The Iraq Thread 2

[Blake 0]

Here's a bit of good news. Just shows what a good job good old fashioned diplomacy can do. No need for saber rattling. Bush & Co should take notes.

Yeah, but before popping any champagne bottles at the embassy party consider the following facts:

If Iraq wasn't invaded would Iran ever had agreed to this settlement? Most likely no.

Would EU ever put such an effort to this settlement if Iraq wasn't invaded by US? Most likely no. They had a nice opputurnity to gain cheap diplomatic prestige while Iran was scared of what happened in Iraq.

Bad or good, this really is a bit of old fashioned diplomacy indeed.

[bn880 5]

Ok, but those are questions and/or suggestions not facts.

[Acecombat 0]

Well my apologys then for summing you up as an american then walker  

But still my argument stands on since you still live in a democracy i.e Britain or England or UK or whatever  

We DO NOT live in a democracy.  The United States is a representative republic.  This means that the people DO NOT make the decisions of our government.  We DO however decide who does get to make those decisions for us.  The problem is, once those people are elected it takes 2 years to replace them if they are in Congress, 6 years to replace them if they are in the Senate and 4 years to replace them if they are the President.  If they are on the Supreme Court, we don't get the option of replacing them at all.  This means that in a representative republic, the people in power can enact and implement powerful and quick changes to our government and its agenda, while any change by mandate of the people is slow in coming.  The mandate of the people of America will be seen in November of 2004.

Yes but also go and educate your public on it too please who keeps yelling we live in a democracy ....

actually learn something about the things you are arguing about.

Heres a tip a person can also learn through arguing .. , go figure.

Quote[/b] ]If we retain the Bush Administration, you can bitch about us as a people then.

Yeah we'll see , if the forums remain here then i will come and bitch about it

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Bad or good, this really is a bit of old fashioned diplomacy indeed.

Von Hindenberg-style.

[Schoeler 0]

Well my apologys then for summing you up as an american then walker  

But still my argument stands on since you still live in a democracy i.e Britain or England or UK or whatever  

We DO NOT live in a democracy.  The United States is a representative republic.  This means that the people DO NOT make the decisions of our government.  We DO however decide who does get to make those decisions for us.  The problem is, once those people are elected it takes 2 years to replace them if they are in Congress, 6 years to replace them if they are in the Senate and 4 years to replace them if they are the President.  If they are on the Supreme Court, we don't get the option of replacing them at all.  This means that in a representative republic, the people in power can enact and implement powerful and quick changes to our government and its agenda, while any change by mandate of the people is slow in coming.  The mandate of the people of America will be seen in November of 2004.

Yes but also go and educate your public on it too please who keeps yelling we live in a democracy   ....

actually learn something about the things you are arguing about.

Heres a tip a person can also learn through arguing ..    , go figure.

Quote[/b] ]If we retain the Bush Administration, you can bitch about us as a people then.

Yeah we'll see , if the forums remain here then i will come and bitch about it  

Give me a break, you live in Saudi Arabia, how educated is your public in such matters? If they were educated in political science, they would have offed the heads of the House of Saud years ago. And, as far as anti-Americanism, where do you suppose the bulk of your GNP comes from? Imagine what the Saudi standard of living would have been without all those good ol' American petrodollars.

[-TU--33ker 0]

Imagine what the Saudi standard of living would have been without all those good ol' American petrodollars.

Just as good as with European Petroeuros!

[Schoeler 0]

$33ker @ Oct. 22 2003,03:37)]

Imagine what the Saudi standard of living would have been without all those good ol' American petrodollars.

Just as good as with European Petroeuros!

Uh, no, Europe's petroeuros are relatively new to the oil market. Europe imports less oil from the middle east, and the United States imports and uses the bulk of the world's oil. You guys have far fewer vehicles on the road than we do.

[-TU--33ker 0]

You know why? Because petrol's cheaper in America than here...

I've heard that someone suggested that the oil price should be in Euros and not in $US.

But that would be the Dollar's death on the world's stock exchanges...

[Schoeler 0]

$33ker @ Oct. 22 2003,10:33)]You know why? Because petrol's cheaper in America than here...

I've heard that someone suggested that the oil price should be in Euros and not in $US.

But that would be the Dollar's death on the world's stock exchanges...

Not necessarily.  After Bretton Woods and the GATT treaty, which was the forerunner of the WTO, the dollar was set as the international standard against which all other currencies are judged.  Dollars would only decline in value if people started believing it was a less reliable currency than the Euro.  Given that the U.S. economy is still, by far, the stronger economy with respect to the EU, the dollar will remain strong.  Unless the U.S. goes through a serious period of inflation, the dollar will remain on top until the EU passes us by in sheer economic strength, something that, if it ever happens at all, won't happen for a very long time.

Gas and oil are more expensive in Europe due to local taxation.  Europe buys its oil at the same price per barrel as the U.S. because oil is a fungible commodity commanding a benchmark price in the global marketplace.  Because oil is a relatively inelastic resource (it can't easily be replaced with another viable resource), it doesn't matter who you buy it from, a sudden price shock will send the economies of the world's industrialized nations into recession.  A prolonged increase in the price of oil will send the economies of those nations who can't fall back onto strategic petroleum reserves, or who do not have a viable alternative source of energy available into a depression.  Depression leads to bad things like famine, war, disease etc..  Countries like Russia, China and India direly need a steady supply of Gulf oil.  Without it, their economies free fall.  Suddenly regional stability in the Middle East takes on a whole new meaning doesn't it?

[denoir 0]

The big difference is in the layout of the cities. European cities have generally a more tight infrastructure and there are less suburban areas. Due to this and due historical and social reasons we have a far better and bigger public transportation grid. This in turn leads to less cars/capita and hence less oil usage.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, but before popping any champagne bottles at the embassy party consider the following facts:

If Iraq wasn't invaded would Iran ever had agreed to this settlement? Most likely no.

Would EU ever put such an effort to this settlement if Iraq wasn't invaded by US? Most likely no. They had a nice opputurnity to gain cheap diplomatic prestige while Iran was scared of what happened in Iraq.

Of course. But that shows that the threat of force is enough. Iraq was under much greater pressure than Iran is now. They had a much stronger motivation for cooperating.

Now, the Bush style with Iran has been to brand them as a part of the "Axis of evil" and refused to have any diplomatic connection with them. Due to that attitude they could have never gotten this deal through and Iran would be on its merry way of producing nuclear weapons.

[denoir 0]

@ Oct. 22 2003,05:50)]

Bad or good, this really is a bit of old fashioned diplomacy indeed.

Von Hindenberg-style.

Do you Americans know how to relate to other people, nation and ideas at all, without pointing a gun at them?  

And has not your laughably simplistic world view led you into trouble already? This is a generalization, but I think it is justified and it is certainly not limited to Bushites and faithful watchers of FOX news.

Ok, let me spell it out for you. The problem is that you are convinced that you are the good guy and those that you disagree with are the bad guys. Hence every compromise you make is appeasement and a failure since you have stepped from the right path.

Let me brake the news for you - there is nothing, nothing at all that could confirm that you are right. There is no set of absolute laws that says democracy=right, dictatorship=wrong etc. There is no rule book that defines who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. You think Iran is the bad guy. Iran thinks you are the bad guy. I think both your system suck. It's all relative.

And one would think that after being burned by temporary allies (also good guys since they agree with you) that you would have learned your lesson - but no. You keep banging your head into the wall. Yeah baby, let's fund anti-Iranian terrorists, that's a good idea. And no, we can't talk to Iran, they are a theocratic dictatorship, which is very different from us, so they are the bad guys. And talking to bad guys is a sign of weakness.  

It's that kind of fucked up simplistic thinking that makes the world an unstable, conflict filled place. Deal with the fact that not everybody agrees with you and that it is always going to be that way. That or prepare to go to war every second year because you disagree with somebody. And that in the end will lead to your growing number of enemies will finally nuke your whole fucking continent.

[Bernadotte 0]

...your growing number of enemies will finally nuke your whole fucking continent.

Bomb Canada too?  

[bn880 5]

Don't worry, we have bomb proof igloos.

Edit: It is doubtful Canada would get nuked along with the states, but the close proximity... Happy happy joy joy.

[ralphwiggum 6]

It's that kind of fucked up simplistic thinking that makes the world an unstable, conflict filled place. Deal with the fact that not everybody agrees with you and that it is always going to be that way. That or prepare to go to war every second year because you disagree with somebody. And that in the end will lead to your growing number of enemies will finally nuke your whole fucking continent.

if i were you i'd watch usage of some words.

Quote[/b] ]Of course. But that shows that the threat of force is enough. Iraq was under much greater pressure than Iran is now. They had a much stronger motivation for cooperating.

no one before the current war ever thought this war was going to happen and Saddam would be forced to run. idea of just how unflexable TBA can be was totally shattered the day when bombs fell on baghdad. and within 3 weeks the 'leades' of Iraq were on the run. they are not certainly in captivity, but powerless at the moment. after seeing that do you think other surrounding nations will be bolder and say things?

Iranian gov't is not some biased people. they know what they are dealing with. so given the chance for diplomacy or possiblity of war, diplomacy is much better option.

Edit: It is doubtful Canada would get nuked along with the states, but the close proximity...

and Canadians wonder why we blame them.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Oct. 22 2003,05:50)]

Bad or good, this really is a bit of old fashioned diplomacy indeed.

Von Hindenberg-style.

Do you Americans know how to relate to other people, nation and ideas at all, without pointing a gun at them?

Absolutely- we have bombs too.

Look, what do you want me to say? How many times do I have to state my opinion that US Foreign Policy is more fucked up than Marion Barry in a DEA evidence locker? And it's been like that for a while- but of course you know that. Of all the people to set you off, Denoir, I'm a little surprised that I ended up doing it. I'd spend a couple hours typing up my own personal manifesto, but I've got better things to do.

Quote[/b] ]And has not your laughably simplistic world view led you into trouble already? This is a generalization, but I think it is justified and it is certainly not limited to Bushites and faithful watchers of FOX news.

Feel free to keep your idiotic stereotypes to yourself. Stereotyping a Saudi Arabian as a terrorist is racist, but telling me that I'm a jingoistic dumbass because of my nationality isn't? I suppose that would make all Swedes obnoxious assholes, but of course I won't say that- that would be racist.

Quote[/b] ]Let me brake the news for you - there is nothing, nothing at all that could confirm that you are right. There is no set of absolute laws that says democracy=right, dictatorship=wrong etc. There is no rule book that defines who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. You think Iran is the bad guy. Iran thinks you are the bad guy. I think both your system suck. It's all relative.

Does it really matter whether it's relative or not? Personally, I'm a shades of grey man myself, but the entire concept is ultimately academic, which I suppose is why you enjoy it so much. With that attitude, you can adopt two stances: cynical enforcement of an agenda that benefits your own interests, or complete paralysis due to your willingness to consider all sides of an issue.

"Well, the Nazis are killing an awful lot of Jews, maybe we should do something about it..."

"Who are you to say that killing is wrong, hmm? It's all relative- you think killing, especially killing Jews is wrong, while Adolf Hitler doesn't. Who's to say who is right? Not I."

So how do we decide who is right? Conflict. And the winner is right, because he can enforce his policy. Which brings us to who supplies the weapons for those conflicts... how's your Bofors stock doing, Denoir? It must be fun being able to live in one of the world's premier arms exporting countries while preaching the gospels of moral relativism and global multilateralism. I'd like to try it some day; I bet my ironic side would get a real kick out of it. So to summarize:

America does what it does, usually for better but often for worse.

Sweden sells guns and keeps the world freshly stocked with hypocrites.

Quote[/b] ]And one would think that after being burned by temporary allies (also good guys since they agree with you) that you would have learned your lesson - but no. You keep banging your head into the wall. Yeah baby, let's fund anti-Iranian terrorists, that's a good idea. And no, we can't talk to Iran, they are a theocratic dictatorship, which is very different from us, so they are the bad guys. And talking to bad guys is a sign of weakness.

We aren't the only ones to make these mistakes, so laying it all at America's doorstep is a bit unfair.

Quote[/b] ]It's that kind of fucked up simplistic thinking that makes the world an unstable, conflict filled place. Deal with the fact that not everybody agrees with you and that it is always going to be that way. That or prepare to go to war every second year because you disagree with somebody. And that in the end will lead to your growing number of enemies will finally nuke your whole fucking continent.

Quote[/b] ]Imagine there's no heaven,

It's easy if you try,

No hell below us,

Above us only sky,

Imagine all the people

living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,

It isnt hard to do,

Nothing to kill or die for,

No religion too,

Imagine all the people

living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,

I wonder if you can,

No need for greed or hunger,

A brotherhood of man,

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,

but Im not the only one,

I hope some day you'll join us,

And the world will live as one.

And guess what? John Lennon's dead. He got his head blown the fuck off by some random jerk. Now imagine this: the world is full of random jerks, and many of them hold governmental positions.

[denoir 0]

@ Oct. 23 2003,06:04)]Feel free to keep your idiotic stereotypes to yourself. Stereotyping a Saudi Arabian as a terrorist is racist, but telling me that I'm a jingoistic dumbass because of my nationality isn't?

No, no it was the other way around I said that you were American because you are a jingoistic dumbass. I was generalizing about jingonistic dumbasses, not Americans.  

In all fairness to political corectness, there are still some generalizations that can be made. Americans generally speak english for instance. From experience, I think my generalization about simplistic world view - or better to say simplistic absolute moral view stands. It's not because of your DNA, but because of the indoctrination you get in school and society. All cultures have their idiosyncracies, the American culture is no different. And even intelligent people that think for themselves can't avoid being affected by it. One such thing is the tendency to view ideologies in black and white. It is not the same as agreeing with what the government does, but more believing in a fixed set of ideals. This is for instance exemplified by your almost sexual attachment to your constitution. Put in a nice way: you have a very idealistic world view. The problem is that the ideals arn't universal.

Quote[/b] ]Look, what do you want me to say? How many times do I have to state my opinion that US Foreign Policy is more fucked up than Marion Barry in a DEA evidence locker? And it's been like that for a while- but of course you know that. Of all the people to set you off, Denoir, I'm a little surprised that I ended up doing it. I'd spend a couple hours typing up my own personal manifesto, but I've got better things to do.

It has nothing to do with your foregin policy - it's on a much more basic level.

Why I reacted to you? Exactly because you are not a Bushite but intelligent and fairly liberal person. Yet you displayed this very charachteristic contempt for diplomacy. And that is because deep down you think that Iran is the bad guy and dealing with the bad guy is ..... bad. And the result of that is that you look down on diplomacy and compromises as opposed to enforcing your own agenda. And I'm fairly certain that this was a knee-jerk response as I'm fairly certain that you would not advocate an invasion of Iran. But it is exactly this knee-jerk response that I'm talking about because of you growing up in a society that holds its ideals very close to the heart so to say.

Quote[/b] ]With that attitude, you can adopt two stances: cynical enforcement of an agenda that benefits your own interests, or complete paralysis due to your willingness to consider all sides of an issue.

The second one takes more time, yes, but it can resolve things (as shown by the Iran nuclear deal). The thing is this - there are some general rules that apply to our spieces and common ground can be reached if you try. The trick is just not to assume that your ideals are the right one.

Quote[/b] ]So how do we decide who is right? Conflict. And the winner is right, because he can enforce his policy. Which brings us to who supplies the weapons for those conflicts... how's your Bofors stock doing, Denoir? It must be fun being able to live in one of the world's premier arms exporting countries while preaching the gospels of moral relativism and global multilateralism. I'd like to try it some day; I bet my ironic side would get a real kick out of it.

Although, I'm not very much a fan of our export policies, it is fully consistent with what I've been saying. Moral relativism - certainly, we sell to anybody who wants to buy. Global multilateralism - certainly, we cooperate with many countries in our weapons production.  

So while you can easily call Sweden's "peace love and understanding" proclamation hypocracy, it doesn't really apply to this discussion.

Quote[/b] ]America does what it does, usually for better but often for worse.

We aren't the only ones to make these mistakes, so laying it all at America's doorstep is a bit unfair.

Again, you're missing the point. It's not about the actual actions but about your core beliefs: black and white evaluation of other systems based on your hardcoded ideals. And unfortunately those ideals arn't global.

Quote[/b] ] [imagine... ]

He got his head blown the fuck off by some random jerk. Now imagine this: the world is full of random jerks, and many of them hold governmental positions.

Jerks relative what? The guy that killed John Lennon was a jerk because it is highly illegal to blow out other people's brains. You have a code of conduct and rules of evaluation: the law. In international relations you have a much less defined rule book. There are some generally accepted rules - don't invade other countries without provocation is for instance one of them. But they are far more general and vague than laws in a country. And it's important not to force your ideals onto others.  Stick to the general rules of conduct, don't judge others. If you want to get a new global rule introduced, do it in concensus with the rest of the world.

It's nothing odd there really - it's the same foundadtion that democracies build on - general concensus. But to get there, you need to get rid of your absolute moral view.

And the need for this is very evident in Iraq. America and American business is very good at sales pitches. I don't doubt that you convinced plenty of Iraqis of how good a democratic open market secular political system would be. The thing is that when they get the final product, they might not be very pleased. Not because it is flawed, but because they don't share those ideals. And this is where you shake your head in disbelief. How is that possible? If they get a lot of money, good business, individual freedoms and political influence, how can that be bad? Because they don't share those ideals. For a prime example, take a look at Iran. You had the pro-Western Shah Pahlavi in power. The country was modernized. The country got very rich. The Iranians enjoyed plenty of indiviudal freedoms - both religions and political. What happened? A revolution. Why? Were the people poor? Were they oppressed? No and no! Everything was going very well - measured by Western ideals. They revolted because they were unahappy about the changes in society. They did not approve of the rather secular rule. Now, this is impossible for us in the west to relate to, but we must understand and respect that it is a different culture and that they have a different view of the world. Iran has a theocratic dictatorship because they chose to have it.

[Major Fubar 0]

Interesting note: in my local paper, people are still writing letters in (spurred on by Dubbya's recent visit) calling all who question America's illegal invasion of Iraq "Saddam supporting lefties". I read the letters page over my breakfast each morning, and I don't know whether to laugh, or cry.

Quote[/b] ]There is no rule book that defines who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

Sure there is, in fact, there's lots: Bible, Quran, etc. etc. Unfortunately they seldom seem to agree on who exactly the bad guys are. Luckily we have great men like Usama and GW to explain it to us.

(I've always wondered, in a country which is supposed to seperate state and church, is anyone concerned by how often the word God pops up in GWs speeches?)

[Jinef 2]

OK, i just listened to 'Where is the Love?' by the 'black eyed peas' or something on the radio. Well it was basically saying how society is so scornful and people don't care about 'basic humanities'. Considering that this music group is actually trying to express a message instead of make money maybe American society is beginning to question their quite brutal stance, or is it solely internal and if i had a chat with one of these guys they would strongly condemn Saddam and completely supported the war on terrorism etc, and quite ironically thinks the UN should be abolished? All that is complete assumption so it won't get anyone's

knickers in a twist.

Denoir - don't you get bored with playing with the little Americans *Denoir looks up after poking a few of them*

For all you Americans, try to think of this ideology -

Spacing yourself from the average individual and always having a slightly cynical/skeptical view on your country's actions is being intelligent, not an anti American terrorist sympathizer.

And another thing -

This American ideology sounds very much like that it was constructed by a bunch of mathematicians and physicists, as everything, as i have said before and Denoir says above, is black and white, right and wrong; as almost everything is in maths and

physics (well we are not going to start chatting about conceptual maths, "Ahh by this theory 2 is equal to 1 etc...") is is defined by rules, and set out in right and wrong, you can only get one right answer to an equation. But if you do sociology or another major humanitarian at higher education level you will realise the world is so fucking gray that (hmm, just formulating link to our Swedish example, gray, depression, colour, high suicide rate, master race ) that you cannot say anything that is 'true' 'right' or 'correct'. Enter the world of academic Sociology, someone does 7 years research on a group of youth in a urban, deprived area, they then make some conclusions based on this sample. As soon as it's released people rip it apart with contradicting surveys and other evidence - the result, a huge ongoing argument that cannot end until everyone dies.

Thus we quote now - Death is more universal than Life....

Hopefully the lesson learned today is that whatever you say someone will almost certainly have an opposing view, this post for example is my first post in the offtopic forum for a good few months (after i got bored of the PRs) and now people will rip it apart trying to prove it wrong. However what it says is hard to prove wrong, as if you prove it wrong you are reinforcing the post's ideology. So i'm hopefully forcing this down your throat so you can see that people like Denoir ane not completely insane, it's just people like me ...

The Jinmeister!

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]

And that is because deep down you think that Iran is the bad guy and dealing with the bad guy is ..... bad. And the result of that is that you look down on diplomacy and compromises as opposed to enforcing your own agenda.

You seem to have very black&white view on US diplomacy also. 1998 Sudan was bombed by US because of embassy bombing in Kenya and regarded as the bad guys but now US has launched diplomatic initiative to end the Sudanese civil war and bring fighting sides to talks. Iran is labeled as rogue states but would they even want to negotiate with the US themselves? They regard US as a the Great Satan so even if the best diplomats were rouned up to heal relations it would be pretty hard.

That's why it was a good spot for EU (and note: UK) to step in and negotiate. North-Korea on the other hand tries to armwrestle using nuclear weapons as a leverage but I don't really think US should fall for this trap, it would send message that you gain by building nukes and threatning with them. Better let join interantional negotiators deal with this issue and South Koreans especially.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]

The Iranians enjoyed plenty of indiviudal freedoms - both religions and political. What happened? A revolution. Why? Were the people poor? Were they oppressed? No and no!

Plenty of freedoms my a**. Iran was effectively Shah dictatorship which relied heavily on US support and the hated secret police SAVAK. Even though there were certain freedoms, oppostion was effectively quited down with harsh methods and religious leaders driven into exile. Many people wanted change and Islamic Republic offered an alternative, same way like Communism which was being erected in Russia in 1917. People wanted to leap into something new. People will not revolt without a cause and in Iran's case it was the Shah regime.

Many people opposed the limitations of rights by the new republic in Iran and harsh Islamic justice, but eventually they were quited down, driven to exile or just quietly fell into line.

A new kind of dictatorship took over. Now we are seeing signs of moderation just like every extreme policy comes to an end at some point when new generations come to the influental age. Freedom and materlialism are generally values common to all men, despite however they want to deny it.

But the reasons for Iranian revolution were oppression and limitation of rights but not just the fact that people hated western culture. I generally believe same values and desires drive all mankind on earth which are artificially limited by goverments,laws,religions etc.

[laulau 0]

hi!

it's my first post in this topic. I haven't read the 167 pages of posts so maybe what i'm going to write is already present in this thread.

We have an european channel, nammed ARTE. Last evening, it showed a documentary on the CIA, "the CIA secret wars". It was the third part which was treating about the last ten years (from gulf war to 11th september). People who are talking in this documentary are old CIA or FBI directors and members of these agencies. I guess it could be very interesting for people posting in this thread to see this program. you can download it on e-mule. If you want just informations about it, you can go to see arte-tv web site:

http://www.arte-tv.com/dossier/dossier.jsp?node=371331

the site is in french and german. (no! it's not a Chirac/Schröder conspiracy against GWB:p )

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]

from CNN.com

The judge set bail of $7,000 euros for Syrian-born Alouni

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]

from CNN.com

The judge set bail of $7,000 euros for Syrian-born Alouni

we are getting there

[-TU--33ker 0]

Countries like Russia, China and India direly need a steady supply of Gulf oil.

Russia has enough oil on it's own, to sell it to Europe. China could also be supplied from russia...

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]

The Iranians enjoyed plenty of indiviudal freedoms - both religions and political. What happened? A revolution. Why? Were the people poor? Were they oppressed? No and no!

Plenty of freedoms my a**. Iran was effectively Shah dictatorship which relied heavily on US support and the hated secret police SAVAK. Even though there were certain freedoms, oppostion was effectively quited down with harsh methods and religious leaders driven into exile. Many people wanted change and Islamic Republic offered an alternative, same way like Communism which was being erected in Russia in 1917. People wanted to leap into something new. People will not revolt without a cause and in Iran's case it was the Shah regime.

Many people opposed the limitations of rights by the new republic in Iran and harsh Islamic justice, but eventually they were quited down, driven to exile or just quietly fell into line.

A new kind of dictatorship took over. Now we are seeing signs of moderation just like every extreme policy comes to an end at some point when new generations come to the influental age. Freedom and materlialism are generally values common to all men, despite however they want to deny it.

But the reasons for Iranian revolution were oppression and limitation of rights but not just the fact that people hated western culture. I generally believe same values and desires drive all mankind on earth which are artificially limited by goverments,laws,religions etc.

What can I say, read a book. Read up on history. Get an education You are completely off base with your analysis. Sure Iran was no democracy in the western style, but it was far far more liberal and free than for instance Saudi Arabia is.

The primary reason for the revolt was that Pahlavi forced through radical secular social changes very fast. People were outraged and revolted.

Quote[/b] ]Iran is labeled as rogue states but would they even want to negotiate with the US themselves? They regard US as a the Great Satan so even if the best diplomats were rouned up to heal relations it would be pretty hard.

I didn't say that Iran was any better. Theocracies are the worst kind of countries to deal with because they have proof from a higher power that they and only they are right.

Quote[/b] ]

That's why it was a good spot for EU (and note: UK) to step in and negotiate. North-Korea on the other hand tries to armwrestle using nuclear weapons as a leverage but I don't really think US should fall for this trap, it would send message that you gain by building nukes and threatning with them.

Yes, that is the way to go. Let's just invade countries that don't have WMD and don't do anything about countries that have them and threaten to kill you. Yes, that makes sense.

Blake, is you real name perahps Rumsfeld?

Face it having nuclear weapons puts you in a realistic position of power. If NK gets nuclear weapons and a global delivery system then they're in the club. They can't be touched. Just like nobody could stop USA from invading Iraq, NK would be free to do whatever they want (take SK for instance).

Situation: NK agrees on halting their weapons program and letting back inspectors in exchange for a treaty of non-aggression with USA.

So, tell me now Donald, what is the reasonable thing to do?

1) Sign the treaty and halt the NK nuke production. You risk having NK invading SK because you just signed a non-aggression treaty.

2) Wait until NK has nukes and then under the threat of them bombing you, you sign a non-aggression treaty. And you can bet your ass that SK will be going down then.

So, Donald, should we pretend that it's raining and let NK get all the nukes it wants, or should we negotiate with them, making it worth for them to shut down their program?