Iran Uprising - Page 7

On June 23 2009 15:46 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 05:36 Fraser wrote:   On June 22 2009 11:42 Racist Dragon wrote: any country that still uses high clerics, religious leaders and the like as their "Supreme" leader is fucking delusional. guardian council? get the fuck outta here easy for us to say but i'm sure it makes alot more sense when you're a devout believer If i remember correctly George Bush used many quotes about the Iraq war speaking about God.. and he once actually said he spoke with God.

I talk to God, tho usually I'm promising him I won't drink anymore if he makes the pain in my head go away. I am pretty sure he knows I'm lying because he doesn't do anything about it.

On June 23 2009 15:32 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 05:33 Fraser wrote:   On June 22 2009 21:25 capaneo wrote: It means the goverment is basically "framing" the protests as riots. if enough people riot for long enough, refusing to obey the government, when does it become revolution? Only if its successful in displacing the government? It looks like this is petering out already. There is disappointment being expressed on the cable news channels because of a lack of encouragement for the protesters from the west. It becomes a revolution once change has been effected. So far this isn't happening in Iran. It isn't even the top story on the news anymore. The bandwagon isn't running anymore.

as expected, the uproar was huge but not big enough to turn into a revolution, what most people dont get is that this is a natural social evolution, people are tired of the old ways (particularly young ppl) and its only a matter of time because the government is either totally overturned or slowly toned down to the needs of its people.

Some dumb people think that intervention to coup the tyrants is the way to go and that is stupid because when a country is under attack or foreign manipulation, the country trends to become nationalistic supporting the current leader to defend them from the foreign invading force.

Example of this is Cuba, the only thing that has made Fidel stay in the power for 50 years is USA, their constant intervention and embargos have pushed a great part of the population to like fidel, he is the figure fighting the big american monster, if the USA kept his nose out of Cuba they would have kicked Fidels ass out of the office long time ago, so intervention would be the worst possible thing to do here.

The only thing to do is to wait patiently as social evolution takes it slow but steady course.

On June 23 2009 15:50 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 15:32 curtinsea wrote:   On June 23 2009 05:33 Fraser wrote:   On June 22 2009 21:25 capaneo wrote: It means the goverment is basically "framing" the protests as riots. if enough people riot for long enough, refusing to obey the government, when does it become revolution? Only if its successful in displacing the government? It looks like this is petering out already. There is disappointment being expressed on the cable news channels because of a lack of encouragement for the protesters from the west. It becomes a revolution once change has been effected. So far this isn't happening in Iran. It isn't even the top story on the news anymore. The bandwagon isn't running anymore. as expected, the uproar was huge but not big enough to turn into a revolution, what most people dont get is that this is a natural social evolution, people are tired of the old ways (particularly young ppl) and its only a matter of time because the government is either totally overturned or slowly toned down to the needs of its people. Some dumb people think that intervention to coup the tyrants is the way to go and that is stupid because when a country is under attack or foreign manipulation, the country trends to become nationalistic supporting the current leader to defend them from the foreign invading force. Example of this is Cuba, the only thing that has made Fidel stay in the power for 50 years is USA, their constant intervention and embargos have pushed a great part of the population to like fidel, he is the figure fighting the big american monster, if the USA kept his nose out of Cuba they would have kicked Fidels ass out of the office long time ago, so intervention would be the worst possible thing to do here. The only thing to do is to wait patiently as social evolution takes it slow but steady course.

Damn Baal, you knocked that one out of the park. I agree with this post 100%. Stupid American Cuban policy, what a joke. It's so hard to be on one side or the other when it comes to American politics because both sides are soooo wrong so often.

On June 23 2009 16:16 ToTehEastSide wrote:

How to run a country 250 years ago!!!
What you and Ron Paul has to notice is that some advices even though were pure genius at their own time expires.

Imagine USA had just listened to the founding fathers during WWII.
Or would you really wanted USA to not intervene around the world during Stalin time?
Do you think it would be a great idea to have "as little political connection as possible" after WWII while Russians are making nukes like candies. And then next thing you know America has 1000 nukes pointed at them???
When founding fathers wrote those stuff. There were no Nuclear Bombs. It would take months or even years to lunch attack from EU to America. It would take weeks or months for the fastest way of communication around the world.

Now we have a suitcase size bomb which can kill millions that can show up in US in less than hours.
We have information going around the globe in seconds.
You are on the path to destruction if you think you should do 18th century foreign policy with the 21 century technology.

To you and Ron Paul and many other people who look at founding fathers without thinking. ---> GET REAL!

On the other hand I %100 agree with Ron Paul on many social issues and economic issues.

On June 23 2009 17:37 User447 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 16:16 ToTehEastSide wrote: How to run a country 250 years ago!!! What you and Ron Paul has to notice is that some advices even though were pure genius at their own time expires. Imagine USA had just listened to the founding fathers during WWII. Or would you really wanted USA to not intervene around the world during Stalin time? Do you think it would be a great idea to have "as little political connection as possible" after WWII while Russians are making nukes like candies. And then next thing you know America has 1000 nukes pointed at them??? When founding fathers wrote those stuff. There were no Nuclear Bombs. It would take months or even years to lunch attack from EU to America. It would take weeks or months for the fastest way of communication around the world. Now we have a suitcase size bomb which can kill millions that can show up in US in less than hours. We have information going around the globe in seconds. You are on the path to destruction if you think you should do 18th century foreign policy with the 21 century technology. To you and Ron Paul and many other people who look at founding fathers without thinking. ---> GET REAL! On the other hand I %100 agree with Ron Paul on many social issues and economic issues.

um, we did in fact stay completely out of it (WWII) until we were actually attacked. It likely would have benefited the US to get involved sooner, but we were following the principles described above.

What are you talking about? You were close ally with Brits the whole time. And you were attacked by Japan. Why did USA ended up in Europe?

And my point, like you said, is that you cant follow 18th century guide lines. in 20 century.

On June 23 2009 18:16 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 17:37 User447 wrote:   On June 23 2009 16:16 ToTehEastSide wrote: How to run a country 250 years ago!!! What you and Ron Paul has to notice is that some advices even though were pure genius at their own time expires. Imagine USA had just listened to the founding fathers during WWII. Or would you really wanted USA to not intervene around the world during Stalin time? Do you think it would be a great idea to have "as little political connection as possible" after WWII while Russians are making nukes like candies. And then next thing you know America has 1000 nukes pointed at them??? When founding fathers wrote those stuff. There were no Nuclear Bombs. It would take months or even years to lunch attack from EU to America. It would take weeks or months for the fastest way of communication around the world. Now we have a suitcase size bomb which can kill millions that can show up in US in less than hours. We have information going around the globe in seconds. You are on the path to destruction if you think you should do 18th century foreign policy with the 21 century technology. To you and Ron Paul and many other people who look at founding fathers without thinking. ---> GET REAL! On the other hand I %100 agree with Ron Paul on many social issues and economic issues. um, we did in fact stay completely out of it (WWII) until we were actually attacked. It likely would have benefited the US to get involved sooner, but we were following the principles described above.

That is wrong user447 is right on this one...that's all he's really been right on I think but ya

On June 23 2009 18:46 User447 wrote: What are you talking about? You were close ally with Brits the whole time. And you were attacked by Japan. Why did USA ended up in Europe? And my point, like you said, is that you cant follow 18th century guide lines. in 20 century.

This is retarded, do you think Japan just randomly decided to attack a neutral world power for no fucking reason? you must be retarded and i wont let you smurf anymore.

the US wanted IN the 2nd wold war because it was in its economical interests (as u can see from results) so they did everything in their power to provoke the japan onslaught like detaining japanese living in USA, freezing their accounts and assets among many other things.

Anyway stop smurfing

what the hell. japan was attacking everywhere in southeast asia!! japan attacked first

the US DID NOT want in on ww2

Roosevelt said he thought that having the fleet in Hawaii was a "restraining influence" on Japan. When Richardson asked the president whether the United States was going to war . "He replied," in Richardson's account, "that if the Japanese attacked Thailand, or the Kra Peninsula, or the Dutch East Indies we would not enter the war, that if they even attacked the Philippines he doubted whether we would enter the war." But the Japanese couldn't always avoid making mistakes, the president said. "Sooner or later they would make a mistake and we would enter the war."

Clearly non of you guys have ever read anything on WWII.
Back to the subject.

I heard there were some stuff going on today in Tehran and even some other cities. Does anyone have a video/news/info on this? I assumed everything died out because yesterday was pretty calm.

japan attacked: korea, china, burma, siam, east indies and the phillipines

LOL I dont know when this is for. Probably Sunday.
The girl who is filming the video yells at the the cop: Hit. Ya come on hit. Werent you just hitting those guys? Come on hit.
Some women in Iran are very brave.

On June 24 2009 00:37 genjix wrote: what the hell. japan was attacking everywhere in southeast asia!! japan attacked first the US DID NOT want in on ww2 Show nested quote + Roosevelt said he thought that having the fleet in Hawaii was a "restraining influence" on Japan. When Richardson asked the president whether the United States was going to war . "He replied," in Richardson's account, "that if the Japanese attacked Thailand, or the Kra Peninsula, or the Dutch East Indies we would not enter the war, that if they even attacked the Philippines he doubted whether we would enter the war." But the Japanese couldn't always avoid making mistakes, the president said. "Sooner or later they would make a mistake and we would enter the war."

yeah, the Japanese decided to attack a country that could overturn the overwhelming victory just out of a fucking whim, that makes sense, rofl.

the US did want in the war, the economical results speak for themselves how gullible can you be.

On June 23 2009 17:37 User447 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 16:16 ToTehEastSide wrote: How to run a country 250 years ago!!! What you and Ron Paul has to notice is that some advices even though were pure genius at their own time expires. Imagine USA had just listened to the founding fathers during WWII. Or would you really wanted USA to not intervene around the world during Stalin time? Do you think it would be a great idea to have "as little political connection as possible" after WWII while Russians are making nukes like candies. And then next thing you know America has 1000 nukes pointed at them??? When founding fathers wrote those stuff. There were no Nuclear Bombs. It would take months or even years to lunch attack from EU to America. It would take weeks or months for the fastest way of communication around the world. Now we have a suitcase size bomb which can kill millions that can show up in US in less than hours. We have information going around the globe in seconds. You are on the path to destruction if you think you should do 18th century foreign policy with the 21 century technology. To you and Ron Paul and many other people who look at founding fathers without thinking. ---> GET REAL! On the other hand I %100 agree with Ron Paul on many social issues and economic issues.

I believe the keyword for you in that pic I posted is permanent
but A+ for effort in trying to slant it
be afraid, be very afraid
I say the same to you, get real

On June 24 2009 00:41 capaneo wrote: Clearly non of you guys have ever read anything on WWII. Back to the subject. I heard there were some stuff going on today in Tehran and even some other cities. Does anyone have a video/news/info on this? I assumed everything died out because yesterday was pretty calm.

lolz first time in my life, literally I agree with capaneo

Anyway riots were still around but they were getting smaller. Recently there has been large encouragement for some mass riot or something on Thursday. How those riots turn out will probably be the final decision on whether or not these remain riots or actually turn into a violent revolution...my bets on it staying small riots that go away shortly.

Japan didn't attack pearl harbor cuz of US taking away japanese citizens rights. They attacked because they were trying to cripple the US navy before the US formalling declared war. It was obvious that eventually the US would declare war against the Axis powers. It made sense to take out as much of the US navy as possible before this occured. After the attack the US went completely batshit insane and took away all japanese citizens rights holocaust style w/o the genocide.

Also with this whole argument about whether or not we wanted in the war, both sides are correct (like most dumb fuck arguments in this forum). Repubs of the time were very into Monroe doctrine crap and wanted US to stay out. FDR and many dems wanted in because they feared what would happen if the Axis continued as they were. FDR however never got large enough support to declare war until the US was actually attacked.

We also didn't want in the war only because of economics (not everything the US does is solely due to economics). Many countries we were close allies with were getting completely ass raped and people wanted to help. The fact that the war also ended up helping the economy was a bonus and another reason some wanted the US in. But it was not the primary reason the people in the states wanted to get involved in WW2

On June 24 2009 02:43 Baal wrote: yeah, the Japanese decided to attack a country that could overturn the overwhelming victory just out of a fucking whim, that makes sense, rofl. .

Many people in Japan thought that they (the axis) would be able to defeat the US with a crippling attack on Pearl Harbor. There were only a small few who thought that Pearl Harbor was a bad idea.. Hence why the japanese general said quote of "I'm afraid we may have woken a sleeping giant." Is so famous

Sort of sad

For all of you guys in the west. These are the type of people who will have undiputable power in Iran when these "riots" are over.
The difference with that past 4years will be that many heavy weight opposition in Iran will be eliminated.
Note that the leader, Ahmadinejaad and AGIR(which is this guy) are all the same party. Who will be in charge of EVERYTHING in Iran after this. And this has never happened after the revolution in Iran. There were always some reformist at high position prior to this election.




This is the GOAL btw. To bring Mahdi back. Mahdi=AntiChrist

On June 24 2009 05:57 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On June 24 2009 02:43 Baal wrote: yeah, the Japanese decided to attack a country that could overturn the overwhelming victory just out of a fucking whim, that makes sense, rofl. . Many people in Japan thought that they (the axis) would be able to defeat the US with a crippling attack on Pearl Harbor. There were only a small few who thought that Pearl Harbor was a bad idea.. Hence why the japanese general said quote of "I'm afraid we may have woken a sleeping giant." Is so famous

The japanese believed in the supremacy of the yamato race and even before the WW2 they thought the americans were barbaric retards and even considered some kind of demon for the closest followers to the bushido.

However Hiroito wasnt deluded into such belief, reason why he reluctantly joined the axis alliance, when he rather allied with Great Britain.

Hiroito was aware of the power and extension of China and was concerned about it and was even more concerned about the possible intervention of Russia from the North.

The american diplomatic hostilities towards japan were at its max when they seized all assets from japanese and took japanese captives in concentration like camps, so Hirohito made a last effort to not fight in the pacific and announced that in order for them to not go to war they would require no intervention in their conquest of south east asia and to remove the embargoes and hostilities towards japanese in america but he got no response.

After that Hirohito reluctantly attacked pearl harbor totally aware of the dangers of fighting in the pacific, there is actually documented a big scold to his generals about this when they claimed that a victory in the pacific would be easy and Hiroito calling them liars even before the battle begun.



Dont insist man, i am clearly more informed than you about this issue by far.