BF2S Forums The People of Iran have no weapons?

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The Soviets helped cause the Islamic Revolution in Iran.  We did not properly protect our interests there, and the Shah himself was a rather ineffective leader.

The Soviets funneled both arms and propaganda into Iran to eventually succeed in having a government more along their interests in power.

I don't see why we shouldn't aim for the same.

Those sorts of things have a habit of going horribly wrong.....

There was this guy Saddam Hussein, remember him? The West gave him similar things. Didn't turn out too well.

There's no doubt that we should pick our allies more carefully.  What we did against the Soviets in Afghanistan was pretty fucked up too.

What I'm suggesting is that we find subtler means to help Mousavi overthrow his government.  Once he enters power, we can negotiate over the nuclear research.  In the end, I think it would be best if Iran became a nuclear power but was generally pro-Western.

This might ultimately require distancing ourselves from Israel as well, which I'm all in favor of.

For someone saying you should pick your allies more carefully you're being awfully quick to advocate jumping into bed with Mousavi.

Flecco wrote:

Sure. Cause Ghandi was packing.

Revolting from a foriegn leader is much simpler then revolting a domestic leader. At least you can use the whole imperialism thing on your side. Besides, the British were too into the "We have much more morals and ethics then you brownies". They all thought they were better, so when Ghandi told everyone to be non-violent, the British didn't want to "stoop down" and use violence. Then voila.

Domestic Revolutions usually require one of the two things.

Mass starvation and loss of military.

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

What dirt do you have on Mousavi?

wiki my friend.

He started them on the road to nukes and was right there screaming death to america when they hijacked a plane full of our bastards.

Given the context of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, I can't blame him for hating America at the time.

Still, he clearly was one of Iran's better leaders, both politically and economically.  And he's still more Western-friendly than Ahmadinejad.

Iranian women have the most to gain from Mousavi entering power, because Iran's hardliners treat women like dirt.  It's understandable that they would have the courage and motivation that some of the men lack.

Is it just me, or is the default protest slogan in Iran "Death to <insert object of criticism here>"?

Turquoise wrote:

What dirt do you have on Mousavi?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ … 77,00.html

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

What dirt do you have on Mousavi?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ … 77,00.html

Well, if we are to assume that Mousavi is still someone terror minded, then I guess it doesn't matter who wins in this fight.

Either way, Iran is currently weaker than it was before, which we will eventually be able to take advantage of once the dust settles.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ … 77,00.html

Well, if we are to assume that Mousavi is still someone terror minded, then I guess it doesn't matter who wins in this fight.

Either way, Iran is currently weaker than it was before, which we will eventually be able to take advantage of once the dust settles.

It matters for the people who want to their voices to be heard.

I'm saying from our perspective.  If either side is going to support terrorism, then I don't really much care what happens to their people.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It matters for the people who want to their voices to be heard.

I'm saying from our perspective.  If either side is going to support terrorism, then I don't really much care what happens to their people.

Yes I know you don't care about anyone else. You've made that abundantly clear.

Ask yourself if they'd care about us in the same situation.  Most wouldn't.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Yes I know you don't care about anyone else. You've made that abundantly clear.

Ask yourself if they'd care about us in the same situation.  Most wouldn't.

How do you know this? You remind me of this Jason Jones piece (lolz).. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index … d-the-veil

You mistake me for thinking Iran is evil.  I don't think they are anymore evil than anyone else.  I simply believe the average person in general is selfish.  Obviously, I am too, but in taking this into account, one must be very selective who they show compassion to.

We obviously don't give a shit about Sudan or Somalia, so why should we give a shit about Iran?  The only reason I cared initially is because of its possible interests to us.  I suppose I may have been mistaken in assuming that either outcome would be favorable to us.

If Mousavi really hasn't changed much since the 80s, then the only thing Iran should interest us in is how much more vulnerable they will be after all of this.

Kmarion wrote:

I do care about those things, and I have expressed it many times. My government stopped representing me a long time ago. Please stop using "we". I'm here to give my opinion.

Do you remember the mass protest against terrorism on 9/11 in Tehran? They supported us then.

Here's what I don't get about Iran.  I realize that they don't support Al Quida anymore than we do.  I realize that they are more Westernized than many of their neighbors.  However, if the government of their country is going to be ruled by people who sympathize with other people against us, then what good is their support during a past tragedy?

If nothing else, I would agree with you on our own government, but the powers that be will always be fucked up to some degree.

It's inevitable that the few will oppress the many regardless of the system involved.  It's only degrees of oppression that exist, so that leaves us with a few practical concerns regarding foreign policy.   Outside of that, human rights concerns are basically a joke.

Kmarion wrote:

I believe Mousavi has changed some. He is the lesser of the two. But you still fail to see that this isn't just about dinnerjacket now. They were chanting death to the supreme leader also. The situation has evolved. They are defying the entire regime. The people want a legitimate democracy.

What the people want is only an auxiliary concern compared to what the powers that be do.  More often than not, revolutions result in more oppressive leaders than their predecessors.

We basically just got lucky with our own revolution.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-06-20 21:50:17)

People want to be free... It's human nature.
I hope and pray that the Iranians can achieve their freedom with as little bloodshed as possible...
I have heard rumors that some of the military is joining the people... God help them all.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

We didn't get lucky.. we got the French. Then the french did it on their own. I disagree with the more often then not presumption. Every democracy on the planet has had to fight for it in some way. Eventually the voices are heard.

You have a lot more faith in humanity that I do.

Then again, most people do.

Cautiously optimistic.