Iran: the Most Dangerous Nation, by TED KOPPEL

[Brock]

Thanks Brock, that was very entertaining to read! It makes you wonder though...

Hugo Chavez went to Brooklyn a month ago and offered reduced-priced home heating oil.  Charlie Rangle did everything but call for his head.  The nightmare scenario for our government was that Hugo would actually show up in Brooklyn with tankers full of oil.  If a few tankers of oil can strike that much fear in a government, just think what container ships full of CG Bombs could do.

[SeanSchade]

To be fair, I'm not ready for a democracy in which the majority is going to tell me how to run my life.

But we don't have democracies like that, because that's not what "democracy" means in common parlance.

[Edit] - what I meant is that we don't have direct democracies in which the majority makes it a point to tell me individually what I can and can't do.  Instead, we select a handful among an elite group of tuberbrains to tell us what to do.

Hence...a republican democracy 

[ladyattis]

The last time I checked the US Constitution still existed atleast in paper form. So, attacking Iran without provocation is not constitutional. I don't support Iran, nor any other religious theocratic nutjob nation, but I don't support the Christian 'nation' over here trying to bully them thar darkies into worshiping a blonde honkey Jesus. Frankly, I find the whole 'lets pick on Iran because it's an easy target' to be tripe. Even I as an Objectivist atleast acknowledge that sovereignty of a nation is necessary for there to be any civil society in that both parties [governments] respect that minimal state of affairs to which everyone benefits since there is no need for violence which is the only means to subvert sovereignty [individual, national, or otherwise].

-- Bridget

[mvpel]

Hugo Chavez went to Brooklyn a month ago and offered reduced-priced home heating oil.

[eques]

To be fair, I'm not ready for a democracy in which the majority is going to tell me how to run my life.

But we don't have democracies like that, because that's not what "democracy" means in common parlance.

[Edit] - what I meant is that we don't have direct democracies in which the majority makes it a point to tell me individually what I can and can't do.  Instead, we select a handful among an elite group of tuberbrains to tell us what to do.

Hence...a republican democracy 

Yeah, but all the quibbling about words leaves me kind of cold.  It's still somebody, somewhere thinking they know better how to run my life than I do.  What's up with that?

[SeanSchade]

To be fair, I'm not ready for a democracy in which the majority is going to tell me how to run my life.

But we don't have democracies like that, because that's not what "democracy" means in common parlance.

[Edit] - what I meant is that we don't have direct democracies in which the majority makes it a point to tell me individually what I can and can't do.  Instead, we select a handful among an elite group of tuberbrains to tell us what to do.

Hence...a republican democracy 

Yeah, but all the quibbling about words leaves me kind of cold.  It's still somebody, somewhere thinking they know better how to run my life than I do.  What's up with that?

No man is an island. ~Thomas Merton

One word...community

[eques]

To be fair, I'm not ready for a democracy in which the majority is going to tell me how to run my life.

But we don't have democracies like that, because that's not what "democracy" means in common parlance.

[Edit] - what I meant is that we don't have direct democracies in which the majority makes it a point to tell me individually what I can and can't do.  Instead, we select a handful among an elite group of tuberbrains to tell us what to do.

Hence...a republican democracy 

Yeah, but all the quibbling about words leaves me kind of cold.  It's still somebody, somewhere thinking they know better how to run my life than I do.  What's up with that?

No man is an island. ~Thomas Merton

One word...community

Yeah, community... that doesn't really tell me anything.  What do you mean by that, exactly?

[mvpel]

Yeah, but all the quibbling about words leaves me kind of cold.

From the LP.org Blog:

Let me see if I've got this straight. Michael Badnarik got a few thousand more votes in 2004 than Harry Browne got in 2000. Therefore, he's a better leader and today's leadership is better than yesterday's leadership.

I like both Browne and Badnarik very much, but this discussion is lunacy. Quibbling over 0.07% of the vote is just plain silly. We've got to be thinking in terms of what it takes to get millions of votes more, not how we got a few thousand more.

Let's regain a little perspective, folks.

Sound familiar?

[SeanSchade]

Yeah, community... that doesn't really tell me anything.  What do you mean by that, exactly?

What do you mean by...

what I meant is that we don't have direct democracies in which the majority makes it a point to tell me individually what I can and can't do.  Instead, we select a handful among an elite group of tuberbrains to tell us what to do.

and...

It's still somebody, somewhere thinking they know better how to run my life than I do.  What's up with that?

[eques]

Yeah, community... that doesn't really tell me anything.  What do you mean by that, exactly?

What do you mean by...

what I meant is that we don't have direct democracies in which the majority makes it a point to tell me individually what I can and can't do.  Instead, we select a handful among an elite group of tuberbrains to tell us what to do.

and...

It's still somebody, somewhere thinking they know better how to run my life than I do.  What's up with that?

In the first blurb, I was clarifying what I meant by literal democracies not existing, but that which we call "democracies" in common parlance (representative republic, technically speaking, in the USA) still involve the selection of a handful of potatoheads from among a group of elites (with some exceptions).  It's these potatoheads, not the majority, that tell me what I should do with my life.

In the second blurb, I'm responding to your qualifier on "democracy" with the same sort of objection.

The basis of my objection is that there's some elite whackjob out there who thinks that he knows better than me about how I should live my life, or that because the "majority" says that something isn't right, that somehow that makes it moral.

Might doesn't make right.  It never has, and it never will.

So what did you mean by this?

No man is an island. ~Thomas Merton

One word...community

Note that I'm not saying that I want to be a hermit.  I am saying, however, that there isn't anybody out there who is more qualified than me to live my life.  If you want a life to live, go get one of your own. 

[Objectivist]

I watched it. I guess you missed the part where many of the people said that they liked America and even George Bush. Did you notice that Ayotolla who said that suicide bombers go to hell, not heaven.

I think you missed a major theme of the show Objectivist. The idea was that both nations distrusted each other, and that we have both back groups to attack each other by proxy.

Actualy, I never said I would or did watch it. I hate television and I only watch my home collection of documentary dvds.  I just wanted it to be a little more common knowledge that Iran isn't a mis-spelling of Iraq, its a nation that has a religious dictator and a thug-ocracy who hate America (and Israel, but I'm starting to think I'm the only breathing human who doesn't hate Israel).

I had no hope at all that the Liberal-ass Ted Koppel would give a reasonable assesment, but when everyone is so ignorant of the threat, any info that's true, even if skewed and anorexic in quantity, is better than nothing. America is starved for info about the real situation...

If Iran attacks us again (people in the know, like the indumbigence agencies of our great nation, consider Sept 11 to have been Iranian at root), if they attack us again, at least people will know the name and approximate location on the map of the country that so seeths with hatred for us and our way of life. (I know, I know, not all of them, just like not all Germans hated America in the 1930's: many of them wanted to come here. Point stands.)

And I wonder how many interviews Mr. Koppel had with people who frothed at the mouth with hatred for freedom and America and the west, but of course he didn't show those because it wouldn't be politically correct.

At the end of the day, people need to know that Iran is a serious threat. In fact, its The Most Dangerous Nation.

Remember the fury in America for a few months after Sept 11? Call it a year, but if Iran attacks again, they're friggin DEAD. The government won't waste the honeymoon of revenge next time.

Objectivist

[eques]

Yeah, but all the quibbling about words leaves me kind of cold.

From the LP.org Blog:

Let me see if I've got this straight. Michael Badnarik got a few thousand more votes in 2004 than Harry Browne got in 2000. Therefore, he's a better leader and today's leadership is better than yesterday's leadership.

I like both Browne and Badnarik very much, but this discussion is lunacy. Quibbling over 0.07% of the vote is just plain silly. We've got to be thinking in terms of what it takes to get millions of votes more, not how we got a few thousand more.

Let's regain a little perspective, folks.

Sound familiar?

Okay, and your point is... what?

[Dreepa]

My fuckin' TIVO machine broke...so I won't be able to watch this...I recorded it.
Damn machine.

[eques]

Objectivist:

Man, why the hell did you push a show that you weren't even going to watch?  I mean, you're obviously not going for credibility here, what with your constant repetitions and utter lack of proof of your assertions... but I suppose we can at least appreciate that you were honest enough to let us know that you didn't actually watch the program.

But I still don't understand why you thought that the fact that Ted Koppel was presenting it would have made any difference in opinion in general?

Also, I happen to remember vividly the atmosphere surrounding September 11, 2001.  There was a hell of a lot of confusion, as well as a great deal of sadness immediately following the attacks.  The government wasted no time in telling us who did it, at which point the fury began.  But now, whenever somebody wants to question the wars that we've engaged in since then, September 11 is thrown back in our faces in order to shut down any questions we might have.  September 11 is used as the justification for all sorts of crap that never would have flown if we hadn't lost the twin towers.

And now, you're using it to justify attacking Iran.  You're saying, "if we don't attack Iran, THIS [September 11] will happen again!"  How do you know that?  How could you know that?  What are the mitigating factors regarding Iran?  You've even admitted that the United States might be continually provoking Iran.  What sort of right do we have to even think about attacking another country if we've been provoking it all this time?

I mean, it's like throwing rocks at a pit bull and then crying foul when it bites your leg.  Maybe it wasn't the nicest dog on the block, and you sure would have to be careful when dealing with it under normal circumstances, but tossing rocks at its head just wasn't the smartest thing to do!  And if you keep throwing rocks at it, it'll just get angrier and angrier until it lashes out AGAIN.

The pit bull may never forgive you if you just leave it alone at this point, but you might be able to at least avoid it, and if it comes running at you to attack you, then you can evade its attack, at the very least.  And, hell, if you start to treat it with respect, then perhaps it'll cool down and not be a threat any longer.

While nations are considerably more complex than pit bulls, the principle remains--keep provoking the pit bull, and you're going to get hurt.

[SeanSchade]

Since a true democracy would be inefficient with more than a hundred or so people we have the need for a representative democracy. Hence, we must elect some potatohead to be the representative.

What you are eluding to is that no one should tell anyone what to do.

What I am saying is that since YOU have decided to live within a community you are bound by the laws of that community. The community has determined what it believes is right and wrong. You may not agree. In fact, a lot of people may not agree, but enough people agree that is made into law.

As an individualist you have two powerful forces working against you. The moral majority, and the popular opinion.

The moral majority have a set of mores and values that they believe the community should live by. I won't go into the flaws of the Judeo-Christian religion that rules this country.

The popular opinion is worse than the moral majority. Examine the average IQ of an American. It's not 100. If you live in a Southern state like Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi it can get quite scary since they are 92, 90, and 85 respectively. New Hampshire is a little luckier at 105. So a score between 80 and 89 is below average. These people are electing the people that make the decisions. The people that make the decisions are telling THOSE people what should be done instead of the other way around.

Do you see a problem yet? You have a questionable majority that could only wish it could aspire to mediocracy making all of the decisions. If that wasn't enough you special interest groups via lobbyists ensuring that a select few profit at the cost of many.

What can done? The other half of the bell curve needs to get off its ass and start participating instead of sitting it out because we don't agree with the current system.