NationStates Jolt Archive

"...we don't see a peaceful future with the Iranians developing a nuclear weapon," Bush said.

(http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Am0EHjNlX2xTi6eflLUkvPfb4bAF/SIG=12n1m3fgj/**http%3a//uk.news.yahoo.com/05012007/325/bush-peace-iran-developing-nuclear-arms.html)

That's unequivocal. He is saying, "We want to go to war if they get the same guns as us." Who will stop these people? Rise up gentle Amerikafolk. Soon. Please.

Oh. And happy new year.

I agree, this world is far too peaceful. We need more war, as soon as possible.

Iran’s developing nuclear weapons :confused:

"...we don't see a peaceful future with the Iranians developing a nuclear weapon," Bush said.

(http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Am0EHjNlX2xTi6eflLUkvPfb4bAF/SIG=12n1m3fgj/**http%3a//uk.news.yahoo.com/05012007/325/bush-peace-iran-developing-nuclear-arms.html)

That's unequivocal. He is saying, "We want to go to war if they get the same guns as us." Who will stop these people? Rise up gentle Amerikafolk. Soon. Please.


Don't worry. We will "stop these people."

A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket and the Tehran moolah-cracy, that is :D

And if you think it's OK for crazed religious fanatics who have openly declared their intention to wipe out Israel to possess nuclear weapons simply because we do, then you need to actually think seriously about the issue rather than merely quack out trendy Americaphobic slogans.

Don't worry. We will "stop these people."

A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket and the Tehran moolah-cracy, that is :D

And if you think it's OK for crazed religious fanatics who have openly declared their intention to wipe out Israel to possess nuclear weapons simply because we do, then you need to actually think seriously about the issue rather than merely quack out trendy Americaphobic slogans.

Newsflash: Israel has its own nuclear weapons. If we remember that Mutually Assured Destruction does work most of the time, Iran developing nukes may actually make the possiblity of nuclear war less likely, because the resulting nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran will make everybody lose.

Newsflash: Israel has its own nuclear weapons. If we remember that Mutually Assured Destruction does work most of the time, Iran developing nukes may actually make the possiblity of nuclear war less likely, because the resulting nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran will make everybody lose.

The problem is, there are nuts in Iran that don't care; they're willing to do that to fulfill their twisted theology. Apocalyptic beliefs and all that...

The problem is, there are nuts in Iran that don't care; they're willing to do that to fulfill their twisted theology. Apocalyptic beliefs and all that...

And we have people like that in the White House. Still haven't used nuclear weaponry.

And we have people like that in the White House. Still haven't used nuclear weaponry.

Yet.

And we have people like that in the White House. Still haven't used nuclear weaponry.

Yeah, but it's a lot harder to launch a nuke in the US than it would be in Iran. It's not like we have a cabal of fundamentalist clerics running the show that could start Doomsday with a single command.

Also: Yet

Yeah, but it's a lot harder to launch a nuke in the US than it would be in Iran. It's not like we have a cabal of fundamentalist clerics running the show that could start Doomsday with a single command.

Yeah, ours don't have any training as religious leaders.

The problem is, there are nuts in Iran that don't care; they're willing to do that to fulfill their twisted theology. Apocalyptic beliefs and all that...
I’m surprised at you Vetalia. You’re usually reasonable. No one in any position of authority actually believes that stuff; they just use it to maintain power.
No one could possibly reach their position while being that stupid.

Newsflash: Israel has its own nuclear weapons. If we remember that Mutually Assured Destruction does work most of the time, Iran developing nukes may actually make the possiblity of nuclear war less likely, because the resulting nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran will make everybody lose.

Yeah well Israel also dosent go around shouting that they are going to wipe arabs of the face of the earth.

Yeah well Israel also dosent go around shouting that they are going to wipe arabs of the face of the earth.
No, but unlike Iran, they regularly demonstrate disregard for civilian casualties in war, a perquisite to the use of nuclear weaponry.

No, but unlike Iran, they regularly demonstrate disregard for civilian casualties in war, a perquisite to the use of nuclear weaponry.

Do you honestly think that Iran is or will be any different?

Do you honestly think that Iran is or will be any different?
When was the last time Iran itself started an open shooting war with another country? I'm thinking mid-18th century.

I don't see what the problem is. Do you really think they'd launch nukes anyway?

Well considering that Iran President thinks that the Muslim Messiah, and Jesus (as the Muslim Messiah's helper) will come in the Spring time, and that the Iran President thinks that Allah put him on Earth to user in the end of the world, well yea, I think that would be cause for concern.

And we have people like that in the White House.

No, we don't.

Listen carefully, then repeat: No, we don't.

No, we don't.

Listen carefully, then repeat: No, we don't.

What a convincing argument, especially with Dub- loony bin "God speaks to me!" -ya.

What a convincing argument, especially with Dub- loony bin "God speaks to me!" -ya.

and Mr. Allah chose me to user in the end of the world so that the Muslim Messiah may come is any better?

No, but unlike Iran, they regularly demonstrate disregard for civilian casualties in war, a perquisite to the use of nuclear weaponry.

Oh, cry me a river. Israel's civilian population is constantly and deliberately targeted by rocket attacks by Hezbollah and the so-called Palestinians, who also deliberately (and in violation of international law) hide among their own civilians (who may or may not be "innocent" civilians at that).

If Israel's enemies want to see a reduction in "civilian casualties", they can damn well relocate their military assets out of civilian areas. Otherwise, they and they alone are responsible for the consequences.

And getting back to the main topic, if you think Iran is likely to give a rat's ass about "civilian casualties," I know of a bridge you might be interested in buying.

There will be no war against Iran; the war in Iraq was too much of a catastrophic failure. As such, statements such as these merely strengthen, for obvious reasons, the desire of Iran to attain nuclear weaponry.

There will be no war against Iran; the war in Iraq was too much of a catastrophic failure. As such, statements such as these merely strengthen, for obvious reasons, the desire of Iran to attain nuclear weaponry.

However, if Iran is stupid enough to send a nuclear missile over to Israel. and Mr. I was chosen to bring the end of the world is probably that stupid. You can bet your bottom dollar that Iran will be turned into a parking lot 100 times over.

I think Iran is portrayed to be a lot more insane than it actually is. Ahmadinejad is a nutjob, but he is the democratically elected leader, with not much actual power. The real power lies with the Mullahs, Mullahs who really would not like to see Tehran turned into a smoking crater.

I think Iran is portrayed to be a lot more insane than it actually is. Ahmadinejad is a nutjob, but he is the democratically elected leader, with not much actual power. The real power lies with the Mullahs, Mullahs who really would not like to see Tehran turned into a smoking crater.

Yea, but if Mr. Ahmadinejad really do think he is to user in the end of the world, then I doubt he's going to allow Mullahs to stop him from fulfilling his destiny.

Yea, but if Mr. Ahmadinejad really do think he is to user in the end of the world, then I doubt he's going to allow Mullahs to stop him from fulfilling his destiny.

I believe the Iranian Military could solve that problem. :rolleyes:

we do need a war, but not with terrorists, or insurgents who hide among civilians. it gets too messy. we need a war like WWII, where the other side is doing something so evil that no one but the most hardcore nutjobs would argue about it. and we need real battles to keep the populace interested, cuz generally speaking the american public is like a kid with ADD, we will focus on something fully for a little bit, but if we dont get anything new out of it we have moved on faster than u can blink.
as for Iran getting nukes, i hope they dont, but they probably will, we cant stop them, and if we try to go in and take the nukes away, well lets just say they have a whoooole lotta desert to hide the nukes in, and we dont really have THAT many troops. or the funds.

When Mr.However-you-spell-the-Iranian-President's-name gets nukes, he will realize that no matter who he uses them on, he will die.
I don't really think he has a death wish, so he's gonna keep his nukes far away from anyone who cares.

The problem is, there are nuts in Iran that don't care; they're willing to do that to fulfill their twisted theology. Apocalyptic beliefs and all that...

Who says that it's a twisted theology? Are those that believe in it twisted then?

That's unequivocal. He is saying, "We want to go to war if they get the same guns as us." Who will stop these people? Rise up gentle Amerikafolk. Soon. Please.

"c" and "k" are pretty far apart on the keyboard.

Ask a favor of people, and insult them in the same breath...are you taking lessons from Dubya?

I believe the Iranian Military could solve that problem.

But who would the military be more likely to follow in such a situation? The President, or the Mullahs??

But who would the military be more likely to follow in such a situation? The President, or the Mullahs??

The Mullahs are very well established and wield a lot of power and influence, if they believed ahmadinejad was capable of a military coup, he would be removed.

Oh, cry me a river. Israel's civilian population is constantly and deliberately targeted by rocket attacks by Hezbollah and the so-called Palestinians, who also deliberately (and in violation of international law) hide among their own civilians (who may or may not be "innocent" civilians at that).

If Israel's enemies want to see a reduction in "civilian casualties", they can damn well relocate their military assets out of civilian areas. Otherwise, they and they alone are responsible for the consequences.

And getting back to the main topic, if you think Iran is likely to give a rat's ass about "civilian casualties," I know of a bridge you might be interested in buying.

Does the river of tears go under the bridge you're selling?

What a convincing argument, especially with Dub- loony bin "God speaks to me!" -ya.

Bush the lesser is a fool, a failure, and fuckup, but he isn't psychotic. The insurgency in Iraq could have been pretty easily dealt with by bringing even a small nuke into the theatre (what else would the international community do, we'd already shown a complete disregard for international will and no one really cared enough to do anything more than whine), but no one even seriously brought it up because everyone knew it was madness. I'm not so sure heads are so level (or protocols so strict) in Iran.

Bush the lesser is a fool, a failure, and fuckup, but he isn't psychotic. The insurgency in Iraq could have been pretty easily dealt with by bringing even a small nuke into the theatre (what else would the international community do, we'd already shown a complete disregard for international will and no one really cared enough to do anything more than whine), but no one even seriously brought it up because everyone knew it was madness. I'm not so sure heads are so level (or protocols so strict) in Iran.

Uh, mass murder is a big step above ignoring international will.

And I expect that somebody, somewhere, would get itchy-button-finger syndrome. Also, it's inconvenient for the entire world to hate your guts, much moreso than it is for half or three quarters of the world to hate your guts.

On to the topic, though. A war like WWII would be sweet. I nominate Brazil. Get to being evil, Brazil. Chop chop!

And I expect that somebody, somewhere, would get itchy-button-finger syndrome. Also, it's inconvenient for the entire world to hate your guts, much moreso than it is for half or three quarters of the world to hate your guts.

On to the topic, though. A war like WWII would be sweet. I nominate Brazil. Get to being evil, Brazil. Chop chop!

if, by chop chop, you mean the Amazon, Brazil's been at it for decades already

And I expect that somebody, somewhere, would get itchy-button-finger syndrome. Also, it's inconvenient for the entire world to hate your guts, much moreso than it is for half or three quarters of the world to hate your guts.

On to the topic, though. A war like WWII would be sweet. I nominate Brazil. Get to being evil, Brazil. Chop chop!

Don't touch it! It's the history eraser button, you fool!
http://ourworld.cs.com/WeezelX/rs/madness.html

War is not a problem in this world.

Greed, hatred, and delusion are problems in this world. These three already made many nations to go to war against each others for natural resources, ideology, religion, etc.

Ppl have to discover their spirituality first before they decide who holds the truth. :D

In response to the OP:

1)We're trying to stop nuclear proliferation, not... er, proliferate it
2)Two major programs to stop this:

Megatons to Megawatts
SALT talks

as far as our weapons go. honestly, you cant just say "oh, since we have them, why isnt okay for them?"

Well considering that Iran President thinks that the Muslim Messiah, and Jesus (as the Muslim Messiah's helper) will come in the Spring time, and that the Iran President thinks that Allah put him on Earth to user in the end of the world, well yea, I think that would be cause for concern.

Contrary to popular belief, Ahmadinejad does not control Iran. He's not the top of the government. And after the latest elections, his authority may be further limited by reformists.

Iran doesn't give a fuck if it loses civilians in a war. Just look at how they used 10 year olds as minesweepers.

Israel doesn't have a large nuclear arsenal. They would gladly lose half of their population if it meant Israel didn't exist.

I think Iran is portrayed to be a lot more insane than it actually is. Ahmadinejad is a nutjob, but he is the democratically elected leader, with not much actual power. The real power lies with the Mullahs, Mullahs who really would not like to see Tehran turned into a smoking crater.

How can you call Iran's elections democratic when opposing parties are banned from the balots? Go get a clue

Yeah, but it's a lot harder to launch a nuke in the US than it would be in Iran. It's not like we have a cabal of fundamentalist clerics running the show that could start Doomsday with a single command.

Also: Yet

But, yes, they are fundamentalist clerics! It's just that their religion is capitalism....

As far as I am concerned I think all nuclear weapons should be destroyed and a worldwide ban placed on manufacturing new ones. No one should have them ... including the United States.

What about North Korea? Looks like they are more worried about islam, and not communism.

North Korea is just as dangerous as Iran. The way Kim treats his own people should be proof enough of his views on other peoples rights.


Check this out ... CIA Factbook / North Korea:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html

Newsflash: Israel has its own nuclear weapons. If we remember that Mutually Assured Destruction does work most of the time, Iran developing nukes may actually make the possiblity of nuclear war less likely, because the resulting nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran will make everybody lose.

Got a cited source that Israel's got 'em? And why would Israel use them in the first place...considering all the instances in the past when the use of such weapons would have been far more beneficial, the close proximity and near-certain suicide using nukes in the region notwithstanding?

Got a cited source that Israel's got 'em? And why would Israel use them in the first place...considering all the instances in the past when the use of such weapons would have been far more beneficial, the close proximity and near-certain suicide using nukes in the region notwithstanding?

Here we go:

Can you see that is the same level when you are aspiring to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia?

From the Prime Minister of Israel, no less.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3338783,00.html

And that not counting other tantalising titbits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center).

There will be no war against Iran; the war in Iraq was too much of a catastrophic failure. As such, statements such as these merely strengthen, for obvious reasons, the desire of Iran to attain nuclear weaponry.

Yes. It's also our failure there that has emboldened Iran. We're not in Iraq, Iran has no nuclear program.

Here we go:



From the Prime Minister of Israel, no less.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3338783,00.html

And that not counting other tantalising titbits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center).

Ha! That's hilarious! No, I'm not laughing at you, I think it's tremendously entertaining that for Israel to have so long neither confirmed not denied that it may or may not have nuclear weapons...now has to deal with it's own prime minister uttering a de facto confirmation.

All right, you've got a point. As for the rest, it is commonly assumed that Israel possesses nukes, and I for one believe they do, but it's difficult to make an assertion without an outright confirmation, either by Israel, ally or a legitimate multinational organization (the IAEA, for one). That was, as is probably already determined, the point of my previous post.

(http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Am0EHjNlX2xTi6eflLUkvPfb4bAF/SIG=12n1m3fgj/**http%3a//uk.news.yahoo.com/05012007/325/bush-peace-iran-developing-nuclear-arms.html)

That's unequivocal. He is saying, "We want to go to war if they get the same guns as us." Who will stop these people? Rise up gentle Amerikafolk. Soon. Please.

Actually, he's saying that he doesnt see peace in the Middle East happening if Iran has nuclear weapons. It doenst nessecarly mean that its the Americans fighting said war. It could just mean he suspects the Iranians or the Syrians or any number of others to make the region even less peaceful in the future

One abbreviation: MAD.

Got a cited source that Israel's got 'em? And why would Israel use them in the first place...considering all the instances in the past when the use of such weapons would have been far more beneficial, the close proximity and near-certain suicide using nukes in the region notwithstanding?

I think its better for two states to have nukes and be at each other's throats than for just one to have them. Like Burmesia said, it is widely known in FP circles that Israel has had nuclear weapons for a long time. Having two states have them is preferablle to just one state having them, but I think that it would be better if neither state have them.

The problem is, there are nuts in Iran that don't care; they're willing to do that to fulfill their twisted theology. Apocalyptic beliefs and all that...
YEAH

thats why Iran has started a war with absolutely ummm
ummmm

well no one in its modern history

because they are just so INSANE

Excuse me for coming in late, but all this talk of weapons of mass destruction and apocalyptic beliefs make me wonder what it is that is truly going on. By this, I mean that some believe that this race for "who has the most guns" is going to put people at a halt simply because if this person and that person has these weapons then they won't use it because the other person will go right around and use them as a counterattack, but that may not be so. Those of you who also see that there are those who don't care are also right for the fact that there are many of those who do not truly understand the ramifications of what their actions will do, but rather what they hope their actions will do. It would seem that no one in this struggle has one true sight of what it is that they are doing.

and Mr. Allah chose me to user in the end of the world so that the Muslim Messiah may come is any better?

No but it does invalidate Mitanni's claim that we don't have a whackjob running our country.

I think its better for two states to have nukes and be at each other's throats than for just one to have them. Like Burmesia said, it is widely known in FP circles that Israel has had nuclear weapons for a long time. Having two states have them is preferablle to just one state having them, but I think that it would be better if neither state have them.

You forget, we are dealing with government that is essentially a theocratic dictatorship. If they have nukes the propberbly wouldnt care if Israel fired them back, since
1. They see it as their holy duty to destroy Israel
2. The governemnt would proberbly be safe in a bunker. Being a dictatorship it has no obligation to its citizens, so it may not care about their suffering.

If we remember that Mutually Assured Destruction does work most of the time, Iran developing nukes may actually make the possiblity of nuclear war less likely, because the resulting nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran will make everybody lose.

Nonsense. Israel has no incentive to use nukes, so logically they require no deterrence.

Besides, what makes you think Israel wouldn't nuke Iran so as to preempt their nuclear capacity?

And we have people like that in the White House. Still haven't used nuclear weaponry.

Uhm... prove it?

No, but unlike Iran, they regularly demonstrate disregard for civilian casualties in war, a perquisite to the use of nuclear weaponry.

And of course we know this from all the nuclear weapons that have been used over the course of human history?

They will continue to butcher Arabs as long as Arabs keep igniting conflicts with them. But as long as they have no incentive to use nukes, they won't.

You guys are just dredging up demonstrably false nonsense to justify your pathologies. International relations theorists would shake their head at this kind of talk.

There will be no war against Iran; the war in Iraq was too much of a catastrophic failure.

The war itself was a blazing success. It's the occupation that's failing.

But, yes, they are fundamentalist clerics! It's just that their religion is capitalism....

Which America doesn't practice!

As far as I am concerned I think all nuclear weapons should be destroyed and a worldwide ban placed on manufacturing new ones. No one should have them ... including the United States.

That's silly. Nuclear weapons have probably prevented more wars than they've started -- they serve as an excellent deterrent to ordinary as well as nuclear wars.

But this may end if they fall into irresponsible hands.

And keep in mind folks, the risk is not necessarily that Iran will overtly launch nuclear weapons at Israel, but hand them over to forces that will do so covertly (i.e., terrorists that have already demonstrated their contempt for even the least war-like of western nations).

But who would the military be more likely to follow in such a situation? The President, or the Mullahs??

The Constitution. That's something Iranians and Americans have in common, they are sticklers for constitutions.

I think its better for two states to have nukes and be at each other's throats than for just one to have them. Like Burmesia said, it is widely known in FP circles that Israel has had nuclear weapons for a long time. Having two states have them is preferablle to just one state having them, but I think that it would be better if neither state have them.

The more states that have nuclear weapons, the more opportunities that those weapons will fall into the hands of those who will actually use them. Considering that Israel has maintained a status of neither confirming nor denying existence of its own nuclear capabilities, which, while it is likely they do, would serve just as useful a purpose if it were indeed a bluff, and its commitment to engaging its opponents using conventional means, indicates that there is far less risk of Israel using a nuclear weapon than Iran or another nation that would not exercise such jurisprudence in international affairs. The goal here should not be to allow more nations to gain control of nuclear weapons, but restrict their proliferation and thereby reduce the risk of their falling into the hands of those not unwilling to use them.

You forget, we are dealing with government that is essentially a theocratic dictatorship. If they have nukes the propberbly wouldnt care if Israel fired them back, since
1. They see it as their holy duty to destroy Israel
2. The governemnt would proberbly be safe in a bunker. Being a dictatorship it has no obligation to its citizens, so it may not care about their suffering.

No, it is a theocratic democracy. It is still acountable to its citizens. If a nuclear exchange starts, no bunker will make them safe. Both countries would be obliterated.

"...we don't see a peaceful future with the Iranians developing a nuclear weapon," Bush said.

(http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Am0EHjNlX2xTi6eflLUkvPfb4bAF/SIG=12n1m3fgj/**http%3a//uk.news.yahoo.com/05012007/325/bush-peace-iran-developing-nuclear-arms.html)

That's unequivocal. He is saying, "We want to go to war if they get the same guns as us." Who will stop these people? Rise up gentle Amerikafolk. Soon. Please.

Oh. And happy new year.

why would we want to rise up. You see, in America, we solve our problems through elections and debates, not through military coups like in some nations who shall go nameless. And the US wouldnt go to war with iran first if they got nukes, israel would.

Got a cited source that Israel's got 'em? And why would Israel use them in the first place...considering all the instances in the past when the use of such weapons would have been far more beneficial, the close proximity and near-certain suicide using nukes in the region notwithstanding?

I was once sat in a restaurant with Mordecai Vanunu, I had to restrain my Jewish friend from walking over to his table and slogging him one.

The restaurant was in Jerusalem, a place where he isn't actually allowed to be because he aired Israeli nuclear secrets. If what he said wasn't true then he wouldn't have been exiled. So, back to the point, that's proof enough for me that Israel has nuclear weapons.

Iran is in such a crumbling state, there is a danger of those nukes going into the hands of terrorists.

"c" and "k" are pretty far apart on the keyboard.

Ask a favor of people, and insult them in the same breath...are you taking lessons from Dubya?

"Amerika" isn't an insult. It's actually a pretty common spelling.

I was once sat in a restaurant with Mordecai Vanunu, I had to restrain my Jewish friend from walking over to his table and slogging him one.

The restaurant was in Jerusalem, a place where he isn't actually allowed to be because he aired Israeli nuclear secrets. If what he said wasn't true then he wouldn't have been exiled. So, back to the point, that's proof enough for me that Israel has nuclear weapons.

Exactly, which is why Israel does have nuclear weapons. Interesting story, by the way. How long were you in Israel?

"Amerika" isn't an insult. It's actually a pretty common spelling.

Common spelling? Not in an English debate. Unless, of course, it was your intent to write "misspelling," in which case I might agree with you. Even then, it's a deliberate attempt to not spell America appropriately for some reason or another, and it is presumed as an insult, or a lack of intelligence. Often, they go hand in hand.

Don't worry. We will "stop these people."

A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket and the Tehran moolah-cracy, that is :D

You wish.

No, it is a theocratic democracy. It is still acountable to its citizens. If a nuclear exchange starts, no bunker will make them safe. Both countries would be obliterated.

In order to be even roughly democratic and fully accountable, any state must conform to certain standards:

Freedom of Speech & of the Press
Nope:
*7th worst in the world (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388) and *falling (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388) according to Reporters without Borders.
And bans more websites (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1963099,00.html) than any other country except China. Especially gay & lesbian, opposition politician and women's rights sites.
*Express yourself through music and art? I don't think so. (http://www.freemuse.org/sw1420.asp)
*And don't think abou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Iran)t criticising the State religion, founders or government.
*The Supreme Leader controls all state media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader).

Freedom of Religion
Nope, not in Iran...
*I hope you aren't a Baha'i follower (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/5E72D6B7B624AABBC125713700572D09?opendocument).
*And whadya know? Institutionalised discrimination (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71421.htm) against religious minorities.
*Read about more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Iran#Abuses_of_religious_freedom).

Freedom to change their government
Not here...how can you change your government when opposition in the media and freedom of speech is banned?
*Clerics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council) can interpret the constitution as they see fit, without a legal argument, and ban candidates from running for the Majlis, Experts (Who elect these clerics in the Guardian Council) and Presidency.
*Nope, not (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Freedom_House_electoral_democracies_2006.png) an electoral democracy according to FH.

This might prove useful in showing how little influence citizens have:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Schema_gvt_iran_en.png

Independent Judiciary
*Judiciary is Islamicised too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran).

Theocratic democracy...an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Iran is in such a crumbling state, there is a danger of those nukes going into the hands of terrorists.
Got any evidence to prove that Iran is a 'crumbling state'? If anything, it's the opposite, with, for example, it's HDI improving annually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

No, we don't.

Listen carefully, then repeat: No, we don't.
I agree with you here.

Bush & co aren't theocrats, or fundamentalists. They just use religion as a vote-buying tool.

Well considering that Iran President thinks that the Muslim Messiah, and Jesus (as the Muslim Messiah's helper) will come in the Spring time, and that the Iran President thinks that Allah put him on Earth to user in the end of the world, well yea, I think that would be cause for concern.
I think it would be quite reasonable for me to request a source for these claims.

No, but unlike Iran, they regularly demonstrate disregard for civilian casualties in war, a perquisite to the use of nuclear weaponry.
Iran is no better. As we saw this summer through their proxy army, Hezbollah.

Yea, but if Mr. Ahmadinejad really do think he is to user in the end of the world, then I doubt he's going to allow Mullahs to stop him from fulfilling his destiny.
Authorities stop madmen all the time. There are limits to one man's power. This isn't a Philip Pullman novel we're talking about here.

Besides, what makes you think Israel wouldn't nuke Iran so as to preempt their nuclear capacity?

Guaranteed sanctions from just about everyone, international revulsion, and certain attack from surrounding nations.

Which America doesn't practice!
What do you mean? The US has a capitalist economy, as does every western nation.

I think its better for two states to have nukes and be at each other's throats than for just one to have them.
Surely MAD keeps them nervously away from each others' throats?

I was once sat in a restaurant with Mordecai Vanunu, I had to restrain my Jewish friend from walking over to his table and slogging him one.
Why would he want to do that?

Common spelling? Not in an English debate. Unless, of course, it was your intent to write "misspelling," in which case I might agree with you. Even then, it's a deliberate attempt to not spell America appropriately for some reason or another, and it is presumed as an insult, or a lack of intelligence. Often, they go hand in hand.

Well quite frankly, I'd rather have the letter "c" deleted from the entire english language, also the letter "q" while we're at deleting letters. We don't need C, we already have K and S, also don't need Q, that's what KW is for...Call me crazy, but I do have a point there.

Well quite frankly, I'd rather have the letter "c" deleted from the entire english language, also the letter "q" while we're at deleting letters. We don't need C, we already have K and S, also don't need Q, that's what KW is for...Call me crazy, but I do have a point there.
I can agree with dumping c, but I rather like Q.

Got any evidence to prove that Iran is a 'crumbling state'? If anything, it's the opposite, with, for example, it's HDI improving annually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

I didn't post the crumbling state quote. Please change your post.

Back to the rest of the post, substantively, Iran has a greater level of democracy then any other middle eastern state except Israel. The government must still pay some attention to the will of its citizenry, which, as it looks like right now, are not too happy with their government and are about to change it.

I agree that theocracy and democracy have contradictions, but I think what must be done is a promotion of tolerance and attempts to bring about reforms in Iran, not mindless war threats and saber rattling.

Yeah, but it's a lot harder to launch a nuke in the US than it would be in Iran. It's not like we have a cabal of fundamentalist clerics running the show that could start Doomsday with a single command.

Also: Yet
The US is already upping the nuclear stakes (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0915-08.htm)and this causes a heated nuclear arms race. Iran has already witnessed what happens to countries that are defenseless against US invasion.

Well quite frankly, I'd rather have the letter "c" deleted from the entire english language, also the letter "q" while we're at deleting letters. We don't need C, we already have K and S, also don't need Q, that's what KW is for...Call me crazy, but I do have a point there.

I can agree with dumping c, but I rather like Q.

Yes, be that as it may, I don't see any use for it if we can't use other letters to make the same sound. I'm just saying words should be spelled phonetically =P For example, people would be said pee-o-pleh. Oh, and Nation States would be said Nay-tie-on Stay-tess. You get the picture =)

Well quite frankly, I'd rather have the letter "c" deleted from the entire english language, also the letter "q" while we're at deleting letters. We don't need C, we already have K and S, also don't need Q, that's what KW is for...Call me crazy, but I do have a point there.

Fine...you're crazy! But you do have a point there. Nevertheless, while the English language still has thoe consonants, we will make the effort to spell "America" correctly. Fair enough?