Is regime change possible in Iran?

[silver 2039]

That's easy to say when it is not YOUR daughter or mother having their genitals chopped off. I guess that if it was your daughter, you would be willing to use violence immediately to stop it. I don't understand what kind of man can ignore it just because it is not his own daughter.

What if it was your brother who was about to be put to death for being gay? What if it was your uncle who was being sentenced to life in dungeon for speaking his mind?

Its not. Its the Iranians and its their problem not ours. If they want it to change its up to them.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thousands might die, but I don't think tens of millions,

Iran's cities are huge.

I think a country that is constantly advocating use of nuclear weapons against Israel is far too dangerous to be left with modern industry and technology.

And what about one that advocates the use of nuclear weapons against a "backwater mountain country" like Iran?

If we are forced to bomb them to take out the nukes, we also need to make sure to take out every power plant, factory, refinery, and port so Iran won't be a threat again.

Again, what about the people? And Iran was never a threat in the first place.

I don't think there's any point in installing a Democracy in Iran, it was a poplular revolution by the people of Iran that founded the Islamic republic. This shows the Iranian people themselves are much too radical to be trusted, they are simply a threat that we should neutralize.

Okay Henry Kissinger. Seriously, grow up kid. People have a right to determine their own destiny, their own rulers, their own style of government. If you don't like it, you don't have to go there. But for the love of God, learn to see past your smug little nose.

That's easy to say when it is not YOUR daughter or mother having their genitals chopped off. I guess that if it was your daughter, you would be willing to use violence immediately to stop it. I don't understand what kind of man can ignore it just because it is not his own daughter.

Prove that genital mutilation is practiced in Iran.

 

[Mountain-God]

History gives no real possibility of this happening. I don't game plan on the 1%. Exactly how many democratic regimes degenerated into dictatorships? One? Ever? I know Chavez is trying, but he hasn't quite managed yet.

We should at least try to help them once (in the past we were not trying to help, we were trying to destabilize the region, we've never really cared about democracy in Iran before). If that fails, then perhaps we give up.

A few have and as a result of direct and deliberate western influence - if anything Chavez is the flipside - Other South American countries have experienced this. Even New Zealand and Australia have felt the impact of US intervention.

I may be overstating, but a lot of Americans don't seem to realise the real extent of their government's international adventures in 'regime change' and the depth of distrust or anger this has fostered...

It seems to be a common theme where intervention has caused long term problems far in excess of any short-term gain - Vietnam may be a good example where intervention was felt so necessary as to throw the American economy, and even the global economy into turmoil/risk - when history has shown, the Vietnamese movement was nationalist as opposed to international communist...

Jumping in steel shod boots first has yet to return any real positive outcomes.

 

[Ecofarm]

So we just install a Democracy then withdraw and let them elect another Ahmadinejad? I think theres a good chance they will just vote all the radicals back into power.

Iraq didn't, and Iraq was almost totally devoid of competant people. Saddam killed everyone who was competant... students, professors, business men, etc.

Rumor is, Iran still has intellectuals, professorsand businessmen who are competant. It would be easier to nation build in Iran than Iraq because we have alot more to work with there. We had to let some real scum take charge in Iraq because there simply was noone else. There should be less "lesser of evils" necessary in forming Iran's democratic government.

 

[Mercenary82]

Iran's cities are huge.

I'm not saying we need to bomb all the residential areas and such.

And what about one that advocates the use of nuclear weapons against a "backwater mountain country" like Iran?

We've never advocated using nukes in a first strike scenario, only in retalliation, unlike Iran.

Again, what about the people? And Iran was never a threat in the first place.

Iran was never a threat in the first place? have you missed all the times Ahmadinejad refered to Israel as a "corpse", a "1 bomb nation", and threatened to wipe them off the map?

Okay Henry Kissinger. Seriously, grow up kid. People have a right to determine their own destiny, their own rulers, their own style of government. If you don't like it, you don't have to go there. But for the love of God, learn to see past your smug little nose

The Iranian people did make that determination, they chose to overthrow their rightful leader and install a radical regime hostile to the world, they are at fault here.

 

[Mercenary82]

Iraq didn't, and Iraq was almost totally devoid of competant people. Saddam killed everyone who was competant... students, professors, business men, etc.

Rumor is, Iran still has intellectuals, professorsand businessmen who are competant. It would be easier to nation build in Iran than Iraq because we have alot more to work with there. We had to let some real scum take charge in Iraq because there simply was noone else. There should be less "lesser of evils" necessary in forming Iran's democratic government.

Where were all these intellectuals durring the Islamic revolution? Seems like they all suported it too.

 

[Winner]

Don't hold your breath. When a nation has that degree of totalitarian control, a revolution is near impossible. When it's backed by religious radicals, they always have a core of support that is impossible to dislodge short of a major bloodbath.

Iran is not totalitarian, not even close to it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not saying we need to bomb all the residential areas and such.

Then why would we need nuclear weapons? Where do you think the ports are? Or the power plants? You said you wanted to incapacitate the nation, and destroy its ability to function in a modern technological sense. That means a lot of people dying. Don't play stupid.

We've never advocated using nukes in a first strike scenario, only in retalliation, unlike Iran.

Bush's nuclear doctrine has changed things a bit. I suggest reading about our "usable nukes" which fall outside the realm of a "nuclear environment."

Iran was never a threat in the first place? have you missed all the times Ahmadinejad refered to Israel as a "corpse", a "1 bomb nation", and threatened to wipe them off the map?

If that's indeed what he was saying, then that's Israel's problem. And even the most liberal interpretation of his words made no direct threats. I don't know what it is with you people who seem to think that, if Iran decides to get nukes, that it will immediately, at the first available opportunity, fling them at Israel, or the US, or whomever it wishes to. They maybe fundamentalists, but they're not stupid.

The Iranian people did make that determination, they chose to overthrow their rightful leader and install a radical regime hostile to the world, they are at fault here.

Rightful leader? You mean the dynasty that the UNITED STATES installed in 1953?

Besides, even if we hadn't reinstated the Shah, what makes a popular revolution wrong? Why was that leader more legitimate than the one produced by popular revolt?

By your logic, the Brits have every legal right to attack the United States, and should, them being our rightful leaders and all. I suppose Spain should re-exert its control over Mexico and South America, too? Oh, and let's put the Bourbons back on the throne, too, while we're at it. Seriously, that position is completely undefendable.

 

[Ecofarm]

Jumping in steel shod boots first has yet to return any real positive outcomes.

Ask S. Korea. Ask Iraq (the Kurds and Swamp Arabs in particular).

Anyway, I am not proposing old US foreign policy, where our regime changes were meant to destabilize more than to reconstruct. I am proposing a new foreign policy, like the one we see in Iraq, where stability and democracy is the goal - not regional instability.

I think that if we got rid of the Mullahs, the Iranians would have a real chance at freedom and becoming a major force in world affairs from a legitimate standpoint.

Iran is not totalitarian, not even close to it.

Yes it is. No politician can even enter a race without approval from the Mullahs. Gays are put to death. Speaking your mind gets you killed. Women are treated like animals.

There are no human rights. There are no civil rights. There are no open political races. That's totalitarian.

 

[Winner]

What do you mean by this?

What he said:

Iranians are not Arabs. They identify more strongly with their Persian ancestry than the more recent Islamic influence. There's a National Geographic article about it.

Plus:

Iranian (Persian) culture is much more advanced and compatible with the Western one. With a different regime, Iran could become a friend (not an ally and not a puppet) of the West once again.

Arabs will hate the West no matter what. Their culture is based on 7th century nomadic traditions, which is inherently incompatible with contemporary Western culture. Persians, on the other hand, have much deeper and much more worthy tradition to look at.

 

[Mercenary82]

Then why would we need nuclear weapons? Where do you think the ports are? Or the power plants? You said you wanted to incapacitate the nation, and destroy its ability to function in a modern technological sense. That means a lot of people dying. Don't play stupid.



Bush's nuclear doctrine has changed things a bit. I suggest reading about our "usable nukes" which fall outside the realm of a "nuclear environment."



If that's indeed what he was saying, then that's Israel's problem. And even the most liberal interpretation of his words made no direct threats. I don't know what it is with you people who seem to think that, if Iran decides to get nukes, that it will immediately, at the first available opportunity, fling them at Israel, or the US, or whomever it wishes to. They maybe fundamentalists, but they're not stupid.



Rightful leader? You mean the dynasty that the UNITED STATES installed in 1953?

Besides, even if we hadn't reinstated the Shah, what makes a popular revolution wrong? Why was that leader more legitimate than the one produced by popular revolt?

By your logic, the Brits have every legal right to attack the United States, and should, them being our rightful leaders and all. I suppose Spain should re-exert its control over Mexico and South America, too? Oh, and let's put the Bourbons back on the throne, too, while we're at it. Seriously, that position is completely undefendable.

OK chicken little you can refuse to believe Iran is a threat all you want, but when we are talking about nukes and a potential second holocaust, we can't afford to take that chance. As for the popular revolution, I don't dispute their right to do so, I am simply saying by installing a theocracy hostile to us instead of a peaceful Democracy friendly to us, the Iranian people deliberately made a choice to become our enemies.

 

[hossam]

That's easy to say when it is not YOUR daughter or mother having their genitals chopped off. I guess that if it was your daughter, you would be willing to use violence immediately to stop it. I don't understand what kind of man can ignore it just because it is not his own daughter.

What if it was your brother who was about to be put to death for being gay? What if it was your uncle who was being sentenced to life in dungeon for speaking his mind?

Somehow, when the victims are on the other side of the world, we don't care? That's crap.

It's time we joined the human race and made sure all people are free. Only then can the world move forward to eradicate poverty and our other ills.

See sig.

dude, do you know how much iraq is costing the US governement? do you propose that america go on crusade for freedom? because the american economy can only take so many war before it collapses and american are living in a ******** nation or when drastic changes are made to the economy that might limit the freedom of americans. and another thing, why should americans die for someone else? i mean america pretty much went up against britain all by itself during the revoulotionary war, france only joined after americans had pretty much secured victory.

 

[Mercenary82]

dude, do you know how much iraq is costing the US governement? do you propose that america go on crusade for freedom? because the american economy can only take so many war before it collapses and american are living in a ******** nation or when drastic changes are made to the economy that might limit the freedom of americans. and another thing, why should americans die for someone else? i mean america pretty much went up against britain all by itself during the revoulotionary war, france only joined after americans had pretty much secured victory.

Another good reason for why we should simply bomb Iran if necessary, and not send in any ground forces to "nation build".

 

[Ecofarm]

dude, do you know how much iraq is costing the US governement?

Yes.

do you propose that america go on crusade for freedom?

Yes.

because the american economy can only take so many war before it collapses and american are living in a ******** nation or when drastic changes are made to the economy that might limit the freedom of americans.

I don't care. Americans live too well while others suffer in tyranny.

and another thing, why should americans die for someone else?

Because the constitution does not only apply to us, in my book.


Again, see (and listen to) sig.

 

[Mercenary82]

Yes.


Yes.

I don't care. Americans live too well while others suffer in tyranny


Because the constitution does not only apply to us, in my book.

Well our constitution states that Americans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it doesn't say we are obligated to impose it on the world. Why can't people like you do this on your own through the UN or a private organization and not try to drag all of us other Americans who aren't interested in doing this along with you? To me your little crusade to liberate the world and impose Democracy everywhere is much like Communist world revolution, I want no part of it.

 

[Quiet Sound]

Wait, nevermind. Somehow I read the topic as being the entirely wrong country.

 

[Ecofarm]

@merc:
So, you are not politically militant. Big surprise. Few people are.

 

[Mountain-God]

Where were all these intellectuals durring the Islamic revolution? Seems like they all suported it too.

Not all American’s wanted George W Bush as President – it’s not reasonable to suggest the Iranian government has full support.

In the Israel versus Iran debate – Israel continues to be an occupying power. By all definitions they invaded Palestine and continue to control it through military force – meanwhile they have deliberately displaced current residents in favour of Jewish settlements.

Is it wrong their neighbours should feel threatened or be angry that Israel is doing this? Is it wrong that Palestinians should want to kick Islraeli azz?

If someone invaded Australia in a similar fashion, I too could be inclined to demand New Zealand develop nuclear weapons – especially if the invader had powerful friends who could wipe my country off the face of the Earth as so many members of this forum have suggested should be done to Iran.

A person might reasonably begin to feel like the Palestinians should get over it – move on with their lives – but Israel’s government has never shown any real desire to get along or even stop pushing Palestinians out of Palestine.

It’s the same old BS – the locals want to get on with their lives – some wanker wants to make money and doesn’t care if a few thousand Israelis and Palestinians, or Iranians, are killed. Suck my gold plated dik.

 

[Mercenary82]

@merc:
So, you are not politically militant. Big surprise. Few people are.

Yes and I want people like you to not even think about ever using our country as a vessel of that militancy again ok comrade?

 

[Ecofarm]

Yes and I want people like you to not even think about ever using our country as a vessel of that militancy again ok comrade?

Sorry, WORLD DEMOCRACY NOW.

It's our only chance to get rid of poverty, terrorism and the other ills of this world.

You can go on addressing symptoms for the rest of your life, I don't care. I address the source of the problem.

I think anyone who refuses to see the need to bring freedom to those suffering under tyranny is just being selfish.