I don’t see what is helpful in boycotting, walking out out on a conference, wearing colorful wigs and heckling the speaker, and even throwing things is helpful in the situation either. It is quite a childish response at a forum that otherwise could actually be helpful if it wasn’t being boycotted. There must be better ways to counter his speech than that. Diplomacy can’t do any good if you walk out or boycott the forum where you are supposed to discuss and debate things.
Allessan:
But what if your position were not directly adversarial? If you had “no dog in the fight”, as we Merkins say? If Upper Volta had a long history of conflict with its neighbors, whether justified or no, would you say that Gabon had no good reason to bolster its arsenal in anticipation of need?
It depends on Upper Volta’s actions to date, as well as upon the charater of the Gabob regime.
But it’s a moot point. *Nobody *is objective. Like it or not, everyone is on one side or another, whether they want it or not.
“If you’re not with me, you’re against me” ? :dubious:
Remember, English isn’t your native tongue. I wrote “everyone is on one side or another”, not “… one side or the other”. In other words, I didn’t claim that there were just two sides, or that all sides are in opposition to each other.
I didn’t read that they did anything other than walk out on his speech and criticize it’s content, which to me is a perfectly acceptable cold-shoulder response to the rhetoric Ahmadinejad was spewing. If these other things occurred, well, yeah, two wrongs don’t make a right and all.
But at the Anti-Racism Conference, Iran’s President makes that speech? Really? It almost makes me wonder if Iran really believes it’s own bullshit or if they just enjoy provoking other nations.
I realize that there is some validity to the complaints of the Palestinians re: Israel, but it isn’t Iran’s place to carry the Palestinians banner, especially since Iran doesn’t seem to be helping their “poor Islamic bretheren” in any way other than continuing to foment hatred for Israel, which of course, isn’t helpful at all.
Iran is actually not a pariah nation or particularly unpopular. It enjoys decent relations with Russia, China and India. It has greatly increased its standing with Arab public opinion in recent years and whatever misgivings Arab governments have about it public opinion will limit the policies they can pursue against Iran. Sure the US and some European countries may have walked out of the speech but Iran has probably written them off diplomatically anyway and believe that the Arab countries are the crucial “swing vote” which they need to woo. That they have done very effectively in the last few years and in this conference as well. In general their foreign policy in this decade has been more pragmatic and effective than that of the US and unlike the US they are in a stronger position today than they were in 2000. So much for the idea that they are a bunch of fanatical crazies.
Personally I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of the Right or Wrong of either side. I am more interested in how each actor perceives things and what will happen as a result.
On the Israeli side there is no question that public opinion is behind taking out the reactors if talks fail, by a 54 to 35 % margin. Heck, even within America, more Americans believe that preventing a nuclear capable Iran is more important than preventing a war between Iran and Israel.
Meanwhile Iran may not be a pariah nation but they are indeed particularly unpopular.
But those of you who are anti-Israel have no need to worry.
(Data over a year old but unlikely to have changed too much methinks.)
Is there any reason to believe that the Iranian public feels threatened by Israel other than in relation to the nuclear issue? No.
Look, I personally believe that Iran would be unlikely to launch an attack against Israel and that much of the “destroy Israel” rhetoric is off-gassing for the sake of the masses - their version of red meat. I personally believe that Iran’s motivation has a lot more to do with aspirations to be the regional powerhouse in the MENA-Muslim world and that they see having the bomb as way to emphasize that they are in the big time. I do not believe that Iranians believe they need a bomb to protect themselves from Israel or that a bomb is needed to or would deter America if America decided to attack them.
But my beliefs have little impact on the what will happen if talks fail and who will be supportive of that action publicly and who privately. Alessan’s perception matters some. But among the rest of us posting, no we have no impact; we are just speculating what the tea leaves foretell.
What’s this WE shit? :rolleyes: Is positively EVERYTHING you say laced with the “AMERIKKA BAD!” undertones? Jesus.
As long as you want rights for yourself which you deny to others you are the cause of problems, not the others who just want equality.
Then why possess the nukes?
Outside of Science Fiction discussions, yes, yes it is. You get used to it.
When you are surrounded by enemies who more or less want your state wiped of the map, you may feel the need for some firepower i’d say
Who does the attacking?
Duly noted, my apology for that jerky knee of mine.
I still think you’re wrong and it’s absolutely possible to have a non-partisan opinion on the matter, though.
Worth to you…I seem to remember you saying of the Palestinians that you would be quite happy to kill 1000 of “theirs” to save one of “yours”. (if I’m mistaken I apologise in advance)
I am applying the same reason to Iranians…
This sort of Jingoistic and ultra nationalistic belief never helps matters, as I see another poster has noted, when you want rights for yourself that you aren’t willing to grant to others you are part of the problem.
Why should some body sitting in Iran put anymore faith in “because we don’t do that” than the faith you place in Iranian leadership? What makes you (specifically) so much better, more trustworthy and more reliable than any specific person in Iran?
You mean, other than the fact that Iran has launched one war of aggression in order to dominate a nation and subvert it to Khomenism as well using its military proxies to attack targets in Israel, as well as US forces… while Israel has not done the same to Iran?
I suppose that if we’re going to look at things in a vacuum, your question makes sense. But with context…
I am slightly ignorant of Iran’s history so I will ask a sincere question. What war of aggression has Iran led in recent history? As far as I can tell the only war which has happened during the existence of the current Republic of Iran has been the Iran-Iraq war which was instigated by Iraq.
Yeah…and Israel isn’t an illegal occupying power either right?
- I know this arguement is a little disingenuous, but hell, Alessan (and to a lesser extent yourself) display a lot of arrogance - its okay becasue it’s us, but other cannot be trusted. There are many reasons why I can understand that Iran may want nuclear weapons, and I really hate the arrogance of “we’re allowed becasue we’re trustworthy, you can’t have because you’re not”.
This to me is just another variation on the old canard of History being the propaganda of the winner…
But WE have subverted it’s democracy to put in a dictator, threatened it, conquered it’s neighbor, sponsered a war of conquest against it, and sponsered terrorists against it.
Again; what makes you think that Iran wants nukes because of Israel ?