Why does it take the nuke issue to awaken US Govmt. to Iran???

Discussion in 'Iran' started by Unregistered, Sep 26, 2009.

  1. I have noticed that the issue of a "hidden" nuke in Iran is more important than possibly hundreds of Iranian youths and some children being tortured, murdered, raped, and sodomized by a repressive, violent government.
    What is it with the western government and human rights? I thought "human rights" meant you were concerned about other humans??
    Sickening, isn't it.
    a "Green" fan in the US
  2. Damned if we do, damned if we don't

    I think the concern is there on the part of those who have received the news, it is just that here in the US we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't". If we come out against the Iran gov't then we're "meddling" w/ the affairs of others and become an excuse for them. Let's not forget most Iranians still blame us for all the past problems anyway. If we stay out of it and let the Iranian people handle their own affairs then we're accused of not caring. Kind of a tough situation to be in, don't you think?
  3. Jakomeyu Member

    dont spam, please
  4. Ariss Member

    True, after the Cold War, the US seems to focus more on its regional interests. Since it has little interest in Iran, other than keeping the Iraqi oilfields safe, the American leaders seemingly aren't interested in bringing up the human rights issue. This way, they can at least keep the friendship with Russia and China (that empires aren't famed for their respect of human rights).
  5. Complex issues call for broad perspectives

    There is rarely ever one one reason for something occurring. Life is never that simple. As you probably well know, there are multiple factors as to why the Islamic government came to power in the first place. It would be disrespectful of Iranians and their history to pin it on just "one thing". This is a complex problem and therefore complexity is called for in this discussion. In order to understand a country's perspective on something it is helpful to delve into it from the other point of view, "put yourself in the other's shoes." Even the United States deserves the same treatment you would want for Iran, with regard to truly looking at it in a complex perspective. We are not cartoon characters, we are people. And many of us want to help, but try to understand some things from our perspective too. If we get involved we are accused of "meddling". If we get involved, we play into the hands of the Regime, that would love to blame the instability of their government on us, the prime Western "enemy". Then we are guilty of helping these criminals in an idirect way. If we stay hands-off as many of your Reformist leaders have requested/demanded (AND THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED), then we are accused of not caring. How does a double standard like this get us any closer to working together in a universal sort of way to achieve the goal of peace, human understanding and certainly better lives for Iranians?
  6. Jakomeyu Member

    Nukes are possibly the least of our worries when it comes to Iran on this forum at least
  7. Ariss Member

    Now this is a great misconception. Dictators don't need any actual action from their percieved 'enemies' to blame everything on them (See: Jews in Germany, before the 2nd WW). No matter if people believe these lies or not. So, IMO the best you can help Iran's current regime if you want your country completely staying out of this business. Now that will give them a sense of security, crushing all opposition in as a bloody way as they desire!

    I just wanted to say, the US sometimes made some great mistakes in its diplomacy & strategy by paying too much respect to other states' independence.* While it's perfectly undestandable from the isolacionist point of view, it helps little to further the agenda of the West.

    PS: *Examples: the US lost the Vietnam war because of its unwillingness to extend the territory of attacks to Kambodia and Laos, the main support bases of Viet Kong. Or, by the same account, the US left Saddam Houssein in office after the first Gulf War, because of its unwillingness to 'drastically punish' the offender state. OR: The US was afraid to lend any percievable aid to the revolts that happened behind the Iron Courtain (it was afraid of the Soviet Unon's military power - as it turned out later, unfoundedly).

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins