"""When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. """
Actually, people weren't talking that much about Iran before --it's just because it happens to be the current target, so western media plays Iran a lot.
It's also for the same reason why people DON'T talk about Saudi Arabia, which is 10 times worse in those aspects than Iran --but since it's an ally, it doesn't get played unfavorably much, if at all.
Now, what are things that are "by any definition wrong"? Who gives the definition? Let's see your examples:
"""You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion."""
In the US 50 years ago there was prevalent racism against black people (heck, there were hotels/restaurants etc not accepting them as customers).
Was that civilized? No. So, would another country be justified to say, bomb the US and topple the government to pass laws to change that? I say, no, the people of the US would have to do it themselves (as they eventually did). So, why should it be different for any other country?
And who says that all countries should get to the same level of "civilization" at the same time?
For example, besides abolishing slavery earlier, tons of countries had women voting much earlier than the US did. And tons of countries have abolished the death penalty already.
You say "you simply cannot, in any modern society throw (a) stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion".
And I say, that in modern societies like the one I live, you simply cannot execute anyone AT ALL, whatever he said or did. It's unacceptable. When is the US going to come around to this one? And how is stoning worse than the (horrible) electric chair or the (disgusting) gas chamber?
Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation.
I don't even care if they are cannibals in country X, let them do what the f... they want. No one should dictate how other societies should live.
While I agree with much of the sentiment expressed in your post, I must take issue with:
Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation.
Can a society really be said to 'want and believe in' something if the society isn't structured to allow for a reasonable form of self-government? We shouldn't be looking to protect sovereign nations. We should be looking to protect sovereign peoples. If a group is truly sovereign and self-governing, then their choices should be respected. Not incidentally, the requirements for a sovereign, self-governing people align closely with principles of human rights.
I find it difficult to conclude that countries like Iran(rampant electoral fraud), North Korea(dictatorship) and Saudi Arabia are home to sovereign peoples. Sovereign nations, sure. But a border seems like a poor substitute to the collective wills of a people. And it's far from clear that these countries' actions are the expression of that will.
I suppose a rebuke to this point would be to question whether any nation is truly governed by a sovereign people, or if this is merely another form of Western projection? But I think that would be a difficult argument.
"""I suppose a rebuke to this point would be to question whether any nation is truly governed by a sovereign people, or if this is merely another form of Western projection?"""
Exactly that.
Also: even if there is "rampant electoral fraud" how do we know this?
I don't think mainstream western reports on the matter are to be trusted, in the same way as reports on Iraq's WMD weren't to be trusted (and they also appeared on places like the NYT).
Also, wasn't the Bush/Florida thing also "electoral fraud"?
And furthermore, I find the whole representation/voting thing a travesty as it currently is done, mainly allowing just two parties (Reps and Dems) that are much alike, and presenting huge barriers to entry. I also remember a list of murdered presidents/candidates (Kennedy?), major police interference in politics (McCarthyism), Watergate, etc.
Why not directly analogous representation/seats to the overall numbers of votes a party got US-wide? Why not ban political advertising of any kind (which favors the one with more spending budget), and only let the influence of each party's program/ideas to determine voter turnout? Why not force free TV time for every party/candidate with more than x% on the previous vote? Why not disallow lobbying altogether (if you want influence for matter X, get it through public->voting->representation) not through Washington corridors).
So, for one, the issue "sovereign people's" vs "sovereign societies" is a muddled one. So, who get's to decide which is which?
Second, I'd say that even in the blatantly obvious case of non sovereign people, one doesn't get to intervene in a sovereign nation. If the people want their government/dictator toppled, they can do it themselves. If another nation doesn't like it, they can stop doing business with the dictators, etc, but why should they invade or anything?
By invading you don't "bring democracy", you bring your idea of democracy (which might not be what the locals would have chosen given the chance), and your influence over local politics. Not to mention that you also de-stabilize the society to supporters of your action or not (like it happened in Iraq and elsewhere) --and when a country is being bombed, enemies of the one's bombing is not the same as friends of the dictator. If you kill my brother in order to get to Saddam, for example, I'd hate you, even if I was against Saddam in the first place. Which complicates things a lot.
And all of these without taking "national interests, natural resources" of the intervening country on consideration. Which, because those can always be a factor, and if often the deciding one, should make us even more suspect re: intervention on sovereign countries.
I say, as long as they don't go invading any other sovereign country, let them fix their mess for themselves.
I also take offense to the "they build/have the bomb" line, when it comes from countries that ALREADY have the bomb. But do people believe this is something more than the moralizing country defending their monopoly on nuclear terror? And why should we trust one that, say, already dropped two of those on civilians? I'm all for EVERYBODY disarming their bombs.
Actually, people weren't talking that much about Iran before --it's just because it happens to be the current target, so western media plays Iran a lot.
It's also for the same reason why people DON'T talk about Saudi Arabia, which is 10 times worse in those aspects than Iran --but since it's an ally, it doesn't get played unfavorably much, if at all.
Now, what are things that are "by any definition wrong"? Who gives the definition? Let's see your examples:
"""You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion."""
In the US 50 years ago there was prevalent racism against black people (heck, there were hotels/restaurants etc not accepting them as customers).
Was that civilized? No. So, would another country be justified to say, bomb the US and topple the government to pass laws to change that? I say, no, the people of the US would have to do it themselves (as they eventually did). So, why should it be different for any other country?
And who says that all countries should get to the same level of "civilization" at the same time?
For example, besides abolishing slavery earlier, tons of countries had women voting much earlier than the US did. And tons of countries have abolished the death penalty already.
You say "you simply cannot, in any modern society throw (a) stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion".
And I say, that in modern societies like the one I live, you simply cannot execute anyone AT ALL, whatever he said or did. It's unacceptable. When is the US going to come around to this one? And how is stoning worse than the (horrible) electric chair or the (disgusting) gas chamber?
Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation.
I don't even care if they are cannibals in country X, let them do what the f... they want. No one should dictate how other societies should live.