Our Enemies .... What are They?

Must they be (..... add your choice of an epithet)?

from JoeUser Forums
By speaking at Columbia University and at the United Nation, the president of Iran (M. Ahmadinejad) garnered a surprisingly large and diverse amount of epithets which was heaped on him generously. Some of it was by Columbia's president Lee Bollinger. What Bollinger contributed was described by some as "eloquent". Some of what was said about Ahmadinejad and Iran's government had been said about many other countries, world figures, organizations and groups who all share one common denominator i.e. being the enemy of the USA.

It is understandable that we don’t like and in fact fight and attack our enemies. However, must our enemies always be low-life-uncivilized-ignorant dictators?

I am just wondering, why is it that our enemies always are of that kind of people? Can’t we, for once, have a decent enemy?

An enemy, by definition, is some one, some country, some group or something that is opposing or threatening you, your interests or you objectives. The enemy doesn’t have to be of the type we always project our enemies to be.

Are our enemies really that way or we just feel better describing them that way?

We described the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" because they were Communists. However, China is more communist than they ever were but we don’t describe them as "Evil Empire". In fact we are, sort of, friends with them.

Is Ahmadinejad more of a dictator or corrupt than Abdullah of Saudi Arabia or Mubarak of Egypt or many others who we consider our friends?

Why can’t we have decent people as enemies? Is being decent excludes anyone or any country or any group from being our enemy?

If we always describe our enemies that way, what does that say about us?

Someone partially answered that by saying, in a letter to the NY Times yesterday, "doing so" is a demonstration again of " the temptation of Orientalism: for us to humiliate and caricature a feared Other, put it on open display, and then pat ourselves on the back for being enlightened enough to make the display case"

One example of hypocrisy on our part is the question that was posed to Ahmadinejad: why are you imprisoning homosexuals? His answer was ridiculous when he said that they have none. "Not one", he said. If that was true, Iran would be the only nation in the Human history that didn’t have this type of sexual behavior. However, his lying does not excuse the hypocrisy of the questioner. It is ironical that on the same day a man was convicted of being accomplice to the "rape" of a 14-year old girl who is a member of a Mormon sect which believes in polygamy. The man performed that marriage in his church and according to the news, 14 is the legal marriage for girls in Utah. But polygamy is a crime and that is why the man was convicted.

So, according to the laws in Utah the man is guilty of a crime and according to Iran’s laws homosexuality is also a crime and people get convicted of it. So on what basis did the questioner asked that question? Ahmadinejad was not smart enough, or may be not informed enough about USA's laws and culture, to answer the question properly. He just lied. What a shame. But does his lying allow us to be hypocrites?

Each culture or country has its own laws and morals, that is why they are called "Others". Being our enemy does not justify our double-standard or our uncivilized treatment of them especially when we invite them to our institutions or when they come to us as a member of the international community.
10,760 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
who is a member of a Mormon sect
?????

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
who is a member of a Mormon sect


this would be the same as referring to Jesse Jackson as being a member of a Catholic sect.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

So, according to the laws in Utah the man is guilty of a crime and according to Iran’s laws homosexuality is also a crime and people get convicted of it. So on what basis did the questioner asked that question? Ahmadinejad was not smart enough, or may be not informed enough about USA's laws and culture, to answer the question properly. He just lied. What a shame. But does his lying allow us to be hypocrites?


The difference is that while polygamy is a crime in many countries, western countries are not in the habit of executing the "criminals".

The question was asked because an answer was wanted. Perhaps it is the cultural difference. Perhaps all Iranians lie. Or perhaps the Iranian president is a liar. Who knows?

There is nothing hypocritical for condeming a death penalty for homosexuals while opposing polygamy.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
She still voluntarily went through with the ceremony.


if she hadn't she would have been kicked out on to the streets. forced to live with he infidels. that would be you and me.


Utah passed a new law about 5 years ago or sooner. that the second wife in these marriages must be 18.

as for going to outside help that too would have gotten her kicked out with no help.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
But what all this has to do with the execution of homosexuals in Iran is still beyond me. In fact, it boggles...


this is just someones attempt to make what iran does normal.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
So what? It's no different if a 14 year old Catholic or Methodist or atheist is being raped by her father, stepfather, brother or whatever, if she goes to the authorities she's likely to be removed from the home, and she should be.


the catholic lives inthe world these people live outside of it.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The premise is absurd, TA. The topic that day was IRAN, not Utah.


I understand that LW, my point is this: Iran and Ahmadainejad are doing terrible and serious actions against our interests in the region, by us concentrationg or highlighting things that has nothing to do with that trivializes our problem with them. Yes the topic was Iran not Utah but to pick an action that is based on cultural and legal points and to describe him with loose insults which equally apply to many of our friends ignores the main issues that makes Iran our enemy. he is not our enemy because he is a dictator or because Iran kills homosexuals. most if not all rulers in that region are doing the same. picking on Iran for that makes us look like hypocrites. otherwise we will be doing the same to all rulers of that region but we are not because this is not our problem with them.

Like they say, dont throw stones if you have a glass house. Things that are based on their laws and culture should not be used to justify our position against them because WE ALSO HAVE OUR LAWS AND CULTURE which looks odd and not fair to them as the Utah case proves, so why even bring this point to the discussion while we could have cornered him on more pertinent issues, like their interference in Iraq, their Nuclear program, .... etc. I dont think this premise is absurd at all.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, and no one is 'convicted' of homosexuality in Iran. It's not like America, where you have your day in court. If you are even suspected of engaging in homosexual behavior in Iran you are summarily executed.


I really dont know if that is the case. but even if it is, that is their problem they elected him. and I believe that election is considered the most fair in all of that region. so if they object to what he is doing they can take him out. In any case it is an inernal problem, not our problem with them
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
who is a member of a Mormon sect


The Girl, that is what they said in the news about her. I understand that the majority of Mormons dont' believe in polygamy. Only this group of about 10,000 believe in it.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is nothing hypocritical for condeming a death penalty for homosexuals while opposing polygamy


Very true. If this was a general discussion in another setting it would have been appropriate. But this was a chance to question him about more serious and pertinent issues. This was not the time to show that our culture and laws are superior to them. That is not the reason we oppose him and his country's policies.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
But what all this has to do with the execution of homosexuals in Iran is still beyond me. In fact, it boggles...


I cant understand how you think the two issues are not related. Both cases are based on local laws and the culture behind them. we think execution of homosexuals are inhumane because our culture accepts that.They dont accept that and think it is a crime. Similarly, we think polygamy or forced sex with a wife is a crime and they think neither one is a crime.

If we question and attack everyone who have culture and laws that are different from ours we will be in constant fight with everyone.

These issues should be addressed in a different setting not while we are almost at war with them.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is just someones attempt to make what iran does normal.


What is normal to them is not for us AND vice versa. just because it is not normal for us does that make universal?

How arrogant can we get? but who says that all of us Americans accept the normalcy of homosexuals? you must be really kidding yourself if you think that.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
the catholic lives inthe world these people live outside of it.


may be. and in some cases it sure seems that way. However, it is THEIR world, isnt it? why are we trying to make everything go according to our way of thinking? besides, cultural issues are changed based on discussion and convincing the other with our point of view not by insults and attacks even if they are true.

As a matter of fact, i dont mind if we even try to do that convincing if we think our way is better. But this was not a setting for that kind of cultural discussion and arguements. This was the president of a country that is threatening our interests. was this the time to discuss social and cultural issues?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
what we are talking about is taking someone out of their world. and overnight without help being thrown into our world.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most of them are little more than ultra-liberal indoctrination camps these days, where issues of deviant sex take on more significance than say...Ahmadinijad's promise to annihilate Israel.


Well everyone knows Ahmadinijad doesn't have the authority to make any real decisions, but what he has to say about homosexuality would be interesting if only for the sake of shits and giggles. And of course anti-Israel attitudes (whether well-reasoned or no) are hardly exclusive to Iran.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Really, cacto? You find the fact that homosexuals are executed in Iran giggle inducing? I must say that I am shocked!


Not the facts so much as what and how he would say or cover it up. So much of good comedy is in the delivery, and the funniest jokes all reference the most heinous crimes. You can't have funny without tragedy.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we always describe our enemies that way, what does that say about us?


It says that despite all our differences we are actually a fairly easy going and peace loving lot who require the active and accentuated stimulus of the oversimplified good vs evil boogey man argument to agitate us into supporting the frenzied destruction of other sovereign nation states on the premise that they "might" be up to something that the ruling elite deem contrary or potentially harmful to the otherwise hegemonic control and thus bottom line profits of the military industrial complex that they so jealously guard and so skillfully co ordinate in order that they be able to enrich themselves upon the death, suffering and misery of others.

Or so my

ultra-liberal indoctrination

tells me.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
we are actually a fairly easy going and peace loving lot who require the active and accentuated stimulus of the oversimplified good vs evil boogey man argument to agitate us into supporting the frenzied destruction of other sovereign nation states


Sadly, this is true. I was hoping that Columbia's "elite" and "soon to be elite" have more intellectual depth than what they have displayed.

something that the ruling elite deem contrary or potentially harmful to the otherwise hegemonic control and thus bottom line profits of the military industrial complex


These two (i.e. ruling elite and the Military-Industrial complex) are the beneficiaries of the foolishness of the "us" you pointed to and we have no one to blame but "us". Like they say: Every people get the government they deserve.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Every people get the government they deserve.


this is true in the usa because we actually vote for everyone.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is true in the usa because we actually vote for everyone.


Yep. Those two sides of that same coin sure are democracy in action.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would you like to join my NOTA Party?


I quite like the idea of the German MMP system.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is true in the usa because we actually vote for everyone


I believe it is true everywhere. If the people who are not allowed to vote don't demand their right to do so and just sit there waiting for soemone to hand them their freedom, then they really deserve to be governed by a dictator. Freedom and liberty have a price, if you dont pay it you dont deserve it.

Just look at us here in the USA, anytime we drop our guard, just a little, and not remain vigilant in guarding our civil liberties even for a blink of an eye, we find ourselves in trouble. I dont know who said it, but i heard it somewhere: Freedom is a whore who demands to be paid in advance. ..... was it LW who said that? i dont know. Someone else said it in a less funny way, he said: Freedom's door is opened with bloody hands. Nothing is free, nothing .... let alone Freedom.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
A 'None Of The Above' choice on every ballot.


This is a kind of a desperate solution. But even if we do that, what happens next?

i am not sure, but if it was a presidential election wouldnt the whole thing goes to the House?

if this is the case, what did we achieve by voting NOTA?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
if this is the case, what did we achieve by voting NOTA?


I think it was intended as a mildly sarcastic response to my two sides of the same coin moan. Somehow LW doesn't strike me as the type to throw away her vote.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
wouldnt the whole thing goes to the House?


senate. unless your al gore.