And there dies another foul excuse

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Yes, but would Iran do that? They attacking Israel would start an armed response from the west right? They would gain nothing from it. After the defend of Israel the West would most propably invade Iran. And Iran would lose. Please, guys, let them stretch their muscles, they arent stupid to do anything.

I can see you are a gambling man.

You are assuming rational and logical reasoning from a people who's track record speaks otherwise.

All a country can go by is actions...by that token Iran should take very seriously a response from the U.S. or Israel.Israel can not afford to gamble on any threat such as nuclear...period.Get this thru your head.Take your own advice and look thru other eyes.At the clearest sign that Iran was approaching some sort of nuclear capability at some facility if I were Israel I would flatten it in a heart beat.Iran and Muslim nations need to simply wake up and face facts.The rest of the world is getting very tired of dealing with they're B.S. .

Not fair that some have bombs and some do not?...who ever said life was fair?...and I thank God at the moment they do not.

[mrbeast]

Can someone explain why the fact that the US and her allies have an overwhelming superiority in nuclear firepower would not work as a deterant to any 'rogue' nation that aquires a small nuclear capablity?

The 'loonies' in Iran might be prety bonkers but they are not that bonkers to commit national suicide. What would they gain from it?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Can someone explain why the fact that the US and her allies have an overwhelming superiority in nuclear firepower would not work as a deterant to any 'rogue' nation that aquires a small nuclear capablity?

The 'loonies' in Iran might be prety bonkers but they are not that bonkers to commit national suicide. What would they gain from it?

Martyrdom

-S

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Can someone explain why the fact that the US and her allies have an overwhelming superiority in nuclear firepower would not work as a deterant to any 'rogue' nation that aquires a small nuclear capablity?

The 'loonies' in Iran might be prety bonkers but they are not that bonkers to commit national suicide. What would they gain from it?

Ask Skybird...he seems pretty versed in loonies. Again you assume you are dealing with rational people yet the ,I'm sorry to say, religion/belief of many Muslims is that if you kill as many infidels as possible you bump yourself right up to the head of the class in heaven...this is the short and ugly version but it's the truth...GET OVER IT and ACCEPT IT.

This is who you are dealing with...now try to have a rational,peaceful,co-exsistence with someone who actually believes if he kills you it is not different than killing a cow?

I did not make this religion up...I just try to understand my opponents pov and understand it I do.

INFIDELS!

Such overwhelming detterents only work if the people you are deterring want to live more than die.

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Ask Skybird...he seems pretty versed in loonies. Again you assume you are dealing with rational people yet the ,I'm sorry to say, religion/belief of many Muslims is that if you kill as many infidels as possible you bump yourself right up to the head of the class in heaven...this is the short and ugly version but it's the truth...GET OVER IT and ACCEPT IT.

This is who you are dealing with...now try to have a rational,peaceful,co-exsistence with someone who actually believes if he kills you it is not different than killing a cow?

I did not make this religion up...I just try to understand my opponents pov and understand it I do.

INFIDELS!

Such overwhelming detterents only work if the people you are deterring want to live more than die.

But you are assuming that everybody in Iran or all of those in power in Iran are irrational, infact more than that they would have to be certifiably mad.

As far as I have seen Iran's strategy seems perfectly rational.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

Let's hear the once again with full volume
Don't forget to note the part of Colin Powell's speech from Feb, 2001

Personally, I don't hate Bushie as much as I hate Donald Duckling Rumsy and Penis Cheney. Hope that this duo will burn in hell

You know, I'm not such a big fan of the current administration either, but I hope you realize that to serious policy-watchers that kind of name-calling puts you on a lower level than them. Do you have anything real to offer, or just insults?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You know, I'm not such a big fan of the current administration either, but I hope you realize that to serious policy-watchers that kind of name-calling puts you on a lower level than them. Do you have anything real to offer, or just insults?

A real thought provoking occupation in your profile as well. I'm sure many on here will appreciate it....not

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

But you are assuming that everybody in Iran or all of those in power in Iran are irrational, infact more than that they would have to be certifiably mad.

As far as I have seen Iran's strategy seems perfectly rational.

Hahahahaha! That is a funny one. you are joking i hope! I almost spit my beer I was drinking on reading that.

Anyway, you do know the president is merely a puppet to the clerics, right? In case not, the one who holds ultimate power in Iran is called the 'Supreme Leader' who is the head religious man in Iran. He has the ability to override the president on any matter of state, and is the ultimate commander in chief over the military. To launch a nuke attack even in the event of complete destruction as a consequence is an option to them. 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.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

What would Sadaam's interest in attacking the US be?

My question exactly. Saddam was our best ally in the Middle-East... well, him and Israel, but the Israeli government is weak. By removing him and instating a greenhorn government in his place, we've allowed the terrorists and the radicals to enter the country without much difficulty at all. This is, basically, another version of the Vietnam War. Heard it before, and it's true. Same ****, different day.

[PeriscopeDepth]

This thread took a noise dive IMO.

On a lighter side, what are you drinking Subman? Just plain old Guinness here.

PD

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Yes, but would Iran do that? They attacking Israel would start an armed response from the west right? They would gain nothing from it. After the defend of Israel the West would most propably invade Iran. And Iran would lose. Please, guys, let them stretch their muscles, they arent stupid to do anything.

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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Anyway, you do know the president is merely a puppet to the clerics, right? In case not, the one who holds ultimate power in Iran is called the 'Supreme Leader' who is the head religious man in Iran. He has the ability to override the president on any matter of state, and is the ultimate commander in chief over the military. To launch a nuke attack even in the event of complete destruction as a consequence is an option to them. 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.

-S

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

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

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).

[Platapus]

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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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).

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.