Metrogo, stop wasting your time with IM. If you search through his posts, you will notice an indiferrence to the fate of individuals which simply freezes the blood in your veins. It's one thing to support the palestinians and speak againt Israel, but IM has done far more than that. You will see him strongly advocating the idea of a war of attrition waged by all the arab states against Israel in order for his palestinian confederation to come true. Now let's sit down and ponder at the wars of attrition in the XX-th century : WW I - 10 millions casualties Vietnam war - 3-4 millions casualties Iran-Iraq war - 1 million casualties. There isn't one such war who didn't produce a death toll numbering at least hundreds of thousands. But IM has claimed that, in his opinion, it is worth it if it will bring a more just peace, etc. His own words : "I have already told you: at least in my vision, the "prize" is worth the price. The prize is the rebirth of the Middle East; of the region, ridding itself of western colonialism; in the process, also giving a life that is dignified and hopeful to all those who live in Palestine." When it was pointed out that Iran's insistence in waging this attrition war after Iraq's first offer of peace, in 1982, led to an enormous bloodshed, he claimed that it was worth it because Saddam was ousted by US 15 years later (and apparently the war from 1980-1988 played a role in that). Simply stunning. If IM has such a callous attitude towards his own countrymen (a polite way to say that he actually does not give a shit how many die, as long as Iran makes some political/ideological gains), what good can you expect of him in regard to other people ? IM is basically on the same mindset as good ol' Joseph Stalin, who said "when one man dies, it's a tragedy, when a million die, it's statistic" or komrade Mao, who commented as well that "a nuclear war is not such a bad thing, half the world would die, but capitalism would be destroyed". If he was only 14, his attitude would be understandable up to a point - after all, a 14 years old can believe that war is just some kind of computer game with real weapons. But to see this from an adult is really unnerving. If you take pieces from Pravda, remove the references to specific events, persons and locations, and then compare those Pravda articles with IM's posts, you would be hard pressed to make the difference.
This coming from someone who is defending giving Israel free money because he truly believe it make economic sense to sell weapons to a country that kills innocent people with those same weapons . If your gone accuse IM of something at least take a good look at yourself before doing so .
Wow. My respect for iranians increased tenfold after that. Good to hear that not all are like certain "propagandists". Your idea has merit. This kind of regime practically survive by being confrontational and feeding on people's frustrations. That's why all the time the inept governments with dictatorship tendencies desperately search for a boogeyman outside their country for their people to shout "Death to X". If US would get friendly with Iran, the mullahs' regime falls in 10-20 years, maximum. As long as they are no more power, I don't care if they have the A-bomb or not. If it does not fall in the hands of Hezbollah, it ain't going to make much difference.
Just because you don’t agree with someone views it doesn’t mean he/she is a propagandist . Learning to listen to someone opinion is what this world needs because without it there will always be war and conflicts. I don’t agree with IM on many things but that doesn’t mean I am going to accuse him of something that he is not or call him disrespectful name . Learning to disagree is more important than you think.
With all due respect, I think you have serious problems at understanding people's point. I have not advocating giving Israel's some free money. I was explaining to someone who kept insisting on being obtuze the political/economic logic of this action, from the US perspective. I have not adressed the morality of this issue at all. Second, even if I did what you say I did, comparing someone who would support a logistical help for Israel with someone who openly advocates a kind of third world war in the Middle East is simply pathetic. That would be like equating the Gaza bombings with the Kiroshima/Nagasaki. And, yes, I did take a good look at myself. If you find me advocating world war in order to get rid of the current regime in Iran, a regime which I detest as much as some of you detest Israel, I will accept to be banned from this forum. You should also take a look at your own argument before throwing yourself blindly at your countryman's feet.
That's the whole point. I did listen to his opinions. Very carefully. And I didn't like at all what I heard. Yeah, learning to disagree, as you say, but there is a limit to it, when certain opinions go farther than simple disagreement and become socially dangerous.
And why didn’t you address the morality of this issue? Your addressing the morality of the Iran-Iraq war WWII , and your accusing IM of not being “moral” enough because you some how think he is advocating war but your admitting you never address the morality of an issue that has cost thousands of lives and ruined people lives for many years. If your going to preach us about morality then you should advocate it when your defending the wrong economic reasoning of giving Israel free money . Logistical help of killing innocent people is just as same as killing one person or hundreds of people. Your defending the idea , it doesn’t matter what the magnitude or the results are as long as your defending the idea of it. So now you think I am defending IM just because he was born in the same country as I? no I am not defending anyone . I am defending what I believe in.
Your not always going to like what you hear. Your post basically says if I don’t like what I like to hear then your opinion is trash. I never seen IM get angry at someone , even if he disagrees with them , he just keeps stating his opinion and tries to defend his ideas. That’s the more logical method of any debate.
Because it wasn't asked for. The question I was answering was "how giving money to Israel helps US economy". Not "is it right to give Israel money etc". You are becoming incoherent. Can you actually make the difference between not adressing an issue and supporting a very costly outcome, particularly for the sake of the same empty and vain nationalistic rhetoric for which IM is infamous for ? That does not belong to my original point, but do you have the same opinion about the help Iran gives Hezbollah and Hamas or it applies only to US/Israel ? You are putting words in my mouth, but, even if assuming what you said is true, does someone not have the right to criticize those opinions which are trash, particularly if their implications are extremely dangerous ? Irellevant. To use an extreme example, neither did Stalin got angry at anyone, but he did what he did.
This logic confuses me. If I offer a technical explanation for a specific action, why should I adress an unrelated topic ? Do you think I should have said "US giving money to Israel helps the economy for reasons x, y and z, but it's imoral to do so" ? If that makes you happy, I can do that know, but it's weird to say the least. Iran is funding Hezbollah, it's a known fact and Hezbollah aren't using those rockets for fireworks. The fact that Hezbollah didn't kill thousands of israelis is not due to lack of trying. Extreme yes, but irellevant no. The point is that being calm does not represent a merit by default. You can state extremely dangerous opinions while being extremely calm. Valanjak, there is a reason people are degrading IM and it's not his calm. Your arguments in his defence simply don't hold and many of them are just moving the goalposts. I stand by what I said. Unless IM wants to retract his previous statements, in which case I will do the same.
To put this back on topic. Two questions : 1. What is this potential Iran can achieve ? What is that objective those others might try to prevent Iran from achieving ? 2. If it's economical, why would anyone try to stand in Iran's way ? 3. What changes in the political landscape of the ME and how are those going to occur ?
Listening to "morality lessons" from a pro-Israeli poster who has gone to lengths to justify everything about what Israel has done is rich. One correction though: while I have stated how Arabs would prevail in a war of with Israel if they followed the right tactics, what I have said is that the changing dynamics in the political landscape arising from adopting the posture I favor would create enough of a balance of power to avert the need for such wars. As long as that change in the balance of power is coupled with a new paradigm that charts a path that is just and fair. My own conception of what that paradigm should look like is found in my proposal for a Palestinian Confederation. My own view is that there are serious moral issues implicated about much of what has happened in the Middle East. From the arbitrary drawing of many of its borders; to the colonial rule imposed on parts of it by outside powers; to the project to create a "Jewish homeland" on lands that were not Jewish; to the people displaced by that project; to the creation of the "state of Israel" and the wars fought as a result; to the extension of the project by those who dreamed of extending their enterprise to even more lands which are not Jewish; to the outside attempts to force acceptance of all that has happened, by propping up regimes that go against the wishes of their own people on the issue, and marginalizing those who stand against it. And, most recently, by the fact that "no option" was or is left off the table to stop the rise of Iran, or if you wish to stop Iran's enrichment program, not even the option of using nukes against it. Except I don't think any of these moral issues can possibly make the parties preferred by the West look any good! Well, unless we apply the kind of "moral standards" that once made slavery and unequal treatment of African Americans the "moral thing to do" elsewhere. And bring those "moral standards", albeit with slightly different vocabularly, to the Middle East.
Iran's potential is to be a leading power in the region. As it has been throughout much of history. But unlike those who want to claim the lead by force of their arms, Iran's leadership will be based on choosing the side of the majority of the population in the region in their quest to stand against those that are oppressing them. For Iran to be able to fully do as I suggest, it will need to further strengthen its political, economic, cultural, intellectual, and military power so that others cannot derail it from within and without. In the meantime, while Iran will naturally make mistakes, and won't get all the answers right, in the broader sense it is moving in that direction. It is not merely economical. I have already said, many times, that it is also ideological, cultural, political, and military in nature. It can be no less when a country like Iran has been trying to challenge the hegemonic policies of a superpower (and what was once its colonial base and now more and more its master). The latter will bring all those powers to bear to prevent Iran from achieving its objectives; Iran will need to be able to have an answer in each of these areas. Otherwise, it will -- sooner or later -- lose. While economic exploitation is occasionally part and parcel of the imperialistic policies that are brought to bear in the Middle East, unlike Marxists and Marxist-Leninists, I don't subscribe to the notion that the primary motive in western imperialism is economic exploitation. Indeed, imperialism, western or otherwise, is much more all encumpasing than that. They will occur from a change in the balance of power in the region. And a new paradigm, not just for Palestine/Israel, but elsewhere as well. A paradigm that looks to the people in the region, their institutions, and the consensus of their people, to form and formulate the right answers to its problems. Of course, no doubt, there are those within and without the region, which will go to great lengths to prevent this new balance of power from emerging. And there may be even those who, lacking any moral foundation, will prefer to destroy the region and themselves before giving up their imperialist designs. But I don't think they will be in vogue by then.
Yet you are the only one here which has expressed support for a massive and prolonged full-scale regional war if his political agenda can become reality. I don't recall even the more ardent Israeli supporters here arguing in favor of a conflagration between US/Israel and Iran/Syria + others arab countries in order to create the "Great Israel". Only you have gone to such lengths. I have not criticized you for supporting Hamas, nor the current regime from Iran, nor a more hard-line against US, not even for supporting the nuclear program. All of these can be understandable to a certain extent, but to advocate "war of attrition" on a massive scale is simply a no go. Second, if you have issues with something what I said, get to the point. Simply throwing generic statements like "OMG, you support Israel, thus you suck more" does not wash. You did say that in your opinion would be worth it. Overviewing tactics and scenarios is not a problem, approving them regardless of the cost IS a problem.
What kind of changed dynamics ? Besides, that does not change the fact that you accepted and supported such a war if other solutions did not bring the outcome you desire. That's not a good point. The palestinian confederation is not a new balance of power, not another paradigm, but the outcome which might emerge from them. I have insisted many times in you giving some detail as to how it might happen, which you always tried to avoid, rehashing the same old empty rhetorics. I gues lawyers don't have this reputation of not speaking frankly for nothing. You only dropped hints about them : US should be confronted with a "much worse alternative" in order to make them accept Iran's idea, lots of talking about how arabs could win a war against Israel, the creation of the islamic army under Iran's supervision, putting Israel on a leash which would make it regard Iran as the big brother, etc. It's clear enough for anyone who wants to hear. Using your own words, it's rich to hear you accusing me of hypocrisy when you bash US imperialism while promoting your own delusions of domination.
I am sure the present structures are enforced in the Middle East, not by force, but by flowers and through the wishes and desires of its people. As for how a Palestinian Confederation might emerge as the outcome from arms length negotiations, its simple really. Once both sides recognize that the alternative to settling the problem is worse because of a new a balance of power that makes winning through war a very costly and dangerous option for both sides, each will have a reason to sit down to figure out how to solve the issue. And to try until they succeed. In that dynamic, I think the logic and fairness of that proposal will prevail over the bigotry that opposes it.
Don't take Howard French too seriously, who is a propagandist. There are many of American scholars from many universities who are doing real study.
I DON'T hate West, I only hate Nazis. Why we lived in USA? Because here people don't end up in gas chamber like some nice place in Central Europe.
Good job to Obama for taking this very much needed first step and showing once again how the USA leads the way to world peace. [tongue in cheek]
Could be worse, you could get stoned to death in iran, or hung from a crane, or God knows what happens to you in China.
I don't think so. There are around 2-2.5 Millions Jews still live in China. I don't know the exact numbers, but there are Jews in Iran as well.