Iran

[Bark]

Why does a nation sitting on an ocean of oil need nuclear power?:winks:

[Trazalca]

Greed?

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Perhaps the suspicions of the other countries are true: Iran wants to play with the Big Boys.

[Cncrman]

You mean these guys (http://www.bigboy.com/)?

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

No, not this guy:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/webdev/JakeBigBoy.jpg


But the group that has the ability to lob nook-you-lar weapons at each other. Iran just wants to be part of the destructo gang.

[Space Tycoon]

Why does a nation sitting on an ocean of oil need nuclear power?:winks: Good question.

Especially in light of this discovery (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG18Ak05.html) two years ago. Why go nuclear when you can supply everything with fossil fuels?

Setting aside the fact that Iran has as much right as any other nation to develop nuclear power for domestic energy consumption (and with a growing, urbanizing population which will reach 100 million over the next two generations, their energy needs will be considerable), we need to get real--Iran wants nuclear weapons. They have been seeking them since the days of the Shah, when they were a US client.

And they have as much right to nuclear weapons as any other country, too.

Now before you start freaking out about terrorism, proliferation, or the perceived threat to Israel, consider these facts:

Iran is surrounded by nuclear-armed nations--including the US, in the form of a strong naval presence in the Gulf-- three of which have developed their programs in secret and never signed the Non-Proliferation treaty and, we are told, are key US allies. You get a gold star for naming them all, particularly the one with an estimated 200-400 weapons (hint:the star has six points. :winks: ) All of these countries have some nasty human-rights records, including support for terrorism at some time or another.

Iran is surrounded, period. As I've been saying for months, it didn't have to be this way. The country was opening up following Khomeini's passing and following 9/11, it was clear they wanted to initiate newer and better relations with the US. Such a "fresh start" would have been in the mutual best interests of Washington and Tehran, much as Nixon's oft-lauded meeting with Mao apparently did.

But flash forward four years, and it's clear that they feel paranoid, threatened and cornered--checkmated is the word I would use-- with nowhere to go and few friends in the world. They want nuclear weapons to level the playing field and be taken seriously. The number one unspoken rule in the world today is that the US will not attack you if you have nukes.

The threat to Israel is overblown, as always. Iran's strike capacity is pretty sad-- aging Shahab's with an ample record of failure-- whereas Israel can easily overfly Jordan and Iraqi airspace(maybe refueling over Iraqi Kurdistan, their new ally) with their updated F-15's, not to mention advanced Jericho IIs, Tomahawks, and nuclear-armed submarines stationed in the Indian Ocean.

The threat to US forces in Iraq is not overblown, however. Attack Iran, as the neo-crazies plan to do, and you will see massive casualties immediately. The Shi-ite militias have become much more disciplined and focused, not to mention better armed, over the past two years and will galdly sacrifice themselves to attack occupation forces.

The best way forward is to push for region-wide non-proliferation, and that means everyone.

[Jakester]

Iran. Iran so far away.

[Trazalca]

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/i/authorsicons/flock_of_seagulls.jpg

Iran all night and day....couldn't get away.

[Malenko]

If there were still haircuts like that today, I would want nuclear power too

[Intelligent_Design]

Hey Iran wants to play.Well lets see how they like this (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm)

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I think Space Tycoon's points are all valid.

My feeling is I don't think we are seriously considering attacking anyone else in the Middle East. I believe the goal is to work towards getting the countries that currently oppose our policies to change from within. This feeling is based partially on what Bush said in his speech last night, speaking directly to the Iranian people as he did.

I believe that the majority of Iranian people would prefer a more Western-style society, and George Bush is a hero to a lot of Iranian young people. There is definitely a great and democratic nation waiting to burst out of the seems of Iran, and all we have to do is be patient and not antagonize the citizenry there (you know, like by not dropping bombs on them) and nature will take its course.

[Space Tycoon]

Hey Iran wants to play.Well lets see how they like this (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm) If war can be fought with non-lethal weaponry, all to the good. But then it isn't really war. I think you could deploy troops with weapons like these, with all the best intentions in the world.

However, as soon as US troops came home in bodybags, or civilians were killed in mass-casualty terror attacks, good intentions would go out the window, to be replaced with much more primal emotions.

Call me a pessimist. :(

[Space Tycoon]

There is definitely a great and democratic nation waiting to burst out of the seems of Iran, and all we have to do is be patient and not antagonize the citizenry there (you know, like by not dropping bombs on them) and nature will take its course.

The great majority of the American people, without a doubt, are motivated by good intentions towards the Iranian people, and would no doubt like to see liberty and democracy take shape there. As for the cabal of neo-Khans(as in Genghis) who run US foreign policy, well they are itching for a fight, have no doubt. They don't live in the same reality as you or I. Theirs is a world of think tanks and rosy scenarios, where bought-and-paid-for exile "leaders" tell beautiful lies about grateful populations welcoming US Marines as liberators.

My prediction is that at some point in the near future(and I've heard all sorts of dates and timelines thrown around, so don't ask me when, it could be as soon as March), there will be a massive air assault against targets all over Iran, which have been carefully chosen over the past five years, to destroy whatever feeble threat the regime poses to Israel or India or the Gulf states, setting them back decades. This may be a US-Israeli joint strike, or possibly even a broader coalition inclduing Britain, and maaaaybe the Russians, who have an issue with alleged Iranian support for the Chechen resistance.

I also predict that US liberals, who have lately been of one voice in opposition to the occupation of Iraq, will be more divided if this comes to pass. The reasons being: the rather brazen anti-Semitism of Mr. Ahmedinajad, which enrages even the most liberally inclined Jewish Americans; the unequal status of women in Iran, which, like the Taliban has been a rallying point for the feminists for well over two decades now; and the nagging feeling among Americans of all stripes that Iran represents "unfinished business," an Islamic regime that has successfully resisted Western domination for over a generation.

Anyhoo. Hope I'm wrong, and cooler heads will prevail. A war with Iran, even restricted to air assaults, will have a deeper effect on Islamists than even Iraq, and would fully ignite the already-burning Clash of Civilizations we have been warned about for some years now.

[Space Tycoon]

"Beware the Ides of March..." (http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8486)

[Intelligent_Design]

Good link there. Americans don't understand that what is getting ready to happen on this planet will make even the anti-war crowd long for the days of minor conflict like the Iraq war.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

And now the IAEA briefing in Vienna reveals ".....questions pointing directly to a military dimension, including the fabrication of nuclear weapons components and the design of missile re-entry vehicles." and a leaked IAEA report confirmed that Iran had acquired documents and drawings on the black market that served no purpose other than to prepare an atomic warhead.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

And now I read in the London Times this morning that plans for a troop pull out of Iraq are far, far more advanced than we would ever have believed.

A cut in the number of coalition forces by a third will take place in 2006.

Yesterday Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, predicted “good news” this year as British soldiers begin to hand over responsibility for their sector of southern Iraq to local forces.

“We are in active discussions about how we draw down our troops on a province by province basis as we and the Iraqi Government are convinced it is safe for them and for us to do so, and I think we will see, over the next 12 months, some good news in that respect.”

American and British commanders have drawn up detailed plans for a pullout that they will present to the new Iraqi Government, which should be in place by next month.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the chairman of a joint Iraqi-coalition committee planning the transfer of security in the country, said that plans were so advanced that an “instruction book” had been prepared, setting out which units would be leaving which areas.

“By the end of 2007 the overwhelming majority of the multinational forces will have left the country,” he said.

So..... getting the boys home for a bit of a re-group and some R&R before everyone gets poised to have a go at Iran then ? And moving them out of the way until we are ready in case Iran decide to have a go first.

[Bark]

Re: Iran, not Iraq (in line with the thread's title [smirk] :) )

All I know for sure is this. When you piss off the French so much they may want to take action, you are REALLY misbehaving. :)

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Re: Iran, not Iraq (in line with the thread's title [smirk] :) )

All I know for sure is this. When you piss off the French so much they may want to take action, you are REALLY misbehaving. :)

I don't think it is as much "piss-off" as it is general fear...

[Bark]

I've heard the French upgraded their military alert level in response to the crisis in Iran:

1) Run
2) Hide <-- New level as of 02-FEB-2006
3) Surrender
4) Collaborate

:)

[Space Tycoon]

“By the end of 2007 the overwhelming majority of the multinational forces will have left the country,” he said.

So..... getting the boys home for a bit of a re-group and some R&R before everyone gets poised to have a go at Iran then ? And moving them out of the way until we are ready in case Iran decide to have a go first.

Sounds like it to me! It may not happen this year or this spring, but it will happen eventually.

[omicron]

Hey Iran wants to play.Well lets see how they like this (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm)

Didn't we already see this movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/)?

Omicron

[Intelligent_Design]

Didn't we already see this movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/)?

Omicron

HAHA !! I was thinking more like this one (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110678/)

But I guess yours is better suited for this discussion.:) :)

[neglet]

I believe that the majority of Iranian people would prefer a more Western-style society, and George Bush is a hero to a lot of Iranian young people. There is definitely a great and democratic nation waiting to burst out of the seems of Iran, and all we have to do is be patient and not antagonize the citizenry there (you know, like by not dropping bombs on them) and nature will take its course.

I heard an interesting discussion on NPR last night about the possibilities of democracy rising in the Arabic Middle East. One expert noted that the only democracy in the region was Lebanon, which is also the only country that doesn't have and never has had oil. Democracy flourishes when the government depends on the people for their power, when everyone must work together so that everyone can advance.

In countries flush with oil wealth, the government (whether a monarchy or dictatorship) does not need the approval of the people to remain in power. They just sell more oil and have the funds they need to run the army and continue oppressing the people. The people can want personal liberty and democracy all they want, but as long as their rulers have unlimited funds from oil they have everything they need to maintain control of the country, surpress the people, and prevent democracy from erupting.

Even though many Iranians may be eager for democracy, those in power have no incentive to give it to them. The speaker last night said he thought oil would have to drop to $20 a barrel before rulers would have need to depend on their people, and we all know how likely that is....:(

[Space Tycoon]

I heard an interesting discussion on NPR last night about the possibilities of democracy rising in the Arabic Middle East. One expert noted that the only democracy in the region was Lebanon, which is also the only country that doesn't have and never has had oil. Democracy flourishes when the government depends on the people for their power, when everyone must work together so that everyone can advance.

In countries flush with oil wealth, the government (whether a monarchy or dictatorship) does not need the approval of the people to remain in power. They just sell more oil and have the funds they need to run the army and continue oppressing the people. The people can want personal liberty and democracy all they want, but as long as their rulers have unlimited funds from oil they have everything they need to maintain control of the country, surpress the people, and prevent democracy from erupting.

Even though many Iranians may be eager for democracy, those in power have no incentive to give it to them. The speaker last night said he thought oil would have to drop to $20 a barrel before rulers would have need to depend on their people, and we all know how likely that is....

Oil has sustained bad regimes, no doubt. But it has also financed modernization efforts and a better standard of living in certain Gulf states, Dubai being one example.

Western support for autocracy hasn't helped either. I think you would have to also look at Egypt, a country with little oil that I'm aware of, and not much democracy. It is the second-biggest recipient of US foreign aid, after you-know-who. I think we find it convenient to forget that these regimes, whether they have trillions of petro-dollars worth of oil, or relatively little, or none, have all remained in power because of the backing of the US government, and to lesser extent Britain, France and Russia.

It may sound like leftist propaganda, but it's true. Algeria had a free election back in 1991 and the result of the first round of voting was--surprise!-- a majority vote for an Islamist party. Well, the military soon stepped in and put a stop to all this nonsense, with the full backing of the Bush I Administration. The result was the banning of the Islamic Salvation Front, a cancellation of the elections, and a civil war which claimed 100 000 lives.

Face it, more democracy means more Islam, and that ain't gonna change. All these crusaders keep hoping that more democracy will lead to something else, somehow-- that if we let the Syrians, for example, have a free and fair election, they will not vote for the Muslim Brotherhood; but rather, for small-l liberal democrats who wear Brooks Brothers suits, shave every day, and enjoy western popular music and Spielberg movies. And if they don't follow our example, why, it's because they're just crazy or something.

I don't claim to have an inside line to how these people think. But I get the sense they want democracy, liberty, modernity--but on their terms, and after a fashion that most suits them. I think the best we can hope for is that Muslim countries will follow the example of Turkey, which elected a very popular, moderate Islamist party a few years ago.

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Dubai being a fine example

Fine example of the changes that can be made to better the lot for many poor in a country, but not a good example of a Muslim State to compare with the others. For many Muslim countries, Dubai has "sold out" to secularism.

[Space Tycoon]

Fine example of the changes that can be made to better the lot for many poor in a country, but not a good example of a Muslim State to compare with the others. For many Muslim countries, Dubai has "sold out" to secularism. Damn. You snatched that one before I had a chance to edit it. :p

True enough, but I was just going for that example of how an influx of wealth can be a double-edged sword. It can be used to oppress, but it can also be used to modernize and improve.

Too fast for me.

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Too fast for me.

Man, and here I was under the impression the only one on the board "faster" than you was Jakester....

[Intelligent_Design]

I was thinking about that the other day. The political leaders in Islamic countries aren't fools. They know that American/Anti-Bush sentiment runs high among the general population and the up and comers will seize upon that to rise to power. I can see that happening in non-Islamic countries also.

[Space Tycoon]

Man, and here I was under the impression the only one on the board "faster" than you was Jakester....No no, that's easier than me. Not necessarily faster.

[Space Tycoon]

I was thinking about that the other day. The political leaders in Islamic countries aren't fools. They know that American/Anti-Bush sentiment runs high among the general population and the up and comers will seize upon that to rise to power. I can see that happening in non-Islamic countries also. And the best example of that is the quiet revolution underway in Latin America (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1138404335212), where election after election is bringing forth some new leftist government or another.

This is a fascinating story which deserves a thread of it's own. Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, all are led currently by parties whose platform can be summed up in the phrase, "Yanqui go home!" Mexico's current election may bring to power a leftist firebrand, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and yet another migraine for Mr. Bush.

I may not like their economics, or their politics, but I have to say, it's inspiring to see people standing up for their countries without having to resort to bombs or bullets.

[American]

I think Space Tycoon's points are all valid.

My feeling is I don't think we are seriously considering attacking anyone else in the Middle East. I believe the goal is to work towards getting the countries that currently oppose our policies to change from within. This feeling is based partially on what Bush said in his speech last night, speaking directly to the Iranian people as he did.

I believe that the majority of Iranian people would prefer a more Western-style society, and George Bush is a hero to a lot of Iranian young people. There is definitely a great and democratic nation waiting to burst out of the seems of Iran, and all we have to do is be patient and not antagonize the citizenry there (you know, like by not dropping bombs on them) and nature will take its course.
We could always support the anti-mullah terrorist group MEK (http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/mujahedeen2.html), even though they did oppose us and the Shah.


My prediction is that at some point in the near future(and I've heard all sorts of dates and timelines thrown around, so don't ask me when, it could be as soon as March), there will be a massive air assault against targets all over Iran, which have been carefully chosen over the past five years, to destroy whatever feeble threat the regime poses to Israel or India or the Gulf states, setting them back decades. This may be a US-Israeli joint strike, or possibly even a broader coalition inclduing Britain, and maaaaybe the Russians, who have an issue with alleged Iranian support for the Chechen resistance.
An airstrike won't be effective. They have most of their stuff underground. Ground troops will be needed to take those out


Good link there. Americans don't understand that what is getting ready to happen on this planet will make even the anti-war crowd long for the days of minor conflict like the Iraq war.
If the bubble's gonna burst, it'll be over Iran. It's inevitable.


I heard an interesting discussion on NPR last night about the possibilities of democracy rising in the Arabic Middle East. One expert noted that the only democracy in the region was Lebanon, which is also the only country that doesn't have and never has had oil. Democracy flourishes when the government depends on the people for their power, when everyone must work together so that everyone can advance.

In countries flush with oil wealth, the government (whether a monarchy or dictatorship) does not need the approval of the people to remain in power. They just sell more oil and have the funds they need to run the army and continue oppressing the people. The people can want personal liberty and democracy all they want, but as long as their rulers have unlimited funds from oil they have everything they need to maintain control of the country, surpress the people, and prevent democracy from erupting.(
I read this same thing in an old Newsweek. Oil, in my opinion, isn't the reason they stay in power. It's just their iron-fisted dictatorships that keep them in power. The people are weak.


It may sound like leftist propaganda, but it's true. Algeria had a free election back in 1991 and the result of the first round of voting was--surprise!-- a majority vote for an Islamist party. Well, the military soon stepped in and put a stop to all this nonsense, with the full backing of the Bush I Administration. The result was the banning of the Islamic Salvation Front, a cancellation of the elections, and a civil war which claimed 100 000 lives.

Face it, more democracy means more Islam, and that ain't gonna change.
That's always the case because all other opposition has been stifled. In countries like Iran, that might not happen because there are pro-democratic types who could easily squeak in. It wasn't possible in Palestine or Egypt because the opposition were either dead or in jail. Iraq's parliament is full of religious nuts. That's because Saddam killed the opposition.


And the best example of that is the quiet revolution underway in Latin America (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1138404335212), where election after election is bringing forth various leftist governments.

This is a fascinating story which deserves a thread of it's own. Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, all are led currently by parties whose platform can be summed up in the phrase, "Yanqui go home!" Mexico's current election may bring to power a leftist firebrand, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and yet another migraine for Mr. Bush.
Yeah. the leftists are coming. People in poverty think the Leftists can save them.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

People in poverty think the leftists will improve their lives because the rightists haven't. It's the natural electoral cycle..... even in Britain and the US. It is just more exaggerated in developing countries.

It's like us thinking we can push through democracy in the Middle East. The reform has to come first. Think of it like this. We know by now that elections are a necessary but certainly not sufficient condition for producing free, stable societies.

But if you were to let a classroom of seven-year-olds vote on how they should be allowed to run their lives, you know the result. They would end school, legislate for compulsory chocolate and ice-cream, more TV-watching and computer-game playing and a more relaxed approach to bedtime.

If you give the vote to a few million Palestinians in their current state, they will vote for the equivalent of chocolate, TV and ice-cream. They will endorse the annihilation of Israel, the mass murder of Americans and a holy war against infidels everywhere. Which they did when they voted for Hamas last week.

That’s not to say that Palestinians have puerile minds. But in political-historical-cultural terms they are like children. They have been conditioned entirely for decades by an environment of repression and poverty, pushed around by corrupt leaders poisoning their minds with hateful bile for decades and decades.

[Trazalca]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.xhs10402031217.iran_nuclear_xhs104.jpg

Well, the 'G' and 'T' are kinda close to each other on the keyboard.
It's an easy mistake to make, right? :green:

[Space Tycoon]

Hey, at least they don't pronounce it "Nuke-yu-lur." :p

[Space Tycoon]

That’s not to say that Palestinians have puerile minds. But in political-historical-cultural terms they are like children. They have been conditioned entirely for decades by an environment of repression and poverty, pushed around by corrupt leaders poisoning their minds with hateful bile for decades and decades.

What's more, in the case of the Palestinians, they've been getting it from both sides: the brutal occupation of the Israelis, and the staggering incompetence of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas' victory should have come as no surprise.

[Flyboy]

Space,
you did an excellent job of summing up a crappy situation.

I think Iran has been rattling sabers and working towards creating their own Nuke for the same reason that little dogs bark alot. They're in a corner and we (read; "the current administration") have made a point of traking away any options they may have had to keep their pride and feel safe at the same time. If you back even the smallest creature into a corner and it feels endangered, it's going to attack. It might die in the process, but even a useless little chihuaha will try to bite when it's scared.

This new so-called "president" that Iran installed is just another example, the guy really is nothing more than an incendiary talking head for the religious powers that be.

[Space Tycoon]

Space,
you did an excellent job of summing up a crappy situation.
Thank-you Flyboy. You know, it's amazing what I can accomplish with a clear head. :smirk:

This new so-called "president" that Iran installed is just another example, the guy really is nothing more than an incendiary talking head for the religious powers that be.

Well... I would have to disagree somewhat. Iran's election was, by all accounts, free and fair. I haven't heard anything about there being major problems with the voting and so forth. This guy Ahmedinajad essentially came from behind and swept the polls, to everyone's surprise. As will happen from time to time in any country with an electoral system.

The mullahs, believe it or not, have actually been trying to reign him in and get him to soften his stance somewhat. Maybe this was part of their plan all along: "We'll get some far-out extremist to take power and make incendiary threats... then we can position ourselves as the voice of moderation later on!" They find a way to cut a deal, while saving face. Who knows, just a thought.
They're in a corner and we (read; "the current administration") have made a point of traking away any options they may have had to keep their pride and feel safe at the same time. If you back even the smallest creature into a corner and it feels endangered, it's going to attack. It might die in the process, but even a useless little chihuaha will try to bite when it's scared. That I do agree with. It's the same all throughout the Muslim world right now. They're not backing fundamentalists because they necessarily love fundamentalism; they're backing them because they are seen to represent the voice of resistance to foreign domination. Thirty years ago it would have been the secular nationalists or even the communists(which is the reason the US and Israel began quietly sowing the seeds of religious fundamentalism).

My advice to the Bushies would be, "It's the hopelessness, stupid!" :smirk:

Countries like China and India don't have to resort to these kinds of tactics; they have accumulated the economic and even a lot of the military clout to be taken seriously. But the rationale was the same in their own development of atomic weapons. China set off their first nuclear device in the 1960's when they were still basically dirt poor and third world, through and through. Not long after, the US sat down and started talking normalized relations, including trade. The rest is history. Ditto for India, some years later. Would China have taken off like they did throughout the 1980's, 1990's and today if they lacked the teeth that only WMD's can deliver? Maybe, and maybe not.

Anyway. I tend to go on about this stuff...

[Bill_the_Pony]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.xhs10402031217.iran_nuclear_xhs104.jpg

Well, the 'G' and 'T' are kinda close to each other on the keyboard.
It's an easy mistake to make, right? :green:

RITHT! :D

[Bark]

If nuclear energy is their ritht, would that mean taking their oil is ours? I vote that it is. If they don't want it, why should they mind. We found the oil in the first place. Finders keepers, some say. :D

[KingVoyeur]

I say scientists should get working on the trash-powered car like in Back to the Future Part 2. That would solve all of our problems!

[omicron]

Geez with all the empties laying around my house, I could power my car forever :)

Omi

[American]

Thank-you Flyboy. You know, it's amazing what I can accomplish with a clear head. :smirk:

Well... I would have to disagree somewhat. Iran's election was, by all accounts, free and fair. I haven't heard anything about there being major problems with the voting and so forth. This guy Ahmedinajad essentially came from behind and swept the polls, to everyone's surprise. As will happen from time to time in any country with an electoral system.

Fair elections...in Iran? The Mullah Council picks the candidates who are "qualified" to be on the ballot. In other owrds, anyone who fits the title of "Hardliner" gets on the ballot. Hardly "fair" elections.


The mullahs, believe it or not, have actually been trying to reign him in and get him to soften his stance somewhat.
That's because he's bringing the country on the brink of war.


They're not backing fundamentalists because they necessarily love fundamentalism; they're backing them because they are seen to represent the voice of resistance to foreign domination. Thirty years ago it would have been the secular nationalists or even the communists(which is the reason the US and Israel began quietly sowing the seeds of religious fundamentalism).
They pick fundelmentalists because that's all that's there to offer. Other parties, such as reformists, have been killed or surpressed

[Space Tycoon]

Fair elections...in Iran? The Mullah Council picks the candidates who are "qualified" to be on the ballot. In other owrds, anyone who fits the title of "Hardliner" gets on the ballot. Hardly "fair" elections.As opposed to the stellar list of candidates most American voters are presented with every four years. "Special-Interest-Approved-Tweedledum"-versus-"Special-Interest-Approved-Tweedledee," is more how I would characterize it.

These things take time and patience, as I hope most people are learning. Iran is more democratic today than it was twenty-five years ago. America is, arguably, less so. Sorry to offend my Yankee friends here, but this is how I see it.

They pick fundelmentalists because that's all that's there to offer. Other parties, such as reformists, have been killed or surpressedTrue to an extent. There are variations from country to country. Turkey's governing Islamist party ain't exactly the Taliban, but they both derive their principles from Islamic Sharia.

Your and my idea of a "reformist" may not be the same as that of young men and women living in Riyadh. These are ancient societies with ancient ways of living, you can only expect so much change in so short a time.

And if they don't want our kind of change, so what? Who the hell are we to dictate the direction of their civilization? I say we try to get a handle on our own first...

[Intelligent_Design]

These things take time and patience, as I hope most people are learning. Iran is more democratic today than it was twenty-five years ago. America is, arguably, less so.


People for whatever reason like to equate Democracy with freedom. The only freedom a Democracy guarantees is every 4 years you get to pick some asshats that will tell you what to do. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Space Tycoon]

Word.

It is possible to have little or no democracy and still have a great deal of freeedom. Hong Kong is one example.

It is also possible to have democracy and watch that freedom slowly get drained away...

Democracy is simply the best all-around system for preserving those freedoms, but it is far from perfect.

[DaForce]

Honestly, I believe that most people confuse Capitalism with Democracy. The U.S. is a Capitalist nation with a sprinkle of Democracy. The last true Democracy died out with the ancient Greeks.


But I don't want to get into semantics.


:wink:


:D

[neglet]

But I don't want to get into semantics.
:wink:
:D

Tease.:romy:

[Intelligent_Design]

Honestly, I believe that most people confuse Capitalism with Democracy. The U.S. is a Capitalist nation with a sprinkle of Democracy. The last true Democracy died out with the ancient Greeks.


But I don't want to get into semantics.


:wink:


:D


And our Capitalist system isn't very free either. Look at all the restrictions placed on the marketplace so that some companies that thrive now would be toast under a truly Laissez faire system.

[KingVoyeur]

The last true Democracy died out with the ancient Greeks.


You know, I think it's time we got some real gladiator games going in this country, except only politicians should be in them. People can vote for who would be in the games based on their platforms, then they can duke it out. That way, everyone who's in the running will have been chosen by the people for their idealology (sp?), and the winner will be a tough son of a bitch who's a real leader, not some coddled frat-boy who can't think on his feet.

[Intelligent_Design]

You know, I think it's time we got some real gladiator games going in this country, except only politicians should be in them. People can vote for who would be in the games based on their platforms, then they can duke it out. That way, everyone who's in the running will have been chosen by the people for their idealology (sp?), and the winner will be a tough son of a bitch who's a real leader, not some coddled frat-boy who can't think on his feet.

That would not be fair. Conan the destroyer of Culifawnia would run the table in somthing like that. :)

[Emperor Norton]

Honestly, I believe that most people confuse Capitalism with Democracy. The U.S. is a Capitalist nation with a sprinkle of Democracy. The last true Democracy died out with the ancient Greeks.


But I don't want to get into semantics.


:wink:


:D

I believe that most people confuse systems of economics (e.g., Capitalism) with systems of government (e.g., Democracy).

:wink:

[sickness]

And our Capitalist system isn't very free either. Look at all the restrictions placed on the marketplace so that some companies that thrive now would be toast under a truly Laissez faire system.

True, and while I am all for letting companies live or die on their own strengths, Laissez faire capitalism is a pipe dream. Without fail, it always ends up with the concentration of capital and power in the hands of a few or less companies. I suppose, for lack of a better term, one could call it monopolism.

[Bark]

I just won second prize in a beauty contest!

[Intelligent_Design]

True, and while I am all for letting companies live or die on their own strengths, Laissez faire capitalism is a pipe dream. Without fail, it always ends up with the concentration of capital and power in the hands of a few or less companies. I suppose, for lack of a better term, one could call it monopolism.


You are right "Laissez faire capitalism is a pipe dream". But as to it leading to "monopolism is debatable I think.

[DaForce]

I believe that most people confuse systems of economics (e.g., Capitalism) with systems of government (e.g., Democracy).

:wink:


Okay Mr. Smarty-smart pants...howzabout a Capitalistic theocracy with a smidgen of democracy?


How's that grab you?



:)

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Can I buy a vowel?

[DaForce]

Can I buy a vowel?


You'll get nothing and like it!!!

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Which is exactly what I usually get from you Daf.

[DaForce]

I usually leave it to Jakester to do all the giving.















He's got a lot to give.







Or so he claims.




:smirk:

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Somehow that statement made me think of those old toys/comics the Micronauts....

[Space Tycoon]

Without fail, it always ends up with the concentration of capital and power in the hands of a few or less companies. I suppose, for lack of a better term, one could call it monopolism.
You'd have to agree, though, that in our time (i.e., the Cold War and beyond) the growth of mega-corporations has been enabled and vigorously promoted by the central state, largely to serve the needs of the armed forces. America's biggest mistake after the fall of the USSR was to not wind down that relationship.

[Intelligent_Design]

You'd have to agree, though, that in our time (i.e., the Cold War and beyond) the growth of mega-corporations has been enabled and vigorously promoted by the central state, largely to serve the needs of the armed forces. America's biggest mistake after the fall of the USSR was to not wind down that relationship.

I agree and rules are in place so these companies will always be around no matter what Economic conditions exist.

[Space Tycoon]

Hardly a "free market" system, indeed.

[PotatoFamine]

Good question.

Especially in light of this discovery (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG18Ak05.html) two years ago. Why go nuclear when you can supply everything with fossil fuels?

Setting aside the fact that Iran has as much right as any other nation to develop nuclear power for domestic energy consumption (and with a growing, urbanizing population which will reach 100 million over the next two generations, their energy needs will be considerable), we need to get real--Iran wants nuclear weapons. They have been seeking them since the days of the Shah, when they were a US client.

And they have as much right to nuclear weapons as any other country, too.

Now before you start freaking out about terrorism, proliferation, or the perceived threat to Israel, consider these facts:

Iran is surrounded by nuclear-armed nations--including the US, in the form of a strong naval presence in the Gulf-- three of which have developed their programs in secret and never signed the Non-Proliferation treaty and, we are told, are key US allies. You get a gold star for naming them all, particularly the one with an estimated 200-400 weapons (hint:the star has six points. :winks: ) All of these countries have some nasty human-rights records, including support for terrorism at some time or another.

Iran is surrounded, period. As I've been saying for months, it didn't have to be this way. The country was opening up following Khomeini's passing and following 9/11, it was clear they wanted to initiate newer and better relations with the US. Such a "fresh start" would have been in the mutual best interests of Washington and Tehran, much as Nixon's oft-lauded meeting with Mao apparently did.

But flash forward four years, and it's clear that they feel paranoid, threatened and cornered--checkmated is the word I would use-- with nowhere to go and few friends in the world. They want nuclear weapons to level the playing field and be taken seriously. The number one unspoken rule in the world today is that the US will not attack you if you have nukes.

The threat to Israel is overblown, as always. Iran's strike capacity is pretty sad-- aging Shahab's with an ample record of failure-- whereas Israel can easily overfly Jordan and Iraqi airspace(maybe refueling over Iraqi Kurdistan, their new ally) with their updated F-15's, not to mention advanced Jericho IIs, Tomahawks, and nuclear-armed submarines stationed in the Indian Ocean.

The threat to US forces in Iraq is not overblown, however. Attack Iran, as the neo-crazies plan to do, and you will see massive casualties immediately. The Shi-ite militias have become much more disciplined and focused, not to mention better armed, over the past two years and will galdly sacrifice themselves to attack occupation forces.

The best way forward is to push for region-wide non-proliferation, and that means everyone.
Maybe off topic here, but the way the non-western world may view America is the fact that the Europeans who invaded the north continent and wiped out nearly all of the native peoples and replaced with a non-indigenous civilization kind of is a compelling reasons why America may be regarded with hatred, malice, and fear.

[Space Tycoon]

Maybe off topic here, but the way the non-western world may view America is the fact that the Europeans who invaded the north continent and wiped out nearly all of the native peoples and replaced with a non-indigenous civilization kind of is a compelling reasons why America may be regarded with hatred, malice, and fear.

True to some extent. But there is nothing new here. Islam has it's history of conquest and domination, as do various European, Asian, African, and even pre-Columbian Western Hemispheric empires. Study your history if you disbelieve me! Human beings are half-savage, half-missionary. This has been true for millenia. History is a wheel. Civilizations rise and fall.

The central paradigm of our time, what people fail (or even fear) to realize is that we are experiencing one of the turns of that wheel. White, Western Christendom has had it's time. But we are failing. Our time is ending. The future is Brown, and Non-Christian, and it scares (or it certainly should scare) people who hold wealth and power in the industrialized north.

I'm not one of them, it may comfort you to know. There was as time when I fancied myself an entrepreneur or a power-broker-in-the-making. Perhaps that time will come. But for the moment, I'm comfortable to simply view the carnage from the outside, as a form of entertainment.

History shows that when one long-establshed centre of power declines, and is faced with a much hungrier, stronger challenge to their power, confrontation and war eventually enters the picture.

All you can do is make a choice: Resist or Serve.

[Intelligent_Design]

The future is Brown, and Non-Christian, and it scares (or it certainly should scare) people who hold wealth and power in the industrialized north.

You realize people that people that are "Brown and Non-Christian", Brown and Christian, Non brown and Christian, and Non Brown and Non Christian are mostly subjugated in large numbers by people who hold wealth and power. And I don't see anything coming down the pipe thats gonna change that.

[Emperor Norton]

White, Western Christendom has had it's time. But we are failing. Our time is ending. The future is Brown, and Non-Christian, and it scares (or it certainly should scare) people who hold wealth and power in the industrialized north.

Space, I guess I understand where you're coming from, man (I was a big "L" Libertarian, until I applied what I'd learned in my grad classes on feedback control systems to the real world). What it comes down to is, the above quote is a widely sweeping, grossly unsubstantiated, claim. Are the above assertions something you wish to back up with supporting evidence?

[neglet]

Come now, let's not muddy this entertaining discussion with facts. Space knows the truthiness (tm) of his statements, he shouldn't need to come up with supporting evidence. :smirk:

[Space Tycoon]

So much hostility, sheesh. All I was saying, in my semi-inebriated state of mind, was that I think the US is basicaly just an empire like any other. And like any empire, it is becoming over-extended and declining from within. I think it will be overtaken by non-Western powers before too long, much as Rome was overshadowed by Islam's Caliphate after it caved in.

[Space Tycoon]

Come now, let's not muddy this entertaining discussion with facts. Space knows the truthiness (tm) of his statements, he shouldn't need to come up with supporting evidence. :smirk:
Well. I didn't know I was being regarded as some kind of liar. It's good to know, though.

[neglet]

:rolleyes: Spacey, I wasn't calling you a liar. I was saying we should conduct our debates according to principles of truthiness (TM), not facts. Don't you watch the "Colbert Report"? The way our media covers things, truthiness is more important than mere data.

[American]

The future is Brown, and Non-Christian, and it scares (or it certainly should scare) people who hold wealth and power in the industrialized north.
Maybe Brown, but not non-Christian. If you are talking about the US, you make it sound like we are invaded by hordes of legal and illegal Muslims like Europe (which can compare to your scenario, and if race is what you're getting at). Sure, hordes of Hispanics are jumping our border, but they aren't Muslim. They are Christian and Catholic.


I think the US is basicaly just an empire like any other. And like any empire, it is becoming over-extended and declining from within.
Over-extended maybe, but not declining.

[Intelligent_Design]

Over-extended maybe, but not declining.


I would agree. Maybe Space would like to clarify his position a little bit.

[Space Tycoon]

On the surface, American power seems completely unassailable. But you have to look at it they way you would a mighty tree with rot growing on the inside. If you measure strength by mere power projection, obviously the US is at the top of their game and will be for at least a generation or two. No-one can touch American military technology.

But there are troubling--and fairly obvious-- signs of decline. Government deficits are at historic levels. Industries continue to pack up and leave at an alarming rate. American popular culture continues to decline into a morass of sadism and filth. Unchecked illegal immigration threatens the American identity itself, most obviously along the border with Mexico but in other areas too. (That in particular is probably a topic that deserves it's own thread.)

And instead of dealing seriously and decisively with the problems right here in this hemisphere, this administration prefers to entrench itself ever deeper in the Middle East, with no end in sight. Based on how I interpret history and politics, this is how empires are lost.

[KingVoyeur]

On the surface, American power seems completely unassailable. But you have to look at it they way you would a mighty tree with rot growing on the inside.

Nice metaphor, but my favorite statement about the state of America comes from author Clive Cussler in one of his Dirk Pitt novels. One villain states that "America is like a beautiful woman dying of cancer." :(

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

On the surface, American power seems completely unassailable. But you have to look at it they way you would a mighty tree with rot growing on the inside.



Sounds familiar....perhaps a similarity to the Roman Empire? That was not lost due to the barbarians at the gate, but by the rot from the inside.

I can see how it looks like we are going down the same road.

[omicron]

hey, until we have vomitoria, I think we are ok. :)

Omicron

[American]

On the surface, American power seems completely unassailable. But you have to look at it they way you would a mighty tree with rot growing on the inside. If you measure strength by mere power projection, obviously the US is at the top of their game and will be for at least a generation or two. No-one can touch American military technology.

But there are troubling--and fairly obvious-- signs of decline. Government deficits are at historic levels. Industries continue to pack up and leave at an alarming rate. American popular culture continues to decline into a morass of sadism and filth. Unchecked illegal immigration threatens the American identity itself, most obviously along the border with Mexico but in other areas too.
All of those things can be reversed with preventative measures, just as long as they are noticed and not ignored in the long term

Popular culture, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily lead to collapse of a civilization

[sickness]

Popular culture, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily lead to collapse of a civilization

Tell that to Rome. One of the great factors in the fall of Rome was a culture of excess and gratification. So much was being spent on placating the masses that they didn't have the resources to fight the barbarians at the gate. So they started appeasing them. The barbarians got what they wanted so they tried for more, eventually having to fight for it. But Rome's army was simply stretched too thin to ultimately be of any real use against them. After several generations of attacks by the hordes, corrupt governance and declining culture, Rome fell.

[Intelligent_Design]

The biggest reason Rome fell, was weak rulers.

[Space Tycoon]

Sounds familiar....perhaps a similarity to the Roman Empire? That was not lost due to the barbarians at the gate, but by the rot from the inside.

I can see how it looks like we are going down the same road.

Some writers have suggested that many of America's ethnic minorities, --particularly Mexicans and African Americans--may end up playing the role that Visigoths and others played during Rome's fall. Subject peoples who at times co-operated with the empire, but who eventually ended up taking it apart.

Buchanan has gone so far as to suggest that if present trends continue, the whole of the Southwest could break away, or try to, once the population is majority Mexican. I've been saying for some time that I think America may yet experience another Civil War, with ethnicity playing as much a role as geography.

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

the whole of the Southwest could break away, or try to, once the population is majority Mexican.



The movie Americathon. The selling of San Diego to Mexico to raise some much needed cash to pay off the national debt.

Mexican President: "We are going to call it Tijuana Heights!"

[Space Tycoon]

The movie Americathon. The selling of San Diego to Mexico to raise some much needed cash to pay off the national debt.

Mexican President: "We are going to call it Tijuana Heights!"
Well, the Russians sold Alaska, the French sold Louisiana. Maybe that movie was prophetic!
:D

[DaForce]

..and I run,
I run so far away!
And Iran...Iran so far away.
I run so far away.



For some reason, that song suddenly came to mind.

[Space Tycoon]

"I couldn't get away!

Da-dana-dana-dana-dana-dana....

Deh-neh-deh-neh-deh-neh-deh-neh-deh-neh..."

What do you want? Best I could do...

[Space Tycoon]

:rolleyes: Spacey, I wasn't calling you a liar. I was saying we should conduct our debates according to principles of truthiness (TM), not facts. Don't you watch the "Colbert Report"? The way our media covers things, truthiness is more important than mere data.

Well, okay, maybe I overreacted. I'm usually grumpy in the morning, especially after a night of drinking in a pub blaring obnoxiously loud rap music.

According to good ole' Wiki....


Truthiness is the quality by which a person purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination. The term was coined and popularized by Stephen Colbert after he used it during the first episode of his satirical television program The Colbert Report, as the subject of a segment called The Wørd.

By using the term as part of his satirical routine, Colbert seeks to critique the tendency to rely upon "truthiness", and its use as an appeal to emotion in contemporary socio-political discourse. He particularly applied it to President Bush's modus operandi in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and in deciding to invade Iraq.

Colbert apparently unknowingly reinvented the word "truthiness", as it appears in the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as a variation of straightforward truthfulness, and indicated as rare or dialectal. However, Colbert did invent its new definition, and popularize it among a mainsteam audience. "Truthiness" was selected by the American Dialect Society as the 2005 Word of the Year, and by the The New York Times as one of nine words that captured the spirit of 2005. "Truthiness" has also been discussed in the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, MSNBC, the Associated Press, The Huffington Post, and Chicago Reader, on ABC's Nightline, and on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

[Space Tycoon]

Cause when the bombs start dropping, and the escalation begins, and the clash of civilizations goes into overdrive, we're all gonna want somewhere to run.

A radiation proof bunker sounds like a plan to me...

:jump2:

[Intelligent_Design]

Some writers have suggested that many of America's ethnic minorities, --particularly Mexicans and African Americans--may end up playing the role that Visigoths and others played during Rome's fall. Subject peoples who at times co-operated with the empire, but who eventually ended up taking it apart.

Buchanan has gone so far as to suggest that if present trends continue, the whole of the Southwest could break away, or try to, once the population is majority Mexican. I've been saying for some time that I think America may yet experience another Civil War, with ethnicity playing as much a role as geography.

The Revolution will not be televised.

[Space Tycoon]

You sound like a guy I used to know named Osirus... :smirk:

[Cncrman]

The revolution won't be televised, but I do believe there will be a 6 part magazine article about it in News Week.

[MPG]

Regarding the original topic of this thread, Iran is apparently trying very hard to imitate the US, e.g. by trying to develop nuclear weapons, renaming offensively named food items (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.danish.pastries.ap.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest), etc.

[Bark]

I think the United States would sell other possessions before it's states, like Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.

[Intelligent_Design]

I think the United States would sell other possessions before it's states, like Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.


Aren't they like the Baltic and Atlantic of the world monopoly board?

I find this interesting
China, Iran Near Huge Oil Deal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/china_iran_oil)

[tstone]

And our Capitalist system isn't very free either. Look at all the restrictions placed on the marketplace so that some companies that thrive now would be toast under a truly Laissez faire system.


Yes, but we also have examples of Laissez Faire systems, too. You don't have freedom there, either. It's just easier for fat cats to get fatter and eat the smaller cats, along with everyone else caught in the crossfire. It's why regs, rules and restrictions are place in the first place. For the economy is intended to serve the good of the populace at large, not just robber barons.

[Intelligent_Design]

Yes, but we also have examples of Laissez Faire systems, too. You don't have freedom there, either. It's just easier for fat cats to get fatter and eat the smaller cats, along with everyone else caught in the crossfire. It's why regs, rules and restrictions are place in the first place. For the economy is intended to serve the good of the populace at large, not just robber barons.


Its seems to me that the robber barons have more protection now than in a 100 percent free market system. Look at the airlines If a discount carrier were to go bankrupt the Government would not step in to bail them out. But big multi million dollar airlines get bailed out at the first major financial hiccup.

[tstone]

Its seems to me that the robber barons have more protection now than in a 100 percent free market system. Look at the airlines If a discount carrier were to go bankrupt the Government would not step in to bail them out. But big multi million dollar airlines get bailed out at the first major financial hiccup.


True. And that's where governmental corruption comes in. Yes, the gov has a place in helping to shore up the economy and important industries. But that's also where corruption comes in, where the decisions are made less by sound guardians of the public trust, and more from lobbyists and their governmental lapdogs.

Oh, no doubt, the system is badly in need of an adjustment right now. But Lassaiz faire would be just playing to them.

[Intelligent_Design]

True. And that's where governmental corruption comes in. Yes, the gov has a place in helping to shore up the economy and important industries. But that's also where corruption comes in, where the decisions are made less by sound guardians of the public trust, and more from lobbyists and their governmental lapdogs.

Oh, no doubt, the system is badly in need of an adjustment right now. But Lassaiz faire would be just playing to them.


See I don't think the government can be called on to dictate economic policy , It may have been useful at some point but since its lead up to what we have now I have to say its a failed system.

[Bark]

Aren't they like the Baltic and Atlantic of the world monopoly board?

I find this interesting
China, Iran Near Huge Oil Deal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/china_iran_oil)

Maybe, but if you can get hotels on Baltic and Atlantic, it's a nice deal there, especially after the other guy celebrates getting the $200 for passing GO. Nice 180 in emotions!

[tstone]

See I don't think the government can be called on to dictate economic policy , It may have been useful at some point but since its lead up to what we have now I have to say its a failed system.


I don't advocate dictating. But the government has a place in it. It has to. The government is the agency responsible for making sure the needs of the nation as a whole are met.

The corporations won't do it by themselves. And the citizenry doesn't have the power to get it done.

Government is government, it does what the private sectors and the citizenry can't/won't do.

It must.

[American]

Buchanan has gone so far as to suggest that if present trends continue, the whole of the Southwest could break away, or try to, once the population is majority Mexican. I've been saying for some time that I think America may yet experience another Civil War, with ethnicity playing as much a role as geography.
I can see it now.

April 5th, 2056
BREAKING NEWS!
This is Shepard Smith, reporting live from downtown *BOOM!* Flagstaff in Arizona, where the American troops and Amexican forces are *WHAM!* squaring off in an attempt to control the *BAM!* city.

[Space Tycoon]

Bump.

I guess being a Bush Admin war planner means never having to say, "Gee, I think we fucked up..."

New article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact)

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.
....

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
.....







.

[sickness]

Goddamnit. Will this cockwad stop worrying about his legacy and just do his fucking job?

[Space Tycoon]

With no real opposition, I guess they'll just continue to do what they want ...

:ohwell:

.

[Intelligent_Design]

Goddamnit. Will this cockwad stop worrying about his legacy and just do his fucking job?


HAHA!!! Dude this has got to be the post of year.:)

[sickness]

HAHA!!! Dude this has got to be the post of year.:)

If I wasn't dead serious about it, I'd be laughing right along with you. Think about it. Do you think Lincoln was thinking about his legacy when he lead the Union into the Civil War or when he made the Emancipation Proclamation? How about Washington when he lead the nation through a time longer than the Articles of Confederation survived? What about FDR when he saw the nation through a crippling depression and the vast majority of WWII? How about Kennedy pushing the space program and giving the Civil Rights movement legs? Hell, I don't even think Ronald Reagan was thinking "I've got to secure my legacy" when he bombed Libya or forced the U.S.S.R. into a costly arms race that ultimately contributed to the Soviet downfall.

George W. Bush is the personification of Little Man Syndrome.

[Bark]

Is that sarcasm, because I think those guys you mentioned were thinking about their legacies, every one of them.

[Space Tycoon]

Full text of Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad%27s_letter_to_George_W._Bush_% 288_May_2006%29)




.