Iran: misguided patriotism or dangerous fanaticism?

[Flappycat]

Face it, RFX. I'm far more knowledgable than most people on this given subject, and I have a much more sophisticated and intuitive understanding of the politics of this culture. You're not going to sway me with semantics or mockery. I'm immune to the latter, and I laugh at the former. Here is me laughing at it: Ha. Hahaha. Hah, hahaHAha. Ell-oh-ell, etcetera!!!!!!11111onethreeminustwoshiftone

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Though Iran is highly suspicious of the local Jewish community, Jews are allowed a measure of religious freedom in the country. The suspicion is based upon some paranoia that they're in contact with the Zionists, though, so the root concern is entirely with Zionist ideology, not Jews as race, people or religious group. Iranians may not be particularly friendly toward Jews, generally speaking, but their politics are not based upon any general resentment toward the Jews. Otherwise, the Council of the Jewish Community would not be allowed to exist there.

It's a shocking reality that the fact Iran allows Jews to even exist in Iran is a mark of regard from so many people.

 

[Flappycat]

It's a shocking reality that the fact Iran allows Jews to even exist in Iran is a mark of regard from so many people.

I'm just pointing out that racism has little, if anything, to do with their attitude toward Israel. I didn't say they were pussycats.

 

[Quiddity]

I had to vote other. Iran is a country and I fail to see how a country can be either fanatical or patriotic (although the latter would additionally imply narcissism if possible).

If you were talking about Iranians... I'd still have to reply with other as you didn't give me an option for both and neither. I'm sure some Iranians are misguidedly patriotic and some are dangerously fanatical and I'm sure there are others that are indifferent or even harbour an antipathy towards their country. They're people like any others after all.

If, though, you'd asked about Ahmadinejad, I'd have taken the second option, because I do believe him to be both dangerous and fanatical.

James

That's almost exactly how I see it.

 

[Flappycat]

You don't understand. He isn't so much fanatical as he is foolish. A lot of Iranians hate him as well, but, in spite of his faults, he isn't insane enough to pursue nuclear weapons. He's what you call a "technocrat," and this nuclear program is like his baby. It's something that he is personally attached to, partially because he's an alumnus of the institution that is doing the work. His antics have cost him a lot of popularity, though, so expect him to go down in Iran's next election. We can wait and pursue further negotiations with his successor.

(Edited for inflammatory language)

I'm worried that we are going to end up in another unecessary war over this issue. You don't have a right not to do more indepth, investigative reading on this issue. Ignorance kills.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

You don't understand. He isn't so much fanatical as he is foolish. A lot of Iranians hate him as well, but, in spite of his faults, he isn't insane enough to pursue nuclear weapons. He's what you call a "technocrat," and this nuclear program is like his baby. It's something that he is personally attached to, partially because he's an alumnus of the institution that is doing the work. His antics have cost him a lot of popularity, though, so expect him to go down in Iran's next election. We can wait and pursue further negotiations with his successor.

(Edited for inflammatory language)

I'm worried that we are going to end up in another unecessary war over this issue. You don't have a right not to do more indepth, investigative reading on this issue. Ignorance kills.

We're not going to war with Iran. So I wouldn't worry so much about it.

 

[Flappycat]

We might if the American public does not educated itself on the details of this subject. Again, ignorance kills. This conflict does not need to be escalated.

 

[Djamila]

The Iranians are a proud people are come from a culture that has one practically universal eastern trait - honor. Whether we're talking about Croatia or China, once you travel east of Austria you'll find most cultures value honor enough that they're seemingly willing to self-destruct in order to preserve it.

The fact Ahmadinejad is in power to begin with is a testament to that. The United States released a few statements prior to the Iranian elections saying how much they'd like Iran to elect the moderate opposition - and it might as well have been the kiss of death for the opposition. Even some of secular Iran's leaders proudly voted for the religious right to spite American influence.

This is all just a reflection of an undercurrent in our cultures that isn't present in Western Europe or the American culture it founded. Most Americans can't understand why Turkey is still livid that some of its soldiers were arrested and forced to wear hoods for several days. Most Americans certainly can't understand why one of those officers killed himself because he felt dishonored. So the American government constantly makes these colossal mistakes that even a todler from these countries would never consider.

Thus, I'd say Iran is just responding to pressure. When the pressure moves away, so will the consolidation of national pride.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

We might if the American public does not educated itself on the details of this subject. Again, ignorance kills. This conflict does not need to be escalated.

Its not in danger of any dramatic escalation right now. But, Iran is in danger of serious sanctions and if they don't change their nuclear ambitions and anti-Zionist rhetoric, they are in danger of being attacked by Israel. But, the US has no interest in a ground war with Iran. The Iranians seem like good people, and modern. We don't have to worry about Iran forcing some archaic form of Muslim law on the West. They aren't looking to spread Islam into the west. Their government is killing Jews and Sunnis, but that isn't a threat to the US or the EU, so I doubt anyone will care.

The only danger is that if Iran and Syria continue waging war against the US in Iraq, we'll be forced to wage a similar war within their countries. But I imagine it will be covert, and we won't see any open deployment of troops.

 

[michel]

I think a majority of Iranians are just normal men who go to work during the day and come home to their families at night and normal woman who do whatever is allowed by the tenants of their religion. The kids have quite the underground culture, which seems to be tolerated by the government. Seems like not such a horrible place to live. However, the Iranian government and Hezbollah are fanatical and extremely dangerous to the United States.

I am sure that you are perfectly right; most of the world (if it were provable) would most likely just want to go about their daily life without hindrance or fear or hatred; the politicians are the ones responsible for that.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I am sure that you are perfectly right; most of the world (if it were provable) would most likely just want to go about their daily life without hindrance or fear or hatred; the politicians are the ones responsible for that.

Politicians, Religious Leaders, and Corporations that benefit from war. Sadly, those are the people that WE put in power, all over the world.

 

[Flappycat]

Its not in danger of any dramatic escalation right now. But, Iran is in danger of serious sanctions and if they don't change their nuclear ambitions and anti-Zionist rhetoric, they are in danger of being attacked by Israel.

The problem in regard to the nuclear program, though, is that their president has an emotional attatchment to it. He's not going to let it go. That's the crux of the problem. However, as long as Iran continues enriching uranium and world panic over it continues, the issue will inevitably escalate into war. It would be in the best interests of the UN to concentrate on other issues.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

The problem in regard to the nuclear program, though, is that their president has an emotional attatchment to it. He's not going to let it go. That's the crux of the problem. However, as long as Iran continues enriching uranium and world panic over it continues, the issue will inevitably escalate into war. It would be in the best interests of the UN to concentrate on other issues.

That's not really the problem though. Everyone should be allowed to have nuclear energy, but the world has to trust them to use that technology responsibility. No one trusts the Iranian government. Not even the French.

 

[Flappycat]

That's not really the problem though. Everyone should be allowed to have nuclear energy, but the world has to trust them to use that technology responsibility. No one trusts the Iranian government. Not even the French.

Yes, and this presents a serious problem. Ahmadinejad isn't going to give up on the nuclear program, and antagonizing him over it is only going to lead to further conflict. Perpetuating this issue is stupid, and something nasty is going to happen as a result. Seriously, man, think about it. I know you're dedicated to distrusting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no matter what happens, but then what? Escalate the issue indefinitely? If the UN doesn't choose to compromise on this issue, it will continue to escalate. Sorry, but I'd rather not have another world war. If Iran uses this issue to build sympathy in the Middle East, we'll have a far bigger problem on our hands. Don't be a short-sighted fool, damn it, and think this through. Something is going to give eventually, and the chances of Mahmoud abandoning his nuclear program are zero. The only possible solution to this in which no one gets killed will be one in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is allowed to pursue his nuclear ambitions.

 

[pete29]

And when he gets nuclear weapons, then what.

 

[Flappycat]

And when he gets nuclear weapons, then what.

He isn't going to. That's the thing that you're not getting. He's probably had an obsession with his nuclear program since his days as a student. His intentions with this particular program are not violent, but there is no chance of him being persuaded to give it up. It's a very strong point of pride for him. I don't deny that some of his actions have been heinous, and I do completely agree that he should be discouraged from meddling in the conflict over Israel and the situation in Iraq. However, the UN is missing a golden opportunity to use his attachment to his nuclear program to force his hand in these issues. If the UN agreed to allow the program to continue on the condition of curtailing meddling in other regions, he would be willing to talk of compromise because these are much less personal issues. Furthermore, promising that he could continue the program under the condition of agreeing to full inspections into it, unlike the sanctions, would actually work.

 

[greatcalgarian]

All this anti-Iranian feeling, considering people there fanatic, etc etc are simply the result of very successful Main Stream Media (ie Western controlled media) brainwashing. For example, go and watch the movie 300 or even the kid movie Alladin. Most white American will be unconsciously being convinced that the villians are Muslim Arab / Persian, and the hero to save the day is the White American Hero (Alladin is relatively pale, and speak perfect American English as contrast to his counter part). 300 Greek Spartans defeated thousands of Persian soldiers and so on.

So until the day MSM stop brainwashing the American public, this anti-Iranian stuff will not go away, and we shall keep hearing people worrying about the mad Iranian President of Ahmadinejad firing nuclear missle into Israel and causing the end of the world to arrive now see the move Exeikeil.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Political aspects

Prior to the release of '300', Warner Brothers expressed concerns about the political aspects of the film's theme. Snyder relates that "There was a huge sensitivity about East versus West with the studio.... They said, 'Is there any way we could not call [the bad guys] Persians? Would that be cool if we called them Zoroastrians?'."[75] Media speculation about a possible parallel between the Greek-Persian conflict and current events began in an interview with Snyder that was conducted before the Berlin Film Festival and later published on Wired.com.[76] The interviewer remarked that "In the film, a tiny bunch of European freedom fighters hold off a huge army of Iranian slaves. Everyone is sure to be translating this into contemporary politics." Snyder replied:
“Someone asked me, "Is George Bush Leonidas or Xerxes?" I said, "That's an awesome question." The fact they asked tells me that this movie can mean one thing to one person and something totally different to another. I clearly didn't mean either. I was just trying to get Frank's book made into a movie.”“That kind of debate is unavoidable right now. I don't live in a cave, but on the other hand, the film's about a 2,000-year-old conflict. People will say, "You made this because we are going to war with Iran." I'll say, "We are? Not if I have anything to do with it."[77]”At a press junket following a February screening in Los Angeles, Snyder was again asked about the film's political implications. One reporter insisted that Xerxes symbolized George W. Bush, while a second reporter suggested that Leonidas might represent the American president. At the Berlin screening, Snyder claims that a reporter asked, "Don’t you think it’s interesting that your movie was funded at this point?" Snyder clarifies, "The implication was that funding came from the U.S. government." In general, Snyder has stated that he is pleased by the debate, which he did not, however, intend to provoke.[76]
Outside of current political parallels, some critics have raised more general questions about the film's ideological orientation. The New York Post's Kyle Smith claims that the 300 portrays violence as "war's goal rather than its means," adding that "it isn't a stretch to imagine Adolf's boys at a 300 screening, heil-fiving each other throughout and then lining up to see it again."[78] Slate's Dana Stevens writes that "if 300... had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war."[79] Roger Moore, a critic for the Orlando Sentinel, suggests that the film has a "fascist aesthetic," matching it to Susan Sontag's definition of "fascist art": ""Fascist art glorifies surrender, it exalts mindlessness, it glamourizes death."[80]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Iranianism
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/300/
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8000 Years of Iranian History[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]With the present US-Iran situation, this will be a great propaganda to warn the world about the threat of the New Persian Shiite Empire (IRI), same as the Old Persian Empire (Achaemenid)! [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Personally I will not spend a dime on garbage like this. I will not go see the movie and I will not even buy or rent it when it comes out on DVD. I just wait till it comes on Cable Movie channels (Encore and such ….), thus this film same as Alexander and other Hollywood spoofs of the past has zero historical credibility and it is an insult to the Superior and dominating Persian Culture (in comparison to Greeks) and surely an insult to Iran and Iranians. [/FONT]

 

[greatcalgarian]

Who were the Barbarians and who were the Civilized?Persian Empire was ran so prosperously, which 2/3 of the Greek city-states in Anatolia (present Turkey) and Grecian Peninsula preferred to join the Empire as either states or protectorates. Economically, socially, politically and militaristically it was only logical and for their benefit to join the powerful Persian Empire rather than remain as a few scattered Greek city-states fighting amongst themselves. That was what the Greeks done for centuries: fighting amongst themselves and remaining as weak city-states! So 2/3 of the Greek city-states decided to change their fate. I do not call this action treason but I call it visionary and logical. Unlike Herodot, I do not call the people of these city-states "Puppets" but I call them valuable and equal citizens of the Persian Empire. Aristotle used to call Persians "Barbarians", but the reality was that the remainder 1/3 of the Independent Greeks were small and inferior elements in comparison to the sophisticated and superior Persians and Persian Empire which ruled the world.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, Hollywood portrays Xerxes as an egotistic tyrant, Persians as beasts and savage dogs! So in a way Hollywood and the West, demonizes the Persians and the Achaemenid Persian Empire in the same way that they are demonizing today's Persians and Iran.[/FONT]

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/300/

 

[UnityNow101]

Never forget that the very US that is calling for Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions is the ONLY country to have used the nuclear bomb in battle. Doesn't it come across as a bit hypocritical to say that some nations can have them while others may not, all the while being the only country to have unleashed that very weapon upon the world? Think about it.