Iran

[no_bourgeoisie_liberals]

Will Iran be the next on Bush's list?

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...119070309990005 (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041119070309990005)

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Don't know, it wants me to sign in as an AOl member...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:38 PM
Will Iran be the next on Bush's list?
Unlike Iraq, Iran's demise should be short and sweet. At the moment, the Ayotolla is only hanging on to power by the skin of his teeth, so a revolution is not out of the question.

[Militant]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Nov 19 2004, 04:15 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Nov 19 2004, 04:15 PM)
[email protected] 19 2004, 01:38 PM
Will Iran be the next on Bush's list?
Unlike Iraq, Iran's demise should be short and sweet. At the moment, the Ayotolla is only hanging on to power by the skin of his teeth, so a revolution is not out of the question. [/b]
Doesn't THAT sound familiar?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:17 PM
Doesn't THAT sound familiar?
No it doesn't. Unless there were students demonstrations in Iraq we never heard about.

[Militant]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Nov 19 2004, 05:19 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Nov 19 2004, 05:19 PM)
[email protected] 19 2004, 05:17 PM
Doesn't THAT sound familiar?
No it doesn't. Unless there were students demonstrations in Iraq we never heard about. [/b]
Actually what was promised in Iraq was more than just student demostrators. The US promised that the Iraqi army would defect, the Shiites would rise up, and the Kurds would sweep in from the north. The war was to take 2 minutes, and the biggest roadblocks would be the roses thrown at the marines' feet.

Or did you not watch Rummy's briefings?

[cormacobear]

Bush is just going to let the CIA loose in Iran, with a free reign they've brought down as many gov'ts as the army.

This has got to have been the topic brought up the most this year.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Militant+Nov 19 2004, 05:17 PM--> (Militant @ Nov 19 2004, 05:17 PM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 19 2004, 04:15 PM

[email protected] 19 2004, 01:38 PM
Will Iran be the next on Bush's list?
Unlike Iraq, Iran's demise should be short and sweet. At the moment, the Ayotolla is only hanging on to power by the skin of his teeth, so a revolution is not out of the question.
Doesn't THAT sound familiar? [/b]
LOL :lol:

PM,

That is a joke right?

Man they've got so many psycho's lined up, you have no idea. :angry:
Read about Sadam Hussein's attempts on Iran, that should give you a good idea. And just remember he was using chemical warfare.

[Osman Ghazi]

Unlike Iraq, Iran's demise should be short and sweet. At the moment, the Ayotolla is only hanging on to power by the skin of his teeth, so a revolution is not out of the question.

Ha!

A) Whereas Iraq is a relatively small country (only 25 million) Iran has more than twice the populace (70 mil).

B) Iran has an army. Just think, it took a million men in 1991 to defeat Saddam's army. Now, they only have a measly 130,000 to defeat an army that is larger and better equipped.

C) Iraq has very favourable terrain for a technologically advanced army. There is nary a mountain in the southern two-thirds of the country, though there are some mountainous valleys in Kurdistan. Iran, on the other hand, is mostly mountainous, with a range running from north to south close to the border with Iraq.

D) Rebellious though they may be, the students don't have the power to combat the mullahs. The revolution there is only 25 years old, and I'm sure there are many who would still fight for it, if they fought for it then. This is in stark contrast to Iraq, whose population was more or less willing, if unable to kill its leaders.

Compared to Iraq, (and the business isn't finished there yet) Iran is quite a step up. It would be a real battle instead of a counter-insurgency campaign. Or rather, it would be a real battle followed by a counter-insurgency campaign. Religious zealots have a habit of going underground, or into exile and then returning when the shit hits the fan.

Whatever the case, Iran is not on the verge of revolution. Not yet anyways. The mullahs still have the power to dominate parliament and for now, no one is trying to stop them.

Also, why is it that they used an eigth of the soldiery they used in the last war? And still, the call is going out for more 'volunteers' (although, considering the fraud used to recruit them, and the concept of fraud=force, as espoused by PM, they are actaully drafted.)

Perhaps the American Empire is stretched a little thin?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Nice post.

Even tough that Iraq was the weakest country in the region after the first Gulf-war, still a 12 year bombing campaign followed. So if the US has intentions of invading Iran, I'd expect a bombing campaign.

[redstar66]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Nov 20 2004, 12:31 AM
Nice post.

Even tough that Iraq was the weakest country in the region after the first Gulf-war, still a 12 year bombing campaign followed. So if the US has intentions of invading Iran, I'd expect a bombing campaign.
Of course it will be bombed. Clinton bombed Kosovo for 77 days.

[stop_drop_spin]

Clinton had a hardon for Kosovo and for that aspirin factory

[redstar66]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 12:37 AM
Clinton had a hardon for Kosovo and for that aspirin factory
It is a lot easier to send jets against a non-existant air force than to send in troops. What will happen with Iran?

[stop_drop_spin]

Iran isn't bothering anyone by helping to snowball anti-american sentiment and activities

[redstar66]

Iran is just helping out its fellow muslim by providing assistance. Wouldn't you expect the same from Britain?

[stop_drop_spin]

Britain is a bunch of evil facists and capitalists. Islam is a religion of peace.

[LSD]

Islam is a religion of peace.

Sorry, no such animal.

All religions are inherrently imperialistic and violent, and Islam has shown itself to be no different.

I understand that there is a Western liberal guilt over past oppression of Muslims, but Islam is just as oppressive as Christianity.

Don't get caught up in the apologetic trap of believing that religion has to be "respected" as part of "local herritage". All forms of oppression should be opposed, wherever they are, and whatever they call themselves.

[redstar66]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 20 2004, 01:16 AM

Islam is a religion of peace.

Sorry, no such animal.

All religions are inherrently imperialistic and violent, and Islam has shown itself to be no different.

I understand that there is a Western liberal guilt over past oppression of Muslims, but Islam is just as oppressive as Christianity.

Don't get caught up in the apologetic trap of believing that religion has to be "respected" as part of "local herritage". All forms of oppression should be opposed, wherever they are, and whatever they call themselves.
Very well said. I do get caught up because of my religious upbringing. I have much to learn.

[STI]

Don't feel bad. I was in the same boat not long ago. You'll be god-unbelievin' and ass-kickin' before long!

[kidicarus20]

Well since the U$ imperialist state has used such a large brush to paint countries worthy of invasion basically any country could become a target. Remember when no WMDs were found in Iraq (Iraq was disarmed in the 90s, Saddam wasn't in control of 2/3rds of his country) the US shifted the reasons from that to the argument that they had the _potential_ to develop WMDs. Any country could probably fit that definition.

I think it's up to the left to provide reasonable arguments why imperialism is wrong, and prove that it doesn't have much of a track record.

[fernando]

I think the U$ might go for a weaker target first...Cuba or something, I mean Iran might be too much for them right now, with already being busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hey just a question: what ever happened with hunting down Bin Laden? <_<

[komon]

bin laden is a myth paranoia is a sickness......
wmd&#39;s in iran is a myth but not in america.....
castro is old and ayyatolahs are sicks....

[Osman Ghazi]

wmd&#39;s in iran is a myth but not in america.....


True. I saw a poll on CNN (not a real one, a Wolf Blitzer phone-in poll) that said that 80% of people who called in thought that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.

[noland]

If Bush really wanted to hit the middle east pretty hard, piss off all muslims there, and start an all out war so he could instate the draft he so badly wants to, he would send troops to Israel and help subdue the "rebellious insurgent" Palestinians who have lost their most valuable political face, Arafat that is. That&#39;s what i would do if I was a power-grabbing idiot like Bush.

[Intifada]

Palestinians who have lost their most valuable political face, Arafat that is

He wasn&#39;t actually that valuable a political power for the Palestinian people. He became corrupt and useless.

[no_bourgeoisie_liberals]

Iran is Bush&#39;s Cambodia. Nixon bombed Cambodia to destroy Viet Cong supply lines. Now I can see Bush invading Iran to attack insurgents or insurgent supporters. It&#39;s history repeating itself.