Israeli Air Force Gears up to Strike Iran.

[Nima]

A fair and relevant question. As one pro-Khomeini demonstrator explained to me in the early months of the '79 revolution, with the withdrawal of Britain from the Gulf, the paralyzing post-Vietnam angst of the United States, and the absence of the Soviet Union they saw an opening for their own imperial ambitions.

You may see them as fanatical Shia Islamists, but I saw your masters as calculating manipulators, men who took political science courses at Western universities to learn about dictatorships and totalitarianism. Not so they could avoid that fate, but so they could build a better one of their own.

Thus informed by their boasting, the Iran-Iraq war was no surprise to me. If the Iranians didn't turn their attentions on Pakistan instead, that's probably because (1) Saddam started the war first; (2) Pakistan is a much bigger and stronger state than Iraq was, and (3) their principal goal was Mecca, where pro-Iranian revolutionaries tried (but failed) to seize the Grand Mosque in late 1979. Basically, the Iranian mullahs wanted then (as the leadership does now) to dictate their form of Islam to everyone, and conquest of Arabia was the way to do it. With no U.S. troops in Arabia at the time, if the Iraqi Army fell the way would have been wide open.

Oppression, opportunity, freedom, and the destructiveness of war matter more. Your point?

Nationalism - people having a country to call their own - is not the enemy of peace. The desire to expand to rule others - imperialism - is. Empires must always either expand or contract. That means war. Thousands of years of history back this up.

Possibly. So why don't they seek to join Iran now? Personally I thought the Azeris would be the first to desire this when the USSR collapsed, but I don't see even a hint of that happening.

Yes, economics is not your masters' best subject.

Tell that to the Lebanese who suffer under Hezbollah's collar, or the Gazans who feel Hamas' lash.

There is something else I've noted - and I'm sure others have to. Did you ever ask yourself where the '79 revolution went wrong? I argued with the pro-Khomeini demonstrators that they were a minority, the opposition to the Shah was broad-based, and the Iranian people would stop them. They laughed. They were, of course, correct. They knew, as I did not, that the Iranian people lacked the sort of steel to resist their thuggery; all think they are entitled to an easy, risk-free life.

That's why even Iranians who despise the mullahs' regime don't want invasion or bombing to remove it, isn't it? Yet matters are reaching the point where such action may occur - and because the mullahs tend to locate key facilities near civilian targets, that will mean a lot of civilians will be killed. Very uncomfortable, indeed.

So what do you think your moral duty is in all this, Nima?

Is it? man thats horrible

lol I was testing out my keyboard and accidentally clicked on submit lol

 

[TheWarriorIndian]

lol I was testing out my keyboard and accidentally clicked on submit lol

hahahah, Its ok

 

[Nima]

@ solomon

"You may see them as fanatical Shia Islamists, but I saw your masters as calculating manipulators, men who took political science courses at Western universities to learn about dictatorships and totalitarianism. Not so they could avoid that fate, but so they could build a better one of their own."

well they either suck at it or they don't want to do it.
having proxies doesn't count.

"Oppression, opportunity, freedom, and the destructiveness of war matter more. Your point?"

I meant that countries like England, who are smaller than many IRanian provinces, are richer and therefore have more say in this world. Iran can keep doing what it is doing but put its main focus on the economy. Capturing other countries will do nothing for Iran but make us even poorer.


"Possibly. So why don't they seek to join Iran now? Personally I thought the Azeris would be the first to desire this when the USSR collapsed, but I don't see even a hint of that happening."

Under the rule of the soviet union, all these republics were forced to adopt a brand spanking new alphabet. Their language was manipulated. Generation after generation were thought a brand new version of history. Religion was looked down upon in Soviet Russia etc... After a century of soviet rule they were a new country.
After the collapse, IRan had a great opportunity to get close to these countries again but it did nothing while Saudi Arabia was funding mosques in Turkeministan and Uzbekistan from the other end of the ME!!!!
Today the republic of Azarbaijan sees itself as a Turkish country and they see themselves closer to Turkey. Some republics like Tajikistan however have kept their Persian language and culture under the soviet occupation and will undoubtedly one day join IRan again.
NOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
Why they don't want to join Iran in the short term????
Very easy. Which country wants to join a country that is under a theocratic dictatorship, is under 3 UN sanctions, cares more about Islam then Iran etc... The time is not right but I'm sure one day Iran and other Persian speaking nations will unite under one flag.

"There is something else I've noted - and I'm sure others have to. Did you ever ask yourself where the '79 revolution went wrong? I argued with the pro-Khomeini demonstrators that they were a minority, the opposition to the Shah was broad-based, and the Iranian people would stop them. They laughed. They were, of course, correct. They knew, as I did not, that the Iranian people lacked the sort of steel to resist their thuggery; all think they are entitled to an easy, risk-free life. "

My father was a leftist and as you know they were the main reason why the rev happened.
As a "child of the revolution" I always compare the new generation to the past generation. In the past people were much more idealistic but the society as a whole was uneducated and backward. Today 9 out of 10 people under 35 are educated compared to less than 50 percent during shah's time. I hate this regime and I'm not muslim but I rather see reforms then a revolution.

"
That's why even Iranians who despise the mullahs' regime don't want invasion or bombing to remove it, isn't it? Yet matters are reaching the point where such action may occur - and because the mullahs tend to locate key facilities near civilian targets, that will mean a lot of civilians will be killed. Very uncomfortable, indeed.

So what do you think your moral duty is in all this, Nima?"

I visited the natanz enrichment facility 3 years ago and it was in the middle of a desert near the highway! If that is close to a populated center then I don't know what to say. But of coarse if anybody wants to attack they will target military forts, training sites etc... which have to be built in cities.

"So what do you think your moral duty is in all this, Nima?"

I'm a nationalist.
I care about nothing but the independence of Iran and this means I will fight to protect the theocratic dictatorship against foreign powers. At the same time I am 100 % pro reform, but everything has to happen from inside.

 

[Solomon2]

I'm a nationalist.
I care about nothing but the independence of Iran and this means I will fight to protect the theocratic dictatorship against foreign powers. At the same time I am 100 % pro reform, but everything has to happen from inside.

You may wish to ponder these words:

Surely, Bonaparte is a thousand times more guilty than those barbarous conquerors who, ruling over barbarians, were by no means at odds with their age. Unlike them, he has chosen barbarism; he has preferred it. In the midst of enlightenment, he has sought to bring back the night. He has chosen to transform into greedy and bloodthirsty nomads a mild and polite people: his crime lies in this premeditated intention, in his obstinate effort to rob us of the heritage of all the enlightened generations who have preceded us on this earth. But why have we given him the right to conceive such project?...When he listened to what was professed in our circles, why did serious thinkers tell him that man had no other motivation than his own interest? If he discovered easily enough that all the subtle interpretations through which, once the principle had been stated, we sought to elude its implications, were illusory, it was because his instinct was sound and his judgment quick...If in the heart of man there is nothing but interest, tyranny has only to frighten or to seduce him in order to dominate him. If in the heart of man there is nothing but self-interest, it is not true that morality—that is, elevation, nobility, resistance to injustice—is in accord with real self-interest. Properly understood, self-interest, in this case, given the certainty of death, is nothing but enjoyment, combined, since life can be more or less long, with that prudence which grants to enjoyment a certain duration. Finally, when in a France torn apart, tired of suffering and lamenting, and demanding only a ruler, he offered to become that ruler, why did the multitude hasten to solicit from him enslavement? When the crowd is pleased to show its love for servitude, it would be too much for it to expect its master to insist on giving it liberty instead...

Because immediate usurpation was easy, he believed it could be durable, and once he became a usurper, he did all that usurpation condemns a usurper to do in our century. It was necessary to stifle inside the country all intellectual life: he banished discussion and proscribed the freedom of the press. The nation might have been stunned by that silence: he provided, extorted, or paid for acclamation which sounded like the national voice.

Had France remained at peace, her peaceful citizens, her idle warriors would have observed the despot, would have judged him, and would have communicated their judgments to him. Truth would have passed through the ranks of the people. Usurpation would not have long withstood the influence of truth. Thus Bonaparte was compelled to distract public attention by bellicose enterprises. War flung onto distant shores that part of the French nation that still had some real energy. It prompted the police harassment of the timid, whom it could not force abroad. It struck terror into men's hearts, and left there a certain hope that chance would take responsibility for their deliverance: a hope agreeable to fear and convenient to inertia. How many times have I heard men who were pressed to resist tyranny postponing this, during wartime till the coming of peace, and in peacetime until war commences!

Similarly, the IRI has successfully stifled reform for decades. Matters turned worse with last year's stolen election. I see no hope (save a blind faith in "chance") that reform can come within, and all the regime has left is the threat of external conflict. Too much peace, no matter what the rhetoric, and support for them will fade.

Real war, then, becomes their only option. Do you think, then, that Iran would benefit more by letting the mullahs choose the hour, or if someone else strikes first to disarm or remove the regime?

 

[Cyrus the Great]

You may wish to ponder these words:
Similarly, the IRI has successfully stifled reform for decades. Matters turned worse with last year's stolen election. I see no hope (save a blind faith in "chance") that reform can come within, and all the regime has left is the threat of external conflict. Too much peace, no matter what the rhetoric, and support for them will fade.

Real war, then, becomes their only option. Do you think, then, that Iran would benefit more by letting the mullahs choose the hour, or if someone else strikes first to disarm or remove the regime?

do not forget you are talking about Iran.nobody can change Islamic republic with strike.
changing ruling system is only Iranian option.
US got bad lesson from easy targets such as :Iraq and Panama and Afghanistan,... just last week Iran's F-27 flew over US aircraft carrier and took photo from the board, like Iran's UAV did 2 years ago for 15 minutes.be aware d that Iranian are son of Cyrus the Great:

 

[Solomon2]

do not forget you are talking about Iran.nobody can change Islamic republic with strike.
changing ruling system is only Iranian option.
US got bad lesson from easy targets such as :Iraq and Panama and Afghanistan,... just last week Iran's F-27 flew over US aircraft carrier...

OK, I got it Cyrus:

1) You no longer dispute that the IRI is a threat to Pakistan and the region.

2) You assert that change must be from internal forces (nothing the mullahs can't deal with since they are willing to employ violence and depravity against their populace).

3) You threaten anybody who contemplates regime change from without with destruction of their armed forces.

Would a shill for Ahmedinijad write anything different? Isn't that the line he peddles abroad?

#1 grabs our attention, #2 is a misleading hope, and as for #3 - the U.S., Pakistan, and Israel have all been bloodied in battle. The troops will do their duty, for nobody wants more bombs killing civilians at home, and many of us have gotten tired with living under the shadow of terror.

 

[Nima]

You may wish to ponder these words:
Similarly, the IRI has successfully stifled reform for decades. Matters turned worse with last year's stolen election. I see no hope (save a blind faith in "chance") that reform can come within, and all the regime has left is the threat of external conflict. Too much peace, no matter what the rhetoric, and support for them will fade.

Real war, then, becomes their only option. Do you think, then, that Iran would benefit more by letting the mullahs choose the hour, or if someone else strikes first to disarm or remove the regime?

IRI wanted to turn the new aeration of Iranians into muslim nationalists and to destroy Persian nationalism. By doing this it would have 30 million ready soldiers at its disposal. 30 mill soldiers that would never question its authority.
IT FAILED and it failed miserably. Many ppl from shah's time will tell you that young Iranians today are the least religious EVER.

You're trying to compare Iran and France when they're nothing alike.
1) IRan has been going through change and it will change. The mullahs had plans to make Iran into Saudi Arabia but thousands died in the 80's and 90's to stop this.

2) The Iranian regime has been becoming weaker and weaker each decade and public outcry has been growing and growing.

3) @ THE VERY LEAST Iran will change when the older generation dies off in the next couple of decades cuz as you know Iran is a land of paradox where two diff sets of ppl coexist.

4) The mullahs are actually not looking for a fight, but for an enemy!
Unlike Napoleon, the mullahs DO NOT HAVE THE POWER to wage war. They know full well that a war would mean the end of the Islamic Republic. We saw this in 03 when the Iranian regime sent a letter to Bush in which they wanted to give everything to the US for a grantee that the US wouldn't attack. They wanted to give up support for hamas+Hezbollah and the nuke program b/c they feared that they were next.

5) Finally you insulted hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians that have died fighting the Islamic Republic by putting up that comparison. Iranians have done a lot and will do everything in their power to change their country. But you have to realize that ppl DO NOT want a revolution and they want stability.

 

[Solomon2]

IRI wanted to turn the new aeration of Iranians into muslim nationalists and to destroy Persian nationalism. By doing this it would have 30 million ready soldiers at its disposal. 30 mill soldiers that would never question its authority.
IT FAILED and it failed miserably...the Iranian regime has been becoming weaker and weaker each decade and public outcry has been growing and growing.

They didn't need it to succeed, they only required citizens to be apathetic. Instead, they moved on to Plan B: develop nuclear weapons to terrorize the region.

Many ppl from shah's time will tell you that young Iranians today are the least religious EVER.

Really, you should learn more history of Islamic countries! They don't need the populace to be religious, just a small community of enforcers.

You're trying to compare Iran and France when they're nothing alike.

I quoted from Constant because I thought his words could apply to the general case of people afflicted by tyranny, not because I thought France and Iran were similar; that's your idea.

IRan has been going through change and it will change. The mullahs had plans to make Iran into Saudi Arabia but thousands died in the 80's and 90's to stop this.you insulted hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians that have died fighting the Islamic Republic -

I am not familiar with these matters. Will you condemn me or educate me?

@ THE VERY LEAST Iran will change when the older generation dies off in the next couple of decades -

I doubt that the world - or the mullahs - can wait that long.

The mullahs are actually not looking for a fight, but for an enemy!

The prefer to have Hamas and Hezbollah do the fighting, and the little people do the suffering.

the mullahs DO NOT HAVE THE POWER to wage war. They know full well that a war would mean the end of the Islamic Republic.

Why is that? It didn't mean that before. These guys stop at nothing to hold onto power. They send children into minefields. They employ child soldiers as crowd control. What was that line the thug called out in "Persepolis"? Something like, "I rape women like you for breakfast!"?

We saw this in 03 when the Iranian regime sent a letter to Bush in which they wanted to give everything to the US for a grantee that the US wouldn't attack. They wanted to give up support for hamas+Hezbollah and the nuke program b/c they feared that they were next.

This is sheer fantasy. You should be able to figure this out yourself by recalling the context of events: any offer by Iran to neuter Hezbollah would have been reflected by a renewed and public UN emphasis on enforcing UNSC 1559, which provides for the disarmament of all Lebanese militias - all save Hezbollah had complied. That didn't happen.

Iranians have done a lot and will do everything in their power to change their country. But you have to realize that ppl DO NOT want a revolution and they want stability.

The Iranian people don't have liberty to share debate, but the regime does everything it can to ensure they share fear. The liberation of Iraq scared them, didn't it? All that terror, all those civilian casualties.

Of course, much of that was sponsored and sustained by the IRI itself. And of the domestic terror the IRI we may only see the tip of the iceberg.

"Stability" isn't always a good thing. Dictatorships and tyrannies are "stable" - until they fall. Then the situation becomes disastrous. Not all revolutions are especially bloody. The Second Russian Revolution is a good example. Three people were killed. Then the picked troops of the Communist Party decided that the price was too high to sustain a system they hated, turned around, and returned to their barracks. When Communism collapsed, so did Communist support for guerilla movements world-wide. Many conflicts ended or lessened in intensity.

I once calculated that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered about 25,000 people a year for twenty years. That doesn't even include the half-million or so who died in his wars. When the mullahs fall, how much terror and murder will fail with them?

Suppose you still decide that opposing the mullahs isn't worth it. But that itself is a form of endorsement, isn't it? The IRI has enemies: Israel, the Gulf Arab states, even Europe is threatened by Iran's missiles. Your failure to oppose the regime may allow them to complete their plans for regional domination. The resulting war will kill millions and, of course, devastate Iran, but the "Twelvers" see that as desirable, isn't that so?

And although you didn't make the decisions, nor set such events in motion, your continued apathy will help it to happen. The fate of all those dead people will be on you, as well as on the Ahmedinijads of the world. There's "stability" for you!

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

IRI wanted to turn the new aeration of Iranians into muslim nationalists and to destroy Persian nationalism. By doing this it would have 30 million ready soldiers at its disposal. 30 mill soldiers that would never question its authority.
IT FAILED and it failed miserably. Many ppl from shah's time will tell you that young Iranians today are the least religious EVER.

You're trying to compare Iran and France when they're nothing alike.
1) IRan has been going through change and it will change. The mullahs had plans to make Iran into Saudi Arabia but thousands died in the 80's and 90's to stop this.

2) The Iranian regime has been becoming weaker and weaker each decade and public outcry has been growing and growing.

3) @ THE VERY LEAST Iran will change when the older generation dies off in the next couple of decades cuz as you know Iran is a land of paradox where two diff sets of ppl coexist.

4) The mullahs are actually not looking for a fight, but for an enemy!
Unlike Napoleon, the mullahs DO NOT HAVE THE POWER to wage war. They know full well that a war would mean the end of the Islamic Republic. We saw this in 03 when the Iranian regime sent a letter to Bush in which they wanted to give everything to the US for a grantee that the US wouldn't attack. They wanted to give up support for hamas+Hezbollah and the nuke program b/c they feared that they were next.

5) Finally you insulted hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians that have died fighting the Islamic Republic by putting up that comparison. Iranians have done a lot and will do everything in their power to change their country. But you have to realize that ppl DO NOT want a revolution and they want stability.

Here's the crux of the matter, which will affect Iran's neighbors (and give them just reason to be concerned) because both

Muslim Nationalism -- vs -- Persian Nationalism.

have an eye on territorial expansion.

 

[Nima]

Here's the crux of the matter, which will affect Iran's neighbors (and give them just reason to be concerned) because both

Muslim Nationalism -- vs -- Persian Nationalism.

have an eye on territorial expansion.

not really!
As I said before, this isn't 500 BC. Having the largest land mass is no longer relevant. We have resources (oil, gas etc...), we have two important bodies of water on our Northern and Southern borders and we have a relatively large population. Why would we want more land!!!!!!!!??? Look @ England for gods sake! If you have a good economy, you rule the world. The mullahs might look stupid, but they're not all stupid. They know what they have to do and they couldn't care less about territorial expansion.
Let me give you an example. During the Qajar dynasty, which started after the 1700's, Iran started to decline. At the same time the Russians started to expand. In two wars we lost a shitload of Iranian provinces (Azarbaijan, etc...). After the fall of the Soviets many though that Iran might start brotherly relationships with these former republics, that didn't happen. Saudi Arabia was sending billions to these poor republics so that they build mosques while Iran was sending money to Lebanon and Palestine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Think about it

In Tajikistan people speak better Persian then some Iranian provinces and they consider themselves Persians. We share a history with them but you don't see Iran remotely interested in taking back those lands. So your fear is not warranted one bit. At least as a Pakistani you're safe. If you were Afghan you would have a reason but I have no idea why as a Pakistani you would be worried.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Mods thread is going no where need to be locked down till actual attack takes place..

 

[Nima]

Mods thread is going no where need to be locked down till actual attack takes place..

what he said

 

[Solomon2]

Why would we want more land...The mullahs might look stupid, but they're not all stupid.

Do you really think they behave the way they do out of a sense of custodianship of the Iranian people? Like the ruse they use to justify seizing property for their own purposes?

The mullahs aren't stupid. But they are greedy. And they do have sons. Since they prefer to seize wealth rather than create it they are turning Iran brown. Naturally they seek new green pastures farther afield. What the little people want or need - why would that concern them?

 

[T-Rex]

Do you really think they behave the way they do out of a sense of custodianship of the Iranian people? Like the ruse they use to justify seizing property for their own purposes?

The mullahs aren't stupid. But they are greedy. And they do have sons. Since they prefer to seize wealth rather than create it they are turning Iran brown. Naturally they seek new green pastures farther afield. What the little people want or need - why would that concern them?

And some in Washington and Tel-Aviv seek green fields with oil under them, so what if those lands belong to others. Those landowners are small people, so they can be easily painetd as "Islamic terrorists"! Once the land is invaded, of course to save the world from the 500 megaton nukes hidden in the toilets of those small people, the oil fields of thsoe small people generate jobs in Washington and London and thus more wealth is created for consumption and confort of the peddlers who sell democracy and human rights to the world at a very affordable price.

 

[Comet]

And some in Washington and Tel-Aviv seek green fields with oil under them, so what if those lands belong to others. Those landowners are small people, so they can be easily painetd as "Islamic terrorists"! Once the land is invaded, of course to save the world from the 500 megaton nukes hidden in the toilets of those small people, the oil fields of thsoe small people generate jobs in Washington and London and thus more wealth is created for consumption and confort of the peddlers who sell democracy and human rights to the world at a very affordable price.

I like the way you put it. This is the hidden reality.