Will there be war with Iran?

[onedreamer]

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.

ahah, are you serious or what? I hope this is not the general consensus in the US because it would be pretty dumb. I have not blamed any scientist for developing nuclear power nor for building nuclear weapons. I have blamed one person for actually giving the order to use them. And all his successors for convincing (or trying to convince) the world public opinion that a number of other countries should not develop nuclear power and weapons because they might not be responsible enough and use them.

Moreover, I did not write that if the UN outlawed nuclear weapons everyone would stop building them. Far from even thinking that. You just made it up yourself.

 

[Patroklos]

... 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.

Unfortunetly for you, nuclear weapons were not the horror weapons of WWII. Mass formation fire bombing was not only far more devestating bang for your buck at that time, it was also far easier to accomplish.

Or in other words, it was not the crazy decision you think it was when every major combatant had already employed the far more devestating weapon system that preceeded it.

 

[aelf]

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?

Ah. But I'm not sure why you think that voting for candidates from the primaries makes it more democratic in principle than just voting for them in the elections. Realistically, can anyone run for the office of the US president? Does it not take extensive political connections and a good deal of economic independence for aspirants to have any chance of making it through even the primaries? Is that process of 'natural selection' democratic?

Sure, the system is better, but I think it's manifestly ******** to insist that the fact that the people vote multiple times for the president means the people have power in a meaningful way.

Also, Iran has had reformist leaders. That seems to put quite a bit of dent in your hypothesis.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

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.

Yes, and the majority of Iranian are Shia Muslims. They have some jews and some christians and quite a big number of people who follow Zoroastrianism(there is the Bahais who are not recognized tho). So you are bound to have a huge representation of Muslims in Iranian politics.
There is not much difference from the USA.

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.

If you believe in christianity, I would think that it would be a path you'd follow right? So saying that your christian politicians are not acting according to their beliefs is as simplistic as what I say. Meaning that if you are a christian you'd prolly never vote for something that was totally unchristian would you? That would be a total missrepresentation of the people who elected you.

Regarding the Scandianavians and racism... well yeah prolly the majority of scandinavs are racist, sad tho it is.

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


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...

The violence of the last election was a try to disrupt the nation. It was backed from the outside as I stated before. British communications network and other foreign spies urged a socalled "Green Movement".

There is 2 seats for christians in the Iranian parliament and there is 1 seat for each of the minor minorities.
Thats I guess 2 seats more than there is Muslims in the Congress and Senate over there.

Regarding the separation of church and state might be valid if the people who governed this separation weren't religious(of any type) but since that is obviously not the case, I'd say that the politics of the USA is atleast as theocratic as those of Iran.

 

[Leoreth]

... 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.

What? Not that I want to applaud the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings here, but in my opinion the likeliness of nuclear war would've been much higher if they hadn't happened. Knowing exactly what will happen to you in retaliation when you employ nuclear weapons yourself is the best deterrent available. Without these examples, it's easy to dismiss their destructive potential.

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.

You mean the bumbling efforts of the Nazis that went nowhere and were never any actual danger?

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

If I remember correctly, I think Obama even had to come out int he media and confirm that he was actually christian. Not that it should matter at all over there since state and church is so very seperated.

 

[Leoreth]

No, that's because he could've been secretly Muslim, which immediately would have destroyed all of America's glorious democracy. Don't you keep up with weirdo logic?

 

[aelf]

Eh, Iran isn't a 'pure' theocracy anyway.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

I don't really think that imperialism is inherently bad, the islands had no prior population and really, the distance from them to the closest country isn't. Britain developed the islands and defended them twice. The people want to be British, they are British.

Hehe but you are the Imperialman! To say otherwise would be silly.
But yeah I agree, if they want to be british and they should be british.
I think I would have choosen likewise in those days.
We had something similar here after the first world war, where the southern danes and northern germans voted on which nation to belong to. The nothern Schleswig or Southern Jutland. The result was that the region returned to danes.

 

[TheLastOne36]

If you believe in christianity, I would think that it would be a path you'd follow right? So saying that your christian politicians are not acting according to their beliefs is as simplistic as what I say. Meaning that if you are a christian you'd prolly never vote for something that was totally unchristian would you? That would be a total missrepresentation of the people who elected you.

In modern societies, we don't let our faith in a deity control our actions and opinions. I'd imagine the majority of Americans would frown on a person who votes based on their religious beliefs.

Then again, there is the Bible Belt.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

In modern societies, we don't let our faith in a deity control our actions and opinions. I'd imagine the majority of Americans would frown on a person who votes based on their religious beliefs.

Then again, there is the Bible Belt.

Well ofcourse... but the thing is that people here tend to think that this doesnt apply to muslims as well.
I think most people will do what is best for them and their immediate surroundings.
Then there are some who will sacrifice others to get richer or more powerfull or whatever. Those people are as well representated in the more or less christian communities as they are in the islamic or buddhist for that matter.

I would actually imagine the opposite, I think most American catholics for example(Just an example) would be outraged if you as a catholic voted for a gay protestant pro abortion halal-hippie(just an example). But ofcourse this doesn't apply to all and thankfully I think it is becomming less and less.

Me for example would never vote for a religious person for our parliament.

And I did BTW find this guy, so I guess it is not all that bad over there, Keith Ellison, who was the first muslim in the congress!

 

[kochman]

Regarding the separation of church and state might be valid if the people who governed this separation weren't religious(of any type) but since that is obviously not the case, I'd say that the politics of the USA is atleast as theocratic as those of Iran.

That's because you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

That's because you have no idea what you are talking about.

That might certainly be the case

 

[jtb1127]

Ah. But I'm not sure why you think that voting for candidates from the primaries makes it more democratic in principle than just voting for them in the elections.

Sure, the system is better, but I think it's manifestly ******** to insist that the fact that the people vote multiple times for the president means the people have power in a meaningful way.

Also, Iran has had reformist leaders. That seems to put quite a bit of dent in your hypothesis.

Yes, but what how come none of the reforms have ever taken place. Take Khatami for instance. He advocated for freedom of speech and religious tolerance 15 years ago, but Iran hasn't seen an ounce of it yet. If you're going to argue that Iran has both of those then I'll point out that all press is controlled by the government and people are executed for apostasy.

Realistically, can anyone run for the office of the US president? Does it not take extensive political connections and a good deal of economic independence for aspirants to have any chance of making it through even the primaries? Is that process of 'natural selection' democratic?

Can you put a price tag on that, please? Is the financial and political capital required to wage a campaign in Iran less than it is in the United States? To run for president in the US all you need gain a name for yourself by running for local and then increasingly broader offices. Take Obama for instance. He wasn't born the sun of political elitists. It is easier to get power when you were born with connections, but not a necessity. Many of these connections can be gained through a career. Many of the more cynical members of the forum would call be naive but there are plenty of politicians who did not start rich, so I can't possibly accept the claim that the American political system is disfranchised from the public.

You have to concede that in order to get in the position of running for office you have to garner the support of more than twelve people. And in the end, it is the electorate, not a theocratic council calling the shots.

Who elected Khamenei and why does he get to be in charge for the rest of his life? Are the voters having any say in who he appoints to government and military positions?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Just because you preface something with "all you need" or "all you have to do" doesn't mean it suddenly becomes easy. Sure, you could turn off the light and be asleep in bed before the room got dark, all you need to do is run faster than the speed of light.

 

[jtb1127]

Just because you preface something with "all you need" or "all you have to do" doesn't mean it suddenly becomes easy. Sure, you could turn off the light and be asleep in bed before the room got dark, all you need to do is run faster than the speed of light.

I used it to show that there was nothing else. No secret societies that the only the wealthy can be a part of or any of that other mythical crap which the public tends to think enshrouds politics.

 

[Leoreth]

Sure, the system is better, but I think it's manifestly ******** to insist that the fact that the people vote multiple times for the president means the people have power in a meaningful way.

If I was critical of liberal democracy as a whole, I would have a field day with this

 

[aelf]

Yes, but what how come none of the reforms have ever taken place. Take Khatami for instance. He advocated for freedom of speech and religious tolerance 15 years ago, but Iran hasn't seen an ounce of it yet. If you're going to argue that Iran has both of those then I'll point out that all press is controlled by the government and people are executed for apostasy.

So now we've moved away somewhat from this claim:

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?

And not "an ounce" of "freedom of speech and religious tolerance"? Eh. Unless it's something like North Korea, I wouldn't say that. It's silly hyperbole, but the fact that they come out easily probably explains why people so readily claim that Iran is a theocracy.

Can you put a price tag on that, please? Is the financial and political capital required to wage a campaign in Iran less than it is in the United States? To run for president in the US all you need gain a name for yourself by running for local and then increasingly broader offices. Take Obama for instance. He wasn't born the sun of political elitists. It is easier to get power when you were born with connections, but not a necessity. Many of these connections can be gained through a career. Many of the more cynical members of the forum would call be naive but there are plenty of politicians who did not start rich, so I can't possibly accept the claim that the American political system is disfranchised from the public.

Being born with wealth and connections is not the issue. You just have to have them, however you obtain them. That doesn't mean there's equality of opportunity, though. Obama was a Harvard law graduate who had the means, the background and the right personality to enter politics, even if he wasn't exactly born into wealth and an influential family. The fact that you have to have some wealth and connections already narrows down the pool of possible candidates severely.

And that's just talking about getting into office. Once you're in office, how much can you do? As the Obama presidency has demonstrated, just because you're president doesn't mean you have enough weight to pull. Obama can't break the elite power represented by Republicans in Congress. It's obviously naive to think that the office of the president embodies the power of the people.

You have to concede that in order to get in the position of running for office you have to garner the support of more than twelve people. And in the end, it is the electorate, not a theocratic council calling the shots.

Who elected Khamenei and why does he get to be in charge for the rest of his life? Are the voters having any say in who he appoints to government and military positions?

I never said that Iran is a beacon of democracy or whatever. I don't think it's a theocracy, though. It's a mixed system, like a lot of other countries.

 

[Winner]

I hope you don't mind if I nevertheless answer it. Of course it wouldn't help Israel if it gets nuked and the US retaliate. But for nuclear warfare logic it's only important that the Iranians can be certain of retaliation in case they use the bomb first, and given that it'll never be worth it for them to risk it.

So everyone who fears that Iran might launch a sudden nuclear strike on Israel or anyone else as soon as they're capable of it has to assume that the Iranian government is made up of complete lunatics, which is a completely wrong assessment of the situation.

I am not saying anything even remotely similar to that.

If Iran is ever going to get nuclear weapons, it's going to use it much like North Korea does: using them as a bargaining chip to get whatever favourable conditions from hostile foreign countries they need, and as a defensive threat against everyone talking about a quick invasion. This would be rational behavior.

Iran isn't North Korea and neither will it use its nuclear arsenal in the same way the North Koreans do.

(That said, I think Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would still be disastrous for the balance of power in the middle east and I wouldn't mind if Israel prevents it. I'm only objecting to the wildly unlikely scenarios that are thrown around here).

I understand. In discussions like these, it's the extremists (=people holding extreme positions) who often make it impossible to debate an issue rationally.

 

[Leoreth]

Iran isn't North Korea and neither will it use its nuclear arsenal in the same way the North Koreans do.

How do you think they would capitalize on it instead?