UN draft on nuclear Iran tabled

[Kagemusha]

It seems that our Western Nations have finally gathered themselves enough to propose sanctions against Iran in UN.Even if Russia and China will torpedo the proposal im glad that even something is happening.Here is a short article about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4970904.stm

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think Iran will end up with nukes no matter what.

But I'd be happy if all this ends with something of a unified western voice again for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. No more of all that irresponsible bickering amongst first world democracies. The 'end of history' has not been achieved, the world is not automatically moving towards western style freedom and peacefulness. It is full of wickedness.

[Reenk Roink]

The 'end of history' has not been achieved, the world is not automatically moving towards western style freedom and peacefulness. It is full of wickedness.

Wow.

Good thing you're not in charge...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Really? I had almost the opposite thought...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hmm, maybe I wasn't clear. It should read freedom as oppossed to wickedness.

Let's try it like this:
'the world is not automatically moving towards western style freedom and peacefulness. On the contrary, it can be an evil place. Full of wickedness. Against which the democracies of this world should be united.'

[Kagemusha]

I think Iran will end up with nukes no matter what.

But I'd be happy if all this ends with something of a unified western voice again for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. No more of all that irresponsible bickering amongst first world democracies. The 'end of history' has not been achieved, the world is not automatically moving towards western style freedom and peacefulness. It is full of wickedness.

I agree.While this doesnt most propably mean anything on the whole process maybe it brings the Western Nations closer to each other.

[Reenk Roink]

Hmm, maybe I wasn't clear. It should read freedom as oppossed to wickedness.

Let's try it like this:
'the world is not automatically moving towards western style freedom and peacefulness. On the contrary, it can be an evil place. Full of wickedness. Against which the democracies of this world should be united.'

We breathe easier, but not by much...

Of course the world will not move towards "western style freedom and peacefulness" by itself. (Off topic, but "peaceful" is ironic because the current western dominance which has allowed for relative peace within its borders is a result of simply being more belligerent than the rest of the world for the past 400 years) One gets the sense that the rest of the world doesn't want the "western style" attached.

Also, it is striking that something not up to the standards of "western style" is considered "evil".

Perhaps the rest of the world is tainted (full?) with wickedness, yes; but the western democracies need only a superficial introspection to find the heart of it...

[Divinus Arma]

To be fair, Reenk Roink, let's take a look at anything but Western Styles.

Communism is brutally oppressive. Religious theocracies are repressive towards individual liberty and women's rights. And of course there is simply despotism.

What model do you suggest might be equivalent in ushering a society towards security, stability, and prosperity?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Off topic, but "peaceful" is ironic because the current western dominance which has allowed for relative peace within its borders is a result of simply being more belligerent than the rest of the world for the past 400 years)

Nah, the west has not been more belligerent than the rest, it has just waged war better.
Also, our internal peace and wealth has not been achieved at the expense of others. It has been achieved by a long, slow ascendency into democracy and the rule of law.

Also, it is striking that something not up to the standards of "western style" is considered "evil".

That's stretching it a bit, but at heart, I'm afraid that is my view, yes. I have never been a fan of cultural relativism. I hold the universal declaration of human rights for universal indeed. That is my western style freedom. 'Western' to include countries like Japan in this respect.

Countries like Sudan, Iraq, Burma and North Korea suck not because of some evil western imperialist plot. They suffer not from too much western influence, but from too little.

Say what, let the west open it's borders and offer a free plane ticket, then let's see how the people from these countries vote between theirs and ours.

[Joker85]

Nah, the west has not been more belligerent than the rest, it has just waged war better.
Also, our internal peace and wealth has not been achieved at the expense of others. It has been achieved by a long, slow ascendency into democracy and the rule of law.

That's stretching it a bit, but at heart, I'm afraid that is my view, yes. I have never been a fan of cultural relativism. I hold the universal declaration of human rights for universal indeed. That is my western style freedom. 'Western' to include countries like Japan in this respect.

Countries like Sudan, Iraq, Burma and North Korea suck not because of some evil western imperialist plot. They suffer not from too much western influence, but from too little.

Say what, let the west open it's borders and offer a free plane ticket, then let's see how the people from these countries vote between theirs and ours.

Nicely put.

[Reenk Roink]

To be fair, Reenk Roink, let's take a look at anything but Western Styles.

Communism is brutally oppressive. Religious theocracies are repressive towards individual liberty and women's rights. And of course there is simply despotism.

What model do you suggest might be equivalent in ushering a society towards security, stability, and prosperity?

Well, Divinus Arma, my post was not actually a critique of democracy or an endorsement of another system, but rather raising an eyebrow at some disturbing rhetoric. Also, I wished to point out that the Western world has frequently been hypocritical to its own ideals in its foreign dealings. I did not wish to get into a discussion of comparative government, but since it has been brought up, let me give my views.

Essentially, think about why much of the world does not look highly upon our ideals. While we call other types of governments "oppressive" ours in return is called "immoral" and "decadent" blah blah blah...

In the Arab and Islamic world, I'm sure most people want to be governed by the rules of their religion. Look at Iraq, which immediately stated that Islam would be the law of the land in its new constitution. Most Iraqi's, men and women, supported this. Do they want to be "repressed" or do they find that their set of laws are the best fit for them? We should indeed ask them: Sharia or Secularism? and see what we get for an answer. I am quite confident that it will be the former. Infact, it is the very presence of secular dictatorships in the Arab/Muslim world (Assad in Syria, Mubarak in Egypt, Abdullah in Jordan, Musharaf in Pakistan, and formerly Saddam in Iraq) which give rise to the reactionary extremism that we see today. And all Muslim nations are different. Turkey is a country whose people have adapted secularism, but people in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, have not. They prefer their own laws and customs over ours. I see hysterical rants about immigrants spreading Sharia into Europe (perhaps an insignificantly small fringe want this), but what is being said here?

There was a very interesting documentary on a small Southeast Asian nation (I cannot recall the exact name) that was essentially untouched by globalization (aka Westernization or Americanization). It was ruled by a king, but the real power lay with the Buddhist Monks (I am hesitant to label this a 'theocracy' as Eastern religion is intrinsically different from the three Middle Eastern religions). And then...cable TV invaded. Soon the children began to skip their meditation, and give up the way of the Buddha for WWF (is it WWE now?). The Buddhist Monks fiercely opposed this "corrupting influence" and many ban decree's were issued, but people still snuck in the feed... No wonder why many in that documentary seemed so hostile to us.

Nah, the west has not been more belligerent than the rest, it has just waged war better.
Also, our internal peace and wealth has not been achieved at the expense of others. It has been achieved by a long, slow ascendancy into democracy and the rule of law.

I beg to differ. Were the African nations going and colonizing Europe. No. Were the Native Americans? No. Were the Asians? No.

The Ottoman Empire and Japan, are the only non-European powers which were actively imperialist in the past 4 centuries, with the Ottoman's pushing into Europe, where their traditional enemies lay instead of to neutral places like Africa or America, and Japan starting extremely late, after interference from America and then Russia gave them the idea.

That's stretching it a bit, but at heart, I'm afraid that is my view, yes. I have never been a fan of cultural relativism. I hold the universal declaration of human rights for universal indeed. That is my western style freedom. 'Western' to include countries like Japan in this respect.

Countries like Sudan, Iraq, Burma and North Korea suck not because of some evil western imperialist plot. They suffer not from too much western influence, but from too little.

I have never been a fan of cultural superiority...

Ah yes, the good old Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a product of Western Secular thought. Good for us? Yes, mostly. For others? Ermm...No.

I suppose many would question why this declaration is Universal at all? Did God say so? Looking at all major religions…apparently not. Why should it be held higher than God's laws? Infact, why should it be held higher than the tribal leader's laws? Why should it be held higher than time honored customs?

So man made it Universal? Well, what man gives, he can also take away? Apparently so; the Western world hasn't had too shown much resolve in following this declaration...

Say what, let the west open it's borders and offer a free plane ticket, then let's see how the people from these countries vote between theirs and ours.

Well, here in my area, (teh 'burbs of Detroit) we have a pretty large immigrant population. They all seem to stay to themselves, though they are friendly to us. I think they all came over for economic benefits, rather than to run away from their societies and join our "enlightened" one. I see that they dress pretty traditionally, don't care much of politics, and follow their own customs and traditions, which they brought from back home.

Yep, they like it here, because it is prosperous. But I sure don't think that they think that Western Culture is better than their own...

[Joker85]

Well, Divinus Arma, my post was not actually a critique of democracy or an endorsement of another system, but rather raising an eyebrow at some disturbing rhetoric. Also, I wished to point out that the Western world has frequently been hypocritical to its own ideals in its foreign dealings. I did not wish to get into a discussion of comparative government, but since it has been brought up, let me give my views.

Essentially, think about why much of the world does not look highly upon our ideals. While we call other types of governments "oppressive" ours in return is called "immoral" and "decadent" blah blah blah...

In the Arab and Islamic world, I'm sure most people want to be governed by the rules of their religion. Look at Iraq, which immediately stated that Islam would be the law of the land in its new constitution. Most Iraqi's, men and women, supported this. Do they want to be "repressed" or do they find that their set of laws are the best fit for them? We should indeed ask them: Sharia or Secularism? and see what we get for an answer. I am quite confident that it will be the former. Infact, it is the very presence of secular dictatorships in the Arab/Muslim world (Assad in Syria, Mubarak in Egypt, Abdullah in Jordan, Musharaf in Pakistan, and formerly Saddam in Iraq) which give rise to the reactionary extremism that we see today. And all Muslim nations are different. Turkey is a country whose people have adapted secularism, but people in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, have not. They prefer their own laws and customs over ours. I see hysterical rants about immigrants spreading Sharia into Europe (perhaps an insignificantly small fringe want this), but what is being said here?

There was a very interesting documentary on a small Southeast Asian nation (I cannot recall the exact name) that was essentially untouched by globalization (aka Westernization or Americanization). It was ruled by a king, but the real power lay with the Buddhist Monks (I am hesitant to label this a 'theocracy' as Eastern religion is intrinsically different from the three Middle Eastern religions). And then...cable TV invaded. Soon the children began to skip their meditation, and give up the way of the Buddha for WWF (is it WWE now?). The Buddhist Monks fiercely opposed this "corrupting influence" and many ban decree's were issued, but people still snuck in the feed... No wonder why many in that documentary seemed so hostile to us.



I beg to differ. Were the African nations going and colonizing Europe. No. Were the Native Americans? No. Were the Asians? No.

The Ottoman Empire and Japan, are the only non-European powers which were actively imperialist in the past 4 centuries, with the Ottoman's pushing into Europe, where their traditional enemies lay instead of to neutral places like Africa or America, and Japan starting extremely late, after interference from America and then Russia gave them the idea.



I have never been a fan of cultural superiority...

Ah yes, the good old Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a product of Western Secular thought. Good for us? Yes, mostly. For others? Ermm...No.

I suppose many would question why this declaration is Universal at all? Did God say so? Looking at all major religions…apparently not. Why should it be held higher than God's laws? Infact, why should it be held higher than the tribal leader's laws? Why should it be held higher than time honored customs?

So man made it Universal? Well, what man gives, he can also take away? Apparently so; the Western world hasn't had too shown much resolve in following this declaration...

By your logic, had the south won the civil war it would be fine for them to continue slavery to this date. They would have a majority "vote" to keep it.

After all, there is no right and wrong, everything is relative, no culture is superior. So hey, if tommorow your fellow countrymen decide to adopt a law stating you are now a slave and have no rights, that's just them exercising their rights. Who are "we" to dictate our morals upon them? Everything is right to someone!

You are certaintly entitled to that opinion, I disagree however. I believe there are indeed morals and ethics in the world. I believe there is right and wrong. I believe people have certain God given rights, and that noone (including a "majority" of their fellow countrymen/relgion) has a right to take those away from them.

I do not that believe tommorow the United States has the right to hold a vote that if passed, would declare all Blacks slaves again. And if such a thing did happen, I would pray to God that the EU, or anyone with the power would come "impose their views" on us and make it clear "sorry, you can't buy, sell, and own human beings, just because the majority of your country wants to".

[Reenk Roink]

By your logic, had the south won the civil war it would be fine for them to continue slavery to this date. They would have a majority "vote" to keep it.

After all, there is no right and wrong, everything is relative, no culture is superior. So hey, if tommorow your fellow countrymen decide to adopt a law stating you are now a slave and have no rights, that's just them exercising their rights. Who are "we" to dictate our morals upon them? Everything is right to someone!

You are certaintly entitled to that opinion, I disagree however. I believe there are indeed morals and ethics in the world. I believe there is right and wrong. I believe people have certain God given rights, and that noone (including a "majority" of their fellow countrymen/relgion) has a right to take those away from them.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe tommorow the United States has the right to hold a vote that if passed, would declare all Blacks slaves again. And if such a thing did happen, I would pray to God that the EU, or anyone with the power would come "impose their views" on us and make it clear "sorry, you can't buy, sell, and own human beings, just because the majority of your country wants to".

Sorry, I do have ethics...(recall: it is bad to kill civilians in war/"collateral damage" condones the massacre of civilians)

They simply do not coincide with your paradigm...

You miss the ball completely with your misplaced slavery analogy. My view is that we should not dictate our point of view on other cultures. The same holds true for others.

If someone said, "go to a Mosque", I would politely refuse. I would not say to him, "go to a Church" though...

If I went to Singapore (I plan to soon) I will not go and say "never execute a man for possesion of drugs, you backwards, evil people". I have qualms with it, but hey, they have basically no crime.

Also, this "God given right" stuff, where was it through the first 1776 years of Christianity? Where does the Christian God forbid slavery (I presume you are Christian)? He doesn't.

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to elaborate further on the source of your ethics...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Reenk - say you are in charge of a country. A nearby nation, perhaps bordering your own, is enmeshed in the slave trade, buying and selling - but not into or out of your own country.

Is it fine to just let that continue? Or would you try to intervene?

[Tribesman]

Reenk - say you are in charge of a country. A nearby nation, perhaps bordering your own, is enmeshed in the slave trade, buying and selling - but not into or out of your own country.

Is it fine to just let that continue? Or would you try to intervene?

Well generally you would say , sell us your natural resources at a good rate , and perhaps lease us a few military facilities and while we make a little bit of noise about your practices which we may deem distasteful we won't actually do anything .....OK .

Back to topic , does anyone think China will pass this ?

[Joker85]

If someone said, "go to a Mosque", I would politely refuse. I would not say to him, "go to a Church" though...

Your analogy is actually the one that is flawed here. It would be more similar to hearing that on the other side of town, there is a minister who is forcing people to go to his church under pain of death. If you had the power to stop him and declare that those people had a choice of whether they wanted to go to his church or not, it would be morally right for you to impose that view on him.

Here, let me ask you a specific question to guage your position. As the reaction of many women in Afghanistan showed, many were extremely happy to not be forced under pain of imprisonment, beating, or worse to wear a burka. Do you believe the west has a right to "impose" our belief that forcing women to wear a burka against their will is wrong and not to be tolerated? Or do you believe that if a majority of Afghan men decide that that is the way it should be, then "who are we to tell them differently?".

If you believe we have the right to stop them from forcing women to do that, then you're simply drawing your own line as to what is and what is not acceptable, and in a way doing what you accuse the west of. Only instead of the generic "west's" ideas it is your tailored, specific ones.

If you believe we do not have the right to stop that, then we would be at the core of our disagreement and in all probabilty will never come around to the other side.

In fact, I believe I have found a hole in your argument. Earlier you stated it is their "right" to adopt sharia or anything else they want. Your theory is that the majority of them want it, therefore it does not matter that those people effected by it who do not want it will have their rights violated.

But, the majority of the west also believe that there are universal rights and that when those are violated it is acceptable to "impose" those values to end the denial of those rights. So if there is no right and wrong, who are you to tell the west what is right or wrong? Why are you imposing your views on the US, EU, Japan etc? If there are no universal rights or morals, then if the west decides to, we can "dictate" our values on anyone we please. If anyone tells us not to because they don't agree with it, then they are dictating their values that it's wrong on us!

Ah... the joys of moral relativism.

[Reenk Roink]

Reenk - say you are in charge of a country. A nearby nation, perhaps bordering your own, is enmeshed in the slave trade, buying and selling - but not into or out of your own country.

Is it fine to just let that continue? Or would you try to intervene?

I would certainly be sure to research the situation thoroughly, see what the slave trade was about.

I would certainly inquire into the economic, social, and philosophical reasons behind the slave trade.

The most important question I would ask is: Was it established due to need? (which it is)

After this, I would try to exchange in intelligent discussion with the other country.

Knowing full well that the practice of slavery is not cultural (despite the attempts by others to make it seem that it is an attempt to undermine my philosophy ), I would then go on to show the proprietors of the slave trade that my agricultural technology is more efficient than any slave system out there. Therefore, I would be 100% certain that they will take the technology (for free) and get rid of the slave trade, as it is an economic, and not cultural issue. That is good. Slavery is bad in my paradigm, and in today's world, there is no need for it (whereas excuses based on necessity could be made for the earlier phases of human history).

Now, after answering that far-fetched and quite silly question, I ask you, Alexander the Pretty Good, on what you would do in the quite relevant situation that you were the leader of a country, and your neighbor made its women cover their heads with a scarf, or forbade television to its populace?

[Joker85]

I would certainly be sure to research the situation thoroughly, see what the slave trade was about.

I would certainly inquire into the economic, social, and philosophical reasons behind the slave trade.

The most important question I would ask is: Was it established due to need? (which it is)

After this, I would try to exchange in intelligent discussion with the other country.

And if they told you F off we're keeping it anyway we don't care about your agricultural technologies? Then what?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Reenk - about the slavery, could it be considered cultural if the slaves that are used are of a particular ethnic or religious persuasion, targeted specifically by another particular ethnic or religious group?

Now, after answering that far-fetched and quite silly question, I ask you, Alexander the Pretty Good, on what you would do in the quite relevant situation that you were the leader of a country, and your neighbor made its women cover their heads with a scarf, or forbade television to its populace?

By itself, the headscarves issue is mostly (though not entirely) harmless. If consequences for disobeying such a law were, for example, stoning, I would attenpt to apply diplomatic and economic pressure on the nation to end the practice.

As to television, I would question why such medium is banned. If the ban was instituted via despotism and democratically, then there are probably worse abuses going on then mere television. If the only repressive action the nation was committing was banning television, which is fairly unlikely, then I would probably take no action.

[Reenk Roink]

First, try to respond to all my points instead of a pick and choose approach.

Second, remember this maxim: "What is good in one place is not always good in another" -Chiuna Achebe, Things Fall Apart

Your analogy is actually the one that is flawed here. It would be more similar to hearing that on the other side of town, there is a minister who is forcing people to go to his church under pain of death. If you had the power to stop him and declare that those people had a choice of whether they wanted to go to his church or not, it would be morally right for you to impose that view on him.

??? I do not understand the meaning of this...

Here, let me ask you a specific question to guage your position. As the reaction of many women in Afghanistan showed, many were extremely happy to not be forced under pain of imprisonment, beating, or worse to wear a burka. Do you believe the west has a right to "impose" our belief that forcing women to wear a burka against their will is wrong and not to be tolerated? Or do you believe that if a majority of Afghan men decide that that is the way it should be, then "who are we to tell them differently?".

Sorry, I'm afraid that most Afghani women cover their heads still, and the majority of them believe that all Muslim women should. I'm pretty sure they do not believe in the excessive punishments of the Taliban which they say are not sanctioned by Islam.

If this is what they want for their society, tell me why they should not have it? I'm pretty sure they don't make non-Afghan women cover (though most do for respect) or Christians in the area cover. They should have a right to enact their own laws, suited to their culture. Just like France has the right to ban the headscarf in public places. If Muslim women don't like it, they should either engage in dialogue to try and change this or leave. Calling the other "evil" is not going to help.

These Afghan's (men and women) just like the Iraqi's (men and women) WANT Islam to be the law of the land. It is their culture, their tradition, and their religion.

I return this question to you:

A majority of people voted to outlaw gay marriage in my state. Do you believe that Michigan law has the right to do this? After all, the taboo homosexuality, although waning, is still strong, especially in conservative areas.

If you believe we have the right to stop them from forcing women to do that, then you're simply drawing your own line as to what is and what is not acceptable, and in a way doing what you accuse the west of. Only instead of the generic "west's" ideas it is your tailored, specific ones.

If you believe we do not have the right to stop that, then we would be at the core of our disagreement and in all probabilty will never come around to the other side.

I don't believe that we have the right to stop them from enacting headscarf laws. I also don't believe that they have the right to enact the headscarf laws here. If the Afghan people change and decide for themselves, that is different. Calling them "evil" or "backward" isn't going to help. We do have considerably different paradigms, which is why, after this post, I will be reluctant to spend time posting more, as we cannot see eye-to-eye.

In fact, I believe I have found a hole in your argument. Earlier you stated it is their "right" to adopt sharia or anything else they want. Your theory is that the majority of them want it, therefore it does not matter that those people effected by it who do not want it will have their rights violated.

But, the majority of the west also believe that there are universal rights and that when those are violated it is acceptable to "impose" those values to end the denial of those rights. So if there is no right and wrong, who are you to tell the west what is right or wrong? Why are you imposing your views on the US, EU, Japan etc? If there are no universal rights or morals, then if the west decides to, we can "dictate" our values on anyone we please. If anyone tells us not to because they don't agree with it, then they are dictating their values that it's wrong on us!

This isn't really a hole. If someone believes (you say the majority of the west) that they have the right to impose their values on others, so be it. Expect resistance though... Oh wait, it is already happening.

Ah... the joys of moral relativism.

Once again, I believe in ethics. I also believe in respecting the beliefs of others. A major majority of the humanity does not believe in murder, and no society as a whole does, but humans differ on smaller issues as discussed above. With big issues most humans are in agreement; with smaller ones we have diverse opinions.

[Devastatin Dave]

Back to the subject... Oh my, the UN has drafted something. I bet Iran is just shuddering with fear. I have this strong feeling, maybe I'm way off here, but hear me out, I have this strong feeling that this "draft" has about as much use as a used tampon to close a leak in one of New Oleans levies.

[discovery1]

I am underwelmed. Will this do anything?

Is there a chance that it will pass?

One morals: might makes right and the true measure of an ethical code is how well it helps the society that holds it survive. Uhh, yeah.

[Devastatin Dave]

I am underwelmed. Will this do anything?

Is there a chance that it will pass?

Exactly, does it really matter?

[Kagemusha]

Back to the subject... Oh my, the UN has drafted something. I bet Iran is just shuddering with fear. I have this strong feeling, maybe I'm way off here, but hear me out, I have this strong feeling that this "draft" has about as much use as a used tampon to close a leak in one of New Oleans levies.

Dev Dave.UN hasnt drafted anything.Its US and EU that have drafted the proposal which will be more likely shot down by the Russians and China.

[spmetla]

Before a Chapter Seven resolution is passed, the council has to agree that there is a threat to "international peace and security".

I don't know much about the UN or international law but this part of the news article seems like a no brainer for a decision. Iran has made threats against Israel and the US and has vowed to wipe Israel of the face of the earth. Now granted these are just statement and not physical evidence but isn't a verbal threat to use military force considered a threat to "international peace and security"? Especially with Iran's threat to quit it's commitment to the Non Proliferation Treaty.

A chapter 7 resolution is apparently only the first page in the politically throes needed to impose sanctions or military action but it doesn't instantly give the go ahead to do those things.

As for the usefulness it at least shows the world that the west is willingly to solve things throught the proper channels and will hopefully lessen a bit of the hate against the US for the way it went to war with Iraq.

Russia and China also opposed the the Chapter 7 resolution imposed upon Syria last year but in the end voted for the resolution. I just hope that this time they are also just trying to play for favorable treaties and such from the west instead of being fully commited against the resolution on Iran.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, remained defiant, saying no Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear program

This statement reported by http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...-nuclear_x.htm is worrying though. Although I think the current situation will inevitably lead to military action against Iran I really hope that my prediction is wrong.

The Chinese and Iranians both seem to prefer the IAEA taking charge on this issue, is there anyway this organization is able to force Iran to comply with international law or would it just end up having to agree to take the issue to the UN Security Council?

And as for the off topic discussion in here, no one has said anything about forcing a regime change to a western style democracy in Iran. This is about preventing Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, I don't believe that they are culturally inclined to get nuclear weapons or anything like that. Especially when their goverment has signed treaties and joined organizations against nuclear arms.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU and US proposal should be shot down. It is a blatant display of bully-boy tactics: go for weakness, not strength. People who make tehm get invited into the club, those that are caught earlier are harassed as they are a much lesser threat.

I like that most Iraqis wanted Islamic law. They'd quite happily slaughter each other to make sure it was theright sort of islamic law of course. The cut and thrust (and indeed disembowl) of debate...

Although there is some way to go, in the West there is much more tolerance of differences. You do your thing and we do ours. If we don't like yours we won't kill you or your family. The 51% are not allowed to repress the other 49% in the name of democracy.

To see if the women want to wear the scarves will take many years. Who is going to dare to the the first to remove one if it turn out that the old rules come back in 1 years time? Some prefer to wear them, many would rather not - generally the young who are less brainwashed.

Basically those that believe that for some reason God thinks they need to be 99% hidden can do that, and the majority can enjoy seing daylight.

[Vladimir]

Nah, the west has not been more belligerent than the rest, it has just waged war better.
Also, our internal peace and wealth has not been achieved at the expense of others. It has been achieved by a long, slow ascendency into democracy and the rule of law.

I... I... I... just can't read the rest of this thread. I'm just too shocked that a Frenchman has said this. Not just a Frenchman but an intelligent, charismatic, well-spoken one who apparently has no fear that his citizenship may be revoked for saying such a thing. I’m truly shocked. Maybe in time I’ll recover.

[Avicenna]

Nah, the west has not been more belligerent than the rest, it has just waged war better.
Also, our internal peace and wealth has not been achieved at the expense of others. It has been achieved by a long, slow ascendency into democracy and the rule of law.

That's stretching it a bit, but at heart, I'm afraid that is my view, yes. I have never been a fan of cultural relativism. I hold the universal declaration of human rights for universal indeed. That is my western style freedom. 'Western' to include countries like Japan in this respect.

Countries like Sudan, Iraq, Burma and North Korea suck not because of some evil western imperialist plot. They suffer not from too much western influence, but from too little.

Say what, let the west open it's borders and offer a free plane ticket, then let's see how the people from these countries vote between theirs and ours.

Well I for one choose my own country.

Reenk: Are you doing or teaching Achebe for GCSE? Or do you just enjoy his work? Also, Carthage was in imperialist power.

Joker: No country would say "F off" to that, it's just a ridiculous way of answering because you have nothing to say.

[yesdachi]

Sounds like an oppressive government so set in their ways they are unwilling to allow their citizens to have the freedoms they desire. IMO in most cases it is ultimately the citizens that dictate what form of government they have. As long as they are kept happy the established government exists. When the citizens start wanting things they are denied by the government, the government is forced to change. Either by giving in to the citizens or by oppressing the citizens and enough oppression leads to revolution.

There was a very interesting documentary on a small Southeast Asian nation (I cannot recall the exact name) that was essentially untouched by globalization (aka Westernization or Americanization). It was ruled by a king, but the real power lay with the Buddhist Monks (I am hesitant to label this a 'theocracy' as Eastern religion is intrinsically different from the three Middle Eastern religions). And then...cable TV invaded. Soon the children began to skip their meditation, and give up the way of the Buddha for WWF (is it WWE now?). The Buddhist Monks fiercely opposed this "corrupting influence" and many ban decree's were issued, but people still snuck in the feed... No wonder why many in that documentary seemed so hostile to us.

As to the topic, Russia and China will oppose anything drafted because there isn’t a downside for them. Iran would never attack them and if Iran were to harm Israel, or any west countries it would essentially bring down some of their competition without actually causing any real disaster. There isn’t a player in this game that can’t take care of themselves except Iran. The only reason they are even a threat to the West is their possible future ability to give terrorists a nuke, but that is reason enough to take some action against them. I think it would be nice to see Israel go after them, then we wouldn’t look like the bad guys… again.

[Joker85]

Joker: No country would say "F off" to that, it's just a ridiculous.

*points to the country this very thread is about"

. . . Ah, the irony . . .