- #106
Cyrus
- 3,238
- 16
In Iran, one does not stand up for their rights, because the government puts them in jail and gives them lashes. With the way the government is over there right now, that was REALLY stupid of him.
WarrenPlatts said:It's not stupid to stand up for your rights.
All the more reason to invade, don't you think?cyrusabdullahi said:In Iran, one does not stand up for their rights, because the government puts them in jail and gives them lashes. With the way the government is over there right now, that was REALLY stupid of him.
All the more reason to invade, don't you think?
Bush State of the Union said:Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)
State of Union 2006 said:The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.
Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.
WarrenPlatts said:You've got to assume that since foreigners post on PF, everything here is monitored by Echelon. Yet despite that, no one has been arrested yet for their blatantly treasonous posts
Is it? I've heard this before, but do we really have reason to believe so? AFAIK, it's something that has only recently been tried.Revolution is an internal process.
Of course, wanting revolution is not synonymous with being able to carry out a revolution...You can't force change on people, they must want it.
Is it? I've heard this before, but do we really have reason to believe so? AFAIK, it's something that has only recently been tried.
Of course, wanting revolution is not synonymous with being able to carry out a revolution...
Fair enough -- but your post really doesn't make any sense given the literal interpretation. Looking back, I would still presume that you are saying that one cannot achieve effects similar to a revolution through external means, in which case, the spirit of my response still applies.Yes. When its external, they call that an invation or a coup.
Yes, that is the crux of the matter.When the majority of the people in a country want a change, nothing you can do will stop it. At some point, they will take up in arms. (Unless they are controlled by an opressive dictator)
one cannot achieve effects similar to a revolution through external means, in which case, the spirit of my response still applies.
Aha! That's exactly what Iran government is doing right now. Iran has the right to use nuclear energy just like any other nation in the world!WarrenPlatts said:It's not stupid to stand up for your rights.
HAHA! And the U.S. would still be a democracy if George Bush disqualified anyone he didn't like from running against him.Cyrusabdullahi said:Iran is a democratic nation.
Not while bloggers are being arrested for complaining about starving during Ramadan.cyrusabdullahi said:Secondly, there have been for years demonstrations by students and citizens in Iran against the government. I think they are able enough to cause a revolution if they wanted to.
And they also have to right to build nuclear bombs just like any other nation in the world!Lisa said:Aha! That's exactly what Iran government is doing right now. Iran has the right to use nuclear energy just like any other nation in the world!
That's not what the GI's returning from Iraq say. Talk to a few.Lisa said:BTW, man don't you think 'giving their freedom' and things like that aren't fa[sh]ion [sic] any more. Try to think up of other pretext. You can't fool people in the world by these stuff anymore.(nobody is going to believ you other than a few fool). What Iraqies people get?
WarrenPlatts said::!) :!) :!)
Paul LevianMass mobilization in Iraq against US-British forces will be at most a nuisance - easily suppressed by the ruthless employment of massive firepower. And Israel will use the opportunity to deal with Syria and South Lebanon, and possibly with its Palestinian problem.
The character of this war will be completely different from the Iraq war. No show-casing of democracy, no "nation-building", no journalists, no Red Cross - but the kind of war the United States would have fought in North Vietnam if it had not had to reckon with the Soviet Union and China.
Paul Levian is a former German intelligence officer.
It's also important to consider the effect that a nuclear Iran would have on the potential for a democratic Iran. Its nuclear project is often portrayed as a matter of national prestige, the implication being that any strike against it would rally the regime's domestic opponents to its side. What Iranian dissidents tell us is closer to the opposite. A nuclear Iran would enhance the mullahs' sense of invulnerability and facilitate domestic repression.
Doesn't he do it now?WarrenPlatts said:HAHA! And the U.S. would still be a democracy if George Bush disqualified anyone he didn't like from running against him.
Oh dear, how can you be sure that these bloggers are telling the truth? Perhpa the reason they're arrested is their lies!Not while bloggers are being arrested for complaining about starving during Ramadan.
As I mentioned before it's the threat of countries like US which leads other countries to build nukes!And they also have to right to build nuclear bombs just like any other nation in the world!
How about asking Bush?That's not what the GI's returning from Iraq say. Talk to a few.
Do you really think that the servers being located in the U.S. would stop the NSF spying, through some interpretation of a legalistic device that may be construed as a loophole?WarrenPlatts said:BTW, where are the PF servers located? If Canada or anywhere else, they are fair game for the NSA. And if they're in the U.S., they're fair game for MI6 who will just share anything they learn with the Americans.
The way I think it works is that the Brits spy on us, and we spy on them, so no one is spying on themselves, and everybody just shares anything interesting that comes up.Do you really think that the servers being located in the U.S. would stop the NSF spying, through some interpretation of a legalistic device that may be construed as a loophole?
I think you're spot-on, James. I do not, of course, agree that this should happen, but I fear your analysis is correct. The military reality is that Iran will be dealt with ruthlessly in the fashion you suggest. But will this bring 'victory' or will it result in a chain of events that no amount of military power on the part of the US and its allies will be able to contain? It's a gamble, and the stakes are high.jhe1984 said:The thread title is inaccurate, yes, we would not occupy Iran like we do Iraq, but if the war is not over in two weeks it will not be over in four or five years. If the victory is not decisive and swift, the war will most likely be larger than Vietnam - and very different.
It is my sincere belief that, if it comes to it, we will use multiple tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. If you find this option incredulous (however immoral or counterintuitive), I sincerely believe you are unfamiliar with military realities.
If I was part of that bureaucracy and my job was to come up with a rationale to spy on the PF, I'd ask the question "does a given post constitute communication that is entirely within the domestic jurisdiction of the U.S., or entirely from one U.S. resident to another?"jhe1984 said:Agreed, and things get even fuzzier I imagine as servers are mirrored in other countries, etc. Then again, things are probably a lot more bureaucratic than we give them credit for
There aren't enough beds in the U.S. prison system to house every American blogger that lies online. No, the reason they get arrested in Iran is because they tell the truth. Why would someone lie about sneaking food to work during Ramadan? I'd do the same. I thank God I'm not Islamic. I don't have to worry about entering doors right-side first because the left side is unclean, like one friend told me she used to do.Lisa said:Oh dear, how can you be sure that these bloggers are telling the truth? Perhaps the reason they're arrested is their lies!
This is not realistic. The worst missile attack in GWI was a lucky hit on an Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia. It was horrible and killed 28 people, but there's a big difference between 28 and 28,000. The worst threat for inflicting mass casualties are Iran's Sunburn missiles that could potentially take out an aircraft carrier. They only have a range of 100 miles, however, so there would still be plenty of room to navigate in the Gulf--except for the Strait of Hormuz. I wouldn't want to be an Iranian missileman based there.James said:Secondly - and perhaps more disturbingly - the author overlooks the main threat to US troops from Iranians: medium range ballistic missiles fired into our literally city-sized base camps. Casualties here could range from 5,000 to 20,000 easily - and that is assuming the Iranians fight fair: no chem/bio attacks.
This is funniest post I've seen in ages.WarrenPlatts said:There aren't enough beds in the U.S. prison system to house every American blogger that lies online. No, the reason they get arrested in Iran is because they tell the truth. Why would someone lie about sneaking food to work during Ramadan? I'd do the same. I thank God I'm not Islamic. I don't have to worry about entering doors right-side first because the left side is unclean, like one friend told me she used to do.
Re: James' point about how an invasion of Iran would lead to a two or three front war: Look at a map, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan form one continuous land mass. It wouldn't be like WWII where there were two major wars on opposite sides of the world.
Regarding Iraqian oil pipelines, they're already being sabotaged, and oil is not flowing from Iraq at prewar levels. So much for the theory that the war was about oil. And Basrah's not the only outlet. There's a big pipeline that flows to Turkey in the north.
This is not realistic. The worst missile attack in GWI was a lucky hit on an Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia. It was horrible and killed 28 people, but there's a big difference between 28 and 28,000. The worst threat for inflicting mass casualties are Iran's Sunburn missiles that could potentially take out an aircraft carrier. They only have a range of 100 miles, however, so there would still be plenty of room to navigate in the Gulf--except for the Strait of Hormuz. I wouldn't want to be an Iranian missileman based there.
That said, a war with Iran will not be easy--but it is doable. Don't get me wrong. I am not for war. The thought makes me sick to my stomach. But we of the Western democracies must not be afraid. Most likely, the U.S. will shoulder the white man's burden the way we always do. That's OK. All we ask is that you stay out of the way. American blood and taxpayer's money will make the world safe for you the way it always has.
BTW I just heard on the radio that they're setting fire to trees in a Danish embassy somewhere over there. That is in complete violation of the rules of warfare as set out in the Koran (and the Bible). That is who we are dealing with: insane people who can't even get their own religion straight. I can read the Koran and understand it, but apparently they cannot.