Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    13,693
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

    Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

    It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.

    Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

    Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    In a place where I'm on best behaviour
    Posts
    1,014
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    Quote Originally Posted by patslatt
    It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

    Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

    It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.
    Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

    Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
    Kinda up there with that western civilised guy in Austria who put his daughter in the basement and abused her for a few years. Not sure what his reason was, he hasn't said yet.
    As for the the leaders of Iran, well I thought that was a no brainer for you. They have green skin , bulging eyes and are cold blooded and they eat things uncooked. Maybe they are lizards in disguise from a far off place preparing to take over.
    Would it be the water they are after-hardly that oil stuff. Well that would prove they are stupid too, no match for our western cleverness or our civilised way of life, you know, how we respect one and all and all that stuff. Better keep an eye on those pesky Iranians all the same, they might come and take way all that we have. Can't think what that could be off hand, but I'll think of something.
    I can change my avatar again - but I must stay good- and play the ball not the man

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    13,693
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    Quote Originally Posted by hopi watcher
    Quote Originally Posted by patslatt
    It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

    Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

    It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.
    Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

    Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
    Kinda up there with that western civilised guy in Austria who put his daughter in the basement and abused her for a few years. Not sure what his reason was, he hasn't said yet.
    As for the the leaders of Iran, well I thought that was a no brainer for you. They have green skin , bulging eyes and are cold blooded and they eat things uncooked. Maybe they are lizards in disguise from a far off place preparing to take over.
    Would it be the water they are after-hardly that oil stuff. Well that would prove they are stupid too, no match for our western cleverness or our civilised way of life, you know, how we respect one and all and all that stuff. Better keep an eye on those pesky Iranians all the same, they might come and take way all that we have. Can't think what that could be off hand, but I'll think of something.
    If in the future Ireland is in range of Iranian nuclear missiles,will you still be scoffing?

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Meath
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    We must invade next week to prevent a nuclear Iran
    Fianna Fail will allow the Irish People, to me milked like Milch Cows, by the CIF through high house prices, rents, and land prices, at the expense of competitiveness,and quality of life. FF+CIF=1

  5. #5

    Default Re: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    Quote Originally Posted by patslatt
    It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

    Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

    It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.

    Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

    Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
    .

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    Quote Originally Posted by PronsiasPilate
    ...

    to do so would be natiuonal suicide. are you really imlpying that 80 million iranians are rabid fundamentalists foaming at the mouth to commit national suicide?????
    ...
    It's not the 80 million I'd be afraid of. Try thinking of a smaller number - the members of government perhaps.
    +5.75 +1.13

  7. #7

    Default Re: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    Quote Originally Posted by Halibut
    Quote Originally Posted by PronsiasPilate
    ...

    to do so would be natiuonal suicide. are you really imlpying that 80 million iranians are rabid fundamentalists foaming at the mouth to commit national suicide?????
    ...
    It's not the 80 million I'd be afraid of. Try thinking of a smaller number - the members of government perhaps.

    so you're ignoring my whole poinht about the USAs "deterrent" arsenal.

    stop the lies and scaremongering.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    In a place where I'm on best behaviour
    Posts
    1,014
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    Quote Originally Posted by patslatt
    Quote Originally Posted by hopi watcher
    Quote Originally Posted by patslatt
    It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

    Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

    It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.
    Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

    Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
    Kinda up there with that western civilised guy in Austria who put his daughter in the basement and abused her for a few years. Not sure what his reason was, he hasn't said yet.
    As for the the leaders of Iran, well I thought that was a no brainer for you. They have green skin , bulging eyes and are cold blooded and they eat things uncooked. Maybe they are lizards in disguise from a far off place preparing to take over.
    Would it be the water they are after-hardly that oil stuff. Well that would prove they are stupid too, no match for our western cleverness or our civilised way of life, you know, how we respect one and all and all that stuff. Better keep an eye on those pesky Iranians all the same, they might come and take way all that we have. Can't think what that could be off hand, but I'll think of something.
    If in the future Ireland is in range of Iranian nuclear missiles,will you still be scoffing?
    What's so special about 'Iranian' nuclear missiles? Are they more lethal than the ones that we are currently surrounded by? If you rub the grit from your eyes you will see from historic fact that there are many who are presently armed to the teeth with this stuff who have demonstrated in very practical ways their capacity to regard others as surplus to requirements and who snuffed out the lives of countless thousands without so much as a wink or a nod not to mention a sleepless night. On the otherhand, when it comes to dishing out brutality to others, Iranians hardly make it to the footnote of the page.
    If you want to worry about nuclear bombs etc. I suggest you turn around-the bogeyman is behind you.
    I can change my avatar again - but I must stay good- and play the ball not the man

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    13,693
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    Quote Originally Posted by PronsiasPilate
    Quote Originally Posted by patslatt
    It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

    Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

    It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.

    Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

    Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
    what a stupid question.

    America spent literally trillions of dollars acquiring the largest nuclear arsenal in history as a "deterrant"

    Either the deterrent works or it doesn't.

    america has enough nuclear warheads to turn the earth to a blackened incinerated lifeless shell several times over.

    So to say that a nuclear iran would be a threat is either the rantings of an imbecile or deliberate lies.

    that's like saying that a 4 year old with a blunderbuss would be a threat to a regiment of fully armed delta force or navy seals soldiers.

    even if iran acquired 10 nuclear weapons this second they could NEVER use them becuase they KNOW with the push of a button dubya and cheney could nuke every square inch of iran not back to the sotne age but out of existance.

    let the iranians have nukes if they want to. they could never use them.

    to do so would be natiuonal suicide. are you really imlpying that 80 million iranians are rabid fundamentalists foaming at the mouth to commit national suicide?????

    cop and grow up

    This entire question is loaded with colonialist racism - eg, it's ok for the old boys clubs in the US and Engerland to have loads of nukes because they have a divine right to have them but we can't have the inferior dark people having them

    EUrope and the USA are not superior to the iranians.

    if the USA has a right to nukes so does EVERYONE ELSE
    Your interesting arguments would be more credible without the childish insults.

    The weakness in your argument about a deterrent is that the size and sophistication of the nuclear arsenal doesn't necessarily determine its deterrent potential. The people who are the targets of it may not be deterred by the risk of total annihilation if they possess a small nuclear arsenal enabling them to retaliate. In a duel at extremely close range where one man aims a small pistol with one bullet at a metre range at the head of an opponent,while the opponent has a Uzi submachine gun capable of firing 30 bullets in a burst, does the Uzi hold much of an advantage?

    France's President DeGaulle,an intellectual general, understood this, summing up the strategic argument for a French nuclear deterrent in the 1960s simply by saying,"All we want to do is tear off an arm,maybe a leg". This meant that France's modest nuclear weapons arsenal was sufficient to deter the Soviet Union from attacking Western Europe,given that it could probably wipe most of the Soviet's major cities,though not most of the population.

    The DeGaulle logic can be carried much further than that. In Iran's case,initially its deterrent only needs to be capable of wiping out half a dozen major NATO alliance European cities within rocket range,which would require maybe as few as 10 nuclear bombs. That would give Iran diplomatic leverage with NATO which it could use to exploit divisions within the USA/NATO alliance. Later on,as its rocket range became extended or as it developed a few long range submarines, it could threaten a number of major US metropolises close to the coast: New York, Los Angeles,San Francisco,Dallas,Miami,home to a population of maybe more than 50 millions. Iran's military capabilites are at least moderately sophisticated,given its technically well educated population.

    The handful of extremely revolutionary religious leaders and fanatics who control Iran may be quite happy to go to Paradise in a nuclear war if they could cripple the Infidel America for a few generations. The Iranian parliament does not control them,no more than the elected German parliament controlled the top German ministers and clique who launched WWI in 1914.

    Fanatics in charge of countries are capable of anything. Many in the Japanese leadership felt Japan shouldn't surrender no matter how many atomic bombs were dropped by the Americans. National suicide was preferable in their view. A cult of suicide was prominent among the Samurai military.

    As for your notion that race and colonialism should enter the argument,this is nauseatingly PC. Nobody should have nuclear weapons, since they are the biggest tangible threat to the existence of the human race.

    But given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle,it is important that they be confined to politically stable countries and every attempt including a major war should be made to prevent nuclear proliferation. America, Britain and France are extremely stable politically. Russia should be moderately stable as long as oil prices don't collapse. China has a highly disciplined government and a well organised Communist party system and civil service.

    The one worry I have about America is the stupid aggression of some of its military leaders.For example, during the Cuban missile crisis, the admiral on one ship launched several depth charges against a Soviet sub,damaging its hull,without the knowledge of President Kennedy who was furious when he found out. The Soviet sub had an American ship in its gunsights but a unanimous vote of three officers was required to launch torpedos. An officer named Sergey voted against the attack. Maybe World War III was prevented by Sergey.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member Sligoboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Dublin, Sligo
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

    Quote Originally Posted by patslatt

    Your interesting arguments would be more credible without the childish insults.

    The weakness in your argument about a deterrent is that the size and sophistication of the nuclear arsenal doesn't necessarily determine its deterrent potential. The people who are the targets of it may not be deterred by the risk of total annihilation if they possess a small nuclear arsenal enabling them to retaliate. In a duel at extremely close range where one man aims a small pistol with one bullet at a metre range at the head of an opponent,while the opponent has a Uzi submachine gun capable of firing 30 bullets in a burst, does the Uzi hold much of an advantage?

    France's President DeGaulle,an intellectual general, understood this, summing up the strategic argument for a French nuclear deterrent in the 1960s simply by saying,"All we want to do is tear off an arm,maybe a leg". This meant that France's modest nuclear weapons arsenal was sufficient to deter the Soviet Union from attacking Western Europe,given that it could probably wipe most of the Soviet's major cities,though not most of the population.

    The DeGaulle logic can be carried much further than that. In Iran's case,initially its deterrent only needs to be capable of wiping out half a dozen major NATO alliance European cities within rocket range,which would require maybe as few as 10 nuclear bombs. That would give Iran diplomatic leverage with NATO which it could use to exploit divisions within the USA/NATO alliance. Later on,as its rocket range became extended or as it developed a few long range submarines, it could threaten a number of major US metropolises close to the coast: New York, Los Angeles,San Francisco,Dallas,Miami,home to a population of maybe more than 50 millions. Iran's military capabilites are at least moderately sophisticated,given its technically well educated population.

    The handful of extremely revolutionary religious leaders and fanatics who control Iran may be quite happy to go to Paradise in a nuclear war if they could cripple the Infidel America for a few generations. The Iranian parliament does not control them,no more than the elected German parliament controlled the top German ministers and clique who launched WWI in 1914.

    Fanatics in charge of countries are capable of anything. Many in the Japanese leadership felt Japan shouldn't surrender no matter how many atomic bombs were dropped by the Americans. National suicide was preferable in their view. A cult of suicide was prominent among the Samurai military.

    As for your notion that race and colonialism should enter the argument,this is nauseatingly PC. Nobody should have nuclear weapons, since they are the biggest tangible threat to the existence of the human race.

    But given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle,it is important that they be confined to politically stable countries and every attempt including a major war should be made to prevent nuclear proliferation. America, Britain and France are extremely stable politically. Russia should be moderately stable as long as oil prices don't collapse. China has a highly disciplined government and a well organised Communist party system and civil service.

    The one worry I have about America is the stupid aggression of some of its military leaders.For example, during the Cuban missile crisis, the admiral on one ship launched several depth charges against a Soviet sub,damaging its hull,without the knowledge of President Kennedy who was furious when he found out. The Soviet sub had an American ship in its gunsights but a unanimous vote of three officers was required to launch torpedos. An officer named Sergey voted against the attack. Maybe World War III was prevented by Sergey.
    So basically all you are saying is if Iran gets nuclear weapons it will deny the US/UK and Israel the potential to deal with them militarily to keep them in line. The layers of sophism where unnecessary.

    Your nonsense about Iran being ruled by fanatics willing to sacrifice the entire country is either the ranting of a seriously intellectually impaired individual or simple propaganda. I suspect the latter, no one is that stupid. It also fits into your Nuclear club mentality which of course is abject racism on a grand scale. I am always amused by such introverted thinking, especially considering the greatest threat to world peace at present is one G.W. Bush and the only country on the planet to have used nuclear weapons in anger is the United States of America. Further to this, the combined Human Rights abuses of the likes of the US, Russia, Israel, China within their spheres of influence leaves Iran looking like a veritable utopia.
    Veni, vidi, arrivederci

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •