Horrible Threat to Iran

[The Fish 8973]

getting tired of the constant tolerance of intolerant regimes to be honest.

 

few can argue that the "lives" that women endure in certain extreme countires are nothing short of servile existence. Now, I may not be the most empathic or understanding man around, I know damned well that women have as many rights and duties as men, and are certainly not objects to be controlled, nor are they serfs who's sole task is to serve and obey the man.

 

Call me narrow-minded, but I doubt that there are many western women sympathetic to our middle eastern brothers.

 

I'm surprised that people are surprised at the outcome of the elcetions.. of course Hamas would win, they win because they've the best propaganda, the "educators" and the strength of the media behind them.

 

the only hope is to educate the population, so they can make an informed and valuable judgement on the candidates before them, rather than putting faith in democracy. The promises offered by extremists cannot be matched by liberals.

 

 

But of course lets tolerate them, for these are our cousins across the globe, they may have different views on the value of female life, they may see progression from tradition as sacreligious, they may view any deviancy as a capital punishment, but we have to tolerate them.

 

 

bollocks.

 

fed up with all this "western world is evil" clap-trap, if you're so unhappy turn in your western goods, reject your western values, bog off to baghdad and live merirly there instead.

 

No we're not perfect, but at least the west is permissive of progress.

 

 

/rant

[Radgina 1]

getting tired of the constant tolerance of intolerant regimes to be honest.

 

few can argue that the "lives" that women endure in certain extreme countires are nothing short of servile existence. Now, I may not be the most empathic or understanding man around, I know damned well that women have as many rights and duties as men, and are certainly not objects to be controlled, nor are they serfs who's sole task is to serve and obey the man.

 

Call me narrow-minded, but I doubt that there are many western women sympathetic to our middle eastern brothers.

 

I'm surprised that people are surprised at the outcome of the elcetions.. of course Hamas would win, they win because they've the best propaganda, the "educators" and the strength of the media behind them.

 

the only hope is to educate the population, so they can make an informed and valuable judgement on the candidates before them, rather than putting faith in democracy. The promises offered by extremists cannot be matched by liberals.

 

 

But of course lets tolerate them, for these are our cousins across the globe, they may have different views on the value of female life, they may see progression from tradition as sacreligious, they may view any deviancy as a capital punishment, but we have to tolerate them.

 

 

bollocks.

 

fed up with all this "western world is evil" clap-trap, if you're so unhappy turn in your western goods, reject your western values, bog off to baghdad and live merirly there instead.

 

No we're not perfect, but at least the west is permissive of progress.

 

 

/rant

88373[/snapback]

 

[The Fish 8973]

it's amazing what a 20 years with two sisters and a mother, a few years living with predominately female company and a short fuse will do to your global conciousness.

 

[Rob W 0]

"getting tired of the constant tolerance of intolerant regimes"

 

so which ones are we going to invade first? Or all at once??

 

Or maybe not invade - we won't sell Saudi Arabia our aeroplanes and they won't sell us their oil....................................

[Guest alex]

getting tired of the constant tolerance of intolerant regimes to be honest.

 

few can argue that the "lives" that women endure in certain extreme countires are nothing short of servile existence. Now, I may not be the most empathic or understanding man around, I know damned well that women have as many rights and duties as men, and are certainly not objects to be controlled, nor are they serfs who's sole task is to serve and obey the man.

 

Call me narrow-minded, but I doubt that there are many western women sympathetic to our middle eastern brothers.

 

I'm surprised that people are surprised at the outcome of the elcetions.. of course Hamas would win, they win because they've the best propaganda, the "educators" and the strength of the media behind them.

 

the only hope is to educate the population, so they can make an informed and valuable judgement on the candidates before them, rather than putting faith in democracy. The promises offered by extremists cannot be matched by liberals.

 

 

But of course lets tolerate them, for these are our cousins across the globe, they may have different views on the value of female life, they may see progression from tradition as sacreligious, they may view any deviancy as a capital punishment, but we have to tolerate them.

 

 

bollocks.

 

fed up with all this "western world is evil" clap-trap, if you're so unhappy turn in your western goods, reject your western values, bog off to baghdad and live merirly there instead.

 

No we're not perfect, but at least the west is permissive of progress.

 

 

/rant

88373[/snapback]

Who exactly are you arguing against? Who is supporting/tolerating what is taking place in these countries and what exactly would you do about it? Invade?

[Rob W 0]

hey Alex - we're thinking alike!!!!

[Guest alex]

hey Alex - we're thinking alike!!!!

88530[/snapback]

Great minds Berb

[LeazesMag 0]

Bush is such a hypocrite- They accuse Iran of being a threat and say that they are going to refer them for uranium enrichment, when it hasn't even been proved that they are actually making nukes. Wasn't it that same America who used Napalm on Vietnam and Nukes on Hiroshima?

87609[/snapback]

 

 

oh dear.

[Guest alex]

Bush is such a hypocrite- They accuse Iran of being a threat and say that they are going to refer them for uranium enrichment, when it hasn't even been proved that they are actually making nukes. Wasn't it that same America who used Napalm on Vietnam and Nukes on Hiroshima?

87609[/snapback]

 

 

oh dear.

88538[/snapback]

It hasn't been tbh.

[Rob W 0]

In fact they aren't even in breach of the Non Proliferation Agreement (yet)

 

The Yanks think they MIGHT want to get a bomb and we all know that only decent folk are allowed them....................

[The Fish 8973]

"getting tired of the constant tolerance of intolerant regimes"

 

so which ones are we going to invade first?  Or all at once??

 

Or maybe not invade - we won't sell Saudi Arabia our aeroplanes and they won't sell us their oil....................................

88525[/snapback]

nice of you to consider that maybe I might not agree with that either, but you box me into the same category as ... oh... I dunno...Bush?

 

 

for the good of the global community these regimes must not be allowed to continue. There are far wiser people than us who will have far wiser ways to force these, frankly dark-age countries into advancement and progression.

 

I'd expect that this view will be seen as typical western arrogance, but I don't think that stoning people to death is particularly contemporary. And no, I don't think any form of capital punishment is acceptable. I'm at a loss to see how head in the sand tactics will work? sanctions aren't working, neither is invasion, there must be a better way.

 

I think a massive problem is that wonce the "Allies" waded into Iraq and Afghanistan they installed a democratic system without realising that the population were not ready to make a fair and valid judgement.

 

I forget the two countries but I remember reading that two countries won independence from the UK. The African Country tried immediately to install western philosophies and systems despite their country and countrymen being ill-prepared for it, the country that broke away in Asia installed a five year plan, and arranged their government to take them to the next stage. The African wanted it all, and they wanted it now, the Asian Country wanted it all, but saw the pitfalls that they would face if they did not approach it cautiously.

 

the African country is still in serious financial problems with armed militia roaming the country, the Asian country is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

 

My point is, ok, so violence simply begets violence, but that doesn't mean we have to give up all avenues of change.

[Guest alex]

"getting tired of the constant tolerance of intolerant regimes"

 

so which ones are we going to invade first?  Or all at once??

 

Or maybe not invade - we won't sell Saudi Arabia our aeroplanes and they won't sell us their oil....................................

88525[/snapback]

nice of you to consider that maybe I might not agree with that either, but you box me into the same category as ... oh... I dunno...Bush?

 

 

for the good of the global community these regimes must not be allowed to continue. There are far wiser people than us who will have far wiser ways to force these, frankly dark-age countries into advancement and progression.

 

I'd expect that this view will be seen as typical western arrogance, but I don't think that stoning people to death is particularly contemporary. And no, I don't think any form of capital punishment is acceptable. I'm at a loss to see how head in the sand tactics will work? sanctions aren't working, neither is invasion, there must be a better way.

 

I think a massive problem is that wonce the "Allies" waded into Iraq and Afghanistan they installed a democratic system without realising that the population were not ready to make a fair and valid judgement.

 

I forget the two countries but I remember reading that two countries won independence from the UK. The African Country tried immediately to install western philosophies and systems despite their country and countrymen being ill-prepared for it, the country that broke away in Asia installed a five year plan, and arranged their government to take them to the next stage. The African wanted it all, and they wanted it now, the Asian Country wanted it all, but saw the pitfalls that they would face if they did not approach it cautiously.

 

the African country is still in serious financial problems with armed militia roaming the country, the Asian country is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

 

My point is, ok, so violence simply begets violence, but that doesn't mean we have to give up all avenues of change.

88853[/snapback]

Wonce you say?

[The Fish 8973]

In fact they aren't even in breach of the Non Proliferation Agreement (yet)

 

The Yanks think they MIGHT want to get a bomb and we all know that only decent  folk are allowed them....................

88542[/snapback]

 

 

Rob, do you think it is a good idea for countries where the extremists and radicals hold power to have in their posession a weapon that makes all others obsolete?

 

I know the easy fix (and frankly stupid) answer is to say that the Americans have an extremist and a radical in charge. But I think we all know that the Americans (misguided and reactionary as they might be) aren't about to launch a nuclear weapon at Cuba because of an age old dispute. Can we say the same about Iranians? Palestinians? Israeli? etc. etc.

 

even if this government is pretty stable, what about the man who holds power in five years time?

 

in a perfect world we wouldn't need to stifle nuclear arm production, because we'd all get along. The trouble is where there are extremists on both sides there will always be the risk of somebody doing something horrifc.

 

but of course, the Americans are just bullies and their leadership is maniacal .

[Guest alex]

In fact they aren't even in breach of the Non Proliferation Agreement (yet)

 

The Yanks think they MIGHT want to get a bomb and we all know that only decent  folk are allowed them....................

88542[/snapback]

 

 

Rob, do you think it is a good idea for countries where the extremists and radicals hold power to have in their posession a weapon that makes all others obsolete?

 

I know the easy fix (and frankly stupid) answer is to say that the Americans have an extremist and a radical in charge. But I think we all know that the Americans (misguided and reactionary as they might be) aren't about to launch a nuclear weapon at Cuba because of an age old dispute. Can we say the same about Iranians? Palestinians? Israeli? etc. etc.

 

even if this government is pretty stable, what about the man who holds power in five years time?

 

in a perfect world we wouldn't need to stifle nuclear arm production, because we'd all get along. The trouble is where there are extremists on both sides there will always be the risk of somebody doing something horrifc.

 

but of course, the Americans are just bullies and their leadership is maniacal .

88858[/snapback]

Is it ok for Israel to have the bomb though, given what you've just wrote?

[The Fish 8973]

"getting tired of the constant tolerance of intolerant regimes"

 

so which ones are we going to invade first?  Or all at once??

 

Or maybe not invade - we won't sell Saudi Arabia our aeroplanes and they won't sell us their oil....................................

88525[/snapback]

nice of you to consider that maybe I might not agree with that either, but you box me into the same category as ... oh... I dunno...Bush?

 

 

for the good of the global community these regimes must not be allowed to continue. There are far wiser people than us who will have far wiser ways to force these, frankly dark-age countries into advancement and progression.

 

I'd expect that this view will be seen as typical western arrogance, but I don't think that stoning people to death is particularly contemporary. And no, I don't think any form of capital punishment is acceptable. I'm at a loss to see how head in the sand tactics will work? sanctions aren't working, neither is invasion, there must be a better way.

 

I think a massive problem is that wonce the "Allies" waded into Iraq and Afghanistan they installed a democratic system without realising that the population were not ready to make a fair and valid judgement.

 

I forget the two countries but I remember reading that two countries won independence from the UK. The African Country tried immediately to install western philosophies and systems despite their country and countrymen being ill-prepared for it, the country that broke away in Asia installed a five year plan, and arranged their government to take them to the next stage. The African wanted it all, and they wanted it now, the Asian Country wanted it all, but saw the pitfalls that they would face if they did not approach it cautiously.

 

the African country is still in serious financial problems with armed militia roaming the country, the Asian country is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

 

My point is, ok, so violence simply begets violence, but that doesn't mean we have to give up all avenues of change.

88853[/snapback]

Wonce you say?

88854[/snapback]

 

I HERE what you're saying

[Rob W 0]

"to have in their posession a weapon that makes all others obsolete? "

 

It doesn't - we spent (and spend) far far more on conventional arms even when we got the bomb (afer all armies have to have SOMETHING to do)

 

See Genl Sir Rupert Smiths new book on the "Utility of Force"

 

And "regime change" is a nice phrase but it always seems to go wrong - funnily enough people don't like foreigners invading their countries and installing a new Govt. - see Spain in 1810, Afghanistan in 1842, 1878, 1979, 2002... Vietnam (USA & China), Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Russia in 1940 etc etc

 

Are you ready to support a war that would go on for 10 -15 years?

 

Also we have only a limited number of troops - just how the hell are we going to prioritise things?

 

The answer is to engage with these regimes and let the people see how differetn (I didn't say better mind you) things are outside

 

Its a sad reflection on the human race that once they see consumerism, sex, alcohol etc they will slide into our ways and anyone trying to stop them will be history - its may take years but the trends are very clear - look at China, Japan & Russia for example

Edited February 4, 2006 by Rob W

[The Fish 8973]

eventually?

 

but what damage to us in the mean time?

 

I think you have far too little faith in the terrifying power of religion in the hands of traditionalists.

 

as an aside, why do you rail against the west so much? If consumerism, sex and alcohol affect you in this way I'm curious as to why you choose to live in a country who extol their virtue. You mentioned you've worked abroad, in different societies with different regimes etc. Just curious why you remain here?

 

 

(That isn't a "If you don't like it, fuck off", just an honest question.)

[Rob W 0]

I don't - I think Western Civilisation is a good thing anfd has brought undreampt of benifits too many many people

 

But I've also been places and know people who are scared and resentful of the constant movement (or slippage) into an alien culture that sems so different to everything they know & value.

 

If you've been brought up to believe that women should not be seen then something like Page 3 looks (and is) an appaling threat to your beliefs.........

 

On regime change I'm just not convinced it works - Germany 1945 is the only one that comes to mind

[The Fish 8973]

but conversely is there any evidence that stagnation and immobility is a good thing?

 

I've no problem with nations and cultures maintaing their distinct identity and heritage, but if they want to be part of a global community then they absolutely have to modify their behaviour, their beliefs and compromise their standpoints.

 

I think that the resistance to change is being forced upon the populace by the powerful few who are terrified of losing that power. With proper education, full and complete education for all.

 

You're right in that glimpsing another culture can be offensive to your morals, the difference is mate, the Western cultures seem happier to compromise and accept, than our middle eastern compadres.

Would a woman in the middle east who found the way she was treated abhorrent be given the same amount of support as a hard-line muslim in the west who bemoans the appalling trend of women having bare ankles?

 

their rights and beliefs have to stop before they infringe on others rights and beliefs. If it's arrogant to push our society onto them, then by the same token it's unthinkable, in my mind, to permit their society to over shadow our own.

 

those people in power were terrified of the heretic who was adamant that the world was flat... turns out the man who wanted to move the world forward was right.

 

progress is good, stagnation is bad.