Nuclear Iran

[Tacolicious]

Are you aware of how stupid that sounds? Honestly. That's like demanding I prove the sky is blue. I don't have to prove shit. All I have to do is point and say "look."

Funny how when I point around and say "look" it's paranoid and unhealthy, and yet for you it's all that's required of a debate. We're not debating something so obvious as the colour of the sky (although there is scientific proof to back up that it does indeed appear blue) we're discussing the merits of political and social systems, something slightly more involved. So yes, if you want any credit for the stance you're going to take you need proof.

Freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want about the government. I can say whatever I want about the government. I can say "Stephen Harper's ruining this country, and his government needs to go" without fear of being arrested. You can stand up and blabber about your utopian, socialist ideal of society, and call capitalism evil without fear of being arrested.

Freedom of Speech. You brought up being arrested for disturbing the peace. Yeah, if you climb ontop of a picnic table in the park and start yelling like a madman, and even then I'd say there's a chance that the police would just let you be. Still, if you're disturbing the peace, then you're abusing your freedoms the the point that *gasp* harm is brought to others.
If, however, you wanted to organize a ralley, you're free to say whatever the fuck you wanted, and you wouldn't be persicuted in the slightest for it.

Yes, this explains why all those protests usually end up getting tear gassed. Because one or two "bad apples" stepped out of line and now we have to break up the whole crowd. The RCMP has been caught sending agitators into peacefully assembled crowds to give them an excuse to break it up, it is only by the individual fighting to protect those rights that they are able to keep them or win them.

Disturbing the peace is a surprisingly easy "crime" to commit and thanks to the Patriot act and similar legislation in Canada people can now be detained without charge or by the actions of peacefully assembling be classified as "terrorists" and then watch the rights evaporate.

Magizines and newspapers? Same thing. They're free to publish whatever they want. You see it all the time, articles criticizing the government, sometimes articles ripping the PM and his polocies to shreds. These articles are written with the author's knowledge that he's free to do so without fear of being arrested, and published without the fear of the publication being closed.

I notice you skirt away from the centralized media control and censorship, just saying magazines can print whatever they like. That must be why it's now illegal to photograph coffins of returned soldiers, that must be why journalists have been jailed for refusing to reveal sources and if you honestly think political influence has never killed a story then... well, you gotta figure out that for yourself.

Freedom of sexual orientation. Seems like a pretty sweet deal to me, but I'm sure you'll find some way that "proves" it's just an illusion put on by Big Brother.

You mean the battle fought by individuals to win rights which should have been their from the very moment someone wrote that all men people are created equal? It has a lot of similarities to the woman's rights, labour rights and civic rights movements of the past. Movements strongly opposed by the ruling powers and only granted after a lengthy period of conflict at great personal cost to the individuals involved. That they now have these rights is not a credit to the government which finally gave in to the demands of a large portion of the population tired of being oppressed, but to the individuals who stood up and said "What you're doing is wrong and I'm not going to take it anymore"

We don't have the illusion of freedom and democracy, we have the real deal. Our freedom is very much a reality. Just because it's restricted to the point that it causes harm to others doesn't make it any less real.

I'm interested to know how you consider our system truly democratic... first off how many parties live up to their election platforms? Few if any, so people vote for them on the assumption they'll actually be honest enough to do what they said they'll do. Now assuming the guy is first past the post (which is an undemocratic system by it's very nature) and actually tries to carry out the will of his constituents he'll have to deal with the party whip who's job it is to enforce members vote along party lines... big business and government are cozy partners and big business knows no party lines.

Now if the government were truly democratic: Canada would not be in Afghanistan because the majority of Canadians oppose our being there. The Green party would hold 10% of the seats in parliament. The Senate would be abolished (unelected people with the power to override parliament... dem-o-crat-ic!).

You have done nothing but chastise me, and question my IQ.

You've been skimming my posts a little too liberally me thinks... there's plenty more in there had you bothered to read.

so I'm going to put the smackdown on your "I-S is an idiot" campaign.

You're doing more for that campaign then I ever could... nice "smack down" though.. attack the debater not the ideas expressed... smoooth.

I scored a 4.0 my last three years of high school. I scored a 5 out of 5 in grade 10 in a university level US History course (including a paper I wrote claiming the reasons for the American Revolution were BS).
I was chosen for the math team. Chess club. The most successfull president in Student Council history at my high school. Top GPA in my class for grades 10, 11, and 12. I gave the student's speech at my graduation.
I've read enough works of sociologists, historians, political scientists, and philosophers to make my own head spin.
Fuck, Nietzsche and Des Carte make up my bathroom reading material.

5/5 OMG! Because so many university level courses work on the x of 5 scale! Good thing your high school was offering university level courses to grade 10 students. When I was in grade 10 we had grade 10 courses... I guess things worked a little differently "back in the day".

Math Team... Chess Team.. how relevant for the topic at hand.

That's great that you got good grades in high school and all, but it doesn't give your arguments any more weight. That's great that you've read a lot, so much in fact to "make your own head spin" but reading a thing and understanding a thing are slightly different, I'd think someone more well read could respond to the arguments  provided, of course it's silly to expect evidence to be supported or questioned in a debate.

So to end this exchange between us, screw you Taco. First of all, I helped found this region, so how about some respect for one of the members who made it possible for you to have a forum to post your musings.

Screw Taco?!... Awwww you're cute when you're angry.

Yay, you helped found the region... wonderful... founder powers and all that jazz... You want some respect, earn it. I can only hope this does end this exchange though, because you clearly have no intention of writing anything other than personal attacks while ignoring the actual debate.

But guess what. I was also my high school hockey team's starting goalie, I drink, I smoke, I curse more then I probably should. So if this is the view you have of me, as some idiotic jock who happened to stumble across NationStates, then all I have to say to you is fuck off. 'Cause I'm not the first guy you think of when you think of an intellectual, but I have the skills to back up my game.

So our high grade scoring chess nerd math teamster best ever school president is also a rough customer goalie with an attitude. This has truth written all over it. You curse (teehee), wonderful... because I fucking swear my god damned ass off.

Drinkin' smokin' and a hootin' an a hollerin' great... you do got a big ego, big ego yet humble, intelligent, rough and tough, locked, loaded and ready to roll. A rebel with a cause who plays by the rules... You may as well have added that you were holy pope of your elementary school's Harvard debate team for all the belief I'll put in the description you just gave of yourself.

You brought up Polygomists. Well that's not a religion, but I'll play ball.
Polygomy isn't allowed because of the same reason human sacrifice isn't allowed. It's a danger to the general population. Again we see the responsibilities of our freedom. We're free to practice whatever faith we wish, so long as the general public isn't threatened. With Polygomy all you have to do is look at the recent case in Utah, where Warren Jeffs (pretty sure that's his name), the leader of a cult that practices Polygomy, forced a 14 year old girl to marry an older man, and instructed the older man to "consimate" the marriage. Basically he organized the rapping of a 14 year old girl. That's why Polygomy isn't allowed.
Now the actual religion that is known for Polygomy, Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints), is completly, 100% legal. If you want to be a Morman, go for it. Just as is the case with any other faith.
Anyways thanks for starting that flame war, it was fun and all but it would have been more fun if you had kept the discussion to the arguments at hand instead of going personal on this.

Danger to the general population? The same was once said of Homosexuality, yes people have been exploited by this system... so if a religion has been linked to sexually abusing a child it should be outlawed, right... because it's a threat to the general population. So what about priests and alter boys? I guess the catholic church should be outlawed, hell that's worse then the polygamist case which you feels justifies it's being illegal. First the alter boys were younger, second they were assaulted directly by the priests... thus more harmful.

Polygamy as a consenting relationship between adults is healthy normal and perfectly fine, yet it remains illegal for no other reason then the fact that the bible opposes it. Can you taste the freedom?

Anyways the government historically has been a very poor guard of personal freedoms. I feel I've shown plenty to show why this is so, you've chosen to ignore rebuttals and arguments and to attack on a personal level. You asserted "If someone hits you, you hit back" and then complain when I return the personal attack, yet more proof of a statement I made some while ago "revenge is never justified" and here we are both exercising our "rights of retaliation" and it's only getting more vicious as it goes. Interesting how I outlined this trend some posts back... maybe if you'd been willing to actually consider the ideas I put forward instead of just assuming your right is the only right there is and insulting anyone who disagrees with your point which is so right it requires no proof because the proof is the world.. which is where I've established all the trends for the ideas I've put forward which just applied accurately to the situation at hand and which works to describe larger cycles currently in play... funny cycle eh?

Anyways I really hope this is the last post you make in regards to this because you've just driven us further off course in this discussion then ever before, but if you wanna keep going with this cycle of petty back-and-forth I'm more then game, but you have to start actually defending your points of view instead of just saying they prove themselves, and you have to start refuting my arguments, you have to do so with facts, not just saying "you're wrong that's crazy, you're crazy and dumb"...

Either put up or shut up,
                               Taco

[Bender1968]

That's very smart for you, isn't it? What kind of culture do you live in?

I live in a culture where I'm allowed to speak my mind and disagree with someone.  I happen to live in the US and have lived through the cold war.  I know what its like to turn on the news and wonder if some of these minor skirmishes are going to turn into a full blown nuclear war.  You have no idea of the terror that one of the super powers might have had enough and invade Europe whether on a whim or because of a dispute some where else on the planet.  Now you want to give a nuclear power plant(you still have no clue how they work even though I posted it) to a nation that has a terrorist as president.  What you don't understand is you have no friends when it comes to global politics, just varying degrees of hate.  You can't always guarantee your allies will be on your side when you decide to mobilize armies. 

[Osamafune]

Some people on here need to lighten up. Keep in mind this is the internet you're arguing on. And arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded.

*looks at I-S and Delfos*

[Delfos]

thanks for all the insults, i wonder when a moderator actually takes charge of it. I request that this topic be locked, people aren't interested in debating about nuclear Iran anymore, they rather insult everyone.

Bender, are you describing your own corner? hahaha. If everyone gets nukes and if it prevents war, then I'm all up for it.

[Prydania]

Are you aware of how stupid that sounds? Honestly. That's like demanding I prove the sky is blue. I don't have to prove shit. All I have to do is point and say "look."

Funny how when I point around and say "look" it's paranoid and unhealthy, and yet for you it's all that's required of a debate. We're not debating something so obvious as the colour of the sky (although there is scientific proof to back up that it does indeed appear blue) we're discussing the merits of political and social systems, something slightly more involved. So yes, if you want any credit for the stance you're going to take you need proof.

Freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want about the government. I can say whatever I want about the government. I can say "Stephen Harper's ruining this country, and his government needs to go" without fear of being arrested. You can stand up and blabber about your utopian, socialist ideal of society, and call capitalism evil without fear of being arrested.

Freedom of Speech. You brought up being arrested for disturbing the peace. Yeah, if you climb ontop of a picnic table in the park and start yelling like a madman, and even then I'd say there's a chance that the police would just let you be. Still, if you're disturbing the peace, then you're abusing your freedoms the the point that *gasp* harm is brought to others.
If, however, you wanted to organize a ralley, you're free to say whatever the fuck you wanted, and you wouldn't be persicuted in the slightest for it.

Yes, this explains why all those protests usually end up getting tear gassed. Because one or two "bad apples" stepped out of line and now we have to break up the whole crowd. The RCMP has been caught sending agitators into peacefully assembled crowds to give them an excuse to break it up, it is only by the individual fighting to protect those rights that they are able to keep them or win them.

Disturbing the peace is a surprisingly easy "crime" to commit and thanks to the Patriot act and similar legislation in Canada people can now be detained without charge or by the actions of peacefully assembling be classified as "terrorists" and then watch the rights evaporate.

Magizines and newspapers? Same thing. They're free to publish whatever they want. You see it all the time, articles criticizing the government, sometimes articles ripping the PM and his polocies to shreds. These articles are written with the author's knowledge that he's free to do so without fear of being arrested, and published without the fear of the publication being closed.

I notice you skirt away from the centralized media control and censorship, just saying magazines can print whatever they like. That must be why it's now illegal to photograph coffins of returned soldiers, that must be why journalists have been jailed for refusing to reveal sources and if you honestly think political influence has never killed a story then... well, you gotta figure out that for yourself.

Freedom of sexual orientation. Seems like a pretty sweet deal to me, but I'm sure you'll find some way that "proves" it's just an illusion put on by Big Brother.

You mean the battle fought by individuals to win rights which should have been their from the very moment someone wrote that all men people are created equal? It has a lot of similarities to the woman's rights, labour rights and civic rights movements of the past. Movements strongly opposed by the ruling powers and only granted after a lengthy period of conflict at great personal cost to the individuals involved. That they now have these rights is not a credit to the government which finally gave in to the demands of a large portion of the population tired of being oppressed, but to the individuals who stood up and said "What you're doing is wrong and I'm not going to take it anymore"

We don't have the illusion of freedom and democracy, we have the real deal. Our freedom is very much a reality. Just because it's restricted to the point that it causes harm to others doesn't make it any less real.

I'm interested to know how you consider our system truly democratic... first off how many parties live up to their election platforms? Few if any, so people vote for them on the assumption they'll actually be honest enough to do what they said they'll do. Now assuming the guy is first past the post (which is an undemocratic system by it's very nature) and actually tries to carry out the will of his constituents he'll have to deal with the party whip who's job it is to enforce members vote along party lines... big business and government are cozy partners and big business knows no party lines.

Now if the government were truly democratic: Canada would not be in Afghanistan because the majority of Canadians oppose our being there. The Green party would hold 10% of the seats in parliament. The Senate would be abolished (unelected people with the power to override parliament... dem-o-crat-ic!).

You have done nothing but chastise me, and question my IQ.

You've been skimming my posts a little too liberally me thinks... there's plenty more in there had you bothered to read.

so I'm going to put the smackdown on your "I-S is an idiot" campaign.

You're doing more for that campaign then I ever could... nice "smack down" though.. attack the debater not the ideas expressed... smoooth.

I scored a 4.0 my last three years of high school. I scored a 5 out of 5 in grade 10 in a university level US History course (including a paper I wrote claiming the reasons for the American Revolution were BS).
I was chosen for the math team. Chess club. The most successfull president in Student Council history at my high school. Top GPA in my class for grades 10, 11, and 12. I gave the student's speech at my graduation.
I've read enough works of sociologists, historians, political scientists, and philosophers to make my own head spin.
Fuck, Nietzsche and Des Carte make up my bathroom reading material.

5/5 OMG! Because so many university level courses work on the x of 5 scale! Good thing your high school was offering university level courses to grade 10 students. When I was in grade 10 we had grade 10 courses... I guess things worked a little differently "back in the day".

Math Team... Chess Team.. how relevant for the topic at hand.

That's great that you got good grades in high school and all, but it doesn't give your arguments any more weight. That's great that you've read a lot, so much in fact to "make your own head spin" but reading a thing and understanding a thing are slightly different, I'd think someone more well read could respond to the arguments  provided, of course it's silly to expect evidence to be supported or questioned in a debate.

So to end this exchange between us, screw you Taco. First of all, I helped found this region, so how about some respect for one of the members who made it possible for you to have a forum to post your musings.

Screw Taco?!... Awwww you're cute when you're angry.

Yay, you helped found the region... wonderful... founder powers and all that jazz... You want some respect, earn it. I can only hope this does end this exchange though, because you clearly have no intention of writing anything other than personal attacks while ignoring the actual debate.

But guess what. I was also my high school hockey team's starting goalie, I drink, I smoke, I curse more then I probably should. So if this is the view you have of me, as some idiotic jock who happened to stumble across NationStates, then all I have to say to you is fuck off. 'Cause I'm not the first guy you think of when you think of an intellectual, but I have the skills to back up my game.

So our high grade scoring chess nerd math teamster best ever school president is also a rough customer goalie with an attitude. This has truth written all over it. You curse (teehee), wonderful... because I fucking swear my god damned ass off.

Drinkin' smokin' and a hootin' an a hollerin' great... you do got a big ego, big ego yet humble, intelligent, rough and tough, locked, loaded and ready to roll. A rebel with a cause who plays by the rules... You may as well have added that you were holy pope of your elementary school's Harvard debate team for all the belief I'll put in the description you just gave of yourself.

You brought up Polygomists. Well that's not a religion, but I'll play ball.
Polygomy isn't allowed because of the same reason human sacrifice isn't allowed. It's a danger to the general population. Again we see the responsibilities of our freedom. We're free to practice whatever faith we wish, so long as the general public isn't threatened. With Polygomy all you have to do is look at the recent case in Utah, where Warren Jeffs (pretty sure that's his name), the leader of a cult that practices Polygomy, forced a 14 year old girl to marry an older man, and instructed the older man to "consimate" the marriage. Basically he organized the rapping of a 14 year old girl. That's why Polygomy isn't allowed.
Now the actual religion that is known for Polygomy, Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints), is completly, 100% legal. If you want to be a Morman, go for it. Just as is the case with any other faith.
Anyways thanks for starting that flame war, it was fun and all but it would have been more fun if you had kept the discussion to the arguments at hand instead of going personal on this.

Danger to the general population? The same was once said of Homosexuality, yes people have been exploited by this system... so if a religion has been linked to sexually abusing a child it should be outlawed, right... because it's a threat to the general population. So what about priests and alter boys? I guess the catholic church should be outlawed, hell that's worse then the polygamist case which you feels justifies it's being illegal. First the alter boys were younger, second they were assaulted directly by the priests... thus more harmful.

Polygamy as a consenting relationship between adults is healthy normal and perfectly fine, yet it remains illegal for no other reason then the fact that the bible opposes it. Can you taste the freedom?

Anyways the government historically has been a very poor guard of personal freedoms. I feel I've shown plenty to show why this is so, you've chosen to ignore rebuttals and arguments and to attack on a personal level. You asserted "If someone hits you, you hit back" and then complain when I return the personal attack, yet more proof of a statement I made some while ago "revenge is never justified" and here we are both exercising our "rights of retaliation" and it's only getting more vicious as it goes. Interesting how I outlined this trend some posts back... maybe if you'd been willing to actually consider the ideas I put forward instead of just assuming your right is the only right there is and insulting anyone who disagrees with your point which is so right it requires no proof because the proof is the world.. which is where I've established all the trends for the ideas I've put forward which just applied accurately to the situation at hand and which works to describe larger cycles currently in play... funny cycle eh?

Anyways I really hope this is the last post you make in regards to this because you've just driven us further off course in this discussion then ever before, but if you wanna keep going with this cycle of petty back-and-forth I'm more then game, but you have to start actually defending your points of view instead of just saying they prove themselves, and you have to start refuting my arguments, you have to do so with facts, not just saying "you're wrong that's crazy, you're crazy and dumb"...

Either put up or shut up,
                               Taco

You don't believe me when I describe myself? Fine. I don't give a shit. There's a good chance I'll never even meet you (lucky me).
What can I say? I'm an inigma
All though the chess thing was exagerated, I admitt. They shut down the club after grade 9, not enough intrest.
Like I said though, if you don't believe me, fine. Who I am, and what I've accomplished has placed me in a pretty sweet spot. I'm in my second year at the university my grandpa and dad graduated from, and I'm studying what I love, history. I'm on a pretty good path right now, and I got there being who I am.
So if you don't believe me, so what? Why exactly should I care what some guy named Taco thinks? Bottom line? You're a troll. You started the flame war, and by the sound of it, you wanted to finish it. You asked me not to respond after you questioned the integrity of my character. What exactly did you expect the response to that would be?

Oh, I loved it how you accuse me of being unable to understand the great historians, sociologists, and phiosiphers simply because I came away with a different view of the world then you did. No, I understood all of them just fine. I just didn't come away with your view of reality. I guess that means I must be an idiot who didn't "get it" right? Please. Extreme liberal arogance at it's finest.
"You don't think the same way I do after reading those books, you must not understand them."
You've done  more to make yourself look like a jack-ass in this thread then anyone else could have.
Quite frankly you're starting of this flame war has made it impossible to get this topic back on track, something that will be discussed latter.
I'll do my best though.

Nuclear Iran. If they wish to get a working nuclear generator up and running for the sake of cheep, clean energy, that's fine. Given the Iranian government's stance on certain issues, however, it would be best for any reactor in Iran to be developed and maintained under strict UN supervision.

[Sovereign Dixie]

ZOMG leftist douchebags everywhere....


Ok.. first off, the President of Iran is a nut job, who has openly stated that his mission is to ensure that the state of Israel should be blasted out of existence. Given the distance between the two nations, it would take far shy of the state of the art in missile technology for Iran to make good on it's dream.

This brings me to my one and only objection to the Iraq war... we invaded the wrong fuckin' country! Iran has been a pain in America's ass for a while now, I would not shed a tear to see us go and take this son of a bitch down. If America doesn't have the balls to do it, then I sure as hell hope Israel does.

Nuclear power? No, personally, I don't think they should even be allowed to have that, not under the current regime anyways, there are other alternatives out there, solar, wind, etc, that do not enable possible weapons production.

It does not take a genius to realise that a nuclear Iran is bad news.

[Tacolicious]

I-S: Yay! Third final response from you (and you call me the troll?)... I like the originality of your insults though

so I'm going to put the smackdown on your "I-S is an idiot" campaign.

You're doing more for that campaign then I ever could... nice "smack down" though.. attack the debater not the ideas expressed... smoooth.

You've done  more to make yourself look like a jack-ass in this thread then anyone else could have.

Anywho, I really don't think a war against Iran is the answer, if the US invasion of Iraq should have taught us anything it's that you can't reform a system the people don't want reformed. If the US really wants to keep Iran from having nuclear power they need to provide them with a workable alternative instead of the threat of sanctions and invasion. Sanctions only punish the people of the country while the leaders of the government still sit in splendid palaces so it puts no pressure on them to stop, and a military invasion will only further alienate a people we have been abusing for far too long.

I really do believe the solution lies in helping Iran to build green power projects and working engineer the appliances of everyday life to consume as little power as possible. If Iran is only in it for the power they'll have no problem accepting, it gives American companies an honourable way into the Iranian market, both in the building of the projects and low consumption goods and saves lives that would be other wise lost in a conflict on both sides.

[Delfos]

Finally debate on Iran continues!

I-S f#cking point we can agree on. So you're OK that they can access to nuclear power if it's strictly supervised by a multinational neutral entity such as UN. UN in cooperation with the world nuclear agency would be great.

I disagree with SD about it being a bad thing or bad news: Iraq beats it. It's just news, bad news would be if they would produce nuclear weapons without us to know about it or the use them.

[Prydania]

Oh my G-d....you actually came up with a post that isn't filled with parinoid conspiracy theories or accusations that we're living in the Republic of Oceania. Bravo.

Anyway, yes, that would be an ideal way to go, but I don't see that happening for a few reasons....
1) A successful war is needed if the Republican Party wants to win the White House in 2008. They messed up big time with Iraq. They lied about the reason going in, and they botched the occupation/rebuilding stage.
With Iran, however, lies a chance to do things right. The reasons for going into Iran are more clear cut. They advocate the destruction of an American ally. They held sailors of an allied navy hostage. They have funded both Hezbullah and the insurgancy in Iraq. So there won't be any bogus WMD story here. All they have to say is "Look, this is a country that's had hostile tendincies toward us and our allies. Now they're close to getting a working nuclear reactor. We have to go in."
As for the occupation, the young people of Iran are sick of the current regime. In fact, IIRC, a student organization in Iran asked the US to come in and force a regime change back in 2002. I may be way off on that one, but I think I remember hearing something like that. Point being, an occupation wouldn't be as botched because the young people of the country want change anyway. President A (screw it, I'm not looking up the full name again) has hit Bush level when it comes to approval ratings.
Hopefully the desire in Iran for change, plus the lessions the US should have learned from Iraq, would make an invasion of Iran much more successfull.
Which is what the Republican Party needs. If Bush can pull out of Iraq, and start the invasion and occupation of Iran, the real enemy, out on the right foot, the Republicans can minimize the damage the Iraq campaign caused when running their candidate in '08.

2) Iran seems ready for a fight. They've advocated the destruction of a US ally in the region. They've illegally held British sailors of the Royal Navy hostage. It seems President A is looking for a fight. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Tony Blair had any sense of national pride and gone in to kick A's ass during the whole British sailor episode. So honestly, how long do you think the west is going to take the trash talk coming out of Iran, before someone goes in to kick his ass on principal?

3) Iran having links to al Queda. It ties into number 1, but I felt it deserved it's own section.
The 9/11 Commission Report stated that while Iraq didn't have any ties to 9/11, Iran did. So if this War on Terror is going to get back on track, Iran would make sense, as they did support the very organization that carried out the 9/11 attacks. Heck, I would dare say that had the US gone into Iran in the first place, Suddam's Iraq would be more then happy to help out.

Yes Taco, American companies offering to help Iran develope cheep power without the possibility to create a nuclear weapon would be ideal. In fact I would love to see the look on President A's face when the offer's made.
It's Iran, however, that's botching things up. They seem not only willing to go to war with the US, they seem to want it. All the talk, the deffiance, the illegal kidnapping of allied sailors, it all points to a government that wants a knock-down, drag-out fight. Honestly, I hope the US gives it to them.
Once the regime in Iran is out of power, terrorist groups across the region will lose steam.

[Shavend]

Oh my G-d....you actually came up with a post that isn't filled with parinoid conspiracy theories or accusations that we're living in the Republic of Oceania. Bravo.

Anyway, yes, that would be an ideal way to go, but I don't see that happening for a few reasons....
1) A successful war is needed if the Republican Party wants to win the White House in 2008. They messed up big time with Iraq. They lied about the reason going in, and they botched the occupation/rebuilding stage.
With Iran, however, lies a chance to do things right. The reasons for going into Iran are more clear cut. They advocate the destruction of an American ally. They held sailors of an allied navy hostage. They have funded both Hezbullah and the insurgancy in Iraq. So there won't be any bogus WMD story here. All they have to say is "Look, this is a country that's had hostile tendincies toward us and our allies. Now they're close to getting a working nuclear reactor. We have to go in."
As for the occupation, the young people of Iran are sick of the current regime. In fact, IIRC, a student organization in Iran asked the US to come in and force a regime change back in 2002. I may be way off on that one, but I think I remember hearing something like that. Point being, an occupation wouldn't be as botched because the young people of the country want change anyway. President A (screw it, I'm not looking up the full name again) has hit Bush level when it comes to approval ratings.
Hopefully the desire in Iran for change, plus the lessions the US should have learned from Iraq, would make an invasion of Iran much more successfull.
Which is what the Republican Party needs. If Bush can pull out of Iraq, and start the invasion and occupation of Iran, the real enemy, out on the right foot, the Republicans can minimize the damage the Iraq campaign caused when running their candidate in '08.

2) Iran seems ready for a fight. They've advocated the destruction of a US ally in the region. They've illegally held British sailors of the Royal Navy hostage. It seems President A is looking for a fight. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Tony Blair had any sense of national pride and gone in to kick A's ass during the whole British sailor episode. So honestly, how long do you think the west is going to take the trash talk coming out of Iran, before someone goes in to kick his ass on principal?

3) Iran having links to al Queda. It ties into number 1, but I felt it deserved it's own section.
The 9/11 Commission Report stated that while Iraq didn't have any ties to 9/11, Iran did. So if this War on Terror is going to get back on track, Iran would make sense, as they did support the very organization that carried out the 9/11 attacks. Heck, I would dare say that had the US gone into Iran in the first place, Suddam's Iraq would be more then happy to help out.

Yes Taco, American companies offering to help Iran develope cheep power without the possibility to create a nuclear weapon would be ideal. In fact I would love to see the look on President A's face when the offer's made.
It's Iran, however, that's botching things up. They seem not only willing to go to war with the US, they seem to want it. All the talk, the deffiance, the illegal kidnapping of allied sailors, it all points to a government that wants a knock-down, drag-out fight. Honestly, I hope the US gives it to them.
Once the regime in Iran is out of power, terrorist groups across the region will lose steam.

You say you are so very smart, yet you cannot spell to save your life.

    I'm thinking that this might be another useless war. If they do create a nuclear weapon, as is believed by our government, then they might use it either on us, or Israel. But I am not sure they will make one. Then, most certainly, they would have the UN crashing down upon their heads. Right now I think that a war with Iran would be another Iraq. And everyone seems to be blaming their president. He really doesn't do much for the government, Iran is a theocracy remember. The Ayatollah Khameini may just have a little something to do with it.

[Tacolicious]

A complinsult eh.. interesting. I wish I could see a post not filled with pro-american propaganda, but perhaps that is asking a bit too much, eh? 

As for effecting a regime change I really don't see war as the answer. Send a sniper to blow a hole through A's forehead and the regime is changed. Don't like the next guy that steps up? Reload. I'd have to say the majority of people, while they don't want A calling the shots anymore don't want American troops calling the shots either.

The US does have a chance to do the right thing, but war is not the right thing to do. A change in the regime along side working with the international community to develop lasting solutions to the problems at hand seems far better then starting the next brutal round of hit and hit back. Furthermore the US needs to consider what is at the heart of it's national interest. Starting a new war before they've even ended/recovered from the old war is fool hardy at best, even the most technologically advanced army is not immune to stress and attrition.

I highly doubt Iran is seriously capable of fighting off the US, more so if the US actually wins some support from the larger international community this time. Once in however the US is going to be quagmired so deep it'll make Iraq look like a stroll in the park, only win more support for the idea of America as "the great satan" or whatever and produce yet more people willing to take up arms against American troops.

Of course, just to play devil's advocate. If Iran really wants a nuke we could drop one or two off for them.

[Prydania]

You say you are so very smart, yet you cannot spell to save your life.

1) No, I know I'm very smart.
Saying+studying+reading=knowing.

scores of little kids: and now we know!
I-S: And knowing is half the battle!

2) No, I can't spell for shit. I know that. That's why I love Firefox, built in spell-check.
All I have at the moment, however, is internet explorer. I turned off the board's spell-check basically because I hate all though yellow highlights. For now, until I get back home, Internet Explorer and my G-d awful spelling skills will have to do.
Besides, neither my father or grandfather could spell to save their lives, and they both ended up as accomplished eye doctors. So I wouldn't equate poor spelling skills with a person's intellegence.
If you find some of my latest stuff hard to read just wait until tomorrow when I get home and clean up the spelling mistakes. That should make it easier on you grammer Nazis

[Shavend]

Taco, I find your sense of humour to be refreshing. Thank you.  That sniper idea is good...and by all means, I am not a fan of our government. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson is going to become a zombie and kill ever last person in our government. I'm not sure if there is not one that isn't corrupt.

[Prydania]

Finally debate on Iran continues!

I-S f#cking point we can agree on. So you're OK that they can access to nuclear power if it's strictly supervised by a multinational neutral entity such as UN. UN in cooperation with the world nuclear agency would be great.

If Iran insists they MUST have nuclear power for energy needs, then I have no problem with them having a nuclear reactor. So long as the UN monitors it's construction, supervises it's administration, and disposes of the runoff (that can be used to make a bomb) themselves.
So yeah, on that point Delfos, I agree 100%. Let the Iranians have a reactor for energy needs, as long as the UN's there making sure they don't use it to develope a weapon. 

[Prydania]

A complinsult eh.. interesting. I wish I could see a post not filled with pro-american propaganda, but perhaps that is asking a bit too much, eh? 

Eh, not really. My favorite historical subject is Canadian-American relations. Within that field I focus on the War of 1812.
So I'm very much aware of America's expansionist nature, and their lust for war (54-40 or fight! anyone?).
I'm also very much aware that it took them a very long time to finally start practicing what they preached. I also believe, however, in giving the Devil his due.
Additionally I believe that in the current international situation the United States is the lesser of two evils.