HR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
A Case for Invasion of Iran
13-Feb-2010
For over three decades, the Iranian people have been held hostage by a brutal and oppressive regime of Islamic fundamentalists. They savagely brutalize and imprison their citizenry without due process of law, and in some cases, even out right kill their political opponents in public view. The regime is able to suppress dissent because of an imbalance and dictatorial political system internally and a lack of visible threat to its existence externally. In this opinion piece, I argue the freedom for the Iranian people can only be secured by military intervention from the West---Namely the United States.
The United States’ foreign policy blunders in the Middle East are well known and well documented. These blunders were exacerbated under George W Bush. The invasion of Iraq, the disruption of its civil society, and the humiliation of the Iraqis in incidents like Abu Ghraib and the killing of civilians by Backwater contractors have left the Arab world distrustful of the US and its intentions in the region. From the aftermath of US failures in Iraq, The Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged as the regional superpower.
Although the ruling Mullahs in Iran are not Arabs and for that matter Iran is not an Arab nation, the Islamic Republic frequently identifies itself with Arab causes and supports terrorist acts against Israel through its Lebanon based proxy, the Hezbollah. The Islamic Republic is interested in securing political, ideological, and military supremacy in the region. With this supremacy comes the ability for Tehran’s ruling clerics to promote their regional brand of conservative Islam with the ultimate goal of complete destruction of the State of Israel. This theme is often preached by the Iran’s chief fanatic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
As the United States became deeper embroiled in its self-created chaos in Iraq, its attention was diverted from Iran. US armed forces in Iraq were busy fighting local insurgencies planned and fueled by Al-Qaeda. Although there is no known active connection between the Jihadist group Al-Qaeda and ruling Mullahs in Iran, they both share a similar ideology, which is premised on their shared hatred of the United States and all things American.
The cascade of events in Iraq and to some extend in Afghanistan have emboldened the Iranian ruling clerics into believing that they are invincible. They see no threats from the West except empty slogans during political news briefings or speeches on the floor of the United Nations. With backing from China and Russia, the two permanent members of the Security Council, any economic sanction against Iran has little or no chance of success. In fact, Iran has been under US imposed sanctions for some time and these sanctions have done nothing to loosen the political grip of the Mullahs.
Economic sanctions are ineffective against Iran. And the Iranian government knows it. Iran is the fourth largest oil producer in the world. With escalating worldwide demand for oil and the ever rising oil prices, the Islamic Republic’s coffers are filled with hard currency. This will enable them to obtain that which they need through sham corporations, political allies, and the black market sources. The role of china and Russia as the chief suppliers of goods and services to the Iranian regime cannot be understated. As the Unites States and the rest of the western powers impose economic sanctions on Iran, these same world governments compete on the world markets for Iran’s oil. The oil revenues flow into the Iranian government’s hands in essence nullifying the pain of the economic sanctions. The Mullahs have come to realize the benefit of this vicious cycle and they have learned to take advantage of the West’s insatiable appetite for their oil.
The Iranian regime has invested its oil revenues in developing its military might. With the help of Russia, the Iranian regime is well on its way to developing nuclear weapon capability. The Country’s domestic arms manufactures have developed missile technology with capability to threaten Israel and possibly Eastern Europe. And the Iranian government has obtained sophisticated anti-air craft defense technology from Russian and China that make it harder to inflict major damage on the Regime. For these reasons, an aerial assault by the West in the absence of ground invasion makes little or no sense.
Some in the West including the Obama Administration have pinned their hopes on diplomacy. This strategy is flawed because the Mullahs in Iran perceive the United States as a “paper tiger” unwilling to make hard choices. The Iranian regime knows that unlike itself, the United States values human life and will do whatever possible to avoid an armed confrontation with the possibility of high casualties. Ahmadinejad and his ultra conservative backers in Tehran know that the United States' adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out badly. They also know that the American Congress and the American people have lost their appetite for more military conquests in Middle East. The confluences of these dynamics would weaken the United States negotiating power with Tehran. The end results are likely to be a stalemate. This has been the case thus far on the issue of nuclear weapons and Iran’s failure to cooperate fully with the IAEA.
The possibility of internal overthrow of the Regime is unlikely. Although the world has seen public uprising in Iran as a result of last year’s disputed presidential elections, the Regime and its brutal security forces will continue to crush these uprisings. The Islamic Republic holds little or no regard for human life. Therefore, suppression of dissent by whatever means necessary is an acceptable doctrine and is routinely followed to a point of opening fire on unarmed protesters.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard and its largely civilian Basij forces are reported to number in the millions. These groups are well armed and well funded by the Islamic Republic. The revolutionary Guard and the Basij forces are the chief beneficiaries of the policies and the ideologies of the Iranian theocracy. These groups enjoy economic and social benefits that would not otherwise be available to them under a secular and democratically elected government. For these guardians of hate, preservation of the Islamic Republic, its ruling Mullahs, and their hateful ideologies is not just a cause but also a quest for survival.
There are simply no internal structures in Iran capable of effectively taking on the Regime’s security forces. The only possibility of internal change,albeit remote, is if there is a military uprising, which would pin the Country’s conventional armed forced against the revolutionary guards and the Basij forces loyal to the Mullahs. This scenario is unlikely because over the last several decades, the Regime has carefully hand picked ideologues to man key posts in government and military. These groups have no incentive to begin a bloody civil war even though there are disagreements and differing political factions within the elites of the Iranian theocracy.
With each passing day, the Mullahs in Iran are becoming more emboldened regarding their invincibility and survival. These clerics believe that their ideology and their way of governance is sanctioned by Allah. These religious zealots would wage war in the name of God, would kill in the name of God, and some day would bring a nuclear disaster to the region, again in the name of God. This threat is real and will continue to grow stronger unless neutralized. The only military power capable of taking on the Islamic Republic is the United States. The Middle East and the world will not truly be free from the threat of Islamic terrorism unless the Islamic Republic is no more.
| Recently by HR | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Creating An Independent Judiciary In Iran— The First Step Toward Democracy | 4 | Feb 15, 2010 |
| Getting Past The Mullahs | 2 | Feb 13, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Not a Good Idea !
by Jireh Azilah on Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:43 PM PDTDiplomacy should be the frontier of any resolution concerning nuclear proliferation. Keen sanctions and global isolation is a more logical approach than a military intervention. Speaking of military intervention it would be simply impossibly to take out nuclear facilities surgically like the Israelis did in Iraq without triggering a full blown out war....NOT A GOOD IDEA.
Iran must step up to her global responsibility and halt nuclear proliferation !
.
by timothyfloyd on Wed May 12, 2010 10:36 PM PDT.
VPK
by Nur-i-Azal on Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:50 PM PST1) In a war situation with Iran, I am not confident that the US can actually prevent attacks and disruptions to its oil supply. I read an article two-three years ago that US military planners had actually told this to the Bush administration verbatim which, among several other reasons, was one of the reasons DICK Cheney and the Neo-Cons pulled back on their reckless gambit strategy then. The fact that the US military is already over-stretched on two fronts is one proof of the unworkability of this. Also America is not exactly in the best economic position right now to initiate a war and occupation of this magnitude (I'm not sure Obama wants to either). You can theoretically secure ports and pipelines with troops on the ground, but this still cannot prevent terrorist attacks and massive disruptions, which in an Iran war situation would be unprecedented and by magnum factors beyond anything experienced by the US in Iraq or Afghanistan (or even the Israelis in Lebanon). The attack on the US marine barracks in Beirut in the early '80s should be playing in the back of any US military strategists mind because almost 20 years later and the IRGC is a far more formidable and deadly monster now than it was back then.
2) No, if regime change happened from the outside by force, it wouldn't be the first time. But the Allied invasion of Iran in 1942 and the deposing of Reza Shah for Muhammad Reza was not exactly regime change of present potential either. Also 1942 was the height of WWII so from one perspective even many Iranians could partially justify the allied reasons for that invasion, although with great trepidation and angst as well. Other than the Afghan invasion of Iran and overthrow of the Safavid dynasty, I cannot come up with regime change of similar scope. The case of the end of the Qajars wasn't exactly forced regime change, more of a fait accompli.
3) Both Iraq and Afghanistan are easier to maintain territorial integrity mostly due to geographic size as compared to Iran's larger one. But also consider that Iran's diversity is also more diffused than either Iraq or Afghanistan's with ethnic tensions that have been lingering and festering in the background since the turn of the last century. A Yugoslavia type situation is not all that unfeasible in Iran's case if the central authority completely collapsed. In fact Iran nearly went several different ways just after the end of the Constitutional Revolution and WWI, and briefly on the brink (with Azerbaijan and Kurdistan) at the end of WWII.
4) We have a large, wealthy emigre population outside of Iran with deep pockets. If every last one of these individuals was to be vigorously sought out and a decisive argument made to them, esp. the hyper-wealthy ones (and in a best case scenario all of the political leaders against the regime united to some degree as well), funds for an Iranian Green Liberation Army could theoretically be raised initially from this group. If the Liberation struggle got underway in earnest, one could foresee the regular Iranian armed forces switching sides pretty quickly -- and maybe even some renegade and splinter sections of the IRGC itself. The Basij obviously cannot be relied upon or trusted in the short term since they are an ideological cadre. But that is not to say that defections are an impossibility either. The regular police, gendarme, etc., IMO would be the easiest to turn. If the ethnic groups got enlisted as well (with the understanding that they would not be setting the stage for their own future separation with any involment in this Liberation struggle) then I think this Liberation struggle could get underway in earnest and actually win.
Nur-i-Azal
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Feb 17, 2010 06:49 PM PSTI said before and will say now: I am opposed to an attack on Iran. My analysis is not based on personal feeling but on logic. I have gone into detail on this before:
Regarding oil: The US will not allow its flow to be stopped. That is why there will not be an Israel only attack. If there is an attack it will involve US. The first thing would be to take over both air; Persian Gulf all the way to Indian ocean. The US will attack any missile site; naval force or anything else that may disrupt the oil flow.
Regarding regime change: Iranians will not like it one bit. But it won't be the first time. It happened after WWII. The simply removed Reza Shah and brought his son. There may be consequences but that would take time. I just don't see US attacking IRI and not doing a regime change.
Regarding territorial integrity: I don't know. It is possible to argue either way. You may be right.On the other hand in both Iraq and Afghanistan US kept their territorial integrity.
Regarding armed liberation struggle: I just don't see how it is going to happen. Who is going to arm them? Is it the US. Do you expect the army to switch sides. What about the basiji. Do you expect foreign action. Would you go into detail please.
VPK
Terrible examples, VK
by Nur-i-Azal on Wed Feb 17, 2010 06:25 PM PSTIran is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, and the militarist Octopus of the Sepah and its clients are not exactly al-CIA-duh. You are also not considering what geostrategic consequences a foreign instigated regime change attempt will have in the region and beyond, in the short and long term. An Israeli or US attack will, firstly, disrupt the global oil supply and make the Stock Market Crash of 2008 look like pansy work by comparison when a barrell of oil suddenly sky-rockets to 3-4-500 U$ per barrell. This is because the IRI's military strategy will primarily be a scorched earth policy. By also bringing on foreign institgated regime change, you are also not discrediting the regime, you are forevermore validating its legitimacy and making the decision for the fence sitters for them by pushing them into the laps of the regime.
Foreign war on Iran will also eventually spell the end of Iran's territorial integrity with irredentist, separatist claims popping up like smurf mushrooms in spring.
This is crazy. An armed national Liberation struggle is the only thing making any reasonable sense to me.
Re: A war on Iran
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Feb 17, 2010 05:35 PM PSTWill rally all Iranians behind this accursed regime. Perhaps this is what the corporate boards, foreign shareholders and stakeholders actually want.
That is the accepted wisdom. I am not sure about it. I have said many times I don't want a war. But look at recent history: The war in Serbia caused the fall of the Milosevic regime. The Israel attack on Lebanon did not make Hizbollah more popular. The IRI is playing into their hands. By using military to beat up people. Specially by using the much hated Basiji for repression. I am not so sure people would mind seeing the basiji blown to bits.
The two wars US has got involved in recently both resulted in forced regime changes. It would be stupid and dangerous for US to attack Iran and leave IRI. That will result in a great deal of retaliation and headache for US. They are better off doing what they did in Iraq. Put in their own regime and get favorable trade and also oil deals. I really think that is why they are mopping up the Taliban now. Plan was always to go for Iran once Iraq and Afghanistan were pacified. Iraq is pacified enough. Now they are getting Afghanistan in order. Next we will have Iran surrounded by some 300,000 US troops; air fields; and all kinds of other military assets. Not to mention a whole navy ranging from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean.
A war on Iran
by Nur-i-Azal on Wed Feb 17, 2010 04:12 PM PSTWill rally all Iranians behind this accursed regime. Perhaps this is what the corporate boards, foreign shareholders and stakeholders actually want. An independent, secular democratic nationalist regime in Tehran established by Iranians would be a nightmare to these foreign interests (Russian, Chinese, North American or otherwise) who have been working hand in glove with the Sepah economic mafia who is presently engaged in 19th century style capitulation style economic policies on some of Iran's natural resources. This probably explains the half-heartedness of the media conglomerates regarding the Green movement as well. Which is why a national Green Liberation struggle becomes even more urgent...
Bavafa jan...
by Midwesty on Mon Feb 15, 2010 05:00 AM PSTThis is one of their probing tactics to sample Iranians opinion regarding the war every so often.
They are in such a rush that they don't even bother to breifly browse through their own history books to find out why a country that's been through the unthinkable crimes still standing for more than 5000 years.
Midwesty: that is exactly
by Bavafa on Sun Feb 14, 2010 06:11 PM PSTMidwesty: that is exactly how far I got reading the article before getting the confirmation that HR interest is not the farewell of Iran and Iranians but Ezraelis only.
I have not agreed with Sargord in the past till this post that it contains so many flawed points that it is not ever worth responding to the author.
His and others like him advocating for bombing Iran only goes to prove further how dangerous the terrorist regime in Israel is for ME.
Mehrdad
Bomb this if you can...
by Midwesty on Sun Feb 14, 2010 02:06 PM PST//www.bbc.co.uk/persian/sport/2010/02/100214_...
Thank you Dr. Sahimi. I
by vildemose on Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:34 AM PSTThank you Dr. Sahimi. I look forward to your next article...
Kharmagas & vildemose
by Mammad on Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:17 AM PSTMarhoum kharmagas:
I agree with you and am aware of what you say. There are many fake Greens among us. There are many warmongers who are fake Green. But, I believe that patriotic Iranians are smarter than that. They won't be fooled by such fake Greens and "patriots." In my opinion, no truly patriotic Iranian supports military attacks of any sort, or sanctions that will hurt only ordinary Iranians.
Vildemose:
I agree with you regarding the human cost not entering in the calculations of war planners. The most humane thing that they might say is that, "these are unfortunate collateral casualty." In fact, they view their own soldiers as such, let alone the invaded or attacked nation.
As for Jimmy Carter being responsible for the 1979 Revolution, that is a long discussion, but not for this thread. But, it may suffice to say that, in my opinion, even if I assume that JC played a role (which I do not think so), he could not have been able to do so, unless there was fertile political, economical, social, and cultural grunds for it. Revolutions, especially those as encompassing as the 1979 Revolution, are not created in vacuum. I recognize that you may disagree with me, and I respect your opinion.
Mammad
Mammad: I don't think loss
by vildemose on Sun Feb 14, 2010 08:32 AM PSTMammad: I don't think loss of life, both Iraqis or Americans, weigh in much to the calculation of the military industrial complex and the one percent ruling elite of the world...(300 transnational "Senators" according to Chomsky) The bottom line for them is their investment potafolio which has enormously been enhanced.
The real irony is the it
by vildemose on Sun Feb 14, 2010 08:28 AM PSTThe real irony is the it was the West that brought IRR to power. If the moron in chief Jimmy Cater had not pushed Khomeini to power none of this would be happening. Iran would be an advanced nation living peacefully with her neighbors.
Precisely. Iranian must know that the IRI is in the service of the empire. If there were no IRI, the US would have probably had to invent it.
Mammad
by marhoum Kharmagas on Sun Feb 14, 2010 08:20 AM PSTYou are very mistaken if you think only one specific person (whom we both know) will be happy to see an invasion of Iran. There are many who are green or at least call themselves green that are closet supporters of invasion and full sanctions against Iran. Patriotic greens such as yourself need to know how important it is to capture the power at this juncture versus the good of the nation.
Bring it on
by Mammad on Sun Feb 14, 2010 07:58 AM PSTOh yeah, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam, ... they all had a "fast invasion plan," and can be used as successful models of the past.
See how fast Iraq became a peaceful democratic state! There was only a small glitch! Up to 1,000,000 million died, 5 million displaced, 1,000,000 children became orphans, millions more will have permanent physical and psychological wounds, the infrastructure greatly damaged, 120,000 US troops are still there, and guess who came to power: The allies of the hardliners in Tehran who had been trained, funded, and supported by them for 20 years, who are rapidly becoming as brutal as Saddam Hussein's regime! And Iraq is 1/5 of Iran with 1/4 the population, and weak nationalism compared to Iran.
As for Afghanistan, absolutely another successful and brilliant model. A rag tag Taliban army, supported by elements of military and intelligence of another US "friend," Pakistan, has pinned down 100,000 NATO troops with the most sophisticated weapons that has increased the Taliban's popularity in the process.
So, if Iran is invaded, the troops will give up without a fight, knowing all the previous brilliant "fast invasion" plans of the US and how successful they were. They quickly recognize that it is futile to fight. So, General David Petreaus will enter Tehran triumphantly just a few days after the invasion, install an Ahmad Chalabi there as the new leader of Iran, and will go to the "Obama International Airport" (the renamed Tehran's airport) and flies back to Florida, the headquarters of Central Command, and we can all celebrate the establishment of a secular democratic Iran. Yup! That is great and dandy!
Yes, there can be a invasion plan, but with hell as the price tag. When Dick Cheney asked the US Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2007 to devise a plan for air attacks (not ground invasion) of Iran, he was immediately bugged down by the JCS: The generals asked him, "what is the scenario for ending the war? We can start it, but it will be up to Iranians to finish it, and we may not be able to finish it, unless we drop nuc on them." That killed the plan with a speed that awed and shocked Cheney! Now, that was supposed to be a "fast aerial attack" not invasion.
When I see such blogs I always wonder, aside from utter lack of patriotism, how does the thinking process of people like HR work? What are they thinking?
I second what Q said by adding one minor detail to it: HR should use his full name, so that the strategists in Washington can hurry up and send him a plane to pick him up and take him to Washington. Such a brilliant mind with an ocean of knowledge about Iran and the history of the previous "awe and shock" US invasion plans should not waste his/her time to write blogs for iranian.com. Alternatively, he can send them an e-mail, identifying himself/herself, without having to go public!
Mammad
Beautifully stated, HR!
by Everybody Loves Somebody ... on Sun Feb 14, 2010 07:54 AM PSTBLUF (Bottom Line Up First), The US Armed Forces have not occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, the western and eastern neighbors to Iran, for cracking jokes, Tokhmeh (Sun Flower Seed) and pistachio nuts, so to speak! They are there to make the move, on their time and conditions, not the Mullahs' and their surrogates on this site.
Those of us who are old and wise enough to have seen the pre-AnnGholab and the post-AnnGholab eras have painfully arrived at the conclusion that the mullahs will never ever ever give up power, relinquish their grips on the masses, or leave the scene for that matter!? Anybody who believes otherwise is a fool at best!
The mullahs including one of their so-called moderate elements, Rafsanjani (i.e., the brains behind the Green movement), have openly and repeatedly threatened the entire world and stated that it would be fine for Israel to retaliate against Iran with a nuclear strike if attacked by Iran. After all Israel, Jews and Iran would be destroyed but Islam would survive in this nuclear exchange!?
In their criminal, morbid, and sick minds, the mullahs divide the world into two parts, Islamic and non-Islamic. They want to expand the former and contract the latter, very much like their illegitimate cousins, the commies! Mullahs have put their own interests (Islam and their survival) ahead of Iran's, period!
Mr./Ms. HR, I don't care if your have a hidden or open agenda! It doesn't matter because what you are saying is what any objective, realistic, and pragmatic person would say.
I am a selfish man. I live in America and I enjoy the freedom and the way of life this great country has offered me. I would like to continue defending and enjoying those rights! I would welcome American invasion of Iran because it will kick out the already invaders (e.g., mullahs, their thugs, and their commie supporters such as the Russians, the Chinese, etc.)
God Bless US Armed Forces!
HR,
by Midwesty on Sun Feb 14, 2010 06:19 AM PSTI was reading your article with excitement until I got to this:
"the Islamic Republic frequently identifies itself with Arab causes and
supports terrorist acts against Israel through its Lebanon based proxy,
the Hezbollah".
This tells me you have a hidden agenda. If you were an Iranian with the pain of Iranians at heart, you could have brought many different reasons far more convincing.
W. Bush with his special interest cronies had long planned to invade Afghanistan and Iraq but not Iran making a clamp that could put a tremendous pressure on IRI combined with sanctions in order to inspire uprising in Iran making the "regime change" project one of the cheapest one in their score board.
US not now but ever is in the position to invade a country as large as Iran. You can bomb the hell out of Iran as much as you want but to invade her you have to set foot on her soil.
So your article with respect to your special interest agenda works exactly as it was planned to tell Iranians,"Hurry up change the regime before we do it".
We call this Jange Zargari.
So my message is, leave the hell us alone we don't need shepherds!
There are so many things
by Sargord Pirouz on Sun Feb 14, 2010 05:38 AM PSTThere are so many things wrong in this post, it isn't worth my time and effort to correct it. Besides, ignorance is bliss- right? Well, it was until 22 Bahman...
Re: The green movement must win
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Feb 14, 2010 05:05 AM PSTVery good point vildemose. There needs to be change in Iran. The West is holding back hoping to have this happen by Iranians. However through repression IRR is preventing it. The result will be a much more damaging Western intervention.
The real irony is the it was the West that brought IRR to power. If the moron in chief Jimmy Cater had not pushed Khomeini to power none of this would be happening. Iran would be an advanced nation living peacefully with her neighbors.
The Islamists would be worshiping while the secularist not. There would be no problems. Now we have this terrible situation with West baring its arms. IRR hanging innocent people. Many thanks to JC & Iranian 60's intellectuals.
do you think american
by zanboor_ghavi_mannyslawyer on Sun Feb 14, 2010 02:23 AM PSTgive a rats ass what you say.
do you think americans would wnat their kids to die for your ideas
get real
do you think 70 million people in iran are dead or be gheyrat
hey if your father leased out your mother, dont think that 70 million iranians are like you
HR, I believe you have a point
by Q on Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:29 PM PSTA fast invation with a blue print for a secular government to take power is a more prudeunt way to go with lot less blood shed.
There are so many recent examples of this, I don't know how anyone would even think twice about doing it! It's a slam dunk case!
Internal War Is risky
by HR on Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:27 PM PSTInternal arms conflict may stroke our national pride but will be bloody and will take too long. While peope ore killing each other, the Iranian oil production could be in danger. This the West will never allow. A fast invation with a blue print for a secular government to take power is a more prudeunt way to go with lot less blood shed. These clerics are animals and will shed a lot of blood once they know they are on thier way out.
Internal War Is risky
by HR on Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 PM PSTInternal arms conflict may stroke our national pride but will be bloody and will take too long. While peope ore killing each other, the Iranian oil production could be in danger. This the West will never allow. A fast invation with a blue print for a secular government to take power is a more prudeunt way to go with lot less blood shed. These clerics are animals and will shed a lot of blood once they know they are on thier way out.
شتر در خواب بیند پنبه دانه
Mola NasredeenSat Feb 13, 2010 10:28 PM PST
گهی لوف لوف خورد گه دانه دانه
You can be sure that such
by vildemose on Sat Feb 13, 2010 09:51 PM PSTYou can be sure that such scenarios are being contemplated in Washington and Brussels as we speak.
Believe me I'm fully aware of that fact. How do we help the greens to win when they have no arms to fight against these vampires?
Vildemose
by Fair on Sat Feb 13, 2010 09:22 PM PSTI agree wholeheartedly. For the sake of Iran, the region, and the world, the Green movement must win. The question is how. It is clear that this regime has invested way more in creating a security state than the Shah ever did, and it is way more proficient in dictatorship and killing of women and children for its own survival.
I hope those in the previous generation who supported the overthrow of the Shah (including the current leaders of the Green Movement) are happy for helping create such an anti Iranian monster, which is ravaging generation after generation of Iranians, while enrichening the most worthless creatures that our society has to offer. We are being governed by our worst.
If this government insists on its fascist stance, armed struggle will inevitably emerge as a result. And this could lead to breakup of our country as well. You can be sure that such scenarios are being contemplated in Washington and Brussels as we speak.
-Fair
The green movement must win
by vildemose on Sat Feb 13, 2010 09:14 PM PSTThe green movement must win or we will see war on Iran in the next few years. That is hard reality we need to discuss further.
What's wrong with Leperchauns?
by Nur-i-Azal on Sat Feb 13, 2010 08:51 PM PSTThey are magical beings and they always find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? Imagine what militant leperchauns could accomplish in this case!
All joking aside, what you picture is a reflection of what has been pictured to you. This is a great example of how insidious Hollywood and American TV culture actually is as a tool of mass bainwashing, because Green Liberation could just as well mean liberation of Nature and the natural world from the destructive hands of man and corporate profit-mongering. Earth-firsters and radical environmentalists are all Green Liberators!
But, then again, I really like the picture of militant leperchauns all the same ;-)
When I think of Green Liberation...
by thexmaster on Sat Feb 13, 2010 08:26 PM PSTI picture militant leprechauns.