Well now i know. kthxbai
Why do the jewish have so much power? Because everyone felt bad for them?
While I agree that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is undesirable, I find the possibility of them attacking or destroying Israel to be highly unlikely. Ahmedinijad is a politician - this means at least half of what he says is a lie. Playing the anti-semitism, “let’s destroy Israel” card is something he uses to get people to vote for him, and maintain his popularity with the common Iranian people and, thus, his power. It hardly means he actually intends to launch nuclear missiles at Israel. Israel has its own nuclear weapons, far more advanced than Iran’s program, and they would certainly attack Iran if Iran attacked them.
Furthermore, I don’t believe we have to worry about Iran dominating other Muslim countries if they got nukes:
President Barack Obama agreed Wednesday to share US nuclear power technology with the oil-rich United Arab Emirates, giving his consent to a deal signed in the final days of George W. Bush’s administration.
The pact now goes to Congress, which will have 90 days to amend or reject it.
The agreement creates a legal framework for the US to transfer sensitive nuclear items to the United Arab Emirates, a federation of seven Middle Eastern states that wants nuclear power to satisfy growing demand for electricity.
Although flush with oil, the emirates imports 60 percent of the natural gas they use to generate electricity. The United Arab Emerates wants to break its dependence on outside sources for its energy needs and settled on nuclear power as the best option.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212428027&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
The U.S. would simply start supplying Gulf Arab countries with nuclear technology.
So much for no political arguments 
- Iran borders Afghanistan which is currently in the shitter.
- Iran borders Pakistan which is on the brink of government meltdown.
- Pakistan has developed nuclear technology including nukes (which aren’t as big of a deal compared to all the power plants in the area).
I can think of a number of really good reasons why a war in Iran would be a bad thing (but not right now since I just pulled an all-nighter).
Wow, you guys anger me and annoy me. For all those who expressed a lack of interest in the subject at hand, the easiest thing to do, instead of posting about how you don’t care, is to not post. That way you can continue to not care and I don’t have to spend time calling you an asshole for cluttering up a thread with useless, irrelevant posts.
I didn’t make this clear in the first post. The uniqueness of the situation in Iran isn’t that there was fraud in the election, it is that there is a major push back against that fraud and the establishment that perpetrated it underway at this very moment. We are talking crowds in the streets, riot police, burning buildings, that sort of thing. Given the reduced ability for information to make its way out of Iran along the normal channels at the moment, it’s difficult to get an accurate picture of what’s going on at the moment. Eg: There was a pro-reformist rally the other day that has variously been reported as drawing 100,000 people or 2,000,000. These are numbers not to be met with apathy. Any time cracks appear in a repressive state’s ability to control the apparent public sentiment, an opportunity to radically change the near future of that people presents itself. I am not sure what a more democratic Iran would look like, but I am interested and hopeful in what an Iran run less by a Supreme Leader will.
I recommend that anyone interested in the news go find a couple articles to read.
Waving your arms in panic about nukes is silly. Anyone who ever has the balls to drop a nuke on someone will have it returned to them in such a way that every square inch of their country will glow in the dark for the next 10 000 years. Let’s not stir pointless agitation.
As RPT said, these are massive, unprecedented protests that have drawn a response from the supreme leadership that has never occurred before. This is highly unstable stuff. Of all people at this time, the Israelis need to keep their traps shut and let things run their course because anything they say or do can backfire on them by giving the Iranian leadership an excellent opportunity to distract the people from the current problem by redirecting their attention.
The problem with that is that you’re assuming we’re dealing with rational people. Ahmedinijad’s statements have been religious rather than political in nature. If someone’s nuts enough, they’ll be perfectly willing to condemn their own country in order to achieve their spiritual goals. The point isn’t whether this will reasonably happen or not; it’s that, as a tiny country which could literally be obliterated by a single nuclear bomb, Israel can’t afford to take chances.
Anyway, to the best of my knowledge Israel hasn’t made any statements about the current turmoil.
In the U.S. during the 1960s, there were huge riots and demonstrations. Does this mean that the U.S. was on the verge of collapse? No, because ultimately, the demonstrations were only supported by a minority(albeit, a highly visible minority) of the population. The media blew it all out of proportion. Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 despite all the liberal political activism.
The same thing is happening here. Ahmedinijad could not have frauded the entire margin he won by(which was decisive). He really did win the election, even if some level of fraud was involved…
I agree that its significant that Iran’s repression is being displayed to the entire world; but I do not believe that a revolution is going to occur or that the majority of Iranians support these demonstrations. Don’t take this to mean that I don’t sympathize or agree with the protesters - I do.
Most political leaders of countries are rational; otherwise they would not have attained as much power as they have. You have to have a pretty good grip on reality to get that high in lifel; and you need a very strong sense of self-preservation. Furthermore, you’re forgetting about the leaders below Ahmedinijad who could easily stop him if he truly went nuts(which I don’t think he is).
Religious rather than political in nature? Geez, its not like politicians ever use religion to achieve their political aims sarcasm
In cases where countries seem to act irrationally, its usually because they act in their short-term interest without caring about the long-term… not because of a lone nut. For instance, Germany and Japan starting WWII; Hitler did not cause WWII, that should be evident by the fact that Germany had started a different world war 25 years before Hitler. But launching nukes at Israel is not in any way in the interest of Iran, short-term or long-term.
The magnitude of the protests should tell you that a large proportion of the Iranian people are not fanatics and have no interests in committing suicide to pre-emptively nuclear bomb a tiny country. I understand the government is hostile and that there is a lot of bad blood, but making caricatures helps no one.
No you don’t. It’s perfectly reasonable that someone can, by the simple means of getting a long lucky streak they happen to get high in life. It happens all the time, simply because that’s the nature of luck. Given a large enough starting sample size, it’s extremely likely someone will achieve a run of luck which is extremely unlikely.
Also someone was killed yesterday. I don’t know if this will spark a revolution or not, but it’s certainly not going to make things better.
Edit: I should make it clear; that’s not to say everyone at the top is a lucky fool. But a good percentage are.
what? Jews are not a major part of the population in Iran. They’re part of a 2% minority of non-muslims in the country.
I didn’t even realize this until I did a paper on them for my religions class last weel, but there are only like 12/13 million Jews on the entire planet. About five million live in the US, and 5 in Israel. The rest are spread thinly around the plantet. They’re not in a position of power.
All of this may be perfectly true - however, Israel is not willing to risk complete instant annihilation on the goodwill of a country which is significantly hostile to it and which has made very explicit remarks that it plans on destroying Israel. Israel hasn’t done anything about it yet, and obviously won’t unless the situation gets more serious, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to relax.
If Iran does nuke Israel, maybe there would be a response attack - but Iran is many dozens of times the size of Israel. It would be crippled but not destroyed. Israel would be gone at that point.
As for the elections, Curtis, I think you misunderstand what an “election” is in Iran. The candidates are chosen by the 12-member Guardian Council - if they don’t like you, you don’t run. The results are counted, announced and endorsed by the same Council. Oh, and did I mention that the Council endorsed Ahmadinijad before the “elections”? Finally, the results were announced mere hours after the closing of the polls, despite the polls being hand-written and there being more than 40 million of them.
Sure, that sounds totally legit to me.
No you don’t. It’s perfectly reasonable that someone can, by the simple means of getting a long lucky streak they happen to get high in life. It happens all the time, simply because that’s the nature of luck. Given a large enough starting sample size, it’s extremely likely someone will achieve a run of luck which is extremely unlikely.
Also someone was killed yesterday. I don’t know if this will spark a revolution or not, but it’s certainly not going to make things better.
Edit: I should make it clear; that’s not to say everyone at the top is a lucky fool. But a good percentage are.
Then we’re at a fundamental disagreement, because I believe luck counts for very little. I remember debating about this in the thread you made about chance(I forget the name of the theory). I believe that character determines one’s fate, not “the stars”, and there is probably plenty of psychology research to back this up. Which I don’t feel like looking up. 
But seriously, look at any one person’s life and you’d find, except for rare exceptions, that their personality was the determinant of how their life developed, not random circumstances.
But aside from that, chance still ignores the fact that nations repeat the same behavior regardless of who is leader. For instance, Germany started a war with the exact same aims that Hitler had 25 years before Hitler ascended to power. So in Germany’s two world wars, what do you think was the decisive factor, Hitler or Germany itself? People blame Bush for Iraq, yet they ignore the fact that every president since Reagan has waged a preemptive war. With the support of the American people every single time. Nation’s have a life of their own that transcends political leadership.
I think a lot of people don’t want to accept one fact, which is that a lot of(probably most) Iranians actually like what Ahmedinejad says. Disturbing, I know, but if most of the power really rests in the hands of the Council, then that means Ahmedinejad was chosen only to be a figurehead. And if he is a figurehead, that means that he’s someone who was chosen because people would actually like and get behind him. americans want to believe Iranians are enlightened liberals yearning for freedom, just as we wanted to believe the same thing about the Iraqis. Yet upon receiving freedom, the Iraqis preceded to not only loot and kill each other wholesale, but also elect radical religious candidates who want to take away people’s civil rights. Not to mention the religious war between the Shiites and Sunnis. Is it really so far a stretch to believe that many people actually want a leader who will go to war and deprive people of their civil rights?
Also, if the Council does have all the power, as you imply, then who’s president doesn’t matter, no? They’ll just choose any old demagogue to placate the people, and keep their own agenda hidden. And if they have to have a reformer as president, they’ll make sure its no one who will cause trouble. A reformer, Khatani, was president before Ahmedinejad, and he accomplished jack shit. Which brings up another point: why would they pick a reformer they weren’t afraid of, but then rig the elections so that he lost? If they choose who gets to run, why even allow him to run in the first place if they planned on stealing the election? Possibly because they didn’t steal the election?
I also point the example of riots in America in the 60s and early 70s. During that time, there was massive violence, rioting in cities, etc. Yet Nixon was elected twice. The media blew a vocal and agitated minority out of perspective. It happens all the time.
There are reams of psychological work which equally backs the opposite. The problem with the psychological research which only deals with the winners is that it has a huge tendency to ignore survivorship bias. This is the bias that fails to take into account the losers as well as the winners, as such skewing the result towards a higher average. It presumes that because they have won, they must have some specific trait which allowed them to succeed. This is fallacious as it ignores the starting sample size.
Also I’d suggest that you are absolutely wrong on the latter, in general it is the random event which defines if a person wins or loses, though personality does indeed play a part. But, for example, had I not chosen (quite at random) to go to the computer science course at 16 I’d have had a completely different life experience, as I would never have met the people I did there, or at least not until I went to college. I can make no hypothesis on how my life would have gone otherwise, but it would have been very different and it was just an unpredictable event which caused it.
But as I also don’t feel like looking up the research I guess whatever. You keep believing that hard work always pays off that luck determines very little.
Hard work combined with other personality traits causes success. Hard work alone won’t do it, since the vast majority of people work their asses off just to survive yet aren’t able to attain greater success. Anyway, what makes you think it was the totally unique environment of your computer class that changed you? You could have changed in a number of different environments that were similar to the computer class, that you would have encountered because you were seeking out those environments, consciously or subconsiously. But I think we’ve already had this argument, and I’ll take your word for it that it was chance. But that doesn’t apply to everyone’s experience.
Also, and I point out again, nations repeat behavior. This would point to chance in leadership playing a very small role. People blame Bush for iraq, but we did the same damn thing with Vietnam, 40 years before and with a Democratic president!
I think a lot of people don’t want to accept one fact, which is that a lot of(probably most) Iranians actually like what Ahmedinejad says.
Depends. From what I’ve read, he’s an embarrassment to a lot of them, needlessly antagonizing other nations for no real reason, and apparently he’s seen as a bit of an idiot. His domestic track record isn’t very good in terms of economy etc. either.
why would they pick a reformer they weren’t afraid of, but then rig the elections so that he lost? If they choose who gets to run, why even allow him to run in the first place if they planned on stealing the election?
Because they wanted to give the illusion of democracy to placate the people while not actually giving them democracy. If there were no elections at all, the riots would be much larger and more violent. Sure, this particular candidate is probably not going to do anything radical. That’s not the point. The point is that the people are rebelling against what they see as a decision stolen from them.
As for whether the people are a minority or not… well, it’s hard to tell, no? Certainly in any given issue, only a minority are going to protest. For every protester there’s probably five or ten people who agree with them but couldn’t be bothered to actually get out there. So the larger the “vocal minority”, generally speaking the larger the “silent minority” - or possibly majority - who root for them.
Stop right there.
Think about that sentence. What you’ve read. Who writes?
Generally, educated people or at least people with access to publishing media, either journalists or even bloggers who have a computer, internet, etc.
So, at most, 20% of Iran? It’s not a rich country, it’s pretty rural still after all.
So even if he is an embarassment to ‘alot’ of them, he can still have a strong support from the silent majority. No?
basically,
filthy westerner pig-dogs dont understand the groove of the peasants
power to the people (and allah) \m/