Cantr II Discussion Forum

Well, anyone listening to the news knows that Iran has basicly given its support to palestine for the destruction of Isreal. The remarks have drawn critisism from all parts of the world. And it seems it will give Bush yet another reason to go on a rampage on yet another country there.
I would have to say though, that even though I am not in support of the war against Iraq, I would give my full support to an attack on Iran. Freedom of speech is good...but not when its coming from a president of a country giving the support to destroy another....and what they are doing is like resurrecting the nazis.
I know calling for the death of all Iranians isnt a good thing...but how about just the ones that support those ideals?

I agree that being so open about it like that is a wrong thing... But the idea itself is not.

At the same time, I don't think that Iran is a strong country or is ready to go to war against anyone... Let alone Israel, who is supported by the USA.

That's definetley the end of Iran.

I don't much like alot of the past decisions the Iran's made.
If only governments could smarten up eh?

Iran not a strong country? Where you been?

Iran is one of the most powerful nations in the world. It's got a massive armed forces, weapons galore, and more than enough money to back it up and keep it running.

Of course, the United States Army could likely defeat Iran's. Sure, there would be massive losses, not to mention the huge economic disaster that would ensue, but America's army would, without a doubt, defeat Iran's.

Well, they could defeat Iran's army under normal circumstances. As of late, however, most of America's army is tied up in occupying Iraq, and not free to clear floodwaters at home, let alone wage war against one of the world's great military powerhouses. And if they did change shift troops away from Iraq towards a military campaign against Iran, America's puppet government in Iraq would be quickly replaced, with power going into the hands of (gasp!) the people of Iraq! Now, we couldn't afford that, could we?

Of course, we also have to consider that Iran would probably be militarily backed by a number of it's allies. Iraq had numerous U.N. sanctions on it, so alot of it's oil could not be exported, and so none of the big men really minded when America took over. More oil for everyone.

Back in Iran, on the other hand, exports as much oil as OPEC will let it, often more. So if America we're to invade, it would greatly disrupt oil exports throughout the world. This would really upset the people who need that oil, for example, Russia and China. I can see it now, the Chairman of the People's Republic standing beside the Minister of National Defense, giving a speech near the Mausoleum....

".....The Chinese people can no longer tolerate America's unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations. It's insistence on interfering with the actions on legal governments goes against the fundamental principles of the United Nations, and their imperialist campaign is a danger too world stability and the safety and freedom of the workers all over the globe.......Even now, the valiant soldiers of the People's Army are en route to defend our comrades in Tehran......"


And what about the money to mount this campaign? Where’s it going to come from? America is making money from Iraq, but that money ain’t going to the national treasury. So where will it be found? You’d better start looking if you want to overthrow the Guardian Council.


And do you truly think that Iran’s neighbors are going to stand for this? A region can only take so many invasions before they start getting paranoid. If you propose invading old Persia, I’ll bet you anything that your troops will be kicked out of the holy land faster than you can say Islam.

And do you think you’ll mount an attack from Pakistan? Forget it, buddy. General Musharraf and his boys are already in enough shi.t for the earthquake. Hell, he wasn’t even popular before, you honestly think he’s going to make another hugely unpopular decision for your sake? He’d be committing suicide. Tyrants don’t stay in power through ignorance. The reason their there is because their smart, and with being smart comes the knowledge that the people have a boiling point.

Afghanistan as a launching pad? Sure, you could do it. But you’d have to move the troops through Pakistan, which, again, might be a bit reluctant to have any part of it. And of course, up in Afghanistan, you’re an easy target for Chinese and Russian bombers.

So you can invade from two points, Afghanistan and Iraq. Go for it. I can guarantee you that the Iraqis will cause you a bit of trouble when you try.

And keep in mind that when the embargo starts, America’s oil shortage will worsen. That will have disastrous effects on the economy. Not a good thing in wartime, and even when not waging war, it’s makes things run a lot less smoothly.

So, say you’ve overthrown Iran’s government, destroyed and scattered their army, and are now occupying it. Iran is about three times the seize of Iraq physically. That spreads your soldiers out pretty thin on it’s own, not to mention that Iran has more than three times Iraq’s.

Iranians don’t really like their current government that much, but as you’ve seen, people don’t take kindly to have their countries invaded. Dealing with seventy million angry people will be somewhat challenging, I bet you, especially when the son’s, brother’s, cousins, fathers and friends of all the soldiers you killed get out of upset and become a bit crazy with the AK’s. And then, of course, there’s the many, many supporters of the current government, the surviving soldiers of Iran’s army, the various other violent patriots that will get a bit restless, and who would probably get a bit antsy with a bunch of foreign soldiers swarming their country, and with some short white guy very far away calling the shots in their homeland. And when you kill them, you’re likely to make there son’s, brothers, cousins, fathers, friends and comrades a bit upset. It’s a vicious cycle.

So go for it. Overthrow Iran’s government. Supply arms to subversives, make surgical strikes, and if you’re really ambitious, invade. Go nuts. Remember what happened last time you did that? Turned out well, didn’t it?


Man, are you really, truly suggesting that you should cause millions of deaths just because the ivory tower junta of Iran is towing the line it has since it came to power? You really would kill millions just because someone said someone insulted poor lil’ Israel?

And freedom of speech? Guess what, the guys who said that don’t believe in freedom of speech. Maybe you should take a closer look at the people you’re invading.

And you’re against the war in Iraq, are you, buddy? Well, guess what? Saddam Hussein condemned Israel since the beginning of his reign. So does the House of Saud. Daily. But you’re still good buddies with them, aren’t you?

Everyone advocates the destruction of Israel. Have been for years and years and years, probably since before you we’re born. They can deal with it. They’ve got thick skin. They don’t need the Freedom of Speech police to go around invading people for saying things about them.

Iran is going to say whatever they want, and so is everyone else. You’re going to have to accept it.

And there is the comparing everyone to Nazis again. Everyone who people don’t like now days, they compare them to Nazis. You wanna play the Nazi game? Well guess what? Iran hasn’t invaded and occupied any sovereign nations, while defying the U.N. rules lately. In fact, only one country has done that recently. Who’s the Nazi now?

And let’s be honest. You don’t really believe in Freedom of Speech. If you did, you wouldn’t be suggesting causing hundreds of thousands of deaths just to punish a few Iranian generals who you don’t like. What you really believe in is that people should be “free” to advocate what you believe is alright. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But don’t pretend to believe in the idea of freedom of speech. It’s a foolish and transparent charade. Speak your mind for real.

Now, weather Israel has the right to exist is an entire different thing. I don’t want to get into that, and if you guys do, I don’t think I really feel like it.

But it’s not as though Iran is about to go off attack Israel. The statement from Iran’s president was purely political, keeping in line with the ideology of it’s current leaders since they took power. It’s an empty and meaningless line. Just like when China’s Communist party say’s it’s there for the good of the workers. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just something they say.

What they we’re thinking? They we’re probably thinking “It’s about time we condemned Israel again.”

And you want heads to roll? Come on.

See, man, this is why you’re not president. That and you’re not fabulously wealthy. And you don’t have any political connections. Those is the reasons.

wow..... you really did your reserch. As for Isriel, for us.. its either,

1) cous world war 3

2) not do anything
or
3) tell isriel to back of.

but really... weve had enough deth alredy. You could say 2000 isn't much.. Heck... most citys are biger than that.. but thats still alot. Lets just end this war... and end it good. And THEN, lets see what happens.

NEXT DEBAIT!!!

Man, why couldn't people just listen to what people say at the United Nations. Don't these politicians realize why Wilson created the League of the Nations? Don't they have any idea why even more significant United Nations was created? Don't they have to read their charter when they join as a member state? And this isn't towards the US government or Iran's individually, it's a message to both.

Man, they make this world such a cynical place.

Pie wrote: wow..... you really did your reserch.

Not really. It's just simple deduction from what I already know. It's just common sense. Anyone could figure any of this out, with the proper knowledge.

Pie wrote:NEXT DEBAIT!!!

"Debait" is not a word.

Nitefyre, who are you talking to? What politicians? Who are "They"?

nitefyre wrote:And this isn't towards the US government or Iran's government individually, it's a message to both of them.

(Iran's for expediting arms proliferation, impeding on civil rights, etc; the US for being a wee too aggressive)

The purpose of the United Nations was not to stop nuclear proliferation or too protect "Human Rights".

In fact, the United Nations has often worked against "Human Rights". And not against their own rules. They aren't about Human Rights.

And that's just it. America isn't being aggressive (at least, towards Iran.)

It's just this guy who thinks they should take offensive action and depose Iran's government. Pull a Shah, so to speak.

Schme wrote:The purpose of the United Nations was not to stop nuclear proliferation or too protect "Human Rights".

In fact, the United Nations has often worked against "Human Rights". And not against their own rules. They aren't about Human Rights.

I could get into an essay about how it is their responsibility to do so, but then I would have to get in to the technicalities of how the UN is organized as an institution and that would be something you can find out on your own motive. Its agendas are to control arms proliferation (the IAEA [branch of the UN] won the nobel prize for peace just a week or so ago) and is to protect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's certainly not always successful, since it cannot be as aggressive as the US can be about it, but it certainly tries. But like any other bureaucratic organization, you can point to cracks caused by people and circumstances. It is further complicated by what makes it unique an essential, a world forums for contrasting perspectives.

Thank goodness we haven't seen WWIII. We probably wouldn't live to talk about it. Nonetheless, this current series of conflicts amount to something on the global level.

Introduction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:The United Nations is committed to upholding, promoting and protecting the human rights of every individual. This commitment stems from the UN Charter, which reaffirms the faith of the peoples of the world in a fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person.

You are obviously poorly informed, inarticulate, inconcise, drawing conclusions based on the purely cynical outlook of people today, or a combination of these factors. I haven't time to get into all the discrepencies, biases, and certain aspects of your post, unfortunately, though this major one will hopefully punch a big enough hole in your so called argument. You don't even provide a clear topicality of what your views or opinions are in this issue.

So Pie, as a lesson to you, do not take big bodies of texts as any sort of truth. Hopefully they'll teach you Theory of Knowledge in highschool or at least get into that in some sort of History Course. Asserting things like facts (which schme does--as apparent by my quote of what he says in such a manner) doesn't make them true, as I have shown the falsity of. Show, don't tell.

Alright here, Nitefyre. Allow me to straighten some things out for you.

During the second world war, the Nazi Party of Germany led Germanies armies on a great campaign of conquest across Europe. In doing this, they overthrew many governments, violated many national boundaries, interfered with the internal affairs of other nations, along with a great many other things.

After the great war, everyone decided that it was very important that something be done so that never again would a nation conquer and assimilate another nation. Countries must never again be wiped off the map. And so they founded the United Nations. The United Nations was a body to make certain the no one would attempt to do any such thing as conquer another nation permanently. Nor would any country every be allowed to interfere with another’s internal affairs, for example, to extort tribute, to assassinate national leaders, and so on (Yes, under this protocol, the Warsaw pact was in fact against the United Nations principles.)

The United Nations was founded on non-interference and inter nation peace. What a “legal” government did within it’s own borders was entirely it’s own business. That is what it was all about. Peace.

And their actions followed their principles. For example, when Pol Pot and the Khemer Rouge Party were deposed by the Vietnamese army, after having killed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians (most of them of Vietnamese descent), the United Nations did not recognize the new Cambodian government for many years, as, “legally”, the Khmer Rouge Party was the legitimate government.

The branch of the United Nations concerning Nuclear Arms is there only because the United Nations is all about avoiding conflict inter nation armed of any kind. People were (and are) naturally afraid of fighting with nuclear weapons, and so the United Nations, being concerned with peace, took the sensical course and tried (and tries) to control nuclear proliferation.

Your precious Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes against the original principles of the United Nations. That is not what it was about. It has, to a small extent, concerned itself with such things, but even today, it still has inter nation peace as it’s primary concern.

Allow me to cite, again, some examples. Their inaction with regard to the Warsaw Pact, their inaction with regard to China’s invasion of Tibet, their inaction about America’s invasion of Vietnam, their inaction with regards to America’s involvement in Nicaragua and Panama’s internal political affairs, their inaction with regards to America’s invasion of Iraq.

See, they don’t want to face one of the big powers, and none of the big powers will band together to challenge a single big power. The reason all of the large powers a veto holders are to give them incentive to be in the United Nations, so that nothing ever happens, and everyone’s happy about it.

That’s what it’s all about.

Sure, they send in peacekeepers to stabilize countries every once in a while, sure, they talk about upholding “Universal human rights”, a collection of values which some people feel they have the moral authority to force upon others, but they (the U.N. collectively) will do anything to avoid conflict.




Seeing as you do not seem to have known any of this, Nitefyre, we can see that it is you rather than me who is ill informed on the subject.

I’m not going to say you’re inarticulate, because you aren’t, and that is a very rude thing to say, especially when one says it just because they’re opinion differs from someone else’s. I have to say, I’m somewhat insulted that you would say that. Very unkind. That was entirely uncalled for, even if you do find me inarticulate. And some advice, to insult people during debate is a very bad idea, as it just begins an exchange of insults which goes nowhere and leaves people angry and upset.

However, you also accuse me of being in concise, while you, at the same time, present vague appeals to “politicians” and “they” to sort everything out by reading the U.N. charters. This makes no sense whatsoever, as neither the United States of America nor the Islamic Republic of Iran has broken any U.N. rules with regards to what we are talking about. Nothings happened, so what the hel.l are you trying to get them to solve? It is you who is being in concise, I’m afraid. I have been very clear. To not say that I am in concise based on nothing. I have alluded in very obvious ways in my writing above what my opinion is. If you cannot understand that, that is not my fault. We’re my allusions to my opinions vague as are yours, then I could be blamed, but you cannot blame me for your failure to comprehend very simple and near blatant suggestion.



You are again vague and imprecise when you talk about “punching a big hole” in my argument. Which argument are you reffering to? The one that for the United States government try and subvert Iran’s revolutionary council, or to take military action against Iran, simply for their official statements would be wrong and foolish? The argument that at present, the United States could not successfuly invade and occupy Iran?

Or the argument about what the United Nations really is? I’m going to guess that one, although I’m really not sure, as, again, you didn’t at all make it clear.

What I’m saying about the United Nations is true. It is not an argument. That is what they are about. It is not all official or explicitly laid out, but a great deal of it is. You will have to read about it on your own, though, I’m afraid.

And my conclusions are not drawn upon “my cynical outlook of people”, as you put it. I’m no cynic. My conclusions are drawn from knowledge, something which you seem to have contempt.

It seems that you fail to realize that fact is truth. You cannot base truth on anything other than fact. I really don’t know what alternative you’re using here, Nitefyre.


And oddly, you only questioned my theory on the impossibility of an American invasion of Iran’s success at the end, that having nothing to do with what you and I we’re writing about. It seems to me you are just being spiteful. In addressing Pie, giving him advice on who to listen too, you are very simply being spiteful trying to discredit me on something unrelated to what we we’re arguing about. Don’t be spiteful, man. Being petty won’t get either of us anywhere.

I agree that no one should take large pieces of well written theory as true. Of course not. Judge everything by it’s content. But the content of what I have written is rock solid.

nitefyre wrote:

You are obviously poorly informed, inarticulate, inconcise, drawing conclusions based on the purely cynical outlook of people today, or a combination of these factors.

And by the way, man, I was wondering, if all these things are true and as obvious as you say, why would you have to point it out, eh?

I think you push things a little too far schme - yes the UN is impotent in many (most) regards - yes, the permanent security council is little more than a boys club for the powerful and famous to impose their own ideals on the rest of the world (mush the same way the World Bank, the G8 and the IMF are) - those are 'true' as you suggest
(I'm not gonna get into the whole thing about truth as subjectivity - that's for elsewhere)

The UN may be impotent when it comes to the core values - even if all the other permanent security council members disagree with the US - the UN does not provide anywhere near the framework required for them to challenge the US - with the recent appointment of Bolton as the US - UN ambassador, it is clear what the US government thinks of the UN - it is a means to get agreement for it wants to do, if they feel agreement is forthcoming and benificial - otherwise it's not even worthy of being considered a 'toy' of US power.

But, at the same time, the UN does fund a lot of very important research, that does aim for the progress of human rights (in one form or another) social and economic fairness (if not necessarily equity) - it is also the backbone to a lot of very important relief programmes (both disatster response and long term efforts).

It certainly hasn't lived up to the expectations of the founders, or of the changing roles (and the role of the UN has changed - as should be expected) - but there is (often hidden) a lot of important work being done - wether the UN framework is the best way to go about that work is debateable - wether the 'good' work does little more than ease the guilty concious of the world political elite is also debateable, but that the UN is useless in every respect, as you seem to suggest, isn't quite 'truth'

As for the comments about Israel - of course they are to be condemed - but it;s not as if those who were so eager to condem him were in the best of positions to make those kinds of judgements...

I'd wholeheartedly agree with some of that sentiment anyway, I'm very anti-Israel, in terms of the policies in regards to Palestine and Palestinians, and the inequitable backing they get from the US in terms of agricultural production etc.

Anti-Israel does, however. not mean anti-semitic

Don't get me wrong. I love the United Nations. I think it is one of the greatest ideas and the greatest instituitions in the world.

It's just some people don't understand it (I'm not saying you don't understand it, Nitefyre.) or see it for what it is.


And what you call it's impotence is really not impotence at all. It's often not their inability to do anything (remember, they have many many nations willing to put soldiers at their disposal for some cases), it's just inaction for the sake of peace.

There's a saying here in North America which I've always found has alot of truth in it. It goes "Let the violent surpression of egalitarian and civil rights movements lye."

Something along those lines, anyway.



But about Israel, when I talk about it's right to exist, I speak historically and technically. Looking at both of those things, it does not, per se, have the right to exist. However, I'm not for exterminating it in manner of the fantasies of power hungry corrupt evanglical prayer leaders. It's much to late for Israel to stop existing now.

I'm just saying that technically, it's existence is not rightful, and that the way it came into existence is unfair and unjust.