Iranian Elections

[Olo]

And if that continues to fail (as it is failing currently unless this new president somehow succeeds)?

there is no evidence whatsoever that the Irani government will budge in to sanctions because what you're currently proposing is to continue what the US government has been doing for couple years.

Oh, I don’t know about that. Sanctions have crashed the Iranian economy. This election was almost entirely focused on economic matters and the people elected a moderate who wants to open up to the west. We didn’t the true regime change that we would’ve liked (I don’t think anyone thought we really would) but at least the tone of future talks can change. Ultimately, Khamenei is still calling the shots on the nuclear program but I think sanctions helped push a moderate stance.

[N-7]

Oh, I don’t know about that. Sanctions have crashed the Iranian economy. This election was almost entirely focused on economic matters and the people elected a moderate who wants to open up to the west. We didn’t the true regime change that we would’ve liked (I don’t think anyone thought we really would) but at least the tone of future talks can change. Ultimately, Khamenei is still calling the shots on the nuclear program but I think sanctions helped push a moderate stance.

Only time will tell if this president will have any effect on Iranian policies.

[Djuntas]

That sad fact that religiues leaders have more power than a democratic voted leader inn a country.

May I say, fuck you religion, or is that to harsh? Sorry if it is.

[Deleted]

That sad fact that religiues leaders have more power than a democratic voted leader inn a country.

May I say, fuck you religion, or is that to harsh? Sorry if it is.

Heck the role religion plays in american politics is laughable to most Europeans, so religion and politics are not only mixed in Iran.

[Reeve]

So if that fails you're in favour of attacking a sovereign nation that has done no harm to you based on assumptions and weak evidence?

Did you miss the part where I said, "if it fails long enough that Iran finally gets the bomb..." That's not assumptions or weak evidence. That's if they're confirmed as having the bomb, and even then we aren't talking about a full scale invasion, but rather a targeted strike, and only then after exhausting all diplomatic efforts.

You seem fixated on painting my position with the most aggressive and unjustified brush possible without actually reading what I'm saying. It feels like you have a preconceived idea of what I or other Americans want to do in Iran. Hint: the last thing I want is an invasion.

[Skroe]

So if that fails you're in favour of attacking a sovereign nation that has done no harm to you based on assumptions and weak evidence
How about you tell us how it is exactly a threat to the US? If your government leave them alone (which they're incapable of doing), then they'll leave you alone.

Preepmtive defense is entirely legitimate.

And we can't "leave them alone" because we're allies with many nations in the region from Turkey (NATO), Israel, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, UAE... all of which are far more concerned with Iran than even we are because they would be in range of ballistic missiles far less sophisticated than the ones that would be needed to reach US soil. As the guaranteer of regional security, as the one who keeps these people who generally don't like each other from hitting each other (we're the regional referee), their problems are our problems.

ANd more to the point, we just don't trust Iran with nuclear technology. We have a right to that position, and to do everything we can to make their lives extremely difficult if they decide to proceed with it.

[Mayhem]

Preepmtive defense is entirely legitimate.

And we can't "leave them alone" because we're allies with many nations in the region from Turkey (NATO), Israel, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, UAE... all of which are far more concerned with Iran than even we are because they would be in range of ballistic missiles far less sophisticated than the ones that would be needed to reach US soil. As the guaranteer of regional security, as the one who keeps these people who generally don't like each other from hitting each other (we're the regional referee), their problems are our problems.

ANd more to the point, we just don't trust Iran with nuclear technology. We have a right to that position, and to do everything we can to make their lives extremely difficult if they decide to proceed with it.

are you serious or trolling? i´m really not sure anymore

[TheGravemind]

Their new President seems to be a huge upgrade for EVERYONE in the world.

[Skroe]

are you serious or trolling? i´m really not sure anymore

I'm entirely serious.

American involvement in various regions... Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in recent times (but a far greater extent in the not too distant past) South America is rather simple. We act as the middle man. We form coalitions of countries, many of whom have poor or complex relationships with their neighbors, and act as regional moderator, referee and leader. And it is all directed against the one country in the region that all other countries, despite their historic enmity, fear more than each other.

In Europe, with NATO, the saying when it was designed to keep the US in, the Germans down and the Russians out.

In East Asia today, the US military is redeploying 65% of its assets there, and we're building or reopening bases. We've long brought South Korea and Japan - two countries with a truly terrible history - into alliance with us, and many more nations, to wall China in.

In the Middle East it is exactly as I described. For the hatred of Jews in what they consider their land, for all the problems with the Palestinian diaspora in the region, the one thing all countries there simply do not want to see is more Iran, more Hezbollah or mini-Hezbollahs, and an Iran armed with medium range ballistic missiles. They've formed a block, with us as its nexus.

Whats the common thread in this? It's safer for world security in ways people don't even realize. Let's look at NATO. How many countries in NATO have Nuclear Weapons? 3 - the US, UK and France. How many COULD have Nuclear Weapons if their national industry put their mind to it? Germany could do it in under 6 months in one estimate. Spain could. Norway could. Canada certainly could. Turkey could. Whats safer for the world? A NATO where the US is in the drivers seat, and the most destructive weapons are in fewer hands, or one where it isn't, and they are in more hands, and such an alliance does not exist.

Or consider what is happening right now in East Asia. Japan is one of the most industrialized countries in the world, second only to the US. If they wanted to build nuclear weapons, they could do it in 3 months. Now a Japan that does this would lead South Korea to do the same thing, in a similar time frame, and would lead Australia to do it in a similar time frame. The Phillipeans would start a program, Thailand would start a program, and Indonesia would certainly start a program. Instead of having 3 nuclear powers in the region (the US, China and North Korea), all of a sudden you have like 12. And because of their complex histories, instead of aiming them just at China and North Korea, they'll aim them at each other, especially South Korea and Japan.

Don't believe me this is how it works? Why do you think the US approved the biggest arms deal in the history of man last year to Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Because the hope is by telling them "we'll sell you defense wares only a smidgen worse than what we currently use", we are making an argument that these countries, which could start nuclear programs out of fear of Iran, instead decide that as the guaranteer of regional security, the US has that covered. Hence we're extending our Anti-Ballistic Missile system there.

The most dangerous world imaginable is one where we "leave everyone alone". It'll become a free for all, and people who have the technology to develop nuclear weapons will do so, and will aim them at each other, and eventually with them in so many hands, the wrong nationalist president will eventually make the wrong decision. And we'll be forced to get involved any way so it doesn't spiral out of control.

You want preemptive strategy? Our involvement in every major region in the world is the ultimate preemptive strategy. It preempts the most dangerous of all possible worlds.

[Mayhem]

I'm entirely serious.

American involvement in various regions... Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in recent times (but a far greater extent in the not too distant past) South America is rather simple. We act as the middle man. We form coalitions of countries, many of whom have poor or complex relationships with their neighbors, and act as regional moderator, referee and leader. And it is all directed against the one country in the region that all other countries, despite their historic enmity, fear more than each other.

In Europe, with NATO, the saying when it was designed to keep the US in, the Germans down and the Russians out.

In East Asia today, the US military is redeploying 65% of its assets there, and we're building or reopening bases. We've long brought South Korea and Japan - two countries with a truly terrible history - into alliance with us, and many more nations, to wall China in.

In the Middle East it is exactly as I described. For the hatred of Jews in what they consider their land, for all the problems with the Palestinian diaspora in the region, the one thing all countries there simply do not want to see is more Iran, more Hezbollah or mini-Hezbollahs, and an Iran armed with medium range ballistic missiles. They've formed a block, with us as its nexus.

Whats the common thread in this? It's safer for world security in ways people don't even realize. Let's look at NATO. How many countries in NATO have Nuclear Weapons? 3 - the US, UK and France. How many COULD have Nuclear Weapons if their national industry put their mind to it? Germany could do it in under 6 months in one estimate. Spain could. Norway could. Canada certainly could. Turkey could. Whats safer for the world? A NATO where the US is in the drivers seat, and the most destructive weapons are in fewer hands, or one where it isn't, and they are in more hands, and such an alliance does not exist.

Or consider what is happening right now in East Asia. Japan is one of the most industrialized countries in the world, second only to the US. If they wanted to build nuclear weapons, they could do it in 3 months. Now a Japan that does this would lead South Korea to do the same thing, in a similar time frame, and would lead Australia to do it in a similar time frame. The Phillipeans would start a program, Thailand would start a program, and Indonesia would certainly start a program. Instead of having 3 nuclear powers in the region (the US, China and North Korea), all of a sudden you have like 12. And because of their complex histories, instead of aiming them just at China and North Korea, they'll aim them at each other, especially South Korea and Japan.

Don't believe me this is how it works? Why do you think the US approved the biggest arms deal in the history of man last year to Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Because the hope is by telling them "we'll sell you defense wares only a smidgen worse than what we currently use", we are making an argument that these countries, which could start nuclear programs out of fear of Iran, instead decide that as the guaranteer of regional security, the US has that covered. Hence we're extending our Anti-Ballistic Missile system there.

The most dangerous world imaginable is one where we "leave everyone alone". It'll become a free for all, and people who have the technology to develop nuclear weapons will do so, and will aim them at each other, and eventually with them in so many hands, the wrong nationalist president will eventually make the wrong decision. And we'll be forced to get involved any way so it doesn't spiral out of control.

You want preemptive strategy? Our involvement in every major region in the world is the ultimate preemptive strategy. It preempts the most dangerous of all possible worlds.

wow dude, you really do believe the shit you´re talking, i´m impressed, i don´t know who or how you were brainwashed in thinking this, but whoever did this, did a fucking good job, you even have arguments, stupid and bullshit arguments, but you have them... after half your post is just talking about "what if we weren´t there and do you really wish we wouldn´t be there, imagine what could happen" yep, i think it´s none of americas business and to "think" what the´re doing is good for mankind or humanity is just fucking hillarious

the US are paying dictators, are running on the need to sell weapons and keep trying to tell everyone they are doing this just out of good will and caring

i call bullshit, but you won´t change your stance, not even an inch, it is obvious that you believe this shit you´re writing about, have a good one, but talking to you is useless and a waste of time

[Skroe]

wow dude, you really do believe the shit you´re talking, i´m impressed, i don´t know who or how you were brainwashed in thinking this, but whoever did this, did a fucking good job, you even have arguments, stupid and bullshit arguments, but you have them... after half your post is just talking about "what if we weren´t there and do you really wish we wouldn´t be there, imagine what could happen" yep, i think it´s none of americas business and to "think" what the´re doing is good for mankind or humanity is just fucking hillarious

the US are paying dictators, are running on the need to sell weapons and keep trying to tell everyone they are doing this just out of good will and caring

i call bullshit, but you won´t change your stance, not even an inch, it is obvious that you believe this shit you´re writing about, have a good one, but talking to you is useless and a waste of time

I mean man, you can think what you wan't, but this is how it really works.

Hint: any time you accuse another person of brainwashing, it's the accuser who typically is in need of the serious reality check.

Just saying, my credibility is good. It's the guy here saying that the US forging regional defense relationships to keep the peace in regions through collective security, which is, you know, only the founding purpose of NATO, is in fact... not what it does.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

And no. It's not for the good of mankind. It's for the good of us. A world where America which cant trade with every country in the world due to major regional (nuclear sometimes) wars, is a poorer, more worse off, more in danger America. Japan and South Korea not killing each other so they can grow their economies, and we can grow ours via trade is in our national interest.

If the world were dangerous in the way I was talking, we'd have 50 carriers instead of 11. We'd have 10 million uniformed servicemembers instead of 2.7 million. Peace is also cheaper.

I think you're the one who didn't think this through friend. But don't mind me, "I'm Brainwashed".

[Gamevizier]

I mean man, you can think what you wan't, but this is how it really works.

Hint: any time you accuse another person of brainwashing, it's the accuser who typically is in need of the serious reality check.

Just saying, my credibility is good. It's the guy here saying that the US forging regional defense relationships to keep the peace in regions through collective security, which is, you know, only the founding purpose of NATO, is in fact... not what it does.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

And no. It's not for the good of mankind. It's for the good of us. A world where America which cant trade with every country in the world due to major regional (nuclear sometimes) wars, is a poorer, more worse off, more in danger America. Japan and South Korea not killing each other so they can grow their economies, and we can grow ours via trade is in our national interest.

If the world were dangerous in the way I was talking, we'd have 50 carriers instead of 11. We'd have 10 million uniformed servicemembers instead of 2.7 million. Peace is also cheaper.

I think you're the one who didn't think this through friend. But don't mind me, "I'm Brainwashed".

keep the peace? don't make me laugh...

US just sold military equipments to NKorea's and Iran's neighbors. (remember the little fuss between N.Korea and S.Korea? guess who just armed N.Korea's neighbors to boot!...and then what happened? did N.Korea start a war??? ROFL no!) but not to promote peace and stability... they either create that conflict themselves, or create it with the help of the other country. and then sell their stuff to those governments in the name of -peace- .

do you REALLY think US wants Iran to change? Iran is the MAIN reason US is still middle east, and the MAIN REASON Arab countries buy military equipment from US. why would Saudi Arabia need patriot missles? to counter a "possible" attack from Iran. what better reason for US to keep a strong military presence in the Persian Gulf?

Iran is no Taliban. they like you to think they are but the reality is really different. as an Iranian I'm saying, this regime is not -suicidal- . Pakistan is more extremist than Iran and they have nukes, are they using it against india? no. because the second they use them they'll also paint a bullseye on themselves. don't even for a second think that Iran's leaders (most of whom are revolutionary guard commanders, clerics are no longer in control. only those clerics that play by the IRGC's rules are allowed to have power. the rest are rotting in mosques.) are stupid enough to pull crap like that (nuking) on Israel.