Iranian Sex Scandal

a blue chador and a copy of the protocols of the elders of zion?

By streiff Posted in Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

by way of Gateway Pundit

Iranian supreme mugwump Mohammed Khatami is apparently embroiled in very nasty sex scandal.


cue to the 4 minute mark.

Read on.

But it is a sex scandal peculiar to a certain religion in a certain area of the world. It seems that during his visit to Udine, Italy Khatami touched a woman's hand. .

Or maybe the hands of two women .

However the key mysogynist demographic back home is not amused and Khatami's minions are in full damage control mode.

The Baran foundation of former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami issued a statement on Tuesday denying the cleric had intentionally shaken hands with women - as shown in footage of a recent trip to Italy broadcast on 'YouTube' - a gesture prohibited under Iran's strict interpretation of Islamic law banning all physical contact between men and women who are not related.

The statement indicated either the footage had been edited to give a false impression or else Khatami had shaken the hands of people in a crowd without realising they were female.

The footage shows the president, who has been severely criticised by the conservative press in Iran for his 'immoral behaviour', speaking to and then exchanging a handshake with women including Gianola and Cristina Nonnino, well known local producers of grappa, or husk brandy, in the northeastern Italian city of Udine during a visit last month.

"In the crowd, it is possible a hand was shaken but the former president is against any physical contact between the sexes," said Sadegh Kharrazi, a former ambassador who accompanies Khatami in his international tours.

Just keep reminding yourself that all cultures are equal and that these are people we can negotiate with.

« We need more COIN in the Afghan realmComments (0) | What Did They KnowComments (2) »
Iranian Sex Scandal 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

The value of a culture is relative, it simply depends upon who your asking. I do disagree that we can't disagree with those of a different culture, Rome did it.

The question is, is it in our interest do negotiate with Iran? I don't think so, I think a policy of economic strangulation should be the basis of our actions.

That being said, I'm glad to see even the theocracies are suffering in this age of you tube.

"Diplomacy --- the art of saying "Nice doggie" 'til you can find a stick." Wynn Catlin

If only such a thing were possible. All this policy does is create opportunities for disreputable businesses to profit and for countries who are not aligned with our interests to benefit. It doesn't work.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I doubt anyone would argue that economic penalties / sanctions / strangulation are not an effective tool in the policy tool chest.

It seems to me though that tools more substantial, more conducive to culture "reform" are necessary for long-term stability and indeed survival.

Nuclear proliferation is just the tip of the iceberg compared to what is coming down the pike in the coming decades...

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

and only when there is credible belief that they will be effective. If actually enacted they cease to be effective and instead have the reverse effect.

So in Irans case its about 30 years too late.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Perhaps we should stipulate here in what sense we mean effective, and towards what ends. I am an amateur here, but then I am analytical in the OCD sense, they say.

Effective towards... regime change? Culture change? Region stabilization? Enrichment prevention? WMD Non-proliferation to terrorists? All of the above? Non of the above?

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

Sanctions have zero effect on regime change. Threats of sanctions have even less.

Culture change ? Why would we bother or care ? You like stewed goat, atonal music and non representational art fine with me. Is anyone advocating forceful culture change ? (Excepting the possible inclusion of jihad as a cultural element)

Enrichment prevention would be a subset of WMD non proliferation. This goes back to regime change. WMD of any kind are seen by dictators as guarantees of their regimes stability. So don't expect sanctions to help.

Region stabilization ? Possibly effective but we would have to threaten our allies for them to be effective. Much more fruitful to engage in simple diplomacy.

Having moved past the throw away. We have had sanctions on Iran for quite some time. How would you characterize their effectiveness ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I can see many motivations within my worldview to attempt to enact cultural change throughout the world, jihadist cultures and otherwise, both from personal and governing/foreign policy perspectives.

They are utilitarian, pragmatic, theological, altruistic, and self-defensive in nature.

But I wasn't advocating forceful cultural change necessarily, depending on what forceful means. More-so challenging the philosophies of whoever happens to happen upon this post.

I am no expert, but I can't see "diplomacy" as being an adequate answer to handling relations with owners of irrational worldviews and cultures. (Or dare I say, more aptly, inferior cultures and worldviews) ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

And I believe what Streiff was saying is, that some cultures are more suitable for people than others, and that the Iranian culture, combined with its government makes them impossible to negotiate with. I have to say I agree with the proposition. The Iranian combination of culture and government shows no sign of acting in good faith.

As to changing the Iranian culture really not a concern.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"some cultures are more suitable for people than others"?

Not sure i follow. Are not a people, from a sociological perspective at least, by definition their culture?

I am probably not in favor of "negotiating" with Iran by any means. Seems a laughable notion really.

If the government + culture = impossible to negotiate with, then I do not follow as to why cultural change and "westernization" is not a good thing, right along with regime change. Unless one presupposes that all cultures, including "difficult" ones, are intrinsically valuable, sacred things.

I do not subscribe to that presupposition.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

By outsiders.

Cultural change ? Not so much. They have to want to change and have the opportunity.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Cultural change ? Not so much. They have to want to change and have the opportunity.

And isolation will *never* lead to cultural change anyway. Engagement will inevitably do so, given enough contact and enough time.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Kind sir, I hope I am not taking the ongoing discourse too far. (That is why no one likes to talk to me- I don't seem to believe in quitting.)

But I digress. Culture change happens without the people even "knowing" it, by and large.

Look at how the notion that all cultures are equal, or at least by default have equal value of some sort, has worked its way into our mainstream culture, even on the right.

Look at how the notion that a "woman's right to choose" being an unassailable "right" is so pervasive in our society.

And in fact, these matters are so intertwined, that I am unable to separate regime change and culture change. Regime change will bring about culture change to some degree or another. Which demonstrates that outsiders can in fact bring about cultural changes. Perhaps not as directly though, as a missile to a palace brings about regime change.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

That the states would have their own laws, folk ways and that they would be respected. Unfortunately there was an egregious problem that required uniformity of law. Ever since the egregious problem has been trivialized to provide for imperialism by Washington DC.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

But I am more-so speaking to truths higher and deeper than United States Constitutionalism.

Not to say I disagree with you from that perspective. Just saying that I am talking from a different one.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

for a massive nuclear strike.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

wait a tic! - do you mean for delivering or receiving?

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

Enrichment prevention would be a subset of WMD non proliferation. This goes back to regime change. WMD of any kind are seen by dictators as guarantees of their regimes stability. So don't expect sanctions to help.

A subset indeed, but there is plenty overlap in the list overall. But I don't quite see how sanctions-induced economic weakness is not effective towards the ends of preventing WMD creation or acquisition. Unless of course one argues that sanctions don't necessarily, even temporarily, create economic weakness. Would someone argue that?

Region stabilization? Possibly effective but we would have to threaten our allies for them to be effective. Much more fruitful to engage in simple diplomacy.

I tend to like the both/and approach to many areas in life in which detractors of one side or the other argue that the options are exclusive to one another.

Having moved past the throw away. We have had sanctions on Iran for quite some time. How would you characterize their effectiveness ?

Well I for one do not know enough about the situation to claim definitively that Iran would be less a threat had we not imposed said sanctions in times passed.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

In an oil state run by a repressive dictatorship (well oligarchy) ? Don't see how, and they haven't yet.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

But I don't quite see how sanctions-induced economic weakness is not effective towards the ends of preventing WMD creation or acquisition.

You mean like NK? They seem to have the whole WMD thing pretty well figured out. They have the capacity to develop their own long range missiles to deliver the WMDs with. And they aren't sitting on oil reserves. There's always going to be enough money to fund this kind of stuff. That's the really cool thing about running a totalitarian regime. You decide who gets the brunt of the pain from sanctions and nobody can argue with you. Then you can blame the rest of the world for starving your people.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Perfect example.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Can one and should one really argue that sanctions don't retard such developments? I think to reply that "sanctions are no good because, look at NK! Even they got WMDs" is a sort of non sequitur. No one argues that sanctions are foolproof. Or at least I wouldn't. Of course I don't hardly argue anything anyway until I investigate a matter thoroughly.

But I think the point would be that sanctions are to some degree effective, by necessity.

Now if someone were to argue against them, I would imagine they could and should do so on humanitarian grounds. Which I am sure I could and do agree with. But of course the cost, it seems to me, is the bad guys getting bigger and more bad, quicker. No?

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

You could assert making rude faces at them would be somewhat effective.

Theres been considerable amounts of scholarly work on the effectiveness of sanctions. While the past is not predictive they have only been effective in matters of small consequence.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

So sanctions are of so little benefit that they are not worth the cost. Well, why didn't we all just say so then?! ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

Thats by far too general a statement about a topic that does not posses the uniformity to support such declarations.

But if you mean, using sanctions only to deter the acquisition of wmd then tentatively yes.

If you mean sanctions in the general case then no. If you recall the threat of sanctions has to be a credible threat.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

No by zuiko

The problem with sanctions is that they have a tendency to keep bad regimes in place and locked into a cold war with those who are using them.

Whatever you think of China, I'm much less worried about them today than I would've been in 1970. Engagement is working there. China and the US are highly interdependent and become more so every day. Going to war is unthinkable.

Another point... a whole lot of countries have the ability to develop nuclear weapons but do not. Saudi Arabia, for example. A sanctions regime against Saudi Arabia decades ago would have virtually guaranteed they'd have them in their arsenal by now. They don't want to develop nuclear weapons because they know it would endanger their relationship with the West. That's a lot to lose. Iran and NK, on the other hand, had nothing to lose and everything to gain by developing nuclear weapons.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I doubt anyone would argue that economic penalties / sanctions / strangulation are not an effective tool in the policy tool chest.

History has shown them to be counterproductive. All sanctions seem to do is help ensure that the regime remains in place and continues to be a thorn in our side. Engagement is the only thing that seems to actually work. In some cases, the threat can be used to gain concessions, but the actual implementation doesn't really get us anything good, long term.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Perhaps your clarification to what I said is needed. So threats are useful, actual implementation is counterproductive. Do the "bad guys" know we think this? haha.

Seriously though, could it not be the case that what you are saying may be true in some but not all circumstances? Again I am an amateur, but it seems to me that particulars matter. What nation are we talking about? What are the particulars of the regime? How much support is there among the populace? How fragmented are the citizens in terms of philosophy, governing, theological, and otherwise? What is the culture like and how might it vary within? Or am I being too nuanced?

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

Seriously though, could it not be the case that what you are saying may be true in some but not all circumstances?

Sanctions can never be implemented completely. There are plenty of people out there who will trade with anybody, no matter what the policy of the US, the EU, or the UN happens to be. Iraq was as close to a universal sanctions regime as you'll ever find and we saw how effective those were. Sanctions like we have against Cuba and Iran are an absolute joke. All they do is give evil regimes someone to blame for the problems of their country. There will always be more than enough money to buy weapons for their army and gold plated plumbing fixtures for their palaces.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Prefaced by my opinion that no one can answer it to my satisfaction. I might be considered a troll for asking, but I ask for an answer.

Why ought one value other, particularly vastly different, cultures? I put a very heavy emphasis on the key word ought and that is because oughtness is something I am particularly interested in.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

value a vastly different culture.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

you already know the answer. And probably why one "ought not ought" value different cultures too.

But I was more so asking someone finding themselves here on RS this day who believes in lots of these sorts of oughts without knowing where the oughtness really comes from. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

One ought to value that the perspectives created by another culture can help in identifying problems in your own culture.

However, I tend to think this value - the ability to reflect from a different perspective - is apparently outweighed by those in ones own culture who only want to use the differences to undermine themselves.

Cultural Marxism does more damage than the potential value from interacting with the vastly different culture.

this is akin to learning from one's mistakes. As long as one doesn't equate this to meaning that other cultures are intrinsically, inherently good and valuable. No more than one would argue that mistakes are themselves of value. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

I think one should have knowledge of another culture in case we find ourselves in a conflict like we are now. History shows what kind of conflict resolution that culture values and respects. Current events shows we have not learned from history.

Another very good point. Other "cultures" are one thing we all would be a lot better off knowing much more about, among many other things.

But just to be sure I am clear, this is aside from the point I was making / question I was asking.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

Conservatives in the Mist exercise?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I am not too sure about that! This is simply early exercises in a conservative epistemology / ontology reform and realignment.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

I think all people eithr consciously or unconciously evaluate other cultures. It is generally natural for one to think his or her culture is superior and the standard by which all others should be measured(except if your a liberal then you are slways finding fault with your own culture).

As would be an expected derivative when man's inherent problem is love of self.

BUT- does that mean that everyone is necessarily wrong? "hehe".

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

Value the multitude of cultures, and why not? The fight is liberty and freedom for the individual. Establish moral pillars of human rights that eradicate things like abortion and genital mutilation. But why not enjoy cultures? Keep the flags even. We ought to value other cultures because we ought to value the human being.

Iranian people are amazing and their culture has throughout history been a major force for scientific, artistic and human progress. We are not in confilct with Iranian culture, only their government, and even more so Achmadinnerjacket. I don't even think a revolution is necessary for peace with Iran, just reasoned leaders. But I can't go down this rabbithole, because I also think we'll be at war with them by the end of summer.

I would prefer if sports were the world's foreign policy. The Socceroos played wonderfully against the Azzuri in the World Cup last summer. What a match. Then Grosso flopped and the Italians just stole it. Australia should have declared war on Italy. The war would be a multi-sporting event. You know, allow some drunken brawling in the streets, all for sport and in good fun. What would be so bad about a world like that?

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

sorry just to thoroughly round out this threadjack: back in april I had the Cubs over the Red Sox in 07 World Series. I'm sticking by that.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

I can not support the argument, exactly. I personally value many aspects of many cultures. But this is rooted in an appreciation for the diversity of Creation, rather than "just because" or "my brain tells me they are beautiful."

Aside from the personal view though, should our government be concerned about worldwide cultures? Most would say not. But I will state that this is purely a matter of preference as opposed to a moral question.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine

You have an appreciation for the diversity of culture. That's wonderful really. That's what I'm talking about and that's what I hope for the world.

"rather than "just because" or "my brain tells me they are beautiful.""

This is interesting! I'm suddenly thinking of an advertisement which says individual liberty is tautological, but that's clearly off the topic.

Difference is essential to see ourselves, to seeing similarity. Opposing cultures, opposing thoughts and opposing everything are necessary for the gears of the dialectic which drives history. Or something to that effect, I think.

But if one prefers to stare in childlike awe at beauty and then say this then defends the need for and the necessity to care about other cultures then I'm alright with that.

Our preference is to be interested in other cultures no? Isn't the multitude of the many things which make us human often the topic of a lot of conversations? Like the olive branch is a Hellenic refrence and the pyramids are in Egypt? Maybe I'm making no sense, but I seem to make a hell of a lot of sense to me. That's the crime, sorry.

_______________________________________________
A moratorium on immigration NOW, god forbid you marry an Australian.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service