Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Iran needs a better PR department.
|
You mean a PR department for the western world. Because, frankly, what good would PR do in the middle east or China? They're (mostly) not (that) aloof to fall for PR tricks.
Before I go any further I should mention that I am an Iranian myself, born and raised, immigrated and assimilated. I think it's fair to say I've been disillusioned of all these talks about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. I can't say I am definately sure that the Iranian regime is seeking to make nuclear weapons but there are some implications other posters here have made I am in disagreement with here.
Quote:
I do not like the idea of other (unstable) countries obtaining nuclear weapons.
However I wonder why our polititians think we have the responsibility to tell another nation what defenses they can have. We seem to think we need these weapons for our defense so why shouldn't other countries? Are we so superior to them that we can have them and they can't?
|
Except for the part about instability (because if the US didn't have the luxury of a ridiculously large military force it would resort to some relatively cheaper yet deadlier weapons), I agree. The policy makers understand- if Iran had nuclear weapons, who knows what it could do next. It would become too powerful to keep subdued, and frankly in the extreme long term that could be extremely damaging to the people of the U.S.
What irks me is that no politician will really just come out and say this. They always have to blow it up into some dynasty shit like "Israel is going to get nuked" or "we're going to get nuked". Nuclear weapons are a tour de force and are quite strategic weapons because any hostile foreign nation understands that if they push you too far, you might just do something stupid. It limits what the U.S. can do to the Iranian regime.
This is what it's about. It's not about Iranians vs. Americans, that's just stupid. It's about the U.S. government versus the Iranian regime. There's a
huge difference between what the people of Iran want versus what the Iranian regime does,
just as much as there is a
huge difference between what the people of the United States want versus what the United States government does.
I think it's a little more accurate to make that distinction between the people subjected to a government and the people who operate it. Because I don't think you can place an Iranian commoner in front of the launch button and ask him to launch a nuke on the U.S. or Israel. That person will probably break down in a nervous sweat and piss in their trousers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nezmot
It doesn't matter whether you believe him or not dk - his people hold him in a very high regard - let us hope that he has the earnest integrity to stick by what he has said. And if there's one thing that Islamic Fundamentalists have in abundance, it's earnest integrity.
|
Take it from me, the majority of Iranians hate Ahmadinejad as a person and a very, very significant sum hate him as a politician... with a few exceptions in the more poorly educated towns or villages... which is ironic because it's slightly similar to what is happening in America.
My real point:
- If you think the United States should launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran and topple it's government because it may have nuclear weapons, because the Iranian regime is inherently more dangerous than the United States government, you've been had by Public Relations (read: propoganda)