(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Quoth the wisdom of goatmother

It's hardly much of a surprise that everyone wants nukes. You can't outspend the enemy in conventional warfare, look what happened to the last outfit that tried that (and never mind that that wasn't what did them in) so you'd better get something good and big to make damned sure they can't come hooring across your border to make you safe for democracy and Jeeeesus. It's actually surprising that more nations aren't doing this.

Similar dialogue, Middle East:

US: No, Iran, you can't make fucking nukes.
Iran: Nukes, us? What nukes?
US: Those ones, there.
Iran: It's a fucking powerplant, ignorant redneck infidel.
US: Yeah, but you can use it to make nukes.
Iran: Do we have to explain this in words of one fucking syllable, infidel mouth-breather? It's a power plant. We're building it to make power with.
US: Nucular power! That means nukes!
Iran: For fucking allah's sake, you ignoramuses, we signed the non-proliferation treaty. And for the record, we haven't attacked any of our neighbours in two hundred years, despite taking a great deal of shit off of them. Shit funded by you, as it happens, and don't think that's being forgotten any fucking time soon, asswipe.
US: Nukes! Nukes!
Iran: There are times when we wish we were Christians just so we could say Jesus Motherfucking Christ on a Fucking Bike. It's a powerplant. It's not meant to blow up, and it's a large building, not a frigging weapon.
US: Not meant to blow up? What about Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?
Iran: Picture us banging our heads on our desks right now. Those were trag-ic ac-ci-dents. Nuclear weapons are for de-lib-er-ate harm to-the-en-em-y. Of course, your record of harming people by accident is fucking tragic, so we can see where the confusion arises.
US: Nukes!
Iran: Go back to getting creepy with your pages or something. We tire of your bullshit, and have a powerplant to build.
US: And you're antisemites!
Iran: In case you hadn't noticed, it's Israel we've got a beef with. And, yeah, we don't like Jews either. That's not a reason to build nukes. Or to say we've got them. If Israel wants to mess with us they've got to get through a shitpot full of terrorists. You know, the one you're fucking stirring, right on our border? In fact, why are we even still fucking listening to your shit?
US: You're an Islamic state!
Iran: Well fucking DUH.
US: Nukes!
Iran: Fuck off.

From here

Comments

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Brilliant.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Iran: Picture us banging our heads on our desks right now. Those were trag-ic ac-ci-dents. Nuclear weapons are for de-lib-er-ate harm to-the-en-em-y.

Huh. On my list of how to reassure the Americans, "talk like a Dalek" doesn't even appear.

[mazarinade.livejournal.com]

That was meant to be 'slowly and patiently for the hard of thinking'. This is why I'm shit at scripts, I can't do dialogue without beats.

Well, I can, but the result is this sort of misunderstanding.

[mazarinade.livejournal.com]

Ah, fuck I knew I'd missed something. Khameini's fatwa against nuclear weapons. Blame lack of sleep.

[scixual.livejournal.com]

Arabs are also Semites, so calling them anti-Semite is pretty odd, too. But yeah.

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

Iranians aren't semitic, they're persian.

Arabs, Jordanians, Palestinians, Lebanese, southern Iraqi, eastern Egyptian...semitic types.

[scixual.livejournal.com]

Woops.

Well, I guess I learned my Thing for the Day, and demonstrated American Ignorance in an attempt to do the opposite.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

"Anti-semite" was coopted by insane German anti-semites (but I repeat myself) to mean Jew-Hatred and as far as I can tell, while the term does predate the 19th century usage, it wasn't often used. English has lots of terms that don't mean what they literally seem to mean.

As I recall, the current state of affairs between Iran and Israel is something of an exception to traditional Persian/Jew relations.

[mazarinade.livejournal.com]

Well, the state of affairs between Persia and its Jewish minority is in an ongoing state of exception to its longer-term historical state. Since the Revolution attitudes to religious minorities got a lot less pleasant in Iran. The Jews aren't being singled out for this; the Zoroastrians, Christians, Sunnis and other small groups don't get a particularly fair shake. They're still far from the worst offenders in the region, but I wouldn't put them much above the median level either.

[kjn]

Iranians are not Arabs.

[scixual.livejournal.com]

*schooled*

[toku666.livejournal.com]

Humorous and all, but there happens to be a grand stretching divide between "Bush dumb/Iran = cute puppies" and "Iran = Arabs = IslamoFascists that want to nuke us."

I think it's a little disingenuous to forget that Iran, for whatever reason, should be regarded as "agitated."

This also ignores the fact that they (Iran) made friendly diplomatic overtures (that were ignored, natch) shortly before and after Ahmadinejad became a household name. I think that's a far more scathing indictment of our foreign policy in Iran than the administration's response to nuclear power.

But maybe everybody is tired of hearing about how cowboy diplomacy doesn't fucking work.

The fact that the US sucks doesn't imply Iran is honest

[unclestoner.livejournal.com]

I'm on the same page with you regarding the idiocy of US foreign policy, most spectacularly vis-a-vis Iraq. However I think you make a mistake to trust Iran. They say they're developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. I think they are lying. Also, even if they aren't at the moment they will be a lot closer to nuclear weapons should they change their mind.

If Bush says "2+2=4", it is still true, even if he's an idiot.

I don't think Iran should be allowed to make any progress towards nuclear weapons. This isn't fair, but oh well. Shall we allow all ~200 nations in the world to have nuclear weapons or even nuclear power? I'd rather have some chance for humanity to make it to the next century than be fair.

The current president of Iran believes that Allah cast a ray of light on him when he addressed the UN General Assembly awhile ago (not this latest visit, I think the one before that). He's not saying that metaphorically, he literally thinks that physically happened. Isn't that nice? He is insane religious fundamentalist, far worse the GW. And that's saying something.

The regime in Iran has more than a "beef" with Israel. I have a beef with Israel. But I don't want to wipe it off the face of the earth. The regime in Iran has wet dreams of doing just this. All you have to do is listen to them, and stop making excuses for their threats. I could say "I want to destroy Ireland, as an Irish nation. I don't have a problem with Irish people, mind you, just Ireland". Does that make it better? No.

Iran is not a free country. No, you can't compare the repression in Iran to the Patriot Act etc in the US. They are not in the same league. The Council of Guardians disqualifies most liberal candidates. Almost all liberal newspapers have been shut down. People are not free to do as they please, or to worship as they please. Are you familiar with the plight of the Baha'i in Iran? Or the Kurds? Or, dare I let it pass my lips, atheists? The regime there is evil.

Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is the best thing that ever happened to them.

Re: The fact that the US sucks doesn't imply Iran is honest

[unclestoner.livejournal.com]

In closing, I don't understand why left-wing people feel the need to defend ultra-far right regimes such as the one in Iran. Where women are _forced_ to where certain clothes to "protect their modesty" for quasi-religious reasons. Anyone who gets fed up with the US for its religiousity should be far, far more hostile towards Iran. If not, its a double standard plain and simple.

Re: The fact that the US sucks doesn't imply Iran is honest

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I don't defend Iran.

I just think this is funny.

(And I'm only "left-wing" in comparison to Americans.)

Re: The fact that the US sucks doesn't imply Iran is honest

[unclestoner.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I'm also left-wing compared to Americans, and I'm American. Nevertheless, I can't help but object to the tone of the dialog.

Re: The fact that the US sucks doesn't imply Iran is honest

[mazarinade.livejournal.com]

Well, the difference between the Iran and the US is one of degree, not kind. Iran is, if you're the right religion and race and economic class, a pretty good place to live, and most of the censorship and restrictions are social, not governmental. Like the US, the majority have all the freedom they actually want. It's not anywhere I'd call enlightened, but it's not run by the Taliban either - it's the kind of religious regime where a woman could win the biggest car rally event (and then get refused admission to next year's event at the behest of other drivers pissed at being beaten by a girl) and the clerics responded to the 'pernicious influence' of western fashions by holding an Islamic fashion show in the Khomeini Mosque (I've seen pictures of this event, and trust me you've not seen silly until you've seen a catwalk full of baggy burqahs).

Iran is, basically, what the US would be if the Dominionists in the US had got started from a basis of about eighty per cent of the population agreeing with them. Instead of about forty per cent.

The thing that tickles the shit out of me over this, of course, is the insistence that Iran can't be trusted because the clerics run the place - as though they're more likely to want nuclear weapons than anyone else. In fact, it's the clerics that issued the fatwah against nuclear weapons. The only way Iran could lawfully (lawfully on their own terms, that is) develop a weapons capability out of their power programme is if they get out from under the clerics.

I dislike the US and Iran both, as it happens, for more or less the same reasons. Hence the mockery that our host here reposted.

Re: The fact that the US sucks doesn't imply Iran is honest

[unclestoner.livejournal.com]

Well, the difference between the Iran and the US is one of degree, not kind

Whatever that means. The difference between graphite shavings and a diamond is one of degree - how much pressure the carbon has been subjected to.

At any rate, the difference, "in degree not kind", if youare in to that useless dichotomy, is huge. I agree with you that there are similarities.

In Iran, censorship is governmental. Anti-Islam publications are in fact not allowed They have shut down almost all opposition publications in the past few years. No such thing has happened in the US. See, when far-left people make exaggerated claims and comparisons, it gives right-wing people a very convenient straw man. Stop doing that.

Clerics have issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons? Well la-di-frickin' dah. Religious authorities have been known to change their opinion. Further, there is a concept in Shi'a jurisprudence and theology that allows for deception when necessary.

As much as Christian fundamentalists enrage me and keep me up at night with agitation, they are simply not the same as the far-right Muslim clerics in Iran. The examples are legion. For instance here in the US I can go outside my front door right now, and scream "Jesus Christ had weird sex with his mother Mary". Nothing, but nothing, will happen to me. Try saying something like that about Muhammed in Iran.

Further, I'm not sure what use your argument of "Iran is like the US if [certain things that are not true in the US, were true]". If I had peddles and wheels, I be a bicycle. But I don't, so I'm not. The US is very differnt from Iran, and anyone with left-wing/liberal beliefs should far prefer the US, while not hesitating to give it the criticism it richly deserves.

Re: The fact that the US sucks doesn't imply Iran is honest

[toku666.livejournal.com]

Where are you getting 40% US population agreement with the Dominionists?

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

For what it is worth, Iran (and Pakistan, before the coup) were the ones who acknowledged and supported the Taliban regime while the rest of the world considered them imposters on the throne. The same Taliban regime which sheltered and outfitted al-Qaeda and its criminal mastermind. In contrast, Iraq hated their guts and was a de facto ally of the US, until the Bush administration randomly decided to invade them instead (probably after reading the Left Behind novels, in which Satan's world capital is there).

Iran is The Enemy. You don't want The Enemy to have anything nuclear. Ideally you don't even want them to have guns.

But this is all largely irrelevant, since the USA is slowly being bled dry in Iraq, and has no capacity to wage a conventional war against anyone else at the same time.

[mazarinade.livejournal.com]

Iran supported the Taliban in the sense of crossing the border with Afghanistan under arms several times to administer a light slapping and providing money, support and troops to their principal in-country opposition before the US and allies invaded.

Iran is *the* Shi'ite state, and the Taliban were uber-Sunnis, right across the border. They're helping the current Afghan government somewhat, but the only direct evidence I could find of Iranian involvement with the Taliban other than as enemies was a report of a confession extracted from an Afghan at Guantanamo bay. If there's anything else, let's hear it.

The Taliban's main assistance came from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both US allies. This sort of thing is why I end up making fun of US policy: they seem to be devoted to shitting on potential allies and supporting those who're dedicated to stitching them up behind the scenes. About the only sensible target to date has been the Taliban - leave the Iranians alone and they're unlikely to do much harm. Leave the Saudis alone and they'll keep funding Al-Quaeda, leave the Pakistanis alone and they keep leaving the Jihadi organisations alone to recruit and train. There's one outfit there that's recruiting orphans from the earthquake to train up, and they provide free education with a side order of Jihad, about the only way there is to get an education in most parts of Pakistan.

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was wrong. I so vividly remembered Iran supporting the Taliban that I did not even bother to look it up. You are totally right, Iran and Taliban were at each other's throats most of the time, despite (or because of?) them both being Islamic theocracies with a burkha fetish.
Point ceded.

[mazarinade.livejournal.com]

Meh. It's easy to get the impression that Islam is monolithic if you just watch the mainstream media. The reality is that there are massive differences between Shi'ite and Sunni, and between each of them and Ismaili, and there are a few smaller groups.

Even Sunni isn't monolithic, there are several traditions within that that are mutually exclusive. The problem one is the Wahhabi one, which started around the end of the 18th century. And that would have been a movement of quiet ascetics if one of its followers hadn't been one ibn-Saud, who went on to stage a coup over a piece of territory that just happened to have a shitload of oil under it. For about twenty years they've been using that oil money to fund schools in the poorer muslim countries - it's no coincidence that 'Taliban' means 'the scholars' - the original Taliban militia were alumni of various religious schools.