Post To The Left

The Persians are a culture based on honour, where the word of someone and thier honor is a revered thing or where dishonoring someone is often met with a strict punishment. No when making a statement to the world, basically risking the honour of Iran the country, no in this case I don't think the Ayatollah would deceive and lie to the world. And as Wild Bill has pointed out: The Ayatollah controls Iran

I quoted one of the top scholars of the Shiite faith AND the Supreme Leader of Iran who controls the ruling religious council the people YOU said control the "military and that's [with] effective control indeed." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the man YOU say leads the country and the military says: "The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form." You say the military controls everything, "effective control indeed", but now you claim that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei doesn't have any power because he isn't the pope? You can't have it both ways. Either Ayatollah Khamenei is a religious scholar with no power so the government doesn't have to listen to him or he is the true power, the man that pulls all the strings. Oh and the Taqiyya defense is cop out, that only the desperate and whiny use. It's stooping lower than bringing Hitler into the debate.

Well if you believe the Ayatollah runs the country then you believe that Iran will never develop nuclear weapons because the Islamic ruling council has stated: "that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction ... Grand Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, one of the highest-ranking clerics in Iran, said in an interview: "There is complete consensus on this issue. It is self- evident in Islam that it is prohibited to have nuclear bombs. It is eternal law, because the basic function of these weapons is to kill innocent people. This cannot be reversed." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/31/MNGHJ2NFRE1.DTL&type=printable

So do you think that the religious leaders of Iran have the final say, are the strings controlling the government? Do you think the government can go against the Iranian supreme council?

As a trust building move I feel that Iran should agree to temporarily halting its enrichment BUT as NPT country the treaty that Iran signed allows for it to enrich uranium, "a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as ... nuclear power." There is a need for the 20% uranium for medical uses. What exactly is your smoking gun? There is no proof that the country has designs for nukes.

Looks like the British guy is tied into all the shit going down in China: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17673498

Something definitely seems to be going on. Now they're rounding up bloggers who have started reporting on the supposed "coup". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/china-crackdown-bloggers-coup-rumours And did anyone hear about the British guy, Neil Heywood, who died under mysterious circumstances? A supposed non-drinker dies of alcohol poisoning then the body is cremated before an investigation? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313410699114668.html

Interesting point from Americans in the force: http://www.startribune.com/nation/143108136.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue

"It was thought that a deal to exchange five Taliban fighters currently held at Guantanamo Bay for a kidnapped American soldier was only weeks away, our correspondent adds." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17393837

I didn't say they the American massacres of civilians made the US remove their forces. I was showing that there is very little if any penalty for killing large numbers of innocent civilians so that the shooter (or shooters) knew they faced little punishment. Looking at past events and the lack of convictions why not try a massacre to get US forces out of Afghanistan if there are no consequences.

I love how the Taliban always promise revenge after these big events. So what were they doing before? Sitting around peacefully and letting the Americans be? They're such a joke. "Ohhh we weren't going to attack you but now, Ohh we're going to get yah!"

I think you might be on to something here. Looking at prison times for civilian massacres in the past American soldiers rarely serve any prison time: -2LT. William Calley responsible for the My Lai Massacre of 347 people got 3 years house arrest. -Staff Sgt. Frank Wuteric responsible for the Haditha Massacre was given ... a demotion Maybe in his twisted head he thought to save his brothers in arms he had to provide the straw that broke the camels back. That because of his actions US forces would be taken out of Afghanistan at the cost of a few civilians and maybe house arrest and a demotion followed by an honorable discharge?

Bingo! Haven't Panama (since 1904), Ecuador (since 2000), and El Salvador (since 2001) all adopted the American dollar?

So if Iran is trying to goad Israel into striking Iran then shouldn't we all be arguing to prevent an Israeli strike?

Cramming socialism down their throats isn't going to help anything. The problem with a lot of these Middle Eastern countries is that they are failed socialist states. While I appreciate where you're going with the whole "let's just separate the religion and state" that hasn't and doesn't work in the Middle East. I do agree with you that colonialism has screwed the region over but you to work with what you have and that is an Islamic based region.