war with iran

[mnaz]

so what are you saying? we need war to settle this? drop some bombs?

be specific.

[RonPrice]

If you go to this link, mnaz, you will get some specifics as far as what Baha'is do, have done and will do, in relation to the human rights abuses from which they suffer and have suffered for more than a century and a half.-Ron Price, Tasmania
http://iran.bahai.us/

[mnaz]

ok, i will come back to this, but we in the west can no longer ignore the real effects and consequences of our own aggression in the world- "to get what we want."

[RonPrice]

mnaz, you might enjoy some Baha'i views on war at this link: http://bahaiviews.blogspot.com.au/2006/ ... arned.html

[Steve Plonk]

Bahai's rock...As for Iran, I don't give a damn!...
To repeat, there is only a 20% chance we'll
have any kind of war with Iran. Diplomacy
is the key...
Iran's record on human rights is abysmal...
It is quite clear, that like Saudi Arabia,
Iran doesn't care what the rest of the world frowns upon...

[RonPrice]

Indeed, Steve, diplomacy is the key. There is a Baha'i Chair for World Peace and it sponsored a dialogue on diplomacy back in 2007. The Baha'i Chair for World Peace at the University of Maryland hosted its first annual dialog "Integrating People and Democracy: A necessity for peace in the 21st century?" on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at the Inn & Conference Center Ballroom at the university of Maryland. The panel was chaired by John Grayzel, the Baha'i Chair for World Peace professor at the school.

The panel covered issues from traditional diplomacy to multi-track diplomacy to poetry and peace-building. A video of the panel discussion is available online. The first part of the discussion at the link below. Go here to view more videos from this event: http://www.dcbahai.org/news-and-events/ ... -diplomacy

[mnaz]

yes, diplomacy. i'm all for it. the problem is, according to the chickenhawk idiots and power hungry spin-doctors who run this country, anyone who wants to negotiate with iran is essentially a weak proponent of "appeasement" and/or "betrayer of israel."--- i know that a "willingness to talk to iran" has crept into obama's rhetoric at times (a lot of positive stuff has crept into his rhetoric-- and not much further)--- but in the end it seems none of these folks will touch it. absolute political poison.

[RonPrice]

Iran's leaders are not easy to deal with. From the Baha'i experience they never have been with over 20,000 deaths in the Babi-Baha'i community to prove a point. Ahmadinejad said recently that the Zionists have created a fake history to dispossess other nations. Iran's president spoke at an event commemorating the return of 5,000 artifacts back to the southwestern Jiroft region after they were smuggled to Britain nearly seven years ago.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said "Zionists have created a fake 2,500-year-old culture for themselves” in order to “dry up the historical roots of other nations” at a ceremony in southeastern Iran according to a report by Fars, a semi-official Iran-based news agency.

Any negotiators have got their work cut out for them.-Ron

[mnaz]

all true i suppose (up to a point). but you have to look back on 20th century history and how it has affected iran and the arabs in the region. we tend to see everything from the western-judao-christian side of things and rarely from the other side. i mean, a jewish state seemed necessary and inevitable after ww2 (and the century or so leading up to it). and what better place than the "holy land itself?" yeah, i get all that. but the "other side" has has experienced some degree of "dispossession."

certainly those palestinian arabs who have been displaced feel "disposessed." and when the cia overthrew iran's government in 1953 and installed dc's own puppet autocrat, the shah (and his brutal secret police), iranians had to feel "disposessed." and look at today's situation. until 12 / 31 / 11, we were militarily occupying the country on either side of iran, and saber-rattling the entire time-- we had a presidential candidate (mccain) openly advocating bombing iran, even making a friggin' joke out of it. why should we expect iran's response to be anything but frosty and difficult?

i can't defend the human rights issue, other than to say that it's far from a perfect world, and we can't solve every problem with military force, and to recognize that we make many deals with other countries just as bad or worse when it suits us.

yes, iran's alleged sponsor of terror is troubling. can't deny that. i don't know . . . we're so conditioned by our talking heads to think that all of this "monolithic evil" out there happens in a vacuum and has nothing whatsoever to do with any of our own actions. not really the way it is . . .

[RonPrice]

That is why, mnaz, that diplomacy is crucial. There are so many ways of looking at things and, in diplomacy, the various sides examine those ways. To see one's side as right and the other side as wrong in international affairs, as in interpersonal relationships, is not always, or even often, the best way to move forward.-Ron

[Arcadia]

you can´t launch a more or less equilibrate atmosphere for dialogue when you are armed "hasta los dientes" with lethal weapons as we use to say here ... U.S.A. and Israel are already armed that way so ... a priori at least, it´s difficult (not impossible, of course!).

Ron, do you want a story about local Bahais? : two years ago I took a taxi drived by an old taxi driver with a strong italian-like acento while speaking. He began talking about the transit doing a lot of gestures. I found it funny, I asked him about his acento while talking and he told me he was iranian ... "how you ended here?" I asked. He did not gave too much details, except a vague reference about a brother living in the United States. "So, iranian. You are the first iranian I´ve met face to face. Are you zoroastrian?". He negated with his head and suddenly kept silent. Then he asked "hey, how you knew about zoroastrians in Iran?". "Well, I teach more or less each three years something like after Christ Mesopotamic history to twelve year old children" I said laughing. After a while he told as if he were telling me a cherished secret: I belong to a more new religion than zoroastrism "I´m a Bahaì". I told him about a magazine in Spanish that somehow reached my hands a lot of years ago about Bahais constructing a beautiful templo somewhere but that I had no idea about Bahais nowadays in the city. "So do you knew also about Bahaìs..." said laughing. "Oh yeah, we also have a place for reunion here". He sounded very proud saying that!. Some months after that, talking about it with a cousin who works in the Municipal taxi-drivers registro, he told me that he is very famous among taxi drivers because his sympathy and that he is one of his favourites because he is a fervorous and inconditional Rosario Central hincha...

Changing the subject, and talking about diplomacy ... well, I hope it won´t fail as in Libia and as in the Sirya attempts ... and I wonder what really "diplomacy" is nowadays ... so difficult to digest things been made under its name already, that well... you never know...!

According to Telesur there will be no war (in the unfortunate case it will be one) until the USA eleccions have passed.

[RonPrice]

I enjoyed your post, Arcadia. The taxi-driver with the dialogue was excellent. What you say about diplomacy I also enjoyed. It's a complex world and diplomacy is not always possible. Diplomacy with Hitler was not on, at least I've never read any scenario that supports such a view. There are times when collective decision against a tyrant is essential; the difficulty we have, of course, is having a UN with the authority, the collective authority.

It seems to me a long story. Bertrand Russell once said that the greatest failing of the 19th century was the inability of the nations of Europe to establish that collective voice---without it WW1 was just about inevitable.

Time for breakfast here in Tasmania.-Ron

[Arcadia]

There are times when collective decision against a tyrant is essential; the difficulty we have, of course, is having a UN with the authority, the collective authority.

hey, Ron! good you enjoyed the stories! but now, you know .... who´s the tyrant?... I mean, really... war-hunger/need to grease a weak economy through military-industry machine/black gold need/too much fear/omnipotence/the possibility of Iran producing nuclear arms that a lot of country already have -specially including the possible contrincantes-/the iranian president with a difficult name or what? it´s not clear to me yet! (time for almuerzo here...! )

[mtmynd]

Regarding the possibility of Iran unleashing a nuclear bomb on Israel, a few facts should be considered - the distance to Tel Aviv from Tehran = 987 mi.. The delivery system for that distance should be reasonably accomplished by Tehran.

The results may be unfavorable for Iran by using a nuclear bomb on Israel. The variables with the actual destructive power of such a bomb is up to the builder of this bomb. But given the short distances between Tel Aviv and their neighboring countries, as shown below, would prove to be highly dangerous to those fellow Muslim nations. The big question is would Iran unleash such a bomb given the fact that Jordan or Lebanon, to name two, may very well be negatively affected by the results of such a bomb..? The nuclear fall out and wind directions could only further affect not only the neighboring countries but the actual soil and therefore agriculture of the surrounding lands. Such an act may backfire on Iran which could very well (and highly likely) retaliation by several countries. Iran as we know it may very well be nothing more than a memory much like Israel would be if the two countries do not have an engaging dialogue and serious discussions regarding the position of both countries in today's 21st Century.

Nuclear bombs can be a far messier alternative to dialogue that I'm sure leadership on any side would agree with and, indeed, be less than enthusiastic to use. Far too many innocents would either die or be seriously injured or even sickened by such a bombing. To use the fear of Iran or any other Muslim country using a nuclear device on Israel is a bit unrealistic given the ultimate results of such a tactic.

Countries that have nuclear weapons (bombs) number (9) including Pakistan and Israel (full list: U.S. , U.K., Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, No. Korea, Israel and India). Any educated leader knows that using such a dangerous device would have to be highly discussed and debated by the country thinking of using one. The consequences of the bombs use could have results that are unexpected and would destroy far more than people and property in which the bomb would be used. If any leadership is ignorant of that fact, I doubt that Nation would ever have the ability to build their own nuclear weaponry.

So the immediate question that comes to mind is why is Israel posturing toward Iran as it has in the current news? To scare or frighten Iran leadership seems a bit dramatic and unnecessary given the same alleged fear is not directed towards Pakistan. On the opposite side, Iran provides oil to France who has nuclear weapons. Should Iran selectively withhold oil from France, does anyone believe France may threaten Iran with nuclear holocaust? I don't think so, but given the amount of needless fears being tossed about regarding Iran just may be over-hyped. It seems as though there has not been any actual proof that Iran is secretly or otherwise building a nuclear bomb in unknown caves or huge tunnels under the city of Tehran. Surely if there was anything nefarious going on, including Iran purchasing various supplies that would directly link these purchases with the building of a nuclear device, the word would be out and spread across the world's leaders faster than the speed of sound.

This speculation does NOT rule out the serious consideration by Iran to actual become the proud 10th Nation to become a nuclear "super power" that everyone will immediately become wary of whenever their name comes up. This is true on ANY nation that has such destructive power at their fingertips.

[RonPrice]

The above posts raise good questions for which, alas and alack, I do not have all the answers. I will make two points, though, before I have--yet again---my breakfast.-Ron
---------------------
1. I used to teach several courses in ancient history. One was "Ancient Greece: 479 to 404 B.C." The Greek City states were never able to federate. The Delian league, a confederation of Greek city-states under the leadership of Athens, 478–404 B.C. became an Athenian empire. However, its unity was not very stable, and in 446 B.C. Athens lost Boeotia. Gradually Athens lost its prestige as well as many of its alliances, and, with the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.), the league came to an end. Our modern world is having a similar problem finding a basis for global federation since the emergence of the League of Nations in 1919. I'm optimistic, though. After nearly 100 years we have made a beginning and the stakes are too high not to achieve it. Buckminster Fuller put the stakes succinctly below.

2. Carl Jung makes the following comment in his introduction to the Chinese text, The Secret of the Golden Flower. It is a comment he makes about the transformation of base metal into gold from the language of the alchemists. "This 'outgrowing' .....on further experience was seen to consist in a new level of consciousness. Some higher or wider interest arose on the person's horizon, and through this widening of his view the insoluble problem lost its urgency. It was not solved logically in its own terms, but faded out when confronted with a new and stronger life-tendency. It was not repressed and made unconscious, but merely appeared in a different light, and so did indeed become different.

As Buckminster Fuller once put it: "it's utopia or oblivion" for us now. Time for that breakfast.-Ron