Ok this is an easy one. Probably a warm up to some hard conversation on another topic I would guess.

Iran in it's current state is not about money, nor is it about pleasing the masses. It is about religion.

This is exemplified via the Ayatollah and the ruling council. It is further enforced by the nearly daily edicts against Israel and weekly edicts against the United States.

They make a lot of TV time vilifying both of these nations. It is a national past time to the ruling class there.

This environment makes it impossible for Iran to truly seek out anything from the west. They cannot possibly make any steps, stress any, that would result in a reduction of the policies against them.

While there is a group of moderates, the ultimate power rests not in the President, but the ruling council and the Ayatollah (Who has the power to veto anything, and to create any laws he wants).

While there has been protests, and you are right that things do change in economic down times, I do not feel that Iran will be feeling the pressure to much in the coming days, as they can blame the United States for collapsing in on itself for the reduced profits.

Indeed they will probably cut back on some of the more expensive military projects such as the coastal batteries they are building and the missile program. They will quietly reduce also the cash going out to terrorists, but supplement this with ammunition and some weapons to make it seem that it is still the same level.

Another thing they can rely upon is the nation which has supported them through any US efforts to make them stop their nuclear program:

Russia

This is a can of worms in all, both nations are reeling from low oil prices and a stagnate world economy. Both nations have proven desires to be seen as big and tough, and also as imperialistic in nature.

Then there is the new kid in the local block. China. China has been aggressively working to make relations with any nation opposing the United States. They play themselves off as the nation which will make things right and that they are not that really evil democracy. With no worries if they work with a dictator, a council, a president, or any other political structure, so long as the structure is sound, they have the ability to realpolitik with any government they wish to.

Also then there is one last avenue for Iran. This one is steeped in history in the Persian Gulf, having even started there, and been sustained there. This is the act of terrorism for the aims of the State. And I ask, to those who fail to truly understand their enemies, as I argue Islam fails to understand the United States, what weapon truly offers the best form of world wide terrorism?

This would be the nuclear weapon.

And Iran has been proven, thanks to the admittal of the Pakistan Nuclear 'Father' that they have the blue prints needed to make one, as well as most critical parts. The estimates of 'when' they will have one vary greatly, but I would like to point out the United States made atomic weapons with much more primitive technology in just two or three years, and with no true 'blue prints' from a higher tech nation to use.

There are those who deny Iran is making nuclear weapons, and those people I laugh at. When Iran first started making moves to create these weapons Bush Jr. offered them 4 or 5 nuclear reactors which could not make weapons grade materials, all for free, and the designs for making them. Iran refused utterly. Europe has offered power, equipment, and other options to Iran, increasing in size, huge buyouts even, but Iran has remained steadfast.

Therefore it is my firm belief Iran is headed to one of two goals.

1) Nuclear Terrorism with the intent to hold the world fiscally hostage.

2) Nuclear war with the intent to destroy certain regions of Western Civilization in an attempt to 'pull the supports out from' Western Nations, leading to a full surrender of those western nations rather than face more nukes from unknown locations (Assuming Iran says their nukes are dispersed from their nation, and they will use them to nuke again and again if Iran is nuked at all)

In short, for those who cannot read past one or two paragraphs, Iran is a hardline nation, to the ruling elite there is nothing to lose, and their only concern is to make sure they can fund their program to fruition, nothing more. Similar to the Democrats worries that they can fund their programs in full regardless of cost in the United States.

~~~~~ side note ~~~~~
I think Iran may soon start printing money in secret inside their nation, though they do understand the dangers of inflation since they have attempted to cause this in the United States using those darned money printing presses we gave the Shah.

The the question remaining is how soon until they have enough nukes for their ambitions, do they think they can slowly hide their crisis of financial instability with printed money until they have their desired number? This is the trillion to the trillionth power dollar question.

I think they are close enough to their goals, or can alter their goals. The fact the United States is willing to spend 6 trillion dollars on foolish ideals must appeal to them even further as proof we have money they can have via nuclear terrorism.

And I argue cleanly and soundly that about 1/3 of the western world would piss themselves and offer anything to Iran in exchange for it to not use nukes when it proves it does have them, especially if handled just right with threats of them already being deployed in or near major cities as well as on missiles able to hit all of Europe, (with one major thorn of a city being blown up in advance (in their views, not mine, one nuke = all Islam dies forever imho, let them watch Mecca blow up first so they can all know they are going to hell and cry and beg for forgiveness while the rest of the nukes are flying))

They see the world from a totally different viewpoint where those in power make demands and others suffer it. They also see the west as weak and decadent for not applying their power when they are obviously in power, and also see God as fully and entirely on their side. They are not worried about a revolution cause to them they are the revolution, they are instead scared of slipping more and more into decadence of their own.

Or it can topple the government in favor of a fascist Islamic state. The Revolutionary Guard won't mind shooting its own people. A million paramilitary yahoos with their own rocket artillery.

I faulted Bush for failing to make progress on our goals--isolate Iran, stop its nuclear program and its funding of terrorism Hamas Hezbollah and al Sadr. That sort of failure might take years to evaluate

Obama has already renounced those goals so I condemn him NOW

yes Baltz, becouse pushing the dangerous guy into a corner with nowhere left to go has always worked great in the past!

>2: Please don't comment here.  There's already an Iran thread.  This is a one-on-one debate.<

you should have copied and pasted my remarks in the other thread then, that would be the e-quivalent of throwing my clothes on the lawn

Flint, I'm willing to ignore other outside posters in this thread if you are.  It will make this debate much easier, since obviously other people can't respect that this is supposed to be a one-on-one debate. 

1: Or you could just try debating in the other thread.
2: Your logic is stupid.

Think of this like a pro football game.  Spectators come to watch the two teams play against each other.

What you're doing is the equivalent of a spectator running on the field, catching a short pass, then running for a 1st down.

Your most recent post is the equivalent of the spectator being confronted afterwards, and telling everyone, "If you didn't want this to happen, you should play your football game in some dark alley where nobody is around!"

Sure thing.

Fair enough, take your time.

> Einstein wrote:

> Ok sorry bout that, I had some vacation time visiting family... my lil brother my mom adopted is nearly 8 years old, and was the first time I had met him...

Congrats!

> Now for my arguments on this to continue.

Iran has a deep deep history, and as we know the history of nations has a large impact upon how their society acts in modern days, especially in sheltered societies.

Iran has a multitude of histories, but one of the deepest is the merchant history of their past. Persia used to be one of the most affluent of trading nations in the history of the world.

Then Islam came, and there were changes.

Of course I mentioned that Terrorism essentially started here, as well as another important factor.

The first usage of drugs to effect deliberate changes in the persons brains. In this case it was to make them more dangerous to others, to give them hallucinogenic visions, and to make them last longer under 'damages' to their body.

Iran still has those who use drugs to effect others in manners they want. In this case it is heroin to reduce stability of other nations. While Islam is counter to this, Islam cannot alone squelch this history.

Um... just making sure... how does this relate to my argument?  Does the distribution of drugs OUTSIDE Iran somehow stop people INSIDE Iran from rising up against the government?

> Islam cannot also significantly effect their mercantile society either.

What Islam can, and does, effect is the older generation, those old revolutionaries.

These people built a structure which leaves them in power regardless of what happens with society.

This structure has a lot of different levels that can give and take on a political level.

The intent of this structure is to give the appearance of letting change happen, when in effect little change will happen. The oppositions focus their energies on these positions they can go for, using a great deal of energy doing so, and then think they can truly effect change, and they can do some change, but in truth they are still fairly rigidly held.

The truth is that power is imbued in exactly 1 person to a level even the common man will not think of trying to challenge unless the orders are 'extreme'. Then there is a further group that acts in the interests of the old guard, these imams making up the council have the power to shape the nation to meet the powers that be's intentions.

Therefore though I know the President of Iran has some power, he is shaped and pushed, he is a figurehead for most intents and purposes, though one who gets celebrity status, immunity to a lot of things, and a lot of luxuries. Therefore the current President will push what he is told to push, or he will be told a set of objectives, and he will work to those.

Okay, first of all, let's go back in history a little bit.  I'm not going to bring everyone back a thousand years.  I'm only bringing you back to two periods in time: The US-assisted coup in Iran and the 1979 coup in Iran.

This empirically denies your argument.  These revolutions don't preserve the power in the hands of one person.  They tear said power away from that person, and give it to a different person with different ideals.  These two examples prove that, despite a thousand years of historical social engineering, the Iranian people are still willing to rise up and take down a leader.

We both agreed that hyperinflation would probably result from the economic crisis.  Therefore, under my story, a revolution would result.  The revolution, in addition to being empirically shown to be possible within the history of Iran, can actually be a solution to the cycle of totalitarianism.

> Iran has this history and they feel they are the 'center of the world'. This is steeped in religion, history, and they also feel they can push for a new leader, one who will place them back on the stage as the most important of nations. One who can conquer all, who can do all that they see needing as being done.

You need to separate the Iranian government from the various generations of Iranians.  This may easily be true of the middle-aged Iranians who were part of the 79 revolution.  But what about the 20 year old Iranians of today who don't know the ideological glory of Iran and are only aware of the economic oppression?  The revolution created a sort of "generation gap" between those who view the world as you described it, and the moderates who just want to get an education, get a good job, and be financially successful.

> I feel that the financial crunch will force Iran to stop with some of the more expensive self defense systems, such as that coastal range artillery which has a severely fast firing rate, the submarine program they have, and some of the direct cash to terrorist payments that they have done. In exchange they will run down some of their explosive, rocket, and missile inventories as aid to these terrorists, increasing the carnage, and reducing the empire building.

1: This is a shift from advocacy from earlier.  Unless you are saying that Iran will also print money, you are dodging your advocacy in order to shift out of arguments, which would both justify me doing the same and it makes debating you useless.
2: Iran's got a hell of a financial mess.  Unless you're saying military spending is... um... HALF their budget, it's just not enough.  Something else has to be done in addition, which causes the revolution to occur anyway.
3: Good shit!  Frankly, I'm more worried about those high-tech weaponry than simple missiles and shit.  Here's why:
A little missile barrage can take down a building.  Those coastal artillery systems and submarines could take down our ships.  Any reduction in their hardcore homeland defenses only makes the threat of an attack easier, which makes negotiation that much more powerful.  "Fine, Iran can launch a bunch of missiles into Israel.  But Iran will be blasted into the stone age."

> The best example I can give about their nuclear program is to call it the "I win the game" to them. Their force fed propaganda says they have no program, and the common Iranian does not know to think better, or may not even know that a program exists at all. However the hardliners in power know, but these very same hardliners feel this is the game ender, the one that saves them from the slow breakdown of their own society as well as one which renders the old west as their slaves. They have Allah, we have nothing, they will feel they can push and we will fall to our knees and the fulfillment of prophecy will then happen and the newest Caliph will walk out of the clouds to give Iran supremacy.

1: The citizens know about the peaceful nuclear program.  Ahmadinejad has blatantly made it clear to his people that he was defending Iran's "right" to have a nuclear program.  Remember those giant protests in support of their nuclear program a couple years ago (Yes, probably set up)?  They definitely know.  There may be rumors of weapons programs, but I won't speculate.  However, they are definitely aware that, as a result of this nuclear program, the international community is pushing sanctions on Iran.  Spark for the revolution, and it denies your argument.
2: I'm conceding your argument about hyperinflation.  That means it's a race for Iran to build its nuclear program while the people starve and die.  The economic collapse created to fuel the nuclear program only further sparks the revolution, because it shows Ahmadinejad's words on the economic crisis as utterly hollow, and it shows a giant disconnect between him and the potential revolutionary Iranian.  In addition, as I said above, the economic collapse slows down the ability to produce the nuclear weapons, giving more time for the revolution to occur.

oops

> Einstein wrote:

> Russia continues to aid Iran despite their own financial issues. China continues to make arrangements which prove more profitable for them than not doing the arrangements.

These two nations WILL prop up Iran long enough for Iran to do something. It's because they both hear the sirens song of imperialism and this little nation will be their little brother in attitude. They also both hear the hypnotic music of profits, and with oil, even when the market is down, there is profits.

Okay, Flint, it's time for the trump card you were expecting! 

Here's the story:

Picture this: Obama offers to meet with Iran.  He says "okay, Ahmadinejad, we've got a deal for you.  Your economy is in the shithole, and you know it.  We're willing to take off international pressure, promise not to use military force against your government, and give you a lightwater reactor in exchange for you ending your nuclear program."

Ahmadinejad laughs and says, "You idiots.  Do you think we need your petty support?  You can't use your military against us anyway!  Your asses are strapped down in Iraq and Afghanistan, your people have become pretty much French when it comes to warfare, and our nation is as strong as ever!  We don't need your bullshit token offer!"

Now, I've already shown that this would piss off people domestically.  However... what about abroad?

After the negotiation failed, the US could now go to the UN and say, "Alright, guys, that's it.  We tried it your way, and it sucked.  And by the way, this was the perfect time for negotiation.  It can't get any better for us.  What now?"

The next event will be the shocker:

Sarkozy would call his UN delegate on the phone.  "We're sick of this bullshit.  We offered Iran everything they want, and they said no.  We had all the diplomatic ammunition.  It's pretty simple: Ahmadinejad is as stubborn as a mule.  We can't let them continue."

And yes... you heard this right... France will lobby for a military strike on Iran.

Sarkozy has been more hardright against Iran than even Bush.  France made it public policy that a terrorist attack in France would result in Iran being nuked.  NUKED.  Who the hell does that?

If Iran was given a pretty sweet deal that included economic and diplomatic incentives, and was simply asked to shut down its nuclear program, a refusal would essentially shut the door on soft diplomacy.  That leaves only one door, as far as France is concerned: the military option.

I cite France as the leader because it's the most likely nation to step forward.  But it's easily conceivable that Obama would step forward and say, "alright, that sucked.  I'm willing to strike Iran if NATO gives us some serious help."

And you know damn well Israel would be itching to bomb them once diplomacy fails.

So, Flint, the debate comes down to this:

If we accept your stance, we bomb Iran into the stone age.

If we accept my stance, the best case scenario is that a deal is in place.  The worst case scenario is that we bomb Iran into the stone age.

However, I'm not done yet:

Now let's compare the forms of our attacks:

Your attack would simply be the US attacking Iran.
The attack resulting from a failed negotiation would be after diplomatic options have failed.  That means, in terms of PR, the attack following diplomacy would be more easily justified.
In addition, an attack following diplomacy would be much more likely to see the participation of foreign allies, such as France and Britain, as more hardline nations could say to the more leftist nations, "okay, we tried it your way.  Ahmadinejad's an official pain in the ass.  Now grab your rifle and follow me."  And the left nations wouldn't have much they could say to respond: the US would have offered Iran a sweet economic deal, only to be turned down.  What more could we give them?  A $700 billion bailout? 

And before you say it, I haven't changed my advocacy.  I am not 100% supporting an attack on Iran: My argument is that an attack is the natural last resort if diplomacy fails, ushered in by the fact that hardright forces would be given a new tool in arguing their case: that Iran is too stubborn to accept even the best of diplomatic offers in the most dire of circumstances.

> Iran has a multitude of weapons systems. They have a crap airforce, and tank group, but their rocket and missile technologies is second to Russia for capabilities. Not ICBM's (yet) of course, but those rockets of theirs like the frogger are capable of putting the Straights of Hormuz (sp?) in to a sunken ship alley situation. Their entire defense is based upon one thing only truly, disrupt and destroy everything in range.

Their layered system is designed with the control via threat of force, if no greater force exists, oil through that entire region. If the United States were to back down they would place a tax upon all oil going out of the region or they would randomly sink ships.

See above. 
Also, it's not "backing down."  The US hasn't had a hardline militarist stance against Iran for a while.  The most aggressive action taken against Iran has been US efforts to help out insurgencies in Iran.  However, it was reported that the US stopped Israel from engaging in a strike against Iran toward the end of Bush's administration.  This easily indicates that, right now, the US is not at a stance where further negotiation would be "backing down."

> The more sophisticated systems they have been developing take this a bit further with super fast artillery systems on the coast line, the rocket systems they have from China and Russia, the speed boats they have made, patrol boats, etc than ever before. Truly a layered system designed to utterly destroy all ships in the sea there.

The missiles are their only effective offensive however. Those systems are being developed at all cost, as well as their nukes.

The entire profile fits that of a nation which thinks if it can stop ships, it can win a defensive war, and if they have nukes with ICBM's they can win any offensive war via terrorism.

Consider also that they have a history of 'the great satan' calling and 'lesser satan calling' as well as other efforts which are 'not profitable' yet helps with their domestic audience.

Above. 

> While the common Iranian knows of the 'peaceful' efforts, they are inclined due to historical brainwashing and ongoing efforts that anything we say from the United States is lies.

Take the cyber propaganda force in Iran for instance. They push especially hard on 9-11 being an inside job, the attack on Iraq not being justified, and other aspects designed by the United States hurts other nations and themselves as well. We, via the nonstop propaganda, are truly evil and not to be trusted ever.

This propaganda mostly still has effect. With Obama blaming the United States they have a convenient source to continue blaming us and acting very stand offish against us. They will play this up as 'we have always claimed this, but now the Great Satan admits this' to their own people and play up how they cannot trust us, nor negotiate.

They will then blame, like Obama blames Bush for everything, the United States for all their problems and seek ways to keep revenues up. I mean if the Democrats and Socialists in the United States can nonstop believe Bush is the fault of everything, then how hard is it for people raised for decades now to believe the same about the United States?

You guessed it: Above.
Also, this would undermine their propaganda: How could they blame the US when the US just offered a sweet deal?
In addition, your argument is empirically denied both by the fact that the US was able to assist a coup in Iran and by the fact that the US has an ongoing campaign to send TVs, radios, and other communication equipment to Iran, and broadcast news from the US... and the people of Iran actually listen!
They're not ignorant.  Many of them know about things like freedom and democracy from their dealings with European businessmen, and from smuggled information from the US.
Iran isn't an island, even though Ahmadinejad's brain apparently is. 

> I truly believe they will try to print their way out of this, and blame it on the United States.

Sweet.  That's a short term effort that will easily crash their program, as I have said above, and as you have failed to respond to.

>Thankfully Obama is a man who would beggar himself to Saudi Arabia to make them happy with him obviously, by the way he so deeply bowed to them as to prostate himself almost. Unbecoming to his rank in world society to say the least, and at worst showing he feels this man IS above him. That will keep Saudi Arabia from backing any new embargo's against the United States, which is a good thing at this juncture.

The true issue is that right here, right now, anyone who cares to be evil thinks there is no one to stand up against them. There is no leader in the world community now that will step up and say f( ) you and kill them dead. Obama scaring N. Korea? HAHAHA, making Iran wanna play nice? Pffft. And Russia is proceeding ahead with a massive arms build up for what purposes if they are so peaceful as Obama claims?

Yeah... there's France under Sarkozy.    And yes... I'm serious.