Its time to militarily conduct regime change in Iran

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S. North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be. However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.

WTF are you talking about? Iran just put 2 satellites into space - read the news lately, beside Communist Times?

And its even more hilarious how, all of a sudden, now the left is leaning back on the missile defense program AKA star wars - the very program they spent enormous clout and effort trying to stop - screeching "it won't work" - for over 20 years.

So, leftist, after decrying the Star Wars program, now you think you can say "hey, I was there all along"? Don't fucking think so.

I'm not a "leftist," and don't have a subscription to Communist Times.

 

[rhodescholar]

Noone is claiming that iran would "launch a first-strike nuclear missile" at the continental US; all they would have to do is hand one off to one of their proxies, known to the West or unknown, and claim plausible deniability.

Let's say they openly transfer nukes to hezbolah, and hez uses one against the US, or another allied country, like france or saudi arabia...then what do you do?

And since the iranian filth refuse IAEA inspections, there is no way to trace the material back to iran if it were to come from one of their reactors (as was shown in the movie "Sum of All Fears").

The leftist dream of applying MAD here won't work for a number or reasons, but first and foremost is the lack of who to track the nuke back to.

That scenario is not unique to Iran. Terrorists don't need to wait for a nation state to acquire a nuclear weapon to try and obtain one.

Our assets are better spent, IMO, keeping our eye on that ball as opposed to others.

If we can reduce the number of sources for nuclear weapons material by one major threat - in particular, the iranian fascists, that would be progress.

I agree, it is VERY difficult to try and prevent EVERY rogue regime from acquiring nukes, but iran is also hegemonistic; they export both weapons and ideology. NKorea is a puppy compared to them, at least NK doesn't have expansionist dreams.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Propping up a military dictator didn't work out for us whatsoever. We earned the hatred of the Iranian citizens and had to deal with the hostage situation. There are always unintended consequences for what we do around the world.

There's no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, only the same kind of propaganda that we heard prior to the Iraq war. And no, it's not worth the price in blood and treasure, especially considering we don't know what else could go wrong on top of that.

Propping up the Shah, if that's what we did, did work out for us; not propping him up in 1979 is what got us in trouble.

There's lots of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but it's not an airtight case, if that's what you mean, however, is that because there is no nuclear weapons program or because Iran refuses the IAEA the full access to its nuclear programs it is asking for? There are only three reasons I can think why Iran would continue to deny the IAEA the full access it seeks: there is a nuclear weapons program, the regime wants the world to think there is because it makes Iran look tougher, stronger and more dangerous or the leadership is either stupid or crazy.

It's true that we don't know what might go wrong if we do intervene, but we also don't know what might go wrong if we don't intervene. If we had known in 1979 what not intervening to keep the Shah in power would lead to, would we have acted differently? After all, Saddam would not have attacked Iran if Iran still had the support of the US, and millions of lives could have been saved if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power. Arguably, Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if not for his failure to make any gains from the years of war with Iran, and had he not invaded Kuwait, we would not have become involved in the first Gulf War, and we would not have had to increase our presence in the ME, especially in Saudi Arabia, to contain Saddam afterwards and one could argue that it was the increased US military presence in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam that fueled the growth of al Qaeda and that led to 9/11 and our present wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent, Pakistan.

So, on balance, what could have gone wrong if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power in 1979?

We can't know what would have gone wrong, which is why we need to apply a non-interventionist foreign policy in all cases not just a select few.

But since we do know what went wrong when we didn't intervene in 1979 to keep the Shah in power and that it was catastrophic, and since it is unimaginable, apparently even to you, that intervention could have led to worse outcomes, clearly we should consider intervention in an uncertain situation as a valid option.

 

[L.K.Eder]

You are a fucking **** idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge.
..

I could not read any further.

Hysterical how douchebags like you are so one-sided, did you take not of that asshole's personal insults on the prior page?

Oh that's right, only leftists are allowed to do that...

Hysterical how clowns like you don't even see the massive self-ownage you perpetrated here. No reference point is needed. You really should buy a new mirror, yours is kaput.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Propping up the Shah, if that's what we did, did work out for us; not propping him up in 1979 is what got us in trouble.

There's lots of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but it's not an airtight case, if that's what you mean, however, is that because there is no nuclear weapons program or because Iran refuses the IAEA the full access to its nuclear programs it is asking for? There are only three reasons I can think why Iran would continue to deny the IAEA the full access it seeks: there is a nuclear weapons program, the regime wants the world to think there is because it makes Iran look tougher, stronger and more dangerous or the leadership is either stupid or crazy.

It's true that we don't know what might go wrong if we do intervene, but we also don't know what might go wrong if we don't intervene. If we had known in 1979 what not intervening to keep the Shah in power would lead to, would we have acted differently? After all, Saddam would not have attacked Iran if Iran still had the support of the US, and millions of lives could have been saved if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power. Arguably, Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if not for his failure to make any gains from the years of war with Iran, and had he not invaded Kuwait, we would not have become involved in the first Gulf War, and we would not have had to increase our presence in the ME, especially in Saudi Arabia, to contain Saddam afterwards and one could argue that it was the increased US military presence in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam that fueled the growth of al Qaeda and that led to 9/11 and our present wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent, Pakistan.

So, on balance, what could have gone wrong if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power in 1979?

We can't know what would have gone wrong, which is why we need to apply a non-interventionist foreign policy in all cases not just a select few.

But since we do know what went wrong when we didn't intervene in 1979 to keep the Shah in power and that it was catastrophic, and since it is unimaginable, apparently even to you, that intervention could have led to worse outcomes, clearly we should consider intervention in an uncertain situation as a valid option.

Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages. And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today. Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.

 

[rhodescholar]

Hysterical how clowns like you don't even see the massive self-ownage you perpetrated here. No reference point is needed. You really should buy a new mirror, yours is kaput.

Lets see now, complete inability to debate a point, sticks to personal insults, continuing the same inability from prior threads, I guess you don't get tired of being made to look like an idiot?

You still never admitted how stupid you looked from the other iran thread, where you demanded proof, I posted it from the jerusalem post within 2 minutes, and then you spent days trying to spin your way out of that one. Yeah, your credibility is somewhere between the current iranian fascists and Baghdad Bob.

 

[Soaring]

Other than securing the flow of Iran's oil to the United States, there is absolutely zero reason for us to go to war with them just like it was zero reasons to go to war with Vietnam. Right now we don't have the money or the military strength to take on anybody else. Who elected the U.S. as the country who protects everybody else's countrymen? Let them protect themselves. I guarantee you that Iran would not send troops to create a political change here in the United States. Neither would any other country. We Americans would be saddled with doing that.

 

[rhodescholar]

Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages. And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today. Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.

Is reading not fundamental in your family?

I already said that Mossadegh had been turning towards the USSR and against the West.

Given this imbecilism, since:

1-china attacked US troops only 5 years after we saved them from Japan
2-has sent poisonous food to kill our children and pets

perhaps we should start "Death to China" chants as well?

I love how the left wants the West to forgive every possible insult and bad behaviour from the third world - but the third world can use every iota of actions by the west for oh, 12,000 years...

 

[L.K.Eder]

Hysterical how clowns like you don't even see the massive self-ownage you perpetrated here. No reference point is needed. You really should buy a new mirror, yours is kaput.

Lets see now, complete inability to debate a point, sticks to personal insults, continuing the same inability from prior threads, I guess you don't get tired of being made to look like an idiot?

You still never admitted how stupid you looked from the other iran thread, where you demanded proof, I posted it from the jerusalem post within 2 minutes, and then you spent days trying to spin your way out of that one. Yeah, your credibility is somewhere between the current iranian fascists and Baghdad Bob.

ahem, it took you more than a day to find the j-post rumour. to the rescue. here i come.

no i am not tired. you provide enough entertainment. come on, call for terror attacks against the civilian population of iran again and tell me how you are rooting for ahmadinejad. and then couch your attack plan to kill filthy muslim animals in pseudo-compassion for iranian students.

dance, motherfucker.


EDIT: btw, you are still in check. spreading lies in another forum (IRAN forum) about who should apologize is SHOCKing and AWEsome coming from you.

 

[rhodescholar]

Other than securing the flow of Iran's oil to the United States, there is absolutely zero reason for us to go to war with them just like it was zero reasons to go to war with Vietnam. Right now we don't have the money or the military strength to take on anybody else. Who elected the U.S. as the country who protects everybody else's countrymen? Let them protect themselves. I guarantee you that Iran would not send troops to create a political change here in the United States. Neither would any other country. We Americans would be saddled with doing that.

So its alright to see our allies in the middle east fall under iran's power - and watch lebanon vanish as a satellite of iran like hungary and the other eastern european countries did under russia?

So it is alright to see japan, saudi arabia, jordan and egypt and others be driven to develop nuclear weapons because their primary protector, the US, failed to do so?

The Ron Paul moronic notion of pulling back into our hemisphere is just that, a completely failed and absurd idea, and noone major politician with an ounce of respectability could present as viable.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.

Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans. Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.

We can't base our foreign policy on what-if doomsday scenarios. Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S. North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be. However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.

In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe. Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that. I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages. And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today. Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.

Is reading not fundamental in your family?

I already said that Mossadegh had been turning towards the USSR and against the West.

Given this imbecilism, since:

1-china attacked US troops only 5 years after we saved them from Japan
2-has sent poisonous food to kill our children and pets

perhaps we should start "Death to China" chants as well?

I love how the left wants the West to forgive every possible insult and bad behaviour from the third world - but the third world can use every iota of actions by the west for oh, 12,000 years...

So are you done pretending you don't insult people unless they insult you first?

Again, I am not on the left. Mossadegh may have been turning towards the Soviet Union, but we had no right to remove him as Iran's elected Prime Minister and re-establish a military dictator. And regardless of the reason, had we not done so then the revolution and the hostage crisis may have been avoided.

 

[rhodescholar]

ahem, it took you more than a day to find the j-post rumour. to the rescue. here i come.

Asshole's post requesting proof:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1281153-post86.html

@ 06-17-2009, 02:35 AM

My response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1281430-post89.html

06-17-2009, 08:22 AM

Pretty damn good, since it was first thing in the morning especially since it was during the overnight EST...and 6 hours is not a day, dimwit.

Again, you look like an asshole. You demanded proof, got it, then complained about the Jerusalem post. Fucking predictable - and incredibly funny.

come on, call for terror attacks against the civilian population of iran again and tell me how you are rooting for ahmadinejad. and then couch your attack plan to kill filthy muslim animals in pseudo-compassion for iranian students..

Yes, every war is terrorism to a socialist pacifist idiot like you, isn't it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans. Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.

We can't base our foreign policy on what-if doomsday scenarios. Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S. North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be. However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.

In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe. Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that. I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.

There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.

 

[rhodescholar]

So are you done pretending you don't insult people unless they insult you first?

No, since Bfgrn or WTF his id is personally attacked first, and I responded. Go back through the thread for evidence.

Again, I am not on the left. Mossadegh may have been turning towards the Soviet Union, but we had no right to remove him as Iran's elected Prime Minister and re-establish a military dictator. And regardless of the reason, had we not done so then the revolution and the hostage crisis may have been avoided.

And to the point, the US is blamed for the operation, but we just went along with the British. That in no way absolves us, but I find it interesting how so many wish to blame solely the US. Smells like AGENDA to me...

 

[L.K.Eder]

ahem, it took you more than a day to find the j-post rumour. to the rescue. here i come.[/quote[

Asshole's post requesting proof:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1281153-post86.html

@ 06-17-2009, 02:35 AM

My response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1281430-post89.html

06-17-2009, 08:22 AM

Pretty damn good, since it was first thing in the morning...

Again, you look like an asshole. You demanded proof, got it, then complained about the Jerusalem post. Fucking predictable - and incredibly funny.

come on, call for terror attacks against the civilian population of iran again and tell me how you are rooting for ahmadinejad. and then couch your attack plan to kill filthy muslim animals in pseudo-compassion for iranian students..

Yes, every war is terrorism to a socialist pacifist idiot like you, isn't it?

why don't we take this to the original thread. i don't think many are interested in our dance.

you lied again. several times btw. and in the bolded part i was paraphrasing your previous posts from other threads, i have a functioning memory, you know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So are you done pretending you don't insult people unless they insult you first?

No, since Bfgrn or WTF his id is personally attacked first, and I responded. Go back through the thread for evidence.

Again, I am not on the left. Mossadegh may have been turning towards the Soviet Union, but we had no right to remove him as Iran's elected Prime Minister and re-establish a military dictator. And regardless of the reason, had we not done so then the revolution and the hostage crisis may have been avoided.

And to the point, the US is blamed for the operation, but we just went along with the British. That in no way absolves us, but I find it interesting how so many wish to blame solely the US. Smells like AGENDA to me...

So because somebody else insulted you you think it's ok to insult me?

I am not blaming solely the U.S. I am aware that it was primarily Great Britain's objective to overthrow Mossadegh, and that the U.S. went along. I'm simply reserving my criticism for my own government's role.

 

[rhodescholar]

why don't we take this to the original thread. i don't think many are interested in our dance.

you lied again. several times btw. and in the bolded part i was paraphrasing your previous posts from other threads, i have a functioning memory, you know.

What a worthless pos. I posted WHEN you asked for proof, and I posted my response, which you claimed required "a full day."

You are PROVEN WRONG ASSHOLE. It was less than 6 hours later.

Clearly, your "functioning memory" is anything BUT functional, you fucking sore-losing twit. Go cry to mama.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.

Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans. Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.

As I said, perpetual war to prevent possible future war seems like a dismal future to me. No matter what, we can't stop every rogue nation from getting nuclear weapons.

On a side note, thanks for being able to discuss this issue without use of the words "idiot", "fuck (or any derivative thereof)", "****", "jackass", "dumbass", "pussy", etc.

There is nothing to like about any war and the future is uncertain, but if we think we have strong reason to believe a small war now can prevent a large war later, then we should seriously consider that option. Our failure to act to keep the Shah in power in 1979 was a critical factor leading to the Iran-Iraq war and the loss of millions of lives and arguably it was a critical factor leading to 9/11 and our current wars. It is hard to imagine that intervention to keep the Shah in power would have led to worse outcomes for us or anyone else.

We cannot count on being able to prevent rogue nations from acquiring nukes forever, but with determined action we can probably prevent it for a while, and then for a while longer and perhaps a while longer, etc., and maybe this will give the world enough time to work out some of the problems that lead to war and to the determination to acquire nukes. I don't believe in war; I believe in progress.

I also appreciate you not turning to personal attacks. Imo, if you believe you have good facts and arguments to support your positions, you don't feel the need to turn to personal attacks, and if you don't believe this, you have no business holding strong opinions.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We can't base our foreign policy on what-if doomsday scenarios. Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S. North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be. However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.

In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe. Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that. I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.

There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.

Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved. How can this be wrong?