Bush & Putin Clash Over Missile Defense

[ParanoiA]

Well, I've always thought that debating was a critical thinking exercise for the observers...does nothing for the debaters.

[bombus]

In my opinion Iran is responsible for its current position. Not the West. I agree that "meddling" has taken place, but you keep making excuses for everyone except the US. Isn't that a rather obvious violation of Occam's Razor, if nothing else? Not to mention a common far left tactic.

 

Let's be honest here, how much do you REALLY know about the history of Iran? The UK and US meddled with Iran throughout the 20th Century and the stance they now have is due entirely to our two countries hostile approach. We have been utter bastards to them.

 

Well at least you included the world "usually". But boy does this say a lot about your predisposition to prejudge any and all US actions on any issue.

 

It's not really just the US, it's all the 'Western' countries. But the US is the most powerful and influential so gets most of the flack. The UK is the strongest ally of the US (we are virtually one country in my opinion) and we are often equally guilty.

 

This seems like a good time to point out one of my favorite positions: That if you are a partisan, your vote doesn't count. All it does is offset a partisan from the other side. If your mind is closed, what's the point in either (a) voting, or (b) debating? Aren't you just setting yourself up to fail 50% of the time?

 

My mind is very very open. I used to think the world was like I was taught when I was young - the West were the good guys, the Ruskies were the bad guys, capitalism was good, communism bad, Africa is poor because it is, and the west is rich because it deserves to be etc etc etc., but education and experience have shown me that it's really not that simple at all, and in fact we are often the bad guys, and much of our problems are self made, and we inflict problems on the rest of the world.

 

Seriously, read stuff by a fellow American Susan George (as a start). It's a real eye opener and a mind opener!

[Sisyphus]

My mind is very very open.

 

Part of having an open mind is being open to the idea that you don't have an open mind.

[bombus]

Maybe not, if we can get Ron Paul elected...I like that guy so far.

 

Yeah but if he's so nice, how come he's a republican? I'd like to see Al Gore re-elected - and I know what I said!

[bombus]

Part of having an open mind is being open to the idea that you don't have an open mind.

 

I'm open to that idea. Where's the evidence though?

[ParanoiA]

Yeah but if he's so nice, how come he's a republican? I'd like to see Al Gore re-elected - and I know what I said!

 

Well, his contention is that today's republicans aren't really republicans. He claims that republicans have traditionally been the anti-war party. That the party has been hijacked by neocons that only share the fiscal characteristics of the republican party.

 

I think he has a point, but it's a little weak since he's more libertarian than anything else - hence his presidential bid in 1988 as a libertarian. I think he's running as a republican because our two party system snubs other parties. They don't get to participate in debates and are generally ignored.

 

He's a capitalist, so not your favorite type. But he's also a non-interventionist. He believes we should withdraw our troops from all over the world - within reason of course - particularly the middle east, and stop policing and meddling.

 

I wonder how you'd feel about a capitalist that loathes war...

[bombus]

Well, his contention is that today's republicans aren't really republicans. He claims that republicans have traditionally been the anti-war party. That the party has been hijacked by neocons that only share the fiscal characteristics of the republican party.

 

I think he has a point, but it's a little weak since he's more libertarian than anything else - hence his presidential bid in 1988 as a libertarian. I think he's running as a republican because our two party system snubs other parties. They don't get to participate in debates and are generally ignored.

 

He's a capitalist, so not your favorite type. But he's also a non-interventionist. He believes we should withdraw our troops from all over the world - within reason of course - particularly the middle east, and stop policing and meddling.

 

I wonder how you'd feel about a capitalist that loathes war...

 

That's quite an interesting attitude, and he is probably correct about Neo-Cons not being true Republicans. Neo-Cons are gung ho, whereas I suppose true Republicans are far more conservative.

 

It would be nice to say that a true capitalist SHOULD hate war as it interferes with trade, but as I said above, war can be very profitable so maybe that's not true. Also capitalism often results in war in the end (long story why really).

 

I'd welcome a non-interventionist approach, but it does depend what is meant by that. There are leaders in the world who are awful but supported by the West. We should stop supporting them and let the people of those countries decide what they want. Similarly, there may be times when intervention is a good thing (Sierra Leone as a recent example).

 

I'm also a bit suspicious of people who like low taxes. Taxes are essentially the people buying services in bulk to get them at the lowest price, and, depending how they're spent (a whole subject on it's own) they can be a very good thing and save individuals money in the long term. Compare US Health Service spending per person to UK spending via taxes on our National Health Service for example.

 

Anyway, having said all that, compared to Bush Jr. he'll be perfect!

[Pangloss]

Let's be honest here, how much do you REALLY know about the history of Iran?

 

Always a dangerous question to ask in this forum. I have considerable knowledge of the history of Iran, as well as the Persian and Parthian empires. Insulting my knowledge level is probably a really bad idea. I recommend another direction.

 

The UK and US meddled with Iran throughout the 20th Century and the stance they now have is due entirely to our two countries hostile approach. We have been utter bastards to them.

 

A very common view. Also a highly biased and blindered one that focuses on specific instances rather than the whole. But as I've said above, I really have no problem with your expression of your opinion. It bothers me not in the least that it's completely polarized from my own. That's what makes the forum interesting.

 

 

My mind is very very open. I used to think the world was like I was taught when I was young - the West were the good guys, the Ruskies were the bad guys, capitalism was good, communism bad, Africa is poor because it is, and the west is rich because it deserves to be etc etc etc., but education and experience have shown me that it's really not that simple at all, and in fact we are often the bad guys, and much of our problems are self made, and we inflict problems on the rest of the world.

 

Seriously, read stuff by a fellow American Susan George (as a start). It's a real eye opener and a mind opener!

 

Amusing that you gave that particular example -- George is one of the worst at closed-minded ideological demogoguery. There's a difference between having an open mind and declaring everyone who disagrees with you to have a closed one. But that's a common tactic with extremists -- painting themselves as the normal ones, because they can't handle being outsiders. (shrug)

 

But like I said, it's cool. I won't let this board be turned into an Air America call-in show, but I don't believe we have to silence friendly, cooperative people like yourself in order to accomplish that. By all means, keep posting away.

 

Sorry you got suckered into that quagmire, but you'll work youself out of it eventually. And it's not uncommon around here. There are respectable scientists and engineers on this board who are utterly convinced that we never went to the moon, that we were visited by aliens in 1957, and/or that Bush was behind 9/11. You'd think scientific-minded people would have a built-in immunity to unsupported "evidence", but it just doesn't seem to be so. Ah well.

[Sepiraph]

Same with embryonic stem cell research huh? Doesn't matter if it's a joke and adult stem cells already enjoy significant success, just as long as certain individuals in government get money to kill unborn babies huh?

 

No, that would be a false analogy and it was a rather poor attempt at strawman. Good attempt at fitting two logical fallacies in one post though!

[bombus]

Always a dangerous question to ask in this forum. I have considerable knowledge of the history of Iran, as well as the Persian and Parthian empires. Insulting my knowledge level is probably a really bad idea. I recommend another direction.

 

I must say, I doubt you have much knowledge of Iran in the 20th Century.

 

A very common view. Also a highly biased and blindered one that focuses on specific instances rather than the whole. But as I've said above, I really have no problem with your expression of your opinion. It bothers me not in the least that it's completely polarized from my own. That's what makes the forum interesting.

 

It's not my opinion, it's got nothing to do with opinions, it's just the truth. Its a fact, and I would suggest that if you knew your stuff you'd know you can't really disagree. Unless you choose to ignore the facts that is.

 

Amusing that you gave that particular example -- George is one of the worst at closed-minded ideological demogoguery. There's a difference between having an open mind and declaring everyone who disagrees with you to have a closed one. But that's a common tactic with extremists -- painting themselves as the normal ones, because they can't handle being outsiders. (shrug)

 

I've never said you or anyone else has a closed mind. With all due respect, you seem to be the only one saying it. I was talking about MY mind being 'opened'. Also, may I add that, if anyone is, you seem to be the only extremist around here. The very fact that you think I am one, and even use the term, speaks volumes.

 

 

Sorry you got suckered into that quagmire, but you'll work youself out of it eventually. And it's not uncommon around here. There are respectable scientists and engineers on this board who are utterly convinced that we never went to the moon, that we were visited by aliens in 1957, and/or that Bush was behind 9/11. You'd think scientific-minded people would have a built-in immunity to unsupported "evidence", but it just doesn't seem to be so. Ah well.

 

No need to apologize. I'm in no quagmire, but thanks for your concern:-)

[Pangloss]

I must say, I doubt you have much knowledge of Iran in the 20th Century.

 

I'm warning you again not to go there. If you do you'll lose for three reasons -- first because you're wrong about me, and second because it's logically ridiculous to state that sufficient knowledge will automatically lead anyone to the "correct" conclusion (yours).

 

It's also insulting as hell, which of course brings me to the third reason -- it's against board rules regarding persistent use of straw men (in this case an obvious association fallacy).

 

I don't mean to end an otherwise pleasant disagreement on a sour note, but like I said, don't go there. Please take note.

[bombus]

I'm warning you again not to go there. If you do you'll lose for three reasons -- first because you're wrong about me, and second because it's logically ridiculous to state that sufficient knowledge will automatically lead anyone to the "correct" conclusion (yours).

 

It's also insulting as hell, which of course brings me to the third reason -- it's against board rules regarding persistent use of straw men (in this case an obvious association fallacy).

 

I don't mean to end an otherwise pleasant disagreement on a sour note, but like I said, don't go there. Please take note.

 

Maybe we are getting our wires crossed. I think it is indisputable that the West meddled with the internal affairs of Iran throughout the 20th Century and to deny this would mean ignorance of the facts.

 

I also think it hard to dispute that our meddlings have resulted in the stance Iran now have against the West. That is not to say the Iranian leadership is 'correct'. I am merely saying that our interference backfired and has resulted in the Iran we have today, and all the problems we now face.

 

I'd be genuinely interested in knowing which bits you disagree with.

[CPL.Luke]

you could also say that certain power hungry groups in Iran used the west as a scape goat for all of Iran's problems and are currently maintaining their own power through the illusion that they are taking action against the west.

 

such a stance would be reasonably well supported by a comparison with other countries such as NAZI Germany.

 

but then again maybe the jewish bankers really did cause germany to lose WW1 because of te style of banking they used etc.

[ParanoiA]

I am merely saying that our interference backfired and has resulted in the Iran we have today, and all the problems we now face.

 

And here again you're pinning all the blame on "us". It has helped result in the Iran we have today.

[Haezed]

Maybe we are getting our wires crossed. I think it is indisputable that the West meddled with the internal affairs of Iran throughout the 20th Century and to deny this would mean ignorance of the facts.

 

Do you think Britain and the USSR should not have invaded Iran in 1941?

 

I also think it hard to dispute that our meddling have resulted in the stance Iran now have against the West. That is not to say the Iranian leadership is 'correct'. I am merely saying that our interference backfired and has resulted in the Iran we have today, and all the problems we now face.

 

How can anyone say what Iran would look like today if Reza Shaw had not cozied up to Germany prior to WWII and if Britain and the USSR had not invaded Iran?

 

Further, how can we know what would have happened had Iran not nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP)?

 

Had British and US intelligence agencies not supported the Shaw, would the Shaw have deposed Mossadegh anyway?

 

Would Islamic rule have come without regard to any of this?

 

I frankly have no idea; therefore, cannot generally say that the West meddlings backfired.

[Pangloss]

Maybe we are getting our wires crossed.

 

I think it is indisputable that the West meddled with the internal affairs of Iran throughout the 20th Century and to deny this would mean ignorance of the facts.

 

That's fine, you can accuse me of being ignorant of the facts (and ask me to explain, as you did). What you can't do is accuse me of being ignorant of a larger subject because I appear to be ignorant about specifics. That's an appeal to ignorance, and a logical fallacy. One thing is a logical question. The other is just an insult. (Just so we're clear on this.)

 

 

I also think it hard to dispute that our meddlings have resulted in the stance Iran now have against the West. That is not to say the Iranian leadership is 'correct'. I am merely saying that our interference backfired and has resulted in the Iran we have today, and all the problems we now face.

 

I don't dispute that our "meddlings" (and I think that's a reasonable word for it) have had an impact on Iran. What I dispute is your insistence that we remove any and all responsibility for Iran's actions from... Iran. When I pointed this out to you, instead of agreeing with me that they also share responsibility for their actions, you instead accused me of being ignorant of Iranian history. Now do you see what that approach is a mistake? Had you instead agreed with me that they share responsibility for their actions, then we would have agreed on at least that one point. Completely.

 

So maybe you need to ask yourself if perhaps staying on your ideological message is more important to you than agreeing on points that we clearly do agree on (because unlike you, I don't make the assumption that you're ignorant about the larger issue of national responsibility -- I strongly suspect we agree on this).

 

By the way, staying on an ideological message rather than agreeing with a debate opponent on an issue you clearly agree with them on is an example of a closed mind.

[Haezed]

That's fine, you can accuse me of being ignorant of the facts (and ask me to explain, as you did). What you can't do is accuse me of being ignorant of a larger subject because I appear to be ignorant about specifics. That's an appeal to ignorance, and a logical fallacy. One thing is a logical question. The other is just an insult. (Just so we're clear on this.)

 

 

 

 

I don't dispute that our "meddlings" (and I think that's a reasonable word for it) have had an impact on Iran. What I dispute is your insistence that we remove any and all responsibility for Iran's actions from... Iran. When I pointed this out to you, instead of agreeing with me that they also share responsibility for their actions, you instead accused me of being ignorant of Iranian history. Now do you see what that approach is a mistake? Had you instead agreed with me that they share responsibility for their actions, then we would have agreed on at least that one point. Completely.

 

So maybe you need to ask yourself if perhaps staying on your ideological message is more important to you than agreeing on points that we clearly do agree on (because unlike you, I don't make the assumption that you're ignorant about the larger issue of national responsibility -- I strongly suspect we agree on this).

 

By the way, staying on an ideological message rather than agreeing with a debate opponent on an issue you clearly agree with them on is an example of a closed mind.

 

There is a tendency to view other countries as, well, really not made of people with the same responsibilities and free will over their actions as have people in the US. They are simply objects which move hither and thither depending whatever nefarious US policy we are discussing.

 

We can play the "could have/should have" game with history all day long and never get it right. Should the Ottoman empire joined the Central powers in WWI? What would the Middle East look like today if the Ottomans had joined with Britain, France and the US?

 

Should Iran have more clearly aligned itself with the allied powers in WWII? Should Iran have nationalized the oil industry that Britain helped develop?

 

Neil Ferguson is a well known economic historian at Harvard who consults with the altnerate history game "Making History."

Ferguson became so delighted with Making History that he has joined forces with Muzzy Lane to design a new game. Due out in 2008, this one will model modern, real-world conflicts such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the nuclear confrontation with Iran.

 

It'll undoubtedly be controversial. But it will also, he expects, be humbling. The power of counterfactual thinking is that forces us to step outside of our comfort zones. When we think about historical events, we have 20/20 hindsight -- so we forget how confusing and uncertain they were at the time. In 1943, nobody really knew how strong Germany was, or what Stalin was thinking. In modern conflicts, we often have a similarly false sense of surety -- too much confidence in our ability to predict the outcome of major events.

 

When we play with sims, they knock us off our pedestals -- because crazy things usually happen we don't predict. Yet the chaos is useful, because we can run the same situation again and again, changing one little thing each time, until we've war-gamed it deeply and understand it better than ever.

 

This isn't an advertisement for the game which I think I may get for Father's day. It's simply a recognition that the blame game on the US isn't simply useless, it is simple as well.

[bombus]

To answer all of you I will give you an example of what I mean.

 

The 'English' have been meddling in the affairs of Ireland since the Middle Ages and on the whole have treated the common Irish people badly. All this plus more recent 20th Century events resulted in the formation of the IRA.

 

Now the cause of the IRA may have been acceptable, but in my opinion their actions were not. The IRA committed terrible acts against more-or-less innocent people.

 

Now, I cannot 'excuse' the IRA for their actions just because they were 'provoked' , but it is still clear that if the British had not been so brutal to the Irish catholics and repulicans the IRA would never have formed. The brutal acts of the IRA caused the British government to behave brutally, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Loyalist Paramilitaries, but still, if the British had not behaved like they did in the first place the IRA would not have existed.

 

Peace has only arisen in Ulster since the two sides have started talking in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

 

Now to say that Iran has been provoked into their position does not excuse them of their actions (although much of those are probably propaganda), but to deny that the west provoked Iran seems absurd.

[bombus]

you could also say that certain power hungry groups in Iran used the west as a scape goat for all of Iran's problems and are currently maintaining their own power through the illusion that they are taking action against the west.

 

And you might be right, but it worked and one has to ask why was the ground so fertile?

 

The situation with Nazi Germany was different. Anti semitism was already rife throughout Europe (and still is in many parts), whereas until the West interfered with Iran they were trying to become like us, and were not anti-western.

[bombus]

Do you think Britain and the USSR should not have invaded Iran in 1941?

 

That's not an easy question to answer. Reza's overt support of Hitler, and his (lets face it) fascistic tendencies made him a target, but he was not that well supported by the Iranian people, having siezed control of Shah Soltan Ahmad's guards and arrested the entire Cabinet! Now I don't know how much of a threat he actually was, but certainly with supplies of oil to Nazi Germany halted the war was shortened. So I would say it was probably justified. Had he not overtly supported Hitler, and had like Franco (another Fascist dictator who was in power in Spain until the late seventies!), made an effort to stay well away from Hitler, then I would have said no.

 

Further, how can we know what would have happened had Iran not nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP)?

 

I think Iran had every right to nationalize their own oil. It was theirs but the West was making all the money from it. Here lies the beginning of all our trouble! We never forgave Iran for this act.

 

Had British and US intelligence agencies not supported the Shaw, would the Shaw have deposed Mossadegh anyway?

 

I would say, almost definitely not.

 

Would Islamic rule have come without regard to any of this?

 

Iran would be more like Turkey or Tunisia IMHO

 

I frankly have no idea; therefore, cannot generally say that the West meddlings backfired.

 

Well, fair enough, but we can probably hazard a pretty good guess methinks...

[Haezed]

Well, fair enough, but we can probably hazard a pretty good guess methinks...

 

The key word here is "guess." I'm not sure how such guesses are helpful.

 

I'm tempted to stipulate that the entire world's problems are entirely the fault of the United States just so we can start talking about solutions.

[bombus]

What I dispute is your insistence that we remove any and all responsibility for Iran's actions from... Iran.

 

I don't, but the point I am trying to make is that the West started it!

 

When I pointed this out to you, instead of agreeing with me that they also share responsibility for their actions, you instead accused me of being ignorant of Iranian history. Now do you see what that approach is a mistake? Had you instead agreed with me that they share responsibility for their actions, then we would have agreed on at least that one point. Completely.

 

Like I said, I think we (I) was getting wires crossed. Of course Iran as a sovereign nation has responsibility for its own actions, but it's hostile stance to begin with is our fault. That's what I'm trying to point out.

[bombus]

The key word here is "guess." I'm not sure how such guesses are helpful.

 

I'm tempted to stipulate that the entire world's problems are entirely the fault of the United States just so we can start talking about solutions.

 

Well substitute 'West' for United States and you're probably right!!

[bombus]

And here again you're pinning all the blame on "us". It has helped result in the Iran we have today.

 

Well, to me that's a bit like saying that me punching you helped the result of you punching me back. Technically kinda correct, but c'mon!

[Haezed]

Well substitute 'West' for United States and you're probably right!!

 

For purposes of future discussion, let's all just assume that the West is at fault for every problem in the world.

 

Now what?