Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Probably just bluster but...
I assume that being able to hit the US is a long term goal. A very long term one, given their current record of firing rockets into the Yellow Sea.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Or 'Politics is the continuation of war by other means,' basically?
@Fighteer and Potatoes - I may be reading you wrong but....are you suggesting Iran is just insane enough to pick a fight with an enemy they know has nukes and not care that they'll all be blown off the face of the Earth??
It was an honor@deathpigeon: Wrong. The Ayatollah controls the Revolutionary Guard. Among other things, he and not Ahmadinejad is the one who needs to sign off on the use of any Iranian nukes, should they be developed.
Anyway, the current Ayatollah is a rather savvy politician; to the best of my knowledge, he's deliberately using Ahmadinejad as a big noisy lightning rod while he actually gets business done under the table. If anything, the current regime of sanctions strengthen his control because they leak like a wet sieve, allowing him to pacify dissident elements and reward elites with his control over Western goods. Hell, even Iran's insane policies on sexual activity are part of his social-control and diplomatic toolkit.
I don't know specifically how they run their nuclear program, but I do know that the Ayatollah is the one who it ultimately answers to. Again, the Revolutionary Guard (as opposed to the army) is under the Ayatollah's office, and Iranian strategic weapons belong to the Guard and not the army.
edited 23rd Jan '13 10:15:48 PM by Ramidel
The Guardian Council functions, firstly, as the Supreme Court (if a law passed by the Majilis is not in line with sharia, they have veto power). Secondly, they have to sign off on all Parliamentary or Assembly candidates (this is a power they've arrogated to themselves and has not been challenged). They're a powerful group, but they answer to the Supreme Leader (who appoints half of the Council personally).
The Assembly of Experts formally elect the Supreme Leader and have the power to depose him. This has never been done; as I understand it, the Assembly is essentially a rubber-stamp body for the Supreme Leader. To get in, you need to be vetted by the GC, so if some Expert actually has an independent thought, it clearly means that his knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence is faulty and he's not qualified for his post.
Formally, he's the head of government and the ministers answer to him (the Minister of Defense and Minister of Intelligence have crossed chains of command, but he's the one who appoints them; customarily, he consults with the Supreme Leader, though). Rafsanjani was actually a pretty damn powerful President and able to control the army and keep the Guard out of politics during his time; Ahmadinejad...yeah, pretty much.
Just as a little tidbit, Ahmadinejad came from the Guard's political wing. The Guard have seized on this.
edited 23rd Jan '13 10:43:18 PM by Ramidel
I hope he will be less dismissive of video games as an art form this time around. I mean, I like the guy...but apparently just because he doesn't understand video games he gets to blame them for America's troubles.
Come on Joe, people were killing each other before consoles were invented. Don't go for the stupid answer.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~Phillip DeFranco, whom I watch on You Tube [1]
, is apparently going to be interviewing Biden as part of this process. It's kind of crazy when you realize that someone you subscribe to on YT is swimming with the Vice President. It gives you a sense of just how far new media have come.
Phil is somewhat pro-gun, which is one of the few gripes I have about him, but still. Good times for us 'netophiles.
edited 24th Jan '13 5:53:29 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Makes me remember all those adds Tobuscus did for WallMart. Or The Young Turks getting onto Current (TV station).
edited 24th Jan '13 6:59:25 AM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Fighteer: I don't buy the argument on Iran. The "wipe countries off the map" conjecture was a deliberate mistranslation by Western media sources, and as hostility towards neighbours/extension of hegemony goes, Iran is nicer than Israel or Pakistan. Hell, it's arguably nicer than the States. If Iran joins the nuclear club, it will probably behave better (see here and search for "the mad dictator"
).
Iran is a threat to Western hegemony in the region. You have to view Western hegemony in the region as intrinsically good to be threatened by Iran. (Though it's internal human rights issues are a big problem yes.)
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Taoist, there's an element of Might Makes Right in all international affairs, plus First Mover Advantage. It's hard to objectively evaluate the benefit/risk of Iran acquiring nukes when I'm an American and therefore support American interests. As far as I am concerned, the world needs no more nuclear powers, and preferably fewer.
The biggest risk isn't so much that Iran will just decide to drop the bomb on Israel; they aren't that crazy. The risk is that one or more of the terrorist groups (excuse me, "freedom fighters") that Iran openly sponsors will "acquire" a bomb or two and act without any of the political or moral restraints of their patrons.
I'd love to be shut of the Middle East and let them solve their problems by themselves, but there are two problems with that: Realpolitik, and the fact that we've already been involved in their problems and as such bear some measure of responsibility for them.
edited 24th Jan '13 7:23:53 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Rationalinsanity
Um... real or hoax? I hope it's the latter.
edited 23rd Jan '13 8:46:21 PM by Trivialis