In fact, no one knows how many nuclear weapons Israel has. In any case, the purpose is to have second strike capability, which is crucial to a credible deterrent. Another important point: no one actually disagrees that Iran can have nuclear energy. What no one wants is Iran with nuclear weapons. And, finally, most reasonable people feel much more comfortable with a democratic nation have nuclear weapons, than with a country with an authoritarian regime (with few checks and balances) that is known to fund terrorists (particularly, terrorists who are sworn enemies of Israel and whose publicly stated goal it is to wipe it off the map).
I am rather disturbed by the anti-semitic overtones of some of these comments, such as, for example, the comment that "Mel Gibson looks like an oracle" (Jeffrey Stewart), the idea that Israel moves "forward their Zionist game plan" (sufferingsuccatash), and the notion that it "blackmails US/Europe with money" (these allusions seem strongly concordant with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). Publicly denouncing such comments would show genuine courage on the part of Juan (I don't think they actually violate the moderation policy, but do seem to be against its spirit).
This was not a statement of fact, but my conjecture about the perception on the part of the clerics. Arguably, there are also substantial differences b/w Pakistan, which is officially a US ally, and Iran. Finally, surely, nuclear weapons would discourage the US from actually attacking Pakistan (as opposed to attacking terrorists within Pakistan).
I find it very surprising that Saddam Hussein is called an "ineffectual bogeyman"; would Kurds agree? I don't think anyone sane puts Ahmadinejad, who is perceived as more of a clown than an effective leader, into the same category as Saddam. It is fairly obvious that clerics hold the real power in Iran, whereas Saddam held the real power in Iraq (Saddam was a great admirer of Stalin, and, indeed, there was much in common between them).
I find it very surprising how quickly Juan jumps to conclusions based on what Khamenei says (which has, by the way, been reported by CBS, and many other news agencies), or the results of parliamentary elections (which are, effectively, rigged by the clerics, who have the power to disqualify anyone they don't like). Since the clerics are the source of Islamic law for Shiites, Khamenei's statements are both significant, and not: law is a function of context, so if context changes, he can certainly change the law; and whether the context has changed is entirely the judgment of the clerics. Moreover, Khamenei is just one opinion, and other clerics can, in principle, overrule him in the future (avoiding the issue of losing face which comes from such a public verbal commitment).
Here is my subjective interpretation, given enormous uncertainty about what actually goes on in Iran (no one knows what's actually going through clerics' minds, for example). I think that the goal of Iranian clerics is to develop the *capability of building nuclear weapons*, but not the weapons themselves (yet). I agree that it is unlikely that they actually want the weapons at the moment, as actual possession of these carries considerable risks (e.g., Saudi Arabia having a desire to have a nuclear program of its own). But the possession of the technology would elevate Iran's geopolitical status, and offer military protection against the US, or its enemies in the region (Saudi Arabia and Israel, in particular). This would explain the overwhelming evidence that Iran is trying to develop weapons grade enrichment capabilities, but is at the same time trying to send a credible signal to the West that it does not aspire to possess nuclear weapons.
Wikipedia accurately defines how the term is generally used and understood. My sense is that your definition reflects more wishful thinking than reality. It would, indeed, be a great world if only thoughtful "independent observers" wrote blogs.
According to wikipedia: "A blog (a portmanteau of the term web log) is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order so the most recent post appears first. Blogs are usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group, and often are themed on a single subject. Blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog."
Andrew Breitbart was a blogger due to a mere fact that he posted comments in a blog format. You may not agree with his politics, which is fair and square, but disputing the obvious seems counterproductive.
In fact, no one knows how many nuclear weapons Israel has. In any case, the purpose is to have second strike capability, which is crucial to a credible deterrent. Another important point: no one actually disagrees that Iran can have nuclear energy. What no one wants is Iran with nuclear weapons. And, finally, most reasonable people feel much more comfortable with a democratic nation have nuclear weapons, than with a country with an authoritarian regime (with few checks and balances) that is known to fund terrorists (particularly, terrorists who are sworn enemies of Israel and whose publicly stated goal it is to wipe it off the map).
So, I am puzzled why anyone is puzzled.
I am rather disturbed by the anti-semitic overtones of some of these comments, such as, for example, the comment that "Mel Gibson looks like an oracle" (Jeffrey Stewart), the idea that Israel moves "forward their Zionist game plan" (sufferingsuccatash), and the notion that it "blackmails US/Europe with money" (these allusions seem strongly concordant with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). Publicly denouncing such comments would show genuine courage on the part of Juan (I don't think they actually violate the moderation policy, but do seem to be against its spirit).
This was not a statement of fact, but my conjecture about the perception on the part of the clerics. Arguably, there are also substantial differences b/w Pakistan, which is officially a US ally, and Iran. Finally, surely, nuclear weapons would discourage the US from actually attacking Pakistan (as opposed to attacking terrorists within Pakistan).
I find it very surprising that Saddam Hussein is called an "ineffectual bogeyman"; would Kurds agree? I don't think anyone sane puts Ahmadinejad, who is perceived as more of a clown than an effective leader, into the same category as Saddam. It is fairly obvious that clerics hold the real power in Iran, whereas Saddam held the real power in Iraq (Saddam was a great admirer of Stalin, and, indeed, there was much in common between them).
I find it very surprising how quickly Juan jumps to conclusions based on what Khamenei says (which has, by the way, been reported by CBS, and many other news agencies), or the results of parliamentary elections (which are, effectively, rigged by the clerics, who have the power to disqualify anyone they don't like). Since the clerics are the source of Islamic law for Shiites, Khamenei's statements are both significant, and not: law is a function of context, so if context changes, he can certainly change the law; and whether the context has changed is entirely the judgment of the clerics. Moreover, Khamenei is just one opinion, and other clerics can, in principle, overrule him in the future (avoiding the issue of losing face which comes from such a public verbal commitment).
Here is my subjective interpretation, given enormous uncertainty about what actually goes on in Iran (no one knows what's actually going through clerics' minds, for example). I think that the goal of Iranian clerics is to develop the *capability of building nuclear weapons*, but not the weapons themselves (yet). I agree that it is unlikely that they actually want the weapons at the moment, as actual possession of these carries considerable risks (e.g., Saudi Arabia having a desire to have a nuclear program of its own). But the possession of the technology would elevate Iran's geopolitical status, and offer military protection against the US, or its enemies in the region (Saudi Arabia and Israel, in particular). This would explain the overwhelming evidence that Iran is trying to develop weapons grade enrichment capabilities, but is at the same time trying to send a credible signal to the West that it does not aspire to possess nuclear weapons.
Wikipedia accurately defines how the term is generally used and understood. My sense is that your definition reflects more wishful thinking than reality. It would, indeed, be a great world if only thoughtful "independent observers" wrote blogs.
According to wikipedia: "A blog (a portmanteau of the term web log) is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order so the most recent post appears first. Blogs are usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group, and often are themed on a single subject. Blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog."
Andrew Breitbart was a blogger due to a mere fact that he posted comments in a blog format. You may not agree with his politics, which is fair and square, but disputing the obvious seems counterproductive.