It's a new thing I'm trying out. Anytime I respond to my own thread, I use size 3 font (serious threads, anyway; not using it on game threads and the like).

Anywho, the Shah. I think he needed to be removed from power because he was getting worse and worse as time went on. With that said (and as I've said before), I don't think the establishment of an Islamic Republic was the correct way to head politically.

As for the rest of your post... well, you're entitled to your own opinion as I am to mine.

That would be, of course, the Iranian peoples prerogative. I agree that it's a pity how it went down. The baby got thrown out with the bathwater...

I remember being in Iran around 1973 when it was one of the top 10 richest countries in the world (IIRC) and was totally astonished to see people begging in the streets.

That was a first time experience for me.

And it isn't anymore when you look around in germany or america...?

Nope....I'd never been to America before and on two previous visits to Germany, I'd never actually witnessed anything like that first hand.

Sorry to drag this thread further off-topic but..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teq7aKTNJ4

Stossel does a good job of explaining homelessness in America from a relatively objective viewpoint.

Very illuminating.

I love Stossel. A year ago I was doing that same shelter-not working trip myself. At our shelter here in Salt Lake there is 'voluntary' clean-up. I asked once and was told that you used to have to work the clean-up detail to keep your bed, but after someone in New York sued their shelter, they all have stopped making it a requirement.

And it's true that most of the panhandlers really don't want to work. While I was homeless I once had a guy ask me for some money so he could get some food. When I told him there was a free meal a block away and I was on my way there to eat, and invited him along, he said "&#$* that!" So I stopped giving the little I had to panhandlers.

As for Stossel, I just recently read both of his books. I highly recommend them.

:rotfl: :lol: Thats soo good.

Not the kind of action one would expect from a nation preparing for a soon-to-come war against another nation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

Subterfuge? Resignation? Realism?

A new CIA headquarter in a hotspot of the world - or are the US preparing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran and accept it?

Anyway, it probably does no harm, does not alter the situational facts about that program, and if anyone can be pissed about it, then it must be the Israelis - and they don't get asked :D . So: why not.

I wonder if diplomats have the option to volunteer for that job, or can be commanded to go there.

Next, consider this:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...icle%2FPrinter

That damn Mahdi myth is an extremely strong motivational power, and already when the war 2003 started i pointed out repeatedly that if there ever appears a man on stage that is accepted by the masses to be that figure, it certainly would cause tremendous conflict and war in all the middle east, and most likely would lead to WWIII sooner or later. It is stunning how little attention this story gets in the West although it is of essential importance in understanding Shia Islam. the simple minds living in the rural areas of the ME, and many of the educated Iranian burgeousie as well believe in this stuff, I found myself when being there. compare it to the passion of christian fundamentalists playing with snakes and crying and yelling hysterically about that the day when Jesus returns has not already come. In shia islam, this myth is an essential pillar since the beginning of the Islamic civil war. and that is over a thousand years ago!

Also note that the author points at the limited capacity of Israel to strike Iran and hurting it all by itself if limitin gitself to conventional means. The author says that this conventional strike would only work if the USAF lines up with the IAF. But even in that scenario I have my great doubts.

It's also worth to take the immense risks and likely ways of direct Iranian retaliation into account, like the author desribes them. the more "subtle", indirect retaliation against troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and terror against the West he does not even touch upon.

the headline says it all: We only have one strike. And if deciding for it, that one strike must blow Iran away, or all will be lost.

Im afraid war will become necessary if Iran gets to within even an inch of acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel will launch strikes, if that happens more countries will get involved. The conflict would escalate and the United States and Europe would get drawn in. Current military commenders and politicians are very worries about this here in the UK.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/op...gewanted=print

In this context it gives me goose pimples when reading such essay that unfortunately support my own argument - because the arguments why events probably could and would unfold like described are hard to argue with, if just looking at it with no dreaming but open eyes. I see it coming, but I do not like what I see.

If these scenarios are what we need to face, we better make sure that the first strike kills. Else the scenario will multiply several times in nastiness. The thing seems to run out of control - and nobody having a realistic idea how to regain control of it.