Iranian protests - Page 34

On June 25 2009 05:30 Railz wrote:


I never said Democrats were weak personally. I said they've always had a different approach. For example, right now in Iran, British seem to be doing most of the dirty diplomatic work for the US.

On June 25 2009 05:51 Hieros wrote:


I believe I understand the spirit of your point and to a large extent agree. But watch your wording: you say that only legitimate reason to go trampling around the world is to protect the rights of its citizens. From a foreign policy perspective, what are the rights of its citizens? Because if cheap oil for their cars is one of them, then this justifies, in theory, a wide range of actions that go against the apparent spirit of your argument. Or consider it from the Iranian's perspective: the government of Iran states that citizens have the right to nuclear energy.

The rights of citizens, particularly safety, has been used to justify wars since antiquity, notably in the years of prominence of Rome, for example.

I highlight this not to censure your diction, but to point to the ambiguity, potentially unresolvable, at issue here.

On June 25 2009 13:42 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:


The link I posted, below your quote, gives a clear outline of what rights I have in mind. Individual rights. A quick glance at context of the article would almost certainly have led you to the precise definition of individual rights.

The UK's freezing of Mojtaba Khamenei's money was big blow to supreme leader: http://bit.ly/iLy5V we need more of these moves. #IranElection

How to help? Businessman says recalling ambassadors and freezing indv bank accts will go a long way: http://tehranbureau.com/ira...

This Friday, We all are going to send GREEN BALLOONS to the sky to show that now ALL PEOPLE OF THE WORLD ARE IRANIAN.

Photos of full strike in Saqqez bazaar (Kurdistan province) http://tinyurl.com/kvsoeh #iranelection #gr88 #neda

On June 25 2009 09:25 travis wrote:


for the U.S?

what does this mean exactly?

what diplomatic work are they doing for us?

On June 25 2009 16:09 Railz wrote:


Well, I know it might not mean much for people who want action but I suppose it is better then nothing:

UK Expelling Iran ambassadors
EU denying the presidency
UK Freezing bank accounts

Iran won't listen to what we have to say and anything we do say is used against the protesters. The EU parliament challenging the legitimacy is going to do far more then the US challenging it. Iran wanted to switch to Petroeuros not too long ago so Iran will listen to what the EU says.

On June 25 2009 14:27 Hieros wrote:



My apologies. But the point remains. Many people, for reasons I do not have the time to completely flesh out at the moment, would not agree with the account given in that article. Even what "individual rights" means spelled out in that article requires a great deal of interpretation; any glance at the history of the Supreme Court will recall this fact.

But that might be to conflate the issue of what is the case and what ought to be. I find that articles similar to the one you posted, and many coming from the Ayn Rand Institute, for that matter, blur the distinction of conceptual use as it stands and how concepts, such as individual rights, ought to work. (Although we might wish to reject this distinction together, as Murdoch, Diamond et. al do.)

Why Rand and her intellectual successors are wrong, or oversimplifying the issue, requires quite a bit of in depth explanation that I unfortunately do not have time to enter in tonight, would be off topic, and discussed in another thread, although (in my opinion, once again) the sophistication required to discuss the finer points of rational egoism, the Randian brand included), were never brought to bear. The salient point, and again worth emphasizing one that I have not offered any decent justification for, is that many Americans would not agree with the framework offered in that article. I need to study right now, so for the moment, I'll take a break from this pedanticness and simply offer, "Some other time, MacLeod!"

On June 25 2009 20:36 jello_biafra wrote:

These happened because Iran accused Britain of somehow being totally responsible for the whole mess that's going on over there.

On June 25 2009 14:27 Hieros wrote:



My apologies. But the point remains. Many people, for reasons I do not have the time to completely flesh out at the moment, would not agree with the account given in that article. Even what "individual rights" means spelled out in that article requires a great deal of interpretation; any glance at the history of the Supreme Court will recall this fact.

But that might be to conflate the issue of what is the case and what ought to be. I find that articles similar to the one you posted, and many coming from the Ayn Rand Institute, for that matter, blur the distinction of conceptual use as it stands and how concepts, such as individual rights, ought to work. (Although we might wish to reject this distinction together, as Murdoch, Diamond et. al do.)

Why Rand and her intellectual successors are wrong, or oversimplifying the issue, requires quite a bit of in depth explanation that I unfortunately do not have time to enter in tonight, would be off topic, and discussed in another thread, although (in my opinion, once again) the sophistication required to discuss the finer points of rational egoism, the Randian brand included), were never brought to bear. The salient point, and again worth emphasizing one that I have not offered any decent justification for, is that many Americans would not agree with the framework offered in that article. I need to study right now, so for the moment, I'll take a break from this pedanticness and simply offer, "Some other time, MacLeod!"

On June 26 2009 03:10 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
The last thing Iran needs is America and Britain sticking their noses in, simply because the governments of those two countries cannot be trusted to act in good faith and in the best interests of the Iranian people.

On June 26 2009 03:10 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
The last thing Iran needs is America and Britain sticking their noses in, simply because the governments of those two countries cannot be trusted to act in good faith and in the best interests of the Iranian people.

On June 26 2009 01:56 Railz wrote:


Well the post was in response to someone saying the USA wasn't acting enough. I said that it wasn't the USA who needed to act since our meddling isn't wanted there in Iran so I pointed out how the EU was doing the right moves.

On June 26 2009 03:27 Xeris wrote:


Especially when both countries were directly involved in orchestrating a coup to get rid of Mossadegh in the 50s, and neither country made any public admission of being involved for many many years after the fact. Iran has anything but trust for the United States, and ESPECIALLY England.

A senior cleric on Friday urged Iran's protest leaders to be punished "without mercy" and said some should face execution — harsh calls that signal a nasty new turn in the regime's crackdown on demonstrators two weeks after its disputed election.