On June 13 2010 16:41 Romantic wrote: 290, I think. Although, without the given legislator the Jews wouldn't have the population to elect one under normal circumstances. Of course they don't have political power by themselves, but it is a little gesture.
That's precisely why I was asking-- whether their presence in the legislature was a gesture, or whether they could actually play politics with their representative.
=Squeegy: How many wars has USA fought in? How many chances did they have to use nukes? How many times did they? This is why people consider USA responsible.
Actually every single war the US has fought has been to "liberate" the country they invade. It's hard to pitch that angle if you nuke the place making it inhabitable for all human life, so that's why they don't nuke.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are allies. More importantly since S. Arabia is about the only ally US has in the area beyond Israel which is nominally small in the geographic location. The Israeli lobby in the US is powerful, influential and has successfully lobbied for large amounts of support both economically and militarily with Israel. See how the dots connect? Check out this book if you want to read about how Israel lobby policy has fundamentally affected American Foreign Policy.
The criticism from scholars is interesting - there are sources of criticism that I wouldn't normally expect. I honestly don't put much weight into criticisms by politicians of it not reflecting what they experienced in person, because american politicians have been known to mislead the public even decades after the relevant actions are done. The response by Woolsey [ http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/13/woolsey-on-waltmearsheimerwelcome-to-wamworld/print/ ] is interesting however, since it actually points out events instead of just being a rebuttal with no backing evidence.
All this criticism for a prominent article (rebuttal was made as well by the authors: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/3639 though I have yet to read it) really makes me want to read it more, due to how it seems in America these days any open criticism of Israel gets labeled as anti-Semitic. I'm sure there will be biases and misrepresentations which I will need to catch, upon more detailed research. The authors admitted in the rebuttal that there were things they should have clarified better, and which they should have represented differently.
It's obvious that the "Zionist lobby" is not all powerful; if it were, Israel wouldn't be worried that it might be falling out of favor with the US. It certainly has an influence however, and I would imagine it may have influenced US policy like so many other lobbies. If you have any better sources that go into this subject in detail, I'd love to know about them.
Chomsky should be enough for you to figure out the book is really a no go.
that wasn't a rebuttal, they never posted a link to the so-called articles they sent out.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently?
He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone?
You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections.
His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government.
I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.
It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending.
If it does not quack like a duck, walk like a duck, look like a duck, it's not a duck.
Oh but Iran is one of the few if not the only one that really makes it there goal to stand out there for it. The funding of Hezbollah, hams constant belittling of the Jewish people, and holocaust denies really show you want he wants. He doesn't want to destroy he country he wants the people dead.
What was a analogy, I still am at a lost at to what your hitting? Was I specifically talking about pre-emptive strikes to you, because I wasn't.
Hindsight is something good ( and no hindsight doesn't apply to ww2 because frankly a lot of things where known about what the Nazis where doing). Fighting for your belief is such a ambiguous term isn't it? Care to explain why your focusing on this specific attribute that doesn't completely stand for what I'm saying?
On June 13 2010 06:15 angelicfolly wrote: It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Squeegy, what do you get out of the term "pro-active"? Because clearly we have different interpretations of his post.
Pro-active does not specifically mean attack. Pro-active is generic for TRYING to stop whatever it is you don't want. Oh that does mean leaving certain "actions" for very last if must be.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Nazi Germany wasn't about this evil genius to create a superior race. It was their belief that if the Jewish race was singled out of Germany, the German "race" would eventually become extinct within a few hundred years. That was their most basic belief in which they actually devouted much resources in science/philosophy/research into trying to prove this.
What we mistake with Nazi Germany is to say "they did what they did because they are evil". They weren't evil; they massively ignorant. They believed in the wrong things; in things that weren't true. Germany was a paranoid country in the verge of economic collapse, absolute civil war and complete disintegration. The sad truth is that Hitler became that glue. The basic premise of his ideas being: "Spend A LOT to re-establish the economy, get the money back through war and stomp on all Communists to prevent German civil war".
That of course doesn't excuse of the things he did. However, we have to understand what happened with Nazi Germany wasn't evil, but stupidity & ignorance. This same stupidity & ignorance is something EVERY country (U.S, U.K, Canadian, Iran, Israel, etc...) is vulnerable to. Each of these countries have strong motives of the things they are doing now.
Yeah they also donated the Jews to be made into lamps, tried to breed them with animals. Killed them in the thousands. Forced them to manual labor without keeping there health up. That's not accounting the other "unwanted" the Nazis didn't like.
Massively ignorant is not mutually exclusive to commenting Evil actions. Don't sit there and try to justify (that doesn't specifically mean make "good") there actions.
If it doesn't justify there actions wouldn't it be correct to call those actions Evil, or wrong? Yeah and any other country that does such actions is in the same category of Nazism. If your not going to excuse their actions don't sit there and give reasons (in a pity sort of way) why they did that.
Post is interesting, and sadly I cannot be as "pro-active" As I want because of space and time constraints. So I will let this post be my easing back into this topic. If you have a previous post, and want me to respond please post again, so it's easier on me and the flow of the topic.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel.
If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too.
User was temp banned for this post.
Thats the most stupid thing ive ever heard. Crazy dictators should have nukes? Youre fucking crazy.
On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S wrote: We WORKED to get where we are in this world. We Americans, through fu$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism
Don't act like WW2 victory was just yours. Your role in taking down Germany was minimal. By the time you shipped the forces to France the USSR was already on it's way to Berlin. You just fastened the process and didn't let USSR capture the whole Europe. Now I really hate USSR but there is no point distorting history because of that. Victory over Japan was yours though.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are allies. More importantly since S. Arabia is about the only ally US has in the area beyond Israel which is nominally small in the geographic location. The Israeli lobby in the US is powerful, influential and has successfully lobbied for large amounts of support both economically and militarily with Israel. See how the dots connect? Check out this book if you want to read about how Israel lobby policy has fundamentally affected American Foreign Policy.
The criticism from scholars is interesting - there are sources of criticism that I wouldn't normally expect. I honestly don't put much weight into criticisms by politicians of it not reflecting what they experienced in person, because american politicians have been known to mislead the public even decades after the relevant actions are done. The response by Woolsey [ http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/13/woolsey-on-waltmearsheimerwelcome-to-wamworld/print/ ] is interesting however, since it actually points out events instead of just being a rebuttal with no backing evidence.
All this criticism for a prominent article (rebuttal was made as well by the authors: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/3639 though I have yet to read it) really makes me want to read it more, due to how it seems in America these days any open criticism of Israel gets labeled as anti-Semitic. I'm sure there will be biases and misrepresentations which I will need to catch, upon more detailed research. The authors admitted in the rebuttal that there were things they should have clarified better, and which they should have represented differently.
It's obvious that the "Zionist lobby" is not all powerful; if it were, Israel wouldn't be worried that it might be falling out of favor with the US. It certainly has an influence however, and I would imagine it may have influenced US policy like so many other lobbies. If you have any better sources that go into this subject in detail, I'd love to know about them.
Chomsky should be enough for you to figure out the book is really a no go.
that wasn't a rebuttal, they never posted a link to the so-called articles they sent out.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently?
He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone?
You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections.
His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government.
I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.
It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending.
If it does not quack like a duck, walk like a duck, look like a duck, it's not a duck.
Oh but Iran is one of the few if not the only one that really makes it there goal to stand out there for it. The funding of Hezbollah, hams constant belittling of the Jewish people, and holocaust denies really show you want he wants. He doesn't want to destroy he country he wants the people dead.
What was a analogy, I still am at a lost at to what your hitting? Was I specifically talking about pre-emptive strikes to you, because I wasn't.
Hindsight is something good ( and no hindsight doesn't apply to ww2 because frankly a lot of things where known about what the Nazis where doing). Fighting for your belief is such a ambiguous term isn't it? Care to explain why your focusing on this specific attribute that doesn't completely stand for what I'm saying?
I'm not sure that you know how it "quacks" since you're referencing the back and forth statements of a corrupt populist. What he wants is to be in office. That doesn't mean they're willing to sacrifice the country in order to defend a different group of people. Again, it's a rational actor and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. They're acquiring them so that they won't be used, just the same as nearly every other country that has. It advances technology, it allows them to reduce the size of their army, which costs much more to maintain than the weapons, injecting more young men into the economy.
They will not go out of their way to harm Israel directly, because there's no benefit or perceived benefit, especially as Turkey's status is increased. If you think true ideologues run the country, then you simply don't know very much about Iran.
On June 13 2010 06:15 angelicfolly wrote: It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Squeegy, what do you get out of the term "pro-active"? Because clearly we have different interpretations of his post.
Pro-active does not specifically mean attack. Pro-active is generic for TRYING to stop whatever it is you don't want. Oh that does mean leaving certain "actions" for very last if must be.
Except you then point to Germany and WWII. This is the issue I have with your comparison. Israel is planning for a pre-emptive strike, just like they did on Iraq, and it seems that you're saying without it, Iran could possibly descend into that position. There's just no evidence of that occurring, however, which is what makes the attack so problematic.
On June 13 2010 03:33 ArKaDo wrote: LoL @ all those bans Well, I think the main problem is that Israel have the bomb while they are not supposed to... Since they have it and the entire international community doesn't do shit about it, country like Iran think that they need it to survive and that they will not be punished if they were to purchase it.
We Americans, through fu$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism
I totally agree that US did sweat blood in the WW2, but you didn't "save the world from facism" alone please. The Russian victories were very important and the english also played a big part in the war. Well, at least we French were pretty useless in WW2 (we did most of the job in WW1 though).
Dont feel too down, if we were attached to the rest of Europe, we would have fallen a few weeks after france did. To be honest, Americans didnt save the world from facism, nor the British, it was the river situated directly behind stalingrad.
On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S wrote: We WORKED to get where we are in this world. We Americans, through fu$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism
Don't act like WW2 victory was just yours. Your role in taking down Germany was minimal. By the time you shipped the forces to France the USSR was already on it's way to Berlin. You just fastened the process and didn't let USSR capture the whole Europe. Now I really hate USSR but there is no point distorting history because of that. Victory over Japan was yours though.
this is what i was going to write as well...
But on a sidenote how did we come from Saudi Arabia not shooting down Israeli jets to WW2?
I think both of them having common allies makes it a natural move. It s not as if Saudi Arabia and Israel are going to attack each other anyways, plus i would be very surprise if Saudi Arabia didnt get any sort of compensation in the process
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
Haven't read the whole thread but this is a pretty nice post. The next reply about "history" was a nice post as well.
As a dutchman with an Egyptian father I can say that I'm not really a fan of Israël at all. On the other hand, we have to look at the reality here, not at what's "the right thing". Iran IS an unstable country. Their government is a dictatorship which just doesn't have any international friends. Don't forget lots of Iranians want chance but just can't accomplish it.
The USA is the most powerful nation in the world now and some people like that, some people don't. The reality is that the most powerful nation will defend that position and generally will have a lot of allies which makes it less dangerous if they have nukes. It doesn't seem a good situation when opposing sides both have nukes and are ready to use them...
Only history will tell how the USA's story will unfold. For me, USA's aggression is about expanding power/resources and keeping that power, just like every other powerful nation did in the past. I'm pretty sure we will never see a world without nuclear weapons. What would happen is there wasn't a country like the US which has nukes and "polices" the world? Right, WW III. Sooner or later someone will create a nuclear weapon anyway.
Just never forget how difficult the US has it. For someone in Iran it's indeed weird they can't get nuked while lots of countries have them. I just don't think Israel is the right country to deal with it...
On June 13 2010 20:03 hEruS wrote: I'm pretty sure we will never see a world without nuclear weapons. What would happen is there wasn't a
WW3 will most likely begin when someone comes to power in the US or Russia and gets rid of all nuclear weapons, they're the main thing that has stopped a major conflict from happening since WW2 so IMO getting rid of them is a terrible idea.
On June 13 2010 20:03 hEruS wrote: I'm pretty sure we will never see a world without nuclear weapons. What would happen is there wasn't a
WW3 will most likely begin when someone comes to power in the US or Russia and gets rid of all nuclear weapons, they're the main thing that has stopped a major conflict from happening since WW2 so IMO getting rid of them is a terrible idea.
Nuclear weapons, especially in a military sense, are nearly useless. They haven't stopped any major conflicts lol. Nukes are possibly the worst human invention in history.
On June 13 2010 20:03 hEruS wrote: I'm pretty sure we will never see a world without nuclear weapons. What would happen is there wasn't a
WW3 will most likely begin when someone comes to power in the US or Russia and gets rid of all nuclear weapons, they're the main thing that has stopped a major conflict from happening since WW2 so IMO getting rid of them is a terrible idea.
Nuclear weapons, especially in a military sense, are nearly useless. They haven't stopped any major conflicts lol. Nukes are possibly the worst human invention in history.
They're the ultimate deterrent, two nuclear powers will not engage in total war with each other because it's suicide for them both.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
That's one of the most moronic statement I have ever see. It must come from the bible or the coran, I'm sure of it.
Edmund Burke actually, and it makes sense to me.
Not only to you my friend. It takes great ignorance to not understand the message behind that saying and a lot of stupidity to compare it (in a bad comparison) to a quote from the bible or the coran...
Even if I dont believe in some of the bible tales I do think there is a lot of good quotes that we should take out from it and apply it to our lives... so Arkado:
"That is one of the most moronic posts I have ever seen. It must come from a stupid or a mentally disabled person. Im sure of it."
I'm not sure that you know how it "quacks" since you're referencing the back and forth statements of a corrupt populist. What he wants is to be in office. That doesn't mean they're willing to sacrifice the country in order to defend a different group of people. Again, it's a rational actor and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. They're acquiring them so that they won't be used, just the same as nearly every other country that has. It advances technology, it allows them to reduce the size of their army, which costs much more to maintain than the weapons, injecting more young men into the economy.
You did NOT get where that was aimed at, the elections.
Anyway the guy is NOT the head of Iran, the Imans (whatever they're called) ARE. THEY dictate who gets elected, what gets what.
Look do you deny them SMUGGLING weapons into Iraq? Do you deny them supplying Hazbollah and Hamas?
THEY WILL give Nuclear weapons to terrorists, and if they do there goes world stability. Hey if they so cared about their people, you think they wouldn't killed them over elections?
EVEN the UN believes this!
They will not go out of their way to harm Israel directly, because there's no benefit or perceived benefit, especially as Turkey's status is increased. If you think true ideologues run the country, then you simply don't know very much about Iran.
Wow, are you denying all the crap that has come out of that country, They literally killed people because they called the election FAKE? Do you deny the last election results? Oh they don't have to go after Israel directly they will just give the bomb to Hamas/Hezbollah and let them get it in. People like them don't think in terms of "more sane" person. Why else would they SUICIDE bomb things?
Except you then point to Germany and WWII. This is the issue I have with your comparison. Israel is planning for a pre-emptive strike, just like they did on Iraq, and it seems that you're saying without it, Iran could possibly descend into that position. There's just no evidence of that occurring, however, which is what makes the attack so problematic.
Before WW2 Germany was BUILDING UP arms, they actually tested them out in Spain. SO you would guess they wouldn't been pro-active to put into places things to stop that. They didn't care and looked what bit them. WoW, in no way was that the thing I was advocating, actually I was advocating everything they could do. I also don't believe I was making those statements in light of Israel, but in light of someone saying war is never justified.
On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S wrote: We WORKED to get where we are in this world. We Americans, through fu$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism
Don't act like WW2 victory was just yours. Your role in taking down Germany was minimal. By the time you shipped the forces to France the USSR was already on it's way to Berlin. You just fastened the process and didn't let USSR capture the whole Europe. Now I really hate USSR but there is no point distorting history because of that. Victory over Japan was yours though.
it can also be said that if the Americans weren't so strong in the pacific front that Russia would not have been able to transfer so many troops from the east to the west to fight germany.
There have been alot of talk shows on the radio lately saying that they were going to bomb the crap out of the reactors very soon this year..Guess it will be sooner then I have thought..
On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S wrote: We WORKED to get where we are in this world. We Americans, through fu$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism
Don't act like WW2 victory was just yours. Your role in taking down Germany was minimal. By the time you shipped the forces to France the USSR was already on it's way to Berlin. You just fastened the process and didn't let USSR capture the whole Europe. Now I really hate USSR but there is no point distorting history because of that. Victory over Japan was yours though.
this is what i was going to write as well...
But on a sidenote how did we come from Saudi Arabia not shooting down Israeli jets to WW2?
I think both of them having common allies makes it a natural move. It s not as if Saudi Arabia and Israel are going to attack each other anyways, plus i would be very surprise if Saudi Arabia didnt get any sort of compensation in the process
I was as well, on a different note all i have to say is "all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" -Edmund Burke
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
The exact same argument was made for Pakistan in the 80's, with the Pakistani's claiming that they only wanted nuclear power. This proved to be totally fallacious however, and given the current Iranian regime's record of reverting to military power, to say nothing of the tensions in the region, they will be working to develop nuclear arms. Brazil, Argentina and many other countries are very different from Iran because the motivations they have for developing nuclear technology are by and large mostly peaceful: the same is unfortunately not true of Iran.
And Pakistan never used nuclear weapons on anyone
edit: my point is, USA is not to be trusted, all countries should have nuclear weapons, 2 countries with nuclear weapons never engaged in a war ever.
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
The exact same argument was made for Pakistan in the 80's, with the Pakistani's claiming that they only wanted nuclear power. This proved to be totally fallacious however, and given the current Iranian regime's record of reverting to military power, to say nothing of the tensions in the region, they will be working to develop nuclear arms. Brazil, Argentina and many other countries are very different from Iran because the motivations they have for developing nuclear technology are by and large mostly peaceful: the same is unfortunately not true of Iran.
And Pakistan never used nuclear weapons on anyone
edit: my point is, USA is not to be trusted, all countries should have nuclear weapons, 2 countries with nuclear weapons never engaged in a war ever.
What are you talking about ? usa is a great country no matter how you put it IT IS NOT A PERFECT COUNTRY yes it has some level of corruption etc.. but most countries do, and the reason why pakistan never used nuclear weapons is because no one ever tempted them too they have good relations with the west also. If Iran gets those nukes that crazy prisedent of theirs will use them which is not something that will help the world in anyway,shape, and/or form.
I usually come to TL only to read up on SC strats and BOs, so I've never felt the urge to register or post on the forum. But reading this thread has made me want to share my own opinion on the issue.
First of all, I know the original topic was specifically about Saudi Arabia opening up it's airspace to Israeli jets, but it's kinda expanded into a discussion about nukes/Israel's right to existence/US military aggression, and those are the issues I wish to speak about. So forgive me if I appear to be off topic.
Coming from a small, neutral country thousands of miles from both the US and the middle east, I just want to say that I am personally thankful for the effects of US world dominance. Yes, the US has military bases spread all across the globe. Yes, it's navy practically owns both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. But honestly, that has done nothing but bring peace and prosperity to most of the world. Of course, if I were an Iraqi or an Afghan or a Vietcong from the 70s, I would definitely argue otherwise, but in general, the US has proven itself to be a responsible steward of world peace. It has not sought to oppress nor conquer foreign nations with its superior military might, but acts only in defense of it's own national security. Sometimes, this means stepping on the sovereignty of other countries, but guess what, the world wasn't built to be fair. The US is like the big kid at school; sometimes he picks on the kids who piss him off, but in general he's not a bully, and so other students aren't afraid of him and even befriend him.
What irritates me is not American dominance/aggression/might, but rather American hypocrisy. Yes, everyone knows you hate Ahmadinejed and the rest of the Persian govt, and yes, we know you can bomb the crap out of Iran just as you did our good friend Mr Hussein, but please, don't try to publicize this as some battle of good vs. evil. Iran is NOT a democratic nation, let's not pretend otherwise. It's people are repressed and it's elections are rigged. But how does that make it more evil than, say, Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is one of the most undemocratic and theocratic nations in the world. 90% of it's wealth is concentrated in the royal family and it's cronies. The average Saudi is not only poorer, but also more politically repressed than the average Iranian. Yes, Iran funds Hamas and Hezbollah, and while one may label those as terrorist organizations, they are insignificant compared to Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah, both of which are directly funded and led by Wahabi extremists straight out of Saudi Arabia. Yet Saudi Arabia remains one of the US's staunchest allies, enjoying support and aid and political backing, while Iran is "evil" and a "danger to the world".
And I don't even want to begin on Israel. I 100% respect the intelligence and the talent of the Jewish people. Many people in Asia even think they are genetically superior to other races. But the Israeli country has been anything but smart or savvy in it's diplomacy. If, 60 years ago, they had entered Palestine, integrated with the locals, and tried to forge harmonious relations with their neighbors, I doubt the middle east would be in such a mess right now. One could argue than the Muslim nations would never act nice to the Israeli state, but trade and economics has always been more powerful than guns and war. Once they realize that 1) Israel does not intend any harm and 2) Israel can beat the shit out of you any day in a real war, the only logical thing to do is to cooperate and trade. Instead, Israel still behaves as if this were Biblical times, and as God's chosen people they are called to create a nation from the ashes of the infidels. The holocaust was a terrible, terrible tragedy, and the Israeli people certainly deserve a right to existence and self-identity, but that is a poor excuse for the way they have oppressed and terrorized the average Palestinian citizen for the past half a century. How does that make them any different from the hated Nazis of before?
I personally don't care about all the politicking and power play. Frankly, i'm unconcerned about how Iranian ambitions affects the mood and appetite of Binyamin Netanyahu and Barrack Obama. They can argue about who's right or who's wrong all they want. It's petty, it's ugly, it's stupid. I care about the innocent people out there who are suffering because of all this bullshit. When you bomb a supposed "nuclear facility", you aren't just disarming a potential threat, you're also destroying people's lives. So don't preach to the rest of the world and tell us that Iran is evil because it wants to destroy Israel. The US and Israel are doing the exact same thing to Iran. If instead you tell the truth; that you're the big boy around town and you refuse to let Iran get their bomb whether the rest of the world likes it or not, than I think maybe people will just shrug their shoulders and get on with their lives.
EPT
Neda was just like me and probably some of you. 
