And a short history as a theocracy. So here we are again. If you agree that we don’t know their mindset, let’s agree we don’t know their mindset.
In the meantime, no, Kucinich is nowhere near right on this, and in general (not meaning you, Spoke) I find it very frustrating when liberals argue that diplomacy is preferable to war and should always be attempted before war, but then turn around and treat any kind of diplomacy as either an obvious prelude to war or as tantamount to war. It’s an incoherent position that lacks judgment and I don’t know if it is intended to point toward isolationism, but unfortunately it does.
It’s designed to trade in fear and fiction in order to coerce action or inaction. When both diplomacy and sabre rattling are both equated to war, and the only ‘valid path’ is Rand Paul or Kucinich, or whomever’s rhetoric, they’re hoping that they can scare up enough ignorant panic that people will support certain politicians as white knights… valiantly tilting at the windmills of an Iranian war since, after all, they just might be giants.
If only there were some sort of organized method whereby one might ask people’s opinions, and some sort of tool one might use to search for such things on the internet. Instead, you must throw up your hands in despair.
If only someone both brilliant and handsome could come to your rescue.
Never fear, Finn is here.
True. True of its ethnic-Persian core, that is. However, Iran also includes several ethnic/national/regional minorities who have expressed strong interest in secession/autonomy/independence at one time or another. The Balochis, for instance – both the Pakistani and the Iranian Balochis, next door to each other, have active independence movements – and, always, the Kurds – and even, occasionally, the Arabs of Khuzestan (on the border with Iraq – one of Saddam Hussein’s pretexts for war with Iran was to “liberate” them from Persian rule). (The Iranian Azerbaijanis, OTOH, for whatever reason, don’t seem much interested in seceding from Iran or uniting with the Republic of Azerbaijan.) This is relevant here because any foreign power seeking to destablize the regime might be tempted to make use of these.
Finn, did you actually read any of the polls you linked? Including the one where the majority of respondents oppose reestablishing ties with th US? I can smell the rose petals now!
The polls you didn’t even know existed? Yep, I read them. Naturally, you are now upset that I had the intellectual honesty to actually post the range of polling data, including the trend among the Iranian population for supporting rapprochement with America. Of course, you’ve quickly transitioned to the strawman of invading Iran and nonsense about being greeted with rose petals. Just like you’re, shall we say, not exactly giving the full story of the one report you’ve deigned to mention.
Don’t worry Spoke, I’m sure that everybody reading along will agree with you that I didn’t actually read the polls and that ignoring the actual context behind the lower number for rapprochement with America is the best call.
“Rose petals” first came up in post #16, but it seems to be recurring with greater frequency in response to unwanted facts. Nobody’s arguing in support of a war, Spoke, and FinnAgain and I have both said repeatedly that sanctions and the coordination of a diplomatic response are not part of the runup to a war. Like I wrote earlier, it’s frustrating when people can’t or won’t tell the difference. But that’s separate from other posters making assertions that Iranians support their government, because they have little reason to do so - and the Iranian government damn well knows that because for years they’ve been shouting that any kind of dissent, including the 2009 protests, is the product of American and British and Zionist interference and doesn’t reflect the views of Iranians.
I wasn’t trying to say that Iranians currently blanketly support their government – just that they do so much more than they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Enough so that if the country were at war they could – not necessarily would – rally behind them like nations under war tend to do. And they are a nation moreso than Afghanistan and Iraq, which were stiven by internal tribal divisions much moreso than the relatively coherent Persian population, which isn’t to say that there aren’t separtist minorities in Iran.
You’re right. Nobody rational believes that the sanctions are the run-up to war. That’s why Kucinich only sees 10 or maybe 11 congressman agree with him in that madhouse. It’s good that you don’t bother at all with the argument the rational opposition is actually making.
Which argument is that, and which opposition is that? I’m all for keeping a close eye on the progress of these talks and diplomatic efforts so things don’t get out of hand, but if you have not seen people who are absolutely positive the sanctions mean the U.S. is going to invade Iran soon, then you are either lucky or you haven’t discussed this issue with a lot of people.
Those rationally opposed to the track we are on worry about the post-Obama future or the possibility that the Israeli government is not full of shit, especially if the sanctions fail to have their desired effect, which they most likely will. They prefer that we do not starve the average Iranian, arm terrorists, assassinate, sabotage, and most definitely not bomb. They believe that the process should be handled entirely via the UN. They view the mix of rhetoric, events, and historical perspective as something similar to the events that led toward the 2nd Iraq War. It’s not an irrational point-of-view. Unluckily in this forum it’s typically the black-and-white pronouncements of somebody like Kucinich or Netanyahu that cause these debates to get started.
These arguments are entirely one of perception because no decent facts are obtainable. These discussions are more an exhibition of personality than a debate of facts that are relevant to whether these events lead to an inevitable invasion or these other facts mean that Iran is most definitely developing a nuclear weapon. It’s just suspicion and speculation. If it really was just about lunatics that think sanctions equals war then I doubt anyone at all would post.
But when I hear people start talking about how, “Gee, you know the Iranians really don’t like their own government so much, and therefore…” I worry about what sort of “therefores” may follow from that line of reasoning. Because a lot of the “therefores” don’t really follow. “Rose petals” is just a comical way of alluding to the ultimate fallacy.
We have seen that line of reasoning employed recently. And disastrously. Best not to even start down that path again. Fool me once, won’t get fooled again.
Hrmm… the ‘rational opposition’, opposing “the track we are on” and wanting the UN to handle things instead. Like the UN sanctions against Iran?
Would you, perhaps, care to choose another adjective to describe the opposition? Rational does not seem particularly apt, is all.
In that they’re political events taking place in the Middle East and related to investigations of WMD’s, yes. Of course, being unable to differentiate the events surrounding the Iraq war from what’s currently happening with Iran is hardly “rational”. Perhaps “the fallacy-driven opposition”?
Generally whenever someone claims this, it’s because they don’t have any facts to rely upon. Not only are there quite a few decent facts, they can be (and have been) cited. A lack of 100% perfect knowledge is hardly fatal to factual discussion. Unless, of course, you can prove for 100% certain that you are not in fact a brain in a jar?
Why in the world is that relevant? Predicting what someone else will do can also be used when they have a legitimate argument–it’s called poisoning the well.
His argument is pretty basic: you call him out for fearmongering, but you do it yourself. It shouldn’t take much for you to either explain why it’s okay for you to do, or to assert that he’s wrong about your previous posts. At that point it would be up to him to either prove your logic wrong, or to provide instances of posts proving you wrong.
Pointing out the bullshit dodges someone will use shows that their argument is weak. Them then not having any actual argument other than bullshit dodges shows that their argument is functionally non-existent. You should learn what “poisoning the well” actually means.
Except, of course, his argument is based on fear mongering and nothing else, and mine doesn’t contain it at all. So, yes, his argument is both “basic” and, ya know, fictional. Your claim that I could, potentially “assert that he’s wrong about my previous posts” reveals the fact that you haven’t even read this thread before holding forth. Good job.
