[tcaudilllg]

Hopefully!

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904577,00.html?xid=rss-topstories-cnnpartner

I would caution the leaders of the revolt not to get killed, because if they do then there may not be anyone left to lead the Iranian Left and that would leave the population at the mercy of a berzerker....

I personally think the U.S. should invade, in secret, right now. No really, now is the perfect time, with all this chaos, to see things change in Iran. If we don't invade now, we will have to invade later. Intervention in Iran is inevitable, the only question is whether or not it will happen now, and be little more than a police action of righting a stolen election, or later, in the throes of WWIII or something comparable to it. We've got a Left-leaning president with absolute popular support, proximity... we've got everything we need, don't we?

[Mattias Gustavsson]

[tcaudilllg]

I disagree. If we don't do something now, we're going to be faced with a full scale invasion later, when they've got a nuke. Bush's invasion of Iraq was stupid: you never invade a country when the opposition has been silenced already. You invade when the opposition is rising up and the government is in chaos, and you invade with the specific intention of giving rise to the opposition. (but only if it's the Left!)

[BadMrBox]

US should definitely not invade.
_________________

[tcaudilllg]

If Iran turns away from all that Hezbollah silliness, then the U.S. essentially wins the war on islamic radicalism. All that would be left is Al Qaeda. It's a huge strategic blunder not to invade now. It's looking like the country has split in two. The strategy of the Left is to advance by gaining power in host countries and attacking extremist bastions in when their democratic facades fail. The Iranians just learned that they do not live in a democracy. If the U.S. were to invade now, they would welcome an end to the sanctions which have put their unemployment at more than 30%.

[Mattias Gustavsson]

Maybe the rest of the world shold go invade US. Smack them down a couple of rungs, they seem to need it.
_________________
www.mattiasgustavsson.com - My blog
www.rivtind.com - My Fantasy world and isometric RPG engine
www.pixieuniversity.com - Software 2D Game Engine

[tcaudilllg]

No use talking to you about this... you're no different than Ahmadinejad. A collectivist to the core....

Though I still think we can find agreement on other matters.

[Nodtveidt]

The US has no business in Iran, or Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the other Middle Eastern countries. Actually, "business" is all it really has...oil business.

Here's a little information most of you are probably not aware of. Iran had planned several years ago to reverse its decision on how oil is handled. This would have affected the oil companies that are based in the USA and have great weight in Washington. Iraq, as well, planned to reverse its method as well. Since Iraq was the weaker target, the USA opted to invade Iraq under false pretense after false pretense. When one rationale was ousted by the media, a new one was quick to come to light. When all excuses had been exhausted, the stories stopped coming in. It's very difficult to keep up war support if the people do not believe in the cause, and the way to make them believe is via the media. When the media pulls a 180, the plan falters and the course has to shift. This is what happened in Iraq. Now, there is another issue pending here, and that is one of Iran's nuclear plans. The USA determined, with reasoning pulled out of their ass, that Iran was intent on creating nuclear weapons. Not only is this a fallacy, but Iran already has a nuclear stockpile that was brought in by Russian and French nationalists well over a decade ago. The reality of Iran's nuclear plans is not about warmaking but about power...Iran's plan is to create nuclear power plants to lessen the burden on their oil producers and therefore spread wealth inside their own country. However, the US government learned all too well from the 80s that any time you say "nuclear", the people immediately think "bombs". They used this to their advantage, and gained support from a large amount of the population to begin action against, in reality, a non-existent threat. Yes, Iran wants to become more powerful, and do it with money. I don't think many people really support their theocratic principles, but they were on the right track to changing the way their country supported themselves. Of course, that self-sufficiency means less reliance on the USA, and hell will freeze over before the USA will allow any country to escape from under its iron fist. Now, why hasn't the USA taken action against North Korea, a country that has been developing nuclear weapons since the Korean war and has expressed great contempt for the USA, including threats of nuclear attack? Well, the USA has no business interests in North Korea; in particular, no crude oil. This is a country that could actually pose a serious threat to the welfare of the USA should they develop long-range nuclear weapons, unlike Iran who is not and never will be a threat. Furthermore, if North Korea was to attack the USA, that would simply give the USA a reason to counterattack and spread its deranged version of "democracy". It worked in World War II, and it worked again in 2001. Selling a war is easy when the people feel devastated, even if the cause is complete bunk.

What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public.
_________________
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace

[tcaudilllg]

I disagree. I think the Iranian regime is a legitimate threat, primarily because many of its leaders behave like sociopaths.

[Rainer Deyke]

Iran may be a threat to its own citizens and its immediate neighbors, but it's simply too small, too weak, and surrounded by too many enemies to threaten anyone else.

There's currently only one country with the means and the will to invade other countries halfway across the globe. That country is a threat to world peace.

[Nodtveidt]

LG, you can disagree all you want, but it's a moot point to disagree with facts. Furthermore, virtually all world leaders are sociopaths, so I don't even understand why you're going down that road to begin with. Being a sociopath is pretty much the only way to get elected these days, no matter what country you're in.
_________________
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace

[Ninkazu]

[tcaudilllg]

[Nodtveidt]

LG, those are not traits of sociopathy, they are traits of narcissism.
_________________
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace

[tcaudilllg]

There's a world of difference between loving your own reflection, and believing that you should be free of all social restraints.