NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: While reality-challenged dweebs and disengenuous PC types rant about Guantanmo, Iran has sent Saeed Mortazavi, sometimes referred to as "the butcher of the press" to Geneva as a member of Iran's delegation to the opening session of the new United Nations Human Rights Council! Sounds to me as if many on here are pointing at the wrong people.


For Iran, the Man Is the Message (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/opinion/29ghaemi.html?th&emc=th)


By HADI GHAEMI
Published: June 29, 2006
Beirut, Lebanon

LAST week Iranians woke up to a startling piece of news: their government had dispatched Tehran's notorious prosecutor general, Saeed Mortazavi, to Geneva as a member of Iran's delegation to the opening session of the new United Nations Human Rights Council.

Iranians weren't sure whether to laugh or cry. Mr. Mortazavi is one of the country's highest profile rights violators. Human Rights Watch urged Iran to remove him at once and asked other governments not to meet the Iranian delegation while Mr. Mortazavi remained a part of it.

Well-known and widely despised in Iran, Mr. Mortazavi personifies most of the ills affecting Iran's judicial system: lack of accountability, rampant impunity, disregard for fundamental constitutional rights, manipulation of the law to promote a political agenda, systematic use of torture, and above all, abuse of judicial powers to repress peaceful expressions of dissent and criticism.

Iranians refer to Mr. Mortazavi as "the butcher of the press." In 2000, Mr. Mortazavi, then a judge, closed more than a dozen newspapers in one month alone, invoking an obscure law from the 1950's on "ensuring public safety." The law was originally enacted to keep criminal gangs from intimidating members of the public. Since then he has shut more than 100 newspapers and journals.

Mr. Mortazavi was promoted to prosecutor general of Tehran in 2003. As such, he has prosecuted scores of Iranian human rights defenders, journalists, dissidents, students and activists, and he is alleged to be implicated directly in acts of murder, torture, arbitrary detention and coercing false confessions.

In June 2003, Iranian authorities arrested Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian photojournalist, as she photographed Evin prison in Tehran. According to an investigation by the Iranian Parliament, Mr. Mortazavi personally took custody of her, accusing her of being a spy. Lawyers for Ms. Kazemi's family say that her body showed signs of torture, and that Mr. Mortazavi took part in an interrogation session where she received a severe blow to the head. A few days later, Ms. Kazemi fell into a coma and died. The Iranian authorities have not held anyone responsible for her murder.

In another case documented by Human Rights Watch, Mr. Mortazavi ordered the arbitrary detention of more than 20 bloggers and Internet journalists in 2004. The detainees were taken to a secret prison, held in solitary confinement and interrogated by Mr. Mortazavi's underlings. The interrogators tortured the detainees so that they would falsely implicate their colleagues in immoral acts and confess that they were foreign agents.

As a condition for their release, the interrogators coerced four of them to write false confession letters. The bloggers report that by threatening to harm their families, Mr. Mortazavi personally coerced them to appear on Iran's state-controlled television saying that their jailors treated them as "gently as flowers." One former detainee told me that Mr. Mortazavi's voice still rings in his ears, and that he fears for his young children.

So what was the Iranian government thinking? Perhaps it was still stung by its failure to be elected to the council, which aimed to exclude the most blatant abusers. Or maybe this was the regime's shock and awe strategy: shock the Iranian people with how little their government cares about human rights, and awe them with its utter impunity.

If Mr. Mortazavi were removed from office and prosecuted, as he should be, there would be no shortage of witnesses to testify. But because this is unlikely, many Iranians hope the new council will develop international mechanisms to bring men like him to justice, rather than facing him as a delegate at its sessions.

As a first step, the council should support the appointment of a United Nations special rapporteur on Iran to monitor and report publicly on human rights abuses and to see that the government's present lack of accountability does not translate into an even more extensive crackdown on political dissent and social freedoms.

Further, the members of the Security Council and Germany, which are engaged in nuclear negotiations with Iran, should include human rights concerns on their agenda. As a confidence-building measure, they should demand that Iran improve its human rights record — and that it cease protecting violators like Mr. Morta- zavi.

Hadi Ghaemi is the Iran researcher for Human Rights Watch.

So what do you think about Iran now?

I think it shows clearly that the Iranian Government and the Iranian People are not the same thing, nor on the same page about many things. But, I already knew that.

Now ... if we could just get the trigger happy "nuke 'em into the stone ages" crowd to recognise that, we'd be on to something.

COMMENTARY: While reality-challenged dweebs and disengenuous PC types rant about Guantanmo, Iran has sent Saeed Mortazavi, sometimes referred to as "the butcher of the press" to Geneva as a member of Iran's delegation to the opening session of the new United Nations Human Rights Council! Sounds to me as if many on here are pointing at the wrong people.

yes, because the people who complain about gitmo simply adore the rulers and policies of iran...

So I'm one of the "reality-challenged dweebs and disengenuous PC types" if I start referring to the illegal and dubious acts enacted in Gitmo? Nice to know...

Oh, and this shows that the Iranian government and the Iranina people are seperate entities. Hopefuly that can be understood...

yes, because the people who complain about gitmo simply adore the rulers and policies of iran...
Perhaps not, but it sure sometimes seems that way. :(

yes, because the people who complain about gitmo simply adore the rulers and policies of iran...

Stop lying! Of course we do! We also worship the devil and want to rape children. I mean Eut couldn't be, oh I don't know, wildly exaggerating, could he?

Oh, and this shows that the Iranian government and the Iranina people are seperate entities. Hopefuly that can be understood...
Oh. You mean kinda like the American government and the American people are "seperate entities?"

yes, because the people who complain about gitmo simply adore the rulers and policies of iran...

Well duh ... because if you hate anything about America, you must be a terrorist sympathizer. It's all kept under that "with us or against us" umbrella mentality held by "black and white" extremists or, as we like to call them, Sith.

COMMENTARY: While reality-challenged dweebs and disengenuous PC types rant about Guantanmo, Iran has sent Saeed Mortazavi, sometimes referred to as "the butcher of the press" to Geneva as a member of Iran's delegation to the opening session of the new United Nations Human Rights Council! Sounds to me as if many on here are pointing at the wrong people. Riiiiiiight. So you WANT to be compared to Iran, instead of being held to a higher standard? I suppose that way you'll come out looking rosy, but now who is being reality-challenged and disingenuous?

Oh. You mean kinda like the American government and the American people are "seperate entities?"

Yes...

I fail to see where you're going with this. Please don't flame, if that's where.

Perhaps not, but it sure sometimes seems that way. :(
To the reality-challenged and disingenuous perhaps.

Perhaps you'll make up strange cross labels for other things too...like, people who oppose nuclear testing must love baby-eating. Or, people who can't stomach broccoli must love liver.

Oh. You mean kinda like the American government and the American people are "seperate entities?"

We are. Bush and his administration in no way represent me or my views.

COMMENTARY: While reality-challenged dweebs and disengenuous PC types rant about Guantanmo, Iran has sent Saeed Mortazavi, sometimes referred to as "the butcher of the press" to Geneva as a member of Iran's delegation to the opening session of the new United Nations Human Rights Council! Sounds to me as if many on here are pointing at the wrong people.

That's rich from someone complaining in his signature about being labeled USian.

Nevertheless, I agree with the Canadian government who condemend that act of the Iranain government. But the Iranian took a page out of the US book on that one (read: Bolton on the the UN).

I take it the bold part is the only part you read?

Oh. You mean kinda like the American government and the American people are "seperate entities?"
Exactly! You've finally got it! So when we diss your government, now you can realise that it isn't actually a personal attack! *dies of relief*

I couldn't give two shits about Iran. Unless they follow through and start making nukes they simply don't matter. If they do start making nukes, hopefully we bomb the shit out of their reactors, and the factories where they process the fuel and make the bombs while trying to keep civilian casualties relatively low and not commiting any ground troops.

Exactly! You've finally got it! So when we diss your government, now you can realise that it isn't actually a personal attack! *dies of relief*

But...but...if you attack the government, that means that you hate your country!

Oh. You mean kinda like the American government and the American people are "seperate entities?"
You do realize that your government was elected by the PEOPLE right? And thus a reflection of said people, this isnt the case in Iran.

You do realize that your government was elected by the PEOPLE right? And thus a reflection of said people, this isnt the case in Iran.
Shit, it is barely the case in the US.

Hmm...one man in power twisting the laws of his country and manipulating legalities to hold suspects under questionable onditions and possibly torture them.

*shakes head* Shit... I lost track, are we talking about Iran or Gitmo?

...Has Eut admitted that he's a hardcore conservative yet?

No, serious question. I haven't been around much recently.

You do realize that your government was elected by the PEOPLE right? And thus a reflection of said people, this isnt the case in Iran.

They have democratic elections in Iran. They just happen to be a Theocracy.

They have a council of religious leaders who screen candidates, we have State Party Conventions which screen candidates. Same thing, really.

They have democratic elections in Iran. They just happen to be a Theocracy.

They have a council of religious leaders who screen candidates, we have State Party Conventions which screen candidates. Same thing, really.
Slight difference. If a state party convention decides they dont' want someone on the ballot he can still run as an independent. If the Iranian guardian council decides they don't want you on the ballot, you don't get on the ballot at all.

Hmm...one man in power twisting the laws of his country and manipulating legalities to hold suspects under questionable onditions and possibly torture them.

*shakes head* Shit... I lost track, are we talking about Iran or Gitmo?

There's a difference?

Eutrusca's logic: "If you complain about Gitmo but don't complain about Iran, you agree with whatever Iran does."

By that logic, since you complain about Cindy Sheehan but don't complain about pedophiles at the same time, you like peds.

"Gitmo" is a pretty decent facility where the prisoners are treated fairly well, thats because its under constant scrutiney from the media and human rights groups etc.

There are far worse US run prisons in the world which noone seems to give a shit about.

Hmm...one man in power twisting the laws of his country and manipulating legalities to hold suspects under questionable onditions and possibly torture them.

*shakes head* Shit... I lost track, are we talking about Iran or Gitmo?

Good analogy except in both countries it's not one man in power. In fact the more devious aspects of the U.S. treatment of prisoners is probably more due to Cheney and Rumsfeld than Bush himself. Same with Ahmadinejad, if that's who you're talking about. Khameini does less of the talking but probably has more of a say than Ahmadinejad.

"Gitmo" is a pretty decent facility where the prisoners are treated fairly well, thats because its under constant scrutiney from the media and human rights groups etc.

There are far worse US run prisons in the world which noone seems to give a shit about.

The other prisons don't really undermine the whole basis of what the US is supposedly fighting for, though.

Slight difference. If a state party convention decides they dont' want someone on the ballot he can still run as an independent. If the Iranian guardian council decides they don't want you on the ballot, you don't get on the ballot at all.

True, but that's a Theocracy for you. They wanted it, made a big ol' hooplah over a revolt to get it, and now it's theirs.

If they change their minds, so be it, but from what I can tell and from what I've read, Iranians on the whole don't mind it so much. Some more secular voices are growing, but for now I say we leave it alone. Let Iranians sort out Iran.

True, but that's a Theocracy for you. They wanted it, made a big ol' hooplah over a revolt to get it, and now it's theirs.

And soon it will be Iraq's. All thanks to the good old U S of A and democracy!

Yes...

I fail to see where you're going with this. Please don't flame, if that's where.
It's a reference to those who claim to hate the American people because of some things the American government has said that they happen to not like. If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't even put the damned thing on, yes?

Eut must have us all on ignore:p

Edit: okay, just some of us then.

"Gitmo" is a pretty decent facility where the prisoners are treated fairly well, thats because its under constant scrutiney from the media and human rights groups etc.

There are far worse US run prisons in the world which noone seems to give a shit about.

Ssssso... "The Khmer Rouge did worse, so we can be in the moral high ground by being juuuuust a bit better than them"?

It's a reference to those who claim to hate the American people because of some things the American government has said that they happen to not like. If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't even put the damned thing on, yes?

What? I'd like a link where even one person, who isn't a single-poster N00b, says that they hate the people of the United States because of what their govt does.

The other prisons don't really undermine the whole basis of what the US is supposedly fighting for, though.

Why not? Prisoners are much more likely to be tortured and kept without evidence.

Eut must have us all on ignore:p

Edit: okay, just some of us then.
I have no "ignore" list.

Why not? Prisoners are much more likely to be tortured and kept without evidence.

This is true, this is very true.

It's a reference to those who claim to hate the American people because of some things the American government has said that they happen to not like. If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't even put the damned thing on, yes?
Wait, wait wait...you are complaining that some people label an entire nation by the actions of a few (their leaders)...and then you go and label a group of people (all non-US citizens who dislike the current US administration) by the actions of a few (those who hate all USians because of their government)???

That's a weird way to spell hypocrisy, but you've managed it!

What? I'd like a link where even one person, who isn't a single-poster N00b, says that they hate the people of the United States because of what their govt does.

You forgot that Eutrusca feels no need at all to back his statements with evidence.

What? I'd like a link where even one person, who isn't a single-poster N00b, says that they hate the people of the United States because of what their govt does.
Very, very few are going to come right out and say that. Most will try to obfuscate.

You forgot that Eutrusca feels no need at all to back his statements with evidence.
Cute. :)

Very, very few are going to come right out and say that. Most will try to obfuscate.

You mean like this thread, then?

Cute. :)

But true. You've no evidence, and make yet more trolling generalisations.

Very, very few are going to come right out and say that. Most will try to obfuscate.
But you are so much smarter than we, and see right through their deception, and can accurately relate to us what they 'really meant'. :rolleyes:

Also a nice way of getting out of having to supply any proof for your statement.

COMMENTARY: While reality-challenged dweebs and disengenuous PC types rant about Guantanmo, Iran has sent Saeed Mortazavi, sometimes referred to as "the butcher of the press" to Geneva as a member of Iran's delegation to the opening session of the new United Nations Human Rights Council! Sounds to me as if many on here are pointing at the wrong people.Interesting. Sounds almost like sending Bolton to the UN...

And soon it will be Iraq's. All thanks to the good old U S of A and democracy!

Well it may work out for them. Iran isn't as bad as all the rabble rousing sabre rattlers or Jesus humpers make it out to be. Sure it has its problems, sure it has a President who constantly jams his foot in his mouth, sure it occasionally gets caught torturing prisoners, sure its government makes moves now and then that give it a bad reputation with other global leaders, but on the whole, the US isn't that bad.

Wait ... Iran ... no .... shit ..... I'm joining in LG's confusion.

But you are so much smarter than we, and see right through their deception, and can accurately relate to us what they 'really meant'. :rolleyes:

Also a nice way of getting out of having to supply any proof for your statement.

Didn't you know Eut is psychic?

So what do you have to say about this ( just posted in another thread ):

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal.

In a landmark decision, justices upheld the challenge by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, against his trial at Guantanamo Bay.

The court's ruling that the proceedings violated Geneva Conventions is seen as a major blow to the administration.

Mr Hamdan is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal.

He is demanding a civilian trial or court martial, where the prosecution would face more obstacles.

Eut must have us all on ignore:p

Edit: okay, just some of us then.
I think he ignores most of the people who disagree with his delusion that he is a moderate.

I think it shows clearly that the Iranian Government and the Iranian People are not the same thing, nor on the same page about many things. But, I already knew that.

Now ... if we could just get the trigger happy "nuke 'em into the stone ages" crowd to recognise that, we'd be on to something.

Human Rights Watch urged Iran to remove him at once and asked other governments not to meet the Iranian delegation while Mr. Mortazavi remained a part of it.

All it shows me is that people pay attention to Human Rights Watch, and use it as a source to back up their accusations, only when it applies to the US or Israel. Something tells me that no one will listen to Human Rights Watch on Iran.

Interesting. Sounds almost like sending Bolton to the UN...
You aren't complaining about Osama! You must love him!

I think he ignores most of the people who disagree with his delusion that he is a moderate.
I have no ignore list.

You mean like this thread, then?

Well, since you put it in such a nice way, I'll allow myself to write a good old Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Something tells me that no one will listen to Human Rights Watch on Iran.
Something tells me you are 100% correct.

So what do you have to say about this ( just posted in another thread ):

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal.

In a landmark decision, justices upheld the challenge by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, against his trial at Guantanamo Bay.

The court's ruling that the proceedings violated Geneva Conventions is seen as a major blow to the administration.

Mr Hamdan is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal.

He is demanding a civilian trial or court martial, where the prosecution would face more obstacles.

I think that the Supreme Court is finally tidying up Bush & Co's mess, and isn't kowtowing to govt pressure.

So what do you have to say about this ( just posted in another thread ):

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal.

In a landmark decision, justices upheld the challenge by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, against his trial at Guantanamo Bay.

The court's ruling that the proceedings violated Geneva Conventions is seen as a major blow to the administration.

Mr Hamdan is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal.

He is demanding a civilian trial or court martial, where the prosecution would face more obstacles.
Finally, your nation is trying to live up to higher standards of conduct. That is a positive thing.

Interesting. Sounds almost like sending Bolton to the UN...
Just what I was thinking. :cool:

Edit: To be safe: The US government and the Iranian government are both mad as hatters. :)

Something tells me you are 100% correct.

Something tells me you won't complain about pedophiles... Thus being one of them.

Just what I was thinking. :cool:

Edit: To be safe: The US government and the Iranian government are both mad as hatters. :)

But the Iranians are evil! Eut said so, and anyone who disagrees must be focusing too much on Gitmo and be reality-challenged!

Finally, your nation is trying to live up to higher standards of conduct. That is a positive thing.
Well, all we have to do now is declare them to be "prisoners of war" as was demanded by so many other nations, and they won't get any trial at all.

Prisoners of war are not entitled to any trial at all (can't try someone for being a soldier). They are held for the duration of the conflict - until al-Qaeda or the United States surrenders.

He is demanding a civilian trial or court martial, where the prosecution would face more obstacles.

Obstacles such as ...... having to publicly present evidence! Heaven forbid.

Why not? Prisoners are much more likely to be tortured and kept without evidence.
Waitwaitwait. You're not the original RPP, are you?

All it shows me is that people pay attention to Human Rights Watch, and use it as a source to back up their accusations, only when it applies to the US or Israel. Something tells me that no one will listen to Human Rights Watch on Iran.
Ah, so you are another one that believes "if you mention this, and not this, this, that and the other thing (or if I simply am not around to see you mentioning those things), then you must love this, this, that and the other thing by default".

This thread pretends to be about Iran, but Eut's commentary has made it clear that it is about the US.

"Look! These guys are bad! Worse than us! So, um, that makes us good in a way! Right????":rolleyes:

Obstacles such as ...... having to publicly present evidence! Heaven forbid.
Something tells me that they have evidence, but don't want to present it publicly because it would reveal sources, etc.

Fine. I'm sure you would be aghast if they presented evidence in a court martial, and then the detainees were subsequently found guilty and shot against a wall.

I think that the Supreme Court is finally tidying up Bush & Co's mess, and isn't kowtowing to govt pressure.
Strange. What I see is the American government working the way it was intended to work per the Constitution. I suppose it's all in how you look at it.

Just what I was thinking. :cool:

Edit: To be safe: The US government and the Iranian government are both mad as hatters. :)
Don't do that...it'll punch holes in Eut and DK's little conspiracy theory that the world only cares about what bad things the US does, and ignores everything else.

Something tells me that they have evidence, but don't want to present it publicly because it would reveal sources, etc.

Fine. I'm sure you would be aghast if they presented evidence in a court martial, and then the detainees were subsequently found guilty and shot against a wall.

Don't know about Keru, but if that were the case, and they were found guilty by a jury, that would be perfectly acceptable.

Slight difference. If a state party convention decides they dont' want someone on the ballot he can still run as an independent. If the Iranian guardian council decides they don't want you on the ballot, you don't get on the ballot at all.

Not being endorsed by one of the two major parties is effectively the same as not being on the ballot at all. You have almost the same chance of being elected. Especially on the Federal level.

Well it may work out for them. Iran isn't as bad as all the rabble rousing sabre rattlers or Jesus humpers make it out to be. Sure it has its problems, sure it has a President who constantly jams his foot in his mouth, sure it occasionally gets caught torturing prisoners, sure its government makes moves now and then that give it a bad reputation with other global leaders, but on the whole, the US isn't that bad.

Wait ... Iran ... no .... shit ..... I'm joining in LG's confusion.

COntaigious, isn't it? :confused:

Ah, so you are another one that believes "if you mention this, and not this, this, that and the other thing (or if I simply am not around to see you mentioning those things), then you must love this, this, that and the other thing by default".

This thread pretends to be about Iran, but Eut's commentary has made it clear that it is about the US.

"Look! These guys are bad! Worse than us! So, um, that makes us good in a way! Right????":rolleyes:

Nope. I'm just saying that whether or not people listen to Human Rights Watch depends entirely on whether or not the accusations are leveled against the US or some other nation.

Iran will not withdraw the man. He will sit on the panel. And no other country will really object.

Is this thread over yet?

Strange. What I see is the American government working the way it was intended to work per the Constitution. I suppose it's all in how you look at it.

Locking people up and torturing them in a military base was designed as part of the Constitution? Which amendment is that, exactly?

Don't do that...it'll punch holes in Eut and DK's little conspiracy theory that the world only cares about what bad things the US does, and ignores everything else.
You're certainly ignoring the Iran issue in this post, and making it entirely about the US.

Ah, so you are another one that believes "if you mention this, and not this, this, that and the other thing (or if I simply am not around to see you mentioning those things), then you must love this, this, that and the other thing by default".

This thread pretends to be about Iran, but Eut's commentary has made it clear that it is about the US.

"Look! These guys are bad! Worse than us! So, um, that makes us good in a way! Right????":rolleyes:

Hey, I'm letting them make their beds and sleep in it.

I mean, seriously, they so far didn't complain about:

Pedophiles, fundamentalist Christians, coprophiles, rapists, emos, scientologists, African dictatorships, homicidal maniacs...

So... By THEIR logic... What would that mean?

Nope. I'm just saying that whether or not people listen to Human Rights Watch depends entirely on whether or not the accusations are leveled against the US or some other nation. And I'm saying you're making assumptions you don't have the information to make.

Proof please? Or kindly state that this is only your opinion.

Iran will not withdraw the man. He will sit on the panel. And no other country will really object.Where'd you get that crystal ball...

Waitwaitwait. You're not the original RPP, are you?

Nope, TheRefusedPartyProgram was taken.

Nope. I'm just saying that whether or not people listen to Human Rights Watch depends entirely on whether or not the accusations are leveled against the US or some other nation.

Iran will not withdraw the man. He will sit on the panel. And no other country will really object.

We do listen, but I also never saw the terrorists claiming the moral high ground...

And I'm saying you're making assumptions you don't have the information to make.

Proof please? Or kindly state that this is only your opinion.

Where'd you get that crystal ball...

No different from your assumptions and assertions. And no different from your crystal ball.

After all, you have no problem with the Iranian in question.

You're certainly ignoring the Iran issue in this post, and making it entirely about the US.
Then create a thread where the OP doesn't totally divert the topic onto the US like this did:

COMMENTARY: While reality-challenged dweebs and disengenuous PC types rant about Guantanmo, Iran has sent Saeed Mortazavi, sometimes referred to as "the butcher of the press" to Geneva as a member of Iran's delegation to the opening session of the new United Nations Human Rights Council! Sounds to me as if many on here are pointing at the wrong people.
Eut's agenda is clearly laid out, and I respect the right of the OP to determine the line of discussion. If he wants to drop the pathetic 'link' to the US and just focus on Iran, let him do so.

We do listen, but I also never saw the terrorists claiming the moral high ground...
I'll make a bet then.

We'll wait 14 days. If the Iranians don't withdraw him, you and everyone else who thought this thread was about claiming the moral high ground have to eat it in a public post.

If they withdraw him under international pressure, I'll eat it in a public post.

No different from your assumptions and assertions. And no different from your crystal ball.

After all, you have no problem with the Iranian in question.

And you haven't said a thing against pedophile rapist sadomasochistic maniacal murderers, so you're one of them?

Nope, TheRefusedPartyProgram was taken. Fair dos, just checking you weren't this one (http://www.nationstates.net/refused_party_program)

Something tells me that they have evidence, but don't want to present it publicly because it would reveal sources, etc.

Ah yes ... the "national security" blanket this administration dearly loves to hide under.

Fine. I'm sure you would be aghast if they presented evidence in a court martial, and then the detainees were subsequently found guilty and shot against a wall.

A fair and impartial trial with a judge, a jury of their peers, disclosure of evidence, a defense attourney who does his job to the fullest extent of his capabilities, a prosecution that represents its client without bias, and due process of the law would hold me far more aghast.

People assume that because someone somewhere probably said they saw somethin' funny happen proves that all Gitmo detainees are automagically guilty and should be tortured, shot, then tortured again.

If this administration actually stood up and upheld the ideals set forth in the Constitution, I'd have a stroke. Twice.

No different from your assumptions and assertions. And no different from your crystal ball.

After all, you have no problem with the Iranian in question.

How the fuck do you know she has no problem with the Iranian? Making more assumptions DK?

No different from your assumptions and assertions. And no different from your crystal ball.

After all, you have no problem with the Iranian in question.Ah yes, yes, the good old logic...and now you are a mind reader, and can acertain what I feel about the 'Iranian in question'.

Keep trying...maybe you can set up your own psychic hotline one day...

And you haven't said a thing against pedophile rapist sadomasochistic maniacal murderers, so you're one of them?

Obviously DK has no problem with rapists and pedophiles. Oh, and clowns.

I'll make a bet then.

We'll wait 14 days. If the Iranians don't withdraw him, you and everyone else who thought this thread was about claiming the moral high ground have to eat it in a public post.

If they withdraw him under international pressure, I'll eat it in a public post.

Because we also forced Bolton's resignation? No game. This thread IS about claiming that, whenever we dare speak of Gitmo, we must speak of Iran. Nothing more, and nothing less. And I have yet to see you speak out against paedophilia.

And you haven't said a thing against pedophile rapist sadomasochistic maniacal murderers, so you're one of them?
I've never said in this thread "you're one of them".

Just noting that people are quick to make any topic about the US instead of whatever it was supposed to be.

Iran, in this case.

Well it may work out for them. Iran isn't as bad as all the rabble rousing sabre rattlers or Jesus humpers make it out to be. Sure it has its problems, sure it has a President who constantly jams his foot in his mouth, sure it occasionally gets caught torturing prisoners, sure its government makes moves now and then that give it a bad reputation with other global leaders, but on the whole, the US isn't that bad.

Wait ... Iran ... no .... shit ..... I'm joining in LG's confusion.

It's amazing how much difference power can make. You can say Iran and the U.S. are guilty of the same crimes now, but imagine if you leveled the field and gave the Iranian government as much power as the U.S. has, together with not just one nuke but hundreds. I don't know about you, but I'd be tempted to use it...even with good intentions.

Ah yes, yes, the good old logic...and now you are a mind reader, and can acertain what I feel about the 'Iranian in question'.

Keep trying...maybe you can set up your own psychic hotline one day...

Holy shit. Two Psychics!

No different from your assumptions and assertions. And no different from your crystal ball.

After all, you have no problem with the Iranian in question.
Ah, but that's just it, you see. It's ok when it's one of their own, but let someone like me try to get a word in edgewise and ... whoah boy! Besides, it's now open season on Eutrusca since I've been given my final warning for calling people "morons" and other subjective evaluations of their ability to discern reality.

How the fuck do you know she has no problem with the Iranian? Making more assumptions DK?
She's really anxious to make this about the US, and not Iran, which is the topic. Must not have anything relevant to say about the Human Rights Watch report - might in fact disagree with it.

Too busy saying bad things about the US.

I'll make a bet then.

We'll wait 14 days. If the Iranians don't withdraw him, you and everyone else who thought this thread was about claiming the moral high ground have to eat it in a public post.

If they withdraw him under international pressure, I'll eat it in a public post.
Oh please.

Ah yes ... the "national security" blanket this administration dearly loves to hide under.


You're old enough to remember the Cold War, aren't you?

And we won that one.

How the fuck do you know she has no problem with the Iranian? Making more assumptions DK?
He's psychic:rolleyes:

What Eut and DK say is always truth, and there is no need for proof.

Oh please.
You're not willing to bet because you think you'll lose.

Ah, but that's just it, you see. It's ok when it's one of their own, but let someone like me try to get a word in edgewise and ... whoah boy! Besides, it's now open season on Eutrusca since I've been given my final warning for calling people "morons" and other subjective evaluations of their ability to discern reality.

Look mate, if you didn't flame and do that stuff, you wouldn't get warned. It is possible to debate without flaming.

Oh, and just because we haven't condemned the Iranian in question doesn't mean we support him. Quite the reverse, in fact for me. But I find it highly ironic that US posters here are trying to target Iran when the US is doing just as much evil shit.

She's really anxious to make this about the US, and not Iran, which is the topic. Must not have anything relevant to say about the Human Rights Watch report - might in fact disagree with it.

Too busy saying bad things about the US.

I hate peds. :D

EUTRUSCA made it a thread about the US, not her. And since you failed to make statements against pedophiles, it means you and Eutrusca are peds!

Because we also forced Bolton's resignation? No game. This thread IS about claiming that, whenever we dare speak of Gitmo, we must speak of Iran. Nothing more, and nothing less. And I have yet to see you speak out against paedophilia.
Just in case, for the reading impaired, anyone was unsure of the topic of discussion as laid out in the OP...

She's really anxious to make this about the US, and not Iran, which is the topic. Must not have anything relevant to say about the Human Rights Watch report - might in fact disagree with it.

Too busy saying bad things about the US.

Oh yes. Once again, if no-one says anything about that report, they must support it.

Jesus, can you guys stop making generalisations?

I've never said in this thread "you're one of them".

Just noting that people are quick to make any topic about the US instead of whatever it was supposed to be. Yeah, I hate it when Eutrusca does that!!!!

Look mate, if you didn't flame and do that stuff, you wouldn't get warned. It is possible to debate without flaming.

Oh, and just because we haven't condemned the Iranian in question doesn't mean we support him. Quite the reverse, in fact for me. But I find it highly ironic that US posters here are trying to target Iran when the US is doing just as much evil shit.

If we went around saying that you can't point out things because the US does things, I could apply that to every nation except Iceland, and everyone could shut up.

As evidenced by the actions of the Supreme Court today, it's arguable that our system is self-correcting, and works well enough to stop abuses.

So unlike Iran, at least we're trying.

Yeah, I hate it when Eutrusca does that!!!!
You didn't have to follow. Who is more the fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Eutrusca, DK, you should be ashamed of your support for pedophilia! :D

You're not willing to bet because you think you'll lose.
I couldn't care less about the bet or your attempts to divert Eutrusca's intended topic, which is really not about Iran, except that whatever bad things they do, somehow make the US look better in his eyes.

And we won that one.

Not really. Communism is still alive and well and Putin's busy bringing back Cold War politics with a little help from Bushevik vitriol.

Nobody won or lost the Cold War, it's just been on hiatus while other things are being tended to.

US posters here are trying to target Iran when the US is doing just as much evil shit.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. America isn't the one claiming that the Holocaust never happened. America isn't the one threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map. America isn't the one killing her own people when they don't toe the party line. I could go on and on, but I suspect you get the idea.

If we went around saying that you can't point out things because the US does things, I could apply that to every nation except Iceland, and everyone could shut up.

As evidenced by the actions of the Supreme Court today, it's arguable that our system is self-correcting, and works well enough to stop abuses.

So unlike Iran, at least we're trying.

Unlike Iran, you claim moral high ground.

Ah, but that's just it, you see. It's ok when it's one of their own, but let someone like me try to get a word in edgewise and ... whoah boy!

maybe you'd have better luck if all those edgewise words you keep trying to get in weren't quite so retarded?

Oh yes. Once again, if no-one says anything about that report, they must support it.

Jesus, can you guys stop making generalisations?
It's all they've got.

whatever bad things they do, somehow make the US look better in his eyes.

my original response to this whole thing was going to be "tu quoque, tu quoque, a thousand times tu quoque!!!"

Unlike Iran, you claim moral high ground.
I don't.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. America isn't the one claiming that the Holocaust never happened. America isn't the one threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map. America isn't the one killing her own people when they don't toe the party line. I could go on and on, but I suspect you get the idea.

I do get the idea. However, the United States is invading soverign countries and using illegal and dubious military bases to house prisoners whom they are torturing and keping without parole. The crux of the argument is that whilst Iran is doing these deplorable acts, they ahev never claimed to be good or beacons of democracies. The United States government repeatedly has.

Not really. Communism is still alive and well and Putin's busy bringing back Cold War politics with a little help from Bushevik vitriol.

Nobody won or lost the Cold War, it's just been on hiatus while other things are being tended to.
I guess you haven't been to Russia lately.

You didn't have to follow. Who is more the fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
I'd say, the fool who is trying to save him. But at least now you've admited that he has in fact skewed the entire thread towards the US, and not really made it about Iran.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. America isn't the one claiming that the Holocaust never happened. America isn't the one threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map. America isn't the one killing her own people when they don't toe the party line. I could go on and on, but I suspect you get the idea.

America is the one busy trying its damndest to wage war on all of Islam.

No matter, though. Iran's President said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. How many Iranian citizens have also said as much?

Has Bush never said anything that you, as an American citizen, wanted to punch him in the nuts for saying?

I do get the idea. However, the United States is invading soverign countries and using illegal and dubious military bases to house prisoners whom they are torturing and keping without parole. The crux of the argument is that whilst Iran is doing these deplorable acts, they ahev never claimed to be good or beacons of democracies. The United States government repeatedly has.
I guess you don't read too many Iranian pronouncements.

They state that they are doing good in the world by fighting Zionism, and that their nation and way of life and beliefs are better than those of Western nations.

In their arguments about why the Europeans should take back all the Jews, they explicitly state this - that the West is duplicitous (the Europeans in particular) and that they are on the moral high ground.

Again?

And therein lies the crux of the issue. America isn't the one claiming that the Holocaust never happened. America isn't the one threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map. America isn't the one killing her own people when they don't toe the party line. I could go on and on, but I suspect you get the idea.
See DK? It isn't about Iran at all...

I'd say, the fool who is trying to save him. But at least now you've admited that he has in fact skewed the entire thread towards the US, and not really made it about Iran.
I'm talking about Iran.

COMMENTARY: While reality-challenged dweebs and disengenuous PC types rant about Guantanmo, Iran has sent Saeed Mortazavi, sometimes referred to as "the butcher of the press" to Geneva as a member of Iran's delegation to the opening session of the new United Nations Human Rights Council! Sounds to me as if many on here are pointing at the wrong people.
See how this is about Iran AND the US?

And I see the wonderful implication that you can only point one finger at a time. I believe, as I've previously stated, that the US government is wrong on Guantanamo and that Bolton was an unnecessary and unproductive slap in the face of the UN. AND I believe that Iran sending Mortazavi as a part of the delegation is an unnecessary slap in the face of the UN.

See? I can hold two thoughts at the same time. :cool:

See how this is about Iran AND the US?

And I see the wonderful implication that you can only point one finger at a time. I believe, as I've previously stated, that the US government is wrong on Guantanamo and that Bolton was an unnecessary and unproductive slap in the face of the UN. AND I believe that Iran sending Mortazavi as a part of the delegation is an unnecessary slap in the face of the UN.

See? I can hold two thoughts at the same time. :cool:

I'm talking about Iran.

I don't.
You aren't a nation state.

I do get the idea. However, the United States is invading soverign countries and using illegal and dubious military bases to house prisoners whom they are torturing and keping without parole. The crux of the argument is that whilst Iran is doing these deplorable acts, they ahev never claimed to be good or beacons of democracies. The United States government repeatedly has.

Furthermore, for the hard of reading:

IRAN DOING WORSE STUFF DOES NOT MEAN THE US GETS A BLANK CHECK TO DO BAD STUFF AS WELL!!!

And, to drive home the point:

US CLAIMS MORAL HIGH GROUND, WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE REACT WHEN IT BEHAVES BADLY. WE CAME TO EXPECT THIS KIND OF ACTION FROM IRAN, BUT NOT FROM YOU... YET.

Why not? Prisoners are much more likely to be tortured and kept without evidence.

Seriously...who is this clown?

Imposters will be shot on sight.

I do get the idea. However, the United States is invading soverign countries and using illegal and dubious military bases to house prisoners whom they are torturing and keping without parole. The crux of the argument is that whilst Iran is doing these deplorable acts, they ahev never claimed to be good or beacons of democracies. The United States government repeatedly has.
Sigh. So "America is even worse than Iran because they have high ideals?" Man, don't you ever tire of bashing us? I mean, comon. Does American never do anything good in your eyes?

You aren't a nation state.
I seem to be one here...;)

I'm talking about Iran.
Well I'd love to engage you in that conversation, but it'd be thread hijacking.

They state that they are doing good in the world by fighting Zionism, and that their nation and way of life and beliefs are better than those of Western nations.

In their arguments about why the Europeans should take back all the Jews, they explicitly state this - that the West is duplicitous (the Europeans in particular) and that they are on the moral high ground.


So we're even.

Big deal.

We say we're the awesomest.

They say they're the awesomest.

One of us is wrong. Both of us are right.

World keeps on turnin'

Perhaps not, but it sure sometimes seems that way. :(

remind me, how many posts did you make on the subject of the recent assaults on the iranian labor unions?

Seriously...who is this clown?

Imposters will be shot on sight.
Mmmm...you can't copy a poster's name like that can you? I'd report it...

Sigh. So "America is even worse than Iran because they have high ideals?" Man, don't you ever tire of bashing us? I mean, comon. Does American never do anything good in your eyes?

OH MY GOD!


I give up. I just...


I just fucking give up. You can't be argued with! You just throw that in our faces at the last hurrah.

Someone else take over...

Well I'd love to engage you in that conversation, but it'd be thread hijacking.
There's a completely separate thread here about Guantanamo.

Sigh. So "America is even worse than Iran because they have high ideals?" Man, don't you ever tire of bashing us? I mean, comon. Does American never do anything good in your eyes?
Try reading Eut. You can't compare the two nations, unless you really want to hold your nation to a much lower standard than I believe you are willing to. Iran doing terrible shit doesn't give your nation a pass to do less terrible (but still terrible!) shit.

And this latest ruling about Gitmo is, as I've said already, a very positive thing.

Furthermore, for the hard of reading:

IRAN DOING WORSE STUFF DOES NOT MEAN THE US GETS A BLANK CHECK TO DO BAD STUFF AS WELL!!!

And, to drive home the point:

US CLAIMS MORAL HIGH GROUND, WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE REACT WHEN IT BEHAVES BADLY. WE CAME TO EXPECT THIS KIND OF ACTION FROM IRAN, BUT NOT FROM YOU... YET.
So when have I ever asked for "a blank check" for my Country? Hmm?

And, btw, I can read quite well, thank you. Don't even need to wear glasses for this.

So we're even.

Big deal.

We say we're the awesomest.

They say they're the awesomest.

One of us is wrong. Both of us are right.

World keeps on turnin'

It is a big deal, because so many here don't recognize the FACT that Iranians (and many other nations) claim the moral high ground daily. Too many people insist that ONLY the US claims the moral high ground.

I'm talking about Iran.
You're welcome. The thread isn't only about Iran, though.

There's a completely separate thread here about Guantanamo.
Then perhaps this should be reported as a copycat thread?

Mmmm...you can't copy a poster's name like that can you? I'd report it...
I don't think he's malicious, just wanted to be called RRP. [blast, my error was spotted]

Mmmm...you can't copy a poster's name like that can you? I'd report it...

I think the embarassment of such unoriginality is punishment enough.

I don't think he's malicious, just wanted to be called RRP[sic].

And who can blame them? Refused Party Program is pretty special.

OH MY GOD!

I give up. I just...

I just fucking give up. You can't be argued with! You just throw that in our faces at the last hurrah.

Someone else take over...
LOL! Oh, comon dude! You were doing pretty good there. Don't give up! :)

Eutrusca,

After reading your article, I must admit that my opinion about Iran has not changed, nor has my opinion on Iran's current government, the Iranian people, US policy towards Iran, the prison at Guantanamo, or you.

Having said that, I do not understand why I should change my opinion about US treatment of foreign nationals because of the appointment of a corrupt and possibly violent man to the Iranian delegation to the human rights council.

Thank you for bringing my attention to this. I will contact my MP and ask him to put pressure on the Canadian government to do something about this. I hope you will do the same whenever you hear of human rights violations, no matter where they occur.

As I am, so you are, a

Gift-of-god.

OH MY GOD!


I give up. I just...


I just fucking give up. You can't be argued with! You just throw that in our faces at the last hurrah.

Someone else take over...

I will.

Eutrusca, you sympathize with paedophiles. Why? Because you have yet to criticize them. Furthermore: Do you really want the US to be the kind of nation with heinous actions that became so common that they don't get any attention anymore? Is THAT what you want for your country?

It is a big deal, because so many here don't recognize the FACT that Iranians (and many other nations) claim the moral high ground daily. Too many people insist that ONLY the US claims the moral high ground.

I'd say we're about even in that capacity. Though Iran's gotten a lot louder and more obnoxious about it since our President called them part of an "Axis of Evil".

I'd be pretty miffed about that, too.

It is a big deal, because so many here don't recognize the FACT that Iranians (and many other nations) claim the moral high ground daily. Too many people insist that ONLY the US claims the moral high ground.
Oh, for sure...I think all nations claim the moral high ground. But few nations are believed. The US, despite the violations of its own rules again, and again, and again, is still believed to a certain extent, because overall, they have maintained a higher level of decency than the myriad of other nations claiming a higher moral ground.

When they dip below that self-imposed level, it is a great disappointment. That's a good thing. That means that people in this world actually expect the US to do the right thing, no matter how much you've disappointed us in the past.

Iran?

Yeah. We don't have those expectations, and for good reasons.

remind me, how many posts did you make on the subject of the recent assaults on the iranian labor unions?
Had I known of them, I would have roundly denounced them. My sincere apologies for being somewhat less than omnicient.

I'd say we're about even in that capacity. Though Iran's gotten a lot louder and more obnoxious about it since our President called them part of an "Axis of Evil".

I'd be pretty miffed about that, too.

I'm only miffed because for some reason, a lot of people think that ONLY the US claims the moral high ground.

It's a habit of many nations.

I don't think he's malicious, just wanted to be called RRP.
Malicious or not...I'd get edgy if someone called themselves S inuhue.

I will.

Eutrusca, you sympathize with paedophiles. Why? Because you have yet to criticize them.

and, of course, merely critizing them now won't count for anything, because it was only done after being compelled to.

Yeah. We don't have those expectations, and for good reasons.

Ah, so if someone's always been on bad behavior, you excuse it.

Then the US, according to game theory, has nothing to lose and everything to gain by acting badly. If we do it long enough, everyone will excuse it because "they've always done it".

Eutrusca,

After reading your article, I must admit that my opinion about Iran has not changed, nor has my opinion on Iran's current government, the Iranian people, US policy towards Iran, the prison at Guantanamo, or you.

Having said that, I do not understand why I should change my opinion about US treatment of foreign nationals because of the appointment of a corrupt and possibly violent man to the Iranian delegation to the human rights council.

Thank you for bringing my attention to this. I will contact my MP and ask him to put pressure on the Canadian government to do something about this. I hope you will do the same whenever you hear of human rights violations, no matter where they occur.

As I am, so you are, a

Gift-of-god.

I'd like to add my name to the list of people for whom this letter pretty much spells it out.

I'm only miffed because for some reason, a lot of people think that ONLY the US claims the moral high ground.


Define "a lot" as I've only seen 1, maybe 2, in this thread.

and, of course, merely critizing them now won't count for anything, because it was only done after being compelled to.

*nods*

You're in a bit of a bind here, Eutrusca. Choose your words carefully.

Had I known of them, I would have roundly denounced them. My sincere apologies for being somewhat less than omnicient.
For someone who really wants us to look at Iran, and not at the US...this is a bit disappointing.

Malicious or not...I'd get edgy if someone called themselves S inuhue.
Fair point, it's RPP's call. (see, got it right that time)

And on that note, I shall leave you lot to your bickering.

Malicious or not...I'd get edgy if someone called themselves S inuhue.

though this would be a slightly more messy case, since rpp's name is a reference to a song. but still, i declare a pogrom on all psuedo-rpps.

Oh, for sure...I think all nations claim the moral high ground. But few nations are believed. The US, despite the violations of its own rules again, and again, and again, is still believed to a certain extent, because overall, they have maintained a higher level of decency than the myriad of other nations claiming a higher moral ground.

When they dip below that self-imposed level, it is a great disappointment. That's a good thing. That means that people in this world actually expect the US to do the right thing, no matter how much you've disappointed us in the past.

Iran?

Yeah. We don't have those expectations, and for good reasons.

Hey, but if DK and Eutrusca want the US to be as good as Iran on those terms, let them... What's the most harm they can do besides, y'know, making the world's only superpower into a very, VERY evil place?

... I do not understand why I should change my opinion about US treatment of foreign nationals because of the appointment of a corrupt and possibly violent man to the Iranian delegation to the human rights council.
I'm not asking you to. All I'm asking in the "Commentary" of this thread, and all I've ever asked is for my Country to get fair and equal treatment. Many times I've read verbal assaults on my Country which leave the impression that America is the worst thing that ever happened to the planet. Yet many of these same people are obviously willing to totally ingore far worse things from other nations, such as Iran.

Define "a lot" as I've only seen 1, maybe 2, in this thread.
You read this forum every day. It's a common occurrence.

The problem I have for either country is assigning a moral value to political goals.

Under the concept of Realpolitik, that is done SOLELY for gaming out politics in place of warfare.

Which is why I do not think of these things in moral terms, as so many of you do.

Ah, so if someone's always been on bad behavior, you excuse it. Nice try. Excuse? Never. Expect? Unfortunately. You expect terrible shit to happen in certain countries. You set up NGOs to try and deal with that terrible shit. You petition your government to do something about it. You hope the UN will take action.

We don't generally do these things when it comes to the US, because we expect that the terrible shit is an aberration and will be dealt with.

Then the US, according to game theory, has nothing to lose and everything to gain by acting badly. If we do it long enough, everyone will excuse it because "they've always done it".
If you really want to go that way.

But you will not be excused.

That still doesn't change the fact that Iran over your bike last night. :)

though this would be a slightly more messy case, since rpp's name is a reference to a song. but still, i declare a pogrom on all psuedo-rpps.

Long live the gun-toting, fear-striking, child-eating, belly-itching, finger-licking, Clinton-kicking justice of Free Soviets!

DK, you have yet to criticize pedophiles...

So does Eutrusca.

I'm not asking you to. All I'm asking in the "Commentary" of this thread, and all I've ever asked is for my Country to get fair and equal treatment. Many times I've read verbal assaults on my Country which leave the impression that America is the worst thing that ever happened to the planet. Yet many of these same people are obviously willing to totally ingore far worse things from other nations, such as Iran.


To talk about Iran in a discussion about the USA would be changing the subject.

But you will not be excused.

I don't see any nations in an embargo against the US, economic sanctions against the US, kicking the US out of the UN, stopping trade with the US, invading the US, bombing the US, sinking US shipping, or anything else like that, do you?

DK, you have yet to criticize pedophiles...

So does Eutrusca.

In a thread about pedophiles yesterday, I criticized them (the one about dressing children a certain way).

We don't generally do these things when it comes to the US, because we expect that the terrible shit is an aberration and will be dealt with.
It is, and it is being and will be.

I don't see any nations in an embargo against the US, economic sanctions against the US, kicking the US out of the UN, stopping trade with the US, invading the US, bombing the US, sinking US shipping, or anything else like that, do you?

Eh, Chavez is moving in that direction when it comes to trade. And he didn't want to kick the US out of the UN but he wanted it the other way around - when he spoke in the GA he said we should move the UN out of the US to a place like...Jerusalem.

In a thread about pedophiles yesterday, I criticized them (the one about dressing children a certain way).

Ah, but you didn't say anything against Fred Phelps!

What do I think about Iran? Well, I think it's a swell place. It's a much better democracy than the USA is. I really do hate the USA, its government and especially its people. I cheer whenever terrorists either scare or kill freedom-loving heretics. I support Iran's development of nuclear technology not because I feel nuclear technology is inevitable, but because I really hope they nuke either the USA or Israel, or both. ;)

Eh, Chavez is moving in that direction when it comes to trade. And he didn't want to kick the US out of the UN but he wanted it the other way around - when he spoke in the GA he said we should move the UN out of the US to a place like...Jerusalem.

Ok, that's one. Any others? Serious ones this time.

I'm not asking you to. All I'm asking in the "Commentary" of this thread, and all I've ever asked is for my Country to get fair and equal treatment. Many times I've read verbal assaults on my Country which leave the impression that America is the worst thing that ever happened to the planet. Yet many of these same people are obviously willing to totally ingore far worse things from other nations, such as Iran.
That's an assumption you make, in part I believe, because you are attuned to anti-US arguments. Also, nations that are highly visible tend to be talked about more. I mean...did you hear much about Afghanistan before the invasion? Probably not. Mainstream westerners didn't know much about the Taliban. Did that mean that NO ONE did? Because they weren't discussed much in the press? Hardly. Many western groups were actively and loudly decrying the human rights abuses committed by the Taliban...but would you have picked that out? When those cries simply didn't hit close to home? Unlikely.

Did you once participate in any of my threads talking about the treatment of aboriginal people at the hands of the Canadian state? By that, am I to assume that you SUPPORT those actions? Of course not! The thread simply weren't relevant to you, or you lacked the background to discuss the topic. And that's fine.

When our news is filled with stories of domestic and then US affairs, what do you expect? What your nation does directly affects us. What Iran does may affect us down the road...but indirectly. As well, sharing a lot of the same culture, call it Western or just North American, we understand better the things going on in your nation than we do what happens in Iran. Or Indonesia. Or Saudi Arabia.

If you really, really want to start looking at what other nations are up to, feel free...but like us, you probably won't be able to sustain the discussion for that long without extensive research. Information about the US is much easier to come by and more personally relevant.

You read this forum every day. It's a common occurrence.

The problem I have for either country is assigning a moral value to political goals.

Under the concept of Realpolitik, that is done SOLELY for gaming out politics in place of warfare.

Which is why I do not think of these things in moral terms, as so many of you do.

Realpolitik is an unavoidable reality. It is about what people do, not what they should do. It is in the hopes of countering realpolitik that we have such things as democracy, rule of law, government accountability and the right to bear arms.

Realpolitik is not an example of what we should follow, but a reminder of what we may become.

Ah, but you didn't say anything against Fred Phelps!
Come to think of it, neither did you.

Ok, that's one. Any others? Serious ones this time.

Nope, besides those I agree with you.

I don't see any nations in an embargo against the US, economic sanctions against the US, kicking the US out of the UN, stopping trade with the US, invading the US, bombing the US, sinking US shipping, or anything else like that, do you?
Sorry, did I miss the part where you suddenly decided to hold yourself to the lowest standards? Because that is specifically what you said you should just go ahead and do, and I replied with "Go ahead, but you won't be excused for it". Can you ever debate honestly? Or must you consistently try to twist things into arguments that were never made? Just so I know whether I should bother expending effort on you.



Then the US, according to game theory, has nothing to lose and everything to gain by acting badly. If we do it long enough, everyone will excuse it because "they've always done it".


If you really want to go that way.

But you will not be excused.

Come to think of it, neither did you.

True, that makes it so both of us love him.

However, scientology is evil!

There, I have the high ground now, and you are a supporter of scientology.

Do you see a pattern here, or should I draw you a map?

It is, and it is being and will be.
And thrice being the charm, I'll once again say, "this is a positive thing". Perhaps, so you can overcome your negative perception, you should start marking down the times that people say positive things about the US. It happens more than you seem to be willing to see.

For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.I don't recall Iran taking that position, being a "model for the world."

Do you see a pattern here, or should I draw you a map?

Do the map! I want the map!

*stamps foot*

Come to think of it, neither did you.

And neither did I!!!!:eek:

What do I think about Iran? Well, I think it's a swell place. It's a much better democracy than the USA is. I really do hate the USA, its government and especially its people. I cheer whenever terrorists either scare or kill freedom-loving heretics. I support Iran's development of nuclear technology not because I feel nuclear technology is inevitable, but because I really hope they nuke either the USA or Israel, or both. ;)
Stop it, you're going to make Eut and DK cream...

Realpolitik is an unavoidable reality. It is about what people do, not what they should do. It is in the hopes of countering realpolitik that we have such things as democracy, rule of law, government accountability and the right to bear arms.

Realpolitik is not an example of what we should follow, but a reminder of what we may become.

It's what we are already. Those who understand it and apply it tend to win.

Most of the morality you hear bandied about is window dressing. What people are really after is power, control, resources, etc.

IMHO, Israel is a symbol of Western culture placed deliberately in the Middle East by the UK and fostered long term by the US. It is a symbol of our control over the region, and a symbol of the impotence of the Arabs and Persians.

They are, until they get more than a few nuclear weapons, powerless to eliminate Israel or the West from their region.

Both the development of an Islamic nuclear weapon and the rise of militant Islam are manifestations of their attempt to regain control. It has little to do with religion and everything to do with Realpolitik. Religion and morality tales are only used to sell people on the idea of war and conflict.

At this time, an oil embargo by countries like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia is unthinkable, because their economies and rulers are tightly tied to Western economies. Iran may indeed use the oil weapon, but it will require them to also use their navy to stop shipping in the Gulf, and to damage or destroy offshore oil terminals.

I believe that Iran's current intentional reduction in imports of refined gasoline is preparation for just such a move of independence from Western economies prior to using the oil weapon. They're willing to nearly cut their internal gasoline consumption in half - implement rationing - in order to accomplish their goals.

If you want to see why a nation does what it does, it's best to examine the Realpolitik aspect. Discussing "moral high ground" is a waste of time.

What do I think about Iran? Well, I think it's a swell place. It's a much better democracy than the USA is. I really do hate the USA, its government and especially its people. I cheer whenever terrorists either scare or kill freedom-loving heretics. I support Iran's development of nuclear technology not because I feel nuclear technology is inevitable, but because I really hope they nuke either the USA or Israel, or both. ;)

Hehehe that's pretty funny! but on a serious note yes i too hate the USA.:rolleyes:

But look what the USA have taken over from the British Empire lol lots of Mass Production loadsa pollution Nuclear Weapons which could fill Glasgow or Ghana? lol i dont know but when USA start talking about WMD's well they have the Most hehehe why i laugh? anyway Iran there just another country trying to run there Ideas? whats wrong with them doing what they do? what interest is it to the World? The UN whats that? there nowhere really you never here of any UN troops dying round the world thats because there are none :) BOOOOOOOO TO THE United Nations Down with the U.N boooooobooooobooooo

That's an assumption you make, in part I believe, because you are attuned to anti-US arguments. Also, nations that are highly visible tend to be talked about more. I mean...did you hear much about Afghanistan before the invasion? Probably not. Mainstream westerners didn't know much about the Taliban. Did that mean that NO ONE did? Because they weren't discussed much in the press? Hardly. Many western groups were actively and loudly decrying the human rights abuses committed by the Taliban...but would you have picked that out? When those cries simply didn't hit close to home? Unlikely.

Did you once participate in any of my threads talking about the treatment of aboriginal people at the hands of the Canadian state? By that, am I to assume that you SUPPORT those actions? Of course not! The thread simply weren't relevant to you, or you lacked the background to discuss the topic. And that's fine.

When our news is filled with stories of domestic and then US affairs, what do you expect? What your nation does directly affects us. What Iran does may affect us down the road...but indirectly. As well, sharing a lot of the same culture, call it Western or just North American, we understand better the things going on in your nation than we do what happens in Iran. Or Indonesia. Or Saudi Arabia.

If you really, really want to start looking at what other nations are up to, feel free...but like us, you probably won't be able to sustain the discussion for that long without extensive research. Information about the US is much easier to come by and more personally relevant.
Wow! I have to admit that makes a really good, logical argument. Kudos!

It's true that America makes for a high-profile target, but does that really require so much angagonism or vituperation? THAT's what I react to most strongy.

Do the map! I want the map!

*stamps foot*

The map is for him, not for you. But you can have this old pair of sneakers. *Hands RPP the sneakers*

Sorry, did I miss the part where you suddenly decided to hold yourself to the lowest standards? Because that is specifically what you said you should just go ahead and do, and I replied with "Go ahead, but you won't be excused for it". Can you ever debate honestly? Or must you consistently try to twist things into arguments that were never made? Just so I know whether I should bother expending effort on you.

Do you honestly keep forgetting that I could care less about moral standards, and am merely focusing on game theory and winning? Or did you even study political science?

And thrice being the charm, I'll once again say, "this is a positive thing". Perhaps, so you can overcome your negative perception, you should start marking down the times that people say positive things about the US. It happens more than you seem to be willing to see.
Perhaps I should do just that. Stop it! You're scaring me! :p

The map is for him, not for you. But you can have this old pair of sneakers. *Hands RPP the sneakers*

E-yess!!!

*punches the air*

I R TEH WINNAR!

COMMENTARY: While reality-challenged dweebs and disengenuous PC types rant about Guantanmo, Iran has sent Saeed Mortazavi, sometimes referred to as "the butcher of the press" to Geneva as a member of Iran's delegation to the opening session of the new United Nations Human Rights Council! Sounds to me as if many on here are pointing at the wrong people.


The inherent dishonesty of this argument is galling.

As if it's not possible to criticize two different things simultaneously...

As if it's not possible to decry human rights violations wherever they occur - whether it's by Iran or the U.S.

Eutrusca embarrasses all Americans with his dishonesty and hate-filled rhetoric.

Wow! I have to admit that makes a really good, logical argument. Kudos!

It's true that America makes for a high-profile target, but does that really require so much angagonism or vituperation? THAT's what I react to most strongy.

No, you react against questioning things your government ACTUALLY does or says. That fails because people here are questioning because they expect better, not because they hope for the worse. The Iranian government is evil. We all know that. It's also nearly powerless. The current US administration is evil. It's also powerful. The Iranian and the American people have nothing to do with either of them. It's unrealistic to expect us to cry out against something that may affect us in the near future if and only if we cry out against every other injustice on the planet. It's also unrealistic to claim we take the sides of whatever we're not criticizing, as I proved by pointing out that I didn't see you complain about pedophiles, which, by your logic, would make you one.

They should let him come, then when he arrives. Grab him!

Do you honestly keep forgetting that I could care less about moral standards, and am merely focusing on game theory and winning? Or did you even study political science?

In that case you can't criticize Iran either...

I can, but you can't. Why? Because I care about moral standards, and you and Iran are only focusing on game theory and winning.

The map is for him, not for you. But you can have this old pair of sneakers. *Hands RPP the sneakers*
"The Sneakers"? That reminds me of the MC Hammer cartoon where a pair of magic sneakers turned some black college kid into the MC Hammer who didn't actually do anything but dance around in the cartoonaverse on disembodied piano key strings.

In that case you can't criticize Iran either...

I can, but you can't. Why? Because I care about moral standards, and you and Iran are only focusing on game theory and winning.

Criticizing Iran is part of the game, as I pointed out in a previous post. As is criticizing the US.

You sound like so many revolutionaries I used to know. You actually believe in the cause. Time passes, and you are introduced to reality.

This is about power and control, nothing else. Survival, so to speak, now that nuclear weapons are part of the game.

The inherent dishonesty of this argument is galling.

As if it's not possible to criticize two different things simultaneously...

As if it's not possible to decry human rights violations wherever they occur - whether it's by Iran or the U.S.

Eutrusca embarrasses all Americans with his dishonesty and hate-filled rhetoric.
Whatever! :rolleyes:

If you'd bothered reading, all I'm asking for is fairness.

Criticizing Iran is part of the game, as I pointed out in a previous post. As is criticizing the US.

You sound like so many revolutionaries I used to know. You actually believe in the cause. Time passes, and you are introduced to reality.

This is about power and control, nothing else. Survival, so to speak, now that nuclear weapons are part of the game.

Chuckles.

So, you and Mahmoud Amadinejad are alike?

Okay.

Chuckles.

So, you and Mahmoud Amadinejad are alike?

Okay.

You've obviously never studied political science.

It's all a game, and the stakes are real.

It's what we are already. Those who understand it and apply it tend to win.

Most of the morality you hear bandied about is window dressing. What people are really after is power, control, resources, etc.

IMHO, Israel is a symbol of Western culture placed deliberately in the Middle East by the UK and fostered long term by the US. It is a symbol of our control over the region, and a symbol of the impotence of the Arabs and Persians.

They are, until they get more than a few nuclear weapons, powerless to eliminate Israel or the West from their region.

Both the development of an Islamic nuclear weapon and the rise of militant Islam are manifestations of their attempt to regain control. It has little to do with religion and everything to do with Realpolitik. Religion and morality tales are only used to sell people on the idea of war and conflict.

At this time, an oil embargo by countries like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia is unthinkable, because their economies and rulers are tightly tied to Western economies. Iran may indeed use the oil weapon, but it will require them to also use their navy to stop shipping in the Gulf, and to damage or destroy offshore oil terminals.

I believe that Iran's current intentional reduction in imports of refined gasoline is preparation for just such a move of independence from Western economies prior to using the oil weapon. They're willing to nearly cut their internal gasoline consumption in half - implement rationing - in order to accomplish their goals.

If you want to see why a nation does what it does, it's best to examine the Realpolitik aspect. Discussing "moral high ground" is a waste of time.

I don't disagree with any of that. Realpolitik is not difficult to understand, nor is this understanding hard to implement when forming a view of world politics.

What I am saying is that we can not use it as a model for what we should do. That would be morally unacceptable. I know that when a politician speaks of morality or religion, it is often an excuse for a much simpler motive. However, that does not imply that morality does not exist nor does it imply that morality should be absent from geopolitical affairs.

Realpolitik is always at the center of my thoughts when I look at the US role in global politics.

Whatever! :rolleyes:

If you'd bothered reading, all I'm asking for is fairness.

Okay, but you'd have to give that fairness in return by criticizing EVERYTHING ELSE whenever you criticize ANYTHING.

Wow! I have to admit that makes a really good, logical argument. Kudos!

It's true that America makes for a high-profile target, but does that really require so much angagonism or vituperation? THAT's what I react to most strongy.
Think of it this way.

There are two men. One is a thief, sleeps with prostitutes, beats his wife, and tortures animals. The other is upright, kind, just, and honest. The first man steals a car. What would your reaction be? The second man steals a car. Would your reaction be the same?

Sure, there are people who just hate the US, hate everyone living there, and love to see you fail. But in general, people are simply angry at what the administration of the time is doing, because it affects them, and they let it be known that they don't agree.

I don't disagree with any of that. Realpolitik is not difficult to understand, nor is this understanding hard to implement when forming a view of world politics.

What I am saying is that we can not use it as a model for what we should do. That would be morally unacceptable. I know that when a politician speaks of morality or religion, it is often an excuse for a much simpler motive. However, that does not imply that morality does not exist nor does it imply that morality should be absent from geopolitical affairs.

Realpolitik is always at the center of my thoughts when I look at the US role in global politics.


There's precious little "should" in modern politics. Most of the time, because of lack of foresight and planning, most nations kneejerk their way into the future, shouting moral imperatives that are full of shit.

Do you honestly keep forgetting that I could care less about moral standards, and am merely focusing on game theory and winning? Or did you even study political science?
So you will continue to be dishonest. Alright, noted. Go ahead and win, your game reeks, and I shall find another.

Think of it this way.

There are two men. One is a thief, sleeps with prostitutes, beats his wife, and tortures animals. The other is upright, kind, just, and honest. The first man steals a car. What would your reaction be? The second man steals a car. Would your reaction be the same?


Yes. The law requires that we treat them exactly the same.

So you will continue to be dishonest. Alright, noted. Go ahead and win, your game reeks, and I shall find another.
I'm the only honest one here. I'm not suffering from delusions of morality.

Criticizing Iran is part of the game, as I pointed out in a previous post. As is criticizing the US.

You sound like so many revolutionaries I used to know. You actually believe in the cause. Time passes, and you are introduced to reality.That's what all failures tell themselves.

Yes. The law requires that we treat them exactly the same.
I didn't ask about the law, I asked about his reaction, oh dishonest one. Go play your game elsewhere.

I'm the only honest one here. I'm not suffering from delusions of morality.
Sure. *pats your head absently*

Sorry, your antics don't impress me.

I didn't ask about the law, I asked about his reaction, oh dishonest one. Go play your game elsewhere.

Would you rather have a nation of laws, or a nation of men?

A world governed by international law, or the whim of individual rulers?

I'm the only honest one here. I'm not suffering from delusions of morality.

Sigged for later reference.

Would you rather have a nation of laws, or a nation of men?

A world governed by international law, or the whim of individual rulers?
*looks up from her book*

Sorry...did you say something?

*looks up from her book*

Sorry...did you say something?

I noticed you're not interested in debating unless you think you're winning.

Realpolitik also applies to you.

Sigged for later reference.

If you've worked with government officials like I do, you'd come to the same conclusion. There are a precious few who actually act on their personal moral beliefs. The rest of them do what they have to do to get by. It's a job like any other. They weigh and balance consequences, not principles.

I noticed you're not interested in debating unless you think you're winning.

Realpolitik also applies to you.
I won the moment you outed yourself as a twister of words, and a dishonest debator.

Now I know I don't need to bother with you.

*lowers eyes to her book once again*

There's precious little "should" in modern politics. Most of the time, because of lack of foresight and planning, most nations kneejerk their way into the future, shouting moral imperatives that are full of shit.

True, but in a limited and general way.

Realpolitik must accept the reality of the 'should' and 'morality' in politics, simply because a realpolitik follower would be trying to remove manifestations of such from the system.

These manifestations can include the rule of law, representative democracy, the right to bear arms, etc. In short, anything that causes the government to be accountable.

This is why realpolitik is more prevalent in global politics than any other level of politics. There are less systems of accountability. As you have power over a larger area, you are less accountable to the people who live there.

Yes, the moral imperatives they shout are full of shit. But they have power because people believe them. Politicians count on that. But they have to be careful to not visibly betray them, because the people believe them.

I won the moment you outed yourself as a twister of words, and a dishonest debator.

Now I know I don't need to bother with you.

*lowers eyes to her book once again*
What was dishonest about it? Realpolitik isn't a twisting of words. It's reality.

Would you rather have a nation of laws, or a nation of men?

A world governed by international law, or the whim of individual rulers?

According to realpolitik, you can only have a world governed by those who win the right, i.e. the whim of individual rulers.

According to realpolitik, you can only have a world governed by those who win the right, i.e. the whim of individual rulers.
Apparently he 'plays' these threads with that in mind.

*yawns*

If you've worked with government officials like I do, you'd come to the same conclusion. There are a precious few who actually act on their personal moral beliefs. The rest of them do what they have to do to get by. It's a job like any other. They weigh and balance consequences, not principles.

Oh, I know how officials make decisions. My last few summers have been internships at a few local offices, but this quote is just to help me remember where DK comes from when he debates.

According to realpolitik, you can only have a world governed by those who win the right, i.e. the whim of individual rulers.

I believe they call that "the winners write the history books".

Or, "who remembers the Armenians?"

Or, "who remembers the Armenians?"

Or the Jews?

No, wait.... thats wrong.

I can get it.....

Think of it this way.

There are two men. One is a thief, sleeps with prostitutes, beats his wife, and tortures animals. The other is upright, kind, just, and honest. The first man steals a car. What would your reaction be? The second man steals a car. Would your reaction be the same?

Sure, there are people who just hate the US, hate everyone living there, and love to see you fail. But in general, people are simply angry at what the administration of the time is doing, because it affects them, and they let it be known that they don't agree.
Yes. The law requires that we treat them exactly the same.
I didn't ask about the law, I asked about his reaction, oh dishonest one. Go play your game elsewhere.
Would you rather have a nation of laws, or a nation of men?

A world governed by international law, or the whim of individual rulers?According to realpolitik, you can only have a world governed by those who win the right, i.e. the whim of individual rulers.
I believe they call that "the winners write the history books".

Or, "who remembers the Armenians?"

Right, so then you admit Sinuhue was right.

Right, so then you admit Sinuhue was right.
Hey, I had the same thing compiled and waiting :), except he also admits it here:


Sorry, did I miss the part where you suddenly decided to hold yourself to the lowest standards? Because that is specifically what you said you should just go ahead and do, and I replied with "Go ahead, but you won't be excused for it".Can you ever debate honestly? Or must you consistently try to twist things into arguments that were never made? Just so I know whether I should bother expending effort on you.


Do you honestly keep forgetting that I could care less about moral standards, and am merely focusing on game theory and winning? Or did you even study political science?

Good to see we're on the same wavelength!

Right, so then you admit Sinuhue was right.
If anything, people hate the US because it's not possible to defeat us on the battlefield anymore.

If we had the political will to stay somewhere, we could. And impose our will.

They then expect there to be some framework that would turn this force to some "international good". League of Nations, UN, you name it. Even when the US engages in military action, they expect a higher standard.

That is called the "rule of men". Not the rule of law.

It is also realpolitik. I would prefer that we have an impartial rule of law, but none exists at that level.

Sinuhue apparently likes the "rule of man" where you can make up the laws in the name of the greater good as you go along. And only realpolitik leads down that road.

Good to see we're on the same wavelength!

To be perfectly honest, it kind of creeps me out a bit how we're always on a similar wavelength.

To be perfectly honest, it kind of creeps me out a bit how we're always on a similar wavelength.
Are you sure you're not my puppet?

Is DK seriously continuing his attempts?

So, ever consider a polygamous marriage? I'm sure my husband would approve you:)

What was dishonest about it? Realpolitik isn't a twisting of words. It's reality.

Ah yes, because it has the word "real" in it. Therefore, its unlikely any other political paradigm... its real.

Come off it man. Realpolitik is just another way of looking at political reality, but it isn't the reality itself. Its as real as any other political paradigm.

Allow me to get back on message for a moment.

Eutrusca,

After reading your article, I must admit that my opinion about Iran has not changed, nor has my opinion on Iran's current government, the Iranian people, US policy towards Iran, the prison at Guantanamo, or you.

Having said that, I do not understand why I should change my opinion about US treatment of foreign nationals because of the appointment of a corrupt and possibly violent man to the Iranian delegation to the human rights council.

Thank you for bringing my attention to this. I will contact my MP and ask him to put pressure on the Canadian government to do something about this. I hope you will do the same whenever you hear of human rights violations, no matter where they occur.

As I am, so you are, a

Gift-of-god.
I shall save you a letter. The Canadian government has already objected strongly on this matter and deplored the choice the Iranian made of appointing the killer of a Canadian reporter to the comitee.

It was in the papers last week.

Ah yes, because it has the word "real" in it. Therefore, its unlikely any other political paradigm... its real.

Come off it man. Realpolitik is just another way of looking at political reality, but it isn't the reality itself. Its as real as any other political paradigm.

It's more honest at determining why nations do what they do.

It's also more accurate.

If anything, people hate the US because it's not possible to defeat us on the battlefield anymore.

If we had the political will to stay somewhere, we could. And impose our will.

They then expect there to be some framework that would turn this force to some "international good". League of Nations, UN, you name it. Even when the US engages in military action, they expect a higher standard.

That is called the "rule of men". Not the rule of law.

It is also realpolitik. I would prefer that we have an impartial rule of law, but none exists at that level.

Sinuhue apparently likes the "rule of man" where you can make up the laws in the name of the greater good as you go along. And only realpolitik leads down that road.

I am having trouble understanding your reply.
I don't know why people who hate the USA do so. I would assume that they have a myriad of reasons. Some of these reasons may even make sense. What does that have to do with Iran, the USA, realpolitik, or my post?

Yes, the USA has the capability to put boots on the ground and hold that position almost anywhere in the world. Yes, you could even impose your will. I see that you understand that aspect of realpolitik.

Now, who are 'they' in this sentence: They then expect there to be some framework that would turn this force to some "international good".
Are they hippies? Canadians? Democrats? Humanitarians? If you could clarify that, that would be great!

Now, how are 'their' efforts indicative or supportive of the rule of men as opposed to the rule of law? I would agree that realpolitik is more like the former than the latter, and that it exists where the rule of law does not.

Back to you, Kimchi of the Deep.

It's more honest at determining why nations do what they do.

It's also more accurate.
Not necessarily.

If it was more accurate, then there would have been no need for neo-realism (structural realism) to spawn from it.

Again, it might be the most attractive theory, but that does not mean it is the most accurate.

Allow me to get back on message for a moment.


I shall save you a letter. The Canadian government has already objected strongly on this matter and deplored the choice the Iranian made of appointing the killer of a Canadian reporter to the comitee.

It was in the papers last week.

Thank you.

I am having trouble understanding your reply.
I don't know why people who hate the USA do so. I would assume that they have a myriad of reasons. Some of these reasons may even make sense. What does that have to do with Iran, the USA, realpolitik, or my post?

Yes, the USA has the capability to put boots on the ground and hold that position almost anywhere in the world. Yes, you could even impose your will. I see that you understand that aspect of realpolitik.

Now, who are 'they' in this sentence: They then expect there to be some framework that would turn this force to some "international good".
Are they hippies? Canadians? Democrats? Humanitarians? If you could clarify that, that would be great!

Now, how are 'their' efforts indicative or supportive of the rule of men as opposed to the rule of law? I would agree that realpolitik is more like the former than the latter, and that it exists where the rule of law does not.

Back to you, Kimchi of the Deep.


People criticize the US because it is the only weapon at their disposal. Economic sanctions are not possible, because it would hurt most nations more than it would hurt the US. Military action is impossible. So they can only play the game through criticism, which must be of a greater volume and more continuous than that applied to another nation.

It's simple. I told Sinuhue that the men in her scenario should be treated equally, according to the law. But she didn't want that - she wanted us to hold one more accountable than the other. That is "the rule of man" rather than "the rule of law".

The rule of man is also realpolitik, while the rule of law is not.

So she's all for realpolitik, if she wants people to make up the legal standards from person to person, from country to country.

It's more honest at determining why nations do what they do.

It's also more accurate.

I'm not really gonna get into whether its a better paradigm (than...), my only point is that you seemed to be confusing a view of reality, with reality itself.

I'm not really gonna get into whether its a better paradigm (than...), my only point is that you seemed to be confusing a view of reality, with reality itself.
It's easier to see the motivations of nations, without having to deal with the bullshit they sell to their constituents or followers.

If anything, people hate the US because it's not possible to defeat us on the battlefield anymore.

If we had the political will to stay somewhere, we could. And impose our will.

They then expect there to be some framework that would turn this force to some "international good". League of Nations, UN, you name it. Even when the US engages in military action, they expect a higher standard.

That is called the "rule of men". Not the rule of law.

It is also realpolitik. I would prefer that we have an impartial rule of law, but none exists at that level.

Sinuhue apparently likes the "rule of man" where you can make up the laws in the name of the greater good as you go along. And only realpolitik leads down that road.You know as well as everyone else that has nothing to do with what she posted about the car theft. I could take the same theory behind hers and present you with this scenario:
You have a straight A student and a straight C student. They are in the same math class. Both get a C. How do you react to both?

She wasn't discussing punishment, she wasn't discussing law. She was discussing how you react to the situation at hand, as an individual, as a way to demonstrate why more people complain when the US messes up as compared to when Iran messes up. We aren't surprised when Iran does something stupid or wrong.

She wasn't discussing punishment, she wasn't discussing law. She was discussing how you react to the situation at hand, as an individual, as a way to demonstrate why more people complain when the US messes up as compared to when Iran messes up. We aren't surprised when Iran does something stupid or wrong.

If you aren't going to apply the law (or the rules of grading, which state that a C is a C), then you are doing the "rule of man" thing.

And that's realpolitik. Pure and simple.

If you aren't going to apply the law (or the rules of grading, which state that a C is a C), then you are doing the "rule of man" thing.

And that's realpolitik. Pure and simple.
She makes no statement about the value of the theft, nor do I make a statement about the value of the C. Are both C's equal? yes. They are both a 75/100. The fact is that everyone reacts to an A student getting a C than a C student getting a C.

You are attempting to look at the rule of law in exclusion from the rule of man. Guess what? They don't exist in isolation. You want to claim that you are looking from a perspective of true reality? Then I suggest you do so. You cannot say "this child getting a C in math is the same as that child getting a C in math", when it is clear that it is not the same. Something caused the A student to perform abnormally. If you want to view reality, then you don't look at actions in isolation.

She makes no statement about the value of the theft, nor do I make a statement about the value of the C. Are both C's equal? yes. They are both a 75/100. The fact is that everyone reacts to an A student getting a C than a C student getting a C.

You are attempting to look at the rule of law in exclusion from the rule of man. Guess what? They don't exist in isolation. You want to claim that you are looking from a perspective of true reality? Then I suggest you do so. You cannot say "this child getting a C in math is the same as that child getting a C in math", when it is clear that it is not the same. Something caused the A student to perform abnormally. If you want to view reality, then you don't look at actions in isolation.

Yes, that is true. So if we decide tolok at the Iran/US situation from our new and improved contextual realpolitik, what do we get?

Well, both seems to be playing a game where they can excuse any action on their part because each has claimed the moral high ground. There are valid human rights allegations against both sides, so each side uses these as ammunition against each other in order to mold public opinion. That much is obvious.

The next question is: what does each side gain from that? To answer that, we would need to know more about the context.