Iran already has three times the territorial size of France, the population is about 25% bigger. And yet, it hasn't started a single war for hundreds of years. So what measure of "size" are you thinking of?

Iran's whole military strategy is extremely defensive. And by "defensive" I don't mean the modern understanding of "defensive" of many western countries, which is something like "offensively attack any country that at some point in the future might be considered a threat, if only economically". I mean the more original understanding of "defensive" as "protecting your territory against an invasion". By historical evidence, few countries can be considered as peaceful as Iran.

Really? Or do you just believe so because a couple of years back you clearly saw thousands of middle- to upper-class metropolitan iranian youths waving green flags on TV? There is a reason why the middle-east uprising has not reached Iran so far, and it's not only because the iranian leadership is oh so oppressive. Quoting from "Iranian Public Opinion on Governance, Nuclear Weapons and Relations with the United States", an article by "World Public Opinion" based on surveys in Iran:

"Iranians are on the whole dissatisfied with their economy, but don't necessarily blame their leaders for their economic difficulties."
"a clear majority of Iranians express satisfaction with the "process by which the authorities are elected in this country" (62%, including 18% very satisfied and 44% somewhat satisfied) and approved of "the way President Ahmadinejad is handling his job as president" (66%)."
"On the whole, Iranians appear to be relatively content with their government's responsiveness to the people. Iranians on average give their country a positive score of 5.9 (on a 0 to 10 scale, 0 meaning "not at all" and 10 meaning "completely") on being "governed according to the will of the people."1 Asked what the ideal level of government responsiveness would be, Iranians said an 8.4 on the same 0 to 10 scale. The 2.5 point gap between the average perceived rating, 5.9, and the average ideal rating, 8.4, is considerably less than the average gap on this scale obtained for 19 countries on a WorldPublicOpinion.org survey conducted between November 2007 - March 2008 (8.0 average ideal - 4.5 average perceived = 3.5 gap, across 19 countries)."

Source: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/527.php

You'd have a hard time finding any evidence for those claims. First of all, the only person in Iran who ultimately decide over nuclear energy, weapons and their use is the religious leader. Since the islamic revolution in 1979, there have only been two: Chomeini, who died in 1989, and his successor up to the present day, Chomenei - who multiple times spoke out against nuclear weapons and in 2005 he even published an islamic Fatwa that prohibits the production and use of nuclear weapons.
And the religious leader doesn't usually have to fear being removed from power, for it's pretty much a lifetime job.

Furthermore, if I look at the oversized public pictures of the iranian religious leaders in the country, they seem to like being adored/honored by the people. I find it rather hard to believe that such a person would suddenly decide that he wants to be remembered by history as "that insane guy who was responsible for the country being bombed back to the stone ages by attacking another country with a nuclear bomb". You may consider the iranian leadership as insane, but they know very well that attacking another country with a nuclear bomb would be completely devastating for them.

All in all, there just is no iranian nuclear threat. American and israeli intelligence reports have estimated the probability of a nuclear armed Iran attacking another country with a nuclear bomb as low as 1%. What's considered somewhat probable is the possibility of an iranian nuclear retaliatory strike. So if one wants to start a nuclear WW3, attacking Iran seems like an excellent idea.

Kasz, you always seem very educated whenever it comes to economical topics, but most of your arguments in this thread seem like wild speculations/claims without any evidence.

I watched it....

and I know the point of view, i've heard it before... it's just a silly one not really based on fact.  It's the same old NWO stuff recycled with a Korean spin.

Though even if you were to accept everything as true in the videos... what is the arguement?

Beware the west because 1% rules the country... instead, support our dictatorship, so the .0001% can rule you.

Beware the west, where people can buy stuff which distracts them from demanding meaningful change.   Support our dictatorships, so you can't afford anything nice, and have no power to make any of those same changes.

Beware that 1% that has most of the wealth... instead support our .0001% that has ALL of the wealth.

Beware the 1% that shows some racist tendencies... instead support our .0001% which directly ethnically cleanse races we don't like.

Beware the west because sometimes one side of a story gets spoken about louder... instead support us... we'll give you the only story and the right side to believe in.

When it comes down to it... even if you were to believe every ill about Democracy in that NPKR propaganda film... it still puts the west well above the NPKR and any dictatorship.

Even if you assume the worst about the west... it still comes up smelling like roses in comparison.

Yeah, because all the invasions and murders caused by your great and merciful "democracy" are certainly outweighed by the dastardly deeds caused by these "evil dictators."

"Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who." So unless you give some really strong points that can convince me and the world that America is in fact "stable," I'm going have to leave you alone on this debate.

1) Size in terms of World influence and power... obviously.   France can for example, openly start a war with Libya... therefore there is a war with Libya. 

If  Iran decided to declare war on Bahrain... not going to quite work out as well politically.

2)  There is more satifaction about how their government is being run then in most places in Africa and the Middle East.  It doesn't change the fact that there will eventually be a revolution of the people.  Was wrong on the majority, will admit that.  Guess it was mostly just the young.  Still worth noting, since the young eventually will be the majority.

3)  We're talking about a case where the young, and more and more atheistic rise up to try and replace these people.  It's clear that point they won't be quite so revered... and you know.   The President is trying to position himself to win more power as it is. 

There are no credible movements that even encompass .0001% of the population planning to overthrow the United States government?

I mean.  That was my point about stability and what I said about it. 

A leader in this day in age is only going to use Nukes if put in a nowin situation in which they are likely going to be put to death anyway.

Democracies, don't get violently overthrown... because the people in them can always be overthrown simply via voting... at worst you end up with a slide back into dictatorships... which apparently according to your video would be an improvement?

Outside which, it seems to ignore the point of "Once a country has nuclear weapons there is nothing you can do about it."

As for the "invasions and murders"... it's all a matter of context... you don't think dictatorship in America's shoes would be as bad... if not worse?

Even if you buy western people such as Americans as being enslaved via consumerism... well damn.  I'd rather be kept in line with Ipods and Videogames, then secret police and thread of death at disent.

Even if you saw the US as nothing more then the Roman empire... it's worth noting, that Bread and Circus was used because it created a far more stable society then threats and violence.

Oh... and I think most Iranians would generally take offense at that video "Telling their side of the story".

I quite think you'd be arrested as soon as you hit the section on Religion...

So i'm not quite sure why you thought that video was going to give me the Iranian perspective.

Someone said the USA was a democracy which is wrong it is a republic. There is a difference.

Because the film was focused purely on religion and didn't cover topics such as the Israel's unlawful occupation of land, and the threat of a very unstable and aggressive country called America. I'm sure the majority (keyword since you love democracy so much) of Iranians would agree with, and already understand much of what was shown.

Basically put, if Iran isn't allowed nukes, the US shouldn't be allowed either.

If you want to follow a scoreboard for nuke usage (this could possibly be a way to measure stability, even though stability is hardly quantifiable) we can say that the US has two points:  for the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, whilst the Iranians have a score of 0. So to say that Iran is the type that would drop nukes should they acquire some, is purely speculation as there has been no past behaviour, on their part, that would suggeset they would.

Thank you and have a great day.

See, the differnce here is... I'm actually reading what your saying and pointing out where your logical fallicies lie.

While you don't actually seem to be reading or paying attention to anything.

As always, where your arguement fails is context.  If you'd use that... and well actually read my posts.  This entire reply wouldn't of happened... because it's all been adressed already.

If your just going to argue already disproven statements and not offer any knew information, it probably is best that you plan to drop the conversation. 

Monarchy = There is a king/Sultan/Lama/Head of State that inherits the position and represents the country.

Republic = The head of state does not inherit his position.

Democracy = people vote for their leaders.

Dictatorship = people does not vote for their leaders.

A republic can be a democracy. A monarchy can too.