GarfieldJL Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287424,00.html If they've really resorted to gas rationing, and are having riots currently we may not have to go after Iran's government. I'm being optimistic on this, though if Iran's government has problems inside the country due to civil unrest we may watch the government collapse on its own without any other country getting involved. This would cut off funding for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I hope it turns out this way, opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Another article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/wiran101.xml&page=1 In Three Words: NOT GOOD NEWS! Why? Because Iran happens to be a democracy. Not a democracy like the USA, but a democracy nevertheless. Which means people vote for who the leaders are. Clerics do have much power though, and they do decide who gets to run in the elections (I never said they were free or fair), but there are possiblities for people rebelling via the polls...moderates did seize control of Iran in the 1990's, so another rebellion via the polls is very, very possible. The people that voted for President Ahmadinejad are rioiting because President Ahmadinejad has promised far too much and Mr. Ahmadinejad has ratioined oil. Therefore, it could be concluded that, come next election, the people who voted for President Ahmadinejad will vote for the reformists, not because they like the reformists, but because they hate Ahmadinejad's stupid policies. And not just that, but they hate his DOMESTIC policies. Wiping Israel off the face of the map, gaining nuclear power, taking over the Middle East, very good idea. If you like dealing with Iranian moderates, then this is very, very good news. However, it seems that I doubt few Westerners wants to deal with Iranian moderates (and for good reason), it's just plain overrated as a breakthrough. Oh, and a note. 1) Iran hates Taliban. Taliban is Sunni, extermists, and overall, evil. And Iran is investing in Afghanistan, gaining much influence in it. [However, you can argue that Iran is also funding Taliban, but it's a "he say, she say" type deal, I'm not getting into it] 2) The only terrorists who Iran is funding in Iraq is SCIRI (and prehaps Al-Sadr). SCIRI, by the way, controls the Offical Government of Iraq. They are still terrorists, true, but Iran is helping that government out by funding that government's personal terrorist cells, so if Iran stop funding the Shia terrorists, then Sunni terrorists might win. (Yes, we must fund terrorists to win the war on terror. The enemy of my enemy is my friend) The only problem is Al-Sadr. SCIRI and Al-Sadr hates each other, so it is a suprise why Iran would devote funds to both parties, especially since Al-Sadr is a nationalist and SCIRI based itself inside of Iran while it was an exile party. So I don't think there would be much support for SCIRI. Still, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. EDIT: Somehow, I really worry about people taking sides on wheter President Ahmadinejad is a good guy or an evil guy. When attempting to predict what will happen, you don't want any personal biases to come through, and you don't want to appear to be idiots. I'm not crying tears or cheering either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Bye bye Ahmadinejad, bye bye terrorist funding and bye bye anti semitism. I dearly hope this is true. (Yes, we must fund terrorists to win the war on terror. The enemy of my enemy is my friend) Close. We need our boys and girls to fight terrorists using terrorist tactics to win the war. No, not by hijacking planes and flying them into Mecca, but using the same tactics and gurilla warfare they use on us. With Iranians voting for the opposing party so that Ahmadinejad doesn't get back in, this happens all the time. How many people voted for Kerry not based on his ideals or his policy, but because they hate Bush? Ditto for Blair, Howard, Putin, Chiraq, ect, ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 With Iranians voting for the opposing party so that Ahmadinejad doesn't get back in, this happens all the time. How many people voted for Kerry not based on his ideals or his policy, but because they hate Bush? Ditto for Blair, Howard, Putin, Chiraq, ect, ect. The problem is that most people don't even KNOW Iran is a democracy, so I'm aiming for shock value here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 And? What else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 And? What else? Uh, and that's about the only reason I mentioned it. Thought it might also be informative to anyone who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted July 1, 2007 Author Share Posted July 1, 2007 The problem is that most people don't even KNOW Iran is a democracy, so I'm aiming for shock value here. You do realize the Iranian Government is more of a puppet compared to the Mullahs whom hold the real power in Iran. I know it's supposedly a democracy, but when the military answers to the mullahs alone, it's a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 The problem is that most people don't even KNOW Iran is a democracy, so I'm aiming for shock value here. Bah, the people of Iran do nothing more than elect the theocracy's mouthpiece. Hopefully there'll be another bloody revolution, but this is unlikely due to the establisment's controlling "the way to heaven." Of course, with the CIA and a couple of Ops teams we might be able to help a revolution go down in Iran. Hopefully... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Essentially, SS, the former USSR could have been considered a democracy as well. There were candidates for the people to vote for afterall. Some even argue that western democracy is a fraudulent delusion, at least in terms of suggesting that the people have any real influence or control over how their own governments really work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 The thing that does set it apart from other sort of governments is the fact that reformists has a chance to take over via elections/political deals, and don't have to resort to violence or protests. Okay, fine, the mullahs may have true control, but if there is reform-minded mullahs, they can help manlipuate their way to victory. How else could the reformists once seized some control over Iran? (And if internal instablity and unpopularity with his regime continue, then I can expect the President to be hated by the mullahs, and kicked out rather soon) There is no need for military invasion or anything, if your main goal is to bring reformists into power...in fact, why? Internal instabilty in the Middle East? Doesn't that lead to higher oil prices, more terrorism, balkanization of a nation, even more endless warfare, bah. If your main goal is to get rid of those reformists and form a puppet government in Iran, well then, start the internal mayhem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted July 1, 2007 Author Share Posted July 1, 2007 Look I don't want to invade Iran, I imagine Bush doesn't either, this actually presents Bush with some good news because this could potentially cut off the Iranian funding to terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan which would help the situation in those countries considerably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Frankly, I've no doubt that we may already be involved somewhat at a clandestine level, thus giving a sense of culpable deniability. What's good for the goose and all that rot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted July 1, 2007 Author Share Posted July 1, 2007 I'm not sure that we are thanks to ABC news announcing intelligence ops of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Even the newsmakers don't see everything that's going on. Black ops budgets are often buried in other projects. We'll probably never really know till such a thing is declassified and released via the FIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted July 1, 2007 Author Share Posted July 1, 2007 Even the newsmakers don't see everything that's going on. Black ops budgets are often buried in other projects. We'll probably never really know till such a thing is declassified and released via the FIA. You missed the ABC News report thing where they found out and reported on it in their Nightly News disrupting the operation several weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Actually, I heard that, but am too cynical to believe that ALL activities were circumscribed. Of course, the way this administration has fumbled Iraq at this point, it might just be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.