Ahmadinejad proves smarter than Bush, but confused about our foreign policy

JaJae · 09-04-2007, 09:40 PM

Ahmadinejad said he can mathematically prove that the US won't attack.

"In some discussions I told them 'I am an engineer and I am examining the issue. They do not dare wage war against us and I base this on a double proof'," he said in the speech on Sunday, reported by the reformist Etemad Melli and Kargozaran newspapers.

"I tell them: 'I am an engineer and I am a master in calculation and tabulation.

"I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypotheses. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran.'"

Iran's Ahmadinejad has 'proof' US won't attack

Very nice speak Mr. Engineer, but the US isn't necessarily that predictable. He really needs to base his foreign policy on well foreign policy and not mathematics. He seems to think he has Bush and our government all figured out, but the reality is we don't even have it figured it out which is what scares us so much about having Bush in the White House. We assume he won't bomb Iran, but I won't be shocked if I wake up in the morning and read in the headlines "Bush mathematically bombs Iran."

thomez · 09-04-2007, 09:49 PM

He's right, because our plate is full.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-04-2007, 10:19 PM

Maybe this is where having a moron in the White House is an asset, kind of like pro poker players can be defeated (short term) by fish because of their unpredictability.

Stylerod · 09-04-2007, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

He's right, because our plate is full.

Not really. Our Navy and Air bases have plenty of Fighter Bombers doing nothing.

Ardentfrost · 09-04-2007, 11:47 PM

Human nature can be mathematically measured and predicted... that's why we have things like economics and stochastic queuing theory.

However, you can never say that someone will or won't do something. In statistics, a hypothesis is said to be true if it passes a 95% confidence test, but there's still that 5% chance (it can be less, that's just the base). Humans are unpredictable individually, but as a group they are very predictable.

That aside, I think everyone knows it'd be retarded for us to attack Iran at this point (unless, of course, they ACTUALLY attacked us, which I also doubt would happen). It would be a mistake for Bush to call for an attack like that. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

thomez · 09-05-2007, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Not really. Our Navy and Air bases have plenty of Fighter Bombers doing nothing.

In a neoconservative dream world we would be removing him from power and setting up a democracy in Iran, which we couldn't do from the sea or air.

Stylerod · 09-05-2007, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

In a neoconservative dream world we would be removing him from power and setting up a democracy in Iran, which we couldn't do from the sea or air.

I think the idea is to not let them build their own nukes. That can be done from the air. Don't let your imagination ruin your common sense.

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2007, 08:23 AM

There are some things that you can't use a mathematical proof for. Methinks that this is one of them. That dude is insane. Completely insane.

goldenponderbob · 09-05-2007, 09:50 AM

Among his calculations, some that include Bush are short-term, but Iran has a few long-term issues that will remain constant after the Bush/GOP variable is removed from the equations.

I can imagine U.S. / middle east relations in a post Bush world, and my suppositions aren't as rosy for Iran as his suppositions make it appear.

He's been allowed to play against a very weakened leader, but things will be very different in a few months.

I believe he is likely to confront very strong willed President Clinton and an all democratic congress.

One party government has many disadvantages that I abhor, but it does facilitate getting stuff done, when stuff has to be done.

I've seen a few of her plans and it could just be that he may have a surprise coming.

If I had Ah's ear I'd warn him that she's a very different cookie from Bill. and I wouldn't push her too far.

thomez · 09-05-2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I think the idea is to not let them build their own nukes. That can be done from the air. Don't let your imagination ruin your common sense.

In the interests of their national security, why don't we let Israel handle this problem. Afterall, Iran can barely fire a rocket into their own desert.

Donkey® · 09-05-2007, 03:42 PM

Who cares? He made a speech to the people of his country. It's no less full of shit than "they hate us for our freedom".

Stylerod · 09-05-2007, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

In the interests of their national security, why don't we let Israel handle this problem. Afterall, Iran can barely fire a rocket into their own desert.

They might.

garbagemanlb · 09-05-2007, 04:59 PM

I really don't see why this is a U.S. issue. Let Israel handle it themselves...all conservatives fawn over their all-powerful military anyway.

avsp · 09-06-2007, 05:47 AM

while its not engineering, game theory is a branch of maths isnt it?

US foreign policy, IIUC, has been at times at least partly based on game theory.

Either way famed beauty Iran's Ahmadinejad seems to be a bit Stalin-like in his claims of insight