Girl, 16, hanged in Iran

[Keevan_Colton]

I'd just like to remind the pro-invasion eedjits that we've made IRAQ an offically islamic country and are allowing them to include the same barbaric bullshit as we're aghast about in Iran in their government...

I'd just like to say a great big "well done" to all the neo-con assholes.

[AniThyng]

It's too bad we can't tie you to the first device we'll drop over Tehran.

I concur. This world needs to be ridded of these scum. It would be simply best to completely erase them from existance, and so cure us of this cancer.

if u refer to people who bring up the USA's unpleasent past, that sounds rather contrary to this whole freedom of speech thing

if you mean sorta eliminating all fanatics, fine, no arguement there.

if you mean like, nuking the whole muslim world, leaving us in indelible irony of slaughtering EVERYONE, including the 16 year girls who could potentially be executed for having a sharp tongue, all the children and all the women and all the generally ordinary people - most of whom value tghier lives and thier religion a lot higher then being anilhlated by the self-righteous USA over this...words fail me.


a solution? encourage moderates, don't push them into the arms of the mullahs, those reasonable suggestions mentioned elsewhere that do not involve also causing undue suffering to everyone... i know some Iranians (of both sexes)here in my university and they seem to be comfortable enough with the modern world so i don't see a future Iran in their hands as allowing things like this to happen again.


by the way - not all countries with "islamic" constitutions necessarily pursue them to such levels of barbarism - Malaysia* certainly doesn't, i'm not too sure about Indonesia but it's not as if Megawati is forced to wear a Burka and stay squestered in the presidential palace.........

[Prozac the Robert]

Nukes should never be used as anything other than a nuclear deterent. Better to die than to be responsible for killing millions of inocents.

Besides, if the US launched nukes, it could kiss it's relations with any other western country goodbye. Not even the BNP would likely stand up for you over here.

[admiral_danielsben]

Very simple solution really... there are plenty of dissidents in Iran. Arm them, and give them support for a revolution/rebellion via CIA and other intel organizations (I'm sure the Mossad would help). They kill/capture the Ayatollah and other religious leaders, and either depose Khatami or force him to make major changes. The US provides the dissidents limited air support from Afghanistan and Iraq, taking out the Ayatollah's strongholds and, conveniently, that big nuclear reprossesing facility/bomb-maker, and perhaps throw in a few special forces. Iran would more closely resemble Afghanistan than Iraq: the main ground forces would be dissident natives, the US and allies providing air support and a few special forces.

Would make for one hell of an 'October Suprise', if you ask me. Less obvious than an Osama capture, and it makes sense. Iran is #1 terror supporter, and it's right in between the two places the US has liberated/occupied (depending on your viewpoint, and whether you watch Fox News or Al-Jazeera). Also, a friendly Iran would make the Iraq situation somewhat easier: a lot of the Shiite rebels in Iraq are being supported from Iran. It probably would help Afghanistan too, but for them the Pakistan border would still be a sore spot.

A direct invasion of Iran would be stupid, as it would toss away the goodwill a sizable portion of the Iranian population has toward the US and strain the military even further. No, supporting dissidents makes more sense, although I believe they're less organized in Iran than Afghanistan (where the rebels already controlled 5% of the country). There is the risk that the dissidents will form an anti-US or undemocratic government, but then again that could happen in Iraq or Afghanistan. Also, having the dissidents themselves do much of the liberating would be a propaganda victory, showing how muslims, once in a theocracy, often want out.

The only other obvious choice for a 'liberation' is Syria/Lebanon, and Syria has less of a dissident movement and any attack on them would make the US seem like a cat's-paw for Israel (not that it is or isn't, but it would be a bad thing propaganda-wise in the mideast). It makes more sense for the Israelis or maybe the Turks to take care of them. Or maybe once Iran is liberated/occupied/gov't-changed, Bashar Assad will be cowed into making peace the way Gaddaffi in Libya did. Or maybe pigs will floss, or the Arabs will embrace Zionism.

Plus, you got to think what this would do to Bush's poll numbers . For one thing, Iranians in the US will vote for him in droves (especially considering a liberation involving Iran's own dissidents). For another, It would have a number-jump similar to right after 'Shock and Awe'.

[Vympel]

Very simple solution really... there are plenty of dissidents in Iran. Arm them, and give them support for a revolution/rebellion via CIA and other intel organizations (I'm sure the Mossad would help). They kill/capture the Ayatollah and other religious leaders, and either depose Khatami or force him to make major changes. The US provides the dissidents limited air support from Afghanistan and Iraq, taking out the Ayatollah's strongholds and, conveniently, that big nuclear reprossesing facility/bomb-maker, and perhaps throw in a few special forces. Iran would more closely resemble Afghanistan than Iraq: the main ground forces would be dissident natives, the US and allies providing air support and a few special forces.

Firstly, if you think "plenty of dissidents" can defeat the military of Iran and its Revolutionary Guards when such a solution was considered completely unviable for the *far* weaker Iraq war, you're smoking some real mean crack. For that matter, just to show up how horrible this analogy is, Afghanistan already *had* an armed rebellion against the Taliban in the form of the Northern Alliance (which was supported by Russia throughout the 1990s) who had actually eked out their own territory. This does not exist in Iran, and never will.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Nukes should never be used as anything other than a nuclear deterent. Better to die than to be responsible for killing millions of inocents.

Ah yes, let's threaten to use nukes, but never use them!

What's the point of having a weapon if you're not willing to use it? Then it will only make the situation worse.

[Enforcer Talen]

prolly part of the same principle of preparing for war to get peace.

[General Zod]

Devil's Advocate time!

The concept of "implied concent" means that these are not crimes at all. These are the legitimate actions of a legitimate government. We don't agree with these actions, but it really is NOT our place to condemn. The people being harmed by this are the citizens of Iran, no one else. And they, as citizens of the nation, have agreed to this system. Is there a movement within the country to change the judicial system? If so, how large is it? If not, why isn't there? These are all things to consider before condemning the actions in Iran.

keep in mind Nazi Germany was a 'legitimate' government as well. didn't make it any less barbaric. exactly what degree of brutal and excessive punishment should people draw the line at?

[Thirdfain]

I have always been a big fan of the viewpoint that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Moral relativism is bullshit. Any system which limits freedom to a greater degree and increases human suffering to a greater degree is worse than a system which has more freedom and less suffering. The American system may be worse than the Swedish one (That's debateable.) The Iranian system is worse than the American one.

You say it yourself: "by civilized standards."

That depends on your definition of "civilized standards." If by "civilized standards" you mean Judeo-Christian Religious Fundamentalism, then your point stands- it's not intrinsically any better than the Muslim system. If, on the other hand, you base your definition on amount of suffering caused, then frankly, by civilized standards, the Iranian system is worse.

The Native Americans (or whatever the PC term is these days) were viewed as barbaric and hideous "by civilized standards." It was seen as a great cause to come and kill the dissenters and convert them all to Christianity. We now see this noble crusade as the destruction of a culture.

The Native Americans were fucked one way or another, like any other stagnant society, but that's not important. The criteria used to perscute them and the criteria we can use to persecute Islamofascists are completely different. The persecution of the Native Americans is unrelated to this argument, as they were attacked for different (and probably wrong) reasons than the Islamofascists.

Im not saying that they are right. Im just saying that we, as Americans outside the culture, have no right to say whether their actions are right or wrong, no matter how black-and-white we see this situation.

I think that's bullshit. Of course we have a right to critique another society- especially when that society is demonstratably and clearly worse than our own. People don't live as long, they have less choice in what they want to do with their lives, and they have little or no voice in their own government. I'm not bringing up any supposedly western values here- almost every person on earth wants to live longer, almost every person on earth wants to have more of a say in their own lives. The Iranian religous system, by it's very nature, stifles these fundamental needs. It inhibits economic growth, decreases living conditions, and causes a great deal of physical and emotional harm through the archaic laws which so hinder large portions of the population!

They see us as being agressive towards their establishment, their way of life. And they are right.

Absolutly. Because their way of lilfe is wrong. Yeah, I said it. It's wrong. They fucked up socially. They missed the Golden Path. Just because a bunch of powermongering clerics decided to use tradition as their tool of power consoldation doesn't mean they should be protected. Fuck, what if Hitler had focused on judeo-christian values in uniting Germany into a Catholic superstate, intent on conquering the Protestant and Orthodox world? Would we have been remiss to criticize him?

"It's just the German Catholic way of life. It's their culture, and we can't criticize it. They think it's OK to imprison and kill people just for being Jews, but that's just part of their religion. We may not understand it... but it's OK"

Compare that to this.

"It's just the Iranian Islamic way of life. It's their culture, and we can't criticize it. They think it's OK to imprison and kill people just for breaking obscure religious laws, but that's just part of their religions. We may not understand it... but it's OK"

I think both statements are equally ridiculous. \

[Rogue 9]

Nukes should never be used as anything other than a nuclear deterent. Better to die than to be responsible for killing millions of inocents.

If you tell the ones your deterring that you aren't willing to use your deterrent, it is no longer a deterrent. Sorry, but it doesn't work to deter anyone if everyone knows that it will never be used no matter the circumstances.

[DPDarkPrimus]

prolly part of the same principle of preparing for war to get peace.

Waving around a weapon and threatening people with it doesn't help if you arne't willing to back up your threat.

Let's say you have a gun. If you point it at someone, but aren't planning on using it, you've just made the situation a lot worse. The person will now fear for their lives, and will retaliate with greater force than they would have otherwise, in what they percieve to be self-defense. If you aren't willing to pull the trigger, you've just signed your own ticket.

[Prozac the Robert]

No, the only time I'd be willing to use a nuke would be if the other side uses nukes. It's a nuclear deterent, in that it deters nuclear attack.

[Slartibartfast]

By the way, Shep, there's already one Nuclear Masturbation thread active.

[Perinquus]

I have always been a big fan of the viewpoint that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

No. There really are objective truths, independent of one's point of view. When it comes to laws and customs , things may not be quite so clear cut as that, yet it is still possible to make value judgement based on what promotes the greatest good for the most people. We can say, for example, that any society that treats its women as mere chattels, and denies their rights and freedoms, and restricts their ability to work, get an education, participate fully in politics and public life etc. is backward, because that society is squandering a huge of amount of its available talent. It is wasting its human capital. And it is no coincidence that societies which do this (e.g. Taliban Afghanistan), are almost always shitty, backward, third world hellholes. They're fucked up. And their fucked up systems are what help keep them that way.

You say it yourself: "by civilized standards." The Native Americans (or whatever the PC term is these days) were viewed as barbaric and hideous "by civilized standards." It was seen as a great cause to come and kill the dissenters and convert them all to Christianity. We now see this noble crusade as the destruction of a culture.

This is rather an oversimplification. Most white people were not in favor of genocide. And many who were reacted to perceived Indian atrocities (such as seeing homesteads where even the women and children had been slaughtered) - note I am not advocating the position that whites were right to kill Indians en masse because of this. But there were many whites who wanted to educate and culturally assimilate the Indians. I think they often went too far in their efforts to do this - trying to turn Indians into nothing more than darker-skinned white men, so to speak. But the simple fact is that the native culture and way of life were doomed from the moment white people showed up. It happens over and over and over again in history. When two peoples come into contact, and one has a huge technological edge over the other, the less advanced culture is doomed. It cannot survive unchanged. It either adapts, by borrowing from the more advanced culture (the Cherokee were doing this quite successfully before they were forced on the Trail of Tears), or it goes under.

Im not saying that they are right. Im just saying that we, as Americans outside the culture, have no right to say whether their actions are right or wrong, no matter how black-and-white we see this situation.

Bullshit. As Thirdfain correctly pointed out. You cannot hold this view, and simultaneously condemn actions like the Nazi holocaust, not and maintain a logically consistent position. Now I imagine that you do, in fact, condemn the Nazi holocaust. So what you end up doing are making lots of ad hoc exceptions to this rule for each case where you do, in fact, pass unfavorable judgements on other peoples' practices. "Well, we can't condemn this culture for doing these things, but we can condemn the Nazi's for what they did because [insert tortured rationalization for breaking one's own rule]..."

The impetus for change must come from within. Not just to keep a morally clean slate for us, but also to keep us from being a target. That is why the terrorists hate us; you guys know that, right? They see us as being agressive towards their establishment, their way of life. And they are right.

The implication being that they are therefore justified in carrying out terrorist attacks against us. Well, sorry, but that doesn't justify it. I like what University of Wisconsin professor Steve Dutch said about this very issue:

Quite a few commentators have noted that the attacks of September 11 were the result of U.S. policies. No kidding, Sherlock. Figured that out all by yourself, did you? Thank you for that elaboration of the trivially obvious.

Of course the attacks of September 11 were the result of U.S. policies. The Civil War was the result of U.S. policies - we refused to let states secede from the Union. Pearl Harbor was the result of U.S. policies - we refused to sell materiel to the Japanese to support their war in China. World War II was the result of U.S. policies - we refused to let Hitler dominate Europe. And the attacks of September 11 were the result of U.S. policies - we refuse to abandon Israel and stop creating change in the world. The fallacy in this argument is the implication that because something is the result of U.S. policies, we are wrong for having those policies.

Closely related is the comment that the attacks happened "for a reason." Duh. Rape happens for a reason. Child abuse happens for a reason. Genocide happens for a reason. Merely having a reason doesn't make the reason valid.

They executed a fucking 16 year old girl because she had a "sharp tongue". Give me a gun and that judge, I'd pull the fucking trigger myself. The Iranian government and judicial system is inferior to the West, and it *is* barbaric.

See?

See what? What's your point? That we would be wrong to condemn this sort of thing? Or to try and put a stop to this sort of thing? You'll never convince me of that.

Imperialism today is often seen as a great evil, and in many ways it was. But its effects were not universally bad, as some people today would like to think. I remember reading a story about the first time a British officer in India encountered a scene of suttee, and expressed his shock and horror at the sight. His Indian guide told him that it was the custom hereabouts to burn a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her dead husband. The British officer replied that where he came from it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing. It was thanks to the British that the practice of suttee was ended (though I hear it still may go on in more remote parts of India). British imperialism was also responsible for stamping out the murderous Thuggee cult. And for at least initiating changes in a heavily caste based society where those on the lowest rung of the social ladder were treated worse than animals. India has a lot of wonderful and admirable things in its history and culture, but suttee, the thuggee cult, and caste based discrimination were not among them. I am not apologizing for imperialism - it did a lot of harm as well. But the point is, had people not been willing to make value judgements, and condemn and stamp out certain practices, still living Indian women would still be immolated on their dead husbands' funeral pyres, people would still be getting throttled by murderous cult members, and Untouchables would still be treated worse than the cows that roam through streets in some Indian towns and villages.

[LadyTevar]

On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.

The sentence was issued by the head of Neka’s Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs’ Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.

In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.

The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”.

Source

He executed her because she talked back to him?!?

[MKSheppard]

if u refer to people who bring up the USA's unpleasent past, that sounds rather contrary to this whole freedom of speech thing

I refer to idiots such as Bugsby, who hold such utter bullshit as:

"I have always been a big fan of the viewpoint that truth is in the eye of the beholder." and go on to talk about how we have no right to judge
other cultures.

It's like a bad episode of Star Trek.

[DPDarkPrimus]

He executed her because she talked back to him?!?

Well, there is a verse in the OT (and so I am assuming, in the Qu'ran) that those who do not respect a judge shall be put to death.

[Rogue 9]

On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.

The sentence was issued by the head of Neka’s Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs’ Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.

In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.

The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”.

Source

He executed her because she talked back to him?!?

Yeah, that's about the size of it.

DPDP: Not that it makes it all that much better, but the Judges of the OT were the rulers of the tribes of Israel, not judges as we know the term today.

[AniThyng]

some people seem to want to commit nuclear genocide on the whole muslim world - so what's all this about "morality" again?

[DPDarkPrimus]

DPDP: Not that it makes it all that much better, but the Judges of the OT were the rulers of the tribes of Israel, not judges as we know the term today.

Apologetics vs literalism. We are talking about fundamentalists, remember?

[Bugsby]

I am aware that I have made a lot of people angry at me here with my line of inquiry. I have even been called an "idiot" who should be "tied to the first device we drop over Tehran." Personal attacks mean nothing to me, so I will address those who attacked my argument, not me, namely Thirdfain and Perinquus.

A basic disconnect that I am having with a lot of the people on this thread is the concept of moral relativism. I am a supporter of cultural relativism in at least the most abstract sense. But I do hold absolutist beliefs myself. I DO agree that Iran has a bad system. I don't like it. I think its a horrible system that debases the value of human life. Got that? I DON'T like the Iranian system. However, I would like to stress that it is a currently functioning system and deserves to be considered like one. We don't like it, but there are people who do. We need to consider that in our policy actions.

The main support for the US system over the Iranian system comes from a utilitarian standpoint. The idea of "most good for the most people" has been thrown around. I dislike utilitariansim: I believe it has some flawed tenents if you look at it close enough. However, I will allow utilitarianism to be applied in this case. To that end, I concede that the American system is superior to the Iranian system. The Iranian system causes more pain and suffering than the American system. What I resent is that because (from a utilitarian standpoint) the Iranian system is worse, there is an immediate assumption that the system lacks value to anyone but horrid dictators who would exploit that system to their own evil ends. This is not true.

Say we establish that Iran is worse then America. My problem comes in the "then what?" It has become America's rallying call to attack any system that we see as inferior to our own. We do this to spread civil liberties and human rights. It is yet to be seen how effective this is. In a culture where men are raised to KNOW that they are superior to women, it is impossible to grant women full, effective civil rights, no matter how many bombs we drop. We can pound that Iranians into dust, but the men will still know that they are superior to women because that has been ingrained in them the same way "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" has been burned into Americans.

We can easily recognize that the Iranians have a seperate ideology than ours. What most people don't realize is that the system they work under is not just a legal structure, not even just a social structure, but a LIFE-STRUCTURE. It is true the the Iranians treat women poorly. I assure you, that after America has waged a long, intensive war against the Iranian people, they will still treat women poorly. This is a job for education and internal revelation among the Iranians. Not a job for forced American ideology, with the bomb at our backs. And at the end of this war I haer advocated, not only will we have failed to do anything beyond a superficial change of the governmental structure, we will have provided more fuel to the fire of hatred for attacking a life-structure that is different from our own.

The Iranians are terrible to their own people, but we must consider the whole picture before we go to war against the system. We must understand the cultural differences if we are ever able to surmount them and establish democracy across the world. We need to know why these religious systems still flourish today. "They are backwater hellholes" is not a good enough answer. Once we fully understand this system, fully understand how so many people can have their lives totally integrated into the system, only then can we push for a move towards change. Not only will we be able to do it from a moral standpoint, we will be able to do it more effectively and minimize the inevitable backlash.

Lastly, remember I started this whole line of inquiry just to play Devil's Advocate. Right after the OP, there was an immediate response that the Iranians must be destroyed at all costs. I just want my posting to make you THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS. If, after having read my bit, you still think that immediate total war, not holding back nukes, is the right answer, then you are entitled to think so, just as I am entitled to disagree. But if you believe that Iran is a problem, yet one that must be dealt with in a judicious and careful manner, then my posting will have achieved its desired effect.

[Rogue 9]

DPDP: Not that it makes it all that much better, but the Judges of the OT were the rulers of the tribes of Israel, not judges as we know the term today.

Apologetics vs literalism. We are talking about fundamentalists, remember?

Bleh. Point.

[Perinquus]

Say we establish that Iran is worse then America. My problem comes in the "then what?" It has become America's rallying call to attack any system that we see as inferior to our own. We do this to spread civil liberties and human rights. It is yet to be seen how effective this is. In a culture where men are raised to KNOW that they are superior to women, it is impossible to grant women full, effective civil rights, no matter how many bombs we drop.

And in Nazi Germany, good Aryan children were raised to KNOW that they were superior to Jews. But we did, in fact, drop enough bombs to make effective and lasting changes there.

We can pound that Iranians into dust, but the men will still know that they are superior to women because that has been ingrained in them the same way "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" has been burned into Americans.

And anti-semitism still exists in Europe. There are, however, no death camps still operating. Are you know going to argue that we shouldn't have stopped the Nazis from exterminating Jews because violence just won't change their minds?

We can easily recognize that the Iranians have a seperate ideology than ours. What most people don't realize is that the system they work under is not just a legal structure, not even just a social structure, but a LIFE-STRUCTURE.

All of the above could also be said of Germany and its Nazi ideology, or the U.S.S.R. and its communist ideology (which actually oversaw greater genocides than that of the Nazis).

It is true the the Iranians treat women poorly.

And the Nazis treated Jews poorly.

I assure you, that after America has waged a long, intensive war against the Iranian people, they will still treat women poorly.

Uh oh. The Germans are not, in fact, still exterminating Jews, so it begins to look like you actually can effect change by force sometimes.

This is a job for education and internal revelation among the Iranians. Not a job for forced American ideology, with the bomb at our backs.

We forced the Nazis in this way.

And at the end of this war I haer advocated, not only will we have failed to do anything beyond a superficial change of the governmental structure, we will have provided more fuel to the fire of hatred for attacking a life-structure that is different from our own.

Yet terrorist attacks on America by resentful Germans are strangely lacking.

The Iranians are terrible to their own people, but we must consider the whole picture before we go to war against the system. We must understand the cultural differences if we are ever able to surmount them and establish democracy across the world. We need to know why these religious systems still flourish today. "They are backwater hellholes" is not a good enough answer.

Yes it is. They have a system that squanders a huge percentage of their human capital, and is directly responsible for them remaining shitty, backward, third world-hellholes.

Once we fully understand this system, fully understand how so many people can have their lives totally integrated into the system, only then can we push for a move towards change. Not only will we be able to do it from a moral standpoint, we will be able to do it more effectively and minimize the inevitable backlash.

The British didn't take this approach in India, and yet they did stamp out the practice of suttee, and the thuggee cult, and did mitigate the plight of the untouchables.

Lastly, remember I started this whole line of inquiry just to play Devil's Advocate. Right after the OP, there was an immediate response that the Iranians must be destroyed at all costs. I just want my posting to make you THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.

I am not really in favor of invading Iran at this point either. I think we would do better to have the CIA covertly fund the opposition forces in Iran and try to effect change from within. I merely point out that your arguments are not nearly as solid as you seem to think. Every thing you said about Iran could also be applied to Nazi Germany, and yet we were able to effect change by waging war, and then occupying the country with a military government.

[sketerpot]

A basic disconnect that I am having with a lot of the people on this thread is the concept of moral relativism. I am a supporter of cultural relativism in at least the most abstract sense. But I do hold absolutist beliefs myself. I DO agree that Iran has a bad system. I don't like it. I think its a horrible system that debases the value of human life. Got that? I DON'T like the Iranian system. However, I would like to stress that it is a currently functioning system and deserves to be considered like one. We don't like it, but there are people who do. We need to consider that in our policy actions.

As the noose tightened around my neck, I smiled through the pain. "What a great system," I thought, and meant it. I mean, isn't this what it's all about? Painfully killing uppity teenage girls? This system is functioning!

My moral standards may not be universal, but I don't care. I think that we ought to try to improve inhumane systems like this. That doesn't mean bombing them or invading. That means trying to improve their standard of living, getting more economic influence, and hoping that they gradually foresake their theocratic past in favor of education and McDonald's. Current news from Iran seems hopeful, with reports of the younger generation becoming increasingly friendly to western culture and disenchanted with the theocracy.

Say we establish that Iran is worse then America. My problem comes in the "then what?" It has become America's rallying call to attack any system that we see as inferior to our own. We do this to spread civil liberties and human rights. It is yet to be seen how effective this is. In a culture where men are raised to KNOW that they are superior to women, it is impossible to grant women full, effective civil rights, no matter how many bombs we drop. We can pound that Iranians into dust, but the men will still know that they are superior to women because that has been ingrained in them the same way "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" has been burned into Americans.

Does it have to be all or nothing? Partial civil rights that nobody pays attention to are better than none at all.

[Bugsby]

And in Nazi Germany, good Aryan children were raised to KNOW that they were superior to Jews. But we did, in fact, drop enough bombs to make effective and lasting changes there.

Not so. Anti-semitism was popular in Europe, but it was ahrdly a permanent part of the culture. Were Germans raised from the cradle to KNOW that a Jew was inferior (not just a little contemptible, outright inferior), and lived long enough in that mentality to act on that world-view? No.

And anti-semitism still exists in Europe. There are, however, no death camps still operating. Are you know going to argue that we shouldn't have stopped the Nazis from exterminating Jews because violence just won't change their minds?

See above.

All of the above could also be said of Germany and its Nazi ideology, or the U.S.S.R. and its communist ideology (which actually oversaw greater genocides than that of the Nazis).

See above again. The same can be said of the communists. By the time the first generation had grown up, the people had become so disillusioned with the system that no one really supported the commies.

And the Nazis treated Jews poorly.

See above.

Uh oh. The Germans are not, in fact, still exterminating Jews, so it begins to look like you actually can effect change by force sometimes.

See above. And also, the Germans do not have a standing tradition of terrorism. If the Iranians were invading Czechoslovakia(sp?) now, we might have a parallel.

We forced the Nazis in this way.

See above.

Yet terrorist attacks on America by resentful Germans are strangely lacking.

See above. Can you think of a better example than Nazi Germany? I know something of German culture and something of Iranian culture. Not much of either, mind you, but enough to know that they are different enough to make comparisons inadeuqate.

Yes it is. They have a system that squanders a huge percentage of their human capital, and is directly responsible for them remaining shitty, backward, third world-hellholes.

Mixing cause and effect here. These are hellholes because of the system. I was saying the system is not the cause of the hellholes. Unless you are suggesting that this is a continuous downward spiral. If you are, say so, and I will refute that.

The British didn't take this approach in India, and yet they did stamp out the practice of suttee, and the thuggee cult, and did mitigate the plight of the untouchables.

The untouchables are still in existance. The caste system is still an essentail part of everyday life, even if it is not as pronounced as it was beforehand. Also, you forget the problems that colonialism brought about. Not just at the time, but afterwards. The fight between India and Pakistan can be traced back to British colonailism. So if you want to prove that colonialism is the most good for the most people, you are not convincing me.

I am not really in favor of invading Iran at this point either. I think we would do better to have the CIA covertly fund the opposition forces in Iran and try to effect change from within. I merely point out that your arguments are not nearly as solid as you seem to think. Every thing you said about Iran could also be applied to Nazi Germany, and yet we were able to effect change by waging war, and then occupying the country with a military government.

Im not for waging war either. But as I said above, Nazi Germany is not a good enough parallel with Iran. Germany had a bad policy that led to countless human rights violations. So does Iran. There the similarities stop. Germany is Christian, Iranians are Muslim. Germany was run by demagogues, Iran is run by religious leaders. There are a number of other differences, but these two are the most important. You cannot say that these differences are insubstantial enough that the same solution that worked for Nazi Germany would work for Iran.

I am unconvinced.