Iran, the USA, Human Rights, and Democracy.

[Colpy]

I am constantly sickened by the folks on this forum who defend Iran and their quest for nuclear weapons, especially when they use the argument "the USA has thousands of nukes, so what if Iran wants a few. They are not so bad as the USA".

Recently, I have been reading a bit about Iran. I recommend highly Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi. Some of the things she experienced, either on her own or through her students, or simply as a way of life in Iran:

- disappearance of colleagues and friends, who later appeared on TV, bruised and contrite, to confess before being led outside to the firing squad. A relief, one suspects.

-girls of high school or university age arrested, beaten, and publically whipped for sitting in a group with a man present.

-girls arrested for refusing the veil, or even wearing it improperly, or wearing blush, or other signs of "immorality".

-a girl arrested simply because she was beautiful, thus unsettling to men. Held in prison for more than a month, continually subjected to rape by the guards.

-girls arrested for questionable activities (attending protest marches for instance). While in prison, they are forced to marry a guard, who then rapes and executes her, as virgins were believed to go to heaven.

-a law against women laughing in public.

-a law against women eating ice cream in public.

-the execution of thousands over a few days, after the regime created a review board to clear crowded prisons. Many of the executed had completed their sentences, and expected release.

And that just scratches the surface. Add to the Stalinist tendencies of this bunch of looney-tunes their financial and material aid to everry bunch of fanatical murdering nut jobs in Lebanon and Palestine, and you see revealed a great evil in the world.

To equate these guys with the United States is at best ignorant.

Remember, Iran murdered a Canadian journalist not so long ago by beating her to death in jail, and has refused to answer for it.

Here's the most revealing part of Nafisi's book. She is an educated lady, an Iranian, a PhD in English Literature. She was a hard core Marxist revolutionary in her youth, and is a non-practising Muslim. She certainly has a first-hand understading of despotic nationalism, and her politics are not exactly right wing.

She could live anywhere in the world, now that she has escaped from Iran. But where do you think she feels safest, feels most secure in her liberty?

In the United States of America.

Think about that.

 

[Finder]

Colpy, I've not read anyone saying that Iran is better. But the USA has away of invading nations around the world and causing death, thats what people are trying to get at. Though perhaps I shouldn't talk for them because I think Iran shouldn't have nukes but I also think the USA shouldn't as well.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Iran, the USA, Human

I am constantly sickened by people who use the yankee term "folks" instead of the proper term people. Nobody has abused human rights more than the United States, Iran did at one time have a democratic government which was overthrown by the USA, so the present state of human rights in Iran has to do with American interferance of the past. Islamic Fundementalism is an American invention funded and incuraged by the USA, no other power has more responsibility for the rise of fundamentalism in the middle east.
Colpy seems to think that a nuclear war with Iran will help the people of that same country, and maybe he's right, the dead and sick won't be able to abuse anyone.
I was reading an article about the rise of abusive treatment of women much like Colpys article describes, it dealt with the rise of fundemental christian values in the United States and the state governments that are even now adopting regressive anti-female legislation, so while Iran is guilty America is bent on emulating that same country and openly supports other countries that have similar human rights abuse just like Iran. So I wonder if what Colpy really supports and hopes to see is war and he's only using womens rights as an excuse for war. This is just using women, an old game of fundementalists. Dehumanization of the enemy, what a shitty mental trick.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Iran, the USA, Human

I am constantly sickened by people who use the yankee term "folks" instead of the proper term people.

Good...I will use it more often.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Iran, the USA, Human

I am constantly sickened by people who use the yankee term "folks" instead of the proper term people. Nobody has abused human rights more than the United States, Iran did at one time have a democratic government which was overthrown by the USA, so the present state of human rights in Iran has to do with American interferance of the past. Islamic Fundementalism is an American invention funded and incuraged by the USA, no other power has more responsibility for the rise of fundamentalism in the middle east.
Colpy seems to think that a nuclear war with Iran will help the people of that same country, and maybe he's right, the dead and sick won't be able to abuse anyone.
I was reading an article about the rise of abusive treatment of women much like Colpys article describes, it dealt with the rise of fundemental christian values in the United States and the state governments that are even now adopting regressive anti-female legislation, so while Iran is guilty America is bent on emulating that same country and openly supports other countries that have similar human rights abuse just like Iran. So I wonder if what Colpy really supports and hopes to see is war and he's only using womens rights as an excuse for war. This is just using women, an old game of fundementalists. Dehumanization of the enemy, what a shitty mental trick.

:wav: incredibly well said beaver.

 

[aeon]

I am constantly sickened by the folks on this forum who defend Iran and their quest for nuclear weapons, especially when they use the argument "the USA has thousands of nukes, so what if Iran wants a few. They are not so bad as the USA".

Recently, I have been reading a bit about Iran. I recommend highly Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi. Some of the things she experienced, either on her own or through her students, or simply as a way of life in Iran:

- disappearance of colleagues and friends, who later appeared on TV, bruised and contrite, to confess before being led outside to the firing squad. A relief, one suspects.

-girls of high school or university age arrested, beaten, and publically whipped for sitting in a group with a man present.

-girls arrested for refusing the veil, or even wearing it improperly, or wearing blush, or other signs of "immorality".

-a girl arrested simply because she was beautiful, thus unsettling to men. Held in prison for more than a month, continually subjected to rape by the guards.

-girls arrested for questionable activities (attending protest marches for instance). While in prison, they are forced to marry a guard, who then rapes and executes her, as virgins were believed to go to heaven.

-a law against women laughing in public.

-a law against women eating ice cream in public.

-the execution of thousands over a few days, after the regime created a review board to clear crowded prisons. Many of the executed had completed their sentences, and expected release.

And that just scratches the surface. Add to the Stalinist tendencies of this bunch of looney-tunes their financial and material aid to everry bunch of fanatical murdering nut jobs in Lebanon and Palestine, and you see revealed a great evil in the world.

To equate these guys with the United States is at best ignorant.

Remember, Iran murdered a Canadian journalist not so long ago by beating her to death in jail, and has refused to answer for it.

Here's the most revealing part of Nafisi's book. She is an educated lady, an Iranian, a PhD in English Literature. She was a hard core Marxist revolutionary in her youth, and is a non-practising Muslim. She certainly has a first-hand understading of despotic nationalism, and her politics are not exactly right wing.

She could live anywhere in the world, now that she has escaped from Iran. But where do you think she feels safest, feels most secure in her liberty?

In the United States of America.

Think about that.

Bad really bad it is, but it is not a reason to wage war on them, In some places in africa, women at 13 years got their ""clitoris"" chopped, and about 10000 times worst than everything you mention on iran, so what do we do for them? nothing , why is that? because there is no interest overthere for us.

 

[Colpy]

I am constantly sickened by the folks on this forum who defend Iran and their quest for nuclear weapons, especially when they use the argument "the USA has thousands of nukes, so what if Iran wants a few. They are not so bad as the USA".

Recently, I have been reading a bit about Iran. I recommend highly Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi. Some of the things she experienced, either on her own or through her students, or simply as a way of life in Iran:

- disappearance of colleagues and friends, who later appeared on TV, bruised and contrite, to confess before being led outside to the firing squad. A relief, one suspects.

-girls of high school or university age arrested, beaten, and publically whipped for sitting in a group with a man present.

-girls arrested for refusing the veil, or even wearing it improperly, or wearing blush, or other signs of "immorality".

-a girl arrested simply because she was beautiful, thus unsettling to men. Held in prison for more than a month, continually subjected to rape by the guards.

-girls arrested for questionable activities (attending protest marches for instance). While in prison, they are forced to marry a guard, who then rapes and executes her, as virgins were believed to go to heaven.

-a law against women laughing in public.

-a law against women eating ice cream in public.

-the execution of thousands over a few days, after the regime created a review board to clear crowded prisons. Many of the executed had completed their sentences, and expected release.

And that just scratches the surface. Add to the Stalinist tendencies of this bunch of looney-tunes their financial and material aid to everry bunch of fanatical murdering nut jobs in Lebanon and Palestine, and you see revealed a great evil in the world.

To equate these guys with the United States is at best ignorant.

Remember, Iran murdered a Canadian journalist not so long ago by beating her to death in jail, and has refused to answer for it.

Here's the most revealing part of Nafisi's book. She is an educated lady, an Iranian, a PhD in English Literature. She was a hard core Marxist revolutionary in her youth, and is a non-practising Muslim. She certainly has a first-hand understading of despotic nationalism, and her politics are not exactly right wing.

She could live anywhere in the world, now that she has escaped from Iran. But where do you think she feels safest, feels most secure in her liberty?

In the United States of America.

Think about that.

Bad really bad it is, but it is not a reason to wage war on them, In some places in africa, women at 13 years got their ""clitoris"" chopped, and about 10000 times worst than everything you mention on iran, so what do we do for them? nothing , why is that? because there is no interest overthere for us.

A landmark Aeon!

The first post you've made I completely agree with.

I do not wish war with Iran.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Iran, the USA, Human

I am constantly sickened by people who use the yankee term "folks" instead of the proper term people. Nobody has abused human rights more than the United States, Iran did at one time have a democratic government which was overthrown by the USA, so the present state of human rights in Iran has to do with American interferance of the past. Islamic Fundementalism is an American invention funded and incuraged by the USA, no other power has more responsibility for the rise of fundamentalism in the middle east.
Colpy seems to think that a nuclear war with Iran will help the people of that same country, and maybe he's right, the dead and sick won't be able to abuse anyone.
I was reading an article about the rise of abusive treatment of women much like Colpys article describes, it dealt with the rise of fundemental christian values in the United States and the state governments that are even now adopting regressive anti-female legislation, so while Iran is guilty America is bent on emulating that same country and openly supports other countries that have similar human rights abuse just like Iran. So I wonder if what Colpy really supports and hopes to see is war and he's only using womens rights as an excuse for war. This is just using women, an old game of fundementalists. Dehumanization of the enemy, what a shitty mental trick.

I'm going to try and stay polite here, but this may call for a trip to wreck beach.

Folk is "volk" or "the people".........

You should read the book. I am in no way defending the outrages the United States supported through the Shah of Iran. Their actions were indefensible.

Islamism is HARDLY an invention of the United States. It originates largely in Saudi Arabia, one of the richest states on earth. Saudi princes and the gov't have financed lunatic mullahs as a way to keep the people distracted from dealing with the inequalities in their own society. And yes, I know Saudi Arabia is an ally of the USA.

The secondary centre of radical Islam is Pakistan, and now that the Saudis are starting to crack down, Pakistan may well become the heart of radical Islam.

How is that America's fault?

Under no circumstances have I ever, nor would I, support a nuclear first strike against Iran. Geez!

The United States is adopting regressive anti-female legislation just like Iran?

Beaver, This is simply ridiculous. You know it is ridiculous. If you DON'T realize its ridiculous, well.........

 

[Sassylassie]

Amazing, Bush is the favorite whipping boy, yes sir-ree all that ails the world is Bush's fault. Yep find a topic and wrap the mantle of bull-crap around the topic and the out come is to blame Bush for said topic. Comparing Iran with the US is beyond comprehension Beaver. Talk about diluding the truth.

 

[cortezzz]

the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis, and afgans are on the hands of the great satan-- otherwise known as bush

 

[pastafarian]

As a person who has friends in the Baha'i community of Iran, I have nothing good to say about the religious extremists who are in over there because of US and British forced the ouster of the elected Prime Minister, Mossadegh.

In March 2000, then secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on CIA documents.

(From Wikipedia).

Until 1979, the Shah was the de facto ruler of Iran, using the infamous SAVAK to spy on, torture and kill all who opposed his will, which of course, coincided with the will of the US administrations of the day. Even after the psychotic Ayatollah took over, Rotten Ronnie traded arms with the killers of over 200 sleeping Marines to further human rights abuses in Nicaragua.

Thing is, people expect Iran to be repressive. Iran is run by power mad religious fanatics, while the US...oh never mind.
:wink:

Still, even lefties expect a little more from the USA than from Iran, so quit your "well Iran is worse" whining. Of course it is, domestically.

Notice, I didn't blame any of this on the Chimp-in-Chief!!!

Also, Iran is years away from being a nuclear threat. If the US tries something new like, say, encouraging democracy in the Middle East, maybe they won't have anything to worry about.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: United States' Stance on Democracy

Also, Iran is years away from being a nuclear threat. If the US tries something new like, say, encouraging democracy in the Middle East, maybe they won't have anything to worry about.

I would suggest, pastafarian, that the United States of America does, in fact, act in the interest of democracy in the Middle East (I think that the Republic of Iraq can attest to that). Of course, I would concede that there have been major setbacks and issues, in terms of these interests, but the elections in Iraq (whether or not the democratic Government of Iraq is going to stand the test of time is another issue entirely) are a sign that the United States has taken part in something quite worth commending.

 

[jimmoyer]

I'm glad Pastafarian is so sure Iran is years away
from nuclear ability.

All I do know is that it appears even those rival
groups inside Iran who disagree with each other ----
all of them are unified on the idea that their
country has a right to join the Adults, the ones
with the big phallic swagger.

I just regret that the Left has long forsaken its
championship of NON-PROLIFERATION of nuclear weapons
to more and more countries, creating more and
more variables for all our leaders to juggle.

It's not about how many weapons you have, it is more
about how many nations will have them.

It's more about someone like Saddam regretting
he didn't have nuclear power before he invaded
Kuwait, or attacked Iran.

But maybe the Left is more intelligent about this.

Perhaps more nations should be allowed to
grow a Big Dick.

 

[cortezzz]

if the US and UK--- and other war criminal nations wont cut their dicks off then

others will have to grow one

its beyond right or left

its about basic survival

nukes---

get some

up the ante

spice it up!

 

[Said1]

Re: United States' Stance on Democracy

Also, Iran is years away from being a nuclear threat. If the US tries something new like, say, encouraging democracy in the Middle East, maybe they won't have anything to worry about.

I would suggest, pastafarian, that the United States of America does, in fact, act in the interest of democracy in the Middle East (I think that the Republic of Iraq can attest to that). Of course, I would concede that there have been major setbacks and issues, in terms of these interests, but the elections in Iraq (whether or not the democratic Government of Iraq is going to stand the test of time is another issue entirely) are a sign that the United States has taken part in something quite worth commending.

I think a democratic theocracy is possible, something similar to Lebenon's, only Islamic in nature.

 

[pastafarian]

I think the evidense is against you, FiveParadox, since they support the repressive and corrupt Saudi government enthusiastically and were great pals of the Taliban while this group was massacring people in stadiums.As recently as the summer before the WTC attacks, Georgie-Porgie gave them 38 million dollars or so and prior to that they were invited to Washington as official members of the Afghan government as Michael Moore, among others, has mentioned.

To be fair, I wouldn't agree that the US works consistently against democracy in the Middle East, only where it suits their interests. As Toro observed in another thread, capital likes stability and, at least in the short term, repressive tyrranies tend to be stable.

About jimmoyer's post: people who campaign for non-proliferation come from all sides of the political spectrum (Robert MacNamara, is hardly a "Lefty"), but it's kind of hard to promote disarmament from inside a country with the largest nuclear arsenal, that is the inly country to have used nukes in the past, who appears only to attack countries withut said waepons and whose senior executives have "pre-emptive nuclear strike" on the table.

I agree that Iran with nukes doesn't make anyone but Iran safer. As to whether the Iranians are as psychotic as Donald Rumsfeld...well, I sure hope not, but who know?

Seems to me we're seeing in this whole Iran hoopla, more of the handiwork of the AIPAC. Since even the Israelis don't think these nutters are working in their best interests, I'll admit they scare the hell out of me.

Anyway, if the present Bigus Dickus Club would renegotiate a disarmament/stockpile reduction, then I'd be less cynical about keeping nukes away from other countries.

 

[sanch]

There is a caveat. Capital prefers stable countries when there are raw materials and natural resources including oil and gas to protect. If these are nationalized than there can be an adverse impact. Capital functions quite well in unstable countries when manufacturing or financial markets are involved. Manufacturing is easily relocated as nationalizing a sweat shop is only a temporary setback. More and more investment capital is moving into very unstable financial markets. Remember the Asian market, the Mexican market and then the Russian market. I know people who knew these markets were high risk but the returns were too great and they thought they could time it. Easy money is very seductive even if there are high risks. William Bowder who is the biggest foreign investor in Russia is not being allowed in the country. He could have learned a lesson from George Soros.

The Israelis probably have the best intelligence in Tehran and if Iran were even close to having nuclear capability they would take it out. Israel would really have no choice but to act. So in my view a US attack on Iran is a big hypothetical and not in the realm of reality.

The US was not a big supporter of democracy before 9/11. In the last quarter of the 20th century there was a gradual waning of support for dictatorships in Latin American but there was not a simultaneous support for democracy. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan democracy was an after thought. If it succeeds democracy might or might not be a desirable outcome but democracy was not the main reason for these actions. It ended up being a justification.

Aeon the practice is female circumcision. You are right that the US conveniently ignores the practice in favorable countries like Ethiopia and Kenya. These countries have made it illegal but it is still very common. And it is a Christian practice as much as it is a Muslim practice. Also the practice migrates with the groups especially where there are strong incentives for cultural retention like Europe and Canada. It is illegal in Canada but not really enforced and so in the Somali, Sudanese, Ethiopian and Eritrean communities it is still common. Laws simply drive these practises underground. Canada respects and upholds the rights of western women. If the women are visible minorities then Canada is not as vigilant preferring to let the communities monitor their own.

 

[jimmoyer]

Anyway, if the present Bigus Dickus Club would renegotiate a disarmament/stockpile reduction, then I'd be less cynical about keeping nukes away from other countries.
-------------------------Said1---------------------------

Correct ! That's the rub that stumps everyone.

But must it be ALL or NOTHING ??

If current nations of the Dick Club do not reduce
their testoterone, do we just give up stopping
others from joining this club ?

Okay everybody, the BIG DICKS are keeping their
testosterone, so here you go, you can have testosterone
too.

Perhaps that reasoning is worse than the hypocrisy
that stumps everybody.

Get ready to JUGGLE more balls.

 

[Sassylassie]

Jim wrote: Okay everybody, the BIG DICKS are keeping their
testosterone, so here you go, you can have testosterone
too.

No thank you , take it back I don't want balls or a big thingy and shaving my face is not an option I'm willing to consider. Thank you for your kind offer but I must decline.

 

[Said1]

Jim wrote: Okay everybody, the BIG DICKS are keeping their
testosterone, so here you go, you can have testosterone
too.

No thank you , take it back I don't want balls or a big thingy and shaving my face is not an option I'm willing to consider. Thank you for your kind offer but I must decline.

Haha. Sassy said balls. :lol: