply looking around at the ever increasing wait times, diminishing levels of service and watching Canadians who have the ability and will going to the US or now India to get medical procedures done, rather than wait several years in pain tells me this system does not work. Socialized medicine is like Socialized groceries, without competition you will be lining up for your ration of health care or bread.

I find the Austrian school's disdain of empiricism to be a little strange - seems to me that similar praxeological-based sects (like rational choice theorists in poli sci) often fall flat on their face because of it. John Crow might be a good example. I agree with your prior statement as to the lack of a link between deficits/debt and economic growth - I heard the same argument from a Keynesian just recently (yes, they still exist it seems).

When it comes to the relative staying power of civilizations, the West has marshalled and used the resources available more efficiently than anyone else. True, we haven't been very nice about it in the past, although I might wonder how the Aztec conquest of Europe would have played out if such a thing was possible. The Chinese, with many advantages, were unable to capitalize on them, and so English is the language of business and aviation, the Metric system is the only system universally recognized for science and industry etc. etc.

I'm not sure it was a matter of the Chinese not capitalizing so much as it was their insular nature. That being said, the Mongols sure did a bang-up job. I don't really measure a civilization's "success" by its capacity for expansionism. I don't take a Huntington-esque realist view of civilizations where the maxim seems to be "dominate or decline". I find that the inverse seems to be just as true - domination, or the attempt thereof, often seems to trigger decline far faster than the more unambitious approach taken by more insular cultures like the Chinese or Indians. That being said, my knowledge of the varied civilizations' histories is about an inch deep and a mile wide.
 
a_majoor said:
Ah yes, "International Law". When you go to a criminal or civil court, you are seeing the State exercising its power. Without the armed power of the State as an ultimate recourse to compel obedience, how will you receive your justice? If you are awarded a judgement in your favor and the other party balks, the sheriff can seize his chattel property and the offender can be arrested and jailed. Without the recourse to State power, you are SOL.

But where is the overweaning Power to compell a Sovereign State? Even a relative pipsqueak State like Ba'athist Iraq was able to defy "International Law" through the 1990s, with some assistance from the "Oil for Food" crowd to be sure, but since no one was able or willing to compel Saddam Hussein to follow the directives, he simply did not. If Iraq doesn't follow "International Law" without compulsion, then what is to stop Iran from defying "International Law" (and they don't even have nuclear weapons yet!). How about a Sovereign State with vastly more power and resources like China?

I wonder why arguments like this always end up with appeals to the UN. After the complete failure of the UN through the 1990s (Former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Oil for Food, Rwanda, WMD inspections in Iraq, genocide in Dafur...shall I continue?) is there any possible legitimacy left in that organization? For that matter, would you want to give the sort of power required to compel a Sovereign State to a corrupt and profoundly illiberal institution like the UN?

NATO was not a multi-lateral power alliance? What about the G-8? The Anglosphere? The Francaphonie? The British Commonwealth? The world has always had shifting formal and informal alliances, some which are reflected in formal organizations (think back to @400 BC when the Delian League was locked in a series of hot and cold wars with "Sparta and her Allies". All the City-States of Greece were involved, as well as the Persian Empire and many unaffiliated Greek City-States throughout the Mediterranean sea.)

A far more compelling argument is that the inattention of the United States to the external world through the 1990's set the stage for the present state of affairs.

I agree on one level that international law requires the power of the state to back it up. Certainly with respect to a particular resolution involving a non-compliant member, this is true. However, the key to any rule of law is that those bound by it have to feel bound by it, either by agreement or coercion. Otherwise, there is anarchy. International law is really just the set of conventions that most countries agree to live by, but this isn't really any different from the law within a common law country. It's just that international law as a concept is just in its relative infancy.

In the case of states, coercion of a non-compliant member state can come from the group of countries agreeing to abide by UN principles, wielding their collective power. A society full of people who want to be a part of it is always on more solid ground than one having to coerce its members. Your argument seems to presume that the UN would only function if it had the strength to coerce all of its members. I would argue that it is effective on a variety of levels because most countries want to make it work, recognizing it as a means of protecting their internal autonomy so long as certain rules aren't broken (like invading your neighbours). Prevention of genocide was never a part of the original design of the UN, but international convention was definitely taking the UN in that direction. The UN is a radical thing in the history of sovereign states.

Member compliance on specific issues is often the biggest difficulty with the UN, admittedly, but this does not always lead to failure, either. The use of force is contemplated, but, like in a civilized country, limited in its application. Gulf War I was an example. So was Korea. I'm not so naive as to think that there weren't other political forces at work in these examples, but this is true at every level of government down to your local municipality. That's just life.

The positive thing is that the UN provides a means of saving face for countries when they need to point to something to justify their backing away from a hard line position. It provides a way of backing out of a situation that, absent such a safety valve, is more likely to end in war purely by momentum. The UN's biggest success has been as a way of restricting conflict to avoid all out nuclear war. It is only effective to the extent that countries choose to follow it, but it has proven useful on a number of occasions that could have turned out very badly otherwise. Admittedly, and as you point out, it has failed on a number of occasions as well, but these failures in my view are not a valid argument against its existence. For relations between countries, it is the best thing we have, and is worth improving, not abandoning. This is why I see the US backing away from it as a dangerous development, as the UN's most powerful member. This particularly in light of the inevitable decline in the US's relative world power over the next half century.

Of course, states that have common interests will align themselves economically or in strategic arrangements. These can exist within the UN just as cities and provinces exist within a country. However, I would argue that American unilateralism without giving at least a nod to international law is a step backwards on a slippery slope. I don't see any causal relation to support your proposition that the present world is a result of a US failure to project power in the 1990's. The neo-conservative crowd in Washington would certainly like you to believe that. The fact is that Hussein was rendered powerless after Gulf War I, a UN action. Bush Sr. did it the right way. Bush Jr. is going about it the wrong way. 9-11 changed a lot of things, but, following the Bush Sr. model, there would now be a full UN contingent cleaning out Afghanistan of all the terrorist bases, Iraq would remain contained (they had nothing to do with 9-11, and experts are pretty much unanimous that there were no WMD's left), and the US would not be alienating itself. Is Bush Jr's policy really more effective? It seems to display an appalling lack of sophistication.
 
ZxExN said:
When the US can actually improve the living conditions of the country they 'liberate', I'll support them. Before that, I'm just stick and tired of it all. Iraq was 10x better off with Sadam in power and that's the truth. Ask anyone who has gone back to Iraq and they'll tell you same thing. People in live in fear and die every day from terrorist attacks. Children are not going to school, essentially a generation has been lost.
I think that's debatable.  The media want stories of suicide bombers, beheadings, etc.  Now, imagine Iraq with the same media scrutiny under Saddam's power.  The gassings, the killings, the torture chambers, etc.  Now, in another analogy, I'm fairly certain that 1938 Germany was a better place to live than 1946 Germany.  And remember, it's the terrorist attacks in Iraq that are making people "live in fear and die every day", not the US.  I'm pretty sure that kidsa re going to school, and so forth.  Besides, the only person I know of who was in Iraq under Saddam's regime was Sean Penn, so really, the truth IS out there, but I doubt that the mass media version of it isn't all that accurate.
 
Chummy, your post is about "what should be" rather than "What is".

The United Nations has been manipulated by its various member states as another tool to support or at least cloak the self interest of Sovereign States. If Saddam Hussein did not have lots of oil and billions of petro dollars to spread around, then "Oil for Food" would never have happened. The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese would not have worked so adamantly to block the enforcement of UN resolutions concerning the disarming of Iraq, or for that matter, would not be working so hard to prevent any international or other actions in Dafur (since the Sudan has...surprise! Oil).

As a BTW, the reason the UN was founded was explicitly to prevent future genocide's like the Holocaust, based on their record,it would seem that only if a powerful State decides to take action on its own then the UN Charter can be fulfilled. The UN's record of preventing wars is likewise undermied by history, and I will argue the only reason things never went nuclear is because Sovereign States with stable constitutional governments constrained by the rule of law had access to them. The ownership of nuclear weapons never stopped either the owning states or their enemies from going to war, there are just more positive constraints in a nation like The US, the UK or France against using them.

We have lots of pre existing mechanisms to join our resources together, my own choice would be to strongly align Canada with the Anglosphere (US, UK, Australia), partners with common histories, cultures and values.
 
We have allies inside Iran itself, and certainly should be offering as much encouragement as possible to the revolutionary movement. If they overthrow the Theocracy, then the movement is legitimate in its own right, a great deal of pressure is taken off democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, and the support for Hamas, Hezboullah and the Jihadis will be cut off at the knees.

While this person is playing up the positives, the situation is quite real and his observations should not be discounted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/steorts200602130807.asp

Counting the Minutes
A conversation with Iranian dissident Amir Abbas Fakhravar.

Q&A by Jason Lee Steorts

Amir Abbas Fakhravar is one of the most prominent dissidents in Iran. A former medical student and journalist, he was arrested and imprisoned after the publication of his anti-regime book This Place Is Not a Ditch. While on a leave from prison he fled the authorities, and has been on the run ever since. From the Iranian underground, he coordinates the activities of various dissident groups, and for this reason the regime has (according to his knowledge) issued a standing order for the police to shoot him on sight.

Through the help of an Iranian émigré living in California — who wishes to be identified only by her first name, Manda — Fakhravar recently phoned NR deputy managing editor Jason Lee Steorts to discuss Iran's nuclear program, the hopes of the Iranian people, and his life as a fugitive.

National Review Online: What do the Iranians you know think of Iran's nuclear program?

Amir Abbas Fakhravar: The regime is trying hard to tell to everybody that the nuclear activities are like the nationalization of oil 50 years ago. They are telling the world that this is somehow a national interest and that it's something the people want. But it's not like that at all. I'm very much speaking on behalf of the students and the youth that I'm in contact with, and nobody thinks about it like that. We are lacking elementary necessities, schools, hospitals. These are the things we think of as our national interests, not the nuclear program. If this nuclear technology were something coming out of the minds of our own people, and promoted by our own people, we would say O.K., this is by all means our national interest. But it was a technology smuggled in from the borders of Pakistan by people working through A. Q. Khan's network. What I hear from the students, the youngsters who are 70 percent of Iran's population, is that if this were such a national thing, why did the regime spend 18 years hiding it from us? Only two or three years ago we found out that [the regime] was spending billions and billions of dollars in oil revenue on this technology instead of on our basic needs.

NRO: One argument we hear in the West against confronting Iran, whether through sanctions or through military action, is that doing so will make the regime more popular with the Iranian people — that it will actually strengthen the regime.

Fakhravar: Please don't ever say that the people of Iran are going to have resentment or anger in their hearts toward America or Western countries for doing this. That is 100 percent false. To see this, all you need to do is contact some Iranians inside the major cities. Just send your journalists to interview the people in the streets and ask them. It was Saturday [February 4] that the people here found out that Iran was going before the [U.N.] Security Council, and there was celebration all over Tehran. I heard from my own family, the families of my friends, that it was one of the busiest days of the year for the pastry shops — that people were buying pastries and cookies and candies in the streets of Tehran and going to each other to celebrate. They think we have nothing to lose and everything to gain with action that, no matter how long the time period, leads to the downfall of this regime. If you overthrow the regime, we will welcome you with open arms and open hearts. People are counting the minutes for this regime to be over and gone.

NRO: What makes you think you speak for the majority?

Fakhravar: When I go to underground meetings of fellow students and friends of mine, I see that my statements, my books, all the things I and other dissidents have been saying are on the walls of their bedrooms. I hear what they say. They very much give their views. And I meet with other people who are on top of other networks. I meet with representatives of many, many networks, and I know what all of these people are thinking.

NRO: The Iranian regime does a great deal to support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that commit terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. What do the Iranians you know think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and about Iran's role in it?

Fakhravar: We see that the interests of the Palestinians are more important to this regime than the interests of Iranians. When we see a government like that, that has Shehab missiles and parades them through the streets and covers them with cloth threatening "Death to Israel," "Death to America," we don't think this is in the interests of Iran or of anybody. This is purely for [the regime's] own interests. We, all the youngsters, think of other nations — Americans, Israelis, Europeans — as our brothers. We see that two generations have already been lost [since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979]. In kindergarten, in primary schools, one of the biggest elements they're teaching is that other people's religions are not right, that other people are our enemies. They preach death to America and death to Israel. They praise suicide bombers. This is what they are doing with our culture and our civilization that go back 2,500 years. Nobody trusts the schools or wants to send their children to them. Apart from all the everyday problems people are confronting, besides economic problems, unemployment, inflation, this is the education we see — the education of death.

NRO: What do Iranians think of George W. Bush?

Fakhravar: The people of Iran, especially the youth, are so admiring of Bush and his administration for siding with the people of Iran rather than the government of Iran. No other leader of any government, even the Europeans, took this stand. All the youngsters support him and love him, and we want to express our deepest gratitude for him and his administration and what they are doing to liberate us.

NRO: Are you receiving any support from the U.S. government?

Fakhravar: I cannot mention who, but I'm definitely communicating with some people in the U.S. government and have established contacts with people in the Bush administration.

NRO: Can you say anything about your personal safety and the conditions you live in?

Fakhravar: As I said before, I'm a fugitive on the run and am living in hiding. For years I've been struggling and fighting this regime. I was in the most notorious prison. They broke my knee, they tore my ligament, they broke my nose, so many tortures, and my family has been through so much because of me. My only aid and objective is to see this regime be gone totally — not only a part of it, but the whole regime. I want for my sister and mother and all the women I know to live in freedom. I want my children, when I get married and have a child and he goes to school, to be taught love rather than death. We want to live among all the nations of the world in peace, and we want all the basic freedoms that other countries have right now. We don't want our name to be — whenever people hear "Iranians," a country that had such a civilization and was so respected — now they say Iranians equal terrorists. We don't want our name to be mentioned like that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/steorts200602130807.asp
       

 
a_majoor said:
Chummy, your post is about "what should be" rather than "What is".

The United Nations has been manipulated by its various member states as another tool to support or at least cloak the self interest of Sovereign States. If Saddam Hussein did not have lots of oil and billions of petro dollars to spread around, then "Oil for Food" would never have happened. The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese would not have worked so adamantly to block the enforcement of UN resolutions concerning the disarming of Iraq, or for that matter, would not be working so hard to prevent any international or other actions in Dafur (since the Sudan has...surprise! Oil).

I think my post is about "what is", but I also agree with you that countries cloak their self-interested actions in the UN. Of course countries act in self interest, as do citizens with representatives in their local government. My point is that there is a utility in having the UN mechanism in place, and I submit that it has been historically useful as a means of saving face for countries who would not have backed out of some situations, and has been capable of defusing situations (sometimes). It is the right direction to be headed. I am saying you can have your cake and eat it too. Nothing is stopping us from aligning ourselves with countries sharing history and values, but that very history and those values point to holding ourselves to rule of law. The alliance should still act in deference to the UN principles, and generally it has until recently. I understand your cynicism regarding international law, but what I am trying to stress is that the UN charter was a major step forward. The current US policy is a throwback to the early 1900's, and dangerous. The US should be taking the high road. Ironically, I also think it would be more secure in so doing.
a_majoor said:
As a BTW, the reason the UN was founded was explicitly to prevent future genocide's like the Holocaust, based on their record,it would seem that only if a powerful State decides to take action on its own then the UN Charter can be fulfilled. The UN's record of preventing wars is likewise undermied by history, and I will argue the only reason things never went nuclear is because Sovereign States with stable constitutional governments constrained by the rule of law had access to them. The ownership of nuclear weapons never stopped either the owning states or their enemies from going to war, there are just more positive constraints in a nation like The US, the UK or France against using them.

We have lots of pre existing mechanisms to join our resources together, my own choice would be to strongly align Canada with the Anglosphere (US, UK, Australia), partners with common histories, cultures and values.
 
Chummy said:
I think my post is about "what is", but I also agree with you that countries cloak their self-interested actions in the UN. Of course countries act in self interest, as do citizens with representatives in their local government. My point is that there is a utility in having the UN mechanism in place, and I submit that it has been historically useful as a means of saving face for countries who would not have backed out of some situations, and has been capable of defusing situations (sometimes).

I am not familier with these historical examples, care to provide some?

It is the right direction to be headed. I am saying you can have your cake and eat it too. Nothing is stopping us from aligning ourselves with countries sharing history and values, but that very history and those values point to holding ourselves to rule of law. The alliance should still act in deference to the UN principles, and generally it has until recently.

Since the UN itself is not acting according to the rule of law (the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan should be a big clue, and things like "Oil for Food" or Dafar are another indication of which way they are going).

I understand your cynicism regarding international law, but what I am trying to stress is that the UN charter was a major step forward. The current US policy is a throwback to the early 1900's, and dangerous. The US should be taking the high road. Ironically, I also think it would be more secure in so doing.

The US was isolationist in the 1900's, and emerged on the world stage under the tutalage of the "Progressives", with President Wilson taking the defining step of entering World War One and remaining engaged in European politics in the aftermath. The true irony is when the US steps aside and alows "multilateralism" to run its course, we see the unravelling of Yugoslavia, the deadlock over North Korea's nuclear program and the absolute failure of diplomacy vs Iran's nuclear ambitions. OF course when the United States steps in and takes action to supress genocide or otherwise enforce the UN charter........

 
"... Bush Jr's policy really more effective? It seems to display an appalling lack of sophistication."

- Please, let us not confuse effectiveness with sophistication.  The two are often at odds with each other in the real world.

Ya  know what?  Tonight, emailing a friend, it occured to me that the Iranians might want nukes to protect themselves from whom?  Not the Isrealis or the Yanks.  Who attacked Iran and killed hundreds of thousands?  Iraq, thats who.  And who is to say what might happen in the future if the American plan for Iraq goes awry?

So... my conclusion: The country which has the most to benefit from a sucessful American democracy building exercise in Iraq is... Iran.

Tom
 
Back
Top