Iran Hasn't attacked anyone in 200 years

[RoofGardener]

Sadly, the "glory" that was Persia has pretty much been obliterated by the current "Republic". They certainly don't value anything that happened prior to around 600 AD, and even denigrate it.

Off at a tangent: I always thought that the Iranian theocracy was a monolithic entity, but the truth is rather more interesting. The government is actually made up of a series of interlocking constitutional bodies, often with colourful names (Guardian Council, Assembly of Experts, Expediency Discernment Council, the Circle of Beards, the Corps of the Guardians). You may be interested in the Wikipedia article on this - Iranian government .

Make sure you scroll down to the section called "Complexity of the System.", as I may be asking questions later.

[+and-then]

Iran's complicity in international intrigues has little to nothing to do with their nuclear program. The two are quite separate issues.

And if you wish to point to Iran's supplying of arms to organisations such as Hezbollah, I would ask you where are Hezbollah's WMD's then? If Iran isn't supplying them chemical weapons, then why assume Iran would supply them nuclear ones?

I do not assume Iran will supply nukes to anyone. I have regularly stated my main problem with Iranian nukes. They will cause an arms race - they will be used to blackmail in the short term and finally and worst of all, they may cause an unintended escalation between Israel and one of Iran's proxies -without Iranian approval. Dismiss all these points as you may, they are all quite valid. Frankly only a fool thinks of Iran as a benign force, no worse than others in the world.

[Yamato]

I do not assume Iran will supply nukes to anyone. I have regularly stated my main problem with Iranian nukes. They will cause an arms race - they will be used to blackmail in the short term and finally and worst of all, they may cause an unintended escalation between Israel and one of Iran's proxies -without Iranian approval. Dismiss all these points as you may, they are all quite valid. Frankly only a fool thinks of Iran as a benign force, no worse than others in the world.

Well if you don't assume that, then

Why does any of that single out Iranian nukes (pauses for laughter) from anyone else's? We had our arms race. Israel had its arms race. Why can't Iran have theirs? If it's just about the arms race, you're yet again giving yourself freedom that you're denying to others. That's hypocritical.

[+and-then]

Well if you don't assume that, then

Why does any of that single out Iranian nukes (pauses for laughter) from anyone else's? We had our arms race. Israel had its arms race. Why can't Iran have theirs? If it's just about the arms race, you're yet again giving yourself freedom that you're denying to others. That's hypocritical.

Yam in your world view we must give everyone the same rights - it's a noble concept but the reality is that some people will do whatever it takes to subjugate others. Israel is a prime example of this kind of irrational thinking in the world today. We expect them to behave FAR better than we would in similar circumstances. They are literally expected to wait until they have dead citizens to bury before attempting to stop OBVIOUS planning for terror attacks. Iran's leaders have waged a war in the shadows mostly for a couple of decades now. It is foolish to think they will not use the power that this weapon will imbue them with to gain ascendancy in the region. These are SERIOUSLY anti democratic forces who are all about subjugating others and wielding power over them from a political/religious angle. In short, your view of the world in light of history is simple minded to the point of being childish. At what point would you stand up to a country that is positioning itself to control a region vital to the whole world? Iran's proxies in the M.E. are spoiling for a fight with Israel at all ties. Tehran seems to have reasonably good control over them but I doubt that the mullahs fully approved of what Assad started. And if Hezbollah or one of the others like them decide that they can finish Israel and if they start the offensive that "big brother" will bail them out - do you think Israel will hesitate to nuke Iran and or any other entity that is close to over running them? No nations these days have any RIGHT to these weapons. The more of them out there the greater the chances they will eventually be used. When that happens the world will change for the worse in a single day.

[Yamato]

Yam in your world view we must give everyone the same rights - it's a noble concept but the reality is that some people will do whatever it takes to subjugate others. Israel is a prime example of this kind of irrational thinking in the world today. We expect them to behave FAR better than we would in similar circumstances. They are literally expected to wait until they have dead citizens to bury before attempting to stop OBVIOUS planning for terror attacks. Iran's leaders have waged a war in the shadows mostly for a couple of decades now. It is foolish to think they will not use the power that this weapon will imbue them with to gain ascendancy in the region. These are SERIOUSLY anti democratic forces who are all about subjugating others and wielding power over them from a political/religious angle. In short, your view of the world in light of history is simple minded to the point of being childish. At what point would you stand up to a country that is positioning itself to control a region vital to the whole world? Iran's proxies in the M.E. are spoiling for a fight with Israel at all ties. Tehran seems to have reasonably good control over them but I doubt that the mullahs fully approved of what Assad started. And if Hezbollah or one of the others like them decide that they can finish Israel and if they start the offensive that "big brother" will bail them out - do you think Israel will hesitate to nuke Iran and or any other entity that is close to over running them? No nations these days have any RIGHT to these weapons. The more of them out there the greater the chances they will eventually be used. When that happens the world will change for the worse in a single day.

Except everyone already has the same rights. The only difference between people is, whether or not they have the liberty to exercise their rights. And judging by the governments we're propping up in the Middle East after all these years, liberty is not the agenda. We hide behind our self-righteous speak of "liberalism" and "secularism", "exceptionalism" and "democratic" values, our "Jewish" values, the national security of our allies, all while holding up some of the most despicable authoritarian regimes in the world. I can't assume all that, and then go play "Whose Nukes". Playing an honest game is impossible.

Where does this narrative on Iran come from? What sources of information do you have or have you had for the things you say about Iran? I'm guessing it's straight out of the mouths of Israeli bureaucrats but I have to ask because I don't know.

[Space Commander Travis]

Except everyone already has the same rights. The only difference between people is, whether or not they have the liberty to exercise their rights. And judging by the governments we're propping up in the Middle East after all these years, liberty is not the agenda. We hide behind our self-righteous speak of "liberalism" and "secularism", "exceptionalism" and "democratic" values, our "Jewish" values, the national security of our allies, all while holding up some of the most despicable authoritarian regimes in the world. I can't assume all that, and then go play "Whose Nukes". Playing an honest game is impossible.

That's a fair point. The difference seems to be that though Saudi Arabia, for example, makes Iran look like California during the Flower Power era, they haven't blustered about Israel, and so they can be overlooked because it's only if countries bluster about Israel that we suddenly get concerned about how undemocratic they are ..

[+and-then]

Except everyone already has the same rights. The only difference between people is, whether or not they have the liberty to exercise their rights. And judging by the governments we're propping up in the Middle East after all these years, liberty is not the agenda. We hide behind our self-righteous speak of "liberalism" and "secularism", "exceptionalism" and "democratic" values, our "Jewish" values, the national security of our allies, all while holding up some of the most despicable authoritarian regimes in the world. I can't assume all that, and then go play "Whose Nukes". Playing an honest game is impossible.

Where does this narrative on Iran come from? What sources of information do you have or have you had for the things you say about Iran? I'm guessing it's straight out of the mouths of Israeli bureaucrats but I have to ask because I don't know.

If you are asking for court documents as proof of Iran's intentions or photographs of them actually working on a bomb before you will believe it then you have an incurable case of naivete OR you simply don't care if they attain the weapon. I think we missed the bus awhile back on actually stopping them. They WILL have it. They are just waiting until they can test or declare without risking more sanctions. No hurry at this point - especially when their partners in NK can do the testing on their behalf. I find it impossible to believe that a rational adult cannot see the events transpiring there and still deny the intentions of this mullocracy.

[+and-then]

That's a fair point. The difference seems to be that though Saudi Arabia, for example, makes Iran look like California during the Flower Power era, they haven't blustered about Israel, and so they can be overlooked because it's only if countries bluster about Israel that we suddenly get concerned about how undemocratic they are ..

Calling for the eradication of another member state of the UN is a tad bit more than "bluster" wouldn't you say? One can make a million excuses to cover for them but when they actually decide to field a weapon, the changes in the region will have nothing but negative consequences for all of us in the west. But I'm sure you have that covered - you can just grumble at the US while you pay double for your fuel.

[Leonardo]

Calling for the eradication of another member state of the UN is a tad bit more than "bluster" wouldn't you say?

That chestnut is so old it's fossilised.

There was no call for the "eradication of another member state", but rhetoric regarding the administration of that state - not the same thing.

[Space Commander Travis]

That chestnut is so old it's fossilised.

There was no call for the "eradication of another member state", but rhetoric regarding the administration of that state - not the same thing.

It seems very much like with the Bible; which translation you prefer seems to depend on what you want it to say. As an always reliable source says,

In a 2005 speech Ahmadinejad praises the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei for demanding that "... the regime that occupies Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time"' However, the original translation was much more ominous, with Ahmadinejad threatening to "wipe Israel off the face of the map," and for the next several years this mistranslation was repeated thousands of times in the media and by politicians. ^[168][169]

Edited March 7, 2014 by Colonel Rhubarb

[RavenHawk]

It seems very much like with the Bible; which translation you prefer seems to depend on what you want it to say. As an always reliable source says,

In a 2005 speech Ahmadinejad praises the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei for demanding that "... the regime that occupies Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time"' However, the original translation was much more ominous, with Ahmadinejad threatening to "wipe Israel off the face of the map," and for the next several years this mistranslation was repeated thousands of times in the media and by politicians

Does it really matter which translation is used? They both imply the very same thing.

[Space Commander Travis]

A country is the same as its current leader? That's what he seemed to be talking about. There is a difference there. it's really not unlike saying that "the regime that occupies the White House must be erased from the pages of time". Is that the same as saying that America should be erased from existence?

[+and-then]

That chestnut is so old it's fossilised.

There was no call for the "eradication of another member state", but rhetoric regarding the administration of that state - not the same thing.

It takes a person desiring to cover for this regime to still be saying this. Play semantic games all you like but only a fool still believes that nonsense. The leaders of Iran regularly spout some variation of that "chestnut" until today.

[RavenHawk]

A country is the same as its current leader? That's what he seemed to be talking about. There is a difference there. it's really not unlike saying that "the regime that occupies the White House must be erased from the pages of time". Is that the same as saying that America should be erased from existence?

You open up several new aspects. Is the leader the same as the regime? It depends. If America’s Constitutional Republic is replaced by Socialism as our Progressive/Socialists are trying to do then yes, America would be erased from existence. It would only be America in-name-only. Now on top of that, if we had an enemy intent on our destruction, it wouldn’t be too long before we are conquered in short order. Social Democracy doesn’t lend too well to patriotism needed to defend your homeland but complacency to the new management. Likewise, if Israel loses its leadership or regime then it would be ripe for her enemies to finish wiping her out and/or the new regime capitulating and becoming a Dhimmis state. And that is counter to the whole point of having a Jewish state. So is there really a difference?

[spacecowboy342]

You open up several new aspects. Is the leader the same as the regime? It depends. If America's Constitutional Republic is replaced by Socialism as our Progressive/Socialists are trying to do then yes, America would be erased from existence. It would only be America in-name-only. Now on top of that, if we had an enemy intent on our destruction, it wouldn't be too long before we are conquered in short order. Social Democracy doesn't lend too well to patriotism needed to defend your homeland but complacency to the new management. Likewise, if Israel loses its leadership or regime then it would be ripe for her enemies to finish wiping her out and/or the new regime capitulating and becoming a Dhimmis state. And that is counter to the whole point of having a Jewish state. So is there really a difference?

Where is our economic status mentioned in the constitution? Free market capitalism vs. socialism has nothing to do with what America is. If right wing nazis have there way and set up a theocracy that would be America in name only

[RavenHawk]

Where is our economic status mentioned in the constitution?

Primarily in the Preamble especially in the phrases “in Order to form a more perfect Union” and “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” and the Bill of Rights. Plus we see it from the Declaration of Independence where it talks of Natural Rights, which are “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

Free market capitalism vs. socialism has nothing to do with what America is.

It has everything to do with America. It is the heart of what our Founding Fathers had intented.

If right wing nazis have there way and set up a theocracy that would be America in name only

That would be correct as well.

[spacecowboy342]

Primarily in the Preamble especially in the phrases "in Order to form a more perfect Union" and "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" and the Bill of Rights. Plus we see it from the Declaration of Independence where it talks of Natural Rights, which are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

It has everything to do with America. It is the heart of what our Founding Fathers had intented.

That would be correct as well.

Nothing is mentioned in the constitution about capitalism. And what the founders intended is irrelevant. They intended for only white male landowners to vote. Color me unimpressed with what the founders intended. We, as a nation, have grown far beyond 18th century ideas of freedom and equality

[+and-then]

Nothing is mentioned in the constitution about capitalism. And what the founders intended is irrelevant. They intended for only white male landowners to vote. Color me unimpressed with what the founders intended. We, as a nation, have grown far beyond 18th century ideas of freedom and equality

Fortunately for the rest of us, those founders were savvy enough to create a form of government not so easily "evolved" due to whatever current wind of change might strike the anointed few. As for the "right wing nazis and the US becoming a theocracy - what are you smoking? Religious types and ideals are in full retreat - being shouted down by citizens like yourself all over this country. It is my sincere wish that you and those like you will VERY soon live in a nation where there are ZERO Christians to worry about any more. I hope it's all you dream of but somehow I'm thinking you'll not be satisfied with that either.

[spacecowboy342]

Fortunately for the rest of us, those founders were savvy enough to create a form of government not so easily "evolved" due to whatever current wind of change might strike the anointed few. As for the "right wing nazis and the US becoming a theocracy - what are you smoking? Religious types and ideals are in full retreat - being shouted down by citizens like yourself all over this country. It is my sincere wish that you and those like you will VERY soon live in a nation where there are ZERO Christians to worry about any more. I hope it's all you dream of but somehow I'm thinking you'll not be satisfied with that either.

Untrue. Our government and our interpretation of what is constitutional has evolved. I don't care if people are Christian or not as long as they don't try to legislate their morality. And FYI there are no more like me

[SolarPlexus]

I have great respect for Iran and Syria. They are the cradle of civilization and have culture which spans 8000 years. Who are western powers to invade them and dictate their will ? Those two countries have proven to be a tough nut to crack.

[RavenHawk]

Nothing is mentioned in the constitution about capitalism.

What do you think is meant by “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”? That is a direct reference to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” which are Natural Rights from John Locke of whose philosophy the Founding Fathers were immersed in. It is that philosophy that our Constitution is based in. It is that philosophy that provides a fertile environment for free markets. Individual Rights, private ownership, and entrepreneurship are all bulwarks of American Exceptionalism.

And what the founders intended is irrelevant.

Picking jaw up off floor. The survival of our Constitutional Republic (i.e. not a Democracy) hinges on what they intended.

They intended for only white male landowners to vote.

That is one of the most racist things I’ve heard. Just because they where white males doesn’t mean that they were exclusive. That was just the environment that they came from but other than for the sensibilities of their time, where pretty much color blind.

Color me unimpressed with what the founders intended. We, as a nation, have grown far beyond 18th century ideas of freedom and equality

Oh really? Well Socialism is a concept that is as old as history. Our form of government born from that 18th Century is something new in the human condition. It’s taken this long for Man to break the shackles of slavery.

[+and-then]

Untrue. Our government and our interpretation of what is constitutional has evolved. I don't care if people are Christian or not as long as they don't try to legislate their morality. And FYI there are no more like me

[+and-then]

I have great respect for Iran and Syria. They are the cradle of civilization and have culture which spans 8000 years. Who are western powers to invade them and dictate their will ? Those two countries have proven to be a tough nut to crack.

All they have proven is that they are willing to submit themselves to a barbaric ideology and kill those who refuse to do so. I suspect that this civilization you refer to was FAR more noble than what currently passes for a government there.

[spacecowboy342]

What do you think is meant by "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"? That is a direct reference to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" which are Natural Rights from John Locke of whose philosophy the Founding Fathers were immersed in. It is that philosophy that our Constitution is based in. It is that philosophy that provides a fertile environment for free markets. Individual Rights, private ownership, and entrepreneurship are all bulwarks of American Exceptionalism.

Picking jaw up off floor. The survival of our Constitutional Republic (i.e. not a Democracy) hinges on what they intended.

That is one of the most racist things I've heard. Just because they where white males doesn't mean that they were exclusive. That was just the environment that they came from but other than for the sensibilities of their time, where pretty much color blind.

Oh really? Well Socialism is a concept that is as old as history. Our form of government born from that 18th Century is something new in the human condition. It's taken this long for Man to break the shackles of slavery.

Still nothing to do with capitalism. The rights of man have to do with governments ruling by the consent of the government instead of the divine right of kings not economics.Color blind my eye

[+and-then]

Untrue. Our government and our interpretation of what is constitutional has evolved. I don't care if people are Christian or not as long as they don't try to legislate their morality. And FYI there are no more like me

Seriously - I realize that there has been some evolution - the amendments testify to that but what I understood from your post was that you were questioning the wisdom of our founders versus our modern version of leadership. And I actually respect your statement about Christians - to be treated in that way is all any religious person can expect.