Announcement

**Spiffor** · May 25, 2003, 14:30

**HershOstropoler** · May 25, 2003, 14:32

The village people surrender?

**Edan** · May 25, 2003, 14:33

Originally posted by Zylka
HAHA JUST AS WE THOUGHT!!!

Are we supposed to print out those pictures and make flipbooks of them or something?

**Spiffor** · May 25, 2003, 14:33

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The village people surrender?

Nah, this is the "surrender monkey" smiley of FFZ

**HershOstropoler** · May 25, 2003, 14:35

That's supposed to be a Frenchie?

**oedo** · May 25, 2003, 14:41

(...), but thinking everything is is just peachy and democratic in Iran is wrong

truly. I fully agree on this one.

and I´m happy to see, that in the USA, everything is still as peachy as usual:

Page Not Found

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2002/countryratings/usa.htm

Germany and France however:

Page Not Found

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2002/countryratings/germany.htm

Page Not Found

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2002/countryratings/france.htm

**Spiffor** · May 25, 2003, 14:42

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
That's supposed to be a Frenchie?

Hey, those are FFZians who are drawing this smiley, you can't expect them to be knowledgeable.

**TCO** · May 25, 2003, 14:44

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
So I'm scared now.

Ok, cryptic points. What are you trying to say? When you **** up due to a regime change, try it again?

LOL. yes. And a little bit of "grasp the nettle firmly".
I think I actually understand your tossaway just fine too (see point 2 below). I just don't always agree with you. (But since I haven't performed the arduous "pin Roland down" exercise, who knows...)

---------------------

I would also disagree with a few possible inferences from your message (feel free to say "I didn't mean that"-haha).

1. The regime change 20 years ago wasn't "ours" in the sense of being engineered or of being an invasion. Sure we had a role but there were other actors. It is an oversimplification to call it "our regime change".

2. Just because some bad actions occur, doesn't mean that one still shouldn't take an action. Appeasement avoids a conflict, but it has consequences as well. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture. Our tolerance for Islamic terrorism has gone down since 9-11. In the past we took limited actions against Abu Nidal and OBL and their ilk and their sponsors. Now we will be more aggressive against them. That is a strategic decision. Perhaps even the wrong one. Maybe we should just let things blow over. But that's not what we've decided to do. Time will tell what was right. (Of course we can't reload and test it out with a statistically relevant number of trials using the cheat menu.)

Does that mean we will invade everywhere? No. Does it mean the tripwire is tighter? Yes. Does it mean we will sabre-rattle? Yes.

Some other things to think about:

1. We supported Stalin in WW2 as the lesser of two evils and as the enemy of our enemy. This does not mean that we "created" the gulags. Nor did we create the regime that is in power. Yes, we had an effect on what happened. But we are not the puppet-masters of the universe.

2. Would you have supported the Shah more strongly in 1979? If you are criticising "our" last regime change, does it mean that you would have supported him?

**GePap** · May 25, 2003, 14:51

Hersh: it is not an issue of a country like Iran having to be 100% like the US. Not even refromists in Iran want a state with seperatio of church and state. But in any state where the executive has the power to label political enemies criminals and imprison them is not a fully dmeocrati system. The ruling Ayahtollah is not elected (not even by his fellow clerics), and t is this person that has final and full authority over the armed and security forces of the state. That is a huge limit on how dmeocratic you can call a state. An islamic republic, even a clerical republic are in theory possible, but in the current Iranian model the republic part is too weak, and hard line clerics are too pwoefull, styming the whishes of the people in many respects.

**TCO** · May 25, 2003, 14:57

For me the key questions are:

1. What is the extent of terrorist activity in Iran.
2. To what degree does the government sponsor/tolerate this activity (or cross-border activity).
3. What is the status of their nuclear program?
4. How likely a "bad actor" are they if they get nukes?
5. What methods can we use to restrain/influence Iran?
6. What are the costs and benefits of these actions.

None of these are easy questions. And I know that there are some people who advocate a more agressive policy and some who advocate a more passive one. Also, the policy must of nessecity evolve since the responses of the Iranians are a variable.

**Giancarlo** · May 25, 2003, 15:13

Originally posted by oedo
Fez: it´s amazing that a facist like you are complains about the human right situation in a developing country, which is in an appearent progress to more civilisation and democracy.

Only an absolute idiot would call me a fascist.

I am not saying you are one, but saying if you assume that you are one. You don't support democracy, since you are a leftist.

if you haven´t noticed yet, Khomeini is dead since 1989 and since then the country has significantally changed.

Has it? The Mullahs (and they are called mullahs) and Ayatollahs are still in power.

what do you know about Iran anyway, Fez?

Do you? You mumbling fool.

can you name me any civil war in Iran? do you know about any threat, that goes out of Iran? is Iran agressive or irrational in anyway?

Iran has weapons of mass destruction and this is for certain. Iran's program is actually years ahead of Iraqs and is possibly on par with North Korea.

methinks you only hate muslims in general for being not compatible to your ideology and that´s why you you also hate Iran.

Well I happen to 1/4 Moroccan.. and I am always boasting about what the Moors did for Spain. Your rhetoric is full of crap.

I don't hate Iran, I never said I did. I just hate the regime there.

Khatami sure.. he is not bad.. but he has little power.

So your are a liar too now?

it wouldn´t even matter which muslimic country the US is currently focusing, you just go with it.

Another foolish statement by the BS master himself.

**Kuciwalker** · May 25, 2003, 15:18

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Well, we know what your last regime change in Iran created about 20 years later.

That was the idiot Carter.

**Nubclear** · May 25, 2003, 15:23

Originally posted by oedo

truly. I fully agree on this one.

and I´m happy to see, that in the USA, everything is still as peachy as usual:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research...atings/usa.htm

Expect for the downward trend arrow

Germany and France however:

Page Not Found

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2002/countryratings/germany.htm

Page Not Found

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2002/countryratings/france.htm

Hey look! Their as free as the UNITED KINGDOM

**Nubclear** · May 25, 2003, 15:26

Another foolish statement by the BS master himself.

**Kropotkin** · May 25, 2003, 15:29

A important question is if there's a chance in hell that the US can get anything that even resembles a "coalition of the willing" that's not clearly fused together with bribes and threats, to attack Iran.

Announcement

Iran - will we soon face another aggressive act?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment