International Politics Thread

[Walking_Death 0]

America has a better system where you vote for the actual presidential candidate yourself I believe.

Actually, America has an electoral college where they're supposed to represent the people's vote, but still have their own mind, as in the popular vote may be won by one candidate while electoral vote could be won by the other. Such as the 2000 Presidential elections in which Bush beat Gore in the electoral college vote while Gore won the popular vote .

While in Iran the President is elected directly by the popular vote.

[Baff1 0]

But am I right in thinking the people had a direct say in which candidate the Republican and Democratic parties chose to put up for the presidency?

I'm not sure I understand the difference between electoral and popular vote unless we are discussing porportional representation perhaps?

[Walking_Death 0]

Indeed so.

Though, I was comparing their election style though, with the U.S. being indirect and Iran's being direct elections.

In which the electoral college is set up by each state having a number of electoral votes based on population, as in the higher the population the higher the electoral votes.

[Operation Currywurst 10]

Ah, one of the most difficult questions. Can one society " A"be "morally" superior to another society "B" so that it can say that it should adopt it "A's" society"?

While this may sound arrogant, I do think that some societies can say this to others. The reasons for this are the rights and the freedom granted to minorities. The interesting result is that one has to decide between democracy and between individual rights.

I am German and I live in Switzerland. As most of you probably know, Switzerland has chosen the democratic part. In German I can trust the constitutional court to guarantee my rights. The constitutional court in Switzerland cannot do such a thing - democracy surpasses the individuum (the Swiss are about to vote upon an initiative, which, if accepted, will break the european human rights catalogue, which Switzerland has signed).

Considering the possible tyranny of the majority (or, even worse, of a minority) I do think that individual rights (=human rights) indeed do have the highest "morale" position and can thereofre be used to demand other societies to guarantee those rights to everyone in their country.

i hope this text makes some sense, i wrote it before, during, and after watching a movie ;)

Curry

[DrGonzo 10]

@Baff1

Yeah, I'm from Britain too. Some parts of Britain's legal system may be built around Christian ideas or a fusion of Christianity and politics, but the basic and most valid laws are, in fact, human universals, like the prohibition of stealing, murder, etc.

The problem isn't about a single national religion, although there are other religions in Iran, like Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, etc. The problem is about one group of people imposing their values on others. That's one of the things that's interesting about this. You assert, with justice, that I don't have the right to impose my values on other people, but that's exactly the problem in Iran or in any theocracy. One section of the population imposes its values on another, hence why people can be killed for changing their religion.

"My morality doesn't allow me to force my belief system onto other people who do not share it.

I wish them to be free to choose for themselves, just as I wish my own society to be free to choose ours."

You're exactly right. And that's the problem. We both believe in NOT imposing our values on others. Yet, this is exactly what is happening in the Iranian system and that's why the people there are resisting it. You see, I'm not trying to impose my ideology on any other person, I simply want other people to be able to live freely without the interference of the state.

Regarding the moral relativism of different cultures; I know that different cultures have different practices, but things are not made moral or immoral by the opinion of those in a certain society. If an entire society decided that Female Genital Mutilation is moral that doesn't make it so. Ignorance of moral or scientific truths does not does not, in any way, diminish the validity of such truths.

A simple way that we might evaluate a culture's morality is by seeing how much it protects individual rights and freedoms. You seem to be of the opinion that freedom is a good thing and it is wrong to rule other people and to impose one's own personal values on others. So clearly you have a moral standard, as does almost everyone. You can use that moral standard to evaluate certain cultures and to see how closely they conform to it.

And so, were you to use that standard, I'd assume that you'd consider a society that had one group of people imposing its ideas on another to be morally inferior to a society that gave all people the same freedoms and did not allow one group of people to tell another how to live.

I'm not saying that my country or culture simply is morally superior without any reason. It has to meet certain criteria before any such judgement can be made, and it does. Despite the fact that the head of state is the head of the church and PMs have to be Protestants (which I also consider morally wrong) the UK does have freedoms that Iran does not, such as freedom of religion (comparatively speaking), freedom of speech and expression, etc. But it should be understood that this is only a comparison of two legal systems.

My own personal morality is, I believe, more moral than the UK government's because it is more objective and would not grant any specific group (i.e., Protestant Christians) any special privileges. Morality is not just a result of arbitrary cultural values or the dictates of the state. There are objective standards for judging moral premises and that's what we must use when we evaluate any action or culture morally.

@Operation Currywurst

You're right.

Yes, a culture can be morally superior to another, just as a particular action can be morally superior to another. A culture may be morally inferior because it violates human rights or permits things like slavery or FGM or the arbitrary ruling over of one people by another. In contrast, a culture may be morally superior because it protects the people in it from violations of their rights and guarantees their freedoms.

[Baff1 0]

Murder isn't a basic human universal.

If we were to compare our legal system with almost ever other in the world, you would find that state execution is murder here and not universally.

Even the most very basic moral judgement, isn't. They never are.

It's just wrong to think there are basic universals.

The reason we have local courts and local juries is because we recognise the need to be tried by a jury of our peers, and not complete strangers from an an enemy country on the otherside of the world.

Morality is not just a result of arbitrary cultural values or the dictates of the state.

That's right it isn't.

Once you understand that you can move past the point of pretending that it is for Iranians.

They are all moral people. They don't need your guidance. The people best equiped to deal with the moral intricacies of life in Iran are all Iranians.

You see, I know that I can't evaluate the morality of other people without knowing much about them.

I can't go to Paisley in Glasgow and tell a street youth that it is wrong to fight the other street gangs, because I don't know enough about him, his life and the people around him, to know whether or not it actually is wrong to carry a knife there.

I can't serve on the jury there. Why? because my moral judgement is not good enough. My life is too divorced from his.

That's in the same country as me. So by all means go ahead and judge the entire Iranian way of life by all the bad stuff you hear from their enemies on TV's propaganda channel. Tell them how much more of a universally moral person you are to them.

Only you aren't. You aren't, our country isn't. Neither am I.

You look at Iran and you see state abuse and repression. I look at Iran and I see infrastructure, roads and universities. I see wealthy people. I see a country with an active foreign policy free from the domestic wars which surround it.

The people there are free. Freer than anyone else in the region. They are still my enemies, but they aren't immoral. Free from hunger, free from invasion, free from medical worries, free from slavery, free from ignorance. Free from all those greatest of bonds. All the really important ones.

And not just freedom they have either, they have the rule of law, organised religion, a civil service, emergency services, social services, a national health service.

And all that is what they stand to lose if this election defeat was allowed to turn into a civil war. 30 years of massive social progress.

I'm sorry I really don't care about the rights of gays and other peoples wives to sleep around. There are more serious issues to deal with.

Peraps this isn't a universal enough moral for me to get worked up about.But chnages there are still happening daily. So you never know.

I can't really see the current government not having to make a whole string of concessions in wake of these riots. Even if they supress them by force, movement will be made to defuse/assuage their anger. There is just too many of them to openly ignore.

To dismiss their country as a some kind of evil tyranny, greatly underestimates the Persian people.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Baff1

[Lauxman 10]

I look at Iran and see a civilized people with an abusive ruler and rigged elections, a fairly modernized country except for those who rule over it, and hopefully power will change hands soon.

I see people who are willing to give up everything for their right to democratically choose their representatives in government. Hopefully the corrupt in leadership in Iran will be removed without much violence, but dictators do not like giving up their power so easily.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9ndxl_battle-w-police-tehran-iran-june-20_news

[Baff1 0]

Would you be willing to elaborate on the abuses you see their ruler commiting?

[DrGonzo 10]

@Baff1

There's a difference between killing and murder. If you look at the execution of criminals you'll understand that it's a form of punishment for that person's actions, not unprovoked murder. That is distinct from the unwarranted killing of an innocent person and is that which is universally outlawed, with the exception of genocidal regimes. You would find it hard to find a single human society that did not prohibit murder.

So, it's just 'wrong' to think that there are basic human universals? Well, look it up. You'd find it very difficult to find a single human society that allowed theft, rape or murder of innocent civilians.

"The people best equiped to deal with the moral intricacies of life in Iran are all Iranians."

Yes. Do I need to keep repeating myself over and over until you understand? I keep telling you, I'm not trying to impose MY values on the Iranians, that's being done by other Iranians. Do you not see the inconsistency of your own argument when you condemn me for trying to impose my values on the Iranians (as you seem to believe) but then seem to think there's nothing wrong with certain Iranians imposing their values on OTHER Iranians? I DON'T want to impose my values on them and you're right in saying that I don't have the right to do that, but then you go and say that it's alright for some Iranians to do exactly that just because that's the way some Iranians want it.

And it's just ridiculous to think that you can't condemn the actions of certain people without knowing enough about them. I have absolutely no doubt that you'd consider it unequivocally wrong if some youth stabbed someone to death and stole their money, irrespective of where it happened, Glasgow or elsewhere. Similarly, with regard to Iran, I honestly think you'd find it completely immoral also if a person converted from Islam to Christianity and was subsequently murdered by the state. I believe this because you've made it clear that you oppose the imposing of one's ideas on another, but what I don't understand is why you don't condemn the system in Iran that does exactly that. So, would you be so kind as to tell me why I'm wrong to impose my values on others but it's alright for the Iranian state to do it?

Furthermore, it's not just Western propaganda that make the Iranian government look bad. It's its human rights abuses which are plain for all to see and which are the cause of the current unrest in that country. It's not an opinion that the people there are oppressed, and it's made obvious by the fact that Iran's people are resisting the government because of this fact.

Also, infrastructure, roads and universities mean absolutely nothing when determining a country's level of freedom or prosperity. I'm sure you can find all of these things in North Korea too but that doesn't change the fact that the DPRK is a terrible dictatorship. Incidentally, Israel is a freer country than Iran; it has a free press, secular system of government, freedom of religion, etc. And no, they are not free from all the greatest bonds. If the state can intervene in the smallest parts of your life (tell you how to dress, the music you can listen to, who you can have sex with, even what you can believe) then you're not free, and that's exactly why there is such resistance to the Iranian government.

Well, who says it's going to turn into a full-scale civil war? I don't think that's necessarily the case and I don't want that. Although, these protests may bring about some positive changes. And even if the current government was deposed I don't know why they'd lose all this stuff.

"To dismiss their country as a some kind of evil tyranny, greatly underestimates the Persian people."

I'm not entirely sure what you think I've been trying to communicate to you but I never once said their entire country was an evil tyranny. I said that elements of its government are tyrannical. I'm not blaming all Iranians for Iran's problems or for its government's dictatorial policies. How could I when so many of them are so vehemently opposed to their government? I condemned the government for it's actions, never did I collectively blame the Iranians.

However, I think I know where you're coming from. More of a pragmatic political perspective that wants change to occur in Iran gradually rather than something more like that of the protesters' spirited opposition to the status quo.

But if there's one thing that I want to understand about your line of argument it's this: Why is it wrong for me to impose my values on Iranians but it's acceptable for some Iranians to impose their values on other Iranians?

[Commando84 0]

More on the net activists from around the world trying to support the Iranian people.

http://hackerswithoutborders.net/index.php/Main_Page

[SpecOp9 0]

Is it wrong of me to suspect U.S. involvement in this? I have read articles from a few years ago that state:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html

Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.

Including an article by Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

[POTS 0]

The USA was probably involved, and probably continues to be involved despite the new administrations rhetoric.

[Commando84 0]

Is it wrong of me to suspect U.S. involvement in this? I have read articles from a few years ago that state:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html

Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.

Including an article by Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

You guys are crazy! You know that Iranian people have **** escaped that country to come to western countries where they know they won't be threatened with death everyday.

Shit if CIA wanted Iran going downhill they could have done it during the 8 years that Bush was in office.

Imo its part Iranian refugees kids that have grown up in western democracies and are trying to help the people back home now during this situation and also the pirate and hacker movements and individuals with IT knowledge that are trying to enlight the Iranian struggle for democracy!

See it as Green Peace trying to chain themself to blockade shipments of army bases or nuclear power plants and such but they are working to show that Democracy have to be saved and fought for.

Its a way to show european politicians we don't want the whole internet to be monitored like some George Orwell nightmare :eek:

People are getting sick of false warnings of terrorism or the new ways of the goverment to treat filesharerers worse than murderers....

Its a fight for freedom for people everywhere, sure it ain't the same as grabbing a rifle and fighting the evil armies of doom face 2 face but its something more and its growing steadily the last 1-2 years, internet is one of the most democratic tools and putting restrictions on it upsets people, its just as simple as that. :)

Internet unites people across the globe and that...makes politicians and large corporations afraid.

[Iraqi Bob 10]

8 UK Embassy staff are arrested.

*sigh*

I for one, having dealt with these people, am completely unsympathetic to their cause against the two "Satans". I think it's hilarious that some people in the west are apologetic towards Iran.

[Baff1 0]

I don't need to demonise my enemies before I am willing to fight them Bob.

I don't have to lie to myself about why I do unpleasant acts. I think anyone who does lacks balls, and makes winning any war harder by confusing the goals.

Lefties mate. No balls.

Iran wants to usurp the wests colonial dominantion in the middle east with it's own. I would rather see them bombed than this happen. It doesn't mean they are evil for wanting this any more than I am for wanting to maintain our dominance over them and their neighbours.

I see no reason not to respect my enemies. De-humanisation isn't a process I approve of. It's not the Iranians I am apologising for, it's our left wing.

@Commando,

I know plenty of exiled Iranians who have escaped that country for fear of reprisal. I count a good number of them amongst my personal friends.

What you should remember is that these exiles are not exiled unjustly. They are the members of the previous oppressive regime who can no longer live in safety there due to the nature of their actions when they were in charge of the place.

The "people back home" don't want their help. They want justice.

Actually things have loosened up in the last 15-20 years. The Iranian government has allowed them to return and allowed them to recover their confiscated homes and property. As these people were the ruling classes those properties held substantial value.

@Baff1

There's a difference between killing and murder. If you look at the execution of criminals you'll understand that it's a form of punishment for that person's actions, not unprovoked murder. That is distinct from the unwarranted killing of an innocent person and is that which is universally outlawed, with the exception of genocidal regimes. You would find it hard to find a single human society that did not prohibit murder.

So, it's just 'wrong' to think that there are basic human universals? Well, look it up. You'd find it very difficult to find a single human society that allowed theft, rape or murder of innocent civilians.

"The people best equiped to deal with the moral intricacies of life in Iran are all Iranians."

Yes. Do I need to keep repeating myself over and over until you understand? I keep telling you, I'm not trying to impose MY values on the Iranians, that's being done by other Iranians. Do you not see the inconsistency of your own argument when you condemn me for trying to impose my values on the Iranians (as you seem to believe) but then seem to think there's nothing wrong with certain Iranians imposing their values on OTHER Iranians? I DON'T want to impose my values on them and you're right in saying that I don't have the right to do that, but then you go and say that it's alright for some Iranians to do exactly that just because that's the way some Iranians want it.

And it's just ridiculous to think that you can't condemn the actions of certain people without knowing enough about them. I have absolutely no doubt that you'd consider it unequivocally wrong if some youth stabbed someone to death and stole their money, irrespective of where it happened, Glasgow or elsewhere. Similarly, with regard to Iran, I honestly think you'd find it completely immoral also if a person converted from Islam to Christianity and was subsequently murdered by the state. I believe this because you've made it clear that you oppose the imposing of one's ideas on another, but what I don't understand is why you don't condemn the system in Iran that does exactly that. So, would you be so kind as to tell me why I'm wrong to impose my values on others but it's alright for the Iranian state to do it?

Furthermore, it's not just Western propaganda that make the Iranian government look bad. It's its human rights abuses which are plain for all to see and which are the cause of the current unrest in that country. It's not an opinion that the people there are oppressed, and it's made obvious by the fact that Iran's people are resisting the government because of this fact.

Also, infrastructure, roads and universities mean absolutely nothing when determining a country's level of freedom or prosperity. I'm sure you can find all of these things in North Korea too but that doesn't change the fact that the DPRK is a terrible dictatorship. Incidentally, Israel is a freer country than Iran; it has a free press, secular system of government, freedom of religion, etc. And no, they are not free from all the greatest bonds. If the state can intervene in the smallest parts of your life (tell you how to dress, the music you can listen to, who you can have sex with, even what you can believe) then you're not free, and that's exactly why there is such resistance to the Iranian government.

Well, who says it's going to turn into a full-scale civil war? I don't think that's necessarily the case and I don't want that. Although, these protests may bring about some positive changes. And even if the current government was deposed I don't know why they'd lose all this stuff.

"To dismiss their country as a some kind of evil tyranny, greatly underestimates the Persian people."

I'm not entirely sure what you think I've been trying to communicate to you but I never once said their entire country was an evil tyranny. I said that elements of its government are tyrannical. I'm not blaming all Iranians for Iran's problems or for its government's dictatorial policies. How could I when so many of them are so vehemently opposed to their government? I condemned the government for it's actions, never did I collectively blame the Iranians.

However, I think I know where you're coming from. More of a pragmatic political perspective that wants change to occur in Iran gradually rather than something more like that of the protesters' spirited opposition to the status quo.

But if there's one thing that I want to understand about your line of argument it's this: Why is it wrong for me to impose my values on Iranians but it's acceptable for some Iranians to impose their values on other Iranians?

Murder is murder, it makes no difference to me whether you think you have just cause to murder someone. Just because you think they "deserved it" doesn't make it any less murder. They are still dead, you still killed them. Pre-meditated murder, is actually considered a greater crime here than murder in hot blood.

That you and Iranians have different idea's on what circumstances legitimises murder doesn't in any way make your sensebilities and justifications any more superior to theirs. For a culture like ours whose state and religion say that all murder is wrong, it in fact places you on equal moral footing with them.

If a guy in Glasgow stabbed someone to death and stole their money I would not be in a position to know whether the same guy's family was under threat from the stabbed guy. To know whether or not their was any history between the two people, or whether or not the guy stabbed was currently on his way to rape the murderers sister and the money the was carrying was all stolen from the nearby church to which the assailant returned it after the murder. Or whether he had a starving child at home depending on him.

Likewise I would not know whether or not the police had a history of cover ups and whether or not the assailant was a well known pacifist or in fact had lost both hands in a childhood accident and was completely incapable of weilding a knife.

Also I would not know whether we has the local loan shark or a well known mental case.

Of course I can't condemn peoples actions without understanding the circumstances in which they occoured.

That's why we have a legal system, specifically to explore these things on an individual case by case basis.

A generic law on it's own is of very little value to society.

Since you only approve of the minority of Iranians that rebel against their government it is implicit in that statement that you disapprove of the majority of them who support it.

Why it is wrong for you to impose your value system on Iranians and not for Iranians to impose their value system on other Iranians, is because they all share a common value system with each other that you do not.

They all have first hand experience of living in Iran and with eachother and you do not.

They all have a directly vested intrest in the society that they are living in and you do not.

They are eachothers peers and you are not. Tried by a jury "not of my peers" is hardly a great recipe for justice.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Baff1

[Iraqi Bob 10]

I don't need to demonise my enemies before I am willing to fight them Bob.

I don't wish to demonise them either - I don't think they're evil. I just think they're a bunch of twats. It's in their culture anyway (that sounds a bit prejudice but think of the way Mancunians and Scousers hate eachother). I just don't like them because every single one I've met is stingy, paranoid, and hypocritical.

But even with that in mind, why fight anyway? Why does everything have to be a stand off? If my enemy is human, then I cannot bring myself to kill him even if he's a complete twat. It might sound naive but why can't we all just get along without having to fight or seek to control someone?

In Iraq we say "don't bark back at a barking dog". The more religious of us would say "love your enemy". ;) At the moment I'd like to see nothing more than Britain removing its embassies in Iran (and visa versa) and bidding them farewell. Because although Britain has a lot to answer for with regards to its past colonialism in Iran, Britain isn't the once racist empire that bombed whoever they thought wasn't acting civilised.

Nowadays its just a soft, incompetent "naughty naughty, we're very cross" government who claim hobnobs on their expenses rather than spending their time gunboating uncivilised nations. I doubt they even have the competence to incite a protest in Iran, let alone intend to.

I'd rather not quarrel over land, resources, religion, or any other rediculous thing that we think we need to kill eachother over. However, there are exceptions of course. If someone is trying to impose a way of life that on you that is not consistent with universal human rights, and if you can't reason with them, then I say fight to protect yourself. Huzzah.

Iran wants to usurp the wests colonial dominantion in the middle east with it's own. I would rather see them bombed than this happen. It doesn't mean they are evil for wanting this any more than I am for wanting to maintain our dominance over them and their neighbours.

Spoken like a true imperialist. ;)

[Baff1 0]

They have the competance alright, they have been beaming a BBC Iranian propaganda channel into the country for years. We have harboured all their dissidents too.

Like you I'm about ready to close the embassy. The cold hard reality is however, we aren't ready for a war with them. So we need it open as we are going to have to make deals for the forseeable future.

There is something else you should never do to a barking dog, and that is run away. Dog's are predators, if you act like prey, they will respond to you as prey.

Rabbits don't bark back, dogs that bark back fight less than those animals that don't.

(Personally I prefer the way of the ninja. I don't bark back because I want you to strike at what you think is a rabbit but isn't.

Ninja's FTW!)

Sun Tzu has some great incites into when to bark and when not to. Give it a quick read if you have not done so already.

We can't all get along because there isn't enough to go round. We can't leave the Middle East without becoming dependant on Russia for our energy, like the Germans and Ukrainians are, and that would truely suck in comparison to where we are now.

If push comes to shove we can force Middle Eastern countries to trade with us. With Russia? The opposite is true.

When we bombed Iran, it wasn't because we hated Iran, it was because we were being bombed by Germans ourselves and needed to stop it.

There is a bigger picture.

The Iranians or Iraqi's don't have to be trying to kill us for us still to need to protect our intrests in their region as a matter of survival.

I'd rather not fight for land and resources either, but then, that's a luxury that history has never afforded mankind or indeed any other species on this planet.

Even on the most war free model, a rich country has a lower child mortality rate than a poor country. It is all about survival. If you give everything away or refuse to defend it against others who want it for themselves, people here will die. We aren't a self sufficient society nor have we been for centuries. We can't even feed a fraction of our population. We either engage with the world or most of us will die of famine and plague.

I'm glad I won't have to fight with you, but the Iranians don't feel the same as you. They want to fight. They believe we are too weak to stop them taking over regional hegemony and it is the oft stated goal to replace ours with theirs.

I'm not like you, I can kill my enemy. Be he human or anything else. I kill stuff every day. I'm an imperialist and I place my family first. No human life is of higher value to me than theirs.

What I have wasn't gained in one life time. It's total value is equal to all the lifetimes of work my ancestors took to build it. It cost lives to get. It will cost more than any one life to replace if lost. It is of greater value to me then most human life or any other kind of life.

I like the stuff I kill. But I kill it anyway.

I think of it as like cleaning the toilet. Dirty jobs still have to be done.

Some people will argue as to why they don't need to, idealistic students will live in a stinky house rather than clean their bog themselves. But in the end, toilets have to be cleaned.

Just because the job stinks or is unclean isn't really a good enough excuse not to do it.

Plenty of people will make those excuses however. A student can talk the arse end off a fly and justify why he doesn't clean his own mess.

In an ideal world of course, toilets would never get stinky. But they do, and they always will. We can all eat flowers and perfume, and change our diets and whatever. Shit will still stink and someone will still have to clean the sewage pipe when it gets blocked.

I don't live in a world that will ever be free from war, where I will ever be able to keep my property without being willing to fight for it. And that's just the way it is.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Baff1

[DrGonzo 10]

@Baff1

"Murder is murder, it makes no difference to me whether you think you have just cause to murder someone. Just because you think they "deserved it" doesn't make it any less murder. They are still dead, you still killed them. Pre-meditated murder, is actually considered a greater crime here than murder in hot blood."

That doesn't contest my original point at all, so fine. That, in fact, appears to acknowledge the universality of the idea of murder. The point you previously made concerned the obvious fact that execution is not universally agreed upon regarding whether or not it is murder.

Interestingly, this also seems to indicate that you believe that killing is always murder (i.e. wrong) irrespective of the circumstances. If that's the case then I don't understand why you need to know the particular circumstances of a person killing another before you condemn it or acknowledge it as being wrong.

You're right that killing is a nuanced thing, although it's not entirely clear if that's how you see it. But your original point was this and it is this that I'm contesting:

"Of course I can't condemn peoples actions without understanding the circumstances in which they occoured."

So, for the sake of simplicity, I'll give a less nuanced example: It is easy to condemn a child molester that rapes a small child. I can't think of a single justification for such an act. Regardless, however, this is largely just for the sake of argument. We know why the Iranian government does what it does and we can safely say that the people it kills for their sexuality or their religion are not being killed with any moral justification. What they are doing is completely immoral and dictatorial. Even if you hate homosexuality or other religions, that's still not adequate justification to infringe on the rights of other people, let alone kill them. I don't agree with you or your opinions but I doubt you'd think that gives me the right to have you killed or have you imprisoned.

Are you sure that the majority of the Iranians really support the government there? Even if it is it could well be a very slight majority. But either way, I don't blame all Iranians. And the Iranians are free to have their biases, just not to violate the rights of others without any real basis. Even then, Iran is an ancient country with a great deal of history and culture. I never dismissed it as an evil tyranny, my criticisms are of its current government.

"Why it is wrong for you to impose your value system on Iranians and not for Iranians to impose their value system on other Iranians, is because they all share a common value system with each other that you do not.

They all have first hand experience of living in Iran and with eachother and you do not.

They all have a directly vested intrest in the society that they are living in and you do not."

Clearly the Iranians don't all share the same value system and that's why they are in conflict with each other; the conflict between liberals and conservatives. And the points you make only concern why it's wrong for me to impose my values on the Iranians; a fact that I never contested to begin with. You do not give any justification for the imposing of one group's values onto another group.

As an aside, if their value system made them mutilate the genitals of their adolescent females and my value system strictly forbade such a practice, I might venture to say that their adopting my value system would be for their benefit, despite the fact that it was not developed within their country. The same may be said for practices like 'honour killings' or wife burning by people in certain parts of Asia. The value of certain cultural practices is not determined by cultural relativism; i.e., cultural practices are not all equally valid.

They all have an interest in that society? I have an interest in my society but it doesn't give me the right to tell people how to dress or what they can say or think. As I've said, I don't agree with you, I understand that we both live in Britain, and once again I'd have to say that I'm sure you wouldn't give me the right to impose my values onto you just because I've got an interest in the society in which we both live.

"They are eachothers peers and you are not. Tried by a jury "not of my peers" is hardly a great recipe for justice."

I'd far rather that my peers be objective and unbiased foreigners than native religious crackpots.

As another aside, I found this interesting:

"Iran wants to usurp the wests colonial dominantion in the middle east with it's own. I would rather see them bombed than this happen. It doesn't mean they are evil for wanting this any more than I am for wanting to maintain our dominance over them and their neighbours."

So it's not OK to impose one's values onto others but it's OK to bomb them? You talk about not imposing on others and yet claim that you want to 'maintain dominance' over them? Hey, if you say so. :D

[Iraqi Bob 10]

They have the competance alright, they have been beaming a BBC Iranian propaganda channel into the country for years.

Oh, common. Have you watched this channel? I'm no fan of the media but the BBC is hardly a propaganda machine. Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth and just because they gave the events in Iran a lot of coverage does not mean they should stop it because the Iranian government doesn't like it. Someone should tell them that unlike their press, ours is free and not influenced or controlled by the government.

We have harboured all their dissidents too.

We harbour everyone, everyone from serial rapists from Albania to one-eyed hook-handed "Islamic" nutjobs, which only reinforces our incompetence.

There is something else you should never do to a barking dog, and that is run away. Dog's are predators, if you act like prey, they will respond to you as prey. Rabbits don't bark back, dogs that bark back fight less than those animals that don't. (Personally I prefer the way of the ninja. I don't bark back because I want you to strike at what you think is a rabbit but isn't.

Ninja's FTW!) Sun Tzu has some great incites into when to bark and when not to. Give it a quick read if you have not done so already.

Actually I was thinking of just walking away, but whatever.

We can't all get along because there isn't enough to go round.

I beg to differ. There is enough to go around - it's our greed that tells us that we need more and more.

And even if there wasn't - it's still running out anyway. So why not seek another way? I'm not a sandle-wearing ecofascist but I'm certain we can completely switch to renewable energy as long as we're not stubborn. After all, if we managed to search for oil, dig a hole, extract, ship it half way round the world, put it in a refinery, transport it to a petrol station and then sell it all for a quid per litre then I'm sure we can put equal effort into hydrogen and nuclear fuels.

When we bombed Iran, it wasn't because we hated Iran, it was because we were being bombed by Germans ourselves and needed to stop it.

There is a bigger picture.

That wasn't really what I had in mind. I was thinking more of the coup against the elected PM Mossadeq in the 1950's (no bombing needed there - Churchill just had to phone his American friends for a hand), or if you want to go back furher, the 1920's when they put Reza Shah on the throne, and in the 1800's when they carved up Iran's borders with Russia and India.

I don't live in a world that will ever be free from war, where I will ever be able to keep my property without being willing to fight for it. And that's just the way it is.

That is the way it is. But what I'm saying is that is doesn't have to be. But then again I'm a religious man and my opinion is disregarded when it comes debates on "survival of the fittest" and "protect our freedoms" and all the rest of that tosh. You call it "survival"; I call it "materialism".

Sure, I'll gladly kill the next knife-wielding chav that breaks into my home. But I'm not going to appease Johnny Arab and his merry gang of wife-beaters so that I can fill up my car every day. Nor am I willing to kill him and enslave his country's population just because someone supposedly suggested that he may or may not be planning to bomb a nightclub in Surrey (coordinating the whole operation from a cave in Tora Bora might I add).

[Andi 10]

A nice overview of covert US regime change actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

[SaBrE_UK 0]

US starts biggest offensive since Vietnam in Afghanistan.

[SpecOp9 0]

Obama's approval rating is sinking:

Rasmussen: Obama Disapproval Rating Matches Lowest Level Recorded

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Thank god, since everything he promised was a giant lie and people are starting to get with it.

[DrGonzo 10]

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Despite all the platitudes about 'change' and all that it always seems that when these people get into power they revert to politics-as-usual. A large part of the problem is the credulity of the voters who fall for it in the first place.

Still, there's always going to be people who're displeased with certain political policies. You can't prevent people from disapproving of the elected government, irrespective of who's in power.

[TangoRomeo 10]

As if the citizen-compatible muppets sitting in the white house were running the show ...

There a line in Apocalypse Now where Kurtz says to Williard that he's an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill. Use it as you see fit.

[JdB 151]

US starts biggest offensive since Vietnam in Afghanistan.

Then what do you call Operation Iraqi Freedom? ;)

(248.000 US troops)