The Iran Thread

[Hobgoblin]

Who would be the replacement? How about the guy that was just elected? Who the Israeli's want is not important in an Iranian election.

You are so concerned about the safety of our allies but the Israelis dont consider the opposition any better than Ahmadinijad. Why get involved when neither option is appealing? I would want to see another election, because there will be serious questions if we install Mousavi.

 

[Anita18]

Who would be the replacement? How about the guy that was just elected? Who the Israeli's want is not important in an Iranian election.

How do we know he was actually elected? The protests would make you believe that Mousavi was elected, but the entire election on June 12 was likely rigged.

We'd have to hold another election, like Demo said. And what's the legitimacy of an election overseen by a foreign force?

I don't think the Iranians care all that much that Mousavi wasn't elected, it's just that the ballot count was such a blatant lie. It's a spit in the face to the voters. If Mousavi had lost by a small percentage, and if the results had come out in days rather than hours, I'm sure this wouldn't be happening.

 

[StorminNorman]

You are so concerned about the safety of our allies but the Israelis dont consider the opposition any better than Ahmadinijad. Why get involved when neither option is appealing? I would want to see another election, because there will be serious questions if we install Mousavi.

Because I believe in freedom.

I am concerned about the safety of our allies, but I also understand that the failures of this country in Iran, and other states around the world that we have intervened in, is the short sided belief that what's best for American interests (or allied interests) is more important in a leader than what's best for the country.

You cannot go into Iran and force a Pro-Israeli leader on the country. What you can do is protect and honor democracy and allow the voice of the Iranian people to be heard. That helps build a political system that is in the best interest of America and her allies - it's well documented that two democratic nations rarely wage war against each other.

So you get involved and protect democracy, not because we necessary like the leader it gives us today, but because of the benefits the SYSTEM brings us tomorrow.

Also, by aiding Mousavi in gaining his seat we would create an ally in him. It is hard for a leader who owes his success to America and the Iranian people to be dismissive of those same forces. If for no other reason than the fear they can do the same to him.

 

[StorminNorman]

How do we know he was actually elected? The protests would make you believe that Mousavi was elected, but the entire election on June 12 was likely rigged.

We'd have to hold another election, like Demo said. And what's the legitimacy of an election overseen by a foreign force?

I don't think the Iranians care all that much that Mousavi wasn't elected, it's just that the ballot count was such a blatant lie. It's a spit in the face to the voters. If Mousavi had lost by a small percentage, and if the results had come out in days rather than hours, I'm sure this wouldn't be happening.

You don't rig an election if you don't need to. You call into question the legitimacy of the entire government based purely on the slight chance the opposition may win. The actions of the Iranian government in regards to this election are most telling.

I do not support American intervention with the goal of forcing another election on the people.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Believing in freedom is all well and good, but right now, we cant afford to take on any more than we already have going on. Iraq is still hot and Afghanistan is a mess and North Korea is up to...something. We have a very full plate right now and we dont know if getting involved in the Iranian election would even do any good. While Iranians dont like the fact that the election was rigged, it doesnt mean they want us of all people meddling in their affairs.

 

[StorminNorman]

Believing in freedom is all well and good, but right now, we cant afford to take on any more than we already have going on. Iraq is still hot and Afghanistan is a mess and North Korea is up to...something. We have a very full plate right now and we dont know if getting involved in the Iranian election would even do any good. While Iranians dont like the fact that the election was rigged, it doesnt mean they want us of all people meddling in their affairs.

It's not just a belief in freedom for the sake of idealism - it's the belief that freedom must be protected to secure American interests.

Yes, I understand than Iraq is hot and Afghanistan is a mess - but I believe Iran is of greater importance right now. I think the opportunity we have right now is rare and special. We have the chance to aid a political revolution, that doesn't happen very often.

I think this is a cause you could get other nations in as well - France, for example, has come out very strong against Iran's governments actions. I believe Spain may join such a cause. This is something we should be able to sell to Europeans - European liberal sensibilities are just as outraged at videos of dead Iranian men and women as much as I am. America must take the lead, however, because that's what we do. It's the role we have played in the world since World War II.

I think it's foolish to believe that the Iranian people care more about an American CIA venture in the 50's than they do about their own safety and security.

 

[Paradyme]

They will only seem justified to those already inclined to believe that anyway.

I don't place questions of the protests legitimacy of already skeptic people above the security and safety of those protesters.



Having the vocal support of the American people does little good when you are facing bullets, clubs, gas and armed tyranny.



Your right, we do so much more good by allowing innocent protesters to be killed in the streets by an evil dictatorship who wants to destroy us and our allies.

I've heard Iranians say they just need our government to acknowledge we are behind them on this. I wish we would've said something sooner to acknowledge their plight. On the other hand I've also heard people upset that we weren't saying anything or doing anything when we as a country are the leaders of democracy (or at least we are supposed to be).

As much as I would like to believe that it would be easy to just send some troops there I know it isn't true.

My question to you, because we can sit here and complain all we want that we need to back up the Iranian people, I know we do, how do we do that?

Or how do you think the President should handle it?

 

[BlackLantern]

Norman wants to go in there guns a blazin and not stop until the supreme leadership and their puppet President are smoking corpses

 

[StorminNorman]

I've heard Iranians say they just need our government to acknowledge we are behind them on this. While I think we could've done it sooner, I think they know that. On the other hand I've also heard people upset that we weren't saying anything or doing anything when we as a country are the leaders of democracy.

As much as I would like to believe that it would be easy to just send some troops there I know it isn't true.

My question to you, because we can sit here and complain all we want that we need to back up the Iranian people, I know we do, how do we do that?

Or how do you think the President should handle it?

The first thing I would do is recognize Mousavi as the President of Iran. I would refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Ahmedinijad's government and strongly encourage all allies to do the same.

I would remind European leaders of the importance of Democracy in Iran, the benefits of a truly democratic Iran and ask for military help in protecting Mousavi and his supporters.

I would devise a way to ensure the protection of Mousavi, try to secure communication between him and other world leaders. I would consult with him and his advisers on how to coordinate Iranian protesters with Coalition security forces.

With the presence of better trained, better equipped soldiers on the ground in arms with protesters, I believe you will see a rise in the reluctance of military and police to act. It's much easier to beat and kill protesters when you are the bad boy on the block - not so much when you are facing a better unit.

As the Supreme Leader has supported tyranny at the sake of Iranian freedom, he would have to be removed as well. I would offer peaceful exile to the current Iranian government, when they refuse I would capture them and leave them to the Iranian people.

 

[kane9321]

Norman wants to go in there guns a blazin and not stop until the supreme leadership and their puppet President are smoking corpses

pretty much

Maybe in "Normanland" that might work But in the real world..IT WOULDNT

 

[StorminNorman]

pretty much

Maybe in "Normanland that might work" But in the real world..IT WOULDNT

Please. I am rather confident that my perception of reality is every bit, if not more, valid as your own.

 

[Marx]

Let's keep to the topic guys. There's no need for the personal stuff.

 

[BlackLantern]

I think what is incensing the supreme leadership there is that all the info is getting out of the country and to the world, regardless of their best efforts

 

[Paradyme]

The first thing I would do is recognize Mousavi as the President of Iran. I would refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Ahmedinijad's government and strongly encourage all allies to do the same.

I would remind European leaders of the importance of Democracy in Iran, the benefits of a truly democratic Iran and ask for military help in protecting Mousavi and his supporters.

I would devise a way to ensure the protection of Mousavi, try to secure communication between him and other world leaders. I would consult with him and his advisers on how to coordinate Iranian protesters with Coalition security forces.

With the presence of better trained, better equipped soldiers on the ground in arms with protesters, I believe you will see a rise in the reluctance of military and police to act. It's much easier to beat and kill protesters when you are the bad boy on the block - not so much when you are facing a better unit.

As the Supreme Leader has supported tyranny at the sake of Iranian freedom, he would have to be removed as well. I would offer peaceful exile to the current Iranian government, when they refuse I would capture them and leave them to the Iranian people.

Thanks for the response.

As much as I would like to see this happen I just don't think it would be that easy. While I don't believe we should necessarily sit idly by I also don't think we could convince the U.N. or Coalition Forces to invade another country. A lot of our allies are reluctant to help us again because of the backlash that came from Iraq. That or we do go in again and end up being left with the burden of it all which is a theme I'm not to fond of already.

We need to promote freedom and democracy as much as we can. We are, after all, the pioneering country.

I'm a bit on the fence, I feel if we had the forces available I might be more acceptable to the whole invasion scenario but currently I think with North Korea also being a problem we have a lot to deal with.

 

[StorminNorman]

Thanks for the response.

As much as I would like to see this happen I just don't think it would be that easy. While I don't believe we should necessarily sit idly by I also don't think we could convince the U.N. or Coalition Forces to invade another country. A lot of our allies are reluctant to help us again because of the backlash that came from Iraq. That or we do go in again and end up being left with the burden of it all which is a theme I'm not to fond of already.

It's not an invasion. It comes down to this question: who owns the state? Do the people have the right to the state, or the government. If we believe its the people, then we are not invading. We are defending.

We need to promote freedom and democracy as much as we can. We are, after all, the pioneering country.

I'm a bit on the fence, I feel if we had the forces available I might be more acceptable to the whole invasion scenario but currently I think with North Korea also being a problem we have a lot to deal with.

North Korea is small beans compared to Iran.

 

[Paradyme]

It's not an invasion. It comes down to this question: who owns the state? Do the people have the right to the state, or the government. If we believe its the people, then we are not invading. We are defending.

If you send in US forces how is it not an invasion? I've heard Iranian people say they just want us to acknowledge they are right but don't want us to 'take this from them' because then it'll be about the U.S. and not them.

North Korea is small beans compared to Iran.

One has a nuke already the other is almost there. One has threatened Israel, the other has threatened the US. So, I think thats debatable.

 

[StorminNorman]

If you send in US forces how is it not an invasion? I've heard Iranian people say they just want us to acknowledge they are right but don't want us to 'take this from them' because then it'll be about the U.S. and not them.

An invasion is an offensive move, I don't consider this an offensive move - it's defensive.

One has a nuke already the other is almost there. One has threatened Israel, the other has threatened the US. So, I think thats debatable.

Iran has threatened the US, as well as Israel.

North Korea has few allies, and the respect of no country. That's what limits their threat.

 

[BlackLantern]

An invasion is an offensive move, I don't consider this an offensive move - it's defensive.

exactly...YOU consider it defensive....the minute any piece of US military equipment or personnel sets foot on Iranian ground, the world will cry INVASION!!!

 

[StorminNorman]

Not if done properly. War is not simply what happens on the battlegrounds, its rhetoric from governments.

The selling of battle is almost as important as the battle itself. This is where Bush saw his greatest failure - he was a terrible salesman.

 

[BlackLantern]

I agree and I'm all for rolling up a newspaper and smacking the occasional tyrant on the nose, but I just think we and EVERYONE ELSE needs to stay far, far away from this....I have an odd feeling the Supereme leadership might do something really stupid and shoot themselves in the foot

 

[Paradyme]

An invasion is an offensive move, I don't consider this an offensive move - it's defensive.

Unfortunately, no matter how we look at it everyone else might disagree. Unless we can get enough of our allies behind us.

Iran has threatened the US, as well as Israel.

North Korea has few allies, and the respect of no country. That's what limits their threat.

Has Iran directly said they would "annihilate the U.S." or a "fire shower of nuclear" attack?

We know that North Korea has a nuke.

I'm trying to think like Obama and how he would handle the situation personally if I were him I'd shadow war this and help fund the people and help them get their messages across.

If it were me as President I would probably do what you are saying Norman. Or something incredibly similar.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

No, no, no. Going into Iran is the worst thing Western Nations can do right now. We'll go in there with our own agendas, our own interests and help them set up a form of Government that is similar to ours.

Freedom is not something that can be given, freedom is something that has to be taken by the people. If you give people freedom they won't respect it, they won't appreciate it and they won't know how to keep it. Not to mention our form of democracy might now work for them. They have to develop their own system.

If they go in now they'll just create a new Afgahanistan

 

[Red Mask]

Ahmadinejad knows he can't hurt the U.S. But he's demonstrated Iran can and will hurt its own citizens.

 

[StorminNorman]

No, no, no. Going into Iran is the worst thing Western Nations can do right now. We'll go in there with our own agendas, our own interests and help them set up a form of Government that is similar to ours.

This would then be completely against what I am suggesting. There is an option involving intervention WITHOUT simply our own interests in view.

Freedom is not something that can be given, freedom is something that has to be taken by the people. If you give people freedom they won't respect it, they won't appreciate it and they won't know how to keep it. Not to mention our form of democracy might now work for them. They have to develop their own system.

I don't understand how you could say that the people have not tried to take their freedom. The world is much different now than it was in the 1770's - the average citizen is not armed similarly to the military. Even America, armed with similar weaponry as the British, needed the help of the French, a major military power, to achieve their liberty.

How easy we forget.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I don't understand how you could say that the people have not tried to take their freedom. The world is much different now than it was in the 1770's - the average citizen is not armed similarly to the military. Even America, armed with similar weaponry as the British, needed the help of the French, a major military power, to achieve their liberty.

How easy we forget.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The American Revolution had been going on for years before Franklin finally convinced the French to join us. We were getting desperate as a country. Thats very different from the Iran situation. There is no war going on there and while the Iranian people are very angry, they arent as desperate as they would be after years of stalemated fighting. Its all psychology.