i see your point but when nations state they would like to blow some other of the map and your a power nation you have to do something than do nothing.

Subman you seem to have a lot of biases against the Republic of Iran.

It is no secret that the president of Iran is subordinate to the Supreme Leader. This is clearly spelled out in the Iranian constitution. No tricky, no "puppet". Have you ever read the Iranian Constitution? If you want to understand how the Iranian government operates, you might want to. It is a pretty complex and complicated democracy. It does not operate in the same way as American democracy operates. But then Iran is not the United States.

Perhaps your confusion is based on the similarity of terms. The President of the United States is the ultimate authority in this country. In our culture the term President usually means the head man/woman. That does not mean that everyone who holds the title of President has the same authority. This does not make them a "puppet". It makes them part of a political system that is different from ours. When studying other nation's government structure, it is important not to skew your perception as to how the United States' government is structured.

Yes the Supreme Leader is the head religious leader of the Republic. Thats what his job is. This is also clearly spelled out in the Iranian Constitution. Iran is an Islamic Republic. While other religions are recognized, if you want to be a leader in Iran you have to be not only a Muslim but a Shi'a Muslim. You have to be a Cleric of Shi'a to be elected Supreme Leader. That's their culture. In the United States, we would not feel comfortable with a state religion (That's why we have separation of church and state). That does not mean that every other country must operate the same way. Iran is a religious state.

The culture of the United States of America is different from the culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Different. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

Different means different. Different does not mean wrong.

"Khomeini used to hold this position before his death. I forget who holds it now, but he is also some whacko just like Khomeini used to be. "

You don't even know the man's name, but you are labeling him a whacko? This does not bode well for any credibility on your part. The current Supreme Leader is Ali Khamenei. FYI: The Supreme Leader has to under go two separate elections before becoming the Supreme Leader.

The first is a general election by the citizens of Iran to be elected to the Council of Experts.
The second is an internal election by the other 85 members of the Council of Experts.

The Supreme Leader is not elected to the position for life. The Supreme Leader is reaffirmed once a year by the Council of Experts and they have the authority to remove him from office at any other time. Since the Revolution there have been two Supreme Leaders. The first held the office until his death. This hardly sets a precedent that all Supreme Leaders will hold office until death. Like the United States Senate, the Council of Experts has never removed a Supreme Leader. Like the United States Senate, this does not mean that they can't.

I am not a fan of Iran. There are many things the Republic does that I deeply disagree with. As part of my profession and my academia, I study Iranian government and policy deeply. There are many misconceptions about Iran of which I put the blame on the media. The Republic of Iran is not a simple thing to understand in a nice trendy sound bytes. People study the governmental and political systems of Iran for years and still only have a smattering of understanding.

The 79 Revolution did not wipe out the history of governance in Iran and start out anew. The current structure has remnants of the Democracy under Mossadegh, the dictatorship under Pahlavi and the newly formed Islamic Republic under Khomeini. The Iranians are still forming and changing their governmental structure.

Discussions about Iranian politics and foreign policy can become emotional in nature. We are in a propaganda war with the Republic with misconceptions and errors on both sides. Some of which may be accidental, others part of an agenda. I just wanted to interject some facts in case anyone cared.

Recommended reading: "Democracy in Iran" by Ali Gheissari and Vali Nasr

Same in Ireland. We've got a President, but she's not the head of government. That role belongs to the Taoiseach (Irish for Prime Minister).

BTW, in case any one cares. The Iranian President never said that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map.

"Wiped off the face of the map" is an idiom that is not part of the Farsi language. There are no Farsi word combinations that would incorporate these words and have the same meaning. Idioms seldom translate well.

What was said, in translation" is that Israel will be wiped off the page of time. (there are dissenting opinions on the exact translation and interpretation. I will freely admit)

As a way of clarifying this statement, the President added references to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not destroyed by military action but was destroyed by internal dissent. The Soviet Union was "wiped off the face of the map" by being replaced by another governmental system. The Soviet Union does not exist any more.

It is hardly surprising that the translations and the references to the Soviet Union are absent in many American reporting of the President's statements.

One of the first rules of propaganda is to control the translations of foreign speeches. What is sad is that in this age of the Internet, few people seem motivated to seek out other sources to refute or confirm their perceptions.

The information is out there. It is everyone's responsibility to see out other sources of information, characterize any biases (all sources are biased) and by taking the conglomerate data form their understanding. Limiting oneself to only one source (American Media) is risky.

Israel is another example. Olmert is the President of Israel but Peres is the Prime Minister.

So do Ireland and Israel have "puppet" governments?

Of course not. They do have a different governmental structure than the US.

@Platapus: Excellent posts, which I recommend to anyone.

I got more interested in the issue myself recently, since I realized that the media has been feeding us stereotypes over the years.

Of course it is easy to see Iranians as "whackos" if you reduce them to the image from the Chomeini years. Which is what the media has been doing in the last 20 years.

The role of Persia / Iran is actually pretty complex but the media has reduced it to a few stereotypes. It is only when you have met a few Iranians yourself that you will realize there is much more about their intelligence / culture than the average westerner knows.

Well you better turn away from your monitor straight after you read this!;) :D

But no, I'm not joking. I'm serious. Look where Iran is now, the most powerful country in the Middle East. Its not swivel-eyed religeous nutjobs that have got them there but shrewed and entirely rational minds. Certainly they are religous conservatives but world domination by Islam is not Iran's objective, probably not the objective of most Islamic fundamentalist groups.

By making aggresive sounding statements towards Israel (whatever their true meaning was, some good info there, Platapus:up: ) Iran is attempting to take the lead role, in opposing Israeli occupation, away from other Middle Eastern countries.

Infact, I would argue that far from making the Middle East a safer place, the invasion of Iraq has merely played into the hands of Iran. Effectively removing Iraq from the scene and allowing Iranian backed elements to infiltrate in the south and gain some influence over what happens there.

As Platapus has shown, don't make the mistake of making a caricature of Iran or any other force in the middle east.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3018932.stm

Oh I agree, so don't get me wrong. There is hope for Iran, and its people are all not whackos. Democracy is wanted there too, but I am refering to those who are currently in power - who do want to wipe Isreal off the map. They have the capability to launch if there were a missile equipped to do so at any time they please, and they have the crazyness to do it.

Here is a little vid for you to watch - undercover in Iran:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran/

It has much insight into this country and its politics from the common mans perspective. This video goes into the push for democracy.

And yes, I know people from there as well. They fled after the Shah fell from power, and the only reason they got out was they had the money to do so. The common peasent is stuck.

-S

You are pointing out shades of grey...the end desired result is the same.As you say propaganda and lack of actual intel will kill you.To try to wash over and belittle such known hatred that the Muslim world has for the West is an insult to any intelligent person here.They are fundamentaly different cultures that do not and will not ever mix or co-exsist peacefully.You have thousands of years of wars and death as proof.

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Yes, I am pointing out shades of gray. Thats all there is in international policy. There is no black and white. Good and bad. Right and wrong. Everything is shades of gray. And ever changing shades of gray at that. Every shade of gray contains a mixture from both sides.

That was my point and I am happy I made it.

You don't have to agree with it, but I am happy you understand where I was coming from. :up:

Yeah, kind of like the many diferent cultures in Europe, which allso have quite a few centuries of war behind, them could never coexist peacefuly.:roll:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I love it! That is a good analogy.

-S

It's raining.:-?

Yes, lack of intel and relying on propaganda when forming opinions is fatal.

So why in the second part of your post do you revert to the very same propaganda nonsense that the 'Muslim World' hates us, wants to destroy us etc etc?

There are Islamic fundamentalists who harbour great hatred for the west and its influence over areas that they regard as being the dominion of Islam. But to take these as evidence that the 'Muslim World' hates the west is like taking white supremacists and nazis as evidence that the western world hates Jews and Black people.

Agreed there are large numbers of muslims who don't like the way the west deals with the middle east and particularly the Israel/Palestine conflict, but I doubt that a majority of Muslims harbour implacable hatred the way you charaterise the situation.

Also the 'clash of cultures thesis is very simplistic and doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Islam and the west did not develop separately or in a vaccum. They are not fundamentally different cultures at all. Muslims and westerners have engaged with eachother, traded and lerned from eachother for over a thousand years. If it wasn't for muslim scholars, much of what we regard as being the foundations of western culture, such as works by the great classical authors, would never have survived the Dark Ages. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share a common origin in that they are all Abrahamic religions and share a joint mythology, aspects of Islam are actually adopted from Christianity. The shape of its mosques is adopted from Byzantine churches, its bowing is also adopted from early Christianity.

As to a history of warfare between west and Islam, as antikristuseke points out, Europe has suffered just as much if not more internal conflict than it has with Islam. Infact the Crusades, the greatest example of western/Muslim conflict were precipitated because of the levels of conflict in Europe. Pope Urban II leapt upon the chance to direct European martial attentions away from fighting eachother, Chrstians killing Christians, to a more theologically acceptable Christians killing non-Christians.

Platapus isn't pissing down anybody's back, but frankly to spout simplistic nonsense is a greater insult to peoples intelligence.

Hey!...that rain is warm :lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...athermanf3.gif

Jim, do you really have an emoticon for every situation? :hmm: :lol:

Ermm...... http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/181...kbigsw1yo4.gif

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img91/817/ideaps5.gif
Yes http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img412...uplargeon1.gif

A nuclear arsenal is more than just a weapon, its a political ace card. Its why countries like Korea/India/Pakistan scrambled to get nuclear weapons, so that they can become solidified on the world stage and recognized as a world power. Although MAD isn't as relevant as it used to be, I believe it still exists to some extent, the Russians still have a very real nuclear arsenal. Some people may disagree, but its what I've been taught in my A level history :yep:.

Good point.:up: A nuclear arsenal gets you a place at the big boys table and ensures that you will be taken seriously.