Only A Retard Would Call Peter As A Neocon!

[tpreitzel]

The supreme leader of Iran is in charge of the armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

Supposed to be in charge of the armed forces IAW the Iranian Constitution. However, just like the US, Iran doesn't necessarily follow it's own law. The US Congress is supposed to issue a formal Declaration of War before allowing the POTUS to lead our forces into battle IAW the US Constitution, too.

What specific proof are you looking for?

Proof that the Iranian government actually follows its own constitution and will do so during hostilities. * The Supreme Leader is supposed to fit the mold of the 12th Iman, a peaceful position, and major disagreement exists within Iran over functions attached to that position. Granted, the current Iranian Constitution formally grants the Supreme Leader military power functionally equivalent to our POTUS which is supposed to be tigthly controlled by our US Congress.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi.../17/iran_rejects_charge_of_military_takeover/

"Clinton, speaking Monday in Doha, Qatar, said Iran’s supreme leader, government, president, and Parliament are “being supplanted’’ by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military unit that’s played a key role in suppressing antigovernment protests. She said the Guards are in control of Iran’s nuclear program and should be the target of sanctions."

Belief is a private thing. Only God can truly know what any man actually believes. The best we can do is to judge belief by rhetoric and action. By rhetoric and action Nikita Kruchev proved himself to be an enemy of the U.S., but his willingness to back down during the Cuban missile crisis proved he wasn't an insane enemy. I've seen no proof of Amadinijad's "insanity", only rhetoric. I think Iran wants us to believe this powerless puppet is insane so we won't attack them the same way we haven't attacked North Korea.

Again, there's a major difference between potential actions based on belief in supernatural help and potential actions based merely on one's military capability. Ahmajinedad's belief in an external power aiding his actions is NOT remotely equivalent to the Russian leader's actions based solely on his country's military capability. The Russian knew his limitation based on his military capability. Ahmajinedad sees no such limitation based on his belief in supernatural help.

* Ultimately, this question underlies why it's so crucially important that a nation follows it's own laws.

 

[erowe1]

Peter was talking about Al Quida/Terrorists, not the Iranian people... Was it really that hard to hear??? It appears some of you skewed what Peter said just so you could try to argue against him.

He was talking about how the nation-state of Iran must be prevented from getting nuclear weapons because, unlike the USSR, once they got them they would use them without fear of mutually assured destruction because they don't care if they get destroyed. The fact that he referred to them as terrorists doesn't change the point he was making. And it isn't those of us who disagree with him who made this thread to incite debate.

 

[klamath]

Supposed to be in charge of the armed forces IAW the Iranian Constitution. However, just like the US, Iran doesn't necessarily follow it's own law. The US is supposed to issue a formal Declaration of War before allowing the POTUS to lead our forces into battle IAW the US Constitution, too.


Proof that the Iranian government actually follows its own constitution and will do so during hostilities. * The Supreme Leader is supposed to fit the mold of the 12th Iman, a peaceful position, and major disagreement exists within Iran over functions attached to that position. Granted, the current Iranian Constitution formally grants the Supreme Leader military power functionally equivalent to our POTUS which is supposed to be tigthly controlled by our US Congress.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi.../17/iran_rejects_charge_of_military_takeover/

"Clinton, speaking Monday in Doha, Qatar, said Iran’s supreme leader, government, president, and Parliament are “being supplanted’’ by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military unit that’s played a key role in suppressing antigovernment protests. She said the Guards are in control of Iran’s nuclear program and should be the target of sanctions."



Again, there's a major difference between belief and mere rhetoric. Ahmajinedad's belief in an external power aiding his actions is NOT remotely equivalent to the Russian leader's actions based solely on his country's military capability. The Russian knew his limitation based on his military capability. Ahmajinedad sees no such limitation based on his belief in supernatural help.

* Ultimately, this question underlies why it's so crucially important that a nation follows it's own laws.

Schiff is not a neocon and very very few on here have called him one.
I do disagree with Schiff on this but it has been hashed out months ago and people came to terms with it. The person that started this thread has not done Schiff any favors stirring all the old divisions up again.
Iran is not suicidal. If they were they would have poured their troops into Iraq to fight the American infidels. They didn't. Show me the last country they attacked? The president is a nutjob but as a whole the country is not. Chances are the president doesn't even have the majority of the people behind him now judging by the last election. Why haven't they attacked Israel? Because they know they would get their asses kicked and that is a big deterent. If Iran gets 2 or 3 nukes they still would not because Isreal has 2 or 3 hundred nukes. The US has 2 or 3 thousand.
MAD works with Iran.

 

[G-Wohl]

That idea that Iranians don't care if they get destroyed is ridiculous.

No, it's not. The political and spiritual leaders of Iran are both so far removed from reality, thanks to their disgusting religious practices, that they don't mind perishing.

The secular Iranian population may be a different story, but that's not who the US would be targeting in the first place.

 

[specsaregood]

No, it's not. The political and spiritual leaders of Iran are both so far removed from reality, thanks to their disgusting religious practices, that they don't mind perishing.

Source? Of course some might say the same thing about the US.

 

[Imperial]

Ahmajinedad has about as much power to launch a nuclear strike as does Mickey Mouse. The president of Iran is not in charge of the Iranian armed forces. That would be the "supreme leader". And the supreme leader in charge now is the same one that allowed troops from Iran to fight with the United States against the Taliban. By contrast, Nikita Kruchev at least at the authority to launch a strike. His rhetoric was just as bad. And yet...he didn't.

You are wrong too here. The Supreme Leader has a certain amount of sway and nominal control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). However, especially with the "Green Revolution" that has been active lately, and related civil unrest with bazaar strikes, the civilian heads and religious heads of government have had to rely more on them. The Revolutionary Guard has slowly gained more and more influence over the government of Iran. In fact, the Grand Ayatollah only took power from Rafsanjani and a group of power-brokers in the early 90s with the support of the IRGC.

It is true there are other military units than the Revolutionary Guard, and there are the Basij (militia), but the IRGC is on top.

I think it would be silly to say that Iran does not pose a limited threat to US interests. Its ties to Hezbollah particularly and Hamas a bit more indirectly are easily proven (unlike the stupid attempt to say Al Qaeda and Saddam worked together), so it is definitely a state-sponsor of terrorism. However, the threat is overblown and antagonized by the US too (not to mention the complications of the US sponsoring the MEK in Iraq- another arguably terrorist group- and the Kurds).

No, it's not. The political and spiritual leaders of Iran are both so far removed from reality, thanks to their disgusting religious practices, that they don't mind perishing

Now this is not true. Even the clerics do pay attention to politics of power. For example, Rafsanjani is a cleric and also a poltician. The Grand Ayatollah similarly has played power politics. The presidency of Khatami in the early 2000s also shows that the leaders of the country know how to accomodate other interests in the state, like the reformers, to take some heat off of themselves.

 

[V-rod]

The word Neo-con is thrown around too easily. If Goldwater was alive today, he would be labeled as such by some on the forum.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Peter Schiff is not a neoconservative. Neoconservatism is a specific school of foreign policy that includes a broad, Wilsonian vision of democracy-spreading and regime change.

Peter Schiff is not a strict non-interventionist, though. He's a combination of non-interventionism and George Bush Sr.-esque realism. He believes that the US military must provide order and stability in other regions of the world sometimes (when American interests are affected), but for the most part should stay out of other countries' business.

 

[specsaregood]

Peter Schiff is not a strict non-interventionist, though. He's a combination of non-interventionism and George Bush Sr.-esque realism. He believes that the US military must provide order and stability in other regions of the world sometimes (when American interests are affected), but for the most part should stay out of other countries' business.

Evidently he believes that we should attack other countries for doing nothing more than what we have done ourselves (develop nuclear weapons for defensive purposes). As if we, the United States have a god-given right to be one of the few countries that are allowed nuclear weapons.

 

[7402]

George Bush Sr.-esque realism. He believes that the US military must provide order and stability in other regions of the world sometimes

He does not believe that.

Evidently he believes that we should attack other countries for doing nothing more than what we have done ourselves (develop nuclear weapons for defensive purposes). As if we, the United States have a god-given right to be one of the few countries that are allowed nuclear weapons.

Nor does he believe that. If, for example, Denmark or Japan or Italy decided to build nuclear weapons, he would not advocate bombing their facility.

He simply thinks Iran is a threat, not to "stability" or "interests in the region," but to the US itself (because of its Islamist ideology and its ideological and material support of terrorism) and therefore he doesn't want it to have nuclear weapons.

You can disagree, but do not intentionally misrepresent.

 

[klamath]

He does not believe that.



Nor does he believe that. If, for example, Denmark or Japan or Italy decided to build nuclear weapons, he would not advocate bombing their facility.

He simply thinks Iran is a threat, not to "stability" or "interests in the region," but to the US itself (because of its Islamist ideology and its ideological and material support of terrorism) and therefore he doesn't want it to have nuclear weapons.

You can disagree, but do not intentionally misrepresent.

You make some very good Bush talking points. Bush said exactly the same things and nation building came about as the best way to provide security for the US.
Schiff is what he is and you have to determine if his preemptive war stand is outweighted by his good demestic policies. Jim Demint is in the same category.

I believe by far the majority have come to terms with it and support him anyhow as I have. I had to do the same thing with Rand.

 

[specsaregood]

You can disagree, but do not intentionally misrepresent.

What did I misrepresent? Did not the US build nuclear weapons? If we have a right to nuclear weapons, why does Iran not?

 

[constituent]

Schiff is more of an asshole than a neocon. An amusing one though...I might have to go watch him make that phone bank call again where he mistakes a woman for a man, mispronounces her name, asks her if she has the internets--then goes on to give her his website address when she says no.

for real?

 

[Kludge]

for real?

YouTube - Watch me Phone Banking myself part 1

YouTube - Watch Me phone banking myself Part 2

 

[constituent]

Schiff is what he is and you have to determine if his preemptive war stand is outweighted by his good demestic policies. Jim Demint is in the same category.

I'm just curious, not to antagonize, but can anyone give us a rundown of what exactly his domestic policies would be?

Where does he stand on constitutional immigration policy?

What is his position concerning the war on drugs?

If we're to weight his psycho position on Iran against his domestic policies, I would like to know what those policies are.

Many Thanks.

 

[constituent]

YouTube - Watch me Phone Banking myself part 1

YouTube - Watch Me phone banking myself Part 2

can't watch right now, but will take your word for it. ugh.

 

[BoutTreeFiddy]

Hater gonna hate.

Peter Schiff > Alex Jones. About 100 times better.

Did anybody hear Peter say that if he were not hawkish at all he wouldn't get elected? Okay, so he loses the support of a few Ron Paul supporters, but it's not all Ron Paul supporters going to the polls in August. It's a strategic move. You know it.

Rand Paul knows it.

 

[jmdrake]

Supposed to be in charge of the armed forces IAW the Iranian Constitution. However, just like the US, Iran doesn't necessarily follow it's own law. The US Congress is supposed to issue a formal Declaration of War before allowing the POTUS to lead our forces into battle IAW the US Constitution, too.

You have given no evidence that they don't. Just propaganda from Hillary Clinton about what's going on with the Iranian constitution.

Further your example fails in that our current POTUS is still in charge of the military (ask General McKrystal if you don't believe me) just like the Supreme Leader is still in charge of the Iranian armed forces.

Proof that the Iranian government actually follows its own constitution and will do so during hostilities. * The Supreme Leader is supposed to fit the mold of the 12th Iman, a peaceful position, and major disagreement exists within Iran over functions attached to that position. Granted, the current Iranian Constitution formally grants the Supreme Leader military power functionally equivalent to our POTUS which is supposed to be tigthly controlled by our US Congress.

Ummmmm....do you remember the guy who first held that position?

Peaceful my foot!

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi.../17/iran_rejects_charge_of_military_takeover/

"Clinton, speaking Monday in Doha, Qatar, said Iran’s supreme leader, government, president, and Parliament are “being supplanted’’ by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military unit that’s played a key role in suppressing antigovernment protests. She said the Guards are in control of Iran’s nuclear program and should be the target of sanctions."

And who benefited from suppressing the anti-government protests? The supreme leader! Really, this would be like Obama calling in the U.S. marines to put down popular unrest and then someone suggesting that meant the marines were controlling Obama. Look at what happened in the last elections. The supreme leader disqualified reformist candidates.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88148974
The Guardian Council holds the power to qualify or disqualify candidates. The council consists of six high-ranking clerics, and six jurists, appointed by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Conservative candidates, such as Ali Abbaspour, defend this system.

"Always the parliament has a very important place in the Iranian political system," he says. "For this reason, all the time the representatives should be among the highest, the most qualified persons in Iranian society."

Reformers dominated Iran's parliament from the late 1990s until 2004. Since then the Guardian Council has moved aggressively to limit their chances. Still, disqualifying candidates is controversial here, and political pressure forced the council to reinstate nearly 1,000 it had initially barred from running.

This idea that the recent actions by the military are against the wishes of the Supreme Leader is a complete farce.

Again, there's a major difference between potential actions based on belief in supernatural help and potential actions based merely on one's military capability. Ahmajinedad's belief in an external power aiding his actions is NOT remotely equivalent to the Russian leader's actions based solely on his country's military capability. The Russian knew his limitation based on his military capability. Ahmajinedad sees no such limitation based on his belief in supernatural help.

* Ultimately, this question underlies why it's so crucially important that a nation follows it's own laws.

Again you have no way to know what someone's actual personal beliefs are! But let's assume your right. Let's assume that Amhadinejad really believes that he doesn't need military strength because "Allah is on his side". Then he wouldn't need an atomic bomb now would he?

YouTube - What does God need with a starship

We are supposed to believe that on the one hand Amadinejad is "rational" enough to understand the power of an atomic bomb, and yet so "irrational" that he thinks Allah will protect him if he uses it. Anyway, Amadinejad is a puppet. You've provided no evidence that he actually controls anything.

 

[jmdrake]

You are wrong too here. The Supreme Leader has a certain amount of sway and nominal control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). However, especially with the "Green Revolution" that has been active lately, and related civil unrest with bazaar strikes, the civilian heads and religious heads of government have had to rely more on them. The Revolutionary Guard has slowly gained more and more influence over the government of Iran. In fact, the Grand Ayatollah only took power from Rafsanjani and a group of power-brokers in the early 90s with the support of the IRGC.

I'm not wrong at all. And in fact you are proving my point for me. I've put the important part in bold. The Supreme leader used his authority over the military to help him get rid of the previous president. He still has that same authority. The only logical conclusion is that he actually wants Amadinejad to remain president. That's why he also recently used his power to limit the ability of opposition candidates to run. Now there is a way to oust the Supreme leader, but it's not through the military. Not unless the military (especially the IRG) renigs on its duty to "protect the revolution".

It is true there are other military units than the Revolutionary Guard, and there are the Basij (militia), but the IRGC is on top.

Yes. And they are under the Supreme leader. Your post only highlights that point.

I think it would be silly to say that Iran does not pose a limited threat to US interests. Its ties to Hezbollah particularly and Hamas a bit more indirectly are easily proven (unlike the stupid attempt to say Al Qaeda and Saddam worked together), so it is definitely a state-sponsor of terrorism. However, the threat is overblown and antagonized by the US too (not to mention the complications of the US sponsoring the MEK in Iraq- another arguably terrorist group- and the Kurds).

I never said that Iran didn't pose a limited threat. China poses a limited threat. Russia poses a limited threat. North Korea poses a limited threat. The question is, does Iran pose a suicidal threat. The evidence is that it doesn't. Like I pointed out before, Iran offered Bush a promise to give up support of Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for security guarantees. Bush should at least have heard them out. It wouldn't have been like the guarantees couldn't have been taken back if the evidence showed that Hamas and Hezbollah remained as strong as before. I totally agree with your point about the MEK though. I support of them undermines our moral authority against other "state sponsors of terrorism".

Now this is not true. Even the clerics do pay attention to politics of power. For example, Rafsanjani is a cleric and also a poltician. The Grand Ayatollah similarly has played power politics. The presidency of Khatami in the early 2000s also shows that the leaders of the country know how to accomodate other interests in the state, like the reformers, to take some heat off of themselves.

I'm not sure who you were quoting there, but I didn't say that. I think your analysis is is spot on.