Iran Uprising - Page 2

No I dont think US should "invade" Iran.
But they have to MAKE SURE the Ayatollahs regime wont be able to do what China did.

The world can use their political arm/economic arm/Intelligence service. There are lots of options.

Im saying if world stay aside and not do ANYTHING. And just wait for a side to win and then make biz as normal with them this will hunt us. Just look at history and Afghanistan. What makes you think this will be ANY different?

I say the world has to MAKE SURE the right side wins. And the right side is not the one who yells DEATH TO AMERICA and DEATH TO ENGLAND every chance they get.

I dont know how anyone can disagree with that.

See, preemptive strikes are totally fear based.

User447 are you American?
I ask because when you say "But they have to MAKE SURE the Ayatollahs regime wont be able to do what China did." I wonder who exactly is they?
That is very important.

I am assuming by this statement you are not American and so then I ask you why should THEY always be the one to do something, why don't YOU go do something

And what do you mean we have to make sure the right side wins? This is a people uprising. It is about the government vs the people. Let the PEOPLE there decide for themselves what they want. Do you really think to know which side is the right side better than all the people of Iran to speak for an argument of American intervention?

People are not inherently bad, and by these protests/uprising and no direct intervention/occupation from the USA, the people of Iran currently have the ability to establish their own government as they should see fit. As they should.
You think we (America in particular) should go in and force our views and establish our own system of government upon the uprising people for fear of what might happen if we don't. That is a really bad answer.
So in order to insure your future scenario of fear doesn't happen you think the USA in particular should intervene and thus establish our own government/views upon everyone there. Just to fix what you see could be a problem. Because of what might happen...

I say again let the people there handle it.
American intervention will just create even more problems and hate for this country, and we have plenty of both already.

We will have to stand by and watch, for now at least. If the Iranian people want freedom they will have to fight for it, shed their blood, lose their lives perhaps, but that is how freedom is won. You only end oppression by defiance. At all cost. We can't interfere in the natural order of things.

The Iranian people need to decide, for themselves, what they want. They have already proven that revolution comes from within (by the people) and without foreign interference, this was seen clearly and most recently in the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Yet the assumption that recent events will lead to a revolution is naive, it's still just a word touted by Iranian's abroad and encouraged by western governments. The protesters, while they have their own ideas of nationalism, religious alignment, threat or want of westernisation, and so forth, are simply united through the disenchantment of an election process that has ushered in Ahmedinijad's second term. This has been met by government suppression that has fueled this situation even further, perhaps closer to rapid reforms or the other ''R'' word. I feel that by applying any foreign interference, there is a risk of reducing this united front into their fundamental groups which won't help Mousavi's case for 'election fraud' at all, but allow Ahmedinijad an opportunity to reunite the country, or at least the majority of it, behind his nationalistic call 'against the west' (which by the way, is supported by A LOT of Iranian's within Iran).

Also, our idea of 'freedom' in the west shouldn't be attached to Mousavi. He is very much a 'child of the Islamic Revolution', a member of the Islamic Revolution Council in its early years and serving as Prime Minister under the current Supreme Ayatollah's presidency back in the 80's. His leftist ideals, considering President Khatami before him (of the same party), would be within the framework of the Islamic Republic and the constitution he helped establish. Reform in Iran is bound by the emotive 'hope'.

The US response is near perfect, in that they are refuting claims of preference or judgment and instead taking on the peaceful role of observer while, as Kissinger has said recently of Obama's message, "The US] has to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech [and] free elections".

Having said all that, I haven't been following the recent situation as best as I probably should as it's exam week and I'm cramming D: I am intrigued by Iranian politics tho...

By "they" I mean EU and US and Israel. Basically all the countries that the current government WILL ATTACK.

I understand what you are saying. But everything you think and say is wrong and the reason is this:
"Let the PEOPLE there decide for themselves what they want. "
"... the people of Iran currently have the ability to establish their own government as they should see fit. As they should. "

Those two statement are at the very foundation of every conclusion you make. And you have NO IDEA how wrong you are on both of those statements.

They rigged the election. as you might know. Imagine tomorrow they go and kill 100,000 of the people on the street.
And this people's movement will not only die out it will NEVER rise again. Which will give the current government enough chances to "engage" with Israel, US and EU. Like they are saying in every chance they get.

All your assumptions are based on the fact that people in power actually care about their country. NO THEY DONT. They care about Islam and going to paradise more than killing 1,000,000 of their own people.

You are very very wrong. You have no idea how theocracy work. Not saying anything and staying aside will cause another AlQaida.
When this government gets done with killing their own people they will come after us.

+ Show Spoiler +

when did mosh girl join the Iranian riot police?

User447: I spoke with a professor the other night at a Uni function who suggested illegally shipping in weaponry to 'anti-government' factions within Iran, not dissimilar to the foreign engagement that led to a coup d'etat against Mossadegh's disposal in the 1950's... I was appalled, but he's an economics prof so *shrug*. Bad things tend to lead to worse things, regardless of what you think is 'right', there is a degree of manipulation that is involved when nationalism is held against a backdrop of foreign assistance. The US/UK involvement in overthrowing one of Iran's initial chances at democracy in Mossadegh, for the reinstatement of the Shah (benefiting Oil companies at the time), was used provocatively in the subsequent overthrow of the monarchy during the Islamic Revolution. When you say 'other countries' should interfere, you're not speaking for the interests of the Iranian people, but instead, those who have interests in the region... this sentiment is fine, however case example's in Iraq/Afghanistan have shown that military approaches to nation building with hawkish perspectives, simply don't work.

In this particular case, while it does sound harsh - I'll say it again, the Iranian people need to deal with this themselves and they are safer unarmed than walking down the streets of Tehran with US supplied M4A1 colt carbines in-hand...

Wow, that's horrible...

and..
+ Show Spoiler +

edit: damnit byrnesam, i actually wanted to be the funny one for once!

On June 21 2009 01:21 kalgo wrote: User447: I spoke with a professor the other night at a Uni function who suggested illegally shipping in weaponry to 'anti-government' factions within Iran, not dissimilar to the foreign engagement that led to a coup d'etat against Mossadegh's disposal in the 1950's... I was appalled, but he's an economics prof so *shrug*. Bad things tend to lead to worse things, regardless of what you think is 'right', there is a degree of manipulation that is involved when nationalism is held against a backdrop of foreign assistance. The US/UK involvement in overthrowing one of Iran's initial chances at democracy in Mossadegh, for the reinstatement of the Shah (benefiting Oil companies at the time), was used provocatively in the subsequent overthrow of the monarchy during the Islamic Revolution. When you say 'other countries' should interfere, you're not speaking for the interests of the Iranian people, but instead, those who have interests in the region... this sentiment is fine, however case example's in Iraq/Afghanistan have shown that military approaches to nation building with hawkish perspectives, simply don't work. In this particular case, while it does sound harsh - I'll say it again, the Iranian people need to deal with this themselves and they are safer unarmed than walking down the streets of Tehran with US supplied M4A1 colt carbines in-hand...

What you are saying might be right in the perfect world. But its not in the real world.

Look at the evidence and past examples in history.
Anytime a goverment has killed many of its own people during a "clean up" act later they have been aggressive towards other nations.
Just a few recent examples:
Napoleone who was in charge of cleaning up Toulon.
Hitler who basically murdered any opposition in Germany.
Stalin
Saddam
Taliban and BinLaden
.....
The list goes on and on.

If this current government get the chance to get rid of inside opposition. We are next. So we HAVE TO make sure the "right" side wins.

A psycho in power with guns is a very dangerous thing. Now imagine that psycho thinks he has a mission from GOD. You get the Iranian current government.

That same psycho has been relatively dormant for the past 4 years of his term, beyond the standard rhetoric you're expected to hear from a country that has been labeled as part of an axis of evil that included their invaded neighbour... with war at both east and west, in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's only show of hostility has been through Ahmadinijad's easily ignorable dialogue, the testing of weaponry (defensive bravado), manipulation of oil trade/routes (from a country slapped with a US embargo) and their political alignment with other 'frowned upon' nation states such as Venezuela...

The right side won't win if we interfere, it will simply set up a series of events that could lead to an even worse scenario. This is not a perfect world, you're right dude, and these issues can't easily be wiped away by taking out the political actors that upset you at the moment.

Obama is right to stay out, and the world should continue to observe what is happening if only to assist in holding those responsible to account if or when Iran's judgment day arrives.

Mark my words. If the current government goes into a mass killing mode. Which is THEIR ONLY CARD to survive. We are next.

This has happened numerous times in the history and this is no exception.

good posts kalgo - I am sure the going ons and current affairs there are much deeper and more complex than my current understanding as is often the case with internal affairs.
and lmao byrn <3

as for User447 geez man you are just brimming with fear aren't u
I believe you actually don't understand what I am saying as you are wrong; all my assumptions are not based on the fact that people in power care one way or another. I am actually saying quite the opposite.
My assumptions are based on the fact that it is obvious the PEOPLE do care, hence why you have an uprising? This uprising is because of the rigged elections, the ruling government etc is it not? Thus all the more reason why other countries should allow this process to happen and not get directly involved - let the people do what they need to do.

All of your statements keep underlining this point. Make sure the right side wins!

Answer me this plz: Who is the right side and who can best determine this?

and how I love this from you:

We are next!

you keep making that statement and it is the epitome of fear and the bottom line of the preemptive war on a thought

Be afraid, be very afraid

Who is the right side and who can best determine this?
You really dont understand who the right side is??

The right side the the one who has respect for human's life. Its very simple.
The right side is the one whose goal is NOT going to paradise. Specially when they are shooting civilians on the streets.

If the west step aside and let this side wins. Which is a possibility. Then there will be consequences.
Can you really trust Ahamadinejad promises in nuclear negotiations after all these??
Hitler signed a paper with Chamberlain then PM of england. Guaranteeing peace. Less than a year after you have the 2nd world war.

Now answer this question please.
What do you think it means that EVERY CHANCE they get they shout death to america and death to Israel?


Btw in case you dont know. The Supreme Leader of Iran friday said that all these "riots" on the streets is a movement financed and planned by USA and England.
This is the kind of nuts we are dealing with here.
Do you REALLY think if we let these guys stay in power they are not going to do anything to us???

ur incredibly misinformed

ZEEBO WAS RIGHT

EVERYONE TO SWEDEN!

QUICK!

On June 21 2009 03:27 genjix wrote: ur incredibly misinformed

You are either incredibly ignorant or dishonest.

I don't understand anyone can make a case for pre-emptive war in the name of world peace with a straight face.

hah I was just going to say something to that effect Fudyann
I think the line of thought goes something like...
the right side is the one's who have respect for human life and the wrong side are the one's who do not
thus we need to kill the people on the wrong side
before they kill us

I wonder where User447 is from

anyhow I'm off this unicycle
time to grind

What you guys dont understand like I said is that I dont ask for a "WAR"

What Im asking for is NOT STANDING ON THE RAIL AND JUST LOOK AND NOT TAKING SIDE.

There are hundreds of things the west can do. Like not recognizing the current regime. Not buying their oil. Secret service support for the opposition(information/technology/maybe even providing arms).
Setting up refugee camp in the embassies. Firing the Iranian ambassadors from their country.
btw many European countries are doing some of these stuff already.


Its very American of you guys to think that taking a clear position on an issue means dropping bombs!