Liberals and Internationalists tell us Americans to be tolerant of other cultures and religions. They also feel obligated to be outraged when things like this happen (Conservatives would be obligated to bomb them to the Stone Age, but hey, let's just veer away from what people on the right would do).

And yet nothing will happen.

As Tehran gains the ability to harness nuclear power, Israel and other regional powers will have to look twice towards engaging in any overt actions against the Iranian government. I am pretty sure that most of these nations do not really care about a woman being stoned to death for adultery. Just wanted to point that out.

Oh, and reports indicate she may be hanged out of the goodness of the Iranian legal system instead.

And when the poor woman (Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani) and others like her who are facing the execution for adultery charges are dead, what will the West and all other freedom loving people do? Punish Iran? How?

As it is, we cannot stop them from doing anything within their sovereign borders or with who they want to deal with.

So why tell them what is good and what is wrong? Does it make sense to tell them how to live and act and then not back up any of our threats if they run contrary to what we want them to do?

As a final thought: she was not convicted for killing her husband (to be fair, there is very little surface material regarding this, as you will have to dig through news archives to find the circumstances surrounding the case, but shouldn't take more than 5-10 minutes at worst to find the bare facts wherein she confessed to murdering him) but yet the suspicion still runs through me that something had to of happen regarding her and his death. How could most media outlets ignore this piece of news? Obviously, her children (she has 2) love her and have campaigned to get her freed. Perhaps the husband was cruel and unloved, but I do not know all the specifics of someone's private live thousands of miles away.

All the Western outrage is condensed into the combination of words of "stoning to death because of adultery." Ignored is the fact she may of caused the death of her husband along with the usual contexts of culture and religion from which she comes being radically different from Western democracies.

And on top of it those Western democracies will not do a thing except cry outrage.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iran-Stoning-Woman-Accused-Of-Adultery-Also-Faces-99-Lashes-For-Indecency-Over-Photo/Article/201009115714925?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_3&lid=ARTICLE_15714925_Iran_Stoning%3A_Woman_Accused_Of_Adultery_Also_Faces_99_Lashes_For_Indecency_Over_Photo

An Iranian woman set to be stoned to death for adultery is facing 99 lashes for a photograph allegedly of her without a headscarf, her son has said.

Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani has been the subject of international outcry over her death sentence.

But she now faces the additional punishment for a picture that appeared in The Times in Britain.

In an interview published on French magazine La Regle du Jeau's website, the woman's son Sajjad Ghaderzadeh said they learnt of the lashes from inmates released from the prison in Tabriz, where his mother is being held.

He said a prison judge had confirmed the sentence for spreading "corruption and indecency" with the photo.

But the snap, featured in The Times, was apparently not even of 43-year-old Ms Mohammadi-Ashtiani - which the paper has acknowledged and apologised for.

The image of a woman without a hijab was published after it was passed to the newspaper by one of her lawyers.

But six days later, The Times said the attribution of the picture was incorrect and the woman shown was actually Susan Hejrat, a political activist living in Sweden.

Mr Ghaderzadeh said it was "certainly not" his mother.

Ms Mohammadi-Ashtiani's lawyer Mohammad Mostafei, who has fled Iran, said he received the images from Mr Ghaderzadeh - a claim he denied.

Mr Ghaderzadeh has since written an open letter claiming the new sentence is "an excuse" for the authorities to increase the "harassment" of his mother.

"We do not know how that picture was originally obtained, nor to whom the picture belongs," he said.

He also claimed Ms Mohammadi-Ashtiani had not been allowed any visits from family members or her lawyer for the past two weeks.

The mother-of-two received 99 lashes after being found guilty in 2006 of an "illicit relationship" with two men after her husband's death.

She was later also convicted of adultery and, although she retracted a confession made under duress, she was sentenced to be stoned.

Foreign governments have condemned the brutal punishment and the Vatican has confirmed it is in touch with Tehran "through diplomatic channels" to try and halt the action.

The Pope is working on it and I know some knights looking for a good Crusade.

Also, nuclear weapons are not a good deterrent of espionage. I would think it would increase the amount of spying and covert ops to avoid a fullscale war.

Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having her picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

djones520 wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having her picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

Fair enough.

And I would assume that you would be equally understanding and willingly to support another country if they decided to bomb/invade America because they take exception to our flawed use of the death penalty...

And before anyone gets their panties with the fox logo on the rear in a bunch: I actually support the death penalty in concept, but morally oppose it's use at present due to the social reality of our society and the history of corruption/racism in the legal institutions that control and enact it which have and continue to falsely convict and execute individuals who are innocent. One wrongful execution is too many and we have as a society allowed murders of innocents numerous times, Not to mention the history of disproportionately applying it to minorities, etc....

So yes I agree that killing of individuals without just cause is wrong, but I also can see that we live in a glass house on issues like this as well...

Dude, they bomb us and attack our embassies just because we have things like Playboy and MTV!

Just because it's some idiot with plastic explosives in his vest and not B-2s doesn't make it less of an attack on us because of our culture.

Grignard wrote:

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

Isn't this what Germany hoped the World would do in the late 30's and early 40's? Damn allies and thier meddling ways.

Quick, let's bomb all the middle east so they follow the American Values of Justice, Peace and Freedom!

well I'm a little confused. War said it was for adultry early on and then later said she murdered her husband. We execute people for murder in the united states too. I'm not sure how he thinks bombing the Iranians would improve their legal system, or how it makes the united states a bunch of hypocrites if we dont go to war over every injustice anywhere in the world. So the Iranians are a bunch of barbarians. world keeps turnin.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I'm a little confused. War said it was for adultry early on and then later said she murdered her husband. We execute people for murder in the united states too. I'm not sure how he thinks bombing the Iranians would improve their legal system, or how it makes the united states a bunch of hypocrites if we dont go to war over every injustice anywhere in the world. So the Iranians are a bunch of barbarians. world keeps turnin.
AF

The news reports are a bit contradictory on this, but she was charged for murder and adultery, and supposedly only the adultery charge stuck.

Here this new report indicates the conflicting news coming from this case:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/07/iran-stoning-sakineh-ashtiani.html

djones520 wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having SOMEONE ELSES picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

@ djones520: Fixed that for ya.


@ Grignard: If this women was ALLOWED to move to another area of the world and she CHOSE to stay in Iran then yes I agree with you. But I have a feeling, it may be incorrect or corrupted by the media, that she is denied the ability or the means to move her life to another part of the planet in which case it is a crime for the government of Iran to keep this person inside their borders and enforce the death penalty for this "He said, she said" highschool crap.

I see it like this: If parents of childeren cannot keep their kids fed and\or clothed, most governments step in with some form of social aid to help them. If the parents of these kids simply WON'T take care of them then these same governments step in and relieve the kids from those parents. If those parents fight back then martial force is used. The same goes for the governments of the world, if they can't take care of their people it is our duty to our fellow men to aid that government. If they are REFUSING to take care of their people then our duty is to the people of that country first. My problem isn't with the penalty or the crime, I take issue with the fact that she is being found "guilty" without sufficent evidence against her.

I sniff a double helping of bad journalism mixed in with propoganda.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Dude, they bomb us and attack our embassies just because we have things like Playboy and MTV!

Just because it's some idiot with plastic explosives in his vest and not B-2s doesn't make it less of an attack on us because of our culture.

Yes, Al Qaeda has bombed embassies in the past... but definitely not for the reasons you posted. Also, bombing an embassy, and bombing an entire country are two things that are SO different it's sickening you would compare the two.

That would be like if my cousin from out of state threw a rock through your window and you bulldozed my house while I was locked inside.

SamplesoWoopass wrote: ...That would be like if my cousin from out of state threw a rock through your window and you bulldozed my house while I was locked inside.

That's kind of the point though isn't it? If we did bulldoze your house and you saw that the rest of the world treated us like we were in the right. Then you, as well as everyone else, would keep a closer eye on your cousins. It might not be fair but guess what, life isn't fair.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:The same goes for the governments of the world, if they can't take care of their people it is our duty to our fellow men to aid that government. If they are REFUSING to take care of their people then our duty is to the people of that country first.

There is a severe problem with helping other nations. I can answer this in several ways, but suffice to say, the answer isn't easy. What I say is that for international help to help a region in the world under duress take a titanic effort.

Nonpartisan and noninterventionalist help occurs in the form of the Red Cross and relief organizations sanctioned by the United Nations and various other nationally and organizationally funded efforts. The help is supposed to ignore boundaries and provide relief. It does not take into account the long term rammifications of temporary help, merely that food and clothing and medical support be provided for a suffering population.

The World Bank and the IMF are capitalist driven engines of help where they provide funding and expert support for nations that need monetary aid and integration into the international community. However the cost of their help is to structure poor countries into deals and economic policies that have been criticized for causing more harm than good and forcing these poor nations into a dependency on the Western nations akin to the English Empire of the 19th century and its dependent colonies (a poor example, but one of context to help you understand the criticisms of their help).

Major world powers that include the EU and the United States provide help that supplements the efforts of the former two, but is driven intentionally or not to spread the concepts of Western Civilization. The greatest problem here is that other cultures become hostile to the incursion of McDonalds and feminists rights that spring up within their countries. Ideas of freedom and alien culture provoke hostile reactions. Iran has a large and somewhat unsettled youth that has embraced some Western ideals and they run counter to the Iranian Revolution's ideas of Sharia law and staunch conservative and traditional support from those still in power.

When the United States uses power to enforce their version of democracy, it does not help their argument for their way of life. We as Americans and Western cultures may mean good to help others, but the cost is that conformity at some level must be reached with some of our principles.

And as a side note, look at where most of the help the United State gives in terms of a regional basis. See if it somehow conforms to the way in which natural resources and interests are located and how much aid is given relative.

Wow. A looot of text here. I'll just say this:

"That's not very nice"

Gwar! wrote:Quick, let's bomb all the middle east so they follow the American Values of Justice, Peace and Freedom!

Dude, don't you know Superman's Creed?

It's not Justice, Peace, and Freedom.

It's Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

God Gwar. Get with the program!

ComputerGeek01 wrote:




@ Grignard: If this women was ALLOWED to move to another area of the world and she CHOSE to stay in Iran then yes I agree with you. But I have a feeling, it may be incorrect or corrupted by the media, that she is denied the ability or the means to move her life to another part of the planet in which case it is a crime for the government of Iran to keep this person inside their borders and enforce the death penalty for this "He said, she said" highschool crap.

I see it like this: If parents of childeren cannot keep their kids fed and\or clothed, most governments step in with some form of social aid to help them. If the parents of these kids simply WON'T take care of them then these same governments step in and relieve the kids from those parents. If those parents fight back then martial force is used. The same goes for the governments of the world, if they can't take care of their people it is our duty to our fellow men to aid that government. If they are REFUSING to take care of their people then our duty is to the people of that country first. My problem isn't with the penalty or the crime, I take issue with the fact that she is being found "guilty" without sufficent evidence against her.

So, right there your advocating that it's OUR DUTY to help their people, but then you advocate that it's completley okay to BOMB THEM TO fething HELL because of something an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT group did in the past?!?!?!

Please don't post until you actually know what you're saying.


Edit: Also, you're completely wrong on that. It wouldn't make someone keep an eye on their cousin, it would entice them to give their cousins bigger rocks or bombs. You seem to forget WHY so many people in that region hate us. It isn't as much due to our value system as it is due to our constant involvement in their affairs since the cold war. That and our constant support for Israel.

CT GAMER wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having her picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

Fair enough.

And I would assume that you would be equally understanding and willingly to support another country if they decided to bomb/invade America because they take exception to our flawed use of the death penalty...

Dude, seriously? Putting someone to death for a violent crime for which they were convicted by a jury of their peers and after they've gone through a rigorous appeals process is the same thing as stoning a woman to death because a cleric thinks she's a harlot?

Bit of a stretch I think.

Not especially matey. We consider our justice to be the most fair, and the Iranians have their system.

It's up to the people of Iran to say no and make this stop. Wouldn't be surprised if the Junta starts to collapse before long. Most inevitably do.

So, WarOne, what do you want done about all this? I hope you realise that nothing short of showing force will change anything in Iran...

The Red Cross and etc. are doing it right. They only provide temproary relief but that's their goal anyway. I understand that for example providing food to a country who is starving makes it hard for a Farmer to get back on his feet and so stifils the economy but they do more good then harm by keeping people alive in the short run.

The World Bank and the IMF have vested interest in globalization. I won't express my view toward them in this thread because it will probably high-jack it in the long run.

The efforts put forth by the Major Powers do it right only because their goal is obviously if a country is to prosper due to their help then they prefer it not to attack them once it recovers. This I think has it's roots from WW2, the Nazi's were able to gain power AND attack Europe because the Germans hated the Alies, America would have been a target but rumor has it that Hitler had some sort of politcal crush on the USA. The thought here is that if the country that is recovering likes UN or whatever power helps them then it would avoid that mind set. Simplistic I know but it makes sense if you don't try to over think it.

Otherwise all of the problems that foriegn aid causes has parallels that can be draw in line with social welfare programs. They both form dependancies on that system. Efforts to root out fraud and effectivley target certain groups for development through buerocracy take time away from the productive members who would otherwise be using it to improve themselves and get away from that system. They are costley, the titanic effort you mentiond is present in local systems in the form of overhead and if you look at the costs of both while keeping in mind the scale of each, and consider the production curve, then they are comparable.

Mr Mystery wrote:Not especially matey. We consider our justice to be the most fair, and the Iranians have their system.

I think that by most objective standards Sharia is far down the scale of civility and progress from the US's admittedly flawed system of Justice.

Monster Rain wrote:

Dude, seriously? Putting someone to death for a violent crime for which they were convicted by a jury of their peers and after they've gone through a rigorous appeals process is the same thing as stoning a woman to death because a cleric thinks she's a harlot?

Bit of a stretch I think.

Perhaps take a deep breathe and reread the specifics of what i stated:

As I stated I am not opposed to the death penalty for those that ARE guilty of the accused crimes. However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Thus my hypothetical was that the same standard being applied in this thread could be applied to the U.S. as well by outsiders, that being that an outside entity could see this as just cause to invade/bomb/take military action against us as well if we really want to endorse what is being suggested in this thread.

Let's look at this from another angle: Are people suggesting that individuals that may have had no connection to radical Islam, Saddam's regime, terrorist activity that may have had relatives wrongly killed in Iraq/Afghanistan as a result of U.S. application of force now have the justification to come here and commit violence?

By what is being purposed in this thread they certainly would be totally justified, and I don't think that makes much sense, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander is it not?

Again: glass houses...

What is the difference?

That's a slippery slope that I would prefer not to to encourage.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Not especially matey. We consider our justice to be the most fair, and the Iranians have their system.

I think that by most objective standards Sharia is far down the scale of civility and progress from the US's admittedly flawed system of Justice.

Depends just how strict a version of Sharia it is.

Do I condone the conviction and punishment? Nope, not at all. It is indeed barbaric to my mind. But considering the West continues to demand Democracy go world wide (and not unjustly so) it's kind of hard to force opposing Governments to adopt our justice just because we say so.

Poastan in a troll thread.

@ SampleoWhoopass: I know exactly what I am saying, you are using reality to blurr intentions. Bombings by the US for example are never intentionally against civilian targets, in a perfect world the people of a foriegn country would suffer as little as possible in an invasion. But because we don't live in a perfect world many people see our effort the same way you do. As far as people giving their cousins bigger rocks? It's pretty obvious that there will be some retaliation, this is the check that keeps things balanced. The goal would be to remove ALL hostile elements at the same time, it never works out this way because as I said before we do not live in a perfect world.

I can't really argue with you against the Isreal thing, that was a poorly thought out move made by a generation that is too far removed from my own to understand what I am saying half the time. Also we only know that it was a poor move because we can see it in hindsight. I guess my stance differs from yours because I understand that people are not their government and not everyone has the means to change a regime that has been in power for so many decades (and yes I already know that our intervention is what put the current regime in power).

ComputerGeek01 wrote:@ SampleoWhoopass: I know exactly what I am saying, you are using reality to blurr intentions. Bombings by the US for example are never intentionally against civilian targets, in a perfect world the people of a foriegn country would suffer as little as possible in an invasion. But because we don't live in a perfect world many people see our effort the same way you do. As far as people giving their cousins bigger rocks? It's pretty obvious that there will be some retaliation, this is the check that keeps things balanced. The goal would be to remove ALL hostile elements at the same time, it never works out this way because as I said before we do not live in a perfect world.

I can't really argue with you against the Isreal thing, that was a poorly thought out move made by a generation that is too far removed from my own to understand what I am saying half the time. Also we only know that it was a poor move because we can see it in hindsight. I guess my stance differs from yours because I understand that people are not their government and not everyone has the means to change a regime that has been in power for so many decades (and yes I already know that our intervention is what put the current regime in power).

Well, you see, the thing about that is they really are. Everyone who makes the call to bomb anything knows for a fact that the majority of bombs dropped will miss their targets and hit civilians, and they're perfectly okay with that. If you commit an act and you know what's going to be caused by said act then you achieve those causes quite intentionally.

And the thing is, is that if you want to stop the growth of terrorism, then you have to stop giving them such good reasons to hate us. This includes bombing them. Hatred against the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad is growing. They've overthrown the Junta before (although the US did UNDO IT) and they'll do it again before long. That is if we stop giving them reasons to think that they're right.

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

1+

btw nice work bringing "peace" to irak

ShumaGorath wrote:Poastan in a troll thread.

Surely this post is some clever ruse? Perhaps a placeholder for some 3 page long post addressing every other poster in the thread with counterarguments?
...





...




...



...

...

...
...
...
...

Samus_aran115 wrote:Wow. A looot of text here. I'll just say this:

"That's not very nice"

I agree with Samus!
The politics in Iran are kinda messed up right now!
I really hate that bastard (iranian President...)

You mean "Ack! Mah dinna jacket!"?

Hmm this reminds me of the Blood Dolphins thread. When people replied " its the law , they are allowed to kill dolphins so who cares "

Well , lets respect their law , no matter how barbaric it is then. /rolleyes.

At the end of the day its as i always said , its only an issue if you care.

LunaHound wrote:Hmm this reminds me of the Blood Dolphins thread. When people replied " its the law , they are allowed to kill dolphins so who cares "

Well , lets respect their law , no matter how barbaric it is then. /rolleyes.

At the end of the day its as i always said , its only an issue if you care.

Actually, you'll notice one large difference between the two issues.

One is the mistreatment of animals, one is of humans.

MasterDRD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Poastan in a troll thread.

Surely this post is some clever ruse? Perhaps a placeholder for some 3 page long post addressing every other poster in the thread with counterarguments?

It was almost a solid page of pain before I got in here. Sometimes brevity is the most powerful tool in the garage.

Monster Rain wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Hmm this reminds me of the Blood Dolphins thread. When people replied " its the law , they are allowed to kill dolphins so who cares "

Well , lets respect their law , no matter how barbaric it is then. /rolleyes.

At the end of the day its as i always said , its only an issue if you care.

Actually, you'll notice one large difference between the two issues.

One is the mistreatment of animals, one is of humans.

I treat them both with equal respect.

LunaHound wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Hmm this reminds me of the Blood Dolphins thread. When people replied " its the law , they are allowed to kill dolphins so who cares "

Well , lets respect their law , no matter how barbaric it is then. /rolleyes.

At the end of the day its as i always said , its only an issue if you care.

Actually, you'll notice one large difference between the two issues.

One is the mistreatment of animals, one is of humans.

I treat them both with equal respect.

Really?

So you're a vegan?

Never swatted a fly?

I think you are deliberately trying to miss my point monsterrain

LunaHound wrote:I think you are deliberately trying to miss my point monsterrain

Nope. Just betting that when it comes down to it you really don't treat them equally when it involves your own personal comfort or convenience.

Monster Rain wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I think you are deliberately trying to miss my point monsterrain

Nope. Just betting that when it comes down to it you really don't treat them equally when it involves your own personal comfort or convenience.

The point i'll repeat again is
Humans will fall back to the convenience of a law when they are confronted with an issue they dont actively care / sympathize for.

Let me give you an example. China on average compared to middle eastern countries treats their people with less human rights.
Do you see N.America caring about that? No.
Then why all of a sudden care about the dead woman's country and their practice all of a sudden?

Probably to paint a picture of how barbaric they are and justify USA using more force when dealing with them ne?

Oh and back to the animal vs human thingy monster rain.
Let me just say , i find some human beings to be lower than even animals.

LunaHound wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I think you are deliberately trying to miss my point monsterrain

Nope. Just betting that when it comes down to it you really don't treat them equally when it involves your own personal comfort or convenience.

The point i'll repeat again is
Humans will fall back to the convenience of a law when they are confronted with an issue they dont actively care / sympathize for.

Let me give you an example. China on average compared to middle eastern countries treats their people with less human rights.
Do you see N.America caring about that? No.
Then why all of a sudden care about the dead woman's country and their practice all of a sudden?

Probably to paint a picture of how barbaric they are and justify USA using more force when dealing with them ne?

Oh and back to the animal vs human thingy monster rain.
Let me just say , i find some human beings to be lower than even animals.

Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

Monster Rain wrote:Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

I can , but i know people dont.
Maybe its politics or what not , but certainly you cant deny some people are rather "selective" on what countries
deserves our sympathy for human rights?

djones520 wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having her picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

That wasn't the argument that was made. Grignard is questioning whether or not we have the right to force our morality on to other nations. This is not the same thing as stating that we cannot judge another nation due to its laws and apparent moral system.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Wouldn't be surprised if the Junta starts to collapse before long. Most inevitably do.

Iran is not governed by the military.

However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Out of approximately 1200 executions in the US since 1976, none have ever been PROVEN to have been in error.

Please bear that in mind as you make claims such as these.

So the world is an ugly place?

I'm shocked.

It's unfortunate that a region which played an important role in the development of early human civilization has fallen into the state it is in today.

It's also sadly true that executing people for ridiculous reasons isn't just limited to Iran, Saudi Arabia was set to execute someone for "witchcraft" because he made some predictions on Lebanese TV.

LunaHound wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

I can , but i know people dont.
Maybe its politics or what not , but certainly you cant deny some people are rather "selective" on what countries
deserves our sympathy for human rights?

Sure some people are.

I still don't know what you're getting at, exactly. Do you have to take all the world's problems into account before you condemn an act as unpleasant as that described in the OP? I would say no.

Phryxis wrote:

However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Out of approximately 1200 executions in the US since 1976, none have ever been PROVEN to have been in error.

Please bear that in mind as you make claims such as these.

yes I can google too, but thanks for the demonstration...

Phryxis wrote:

However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Out of approximately 1200 executions in the US since 1976, none have ever been PROVEN to have been in error.

Please bear that in mind as you make claims such as these.

Nonertheless there is a significant rate of miscarriages of justice in capital cases.

According to Amnesty USA anyway.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=engamr510232007

Monster Rain wrote:

Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

Actually, dolphins are mammals and not fish.


As for the whole situation I say we bomb people to start following our way of civil rights. We'll bomb China into freeing Tibet, we'll bomb Iran to make them stop stoning women, we'll bomb Saudi Arabia to stop trying people for witchcraft, we'll bomb England to make them stop destroying their citizens' teeth, and we'll bomb California to make them just stop.

Did I mention that the Iranian president has unveiled a new weapon that he calls his "ambassador of death"?

It is a shame that such an important part of our world has managed to become so screwed up by the 1,000 year old, woman hating, tribal religion that is Islam.

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

Actually, dolphins are mammals and not fish.

As for the whole situation I say we bomb people to start following our way of civil rights. We'll bomb China into freeing Tibet, we'll bomb Iran to make them stop stoning women, we'll bomb Saudi Arabia to stop trying people for witchcraft, we'll bomb England to make them stop destroying their citizens' teeth, and we'll bomb California to make them just stop.

I know that, Jacques Cousteau!

As to the other thing, I don't know if anyone is calling for Iran to be bombed over this, but it's at all not off base to say that the people who treat women in this way are fething animals.

WarOne wrote:Liberals and Internationalists tell us Americans to be tolerant of other cultures and religions. They also feel obligated to be outraged when things like this happen (Conservatives would be obligated to bomb them to the Stone Age, but hey, let's just veer away from what people on the right would do).

And yet nothing will happen.

First of all, no, liberals and internationalists don't tell people to be tolerant of all things done in all countries as a matter of course, and not all conservatives believe in bombing everyone back to the stone age. That's just a gross simplification of a very complicated subject.

My view, which is strongly internationalist, is that there are many awful things going on around the world, and stoning is one of the worst. The point is that high minded wagging of the finger, economic or military action doesn't achieve anything. It can be a tough road to travel, but closing off a bad government will actually help make it more stable, North Korea has survived this long because it is isolated. In the cities in Iran there is a strong progressive movement. I mean, what exactly would you do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I'm a little confused. War said it was for adultry early on and then later said she murdered her husband. We execute people for murder in the united states too. I'm not sure how he thinks bombing the Iranians would improve their legal system, or how it makes the united states a bunch of hypocrites if we dont go to war over every injustice anywhere in the world. So the Iranians are a bunch of barbarians. world keeps turnin.
AF

Executions in the US have nowhere near the cruelty of a stoning. I'm no fan of any executions, but there really is a difference between lethal injection and stoning someone slowly, each rock thrown individually, so that our face is steadily pulverised over what can be in excess of an hour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:It is a shame that such an important part of our world has managed to become so screwed up by the 1,000 year old, woman hating, tribal religion that is Islam.

Oh for feth's sake.

People who don't treat women this way are also animals, specifically the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family.

Nonertheless there is a significant rate of miscarriages of justice in capital cases.

Well, it depends on your definition of "significant," but certainly there have been cases overturned where people were on death row.

But then again, that's why they spend so long on death row. It's not like a judgement is passed, and the next day the dude is dead.

As far as AI goes, they're a generally positive organization, but they're a lot like PETA. Excessive and at times disingenuous. Their intolerance for injustice, real or imaginary, has made them zealots who can't entirely be counted on for objective reviews of reality. Not that that changes the fact that some people have been falsely sent to death row, and PROBABLY some even executed. It also doesn't change the fact that no proof has ever been made of an unjust execution.

Honestly, I don't know how people can be "in favor of the death penalty," but not in favor of it in the real world, where mistakes are made. In what world would these people favor the death penalty, exactly?

As time goes by, and technology improves, we will only get better at correctly identifying the guilty.

I don't entirely agree with Blackstone's notion that it's better to let ten guilty men free than to execute one innocent. It's my feeling that if one of those guilty men kills an innocent, you've just broken even, and if two of them do, you're behind the curve.

Furthermore, in a lot of the cases that wrongful execution is presumed to have ocurred, the person executed was was hardly an angel.

I've seen arguments made that show the recidivism rate in people accused of murder, and show that if these people would simply be executed, even if a percentage were innocent, it would end up saving innocent lives.

I have never believed in the idea that the government should seek to avoid doing ANY wrong, as Blackstone seems to suggest. Instead, I think government needs to recognize that it rountinely destroys lives and kills people, either directly or indirectly, and given this reality, it should seek to minimize the evil it does, and maximize the good. To pretend that it can avoid evil deeds through caution or inaction is an empty hope.

Honestly, though, the number of people being executed in this country is so vanishingly small relative to the number of people and number of crimes, that it's really a non-issue. People argue about it at great length, but it has almost no real relevance to anyone's actual life. In 34 years we've executed about 1200 people. That's 35 a year, from a population in excess of 300 million. It's really an academic discussion.

Gwar! wrote:People who don't treat women this way are also animals, specifically the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family.

I sincerely hope that that comment is meant in jest, and even if it is, it is in bad taste. Just because humans are also another type of animal does not mean we should act like primitive apes! Human's can be compassionate and caring, and those humans who choose to be prmitive, bloodthirsty apes are a DISGRACE to all of humanity. Ripping a fellow human beings back open 99 times, and then pulverizing that already beaten and bloodied mess that is all that will be left of this fellow human being with hug rocks is just plain evil and primitive.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

Gwar! wrote:People who don't treat women this way are also animals, specifically the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family.

I sincerely hope that that comment is meant in jest, and even if it is, it is in bad taste. Just because humans are also another type of animal does not mean we should act like primitive apes! Human's can be compassionate and caring, and those humans who choose to be prmitive, bloodthirsty apes are a DISGRACE to all of humanity. Ripping a fellow human beings back open 99 times, and then pulverizing that already beaten and bloodied mess that is all that will be left of this fellow human being with hug rocks is just plain evil and primitive.

Perhaps Gwar was just saying that he eats lice out of other folks' hair and throws his feces at enemies and rivals?

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:Liberals and Internationalists tell us Americans to be tolerant of other cultures and religions. They also feel obligated to be outraged when things like this happen (Conservatives would be obligated to bomb them to the Stone Age, but hey, let's just veer away from what people on the right would do).

And yet nothing will happen.

First of all, no, liberals and internationalists don't tell people to be tolerant of all things done in all countries as a matter of course, and not all conservatives believe in bombing everyone back to the stone age. That's just a gross simplification of a very complicated subject.

Gross OVERsimplication does a good job of illustrating the problem with the situation.

Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the wife of the President of France and a woman whose political leanings appear left, signed a petition for the release of the woman in question to be executed by the Iranians.

In response, the Iranians called her a prostitute over local media outlets, especially in an editorial form.

A petition will not stop the death of this woman, as the context of a petition is for democratic and capitalist societies with greater transparency than Iran has. Such a petition will do little to sway the hearts of the Iranians in charge of the fate of the stoning.

Israel on the other hand is more than willing to initiate a war if it feels that there is a tipping point that is passed in which Israel must feel that it must defend itself with a pre-emptive attack on the installations of Iran that threaten the Jewish state. Being a state run by a Conservative government, this is very much in line with what I stated earlier.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I sincerely hope that that comment is meant in jest, and even if it is, it is in bad taste. Just because humans are also another type of animal does not mean we should act like primitive apes!

I've never seen a primitive ape use, lets alone construct, a lash. Perhaps you should appreciate the comment for what it was: a critique of the use of metaphors in the course of description.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Human's can be compassionate and caring, and those humans who choose to be prmitive, bloodthirsty apes are a DISGRACE to all of humanity.

So from this I can infer that you have chosen to be compassionate and caring, and are completely above the use of force; even in the course of enforcing moral judgment.

Im guessing the country has less S.T.D in their population...

That's actually an interesting question.

Do nation's with highly restrictive laws regarding sexuality have lower rates of STD infection?

The intuitive answer seems to be 'yes', but I'm left wondering how the relative degrees of regard for the female sex impacts the matter. And how medical standards correlate to the rate of STD infection.

dogma wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Human's can be compassionate and caring, and those humans who choose to be prmitive, bloodthirsty apes are a DISGRACE to all of humanity.

So from this I can infer that you have chosen to be compassionate and caring, and are completely above the use of force; even in the course of enforcing moral judgment.

Yes, I have. I have chosen to progress beyond primitive means of enforcing moral laws with force. I believe in the power of words, not actions.

BTW, did anyone know that it is legal for a husband to rape his wife every 3 days in Iran? Talk about anti-female...!

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

dogma wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Human's can be compassionate and caring, and those humans who choose to be prmitive, bloodthirsty apes are a DISGRACE to all of humanity.

So from this I can infer that you have chosen to be compassionate and caring, and are completely above the use of force; even in the course of enforcing moral judgment.

Yes, I have. I have chosen to progress beyond primitive means of enforcing moral laws with force. I believe in the power of words, not actions.

BTW, did anyone know that it is legal for a husband to rape his wife every 3 days in Iran? Talk about anti-female...!

But is that worse than killing dolphins?

What is the point here? Is anyone honestly saying that Legal Rape is something that we should agree to disagree on?

Monster Rain wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

dogma wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Human's can be compassionate and caring, and those humans who choose to be prmitive, bloodthirsty apes are a DISGRACE to all of humanity.

So from this I can infer that you have chosen to be compassionate and caring, and are completely above the use of force; even in the course of enforcing moral judgment.

Yes, I have. I have chosen to progress beyond primitive means of enforcing moral laws with force. I believe in the power of words, not actions.

BTW, did anyone know that it is legal for a husband to rape his wife every 3 days in Iran? Talk about anti-female...!

But is that worse than killing dolphins?

What is the point here? Is anyone honestly saying that Legal Rape is something that we should agree to disagree on?

Sadly enough, some people would disagree with us that legal rape is a bad thing.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Did I mention that the Iranian president has unveiled a new weapon that he calls his "ambassador of death"?

It is a shame that such an important part of our world has managed to become so screwed up by the 1,000 year old, woman hating, tribal religion that is Islam.

The islamic nations in the middle east were the leaders of science, learning, and tolerance for much of history. Particularly during the middle ages, it wasn't until the mid 1900's that the countries became extremely religious and extremist

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Yes, I have. I have chosen to progress beyond primitive means of enforcing moral laws with force. I believe in the power of words, not actions.

So, if you were attacked, you wouldn't attempt to defend yourself?

If you believe that you have the right to defend yourself, and are willing to use force in order to so, then you are willing to enforce a moral judgment using force.

dogma wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Yes, I have. I have chosen to progress beyond primitive means of enforcing moral laws with force. I believe in the power of words, not actions.

So, if you were attacked, you wouldn't attempt to defend yourself?

If you believe that you have the right to defend yourself, and are willing to use force in order to so, then you are willing to enforce a moral judgment using force.

How are the two related? Self-Defense and Geopolitics seem to be two completely separate issues.

Absolutely, but I was under the impression that this had become a conversation about the use of force in the course of imposing moral standards. Like it or not, the Iranians are presently using force in order to punish a woman for legal transgressions that are based on moral judgments. I'm arguing that, if we take overt action against Iran, then we are doing the same categorical thing; though obviously one can, and I would, make the case that matters of degree must also be considered. However, if we are considering only matters of degree, then the fact that a given sort of punishment is violent or forceful does not intrinsically render it wrong.

Now, I don't think moral umbrage is sufficient to compel geopolitical action, but if it were, then the case for taking such an action must be more complicated than 'Punishment X is forceful/violent'.

dogma wrote:Absolutely, but I was under the impression that this had become a conversation about the use of force in the course of imposing moral standards. Like it or not, the Iranians are presently using force in order to punish a woman for legal transgressions that are based on moral judgments. I'm arguing that, if we take overt action against Iran, then we are doing the same categorical thing; though obviously one can, and I would, make the case that matters of degree must also be considered. However, if we are considering only matters of degree, then the fact that a given sort of punishment is violent or forceful does not intrinsically render it wrong.

I think that the act itself should be considered as to whether or not force is required. The case of the woman being stoned to death: Adultery is not a violent act, so violence in redressing the act of adultery is completely uncalled for.

The act of stoning is a violent act, therefore I would say that violence would be justified to either redress or prevent it. Completely subjective, I grant you.

Phryxis wrote:As far as AI goes, they're a generally positive organization, but they're a lot like PETA. Excessive and at times disingenuous. Their intolerance for injustice, real or imaginary, has made them zealots who can't entirely be counted on for objective reviews of reality. Not that that changes the fact that some people have been falsely sent to death row, and PROBABLY some even executed. It also doesn't change the fact that no proof has ever been made of an unjust execution.

Until this point I'd never heard of zealotry against injustice being described as a bad thing.

I don't entirely agree with Blackstone's notion that it's better to let ten guilty men free than to execute one innocent. It's my feeling that if one of those guilty men kills an innocent, you've just broken even, and if two of them do, you're behind the curve.

Furthermore, in a lot of the cases that wrongful execution is presumed to have ocurred, the person executed was was hardly an angel.

I've seen arguments made that show the recidivism rate in people accused of murder, and show that if these people would simply be executed, even if a percentage were innocent, it would end up saving innocent lives.

You've made the assumption that we can choose either to execute a person, or release them into the general population after a jail sentence. You're ignoring the option to put a person in maximum security for the rest of his life. We can lock people away with no chance or escape and no chance of ever harming anyone again.

Honestly, though, the number of people being executed in this country is so vanishingly small relative to the number of people and number of crimes, that it's really a non-issue. People argue about it at great length, but it has almost no real relevance to anyone's actual life. In 34 years we've executed about 1200 people. That's 35 a year, from a population in excess of 300 million. It's really an academic discussion.

Not if you consider the ability of the state to kill a person under it's complete control to be very important, regardless of the number. You are right that in terms of sheer scale it isn't that great, so why feel the need to give the state that power at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:Gross OVERsimplication does a good job of illustrating the problem with the situation.

I don't think so. I think it allows people to

A petition will not stop the death of this woman, as the context of a petition is for democratic and capitalist societies with greater transparency than Iran has. Such a petition will do little to sway the hearts of the Iranians in charge of the fate of the stoning.

No... did I say petitions were the best response? The best and perhaps only lasting solution is to open the doors to Iranians meeting our culture. Study over here, and return home with a head full of Western ideas. It's what's been happening for a couple of generations, it's why the government had to clamp down so hard in the wake of the election, it's why they had to cheat in the election.

Israel on the other hand is more than willing to initiate a war if it feels that there is a tipping point that is passed in which Israel must feel that it must defend itself with a pre-emptive attack on the installations of Iran that threaten the Jewish state. Being a state run by a Conservative government, this is very much in line with what I stated earlier.

What are you talking about? If Israel undertakes military action, it won't be to stop stoning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:That's actually an interesting question.

Do nation's with highly restrictive laws regarding sexuality have lower rates of STD infection?

The intuitive answer seems to be 'yes', but I'm left wondering how the relative degrees of regard for the female sex impacts the matter. And how medical standards correlate to the rate of STD infection.

I'm not so sure. The extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa certainly argues otherwise.

I wonder how hard it would be to build decent comparitive data, I would certainly expect a strong under-reporting of STDs in countries with strict taboos over sex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:The islamic nations in the middle east were the leaders of science, learning, and tolerance for much of history. Particularly during the middle ages, it wasn't until the mid 1900's that the countries became extremely religious and extremist

Yeah, the shift towards fundamentalist Islam really needs to be understood. People also need to understand that the religion is not a monolithic block, and it really does vary tremendously from region to region, person to person, just like Christianity does.

Tehran is a very cultured, modern city, and very different to the Iranian countryside, where most of the horror stories come from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Absolutely, but I was under the impression that this had become a conversation about the use of force in the course of imposing moral standards. Like it or not, the Iranians are presently using force in order to punish a woman for legal transgressions that are based on moral judgments. I'm arguing that, if we take overt action against Iran, then we are doing the same categorical thing; though obviously one can, and I would, make the case that matters of degree must also be considered. However, if we are considering only matters of degree, then the fact that a given sort of punishment is violent or forceful does not intrinsically render it wrong.

Now, I don't think moral umbrage is sufficient to compel geopolitical action, but if it were, then the case for taking such an action must be more complicated than 'Punishment X is forceful/violent'.

From a purely utilitarian point of view, the thought of military action over a cruel punishment makes no sense. If we were to undertake military action, we would have to drop bombs, some of which would land on women. The number who'd die to stoning would be miniscule compared to the number who would die due to our action to save them.

It simply makes no sense.

Self-defense has nothing to do with morality, it is simply self-presevation.

I am not passing judgement on another entity and then seeking him/her out to commit violence against them based upon said morale judgement, I am being attacked (a physical action) and defending myself to not be injured/killed in the moment. Self-presevation is in-born, not based upon laws or morality.

The leap of logic here is dumbfounding...

I really don't see what the deal is here.

Sure, is it cruel? Absolutely. But just because we disagree with Iran's policy doesn't mean we should threaten them or slap them on the wrist for it. Western culture is having an alarming tendency to not give a feth about other ways of life, regardless of whether it's right or wrong in our eyes.

Monster Rain wrote:
I think that the act itself should be considered as to whether or not force is required. The case of the woman being stoned to death: Adultery is not a violent act, so violence in redressing the act of adultery is completely uncalled for.

The act of stoning is a violent act, therefore I would say that violence would be justified to either redress or prevent it. Completely subjective, I grant you.

Sure, that's certainly a valid position. I was merely questioning the idea that violence is never justified in the course of enforcing a moral imperative. The self-defense paradox is just the classic argument against that idea, and its usually resolved in exactly the way you're just outlined.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:
Self-defense has nothing to do with morality, it is simply self-presevation.

I am not passing judgement on another entity and then seeking him/her out to commit violence against them based upon said morale judgement, I am being attacked (a physical action) and defending myself to not be injured/killed in the moment. Self-presevation is in-born, not based upon laws or morality.

The leap of logic here is dumbfounding...

Self-preservation may indeed be a natural reflex, though so apparently is the tendency of humans to create moral systems. Moreover, I'm not talking about the tendency of people to defend themselves. I'm talking about the right of people to defend themselves, and whether or not violence can be acceptably used in the defense/enforcement of that right.

It is one thing to say that people naturally attempt to defend themselves, it is another to say that they are right to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
From a purely utilitarian point of view, the thought of military action over a cruel punishment makes no sense. If we were to undertake military action, we would have to drop bombs, some of which would land on women. The number who'd die to stoning would be miniscule compared to the number who would die due to our action to save them.

It simply makes no sense.

That's essentially my thinking as well. Though I'd also add that there is no guarantee that military action can reliably modify the behavior of nations. Just look at Turkey and its renewed struggle with fundamentalism.

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:A petition will not stop the death of this woman, as the context of a petition is for democratic and capitalist societies with greater transparency than Iran has. Such a petition will do little to sway the hearts of the Iranians in charge of the fate of the stoning.

No... did I say petitions were the best response? The best and perhaps only lasting solution is to open the doors to Iranians meeting our culture. Study over here, and return home with a head full of Western ideas. It's what's been happening for a couple of generations, it's why the government had to clamp down so hard in the wake of the election, it's why they had to cheat in the election.

No, but a liberal would attempt such a thing and the consequence will be an attaboy at the end of the day and no closer achievable objective to getting this woman off of death row.

70 percent of their citizenry is under 30, thus most of them were born past the Iranian Revolution. Not all of them will adhere to the Westernization that would modernize their country to the extent that they become an open and democratic society. However, they need the influx of Western scientific thought if they wish to push their 65 million or so citizens into a more advanced state. Like China, they will need to balance their clinging dogma with suppressing the urge to democratize.

WarOne wrote:Israel on the other hand is more than willing to initiate a war if it feels that there is a tipping point that is passed in which Israel must feel that it must defend itself with a pre-emptive attack on the installations of Iran that threaten the Jewish state. Being a state run by a Conservative government, this is very much in line with what I stated earlier.

sebster wrote:What are you talking about? If Israel undertakes military action, it won't be to stop stoning.

Exactly. A Conservative solution still would not solve the problem that is just as unsolvable as the liberal signing a petition.

As absurd it is to talk about bombing Iran through moral indignation, I don't have Bush to illustrate that stupidity anymore, so I have the fallback Israel to do it for me. You think Obama would bomb the Iranians to stop them from doing things? Nah. If Iran touted it had the bomb, America would wring its hands at the United Nations and get nothing done.

Israel would blow that nation to kingdom come.

It simply makes no sense, but that is what a Conservative would do.

And yes it has nothing to do with stoning an adultering woman under Sharia law, but that is what a Conservative would do.

Those still seem like some gross and inaccurate generalizations.

Mannahnin wrote:Those still seem like some gross and inaccurate generalizations.

Correct.

I don't believe I have hashed anything I have said about the generalizations, although we are now adding in some more adjectives to the generalizations with adding in gross and inaccurate.

EDIT: The point is is that what are Non-Iranian and preferrable Western liberals and what are conservatives (more about the liberal attempts) going to do to save this woman if their objective would be to save her and the world was as black and white as two polar opposite political alignments with nothing inbetween?

WarOne wrote:

Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the wife of the President of France and a woman whose political leanings appear left, signed a petition for the release of the woman in question to be executed by the Iranians.

In response, the Iranians called her a prostitute over local media outlets, especially in an editorial form.

Heh.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

Sadly enough, some people would disagree with us that legal rape is a bad thing.

Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

WarOne wrote:As absurd it is to talk about bombing Iran through moral indignation, I don't have Bush to illustrate that stupidity anymore, so I have the fallback Israel to do it for me. You think Obama would bomb the Iranians to stop them from doing things? Nah. If Iran touted it had the bomb, America would wring its hands at the United Nations and get nothing done.

Israel would blow that nation to kingdom come.

It simply makes no sense, but that is what a Conservative would do.

And yes it has nothing to do with stoning an adultering woman under Sharia law, but that is what a Conservative would do.

What point is it that you're attempting to make, exactly?

As far as the Israel thing goes, they wouldn't be bombing Iran out of moral indignation but because they have some pretty valid concerns over Iran's plans to have nuclear weapons. And if you don't know why that is I'm afraid that you're not paying very close attention to what Iran's president has been saying over the last few years.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

Better late than never, yeah? And that still doesn't make it okay for other countries to condone it.

WarOne wrote:No, but a liberal would attempt such a thing and the consequence will be an attaboy at the end of the day and no closer achievable objective to getting this woman off of death row.

No, the ineffective actions of one liberal, in one place, does not create a description of the actions of all liberals in all places. You are ascribing to this an easy kind of fatalism, ignoring that societies really do reform, build improved standards of human rights, and that the outside world can and has played an important part in making that happen.

Look at the dramatic improvements in human rights in Jordan in the latter half of the 20th C.

70 percent of their citizenry is under 30, thus most of them were born past the Iranian Revolution. Not all of them will adhere to the Westernization that would modernize their country to the extent that they become an open and democratic society. However, they need the influx of Western scientific thought if they wish to push their 65 million or so citizens into a more advanced state. Like China, they will need to balance their clinging dogma with suppressing the urge to democratize.

Iran is not China, the political landscape of each country is wildly different.

Exactly. A Conservative solution still would not solve the problem that is just as unsolvable as the liberal signing a petition.

As absurd it is to talk about bombing Iran through moral indignation, I don't have Bush to illustrate that stupidity anymore, so I have the fallback Israel to do it for me. You think Obama would bomb the Iranians to stop them from doing things? Nah. If Iran touted it had the bomb, America would wring its hands at the United Nations and get nothing done.

Israel would blow that nation to kingdom come.

It simply makes no sense, but that is what a Conservative would do.

And yes it has nothing to do with stoning an adultering woman under Sharia law, but that is what a Conservative would do.

Bombing a country to prevent the development of nuclear weapons is a wholly different to bombing a country due to a barbaric legal practice. They're just not comparable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cryonicleech wrote:I really don't see what the deal is here.

Sure, is it cruel? Absolutely. But just because we disagree with Iran's policy doesn't mean we should threaten them or slap them on the wrist for it. Western culture is having an alarming tendency to not give a feth about other ways of life, regardless of whether it's right or wrong in our eyes.

There's a lot of points between complete cultural relativism and none at all. We can argue against people who look to diminish all elements of other culture and raise their own up to a point of superiority, while at the same time considering genital mutilation and stoning to be very fethed up indeed.

WarOne wrote:No, but a liberal would attempt such a thing and the consequence will be an attaboy at the end of the day and no closer achievable objective to getting this woman off of death row.

sebster wrote: No, the ineffective actions of one liberal, in one place, does not create a description of the actions of all liberals in all places. You are ascribing to this an easy kind of fatalism, ignoring that societies really do reform, build improved standards of human rights, and that the outside world can and has played an important part in making that happen.

Look at the dramatic improvements in human rights in Jordan in the latter half of the 20th C.

It is not one liberal. However, by dissecting my gross, inaccurate over simplification and broad generalization of liberals means I have no context to which to make a statement such as "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery."

Given time, I could compile the mutlitude of liberals with sentiments that prove "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery." However, I am confident in my statement that "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery" and remove any pretext for context as it is much simplier for the context of arguing on a website dedicated to miniatures gaming in a segment of the forum dedicated to nonwargaming topics about how "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery" and that it won't help save her.

And the Jordanians should be applauded for their effors.

And the woman that will be stoned to death will still die if the Iranians choose to execute her and this will be independent of what a portion of the population with liberal leanings say should not happen.

WarOne wrote:70 percent of their citizenry is under 30, thus most of them were born past the Iranian Revolution. Not all of them will adhere to the Westernization that would modernize their country to the extent that they become an open and democratic society. However, they need the influx of Western scientific thought if they wish to push their 65 million or so citizens into a more advanced state. Like China, they will need to balance their clinging dogma with suppressing the urge to democratize.

sebster wrote:Iran is not China, the political landscape of each country is wildly different.

And America is not Europe, but by definition it is in the "Western World." And it is this Western World that non-Western nations must struggle against. China did so in one context, and Iran must do so in another.

WarOne wrote:Exactly. A Conservative solution still would not solve the problem that is just as unsolvable as the liberal signing a petition.

As absurd it is to talk about bombing Iran through moral indignation, I don't have Bush to illustrate that stupidity anymore, so I have the fallback Israel to do it for me. You think Obama would bomb the Iranians to stop them from doing things? Nah. If Iran touted it had the bomb, America would wring its hands at the United Nations and get nothing done.

Israel would blow that nation to kingdom come.

It simply makes no sense, but that is what a Conservative would do.

And yes it has nothing to do with stoning an adultering woman under Sharia law, but that is what a Conservative would do.

sebster wrote:Bombing a country to prevent the development of nuclear weapons is a wholly different to bombing a country due to a barbaric legal practice. They're just not comparable.

But yet if it is a Conservative bombing a nation to stop something, do you think it will stop something?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the wife of the President of France and a woman whose political leanings appear left, signed a petition for the release of the woman in question to be executed by the Iranians.

In response, the Iranians called her a prostitute over local media outlets, especially in an editorial form.

Heh.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

Sadly enough, some people would disagree with us that legal rape is a bad thing.

Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

It was outlawed in the UK in 1991.

WarOne wrote:It is not one liberal. However, by dissecting my gross, inaccurate over simplification and broad generalization of liberals means I have no context to which to make a statement such as "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery."

Given time, I could compile the mutlitude of liberals with sentiments that prove "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery." However, I am confident in my statement that "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery" and remove any pretext for context as it is much simplier for the context of arguing on a website dedicated to miniatures gaming in a segment of the forum dedicated to nonwargaming topics about how "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery" and that it won't help save her.

Just... don't make 'liberals think this or that' statements. They're not useful.

And the Jordanians should be applauded for their effors.

And the woman that will be stoned to death will still die if the Iranians choose to execute her and this will be independent of what a portion of the population with liberal leanings say should not happen.

Yeah, it'll happen and it'll suck. Lots of sucky things have happened, lots more sucky things will happen. What we need to do is properly understand our ability to influence things elsewhere in the world (we wildly over-estimate our ability and under-estimate it, often in the same sentence) and set about doing what we can to actually change things for the better.

WarOne wrote:And America is not Europe, but by definition it is in the "Western World." And it is this Western World that non-Western nations must struggle against. China did so in one context, and Iran must do so in another.

China doesn't struggle against the Western World anymore than New Zealand does. It competes for competitive advantage and areas of dominance, like the rest of us in the West do.

Iran is in a totally different situation, demonstrated by the recent round of UN sanctions. It also has a totally different government environment.

But yet if it is a Conservative bombing a nation to stop something, do you think it will stop something?

It depends on what it is trying to stop. You can target large industrial facilities to stop a country doing something, like building a bomb. You can't bomb someone to force them to change a legal practice, it's nonsensical and will result in the targetted country just saying 'no'.

WarOne wrote:It is not one liberal. However, by dissecting my gross, inaccurate over simplification and broad generalization of liberals means I have no context to which to make a statement such as "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery."

Given time, I could compile the mutlitude of liberals with sentiments that prove "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery." However, I am confident in my statement that "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery" and remove any pretext for context as it is much simplier for the context of arguing on a website dedicated to miniatures gaming in a segment of the forum dedicated to nonwargaming topics about how "liberals oppose stoning a woman to death for adultery" and that it won't help save her.

sebster wrote:Just... don't make 'liberals think this or that' statements. They're not useful.

So I cannot say "liberals have negative feelings toward Glenn Beck?"

I don't know how smart you think I am, but I am not as smart as you. Generalizations make my world a better place to place things into perspective and say things within the span of a casual conversation. I cannot take the time I have to properly research something and come to a concluded and well seasoned statment backed by hundreds of hours of investigative and sound information processing.

Without generalizations, I would not be able to say things like "America won World War II" without having to interject thnigs like "and the British victory in the Battle of Britain helped" and the "grinding campaigning of the Eastern Front by Soviet forces against an overconfident and micromanaged German army."

WarOne wrote:And the woman that will be stoned to death will still die if the Iranians choose to execute her and this will be independent of what a portion of the population with liberal leanings say should not happen.

sebster wrote:Yeah, it'll happen and it'll suck. Lots of sucky things have happened, lots more sucky things will happen. What we need to do is properly understand our ability to influence things elsewhere in the world (we wildly over-estimate our ability and under-estimate it, often in the same sentence) and set about doing what we can to actually change things for the better.

WarOne wrote:And America is not Europe, but by definition it is in the "Western World." And it is this Western World that non-Western nations must struggle against. China did so in one context, and Iran must do so in another.

sebster wrote:China doesn't struggle against the Western World anymore than New Zealand does. It competes for competitive advantage and areas of dominance, like the rest of us in the West do.

Iran is in a totally different situation, demonstrated by the recent round of UN sanctions. It also has a totally different government environment.

Notice how there are different contexts for discussion about China and Iran.

New Zealand is the Western World though, so it does not struggle with the concept of Westernization. China on the other hand has a developing capitalist-command economy with a government that resists Western influence upon its culture and has a population that ranges from underdeveloped to developed in terms of living standards. China is also seen as a World Power or next to World Power and thus has more political clout and influence on a global scale.

In Iran's context, Iran has to deal with a youth population that is eager to embrace the technological advances of the Western World, and to some extent the free exchange of ideas. Iran has to deal with accepting this population will undo some of the victories that the Iranian Revolution brought about. What is accepted in the end is not for me to divine, as I do not know where Iran will end up say five years down the road. Iran however does not have China's clout, is considered an upstart nation (not like North Korea is considered) and does not want to play along with other powerful nations and their rules government nuclear proliferation and energy.

But in the end, both nations must struggle against the Western/Non-Western World axis of thought.

WarOne wrote:But yet if it is a Conservative bombing a nation to stop something, do you think it will stop something?

sebster wrote:It depends on what it is trying to stop. You can target large industrial facilities to stop a country doing something, like building a bomb. You can't bomb someone to force them to change a legal practice, it's nonsensical and will result in the targetted country just saying 'no'.

Do you think that Iran will stop in the first event?

It is one thing to generalise about historical events which are fairly well understood, and a completely different thing to generalise about possible future behaviour of individuals, which is what you do when you say, "liberals would do this".

In effect you are setting up a straw man argument.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is one thing to generalise about historical events which are fairly well understood, and a completely different thing to generalise about possible future behaviour of individuals, which is what you do when you say, "liberals would do this".

In effect you are setting up a straw man argument.

Correct. That is exactly what I did to illustrate the fact that liberals cannot stop the death of this woman in Iran.

One should only tolerate what is right and just.
Having said that there's also the policy of not telling others what to do. I have no problem decrying Iran for its behavior, but its their country. if they want to make it a hell hole thats their deal, not mine.

Frazzled wrote:One should only tolerate what is right and just.
Having said that there's also the policy of not telling others what to do. I have no problem decrying Iran for its behavior, but its their country. if they want to make it a hell hole thats their deal, not mine.

So what do you think about American interventionalism?

Also...

Thanks for the diversion Frazzled!

I can now escape in my rocketship from this debate!

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
Well, you see, the thing about that is they really are. Everyone who makes the call to bomb anything knows for a fact that the majority of bombs dropped will miss their targets and hit civilians, and they're perfectly okay with that.

I see you've never been in the military or know much about bombing missions.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:BTW, did anyone know that it is legal for a husband to rape his wife every 3 days in Iran? Talk about anti-female...!

Anti-Female? Are you kidding me? They give her two days between rapes. For Iran that's positively left wing progressive thinking in the extreme.

This could be easily fixed by giving women guns or access to large meat cleavers. Don't fix the blame, fix the problem.

Just another days work for the "religion of peace"

I do feel bad for that poor woman, but if they do go ahead and kill her, i hope they kill her in the most grusome way possible live on national television, then childishly and needlessly call Carla Bruni a whore a few more times, and then admit they are after an atom bomb to scour the earth of Kaffirs.

Plenty more left leaning hippies will therefore be unable to keep their blinkers on anymore, and will be turned over to my way of thinking, and the world will be a much better place!

Welcome to the real world pinkos, its a hell of a ride!

mattyrm wrote:

Plenty more left leaning hippies will therefore be unable to keep their blinkers on anymore, and will be turned over to my way of thinking, and the world will be a much better place!

Welcome to the real world pinkos, its a hell of a ride!

May I dare ask what is your "way of thinking?"

At the risk of putting words into mattyrm's mouth, I believe he is one of the people who consider it would be an interesting experiment to try to bomb enemies out of the Stone Age.

dogma wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Yes, I have. I have chosen to progress beyond primitive means of enforcing moral laws with force. I believe in the power of words, not actions.

So, if you were attacked, you wouldn't attempt to defend yourself?

If you believe that you have the right to defend yourself, and are willing to use force in order to so, then you are willing to enforce a moral judgment using force.

A moral judgment is different from choosing to defend yourself.

Not really. You're judging that you have the moral right to inflict harm on another to prevent them from harming you. You have decided that your right to not be harmed is greater than theirs.

Exactly. A pacifist might choose not to inflict harm on another even in self-defense. In political situations, with media watching, this can sometimes be effective. For example, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr. It might work out in a personal assault too, if you have witnesses and can avoid serious harm. If you haven't inflicted any damage on the other guy, it tends to be a pretty open & shut case in terms of who was at fault.

Monster Rain wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

Better late than never, yeah? And that still doesn't make it okay for other countries to condone it.

Is "Better late than never" seriously your argument here?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:
Sadly enough, some people would disagree with us that legal rape is a bad thing.

Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

It was outlawed in the UK in 1991.

Huh? Wow, us Aussies beat you in that regard by a good 10 years or so. I think.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Amazingly enough, the idea that a Husband is actually capable of committing rape against his own Wife is a (relatively) new idea, even in the Western World.

Better late than never, yeah? And that still doesn't make it okay for other countries to condone it.

Is "Better late than never" seriously your argument here?

I don't know. I still can't figure out the point that you were trying to make.

Are you inferring that I shouldn't pass judgment on the issue in the OP because of how recently married rape was made illegal in my country? I would reject that statement.

Wait, so Carla Bruni ISN'T a whore?

Who's tits have I seen, then?

Until this point I'd never heard of zealotry against injustice being described as a bad thing.

It's all about signal to noise. If you scream loudly about every single thing, it diminishes the perceived significance of the things you scream about. If you're sometimes talking about important things, then you're basically serving as an excercise in diminishing important things. I view AI that way.

For example, they scream about the DPRK. Then they scream about Abu Ghraib. And while I agree that Abu Ghraib was a bad thing, it's basically trivial when compared to what happens daily in the DPRK, or virtually any other 3rd world nation.

You're ignoring the option to put a person in maximum security for the rest of his life. We can lock people away with no chance or escape and no chance of ever harming anyone again.

Yes and no. In some cases, they'll harm other inmates or guards. You can run such a tight ship that this is impossible, but that's expensive.

And if it's expensive, then you're spending money to incarcerate that guy that you could have spent taking care of somebody else, and maybe they die as a result.

All that said, yes, I was ignoring options and wasn't explaining why... So here's why: I've heard it explained statistically, that if we just executed everyone we were reasonably sure was a murderer, then fewer innocent people would be killed in the net.

I'm not saying that should be an appealing option, but it's still worth thinking through, just to have the datapoint to consider. I'm not necessarily even saying it's true, I'm just saying I heard it explained in a way that was pretty convincing, and if it's interesting enough, I'm sure I can dig it up.

You are right that in terms of sheer scale it isn't that great, so why feel the need to give the state that power at all?

Actually, I agree, I think that if we intend to use the death penalty at the rate we currently do, then we should ban it. It's better to get the PR win than it is to bother killing 35 people a year. It'd also probably save money.

But I also don't think we should be executing 35 people a year. I think we should be executing many, many more. Or, at least, I would hope that we could be doing so, and justly. My primary consideration is proof. If there is ironclad proof, I am in favor of the death penalty for many crimes. For example, if a man violently rapes a woman (or a man for that matter), and it's proven beyond any doubt, then they should be executed. I simply don't believe that this sort of person is going to ever participate positively in society. If the proof is there, and it's TRULY incontrovertible, then I would support execution for lesser crimes than currently allow for it.

Contingent to that, there would also have to be a cost savings. If it costs more in legal bills to get the execution than to just incarcerate the person, then why bother? It's not about punishment, in my opinion. I don't feel a need to "get back" at the criminal. I just don't want to deal with them anymore. I want them gone. If there was a planet where they could go, and never bother this world again, wonderful, go there. Hey, maybe Australia...

So, realistically, I'm in favor of banning the death sentence. But from a moral perspective, I think it's justifiable to execute people for some "lesser" crimes, such as rape, kidnapping, calculated brutality, child molestation, etc. If we had a legal system that I felt confidence in, and seemed capable of reaching correct, consistent verdicts, I'd be in favor of a large volume of executions.

The extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa certainly argues otherwise.

Well, the African outlook on sex is far more positive than that of the West. We're much more puritanical. Certainly there are Muslim nations in Africa, but the whole continent is living in a much more sex-positive context. It's just not as "scary" as it is for Westerners.

WarOne wrote:So I cannot say "liberals have negative feelings toward Glenn Beck?"

Yeah, you can. My earlier comment probably wasn't that accurate. It's just... you have to be very careful with the generalisations. For a group like, say, American liberals, they're united in their opposition to the Republicans and their noise machine, so it'd be reasonable to say that liberals don't like Glenn Beck. But every step you take away from the core elements of the group, the less likely a generalisation is going to be accurate.

Once you get to something like 'liberals think every part of another culture should be respected' you're a mile away from their core beliefs and well into stereotyping.

I don't know how smart you think I am, but I am not as smart as you. Generalizations make my world a better place to place things into perspective and say things within the span of a casual conversation. I cannot take the time I have to properly research something and come to a concluded and well seasoned statment backed by hundreds of hours of investigative and sound information processing.

Sure, and generalisations are useful. Just be careful the generalisation is at least generally true, and not just something that makes for an easier worldview. In this case the problem is that it isn't a belief generally held by liberals.

Without generalizations, I would not be able to say things like "America won World War II" without having to interject thnigs like "and the British victory in the Battle of Britain helped" and the "grinding campaigning of the Eastern Front by Soviet forces against an overconfident and micromanaged German army."

Really fighting the urge to start that whole 'actually the Soviets beat the Germans' argument all over again

But in the end, both nations must struggle against the Western/Non-Western World axis of thought.

In very different ways, though, yeah?

Do you think that Iran will stop in the first event?

Stop which, the nuke program or the stoning?

WarOne wrote:Correct. That is exactly what I did to illustrate the fact that liberals cannot stop the death of this woman in Iran.

Sure, but no-one can stop the death of this woman. What can be done is to stop further stonings down the line.

Monster Rain wrote:I don't know. I still can't figure out the point that you were trying to make.

Are you inferring that I shouldn't pass judgment on the issue in the OP because of how recently married rape was made illegal in my country? I would reject that statement.

The point is that while it is perfectly reasonable to assess another country's failings, it is useless to do so in a manner which just places one's own country on a pedestal.

The issue of being unable to refuse consent in Iran is a serious issue, but one that is not helped by people feigning moral outrage that a woman can be legally raped. I am left wondering how many people claiming to be outraged over the situation in Iran were among those who protested against the same when it was legal here.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't know. I still can't figure out the point that you were trying to make.

Are you inferring that I shouldn't pass judgment on the issue in the OP because of how recently married rape was made illegal in my country? I would reject that statement.

The point is that while it is perfectly reasonable to assess another country's failings, it is useless to do so in a manner which just places one's own country on a pedestal.

The issue of being unable to refuse consent in Iran is a serious issue, but one that is not helped by people feigning moral outrage that a woman can be legally raped. I am left wondering how many people claiming to be outraged over the situation in Iran were among those who protested against the same when it was legal here.

I didn't realize that I was putting my country on a pedestal while making those statements, though I do consider it to be a better place to live than many others.

Since it was apparently made a criminal offense in 1976 I guess you're right. I wasn't protesting it as I wasn't born until 5 years later.

Also, I'm going to leave "spousal rape" in my search box to concern my wife.

Monster Rain wrote:I didn't realize that I was putting my country on a pedestal while making those statements, though I do consider it to be a better place to live than many others.

Didn't mean to put it on you personally. I apologise for implying that. I meant it in a general sense, that it is fine to acknowledge problems in other countries, and destructive to pick out failings elsewhere as a way explaining why we are good and they are bad.

And yeah, your country is one of the best places to live. Mine is as well, we should acknowledge how lucky we are.

Since it was apparently made a criminal offense in 1976 I guess you're right. I wasn't protesting it as I wasn't born until 5 years later.

Also, I'm going to leave "spousal rape" in my search box to concern my wife.

Relapse wrote:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
Well, you see, the thing about that is they really are. Everyone who makes the call to bomb anything knows for a fact that the majority of bombs dropped will miss their targets and hit civilians, and they're perfectly okay with that.

I see you've never been in the military or know much about bombing missions.

Really because... "Analysts say the new bombs should be highly accurate because they rely on satellites rather than lasers, giving them an all-weather capability lacking in earlier versions of smart munitions.

Twenty-five individual aim points were targeted and the Pentagon can only confirm damage at eight of them.

One official, quoted in the Washington Post, said he had been told the bombs missed by an average of more than 100 yards (metres).

Checks are now being carried out to see if this might have been due to a software error.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon and the Royal Air Force insist that other weapons used against vital communications nodes or junctions were much more successful.

The RAF used older laser-guided bombs (which had about a 40 percent hit rate during their use in Kosovo) to hit a single target array and a Ministry of Defence spokesman in London told the BBC that they were "entirely content with their success rate". "

I don't know about you, but I believe that the Pentagon and the RAF probably know MUCH more about the bombing runs that they conducted than either you or I. Also, I think being part of the military would probably have a negative effect on how much I actually knew about the success of bombing runs. (Assuming I wasn't in a high position.)

I mean, to put it simply, they seem to have aimed at 25 places and only even damaged eight? Not very good odds there. I mean, that doesn't even mean eight hit on target, just that they did SOME damage to the target. Military policy was clearly outlined by Rumsfeld as "The force necessary, plus some."

That, and you completely missed the point that the U.S. does indeed intentionally bomb civilians. We've done it in pretty much every major conflict that possible. That's one of the reasons the U.S. withdrew from the ICC.

SamplesoWoopass wrote:That, and you completely missed the point that the U.S. does indeed intentionally bomb civilians. We've done it in pretty much every major conflict that possible. That's one of the reasons the U.S. withdrew from the ICC.

So what are things like in Narnia, or whatever imaginary land you seem to seem to be posting from where facts are just made up on the spur of the moment?

CT GAMER wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Out of approximately 1200 executions in the US since 1976, none have ever been PROVEN to have been in error.

Please bear that in mind as you make claims such as these.

None have been PROVEN. But for some there are very heavy evidence agaisnt them. go look up the case of todd willingham. The new yorker has a great artical on it. read it. Oh dont forget there have been people proven innocent who were on death row
But this is a very sad story. I never get why people who say they want peace with these people over look thing such as these?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wasn't there some saying that had something to do with History and learning and repetition?

I had always figured the first screw up would at least be history before we started to forget it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrashUSAR wrote:People die all the time. People die from natural causes, such as disease and just plain old age. People also die "prematurely" due to some form of intervention by a second, or third party. Murders, automobile accidents, bombs missing targets, stonings, etc... Me telling you this can lead you to believe that nasty things happen in this world. Well, bingo, you've got it. It is a nasty world we live in. It's naturally nasty. Someone mentioned earlier that we are still animals, albeit a more highly evolved animal that has to ability to show an elevated level of compassion for one another. This is quite true, and because this is quite true we can also show an elevated level of sheer barbaric hatred towards one another. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Sound familiar, yeah? Well, it's my own humble opinion that this applies to more than just the world of physics. We'll never live in some peaceful utopia where everything is fair and just. There's always going to be a "wrong side of the tracks," and there's nothing anyone can do about it. No amount of peace treaties, no amount of militaristic actioin is going to fix it and make everything just peachy. However, the sooner you can accept it and just enjoy things in your own little corner of the world, the happier you'll be. Trust me, stop trying to fix everyone elses problems, stop trying to stand up to the bully that's 10,000 miles away from your playground. He's still gonna be somewhere taking someone else's lunch money, just be glad he's not taking yours.

Ethics is about the use of power. A simple way to justify not doing anything good is just to pretend you have no power.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wasn't there some saying that had something to do with History and learning and repetition?

I had always figured the first screw up would at least be history before we started to forget it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrashUSAR wrote:People die all the time. People die from natural causes, such as disease and just plain old age. People also die "prematurely" due to some form of intervention by a second, or third party. Murders, automobile accidents, bombs missing targets, stonings, etc... Me telling you this can lead you to believe that nasty things happen in this world. Well, bingo, you've got it. It is a nasty world we live in. It's naturally nasty. Someone mentioned earlier that we are still animals, albeit a more highly evolved animal that has to ability to show an elevated level of compassion for one another. This is quite true, and because this is quite true we can also show an elevated level of sheer barbaric hatred towards one another. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Sound familiar, yeah? Well, it's my own humble opinion that this applies to more than just the world of physics. We'll never live in some peaceful utopia where everything is fair and just. There's always going to be a "wrong side of the tracks," and there's nothing anyone can do about it. No amount of peace treaties, no amount of militaristic actioin is going to fix it and make everything just peachy. However, the sooner you can accept it and just enjoy things in your own little corner of the world, the happier you'll be. Trust me, stop trying to fix everyone elses problems, stop trying to stand up to the bully that's 10,000 miles away from your playground. He's still gonna be somewhere taking someone else's lunch money, just be glad he's not taking yours.

Ethics is about the use of power. A simple way to justify not doing anything good is just to pretend you have no power.

Go to sleep. I just got back from 14 hours of work and I'll debate you tomorrow.

Now off.

Kilkrazy wrote:At the risk of putting words into mattyrm's mouth, I believe he is one of the people who consider it would be an interesting experiment to try to bomb enemies out of the Stone Age.

Meh.

Kill them all, may the Immortal Emperor of Mankind grant mercy upon their heathen souls...

sebster wrote:

garret wrote:But this is a very sad story. I never get why people who say they want peace with these people over look thing such as these?

Because war will hurt women like the one who going to be stoned as much as it'll hurt anyone else. Because the best way we can affect reform is with soft power.

Hmm. Isn't that what the west's been trying to do for what, 30 years? The use of Soft Power may make people like you (for the sake of argument) feel better, but it doesn't necessarily make the people living under the Iranian regime feel better. I think the jubilant scenes of celebration in Iraq when the Ba'ath Party was toppled show that the direct imposition of reform from outside CAN be accepted, and CAN work. People seemed pretty happy to see the Americans and Brits (et al.) - it al went to gak because the coalition was looking for a way 'out' as soon as they got 'in'. If the coalition had rolled up and said:

'Right, this country is a mess - it's corrupt, violent and a danger to both it's neighbours and the wider world. People are starving, they have very little access to clean drinking water or medicine. We are going to assume control of the country and administrate it for the forseeable future in order to secure those things in the short term, and make Iraq a viable country in the long term. We will do this by underwriting its national debt, expanding its infrastructure and getting its industry on its feet. This will provide jobs for people and revenue for rebuilding. For the time being, democracy is suspended but we will put in place a provisional constitution which will guarantee Iraqi human rights, and we will invite independent monitors into the country to ensure that these rights are upheld. As the country increases in stability, we will begin the gradual devolution of some powers to local assemblies, bodies which will be democratically-elected, although executive power and authority will be administered by the coalition for as long as we are in charge of Iraqi affairs. This could be for anything up to and exceeding 100 years. We are not going anywhere. We understand that the Iraqi people are a proud race, but you lost. You are our vanquished enemy. The sooner you make your peace with this, the happier everyone will be and Iraq will move forward to a prosperous and secure future.'

...I personally think we would have had a better chance of peace in Iraq. After all, a similar strategy worked in West Germany.

And Japan.

Uh-huh.

Albatross wrote:Wait, so Carla Bruni ISN'T a whore?

Who's tits have I seen, then?

lol.

Albatross wrote:Hmm. Isn't that what the west's been trying to do for what, 30 years?

So... we organise a coup because we don't like that Iran voted in a democracy, and when our puppet is overthrown by a theocracy we sponsor a tyrant in the neighbouring country to invade and kill a few hundred thousand people. All that achieves nothing a more firmly entrenched religious power block. But since then it's been 25 years of soft power, and what have we got for it?!

If nothing else, we really need to realise that we keep fething up the use of hard power in the Middle East, so we really ought to stop using it.

The use of Soft Power may make people like you (for the sake of argument) feel better, but it doesn't necessarily make the people living under the Iranian regime feel better.

The stoning has been suspended, and without a bomb being dropped.

I think the jubilant scenes of celebration in Iraq when the Ba'ath Party was toppled show that the direct imposition of reform from outside CAN be accepted, and CAN work. People seemed pretty happy to see the Americans and Brits (et al.) - it al went to gak because the coalition was looking for a way 'out' as soon as they got 'in'.

No, it went to gak because basic elements of order and control were not undertaken, and because key players were not brought on board or even identified.

And your plan is lovely, but it really doesn't address what went substantially wrong in Iraq. Nothing that went wrong would have been solved by telling people they were going to be in Iraq for a long time.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:Hmm. Isn't that what the west's been trying to do for what, 30 years?

So... we organise a coup because we don't like that Iran voted in a democracy, and when our puppet is overthrown by a theocracy we sponsor a tyrant in the neighbouring country to invade and kill a few hundred thousand people. All that achieves nothing a more firmly entrenched religious power block. But since then it's been 25 years of soft power, and what have we got for it?!

If nothing else, we really need to realise that we keep fething up the use of hard power in the Middle East, so we really ought to stop using it.

The use of Soft Power may make people like you (for the sake of argument) feel better, but it doesn't necessarily make the people living under the Iranian regime feel better.

The stoning has been suspended, and without a bomb being dropped.

I think the jubilant scenes of celebration in Iraq when the Ba'ath Party was toppled show that the direct imposition of reform from outside CAN be accepted, and CAN work. People seemed pretty happy to see the Americans and Brits (et al.) - it al went to gak because the coalition was looking for a way 'out' as soon as they got 'in'.

No, it went to gak because basic elements of order and control were not undertaken, and because key players were not brought on board or even identified.

And your plan is lovely, but it really doesn't address what went substantially wrong in Iraq. Nothing that went wrong would have been solved by telling people they were going to be in Iraq for a long time.

There are reports she was flogged 99 times. She might already be dead. Where's that soft power again?

Phryxis wrote:It's all about signal to noise. If you scream loudly about every single thing, it diminishes the perceived significance of the things you scream about. If you're sometimes talking about important things, then you're basically serving as an excercise in diminishing important things. I view AI that way.

For example, they scream about the DPRK. Then they scream about Abu Ghraib. And while I agree that Abu Ghraib was a bad thing, it's basically trivial when compared to what happens daily in the DPRK, or virtually any other 3rd world nation.

AI holds Western democracies to a higher standard than shithole totalitarian regimes. This seems pretty sensible to me.

Yes and no. In some cases, they'll harm other inmates or guards. You can run such a tight ship that this is impossible, but that's expensive.

And if it's expensive, then you're spending money to incarcerate that guy that you could have spent taking care of somebody else, and maybe they die as a result.

Not really. Spending the right amount of money on incarceration doesn't prevent the right amount of money being spent elsewhere. Not when people are buying plasma screen tellies. If society wanted properly maintained prisons it would have them, it isn't beyond the scope of Western countries. All you guys in the US would have to do is stop giving out jail terms for pot possession and you'd free up so many resources you wouldn't know what to do with them.

All that said, yes, I was ignoring options and wasn't explaining why... So here's why: I've heard it explained statistically, that if we just executed everyone we were reasonably sure was a murderer, then fewer innocent people would be killed in the net.

I'm not saying that should be an appealing option, but it's still worth thinking through, just to have the datapoint to consider. I'm not necessarily even saying it's true, I'm just saying I heard it explained in a way that was pretty convincing, and if it's interesting enough, I'm sure I can dig it up.

That's actually the point where I start losing interest. Kill them or don't kill them, either way the victim is dead and the murder's life is wasted. I'd much rather see resources spent and political debate focussed on how the murder rate can be lowered in the first place.

Contingent to that, there would also have to be a cost savings. If it costs more in legal bills to get the execution than to just incarcerate the person, then why bother? It's not about punishment, in my opinion. I don't feel a need to "get back" at the criminal. I just don't want to deal with them anymore. I want them gone. If there was a planet where they could go, and never bother this world again, wonderful, go there. Hey, maybe Australia...

You know you guys took almost as many English prisoners as we did...

Well, the African outlook on sex is far more positive than that of the West. We're much more puritanical. Certainly there are Muslim nations in Africa, but the whole continent is living in a much more sex-positive context. It's just not as "scary" as it is for Westerners.

You think so? The number of sexual partners is not much higher in Africa than elsewhere, and corresponds pretty closely with lower socio-economic groups in the West. To the extent there's a difference that impact seems pretty miniscule compared to the empowerment of women and education.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:There are reports she was flogged 99 times. She might already be dead. Where's that soft power again?

As I've said throughout the thread, she'll likely die. There needs to be an acceptance as to the limits of our ability to stop every bad thing happening everywhere (and now that I think of it, there needs to be a serious examination into which bad things we pick out as the completely unacceptable thing of the week and how those things relate to over-riding media narratives).


But in the meantime you should go drop some bombs on Iran. That'll totally save this poor woman. When it doesn't, you should organise another coup, see that coup overthrown by extremists, encourage a neighbour to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of people, then be shocked when the people living in that country don't like you. Then you should be shocked that a woman is being stoned, and talk about all the awesome powerful things you could do to totally explode that country.

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:Hmm. Isn't that what the west's been trying to do for what, 30 years?

So... we organise a coup because we don't like that Iran voted in a democracy, and when our puppet is overthrown by a theocracy we sponsor a tyrant in the neighbouring country to invade and kill a few hundred thousand people. All that achieves nothing a more firmly entrenched religious power block. But since then it's been 25 years of soft power, and what have we got for it?!

If nothing else, we really need to realise that we keep fething up the use of hard power in the Middle East, so we really ought to stop using it.

The use of Soft Power may make people like you (for the sake of argument) feel better, but it doesn't necessarily make the people living under the Iranian regime feel better.

The stoning has been suspended, and without a bomb being dropped.

I think the jubilant scenes of celebration in Iraq when the Ba'ath Party was toppled show that the direct imposition of reform from outside CAN be accepted, and CAN work. People seemed pretty happy to see the Americans and Brits (et al.) - it al went to gak because the coalition was looking for a way 'out' as soon as they got 'in'.

No, it went to gak because basic elements of order and control were not undertaken, and because key players were not brought on board or even identified.

And your plan is lovely, but it really doesn't address what went substantially wrong in Iraq. Nothing that went wrong would have been solved by telling people they were going to be in Iraq for a long time.

There are reports she was flogged 99 times. She might already be dead. Where's that soft power again?

Come on, Frazz. Would even you seriously threaten to bomb Iran because they were going to flog someone?

Nope. But lets admit that "soft power" doesn't work on dictatorships, pretty much ever.

dogma wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
That, and you completely missed the point that the U.S. does indeed intentionally bomb civilians. We've done it in pretty much every major conflict that possible. That's one of the reasons the U.S. withdrew from the ICC.

The US was never a party to the ICC. Clinton signed the Rome statute, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification; ostensibly because he reserved the right of the government to observe the court's function. Bush II, because of his neoconservative leanings, had no intention of ever submitting the statute for Senatorial review and so suspended Clinton's signature of the treaty in order to require any future President to resign the document.

Well, actually, the language used by the ICC says that the U.S Withdrew from the ICC. The Bush administration formally submitted their withdraw. And it's still because they didn't want there to be any chance of prosecution of U.S service members.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
One official, quoted in the Washington Post, said he had been told the bombs missed by an average of more than 100 yards (metres).

The RAF used older laser-guided bombs (which had about a 40 percent hit rate during their use in Kosovo) to hit a single target array and a Ministry of Defence spokesman in London told the BBC that they were "entirely content with their success rate". "

I don't know about you, but I believe that the Pentagon and the RAF probably know MUCH more about the bombing runs that they conducted than either you or I. Also, I think being part of the military would probably have a negative effect on how much I actually knew about the success of bombing runs. (Assuming I wasn't in a high position.)

You know that missing a target is not the same as missing a target and hitting civilians, which is what you initially claimed, right? Indeed, all you've ostensibly supported is that two separate typos of munition miss their targets the majority of the time. You still need to support the claim that the majority of all bombs miss their targets, and that at leas the majority of those misses hit civilians.

That's true, I'll give you that. But, where do you think the bombs land? You can look through here and (I started at the oldest information in the data base because that would have been where the most bombings occurred) and see for yourself that these bombs don't just miss and land out in the middle of nowhere. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/page462 .And you have to remember, that even the ones that DO hit, even directly, could very well kill civilians and have already been noted as acceptable collateral damage. AND you have to keep in mind that the eight they list that damage the target don't necessarily hit the way they were supposed to.

Sorta like in 40k, you can miss with a blast marker and have it scatter somewhere else but still clip some of the guys you targeted. However, that doesn't stop it from having missed and potentially hit something else. Except, instead of toy soldiers it's real people.

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
I mean, to put it simply, they seem to have aimed at 25 places and only even damaged eight? Not very good odds there. I mean, that doesn't even mean eight hit on target, just that they did SOME damage to the target. Military policy was clearly outlined by Rumsfeld as "The force necessary, plus some."

Yes, because not hitting your target every time is part of warfare. For example, 40% is actually a very good accuracy rate for gravity bombs.

If that's good accuracy for that type of munition, then it shouldn't be used. Especially in this urban warfare. If 40% is GOOD, then you must agree that they knew they were going to miss and not cared about the collateral damage caused by that deplorable success rate.

Ahtman wrote: So what are things like in Narnia, or whatever imaginary land you seem to seem to be posting from where facts are just made up on the spur of the moment?

Hmmmmmm yeah, I guess I was just making up all those fire bombs and nukes we dropped on Japan, the bombs we dropped in North Korea, Kissinger's Christmas bombings and the "secret" bombings in Cambodia that helped the Khmer Rouge take power during the Vietnam War, and the bombs we dropped in Iraq. Yeah I just DREAMED all those up myself. And those aren't even all of the instances we've bombed people. Those are just the ones I see as major conflicts.

How about, instead of being a total jackass when you say my facts are off, you present some of your own? Or maybe learn a bit of history?

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nope. But lets admit that "soft power" doesn't work on dictatorships, pretty much ever.

Well, it worked on the Soviet Union, Libya and Egypt. It can also have a positive effect on all the wavering third party countries who look at what is going on in the world.

Hard Power has much less then 100% efficiency rating too.

What on earth are you talking about?
-We were in a cold war that was frequently hot with the USSR for 50 years. They collapsed only because their economy was crap and they spent themselves into oblivion on military spending.

You never once fought the SU.

Economy is soft power.

Frazzled wrote:
-We bombed the out of Libya to get them to stop funding terrorists.

That didn't work, but the application of soft power afterwards did. It was applied more by the UK though.

Frazzled wrote:
-Egypt? We give them billions a year

Giving money isn't soft power?

How well did hard power work in Korea and Vietnam, eh?

Boy you and Frazzled are really going at it.

Wanna make a debate thread to the death?

We hate users more than each other.

You never once fought the SU.

*****Actually we had multiple scrapes with them. Additionally Soviet pilots and US pilots were killing each other over Korea for nearly 3 years.
Proxy wars between the two sides. Lots of proxy wars. Angola, Latin America, indochina, Korea, Afghanistan.


That didn't work, but the application of soft power afterwards did. It was applied more by the UK though.
****Actually it worked quite well. They stopped after Khaddafy buried his kid. Payback is a bitch.

Giving money isn't soft power?
****Its not especially productive.

How well did hard power work in Korea and Vietnam, eh?
***Worked pretty damn well for North Vietnam and stopped the North Koreans and Chinese cold.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:We hate users more than each other.

Exactly. Plus he has opposable thumbs and the weiners aren't always around to open the rum bottle for me.

Kilkrazy wrote:We hate users more than each other.

Frazzled wrote:ONly after they bankrupted themselves trying to keep their military machine going and we stopped them cold.

This has always been a weird one for you Republicans. You oppose the Soviets, quite rightly, because state planned economies are wasteful and lead to economic stagnation... but the Soviets themselves realised this and began to dismantle their system you started pretending it wasn't the inherent failings of a state planned economy but a drive to spend themselves into the ground to compete with US spending.

It is, of course, a nonsense. Soviet military spending was always high, and throughout the final years of the USSR it was no higher than it had been throughout. With the Russian economy stagnant in comparison to the growth in the West, the Soviets simply pretended to have a far greater level of strength than they could actually handle. When Reagan set about really increasing US defence spending, the Soviets responded by really pretending to spend money.

And you didn't even respond to the positive use of soft power in South Korea...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Or use it properly by actually building nations instead of just expecting them to appear out of thin air because we really, really, really want them to.

But building a nation is not something you can simply choose to do. It takes a whole lot of treasure and a whole lot of blood, which is something nations aren't willing to give up. Even if they are willing, there's no guarantee they'll actually get it right.

Why do you think I care about this particular Iranian (actually, I think she's Azeri) woman? She's a drop in the ocean, sadly.

It's what the thread is about, it's why we're talking about how to stop Iran doing bad things.

Yes, dismantling the Iraqi armed forces and police were a bad idea. I thought that went without saying. I'm talking about the broader long-term strategy, or lack thereof.

Do you think if the best possible plan could have been employed from the start, the death toll wouldn't have still been in the tens of thousands? The dollar cost wouldn't have been in the hundreds of thousands?

Really? You think installing a puppet government then announcing that you'll be leaving in a few years was a more effective way of stabilising the country than assuming formal control of the country for the long term?
Well, we've tried it your way and it didn't work.

You think anything that's happened has been my way?

Not really. Spending the right amount of money on incarceration doesn't prevent the right amount of money being spent elsewhere.

Have you seen the American debt? Money has never been such a finite resource.

All you guys in the US would have to do is stop giving out jail terms for pot possession and you'd free up so many resources you wouldn't know what to do with them.

Agree there, BIG TIME.

You think so?

I dunno, I'm not an African scholar, it's just something I've heard repeated a lot by people who seemed to think they were.

And it's still because they didn't want there to be any chance of prosecution of U.S service members.

This is not really accurate. The US can actually destroy the ICC by signing on, this is the concern. If the ICC says "person X is guilty" and the US doesn't agree, guess what happens? Person X doesn't get punished, and the ICC is revealed as a joke.

The ICC is actually better off not being revealed as secondary to the decisions of US courts or US policymakers.

I guess I was just making up all those fire bombs and nukes we dropped on Japan

Yeah, ok, and in the Jurassic period, people didn't even LIVE in the US.

I guess I could also point that you routinely crap and piss in your own pants, as well? Oh, sure, I mean, you did when you were 6 months old, but I'M STILL RIGHT!!!! READ SOME HISTORY DUH!

Dude, current American policy is to avoid civilian casualties. We're more focused on it than any military power in history.

In 1940 it was an accepted military tactic to attack civilian centers. Just how war was done. In fact, during the Battle of Britain, when Hitler turned the Luftwaffe on the cities, rather than military assets, the Brits breathed a sigh of relief, thanked him for his ignorance, and won the battle. It wasn't just an accepted tactic, it was an accepted tactic that didn't always work.

Phryxis wrote:

Not really. Spending the right amount of money on incarceration doesn't prevent the right amount of money being spent elsewhere.

Have you seen the American debt? Money has never been such a finite resource.

All you guys in the US would have to do is stop giving out jail terms for pot possession and you'd free up so many resources you wouldn't know what to do with them.

Agree there, BIG TIME.

You think so?

I dunno, I'm not an African scholar, it's just something I've heard repeated a lot by people who seemed to think they were.

And it's still because they didn't want there to be any chance of prosecution of U.S service members.

This is not really accurate. The US can actually destroy the ICC by signing on, this is the concern. If the ICC says "person X is guilty" and the US doesn't agree, guess what happens? Person X doesn't get punished, and the ICC is revealed as a joke.

Well, that's the reason that ya know... the PEOPLE WHO WITHDREW gave.

The ICC is actually better off not being revealed as secondary to the decisions of US courts or US policymakers.

I guess I was just making up all those fire bombs and nukes we dropped on Japan

Yeah, ok, and in the Jurassic period, people didn't even LIVE in the US.

I guess I could also point that you routinely crap and piss in your own pants, as well? Oh, sure, I mean, you did when you were 6 months old, but I'M STILL RIGHT!!!! READ SOME HISTORY DUH!

Dude, current American policy is to avoid civilian casualties. We're more focused on it than any military power in history.

In 1940 (and 50's and 60's and 70's and now) it was an accepted military tactic to attack civilian centers. Just how war was done. In fact, during the Battle of Britain, when Hitler turned the Luftwaffe on the cities, rather than military assets, the Brits breathed a sigh of relief, thanked him for his ignorance, and won the battle. It wasn't just an accepted tactic, it was an accepted tactic that didn't always work.

You must not have read what I said in the post prior, because I explicitly said in major conflicts where it was possible. Obviously discounting conflicts before the U.S. had a strong enough air force to actually conduct air strikes. You're just being a fool and trying to completely circumvent the actual point made with some asinine bs that you think takes away its validity because "omahgaz, that aren't possible cuz the U.S couldn't have dropped bombs in dem major conflicts bcuz the U.S didn't exist."

And they don't REALLY avoid civilian casualties, or they wouldn't drop inaccurate and useless bombs in highly populated cities... you know... like Baghdad. Or, you know, wouldn't invade countries for oil so often.

Still, no one has been able to show anything contrary to my position that the U.S. intentionally bombs civilians. I'm also surprised that all of this arose from me saying that bombing the Iranian people wouldn't be helping them.

Frazzled wrote:
You never once fought the SU.

*****Actually we had multiple scrapes with them. Additionally Soviet pilots and US pilots were killing each other over Korea for nearly 3 years.
Proxy wars between the two sides. Lots of proxy wars. Angola, Latin America, indochina, Korea, Afghanistan.

But did you actually fight them? I mean more than espionage, spy planes getting shot down and the like.

That didn't work, but the application of soft power afterwards did. It was applied more by the UK though.
****Actually it worked quite well. They stopped after Khaddafy buried his kid. Payback is a bitch.

???

Giving money isn't soft power?
****Its not especially productive.

??????

How well did hard power work in Korea and Vietnam, eh?
***Worked pretty damn well for North Vietnam and stopped the North Koreans and Chinese cold.

Oh good Lord. See these pretty pictures?
First one is the inital Korean invasion, followed by the UN (American mostly) retaliation.


This one is the Chinese intervention.


Exactly who is stopping who cold here?

Frazzled wrote:Nope. But lets admit that "soft power" doesn't work on dictatorships, pretty much ever.

Iran isn't a dictatorship. You could call it an autocracy state of any sort except dictatorship. They would need to have a dictator for that to follow. The argument that you want to make is that soft power doesn't work on autocracies. Its a nonsense argument, because its based on conventional realism which is also nonsense, but its at least a terminologically correct argument. Anyway, there are quite a few examples of autocratic states responding to soft power, which is basically anything that isn't economically or militarily coercive.

Recently there was prisoner transfer between the United Kingdom, and Libya. This may have involved economic coercion on the part of Libya, but for the UK it was most certainly a soft power transaction which permitted them to obtain oil rights off the Libyan coast. That's one successful use of soft power against a dictatorship.

China went out of its way to improve its humanitarian conditions in the lead up to the Olympics; according to most analysts this was an express response to soft power coercion.

The United States made great use of public diplomacy throughout the Cold War, and in Iraq. In both instances it was effective in reducing the degree of opposition faced by American diplomats and soldiers. Notably, there is a proven correlation between the broadcast of American radio in Iraqi neighborhoods and their positive, or neutral, response to American soldiers. Its unlikely that this correlation indicates that the broadcasts made at the time rendered the Iraqis sympathetic to US soldiers. However it does show that they likely had some exposure to it in the past, which is consistent with the US broadcasts into Iraq prior to the war.

And, perhaps the most significant example, any attempt by any autocracy to control the influx of information to their nation implies that they fear, at least to some extent, soft power.

Frazzled wrote:
Actually it worked quite well. They stopped after Khaddafy buried his kid. Payback is a bitch.

No, they didn't. I understand that you only care about how certain ideas make you feel inside, but please make at least some attempt to make factual claims.

Libya wasn't removed from the US list of terrorism sponsors until 2006, and it wasn't until just before that point that they stopped supporting terrorists.

And hey, that Lockerbie bombing? That was 2 years after Reagan's military strikes, which only managed to kill his adopted daughter. Real effective, huh?

So does anyone know for sure if this poor woman was whipped and stoned to death, or if they called it off in the name of humanitarian outrages from the world community?

The U.S. major news networks haven't TOUCHED this at all. Perhaps this is so as not to cause a "we hate Iran" mob mentality at a time when we really want some kind of peace over there.

dogma wrote:[
No, they didn't. I understand that you only care about how certain ideas make you feel inside, but please make at least some attempt to make factual claims.

Good to see your level of debate is at its usual high level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:So does anyone know for sure if this poor woman was whipped and stoned to death, or if they called it off in the name of humanitarian outrages from the world community?

The U.S. major news networks haven't TOUCHED this at all. Perhaps this is so as not to cause a "we hate Iran" mob mentality at a time when we really want some kind of peace over there.

Its not PC to discuss the fact that many coutnries in the ME have aspects of their cultures that rats would fine repellant.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:[
No, they didn't. I understand that you only care about how certain ideas make you feel inside, but please make at least some attempt to make factual claims.

Good to see your level of debate is at its usual high level.

I see you are as well, by just quoting the cheeky response but not the part that followed that was the actual rebuttal. It is almost like you want to make it seem as if he just said something snarky without also being useful. It was both useful and snarky.

The stoning has been set aside due to international pressure.

soft power does work. not all the time. but it does have an effect. the alternatives are to do nothing or to bomb and/or invade. the 1st is worse than soft power, and the 2nd is often worse than either of them because it costs too much money. I wish republican chicken hawks could get their heads around how expensive war is. AF

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:[
No, they didn't. I understand that you only care about how certain ideas make you feel inside, but please make at least some attempt to make factual claims.

Good to see your level of debate is at its usual high level.

I see you are as well, by just quoting the cheeky response but not the part that followed that was the actual rebuttal. It is almost like you want to make it seem as if he just said something snarky without also being useful. It was both useful and snarky.

The stoning has been set aside due to international pressure.

Useful in an OT thread...
The flogging was done. If she's still alive the potential death sentence is still up in the air. Again, thats if she's still alive. Its my undertstanding that few live.

I wasn't insinuating that she was in the clear because they decided not to stone her to death. She is still pretty screwed, but that has been true for a long time, having the good luck to be born a woman in Iran.

Ahtman wrote:I wasn't insinuating that she was in the clear because they decided not to stone her to death. She is still pretty screwed, but that has been true for a long time, having the good luck to be born a woman in Iran.

True Dat. If Only Underdog were here, he would know what to do. Alternatively, the zombie corpse of Patton riding the zombie corpse of a Pershing tank. If history is any indication, no one has ever withstood the armored charge of Zombie Patton.

Guitardian wrote:So does anyone know for sure if this poor woman was whipped and stoned to death, or if they called it off in the name of humanitarian outrages from the world community?

The whipping has been reported as being carried out, but there are reports that the woman in question has stated she wasn't flogged. Stoning has been taken off the table, but pending review she might still be hung.

The U.S. major news networks haven't TOUCHED this at all. Perhaps this is so as not to cause a "we hate Iran" mob mentality at a time when we really want some kind of peace over there.

It's getting pretty steady coverage over here. It's in most news bulletins on the non-commercial media carriers. Commercial carriers aren't showing much interest, in part because there's stories of shonky traders that are much more important to idiots, and in part because there's no attached vision.

Frazzled wrote:
Good to see your level of debate is at its usual high level.

I'm sorry that I called you out for basing you opinions on feelings and not facts. I've done this in perfectly civil ways before, but the last time I completely refrained from snark you concluded that I was arguing without purpose. At this point I think the real problem is that you don't like having your opinion questioned, which leads me to wonder why you bother voicing it at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:
The U.S. major news networks haven't TOUCHED this at all. Perhaps this is so as not to cause a "we hate Iran" mob mentality at a time when we really want some kind of peace over there.

I saw it covered on CNN today. Honestly though, I'm surprised its gotten as much attention as it has. It isn't like this is the first time this sort of thing has happened. Its more severe than what usually happens in Iran, but I think that's because of the connection to murder charges.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Good to see your level of debate is at its usual high level.

I'm sorry that I called you out for basing you opinions on feelings and not facts. I've done this in perfectly civil ways before, but the last time I completely refrained from snark you concluded that I was arguing without purpose. At this point I think the real problem is that you don't like having your opinion questioned, which leads me to wonder why you bother voicing it at all.

As you don't actually post anywhere but the OT, I wonder why you post here as well.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:[
No, they didn't. I understand that you only care about how certain ideas make you feel inside, but please make at least some attempt to make factual claims.

Good to see your level of debate is at its usual high level.

I see you are as well, by just quoting the cheeky response but not the part that followed that was the actual rebuttal. It is almost like you want to make it seem as if he just said something snarky without also being useful. It was both useful and snarky.

The stoning has been set aside due to international pressure.

Useful in an OT thread...
The flogging was done. If she's still alive the potential death sentence is still up in the air. Again, thats if she's still alive. Its my undertstanding that few live.

It's my understanding that she was flogged 99 times when she was originally taken into custody. She survived that. This would be a second flogging, if it actually happened.

Attention all citizens: The floggings will continue until morale improves.

Frazzled wrote:
As you don't actually post anywhere but the OT, I wonder why you post here as well.

You post outside the OT forum? I mean, I'm not going to parse your entire posting history, but the first two pages of it show only 5 examples non-OT posting.

Regardless, I'm not wondering why you post here, there are too many variables to consider. I'm wondering why you have such emotive responses to political issues that you clearly have no knowledge of.

We post because we can, don't we? I don't post in the gallery or painting forums for lack of a camera. I only occasionally post in some army list adice or give someone props for a model they display that I particularly like, but I don't feel any less of a contributor for that.

There is nothing wrong with being far more interested in random 'off-topic' debates and idea-slinging, when 'on topic' usually involves either painting showcases, army lists, or rules clarifications for a game that has no relevance in our thoughts other than that it is fun.

The cool thing about geek-site forums is that most of the people who write on them, no matter what the topic, are extremely intelligent, good debaters, have interesting insights about all sorts of things, both gaming and non-gaming related. No reason to give Frazz a hard time for preferring random political discussions and philosophical sparring matches over "does this work in my 2000 point ork list for the upcoming tournament".

Hey at first I couldn't stand the guy and he couldn't stand me when we first started the OT sparring over all sorts of topics.... political philosophies differential or something. Nowadays I love the insights from reading other people's thoughts. When you read and discuss/debate so many different opinions on different topics all posted by a community of usually educated and intelligent and opinionated points of view, nothing bad can come of that.

This is not an attempt to kiss a mod's ass by defending him, just to appreciate that crazy debates and offhand subject changes and wild out there points of view are something to be valued by any reader, not some reason to downplay someone because of which topics he chooses to post about.

Guitardian wrote:We post because we can, don't we? I don't post in the gallery or painting forums for lack of a camera. I only occasionally post in some army list adice or give someone props for a model they display that I particularly like, but I don't feel any less of a contributor for that.

There is nothing wrong with being far more interested in random 'off-topic' debates and idea-slinging, when 'on topic' usually involves either painting showcases, army lists, or rules clarifications for a game that has no relevance in our thoughts other than that it is fun.

The cool thing about geek-site forums is that most of the people who write on them, no matter what the topic, are extremely intelligent, good debaters, have interesting insights about all sorts of things, both gaming and non-gaming related. No reason to give Frazz a hard time for preferring random political discussions and philosophical sparring matches over "does this work in my 2000 point ork list for the upcoming tournament".

Hey at first I couldn't stand the guy and he couldn't stand me when we first started the OT sparring over all sorts of topics.... political philosophies differential or something. Nowadays I love the insights from reading other people's thoughts. When you read and discuss/debate so many different opinions on different topics all posted by a community of usually educated and intelligent and opinionated points of view, nothing bad can come of that.

This is not an attempt to kiss a mod's ass by defending him, just to appreciate that crazy debates and offhand subject changes and wild out there points of view are something to be valued by any reader, not some reason to downplay someone because of which topics he chooses to post about.

Actually its 3,000 lists. And I hate orks. My Imbraesil can't handle them and get mashed every time. Even Bob and Ralph the revenant titans O doom get conblaminated, although they surived like 16 mega weapon/titan killer shots last game (TAKE THAT ORKs! In your face Tau Boys!!! muahahahaha!)

I just have issues with people who express deep debate arguments et al, on an OT board on toy soldiers.