Shah and his people were brutal propagandistic corrupt assholes as well. Then came Khomeiny and his promise of free everything "communist style" and poor Iranians fell for it. They really had no clue who this Khomeiny guy really was, but he was pro-god instead of pro-America and that was the change people were told is good for them. Talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire!
Posted by Magnetonium on Sep-15-2012 07:36:
quote:
Originally posted by LightsOut
Obviously not every protest/movement is going to be successful. You said that "protests and internal changes will be highly effective and achieve democracy with no problem. Not." Protesting and politcal change brought on by internal revolution can 100% work, and has in the past. Russia was prepared to, and did use force repeatedly, for decades, to keep the iron curtain in place. Maybe not in the velvet revolution specifically, but that's just an example of how perfectly these types of revolutions can work in the right circumstances. Not even a single shot fired. Regardless, if the options on the table are 1) military intervention from the west, or 2) an uprising from within, I'd take the uprising any day.
In 1991 during Gorbachev's perestroika, which was ushering immense changes in entire Warsaw Bloc of the kind that was unheard of and impossible even 10 years before. So the hardliners attempted to desperately seize power and depose Gorbachev, sending tanks into Moscow. But by then there was noone left to support the old guard. The soldiers and even the commanders simply refused to fire into the crowd.
Iran is not facing any type of perestroika, far from it. Peaceful protests will not achieve anything in places like Iran or Syria. Those countries have not yet reached the kind of conditions needed for that to happen. The only way any level of change can be achieved there is by force. On the other hand, Burma's dictators who have ruled their nation of Myanmar for six decades, have realized that the entire country wants change and its finally time. And most of the junta is willing to start the change.
Posted by Cyrus King on Sep-15-2012 15:35:
quote:
Originally posted by spolitta
Shah and his people were brutal propagandistic corrupt assholes as well. Then came Khomeiny and his promise of free everything "communist style" and poor Iranians fell for it. They really had no clue who this Khomeiny guy really was, but he was pro-god instead of pro-America and that was the change people were told is good for them. Talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire!
The shah was also a stupid man. He had a chance to assassinate Khomeini in France.. and he didnt. From there, that towel head sent tape recordings about mass uprising from his comfy parisian cottage, urging iranians to overthrow their king.
Like i said, the CANCER NEEDS TO BE EXCISED.
Posted by LightsOut on Sep-15-2012 15:47:
quote:
Originally posted by Magnetonium
Iran is not facing any type of perestroika, far from it. Peaceful protests will not achieve anything in places like Iran or Syria. Those countries have not yet reached the kind of conditions needed for that to happen. The only way any level of change can be achieved there is by force. On the other hand, Burma's dictators who have ruled their nation of Myanmar for six decades, have realized that the entire country wants change and its finally time. And most of the junta is willing to start the change.
I agree the landscape had changed by the late 80's and early 90's in Eastern Europe, which allowed the Iron Curtain to eventually fall. But for decades before that Moscow ruled with an iron fist and had no problem cracking down and doing anything possible to keep order. It's not so far removed from what Mubarak did in Egypt. The Middle east is ready for change right now, just like Europe was towards the end of the USSR. Which way they'll go (pro-western democracy or isolationist islamic state), I don't know.
If you don't want the change to come from within, then what would you propose? Let's just have the US/Canada/UK/Germany bomb the shit out of multiple countries, and embark on another 10 years military campaign costing trillions, all so a pupper government can finally be put in place for a few years? The Iron Curtain fell without western military powers getting involved with boots on the ground, surely the same can happen in the middle east if the people there really want it.
Posted by Magnetonium on Sep-15-2012 16:33:
quote:
Originally posted by LightsOut
I agree the landscape had changed by the late 80's and early 90's in Eastern Europe, which allowed the Iron Curtain to eventually fall. But for decades before that Moscow ruled with an iron fist and had no problem cracking down and doing anything possible to keep order. It's not so far removed from what Mubarak did in Egypt. The Middle east is ready for change right now, just like Europe was towards the end of the USSR. Which way they'll go (pro-western democracy or isolationist islamic state), I don't know.
If you don't want the change to come from within, then what would you propose? Let's just have the US/Canada/UK/Germany bomb the shit out of multiple countries, and embark on another 10 years military campaign costing trillions, all so a pupper government can finally be put in place for a few years? The Iron Curtain fell without western military powers getting involved with boots on the ground, surely the same can happen in the middle east if the people there really want it.
Change should come from within, thats the best way for a country to move forward. From historical standpoint. Foreign intervention [or invasion] like in Iraq, Syria and Libya has left their people and nations scarred and unstable. Intervention in places like Somalia has only fueled more support for Al-Shabab related militants. On the other hand, intervention in places like the former Yugoslavia may have prevented further bloodshed.
At the same time, there's a general tendency for popular peaceful revolutions in multi-ethnic multi-religious nations to topple dictactors and then descend into civil wars or collapse into separate nations.
It's complicated. But the point that I am restating is that Iran is far from being ready for a regime change. Bombing the country or arming the opposition will have a drastic negative effect not only on the future of Iran, but inflame the tensions in the entire region. Just look at Syria. The violence there is affecting the ethnic tensions and violence in Lebanon. Armed and confident Syrian Kurds in de-facto free north-east of the country are stepping up their campaigns against Turkey and drawing Turkish threats for military attacks against Syrian territory. Syria shot down Turkish plane. There was an exchange of fire between Jordanian and Syrian troops near a border post. And so on. Violence rarely solves anything; also, it merely displaces by force the political balances and ethnic/religious groups and doesn't solve the underlying issues.
Posted by spolitta on Sep-15-2012 21:08:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
The shah was also a stupid man. He had a chance to assassinate Khomeini in France.. and he didnt. From there, that towel head sent tape recordings about mass uprising from his comfy parisian cottage, urging iranians to overthrow their king.
Like i said, the CANCER NEEDS TO BE EXCISED.
so according to you the world problems are solved by murdering people you don't like!
At least your ideology is very consistent with that mass murderer clown you have as your avatar.
Posted by Xavier Moriarty on Sep-15-2012 22:57:
quote:
Originally posted by Magnetonium
On the other hand, intervention in places like the former Yugoslavia may have prevented further bloodshed.
what intervention?????? what you saw/heard on bbc???
i'll leave now but i gotta say "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20
jus ad bellum !!!! one day...... one day there will be reckoning, and on that day i will be the first one in line to collect on those who "intervened" on our children. on those who "liberated" our young and old, those who left us presents to this fucking day:
you mother******s you. hide yourself behind your fancy words and your insta-knowledge, your democracy and your civil rights. what about Milica's rights ????
forgive but never, ever forget !!!!
Posted by jester on Sep-16-2012 14:23:
quote:
Battleships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.
...
In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise.
"Today our country is moving towards drought, which is partly unintentional due to industry and partly intentional, as a result of the enemy destroying the clouds moving towards our country and this is a war that Iran is going to overcome," Mr Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the Caspian Sea city of Gonbad-e Kavus to mark its registration as a Unesco World Heritage site.
OT: Someone predicting that there will be a stock market crash tomorrow. Not sure if the markets predicted what will happen or the markets have to do down because of what the FED said last week. Lets see if this person predictions will be right. Time for me to lose more money Posted by LightsOut on Sep-16-2012 14:31:
25 nations?! I hear all the time how Israel has this incredible, advanced military, but then see Netanyahu off campaigning for support and even more help. Can't they handle their business themselves? It's so reckless.
Posted by jester on Sep-16-2012 14:52:
quote:
Originally posted by LightsOut
25 nations?! I hear all the time how Israel has this incredible, advanced military, but then see Netanyahu off campaigning for support and even more help. Can't they handle their business themselves? It's so reckless.
They are quite advanced, but it is better to have more people involved to stop certain unforeseen threats or obstacles pop up.
From last I heard the "Iron Dome" is operational but they are still having issues, it has like a 78% effective rate of stopping rockets.
Plus Israel is 1 of 22 places on the planet that have launch sites for rockets to go into space (most of them are in the US). So who knows what they have really sent into space as "Star Wars" devices.
One of two things can be possible, they willingly lost the last war a few years back to see how their enemies actually function and to see what Iran sent into Lebanon. So with that they can prep and make new devices/equipment that could counter what Iran might be using or they lost because they were ill prepared.
Posted by hardcore trancer on Sep-16-2012 14:56:
This guy makes some valid points on this video. Iranian Canadians for the most part are fully against any wars against Iran and Harper thought we would down on our knees kissing his feet?
Posted by LightsOut on Sep-16-2012 15:10:
When I start seeing Netanyahu out campaigning and getting all these other countries on board, it just makes me nervous. Iran is an Israeli problem. Iran isn't a threat to the UK, Canada, Germany, United States.
Even if they have Nuclear Weapons, I highly doubt 1) they have the technology for a warhead to reach anywhere remotely close to the "west", and 2) that they'd even want to go down that road, because if they ever did launch an actual attack against the US/UK/Ger/Can, it would be game over for them.
If Israel has such a massive problem, they should take care of it themselves. If they aren't capable of defending themselves or launching a preemptive attack when they feel threatened, they probably shouldn't be poking at the bees hive, so to say. I don't think anyone in Canada/Germany/US/UK actually thinks Iran is capable of launching an attack here or even wants to go to war with the west. Israel knows that in the US especially, & even the UK, their is a specific voting demographic that is sympathetic to the Israeli cause, and Netanyahu plays this up. It just feels like WW1 all over again, countries getting involved not because they actually feel threatened or have been attacked, but because a distant friend has a grudge and they're looking for votes at home.
Posted by Yohan on Sep-16-2012 16:23:
quote:
Originally posted by LightsOut
If Israel has such a massive problem, they should take care of it themselves. If they aren't capable of defending themselves or launching a preemptive attack when they feel threatened, they probably shouldn't be poking at the bees hive, so to say. I don't think anyone in Canada/Germany/US/UK actually thinks Iran is capable of launching an attack here or even wants to go to war with the west. Israel knows that in the US especially, & even the UK, their is a specific voting demographic that is sympathetic to the Israeli cause, and Netanyahu plays this up. It just feels like WW1 all over again, countries getting involved not because they actually feel threatened or have been attacked, but because a distant friend has a grudge and they're looking for votes at home.
Israel has no problems taking unilateral action. Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1982. I honestly think if Israel could get nobody else involved (and this includes US) in their grudge against Iran, they'd have blew up Iran's nuclear reactors long time ago.
Someone explained Israel's thinking to me once. They think the world is full of enemies, and a few neutrals and Israel stands alone. (And neutral's are to be used for Israel's benefit)
Posted by LightsOut on Sep-16-2012 16:42:
quote:
Originally posted by Yohan
Someone explained Israel's thinking to me once. They think the world is full of enemies, and a few neutrals and Israel stands alone. (And neutral's are to be used for Israel's benefit)
This is pretty much how I think they see it as well.
Posted by hardcore trancer on Sep-16-2012 18:18:
Israel has got to be put on a leash before it does something as stupid as attacking Iran.
Posted by Cyrus King on Sep-16-2012 20:30:
quote:
Originally posted by spolitta
so according to you the world problems are solved by murdering people you don't like!
At least your ideology is very consistent with that mass murderer clown you have as your avatar.
Murder ...mass murderers.
Che Guevara was a mass murderer? Haha wow.. You don't know your fucking history. If you think that overthrowing a corrupt mafia like government that was impoversihing their people is considered "mass murder" youre a fucking retard.
Yeah.. According to you.. Osama, Stalin, Sharon, Khomeini , hitler , pol pot... They're just great!!!!
Do you think if they kept staying in power they would eventually give ice cream to Their victims and walk around in piazza's?
You need a reality check
Posted by Magnetonium on Sep-17-2012 01:18:
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
what intervention?????? what you saw/heard on bbc???
I am on the same page when it comes to Kosovo - its a failed state, and NATO created it as a punishment against the Serbs. I was rather referring to Bosnia, where the conflict was the longest and the bloodiest. If it wasn't for the foreign [NATO] intervention, the bloodshed would have lasted for more years. Yes I know that NATO was working against the Serbs. Anyways, it should be discussed on another thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
you mother******s you. hide yourself behind your fancy words and your insta-knowledge, your democracy and your civil rights. what about Milica's rights ????
That language was totally uncalled for. You took what I said out of context, and assumed that I condoned the violence by Croats or Bosniaks or Albanians. I do not condone violence like that.
I am not blinded by nationalism, unlike most people in Balkans. Everyone over there claims that they are right and the other guys are very very evil, and Serbs are the most nationalistic of them all, even though they are my Slavic brothers. You don't think that Serbs were innocent of crimes in Bosnia? Its that nationalism that led to their own undoing! How stupid were they to try to carve out a nation within Croatia?
Anyways, with regards to the main topic. Biggest factor of them all is the political double standards that are being used by American-led bloc. While they are concerned with Iranian nuclear program, there's no word on the Israeli nuclear threat. A lot of political decisions are twisted and turned to serve American or Israeli interests. I don't buy America's concern for human rights in Iran considering that we have Saudi Arabia, an ally, as a huge double standard. Imperialism is the name of the game, as well as a proxy war between regional powers. At the same time, I cannot ignore the fact that Iranian leadership is oppressing their people for no good reason. Protestors and liberals there want better life, freedom and rights - they do not like Zionism either nor do they want to live in conditions equivalent to prison.
Posted by jester on Sep-17-2012 19:01:
Posted by Nima on Sep-17-2012 21:29:
Much respect to the ex Mossad chief , he's my new idol
He tells it as it is !!
Originally posted by Nima
Much respect to the ex Mossad chief , he's my new idol
He tells it as it is !!
Mossad is without a doubt the most successful and sophisticated intelligence agency in the world. After watching the interview, its more evident that ever just how professional their people are.
Its interesting to hear that he thinks that Iran's leadership is made up of many rational people. I wonder if that's a signal or if he's actually serious. And that its not just 4 Iranian sites that are involved in nuclear technology, but dozens Posted by hardcore trancer on Sep-18-2012 19:44:
Cruisers, aircraft carriers and minesweepers from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war
It is as if they are really really trying to provoke Iran to fire the first shot before they start going at it.
Posted by Yohan on Sep-18-2012 20:13:
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Meanwhile happening in the Persian Gulf:
It is as if they are really really trying to provoke Iran to fire the first shot before they start going at it.
I think Western nations prefer not allow Iran to control Persian Gulf and control the oil flow.
Posted by hardcore trancer on Sep-18-2012 20:37:
quote:
Originally posted by Yohan
I think Western nations prefer not allow Iran to control Persian Gulf and control the oil flow.
Great! Another war about oil. Posted by Yohan on Sep-18-2012 20:41:
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Great! Another war about oil.
well, keeping the existing oil flowing. But there wont be a shooting match. Unless iran is feeling suicidal. Iran vs israel is another story
Pages (7): «1234 [5] 67»
