The FART of Peace - Lighting the Candle

About: Lighting the Candle of Peace in the Middle East

This is my inspiration.

This pic needs more exposure! (

)

Comments

Mark de LA says

Kinda reminds me of the clowns at United Nations

Mark de LA says
I have not heard yet anything from Seth about how he would stop the drumbeat of war & get a peace! Does anyone think he has done so ?

Seth says

M 2006-09-01 14:28:18 4305

I have not heard yet anything from Seth about how he would stop the drumbeat of war & get a peace! Does anyone think he has done so ?

Well me thinks it is in this direction ...

seth 2006-09-01 10:27:22 4240

source: Washington Post
Stopping enrichment is the ultimate goal of the entire negotiation process. By complying, Iran would lose its game before it even started. If the 5+1 countries would like to convince Iran to give up on such a crucial issue, they have to offer more than some economic promises.

This, in my opinion, could only be a solid guarantee by the U.S. that it would abandon its policies to topple the Islamic Republic either by military force or internal unrest with ultimately a non-violent revolution fueled by various American foundations -- another velvet revolution.

Such a guarantee will be good news for the organic pro-democracy activists, if backed up by meaningful signs such as dismantling the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) and stopping funding quasi-human-rights advocacy groups such as IDHCR which pursue regime change under cover of documenting violations of human rights, as was reported earlier this year by Washington Post's Karl Vick and David Finkel from Tehran.

U.S. regime change policies have been damaging the moderates and pro-democracy movement by enabling the Islamic Republic to paint them as instruments of America seeking to destabilize and topple the regime. Iran wont stop until this does.

Perhaps there is a way to avoid a conflict with Iran. Buckley asked the question: "If what they want is a religious war, are we disposed to fight it?" We should revisit that space and ask a different question: If we don't want a religious war, are we disposed to stop toppleing their regimes?

Mark de LA says
Seth keeps throwing in WFB's statement. Here is the truth (HA HA) - It is democracy VS fascism (in the guise of Islamofascism) - it's not a Holy War or a religious war. Some in the Middle East do love to frame it as a Holy War that way they can juice up the meme that all Muslims will participate on their side.

Why give up the military option with someone you can't trust - for what? That would give free reign to the Islamofacists wherever they occur. Your second and third paragraphs don't jive with eachother. Telling those who don't agree with the Islamofacist regime that you will not help them is a bad idea. Indeed, if you do such a thing that gives the regime more leverage to kill them. I don't agree at all with your 4th paragraph.

Mark de LA says
These paragraphs are getting too long to address all your confusion. WFB asked a question. He always likes to stimulate people to think! There is NO holy war yet. Iran would like to make one - Ahmadinejad & beliefs about the 12th Imam and stuff. Re-read the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs - they contradict each other. You published them I presume you agree with them. You ignored my:

source: ... Why give up the military option with someone you can't trust - for what? That would give free reign to the Islamofacists wherever they occur.

... and the following of yours is just the party line not supported by facts on the ground:

source: ... And in fact most times where we meddled in other nations sovereign affairs we have made the situation not only worse for American prestige but also worse for our own security.

... are you back to Laissez Faire & pacifism & perhaps the Prime Directive ?

Since when did anything that the UN do bring permanent peace ?

They created the state of Israel did that make peace ?

Seth says

M 2006-09-01 15:21:36 4305

Here is the truth (HA HA) - It is democracy VS fascism (in the guise of Islamofascism) - it's not a Holy War or a religious war. Some in the Middle East do love to frame it as a Holy War that way they can juice up the meme that all Muslims will participate on their side.

Tell it to WFB, he was the one to call it a "Holy War", not me.

Why give up the military option with someone you can't trust - for what? That would give free reign to the Islamofacists wherever they occur.

It should be a treaty signed and ratified. The terms might be that Iran perminantly stops refining Uranium and developing nuclear weapons. Verificition by the UN would be mandatory. Another requirement would be that Iran is prohibited from exporting or paying for arms delivered to any external agent. In return Iran could expect help with there peaceful development of nuclear power and that the US would not attack them or foment a revolution. If Iran adhears to the treaty, then we should have no need to attack them or foment a revolution. If they do not, then we are no longer bound by the treaty.

No trust necessary.

Your second and third paragraphs don't jive with eachother. Telling those who don't agree with the Islamofacist regime that you will not help them is a bad idea. Indeed, if you do such a thing that gives the regime more leverage to kill them. I don't agree at all with your 4th paragraph.

Well that, obviously, was not me talking, so i don't know why you talk as if it was. In any case, that we should be the world's keeper was a bad idea when it started, and is a ever worse idea in today's world. And in fact most times where we meddeled in other nations soverign affairs we have made the situation not only worse for American prestige but also worse for our own security. And Hossein Derakhshan's forth paragraph can be supported with many examples, can you supply contra examples?

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-02 08:35:01 4305

M 2006-09-02 06:45:58 4305

I don't know where the other comment about the silliness of "Rules of War" went, but here is the net of why it is silly. When the other guy doesn't play by the rules, such as terrorists don't play by the rules then everything goes to Hell. The Hezbos consistently violate the Geneva Conventions. Why doesn't S find a cure for that ?

Criminals consistently break laws. Do you then say laws are silly? Similarly the cure can be found ... better law enforcement ... stronger community .... etc. Some societies have less criminal activity than others ... what is the difference.

Apparently the UN can't even get it together to put sanctions on Iran for violating a non-proliferatinn treaty it signed! So what good is a treaty? What good is the Rule? Apparently you can't tell the difference between criminal law for individuals & international law such as the Geneva Conventions. How do you put a whole country in jail ?

Seth says

M 2006-09-01 18:29:22 4305

There is NO holy war yet. Iran would like to make one

Well there is a "holy war" against us now, count the fatwa if you doubt it. Bush, his adminstration, and the conservitive press are talking up the other side of it more and more every day. Why do you suppose they changed from the secular term "terrorist" to the religiouslly charged term "Islamofascism". To be honest with you, i must confess, i came in late on this rethoric, WFB's famous editorial was the first i noticed it.

Re-read the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs - they contradict each other. You published them I presume you agree with them.

I published them because they help to complete Hossein Derakhshan's point and it would be less complete without them. To be honest i wanted to repeat paragraph 4, but without paragraph 3 it would have dangeled a bit. To understand how there is no contradiction between them perhaps it would help if you carefully read his whole article. I took his words here as speaking almost as an agent of the Iranian goverment. This is the kind of thinking and person with whom we could be negoitiating a treaty... instead we are working up to threaten an attack. But, no, i don't see the contradiction to which you refer within the context of his article. You've talked about it twice, now could you point out the contradiction specifically?

You ignored my: Why give up the military option with someone you can't trust - for what? That would give free reign to the Islamofacists wherever they occur.

Nope i addressed it directly. Please reread my paragraph in response to the last time you brought it up.

Mark de LA says
Wikipedia has an interesting article on the NNPT. Further it has some interesting stuff on International Law & sovereign states under the heading Sovereign State.

Mark de LA says

M 2006-09-02 09:05:00 4305

M 2006-09-02 08:53:07 4305

If you run into the other comment let me know where it is.

(The one where S put 3 thumbs up!)

That would be in order to consolidate the argument about killing so-called civilians in a war.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-06-16 10:06:45 4305

Add to this discussion the Obama drone wars & Russia asserting her dominant influence in the area & the picture shifts a bit since 2006, eh? (or not).