@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:You do realize that apartheid in South Africa has been abolished, don't you?
Your arguments are somewhat incoherent.
You would seem to have been in favor of what you consider a "neo-con" response to South Africa, by which I take it you mean invasion, but you reject in as respects Iran or most likely any other nation that has not implemented a racist based political system. In your original post you seem to be expressing the belief that sanctions are an act of war, just like invasion.
Again I have to inquire of your knowledge of the history of apartheid in South Africa. Do you realize the US participated in economic sanctions against South Africa in the mid-80's? If so, do you consider those sanctions to have been an act of war? Do you consider the government of that time to have been controlled by "neo-cons?" Do you think we should have taken a quicker route and invaded South Africa?
South African system is indeed to me an evil system, and I am for economic sanctions in this regard. I consider this to be quite different from the the fear mongering leading up to the invasion of Iraq( that resulted in a million dead), and the history of US intervention in foreign governments. Are you asking me why I have a double standard?
Quote:Since I didn't use the term "regime oppression" I don't know what it means. I did use "oppressive regimes," and believe the current Iranian theocracy is one such regime as was the exclusively white regime in power during the apartheid years of South Africa.
When a regime guns down peacefully protesting civilians, it's pretty safe to conclude that such a regime can be considered "oppressive." Assuming the regime had implemented laws that banned public protests, it's clear such laws could have been enforced without sending bands of para-military thugs to brutalize and murder the protestors. This is what the Iranian regime, very recently, did.
There is a difference between coercion and oppression.
Apparently, while you get to decide that the South African regime was oppressive and deserved sanctions or invasion, you have a problem with anyone else exercising such authority.
To answer your question more directly though: The nation or nations that have the will and means to impose sanctions or invade get to decide which regimes are oppressive. Somehow I don't think you found it arrogant of the US to have considered the South African regimes in the 80's to have been "oppressive," and deserving of attention.
Yes, that is right, there certain things, like genocide( the killing of an entire people, massacre of a group based on race) that do need to be opposed. This is not an issue about moral realism, v.s moral relativism which you are making this out to be. This is about US policy policy, and US foreign policy is about maintaining power, or expanding that power. The US often support "oppressive regimes" out of self-interest, rather "principle"( If there is such a thing). The US have a nice public relation image that purport to support "freedom, liberty etc", but that is hardly reality.
Quote:A regime can threaten other nations in a number of different ways:
1) It can present a direct threat of attack against the homeland.
2) It can pose a direct threat of attack against the homeland of a nation's allies.
3) It can pose a threat to the economic well being of a nation and/or its allies.
4) It can fund terrorist groups that launch attacks on a nation or its allies.
5) It can make it clear that it has absolutely no regard for the long established conventions of diplomacy.
6) It can be responsible for the deaths and maiming of a nation's deployed military personnel by either sending covert forces into a war zone of supplying the nation's enemies with IEDs.
7) It can pursue an effort to obtain nuclear weapons that will only intensify the other threats described.
8) It can threaten a nation's sense of what is right in the world, and worth defending.
Note that while Iran doesn't present the US with the threat described in #1, it does present threats #2-8.
Interestingly enough, White South Africa only presented the US with threat #8, the most subjective of all and the one that you find to be compelling enough to launch acts of war.
I think the south African system compel a sanction, but It does not mean I advocate it should be done. I would try to weight the cost, and benefit of further actions. I am principle is to minimum suffering.
You list makes your ******* retarded. China, and its future would probably satisfy what you listed as threat. Here is the thing. China will grow, and its companies would probably dominate many used to be American industries. So, what? We should welcome the emergence of new powers, because this means there are more people coming out of poverty, and more people engaging in economic activities. This is a good thing, and not a bad thing. The US view is sort of like "I need to be number 1", by "keep everyone down". It is pathetic. You pathetic neo-con logic is a weak ass fool logic. Being number 1 means beating the best, and not beating the weak.
Quote:My last sentence was "Is that something that appeals to you?" How the hell that means "war is unavoidable and innocent Iranian will be lose (sic)" is far beyond me, but your charge is in keeping with your overall incoherence.
You accuse me of wanting war with Iran and yet if you read the posts in our exchange it is only you that has expressed an approval of or a desire for (I'm still not sure you understand apartheid no longer exists in South Africa) war.
Are you familiar with the Hazar people of Afghanistan? They are an ethnic group that is descended from the conquering army of Genghis Kahn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people
They have a long history of suffering from oppression, and particularly so under the Taliban.
What they have suffered at the hands of the Taliban, alone, is enough to define that regime as "evil" by your definition, and yet by bet is that you're not too happy with the fact that the US deposed the Taliban and are still trying to prevent them from regaining power.
Your inconsistencies make it difficult to take you seriously.
You setup a straw man "if South African apartheid is just, or not". That is a category error. This is not about moral realism, but about US foreign policy. You emphasize activist interventions as the main goal of US policy policy, but foreign policy between countries are not based on morality, but power, and self-interest. ******* Christ, you are a terrible neo-con that buy into the propaganda, but not the inner logic. Neo-con from its very beginning never like liberalism, and fear that liberalism will erode the cores of US society. Thus, it seeks to enforce the cores by appealing to religious, or moral activist foreign policy, but this is an illusion for the populace.
