Russia Confirms Sale of Missiles to Iran

[Dark Moth]

- Iranians don't hate their regime the way Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You don't know much about Iran then.

[Commissar]

Alas, the US and UK threw all of that out of the window by launching an illegal external attack on Iraq to protect us all from WMDs that didn't exist.  The 'coalition' showed itself willing to ignore the UN and do whatever it thought best.  International law and the authority of the UN were weakened.  So now, if another country were to invade Iran, George Bush is more likely to applaud the invaders than stand up for Iranian sovereignty.  Why then should the Iranians trust in the UN?  Why not do everything in their power to get the best defence available?  They are responding to an unstable insecure and lawless environment that we exacerbated.

 

I don't want to see Iran have nuclear weapons, or Pakistan, India or Israel for that matter.  But what kind of security structure can we put in place so that these countries don't feel the need for nuclear weapons?  Perhaps the US should include the whole Middle East in its Missile Defense system?  What else would work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I wouldn't sat that the UN and international law was weakened by the US' actions, I would instead say that an inherent and long-standing weakness was revealed.

 

But I take your point about Iran's defensive situation. I agree with Taks in that they don't want these weapons solely for defense, but unlike him, I do think that is a legitimate argument for having them - after all, it's why we have them. Does every country have an inherent right to nuclear weapons? Honestly, I don't see how you can say no, if you want to be fair about things, but the fact of the matter is we, and rightly so, I might add, differentiate between a state that is likely to use nuclear weapons in an offensive manner and one that is not. For the record, I think Israel ought to be disarmed. Iran is definitely one of those states more likely to use them than not, and we ought to prevent them from acquiring them. If Iran is truly interested in defense, I suggest it look into missile defense systems - hell, that might be an interesting trade-off. Abandon all attempts at nuclear weapons acquisition, allow strict monitoring of the country's entire nuclear apparatus, and in return it receives outside assistance with a missile defense shield.

 

Or it could do what many of the smaller NATO countries did during the Cold War: pursue advantageous alliances with regional powers that might not have been capable of defending themselves alone against a superpower threat, but that when combined, could provide some fairly stiff resistance. A Middle Eastern bloc would be unpleasant, I'm sure, but fortunately it's also highly unlikely. Of course, Iran can't truly acquire any non-regional defensive partners because everyone thinks they're a little nutty over there.

 

I guess that's my point; if they're sincere about defense only, there are other avenues they could pursue, stuff I'm sure I haven't even thought of. They want nuclear weapons, first and foremost, to enhance their regional power status, and I have no doubt they want world power status, too. Given their long-standing antagonism towards the West in general, I don't see why that would be such a hot idea to allow.

[Junai]

I prefer blowing stuff up and figuring out if it was the right thing to do later. 

 

It's the American way!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Someone else learned from your tactics:

 

 

 

Seriously, you guys need a prez with over 8 wis. Get a new.. Kennedy, or something. Anyone has the Wilfried Huismann documentary on theCastro/Kennedy assassination theory btw? I'd really like to see it.

 

J.

[Kinslayer]

- Iranians don't hate their regime the way Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You don't know much about Iran then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

(w00t)

 

....my friend to the contrary, your statement just proves that in fact you are the one that doesn't know one bit about the current political and social conditions in Iran today. I bet on Fox news they say that the Iranian leadership are a bunch of killers who eat small children for breakfast and execute several hundred ppl a day " ....yeah right, it's a constitutional Islamic Republic, their president is the head of government (executive body), and is elected by direct vote of the people for a four year term and could be reelected for another term, cabinet members on the other hand get the parliament vote. The legislative assembly (Majlis) consists of 270 members which are elected for four years. Therefor, Ahmadinejad was elected by Iranian people in a fair elections which can be confirmed by international bodies that oversaw the elections.....yes one can say the supreme leader, currently Ali Khamenei has the most power in Iran, but he hasn't got all the political power in his hands, thus it's far from any dictatorship, Iran is nothing but a theocratic political system instituted some conservative Islamic reforms.

 

Furthermore, Iran is a member of UN and other related International Organizations such as World Bank, IMF, FAO, OPEC and OIC and many other international Regional Bodies. Maintaining independence and rejection of any Foreign domination in all aspects of the internal and foreign policy , is the basic principle of Iranian government. At the same time, Iran is seeking for good and friendly relations with all the nations of the world in order to build up good cooperation except with of course Israel, US and UK.

 

But of course you Yankees think they're anti-Western because they are some crazy brainwashed radical Islamist who hate freedom and liberty, etc....yet again the neverending American hypocritical propaganda at it's best.

Anti-US sentiment in Iran isn't just the characteristic of its leader but it's the sentiment of a large majority of Iranian people, did you ever think why....or do you just watch Fox news?

 

Here goes a little History lesson: In 1953 Iran's elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies in an operation Ajax. The operation was conducted following the Prime-Minister's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It reinstated the Iranian monarchy against the people's will, handing power back to former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - aka - Western pupet.

 

Following Mosaddeq's fall, Pahlavi grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, under which systematic torture and other human rights violations were known to occur, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After more than a year of political struggle between a variety of different groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini by a revolution.

 

Now ask yourselves again - why are they so anti - American?

 

 

And BTW Iran is going to make a nuclear bomb one way or another and they have every right to do so as much as Israel and they have my support. If the US or Israel wish to end their nuclear program air strikes won't be sufficient enough because some key Uranium enrichment facilities are deep under ground, that way you'll only slow them down. If you try a full scale invasion on the ground you'll eventually defeat them, but the numbers of your casulties, downcrease of US popularity, increasing numbers of terrorist worldwide....yes...yes...you're in for a blast - enjoy.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Kinslayer

[Lucius]

You're my favorite Croat, you know that dontcha Hilde?

[Kinslayer]

You're my favorite Croat, you know that dontcha Hilde? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well you and Rosbjerg are my favourite Danes

[Lucius]

Aw thanks... well enough with my derailing. ^_^

[Surreptishus]

poofs, the both of you.

[Volourn]

"their president is the head of government (executive body"

 

Iran's Presdient doesn't have the power. Nice try though. He is NOT their leader.

 

As for the election, sure the elction itself was fair; but let's not forget the hundreds if not thousands of candidates that were thrown in the trash can because the Elders led by the Supreme Leader didn't like them because they bel,ieved things.

 

But, yeah, the President has the power. Lame.

 

You also seem to forget there's a relatively large base of Iranians - espicially the youths - who DO NOT hate the US. Nice try though.

[Judge Hades]

Iran's gvoernment is a democratic theocracy. The religious leaders have the power to direct the country but remains focus on the larger issues while the president and others focus on the day to day affairs, but if there isa conflict of interest the religious faction has the power.

 

In any case Iran has the right to defend itself and eliminate any threats it deems by whatever weapons it has in its disposal, if it has the power to do so, just like any other nation on this planet.

[Volourn]

No. The elected governement has no real power at all. The Surpreme Leader who is not elected does. Heck, the name says it all.

 

Britain is a solid example Democratic Theocracy. It has a Royal Family; but the elected government has the power to rule.

 

Don't spread rumours, myths, and innuendo.

[Judge Hades]

In a Theocracy the religion has the power. Last time I checked the power of Great Britain isn't in the hands of its religious leaders.

 

Iran is first and foremost a theocracy, yet has democratic elements in which the elected officials handle the day to day affairs of government.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Kinslayer]

"their president is the head of government (executive body"

 

Iran's Presdient doesn't have the power. Nice try though. He is NOT their leader.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

link

link

 

The president and the supreme leader both have executive power.

 

I'm not arguing that the supreme leader has the most power in Iran, because he has, my original statement said that he doesn't have such power so you could tag him as a dictator.....and note in the pic, the president does also have executive power and it's not irrelevant at all..

 

 

You also seem to forget there's a relatively large base of Iranians - espicially the youths - who DO NOT hate the US. Nice try though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You should put emphasis on relatively, and second I don't quite agree with that statement..... political allegiance of the Iranian youth isn't that anti-US as of the eldars, but it sure as hell isn't pro-US either. Plus you don't have to be an expert to figure out what the sentiment of the Iranian youth is going to be after a possible US attack on Iranian nuclear sites.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Kinslayer

[Surreptishus]

The youth and women of Iran are anti theocracy, doesnt mean they are pro west.

Btw Kinslayer that pic is tiny, for a nice step by step guide on who controls Iran try this:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/midd...tml/default.stm

[Volourn]

"In a Theocracy the religion has the power. Last time I checked the power of Great Britain isn't in the hands of its religious leaders."

 

Oops. My bad. I should know better. LOL

 

 

 

"The president and the supreme leader both have executive power."

 

All the funny charts asdide, we all know wheere the real power in Iran resides. It's the Supreme Commander and his religious advisors.

 

Afterall, that's why the last president lost this election. He was VERY popular with the Irnaian citizens; but he simply could not successfully push for reforms becuase the SC kept overruling him.

 

You also convienntly ignore the fact that the SC and his religious advisors can veto EVERY decision the Presdient makes.

 

And, it's nice you ignore the fact that the SC and his relgious advisiors also stopped many would be Presidential Candiates from running just because they can.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Volourn

[Judge Hades]

In any case it is not us to approve or disapporve their government. That is for the Iranian people to do and Iran has every right to buy and develop weapons it deems necessary to ensure its security. If that means buying missile from Russia and placing nuclear warheads then so be it. We have thousands ourselves.

 

If they decided to doa pre-emptive strike against a hostile nation who are we to criticize after we did a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Volourn]

All countries must do what they think is bets for them. If Iran feels like attacking Isreal to help their cause so be it. However, all decisisons have consequences.

 

Same with nukes. They can go grab nukes; but if the US (and other coutnries) feel that iran having nukes is too dangerous they ahve the right to preemptively strike to make sure Iran never gets to use them.

 

See, how your 'countries have the right to do x' works? It works either way and becomes a nasty cycle.

[Judge Hades]

Its human nature at its best.

[Kinslayer]

"In a Theocracy the religion has the power. Last time I checked the power of Great Britain isn't in the hands of its religious leaders."

 

Oops. My bad. I should know better. LOL

 

 

 

"The president and the supreme leader both have executive power."

 

All the funny charts asdide, we all know wheere the real power in Iran resides. It's the Supreme Commander  and his religious advisors.

 

Afterall, that's why the last president lost this election. He was VERY popular with the Irnaian citizens; but he simply could not successfully push for reforms becuase the SC kept overruling him.

 

You also convienntly ignore the fact that the SC and his religious advisors can veto EVERY decision the Presdient makes.

 

And, it's nice you ignore the fact that the SC and his relgious advisiors also stopped many would be Presidential Candiates from running just because they can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Listen....I'm not gonna argue with you or anybody else that Iran is a perfect democracy because it's not, I never said it or meant it. I was emphasising that there is no dictatorship in Iran by the Supreme Leader or anyone else and that the Iranian leadership is far from that of Saddam Hussein.

 

"All the funny charts asdide, we all know wheere the real power in Iran resides"

 

The real power in Iran is in the figure of the Supreme Leader and the President.....and why are does charts so 'funny', and who are you to dispute all the agencies that say the president holds executive power are wrong....to say it's not like this it's like that. You back your claims only on your point of view, which quite frankly, doesn't carry any weight for you to dispute and redefine the political structure of a sovereign state.

[Volourn]

Not opinion; but fact. perhaps, you missed what happened to the other President of Iran.

 

You seem to forget that Iraq also had elections. I guess that means that Iraq was a Democracy, and Hussein was the democratically elected leader as well.

 

It's fact that the President doesn't have ultimate authority and hence Iran is not a democracy.

 

Democracy is about the people voting their leader in. The people of Iran don't get that to do that. They vote a President in who answers to the SL.

 

The SL *is* exactly what his title says he is. And, guess what? He's not voted in by the people fo Iran. Therefore, it isn't a democracy. Sure, it has some bases of a democracy; but it is not one.

 

Game over.

 

Unless the Supreme Leader says otherwise as he has ultimate authority.

 

 

R00fles!

 

 

P.S. So true, Hades.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Volourn

[Judge Hades]

In the US the president doesn't have ultimate authority, does that mean the US isn't a democracy?

 

In my view Iran is a Democratic Theocracy while the US is a Democratic Republic. Neither country is a pure democracy.

[Lucius]

FYI Volo the UK, like Denmark, are Constitutional Monarchies. I dunno how you got that mixed up with theocracy tho.

 

R00fles!!!

[Kinslayer]

Not opinion; but fact.  perhaps, you missed what happened to the other President of Iran.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He lost in an election that weren't framed at all. The SL can voice his opinion to the voters which candidate he thinks is better for the job, but he can't make ppl vote who he prefers, the guy lost - end of story.

 

You seem to forget that Iraq also had elections. I guess that means that Iraq was a Democracy, and Hussein was the dmeocratically elected leader as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No that doesn't mean Iraq was a democracy because the elections were fixed, there is no way anybody in any country would get 99.7% of votes.

 

It's fact that the Presdient doesn't have ultimate authority and hence Iran is not a democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry to break it to you, but no president in a democracy has ultimate authority...but I understand what you mean, the position of the SL should be elected by the ppl as well.

 

Democracy is about the people voting their leader in. The people of Iiran don't get that to do that. They vote a Presdient in who answers to the SL.

 

The SL *is* exactly what his title says he is. And, guess what? He's not voted in by the people fo Iran. Therefore, it isn't a democracies. Sure, it has some bases of a democracy; but it is not one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is where I agree with you....for the third time my original statement was that:

 

Iran isn't a dictatorship like Saddam was and yes Iran isn't a full democracy as I already said, the SL has the most power and the president has also executive power, that is my view.

Actually Volourn we derailed the thread.....

 

 

Back on topic:

 

UPDATE

[Judge Hades]

If Israel does a pre-emptive strike on Iran, there is no doubt that Iran will retaliate with its full military to strike back at them. If the US intervenes it will be clearly on Israel's side.

[Volourn]

"FYI Volo the UK, like Denmark, are Constitutional Monarchies. I dunno how you got that mixed up with theocracy tho."

 

LOL I know. I already amitted my bad. I was just being silly. :D

 

 

"He lost in an election that weren't framed at all. The SL can voice his opinion to the voters which candidate he thinks is better for the job, but he can't make ppl vote who he prefers, the guy lost - end of story."

 

Huh? Who said otherwise? All I said was that the President doesn't have any real power. In fact, that's why the Iranian people didn't vote for the old President - because he lacked power to make any real changes as the SL would just veto anything that might be against his ideal view Islam.

 

You also, once again, conviently ignore the fact that the SL and his religious advisors BANNED many candidates simply because he dissaaproved of them.

 

 

"the president has also executive power, that is my view."

 

My point though is that whatever executive power the Prez may have is pretty much nullified by the fact that the unelected SL can simply say no if he so chooses.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Volourn