4 minutes ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

there is rule of law, checks and balances, and a generally democratic system. I

Even the pretence of those have been thrown out the window now,

Trump and Netanyahu just doing whatever the heck they like.

17 minutes ago, johng said:

You might want to look into (do some research) why they call for the destruction of those two.

Iran is one of the oldest surviving civilisations.

Give us a hint why, save me googling.

2 minutes ago, johng said:

Even the pretence of those have been thrown out the window now,

Trump and Netanyahu just doing whatever the heck they like.

Yet both are bound by elections, and Trump by term limits (I wish Israel had term limits too). Hopefully Bibi will be voted out in the coming elections later this year, and Trump cannot run for a 3rd term. In Iran leaders are literally bound only by death.

2 minutes ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

The current regime does not represent Iran's culture or civilization

You 'obviously' have not looked into how the current 'regime' came into being

they stiffed Iran twice just like they recently bombed them twice while pretending to negotiate..despicable beyond words.

6 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Give us a hint why, save me googling.

Here is a hint CIA

and here's a link

https://www.history.com/articles/1979-iranian-revolution-causes

The only country stockpliled and have used Nukes is America no other country that has them have used them on Civilians only the US.

11 minutes ago, johng said:

Here is a hint CIA

and here's a link

https://www.history.com/articles/1979-iranian-revolution-causes

Thanks for the link that tells me nothing. I recall the 1979 revolution.

Nothing in the article says why Iran wants to destroy Israel and the USA

2 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Nothing in the article says why Iran wants to destroy Israel and the USA

To understand why you need to read the article understand it then engage brain..good luck.

1 minute ago, johng said:

To understand why you need to read the article understand it then engage brain..good luck.

You go first.

11 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

You go first.

It's not me who is having trouble understanding why Iran is hostile towards the US and Israel.

1 minute ago, johng said:

It's not me who is having trouble understanding why Iran is hostile towards the US and Israel.

Nothing in your link explains that.

If you think it does quote that part and I'll stand corrected.

From the link I provided.

A 1953 CIA-assisted military coup had helped the younger shah, who had been briefly sidelined by a nationalist prime minister, to consolidate power. In 1963, the shah launched the “White Revolution,” which aimed to modernize Iran through land reforms, infrastructure projects, economic controls and the extension of voting rights.

Although the shah sought approval for these policies in public referendums, he also shored up his status as the country’s sole ruler, taking the title Shahanshah (“King of Kings”) and hosting grandiose celebrations of the 2,500th anniversary of the ancient Persian Empire.

Those who protested his actions faced persecution from the shah’s notorious SAVAK secret police. Nevertheless, opposition movements began to form across the political spectrum. One early notable opponent was a revered Shia Muslim cleric based in the holy city of Qom, south of Tehran, who had been forced into exile in 1964 after he denounced the shah for granting diplomatic favors to the United States: Grand Ayatollah Khomeini.

==============================

One of the ironies of the 1979 Revolution is that Iran displaced one type of autocrat only for another to take over. For Slavin, it fits within the context of Iran’s broader history, but also it isn’t the whole story. Since the Revolution, Iran has maintained democratic elements, held elections (albeit among candidates vetted by the Guardian Council), and allowed a relatively vibrant press compared to many of its neighbors.

“Iran has 3,000 years of history of looking up to authoritarian leaders of one sort or another—whether they're shahs or emperors or kings,” she says. “There is that strain, but there's also the democratic strain dating to the 1906 Constitutional Revolution, when Iran had the first elected parliament in the Middle East. It's not a dictatorship, it's not totalitarian, it's just Iran.”

In short the CIA has as it always has done meddled and interfered with other countries politics and leaders instigating coups and colour revolutions with almost always disastrous results

P.S CIA and MOSSAD same same no difference.

1 hour ago, johng said:

From the link I provided.

A 1953 CIA-assisted military coup had helped the younger shah, who had been briefly sidelined by a nationalist prime minister, to consolidate power. In 1963, the shah launched the “White Revolution,” which aimed to modernize Iran through land reforms, infrastructure projects, economic controls and the extension of voting rights.

Although the shah sought approval for these policies in public referendums, he also shored up his status as the country’s sole ruler, taking the title Shahanshah (“King of Kings”) and hosting grandiose celebrations of the 2,500th anniversary of the ancient Persian Empire.

Those who protested his actions faced persecution from the shah’s notorious SAVAK secret police. Nevertheless, opposition movements began to form across the political spectrum. One early notable opponent was a revered Shia Muslim cleric based in the holy city of Qom, south of Tehran, who had been forced into exile in 1964 after he denounced the shah for granting diplomatic favors to the United States: Grand Ayatollah Khomeini.

==============================

One of the ironies of the 1979 Revolution is that Iran displaced one type of autocrat only for another to take over. For Slavin, it fits within the context of Iran’s broader history, but also it isn’t the whole story. Since the Revolution, Iran has maintained democratic elements, held elections (albeit among candidates vetted by the Guardian Council), and allowed a relatively vibrant press compared to many of its neighbors.

“Iran has 3,000 years of history of looking up to authoritarian leaders of one sort or another—whether they're shahs or emperors or kings,” she says. “There is that strain, but there's also the democratic strain dating to the 1906 Constitutional Revolution, when Iran had the first elected parliament in the Middle East. It's not a dictatorship, it's not totalitarian, it's just Iran.”

In short the CIA has as it always has done meddled and interfered with other countries politics and leaders instigating coups and colour revolutions with almost always disastrous results

P.S CIA and MOSSAD same same no difference.

Spot on. You can add as well that the Shah had little in the way of "royal blood". His dad was the son of Georgian immigants, was a squaddie in the army, rose up the ranks, overthrew the previous Shah, no relation, and got himself elected Shah. The 53 Coup was part of the issue, but also the mismanagement and corruption practiced by the Shah as well. He didn't bribe the people enough like the fake King in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi King walked the line of an astoundingly lavish lifestyle, outward Islamic piety and throwing the people a few baubles. The Shah was similar, except the Islamic piety; he went miniskirts and strip clubs instead.

On 5/2/2026 at 7:58 PM, spidermike007 said:

it might be okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon

Sorry, but it is not okay for them to have nuclear weapons. Nobody should have them.

3 minutes ago, JJ-Thailand said:

Sorry, but it is not okay for them to have nuclear weapons. Nobody should have them.

It's good for the US to have weapons like this. It acts as a deterrent, and they were necessary in WWII to speed things along with the Japanese.

It's maniacs like the mullahs that need to be kept from them.

Japan would have surrenderd without the bombs being demonstrated.

The late assassinated Iranian leader

had issued a religious order banning nukes in Iran... retaining the right to produce nuclear power.

The only maniacs that have used nukes on a civilian population is the US.

22 minutes ago, JJ-Thailand said:

Sorry, but it is not okay for them to have nuclear weapons. Nobody should have them.

While I agree that nobody should have them, and this would be a far better world without them, the fact of the matter is many states have them at this point. Iran having a few might be a great deterrent for Israel and the US and could potentially tame their very aggressive and foolish ambitions.

7 minutes ago, johng said:

Japan would have surrenderd without the bombs being demonstrated.

The late assassinated Iranian leader

had issued a religious order banning nukes in Iran... retaining the right to produce nuclear power.

The only maniacs that have used nukes on a civilian population is the US.

There is so much that points towards the fact that Japan would not have surrendered, even though they were in absolutely dire straits, they needed to be knocked unconscious in order to give up.

Whether or not we needed to drop that second bomb is always going to be the big question.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

There is so much that points towards the fact that Japan would not have surrendered

Ok maybe I should have used the word collapsed instead,as you say they were in dire straits and probably couldn't have continued militarly for much longer.

23 hours ago, johng said:

Japan would have surrenderd without the bombs being demonstrated.

The late assassinated Iranian leader

had issued a religious order banning nukes in Iran... retaining the right to produce nuclear power.

The only maniacs that have used nukes on a civilian population is the US.

The prime reason the US dropped the bombs is because the Japanese wouldn't surrender and weren't expected to. These aren't the "teddy bear" Japanese of today who grew up in a pacifist country - they were people so determined and too proud to admit defeat that they literally sent mass amounts of pilots to suicide just to hurt the enemy. Without the nukes it would've taken a lot longer with a lot more causalties on both sides (but primarily the Japanese side). Another prime reason was to avoid a ground invasion.
As far as Iran's fatwah banning nukes - it's a joke. That's like a thief telling you stealing is illegal while running through your pockets.

It's actually interesting that you bring up the Japanese, because the dynamics are similar- Iranian leadership is too proud to admit it was defeated, and they're sending kamikaze drones (albeit pilotless) all over the Middle East, and they're sacrificing their own people by both killing protesters and using citizens as human shields. Sounds like more drastic measures are needed to make them unconditionally surrender without a ground invasion!

On 5/6/2026 at 9:39 AM, Yagoda said:

Sucks to be a loser huh? Losers always whinge

On 5/6/2026 at 9:39 AM, Yagoda said:

Sucks to be a loser huh? Losers always whinge

On 5/6/2026 at 9:39 AM, Yagoda said:

Sucks to be a loser huh? Losers always whinge

Silly response. Try again for an adult comment.

It always surprises me how little so many people understand the jihadist aims of the Iranian government (and by extension their proxy, Hamas). Both are quite open in their avowed, repeatedly published, genocidal aim of eradicating both the state of Israel and the Jewish people as a people. Both are also obsessed with martyrdom as a positive good, devoutly to be wished.

Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia, Israel: none has openly, repeatedly, publicly committed themselves to the genocide of a people, and none would actually welcome martyrdom as the result of retaliation following a nuclear first strike. This cannot be said of either the Iranian government or Hamas. If they had nukes, they would use them.

9 minutes ago, JTPR1 said:

It always surprises me how little so many people understand the jihadist aims of the Iranian government

It also surprises me how easy it is to propogandise/brainwash seemingly intelligent people.

On 5/9/2026 at 3:40 PM, johng said:

why they call for the destruction of those two.

i dont care why...its the right here right now i want us to deal with... that brings me right back to where i stand right here right now...