What does Iran really want, geostrategically?

Yeah, well, Britain did pretty much all of that first.

And now they’re over it. They’re not a global superpower any more, but they’re a strong second-tier power and a respected country, and that’s enough.

“We’re not having another bloody Empire while I’m Patrician! We’re still getting over the last one!”

Making Money, Terry Pratchett

If in the next decade America becomes less of a global superpower than we’re used to being – say, the kind of power we were before WWII – that wouldn’t be so bad, would it? We still have a fully industrialized democracy and a rich culture and half a continent’s worth of homeland to roll around in.

Yes, that was the joke, such as it was. And I’m familiar with the form - I thought you’d screwed it up in the original. (Gosh, is there any joke that isn’t made funnier by tedious dissection?)

<le sigh> Fine. Here.

*Higgledy piggledy
Mad Ahmedinejad
Wanted to give the Is-
raelis a slap

So with a flourish he
Pulled out some white-out and
Boldly deleted them
Right off the map.*

An armed society is a polite society. Not nuclear arms though! You can kill someone with one of those.

I thought one of the perks of ending the empire is you don’t have to call it the homeland anymore.

It ain’t. Wherever you go in America, in the city or the countryside, the more guns there are around, the ruder and cruder and nastier are the people.

Really, that’s your impression?

That certainly hasn’t been mine in either Minnesota or Vermont.

That said, I don’t think a gun-toting society is more polite than a less gun-toting society.

In fact, the rudest society I’ve ever been in, Israel, is quite gun friendly.

I think culture is more important than guns where friendliness is concerned.

I’m thinking more of handguns than hunting weapons. People who think they need to own or carry them (for non-work-related reasons) are generally unpleasant, IME, regardless of ethnicity or culture or urban/rural environment, and a local culture where this attitude is widespread is never a polite one. Is South Compton polite or refined? And gun-toting rednecks are fair fodder for Foxworthy.

Not to turn this already badly offbalanced thread into a gun control thread, you are dealing with some personal biases, and you are also lacking in data.

You could be seated next to a dozen people with CCW’s, and you would never know it. You can’t honestly know who is and isn’t carrying a weapon at all times.

And to counter your anecdote, some of the most unpleasant people I have ever had the misfortune to spend time with are violently anti-gun. Go figure.

I know many whites are afraid of predominantly black neighborhoods and are afraid of young black males from ghetto neighborhoods, but I’ve never had any problems when I was working in either Roxbury or Olneyville and found most of the people in that area quite friendly and pleasant.

Also, I’m not sure how many people in “South Compton”(why did you mention South Compton BTW, I’ve only heard references to Compton) generally carry around guns.

Menace II Society was a great movie but was hardly a documentary and I think the number of people there who are involved with gangs is quite small.

Never saw it. I was thinking of Boyz in da Hood. Again, no documentary, but a definite cinema verite feel. “Cain’t we have just one night in da hood where nobody gets hurt or die?!”

Very good, Sir.

So you’re making judgements about the black population of Compton based on a movie that wasn’t even about the blacks of Compton?:dubious:

That seems rather odd even if we were to decide to make judgements about cultures based on movies.

I’d certainly hope people wouldn’t make judgements about Iranians based on the Araz family from* 24*.

U.S.A.s gift of Iraq was a huge win for the Shi’ites; too bad clever diplomats didn’t exploit this.

Isn’t the quest to build nuke weapons the biggest problem with Iran? Then again, with even-more-roguish states like Pakistan and North Korea having nukes, that genie is out of the bottle.

Since finances depend on oil, and politics are internal, maybe diplomatic stances like Iran’s are often just “face saving” etc.? :confused:

Is this true? and if not, What’s the SDMB practice re: posting parody without a smiley icon? As they know in Cafe Society I’m a gullible conspiracy nut.

Iran is like the nauseating kid in the playground who keeps running up to other kids and kicking them in the ankles before running away, who then gets himself a knife for “self protection” because the other kids keep threatening him.

Iran wants nukes, not for self defence, but so as to be left alone by other nations while they export terrorism.

Its only the nut jobs at the top who want this, they have lost and are still losing support from the general population.
If we punish Iran as a whole we’ll end up with an Iran united against the West .

I still recall the idiots in the West who demonstrated against the Shah, because to do so was seen as trendy and rebellious by ignorant poseurs’ who thought that it might help them get a girl to let them put their hand in her bra.

The Oxford union of students voted the Ayatollah Khomeni "Man of the Year "or somesuch at the time.

Its funny how those people either don’t mention it now or expect us to laugh it off as youthful folly.

Perhaps we could drop them into Iran to tell the locals about their youthful high jinx so that they can join in the laughter.

I sometimes think that more harm to people has happened as a result of spotty nerds pretending to be liberals or radicals, so as to make themselves seem more interesting to the opposite sex; then some of the activities of left and right wing loonies.

And its still happening.

Maybe I was unclear. I don’t support giving them a nuke, but I don’t mind too much if they develop one. I don’t support anything more than diplomatic gestures and possibly sanctions to prevent that from happening. If its a choice between bombing them or Iran developing nukes, then I’d rather just let them develop it

I’m unaware of any mass murders in Iran, unless you count the occasional crackdown on political dissidents. But I will point out that killing your own people and committing national suicide by using a nuke against another country are way different things.

No, they want to prevent others from invading them. Getting friendly governments surrounding them and maintaining power is the way to do that. And its hardly destabilization. So we’ll switch from having lots of Sunni Muslims to Shiite Muslims in the area, no big deal.

They’ve murdered tens of thousands of political dissidents not to mention their treatment of the Bahai, gays and others whom the government disapproves of.

You think Lebanon is ruled by Sunni Muslims?

I have to say you don’t do much to inspire confidence in your knowledge or understanding of the region.

FWIW, I’d agree with this.

That said, I can certainly understand why Jews are terrified of some Hojjiateh whack-job coming to power and having access to nuclear weapons and a desire to finish the job Hitler started.

So? China apparently executes thousands every year but I have no problems with them having a nuke. There’s a big difference between killing your own people to preserve some kind of imagined order and making war on your neighbors

I said Lebanon? Quote me where I named any specific country. Its no secret that a large amount of Muslims in the region is Sunni and Iran rightly feels some heat for being the only major Shiite country. I used to think its annoying when you put words into other people’s mouths but now I can’t even muster up the effort to make fun of you for it. It is what it is, if you want to misunderstand, be my guest

I apologize for overestimating your knowledge of the region. I won’t do it again. We were discussing Iran’s attempt to have various Arab governments in the region replaced with extremist Shia governments.

One of the more prominent examples of this is Lebanon, which is currently a democracy which Iran wants ruled by the Hezbollah.

When I mentioned Iran was destabilizing the various governments in the area you said

Since Lebanon is one of the most prominent examples of Iran attempting to destabilize the governments I assumed you would naturally include Lebanon amongst the countries.

I didn’t realize that you were unaware of Lebanon’s history with Iran.

Once more, apologies. I won’t presume you have a better than superficial understanding of the region.

Most of us are not so sanguine about mass murder and genocide but I guess you have differing views.

Nowhere does your snark refute anything I said. We’ll switch from having lots of Sunnis to lots of Shiites. That’s no big deal. Let Iran have its power, it will make little difference in the end. Too bad you can’t see that through your myopia

I’m realistic about what we can affect and what we can. By every measure, China kills more people than Iran, is more able to negatively affect the US, and has already positioned itself as a major opposing power to the US with separate spheres of influence. If they want to be, they are 10 times more dangerous than Iran.

Sure, I’d like to stop China from cracking down on dissidents, killing people, etc. But realistically, we’re not going to do that and we can’t do that. What you call a cavalier attitude I call being realistic

Iran will do nothing with nukes except brandish them as a threat, that much I am willing to bet anything on. They are no dangerous in the sense that they are going to start a nuclear war. So excuse me if I don’t give a damn about them developing weapons.