It's amazing that he can push the "Bush is a despot," angle, even telling Bush his reign of terror will come to an end.
Of course it will. This is America, and we have term limits. In a few years, he'll just be another pundit and some other guy (or gal) will be running the place.
The whole situation is frustrating. Iran is a genuine threat, but the world doesn't want anything done about it as long as Iran is willing to talk. Iran is perfectly willing to talk, but has made it clear they're going to ignore any UN resolutions, whatever they say. But they're willing to talk about how they're going to ignore them all day long.
In the meantime, the enrichment process moves forward.
And in the meantime, China and Russia stall the process, not out of interest for Iran, but because it's in both of their best interest for it to be as hard as possible for the US and the UN to do anything in soveriegn nations.
Oh, no, wait, I forgot. They don't want us to go in because they hate Bush. The world is against the US because Bush upset them. I keep forgetting this is all so simple.
Edit: To look less like an idiot. Thanks.
[ May 09, 2006, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Cactus Jack ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You mean Iran, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Iran's president declared in a letter to President Bush that democracy had failed worldwide
They do hate our freedom! Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
cactus, Russia and China don't hate Bush or hate America they simply want to ensure a free flow of oil from Iran without Haliburton mussing up the process. And Russia wants to keep its Muslim MAJORITY happy by looking like their protecting arab nations from americans.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I just can't understand stupid comments like this from the Pres of Iran,
"The letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made only an oblique reference to Iran's nuclear intentions, asking why "any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime."
follow this by the comment, "If the US persues any agressive policy against Iran, Israel will be the first to suffer."
Does this guy live in the same world as his letter writer?
Dagonee: lol
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Ahmadinejad Letter Cribs Liberal Hatracker Rhetoric
In what way?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Here on Earth, neither the US nor Iran has released the contents of the Ahmadinejad letter.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: Iran is a genuine threat, but the world doesn't want anything done about it as long as Iran is willing to talk.
I think the world would prefer something be done, but doesn't know what can be done. Iran does have the right to pursue the same technology that everyone else has the right to pursue. We could ignore their rights as a nation, and violently force them to stop, but Iraq has become a powerful example of what is wrong with that strategy. For this reason, I think Iran knows what it is doing - I suspect they know how few options we have to stop them. It is a very calculated risk.
quote:cactus, Russia and China don't hate Bush or hate America they simply want to ensure a free flow of oil from Iran without Haliburton mussing up the process. And Russia wants to keep its Muslim MAJORITY happy by looking like their protecting arab nations from americans.
Even more importantly, I think Russia (and possibly China) is looking to get leverage in the world community by positioning itself as a protector of lesser nations against aggression from the U.S. I suspect they'd prefer smaller powers like Iran to view support of Russia as necessary to counterbalance whatever the U.S. could do to them, if left free to preemptively strike.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: We could ignore their rights as a nation, and violently force them to stop
What rights do nations have? I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm just wondering if there is something doctrinal, or if it's a mutually understood set of rights.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Under international law, all nations have the right to sovereignty.
Because of the nature of international law, that is nothing 'doctrinal' in the sense that some supra-national body made it law, but is a fundamental premise to the whole system of international law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Here on Earth, neither the US nor Iran has released the contents of the Ahmadinejad letter.
Yes, but here on Earth the text of the letter was released by unnamed diplomats.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Basically, a sovereign nation has the right to do whatever it can. In other words, Iran has a perfect right to build nukes, Israel and th eUS have a perfect right to reduce it to radioactive slag as retaliation, and the Arab nations have a perfect right to invade Israel in their turn. That is the foundation of Western international law, from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. You can argue that this is a bad system; but it's better than what went before, namely, that nations have a right to interfere in each others' affairs in order to impose the True Religion. That is seriously bad mojo; not just the Thirty Years' War, but also the Crusades and Reconquista.
However, this is somewhat modified by two things. First, it is an accepted principle that 'pacta sunt servanda', treaties are to be respected. So Iran does not, even in the old version of international law, have a right to unilaterally break the non-proliferation treaty, which they signed in good faith back when. Second, international law has been somewhat modified by the existence of the United Nations, which in principle took away the old right of aggressive warfare, and also restored some of the old right to interfere in others' affairs in the interests of human rights. (By the old rules, Hitler had a perfect right to kill of the German Jews, since they were his citizens. You can see why this was changed a bit. Live and learn, as they say.)
Of course, the problem with these more theoretical restrictions is that they are not founded on power, as the old Westphalian rights were. Sovereign states are sovereign because they can make themselves sufficiently nasty to any would-be conqueror that they wouldn't be worth the trouble. So the old 'whatever you can do that doesn't piss off someone more powerful' was founded on the realities of warfare - a de jure recognition of a de facto condition. The United Nations and other restraints are paper bonds.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For the past few hundred years it has been generally accepted among nations that nations have a prerogative to do what they wish internally, absent a certain fairly small list of actions. This is known as sovereignty. Sovereignty theory still determines and influences many international norms, but realpolitik (the politics of reality) concerns have always resulted in less than perfect adherence to these norms.
There is an argument in the international relations community that, while sovereignty remains a strong concept, sovereignty theory is no longer sufficient to work with emerging international norms, and that some new framework is appropriate to discuss and guide the general shape of international relations. Realpolitik will always be part of international relations, of course, but you will find few pure adherents among theorists or politicians. Pretty much everyone has a reason for doing something beyond "this is best for my country in a sense independent of morality or ideology" (how realpolitik is meant).
Russia and China are able to use the current state of international norms to their advantage, as their realpolitik stances are in line with the norms of sovereignty theory.
I'm not sure what you mean by "doctrinal".
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM's presentation of sovereignty is incorrect. Sovereignty is not a right to conduct whatever external relations one wants, such as attack or invasion.
edit: I realize he modifies this somewhat, but even in its original conception Sovereignty was not so.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Sovereignty is the right to control everything within one (State's) own borders.
Sovereignty is the antithesis of giving a nation-state the right to invade another nation-state, because that would impinge on that State's (the invaded State's) sovereignty.
(And that is why sovereignty is modified by such things as war.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BTW, as Dag pointed out, even though the contents of the letter weren't officially released, aspectre, they are availble in whole here.
<edit> and now that I've read the whole thing I feel like my brain has been slimed. My estimation of the danger posed by Iran has gone up and my patience with a diplomatic process has gone down. I wonder if that was Ahmadinejad's goal? Who else thinks the purpose of this letter is simply to goad the U.S. into battle, not unlike the mideval practice of yelling insults at opposing armies?</edit>
<edit2> and thank you for all the well-reasoned and informative discussions of "sovereignty." I missed them as I read the letter</edit2>
<edit3>and to go back to the thread title, Ahmadinejad is obviously copying buzzwords from the liberal-speak lexicon. The english of the letter is severely lacking, but he manages to hit all the terms that somebody spinning it on a news channel would use. I can go back and find examples if I have to. I'm still trying to theorize about his motivation in sending this letter </edit3>
[ May 09, 2006, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Thanks, SenojRetep, for the link to the unofficial translation of the "leak".
quote:Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of Liberal democratic systems.
Sounds like more of Dubya's heaping of disdain for liberals and democracy.
quote:We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- ie the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"
Subsitute 'Jesus' for "the prophets" and again ya have typical Dubya talk.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:and now that I've read the whole thing I feel like my brain has been slimed. My estimation of the danger posed by Iran has gone up and my patience with a diplomatic process has gone down. I wonder if that was Ahmadinejad's goal? Who else thinks the purpose of this letter is simply to goad the U.S. into battle, not unlike the mideval practice of yelling insults at opposing armies?
I don't understand this at all. I don't believe in the sincerity of the letter, but I don't see why this would be your response to it. Could you explain what parts most evoked this reponse?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't understand this at all. I don't believe in the sincerity of the letter, but I don't see why this would be your response to it. Could you explain what parts most evoked this reponse?
Which response do you mean specifically?
1) My revulsion (i.e. brain has been slimed). I felt this because I had this constant sense of premises being twisted to illogical conclusions. I feel the same way any time I read material I perceive to be propaganda, regardless of my support for the principle being propagated. Although the fact that I disagree strongly with this particular propaganda contriutes to the strength of my revulsion.
2) My estimation of Iran (i.e. more dangerous, decreased diplomatic urge). The view of the world communicated to me by the letter (we are all victims of US bullying, US hypocrites can't be trusted) makes me feel less easy about Iran's benign intentions. The inherent irrationality makes me think less about the potential for diplomatic solutions (which are generally based on an assumption of rationality).
3) My feeling that it is an attempt to goad us into war. Because my reaction was so negative I assume most Americans' reactions will be similarly negative, and because Iran has some political sophistication I assume they must have known the reaction would be negative. What do they get from a negative response? The anger of the Americans, which could boil over into conflict. Do you think that's what Iran wants? My thought is it must be for their president to release a letter like this.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Thanks, SenojRetep, for the link to the unofficial translation of the "leak".
quote:Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of Liberal democratic systems.
Sounds like more of Dubya's heaping of disdain for liberals and democracy.
When Ahmadinejad speaks of "liberalism" it is of classical liberalism, something which Bush has never expressed anything but admiration for. I'm not sure of Bush's expressed disdain for "democracy" (vice Democrats); feel free to post quotes. I'd say <edit>your</edit> glibness is semantically meaningless in this context.
quote:
quote:We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- ie the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"
Subsitute 'Jesus' for "the prophets" and again ya have typical Dubya talk.
You've removed a lot of context here. Ahmadinejad was asserting that democracy has failed (ironically as evidenced by the number of people adopting religion) and that religion should form the basis of government rather than liberal principles of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, etc. Again, I don't know of any similar Dubya talk. Everything I've heard is that he believes liberal institutions are the foundation of all healthy societies, and that his religion reinforces that belief. Feel free to link.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What rights do nations have? I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm just wondering if there is something doctrinal, or if it's a mutually understood set of rights.
Well, I think nations exist in an international community now, which requires that we respect certain rights of community members in exchange for their willingness to give back those same rights to us - much like occurs in a community of people. I don't think absolute sovereignty is a right our international community offers (you can't commit genocide within your borders, for instance), but I do think that if one nation is allowed to pursue a technology, others must be allowed to pursue it too.
On that note, I'm in favor of banning nuclear weapons from all countries, and restricting nuclear research in all countries to ensure the nuclear threat is contained - and I am including the U.S. in "all countries". Then it would be fair to ask Iran to stop doing what it is doing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres fails to identify the major problems in this situation. Were it just a state attempting to gain nuclear weapons we certainly wouldn't like it, and might do sanctions or other such (all well within our sovereign rights), but there's little we could do to stop it. Certainly nobody was able to in the cases of India, Pakistan, or Israel.
However, those three have one important common element: they're not signatories to the NPT, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran, however, is, which means other countries have been aiding their development of certain sorts of nuclear technologies in exchange for one simple thing: they forswear nuclear weapons.
The NPT even has a clause for states to leave, though it requires a certain period of notice.
Iran's obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons makes them in violation of the NPT (and how they've dealt with the IAEA, on a lesser scale), which makes them open to considerable penalty. The NPT is widely considered one of the most important instruments of international nuclear norms.
Coincidentally, I think there are significant problems with the NPT, but if Iran's going to continue being a member they need to pay the price, and part of that price is acceding to coercion up to the use of force to enforce the terms of the treaty they still say they agree to and can easily withdraw from.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)