BF2S Forums Obama Refuses to Condemn Crackdown on Iranian Protests

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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.

True.  Again, insurgency has a mixed past, no doubt.  I just wonder if inaction will result in Iran becoming more like Russia, where corruption is basically accepted as are authoritarian overtones.   Currently, Iran obviously has many democratically minded people.  That part of their culture might diminish in the event of a Tiananmen Square style crackdown, which the current government may resort to.

If you look at China, that spirit of democracy seems to have been successfully crushed at this point.

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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.

True.  Again, insurgency has a mixed past, no doubt.  I just wonder if inaction will result in Iran becoming more like Russia, where corruption is basically accepted as are authoritarian overtones.   Currently, Iran obviously has many democratically minded people.  That part of their culture might diminish in the event of a Tiananmen Square style crackdown, which the current government may resort to.

If you look at China, that spirit of democracy seems to have been successfully crushed at this point.

Fair point, but if you look at the history of intervention throughout the 20th century, it's typically gone very badly.

I can't see how any form of intervention could help matters. I think it's best to just accept it's out of everyones hands, except for the Iranian people.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

When people are already demonstrating a fundamental shift from traditional anti-western thought why the hell would you jeapordize it? Meddling will no doubt fuel the opposition. And really, quite frankly it's none of our fucking business. Can you imagine the roles reversed.. tha fuck ppl.


Who knew turq was a Neocon? ..lol jk

To a degree, I agree with interventionism.  I still think invading Iraq was stupid, but I have nothing against exploiting instability.

With Iran, it is rather naive to think that standing by will allow the pro-West people in Iran to succeed.

The Soviets helped cause the Islamic Revolution, and thus, we should help cause a pro-Western one.

No, naive is to think that we can change their opinion of us be violating their sovereignty. It's also arrogant.

We aren't seeing pro-democracy diminish right now in Iran. We are seeing it surge forward. It's pretty obvious.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No, naive is to think that we can change their opinion of us be violating their sovereignty. It's also arrogant.

We aren't seeing pro-democracy diminish right now in Iran. We are seeing it surge forward. It's pretty obvious.

We'll talk again in a few weeks.  I'll place my bet on the Ayatollah winning through military oppression.

Might doesn't make right, but it usually works -- whether it's coming from us or from our enemies.

I did not say that this was the event or it will be overturned. But it's obvious that dinnerjacket is going to have to work with the opposition to pacify them over the next term.

Although some ppl are predicting it: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? … 5184879970

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-06-20 10:27:36)