ashley52 said:
OK Welsh... I give it my best shot.. (I had a big night last night)
Someone out partying till the wee hours?
(don't let the mullahs find out!)
I also have significant doubts about Iran's denials of supporting Shia militants in Iraq.
Yeh I totally agree they support the shia... but my argument is. Shia are not insurgents nor militants. They are iraqis (majority of Iraq is shia) who are fighting a civil war against the sunni's. Would any other country NOT try to play a hand if their neighbor was in civil war.
Yes, except the laws on war are pretty clear on this. Country's, as sovereign nations, are not supposed to be supporting insurgents against a state. Nor should countries assist one group of a society kill members of the other group of a society. Sovereigns are supposed to respect the sovereignty of other sovereigns.
Essentially the rule of sovereignty says that each country is responsible for what happens in their own house and that outsiders should stay out. To make this more personal- your neighbor can't invade your house, fuck your wife, steal the food out of your fridge, and kill your children. If he does, you can declare self-defense and kick his ass.
Furthermore, while one sovereign shouldn't intervene in another's civil war (much like how your neighbor is not supposed to intervene in your home if you have a fight with your spouse or your oldest son who is acting like a prick) the sovereign can call in friends to help him out (just like a parent can call in the police to resolve a domestic dispute). And if the neighbor happens to be intervening, then the sovereign can call in friends to kick the neighbors ass.
The intervention of one state into the domestic affairs of another is a breach of international peace and stabiliy.
Does this happen? Yes and with awful regularity.
Consider the problem. Iran is Shia but after years of sanctions and because of its oil exports in economically bad shape. It can send technical know-how (how to make a roadside bomb), or insurgents (Shia soldiers who fight for a religious cause - a crusade like holy war? - sound familiar?). But then, so might the Syrians, and the Saudis and the Yemenis, and the Egyptians, and the Turks, and the ..... So if Iran justifies its intervention because the people in the war happen to be Shia- than that excuse works for everyone.
The problem with being a theocratically based state is that "God says we're right" is unfortunately little justification under international law, or the other poor bastard that happens to get killed because he believes in something you don't.
Now you can also argue that what Iran is doing is helping the Shia exercise their right to self-defense. Unfortunately, the Shia happen to be citizens of Iraq and its Iraq's responsibility to protect them.
But what about the US and Britian? Well the US and Britian were members of the coalition that overthrew Iraq's government. Regardless of the legality of that war (and they were operating under a UN Security Council Order which in international law means that's law), the Brits and the US could be the effective government of Iraq- much like Germany was divided in four parts after World War 2. But in this case, Iraq has an elected democratic government. The US and the Brits are there becore the Iraqi government wants them there.
No one has invited Iran, or Saudi Arabia, into this mess. Thus they should stay out.
You can argue that international law is bullshit, that it was written by those in power and is being unfair. Perhaps you might be right. Except what alternatives do you have besides greater violence?
Iran has a long history of supporting militants. I pointed out Hezbollah and Massoud in Afghanistan. There has been evidence linking Iran to supporting militants in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4333246.stm
Welsh
I actually read the source you list here... and from the article itself...
"The prime minister said evidence linked the attacks either to Iran or its militant, Lebanese allies Hezbollah, but added that officials could not be sure."
Could not be sure .. could not be sure... but that's how things are carved in stone these days. And that's how WMD were reported to be in iraq.
Fair enough. But where there is smoke there is fire. I actually suspect that Hezbollah receives its aid from the Syrians who have an interest in Lebanon and want to keep their fingers in that pot.
That said, if you want perfect evidence, you will probably not get it and worse, it might even be fabricated. Do you trust the evidence? Do you really think Iran has nothing to do with Hezbollah? Do you really think Iran hasn't assassinated dissidents? That it hasn't intervened in neighbors? That it didn't threaten its neighbors with Silkworm missiles? That the Iranians didn't mine port?
Let's take the recent problem with the Brits. If the Iranians argue that the Brits were in Iranian waters, while the Brits say they were in Iraqi waters- fine. Let a neutral third party decide. So far it seems that the Brits were in Iraqi waters. Perhaps the best way is to say, "ok it was a big mistake, lets return the Brits and clean this mess up." No the Iranians are showing this up on TV and convincing the Brits to say, "yes we were in Iranian waters" while the Iranians say, "We're going to have a trial!"
Who is making the drama here? Why?
Because of the Iranians this is a good opportunity to show a little nationalism and gain a bit of prestige by putting a thumb in the eye of the Brits.
Why? Because the Iranians want to be seen as powerful and that the West is weak.
Why? Could this have anything with the idea of exporting militant Islamic revolution?
Terrorism, lets define it as- an act of violence committed by one actor against civilians with the intention of causing fear or terror against that other or third parties for ideological or political gain.
So bombing a country into submission is ok..?.
Depends on the bombing.
International law says that the bombing of civilian targets (as done by the Brits in World War 2) or even the nuking of civilian targets (as done by the US) is illegal. Why? Because the targets are non-military and laws of war don't want civilians killed.
Of course there are arguments about that- why should civilians who support a war effort be spared merely because they don't wear a uniform. But that's the rule.
Bombing military targets, however, is ok. That's why we have bombers and that's why Western Democracies like precision missiles- because this way they minimize civilian deaths while hitting military targets.
Hitting civilian targts for the sake of hitting civilian targets and scaring other civilians = terrorism.
The line between terrorims and pyschological warfare- is determined by who you are attacking and who you are trying to terrrorize.
This definition suits people fine when they have 10 tonnes of TNT, 10 miles up in the air... but you know, it makes no difference to the dead whether it was classed as an air bombardment or 'terrorist' attack. It seems terrorism is the be all and end all, and anything alongside pales in its comparison. It appears everything besides terrorism is all fair in love and war.
Actually, that's not true. There are many laws of war. The Nazis who were hung after World War 2 were guilty of a variety of crimes, from launching aggressive war, killing prisoners, killing civilians, genocide, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
Those charges are-
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
After 9-11 there was much discussion of terrorism as a crime. But for all practical matters, one could find that acts of terror are commonly criminal in the national laws of most civilized nations or are incorparted in other bodies of international law.
You may also argue that the US perpetuated a Crime of Agression- but that's why the US argued that its war was in compliance with the Security Council's own resolutions regarding Iraq.
Terrorism has become a satanic zest pool, and any opponent of America (and its allies) are thrown into it. You even admit that Iran would mean nothing to the world if not for its oil, and more or less you admit they had no hand in the 911, london, bali attacks. Yet you insist on terrorist association by way of small technicalities.
This itself is more damaging to the allied cause than anything else. Invading Iraq was the single biggest mistake for combating the true terrorism that resulted in 911, london and bali bombings. It was a demoralizing distraction, and every tangent the allies choose to partake in, puts them one step behind. Of course, my opinion is that these distractions didnt happen by accident (oil !!).
You're not going to get an argument from me on this. I haven't said Iran was involved in 9-11, Bali or London. I just argued that what has been claimed- that Iran is a support and accomplice to terrroist actors- is true. Your admission that Iran is probably supporting Shia insurgents (who undertake terrorist bombings) accepts that allegation. I also agree that this has to do with oil but also because Iran wants to build nuclear weapons and its track record suggests that it can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.
We can argue that the US, Russia, France, England, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, have nuclear weapons. But they haven't used them yet and have shown restraint in their exercise. Nuclear weapons are part of the deterrence between India and Pakistan. Israel has had the bomb for nearly 30 years and hasn't nuke Syrian or Iran yet, nor has China used the bomb on Taiwan nor the Russians or the US. In these cases, it could be argued that nuclear weapons are, in a perverse way, stabilizing forces by deterring aggression.
But North Korea has threatened to attack its neighbors in the past, as has Iran. This is why those countries are considered dangerous.
The topic is whether Iran should be attacked for developing its nuclear program, not whether Iran engages in terrorism. But that Iran has supported terrorism in the past suggest that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons in the future. Iran's possession
of nuclear weapons is threatening.
Does Iran fit?
1. If Iran provides missiles to Hezbollah to be launched into civilian towns, then Iran is a terrorist state.
2. If Iran threatens commercial vessels passing the Straits of Hormuz with attack by silkworm missiles= terrorism
3. If Iran provides aid to insurgent Shia to be used against civilian Sunnis, that's terrorist.
1. Israel declared war on Hezbollah and reduced half of Lebanon to rubble. Israel killed many more civilians. Why is it that Hezbollah can not strike back? (remember the satanic zest pool I talked about). Even if Iran did have a hand in supplying aid to Hezbollah, how is it any different to America supplying firepower to Israel.
You asked me if Iran is a terrorist state, and I have argued it is because it supports terrorism. Your argument now is that Israel is a terrorist state too? How does that deny the argument made. Are we into the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" approach to argument.
I am not defending Israel's actions. Israel is widely perceived for acting badly in its recent conflict with Hezbollah and because it did, it "lost" the war, although Hezbollah suffered militarily.
Hezbollah can strike back at Israel because its a terrorist organization- that's what terrorists do. But in response Israel can destroy Hezbollah. Realistically, Hezbollah's behavior is the responsibility of the government of Lebanon. Hezbollah is a participant in the government of Lebanon. If a social group of state A launches an attack against members of state B, is not the government of State A responsible for policing its people. And if State A can't do that, should the government of State B do nothing to protect its people?
And the difference between Iran supporting Hezbollah and the US supporting Israel is a question of sovereignty. Nations can cooperate, choose the defense agreements they wish, provide aid and support as they deem necessary. If Israel used its weapons to launch an aggressive war against Syria or Lebanon- than it acts in aggression (and thus illegally).
But Iran is not supporting the government of Lebanon but a party that is represented in that government- a social actor. That social actor is engaged in committing acts of terror against another country.
The Law of Nations has a simple rule found in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which Iran, as a member, is contractually obligated to honor- countries shall resolve their differences with other countries peacefully. If Iran's policy is to support, militaristically, a social group of a state to fight either that state or another state, Iran is acting in a way to frustrate international peace and stability.
Having done that, the international community has the right to claim that Iran is breaking international peace and security. That could lead to what's called Chapter VII action by the Security Council or allow individual states the right to self-defense.
2. Threats? I dont even think your own definition classifies this as terrorism. I mean where do you stop Welsh, are horror movies an act of terrorism too.
That's interesting. In a horror movie there is a fictional display of violence perpetuate by characters in a narrative to allow audience a vicarious sense of fear and exhileration. But when the movie is finished, the actors and the movie goers go home.
Terrorism is like coercion. If the Mafia goes to you and says that you will pay the Mafia protection or something bad happens to you-that's coercion and a crime. As mentioned before- there is a difference between creating fear in psychological warfare- as all war is psychologically horrifying and terrorism which targets civilians to install fear and panic.
Can you not tell the difference?
3. How is this any different to what happened back in the 80's Iran-Iraq war when America provided aid to iraq to kill iranians. Including WMDS and illegal chemical weapons. Oh, I guess if you put "gate" at the end of it, it precludes you from terrorism?
"Gate?" If you might recall the US supplied arms to both sides in that war. As for the US supporting the war between Iran and Iraq, personally I think that was brilliant.
Iran and Iraq- two countries that produce oil that have developed significant militaries to threaten those oil producers that have not built militaries. One wants more regional power and the other wants to spread violent religious extremism. The other countries don't want either. It's like having the two biggest bullies on the block threatening everyone else. How do you resolve that? Let the two biggest bullies beat each other into a pulp so they can't really threaten everyone else. Had the Iran-Iraq war not been fought, would the US led war with Iraq in the early 1990s be so easy? Probably not. So it saved US lives and money and kept those nations in the region safe and prosperous.
YOu know, if the Iranians and the Iraqis didn't want to go to war, they could have tried a revolution? The people might have said no? Someone in the government could have tried a coup against the leader? If the countries really didn't want to see so many people die, they could have tried to make peace.
So you are blaming the US for that war?
Ashley, come on. When are the folks in the middle east going to take some responsibility for themselves. Saddam started that war by taking advantage of the political conditions in Iran to make an oil grab. Did you want the US to come to the aid of Iran when Iran allowed our embassy staff to be held hostage for 444 days?
The US had no obligation to support either side, nor did the US start that war. But that the war happened and the US, like many others, allowed that war to continue. Let's not forget- the Iranians and the Iraqis both drive Russian made tanks. Are you blaming those countries for the war as well? If not, why not?
And when are these countries going to take responsibilty for themselves.
Look, I am willing to sympathize with Iran developing nuclear power for energy. I am willing to listen to arguments that the Iranian economy needs nuclear power because its consuming its own oil at too high a rate that its losing out on its balance of payments and will be in crisis in a few years.
But Iran doesn't need to develop nuclear weapons, and given the justificable concerns of the world around it, as a good neighbor Iran should afford greater transparency. But it doesn't. Rather than being accommodating, Iran chooses to be militant.
Iran could also try to reform its economy so that its not so oil dependent, but that would be hard work and require Iran to be partners with the rest of the world. That might threaten the ruling power establishment.
It's one thing for the world to have to put up with Iran's fucked up government. It's another for the rest of the world having to tolerate a nuclear armed Iran that might use its weapons to threaten its neighbors.
Can we see the hypocrisy in your means of associating iran with terrorism, based on your technicalities.
So you are calling me a hypocrite? That this is all a cloud based on techncialities? I thought this conversation was being conducted with civility.
I have admitted that the US has done some awful things in the past. But where have you been willing to accept some responsibility on the part of Iran.
Rather you've argued
(1) No, its lies, the Iranians have not done these bad things.
(2) Ok, so we have but that's ok because someone has done them too.
Is that your argument? What are you trying to say.
Either Iran can lie to the world and, even if it does, it should be allowed to get away with it because the world is a bad place?
Is that your alternative?
Seriously, Iran should dump its government, come up with something more accountable, get rid of the mullahs, and stop acting like such a prick. If it did that, do you think these problems would exist?
So far, you have not given me an alternative except- "allow Iran to have nuclear weapons so he can threaten its neighbors?"
WTF?
At the end of the day Welsh, the only way I can get everything into perspective is by asking you this hypothetical.
If I were to say that going to war with iran would necessitate you're direct frontline involvement (including that of you're son, father and brother), would you still be adamant that we must go to war. Because that is the only time we should. When the threat is so real that you are willing to go to war yourself.
Frankly, Ashley, I think if Iran's ambition was to become regionally dominant and threatened the global flow of oil, then yes, I would be willing to go to Iran and fight, and send my kids there too.
It's unfortunate, but the world depends on oil. At least for the moment.
But once the world no longer needs oil, once it has a fuel source that is not dependent on the nations of the middle east, I think the rest of the world should leave the middle east alone and let them all kill each other if that's what they want.
Right now the rest of the world is looking at the middle east for one reason only- oil. Oil fuels the engine of the global economy and thus is essential to our quality of life. If this were 150 years ago, I would say colonialize the entire region, take all the oil and hopefully build a better state for those people. Because from what I can see, those folks can't govern themselves. You've admitted that much already
But its not 150 years ago and colonialism is no longer legit. The countries in that region are treated as equals on the global stage, and are afforded respect and sovereignty- the rules of international life that I mentioned above.
However, international rules are essentially the formalization of international norms of behavior- such that all countries know how they are to behavior and the consequences if they behave badly. But norms change and so do laws. There are people today speaking about returning to colonialism for Africa because African countries have failed to govern themselves. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it might. Why not for Iran?
this would require complete honesty but I'm not going to ask that of you... I know its not fair to expect you to answer it.
There's my answer. Yes. Furthermore, if I thought Iran would threatened the world's oil supply and Iran couldn't be stopped unless we killed every single Iranian, than I would support it.
As horrific an answer as that is, my reasons are simple- the world needs oil- it depends on it. Oil could be the reason why nuclear armed powers go to war with each other- because each requires oil to sustain their economies and thus their national societies. Would China or Europe or the US or Russia go to war to protect its economic survival? Yes. Would they do so with each other? yes. And that could cost hundreds of millions of lives. That's too high a price for Iran.
As horrible as that sounds, lets not forget that in the past the West has done just this- wipe out people. The US cleaned off the Indians because it was affordable to do so. Europeans slaughtered Africans and indigenous peoples, Aborigines in Australia were practically wiped out by settlers. These things happen because its affordable and cost efffective. Costs and benefits- is it cheaper to wipe out Iran or allow Iran to threaten the world's oil supply with nuclear weapons?
You might argue- "But how can the moralistic West commit such an awful crime?" Because it can and it has in the past. Give a choice of costs, its cheaper to destroy Iran than to allow Iran to threaten the economic survival of the West. And what is Iran's part in this? Hey, no one is telling Iran to build nuclear weapons. There is no reason why Iran needs nuclear weapons. No one has attacked Iran. If anything Iran's sovereignty has been respected even though the Iranian government breaks the rules of international relations. Iran, by developing nuclear weapons, is threatening the rest of the world. It doesn't have to go down that road, but it has.
So yes, if Iran doesn't dismantle its weapons, or make what agreements necessary to refrain from military use of nuclear power, I support a US or Israeli strike to take out that capacity. I would not support a war, as I don't think a war is necessary. If Iran were to launch a war with the US, the UK and anyone else because of that missile strike, than such a war would be worth it. I would hope that the Iranian people won't support such a war, but if they did, so be it.
How many US lives would it be worth? The US has lost 3,000 in Iraq, but was willing to lose 5 to 10 times as many. To me, that's cheap. I would support the US in paying a much higher price should Iran try to obtain the means to cut off the world's oil.
In the meantime, however, I pray that the US and others develop some alternative means of fuel. Once done than the world need not concern itself with the Middle East, except for those moments when those frustrated at their insignificance commit some act of terror to raise awareness of how pathetic they are.
But I find hypocrisy (by way of history) in your argument (which you share with many western analysts).
