Have the United States and Israel declared a covert war on Iran?

Should we not be? Are there not a bunch of countries that teach young boys to blow shit up because God himself wants it that way?

It was an honor

You mean like Texas? Granted, the blowing up is government-sponsored: paid with taxpayer money. That makes it okay, right?

edited 17th Feb '13 3:01:51 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

stumble as in letting stuff like afghanistan tearing itself apart after the soviets left.

we only cared to improve that "hell for women" (and millions fear what will occur when the U.S. pulls out in 2014) when we learned those who attacted us had bases there.

the 3rd world is a messed-up (women<livestock) place and it's the obligation of orderly nation states to impose civility. even if democracy inc. isn't put in.

i have nothing personal against iran (iirc, under our puppet shah, we didn't seem to mind if he wanted "peaceful" nuclear power) but those who beat the drums of war seem eager. (i'm sure syria's first though)

"I will strike down all that threaten my clan!"

Do you mean what I think you mean by re-instating direct control — as in reinstating Empires? I'm not sure the West has the money for that right now...

Keep Rolling On

As a heuristic, I would not bother to read a post that does not at least respect proper punctuation, let alone one that says women are inferior to livestock in those lands (for one thing, they don't get eaten) using a mathematical symbol.

As for "orderly" nations coming to the rescue of the "disorderly" ones... it's not theoretically impossible to achieve, but it would require a great deal of altruism, and a very principled, intelligent approach, over a very long term. I do not believe there is one single culture in the world that has the will and the power for that kind of tremendous effort. It would require true love of the highest degree, the sort that it takes to help an alcoholic husband out of addiction, or a misbehaving child out of school failure. I know a great deal of spouses and parents who do not have this much love in them. How could entire nations?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Some tried, but in the end, they didn't have the money, and lost the will of the people they were helping. Both will and money are in short supply right now, as people deal with problems closer to home.

Keep Rolling On

Long story short. Nation building is hard, especially when you're at least pretending you're not out to make them a colony. Soldier aren't trained for that stuff. Very few people are.

and ; You probably didn't intend it to come off that way, but that felt rather rude, condescending, and lacking perspective. It sounded like something a bunch of rich old ladies would say at the Rotary club, patting themselves on the back for having tried to start that hospital.

As for the scenario of what actually happens when one country sets out to help another up, I suggest that you have a look at the following examples:

• The post World War II occupations of Germany and Japan.
• The assimilation of the GDR by the GFR. (It was not a unification, it was a dismantlement and a submission).
• Manifest Destiny, and the American Civil War, and its aftermath.
• The status of non-English countries in the UK.
• The unification of Europe under Napoleon.

The way I see it, the difference between those things and colonization is like the difference between getting raped as a helpless wench and then getting thrown out, and getting raped with a Marital Rape License, becoming a full member of a patriarchal household (which gets you some rights and privileges, but also brutally restricts your freedoms). There is still a very clear sense of who's boss, whose rules we go by, who, ultimately, deals the cards.

To sum it up, I would like people to stop framing these discussions in terms of "we want to help the poor and the opressed, especially the women".

Back on topic, the Bush administration has set a precedent for the US executive branch starting wars, and the UK executive following them in spite of international opinion, in spite of their own legislative bodies, and in spite of the general interest of their country (special interests, however, are something else). As for Israel...

Let's just say that, if these executives decide to launch a war, nothing will stop them. On what information, driven by what motives? How could we know for sure? So, I suggest we stick to information-gathering, refrain from judgment, opinion, and injunction, and let whatever happens, happen.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

The post-WWII occupations were amazing and incredibly successful. I don't think that point really supports the argument you're trying to create.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

"Success" is a matter of the metrics used: what are your conditions for a successful occupation and post-occupation? They got very rich and very powerful, and they had lots of kids? Surely, getting raped by a rich, powerful husband, growing to love him and the children you bear him, while growing wealthier than before, and gaining status and power in the tribe from that union, makes for the very prototype of a wonderful, successful marriage. History is full of them, isn't it?

edited 17th Feb '13 11:12:37 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Not entirely sure what's you're trying to say. Taliban occupied Afghanistan wasn't a nice place. If you want to call me condescending, do so. Any place with that blatant level of power disparity is not a nice place to live in.

I'm not arguing there wasn't a nation. But trying to convert a nation lead by strongmen into a nation not lead by strongmen isn't easy to do. The French Revolution is a perfect example, honestly.

Someone's been watching too much Axis Powers Hetalia...

I've only ever seen this analogy from conservatives before.

Ok. In short: Countries are not people. A single person is not the same as a single country. Thus, while you may cut your hair and it's fine, somebody complains when you execute some citizens for "obstructing the vision" or "making it look messy." The analogy is lazy and poorly thought out. It breaks down when tested remotely seriously, and thus should not be used for serious political or historical statements.

Attempting to discredit an occupation by comparing it to a rape doesn't stand on any logical grounds. Just plain doesn't.

So please, show me something wrong with the occupation's actual results. Because I'm unimpressed with the analogy.

edited 17th Feb '13 9:54:30 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

It's not supposed to be logical, it's a metaphor for an emotional state. You get humiliated, you get freedoms and rights bestowed upon you rather than agreeing to them among each other *

, you get schooled, and beaten into shape, by those who claim to be your betters. Your only choice is whether to embrace the change, or merely tolerate it. Words like beaten, castrated, emasculated, and, yes, raped, come to mind.

If you think the occupations were so nice and exemplary, outline to me what the differences between the good and the bad ones, and the feasibility of reproducing the good ones.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

The nations were turned from dictatorships ruled by the few into democracies who could make their own decisions. Now it certainly wasn't a good deal for the people who were thrown out of power, but I doubt anyone sympathises with them. Notice that unlike with colonisation the US and other occupying powers drew back and handed over control to the locals at the first possible chance. Legally it was an assimilation but it was an assimilation that had the overwhelming backing of the people in the GDR, there was actually a change to something in the GFR constitution (I think it was the constitution) during reunification, but I can't for the life of me remember what. I don't know that much about the US civil war so I will leave this one. You obviously don't know much about the UK system of government. England is the region with the least power; it has no devolution at all, while Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all get to vote on English issues. Now the initial conquest of Wales and Ireland was certainly colonialism, but it stopped begin that a long time ago. Scotland actually consented to the union, likewise all three regions are able to leave the UK if they so wish (as Scotland is considering). Was a conquest that lacked the backing of the people in those areas. What's your point?

Also please cut the rape analogy, not only is it a terrible analogy, but your making it in the kind of way that could easily offend victims of actual rape.

edited 18th Feb '13 3:48:44 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Where the same party gets reelected for fifty years in a row. Democracy, without the set of beliefs that sustain it, is a red herring: the Nazis got elected democratically, for instance. And the Japanese didn't start believing in Human Rights overnight. In fact, I am under the impression that they still don't buy into Enlightenment-style individualism and its derivatives.

That's probably true, but allow me to request a citation. Also, given the strict control of information by the GDR, I am under the impression that the Ossies didn't quite know what they were getting into. Plenty of perfectly competent, qualified people got stripped of their power. Perfectly fine consumer products, to which the locals were accustomed, were pulled off the shelves and replaced overnight by flashy Western products, rather than being allowed to compete fairly in the market. Even nowadays, a stark contrast in economic development and employment remains between the East and the West, often literally demarcated by the old borders.

The non-English countries in the UK are, indeed, legally more powerful than England*

, and are allowed to leave as they wish (unlike, say, the Catalans). Nevertheless, culture and society in Britain remain starkly Anglo-centric, and London-centric for that matter. That the Scots are considering leaving, despite all the advantages you listed, hints that the relationships between the countries of the UK are not that warm. And that's now. There has been quite a history of discrimination and deprecation.

That it is not enough to come with (alleged) good intentions and (arguably) excellent contributions to make to the welfare of the conquered, if you do it by force, and that even the best ideas will be rejected with a vengeance, when they are fed down your throat at gunpoint.

I was born and raised in exactly the type of culture that feminists refer to as rape culture, and was presumably the result of generations and generations of socially-approved marital rape, with the exception of my own mother. Her mother didn't get to choose whether she got fucked, and neither did her mother, and so on. They didn't even get to choose to get married at all. Yet, most of them probably came to love their husbands, eventually. That makes it okay, right? By the way, if we go far enough up your genealogy, we will find that the same applies to you, and you, and you too, over there. When was it, in your societies, that women started being allowed (started allowing themselves) to say "no" to their husband?

Rape and sexism pervade your language. I'm certainly not the one who says "you got fucked" to mean "you were conned" or even "you were beaten". I'm not the one who mocks people's pain by calling them "butthurt". I am not the one who calls the meek "pussies", the fools "cunts", and the devious "bastards". I am not among the ones who, when they see a girl passed out drunk, see an opportunity, nor one of the friends who trivialize what they do and cover for them.

Oh, and I was a victim of actual rape myself. Thank you for reminding me of that: I had been a few weeks without thinking of it. Other victims of actual rape are free to feel offended. Meanwhile, I will feel free to feel offended that people think the emotions I am attempting to express are not worthy of being compared to rape.

I'm comparing occupation with rape because that's what it feels like from my perspective. If you think I am deliberately misrepresenting or exaggerating, or that my view is warped and inaccurate, or that it is not representative of the general view, then there is little I can do about that. But those are my feelings, and I expressed them candidly.

So, please, don't piss on my leg, and then tell me it's raining, and then get indignant when I complain about the smell.

If the USA and/or Israel want to attack Iran, it is probably not to save the citizenry from the tyrannical regime. It is probably not to save the citizens of other countries from a powerful Iran. And, if they go ahead and do it, either goal probably won't even get to be a side bonus. So, please, don't try to act like it matters to them.

Gandhi was a master at exploiting this strange contradiction, where people who are more powerful and clever than you come to coercively use you for their own ends in ways that hurt you without your consent*

, and then still want to think of themselves as good, still want to believe they are doing the right thing, that their victim-tools should even be thankful*

COUGH!

. He stood up to them and said "No. I won't do it. I don't want to. Go away."

If a people want you (generic you) to occupy them, don't worry, they have ways of letting you know. Just make sure you're not misinterpreting their signals, and that they are giving informed consent, and know what to expect. Also, please don't start doing strange things in the middle of the occupation without making sure the other party is fine with these surprises.

As for me, don't worry: if the big ugly word 'rape' makes you uncomfortable, I won't use it. I don't need to.

edited 18th Feb '13 5:53:15 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Only half-true.

They became the largest single party in the Reichstag, but never won a majority of the popular vote in a free and fair election. In fact, they were almost bankrupt and faltering politically when Franz von Papen decided to make Hitler his Dragon Ascendant in order to try and shore up his own faltering political fortunes and those of the German right in general.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Yes, sorry about that.

What I mean to say is "general elections being held, while a symptom of good governance and popular sovereignty, are in no way a guarantee of either", and that "neither good governance nor popular sovereignty are a guarantee that people are happy by their own standards, let alone by those of foreigners". Also, that "values dissonance cannot be bridged by lecturing people from a position of superiority, let alone by making them recite your lessons at gunpoint". The worst part is, those are probably good lessons too (at least I think so).

Also, someone earlier compared my arguments to those of "the right", like that's an inherently bad thing, like ideas and feelings come in packages, and disliking part of the package means disliking all parts of it indiscriminately. That was unfair to "the right", and it was unfair to me. Don't worry, though, it happens to me all the time. I talk to a Muslim for five minutes, they peg me as a depraved godless westernized sellout house negro. I talk to a right winger, and they peg me as a bleeding-heart liberal. I talk to a communist, and they call me a typical petty bourgeois. With us or against us, eh?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Perfectly true, I'm just a pedant; the "the Nazis were democratically elected" canard really grinds my gears. Had Franz von Papen not invited Hitler into the Cabinet, the Nazis would likely have died a natural death due to lack of funds and support.

I too dislike classification, however, the reference to "the German right" in my post was a refernece to the DNVP and the Pan-German League, both of which can be fairly uncontroversially called right-wing.

edited 18th Feb '13 6:33:38 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

The Chinese too. The Far East has a far more collectivist, instead of individualist, view of the world and society in general and for far longer then we've had the Enlightenment.

...and Self-Deprecation, for that matter.

Mind you, Britain is London-centric, and don't we know it. There's even some unrest about it within England.

edited 18th Feb '13 6:33:40 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

The same party being re-elected doesn’t mean that a county isn't a democracy, that party could actually just be one that manages to truly represent the people's views. Now it certainly bears looking into but it doesn’t have to mean the country isn't a proper democracy. Are you saying that Japan and Germany are not currently proper democracies?

My source is an East German guy on my polities coarse so I'll have to do some digging before I can get back to you with a citation.

I admit there are still divides, particularly deep ones in some places. I just think you're very much overstating them. Also you appear to be applying the sins of the farther line of thinking, yes the British government in the past did some horrible and wrong things, but we are a different nation made up of different people now and while we should not forget those actions, they are not our actions and should not be treated as such.

I agree. Forcing good ideas on people who aren’t interested isn't going to work. You can't help people who have no interest is accepting your help, especially if you try and force your help on them.

I don't really know how to respond to your response on the rape analogy subject (also I'm worried it's off topic) so I'm gona say PM me if you want to talk further about it. That and I'd like to say I'm sorry for upsetting you.

I completely agree with you, nor do I believe I have acted like and Israel/US attack would be for the benefit of the Iranian people, it would be for US/Israel national interests and nothing else.

I was not trying to defend the idea of an Israel/US invasion of Iran, I was picking apart what I felt were bad comparisons of historical events to rape.

I agree, this is exactly the reasoning that makes me believe that the actions over Libya were right, while the invasion of Iraq was not, in one case the people there made a decision of their own, based on their own feeling to ask us to help, in the other our ‘help’ was forced upon them. If people ask for our help then I believe we should help them, but the kind of situation where you can justify helping someone against their will "for their own good" are few and far between (if existent at all at an international level).

It's your call, I'm just worried it could offend others and I think it's a bad analogy. If you insist of an analogy for a person level then I would say slavery is a much better one. Even if the slave grows to love their master and be happy, the act of enslavement is still wrong, but you shouldn't punish the slavers descendants for the acts of the father.

I think I got everything in your post. If I missed something then say so.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

But....maybe it does. Maybe as the last remaining superpower we really do want to use our might to go in and keep people from being stoned/gassed/electrocuted on the way to buy milk.

As Silasw says about the UK, the US has done some horrifically fucked up shit. Doesn't mean we're not in it to do good today. I know when I turn on the TV and see yet another bombing killing a bunch of kids, I want it to just fucking stop already. I can belive our military and those that lead them feel the same.

It was an honor

Starship I'm with you, I have as big a hero complex as anyone but I'll share with you a lesson I learned the hard way. Helping people who don't want your help doesn't end well, the kind of situation where you can force your help onto someone are extremely limited. The rest of the time it just end with everyone involved coming out of it worse than ever, that's a lesson it took me a long time to learn.

Now if they want our help then we should provide it, but at times that's not always going to happen. Especially in a situation like Iran, where a humanitarian intervention would be seen as much too costly, by the governments that could have to carry it out. Any move against Iran would be done purely for national interest reason, which doesn’t make it inherently wrong, but it's still not going to be to help the people of Iran.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I think this question runs into a No True Scotsman problem. What is a "proper" democracy? And is, in fact, a "proper" democracy desirable?

I won't deny that there's been some very solid improvement, but it's still shaky in places. Sites like Stuff White People Like take great pleasure in attacking these weaknesses in every concievable angle: you'd think some real-life supervillains write this stuff, or something...

My aunt has worked in an NGO in our country, alphabetizing the women... with a side helping of feminist propaganda (a very amusing fictional depiction of how these things go would be the Girl of the Week in the Star Trek episode "The City On The Edge Of Forever"). They take the learning, nod sagely, and leave, to go on with their lives. No wife wants to be told that her husband raped her. No husband (look at him, working eight hours a day cleaning fish in a factory, his hands constantly under a stream of cold water, the stink never coming off, all to feed his wife and children) wants to be told he's a rapist, for that matter.

As for me, don't worry, I mostly got over it. As studies have proven, people who stay traumatized by events are often people who believed they were supposed to find those events traumatic. Not holding that belief, I, and so did most of our female ancestors (and the occasional male, too), remained scarred, but uncrippled. This doesn't mean it didn't hurt, it none of us thought it should define me or affect our lives like some sort of curse. Please don't hold any gloves on our account or get all guilty or give us special treatment. If you want to help, keep a closer watch on your friends (and yourselves), and denounce them when they cross those lines: pay attention.

Slavery works too, I guess (let's exploit the Django guilt while it lasts*

). In the end, it's all about consent, respect, treating other people as equals, people with agency, people with aspirations, rather than tools for one's own purposes. I chose rape as the appropriate analogy because I believe it is the violation of consent par excellence, the ultimate subjugation, and because it's visceral and poignant and gets the recipient indignant.

But it does not do, to get people too indignant, else they can get distracted from the actual message.

Ah, by the way, I thought of another totally-not-rape metaphor: Once you have occupied, it's very nice of you to be all responsible about it and not let the occupied deal with the aftermath all by themselves. Maybe you even want to build something beautiful together with them. But, really, you have to understand that sometimes the occupied can't fucking stand your guts, and that everyone's better off with you going far, far away, and maybe sending a steady income. But don't expect them to feel indebted to you, and don't believe for one second that you are entitled to enjoy the fruits of your labour there.

edited 18th Feb '13 12:05:10 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Yeah, but a power vacuum tends to attract tyrants. Some nation building is necessary if you have a goal being "Go in, and smash shit up." People aren't going to like you for it, but it depends on your goal. And do you really want to risk letting a worse person come to power, riding on the anti-"People who just fucked our shit over" sentiment?

That seems...problematic.

And sending money has been incredibly useless in the past, without oversight of how it's used.

edited 18th Feb '13 12:08:59 PM by DrTentacles

Well, yeah, occupying people leaves you in an awkward position, does it not?

And, yeah, when it comes to nations sending money, oversight is essential.

edited 18th Feb '13 12:10:33 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.