Will they listen?

[fenwood]

Ask yourself why you won't...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301540.html

Because the long term aim and big picture states that at some point in the future the US will destroy Iran and take it's oil cost free, and the same will happen when social and economic strife hits Saudi Arabia in the future.

Uranium enrichment is another sleight of hand like WMD to hoodwink the American public into a second war (all you idiots who vowed never to be tricked again ?? Ha, Ha.. here it comes!)

The worlds oil reserves are American and will cost the oil companies nothing in payments to the host nations where this oil resides, sort of OPEC domino effect emerging here as production falls post Peak Oil!

[Jharaski]

If our interest was oil, we COULD just go straight to Saudi Arabia..

[fenwood]

You're interest isn't in the oil per se, but the currency in which oil payments are accepted.

[WhoDidTheElf]

If we were interested in oil we'd open up Anwar. Go bomb a bunch of trees and ****. Save a lot of lives and only piss off a bunch treehugers in America.

[fenwood]

Are you ****ing retarded or just completely numb? What did I just say?

[Jharaski]

What interest would we have in that currency? You're making no sense and your link doesn't work.

[fenwood]

No you tit, you do realize the currency for purchasing oil worldwide is american, right? Now, think for a moment if Iran, Iraq, et el started accepting Eurodollars instead of greenbacks for Oil what would happen. In case you've not figured it out, it would essentially render the american dollar useless and collapse your economic system like a gnat

[Jharaski]

No you tit, you do realize the currency for purchasing oil worldwide is american, right? Now, think for a moment if Iran, Iraq, et el started accepting Eurodollars instead of greenbacks for Oil what would happen. In case you've not figured it out, it would essentially render the american dollar useless and collapse your economic system like a gnat

Oh. So we AREN'T stealing the oil, then are we?

[fenwood]

No, I never said that. Of course you're stealing oil. There's a big black hole where the oil is going, the US gov't is preparing for the 50 year war with China by stockpiling all the oil it can get it's greedy hands on.

[Jharaski]

No, I never said that. Of course you're stealing oil. There's a big black hole where the oil is going, the US gov't is preparing for the 50 year war with China by stockpiling all the oil it can get it's greedy hands on.

Well then make up your mind. If we're stealing it, then we'd have no interest in making sure they'll accept the USD for it. If we pay for it, we're not stealing. Are you familiar with the word "steal"?

[fenwood]

You truly do live up to your screen name.

The war with Iraq & the pending one with Iran has everything to do with the inevitable collapse of the US dollar.

And yes, you are in Iraq stealing oil as we speak.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

[Jharaski]

You truly do live up to your screen name.

The war with Iraq & the pending one with Iran has everything to do with the inevitable collapse of the US dollar.

And yes, you are in Iraq stealing oil as we speak.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

It's so much fun messing with you, you know that?

[fenwood]

Unfortunately, I feel not the same teaching mentally unstable titwanks facts on life is getting quite routine here lately.

[Jharaski]

Unfortunately, I feel not the same teaching mentally unstable titwanks facts on life is getting quite routine here lately.


Let's stop for a moment. How are we stealing oil if we're paying for it? Why would we make payments that they don't want? I don't even understand your point. At all. The dollar isn't doing that poorly, especially when compared to many other currencies in the world. Our ally, Saudi Arabia, has more oil than anywhere else in the world. We could get oil from them if we needed it, even if the dollar WOULD go to ****. How would these wars even help our economy or circumvent any unfixable problems with it? Seriously.

[fenwood]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over your head

[Jharaski]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over your head

Then explain. You make ridiculous points that you don't back up.

[Against Miik!]

The U.S. is sounding more and more like the society portrayed in 1984, with this whole phone tapping thing, and all these wars or potential wars in the mideast. Are we at war with Eastasia? Eurasia? I don't know.

[Jharaski]

With Woodrow Wilson in power during WWI, things were a lot worse with letter opening and whatnot.

[Against Miik!]

With Woodrow Wilson in power during WWI, things were a lot worse with letter opening and whatnot.

Possible, but in the technological age, the potential for a society like that is limitless.

[Jharaski]

Possible, but in the technological age, the potential for a society like that is limitless.

Aye. But we still don't get sent away to be killed for not loving Dubya.

[Against Miik!]

Aye. But we still don't get sent away to be killed for not loving Dubya.

No, but Rome wasn't built in a day either. We eventually become immune to these things, and one day, things like being sent to room 101 for disagreeing with the leadership may seem like the norm. It seems ludicrous now, but you never know.

[Jharaski]

No, but Rome wasn't built in a day either. We eventually become immune to these things, and one day, things like being sent to room 101 for disagreeing with the leadership may seem like the norm. It seems ludicrous now, but you never know.

Doubtful. There will always be the point where people say enough is enough. Because right now, it really isn't that bad. It needed to be done.

[fenwood]

**** off, I got work to do

[USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST]

[Jharaski]

**** off, I got work to do

You still didn't make a point, further proving your imcompetance.

[waste of delinquency]

We dont attack saudi arabia because the mere thought of the boots of infidels in mecca is enough to drive the entire moslem world insane.

We attacked iraq in order for georgie to have his war and eat it too.

We wont attack Iran, we are too over extended anyway. Europe will though, and they will use Iraq as a jump off base.

Or everything will be solved peacefully and we will go about our everyday lives.

Yay

That is all

[-1up!-]

Doubtful. There will always be the point where people say enough is enough. Because right now, it really isn't that bad. It needed to be done.

No. A general disengagement towards politics and increasingly self-centered, individualistic way of life pretty much sets the trail for a weakening of democracy. Of course it's all theoretical and we don't know what might happen in the Western world's political future, but the actual stance is, people are slowly disengaging from politics in most well-developped democracies. And democracy is directly, fundamentally based on its participants' political knowledge and actions, both of which are declining.

[Danish]

Let's stop for a moment. How are we stealing oil if we're paying for it? Why would we make payments that they don't want? I don't even understand your point. At all. The dollar isn't doing that poorly, especially when compared to many other currencies in the world. Our ally, Saudi Arabia, has more oil than anywhere else in the world. We could get oil from them if we needed it, even if the dollar WOULD go to ****. How would these wars even help our economy or circumvent any unfixable problems with it? Seriously.

Look, Fenwood is half right. The main strategic interest in West Asia is energy. It would be disasterous for the US if oil was traded in Euros instead of US dollars. Iran and other OPEC members have been leaning towards a switch, no doubt to the full attention of the US.

Where Fenwood is wrong is in insisting that the US is stockpiling oil for a war with China. The US isn't interested in stockpiling oil. They're interested in controlling the spigot. That is, they want to dictate what happens with the world's oil. Let's say, hypothetically, that the US goes to war with China in 10 years. If the US has control over a significant proportion of the world's oil reserves, what difference is it going to make whether the US had stockpiled oil or not? China wouldn't have access, but the US would. Simple as that.

While it's true that Saudi Arabia is allied with the US, that won't necessarily be the case in 10 years. As is plainly evident, the US is a fairweather friend. Right now, the US uses Saudi Arabia as an offshore military base. No doubt they have a friendly relationship in terms of oil as well. But if the Saudis challenged American hegemony in the region, you can bet they'd be on the US' shitlist pretty quick. Remember Saddam Hussein? Prior to 1990, he was best buds with the US. The US was even willing to overlook genocide in their support for Saddam. But once he overstepped his bounds by invading Kuwait, the US quickly denounced him as a murderer and a despot.

And the US dollar isn't doing very well. Perhaps compared to all world currencies it is, but compared to the Euro, Yuan, and even the Canadian dollar, it's slipping. I think the US is on the verge of a recession.

And about a potential war with China, it's highly unlikely. Not only is China an extremely important source of cheap labour, the American economy is highly dependent on the Chinese economy. China has assumed large amounts of US debt. With the size of the American deficit, it's hard to imagine anyone else taking on their debt in the event of war with China. The only way it would happen is if China started to challenge American hegemony in West Asia. In that case, the war would look much like the Cold War: no open fighting between the two, but a number of smaller "hot wars" like Vietnam and Korea.

[Danish]

No. A general disengagement towards politics and increasingly self-centered, individualistic way of life pretty much sets the trail for a weakening of democracy. Of course it's all theoretical and we don't know what might happen in the Western world's political future, but the actual stance is, people are slowly disengaging from politics in most well-developped democracies. And democracy is directly, fundamentally based on its participants' political knowledge and actions, both of which are declining.

I would argue that that is mainly because there is a major contradiction between capitalism and democracy, but I doubt many people here would agree with me... yet!

[-1up!-]

I would. The regulation of human societies has to be done by the State or by its participants democratically. The market, which capitalism tries to place over State structures, has no concern whatsoever for human rights or justice or any social identity or cause, or the very idea of "society" itself; its final and only objective is the optimisation of trade and investment...

I'm guessing you'd agree with that... I just needed to write it down to structure it in words.

[Danish]

I would. The regulation of human societies has to be done by the State or by its participants democratically. The market, which capitalism tries to place over State structures, has no concern whatsoever for human rights or justice or any social identity or cause, or the very idea of "society" itself; its final and only objective is the optimisation of trade and investment...

I'm guessing you'd agree with that... I just needed to write it down to structure it in words.

Yes, 100%. I'm writing a paper about the media right now and that's basically what I'm going to argue.

[Jharaski]

I thought the dollar was gaining back on the Euro. Not to where it was a few years ago, but now it's about 1.3:1, while it was about 1.5:1 a little while ago.

[Danish]

I thought the dollar was gaining back on the Euro. Not to where it was a few years ago, but now it's about 1.3:1, while it was about 1.5:1 a little while ago.

I think you'll see it slip further. The Canadian dollar is now worth more than 90 cents US, which is a 30-year high.

Also, currency values aren't the only economic indicators. You have to look at inflation, trade deficit, state spending, investment, un/underemployment, etc.

[Jharaski]

I think you'll see it slip further. The Canadian dollar is now worth more than 90 cents US, which is a 30-year high.


Yeah. Reminds me of the USD/AUD relationship. Years ago it used to be 2 AUD per USD.

[Danish]

Yeah. Reminds me of the USD/AUD relationship. Years ago it used to be 2 AUD per USD.

What is it now?

[Jharaski]

What is it now?

like 1.33:1, which is around where it was when I went there 2 years ago. But with cash exchange commisions, I barely even made a 1:1 exchange.

edit - that's 1.33 AUD : 1 USD

[Danish]

Ahh ok, thanks.

So did my long post make sense?

[Jharaski]

Ahh ok, thanks.

So did my long post make sense?


Yes it did, especially compared to the unbacked "bush just wanted 2 go 2 war 4 oil!" drivel I see all over the place.

[Danish]

Well, you have to dig a little bit deeper and think a little more analytically, you know? Yea, it's about oil, but it's not that simple. Like the imperialism of old, it's all about power.

[Jharaski]

Well, you have to dig a little bit deeper and think a little more analytically, you know? Yea, it's about oil, but it's not that simple. Like the imperialism of old, it's all about power.

It really sucks because this is New Jersey. Everyone is either a really stupid liberal or a REALLY stupid conservative. So when people around my parts get into discussions.. it's just horrible. It came up in my programming class 2 years ago, and we all just argued while coding. I didn't really have an opinion then, though.

[Danish]

I'm assuming that was in high school, and I can assure that my experience was much the same. I'm sure you find Penn State much more... intellectually stimulating.

[Jharaski]

Yes that was high school, her in Jersey. Penn State is.. interesting to say the least. I'm at the Berks campus. Most people there are republicans. The College Republicans are the biggest, most successful club on campus with the biggest budget. The politics club fell apart, sadly. I've only had a few discussions, but they were all with friends. I should take political science classes, and maybe in those, there will be the opportunity to discuss. One of my professors is brilliant when it comes to politics - but I can never tell what his views are.

edit - wow, that really didn't flow too well.

[Danish]

Maybe it's different for me because I'm a poli sci major.

lol College Republicans? The two biggest groups at Brock other than administration are the Students' Union and the CUPE local.

[Jharaski]

We used to have College Democrats but they stopped caring enough to send a rep to the SGA meetings. Maybe the Republicans are doing so well because the chairman of SGA was the College Rebulican's president?

But seriously.. they travel all over. They go to rallies. They go to see speeches of republicans running for office. They're intelligent people though. You can't win a debate with them unless you REALLY know your stuff, and even then all you can hope for is "I respect your views, good debate!" They're not the redneck Hank Hill kind.

[Danish]

Oh I don't doubt it. Conservatives in the Ivory Tower are the worst!

[Jharaski]

They're not pro-Bush "go home moran" imbeciles but people who know their stuff. It's why I respect them a lot more than other conservatives. The only reason I'm not a part of the club is I don't get along with their president. Yet some of them were a part of the Rally in Rotunda..which was a rally to get PSU tuition reduced via state funding.

[Danish]

They're not pro-Bush "go home moran" imbeciles but people who know their stuff. It's why I respect them a lot more than other conservatives. The only reason I'm not a part of the club is I don't get along with their president. Yet some of them were a part of the Rally in Rotunda..which was a rally to get PSU tuition reduced via state funding.

University students are so funny. Every single student, no matter their political stripe, wants to lower tuition. I get such a kick out of that!

[Jharaski]

Well it mostly has to do with how we got the lowest increase of state appropriation out of any college in the state. The community colleges got a huge increase, and we barely got anything. And it's pretty expensive. It makes sense... sort of! But not all do. One guy from the campus opposes it. (and actually favors an increase in the tuition itself!) It's because of people like him that the college itself can't ask for an increase. PA is pretty sound compared to other states, so it can afford to give money to colleges.

[Danish]

How much is tuition at Penn State? At Brock University in Ontario it costs about $5000 Canadian for a full course load per year.

[Jharaski]

My last semester, it was $11,747 US. That included 18 credits of tuition and room and board with my $550 meal plan.

[Danish]

My last semester, it was $11,747 US. That included 18 credits of tuition and room and board with my $550 meal plan.

Is that only for one semester (ie. January-April)?

Is it more expensive because you're from New Jersey?

[Jharaski]

Yeah, that's one semester. It's a little more expensive because I'm from New Jersey, but not by much. It's still about $8,000 mininum per semester if you're a PA resident. Main campus is more expensive, by about $2,000-$3,000 per semester. I only have enough for my next (third) semester. It's a long story how I got the money!

[PepsiMetal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5011176.stm

Meanwhile the US has rejected Iran's call for direct talks on the issue.

Not sure if that article is a followup of the other one.

I've been reading lately about how Britain and US removed Iranian's democratically elected Prime Minister because Iran stopped selling Oil to Britain as the prices were raised or something like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

US needs to start talking with Iran about this. Bush will probably say something like "We don't negotiate with terrorists" :rolleyes:

/Just now realized this thread has changed topics completely.

[Smokey D]

Even if oil is traded in the Euro, the sheer importance of the US to the world's economy and its level of industrial output would prevent a catastrohpic decline in the value of the dollar. A decline in value could well be beneficial by making US industry more competitive with foreign tiger economies.

Consider the declining role Europe is playing in world economics, a trend that looks set to continue given the rise of China and India, and an ever ageing European population, and the threat of the so called bourse is greatly reduced.

[fenwood]

Even if oil is traded in the Euro, the sheer importance of the US to the world's economy and its level of industrial output would prevent a catastrohpic decline in the value of the dollar. A decline in value could well be beneficial by making US industry more competitive with foreign tiger economies.

Consider the declining role Europe is playing in world economics, a trend that looks set to continue given the rise of China and India, and an ever ageing European population, and the threat of the so called bourse is greatly reduced.

80% of the US industry is service based. They don't manufacture ****e anymore, the world needs america like a shotgun blast to the face

[The Wizard of Oz]

If the dollar were to collapse though then the purchasing power of US consumers would decrease, meaning that there'd be a decrease in the quantity of manufactured goods that the US would import. As the US is such a huge importer of foreign goods, it's not in the interests of other countries for that to happen, not to mention the further ramifications that would be caused by any currency depreciation.I tottally agree.

[fenwood]

No, that vacuum would just be filled by other countries, like Russia, China & India

[Jharaski]

No, that vacuum would just be filled by other countries, like Russia, China & India

Not willingly.

[fenwood]

If it means the destruction of USA, then yes it will be very willingly

[Jharaski]

If it means the destruction of USA, then yes it will be very willingly

No. Governments won't import stuff they don't need.

[fenwood]

No. Governments won't import stuff they don't need.

Right, like america only imports **** it needs

[Jharaski]

Right, like america only imports **** it needs

"needs." Excuse me. NEEDS to continue their trends. Or wants. How about the word wants instead.

[Danish]

The US economy isn't going to collapse... yet.

[Smokey D]

80% of the US industry is service based. They don't manufacture ****e anymore, the world needs america like a shotgun blast to the face

A lot of the service is of a quality that the developing world can't match, at least not yet. America has highly developed technical solutions that only Europe and Japan even come close to possesing, and all three economies are so thoroughly interwoven it would be detrimental to all three to begin trading in Euros. With the rise of China and its role as largest holder of US currency, this still holds true as China depends hugely on US capital to finance its own manufacturing process, and then on American consumerism to purchase the product.

What's more, most modern economies are service orientated -- it is a sign of economic sophistication and increases in effeciency and specialisation. This does not mean that they are at risk of terminal failure.

A bourse will not occur in the near future, and while it would be damaging to the economy, it would not be nearly as catostrophic as you imply.

[dislocated214]

It's funny how when Iran offered talks with the UN it wasn't reported on nearly as much. I don't think Iran should listen, because Tony Blair said that England was going to further develop their nuclear technology.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4987196.stm)

So if Blair can do it, why can't Iran? Iran has repeatedly denied having nuclear weapons. Under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty the Nuclear Countries are supposed to start disbanding their weapons and developing countries are allowed to use peaceful nuclear energy. The first hasn't happened (Israel, Pakistan, India, US) and the ladder is being denied (ie: Iran).

[what]

Euro is owning the dollar hard now... and I like it.



Has anyone heard anything on Brazil enriching Uranium?

Wow, how strange.

But of course Iran is so hostile, that will obviously destroy the world with nucluear weapons as soon as it gets them. pfft

[dislocated214]

I thought Brazil stopped, after the election of the new "socialist" president.

[ashman]

It's funny how when Iran offered talks with the UN it wasn't reported on nearly as much. I don't think Iran should listen, because Tony Blair said that England was going to further develop their nuclear technology.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4987196.stm)

So if Blair can do it, why can't Iran? Iran has repeatedly denied having nuclear weapons. Under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty the Nuclear Countries are supposed to start disbanding their weapons and developing countries are allowed to use peaceful nuclear energy. The first hasn't happened (Israel, Pakistan, India, US) and the ladder is being denied (ie: Iran).

Blairs not breaking any treaties. On the other hand, the us is proposing to :p

I think the main issue with Iran is the fact the Reactors they are making can make weapons grade Plutonium, if they were building a different type were it was impossible to get Plutonium from, I think there wouldn't be AS much fuss.

[Smokey D]

Euro is owning the dollar hard now... and I like it.

It's actually very bad for the European economy.



Has anyone heard anything on Brazil enriching Uranium?

Wow, how strange.

But of course Iran is so hostile, that will obviously destroy the world with nucluear weapons as soon as it gets them. pfft

Well, I would have thought it pretty self evident that Iran was more of a threat than Brazil.

[what]

If Pakistan, North Korea, India and possibly Israel have nuclear weapons then why shouldn't Iran?

The US is now a more of a threat to the world with it's imperialistic policies than Iran. I'm quite happy that this time the US chose a diplomatic way out.

[PepsiMetal]

Iran is going to accomplish their goals, (building nuclear power plants) as US most likely will not attack now. Israel could always attack, but that would mean even more enemies, and Israel doesn't look like it needs more enemies.

About Iran getting nuclear weapons, well, it's not confirmed that they even want them. If they confirm they want nuclear weapons, then we'll discuss that. :)

The US is now a more of a threat to the world with it's imperialistic policies than Iran. I'm quite happy that this time the US chose a diplomatic way out.

US using diplmatic actions instead of military ones means they actually still have some political knowledge.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

About Iran getting nuclear weapons, well, it's not confirmed that they even want themIt's pretty obvious they want nuclear weapons.
If Pakistan, North Korea, India and possibly Israel have nuclear weapons then why shouldn't Iran?
umm iran is an aggressive theocracy, with a volatile president.

[deathscreamingsheep]

Euro is owning the dollar hard now... and I like it.

Not enough to make me want to give up sterling any time soon.

[Smokey D]

If Pakistan, North Korea, India and possibly Israel have nuclear weapons then why shouldn't Iran?

Because some people having done it is not justification for everyone to do it.

The US is now a more of a threat to the world with it's imperialistic policies than Iran. I'm quite happy that this time the US chose a diplomatic way out.

Only if you don't know what 'threat' actually means.

Not enough to make me want to give up sterling any time soon.

Currency isn't a competition. It's not necessarily a good thing to be 'owning the dollar' anyway. That being said, the arguments against adoption of the Euro in Britain have little to do with its value relative other currencies, and more to do with limiting control over interest rates.

[PepsiMetal]

It's pretty obvious they want nuclear weapons.

It's obvious to the western world. Hell, it was obvious Iraq had WMD too.

umm iran is an aggressive theocracy, with a volatile president.

No he's not, he just has big mouth.

And Iran isn't agressive. It hasn't started any wars at all in the whole century as far as I know. They are a theocratic government, but they're also republic.

Because some people having done it is not justification for everyone to do it.

Actually it is if you take freedom into consideration. If one can have something, why can't the other? That's not fair. Westerners will obviously say something like he's crazy, he's a violent man, blah blah... as an excuse to why Iran shouldn't have nuclear power.

[Smokey D]

It's obvious to the western world. Hell, it was obvious Iraq had WMD too.

No it wasn't. It was obvious there weren't evere nuclear weapons in Iraq.

Actually it is if you take freedom into consideration. If one can have something, why can't the other? That's not fair. Westerners will obviously say something like he's crazy, he's a violent man, blah blah... as an excuse to why Iran shouldn't have nuclear power.

No it's not. If someone murders someone else, it's not an excuse for everyone to start killing each other.

And I'm fine with Iran having nukes. I'm just not fine with a repressive dictatorship having them.

[PepsiMetal]

No it wasn't. It was obvious there weren't evere nuclear weapons in Iraq.

Actually it was. Many Americans supported the war only because they were told Iraq is a major threat to the USA. A government that lied to their own people so they could start a war to their advantage. Hmm, that sounds like a dictatorship more than a democracy.

No it's not. If someone murders someone else, it's not an excuse for everyone to start killing each other.

When was the last time someone used nuclear bombs? It's USA. First and last time. Despite that many nations have gotten nuclear weapons since. Even the biggest dictator in North Korea has nuclear weapons. Did they use them?

And I'm fine with Iran having nukes. I'm just not fine with a repressive dictatorship having them.

They're officially called a theocratic republic by CIA.

So you wouldn't call North Korea a repressive dictatorship?

[Smokey D]

Actually it was. Many Americans supported the war only because they were told Iraq is a major threat to the USA.

No one who knew anything about the situation thought there were weapons there.

A government that lied to their own people so they could start a war to their advantage. Hmm, that sounds like a dictatorship more than a democracy.

No, it doesn't. It sounds like a dishonest government, but it was still democratically elected. Don't try and change definitions.

When was the last time someone used nuclear bombs? It's USA. First and last time. Despite that many nations have gotten nuclear weapons since. Even the biggest dictator in North Korea has nuclear weapons. Did they use them?

A) It's unclear whether North Korea has them.
B) Lots of people having them has in fact stopped others from making use of them.
C) If Iran is not going to use them, why does it need them?

They're officially called a theocratic republic by CIA.

Yes. That doesn't mean it's not a dictatorship. The USSR was a Communist republic, Nazi Germany a National-Socialist republic, but both were still dictatorships.

So you wouldn't call North Korea a repressive dictatorship?

Dear me, point exactly to where I said I was okay with North Korea having nuclear arms?

[PepsiMetal]

No one who knew anything about the situation thought there were weapons there.

Well most americans supported the war at the beginning, now that they know the truth most disapprove the war.

No, it doesn't. It sounds like a dishonest government, but it was still democratically elected. Don't try and change definitions.

You're right, but still, a bad government whether it's democratic or not.

A) It's unclear whether North Korea has them.

Actually they declared themself a nuclear power this year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12836-2005Feb10.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146950,00.html

B) Lots of people having them has in fact stopped others from making use of them.

Exactly. So the more nations that have nuclear weapons, the less people will use them. It's not like Iran thinks no one will have nuclear weapons except them. And they know Israel already has it also.

C) If Iran is not going to use them, why does it need them?

They didn't say they want nuclear weapons. They want nuclear powers because their country will save money on producing energy. But even if they want nuclear weapons, it's because they want self defense like North Korea. USA respects nuclear powered countries and isn't going to attack them.

Yes. That doesn't mean it's not a dictatorship. The USSR was a Communist republic, Nazi Germany a National-Socialist republic, but both were still dictatorships.

Ahmadinejad was elected. It doesn't matter how, he was elected. Dictators do not get elected.

Dear me, point exactly to where I said I was okay with North Korea having nuclear arms?

No you didn't say that, I was just saying we shouldn't make Iran a bigger priority when North Korea basically has nuclear weapons and can launch them any time. It will take at least a couple of years till Iran even gets to the North Korean level. But NK has said even in 2003 it wants to have nuclear weapons, Iran didn't.

[Smokey D]

Well most americans supported the war at the beginning, now that they know the truth most disapprove the war.

Most Americans are idiots if they supported it for that reason.

And I'd wager the main reason for a decline in support is the fact that there seems to be obvious end to the fighting.

You're right, but still, a bad government whether it's democratic or not.

But not a dictatorial one.

Actually they declared themself a nuclear power this year:

I don't trust the North Korean government to make announcements like that.

Exactly. So the more nations that have nuclear weapons, the less people will use them. It's not like Iran thinks no one will have nuclear weapons except them. And they know Israel already has it also.

We've got enough nuclear armed nations in the world to make the use of nuclear weapons entirely unprofitable for everyone. Any additions to this group is overkill and merely adds to a dangerous situation. This is doubly true when the one who's looking to get into the group has professed ideological allegiences to those who believe in suicide terrorism.

They didn't say they want nuclear weapons. They want nuclear powers because their country will save money on producing energy. But even if they want nuclear weapons, it's because they want self defense like North Korea. USA respects nuclear powered countries and isn't going to attack them.

If they only wanted nuclear power, then they would accept the offers made to them by other nuclear powers already. North Korea is deserving of a US attack, and if Iran becomes much more hardline, I'd be willing to change my position on that as well. I'm not okay with a nation with a history of exporting Islamic (you'll have to forgive the term. It's for simplicity's sake) terrorism.

Ahmadinejad was elected. It doesn't matter how, he was elected. Dictators do not get elected.

Yes they do. See Hitler.

But Iran's nascent democracy is wholly subservient to the Ayatollahs, who were the main tagets of my criticism.

No you didn't say that, I was just saying we shouldn't make Iran a bigger priority when North Korea basically has nuclear weapons and can launch them any time. It will take at least a couple of years till Iran even gets to the North Korean level. But NK has said even in 2003 it wants to have nuclear weapons, Iran didn't.

North Korea can be brought to heel by a bit of bait and stick on behalf of China, and is pretty close to tottering anyway. There is not point in trying to stop something that has already happened. On the other hand, Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and every effort should be made to stop them from attaining them.

[PepsiMetal]

Hitler wasn't elected as a dictator. His party won most seats and basically ordered all the powers to him, which means he became dictator when he was elected. Dictators do not get elected. They overthrow current government and then rule the country themself.

About Iran nuclear powers, well all I can say is they don't want to be dependent on other countries. Having their own facilities insures their production of nuclear power regardless of relations with other countries.

The thing is, all westerners are assuming Iran wants nuclear weapons. So really, even if they didn't want them, that means they don't have freedom to make their nuclear power plants like other countries. How is that fair? Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator. He will not be in power forever. Iranian's presidential terms last for 4 years also. That doesn't sound anything like Saddam Hussein's 30 year rule, which US supported before, and Shah who US also supported.

[Smokey D]

Hitler wasn't elected as a dictator. His party won most seats and basically ordered all the powers to him, which means he became dictator when he was elected. Dictators do not get elected. They overthrow current government and then rule the country themself.

Hitler was a dictator who gained power through an election. Of course he wasn't elected as a dictator, but I don' see what that has to do with anything.


About Iran nuclear powers, well all I can say is they don't want to be dependent on other countries. Having their own facilities insures their production of nuclear power regardless of relations with other countries.

Then it's a political stunt designed to bolster a flagging regime. Iran knows it holds the world hostage with its oil, and that for its trading partners to cut off uranium would be self-inflicted sabotarge.

Of course, I wouldn't care as much if Iran was truly democratic.

The thing is, all westerners are assuming Iran wants nuclear weapons. So really, even if they didn't want them, that means they don't have freedom to make their nuclear power plants like other countries. How is that fair?

They should let in inspectors, then.

Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator. He will not be in power forever. Iranian's presidential terms last for 4 years also. That doesn't sound anything like Saddam Hussein's 30 year rule, which US supported before, and Shah who US also supported.

First of all, don't strawman.

Secondly, no Ahmadinejad is not a dictator (though quite obviously patently insane), but the Grand Ayatollah most certainly is.