[Janos]

The concept of Iran being nuclear-armed is as ridiculous as saying that we are all controlled by a supercomputer from Jupiter.

 


You my friend, have stumbled onto the truth of things.

And by that i mean... we are all controlled by a supercomputer from Jupiter.

To be honest I was propably drunk when I wrote that, because it's not that likely.

edit: j/k, Iran has done some pretty suspicious things but nothing damning yet.

Edit 2: How the hell am I supposed to be able to argue with someone who does not validate his arguments and does not understand what the word "metaphor" means and switches burden of proof and is a living example of logical fallacies and thinks that because he does not validate his arguments in any way he "wins the debate", whatever that means? This makes me sad.

[aldo_14]

whos Tom Clancy? but thats not the point, the world isn't safe anyhow with as you say terrorist running around, druggies, theifs, jockies, pyschopaths, traders, etc etc..

Ah yes, those damned evil Jockeys. Tiny buggers are always up to no good.

Not to mention The Ifs!

[KappaWing]

I just figured Jupiter was the only logical place where Google could keep all their servers, not that it controlled us!

[Janos]

I just figured Jupiter was the only logical place where Google could keep all their servers, not that it controlled us!

the gubmint is withholding evidence

[TrashMan]

If Amedinijad keeps opening his mouth and is as cavalier about displaying his nuclear progress, there might just be an Israeli attack on Iran. But like it or not, a state like Iran whose leader openly denounces the holocaust and calls for the annihilation of Israel on an almost weekly basis must not be allowed to have nukes. War is not an unnecessary social program that billions of dollars are being wasted on. War is how real problems in the world are solved, it doesnt matter how much the war costs.

I disagree. No matter how much you dislike Amedinijad, he is the elected leader and his country has EVERY right in the world to deveop nuclear power.
Denouncing the Holocaust is an idiotic thing (altough I do belive the numbers were overblown to begin with), but then again there is no law against being stupid.
And I belive he stated that Israel should be erased from the maps, which can be understood in several ways:
a) destroy everything
b) remove it from the world map as it is (not accpeting the current borders of Israel)
c) that Israel shouldn't be counted as a real state/country


But regardless of what he meant it's just talk and he's just one man, so a nuke attack on Israel or USA is as likely as USA attacking China..

[vyper]

If Amedinijad keeps opening his mouth and is as cavalier about displaying his nuclear progress, there might just be an Israeli attack on Iran. But like it or not, a state like Iran whose leader openly denounces the holocaust and calls for the annihilation of Israel on an almost weekly basis must not be allowed to have nukes. War is not an unnecessary social program that billions of dollars are being wasted on. War is how real problems in the world are solved, it doesnt matter how much the war costs.

I disagree. No matter how much you dislike Amedinijad, he is the elected leader and his country has EVERY right in the world to deveop nuclear power.
Denouncing the Holocaust is an idiotic thing (altough I do belive the numbers were overblown to begin with), but then again there is no law against being stupid.
And I belive he stated that Israel should be erased from the maps, which can be understood in several ways:
a) destroy everything
b) remove it from the world map as it is (not accpeting the current borders of Israel)
c) that Israel shouldn't be counted as a real state/country


But regardless of what he meant it's just talk and he's just one man, so a nuke attack on Israel or USA is as likely as USA attacking China..

He's one man who is appealing, and appeasing, hard-liners in his country. That means there is a political will within Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let them have such power?

[Mefustae]

He's one man who is appealing, and appeasing, hard-liners in his country. That means there is a political will within Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let them have such power?

I say let them. They want nuclear arms more for defense than going all suicidal and attempting to put the smackdown on Israel. Once they have nuclear weapons and feel more secure, they might open up to diplomacy a tad more.

[TrashMan]

He's one man who is appealing, and appeasing, hard-liners in his country. That means there is a political will within Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let them have such power?

USA has them, UK has them, France has them, China has them, Israel has them.. So YES I think it's a good idea to let them have such power.

[aldo_14]

He's one man who is appealing, and appeasing, hard-liners in his country. That means there is a political will within Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let them have such power?

USA has them, UK has them, France has them, China has them, Israel has them.. So YES I think it's a good idea to let them have such power.

Ummmm, 2 things.  One; you do you think nuclear weapons per se are a good idea?  Secondly; don't you think there's just a bit of moral difference between the listed countries (even Israel) and a country controlled by a man who happily hosted a holocaust denial conference and said "Israel must be wiped off the map"?

[Mefustae]

Secondly; don't you think there's just a bit of moral difference between the listed countries (even Israel) and a country controlled by a man who happily hosted a holocaust denial conference and said "Israel must be wiped off the map"?

We know Amedinijad's crazy, but the question is whether he that very special kind of crazy require for him to willingly sacrafice himself and his entire nation for his beliefs? Until that question is answered, morally a war is out of the question. Of course, morals never dictate whether or not you start a war, but still...

[IPAndrews]

That's a risk you're willing to take then? You're quite the gambler.

[Mefustae]

I'm not the one in the firing line, so I can afford it.

[aldo_14]

Secondly; don't you think there's just a bit of moral difference between the listed countries (even Israel) and a country controlled by a man who happily hosted a holocaust denial conference and said "Israel must be wiped off the map"?

We know Amedinijad's crazy, but the question is whether he that very special kind of crazy require for him to willingly sacrafice himself and his entire nation for his beliefs? Until that question is answered, morally a war is out of the question. Of course, morals never dictate whether or not you start a war, but still...

Surely if we're not going to remove all nuclear weapons, the least we can do is stop the nutbag lunatics getting them?  I don't want any nation to have nukes, but if you force me into a choice between keeping some and removing some, I think it's the ones controlled by anti-semitic lunatics I'd rather see removed.

[Janos]

Ahmadinejad is not a very popular president among those who wield the true power in Iran right now - the clerics (Ahmadinejad is pretty much a figurehead) do not support him because his antics are not good for Iran and the council. Even if he wanted to order an attack on Israel (highly unlikely, to say the least), he couldn't, because he simply does not have that kind of power! Pasdaran is subject to supreme leader, and they happen to be the ones who control the missile forces. Even in a case of full-blown civil war the nuclear escalation is highly unlikely.

Also, Iran having nukes is in direct conflict with NPT which Iran has signed. Developing nuclear power is not. That's why the entire issue is whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weaponry, not whether or not they are developing nuclear power.

Here's some reading for people: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1991316,00.html
Basically, Ahmadinejad is pretty ****ed, unless some foreign country ****s up even worse. People seem to think that Ahmadinejad is some really, really psycho guy, when in reality he's a relatively weak populist in a country surrounded by real or perceived threats.

[aldo_14]

Ahmadinejad is not a very popular president among those who wield the true power in Iran right now - the clerics (Ahmadinejad is pretty much a figurehead) do not support him because his antics are not good for Iran and the council. Even if he wanted to order an attack on Israel (highly unlikely, to say the least), he couldn't, because he simply does not have that kind of power! Pasdaran is subject to supreme leader, and they happen to be the ones who control the missile forces. Even in a case of full-blown civil war the nuclear escalation is highly unlikely.

Also, Iran having nukes is in direct conflict with NPT which Iran has signed. Developing nuclear power is not. That's why the entire issue is whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weaponry, not whether or not they are developing nuclear power.

Here's some reading for people: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1991316,00.html
Basically, Ahmadinejad is pretty ****ed, unless some foreign country ****s up even worse. People seem to think that Ahmadinejad is some really, really psycho guy, when in reality he's a relatively weak populist in a country surrounded by real or perceived threats.

The problem is that Ahmadinejad is one of two things.  One is that he is representative of the populaces political wishes - vitriolic, even genocidal anti-semitism.  The other is that he isn't, but still is the hand-picked leader (thanks to a selected candidate pool for elections) from the ruling council.

[NGTM-1R]

Basically, Ahmadinejad is pretty ****ed, unless some foreign country ****s up even worse. People seem to think that Ahmadinejad is some really, really psycho guy, when in reality he's a relatively weak populist in a country surrounded by real or perceived threats.

If he really was surrounded by real or percieved threats, there are much better ways of dealing with them. Diplomacy has after all been defined as the art of saying "Good dog" while you look for a rock. A soft answer turneth away wrath, so you can shoot it in the head when it's not looking. And so on.

Besides, if you actually look at the countries surrounding Iran the only one that's construable as threatening right now is Iraq.

[Janos]

The problem is that Ahmadinejad is one of two things.  One is that he is representative of the populaces political wishes - vitriolic, even genocidal anti-semitism.  The other is that he isn't, but still is the hand-picked leader (thanks to a selected candidate pool for elections) from the ruling council.

Umm, so what? Besides if you are talking about Ahmadinejad's notorious speech about Israel and wiping them out, it didn't quite go as genocidial. He was advocating destruction of Israel regime. If he was really antisemitic, the Jews wouldn't propably be a religion with official status and representation in Iranian Parliament.

[aldo_14]

The problem is that Ahmadinejad is one of two things.  One is that he is representative of the populaces political wishes - vitriolic, even genocidal anti-semitism.  The other is that he isn't, but still is the hand-picked leader (thanks to a selected candidate pool for elections) from the ruling council.

Umm, so what? Besides if you are talking about Ahmadinejad's notorious speech about Israel and wiping them out, it didn't quite go as genocidial. He was advocating destruction of Israel regime. If he was really antisemitic, the Jews wouldn't propably be a religion with official status and representation in Iranian Parliament.

Why does the Iranian parliament matter?  I thought they weren't supposed to have any actual power........in any case, I don't see why the makeup of the Iranian parliament allowing a (tiny) minority group to exist precludes the anti-semitism of the countries leaders.

It's worth noting that, like all non-Muslims, Iranian/Persian jews are subject to state-sanctioned discrimination & sharia law.  Movement outside Israel (perhaps referencing the emigration of something like 60-90,000 of the Jewish population since the Islamic Revolution) is restricted with limited visas and passport rights.  Jewish pupils are also compelled to attend school during the Sabbath

[NGTM-1R]

It's worth noting that, like all non-Muslims, Iranian/Persian jews are subject to state-sanctioned discrimination & sharia law. 

To be fair, they're not really subjected to Shar'ia law as it was intended. The Shar'ia actually grants considerable leeway to Judaic and Christian enclaves in areas under Muslim control. They are granted leave to govern themselves in all internal matters but must submit to Muslim will in external ones; an extra tax is levied on them but not much of one (IIRC no more then 7% extra and this is considered extraordinary); and they are denied the right to bear weapons.

So it's not really Shar'ia law.

[Janos]

Basically, Ahmadinejad is pretty ****ed, unless some foreign country ****s up even worse. People seem to think that Ahmadinejad is some really, really psycho guy, when in reality he's a relatively weak populist in a country surrounded by real or perceived threats.

If he really was surrounded by real or percieved threats, there are much better ways of dealing with them. Diplomacy has after all been defined as the art of saying "Good dog" while you look for a rock. A soft answer turneth away wrath, so you can shoot it in the head when it's not looking. And so on.

Besides, if you actually look at the countries surrounding Iran the only one that's construable as threatening right now is Iraq.

Real or perceived. They have USA on both sides and hey it's Amerikkka, Iraq is in shambles and whoever wins Iran loses, Israel whom Iran consider's to be US's lapdog or vice versa, take your pick. You know, I am not quite following Ahmadinejad's rail of thought either and he is certainly an... "interesting character", but I do not believe Iran as a regime is suicidial.

Why does the Iranian parliament matter?  I thought they weren't supposed to have any actual power........in any case, I don't see why the makeup of the Iranian parliament allowing a (tiny) minority group to exist precludes the anti-semitism of the countries leaders.

It's worth noting that, like all non-Muslims, Iranian/Persian jews are subject to state-sanctioned discrimination & sharia law.  Movement outside Israel (perhaps referencing the emigration of something like 60-90,000 of the Jewish population since the Islamic Revolution) is restricted with limited visas and passport rights.  Jewish pupils are also compelled to attend school during the Sabbath

The parliament is worth ****. They are useless, powerful in domestic questions but weak in real-politiks and foreign policies. It's the cleric council that wields the highest power in Iran, even in their de jure law. Iranian government is a mixture of democratic and undemocratic organizations, and undemocratic organizations have the upper hand in "hard issues".

Of course Iran allowing a minority group to exist is kinda supposed to happen and if they didn't it would be really tough news. Jewish emigration can, and propably does have many different reasons, but still Iranian jews are not a persecuted group as far as I know. They have their own represenation, and even if this is purely for propaganda reasons it still speak heavily for Iran's relatively lax approach to Judaism.
The entire argument at hand has more to do with the entire argument of Ahmadinejad, accused of being the highest authority, which he is not, being a vitriolic anti-semitist, when even in his famous speech he does not qualify as such.