The US is a representative republic, and thus any citizen can can run for office provided they meet the legal qualifications. A person's ability to take power is thus based on their ability to motivate others to vote for them. If you don't like a certain candidate, don't vote for them. If the candidate wins 'fair and square' then it's the will of the people.
Uh-huh. Doesn't it contradict the Constitution that states church and government shouldn't be mixed? Yet many of these candidates are heading to this area.
But sanctions have no affect on the nuclear process. If anything, it encourages the development of nuclear weapons since the weapons could be used as a bargaining tool in the removal of the sanctions.
Care to link to these statements? Because a recent BBC article I read had Netanyahu urging the US to declare a red line. Likewise, news organizations (BBC, CNN, FOX) have all stated in the past months reporting on this that neither the US nor Israel have taken the strike option off the table.
My mistake, not that strikes shouldn't be allowed but Iran is rational, implying, they won't use the nukes.
In an interview on CNN, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that 'we are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor,'.
The Iranian regime is 'very rational' and is moving deliberately in its secretive nuclear program, the former head of Israelâs Mossad intelligence agency says.
'Maybe it's not exactly rational based on what I call âWestern thinking,' but no doubt that they are considering all the implications of their actions,' Meir Dagan said in an interview with CBS' '60 Minutesâ that aired Sunday.
A rational actor is not a reasonable actor. It is not somebody who has the same goals or values as we have.
In international affairs or economics, the term rational actor is used to describe somebody who is concerned about their survival, prosperity or strength and is making calculations on the basis of these concerns. It describes someone who calculates costs and benefits.
We all assume Iran is a rational actor - even the most hawkish people in this debate - when we assume that pressure on Iran will make a difference. We are assuming that Iran is watching the costs of its actions, calculating them and, presumably, will recognize that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is all that it means to say that Iran is a rational actor.
Indeed, Iran has been very calculating in its behavior, far more so than other so-called radical, revolutionary regimes. If you look at Mao's China, he talked openly about destroying the world and about sacrificing half of China so that global communism could survive. The Iranians never talk like that and they certainly don't do things like that. Their behavior for 30 years has been calculating. They respond to inducements and pressures in ways that are completely understandable.
From Iran's point of view, they are surrounded by hostile nations. Russia, it's traditional enemy. Saudi Arabia, one of the more powerful Sunni states, and hence its enemy. Iraq, which invaded it just three decades ago. Pakistan, another regional power. And of course, all the US bases in the region. And Israel. It's not exactly hard to see why they would want another shield.
