Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-06-20 07:36:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

WTF guys, we are not Switzerland...we're the United States!  Where ever this is tyranny, where ever there is oppression, where ever there is injustice we should speak against it!
Wow. This is the problem with America, all rolled up in one post.
The problem isn't our interventionism.  The problem is having this self-righteous mindset about it.

We should be honest.  We do it for trade and strategic influence -- just like every other major world power.

If we stopped being interventionist, China and Russia would just take up the slack.
2009-06-20 07:38:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6853

Turquoise wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

WTF guys, we are not Switzerland...we're the United States!  Where ever this is tyranny, where ever there is oppression, where ever there is injustice we should speak against it!
Wow. This is the problem with America, all rolled up in one post.
The problem isn't our interventionism.  The problem is having this self-righteous mindset about it.

We should be honest.  We do it for trade and strategic influence -- just like every other major world power.

If we stopped being interventionist, China and Russia would just take up the slack.
Haven't seen China intervene internationally since Korea - which it arguably had right to given that it was a border issue for them.
2009-06-20 07:39:38
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6879|SE London

Harmor wrote:

WTF guys, we are not Switzerland...we're the United States!  Where ever this is tyranny, where ever there is oppression, where ever there is injustice we should speak against it!

We must support the Iranian opposition.  Anything less would be supporting the current regime.
Epic facepalm!
2009-06-20 07:41:34
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6846|San Diego, CA, USA
What does it say about us if we ignore them in their struggle for freedom?

We should be unequivocal in our support...not bystanders in their fight.  Gee wiz.

Last edited by Harmor (2009-06-20 07:42:11)

2009-06-20 07:42:44
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6853

Harmor wrote:

What does it say about us if we ignore them in their struggle for freedom?
Nothing. Newsflash 2: Most of the world does not view America as the 'World Police'. Most Iranians - even those who voted for Moussavi - probably still hate, dislike or are supsicious of the US. Do you forget the CIA ousting the democratically elected leader of Iran - Mohammed Mossadeq - and backing the vicious dictator Reza Shah Pahlavi or something?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-06-20 07:45:05)

2009-06-20 07:44:37
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6919|London, England
People like A-jod are probably praying that Obama/USA supports the opposition and the opposition and probably praying that they continue to keep their mouth shut. Being seen as backed by the USA would probably be a career killer no matter who you are in Iran

There seems to be a lot of "liberal" and "westernised" Iranians but I think a sizeable chunk still hates the USA, more specifically the US Government/machine.
2009-06-20 07:44:43
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6451|what

There's 70 million Iranians whose voice matters more than anyone in the US does.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-06-20 07:45:21
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


Wow. This is the problem with America, all rolled up in one post.
The problem isn't our interventionism.  The problem is having this self-righteous mindset about it.

We should be honest.  We do it for trade and strategic influence -- just like every other major world power.

If we stopped being interventionist, China and Russia would just take up the slack.
Haven't seen China intervene internationally since Korea - which it arguably had right to given that it was a border issue for them.
See Sudan.
2009-06-20 07:46:14
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6853

Turquoise wrote:

See Sudan.
Boots on the ground? I take your point on them trading with the regime though and turning a blind eye.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-06-20 07:46:37)

2009-06-20 07:46:42
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7059

obama shouldnt say anything.  its not our problem.  fuck sakes man.  fix our own shit first.  i mean, he cant handle shit here as it shows, so i dont want him worrying about other shit.
2009-06-20 07:47:21
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

What does it say about us if we ignore them in their struggle for freedom?
Nothing. Newsflash 2: Most of the world does not view America as the 'World Police'. Most Iranians - even those who voted for Moussavi - probably still hate, dislike or are supsicious of the US. Do you forget the CIA ousting the democratically elected leader of Iran - Mohammed Mossadeq - and backing the vicious dictator Reza Shah Pahlavi or something?
Agreed.  We and the British made a major misstep in undermining Mossadeq.  Instead of ousting him, we should've bargained with him.

Nevertheless, he did face a lot of domestic resistance.  We decided to exploit that, but we underestimated how much support he had even after the fact.
2009-06-20 07:49:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

Mekstizzle wrote:

People like A-jod are probably praying that Obama/USA supports the opposition and the opposition and probably praying that they continue to keep their mouth shut. Being seen as backed by the USA would probably be a career killer no matter who you are in Iran

There seems to be a lot of "liberal" and "westernised" Iranians but I think a sizeable chunk still hates the USA, more specifically the US Government/machine.
A-jod is in a perfect position right now.  If we intervene in a blatant way, we will undermine Mousavi's support.  If we don't intervene, the Ayatollah will maintain his puppet in office.

This is why more subtle means of intervention are needed.
2009-06-20 07:51:10
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6835|Long Island, New York
I bet the to-be suicide bombers in Iraq are depressed, nobody's paying attention to them anymore!
2009-06-20 07:51:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

See Sudan.
Boots on the ground? I take your point on them trading with the regime though and turning a blind eye.
Interventionism isn't limited to military influence.  Economic interventionism is more common and usually more effective.
2009-06-20 07:55:29
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6846|San Diego, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

What does it say about us if we ignore them in their struggle for freedom?
Nothing. Newsflash 2: Most of the world does not view America as the 'World Police'. Most Iranians - even those who voted for Moussavi - probably still hate, dislike or are supsicious of the US. Do you forget the CIA ousting the democratically elected leader of Iran - Mohammed Mossadeq - and backing the vicious dictator Reza Shah Pahlavi or something?
Are you sure 'most iranians' dislike or are suspicious of the United States?  I have to disagree with that assertion.  However, I did find this article:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/A … rcid=49304

which supports your point.  But because "[a]ccurate public opinion polls are a rarity in Iran, whose Islamic rulers enforce strict rules of behavior and where dissidents are often imprisoned," I think those numbers are not as bad because people there are afraid to voice their true opinion.

CNSNews.com wrote:

Accurate public opinion polls are a rarity in Iran, whose Islamic rulers enforce strict rules of behavior and where dissidents are often imprisoned.
Wouldn't a more moderate Iran government be better for us all?
2009-06-20 08:00:37
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6879|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

People like A-jod are probably praying that Obama/USA supports the opposition and the opposition and probably praying that they continue to keep their mouth shut. Being seen as backed by the USA would probably be a career killer no matter who you are in Iran

There seems to be a lot of "liberal" and "westernised" Iranians but I think a sizeable chunk still hates the USA, more specifically the US Government/machine.
A-jod is in a perfect position right now.  If we intervene in a blatant way, we will undermine Mousavi's support.  If we don't intervene, the Ayatollah will maintain his puppet in office.

This is why more subtle means of intervention are needed.
Intervention is a stupid idea. The US is the last place that should be interfering with Iran, their track record there is not exactly glowing.....

Ahmadinejad is not in a very good position at all. He's on thin ice at the moment, it could go either way - but the most important thing is that it's the popular decision. A popular revolution doesn't need intervention.

Turquoise wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

See Sudan.
Boots on the ground? I take your point on them trading with the regime though and turning a blind eye.
Interventionism isn't limited to military influence.  Economic interventionism is more common and usually more effective.
It's also just as obvious.

It'd be nice to see a more pro-Western government in power in Iran and their society break free from the shackles of theocratic rule, but only under their own steam. ANY intervention will have more negative long term effects than letting this play out naturally. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but it's obvious which direction the wind is blowing in Iran. Change will come. Don't try and rush it and screw everything up.
2009-06-20 08:01:36
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6853

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

What does it say about us if we ignore them in their struggle for freedom?
Nothing. Newsflash 2: Most of the world does not view America as the 'World Police'. Most Iranians - even those who voted for Moussavi - probably still hate, dislike or are supsicious of the US. Do you forget the CIA ousting the democratically elected leader of Iran - Mohammed Mossadeq - and backing the vicious dictator Reza Shah Pahlavi or something?
Are you sure 'most iranians' dislike or are suspicious of the United States?  I have to disagree with that assertion.  However, I did find this article:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/A … rcid=49304

which supports your point.  But because "[a]ccurate public opinion polls are a rarity in Iran, whose Islamic rulers enforce strict rules of behavior and where dissidents are often imprisoned," I think those numbers are not as bad because people there are afraid to voice their true opinion.

CNSNews.com wrote:

Accurate public opinion polls are a rarity in Iran, whose Islamic rulers enforce strict rules of behavior and where dissidents are often imprisoned.
Wouldn't a more moderate Iran government be better for us all?
You really don't get it do you. Most of the rest of the world trusts America about as far as it can throw it - and that includes allies!!!!!! Get out from under your rock.

How does Iran affect you today? It's fucking thousands of miles away. The only fucking difference it makes to you is what you pay at the pump. Let Iranians sort out the best route forward for Iran - just like America decided the best route forward for itself in 1776 and during the Civil War. Shesesh.
2009-06-20 08:05:53
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6835|Long Island, New York

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Nothing. Newsflash 2: Most of the world does not view America as the 'World Police'. Most Iranians - even those who voted for Moussavi - probably still hate, dislike or are supsicious of the US. Do you forget the CIA ousting the democratically elected leader of Iran - Mohammed Mossadeq - and backing the vicious dictator Reza Shah Pahlavi or something?
Are you sure 'most iranians' dislike or are suspicious of the United States?  I have to disagree with that assertion.  However, I did find this article:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/A … rcid=49304

which supports your point.  But because "[a]ccurate public opinion polls are a rarity in Iran, whose Islamic rulers enforce strict rules of behavior and where dissidents are often imprisoned," I think those numbers are not as bad because people there are afraid to voice their true opinion.

CNSNews.com wrote:

Accurate public opinion polls are a rarity in Iran, whose Islamic rulers enforce strict rules of behavior and where dissidents are often imprisoned.
Wouldn't a more moderate Iran government be better for us all?
You really don't get it do you. Most of the rest of the world trusts America about as far as it can throw it - and that includes allies!!!!!! Get out from under your rock.

How does Iran affect you today? It's fucking thousands of miles away. The only fucking difference it makes to you is what you pay at the pump. Let Iranians sort out the best route forward for Iran - just like America decided the best route forward for itself in 1776 and during the Civil War. Shesesh.
Well, to be fair, America did receive a shitload of support from France in the Revolutionary War...

Just sayin'. Different time period though, different circumstances.
2009-06-20 08:07:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Intervention is a stupid idea. The US is the last place that should be interfering with Iran, their track record there is not exactly glowing.....

Ahmadinejad is not in a very good position at all. He's on thin ice at the moment, it could go either way - but the most important thing is that it's the popular decision. A popular revolution doesn't need intervention.
I see what you're saying, but you seem to assume the people have power there.  Their power is quite limited under an authoritarian government.

Also, do you believe that no foreign powers will intervene to help the Ayatollah?

Bertster7 wrote:

It's also just as obvious.

It'd be nice to see a more pro-Western government in power in Iran and their society break free from the shackles of theocratic rule, but only under their own steam. ANY intervention will have more negative long term effects than letting this play out naturally. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but it's obvious which direction the wind is blowing in Iran. Change will come. Don't try and rush it and screw everything up.
Economic interventionism is more effective though.  China has been quite good at it lately.  They've bought up a large portion of South America's resources, and if things go according to plan, they'll have a pretty sweet deal in stimulating growth via those resources.

How this would apply to Iran is that we could pressure our allies who trade with Iran to stop trading with them.  For example, a lot of the world buys Iranian oil.  If we could convince their main customers to buy elsewhere, Iran would be fucked.
2009-06-20 08:08:41
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6853

Poseidon wrote:

Well, to be fair, America did receive a shitload of support from France in the Revolutionary War...

Just sayin'. Different time period though, different circumstances.
The circumstances in Iran are more akin to the Civil War and I don't see Moussavi shouting 'Help me' to the US. Point taken on 1776 though.
2009-06-20 08:08:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

Poseidon wrote:

Well, to be fair, America did receive a shitload of support from France in the Revolutionary War...

Just sayin'. Different time period though, different circumstances.
This is still a valid point though.  The majority of revolutions receive at least some outside support.

By the same token, the majority of counterrevolutions do as well.
2009-06-20 08:11:33
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6835|Long Island, New York

CameronPoe wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Well, to be fair, America did receive a shitload of support from France in the Revolutionary War...

Just sayin'. Different time period though, different circumstances.
The circumstances in Iran are more akin to the Civil War and I don't see Moussavi shouting 'Help me' to the US. Point taken on 1776 though.
No no, I agree. Like I said, the circumstances are much different.

Maybe an extremely subtle "lend-lease" program would work...
2009-06-20 08:18:33
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6879|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Intervention is a stupid idea. The US is the last place that should be interfering with Iran, their track record there is not exactly glowing.....

Ahmadinejad is not in a very good position at all. He's on thin ice at the moment, it could go either way - but the most important thing is that it's the popular decision. A popular revolution doesn't need intervention.
I see what you're saying, but you seem to assume the people have power there.  Their power is quite limited under an authoritarian government.

Also, do you believe that no foreign powers will intervene to help the Ayatollah?
I completely disagree. As has already been pointed out in other threads, the revolutions of '89 were unsupported popular revolutions and were in some instances non-violent. Look at Romania, Czechoslovakia etc. they managed just fine without intervention and are better for it.

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's also just as obvious.

It'd be nice to see a more pro-Western government in power in Iran and their society break free from the shackles of theocratic rule, but only under their own steam. ANY intervention will have more negative long term effects than letting this play out naturally. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but it's obvious which direction the wind is blowing in Iran. Change will come. Don't try and rush it and screw everything up.
Economic interventionism is more effective though.  China has been quite good at it lately.  They've bought up a large portion of South America's resources, and if things go according to plan, they'll have a pretty sweet deal in stimulating growth via those resources.

How this would apply to Iran is that we could pressure our allies who trade with Iran to stop trading with them.  For example, a lot of the world buys Iranian oil.  If we could convince their main customers to buy elsewhere, Iran would be fucked.
You're going to convince China to stop buying their oil? Germany, perhaps, but I doubt it and how would that help? Didn't have much luck trying persuade them to keep trading oil with Iran in dollars rather than Euros or seeking alternative supplies, did they? Oil is a sellers market.

You think the people of Iran would be grateful for having shedloads of money pulled out of their economy and decreasing their standard of living? You think they'll care more about "the bigger picture" than their own livelihoods?
2009-06-20 08:29:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6703|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

I completely disagree. As has already been pointed out in other threads, the revolutions of '89 were unsupported popular revolutions and were in some instances non-violent. Look at Romania, Czechoslovakia etc. they managed just fine without intervention and are better for it.
Anything's possible.  I guess the question is...  what do you think the likelihood of that occurring in Iran is?  The Islamic Revolution was not exactly bloodless, and it did involve outside intervention.

Bertster7 wrote:

You're going to convince China to stop buying their oil? Germany, perhaps, but I doubt it and how would that help? Didn't have much luck trying persuade them to keep trading oil with Iran in dollars rather than Euros or seeking alternative supplies, did they? Oil is a sellers market.
Well, admittedly, economic interventionism might be a less viable choice with Iran, hence my support for insurgency.

Bertster7 wrote:

You think the people of Iran would be grateful for having shedloads of money pulled out of their economy and decreasing their standard of living? You think they'll care more about "the bigger picture" than their own livelihoods?
True.  No argument there.
2009-06-20 08:51:43
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6879|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I completely disagree. As has already been pointed out in other threads, the revolutions of '89 were unsupported popular revolutions and were in some instances non-violent. Look at Romania, Czechoslovakia etc. they managed just fine without intervention and are better for it.
Anything's possible.  I guess the question is...  what do you think the likelihood of that occurring in Iran is?  The Islamic Revolution was not exactly bloodless, and it did involve outside intervention.
I think the chances are currently slim, but growing day by day.

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You're going to convince China to stop buying their oil? Germany, perhaps, but I doubt it and how would that help? Didn't have much luck trying persuade them to keep trading oil with Iran in dollars rather than Euros or seeking alternative supplies, did they? Oil is a sellers market.
Well, admittedly, economic interventionism might be a less viable choice with Iran, hence my support for insurgency.
The problem with supporting insurgency is that insurgents have a tendancy to be quite violent minded and unpleasant people. People like Osama Bin Laden. It's not usually a good idea to back insurgency as it has a habit or creating unpleasant governments.

The people of Iran are gradually moving in the right direction. The government will have to change in the not too distant future. Any intervention could fuck that up.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard