But it will be.

5, 4, 3, 2, 1, ......

They must feel like we did under Bush.

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:26 PM - Edit history (2)

Categorical statements of good and evil are appropriate for toddlers -- "bad, very bad cat scratched me, mommy!" -- and for religious and political zealots of all stripes and nationalities. It's the kind of emotion that leads to wars of extermination and genocides.

All governments are a mix of idealism and cynicism, including Iran and our own, and you're welcome to criticize any as you wish. But, it is simple-minded to say, "Iran is evil" without framing that statement within the context of what you're trying to tell us we should do about it. Would you like the US to bomb Iran? If so, please give us that context so we can better understand where you want to go with this.

internet to name a solution to Iran's theocracy before making comments. That's just silly.

What other interpretation are we supposed to draw from that statement?

which it is. I guess you could argue that if you're a straight muslim male in Iran, things aren't so bad. Your argument is like saying we shouldn't say apartheid was evil if we weren't going to invade South Africa.

point in history, there really is no plausible chance of peaceful regime change. The more the US, Israel, and EU squeezes and isolates Iran, the more powerful the hand held over the country by the fundamentalists and zealots. And, the more ostracized and ineffectual the Green Revolution, those who would try to reform, modernize and westernize Iran.

Sanctions and threats are a counter-productive policy that's merely increasing the chances of war with Iran, which is what some appear to want. They may get their wish.

And it is not at all childish to have personal standards of evil. Even an arch atheist like myself has a concept of evil... it is not believed to be an extra-human concept, but a personal concept a concept existing within a values community, which DU is.

And by the standards of this values community, conservative theocracy is wicked, malign, unjust, stupid and a lot of other pejoratives that add up to "evil."

Your straw man aside, I have certainly never suggested that the US military should bomb all things that are evil.

But since the American right-wing and the government of Iran (note that I always said government, not Iranians) are very similar operations in some distinguishing ways, and since they are in opposition, there is an irony.

But not an irony that ought to confuse anyone. They can both be evil. It's a big world.

You know that, and your post is going to be perceived by most people as a call for war. And, that is evil, because you know better. If you really have a problem with repressive police states, you should consider what would likely happen in the United States if we became involved in a war with an adversary, such as Iran, which is capable of inflicting damage against American targets around the world, including inside the "homeland."

If you liked the post-9/11 political environment, that extended through the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, you're going to love America at War with Shi'ia Iran and what's left of Syria and Lebanon. Most likely, the Sunni Jihadists -- the ones we've been coordinating to take down Syria -- will take the opportunity to strike out at us. Think about what happened to the American Ambassador in Libya, and it doesn't seem so far fetched. Do you want the U.S. to be at war simultaneously with the most militant elements of both major branches of Islam?

No thank you.

Since I do not favor military action against Iran I would have no motive to encourage military action against Iran.

I do, however, think that "the enemy of my enemy" is crap except in a shooting war. (Like the alliance of the USA and Russia in WWII)

I do not think that the fact that Iran is under the gun from people I think are horrible adds one scintilla of gloss to the government of Iran itself.

The world is full of evil things that ought not to be bombed.

To whatever degree I am a propagandist (limited at best) it is for freedom of expression and secular governance.

I talk about contemporary Republicans the same way I talk about the Ayatollahs.

And I do not think there is any cognitive dissonance in that.

I think it should only be used in certain circumstances, not when referring to foreign countries or governments. It reminds me too much of Bush when he would talk about "evil-doers".

and murdering millions in other counties make the U.S. government evil? Is oppressing women really worse than destroying and oppressing entire countries?

proposition.

There is certainly no doubt about the crimes it has committed against other peoples. Determining whether or not there is a double standard at work, is relevant to this sort of discussion, in my opinion.

The evils of the US government are often cited here, including by me. Often.

The general founding concepts of the US government are, however, not particularly evil.

Since the current Iranian form of government is a conservative theocracy there is no real upside to it without a fundamental change in the form of government.

For the US government to be better could be accomplished within our form of government if people voted better and the Supreme Court was better.

That is forms of government. Abstract.

As for particular personalities, let's just say that I would not care to referee an evil contest between George W. Bush and the Ayatollah.

I do not think we should bomb Iran. But I prefer that such questions not be sentimentalized. Their government is very bad, yet that is not a reason to bomb them.

On the other hand, if someone asked, "What do you think about a conservative theocracy having nuclear arms?" I wouldn't favor it. That disfavor does not, however, suggest that I am happy with everyone else having nuclear weapons either.

Realistically, what really matters, is how a government's policies play out in the real world.

I wholeheartedly concur with your unhappiness about nuclear weapons.

I've often heard that the people of Iran were not as rabid theocratic - I certainly wish they could do something about their government. As to their government, IMO a lot of it is hot air. They say stuff, but what can they actually do?

Yeah, they need a Parliamentary Democracy, and if we can help with that - well, so far we haven't shown that our "help" is all that good.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine

Hmmm, left wing authoritarian governments also tend to be evil as well. Or maybe it's all authoritarian governments in general tend towards evil, ours included.

this nation, or any others you wish to name for that matter, and clearly demonstrate the validity of that premise. Yes, our government is evil.

It is based in the idea that a right to impose ones will upon others exists and the results are always bad. Some are worse than others, but it invariably leads to evil.

Drone attacks, killing thousands of children w sanctions in Iraq in the 90s, illegal wars of invasion, in fact the original deposing of the democratically elected govt in Iran in the 50s, Chile in the 70s, on and on. Slavery. Wage slavery. Launching the atomic bomb. Twice.

And we aren't even all that religious. We just do it for self interest. Isn't that even more evil?

Do we repress our citizens that much less? Check out prison conditions. AND we have the largest prison population in the world, enormously skewed to minorities.

Maybe we aren't as bad as Iran philosophically. But I find it difficult to argue we are less evil.

but any American who pronounces another government evil, but refuses to see their own as such, undermines their credibility by adopting a glaring double standard. The crimes committed by the U.S government in Indochina alone are worse than all of the crimes committed by the Iranian government throughout its entire history.

The most sensible course of action for the U.S. government, is to normalize relations with Iran, and attempt to persuade them to change through a course of diplomacy, so all of us can get on with more pressing matters, like arresting the degradation of our biosphere.

Is the Iranian government repressive? Sure. Does it not fit our own ideals of good government? Most definitely.

I think we can agree the government of Iran is bad, or at least just wrong about a hell of a lot of things. But "evil" is a stretch. Evil is a plague on humanity, something so completely wrong that it deserves eradication. "Evil" is a national policy of human extermination. "Evil" is a religion that states the sun will not rise unless you cut out the hearts of captives, and the rains will not come unless you drown children.

"Evil" is far beyond the petty thuggishness of Iran's mullahs.

...then things will change in time. Which the mullahs are aware of - presently 65% of university students in Iran are women (!), so they made some new laws restricting access to some types of studies:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9487761/Anger-as-Iran-bans-women-from-universities.html

I view them as theocratic assholes. They murder gays and oppress women.

The people....nope. They don't deserve to be on the recieving end of any military action.

I watched an episode of Rick Steves and he was in Iran. It was beautifully done. The people were amazing. They did have government monitors while they were filming. It was so well done and I was left with a great impression. It focused on the society and the culture. There was a bit of history that was very up front.