so right now the UN Security Council is arguing about Iran and the nukes that it is now aggresively developing what needs to be done here? give'em the bomb?, UN Embargos? Nuke Them First or maybe another option?

quote:

Anyone have much info on what Iran's new leader is like?

just wants to destroy Israel, the USA, and the west. He believes in the twelfth iman and that he will come after a period of great chaos and destruction, and when Israel is driven off into the sea.

well if you want to exercise power without people knowing that you are religion is the way to do it, it just so happens in Iran's case that the dirty little secret of being run by the priests is out in the open

quote:

A few years ago everyone thought Iran was on it's way to reform. The President and Parliment were giving all sorts of freedoms and protections. What happened? The Grand Council disqualified 2300 candidates, including the incumbent President. The only people left in the running were hardliners, and the result was that the reform was stopped dead in it's tracks.

I remember my parents talking about this. They were infuriated. I was clueless. It doesn't sound like Iran's leadership style is all that effective (depending on one's definition of "effective").

quote:

Originally posted by ICELAND:
Anyone have much info on what Iran's new leader is like? I've just seen short clips/pictures of him looking all inspiring and shouting about Iran's refusal to submit to foreign control, in the process of giving speeches to huge crowds.

Well, Amp sort of got it but here's the way it works:

Iranians vote and elect a Parliment and President in seperate events. Sort of like Congress and the President here. HOWEVER, the religous arm of the government is layed out like this:
You have the Supreme Leader, who is basically the Ayatollah, like Kommenni (spelling sucks). This guy is the effective head of the country. He is unelected, in for life, and basically his word is law. He appoints a Grand Council, the Grand Council basically says who can and who can't run for elected office.

Example: A few years ago everyone thought Iran was on it's way to reform. The President and Parliment were giving all sorts of freedoms and protections. What happened? The Grand Council disqualified 2300 candidates, including the incumbent President. The only people left in the running were hardliners, and the result was that the reform was stopped dead in it's tracks.

So what's the current President like? The man is insane, in my opinion. He believes that very soon what amounts to the Islamic Messiah will come. And even the hardliners in the theocratic government are trying to reign him in. Total nutjob.

Only that he is supposed to be a puppet leader propped up by the reluigous council

On slightly related note...Persian/Farsi is SUCH a cool language.

Anyone have much info on what Iran's new leader is like? I've just seen short clips/pictures of him looking all inspiring and shouting about Iran's refusal to submit to foreign control, in the process of giving speeches to huge crowds.

quote:

Why the double standard? I'm not saying Iran should get nuclear weapons, but why is it ok for the countries with the most violent international histories to have them?

There's a double standard because Iran is a crazy-nuts theocracy. Same reason everyone freaks out about North Korea having them. I personally have no problems with Britian, France, or Isreal having these weapons. It's about having similar ideologies, or at least a rational, free government.

Notice how there were no threats of invasion when it came to India developing nukes.

And neither Iran, nor the US have the "right" to nuclear weapons. Rather a country has the ability and power to manufacture a weapon. If it also has the power, or good name, to get the rest of the world not to tolerate that, then that's the way it goes.

quote:

Saddam was placed (and kept) in power by the US of A.

Now you're showing your ignorance. Saddam was in no way "placed" into power by the US. Saddam, rather, climbed his way up the Baathist ranks during the middle of the 20th century, untill he had strong-armed and assasinated enough people to claim power.
The Baathist, in turn, came to power as a result of fascistic movements that started in Nazi occupied Europe, and spread into the Middle East as the Germans supported anti-British arab movements.

quote:

Originally posted by phantom119:
Yes the US is the only country to have used a nuke but I'd rather it have been us instead of the Japanese or Nazis.

Well duh. You live in America and you don't want anyone else to have the ability to use their weapons against you. If you think that your country has the right to develop WMD's then what is your argument? If you were born in Iran you would have rathered Iran have them than the US; it's just a matter of chance/geography. Why the double standard? I'm not saying Iran should get nuclear weapons, but why is it ok for the countries with the most violent international histories to have them? (Oh yeah... that's why the UN sucks.)

quote:

Turn off FoxNews and think before you post. Your illogical and demonstrably-false nonsense is tiresome

I would say your assumption is correct, but I don't get Fox news. nice try

quote:

A post that racist and ignorant barely needs rebuttal, but what the hell. Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Saddam was placed (and kept) in power by the US of A. Nobody invades a country using nuclear weapons (radioactive glass just ain't that desirable).

yes, the arab comment was incorrect. But that doesn't make them Persians. The persians are a long dead civilization. In their place was the Pontiac empire, Selucids, Greeks, and several others. So as of now, they are Iranians. The fact that Sadam was kept in power by the USA is irrelevant. That was a time about 30 years ago. The main issue is what is happening now.

quote:

A strange assumption, considering the US is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons. Not to mention the fact that only the US is currently developing tactical nukes. Remove the flags from your eyes and your head from your ass.

Yes the US is the only country to have used a nuke but I'd rather it have been us instead of the Japanese or Nazis. as to developing weapons, weapons are developed and improved all the time, get used to it.

quote:

A modern Russian is as much a Soviet as you are a Brit

but I'm not British so therefore, your point makes as much sense as the rest of your babbling. Not all Russians are Soviets, but Putin was; and had to be pretty devout to be in the KGB.

quote:

last time i checked the iranians are not arabs, correct me if im wrong.

quote:

Iranians are Persians, not Arabs

Iranians are not Arab and they are not persian, they are an Aryan Nation and once part of the territorys of same (yes they really were an empire)

quote:

Originally posted by phantom119:
I'm sorry, but Soviets are Soviets in my mind. and Bush being CIA is irrelevant to Putin.

Lordy, that's dumb. A modern Russian is as much a Soviet as you are a Brit. You're entitled to as many moronic assumptions as you care to have, but kindly stop molesting the rest of us with them.

Oh, and look up "analogy", then re-read my post. Maybe you'll understand it this time.

quote:

actually, I think it's a great card, just like the Charizard we used to collect when we were obsessed with Pokemon cards. The point is that Iran wants to use Nukes. The US doesn't.

A strange assumption, considering the US is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons. Not to mention the fact that only the US is currently developing tactical nukes. Remove the flags from your eyes and your head from your ass.

quote:

thanks for the laugh. If you mean he won't invade his Arab brothers you just have to look at Sadam Husein for proof.

A post that racist and ignorant barely needs rebuttal, but what the hell. Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Saddam was placed (and kept) in power by the US of A. Nobody invades a country using nuclear weapons (radioactive glass just ain't that desirable).

Turn off FoxNews and think before you post. Your illogical and demonstrably-false nonsense is tiresome.

quote:

If you mean he won't invade his Arab brothers

last time i checked the iranians are not arabs, correct me if im wrong.

quote:

That's a very foolish assumption, coming from a very simplistic view of the world. George H.W. Bush is a former member of the CIA - are you asserting, then, that his every action will be directed towards achieving anti-Russian goals?

I'm sorry, but Soviets are Soviets in my mind. and Bush being CIA is irrelevant to Putin.

quote:

Uh-huh - and Bush comes from a religious background (and political base) that believes we are currently in the end-times, the Anti-Christ will rise as the head of the UN, and a final war will be fought over Israel as it currently exists. Not to mention the whole "Rapture-tribulation" thing. So I wouldn't play the "crazy zealot" card, if I were you.

actually, I think it's a great card, just like the Charizard we used to collect when we were obsessed with Pokemon cards. The point is that Iran wants to use Nukes. The US doesn't.

quote:

The heart of the Iran question lies in why it matters if Iran achieves nuclear status - they would be unable to threaten any country beyond Israel

thanks for the laugh. If you mean he won't invade his Arab brothers you just have to look at Sadam Husein for proof.

quote:

Originally posted by phantom119:
you sure about that? Iran's leader believes that the twelfth (sp?) iman will come after a period of great chaos. And you know how he intends to do it? the destruction of Israel. This isn't just a political thing to him. It's a religious.

Uh-huh - and Bush comes from a religious background (and political base) that believes we are currently in the end-times, the Anti-Christ will rise as the head of the UN, and a final war will be fought over Israel as it currently exists. Not to mention the whole "Rapture-tribulation" thing. So I wouldn't play the "crazy zealot" card, if I were you.

The real question, both for Bush and Ahmadi-Nejad, is how much of their professed faith is geniune, and how much is mere political posturing. Personally, I don't believe for a moment that the powers in the Bush administration are "true believers" - although how much Dubya buys into it is an open question.

The heart of the Iran question lies in why it matters if Iran achieves nuclear status - they would be unable to threaten any country beyond Israel, and the MAD doctrine would certainly apply in that scenario. I imagine that US designs on the oil resources of the country are at the heart of the conflict - a nuclear power is not easily overthrown through military action.

quote:

Originally posted by phantom119:
I'm also very prejudice against the Russians. I mean....their leader is former KGB. Who was the enemy of the Soviet Union? The United States so of course he's going to aim his goals at something probably anti-western. It's how he was raised.

That's a very foolish assumption, coming from a very simplistic view of the world. George H.W. Bush is a former member of the CIA - are you asserting, then, that his every action will be directed towards achieving anti-Russian goals?

Consider that everyone assumes themselves to be a "reasonable" person (that being a positive trait in our semi-scientific age)- that is to say, that they believe themselves to have a fairly rational explanation for the actions they undertake. What possible mindset (set of assumptions about the world) would cause Putin to act purely as an anti-US agent? And how on earth would a person holding such assumptions manage to achieve the political success of the Russian president?

A reminder miks888-It is the president that represents/acts for the country & on behalf of it (at least in theory).

i think that we should look past the religious radicals that are speaking for iran and talkin bout all their right to uranium enrichment and stuff. the country definitely has the possibility to become a US ally, they're just stuck with their supreme leader khameini, who's messing everything up. president khatami is a reformist, who is pushing cultural liberalization and closer ties with the west.

flirting? i'm pretty sure Iran has already gotten the condom out for a hot night with foolishness and the endgame? a shit load of ordinance getting dropped on their collective asses

With the Bush's recent confirmation of unweavering support for the US foreign policy, it seems that the pre-emptive strike on Iran is imminent. The fact that Iran remains defiant, is not helping to diffuse the situation. Typical approach of one that does not want to appear weak. Especially if you are located in the middle east-so in a way i can understand where Iran is coming from. But there exists a thin line between boldness and foolishness and Iran is flirting with it.