NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/15/iran.holocaust/

Serously, how stupid is this guy? No, the holocaust didn't happen. Mr. President, please tell me how the hell 6 million Jews died, you bastard! Or how I have relatives who were in the Nazi death camps?

Let's see what else he's been saying:

"No, we aren't devoloping nukes, we're making nuclear power plants!"

"The nation of Isreal is only here to segregrate the Jews from Europe!"

"The holocaust didn't happen; it was all made up by some Jewish bastards!"

What kind of scumbag is this guy? Somebody please tell me why the hell we're fighting Iraq when we have these Iran idiots to deal with?

Oh, Iran is next alright.... (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/iran-next.jpg)

Oh, Iran is next alright.... (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/iran-next.jpg)
Hmm...American war-mongering might not be that bad!

WWIII is waiting in the wings.........

Step 1: Sponsor a military coup

Step 2: Install Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi II as the new Shah and revive the Iranian monarchy

God, at least the North Koreans aren't such idiots...they aren't "We have nukes! Yeah, we have them!" they're like "We have nukes. Don't piss us off."

"No, we aren't devoloping nukes, we're making nuclear power plants!"
Do you have proof this is false?


"The nation of Isreal is only here to segregrate the Jews from Europe!"

Could be argued as part of the reason, there was a lot of anti-semitism in Europe at the time, and giving the Jews somewhere else to go could have been popular for this reason (the real reason the British originally promised to create Israel was to try to get American Jews to get America into WWI on their side).


"The holocaust didn't happen; it was all made up by some Jewish bastards!"

What kind of scumbag is this guy? Somebody please tell me why the hell we're fighting Iraq when we have these Iran idiots to deal with?
Not going to defend his denial of the holocaust, but Saddam was hardly an angel, and after all, Iran's not that far away, maybe the Iraq occupational troops'll just head across the border when Iraq's stable.

We are cunningly turning Iraq into another Iran, then they will merge into one giant Islamic theocracy and we can invade it all in one go.

yes lets kill anyone who disagrees with us after all its not like disagreeing with something isn't a right or you’ know productive

"No, we aren't developing nukes, we're making nuclear power plants!"

is there some law Iran has broke here? does solving long term energy needs somehow mean you must die? (well you are American though)


"The nation of Israel is only here to segregate the Jews from Europe!"

actually he has a point its leaning outright madness that most Jews are concentrated in one area particularly in this day and age

You guys really think Iran is using those nuclear materials for power plants? That is really naive. Even if they are devoloping power plants, I'd think that they'd also be making nukes.

It makes sense: use the power plants as a cover.

It makes sense: use the power plants as a cover.

does it? I think they would get less hassle if they said there were developing nukes I'm sure everyone would back off especially with its proximity to busy troops and large cities also China would still sell the Uranium (though Russia might pull out)

You guys really think Iran is using those nuclear materials for power plants? That is really naive. Even if they are devoloping power plants, I'd think that they'd also be making nukes.

It makes sense: use the power plants as a cover.


Yea. And Japan actually has a world domination plan ongoing: Think of it, they have dozens of Nuclear power plants (from which they can get enriched uraniun in weeks), they have a standing space program (those rockets can be used for ICBM's), they got tech. And worst of all, they got pokemons. They are going to conquer us all, I tell you! They are a threat! They are yellow, they aren't christian, they aren't human beings! NUKE! NUKE! NUKE!

PS: Heil Bush

PPS: Yes, I'm joking and I don't care if Iran has a bomb. Israel has them, it will balance things out a bit.

You guys really think Iran is using those nuclear materials for power plants? That is really naive. Even if they are devoloping power plants, I'd think that they'd also be making nukes.

It makes sense: use the power plants as a cover.
Anyway, it's a bit rich for the US and other Nuclear powers to tell Iran that Nuclear weapons are wrong and that Iran isn't allowed to have them.

Yea. And Japan actually has a world domination plan ongoing: Think of it, they have dozens of Nuclear power plants (from which they can get enriched uraniun in weeks), they have a standing space program (those rockets can be used for ICBM's), they got tech. And worst of all, they got pokemons. They are going to conquer us all, I tell you! They are a threat! They are yellow, they aren't christian, they aren't human beings! NUKE! NUKE! NUKE!

PS: Heil Bush

PPS: Yes, I'm joking and I don't care if Iran has a bomb. Israel has them, it will balance things out a bit.

ER... we *did* nuke Japan... twice. (Man, you've GOT to stay awake in history class!)

Your PPS would be a valid point, except for the minor detail that Israel hasn't been calling for the total destruction of all Iranians/Persians, hasn't been going on about how the 1979 Revolution didnt happen, or that they hate and despise The East. :(

Anyway, it's a bit rich for the US and other Nuclear powers to tell Iran that Nuclear weapons are wrong and that Iran isn't allowed to have them.

None of the other nuclear powers have called for another nation to be wiped off the face of the planet, either.

None of the other nuclear powers have called for another nation to be wiped off the face of the planet, either.
The US has been invading other nations, and it spent a long time as a nuclear power during the cold war where their aim was the destruction of the USSR.

It makes sense: use the power plants as a cover.

A plan so cunning that a five-year old could see through it. It's just so crazy that it might work.

Step 1: Sponsor a military coup

Step 2: Install Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi II as the new Shah and revive the Iranian monarchy

Nice idea, but that hasn't worked in decades... coup d' etats are so terribly hard to coordinate...

I thought that in the 30-odd years he's been living in Vienna, VA that he's since renounced the throne? (I'm not sure if I'm right, heard that on the radio many moons ago.)

ER... we *did* nuke Japan... twice. (Man, you've GOT to stay awake in history class!)

Your PPS would be a valid point, except for the minor detail that Israel hasn't been calling for the total destruction of all Iranians/Persians, hasn't been going on about how the 1979 Revolution didnt happen, or that they hate and despise The East. :(

I meant that Japan currently is a para-nuclear nation able to deploy a nuke in months, and no one complains about that.

And Rethoric is a funny thing, that Iranians use alot. But tell me, how many agressive wars, hell, how many agressive military operations have the Iranians engaged since 79? Historically, Iran has been one of the most peaceful nations in that region, alot more peaceful than Israel, and god forbid, the US. You too should pay attention to your history classes.

None of the other nuclear powers have called for another nation to be wiped off the face of the planet, either.

a presidents personal views mean nothing that’s what the other keys are for also Japan got nuked twice I think they know what weapon to use if there pissed/want to help force a monarchy to surrender its powers in all but ceremonial

could be doing what our friends the soviets did use graphite burning nuclear powerplants as a cover and extract a bit of plutonium out or the cores to make nukes

The US has been invading other nations, and it spent a long time as a nuclear power during the cold war where their aim was the destruction of the USSR.

Huh? No.

1) Yes, yes the US has. So what? The US has not claimed ANY territory via warfare in over 100 years. Further, invading and CALLING FOR THE TOTAL EXTINCTION of another nation are two very different things. Someday the US will no longer occupy Iraq, in the same way the US no longer occupies Italy, Germany, Japan, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, or South Korea.
(And before anyone gets huffy: having bases in those nations is NOT occupation.)

2) Wrong. The aim was the CONTAINMENT of the USSR, which worked. Otherwise, the nukes would have flown. You can never find a single statement by a US President calling for the total destruction of another country by force. QED.

...And no, the joke Reagan had about signing legislation that made the USSR illegal and that we would begin bombing in 5 minutes doesn't count. It was a joke.

a presidents personal views mean nothing that’s what the other keys are for also Japan got nuked twice I think they know what weapon to use if there pissed/want to help force a monarchy to surrender its powers in all but ceremonial

You're confused. The President is the leader of the USA, and sets policy. He alone can ask the Congress to declare war.

As for the rest of your statement, please rewrite it with punctuation. I can't make heads or tails of it.

Oh, great. Please tell me the joke about Japan wasn't calling the guys like me who don't like Iran racist. If you think I want war with Iran because they're Muslim, you're mistaken.

Okay, think about it. We went to war with Iraq for WMDs. They didn't actually have them. Iran probably does.

You're confused. The President is the leader of the USA, and sets policy. He alone can ask the Congress to declare war.

As for the rest of your statement, please rewrite it with punctuation. I can't make heads or tails of it.

huh somehow nukes only require the president where are you from exactly?

no that sentence does say Japan knows what weapon to use

What's wrong with Iran developing nukes anyway? They've signed the Non-Proliferation treaty, and it's a bit rich all these countries going against Iran having a nuclear programme when they all have one too! It's just the West ganging up against the East-I mean come on! Do we still live in the Middle Ages?

huh somehow nukes only require the president where are you from exactly?

no that sentence does say Japan knows what weapon to use
Um...what?

Okay, think about it. We went to war with Iraq for WMDs. They didn't actually have them. Iran probably does.

of yeah how silly of me I forgot Iran has WMD's and that Iraq didn’t involve mass protests and the U.N writing a nasty letter:rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/15/iran.holocaust/

Serously, how stupid is this guy? No, the holocaust didn't happen. Mr. President, please tell me how the hell 6 million Jews died, you bastard! Or how I have relatives who were in the Nazi death camps?

Let's see what else he's been saying:

"No, we aren't devoloping nukes, we're making nuclear power plants!"

"The nation of Isreal is only here to segregrate the Jews from Europe!"

"The holocaust didn't happen; it was all made up by some Jewish bastards!"

What kind of scumbag is this guy? Somebody please tell me why the hell we're fighting Iraq when we have these Iran idiots to deal with?


Hey I didn't see it happen, not saying it did not saying it didn't the 80's are sketchy the 90's have a few more moments.. and the new millineum was boring as hell mostly sitting in this gfen room.

Sure as far as history is concerned it isn't pretty likely but what if it really is a zionist makeover and history has been atlered from what really happened, it wouldn't be the only occurance in historians criticism of historians.

But we really don't know just like someone being accused of something.

We have to experience it to know and until timetravel comes around we won't know.. and if it does.. well I got no idea that is a paradox.. to say the least I'm not opting for a gasing.

For old people that may have gone through it my condolences, I am not doubting your experience just shunning the notion of propaganda, if everyone did that and lived by ideals ludites might still be alive.

Did nike exist then? If so could they have flown away on hale bopp..

reallly though.. the guy can beleive what he want I don't see why other people try to enforce their experiences that can't be proven on others.

I was framed in a trial and tortured/drugged/starved does anyone beleive me or give a sheit... is everyone telling the truth and MJ12 and reptoids and grey skins and BOB the Xenu are all in this cosmic conspiracy.. damned if I know and you wont get an answer out of me around a psychiatrist...

We must concentrate on GLOBAL PEACE AND COOPERATION DAMNIT not more kiling and inciting disorder.. that would be wasting resources.. and we are running out because our parents and their parents etc.. were all stupid to leave the trees.. oh hold on evolution may not be real... the point is I deserve a vacation to a tropical location.. BUT NOOOOO I"m in cana fakin da.

Hey I didn't see it happen, not saying it did not saying it didn't the 80's are sketchy the 90's have a few more moments.. and the new millineum was boring as hell mostly sitting in this gfen room.

Sure as far as history is concerned it isn't pretty likely but what if it really is a zionist makeover and history has been atlered from what really happened, it wouldn't be the only occurance in historians criticism of historians.

But we really don't know just like someone being accused of something.

We have to experience it to know and until timetravel comes around we won't know.. and if it does.. well I got no idea that is a paradox.. to say the least I'm not opting for a gasing.

For old people that may have gone through it my condolences, I am not doubting your experience just shunning the notion of propaganda, if everyone did that and lived by ideals ludites might still be alive.

Did nike exist then? If so could they have flown away on hale bopp..

reallly though.. the guy can beleive what he want I don't see why other people try to enforce their experiences that can't be proven on others.

I was framed in a trial and tortured/drugged/starved does anyone beleive me or give a sheit... is everyone telling the truth and MJ12 and reptoids and grey skins and BOB the Xenu are all in this cosmic conspiracy.. damned if I know and you wont get an answer out of me around a psychiatrist...

We must concentrate on GLOBAL PEACE AND COOPERATION DAMNIT not more kiling and inciting disorder.. that would be wasting resources.. and we are running out because our parents and their parents etc.. were all stupid to leave the trees.. oh hold on evolution may not be real... the point is I deserve a vacation to a tropical location.. BUT NOOOOO I"m in cana fakin da.
Um...what the hell? If you say nothing is proveable, than you can't even prove your existance. It's a flawed arguement.

prooving my own existance is simple.

I AM.

Where as prooving to someone else.. if they are ethical I exist.

If they are moral we get along.

We are emotion not intent.

It is part of the driven mentality of the published current age of human civilization on earth. We need to plan and to maintain, rather then experience and accept.

I am for experience and acceptance.

But it is our ideals that matter, not our experiences.

There is a dialema with either the call to correct, or trying to make sense of what was formerly perceived as wrong.

Everyone is acting for what they consider right. through odd circumstances we all end up where we are at any moment. That is the way it is.

I think some day soon the Iranian President is going to get a wake-up call from the Israeli Air Force.

Israeli's don't have the range or penetration to effect the nuclear projects, conventionally.

Where as the russians are set to be supplying the Iranians with air defence (antiair missles).

Israeli's don't have the range or penetration to effect the nuclear projects, conventionally.

Where as the russians are set to be supplying the Iranians with air defence (antiair missles).

... OK then, I guess Israel destroying the nuclear facilities in Iran (1981) didn't really happen either. Their existence is in question too, I guess, right?

While we're getting all philosophosicamamal and using large words out of context, we should take a moment to realize that there is some merit to what you're saying:

"Live in the moment."

You know, I actually respect that and live my personal life by it. Too bad you can't live in the moment if you're dead though. Iran's making nukes... and Israel can easily destroy the sites.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/15/iran.holocaust/

Serously, how stupid is this guy? No, the holocaust didn't happen. Mr. President, please tell me how the hell 6 million Jews died, you bastard! Or how I have relatives who were in the Nazi death camps?

Let's see what else he's been saying:

"No, we aren't devoloping nukes, we're making nuclear power plants!"

"The nation of Isreal is only here to segregrate the Jews from Europe!"

"The holocaust didn't happen; it was all made up by some Jewish bastards!"

What kind of scumbag is this guy? Somebody please tell me why the hell we're fighting Iraq when we have these Iran idiots to deal with?
I sincerely hope that the Israelis do us all a favour and go blow the Iranian nuclear project from the start.

Why is Iran getting its way a big no-no?

Let's see. The enriched Uranium they want is a key ingrediant in making the bomb.

Ever since 3-mile Island(the worst nuclear disaster in US history), Americans have viewed nuclear power as somewhat undesirable.(Chernobyl didn't exactly make us think otherwise)

Iran is ruled by a bunch of morons who give out death threats to Isreal and are repeating Sadaam's mistake of not allowing inspectors into power plants. I small Gulf War III.

I small a dead thread!

Why is Iran getting its way a big no-no?

Let's see. The enriched Uranium they want is a key ingrediant in making the bomb.

Ever since 3-mile Island(the worst nuclear disaster in US history), Americans have viewed nuclear power as somewhat undesirable.(Chernobyl didn't exactly make us think otherwise)

Iran is ruled by a bunch of morons who give out death threats to Isreal and are repeating Sadaam's mistake of not allowing inspectors into power plants. I small Gulf War III.
As do I.

What's wrong with Iran developing nukes anyway? They've signed the Non-Proliferation treaty, and it's a bit rich all these countries going against Iran having a nuclear programme when they all have one too! It's just the West ganging up against the East-I mean come on! Do we still live in the Middle Ages?

I'll say it once and I'll say it again.

I trust an American with a Nuke then an Islamic extremenist who has said that he wants to wipe off a country.

Since when is it okay to simply attack a nation based on what its president says? Since when, in addition, is the US the nation with that right? Please, this is so hypocritical. :rolleyes:

Since when is it okay to simply attack a nation based on what its president says? Since when, in addition, is the US the nation with that right? Please, this is so hypocritical. :rolleyes:

I think our language might be lacking, here. When the USA attacks a "nation," it doesn't purposely target its civilians (despite what Al'Jazeera would have us believe); we would be attacking the military and the current regime. So in this case, it *is* OK to attack the nation (read, not civilians), which would be the ones threatening the western world and touting their willingness to develop nuclear arms.

Hopefully the aftermath would be handled competently this time around and the former powers would be replaced by a more stable, benign government.

I thought that in the 30-odd years he's been living in Vienna, VA that he's since renounced the throne? (I'm not sure if I'm right, heard that on the radio many moons ago.)
He better. If a monarchy is a bastard to its people and gets thrown out, the royals have no business interfering.
Or I suppose we should install the House of Hohenzollern in Germany again?

The Iranians on the whole don't mind their system of government, I don't think. It's independent of foreign influences, it's made things happen there, and as long as you have a moderate sitting on top, freedoms aren't too curtailed in daily life either (notwithstanding people who are gay, or female).

I don't think Iranians are all that impressed with Ahmadinejad in particular anymore, but I can't imagine that they would support foreigners removing him. They probably feel that if they want to get rid of him, they do it themselves.

I think some day soon the Iranian President is going to get a wake-up call from the Israeli Air Force.
In which case the US is getting a wake-up call from the Iranians in Iraq, which is hardly what we should hope for.
I hope the Israelis can hold themselves back until the EU, US and maybe even UN have done their stuff and we can act multilaterally.

And by the way...all Iran is doing now is research into how a proper full enrichment program would work. They don't have enough centrifuges to do anything, they can't produce their own fuel at the moment.
It will take another ten years for them to build a bomb, or so says the CIA.

It's an issue of Iran not working together with its partners on the world stage rather than an issue of nukes.

I think our language might be lacking, here. When the USA attacks a "nation," it doesn't purposely target its civilians (despite what Al'Jazeera would have us believe); we would be attacking the military and the current regime. So in this case, it *is* OK to attack the nation (read, not civilians), which would be the ones threatening the western world and touting their willingness to develop nuclear arms.

Hopefully the aftermath would be handled competently this time around and the former powers would be replaced by a more stable, benign government.
No, my question is, why does the "West" (ie the USA) see it as its role in the world to say who can and who can't develop power? Why does it feel its okay to impose its ideals on the rest of the world?

He better. If a monarchy is a bastard to its people and gets thrown out, the royals have no business interfering.
Or I suppose we should install the House of Hohenzollern in Germany again?
Why remove an entire House of Monarchs for the act of one individual Monarch?

No, my question is, why does the "West" (ie the USA) see it as its role in the world to say who can and who can't develop power? Why does it feel its okay to impose its ideals on the rest of the world?

Easy, because we are the worlds policemen. People dont like cops because they can be assholes only abide by their rules, but a world without them would be total anarchy and chaos.

No, my question is, why does the "West" (ie the USA) see it as its role in the world to say who can and who can't develop power? Why does it feel its okay to impose its ideals on the rest of the world?
It's not the peaceful purposes that the US doesn't want. It's the bomb we don't want them to get and enriching uranium is a step towards having a nuclear weapon ready. Why does Iran want the details to be so secret? Why not just let the other nations help? Is Iran hiding something? Something that can level an entire city in a single mushroom cloud?

Easy, because we are the worlds policemen. People dont like cops because they can be assholes only abide by their rules, but a world without them would be total anarchy and chaos.
What when the balance of powers shifts? :rolleyes: Say, the "policeman" becomes a nation like Iran. Are we supposed to simply allow it to dictate its will?

It's not the peaceful purposes that the US doesn't want. It's the bomb we don't want them to get and enriching uranium is a step towards having a nuclear weapon ready. Why does Iran want the details to be so secret? Why not just let the other nations help? Is Iran hiding something? Something that can level an entire city in a single mushroom cloud?
No, what I don't understand is why should the US have nuclear potential, yet not allow another nation to have it? What if an opressive government took over the USA? Then it would be far greater a danger. If anything, it should commit to disarming itself alongside all other nations. Otherwise its merely acting as a bully.

What when the balance of powers shifts? :rolleyes: Say, the "policeman" becomes a nation like Iran. Are we supposed to simply allow it to dictate its will?

That I cannot answer, but I am hoping, for our sake, that humanity will have killed itself off, before something like that happens.

That I cannot answer, but I am hoping, for our sake, that humanity will have killed itself off, before something like that happens.
It is a remote possibility. To suggest a closer one, what if the US becomes tyranical, as I said earlier? I think we are a bit too comfortable in ordaining policemen to "protect" our world.

No, what I don't understand is why should the US have nuclear potential, yet not allow another nation to have it? What if an opressive government took over the USA? Then it would be far greater a danger. If anything, it should commit to disarming itself alongside all other nations. Otherwise its merely acting as a bully.

Its hard for you to understand, since you do not live here, and thus I am giving you that. But you cant talk about and oppresive government taking over in America....we just dont work like that. Our government was FOUNDED on the fact that if our government does not act in accoridng to its responsibilite to the American people, we throw it out in exchange for a new one. You talk about an overthrow of the government like it happend in Iran back a couple decades ago, yet this cannot happen here. I cannot explain it anymore, you would just have to live here to get it.

Its hard for you to understand, since you do not live here, and thus I am giving you that. But you cant talk about and oppresive government taking over in America....we just dont work like that. Our government was FOUNDED on the fact that if our government does not act in accoridng to its responsibilite to the American people, we throw it out in exchange for a new one. You talk about an overthrow of the government like it happend in Iran back a couple decades ago, yet this cannot happen here. I cannot explain it anymore, you would just have to live here to get it.
There are ways and means of achieving anything...all systems have imperfections.

Why remove an entire House of Monarchs for the act of one individual Monarch?
Because that's how monarchy works.
A monarch is resonsible to himself, to his people, and his house. If one monarch fucks up, he's ruined it for himself, for his people and for his house.

The Shah fucked up, he got kicked out, his house is no longer in power. Same thing as with the Manchu Emperors in China and the Hohenzollern in Germany.

Its hard for you to understand, since you do not live here, and thus I am giving you that. But you cant talk about and oppresive government taking over in America....we just dont work like that. Our government was FOUNDED on the fact that if our government does not act in accoridng to its responsibilite to the American people, we throw it out in exchange for a new one. You talk about an overthrow of the government like it happend in Iran back a couple decades ago, yet this cannot happen here. I cannot explain it anymore, you would just have to live here to get it.
This is a rather mystical explanation.
Going into Vietnam wasn't acting responsible to the American people, nor were a billion other things.
Fact is that there is a ruling class in the US, of powerful families, business connections and the like. They all think the same, and there are no alternatives that ever even get close to being elected.
At the same time you have this desperate need to pretend there is a left vs right debate in the States, when in fact their positions are pretty much the same, but on a few cosmetical issues.

Sorry mate, but you crossing your fingers doesn't mean anything. The US, being the insanely nationalistic nation it is, is even more prone to violent fascist-type governments than most European Nations for example.

(And yes, by Fascist, I mean actual Fascism (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html))

Because that's how monarchy works.
A monarch is resonsible to himself, to his people, and his house. If one monarch fucks up, he's ruined it for himself, for his people and for his house.

The Shah fucked up, he got kicked out, his house is no longer in power. Same thing as with the Manchu Emperors in China and the Hohenzollern in Germany.
I don't see why this responsibility extends to the House though. Why should the future of other Monarchs be jeopardised by the actions of one Monarch? Its a little unfair.


This is a rather mystical explanation.
Going into Vietnam wasn't acting responsible to the American people, nor were a billion other things.
Fact is that there is a ruling class in the US, of powerful families, business connections and the like. They all think the same, and there are no alternatives that ever even get close to being elected.
At the same time you have this desperate need to pretend there is a left vs right debate in the States, when in fact their positions are pretty much the same, but on a few cosmetical issues.

Sorry mate, but you crossing your fingers doesn't mean anything. The US, being the insanely nationalistic nation it is, is even more prone to violent fascist-type governments than most European Nations for example.

(And yes, by Fascist, I mean actual Fascism (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html))
Agreed here. This is exactly what I am trying to bring up. Why should anyone assume that the USA, as a "policeman" of the world, is or will be benevolent? It depends on its government at the time, and by entrusting it this position we are taking a huge risk. Too big in my opinion.

I don't see why this responsibility extends to the House though. Why should the future of other Monarchs be jeopardised by the actions of one Monarch? Its a little unfair.
What can I say...Monarchy isn't the fairest of systems.
A monarch is potentially all-powerful in his nation. That means that he is also responsible for what happens. If he doesn't do his job well, and the people decide to get rid of him, then he loses his office. And part of his office is that his successor will in fact succeed him...a privilege also lost.

You can argue for a bit if a foreign power kicked him out, but in all the cases I mentioned it was the people who'd had enough, thus relieving the royal family of all offices and status.

What can I say...Monarchy isn't the fairest of systems.
A monarch is potentially all-powerful in his nation. That means that he is also responsible for what happens. If he doesn't do his job well, and the people decide to get rid of him, then he loses his office. And part of his office is that his successor will in fact succeed him...a privilege also lost.

You can argue for a bit if a foreign power kicked him out, but in all the cases I mentioned it was the people who'd had enough, thus relieving the royal family of all offices and status.
Then couldn't they replace him/her with an alternative Monarch? Replacing an entire system based on the actions of an individual is extreme. It would be like abolishing democracy because, say, people are fed up of George Bush, and replacing it with a Father-knows-best system, as evidently the electorate made a poor choice of president.

Because that's how monarchy works.
A monarch is resonsible to himself, to his people, and his house. If one monarch fucks up, he's ruined it for himself, for his people and for his house.

The Shah fucked up, he got kicked out, his house is no longer in power. Same thing as with the Manchu Emperors in China and the Hohenzollern in Germany.


This is a rather mystical explanation.
Going into Vietnam wasn't acting responsible to the American people, nor were a billion other things.
Fact is that there is a ruling class in the US, of powerful families, business connections and the like. They all think the same, and there are no alternatives that ever even get close to being elected.
At the same time you have this desperate need to pretend there is a left vs right debate in the States, when in fact their positions are pretty much the same, but on a few cosmetical issues.

Sorry mate, but you crossing your fingers doesn't mean anything. The US, being the insanely nationalistic nation it is, is even more prone to violent fascist-type governments than most European Nations for example.

(And yes, by Fascist, I mean actual Fascism (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html))

How can you say this if you dont even live here. The left and right do not think alike here at all. For instance, during the Clinton administration, Clinton wanted to give away half of Jerusalem to the A-rabs for their state, during the Bush administration, we would never even DREAM of giving away the holy land to a bunch of dumb arabs. Republican presidents have been much closer to Israel and much more pro Israel than democratic presidents have. Ironicly, 90% of the Jews here vote democrat. (I only say this because this was the first topic that came to mind since we are talking about America and the middle east)

Sorry mate, but you crossing your fingers doesn't mean anything. The US, being the insanely nationalistic nation it is, is even more prone to violent fascist-type governments than most European Nations for example.

Sorry, but until we do have a turn over of government to a fascist leader, I will have to assume that you are just talking out of your ass.

I think some day soon the Iranian President is going to get a wake-up call from the Israeli Air Force.

i agree. the israelis would be foolish to allow iran to possess nuclear weapons when the iranian government has clearly stated, before the UN, that israel's existence is unnacceptable. i have lost a lot of respect for them for ceding their territory to the muslims around them, but i cannot believe they will tolerate a nuclear iran.

it occurs to me that since humans are without a predator to keep them in check that disease might do the job, ie avain flu or an airborn hiv. the nuclear option does make for a more interesting story, but seems so unnatural as it bypasses darwinism/evolution by obliterating the fit with the unfit. i suppose it's better than extra-terrestrials though.

anyhow you have to wonder what the iranians/north koreans are up to to allow these nutjobs to run their nations. it would be a different story if they had chosen a nutjob via democracy *cough* george w. *cough* ....what was i saying?

i agree. the israelis would be foolish to allow iran to possess nuclear weapons when the iranian government has clearly stated, before the UN, that israel's existence is unnacceptable. i have lost a lot of respect for them for ceding their territory to the muslims around them, but i cannot believe they will tolerate a nuclear iran.

it occurs to me that since humans are without a predator to keep them in check that disease might do the job, ie avain flu or an airborn hiv. the nuclear option does make for a more interesting story, but seems so unnatural as it bypasses darwinism/evolution by obliterating the fit with the unfit. i suppose it's better than extra-terrestrials though.

anyhow you have to wonder what the iranians/north koreans are up to to allow these nutjobs to run their nations. it would be a different story if they had chosen a nutjob via democracy *cough* george w. *cough* ....what was i saying?

If you would have just kept your ramblings to your first paragraph...I would have agreed and supported you. Now you look like an idiot.

How can you say this if you dont even live here. The left and right do not think alike here at all. For instance, during the Clinton administration, Clinton wanted to give away half of Jerusalem to the A-rabs for their state, during the Bush administration, we would never even DREAM of giving away the holy land to a bunch of dumb arabs. Republican presidents have been much closer to Israel and much more pro Israel than democratic presidents have. Ironicly, 90% of the Jews here vote democrat. (I only say this because this was the first topic that came to mind since we are talking about America and the middle east)
Just because the two parties have different agendas doesn't mean that either is necessarily benevolent. Either one could give birth to a fascist or totalitarian regime that is oppressive and abuses the US's role as a "peacekeeper."

Funny, first time we're arguing over something :p

Then couldn't they replace him/her with an alternative Monarch?
Sure they could, if they so choose. Happened a billion times during China's history.

But neither the Iranians nor the Germans decided that way.

How can you say this if you dont even live here.
Having eyes to see and ears to hear and a brain to think, and not being busy waving a flag all the time can sometimes make a difference.

The left and right do not think alike here at all. For instance, during the Clinton administration, Clinton wanted to give away half of Jerusalem to the A-rabs for their state, during the Bush administration, we would never even DREAM of giving away the holy land to a bunch of dumb arabs. Republican presidents have been much closer to Israel and much more pro Israel than democratic presidents have. Ironicly, 90% of the Jews here vote democrat. (I only say this because this was the first topic that came to mind since we are talking about America and the middle east)
As I said...cosmetic issues. And for your information - Clinton's plan was AFAIK never seriously approved by anyone, Bush has talked about a roadmap to peace for years now, at the end of which there will be some Jewish land to be given up to Palestinians, and I don't think there is any significant difference in money being sent to Israel depending on the Party the PotUS happens to belong to.
Look at the substance of the two parties' programs - they really are the same.

And cut down on the rascism, will ya? Sounds almost like some sort of oppressive tendency.

Sorry, but until we do have a turn over of government to a fascist leader, I will have to assume that you are just talking out of your ass.
You read the link, I presume.
Does this not sound a lot like Neocons talking? A few different words, and couldn't you find that exact bit of text on PNAC's website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)?

Sure they could, if they so choose. Happened a billion times during China's history.
But neither the Iranians nor the Germans decided that way.
In Germany's case, wasn't this mostly due to defeat at the hand of the Allies? I know the Kaiser abdicated, but wasn't the Treaty of Versailles largely to blame?

Just because the two parties have different agendas doesn't mean that either is necessarily benevolent. Either one could give birth to a fascist or totalitarian regime that is oppressive and abuses the US's role as a "peacekeeper."

Well, in a world where anything is possible and nothing is impossible, I would have to say, since NOTHING is impossible, that this is one of the least possible things that could happen.


Funny, first time we're arguing over something :p

Yeah, but this is expected. I'm an American therefore it is normal that I feel this way, you are not, therefore its normal that you feel that way. On almost everything else I have seen us talk about, are views have been almost identical,:p

Sure they could, if they so choose. Happened a billion times during China's history.

But neither the Iranians nor the Germans decided that way.


Having eyes to see and ears to hear and a brain to think, and not being busy waving a flag all the time can sometimes make a difference.


As I said...cosmetic issues. And for your information - Clinton's plan was AFAIK never seriously approved by anyone, Bush has talked about a roadmap to peace for years now, at the end of which there will be some Jewish land to be given up to Palestinians, and I don't think there is any significant difference in money being sent to Israel depending on the Party the PotUS happens to belong to.
Look at the substance of the two parties' programs - they really are the same.

And cut down on the rascism, will ya? Sounds almost like some sort of oppressive tendency.


You read the link, I presume.
Does this not sound a lot like Neocons talking? A few different words, and couldn't you find that exact bit of text on PNAC's website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)?

I dont think they sound alike at all. How does that saying go...something like, "same world, different universe".

Well, in a world where anything is possible and nothing is impossible, I would have to say, since NOTHING is impossible, that this is one of the least possible things that could happen.
I wouldn't be so sure.

Yeah, but this is expected. I'm an American therefore it is normal that I feel this way, you are not, therefore its normal that you feel that way. On almost everything else I have seen us talk about, are views have been almost identical,:p
I suppose this is more an issue of national identity than anything else, so it is expected, as you say. You can't agree on everything I guess :p

In Germany's case, wasn't this mostly due to defeat at the hand of the Allies? I know the Kaiser abdicated, but wasn't the Treaty of Versailles largely to blame?
Not really. I don't think the treaty actually called for the Emperor to give up the throne.
His position had just become untenable after the revolution, he could never have come back.

Not really. I don't think the treaty actually called for the Emperor to give up the throne.
His position had just become untenable after the revolution, he could never have come back.
Aufwiedersehen then...though I guess that would imply that he would return...adieu is more appropriate :p

I dont think they sound alike at all. How does that saying go...something like, "same world, different universe".
Care to mention any examples?

You have to apply critical thinking, and try and understand the mindset of the person who wrote it. They aren't all that different.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Only time will tell, my European friend,....only time will tell.

I suppose this is more an issue of national identity than anything else, so it is expected, as you say. You can't agree on everything I guess :p

I would say so.

Only time will tell, my European friend,....only time will tell.
It always does in the end :)

Care to mention any examples?

You have to apply critical thinking, and try and understand the mindset of the person who wrote it. They aren't all that different.

What do you mean examples...how do I give examples if I DONT think they sound alike....that doesnt even make sense.

Its simple...I dont get the impression that the words are familiar, or that the context is familiar. And I dont think Neo-Cons have anything in common with the Iron Duce. Even though he said its the opposite of Socialst Marxism...I think that Fascism is almost the same as Communism...or atleast thats how it turned out, and I dont think that Neo Cons have ANYTHING to do with communism.

What do you mean examples...how do I give examples if I DONT think they sound alike....that doesnt even make sense.

Its simple...I dont get the impression that the words are familiar, or that the context is familiar. And I dont think Neo-Cons have anything in common with the Iron Duce. Even though he said its the opposite of Socialst Marxism...I think that Fascism is almost the same as Communism...or atleast thats how it turned out, and I dont think that Neo Cons have ANYTHING to do with communism.
Yep, that is true...fascism and communism are almost identical in nature when it comes to the degree of authority the state assumes and the level of political freedoms one may enjoy.

...and I dont think that Neo Cons have ANYTHING to do with communism.
That's interesting.

Are you aware that Neo-Conservatism as an ideology is nothing but a variation of Trotskyism, and that all our Neocon friends used to be pretty radical Socialists?

Usually when you have such radical changes in outlook, the goals don't actually change...it's just the realisation that there is a better way to get there. Sorta like Deng Xiaopeng.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman#Influence_on_Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States

Step 1: Sponsor a military coup

Step 2: Install Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi II as the new Shah and revive the Iranian monarchy


Why? His father was as bad as the current leader. Why not support a democracy. Everything is already in place, all that is needed is the removal of the guardians and thats it.

Yep, that is true...fascism and communism are almost identical in nature when it comes to the degree of authority the state assumes and the level of political freedoms one may enjoy.
But they are completely different in their assumptions, methods and theoretical underpinnings.

Communism is a scientific idea. It's born out of Marx's idea of a scientific analysis and eventually prediction of history.
It's a thing of reason, and logic (whether you agree with it or not). It's an appeal to the higher brain functions, so to say.

Fascism was born because Mussolini realised in WWI that Patriotism and other such primitive ideas were more powerful than reason (the workers of the world didn't unite, they proceeded to slaughter each other happily).
So fascism appeals to the subconscious, to irrationality, to things like Patriotism, Religion and in the case of the Nazis, Rascism.

And of course their goals are entirely different too.

That's interesting.

Are you aware that Neo-Conservatism as an ideology is nothing but a variation of Trotskyism, and that all our Neocon friends used to be pretty radical Socialists?

Usually when you have such radical changes in outlook, the goals don't actually change...it's just the realisation that there is a better way to get there. Sorta like Deng Xiaopeng.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman#Influence_on_Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States

Totally irrelevant. Ronald Reagan was a liberal when he was young....he then went on to become our most consevative president yet....get what im saying.

But they are completely different in their assumptions, methods and theoretical underpinnings.

Communism is a scientific idea. It's born out of Marx's idea of a scientific analysis and eventually prediction of history.
It's a thing of reason, and logic (whether you agree with it or not). It's an appeal to the higher brain functions, so to say.

Fascism was born because Mussolini realised in WWI that Patriotism and other such primitive ideas were more powerful than reason (the workers of the world didn't unite, they proceeded to slaughter each other happily).
So fascism appeals to the subconscious, to irrationality, to things like Patriotism, Religion and in the case of the Nazis, Rascism.

And of course their goals are entirely different too.
What they achieve is nevertheless the same...subjugation of the individual to the state, for better or for ill. Neither system is worthwhile. BTW, logic can be used to explain anything, even religion or racism. Its limits are only as finite as human imagination is. So perhaps reason is the best way to describe communism's main underpinning.

What they achieve is nevertheless the same...subjugation of the individual to the state, for better or for ill. Neither system is worthwhile. BTW, logic can be used to explain anything, even religion or racism. Its limits are only as finite as human imagination is. So perhaps reason is the best way to describe communism's main underpinning.

Exactly...and it doesnt matter what some old german guy thinks up in his head...its what is acted out from these thoughts. So far what have been acted out from the unique minds of our friends Karl and Benito, have had VERY similar results.

Totally irrelevant. Ronald Reagan was a liberal when he was young....he then went on to become our most consevative president yet....get what im saying.
Well, that depends on how you define "Conservative".

Fact of the matter is that Neo-Conservatism is a reaction of a bunch of anti-Soviet Communists, who decided that the USSR is even worse for the cause of the proletariat than the Capitalist States. The connections between the two are profound.
That says a lot about the people who are Neocons. They are willing to ally with the devil to achieve their goals. They do not really have principles, they do what it takes (which is one of the defining characteristics of fascism), examples being their hypocrisy in economics, foreign policy, the way they deal with non-democratic states and so on.

It's not that big a step from PNAC to Fascism as Mussolini defines it.

And remember, we are having a discussion about political theory, you shouldn't use the word "liberal" to mean anything but Classical Liberalism.

Exactly...and it doesnt matter what some old german guy thinks up in his head...its what is acted out from these thoughts. So far what have been acted out from the unique minds of our friends Karl and Benito, have had VERY similar results.
Yes, sadly anything can be perfect on paper but a mess in the real world. Although ideologically distinct, communism and fascism have very similar results when practically applied.

Exactly...and it doesnt matter what some old german guy thinks up in his head...its what is acted out from these thoughts. So far what have been acted out from the unique minds of our friends Karl and Benito, have had VERY similar results.
Not really actually.

I'd like to show me anything that goes beyond: "They were both oppressive governments!"

Italy had no death camps.
Italy had no class warfare.
Italy had no property being seized.
Italy had corporatism - the practice of getting big labour and big capital together and deciding in unison with the government as mediator.
Italy had religion as a mainstay of fascist leadership.
Italy was nationalist and patriotic.

Well, that depends on how you define "Conservative".

Fact of the matter is that Neo-Conservatism is a reaction of a bunch of anti-Soviet Communists, who decided that the USSR is even worse for the cause of the proletariat than the Capitalist States. The connections between the two are profound.
That says a lot about the people who are Neocons. They are willing to ally with the devil to achieve their goals. They do not really have principles, they do what it takes (which is one of the defining characteristics of fascism), examples being their hypocrisy in economics, foreign policy, the way they deal with non-democratic states and so on.

It's not that big a step from PNAC to Fascism as Mussolini defines it.

And remember, we are having a discussion about political theory, you shouldn't use the word "liberal" to mean anything but Classical Liberalism.

I have never, ever, ever, met any Neo-Cons that so much as even liked the ida of communism.

In my experience there are two people that are/support neo-cons:

1. The Religious right...neo-cons are heavily based on judeo-christian values and morals.

2. Capitalist (entrepreneurs, small business owners, large business owners) Neo-cons are very pro business and would like to see less taxation, and less regulation on business.

If you notice, those are the two things that are absent from Communism.

Not really actually.

I'd like to show me anything that goes beyond: "They were both oppressive governments!"

Italy had no death camps.
Italy had no class warfare.
Italy had no property being seized.
Italy had corporatism - the practice of getting big labour and big capital together and deciding in unison with the government as mediator.
Italy had religion as a mainstay of fascist leadership.
Italy was nationalist and patriotic.

Korea has no death camps....Cuba has no death camps....your just picking and choosing from the Soviet Union...there are other communist countries.

Point is....whatever communist country and whatever fascist country you are comparing are very similar.

None of the other nuclear powers have called for another nation to be wiped off the face of the planet, either.


I am sure Pakistan and India have said something resembling this in the past.

Korea has no death camps....Cuba has no death camps....your just picking and choosing from the Soviet Union...there are other communist countries.

Point is....whatever communist country and whatever fascist country you are comparing are very similar.
He is essaying to show that the Neo-con US and fascist Italy had very similar elements.

I have never, ever, ever, met any Neo-Cons that so much as even liked the ida of communism.
And how many of them have you met who actually care/understand the theoretical underpinnings of their ideology?

In my experience there are two people that are/support neo-cons:
1. The Religious right...neo-cons are heavily based on judeo-christian values and morals.
2. Capitalist (entrepreneurs, small business owners, large business owners) Neo-cons are very pro business and would like to see less taxation, and less regulation on business.
...sounds almost fascist, doesn't it?
Anti-Communism by all means, coupled with irrational appeals to religion and morality.
And the Capitalist thing fits perfectly. As I said, these people are ex-Leftists who decided they would back the American system rather than the Soviet one.

But we are both missing the point. You said you didn't know of any connection between NeoCons and Communists, we sorted that out.

My case is that NeoCons are more like Fascists.

Korea has no death camps....Cuba has no death camps....your just picking and choosing from the Soviet Union...there are other communist countries.

Point is....whatever communist country and whatever fascist country you are comparing are very similar.
Okay.
Scratch the death camps. Take all the other things.

Tell me which Communist Country is actually like Fascist Italy.

And how many of them have you met who actually care/understand the theoretical underpinnings of their ideology?


...sounds almost fascist, doesn't it?
Anti-Communism by all means, coupled with irrational appeals to religion and morality.
And the Capitalist thing fits perfectly. As I said, these people are ex-Leftists who decided they would back the American system rather than the Soviet one.

But we are both missing the point. You said you didn't know of any connection between NeoCons and Communists, we sorted that out.

My case is that NeoCons are more like Fascists.


Okay.
Scratch the death camps. Take all the other things.

Tell me which Communist Country is actually like Fascist Italy.

I dont see Fascism in here at all...I see no connect between religon/capitlist and nationalism/socialism.....

All the communist countries seem similar to all the fascist countries....those some are closer than other, obviously, because they are not all identical.

Like, Nazi Germany was closer to a USSR than Japan was.

No, my question is, why does the "West" (ie the USA) see it as its role in the world to say who can and who can't develop power? Why does it feel its okay to impose its ideals on the rest of the world?
1. Spreading Democracy is not "imposing" ideals---it's giving the people a choice they never had'
2. When a regime is completely bat-shit crazy, like the Iranian Mullahs are, then yes, it would be responsible to take them out. The President is not really important here---it's the Mullahs and their statements that terrify me. They are one of the world's main supporters of terrorism, and if they develop a nuke...

All the communist countries seem similar to all the fascist countries....those some are closer than other, obviously, because they are not all identical.
They "seem similar" how? I beg you, please answer my question.

Politically the countries used different methods to achieve different goals. The only real similarity is the dismissal of Individualism as unrealistic in the context of living in a large society. But again, they have different reasons for it, and they have different views on which people belong together in which ways.

Like, Nazi Germany was closer to a USSR than Japan was.
Nazi Germany was National Socialist, not Fascist. In fact, Japan was much more fascist than Germany.

1. Spreading Democracy is not "imposing" ideals---it's giving the people a choice they never had'
2. When a regime is completely bat-shit crazy, like the Iranian Mullahs are, then yes, it would be responsible to take them out. The President is not really important here---it's the Mullahs and their statements that terrify me. They are one of the world's main supporters of terrorism, and if they develop a nuke...
Why should the USA then assume it is the one to do so? And why, furthermore, should it assume that its brand of democracy is better than any other?

Why should the USA then assume it is the one to do so? And why, furthermore, should it assume that its brand of democracy is better than any other?
Ever heard of Spider Man?

"With great power comes great responsibility." We are the single most powerful nation on earth; if we don't do it, who will?

And I never said it has to be US-style democracy. The people of Iran will get to choose (if an invasion occurrs) their type of democracy. After all, Iraq, with its Parliament and Qu'aran infused Constitution certainly isn't "our brand of democracy".

Ever heard of Spider Man?

"With great power comes great responsibility." We are the single most powerful nation on earth; if we don't do it, who will?
Great, I'll take philosophy lessons from Spiderman :rolleyes:

In any case, ideally noone should be doing it. Nations should be seeking to mutually disarm, not building up ever stronger armaments.

The people of Iran will get to choose (if an invasion occurrs) their type of democracy.
They already have, for crying out loud.

Originally Posted by Armandian Cheese
The people of Iran will get to choose (if an invasion occurrs) their type of democracy.

They already have, for crying out loud.

They haven't chosen the correct one. <Said in deadly seriousness.>

"Democracy" is not the goal (contrary to popular rhetoric from ALL sides).

"Freedom" is the goal. They don't have freedom, and if they continue
threatening those who have freedom they (non-freedom-oriented
governments) will be replaced by force until they get it right.

-Iakeo

Yea. And Japan actually has a world domination plan ongoing: Think of it, they have dozens of Nuclear power plants (from which they can get enriched uraniun in weeks), they have a standing space program (those rockets can be used for ICBM's), they got tech. And worst of all, they got pokemons. They are going to conquer us all, I tell you! They are a threat! They are yellow, they aren't christian, they aren't human beings! NUKE! NUKE! NUKE!

PS: Heil Bush


PPS: Yes, I'm joking and I don't care if Iran has a bomb. Israel has them, it will balance things out a bit.

Yes, but Israel is not governed by a man that is devoted to paving the way for the return of the hidden Imam. He's even causing some of the Iranian clergy to blink. He stated video clip that when he addressed the UN that God held the world leaders in place and they did not blink for 27-28 minutes as they sat in rapt attention to his speech.

From a Telegraph article...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml

Its most remarkable manifestation came with Mr Ahmadinejad's international debut, his speech to the United Nations.

World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Teheran had restarted another part of its nuclear programme in August.

Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote "state terrorism", impose "the logic of the dark ages" and divide the world into "light and dark countries".

The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace".

In a video distributed by an Iranian web site in November, Mr Ahmadinejad described how one of his Iranian colleagues had claimed to have seen a glow of light around the president as he began his speech to the UN.

"I felt it myself too," Mr Ahmadinejad recounts. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink…It's not an exaggeration, because I was looking.

"They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

Great, I'll take philosophy lessons from Spiderman :rolleyes:

In any case, ideally noone should be doing it. Nations should be seeking to mutually disarm, not building up ever stronger armaments.

Haha, to be technical, it was Spider Man's uncle Ben.

And of course, in an ideal world, we should be trying to mutually disarm. But I see no rivers of milk and honey, and no dancing monkeys of peace, so I'd have to say we're going to have to stick with the real world.

Neo Leonstein: No, the Iranian Revolution was supported by most of the people who wanted to be rid of tyranny, but was hijacked by an oppressive minority who made things even worse. The majority of Iranians do not support the current government. (For example, the only reason the current one is in power is because people were tired of electing toothless Reformists and just went in to vote for somoene who promised economic reform)

"Democracy" is not the goal (contrary to popular rhetoric from ALL sides).
Democracy is the choice of the people regarding their leadership. Whatever comes out the end of it is okay by the people who voted.

The people of Iran had the choice between Ahmadinejad, a conservative who promised to tackle economic trouble and drug use, and a reformer in Rafsanjani.
They chose the former, much to my surprise. For me, that settles the issue - their government is legit, we have no business interfering, as long as Iran abides by the rules of international diplomacy.

The problem is that they haven't, and that is the only factor where I would argue that some sort of action needs to be taken. And personally I don't think any Holocaust Denier should enjoy any sort of position of power.

"Freedom" is the goal. They don't have freedom, and if they continue
threatening those who have freedom they (non-freedom-oriented
governments) will be replaced by force until they get it right.
Tell me, which freedoms are important, and which aren't?

All the Iranian government does is look over the "morality" of things. AFAIK you are okay to criticise the government as long as you do it "morally", you can do whatever you want as long as you act "morally", and you can run for office as long as you are "morally" acceptable.

Iran is little more than a country as the religious right wants it, no matter whether Islamic or Christian.

Freedom itself is open to interpretation. Iranian Clerics might argue that they try to guarantee people their place in heaven. They might argue that one is not really free if one doesn't live according to their religious rules.

The point with Iran is that it is not a dictatorship. The govermment is not forced upon the people. They, for whatever reason - beyond me, don't seem to mind their system all that much.
Who am I, thousands of kilometres away from Iran, to say that these people are making the wrong choice, and their concept of freedom is not as good as mine?

Live and let live, my friend.

Ever heard of Spider Man?

"With great power comes great responsibility." We are the single most powerful nation on earth; if we don't do it, who will?Told you...

Most of US get their cues from Hollywood...

sad we are.

Neo, the people of Iran chose the current fellow because they knew that their election of Reformers for the past several years has yielded nothing in terms of politics (the Mullahs blocked every reform), so they went with someone who at least promised economic reform.

However, the Iranian people do want freedom. There are significant dissident movements, (many of which boycotted the current elections because their candidates were not allowed to run) and most foreign press organizations estimate that most Iranian youths oppose the regime.

Told you...

Most of US get their cues from Hollywood...

sad we are.
Great way to dodge my point and take a cheap shot. -_-;

(Besides, most of Hollywood is liberal)

Neo Leonstein: No, the Iranian Revolution was supported by most of the people who wanted to be rid of tyranny, but was hijacked by an oppressive minority who made things even worse.
Well, it wasn't supported by the US.
And there could be arguments...the Shah's reign was not nice or fun. Most of the secret police, the punishments, the torture prisons and so on used by the Islamic Revolution were already there, built by the Shah.

Today I would think that modern Iran is a lot better than it was under the Shah for the everyday citizen. I'd actually like to visit some day.

The majority of Iranians do not support the current government. (For example, the only reason the current one is in power is because people were tired of electing toothless Reformists and just went in to vote for somoene who promised economic reform)
And he also promised all the things the Iranians don't support according to you.

Korea has no death camps....Cuba has no death camps....your just picking and choosing from the Soviet Union...there are other communist countries.

Point is....whatever communist country and whatever fascist country you are comparing are very similar.

North Korea may not have death camps in the Nazi sense of you arrive are processed and executed, but it certainly has camps where few come out alive. "At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, some 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former inmates say results in the death of 20 percent to 25 percent of the prison population every year." (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071466/)

http://www.hrnk.org/hiddengulag/toc.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html
http://www.nkfreedom.org/NKFactSheet.html

The world, she is not a pretty place when you look under her skirts.

Lord Jimbo
God-Emperor of Jimbolandistan

Neo, the people of Iran chose the current fellow because they knew that their election of Reformers for the past several years has yielded nothing in terms of politics (the Mullahs blocked every reform), so they went with someone who at least promised economic reform.
He was regressive socially. They decided to tolerate that.
They had the chance once again to make it clear to the Ayatollahs (Mullah is not the correct word, it could mean anything) that change was what they wanted. But instead they went with Ahmadinejad, whose views were pretty clear.

However, the Iranian people do want freedom. There are significant dissident movements, (many of which boycotted the current elections because their candidates were not allowed to run) and most foreign press organizations estimate that most Iranian youths oppose the regime.
Sure, but they haven't voted that way.
Hey, I know a number of Iranians who reckon the revolution was horrible (also turns out they all were rich before they fled...) and I think a good number of youths in Iran think similarly, although they probably like Mossadegh more than the Shah (as do I).
But fact of the matter is that they were not enough to get another moderate reformer into office. Once the old guard dies, these youths may change things as they want. That time is not yet.

And as I said, I don't think the West is in any sort of condition to decide these things...particularly seeing the stuff-ups that have happened before, also with regards to Iran.
And I can tell you one thing: The Iranians will not want to be liberated by foreigners. They are a proud and nationalist country. They kicked out the West, they kicked out the Iraqis. They see themselves as the heirs of the Persian Empire.

Our moralising is likely to be even less welcome than the Ayatollahs'.

Well, it wasn't supported by the US.
And there could be arguments...the Shah's reign was not nice or fun. Most of the secret police, the punishments, the torture prisons and so on used by the Islamic Revolution were already there, built by the Shah.

Today I would think that modern Iran is a lot better than it was under the Shah for the everyday citizen. I'd actually like to visit some day.


And he also promised all the things the Iranians don't support according to you.
Considering that Iranians have consistently elected reformers until the Mullahs began banning them, and that economic issues took center stage in the last election...

And the Islamic Revolution continues the oppression of the Shah but adds another layer of oppression in society. The Shah never really cared so much about social behaviours; the Islamists do. (The public interactions of females and males are strictly watched and controlled) The Shah turned education into his propaganda platform, but never controlled every aspect the way the Islamists do. (Anything vaguely offensive to Islam is viewed with extreme hostility)

North Korea may not have death camps in the Nazi sense of you arrive are processed and executed, but it certainly has camps where few come out alive. "At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, some 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former inmates say results in the death of 20 percent to 25 percent of the prison population every year." (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071466/)

http://www.hrnk.org/hiddengulag/toc.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html
http://www.nkfreedom.org/NKFactSheet.html

The world, she is not a pretty place when you look under her skirts.

Lord Jimbo
God-Emperor of Jimbolandistan
Oh it's far worse than that. If you've ever had to look at North Korea in depth, which I had to at one point last year, you'd be stunned at what people can be reduced to. The North Korean people are...brainwashed to say the least. When Kim Il-Sung (Jong-il's father) died, the people, including the reporters, literally balled their eyes out screaming "how can you have left us?! What are we going to do now?!". This is the same man who reduced their nation to absolute poverty, and left the majority of the nation on the brink of starvation with an incredibly low standard of living. How is this done? Easily. The government controls all access to media of all types, radio, television, you name it. Every TV broadcast is basically a hymn to the leader, every radio song preaching that the leader is Greatest Man whom Ever Lived, Whose Brilliance Outshines the Sun (these are things that are literally sung on N. Korean radio...and the people believe it). There was one report I read of a couple that fled into China (I believe looking for relatives) who refused to believe reports that North Korea started the Korean war, they'd been told all their lives it was the US that did it. The North Korean people are effectively slaves to Kim Jong-il, they don't have any semblance of a connection to reality. North Korea may be the most depressing example of what totalitarianism can do to people.

As for Iran: The key here is patience. Iran is suffering from the same thing that happened to the USSR: the circle of power has become so isolated, it's losing touch with the reality on the ground. Recently, when US reporters went into Iran, a pair of Revolutionary Guards (Irans elite defense force) told reporters that they "love America". This is of course the opposite of what you'd expect. The Iranians aren't as good as the North Koreans, they haven't been able to brainwash them the same way. It's the same problem China is facing now. When you're totalitarian, but don't go far enough, the people will eventually stop supporting you. Iran could very well face internal revolution in the next couple of decades (especially if the US were to help fuel the fire, especially if they did so through economic and political means, not military) if they aren't careful. We made the mistake in Iraq of doing the job ourselves in too little force, rather than trying to harness local groups and coordinate them. Iran may give us a chance to redeem ourselves, and show that extreme fundamentalist Islam doesn't work, just as extreme communism didn't work.

Pfft, at least the Iranians could give the real reason why they want nuclear power. I mean, at least Pakistan said it wanted the bomb because the Indians had it, and they weren't about to get out-n00ked. They didn't hide behind some silly wall of "The nuclear stuff is for power! Don't believe us, eh? Err...ummm... T3H H0l0HOAX R T3H FAXEEEE!"

most of Hollywood is liberalWhy dont you keep repeting that to yourself... "TheMediaisLaberal.. HollywoodisLiberal.. EverybodyisLiberal.. EverybodyHatesMe.. TheMediaisLaberal.. HollywoodisLiberal.. EverybodyisLiberal.. EverybodyHatesMe.. TheMediaisLaberal.. HollywoodisLiberal.. EverybodyisLiberal.. EverybodyHatesMe.. wah.. waah.."

Maybe you will end up believing your own BS :D :D :p :D

He was regressive socially. They decided to tolerate that.
They had the chance once again to make it clear to the Ayatollahs (Mullah is not the correct word, it could mean anything) that change was what they wanted. But instead they went with Ahmadinejad, whose views were pretty clear.


Sure, but they haven't voted that way.
Hey, I know a number of Iranians who reckon the revolution was horrible (also turns out they all were rich before they fled...) and I think a good number of youths in Iran think similarly, although they probably like Mossadegh more than the Shah (as do I).
But fact of the matter is that they were not enough to get another moderate reformer into office. Once the old guard dies, these youths may change things as they want. That time is not yet.

And as I said, I don't think the West is in any sort of condition to decide these things...particularly seeing the stuff-ups that have happened before, also with regards to Iran.
And I can tell you one thing: The Iranians will not want to be liberated by foreigners. They are a proud and nationalist country. They kicked out the West, they kicked out the Iraqis. They see themselves as the heirs of the Persian Empire.

Our moralising is likely to be even less welcome than the Ayatollahs'.
The Iranian people had been sending "messages" to the Ayatollahs for years, and nothing happened. I think they saw the writing on the wall and, given the choice between a reformer with poor economics who wouldn't achieve anything, and a conservative who would maintain the status quo politically but achieve economic reform, went with the one who would make some change.

Several reformist groups finally decided to stop running without purpose and boycotted the election, too.

As for a US invasion, yes, I think it would initially spark an anti-US nationalist backlash. That's why it has to be done carefully, letting local groups take the lead in Iran in a way similiar to the one we utilized in Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance. (Also, we need to form a broad based coalition)

Why dont you keep repeting that to yourself... "TheMediaisLaberal.. HollywoodisLiberal.. EverybodyisLiberal.. EverybodyHatesMe.. TheMediaisLaberal.. HollywoodisLiberal.. EverybodyisLiberal.. EverybodyHatesMe.. TheMediaisLaberal.. HollywoodisLiberal.. EverybodyisLiberal.. EverybodyHatesMe.. wah.. waah.."

Maybe you will end up believing your own BS :D :D :p :D
Public opinion polls don't lie. (At least not time and time again)

The Iranian people had been sending "messages" to the Ayatollahs for years, and nothing happened. I think they saw the writing on the wall and, given the choice between a reformer with poor economics who wouldn't achieve anything, and a conservative who would maintain the status quo politically but achieve economic reform, went with the one who would make some change.

Several reformist groups finally decided to stop running without purpose and boycotted the election, too.

As for a US invasion, yes, I think it would initially spark an anti-US nationalist backlash. That's why it has to be done carefully, letting local groups take the lead in Iran in a way similiar to the one we utilized in Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance. (Also, we need to form a broad based coalition)

Get the Shi'ites in Iraq to help. And the Kurds. Not the sunnis, though; Iranians don't like them much.

Iran could very well face internal revolution in the next couple of decades (especially if the US were to help fuel the fire, especially if they did so through economic and political means, not military) if they aren't careful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Iran may give us a chance to redeem ourselves, and show that extreme fundamentalist Islam doesn't work, just as extreme communism didn't work.
Hardly the same thing though. Religion doesn't need to work for people to support it.
And besides, Communism made economies collapse as they got more advanced. Islamism didn't. In fact, the only economic thing Islam really says is that you can't charge interests, but they get around that by using a different way to give out loans. Works in the Emirates.

Get the Shi'ites in Iraq to help.
Given the choice between the US and the Shi'ites in Iran, they'd choose the latter.

The Iranian people had been sending "messages" to the Ayatollahs for years, and nothing happened.
Patience. You must be joking if you are going to tell me that things haven't gotten more moderate since the time of the Revolution.

I think they saw the writing on the wall and, given the choice between a reformer with poor economics who wouldn't achieve anything, and a conservative who would maintain the status quo politically but achieve economic reform, went with the one who would make some change.
What change though? It wasn't like Ahmadinejad had a coherent economic program that would promote freedom.

Several reformist groups finally decided to stop running without purpose and boycotted the election, too.
Well, you are right. Of course I would like freer elections in Iran...but I'm not ready to make that a reason for killing tens of thousands of people.
There was the choice between a conservative and a reformer, however toothless you might consider him (his rhetoric on nukes by the way isn't different from Ahmadinejad's). There were other reformers on the first list.
The people made this choice, even though I may disagree with it, I have to respect it. Iran is not my country, and it ultimately has to be their business who leads their country.

As for a US invasion, yes, I think it would initially spark an anti-US nationalist backlash. That's why it has to be done carefully, letting local groups take the lead in Iran in a way similiar to the one we utilized in Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance. (Also, we need to form a broad based coalition)
Well, the Northern Alliance was a lucky find but rather unique to Afghanistan, because the place had already been at civil war for decades.
In Iran you wouldn't find such a place. Either you attack them properly, and that will be the biggest war since...well, ages, or you don't.
I'm not a fan of just attacking nuclear sites either. Even if you did the damage, the Iranians would retaliate and you can kiss the future of the Iraqi people goodbye.

You know, I remember in grade school if you teased someone alot it usually meant you liked em. Maybe Iran has the same thing going with Israel? They just keep pushing it further and acting like a total jerk because it's easier to do that then to come out and say "I love you".

Or, the theocracy they have going on there could just be spewing out the same old rhetoric to try and keep their citizenry (and even reformists/moderates in the government) in check in an oncreasingly desperate bid to maintain absolute control.

I mean, even if the US didn't intervene (which I strongly think is the right decision), I doubt that Iran in its current form would last more then another half-century.

And besides, it's always fun to look down upon others who repress and mutilate the hearts and minds of their own people via their society even more so than our own. Because it's a mad world, a sad world.

I read something about a movie about a comedian looking for what humor the Islamic world has in one of the little uber-local newspapers.

That's something I'm amazed I haven't pondered and investigated before...

In which case the US is getting a wake-up call from the Iranians in Iraq, which is hardly what we should hope for.
I hope the Israelis can hold themselves back until the EU, US and maybe even UN have done their stuff and we can act multilaterally.

And by the way...all Iran is doing now is research into how a proper full enrichment program would work. They don't have enough centrifuges to do anything, they can't produce their own fuel at the moment.
It will take another ten years for them to build a bomb, or so says the CIA.

It's an issue of Iran not working together with its partners on the world stage rather than an issue of nukes.

Hey, if Iran wants to have its military destroyed in a matter of days by the US Military then I have no problem with that.

Hey, if Iran wants to have its military destroyed in a matter of days by the US Military then I have no problem with that.
Okay...first up: Overestimating oneself or underestimating the enemy is not a good idea.

Here's how I think it could happen:

Israel bombs Nuclear Sites...secret nuclear sites for military purposes remain intact, bombed civilian and research sites rebuilt in a few months.

Iran claims US to be responsible, also starts firing missiles at Israel, some of which get shot down, others do damage. No ABC-Weapons involved yet.

Iran also attacks US Forces in Iraq, takes Basra by storm, fires hundreds of missiles at Coalition Positions, uses Shi'ite Militias to attack Coalition and lobs several dozen Silkworm Missiles at Coalition Fleet. Maybe even those Sunburns they have.

US Forces somewhat taken by surprise need to reform, large contingent in Iraq little more than National Guard. Begins with air strikes at Iranian targets, while reforming troops in Iraq.

Iraq a ruin now with Shi'ites also fighting Sunnis, and the Kurds declaring neutrality - de facto independence. Everything in terms of democracy and rebuilding is lost, and oil suddenly costs $150.

Eventually US Forces strike back, driving Iranians back home - then still have to win a war in Iran, which drafts millions.

And so on.

Iraq was easy - Iran is not nearly as simple to take on. They couldn't actually win a war, but if there is no time for the West to prepare (and there won't be either way, Iran said "preemptive strikes are not an American monopoly), they can do a lot of damage to Iraq.

Huh? No.

1) Yes, yes the US has. So what? The US has not claimed ANY territory via warfare in over 100 years. Further, invading and CALLING FOR THE TOTAL EXTINCTION of another nation are two very different things. Someday the US will no longer occupy Iraq, in the same way the US no longer occupies Italy, Germany, Japan, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, or South Korea.
(And before anyone gets huffy: having bases in those nations is NOT occupation.)
Define extinction of a nation, Iran claims that the setting up of Israel on Palestinian land was wrong, and they have a good point. I could argue simpy that wiping the nation of the map is meant in a literal sense, not bombing it out of existence, but the abolition of Israel, and the setting up of Palestine. To a certain extent I agree with them, I don't think Israel should have been set up, and I think it shouldn't exist, doesn't mean I'm advocating nuking it out of existence.

And who are the US to set the rules on what weapons countries can and can't have? A policeman is given his authority by an elected government behind him. The justification "with great power comes great responsibility" is effectively the same as "I'm the strongest, so what I say goes".

There's also the democratic paradox, what if the majority of people doesn't want democracy, the act of having democracy would defy the principle of self-determination, which is the basis of democracy.

You know, I remember in grade school if you teased someone alot it usually meant you liked em. Maybe Iran has the same thing going with Israel? They just keep pushing it further and acting like a total jerk because it's easier to do that then to come out and say "I love you".

Or, the theocracy they have going on there could just be spewing out the same old rhetoric to try and keep their citizenry (and even reformists/moderates in the government) in check in an oncreasingly desperate bid to maintain absolute control.

I mean, even if the US didn't intervene (which I strongly think is the right decision), I doubt that Iran in its current form would last more then another half-century.
Very funny

They haven't chosen the correct one. <Said in deadly seriousness.>

"Democracy" is not the goal (contrary to popular rhetoric from ALL sides).

"Freedom" is the goal. They don't have freedom, and if they continue
threatening those who have freedom they (non-freedom-oriented
governments) will be replaced by force until they get it right.

-Iakeo
Ergo, the US brand of democracy. :rolleyes:

Well, you are right. Of course I would like freer elections in Iran...but I'm not ready to make that a reason for killing tens of thousands of people.
There was the choice between a conservative and a reformer, however toothless you might consider him (his rhetoric on nukes by the way isn't different from Ahmadinejad's). There were other reformers on the first list.
The people made this choice, even though I may disagree with it, I have to respect it. Iran is not my country, and it ultimately has to be their business who leads their country.
Thank you. Finally a voice of reason. Its not my country, ergo its not my business who leads it. The only reason I would see for invading Iran is if it develops nuclear capacity and actively threatens nearby nations. And I am referring to more than just rhetoric and patriotic speech. If Iran's nuclear armaments of such concern, which I believe they may be to the EU (and perhaps even Russia, if it drops its support), then we should exhaust all avenues of diplomacy and economic means first. The US has no right to simply invade the nation otherwise. And this time, if it is done, it should not be done without the UN's approval. I believe the UN will approve such an invasion if the EU, Russia and the USA all agree that they have done all that they could and now war is necessary.

Oh it's far worse than that. If you've ever had to look at North Korea in depth, which I had to at one point last year, you'd be stunned at what people can be reduced to. The North Korean people are...brainwashed to say the least. When Kim Il-Sung (Jong-il's father) died, the people, including the reporters, literally balled their eyes out screaming "how can you have left us?! What are we going to do now?!". This is the same man who reduced their nation to absolute poverty, and left the majority of the nation on the brink of starvation with an incredibly low standard of living. How is this done? Easily. The government controls all access to media of all types, radio, television, you name it. Every TV broadcast is basically a hymn to the leader, every radio song preaching that the leader is Greatest Man whom Ever Lived, Whose Brilliance Outshines the Sun (these are things that are literally sung on N. Korean radio...and the people believe it). There was one report I read of a couple that fled into China (I believe looking for relatives) who refused to believe reports that North Korea started the Korean war, they'd been told all their lives it was the US that did it. The North Korean people are effectively slaves to Kim Jong-il, they don't have any semblance of a connection to reality. North Korea may be the most depressing example of what totalitarianism can do to people.
That sounds an awful lot like what both Hitler and Stalin did. Both of them helped their nations rise from poverty of course, yet both deprived their citizens of most of their freedoms, both brainwashed via the media, both deified themselves...people actually came to see them as Messiahs. There was this song, the Ode to Stalin, with lyrics like "Stalin, you are the one who makes the flowers grow." I am sure Goebbels orchestrated very similar propaganda for Hitler.

... OK then, I guess Israel destroying the nuclear facilities in Iran (1981) didn't really happen either. Their existence is in question too, I guess, right?

While we're getting all philosophosicamamal and using large words out of context, we should take a moment to realize that there is some merit to what you're saying:

"Live in the moment."

You know, I actually respect that and live my personal life by it. Too bad you can't live in the moment if you're dead though. Iran's making nukes... and Israel can easily destroy the sites.

You mean IRAQ .. Osiraq ... I said conventionally.. I still don't think their airforce has the range.. they have a bunch of bombs.. but they would have to target nuclear active sites... Tehran.. such as the university and civilian research locations... THAT ain't gonna happen.

If it does Israel would be an incredible war criminal. Nothing is illegal with nuclear research.

Iran didn't agree with nuclear research until recently, they were agianst it.

huh somehow nukes only require the president where are you from exactly?

no that sentence does say Japan knows what weapon to use

I'm from Connecticut. And it might behoove you to know that every President since JFK has had the "football" and is rarely more than 10 feet away from it. Believe it or not, the President does NOT have to ask Congress for authorization to launch nukes.

Sorry, you're still not being clear. Do you mean that having been nuked, the Japanese would know to USE nukes in future combat? Great idea, barring the minor details that a) they don't have any and b) their Constitution bans offensive warfare.

I meant that Japan currently is a para-nuclear nation able to deploy a nuke in months, and no one complains about that.

And Rethoric is a funny thing, that Iranians use alot. But tell me, how many agressive wars, hell, how many agressive military operations have the Iranians engaged since 79? Historically, Iran has been one of the most peaceful nations in that region, alot more peaceful than Israel, and god forbid, the US. You too should pay attention to your history classes.

So is Canada and about 20 other countries. However, it still stands that virtually none of them (unlike Iran) is calling for genocide.

No, Iran has not engaged in direct offensive warfare. And that means they should have the bomb why? The Weimar Republic also never waged offensive war. Nor had the US before the Spanish American War. If Iran attacks the new Afghanistan in 5 years, will that change your mind suddenly??
By your logic, would you give the bomb to the Nazis in 1937??

30 years of non-agressive warfare doesn't impress me. A theocracy that calls one of the ugliest pieces of human history (read: holocaust) to be fiction and for a REAL one to occur does.

None of the other nuclear powers have called for another nation to be wiped off the face of the planet, either.
I am sure Pakistan and India have said something resembling this in the past.

They've fought three wars since Lord Mountbatten left, yep.
However, I don't recall either of them calling for genocide or that the other should be wiped off the map. If someone can post a link to the contrary, please let me know as I'd be interested to read it.

Define extinction of a nation, Iran claims that the setting up of Israel on Palestinian land was wrong, and they have a good point. I could argue simpy that wiping the nation of the map is meant in a literal sense, not bombing it out of existence, but the abolition of Israel, and the setting up of Palestine. To a certain extent I agree with them, I don't think Israel should have been set up, and I think it shouldn't exist, doesn't mean I'm advocating nuking it out of existence.

Ah, but the Iranians do. Suppose Iran attacks Israel. What do you expect? That they're going to charter boats to ship the entire Israeli population to Brighton Beach in NY?? No, I think we could safely expect the normal "liquidation of the endemic population" that we've seen so brilliantly illustrated in Jugoslavia, Sudan, Thailand, Zaire and just about everywhere ELSE the UN has failed to act. Which is, btw, just about everywhere.

And who are the US to set the rules on what weapons countries can and can't have? A policeman is given his authority by an elected government behind him. The justification "with great power comes great responsibility" is effectively the same as "I'm the strongest, so what I say goes".

We're not. The UN is. And the UN is being ignored by Iran. It's talking sanctions, which is a joke and just futher shows how ineffectual it is.
Somehow this thread is bent on unilateral American action. IMHO that's not going to happen. I think that (for once) Bush is being a foreign policy genius: let the UN be proved a joke by Iran and show how flawed and detrimental the policy of appeasement is.

As for the Spiderman thing, that's not me. However, yes, historically speaking the strongest sets the tone. You'll note that we just don't hear much from the Thracians these days, nor is Palau a real consideration in global politics.

There's also the democratic paradox, what if the majority of people doesn't want democracy, the act of having democracy would defy the principle of self-determination, which is the basis of democracy.

Ah! Now *that* is an excellent point. If you haven't already, I highly recommend Barbara Tuchman's book "The March of Folly". Great read, but it makes that very point in regards to the US policy in Viet Nam as well as the chapter about the American Revolution from the British perspective. (The POV of Pitt was very well done, IMHO.)

So is Canada and about 20 other countries. However, it still stands that virtually none of them (unlike Iran) is calling for genocide.

No, Iran has not engaged in direct offensive warfare. And that means they should have the bomb why? The Weimar Republic also never waged offensive war. Nor had the US before the Spanish American War.

Are you forgetting the Indians, the US was called Britain before that..

Ah, but the Iranians do. Suppose Iran attacks Israel.

Suppose the moon turns to cheese and a giant mouse tries to eat it, only to get thristy looking to earth?


"Brighton Beach in NY?? " Atleast they'll have family there then maybe they can start in a new world and forget the past brutal warfare and live happily ever after.. if only the israeli's got baha california in 1948. The world would be radially different. Surfers rather then suicide bombs.. I got to remember that if I ever time travel and do acid to check out that alternative timeline.



Iran ain't ignoring the UN they are telling them, well we are doing this.. and we are doing this, cause you are going to fk us anyway.


"Bush is being a foreign policy genius"
and what pretel is the goal of this genius? Because obviously it is above my head.. heh.

"nor is Palau a real consideration in global politics"

heh.

your funny.

Ah, but the Iranians do. Suppose Iran attacks Israel.

Suppose the moon turns to cheese and a giant mouse tries to eat it, only to get thristy looking to earth?


"Brighton Beach in NY?? " Atleast they'll have family there then maybe they can start in a new world and forget the past brutal warfare and live happily ever after.. if only the israeli's got baha california in 1948. The world would be radially different. Surfers rather then suicide bombs.. I got to remember that if I ever time travel and do acid to check out that alternative timeline.



Iran ain't ignoring the UN they are telling them, well we are doing this.. and we are doing this, cause you are going to fk us anyway.


"Bush is being a foreign policy genius"
and what pretel is the goal of this genius? Because obviously it is above my head.. heh.

"nor is Palau a real consideration in global politics"

heh.

your funny.

Dude, stop necroposting.

Dude, stop necroposting.

or what I'll be banned for you being a pushy jerk, dude.

or what I'll be banned for you being a pushy jerk, dude.

It's just bad manners.

It was only a few days old.