What if Iran gets nuclear weapons?

[Asteroid-Man]

I did provide evidence, watch the episode of Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations he did in Iran like I stated in the original post. He goes to markets and several other places with regular Iranians and they showed him nothing but kindness

Here's some more evidence - and this is two years AFTER the elections scandal.

[YT]l5lqBRAgr1U[/YT]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5lqBRAgr1U

They're yelling "death to the dictator" which is also a piss poor translation as I mentioned above. They're very much against the Ayatollah.

I could find you HOURS upon HOURS of these videos from the last ten years - hell even just the last five years. In that time, there have only been a handful of pro-Khomenei rallies held, and they were later discovered to be PAID to be there.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I have also seen tons of pics with Iranians smiling and Obama on the TV in the background when the deal framework was announced

 

[Thundercrack85]

I did provide evidence, watch the episode of Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations he did in Iran like I stated in the original post. He goes to markets and several other places with regular Iranians and they showed him nothing but kindness

You could do the same in any country.

Iranians are personable people, but politics are politics.

The regime enjoys widespread support.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

You could do the same in any country.

Iranians are personable people, but politics are politics.

The regime enjoys widespread support.

You're very good at selectively reading, it seems. A plethora of first hand sources are being provided to you and you still have some sort of asinine excuse. The VAST majority of Iranians are against the Ayatollah and do NOT wish death upon the United States of America.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You're very good at selectively reading, it seems. A plethora of first hand sources are being provided to you and you still have some sort of asinine excuse. The VAST majority of Iranians are against the Ayatollah and do NOT wish death upon the United States of America.

What happened to you ignoring me?

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. Present to me a study. Hell, I'll take a damn CNN poll.

If the VAST majority of Iranians were against the Ayatollah he would not be in power. Even during the Green Revolution the protesters did not target the Ayatollah directly.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

What happened to you ignoring me?

Your uninformed posts make their way through peoples quotes, and I caught wind of you being close minded and clicked "show post". I was correct in my assumption.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. Present to me a study. Hell, I'll take a damn CNN poll.

Right, because journalists and polls have a fantastic track record in Iran.

If the VAST majority of Iranians were against the Ayatollah he would not be in power. Even during the Green Revolution the protesters did not target the Ayatollah directly.

Clearly you do not understand how an oppressive dictatorship works. Every one of your questions can be answered rather simply if you go through the question list I posted on the page earlier. You know, a lot of you posters like to ask a lot of questions and yet refuse to answer them when the light is cast on you.

What are you afraid that some posters will see how little you actually know about a topic? I can go toe-to-toe with anyone on the history and politics of Iran. Answer the questions I posted and wherever you fall short, we'll start from there. When you've seen the reality behind every one of those questions, you won't make statements that make the rest of us go ""

 

[Marvolo]

You could do the same in any country.

Iranians are personable people, but politics are politics.

The regime enjoys widespread support.

Of course it has widespread support. If I lived under that regime I wouldn't speak out against it publicly. Doing so would probably be a death sentence.

 

[hopeless]

If Iran uses nukes against Israel, they would be inviting the wrath of the US. That doesn't sound like a good plan.

Also, do we really believe that Iran doesn't already have nuclear weapons (or at least the capability)?

I just don't see Iran gearing up for a suicidal war.

Can you guarantee there isn't anyone in a position of authority in Iran who'd consider that a fair exchange?

More importantly would they believe the US is both capable and very willing to strike directly back if it does happen?

Being British I'm worried the recession and political agenda's are leaving us vulnerable so can the US handle this by themselves without outside aid?

 

[Marvolo]

Can you guarantee there isn't anyone in a position of authority in Iran who'd consider that a fair exchange?

More importantly would they believe the US is both capable and very willing to strike directly back if it does happen?

Being British I'm worried the recession and political agenda's are leaving us vulnerable so can the US handle this by themselves without outside aid?

You know that Feenix was banned, right?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Your uninformed posts make their way through peoples quotes, and I caught wind of you being close minded and clicked "show post". I was correct in my assumption.


Right, because journalists and polls have a fantastic track record in Iran.


Clearly you do not understand how an oppressive dictatorship works. Every one of your questions can be answered rather simply if you go through the question list I posted on the page earlier. You know, a lot of you posters like to ask a lot of questions and yet refuse to answer them when the light is cast on you.

What are you afraid that some posters will see how little you actually know about a topic? I can go toe-to-toe with anyone on the history and politics of Iran. Answer the questions I posted and wherever you fall short, we'll start from there. When you've seen the reality behind every one of those questions, you won't make statements that make the rest of us go ""

I can tell you're a real authority on Iran. You're clearly objective about the matter, and not emotional.

I really don't feel like playing 20 questions with you AM. Quite frankly talking to you is exhausting. Between the emotional outbursts and constant condescension against everyone who disagrees with you. It's like talking to a child.

If the Ayatollah was as unpopular as you claim, he would be deposed by now. Yet he's been virtually unchallenged. Even in 2009, the protests were targeted at Ahmadinejad, not him.

The Ayatollah enjoys popular support in Iran. You may hate that fact, but you have yet to counter it with anything more than anecdotal evidence.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Of course it has widespread support. If I lived under that regime I wouldn't speak out against it publicly. Doing so would probably be a death sentence.

There have been many popular dictatorships. Only when the majority of people turn against them do they fall, barring some kind of outside intervention, or power struggle.

The burden of proof falls on you to prove the Ayatollah is unpopular. I cite once more the mass protests in 2009, which didn't even target the Ayatollah.

Or the fact that most Iranians supported the nuclear program.

 

[Marvolo]

Thunder, no intelligent Iranian is going to actively speak out against the Ayatollah unless they have a death wish. Constitutionally protected freedom of speech doesn't exist in Iran. So saying that the Ayatollah has public support doesn't mean a whole lot.

Hitler had support too, but we know that the situation was incredibly complicated. The people were deluded by propaganda,scared, suppressed, and in constant threat of being arrested by the Gestapo. It's similar in Iran.

And the Iranians should support their nuclear program. It could be good for the country and their economy. I seriously doubt the majority of iranians are supporting it for nuclear weapon production. They are in support of nuclear energy and all the benefits that come with it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Burden of proof, Marv.

Hitler enjoyed incredible popularity in Germany, especially on a personal level. The Germans even had a saying "if only the Führer knew".

Only after he started losing the war did public opinion start to change. But even then, they stood with him until the final hour.

The resistance in Germany was a small minority.

You're right, dictatorships are complex. But this notion that they're inherently unpopular, and that everyone is terrified to say anything is an oversimplification.

There are good indicators.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I can tell you're a real authority on Iran. You're clearly objective about the matter, and not emotional.

Ad hominem.

I really don't feel like playing 20 questions with you AM.

Yet you seem perfectly comfortable asking your own? You pose "either-or" questions (yet another debate fallacy) and when someone asks you a set of questions to which you do NOT know the answer, you cower. Are you afraid of exposing your arrogance or just your ignorance?

The reason for my questions isn't to ridicule you, it's to see what you do and do not know about the issues at hand. Contextually, there is a LOT here you seem to not understand, as you've demonstrated time and time again throughout the thread.

Knowing the answer to each of those questions will help to give you an insight you might not have. None of those questions are random - they're all pertaining to diplomacy with Iran.

Quite frankly talking to you is exhausting. Between the emotional outbursts and constant condescension against everyone who disagrees with you. It's like talking to a child.

Even after I told you that you were on my ignore list, you would ask me questions (without quoting me), knowing I would not reply. Now you're getting a reply, and you're once again using ad hominem.

I keep extending a hand to you and you're swatting at it. You insult me. Use ad hominem and other fallacies to formulate rebuttals; it's irritating.

If the Ayatollah was as unpopular as you claim, he would be deposed by now. Yet he's been virtually unchallenged. Even in 2009, the protests were targeted at Ahmadinejad, not him.

The Ayatollah enjoys popular support in Iran. You may hate that fact, but you have yet to counter it with anything more than anecdotal evidence.[/QUOTE]

You just made a big post, and this was the only part that you're actually contributing to the conversation, and all you've done is repeat yourself from earlier posts. Are you sure you're here to discuss, or just keep reposting you opinion? As stated by multiple posters over and over again, it's not that simple. Dictators cannot be overthrown with just sheer will. The people are frightened, they're poor, and those who oppose the government are executed, tortured into false (and televised) confessions. Evin prison - a hole once reserved for murders and rapists, is now FILLED with political prisoners and Baha'is - and you're going to sit there in your cozy chair and presume to accuse the people of Iran as being in line with a dictator they oppose? A dictator that has taken everything from them - and one that stands as a symbol of Islamic Colonialism, that spits in the face of their native culture and spills the blood of it's own people.

Would you like me to give you more videos of people doing demonstrations against the Ayatollah? The 2009 protests were NOT against Ahmadinejad, they were against Khamenei. The president is NOT referred to as a dictator in Iran - any fool knows he's no more than the Ayatollah's poster boy. The protests in 2010 and 2011 continue to assert that fact, as do the arrests and executions since.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Also, I could give you a list of readings, videos and studies but you'll just ignore them. I gave you the earlier questions to help with context and you deflected them all, yet all of us are here responding to your posts filled with fallacies. I'm attempting to be civil, and every time you react with disrespect.

 

[Thundercrack85]

All of us amounts to what? Three people? But alright, I'll give you argumentum ad populum if it makes you happy since you like to say ad hominem so much.

You talking about disrespect is the epitome of irony. Maybe I should take that as praise.

We have seen much worse dictatorships go down.

The Green Revolution failed because the Ayatollah still enjoyed considerable support. The reason the mainstream protest groups didn't target Ahmadinejad is because attacking the Ayatollah directly was not a realistic prospect, and they knew that. A lot of the protestors were only looking for minor change, not revolution. And that's in the protest movement, never mind the people who supported Ahmadinejad.

Compare this to let's say Libya, where millions wanted to quite literally kill Gaddafi, and continued to fight even after he started bombing them in the street.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

We have seen much worse dictatorships go down.

The Green Revolution failed because the Ayatollah still enjoyed considerable support. The reason the mainstream protest groups didn't target Ahmadinejad is because attacking the Ayatollah directly was not a realistic prospect, and they knew that. A lot of the protestors were only looking for minor change, not revolution. And that's in the protest movement, never mind the people who supported Ahmadinejad.

Compare this to let's say Libya, where millions wanted to quite literally kill Gaddafi, and continued to fight even after he started bombing them in the street.

Actually that's not why the Green Revolution failed - you answered "why" in your latter paragraph - because the people of Iran don't want to "literally kill" him. They chanted "marg bar dictator" but again, the translation doesn't do it justice.

The people don't want a revolution by blood - they want a bloodless revolution. That's why it failed. No matter how peaceful they acted, blood of the students was spilled, and people were executed. That's why it failed.

By contrast, the Revolution in '79 prevailed because the opposition wanted blood, and the Shah refused to open fire upon his own people. The only instances of such a thing happening was when the Generals acted on their own accord while the Shah was in Egypt, and when the Mujahidin and Khomeini's supporters dressed in Imperial Garb before opening fire on the innocent to smear the monarchy.

A bloodless revolution can only prevail if it has the support of EVERYONE. They had the majority, but it certainly wasn't unanimous. For the record, I firmly believe that had Obama stood with the protesters in 2009, the revolution would have succeeded, but he was a coward.

 

[Destructus86]

Is seems to me the only deal Iran is interested in making is a completely one sided one. They really don't care about peace, just what they can get out of it and they certainly don't want the west telling them what to do.

 

[herakles]

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-tested-m...4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

Direct violation two U.N. Security Council resolutions!

IF Iran can not be trusted to follow these resolutions how can we trust them to not violate a US treaty.

 

[Taarna]

I have also seen tons of pics with Iranians smiling and Obama on the TV in the background when the deal framework was announced

Iran conducts new missile tests defying US sanctions

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...82A?li=BBnb7Kz

Sure they are smiling. Obama was played and measured a fool

"Our main enemies, the Americans, who mutter about plans, have activated new missile sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran and are seeking to weaken the country’s missile capability," Hajizadeh said.

"The Guards and other armed forces are defenders of the revolution and the country will not pay a toll to anyone... and will stand against their excessive demands."

Range of the missiles, up to 2,000KM

 

[herakles]

Iran conducts new missile tests defying US sanctions

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...82A?li=BBnb7Kz

Sure they are smiling. Obama was played and measured a fool



Range of the missiles, up to 2,000KM

Obama wasn't fooled cause he is a fool! Especially when it comes to foreign policy. When Iran gets nuke Obama and all the liberals will blame Bush Jr.

 

[Marvolo]

Iran conducts new missile tests defying US sanctions

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...82A?li=BBnb7Kz

Sure they are smiling. Obama was played and measured a fool



Range of the missiles, up to 2,000KM

Since you seem to have forgotten, Ill remind you what the deal was:

Under the agreement , Iran must dramatically reduce its nuclear materials — such that it doesn’t have the uranium and plutonium necessary to make a weapon. (For instance, it will reduce the number of uranium centrifuges from 19,000 to just 5,060 and limit the enrichment of uranium to just 3.67% — a purity of 90% is necessary to make a weapon.)

So you'd rather they have the material to build and attach a nuke to those missiles? The deal was still a good idea. It hampered their ability to build nuclear warheads.

 

[Donner]

Taarna and herakles don't care about facts. They like drama.

 

[Taarna]

Since you seem to have forgotten, Ill remind you what the deal was:



So you'd rather they have the material to build and attach a nuke to those missiles? The deal was still a good idea. It hampered their ability to build nuclear warheads.

How do you know this? Iran has something like 24 days before they will allow an inspection. The deal sucks. Even John Kerry said we are not funding terrorism.

Why give billions to a nation who threatens you verbally and hates you?

Who says Iran can buy their own nukes with the money we are freeing up?

Radical Islam combined with nuclear weapons is the biggest single threat to the Earth.

Obama is either a naive fool or a very sinister person.

 

[KevanG]

Radical religion of any type with WMDs is a very bad thing. One specific religion isn't the problem. The problem is the nutjobs in every religion that want to kill everyone who doesn't slavishly follow their every command.