There are lots of options between "do nothing" and "attack" and hopefully the worst possible option, "annihilate/obliterate".

See, I guess I am slightly once again in the middle ground here, because as I see it, the Iranian state is not as currently constituted good for its people or the world. It's not good for the world, because the issue of Israel aside, it is acting as a force for pushing Shi'ite theocracy in places where some of its neighbors don't want it. Israel is not the only country that considers Iran a geopolitical threat. Although, of course, for some Arab states, it's an oil competitor. Hezbollah in Lebanon IMHO is not just a threat to Israel; it's a threat to Lebanese democracy and being free of Syrian control. As for its own people, it is a regime that brutally punishes dissidents, a record I wish some on the Left wouldn't ignore.

It's just that I don't think military attacks will do anything to change that problem. However, there are lots of other options on the table, in between "nothing" and "attack".

First, I don't care to look up the word. Not important to me.

Second, you don't need to leave this very thread to see exactly what I'm saying. Read my post, it pretty much outlines how "meaningful conversation" is possible with people who won't even listen to you. They just shout their opinions loudly and call people names.

The information is out there. The conservatives have some good points, the liberals have some good points, both sides should take the time to consider the other's position. That's not happening because the other side is always "evil", or, say, bent on destroying the world.

You're an idiot.

I am pro choice, but I hate abortion. If it wasn't for the likes of you, plan B would be everywhere and abortion would exist no more. You and your Right leaning kind enable abortion. Especially the kind administered with coat hangers.

I am fully pro 2nd Amendment. I kinda liked the Fourth Amendment before your kind rendered it void. Hopefully when your President Shit-For-Brains is gone we'll find a way to restore it.

I am Anti-Zionist. If I was "Anti-Semitic" I would hate Palestinians, Iraqi Sunnis, etc. You know, the real Semetic people.

Of course I'm Anti-War. I'm a Christian. War is for Satan and those who follow him.

My disdain for BushCo, Repukes, and people with the last name "Fletcher" proves conclusively that I am NOT pro-terrorist.

Being Anti-Fletcher is synonymous with patriotism.


You Mamma's boys are all alike.

I agree that Iran is a hard case, getting harder every day. And I don't know for a fact that we would be able to find something non-violent in the middle. But I do know that we won't find it if we don't look, and I think it is worth looking with at least 1/100th of the energy we devote to killing. Since we're spending $12B plus lives on both sides in Iraq, and Iran will surely be worse, I'd like to see 1/100 of $12B or about $120M a month spent on looking. If we knew it was a "hearts and minds" problem, and the goal was to reduce extremist actions to criminality that reduced year over year, then how would we systematically analyze the regional problem. If the best conflict resolution grad program in the country was given $120M a month to develop and execute an approach, what could they come up with? As far as I know we aren't spending $1.2M (1/100 of 1/100) a month looking. This is what Kucinich's Dept of Peace should be doing, if it existed. I realize it's a hard problem, in a completely different space (more your space plus conflict resolution) but I'd just like to see the cleverness we apply to killing applied to resolving conflict without killing. I think it can be done - for about 1/100 the cost of the killing approach.

Because Israel and the US are just fucking itching to obliterate Iran...then Syria. That's why.
There never will be peace while the US is giving Israel money...part of my tax dollars.

Why should Israel have nukes and not Iran....and why should the US decide who should possess them?? It's an unfair advantage. They (Iran) are shitty to Ba'hai people, but Israel is shitty to Muslims. Israel should stand their own ground!

You choose which people you can respond to. You can choose to discuss things with the people you find reasonable, or you can seek out those you don't and argue with them. Just do me a favor and don't pretend that I'm not here alright?



Exactly what I think makes you unhappy. It's an interesting word. I bet you felt attacked when he used it.

Name aside, you don't appear to be a real liberal. You seem to support theocratic regimes and one party dictatorships, while opposing democracies, free press and democratic values. That's your right. I happen to think its a bad approach.

As for the specifics of the statements you made, simply false. That's it, just false. Prior to the mullahs taking over, Israel had a history of relatively good relations with Iran. Israels only theat to Iran was in regard to Iranian threats against it. If you believe Israel currently has nuclear weapons, than it coould have, or could today, wipe out Iran (and Syria) if it so desired. It could have sponsored bombings of Iranian cultural centers in Argentina (oh, my bad, that was the Iranians who did that to Jewish Community Centers -- probably not an issue then) or could finance and arm wars against it (oh, my mistake again, that's Iran arming and encouraging Hamas and Hizb, again, I guess its not relevant). Finally, Israel has had several hot wars with Syria. It each case, it is without question that it could have "obliterated" (your word) Syria with conventional military means, but clearly stopped short of tearing down that country and its regimes.

And one reason Israel should have them and Iran not, is because it appears to be the reality today. It appears that Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1960's and has not even threatened to use them (policy called nuclear ambiguity). Through right wing and left wing democratically elected governments, Israel has proven itself stable and responsible as it comes to nuclear weaponry. Iran, on the other hand, has shown itself to be much more adventurous and clearly the county is much less stable. (there are parites willing to give them the tools for nuclear energy, just not nuclear weapons.).

So you can have your approach, but the rest of the world -- yes even China and Russia, not to mention Iran's other neighbors (barring perhaps Hizb. and Hamas) -- are very concerned about Iranian nuclear capabilities.

Finally, the situation of the Bahai in Iran is nowhere near the stanards of the Muslims in Israel. The fact that you would say that simply highlights how little you care for human rights. Yes, Arabs (Muslims and others) face some discriminiation in Israel, but it is on the same plane as minorities often face in countries, and less than the often face in areas of conflict. The Bahai face systematic, government imposed and sanctioned discrimination of vast proportions.

But no one can be concerned about every problem in the world. Since you raised concern about Muslims, I hope you'll do something to help save the people in Darfur. Learn about the Genocide

Oh yeah, and foreign aid to Israel, sounds like your calling for support of the Clean Break proposal.

It is funny that on this board we have discussed Aung San Suu Kyi but not Akbar Ganji. We should know who Akbar Ganji is, and we should listen to him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7102502216.html

Why Iran's Democrats Shun Aid
By Akbar Ganji

There has been a lot of misunderstanding as to why Iranian pro- democracy forces oppose the $75 million the U.S. government provides to aid civil society in their country [" A Lever of Change in Iran," op-ed, Oct. 19]. Allow me, as someone who spent six years in Tehran's Evin Prison on a bogus charge of endangering national security, to clarify what we oppose and what we favor.

The threat of war looms over us. But Iran and the West need to have friendly and peaceful relations.

Peace is a product of democracy. Despotic states are furtive and untrustworthy. The Iranian people want a secular, democratic state that is committed to respecting human rights. The West would not need to fear a democratic Iran.

As a fundamentalist state, Iran is dangerous, but it is dangerous for its own people, not the United States. The Iranian people, myself included, need freedom, democracy and peace -- not war conditions and constant worries about a potential barrage of U.S. missiles.

The seeds of democracy need fertile soil to take root and grow. In Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the soil is fertile for fostering fundamentalism. If fair elections were held in those countries, fundamentalists would win. Iran is the only country in the Middle East in which modern, democratic forces would win any free and fair elections. A peaceful transition to democracy is our goal. But the Iranian regime suppresses civil society on the pretext of a coming war and describes its opponents as U.S. stooges and mercenaries.

Governments provide foreign aid -- indeed, form their foreign policies -- based on their national interests; those who receive aid naturally have to align themselves with the donor's policies. We understand this with regard to Iranian support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and various Afghan groups. Not surprisingly, the Iranian people do not want their democratic movement to be dependent on or subservient to any foreign government.

Consider, also, that U.S. foreign policy in Asia and Africa is dictated by American political and economic interests, not by concern for democracy. Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and many other countries with friendly relations with the United States are major violators of human rights and have despotic regimes. In none of these cases has the U.S. administration attached much importance to human rights violations, nor does it prioritize funds to help make those governments democratic.

Over the past two centuries, many Iranian politicians were paid or influenced by foreign powers. As a result, most Iranian intellectuals and democratic forces are deeply critical of external support. Iranians are viewed as discredited when they receive money from foreign governments. The Bush administration may be striving to help Iranian democrats, but any Iranian who seeks American dollars will not be recognized as a democrat by his or her fellow citizens.

The Iranian regime uses American funding as an excuse to persecute opponents. Although its accusations are false, this has proved effective in poisoning the public against the regime's opponents. Fear of foreign meddling is one reason for the regime's staying power.

Of course, Iran's democratic movement and civil institutions need funding. But this must come from independent Iranian sources. Iranians themselves must support the transition to democracy; it cannot be presented like a gift. Expatriate Iranians can assist the transition. Many of the social prerequisites of democracy exist in Iran today, but dollars cannot produce the bravery or love of freedom that individuals need to make the transition possible.

So here is our request to Congress: To do away with any misunderstanding, we hope lawmakers will approve a bill that bans payment to individuals or groups opposing the Iranian government. Iran's democratic movement does not need foreign handouts; it needs the moral support of the international community and condemnation of the Iranian regime for its systematic violation of human rights.

What else does the pro-democracy movement in Iran want?

The Iranian government is using technology it has purchased from Western companies to block Web sites and otherwise keep Iranians from using the Internet. The West has profited at the Iranian people's expense by selling these technologies to Tehran. The regime's extensive censorship and media hegemony must be ended. We want the Iranian people to have access to the Internet and free television to be able to hear criticism of the regime's policies and learn about alternative models of government.

The support we need at this point has nothing to do with funding the regime's opposition but with aiding Iranians in the quest for independent media and accurate information.

Akbar Ganji, an Iranian journalist and dissident, was in Evin Prison from 2000 to 2006. He received the 2007 John Humphrey Freedom Award, a Canadian human rights and pro-democracy prize. This column was translated from Farsi by Nilou Mobasser.

[snip]

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/...will-spurn.html
Ganji Says Iran Dissidents Will Spurn U.S. Funds

On the eve of his first visit to America, Iran's leading dissident says Iran's democracy movement will reject American financial assistance, and that he would meet with American officials only to urge them not to bomb his country.

Akbar Ganji, an author and dissident celebrated for his calls from prison last summer for the supreme leader of Iran to step down, said in an interview with The New York Sun this week that the $75 million proposed by President Bush in February to aid indigenous liberal forces in Iran not only would endanger the intended recipients, but ultimately would fail to bring his people closer to creating the preconditions necessary for a velvet revolution.

Mr. Ganji's visit to America must be a balancing act for a dissident who seeks to return to Iran and who could be arrested again. Earlier this spring, the regime arrested a Canadian-Iranian reformist thinker and author, Ramin Jahanbegloo, on espionage charges, possibly based on his work with the National Endowment for Democracy and at the University of Toronto. READ MORE

One of Mr. Ganji's lawyers was held in prison for nearly eight months on charges of espionage last year. He told the Sun that one of his main goals for the visit is to raise awareness for other political prisoners and to build solidarity with Iran's democracy movement. "On this tour I am trying to reach out with one voice from Iran. This voice does not want this regime, but it does not want war," he said.

Mr. Ganji said any American aggression against Iran over its nuclear program would hinder the democratic opposition. A bombing campaign of Iran's nuclear facilities "will ruin and damage our movement's substructure," he said. "And no one can claim that by attacking the facilities the Islamic Republic will be toppled."

Of the $75 million Mr.Bush requested from Congress in February, Mr. Ganji said, "You cannot find even one individual in Iran willing to accept this money. And presenting such a plan and offer definitely will damage the democratic movement in Iran. The Islamic Republic claims all dissidents in the opposition are allies of the United States already." But Mr. Ganji was clear about his view of the current rulers of Iran. He said he considers President Ahmadinejad a "sultan" who is buying off segments of the Revolutionary Guards with public contracts, a violation of the original warnings of Ayatollah Khomenei.The dissident also said he still supports holding a national referendum on the Islamic Republic's constitution, which empowers the supreme leader to oversee the military and a council of clerics to veto legislation passed in parliament. Though Iranians inside and outside the country first launched a campaign in support of a constitutional referendum at the end of 2004, the movement has had trouble organizing since then.

Mr. Ganji is one of the mullahs' most potent foes. A popular figure in Iran and a leading reformer in the 1990s, he later broke with many of his peers and began writing a series of scathing investigative pieces about the role of the mullahs and a former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, in murders of intellectuals. The publication of those articles and a book making the same accusation landed him in jail in 2001. In June 2005, he led a hunger strike in Evin prison, attracting the solidarity of many world leaders.The first world leader to call for his release was Mr. Bush.

While in prison, Mr. Ganji published his second manifesto, which outlined a plan for Iranians to gradually withdraw their consent to be governed by the unelected supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Once a supporter of the 1979 Islamic revolution, Mr. Ganji, like Iran¹s most senior cleric, Ayatollah Montazeri, has come to the position that the current regime has violated the democratic promise of the revolution.

[snip]

Nice, and he certainly has a lot to say. But the problem is that the world doesn't really work that way. I don't think that our sitting out and not supporting democratice forces would be matched by those who find benefit in theocratic and non-democratic regimes. I just hope that those we support do maintain democratic value. Our record is iffy.

You are aware that Ahmadinejad does not control the Iranian military? He is not the commander-in-chief?

Iran backs anti-Israel proxies? Given Israel's ongoing history of expropriating land which doesn't belong to them, do you think they should do so with impunity? When the US was doing similar things in Central America, where was the hue and cry then? So it is ok for the US to do it, but not ok for Iran?

The mullahs need to go, this is certain. They will too as long as the US and Israel step down and quit being a rally post for the Iranian regime to beat. Normalized relations and an end to sanctions would be the worst thing the mullahs could ever face. Friendly relations with the US would be a disaster for them domestically.

So, you're resorting to taking a swing against my username because I do not support Israel over other nations?
"Liberal" has many meanings. I happen to be against all wars, but I also realize that the Israel vs. "the Muslim nations" issue will go on and on...with or without intervention. Foreign aid only enables the Israeli offensive war machine.

All nations should be free of nuclear weapons. The US is only stirring the pot for the inevitable nuclear holocaust in the Mideast by placing more sanctions against Iran and other Muslim nations that won't kiss our ass.

IMO, Saudi Arabia is the real enemy of the US and Israel, not Iran!!! You'll see as the oil crisis worsens.

Sorry, Balor, I cannot support your premise that the existance of Israel (nor any of its perceived flaws/errors.aggressions/evils/whatever) is responsible for all the tyranny in the middle east. Iran and its theocratic repressive regimes have bigger fish to fry than Israel.

For what it's worth, the UN verified that Israel withdrew from every inch of Lebanon, yet Hizb and its Iranian backers still are aggressive. Maybe you forgot that Israel left Gaza, that's when Iran supported Hamas began using it as a base for attacks against civilians, instead of a base for a new state and economic growth. (yes, there is the issue of the W. Bank, but growth and freedom still seem to be greater there, and who know, maybe one day, for the first time in world history, there will be an independant Palestinian Arab state there. I suspect you support their call for an Islamic state, with Jews not being allowed to live there.. that's there plan as of now, but that's another issues. Personally, I'd like them to establish a state with rights guaranteed for minorities.)

For what it's worth Israel has already withdrawn from somewhere in the range of 80% of territority gained in its defensive 1967 war.

And if you didn't hear complaints about US backing for anti-democratic insurgents in Central America, maybe you are too young. Many of us did oppose.

And true, Ahmidinijad is subserviant to the "Supreme Leader," those who claim that he is without power and authority are on as much of a wrong track as those who think he is the singular dictator.

Where I do think you may be on the right track is that Ahmadinijad and demagogues through out the middle east (and other parts of the world) use Israel as an excuse to distract attention from their repressive regmies. Here's what happens to a newspaper in Iran that dares to suggest that.

Iran Bans Paper for Criticizing Ahmadinijad's Polcies

Iran Ranked almost at bottom on Press Freedom - Reporters without Frontiers
(they are better than Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eretira)

Sure, but I wouldn't call on Israel to be the first, given its history and threats against it the people it represents (in its own way).

You haven't seen me say that the US isn't sturring the pot, nor that the US, like many other countries, use straw dogs. You haven't seen me support a call for military action against Iran. However that "nuclear holocaust" you speak of is more likely with a nuclear Iran than without, IMO.

And yes, I agree that Iran is not really an enemy of Iran, nor does Israel really think so, with the exception of the current regime. It has had variable relations with that country, and still maintains secret trade. I too cringe when I hear people speak of "moderate" regimes like Saudi Arabia. There too a dangerous fiefdom, who will do anything to keep power. To me they are much like the Taliban and I can envision the situation becomming the same if that's what it took for the Saud family to retain power.

I have trouble understanding the enmity of Iran and Israel. Methinks, as is said in Hamlet Act II, Scene 2, that "The Lady doth protest too much." Could it be that there is no such "attack" planned by anyone, and that the governments of both Israel and Iran are using the old "boogeyman" tactic to an extreme?

Certainly all this saber rattling has stirred up the sheep. Keep the people stupid and stirred well.

I'll agree somewhat with this, but I think that use of millitary means is a crude mistake that undermines the goal of helping the Iranians free themselves. As long as we voluntarily work to threaten and intimidate them, ignoring every olive branch that comes our way, then people there will never throw off the authroritarian protection they have.

I imagine it quite similar to AlQueda attacking us for having bad foreign policies in the mid east and getting Bush's response in return. Of course, I think this is JUST what AlQueada wanted - so also I wonder if an emeny of Iran is JUST what our administration wants.

Maybe, but I do think Israel is genuinely (and rightly) concerned about Iran (under the current regime) with nuclear weapons.

Right, but the person he was quoting was also arguing that peaceful support for opposition in Iran is also negative.

It a perfect world, there would be no outside intereference. That would be nice. But as you know, the worlds interests are often intertwined. Sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory.

Not quite sure what you are getting at. Do you think that the US was attacked only because it had some bases in Saudi (oh yeah, later he added American support for Israel). Al Queda too has an expansionist, repessive agenda. They are open about it. (this is unrelated to the Iran war).

Israel has had nukes for a long time now and Iran must also know this. We went 40 years through the Cold War with the MAD strategy- it's a time-honored and proven strategy. Should work here. We had that madman Reagan in charge and nothing ever blew up. Jeez, Ahmedinijad is not even in charge of the military. Even if Iran has nukes, which they can buy from the Ukraine or N. Korea, I think MAD will prevent them from using them.

I still think Israel needs to use the same "boogeyman" strategy as the Bushies to rile up the stupid sheep in order to keep a corrupt, and unjust government in power.

Just sayin'.

I recieved an official warning for breaking the rules. Hmmm, funny, I guess they like you better than they like me. How... what's the word? Unbiased!!! That's it. Thank god for moderators, huh Randys?



I'm pro choice. Shows what you know.



I think Bush is an idiot. Shows what you know.



Wow, I've never heard someone so rabidly racist as to say that Jews aren't even "real Semites". Awesome! Can I use you as a case study?



I don't believe in god or satan, I think they're fairy tales. Course, I'm agnostic, so I admit I might be wrong about it. Again, shows what you know about me.



Nope, you're pro terrorist. Anyone who equivocates people to Hitler or terrorists just because they don't agree with their politics is pro terrorist. You try to detract from the meaning of the word when you do that, you know, make it have less of an impact. "War is terrorism" "sanctions are terrorism" "voting against free healthcare is terrorism". Nope, but blowing up 113 men, women and children with a bomb set off nowhere near a military target ACTUALLY IS terrorism.



According to you, not knowing what you're talking about is synonymous with patriotism. Well, only if you're loud enough.




Hey, is that another insult. Huh, with all the moderation on this board, you know, the rules and such, you'd think that wouldn't be allowed. I guess it's alright if you're a liberal but not if you're a moderate.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Having no concept of Iranian history or culture. Awesome.

Yeah, Iran is just like Russia. Heck, if it comes down to it, aren't all nations exactly alike?

Looks like the Captain has a new "special" friend.

This is exactly the Hitler, Bush, and Olmert tactic. Anyone who dissents, especially when it is sensible, is automatically a "terrorist."

Back to topic: IMO, there will be no "ball of fire" in the ME. China needs to grant permission and it will not jeopardize its flow of oil from Iran.

You get your own attention. I've taken issue with just one thing you've said and you've heard it. I haven't called you a name or lumped you in with anyone. But please don't pretend you don't see the lunacy going on around you. That's the majority here, not the minority. And don't talk to me about silent majority, because when they're not talking, they don't count, especially someplace like here. What the silent majority needs to do is weigh in.

"NO, we don't all think that, those people are crazy." or "yeah, we all pretty much agree." Otherwise, it's as if they aren't even there.




I can see I was attacked. That's obvious. I just don't care about the attacker's opinion enough to go look up a word that was made up just to be a political slam. I'm not unhappy because people like that exist, or that they insult me without cause, just that other people listen to them when they're obviously so ignorant of the topic that they can't even discuss it.

Honestly Jeff, at this point I think I'd just respond to posts you find either useful, are interested in or just want to keep busy with. Though I have never complained about anyone here, the moderators do seem pretty toleratant of certain forms of bigotry. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, but if I had taken on the task, I would take my responsiblity seriously.

Just remember that just because someone posts a lot does not mean they have covinced anyone. What's the expression, openness is the best disinfectant (or something like that.)

I might be more sympathetic to admin claims about Iran if I didn't know they turned down a comprehensive deal with Iran over Hezbollah funding and Iranian financial aid in Iraqi reconstruction some 2 years ago. I have posted on other threads of the probable outcome of a US attack on Iran and how US Navy war games confirmed my assessment. So I'll say it again.
Any US attack on Iran will precipitate the destruction of every US Naval Vessel operating inside the Persian Gulf. Here's some related links to the weapons Iran has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizzler_%28missile%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval

Yes- you're actually getting it. Iran is JUST like Russia, and Israel, and the US, and Kenya, and Colombia, and Nazi Germany. It's "leadership" resorts to fear and suspicion to control its population.

If you REALLY want to become the least bit sophisticated about how governments control their people, I suggest you start by watching the excellent BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares. This is an excellent introduction to the history of the neo-cons and islamic extremists and how they have manipulated both the media and the power structures. You will be surprised to learn that they both have exactly the same goal.

In fact you are sort of a perfect example in demonstrating how effective the fear and terror tactics of governments actually ARE in manipulating susceptible people.

Thank You! The perfect Ayn Rand alliance/rivalry. The Mystics of Muscle(neocons. Do as I say or I'll beat you up) and the Mystics of Faith(fundys. Do as I say or God will kill you), both with rationalism as the common enemy.

Yes, I definitely recall this info from a couple of years ago, it seems - thanks for it.

Count me as one of those who thinks there will be be no attack. First- China needs to approve and ChinaBiz seems to say "Never" at the moment. Second- the 5th Fleet knows Iran's arsenal and I would not be surprised if orders are refused, especially as we approach November and military support for admin change remains strong.

Oh, wow! Epiphany! If I have to say Ayn Rand might be right, I'll probably have to go kill myself - or drink 12oz of Coors.

Dude! You may have just nailed it!

Ish, have you seen Power of Nightmares? I can send DVD or you can get it on youtube.

Well, Jeff, guess what, we've found some common ground.

Because, I too find it odd that for most of a century Jews were considered "too Semitic" for Germany -- hence the origin of the term anti-Semitism -- now with bullshit theories like the Identity Church, we're not "Semitic" enough to live in the Middle East.

Ashkenazim have "Semitic" (Middle Eastern haplogroup) DNA, use a Semitic language (Hebrew) (even Yiddish uses a Semitic alphabet), and show Semitic culture in their music, food, and folklore. That makes them Semites.

I came to my conclusion through logic.

1. It's the language of the liberal. "This person is a terrorist, that is terrorism, this other thing that isn't terrorism is terrorism. The US government is just as bad as the terrorists." It's faux logic. If the US government kills children (by accident) and the terrorists kill children (on purpose) then one is the same as the other.

2. Dissention isn't grounds for being called a terrorist sympathizer, neither is patriotism. There is, however, a way to go about it. Going on TV and shouting your opinion to the world, as if anyone cares what John Doe from Hackinsack cares about the Iraq war, is only giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Campaigning for candidates who oppose the war accomplishes the goals without helping the enemy.

3. It's terrorist sympathizer, not terrorist. You're only a terrorist if you target civilians in order to terrorize a populace into doing things that politically they wouldn't otherwise do.

And how other elements in politics control the people by "opening their eyes" to the tactics of Neo Cons and Israelis, while "closing their eyes" to the fear mongering of the liberal left. "Bush is going to destroy the planet! Bush is the devil! Bush made up terrorism! WTC was an inside job! The world hates us now, they used to love us!"

Guess what, I agree with your point about how governments sway popular opinion, but I call double foul on the left for their fear mongering and panicked hysterics. "It's a facist state!" "Bush stole two elections! He's going to be dictator!"

Yeah, great.

Just a minor distinction, Russia and Iran don't have free press. I know it means virtually nothing to you, as you likely believe that the sky is fall... er, I mean, that the government owns the press. Which is why we NEVER see any news that makes the government look bad.

Yep, Israel is the aggressor. Yeah, right. What a mixed up crazy world we live in where someone can actually call a country the size of New Jersey, surrounded by hostile dictatorships that want to see her eraducated, the only real democracy in the Middle East, the "aggressor".
As far as I'm concerned NOT standing up to Iran will cause a Mideast ball of fire. As far as the U.N. is concerned, First Avenue between 42nd & 47th Streets would make a great place for new condos.

Does this remind anybody of bush and bolton....?? How we have survived this long, these 8 yrs, with this kind of irresponsible and erratic thinking is beyond me...

Thankfully, our nation will soon again be in the hands of mature men who understand the value of international diplomacy, and brute strength, and which to use when...

So, sgtjeff, are you ready to consign 30,000 or so Sailors to Davey Jones' Locker just so you can "Stand Up" to Iran? If the US wanted to make better use of all that firepower, why not attack Pakistani nuclear facilities where ACTUAL nuclear weapons exist. Look at the links on my previous post to the missles Iran has in it's arsenal and consider that when the US Navy themselves war-gamed the scenario, US Naval forces in the Gulf were almost totally destroyed. Most of those missles have NO defensive countermeasures. Think of Adm. Chuichi Nagumo's fleet at Midway for a parallel result. Remember, Iran offered the US a comprehensive deal two years ago and were rebuffed by the Bush administration.

Cold War mentality is a sad thing, no?

Exactly. Force to defend the nation and diplomacy to prevent the need to defend the nation.
Sounds like a who's who of Neocons all rolled into one.

Ishmael's definitely a keeper Adam

The BBC documentary Power of Nightmares is a good place to see how the power of fear can manipulate people into actually doing things that are completely against their own best interests.

Fear and propaganda are the newest and most-used tools of corrupt governments, because they are so effective against unsophisticated and impressionable authoritarian types. The neo-cons have got people believing that Iran is a major military threat - a country with a pipsqueak navy, a third-rate air force and NO, sheeple, NO nuclear weapons. Yet look at how vociferous and truly frightened the sheeple are. This is the Power of Nightmares in action.

Here we see two people who have posted, who are perfectly willing to accept thousands or millions of unnecessary deaths because they are completely brainwashed by their government into truly believing that some country that poses even a small economic threat must be attacked. The whole point, of course, is to get uneducated and unsophisticated people under complete control so that they can be monetarily and intellectually fleeced by their own corrupt government.

There will never be an attack on Iran, but it is way more important to convince the sheeple that it is an imperative that Iran be attacked so that they can be distracted enough to have their pockets picked.

Simple.

Yeah, LinearBob burned a copy and sent it to me last year. Two sides of the same coin. I also have the Complete Works of Rudyard Kipling who, though he WAS an imperialist, really knew and captured Hindu and Muslim mindsets of the time. I remember thinking when I heard Reagan was arming the Afghanis, "How long before they turn those guns on us?" I wouldn't worry about Ayn. She became the very Cult of Personality she railed against and it was one of the reasons I broke with objectivism.




Why thank you kindly XRS/PP.

I agree, although the Power of Nightmares points out that while the neocons do that here, the Islamists in the Middle East and Central Asia do the same thing, there.

I know you already said that, Adam (that Iran's leaders use the same kind of tactics to focus their population on external enemies - say, "the Zionist entity," rather than internal problems such as cracking down on dissent), but I thought I'd repeat it for re-emphasis.

I really liked that film. I absolutely agree that the fact is, both the neoconservatives and the Islamist radicals find their "founding fathers" (Strauss for the neocons, Sayd al-Qutb for the Islamists) in people retreating from modernity, convinced that liberal secular democracy is doomed to failure.

Insofar as Ayn Rand also was convinced that collectivism was a disease of democracy, with its natural tendencies toward redistribution of wealth, though; and insisted that self government by the masses who dared to pull down the great men like John Galt would never work; I'd put her in the same camp.

I too put my faith in reason, but Rand's main problem is that unlike most liberals she saw no value in compassion, emotions, or the "limbic system". I think the true liberal flies on two wings, critical reason and compassion. Reason without compassion leads to MAD and technocracy. Compassion without reason leads to absurdities. Both need to be joined together.

Well said!

When the influence of the fear-mongers is easily detected and rebuffed, one is flying on both wings.

It's shocking I say, simply shocking. Someone, somewhere intimated to me that even speaking about moderators may be violation of the rules. I've read the rules. I did break them when I insulted that individual, but I didn't think anyone would care, as insults are rampant.

Yet I see the same individuals insulting people over and over and over again, with no apparent consequences. I've been told that saying "I've gotten a message" is exactly the same as disclosing the content of the message, which is forbidden in the rules. Further, it appears to me that mods aren't interested in my interpretation or any discussion on whether or not I've violated rules, or what certain words mean, I'm to simply shut up and stop doing anything that they don't like, even if it isn't a rule.

So screw them. I'm going to continue to not break the rules, and if I get banned for it, too bad. It's pretty much obvious that the bigots, racists, and name callers have free reign here. If no one is allowed to inject sanity into the crowd without wearing the "LIBERAL" sign on their chest, then I'll be gone, and this place can continue to be the place it's being shaped into by such "fair and impartial moderation".

The last thing in the world I'm afraid of is Virginia Wolf. I could use the time to annoy some conservatives on another board or just find another leftist board and see how long it is before I'm banned there for "violating the rules" or the very loose interpretation thereof, while other's blatantly continue to violate rules explicitly spelled out.

Okay, so what does all this have to do with distracting the sheeple with saber-rattling against Iran? Methinks that the Bushnazis better have a WAY better attack plan for taking on Iran than they do for taking on the RRMB Moderators. The Iranians, Chinese, and Russians will be using real bullets against the Bushnazis. IMO, history will repeat. Iran is Bush's Poland and the Red Army will march right into Wash DC while Bush commits suicide (with a pistol) with his lover Jeff Gannon in a bunker.

Yes, I think that's well said also. Sometime in another thread, we should discuss the differences between compassion and empathy.

OOh. Can we do it here? You bring up such interesting topics. This is the kind of thing I used to love to discuss on the Humanities forum; but it doesn't exist anymore. Even my requests for a Science forum have been rebuffed. Does this consign that discussion to happy hour?

You know, it's a strange thing. We've been working on human-chimpanzee communication for decades. A lot of progress has been made. If you ask a chimp what it is feeling right now, it can often answer (sad, hungry, happy, afraid). If you ask a chimp what another chimp is feeling ... often no answer. They appear to lack the ability to model the feelings of anyone other than themselves. (That's not to say that they can't tell other chimps are feeling sad or feeling angry. They can. They just can't model or explain their behavior that maps it in terms of their own self.)

Somewhere in the human journey, I believe one of the things that made us human was the capacity to build a mental model in our heads of what other humans are feeling, thinking, or experiencing. Beyond simple low level expressions, even chimps cannot do this. We can put ourselves in the position of other humans. But I believe we may be one of the few animals that can do this.

Yes, I believe empathy is part of the package that makes us human. How it evolved is a fascinating mystery, but I think it is deeply connected to our ability to form large-scale societies. Living with lots of people you aren't related to and don't know is only possible if you can mentally map and model their behavior.

Empathy doesn't always lead to compassion; but I suppose it is hard to have compassion for someone for whom one lacks empathy.

It was just a side conversation. It has nothing to do with the topic other than it happened here.

I don't know what the Whitehouse has planned for Iran, but my experience is the less they have to do with a conflict, the more likely we'll win.

As to the "Red army" I don't know if you're speaking figuratively or literally, so I don't know how to respond other than to say, terrorism is real, the threat of Islamic extremists is real, but not the end of the world. We could probably live with losing thousands a people a year to terrorism at home and abroad. The Reds are not coming over the horizon any second now. The threats we face are rather different than fifty years ago.

OK, I guess if this part of the thread gets too mischievous, it'll be clear why a Humanities forum might be a good idea?

I had a tumble of thoughts and more questions reading your post, so I'm tired before starting, but here's a start.

1. What about other animals, dolphins, elephants, dogs who seem to have strong social bonds? It seems a hard thing to measure without a good understanding of animal "language".

2. Is empathy the ability to read the emotion of another, or to feel it? Is it possible for such an animal to feel it, but not be able to "speak" it?

3. Is it always a case if feeling or sensing the emotion of another being of similar type? Can humans empathize with animals, or is that just anthropomorphism? If so, what evolutionary value might it have, or is it just "spillover" from our generalized capability?

4. mental model of what other humans are feeling, thinking or experiencing - sounds like a working definition. Sometimes it seems to take the form of "feeling" what they're going through, more than abstractly modeling it, with all the emotional coolness that might entail, but experiencing it vicariously might be the representation and is included in "mental model" if you include the limbic brain.

5. Very interesting set of questions about who is "human" in the working definition. Seems if there is too much "them"ness in the concept, then alientation, dehumanization reduce the effective capacity for empathy - maybe empathy is pre-empted.

6. A generalization of "human" above might be "like me". So that a child would have trouble empathizing with an adult, but maybe more with a dog? Or male with a female? Or Democrat with Republican? Etc.

7. Enter child development and adult development and the evolution of empathy in an individual. Interesting to see a parent of teens suddenly developing empathy for their parents as well as the teen, so I think similar life experience might open doorways, and more varied life experiences might broaden a person's repertoire for empathy.

8. I like Robert Kegan's adult development model, which I mention because a critical enabler to each succeeding level of development is a person's ability to "objectify" themselves and kind of float around as a third person observer, which is an image (and metaphor) I like a lot as it relates to empathy. If I keep going, this will veer into the spiritual, so enough said for now.

9. You might be right that empathy is an enabler of large scale societies for humans. Course buffalo herds get pretty big too, though not as complex, or large. And I also believe that large-scale, diverse societies are one of the driving factors for increasing empathy, which seems perhaps partly stemming from nature as you say, but also is increased by life experience, exposure to other cultures, etc (nurture) as a person gathers experience which puts them more "in range" of understanding another's situation.

I'd say it's a bit hard to cultivate compassion without some degree of empathy, no? Not comparative, but synergistic.