Will there be war with Iran?

[Joecoolyo]

Another thing regarding the theocracy...
In the US senate there is TWO members who is not affiliated with some sort of christianty. 12 jewish members and I think its the same picture in congress.
So yeah you might name it differently but in the end of the day, same thing different name...

I don't really get what your getting at... 78% of the country is Christian, with that big a majority, it's kinda expected that your going to see a lot of Christians.

 

[jtb1127]

How do you know that it "has complete control over the country"?

You're right "complete control" might be a stretch, but the amount of power that merely 12 people have is completely ridiculous and you know it.

 

[Archbob]

You can get much more with a kind word and a nuke than with just a kind word.

 

[wilycoyote]

What about this then: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq


Another thing regarding the theocracy...
In the US senate there is TWO members who is not affiliated with some sort of christianty. 12 jewish members and I think its the same picture in congress.
So yeah you might name it differently but in the end of the day, same thing different name...

Doesn't the term theocracy require that a government somehow based its policies and laws on religion, not just have religious people making the laws? Your view is incredibly simplistic, and incorrect. I guess all Scandinavian counties are racist since they are pretty much all white.

 

[jtb1127]

I guess all Scandinavian counties are racist since they are pretty much all white.

Awesome. I didn't think of that one.

 

[innonimatu]

Israel has the capacity to defeat any "militia" (let's call it a terrorist-guerilla group which it is) in Lebanon or Gaza, if the world lets it do it. Unfortunately, every time Israel tries to deal with these kinds of enemies, useful idiots in the West help pile up pressure against it to stop its military operations before victory is achieved. Israel can't afford long anti-guerilla wars, not militarily, but diplomatically.

Even with huge american subsidies they cannot afford continued guerrilla wars. And not only economically, they are not willing to suffer through any of those either. (and they're right, there was nothing to gain from it). The western "useful idiots" deliberately blocked any attempt to get a cease-fire until the Israelis asked for one, after they concluded that their war aims were impossible to attain. The cease-fire was then called as a face-saving expedient for Israel to close the war without having to admit defeat.
Of are you going to argue that any western government forced a cease-fire upon the israeli government? US officials are on record admitting that they deliberately kept blocking a cease-fire resolution at the UN! From the "western" governments' POV Israel and the rest of the Middle east could keep fighting and mutually wreaking themselves all they wanted! Israel would obviously have to be discreetly propped up, but only enough so it could keep the party going, no defeat but no "greater Israel" for them either.

And it's only too bad, I'm sure many people are thinking, that they cannot do the dirty work on Iran, because that is supposed to be their role.

 

[aelf]

You're right "complete control" might be a stretch, but the amount of power that merely 12 people have is completely ridiculous and you know it.

Yeah. I also think that the power than a handful of people have in the US is completely ridiculous.

 

[jtb1127]

Yeah. I also think that the power than a handful of people have in the US is completely ridiculous.

12 people do not choose presidential candidates, 300 million do.

 

[kochman]

Isn't Iran a Republic?
Tibet is a theocracy I guess and so is the Vatican.

Ummm, one is non-existent... a region.
The other, I don't think it is seeking nukes.

Another thing regarding the theocracy...
In the US senate there is TWO members who is not affiliated with some sort of christianty. 12 jewish members and I think its the same picture in congress.
So yeah you might name it differently but in the end of the day, same thing different name...

We have muslims in our government as well.
How many Christians are in power in Iran? Jews?
How many Constitutional Amendments does Iran have regarding the separation of Church & State?

And, I saw you compared our elections to those in Iran?
How many people were shot dead as a result of riots based on our "rigged" elections?
I submit that when millions of people vote on the same day, there can be some trickery involved... but in Iran it seems to get massively violent. The US has peaceful handovers of power every 4 - 8 years...

 

[aelf]

12 people do not choose presidential candidates, 300 million do.

And somehow that equates to 300 million people having power.

By the way, Iran has nation-wide presidential elections.

 

[amadeus]

12 people do not choose presidential candidates, 300 million do.

Goldman Sachs* has 300 million employees? I've heard big financial groups are top-heavy, but that's ridiculous.

(*if so inclined, please feel free to substitute with Council on Foreign Relations)

 

[jtb1127]

And somehow that equates to 300 million people having power.

By the way, Iran has nation-wide presidential elections.

If they register to vote, then yes. And I said chose candidates.

Goldman Sachs* has 300 million employees? I've heard big financial groups are top-heavy, but that's ridiculous.

(*if so inclined, please feel free to substitute with Council on Foreign Relations)

That's ridiculous and you know it.

 

[aelf]

If they register to vote, then yes. And I said chose candidates.

In other words, your reply was irrelevant? Oh.

Iranians have elections for their president too. Sure, there may have been irregularities in the elections, but there have been funny stuff going on in US elections too. I guess Iran can't be that bad then.

 

[wilycoyote]

In other words, your reply was irrelevant? Oh.

Iranians have elections for their president too. Sure, there may have been irregularities in the elections, but there have been funny stuff going on in US elections too. I guess Iran can't be that bad then.

What is with people making RIDICULOUS comparisons in this thread. Hate America all you want, you can't say with a straight face that the elections in the US aren't fairer than in Iran, and that comparing these is like comparing apples and herpes.

 

[aelf]

Hate America all you want, you can't say with a straight face that the elections in the US aren't fairer than in Iran

Uh, where did I say that?

I'm taking issue with the fact that some people are so willing to hinge their claims about the people's power simply on the carrying out of certain procedures.

 

[jtb1127]

In other words, your reply was irrelevant? Oh.

Iranians have elections for their president too. Sure, there may have been irregularities in the elections, but there have been funny stuff going on in US elections too. I guess Iran can't be that bad then.

You have to be selected to run. That means that opposition to the Islamic regime will never come close to holding office. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[trader/warrior]

What about it? Nobody has taken the Lancet seriously for years.

Your source apparently does.

This is not a complete list, nor can we verify these totals. This is simply a compilation of deaths reported by news agencies. Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site.

For a detail list of Iraqi Deaths please see
The Iraqi Body Count
For a detail Report on mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq see
The Lancet Study (PDF)

So you stopped using Iraq Body Count after they made the jump over 100000 huh?

 

[Leoreth]

The level of democracy in Iran is at pretty much the same level as in most of the middle east, such as pre-revolution Egypt and Syria. Democracy is only allowed if the ruler likes it. Iran might actualy be a bit better as they do have peaceful leadership changes occasionaly (the current supreme leader, Khameni, has only been the Supreme Leader for about seven years, IIRC).

Yeah, I'm the first one to defend Iran from allegations that it's a chaotic hellhole where the oppressive government is out to get you at every opportunity, but there's still not much democracy going on there, and putting it on the same level as the USA was completely unwarranted.

Ummm, one is non-existent... a region.
The other, I don't think it is seeking nukes.

Next speech of the Pope: "Our words are backed by the power of NUCLEAR WEAPONS!"

 

[onedreamer]

Everyone who thinks that Iran is actually going to use the bomb considers them to be crazier than they actually are. Which in fact, is exactly what they wanted to achieve.

Having nuclear weapons and using them as a threat is much more effective than actually using them; on a country whose closest ally still has the capability of assured destruction while you can't even reach them, no less.

... And of this we must thank the USA. Should have them not actually employed the atomic bombs, probably the largest majority of people would think that none would be crazy enough to do it. So it is thanks to the USA (yeah, I like to remark it) that nuclear weapons can work as a deterrent because we know that a human being at the leadership of a country, any country, can actually order to employ them. Not thanks to some "completely nuts" third world dictator, but thanks to a president of the US.

But there is also another possibility. Should have nuclear weapons never been employed because considered too atrocious, maybe we would have gotten rid of them long ago since the costs would have outweighted the advantages. Instead we're stuck at having to keep them just in case. And of this we must thank, AGAIN, the USA, NOT Iran, Korea, India or Bananaland.

 

[jtb1127]

But there is also another possibility. Should have nuclear weapons never been employed because considered too atrocious, maybe we would have gotten rid of them long ago since the costs would have outweighted the advantages. Instead we're stuck at having to keep them just in case. And of this we must thank, AGAIN, the USA, NOT Iran, Korea, India or Bananaland.

The technology to make nuclear weapons would not cease to exist just because the UN outlawed it. With that said, nuclear fission research did not begin in the United States, therefore it's plausible to suppose that some other country could have gotten nuclear weapons first. What I am trying to say is that you should blame a few European scientists and not the United States and that "crazy dictators" would still be trying to get them had the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs not been dropped.