So Iran says that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Where does the whole left/right thing fit in again, cause I think I missed it.
Are we building straw men because it’s getting close to Halloween and we want the board to look festive?
What exactly are we supposed to do about it anyways? We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more battalions of democracy spreaders do we have left to spare?
What do you think Israel does with the money? Wantonly kill Palestinians and bulldoze their houses, right? Maybe we should boycott Caterpillar, too. :rolleyes:
What the fuck are you smoking? Are you and duffer inhabiting some sort of cognitive dissonance alternate universe?
Look at the two countries where the US has sent troops over the past few years—Afghanistan and Iraq. We are constantly told by Bush supporters like you that we should be supporting America’s laudable efforts to bring democracy and human rights to those benighted places.
Yet if you actually did a bit of investigation, you would find that left and liberal activists and human rights groups were trying to raise consciousness about the evils of the Taliban, its fundamentalism, its brutality and its awful treatment of women well before the US government took any interest in the place at all.
And similarly, liberals were complaining about the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s, when the US government was selling him arms and Donnie Rumsfeld was over there making nice with him on behalf of the administration.
Let me turn your accusation around: why is it that conservatives only seem to become concerned by human rights issues abroad when that concern can be used as a justification for invading a country that has pissed us off? Where was all the conservative lamentation over human rights abuses in Cuba under Batista, Chile under Pinochet, Central America under the Generals, Saudi Arabia under their current theocracy, and Afghanistan under the Taliban before 9/11? Are you calling for America to stop doing business with China due to its outrageous human rights record, or are you too hooked on cheap clothes and electronics? (And why is it that the tribulations of the Iraqi Kurds always seemed to attract the sympathy of American administrations (both Republican and Democrat), while the appalling treatment of Kurds in Turkey never really made it onto the radar?
More generally, even a cursory examination of current liberal and leftist groups would find people concerned about human rights abuses in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Tibet, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Colombia, among many other countries.
As for criticism of the United States, both rorty and i have already made the point that the numerical dominance of Americans means that American politics—for good or ill—is likely to be the most prevalent topic of conversation when politics are being discussed. Furthermore, as rorty has also suggested, America—and particularly conservative Americans—constantly holds itself up as an example to the world, and place that other countries should look to for guidance in matters of democracy and human rights. Why should America not be held to a higher standard than those backward countries that people like you are so fond of invading?
Finally, on a philosophical level, a person is only responsible for the foreseeable consequences of his or her own action or inaction, not for things over which he or she has absolutely no control. So it makes sense for Americans to focus on issues and topics that they can directly affect through their own political action. Sure, it’s important to talk about other things too, and attempt to influence them in some way, even if you’re likely to have very little influence. But the fact remains that, hard as they try, most Americans have very little say in who is elected in Iran and what that persons polices are. It makes sense to direct their attentions in a way that reflects the political structures and realities within which they have to work.
And i’m still waiting for either you or duffer to support with some evidence your suggestions that there are people on this message board who don’t care about Israelis, or who don’t care about human rights abroad, or who have expressed support for the Iranian president’s call for Israel’s destruction.
Well we’ve been found out and busted. None of us “less than extreme hardcore rightwing” types ever pitted Afghanistan, Iraq, or theocratic “justice”? My memory must be faulty, because I seem to remember a lot of outrage against the various stonings, beheadings, hangings, and other things that have happened at one time or another. But, that little fact would get in the way of the argument, wouldn’t it? I seem to remember some occasional arguments from the right that go like this - “sure they are evil fucking psychos, but they are our allies and are a stabilizing influence in the area” - or something along those lines. That’s why for years, the US supported people like Ferdinand Marcos, Shah of Iran and Saddam - they were assholes, but they were our assholes (for a while).
Iran will not attack Israel. If they did, Israel would crush them. They don’t need our help. We would not, and should not get involved in that case. Israel can more than take care of themselves. For that matter, where would we get a few more armies to do it with? They are sort of tied up right now.
and I’m waiting for all those conservative posters who complain about liberals not ‘policing their own’ (ie not pointing out when members of their own side are acting like idiots) to come in here and point out to duffer, & SA how bad they make ther side look.
::crickets chirping::
Isn’t it just a little bit unnerving that everything that happens, including this obviously politically driven sabre rattling by iran, ends up with the armchair generals of the Dope calling for another war? I predict that Iran will not attack anyone.
Yeah, we invade and fight for freedom and democracy (which includes freedom of speech) - until some asshole says something displeasing (yes this Iranian president or whatever he is, is an asshole). Then we must fight to shut him up. Is that a disconnect?
Maybe you should try to do a little reading. And next time you opine you may know what you are talking about.
So, you agree with me?
I did not need an example of someone being deliberately obtuse on the subject. I am sure most here knows what it means. :rolleyes:
Does it strike anyone else as odd that a thread ostensibly about belligerent statements by the Iranian President is actually about American left/right politics?
I don’t want to speak for him, but I think what duffer and other like-minded individuals would want is for Western progressives who profess to be staunch defenders of human rights and liberal values to view Iran as a cause celebre and to condemn Ahmadinejad’s words - as well as the actions of the government of Iran (such as hanging gay teenagers from cranes and other similar abominations) - with the same ferocity they display when condemning Bush or Sharon or America or Pat Robertson or Cheney or any other frequent liberal/leftist target.
I think they would also want the condemnation of Iran’s regime to be final and unconditional, instead of the grudging “Yes, but…” rhetorical tactic, such as this:
As an aside, I’m not so sure this is totally accurate. Yes, Bush did condemn Iran as a member of the “Axis of Evil,” and I don’t suggest the two governments don’t despise each other. But I suspect plenty of back-channel, “unofficial” negotiations between the U.S. and Iranian administrations have occurred since March 2003.
Admittedly, I don’t have a cite, but it seems reasonable to assume without the tacit acceptance (and only for the time being, of course) of the U.S. occupation by the majority Shiite population, the American-led occupation would be utterly untenable, and Iran plays a prominent role in influencing the Shia.
But I also don’t think that Iran - with its rather restive population full of young, unemployed males (who are reasonably well educated, I might add, which makes them that much more dangerous [from the mullahs’ point of view]) - wants a full-blown civil war on its western border which could spill into Iran and undermine their rule (especially with sizable American forces on both their eastern and western borders). The motivation for both sides to engage in diplomatic horse trading to further their own interests seems apparent. Of course I can’t prove it.
The more I think about it, the more this “we can’t influence, therefore, we can’t protest” seems like a convenient rationalization, and not a very shrewd one at that (more on that a little later). After all, that didn’t stop American and European liberals and leftists from protesting South Africa’s apartheid rule in massive numbers back in the 70s and 80s despite their lack of influence with the SA government. Similarly, Israel’s occupation has been met with large numbers of vitriolic protests from liberals/leftists, although more so in Europe than in America.
Besides, mhendo, how do we know we don’t have any influence on Iran’s government if we don’t even try?
Exactly right, mhendo, and that’s why I don’t think we self-identified moderates and progressives should mute our criticism of Iran’s words and actions. We should start thinking more strategically.
I argue that we need to be on an equal level with conservatives in our disdain of Iran. We need to establish our anti-fascist credentials so that they are plainly obvious. When we allow conservatives to corner the market on condemnation of crappy governments like Iran’s, we allow them to take the rhetorical “high ground” that they use to marginalize our foreign policy ideas via familiar smears. IOW, once again, we allow them the luxury of framing the debate the way they want. How many times are we going fight with one hand behind our back before we start getting smarter?
Besides, it’s the right thing to do. Iran does suck. Its government is an affront to decency. It threatens genocide. It represses its citizens. It’s working on the bomb. It executes homosexuals for, well, being homosexual. It gives succor to terrorists at home and provides aid and comfort to terrorists abroad. We liberals and leftists can’t lay claim to the moral high ground if we stay silent.
I recognize America’s checkered history with Iran is problematic to liberals. But that was 1953. We can’t let historical guilt paralyze us the way it does; besides, denouncing Iran doesn’t mean we can’t argue that our past actions contributed to the present situation. If anything, it gives our policy ideas more credibility, especially if we don’t have to defend ourselves from the calumny served up by our political foes.
To be fair, I don’t think duffer is suggesting that liberals and leftists are tacitly supporting Ahmadinejad. I think what he and Starving Artist are suggesting is that liberals and leftists of the SDMB (and by extension, the libs and lefties of the West) are not opposing Ahmadinejad and Iran’s ruling regime strongly enough, thereby enabling the regime to do things like openly call for Israel’s destruction.
The population of “SDMB Nation” has proven it can rise up in fury when properly motivated. Considering that the SDMB has had numerous threads reaching six pages or more on the various verbal transgressions of the American equivalent of Iran’s religious clerics (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, etc.), it seems odd that it took a full three days for a Pit thread to originate on Ahmadinejad’s vicious comments. Furthermore, it seems odd that the tone and tenor of this thread is not nearly as harsh in its condemnation of Iran as it is in a typical Robertson/Phelps/Falwell Pit thread.
After all, it seems unlikely that Robertson, Falwell or Phelps will have access to a nuclear weapon in the next 10 years or less.
Problem is the opposition in Iran made those points:
Here is Shirin Ebadi, nobel price winner because of her activism in Iran:
http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/000325.html
Don’t need to when they have access to the ears of “God told me to do it” Bush.
Exactly!
Your entire post was spot-on, HeelB4Zod.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, and most likely I wouldn’t have had the patience to try. I’ve become terribly disgusted with the way things go around here, and unfortunately any attempts I might make at diplomacy and/or reasoned discourse have pretty much fallen by the wayside in the face of the liberal onslought that invariably occurs whenever someone offers a conservative viewpoint around here…even if they are someone as soft-spoken and gentle and reasonable as Sam Stone. I’m afraid I’ve here too much and too long and after seeing the way even the Sam Stones are treated around here, I’ve pretty much abandoned any attempt at productive conversation and find myself opting instead for more of a fight-fire-with-fire approach. Still though, when I see a post such as yours, it makes me long for more reasoned exchanges.
Congratulations again on an excellent post.
Cripes, make that, “onslaught.”
Why don’t I ever seem to catch these things during the preview phase?
Too cranked up by liberal boneheads, I guess.
When you’re done on that cross, Jesus would like it back.
Jesus wouldn’t be caught dead on a right-winger’s hand me down cross. It burns!!
Which is how we got here in the first place. Ever since Newt kicked off the Politics of Personal destruction in 1994, the right wing has been using these tactics as a bludgeon to further their agenda. Now you don’t like it when we use it against you? Tough titty. Yours never was the party of reason.
But Ebadi also said in that same article:
If we’re not as LOUDLY pissed off about the words and actions of Iran’s government, we go a long way toward surrendering the human rights issue to the conservatives, who have shown a propensity to use our relative silence as an excuse to hijack the moral high ground. Ebadi explicitly rejects the “who are we to criticize them?” excuse many Western liberals offer.
And while I admire her greatly, in the snippet you provided, Ebadi did not really adequately answer the question, “what is the right way to fight Islamic fundamentalism and Al Qaeda?”
The way I read that answer is she criticizes the American treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. Fair enough.
She criticizes the use of war to punish terrorists - again, fair enough.
She proposes addressing “injustice” and “certainty of attitude” through education and then “doing away with injustice.” So IOW, we’re going to address injustice by doing away with injustice?
She says:
I suppose so, although it seems that plenty of terrorists are educated (i.e. didn’t all the 9/11 hijackers have degrees? Not sure, but I know at least some of them did).
She says certain groups benefit from waging war. Fair enough.
Ebadi concludes with this:
Again, this might be true, but it hardly answers the question, “what is the right way to fight Islamic fundamentalism and Al Qaeda?” She tells us all the wrong ways to fight it, but doesn’t give us the right ways.
Then what was the deal with Harriet Miers?
Jesus H. Christ, what does it take?
Exactly what is the appropriate level of condemnation for me to display in order to be considered sincere enough? Should i bow down and throw ashes over myself? Should i march in the streets burning an Iranian flag? Perhaps duffer and his ilk would only be satisfied if i explicitly called for the bombing of Tehran.
i’ve already condemned Ahmadinejad’s words as explicitly and as forthrightly as i feel is necessary, and others in this thread have also. I’m not going to fall all over myself just to make reactionary dickheads like duffer or Starving Artist feel better. I’m comfortable with my level of outrage, and if it’s not good enough for the extreme right, then that’s a failing i’m willing to live with.
My condemnation is, indeed, final and unconditional. Ahmadinejad’s words are wothy of condemnation no matter the circumstances that led up to them, and he alone is responsible for those words and the outrage they should elicit from the world community.
My “tactic,” as you call it, was not merely rhetorical. It was an expression of a strong belief that the forces of moderation, which were indeed making considerable headway in Iran, might have been heeded even more closely without the ridiculous posturing of the Bush administration.
I don’t blame the Bush administration for Ahmadinejad’s words; i’m simply pointing out that duffer’s juvenile attempt to associate liberals’ alleged support for Iranian radicalism with their condemnation of Bush can cut both ways.
So you concede that you’re merely speculating, and that you have no evidence to back up your claim, and yet this is supposed to act as a rebuttal? Who gives a flying fuck if there have been back-channel negotiations? The fact is that Bush’s rhetoric about Iran inflamed not only the hard-line mullahs, but also their supporters, people who, like us, would also be ignorant of the content of back-channel negotiations. Bush’s rhetoric gave the hard-liners an opportunity to rally support, support that might well have been harder to find in the absence of such inflammatory statements.
Again, i don’t hold any of this responsible for Ahmadinejad’s words. He is solely responsible for those hateful and inexcusable barabrities. But folks like duffer live in a world where only the rantings of our enemies are accorded any weight, and the negative consequences of our own “diplomacy” are seemingly irrelevant.
Well, people have made similar arguments about Iran and Israel, pointing out that despite Ahmadinejad’s words, those words are more for internal consumption and “diplomatic horse trading,” and that the likelihood of an actual attack on Israel is almost infinitesimally small.
Sigh.
Read my fucking post. I never made the claim that “we can’t influence, therefore, we can’t protest.” I made very clear that i was simply pointing out the stupidity of duffer and Starving Artist drawing up some sort of scoresheet regarding the number of times Bush is mentioned versus the number of times Iran is mentioned by liberals on this board. The fact is that Bush comes in for more attention because he is the President of the country with the highest representation on these boards.
Furthermore, your examples regarding South Africa and Israel actually serve to make my point. You know what one of the main aims of those protests was? To try and pressure the US government into taking action (trade sanctions, diplomatic pressure, etc.) that might bring about changes in the policies of the South African and Israeli governments. In the case of Iran, such protests are unnecessary because Bush has already made it very clear that he opposes Iran and will do what he can to bring about change there. If Bush’s policy was, instead, to cosy up with Iran and ignore their human rights violations in the interests of trade, then i’d be quite happy with protests.
Furthermore, dribbling idiots like duffer and Starving Artist continue to assume, despite much evidence to the contrary, that just because progressives and liberals oppose Bush’s method of dealing with these situations, we must also be supporters of Iran (or Saddam, or whoever). This oft-repeated fallacy—that opposing American policy equates to support for the opposition—could not be further from the truth, and is nothing more than evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of the fucking fools who make it.
What the fuck are you talking about? There is no muting of our criticism. Do you want me to shout? OK, here you go:
As a self-proclaimed leftist, i hereby officially and unequivocally condemn Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s recent remarks about Israel. Such comments are completely barbaric and unacceptable, and should not even be part of the dialog between supposedly civilized nations. He should be censured by the United Nations, and it should be made clear to him and to all Iranians that such statements can only have detrimental consequences for the Iranian nation and its people
If you can think of anything else i should have said, please let me know, but again, i refuse to descend to calling for the US to bomb Iran, which i suspect is the only thing that would make warmongers like duffer and Starving Artist happy.
Conservatives don’t “corner the market on condemnation of crappy governments.” They only claim that they do, and if your post is any indication, they are aided and abetted in such claims by some self-professed progressives and liberals. I subscribe to eight different liberal and leftist magazines, and all of them have, over the past five years (i.e., both before and after 9/11) made strong critiques of the fundamentalist rulers of places like Iran. As have many leftists and liberals on these very message boards. You’re proposing a solution to a problem that exists only the (small) minds of folks like duffer and Starving Artist.
Bolding mine.
That’s exactly what i was doing earlier, with my reference to Bush’s rhetoric and its influence on Iranian politics. Get it? I was both condeming and denouncing Iran’s current government, while also arguing “that our past actions contributed to the present situation.” And you took me to task for it.
Sorry, but did you actually read their posts?
Sounds very much like an accusation that there are people on this message board defending Iran. I’ve asked him to provide some evidence, but the dribbling idiot has been unsurprisingly mute when it comes to backing up his statements.
And look at Starving Artist’s comment:
This statement is so palpably full of falsehood that it’s hard to know where to begin. It is not, as you suggest, merely an accusation that we “are not opposing Ahmadinejad and Iran’s ruling regime strongly enough.” It is an accusation that we do not oppose it at all, and that we don’t care what human rights violations occur in other countries.
I’m not sure why you are so invested in making excuses for these brainless fuck-knuckles. There are conservatives on these boards who attempt to make their arguments honestly and with a modicum of respect for standards of truth and evidence, but neither of the people in question fall into that category.
And once again we get back to this “Wow, shouldn’t there be more condemnation!” argument.
Personally, i think that these arguments are stupid no matter which side of the political fence they come from. I don’t expect conservatives to join every thread on Falwell or Robertson and condemn those guys. And i don’t have much time for left or liberal Dopers who drop into such threads and make pre-emptive statements along the lines of
I think that sort of shit is unproductive and stupid, and i have called out fellow leftists for it in the past.
The very number of threads on these Boards means that not everyone sees every thread, and i refuse to condemn anyone, of any political persuasion, for their simple absence fvrom a thread. Now, if someone does enter a thread i will make assessments about them based upon what they do and don’t say there. If anyone had come into this thread and said that Iran didn’t deserve condemnation for these statements, i would disagree with them most vociferously.
I, too, was surprised that there was no earlier thread about this issue, because i came into the Dope last night specifically looking for one. But this has happened to me on multiple occasions before, when i have been surprised that a relatively large news item has not yet inspired a Straight Dope thread. But i usually ascribe this not to malice, but to the fact the simple messiness of life, the fact that not everyone knows about everything, and still fewer have time to start threads about everything on the message boards. I just have no time for the pre-emptive “Why don’t you all say something” type of threads. If you want to say something, then say it, and take people to task based on their responses, not based upon their wholly explicable absence from the debate.
Hell, despite being the sort of person who generally keeps up with the news, i only heard about Ahmadinejad’s comments yesterday, three days after they were made, which is why i came in here last night looking for a thread on the topic. But i guess that, according to duffer and co., the fact that i didn’t start a thread earlier means that i support Ahmadinejad’s position on this issue.
You are a liar and a coward of the first order.
You explicitly said, as i pointed out above,
That is not simply a suggestion that we need to criticize Iran more strongly; it’s an accusation that we don’t care, period.
Your credibility is zero.
I appreciate the kind words, Starving Artist. I do think we need to start using the Internet to foster better and more reasoned communications with each other, because it seems like we’re using it too often to segment ourselves into our ideological “tribes” (for lack of a better word). Maybe I feel like a lonely soul on a fool’s errand in trying to establish common ground, but we must start talking to each other instead of past each other.
Now of course, it’s the Pit and I’m not exactly fond of the current party in power, so I gotta give you and duffer some shit, too.
I agree with you that we liberals have to be much more vocal in our condemnation.
But I don’t see how those on the right have any standing any more to claim they alone comprise the West’s support of the Iranian resistance liberation movement. Especially now, since the U.S. government has shown that when it’s convenient for us, we’ll be just fine with enshrining quite a few elements of sharia law into a “liberated” nation’s constitution (see Text of Iraq Constitution).
I gave mhendo some grief a few posts ago, but s/he is right on the money when s/he says:
Right on.* And the hamfisted, arrogant manner in which the current administration has conducted our foreign policy in recent years have seriously eroded our ability to use the full strength of our system’s moral superiority. Not to mention, our ability to bolster the hand of the Iranian resistance, to be able to say with a straight face “I’ve got your back”, has been utterly compromised. Since 9/11, America has done nothing of substance to further the cause of liberty in Iran, because we’ve lost the actual ability to do so.
(*I do think Christian conservatives have played a prominent role in bringing attention to the slaughter going on in Darfur [Nicholas Kristof’s columns on the subject are informative], though I suspect they do so for missionary purposes.)
Just to make your life easier, and your posts more readable, its “he.”
Wrong guess, Bonehead leaders are defanging the opposition in iran:
Well, any implication, real or implied that the Left as a whole is to blame for Iran’s stance isn’t very fair on my part. What is fair is the fact that nobody here deemed Iran’s statement as Pit-worthy. How many Bush rants since Abbie said this? How many pittings of him? When it gets to the point that I have to Pit the bastard for calling for the end of Isreal it really shows how far the majority on these board have gone in blind hatred.
Maybe it’s not such a bad thing after all since only us right-wing whack-jobs are upset over it. Sorry, Jews, guess it’s not that big a deal to call for your extermination. :rolleyes: