🇮🇷 The Iran Thread II

[Marvolo]

Hasnt Iran's leader openly expressed his qish for the distruction of America? Not exactly the kind of person that trades with you.

 

[SV Fan]

Hasnt Iran's leader openly expressed his qish for the distruction of America? Not exactly the kind of person that trades with you.

It's not like some of our so called leaders are any better when it comes to foreign policy with Iran and name calling. I am fairly sure if I had somebody constantly telling me I was evil I wouldn't take so kindly to it and probably lash back a bit

 

[Belvedere]

The sabre-rattling is happen from both sides.

Israel urges the international community to invade Iran, Iran threatens Israel and condemns the Western world, goes round in circles a few hundred times more...

 

[Marvolo]

Iran's navy to place warships off US coast 'in the next few years'

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Late...e-warships-off-US-coast-in-the-next-few-years

Its so cute when they try to be intimidating.

 

[Kelly]

Iran's navy to place warships off US coast 'in the next few years'

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Late...e-warships-off-US-coast-in-the-next-few-years

Its so cute when they try to be intimidating.

Oh, I can't wait to see this.....which coast? Please bring them to the Gulf Coast, right off of Galveston Island, TEXAS... t:

 

[chamber-music]

So its looking like Hassan Rouhani, seen as the most moderate of the presidential candidates might of won the election.

Rouhani has was also heading Iran’s former nuclear negotiating team with the EU and has made some talk of improving relations with the west.

Sadly even if he doesn't want to improve things with west its out of his hands with the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene being the real power of Iran.

 

[Kelly]

So its looking like Hassan Rouhani, seen as the most moderate of the presidential candidates might of won the election.

Rouhani has was also heading Iran’s former nuclear negotiating team with the EU and has made some talk of improving relations with the west.

Sadly even if he doesn't want to improve things with west its out of his hands with the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene being the real power of Iran.

Very true....BUT.......and this is a big BUT. The people of Iran are far more intelligent than people give them credit for. It is the rural, minority that follow the every utterance of the Ayatollah. So, I would see NOT ROUHANI, pushing for change in Iran and getting it, I think we will see it come from the people. They now may have a leader they can get behind. AND, if he can gain the respect of the military, well who knows what can happen.

 

[Thundercrack85]

After 2009, I'm doubtful there will be any significant change.

Nothing short of a full-scale civil war will depose the theocracy.

 

[Marx]

I think Rouhani is a step forward.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I hope so. The direction of this country is heartbreaking at times.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Rouhani is a horrible step for Iran. The people are looking for a positive leader to get behind. Rouhani is seemingly it but he's just as much a puppet as Ahmadinejad was. If the people of Iran fall for it, they're going to be right back where they were. It's a dangerous time for my people.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I doubt any sensible person in Iran thinks this was a fair election. But you gotta play with the cards you're dealt, in a theocratic dictatorship.

 

[Kelly]

Rouhani is a horrible step for Iran. The people are looking for a positive leader to get behind. Rouhani is seemingly it but he's just as much a puppet as Ahmadinejad was. If the people of Iran fall for it, they're going to be right back where they were. It's a dangerous time for my people.

Right back where they were? They haven't moved since the Shaw. I think they could get the most moderate person there ever was, and they would still riot in the streets. Religion and government do not go hand in hand. They can't be ok with "most" of Sharia law and only want this and that. It is like they want to pick and choose what they want in their government, and they are never going to get a majority on anything.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Right back where they were? They haven't moved since the Shaw.

*Shah. Aren't you a teacher? You're mistaking the people for the regime. The regime has been the same since 1979, but as of 2009, the people of Iran have had a drastic movement against the Government. In 2010 it was calmed a little bit, and now with Ahmadinejad gone and the new President in power, the people have regained a bit of hope. If they put that hope in Rouhani, they'll go back to the way they were pre-2009. If they put it back in the resistance, we could potentially get somewhere. All they need is world endorsement (all that means is "people of Iran. We are with you" from all of the world leaders. Not military intervention) and the people will do the rest. If military action is taken against the regime, the people of Iran will give their lives to protect their land. As much as they hate the Regime, they have an even greater sense of pride for their land.

If the people of Iran blindly succumb to the will of Rouhani, it'll be the same scenario as the first time Ahmadinejad was elected (prior to his election he said that he'd let women remove their veils. That didn't happen. Corruption and cruelty only increased.)

I'm interested in seeing where this scenario leads.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Right back where they were? They haven't moved since the Shaw. I think they could get the most moderate person there ever was, and they would still riot in the streets. Religion and government do not go hand in hand. They can't be ok with "most" of Sharia law and only want this and that. It is like they want to pick and choose what they want in their government, and they are never going to get a majority on anything.

For the record, The Shaw was a middle-aged white guy in a sweater vest who owned a bunch of golf courses that bankrupted Iran and led to the revolution.




Sorry, I know it was an old British spelling, but that one made me laugh for some reason.

 

[Kelly]

*Shah. Aren't you a teacher? You're mistaking the people for the regime. The regime has been the same since 1979, but as of 2009, the people of Iran have had a drastic movement against the Government. In 2010 it was calmed a little bit, and now with Ahmadinejad gone and the new President in power, the people have regained a bit of hope. If they put that hope in Rouhani, they'll go back to the way they were pre-2009. If they put it back in the resistance, we could potentially get somewhere. All they need is world endorsement (all that means is "people of Iran. We are with you" from all of the world leaders. Not military intervention) and the people will do the rest. If military action is taken against the regime, the people of Iran will give their lives to protect their land. As much as they hate the Regime, they have an even greater sense of pride for their land.

If the people of Iran blindly succumb to the will of Rouhani, it'll be the same scenario as the first time Ahmadinejad was elected (prior to his election he said that he'd let women remove their veils. That didn't happen. Corruption and cruelty only increased.)

I'm interested in seeing where this scenario leads.

OMG, I missed spelled a word?

YOU ARE NEVER EVER, EVER, EVER going to get a "WE ARE WITH YOU FROM ALL WORLD LEADERS" Seriously? Reality please...

 

[Asteroid-Man]

OMG, I missed spelled a word?

It was moreso about the entire post, including missing the difference between the people and the government in thinking that they've been in a stalemate since 1979. As a teacher I'd expect you to reach out beyond media reports of Iran (amongst other world issues) to better convey them to your students. Then again, I have no idea what year you teach, so world issues could potentially be irrelevant to your students (like if they're in kindergarten).

YOU ARE NEVER EVER, EVER, EVER going to get a "WE ARE WITH YOU FROM ALL WORLD LEADERS" Seriously? Reality please...

Obviously I didn't mean EVERY SINGLE ONE. Just the one's directly related to the situation. Like the USA, Israel, Russia, China, England and Canada. Obviously Russia and China are a long shot due to their alliance with the IRI, BUT if USA, Israel, England and Canada can show their support for the Iranian people, eventually the military will shift in the favour of the people as well, resulting in a coup and Russia and China's forceful alliance with the Resistance in order to keep diplomatic ties and trade relations.

It's like a reverse of the 1979 Revolution. A Coup d'état almost occured back in 2009, but there wasn't enough external support for the military to benefit from the decision. Russia and China were assisting (not directly obviously) in the Iranian military and it seemed more prudent to stick with an assured ally than a group of allies with an unknown opinion of a possible future regime.

 

[Kelly]

It was moreso about the entire post, including missing the difference between the people and the government in thinking that they've been in a stalemate since 1979. As a teacher I'd expect you to reach out beyond media reports of Iran (amongst other world issues) to better convey them to your students. Then again, I have no idea what year you teach, so world issues could potentially be irrelevant to your students (like if they're in kindergarten).

IMO, the people of Iran have fewer freedoms than they have in the past, therefore my statement that they have not come a long way is correct, maybe they have in education/desire/etc...but in reality they do not have the freedoms they want. It had nothing to do with their desires, I'm am only speaking of their situation and where they stand as far as freedoms. It has everything to do with the Theocracy that they live under.

Obviously I didn't mean EVERY SINGLE ONE. Just the one's directly related to the situation. Like the USA, Israel, Russia, China, England and Canada. Obviously Russia and China are a long shot due to their alliance with the IRI, BUT if USA, Israel, England and Canada can show their support for the Iranian people, eventually the military will shift in the favour of the people as well, resulting in a coup and Russia and China's forceful alliance with the Resistance in order to keep diplomatic ties and trade relations.

It's like a reverse of the 1979 Revolution. A Coup d'état almost occured back in 2009, but there wasn't enough external support for the military to benefit from the decision. Russia and China were assisting (not directly obviously) in the Iranian military and it seemed more prudent to stick with an assured ally than a group of allies with an unknown opinion of a possible future regime.

Well, then "obviously" you shouldn't use the word "all".

It is obvious that countries should, at the least, back them in lip service. But, reality and history tells me that that isn't even going to happen.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

IMO, the people of Iran have fewer freedoms than they have in the past, therefore my statement that they have not come a long way is correct, maybe they have in education/desire/etc...but in reality they do not have the freedoms they want. It had nothing to do with their desires, I'm am only speaking of their situation and where they stand as far as freedoms. It has everything to do with the Theocracy that they live under.

You're talking about something completely different, Kelly. I'm talking about the passion for change within the hearts of the people NOT THE REGIME. If you still don't get it after this post, I don't know what to say...

Well, then "obviously" you shouldn't use the word "all".

If someone says "it's a million degrees outside!" I hope you don't stop to say "It's only 97 degrees " because that would be highly pretentious. Identify the hyperbole, recognise the spirit behind the statement and move on.

It is obvious that countries should, at the least, back them in lip service. But, reality and history tells me that that isn't even going to happen.

Well clearly you don't know your Iranian history, because one of the largest factors behind the 1979 Revolution was the French, British and American backing of the return of Ayatollah Khomeini after the Shah refused to shed the blood of his own people upon rebellion and protests.


Don't take any of this to heart, Kelly. I'm trying to provide you with some context and your pride is preventing you from learning a lesson. Everyone has something to learn, even teachers. As Socrates said "all I know is that I know nothing."
Enter: Me, someone who has a very thorough knowledge of Iranian politics and history, attempted to shed some light on a discussion and provide some context and you're stomping your feet, arms crossed, chin held high.

I don't mean to offend you or attack you Kelly, but you really are taking a lot of this to heart and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

 

[Kelly]

You're talking about something completely different, Kelly. I'm talking about the passion for change within the hearts of the people NOT THE REGIME. If you still don't get it after this post, I don't know what to say...





If someone says "it's a million degrees outside!" I hope you don't stop to say "It's only 97 degrees " because that would be highly pretentious. Identify the hyperbole, recognise the spirit behind the statement and move on.


Well clearly you don't know your Iranian history, because one of the largest factors behind the 1979 Revolution was the French, British and American backing of the return of Ayatollah Khomeini after the Shah refused to shed the blood of his own people upon rebellion and protests.


Don't take any of this to heart, Kelly. I'm trying to provide you with some context and your pride is preventing you from learning a lesson. Everyone has something to learn, even teachers. As Socrates said "all I know is that I know nothing."
Enter: Me, someone who has a very thorough knowledge of Iranian politics and history, attempted to shed some light on a discussion and provide some context and you're stomping your feet, arms crossed, chin held high.

I don't mean to offend you or attack you Kelly, but you really are taking a lot of this to heart and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

Well, honestly, us saying what our knowledge of anything on here is pretty silly since we don't know each other from Adam...I give my opinion ( and it is just an opinion ) from what I read and study. If you don't agree with it, that is really ok. No offense taken, its a message board in real life its pretty menial.

 

[chamber-music]

Daily Mail Newspaper columnist Melanie Phillips was on the BBC's political debate programme Question Time with Boris Johnson (Mayor Of London), Russell Brand and so on. She went on some crazy ass rant about Iran which made the audience boo and heckle her.

[YT]w6FvB61ChB0[/YT]
cut to 2.59 to witness her wig out

 

[Kelly]

OK, so for the sake of talk, lets say Iran does come to the table with whomever it wants from the West. What do you think should be the first topic? What should be the first question put forth to them? What would be your first question?

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Beautifully stated, Kelly. Glad that you are a teacher.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

US finally admits they overthrew democratically elected Iranian prime minister in in 1953

Iranians elected Mossadeq in 1951 and he quickly moved to renationalise the country's oil production, which had been under British control through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company - which later became British Petroleum or BP. That was a source of serious concern to the US and the UK, which saw Iranian oil as key to its post-war economic rebuilding.

Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23762970

 

[SV Fan]

US finally admits they overthrew democratically elected Iranian prime minister in in 1953

Iranians elected Mossadeq in 1951 and he quickly moved to renationalise the country's oil production, which had been under British control through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company - which later became British Petroleum or BP. That was a source of serious concern to the US and the UK, which saw Iranian oil as key to its post-war economic rebuilding.

Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23762970

Maybe they should have kept Mossadeq in power. I guess though when Big Oil speaks, logic is thrown out of the window