The Soviets were dangerous and a threat, but at least they were rational. I can't say the same about the people who run Iran and it is not Ahmadinejad - he is but a mere mouthpiece. Let me be clear, I do not think the leadership in Iran is representative of the citizens. I think they too are victims of a dangerous and oppressive leadership.
Iranians are also rational. What have they done that is not rational? i think obama might be on to something here. if he start talking with their SL and show a way of coexisting, then they can put up a more moderate face in their next election. US and iranians share a lot of interests, we can find things to agree on. These kind of doomsday fear damages our position. iranian people have to take care of themselves.
Hmm, for starters how about proposing a law that imposes a DEATH sentence for converting from Islam or disavowing it? I know, that is only a proposed law. How about the fact that they murder homosexuals? You are free to think those are rational acts for a government to take. I don't. I don't really have much else to add to this discussion.
you confuse rationality with morality. they try to control their people with fear. they want to be able to silence any discontent supported by us or not. This law will do that and is very rational
I am happy to expand my thinking. I don't think irrational or immoral nations should have nuclear weapons. I guess that covers Iran under either of our analysis.
i did not say he should have, i said we can live with it These are two different thing. The first limits our strategic position and mine expands it. yours show fear and mine confidence again how they deal with their internal problem is none of our business. their morality is different than ours.
I am happy to let them wallow in their immorality and irrationality, but once they have nuclear weapons it is no longer just an "internal problem". That is what you fail to realize or acknowledge.
Once the Soviets acquired nuclear weapons there was not much we could do right? The time to act would have been before they were acquired.
the point is that even when they had it they did not use it. now if you want us to keep our supremacy over them then that is another matter. that would bring us to the fact that our policies has not worked. The people that are telling us these things have been wrong before. By the way how are they ever going to be a real treat to us.
Ahmadinejad also said that ' Israel 'About to Die' http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361705,00.html
They don't have any means of delivering anything in US to begin with and they know that there would be nothing left of them if they did it. The same prevention used with soviets. again you are dealing with a lot of ifs, Enough to make my uncle my aunt.
No i believe that. but i don't care. that is their problem. Actually our current policy have also worked against their interest as well as our own.
so what. a lot of people say a lot of things. i have explained why he does that. bush and ahmadinejad have turned ME policy into sophisticated high school name calling.
Iran has much more democracy than Egypt and Saudi Arabian whom are described as "moderate" by USA, stop talking about Iranian people as if you really care about them, its very clear it has nothing to do with "freedom" or "food" or "medicine" or "liberty" for the Iraq/rian people.
I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons. I don't think weapons of mass destruction are rational. War is not rational. Or us nuking them because Bush called them the Axis of Evil, on par with Hitler? It's just rhetoric. Both regimes need to whip up their people into a frenzy, in order to maintain and keep gaining more state power. I mean, really who is more scary. A country that spends 1% as much as we do on weapons, who doesn't have a belligerent foreign policy in over 100 countries, and doesn't have nuclear weapons, or us?