[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so it's either do what we want you to do or develop a nuclear weapon. That would kind of suck if you don't agree with our interests/policies.

And aren't we hostile to Iran's interests and its allies? Does that give them the right to "mess" with us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the USA is hostile in orientation to Iran's interests and allies, and Iran is hostile in orientation to the USA's interests and allies. About the only thing the Iranian regime has in common with the West is that they want to sell oil and the West wants to buy it.

While the USA is ideologically and tactically wrong in Iraq, Iran's regime is wrong in an even broader and more fundamental sense, in that they support and enforce Shari'a Law with a vengeance and that they wish to expand and export their "Islamic Revolution".

The Iranian regime and its mullahs are truly a retrograde force in the world, which is in direct opposition to nearly every Western ideal of freedom and human and civil rights.

The USA is indeed too imperialistic and meddlesome abroad. Iran, if it had the power of the USA, would be far, far worse.

I have before posted some shocking statements by Ahmadinejad, and his predecessor, Rafsanjani.

Statements made by their spiritual/political predecessors, and their current ideological sympaticos and allies (such as the leader of Hezbollah), are downright frightening. These guys are literally the modern day equivalents of Hitler in terms of what they want to do to the Jews.

Iran's regime is correct in feeling potentially threatened by the USA. So too was Hitler correct in feeling threatened by the USA. Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani and Nasrallah are Hitler's modern-day standard-bearers, and the primary difference is only the religious component.

In a new thread I will be posting a link to a video quoting and describing the aims and ideology of Iran's regime and mullahs, and their spiritual predecessors and allies.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're going to get anyone arguing with you that Iran's political leaders are good guys. My only point is that they probably feel the same way about us. They probably think that we are an evil power trying to spread our ideology around the world. It seems silly to think that they wouldn't try to stop us however they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but what must be realized is that their ideology is WRONG and EVIL. It is irrelevant that they think the same about ours. It's not like our "they think wrongly" and their "you think wrongly" have equal validity. Of course they want to spread and enforce Shari'a. I don't see the point of saying that "they think the same way about us". So what? It's not like the main problem is what we think of each other.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the USA should even be in Iraq, but that's probably not really germane to this discussion. Both sides are trying to effect their goals. The USA is doing so in a misguided fashion but at least the USA has good (if unachievable) goals in Iraq. Iran has bad goals because their system and ideology is bad. You have to be willing to make a value judgment and say that human and civil rights (Western style) are good whereas Shari'a is bad. Iran's regime wants bad things (though they think it is good).

It's not about who "has the right" to try to spread their ideology, but whose ideology is at core good or evil. Hanging gays for being gay and hanging teenage girls is bad. Many laws under Shari'a, oppressing women, denying women and religious minorities equal rights, giving Muslims civil rights ABOVE non-Muslims: those are EVIL laws. The Shari'a is EVIL. Naziism was evil. Laws and beliefs to oppress Jews are EVIL. Iran's regime is working towards evil things, though deluded as they are, they think it good.

The USA is doing evil things in Iraq, but not because the underlying belief system of the USA is evil. Rather, the Neo-Cons have developed doctrines and philosophies that are misguided and unworkable, which has led to doing evil. Democractizing Iraq will not free Iraq; it will only free and empower the Shi'ite majority to defeat and oppress the Sunnis and Kurds. Democracy in the Middle East will generally empower Shari'a, not free the Arabs to enjoy Western style human and civil rights. The Neo-Cons had a quixotic dream, and trying to implement it by force was (and still is) a huge error.

I guess my point is that the fact that both sides have similarly distasteful thoughts about each other is largely irrelevant, because the problem is not about just getting along. The problem is a fundamental clash of underlying ideologies and values. So it is a bad thing that Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, two genocidally-aimed organizations. It is a bad thing that Iran is trying to kill Americans in Iraq. It would be a bad thing if Iran's regime gains any more power.

Thanks for reading.