Its time to militarily conduct regime change in Iran

rhodescholar

Gold Member
May 31, 2009
5,380
974
245
Strafing Iranian RGs with my .50 Cal
Since the animals that have illegally and illegitimately retained power continue to attack and beat civilians, including trespassing into their homes at night, as the Basij cowards are smashing into the homes of people when they see them chanting on their roofs in the evening, the regime can no longer be tolerated.

A dictatorship that would attack and murder sleeping college students - sending in armed thugs into dorms, again late at night, is not one that can be trusted - or negotiated with.

THERE IS NOTHING FOR OBAMA TO DISCUSS WITH THEM, NOTHING.

Only an outside military intervention to destroy the regime, the IRGC, and certainly the Basij, is a feasible method of stopping the onslaught internally in iran, and the external funding of terrorist proxies abroad.

To those that screech about the past history of Western imperialism and colonialism, it is not a justification for iran's internal repressions or stoking of terrorist flames throughout the middle east. Nor is it acceptable to allow more iranian civilians to suffer because of Western guilt over past misdeeds.

In 1945, the US liberated China from Japan, 5 years later China sent troops and support into North Korea, so it goes both ways. The US deposed Mossadegh 50 years ago, that event has exhausted its political mileage and capital long ago. The only reason its even mentioned is so that filth like Ahmadinejihadist can continue to try and deflect his government's abject failings onto manufactured external enemies.

Given that the regime will continue to use infinite amounts of force internally to retain power, and is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons and prevent external threats, time is running out on deposing this monstrous regime - and our children will never forgive us for failing to do so when we had the chance.

I see the regime as an existential, apocalyptic, lunatic death cult who is a threat to the safety and security of not just the middle east, but entire planet. It is well known amongst clandestine agencies it has developed and maintained terrorist cells throughout the West, who must be located and exterminated when the military campaign is initiated.

Further concerns that iranians will "rally around the government" should the West attack are no longer valid, given that their choice is to be further tormented and murdered indefinitely by a known devil - or take their chances with a new regime formulated by the people, for the people, as in the case with Iraq.

The US and West know that they cannot implant a pliant dictatorship as in the past; there are too many obstacles to doing so, not least being the fact that past history proves one will not last without using the same horrific methods the illegal regime has just used itself.

A major initial strike, with the major regime figures captured and/or killed, regime defense forces liquidated, and a representative, secular democracy implanted - and an accounting for and termination of funds and support for the various proxy armies.

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/..._iran_election
 
Personally I don't think it is a good time for America to go over to Iran. We have so much on our plate right now and our military is already to thin. I think it's about time someone else hike up their undies and help those people out in Iran.

I agree that something needs to be done. I agree. But I don't think we have the ability at this point in time to lead any kind of invasion.

WWIII. Everyone ready?
 
How would we conduct regime change in Iran? How many troops would that require? Sounds like a draft would be required. I am sure it would require more troops than Iraq did.
 
Since the animals that have illegally and illegitimately retained power continue to attack and beat civilians, including trespassing into their homes at night, as the Basij cowards are smashing into the homes of people when they see them chanting on their roofs in the evening, the regime can no longer be tolerated.

A dictatorship that would attack and murder sleeping college students - sending in armed thugs into dorms, again late at night, is not one that can be trusted - or negotiated with.

THERE IS NOTHING FOR OBAMA TO DISCUSS WITH THEM, NOTHING.

Only an outside military intervention to destroy the regime, the IRGC, and certainly the Basij, is a feasible method of stopping the onslaught internally in iran, and the external funding of terrorist proxies abroad.

To those that screech about the past history of Western imperialism and colonialism, it is not a justification for iran's internal repressions or stoking of terrorist flames throughout the middle east. Nor is it acceptable to allow more iranian civilians to suffer because of Western guilt over past misdeeds.

In 1945, the US liberated China from Japan, 5 years later China sent troops and support into North Korea, so it goes both ways. The US deposed Mossadegh 50 years ago, that event has exhausted its political mileage and capital long ago. The only reason its even mentioned is so that filth like Ahmadinejihadist can continue to try and deflect his government's abject failings onto manufactured external enemies.

Given that the regime will continue to use infinite amounts of force internally to retain power, and is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons and prevent external threats, time is running out on deposing this monstrous regime - and our children will never forgive us for failing to do so when we had the chance.

I see the regime as an existential, apocalyptic, lunatic death cult who is a threat to the safety and security of not just the middle east, but entire planet. It is well known amongst clandestine agencies it has developed and maintained terrorist cells throughout the West, who must be located and exterminated when the military campaign is initiated.

Further concerns that iranians will "rally around the government" should the West attack are no longer valid, given that their choice is to be further tormented and murdered indefinitely by a known devil - or take their chances with a new regime formulated by the people, for the people, as in the case with Iraq.

The US and West know that they cannot implant a pliant dictatorship as in the past; there are too many obstacles to doing so, not least being the fact that past history proves one will not last without using the same horrific methods the illegal regime has just used itself.

A major initial strike, with the major regime figures captured and/or killed, regime defense forces liquidated, and a representative, secular democracy implanted - and an accounting for and termination of funds and support for the various proxy armies.

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/..._iran_election

HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...

GoArmy.com > Contact the Army > Find a Recruiter

goarmy.jpg
 
I would not send one US soldier for Iran.

If they want a new gov they will have to fight for it themselves.


Exactly! They themselves can bring the change they wish, if they truly want it. And yes, it will mean the s[illing of a lot more blood.
 
ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)

NO

Change from within, is the only way to go....

We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....
 
How would we conduct regime change in Iran? How many troops would that require? Sounds like a draft would be required. I am sure it would require more troops than Iraq did.
Oh there's enough brainwashed flag wavers around to volunteer if Their Shepherd were to come on TV and ask for "help".....and maybe 20 grand for a new house trailer and a 9mm Beretta to hide under their Bible.
Take them over some freeDumb and DemoNcracy...AKA Bomb them into the stone age and take control of their natural resources.

If they do I'm going to find a body bag company and an artificial limb company and buy some stock. Iran has a real military. Afghan and Iraq didn't.
 
Last edited:
ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)

NO

Change from within, is the only way to go....

We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....

Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without. On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us? What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided? Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.

Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home? After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?
 
Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without. On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us? What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided? Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.

Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home? After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?

1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.
2) Japan and Germany were expansionist in nature, Iran has kept within its own borders.
3) The Europeans were willing to fight during WWII, but with the exception of Britain, they lost.
 
ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)

NO

Change from within, is the only way to go....

We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....

Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.

Good point, but hardly the same situation.



On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us?

No



What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided?

Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.[/

Surely you cannot believe that this analogy is valid, can you?


Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?

Hmmm...that's exactly what we did. It worked out fairly well, too.



After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?

Silly argument.
 
ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)

NO

Change from within, is the only way to go....

We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....

Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.

Good point, but hardly the same situation.





No





Surely you cannot believe that this analogy is valid, can you?


Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?

Hmmm...that's exactly what we did. It worked out fairly well, too.



After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?

Silly argument.

Translation: you don't like what I said, but you have no idea why.
 
ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)

NO

Change from within, is the only way to go....

We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....
Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.

As others have said, these situations are not remotely similar?
On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us? What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided?

Ummmmm, Japan ATTACKED us, at Pearl Harbor? And Germany declared war against us BEFORE we got involved in WWII?
Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.

You truly are not making any sense too much time?
Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home? After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?

War was declared on us, it is the only legal reason we constitutionally had, to go in to world war II imo....

Genocide is not occurring in Iran, yes they had some brutality with this election, but no where near the brutality and systematic killing that is going on in the Sudan and other regions of the world, where we may have to send help....NOT declare war.

Care
 
Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.

Good point, but hardly the same situation.





No





Surely you cannot believe that this analogy is valid, can you?




Hmmm...that's exactly what we did. It worked out fairly well, too.



After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?

Silly argument.

Translation: you don't like what I said, but you have no idea why.

Well it's fairly clear that you have no idea why, that I'll give ya'.
 
Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without. On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us? What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided? Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.

Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home? After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?

1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.
2) Japan and Germany were expansionist in nature, Iran has kept within its own borders.
3) The Europeans were willing to fight during WWII, but with the exception of Britain, they lost.

1) Still, a kettle is a kettle and a fish is a fish. From the standpoint of American policy, the same questions apply: will regime change, such as we forced on Japan and Germany, last; should the US act to curb the national ambitions of a nation that is not directly threatening us here at home; how much in blood and treasure should the US be willing to spend to relieve the suffering of foreign peoples.

2) Iran has acted to destabilize the government of Iraq and through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, it has acted to destabilize the Palestinian Authority as well as the government of Lebanon, and Hezbollah is reported to have significant presences in parts of Africa and South America; in addition Iran talks about about wiping out Israel in parallel with its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iran may not be expansionist in exactly the ways Japan and Germany were, but it clearly uses military force to expand its influence beyond its borders and provides strong reasons for us to believe it hopes to expand this policy when it finally develops nuclear weapons.

Is staying within your borders a license to do anything you want? Should the genocide in Rwanda have been immune to foreign intervention because it did not cross any borders? Would the gassing of the Jews have been ok if only German Jews had been gassed and only within Germany's borders? Certainly there will be a political purge in Iran in which many people will go to prison to prevent further dissent in the future and some in the government are talking about executing the protest leaders: is there a point beyond which foreign intervention is justified?

3) After the national armies were defeated, determined opposition to German oppression was rare, small in scale and not often supported by the surrounding populations, despite Hollywood's misrepresentations. Why should Americans have fought and died to liberate France when it is reported the French resistance at its peak never counted more than 200 fighters?
 
HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...

Oooh kid you are funny. I just retired after over 20 years in the grind, most of them clandestine operations for JSOC. You're a bit late in the game...

Sorry, but I'm probably the last person here you can use that line on, and if Jim Jones needs people, I can still fit into the same uniform I put on 24 years ago, and would happily volunteer to go (back) there.

Hi Elvis. I wrote up a full description of my attack plan earlier, which is the type of plan I'm sure has been under War Game Review in SOCOM since, oh, about 20 years ago...
 

Forum List

Back
Top