3 of 3
3
Will a secular nation speak out against the muslim led genocide against christians in Armenia?...
Posted: 13 October 2007 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
truthaddict - 13 October 2007 10:49 AM

also there is a growing secularist movement amougst the students and the women in the country, and by the way, they are virtually opposed to our warmongering rhetoric of regime change because they see it as empowering the hardliners and what gave Ahmadinejad the lead in the last election.

Yes, this is one reason why our getting involved in a military adventure in Iran would be such a disaster. Of all the Islamic countries, America is held in the highest regard with the young secularists of Iran. And those secularists are actually some of the most moderate and reasonable figures in the entire region. US sword-rattling only enables Ahmadinejad and the hard liners to crack down and hold onto power for longer. We’re just shooting ourselves in the foot here. But GWB is an accomplished expert at that.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

it was Dick and Face

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11
truthaddict - 13 October 2007 10:49 AM

and internally Iran is improving. they are slipping away from the reformists who were gaining in the 90s.

As I understand it, the work of the reformists have been reversed or terminated by the policies of Ahmadinejad. He has instituted a more fundamentalist Islamic approach. The reformers Khatami and Rafsanjani were a good thing and pushed for themes of democracy and consider Ahmadinejads hardline approach as the “lunatic fringe”.

also there is a growing secularist movement amougst the students and the women in the country, and by the way, they are virtually opposed to our warmongering rhetoric of regime change because they see it as empowering the hardliners and what gave Ahmadinejad the lead in the last election.

The U.S. has been pressuring Iran to enter into the World Trade Organization for some time now. Until they do, and hopefully Iran wont, they will be villified by the U.S. Ahmadinejad appealed to the poor Iranians that had suffered from unemployment and corruption. He tried to come across as the man of the people and public servant always in casual dress. The boycott of the election, only 62% voter turnout, produced no clear winner so a run off election was scheduled in June of ‘05. “Surprisingly” he won when only months before he trailed in the polls with only a 1 percent backing.

All the saber rattling by the U.S. can serve two purposes. I guess it depends on how the Iranian population interprets it but it may provoke the Iranian leadership to be more repressive which will encourage popular resistance to the oppression and to intimidate U.S. rivals in Europe and Asia from pursuing economic interference with Iran, hence Washington wanting full Iranian membership into the WTO so “we” can exploit them before our rivals do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

I also agree the analogy of our corporate elites and the mullahs of Iran is a good one. I think there is a bit more truth to the “representativeness” of our system, but a lot less than most people think. I also think, though, that the motivations of the “cabals” make a difference. Big business is in no way any more altruistic than fanatical religious leaders, but they are by their own self-interest more inclined to promote stability, a general level of prosperity (bread and circuses, if you will), and such that are likely to maintain their opportunites to get and stay rich. Fanatical religous leaders, on the other hand, are a lot scarier in the short term. Even so, I agree that the current policy towards Iran is as stupid and counter productive as policy towards Iraq.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 12:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
mckenzievmd - 13 October 2007 12:17 PM

Big business is in no way any more altruistic than fanatical religious leaders, but they are by their own self-interest more inclined to promote stability, a general level of prosperity (bread and circuses, if you will), and such that are likely to maintain their opportunites to get and stay rich. Fanatical religous leaders, on the other hand, are a lot scarier in the short term.

Well, not all business—even all big business—is quite “fanatical”. I would say that big business is no more altruistic than religious leaders in general; which is to say, they are out for their own good, but along the way some of them do altruistic things. They also, let’s be fair, provide for virtually all our needs, from food to drink to electricity to entertainment to healthcare to travel, on and on. Religion provides ... well, what exactly does religion provide?

Another difference is as you note: without a relatively stable and prosperous general public business can’t succeed at its own aims. Religious leaders are the same in this way, but fanatical ones aren’t. The fanatical ones don’t care about the general public, only about their chosen few. And they don’t care about providing for worldly needs, but only for illusionary end-of-time needs, or illusionary needs for another world.

So I’d say fanatical religious leaders are a lot scarier both in the short and the long term.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11
dougsmith - 13 October 2007 12:40 PM

Another difference is as you note: without a relatively stable and prosperous general public business can’t succeed at its own aims .

That’s true and it reminds me of the famous legal dispute of Ford vs. the Dodge bro’s. around 1914 or so.

Ford was no economist but paying your employees better than you have to sounded good on paper. He hypothesized if he did it all other major employers would follow suit or risk losing valuable employees. Whence everyone is paid well enough…....everyone would have enough money to buy his cars. Brilliant, too bad the courts ruled in favor of investors instead, of which the Dodge brothers were in his case. Interesting case though.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2007 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

Arnold Toynbee overheard David Lloyd George talking out loud to himself at the Paris Peace talks in 1919:

“Mesopotamia…yes…oil…irrigation…we must have Mesopotamia; Palestine…yes…the Holy Land…Zionism…we must have Palestine; Syria…h’m…what’s there in Syria? Let the French have that.”

Turkey is just something “we must have” so I wouldnt hold your breath about condemning the Armenian genocide. For that we will just have to rely on the band System of a Down…

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2007 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21

This thread has taken some interesting turns since I started it about the Armenian genocide.  I have particularly enjoyed reading opinions about the situation in Iran.  I am pessimistic in my hopes that America will show restraint in Iran and I agree with Doug that it will be a disaster.

Regarding Armenia, it seems that the democrats are backing down on their posture.  Possibly this -HERE- is a sign that US interest in the recognition of the Armenian genocide is fizzling out.  The administration, an now much of congress, is so very concerned about the feelings of the Turkish people.  What about the feelings of the Armenians?  It sounds to me like might is making right here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2007 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

its all political bullshit and considering our past involvement in genocides this was to be expected.

I cant remember the details off hand but there was something recent about the recognition of native american genocide that Washington was against.

look how long it took us to acknowledge the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago. We waited till after it was done before commenting what was apparent to everyone (and apparently Clinton refrained from calling it genocide for political reasons as well).

have we ever recognized the Turkish genocide of Kurds in the 90s where Clinton gave 90% of the arms? Nope. It was that genocide that has been keeping them out of the EU.

what about East Timor, do we recognize that arming a dictator to kill 1/4 of the population as genocide? Nope

what about Guatemala, has the US ever recognized that genocide that it aided? Nope.

In the latter two there have been official reconciliation programs that have noted that US aid was essential in faciliating the ethnic cleansings.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2007 05:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

It may not be long until the U.S. lets Turkey smoke the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Again, with U.S. arms and all in the name of fighting terrorism (PKK). When Bush lets Turkey intervene he can allow some of our troops stationed near Northern Iraq to come home, which makes him look good, and still ensure American corporations having full access to Kurdish oil fields thanks to the American armed Turks.

It will probably amount to another genocide with American involvement written all over it…............again.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3