Support NeoGAF

[SatelliteOfLove]

Meh, I don't think we have the resources to do anything with Iran. The link leaves out one important fact, in that Russia has a peace treaty signed with Iran. Any attacks on Iran would likely involve the Russians as well, and we'd be hard-pressed to fight Russians by ourselves at full strength, but while we're fighting two different wars? They'd fuck us up and send us packing, no doubt. Even if all they did was deliver MiGs and tanks to Iran.

Iran has the youth movement towards Americanization, so the WORST thing we could do is invade. If you want Iran to democratize and westernize, then the best thing you can do is wait and let it happen. I'm sure that Bush's supporters know that, even if he doesn't.

Although the Daily Show had this one author on about a week or so ago, and he was an expert on Iran, and said not only everything I've just said, but also that bin Laden still has strong ties to Iran, and is probably hiding there right now under the Mullah regime which hates America. And everyone. Even puppies.

True; very true. Iran's like Cuba; don't drop bombs, drop dollars.

 

[MC Safety]

True; very true. Iran's like Cuba; don't drop bombs, drop dollars.

Yes, because the thing you absolutely want to do is give lots of money to a backward, oppressive, anti-American regime that's also a burgeoning nuclear power.

There's being generous and then there's being stupid. And although the Iranians would welcome Yankee greenbucks, they'd do it while laughing at the United States.

 

[whytemyke]

Yes, because the thing you absolutely want to do is give lots of money to a backward, oppressive, anti-American regime that's also a burgeoning nuclear power.

There's being generous and then there's being stupid. And although the Iranians would welcome Yankee greenbucks, they'd do it while laughing at the United States.

And it's official... you have no idea what you're talking about. Giving countries money has kept China from wanting war with us for the past 30 years, so there's definitely something to say for it. As long as you keep open economic markets with a supposed threat, the possibility of war with that threat drops enormously. Statistics taken throughout world history shows that countries which actively engage in trade with each other comprise only 5% of the wars of all time. The Saudis house even more aggressive, anti-western muslims in their borders, but when's the last time you've seen Saudi's openly bitch about America? Reason: their government likes money and thus does what it can to alleviate the anti-american sentiments.

And furthermore, quit being so ethnocentric. There's a lot more people in this world that think the US is a backward, oppressive regime than people who think that Iran is.

 

[whytemyke]

I'd love to see the US invade North Korea - because that country SERIOUSLY needs regime change. If you disagree on that, you just have no love for humanity, or you're one of those idiots stuck in the "who cares about what happens to other countries" mode.

However, as fucked up as Iran is, there's no point to attacking them. They're not a threat, and their people seem to enjoy a land where women are executed if they're raped and people get their hands cut off for stealing. Totally different from North Korea where millions of people are starving to death while its totalitarian regime plots the destruction of Japan, South Korea, and the US daily.

Quick opinion on this: Americans have a hard enough time coping with having lost 1700 soldiers in Iraq. What do you think they would do if they had to face the prospect of losing 10-20 times that amount of soldiers? This is a rough estimate but we'd probably lose 15,000 just crossing the DMZ, maybe another 10K after that. And that's if we move first. If we wait for them to move first, and have zero initiative, then we'd probably be looking at casualties of 50,000 soldiers or more, if I remember most of those estimates correctly. Said my buddy who was stationed there: "Oh shit dude... basically if the North Koreans decide to move, we're all gonna die here anyways."

We won't touch North Korea because the DPRK can fuck us up, and fucked up armies lose politicians elections.

 

[MC Safety]

And furthermore, quit being so ethnocentric. There's a lot more people in this world that think the US is a backward, oppressive regime than people who think that Iran is.

I would suggest to you that, in this matter, Anatole France was correct when he said, "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

You can play at moral relativism all you wish, but you're on shaky ground. American females need not cover themselves from head-to-toe because of some antiquated religious sentiment. Nor are people routinely brutalized, disfigured, and murdered over simple crimes. Islamic law, in terms of punishment of criminals and treatment of women, is infinitely more brutal than anything the American legal system has come up with, including stoning as a form of capital punishment and the gouging out of one's eyes in the case of a disfigurement.

Further, your assessment that China has been deterred from war by trade is fairly absurd, and I'm not sure where you got that one in your head. Since Nixon, China's relationship with the United States has been one of guarded tolerance, but China has never made overt threats against America. I would suggest that for most of communist China's history, it's been largely preoccupied by its rivalry with the Soviet Union and internal matters. If China has been deterred, it's been by its own limitations and the American nuclear arsenal.

 

[whytemyke]

I would suggest to you that, in this matter, Anatole France was correct when he said, "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

You can play at moral relativism all you wish, but you're on shaky ground. American females need not cover themselves from head-to-toe because of some antiquated religious sentiment. Nor are people routinely brutalized, disfigured, and murdered over simple crimes. Islamic law, in terms of punishment of criminals and treatment of women, is infinitely more brutal than anything the American legal system has come up with, including stoning as a form of capital punishment and the gouging out of one's eyes in the case of a disfigurement.

Further, your assessment that China has been deterred from war by trade is fairly absurd, and I'm not sure where you got that one in your head. Since Nixon, China's relationship with the United States has been one of guarded tolerance, but China has never made overt threats against America. I would suggest that for most of communist China's history, it's been largely preoccupied by its rivalry with the Soviet Union and internal matters. If China has been deterred, it's been by its own limitations and the American nuclear arsenal.

Throw out as many quotes as you want... I'm not arguing with Anatole France. I'm arguing with you. You're comparing a different culture to your own and trying to judge it by your own standards, and what's worse is it seems you know fuck-all about Islam or Arabic/Persian heritage to begin with, which really doesn't bode well for your debate.

I'm not saying that, to us, those crimes and punishments carried out throughout fundamentalist islamic countries are brutal. No doubt about it. But if you were a believer in Islam, and you worshipped the Qu'ran and followed Shari'a and the Hadiths your entire life, odds are you'd think they were considerably less awful. Odds are you'd think that the idea of a woman not being fully covered is probably an awful, awful thing. I'm going to allow your opinion that Islamic law is brutal to stand, as long as you admit that its based on your own culture and beliefs, and not on Islamic laws and beliefs. The entire idea of being an American is that people rise up against the government which controls them when it quits doing the will of the people. Though the governments in the middle east and throughout the muslim world may not be democracy in most places, the people still go along with their governments even though they outnumer them greatly. This tells me that while everything we see may be horrible for us, it's less horrible for those who are being subjected to it.

And the assessment with China was merely an indicator as to our relationship with other countries as well, and not just us, but plenty of other countries and situations. The simple fact is that as long as you have a shared economic interest in each other you're less likely to go to war with each other, and its easier (FAR easier, actually) for you to influence the politics of a trading partner, and usually cheaper. This is political fact, tried and true, and the reason I'm using China is because, quite simply, its the easiest country to compare with. you have two completely different cultures between America and China, and neither one of them really like each other.

The Chinese have gone to war with America on multiple occasions (think Vietnam, Korea) and have actually had more of their own citizens killed by us in the last century than by any other outside force. You say that communist china hasn't ever made overt threats against America, yet there's over 3 million dead chinese soldiers from the past fifty years who would like to argue that opinion. Not to mention the threats the PRC have levelled at us over the past five years in regards to our stance on various international situations, mostly Hong Kong, where they threatened military strikes against us should we fail to respect their rights to reclaim the island. And where do you think that North Korea got its nuclear missile technology from? India? There are two prime candidates: Pakistan and China, and most experts believe it to be China. You've also clearly forgotten the threatened military retaliation against our pilots of our downed spyplane should we have disagreed to apologizing for spying on them back in early 2001. So to say that there is no military hostilities between the US and China is, in your own words, absurd, and I don't know where you got that idea in your head.

Anyways, the politics of money is quite simple: international dependency. You put jobs and money into foreign markets and they tend to become far less hostile towards you. It eased the way for Russia, it definitely helped get much of Southeast Asia back on our good side, including the Phillippines, and most markedly its the difference between how WW1 ended, which brought more war in 15 years, and how WW2 was ended, which has had relative peace throughout Europe since. In one instance, the losers are neglected, as you would have us do. In the other instance, the losers are nourished back to health by the victors, as everyone else would have you do. One of these ways creates an environment for hostility... the other creates an environment of a necessary peace.

 

[Phoenix]

We won't touch North Korea because the DPRK can fuck us up, and fucked up armies lose politicians elections.

We won't touch North Korea because we really don't have a reason too. Despite how bad things may seem, they are within a range of tolerance. People don't wage wars just because they can. North Korea could detonate a nuke on the border of South Korea and unless they did some damage to our allies, we wouldn't do anything.

Just the way of things.

 

[cvxfreak]

The Chinese have gone to war with America on multiple occasions (think Vietnam, Korea) and have actually had more of their own citizens killed by us in the last century than by any other outside force.

Are you serious?

 

[Mupepe]

The Chinese have gone to war with America on multiple occasions (think Vietnam, Korea) and have actually had more of their own citizens killed by us in the last century than by any other outside force.

AFAIK, the only direct fighting we've ever had with the Chinese was the Korean war. And that's because we were dumb and decided to try and invade North Korea, even after China warned us not to.

 

[MC Safety]

Throw out as many quotes as you want... I'm not arguing with Anatole France. I'm arguing with you. You're comparing a different culture to your own and trying to judge it by your own standards, and what's worse is it seems you know fuck-all about Islam or Arabic/Persian heritage to begin with, which really doesn't bode well for your debate.

The Chinese have gone to war with America on multiple occasions (think Vietnam, Korea) and have actually had more of their own citizens killed by us in the last century than by any other outside force.

I don't buy moral relativism. Again, please feel free to write six paragraphs on why I am wrong, but I don't buy it.

And in the last century, it seems the Japanese invasion and occupation of Manchuria was a lot more devastating than anything the United States has done to China.

What doesn't bode well is the fact that you are very quick to claim someone else's ignorance, while throwing out absurdities of your own.

Further, to end my part in this argument, I will gladly cede that you are correct in that both financial aid and trade do bolster relations. However, there is a distinct difference between applying such to countries that are openly hostile (communist Russia, Iran) to America and those that are either defeated enemies (the Axis powers with the Marshall plan) or rivals where nominal relations have been established (China).

 

[Azih]

However, as fucked up as Iran is, there's no point to attacking them. They're not a threat, and their people seem to enjoy a land where women are executed if they're raped and people get their hands cut off for stealing.

If nothing else you don't know anything about Iran. Jesus man, read a book about the place.

Edit: Not only are they the most open and democratic Middle Eastern country outside of Israel (not saying anything, but still significant). They are the youngest nation of the planet and the young generation wants the mullahs out. Plus you're confusing Iran with Saudi Arabia with your distorted view of the situation is in there. Iran actually crafted their own homegrown democracy back in the 50s; your view of Iranians as backwards Quran chanting terrorist dullards is nothing but xenophobia, most probably fed by the lopsided approach to that country by your media.

Newsflash genius, just because Iran is muslim and Saudi Arabia is muslim doesn't mean that they are the same. Iran is freaking Shia while Saudi is dominated by Wahhabi Sunnis. Not to mention that Iran has a large intellectual elite that lives pretty much in exile since the Ayatollahs came into power. This is pretty different from any other country in the Mid East.

That you can use a generic term like "Islamic Law" is enlightening. Which version of the thing are you freaking talking about? In fact why don't you tell me what the difference is between Shia Islam and Saudi style Wahhabism, so we can gauge how much YOU know about the region.

 

[Fatghost]

And furthermore, quit being so ethnocentric. There's a lot more people in this world that think the US is a backward, oppressive regime than people who think that Iran is.

Just because it's the majority opinion, doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Azih]

Just because it's the majority opinion, doesn't mean it's right.

Good thing no one ever said that yeah? The POINT here is that the view you have of Iran is in major dispute, is not a given, so y'know let's discuss them instead of just retreating to pat one liner responses.

 

[MC Safety]

If nothing else you don't know anything about Iran. Jesus man, read a book about the place.

Edit: Not only are they the most open and democratic Middle Eastern country outside of Israel (not saying anything, but still significant). They are the youngest nation of the planet and the young generation wants the mullahs out. Plus you're confusing Iran with Saudi Arabia with your distorted view of the situation is in there. Iran actually crafted their own homegrown democracy back in the 50s; your view of Iranians as backwards Quran chanting terrorist dullards is nothing but xenophobia, most probably fed by the lopsided approach to that country by your media.

Newsflash genius, just because Iran is muslim and Saudi Arabia is muslim doesn't mean that they are the same. Iran is freaking Shia while Saudi is dominated by Wahhabi Sunnis. Not to mention that Iran has a large intellectual elite that lives pretty much in exile since the Ayatollahs came into power. This is pretty different from any other country in the Mid East.

That you can use a generic term like "Islamic Law" is enlightening. Which version of the thing are you freaking talking about? In fact why don't you tell me what the difference is between Shia Islam and Saudi style Wahhabism, so we can gauge how much YOU know about the region.

There's no disputing there is a liberal movement in Iran. However, the government is still a theocracy, run by holy men. And the CIA factbook on Iran details the fact that the Iranian constitution codifies Islamic principles of government and law. The Iranian constitution itself states, "All laws and regulations including civil, criminal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political or otherwise, shall be based on Islamic principles."

As for the differences in the different sects, I am uncertain of those and will no doubt be enlightened at length about them. However, regardless of the distinctions, Shi'a is the dominant religion and Iran has been cited by Amnesty International for numerous violations of human rights. Some of the cited incidents include:

"At least 139 people, including one minor, were executed, at least two by stoning and one by beheading. At least 285 individuals were flogged. The true figures may have been considerably higher.

"A surge in public executions and floggings between July and September provoked intense debate on the role of such punishments, which have often been carried out on young people and occasionally minors.

"In October journalist Fatemeh Govara'i was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and 50 lashes for an interview she gave to a newspaper."

The U.S. Department of State noted, in a March 4, 2002 report that, "[Iranian] Citizens continued to be tried and sentenced to death in the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards. In 1992 the domestic press stopped reporting most executions; however, executions continue in substantial numbers, according to U.N. and other reporting. The UNSR, based on media reports, cited an estimated 60 executions from January through July, down from 130 during the same period last year. The Government has not cooperated in providing the UNSR with a precise number of executions carried out. The UNSR reported that approximately two thirds of the executions took place in public, contrary to regulations, and that state television broadcasted scenes from hangings on at least two occasions during the year. He also noted that a woman was hanged publicly on March 19, a very rare event in the Islamic republic. Exiles and human rights monitors allege that many of those executed for criminal offenses, such as narcotics trafficking, actually are political dissidents. Supporters of outlawed political organizations, such as the Mujahedin-e Khalq organization, are believed to make up a large number of those executed each year."

I don't mean to belabor the point. But calling people ignorant in light of these facts is not warranted.

 

[Phoenix]

If nothing else you don't know anything about Iran. Jesus man, read a book about the place.

Edit: Not only are they the most open and democratic Middle Eastern country outside of Israel (not saying anything, but still significant).

Er I thought that would be Egypt or Turkey long before Iran.

 

[bionic77]

I can't believe people think war is the solution to terrorism.

Going to bomb some poor people totally unassociated with Al Queda makes zero sense to me.

 

[Phoenix]

I can't believe people think war is the solution to terrorism.

Going to bomb some poor people totally unassociated with Al Queda makes zero sense to me.

Even if they were associated with Al Qeada it would make close to zero sense Killing people who are ready to die for their cause isn't the best way to deter them.

 

[Cubsfan23]

I've actually been to Iran, anybody else?

 

[ghostface]

I've actually been to Iran

And what do you have to say about Iran and its people?

 

[Almighty_Chocobo]

I can't believe people think war is the solution to terrorism.

Going to bomb some poor people totally unassociated with Al Queda makes zero sense to me.

Just out of curiosity, what is your solution to terrorism?

 

[bionic77]

Just out of curiosity, what is your solution to terrorism?

Obviously give up our freedoms since that is what they want.

I don't see how bombing people unrelated to the cause will stop terrorism. Al Queda obviously doesn't give a shit if we kill Iraqis or other muslims since half of their attacks happen in muslim countries. I am generally not big on most wars. The only excuse for war in my opinion is self defense.

To me it makes more sense to try and penetrate individual cells and go after the actual terrorists. I think it would also help our cause if we actually did something to help people instead of blow them up. If we suceed in making Afghanistan or Iraq stable and somewhat prosperous and free, I think that would do more to stop terrorism than invading Iran, though of course that is just speculation. We have entirely the wrong image around the world. Instead of seeing Iraqi people and American soldiers blown up, we need to show new school buildings and hospitals being built. I would probably try a lot of different things other then war and I am sure people much more intelligent than I am have even better solutions than these poorly expressed ideas.

And these people don't have last names like Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz.

 

[whytemyke]

I don't buy moral relativism. Again, please feel free to write six paragraphs on why I am wrong, but I don't buy it.

And in the last century, it seems the Japanese invasion and occupation of Manchuria was a lot more devastating than anything the United States has done to China.

What doesn't bode well is the fact that you are very quick to claim someone else's ignorance, while throwing out absurdities of your own.

Further, to end my part in this argument, I will gladly cede that you are correct in that both financial aid and trade do bolster relations. However, there is a distinct difference between applying such to countries that are openly hostile (communist Russia, Iran) to America and those that are either defeated enemies (the Axis powers with the Marshall plan) or rivals where nominal relations have been established (China).

Hahaha, ok, first off, you saying that you just "dont buy" moral relativism is like saying that you don't buy gravity. "Go ahead man, go ahead and tell me all about gravity, but I don't buy it! We stick because God makes us stick! Gravity is just a fools dream!" That right there shows that this argument/debate isn't really anything-- and I'll show why.

Beyond the fact that you dismiss common logic, you also throw up this shit about my absurdities, yet you do nothing to even show any of the absurdities I may have thrown up. If you're gonna raise a point against me, make sure you've got a basis for doing so. Everything I'm calling you flat-out stupid and ignorant on is well-founded by the things you write, such as your disbelief in moral relativity. LOL IDK THO BC MAYBE EVRY1 IS TEH SAMEZ??!1

And you're ceding a helluva lot more than the political economy points I'm trying to educate you on as well, simply because you refuse to do anything besides say "you can't compare China and Iran." Sorry but denying something does not make a good argument, contrary to what modern politicians say. Next time support your argument or just don't say anything, k? Oh yeah, and quit ignoring my initial point with China. When we made those economic agreements under Nixon, there were no 'nominal relations'. We were just on the heels of Vietnam, which was greatly contested by the Chinese as, as far as I remember, they even supplied the NVA and the VC with weapons, as well as within 20 years of Korea, where we obliterated at least 3 million Chinese as we approached the Yangtze River and got pushed back into South Korea.

And if you'd like to refer to AI as your standing for moral authority, I'd be more than happy to go through and pull out all the nifty things that AI has to say about the US, the country which you're using as your sole basis for comparison to Iran. Generally speaking, if you're going to stand on an ivory tower and lecture about how bad a country is, you should probably make sure that you are indeed on an ivory tower.

I've actually been to Iran, anybody else?

Oh man, guess we better not talk about it anymore.

 

[bionic77]

Oh man, guess we better not talk about it anymore.

You can say whatever you want about it, but actually going someplace is worth a hell of a lot more than reading about it. I don't think you can truly understand a people and their situation until you have actually lived there for awhile.

 

[Almighty_Chocobo]

The only excuse for war in my opinion is self defense.

As nice as that would be, it will never happen. Powerful people will constrantly strive for more power.

 

[whytemyke]

You can say whatever you want about it, but actually going someplace is worth a hell of a lot more than reading about it. I don't think you can truly understand a people and their situation until you have actually lived there for awhile.

Of course you're going to know more about a system if you live under it for awhile, but to dismiss all other opinions of people who haven't lived under it, who only study it, is pretty stupid. I've never been to the north pole, so I'll never know what its like to be an elf working for the fat Man for diddly shit. WORKERS UNITE! REVOLT!!! Oh wait! N/M I NEVER BEEN THERE SO JUST SUCK A FAT ONE LOL SRY PPL

 

[MC Safety]

Snip.

First and foremost: Your absurdities...

1) I'm not sure you know exactly what moral relativism is. But it certainly not the universal truth you seem to embrace it as. It's a position -- and one not held by everyone. I can accept that you believe that moral values must be culturally applied, but do not understand why you dismiss the idea that someone else might feel that there is an absolute standard.

2) You had stated, and I quote, "The Chinese have gone to war with America on multiple occasions (think Vietnam, Korea) and have actually had more of their own citizens killed by us in the last century than by any other outside force." This is clearly not true. The fact is that the Japanese invasion of China was far more devastating than either American incursion during Vietnam or Korea.

3) Finally, I was not using Amnesty Internation as my sole source as you claim. Those reports liberally quote from the United Nations, the Washington Post, the United States' State Department, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, among others. And no, I do not dispute that Amnesty International has things to say about the United States -- they are, after all, an impartial observer, are they not?

I understand your passions are honestly held. But it seems to me as if you are a little too heavily invested in the matter to be impartial. Your dismissiveness and failure to recognize someone else's viewpoint as potentially valid is not conducive to a discussion.

 

[bionic77]

As nice as that would be, it will never happen. Powerful people will constrantly strive for more power.

I never said it would happen, I just personally think it is right.

Of course you're going to know more about a system if you live under it for awhile, but to dismiss all other opinions of people who haven't lived under it, who only study it, is pretty stupid. I've never been to the north pole, so I'll never know what its like to be an elf working for the fat Man for diddly shit. WORKERS UNITE! REVOLT!!! Oh wait! N/M I NEVER BEEN THERE SO JUST SUCK A FAT ONE LOL SRY PPL

Well, this is a pretty circular argument since I never said your opinion would be discounted. I just said I would give more weight to someone who has actually been there over someone who has only read about it. For example, people in Iran will not have an accurate impression of America from MTV, WWE, and Al Jazeera.

 

[Azih]

I don't mean to belabor the point. But calling people ignorant in light of these facts is not warranted.

I never stated that Iran had an open or humane government by any stretch. What I stated was that from where I'm standing you're lumping Iran in with a bunch of countries that it has very marked differences with. Iran is in a pretty damn unique situation.

Er I thought that would be Egypt or Turkey long before Iran.

I don't consider Turkey to be a part of the Mid East and man, Egyptian elections are far greater shams than Iranian ones are.

 

[whytemyke]

First and foremost: Your absurdities...

1) I'm not sure you know exactly what moral relativism is. But it certainly not the universal truth you seem to embrace it as. It's a position -- and one not held by everyone. I can accept that you believe that moral values must be culturally applied, but do not understand why you dismiss the idea that someone else might feel that there is an absolute standard.

2) You had stated, and I quote, "The Chinese have gone to war with America on multiple occasions (think Vietnam, Korea) and have actually had more of their own citizens killed by us in the last century than by any other outside force." This is clearly not true. The fact is that the Japanese invasion of China was far more devastating than either American incursion during Vietnam or Korea.

3) Finally, I was not using Amnesty Internation as my sole source as you claim. Those reports liberally quote from the United Nations, the Washington Post, the United States' State Department, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, among others. And no, I do not dispute that Amnesty International has things to say about the United States -- they are, after all, an impartial observer, are they not?

I understand your passions are honestly held. But it seems to me as if you are a little too heavily invested in the matter to be impartial. Your dismissiveness and failure to recognize someone else's viewpoint as potentially valid is not conducive to a discussion.

1. I feel that it is ridiculous to say that there is an absolute standard because you cannot judge anything absolutely. Nothing in this life is absolute besides life and death, and even those I'm not so certain on. Therefore it doesn't seem fair to say that there is an absolute standard culturally or morally either. This is a big thing generally perpetuated by people with power... that everyone wants to live like they do and that, though they don't know it now, they'll appreciate it later once their ignorance to their surroundings has been unveiled. My problem with your stance stems solely from the fact that you don't seem to acknowledge that they may feel that they're better off the way they are, than they would be under our system. Do I wish there were freedom so that if Iranians liked our system more they could move here without recourse? Most definitely. But do I think that there is a system of morals that we have that we should force upon different people? Absolutely not.

2. I understand that I stated the 'century' figure in that sentence, but also, if you'll look back at the post, I continued in the next sentence by dropping it down to 50 years: "You say that communist china hasn't ever made overt threats against America, yet there's over 3 million dead chinese soldiers from the past fifty years who would like to argue that opinion." A misunderstanding, I see, but don't be mistaken into thinking I'm comparing what we did to the military brutality which Japan used against China.

3. Guilty as charged here, though, it should be noted that you levelled the charge of my 'absurdities' before I said anything about your sources.

Furthermore please do not sit here and tell me what is conducive to discussion. You've abandoned the idea of defending your original point (that we shouldn't help out with money) and relegated yourself simply to arguing with me, and failing at doing so, about general ideas of political economy and how they would effect various countries throughout the world. It's not only unfair to dismiss my argument because of the passion, but to do so while not really having any argument of your own is pathetic. I mean, really, you've shown little evidence that you know anything about Iran, which was proven when you admited yourself that you weren't familiar with the political/religious faction differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Yet you're trying to dismiss ME from the argument? C'mon man. If my passion leaves me as someone who should be absent from the argument, then your ignorance should do the very same.

 

[whytemyke]

Well, this is a pretty circular argument since I never said your opinion would be discounted. I just said I would give more weight to someone who has actually been there over someone who has only read about it. For example, people in Iran will not have an accurate impression of America from MTV, WWE, and Al Jazeera.

Heh, sorry to double post but I just saw this. Yeah, Bionic, I actually noticed after I replied to you that I started an argument with you for no real reason. Sorry dude.

 

[cvxfreak]

Once again, are you serious about claims that the United States killed more Chinese in the 20th century than anyone else? Last I checked, there were around 10-20 Million victims in China during WWII. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see more explanation.

 

[Chrono]

For example, people in Iran will not have an accurate impression of America from MTV, WWE, and Al Jazeera.

Dude Al Jazeera is an arabic news channel.

 

[MC Safety]

You've abandoned the idea of defending your original point (that we shouldn't help out with money) and relegated yourself simply to arguing with me, and failing at doing so, about general ideas of political economy and how they would effect various countries throughout the world. It's not only unfair to dismiss my argument because of the passion, but to do so while not really having any argument of your own is pathetic. I mean, really, you've shown little evidence that you know anything about Iran, which was proven when you admited yourself that you weren't familiar with the political/religious faction differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Yet you're trying to dismiss ME from the argument? C'mon man. If my passion leaves me as someone who should be absent from the argument, then your ignorance should do the very same.

I never abandoned my original point. Aid and trade with a country that has no formal relations with the United States (and one that is openly hostile toward this country, not to mention repressive and brutal in its legal system) is not a good idea.

You've made plenty of statements that weren't true and then changed your wording to make it seem as if you never said what you did. You have repeatedly called me and others ignorant, despite the fact that we have quoted at length about Iran. You have claimed I have no argument and am pathetic. You've been fairly insulting and boorish without really ever asking yourself if anyone else's opinion might be valid.

 

[bionic77]

Dude Al Jazeera is an arabic news channel.

Well whatever the hell they watch or read. The point still stands though.

In fact, my ignorance PROVES my point.

 

[whytemyke]

I never abandoned my original point. Aid and trade with a country that has no formal relations with the United States (and one that is openly hostile toward this country, not to mention repressive and brutal in its legal system) is not a good idea.

You've made plenty of statements that weren't true and then changed your wording to make it seem as if you never said what you did. You have repeatedly called me and others ignorant, despite the fact that we have quoted at length about Iran. You have claimed I have no argument and am pathetic. You've been fairly insulting and boorish without really ever asking yourself if anyone else's opinion might be valid.

Of course I understand that other peoples opinions may be perfectly valid. I just don't think that yours is, mainly because you haven't said much more than 'giving aid and trade to a country that has no formal relations with the US is not a good idea.'

Trade with Iran means:
1. More outlets for American products. This builds our economy and will ultimately, hopefully result in more jobs at home.
2. More inlets into the Iranian economy means more prosperity being associated with stronger American ties (this is definitely evident with other examples I've used on instituting trade instead of war. Though not China... haha, China would NOT support this point.)
3. You AVOID A WAR. This is very important as you're not only, ideally, spreading pro-america sentiment in a hotbed of islamists, but you're also bolstering the support that already exists and hopefully seeing it spread.

There's more but I've hit the big ones. The problem with this is that it isn't really like a situation of only one side disliking the other... both sides hate each other on the governmental level. The Iranians don't want us there and we don't want them near Washington. Personally, if I were Bush, I would try to offer alternatives given to them, by us, to get them to drop their nuclear weapons program. Or better yet, you offer to help them with it. Get in bed with them... that way if it goes well, you build an alliance, and if it goes sour, you know what they're capable of. They'll probably have nukes anyways before we can mount any type of military solution to it, so what do we have to lose (besides billions of dollars... which NOBODY would deny that our government has no problem throwing away anyways. ) But that's just silly me talking.

Oh well. Stu-- yeah, i've probably unnecessarily been a dick to ya. I'll try and be cool and less hostile. And the hostility wasnt because of your opinion so much as I thought you were some fool saying his opinion. I study politics constantly, even graduate with a degree in international relations in 10 months and I'll be on my way to graduate school, so I get incredibly anal when I believe I'm paying respect to opinions who come from mongoloids who occasionally read the NYT and think they can talk about middle eastern politics. So yeah, no hard feelings?

 

[MC Safety]

Of course I understand that other peoples opinions may be perfectly valid. I just don't think that yours is, mainly because you haven't said much more than 'giving aid and trade to a country that has no formal relations with the US is not a good idea.'

Trade with Iran means:
1. More outlets for American products. This builds our economy and will ultimately, hopefully result in more jobs at home.
2. More inlets into the Iranian economy means more prosperity being associated with stronger American ties (this is definitely evident with other examples I've used on instituting trade instead of war. Though not China... haha, China would NOT support this point.)
3. You AVOID A WAR. This is very important as you're not only, ideally, spreading pro-america sentiment in a hotbed of islamists, but you're also bolstering the support that already exists and hopefully seeing it spread.

There's more but I've hit the big ones. The problem with this is that it isn't really like a situation of only one side disliking the other... both sides hate each other on the governmental level. The Iranians don't want us there and we don't want them near Washington. Personally, if I were Bush, I would try to offer alternatives given to them, by us, to get them to drop their nuclear weapons program. Or better yet, you offer to help them with it. Get in bed with them... that way if it goes well, you build an alliance, and if it goes sour, you know what they're capable of. They'll probably have nukes anyways before we can mount any type of military solution to it, so what do we have to lose (besides billions of dollars... which NOBODY would deny that our government has no problem throwing away anyways. ) But that's just silly me talking.

Oh well. Stu-- yeah, i've probably unnecessarily been a dick to ya. I'll try and be cool and less hostile. And the hostility wasnt because of your opinion so much as I thought you were some fool saying his opinion. I study politics constantly, even graduate with a degree in international relations in 10 months and I'll be on my way to graduate school, so I get incredibly anal when I believe I'm paying respect to opinions who come from mongoloids who occasionally read the NYT and think they can talk about middle eastern politics. So yeah, no hard feelings?

I have no hard feelings, certainly. It was thoughtful of you to recognize your stance as overly harsh, even though you again are being dismissive. And insulting.

Good luck with your studies.

 

[cvxfreak]

Well whatever the hell they watch or read. The point still stands though.

In fact, my ignorance PROVES my point.

Well that's the thing, Arabic isn't the official spoken language in Iran. It's Farsi.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Yes, because the thing you absolutely want to do is give lots of money to a backward, oppressive, anti-American regime that's also a burgeoning nuclear power.

There's being generous and then there's being stupid. And although the Iranians would welcome Yankee greenbucks, they'd do it while laughing at the United States.

Investment, not handouts; geez. There was nothing in my post, or leading up to mine in others' saying such. *boggle*

I got a Smithsonian article to back my statement up, and could dig up some more if need be, anyways.