If one of them succeeds, is it an act of war?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


In Iran there is no universal acces to the internet. Therefore the masses cannot send deaththreats to the intellectuals if they tell the truth, like it is often done in the US by various brownshirts. So there is no balance if you will.

Freedom of expression in the US is being controlled by an all-pervading sense of fear.

Lord Know's I'm afraid of kooks on the internbet. Pfff!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


In Iran there is no universal acces to the internet. Therefore the masses cannot send deaththreats to the intellectuals if they tell the truth, like it is often done in the US by various brownshirts. So there is no balance if you will.

In Iran the "masses" dont send death threats, thats the job of the Revolutionary Guards, the Hezbollah, and other regime backed groups. Damned straight they dont want the masses doing that.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Nonetheless Iraq has a lively press, which criticizes the govt, in the midst of war, while Iran, doesnt and is excused based on the "threat" of war.

Can you give me an example of this lively press. Would anyone critizse Allawi, a former executioner for Saddam?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


No you developed a democracy after the British were thrown out because you needed to aquire Indian land, and the British wouldn't let you. And then you started to invade other countries. Canada, Mexico and so on.

When we invaded Canada, the British had already been occupying much of the old Northwest during the decades after the Revolution. I would define that as an Invasion, wouldn't you? How about stirring up the Indians under Tecumseh?

How about trying to turn Texas into a Protectorate? (whcih is what finally compelled the United States into accepting them into the Union). Or the repeated French Invasions of Mexico?

Every country is here today because they pushed the natives off their land. Ours is not any different.

[Barinthus]

Tripledoc's article was interesting but I object to one part comparing Iranian parliment with American Congress. Some nonosense on how more democratic Iran is since they have like 11 parties represented in their government while in the States there are two dominant parties.

Newsflash here, folks, Americans have a long standing tradition of having two dominant parties since early days and they were not Republican nor Democracts. Parties come and go but Americans always have had two parties. It is political preference for two centuries to have two party government. This does not make the States more or less democratic than Iran.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


Can you give me an example of this lively press. Would anyone critizse Allawi, a former executioner for Saddam?

Azzaman.com, apparently an Iraqi paper, linked to at Iraq the Model - all the other papers he linked to were in Arabic

"Pound cities with bombs to persuade people to vote

By Fateh Abdulsalam
Azzaman, 2004-11-07

The US-led troops and the interim government are of the opinion that invading the so-called rebel cities, turning their inhabitants into refugees and killing as many of them as possible will ensure widest popular participation in the January vote.


For this reason they have besieged Falluja and kept on bombarding it day and night for almost three months – their target is to pave the way for the January elections.


The other pretext they cite for their planned butchering of a city of more than 350,000 people is the presence of Musaab al-Zarqawi.


But what will the Americans say if the troops find no trace of Zarqawi in the city?

Pro-US Iraqi officials will certainly come up with new excuses and pretexts.


Few in Iraq now believe the reason for invading Falluja, the killing of its people and making most of the population homeless has anything to do with Zarqawi.



The decision to destroy Falluja has already been made by US troops. Capturing or killing Zarqawi will not lead to a change of heart.


Falluja, in American eyes, will have to pay a price for its open resistance of the might of the world’s only superpower.


The US cannot perceive how its troops can be humiliated at the hands of a small and hungry city with no running water and a proper sewage system.


How could the US be proud of its military might and control of the world, particularly after the election victory of President George W. Bush and a city like Falluja instills fear in the hearts of its Marines?

According to reports only one fourth of the city’s population has opted to stay while the rest has fled to safer areas.


Most of those remaining are forbidden from leaving and will certainly be victims of mass killing whether they decide to fight or not.


The US decision to invade Falluja is tantamount to the death that awaits its inhabitants.


If the US fails to find Zarqawi in the city after storming it that will be a stigma of shame and disgrace not only for its troops but also its Iraqi backers.


But if Zarqawi is either captured or killed in the city that will be a disgrace for the people of Falluja themselves.


Invasion of cities, turning hundreds of thousands of Iraqis into refugees and killing through indiscriminate bombing will not pave the way for a democratic and civil society and will not lead to credible and fair elections.


The interim government will be mistaken to believe that Iraqis will be happy with the invasion of cities like Falluja.


On the contrary, they will condemn such actions and denounce any government sanctioning them."

Sounds pretty rough, Id say.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Lonestar



When we invaded Canada, the British had already been occupying much of the old Northwest during the decades after the Revolution. I would define that as an Invasion, wouldn't you? How about stirring up the Indians under Tecumseh?

How about trying to turn Texas into a Protectorate? (whcih is what finally compelled the United States into accepting them into the Union). Or the repeated French Invasions of Mexico?

Every country is here today because they pushed the natives off their land. Ours is not any different.

I refer you all to the third and last quote in my signature. There is no country on this miserable mudball that doesn't have any blood on their hands.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Obviously you don't watch basketball.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


An overthrow of the Iranian regime will never happen. It is one of the most democratic regimes in the Middle East.

[Pax]

Iran. I'll never been there. Have no desire to tell them how to live. They hate us not because we exist but because we attempted to manipulate there society. The question that should be asked is if Iranians better off now or before when they were a U.S. puppet. I think most U.S. citizens would rather live in a corrupt oppressive society than in a society that is ruled from abroad. I'm sure the Christian right would die at the thought of being controlled by Muslims. If you look at them as having similar feelings it's easier to understand, easier to communicate, and easier to overcome if necessary.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pax
Iran. I'll never been there. Have no desire to tell them how to live. They hate us not because we exist but because we attempted to manipulate there society.

I have two friends/acquintances who've been to iran in recent years. One said he was told they wanted Bush reelected, so hed invade!!!! The other, who seemed to have spoken with a broader range of Iranians, said that unemployment was high, and with it hatred for the Mullahs. One cabbie pointed to some high tower of some kind at the airport, and said "thats where we'll hang the mullahs"

A biased sample, the elite of North Teheran, supplemented by a cabbie looking for a tip? Maybe. But it fits in with alot ive seen about Iran elsewhere. Lots of them ( I cant say if its the majority) dont give a damn about our support for the Shah, most of them are too young to remember the Shah, theyre steamed at the Mullahs and ready for change, though theyre perhaps not steamed enough yet to take their chances with the regimes thugs. Alot of bombs falling on them would change that, but if we can play this right (which there is certainly adequate reason for pessimism about) we could see big changes there.

[lord of the mark]

oh, and one of my informants says the Iranian Jews (Still around 20,000 or so) are terrified of a US or Israeli attack, since they fear that they would be scapegoated.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Human Rights Watch

Interesting group of people for sure.

[Odin]

What the hell is Triplodoc smoking?

If I was President and we were not in Iraq I would be sending planes to bomb every Iranian nuclear facility off the face of the planet.

[:) Smiley]

If I was President and we were not in Iraq I would be sending planes to bomb every Iranian nuclear facility off the face of the planet.

I'll take Vince278 over you any day.