Iran Blames Us

[Caleb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/world/middleeast/20iran.html?hp

I knew this would happen.

 

[Sovereign]

They can go to hell.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

This is a Current Affairs topic. Moving it there.

 

[Kaeb]

They can go to hell.

I'm Leon and I support this.

 

[Tsar Fire]

Wow.... that's retarded. (Iran that is)

 

[Brandon Rhea]

If what Iran is claiming is true, I'm not opposed to it.

 

[Viggy]

If what Iran is claiming is true, I'm not opposed to it.

Supporting a radical Islamic insurgency that commits suicide attacks in areas full of civilians, just because they are fighting against a regime we aren't fond of, is not moral or wise.

Look at the Afghan insurgents. We supported them because they were fighting the Soviets. Now who has to deal with them? Us, that's who.

 

[Tsar Fire]

Supporting a radical Islamic insurgency that commits suicide attacks in areas full of civilians, just because they are fighting against a regime we aren't fond of, is not moral or wise.

Look at the Afghan insurgents. We supported them because they were fighting the Soviets. Now who has to deal with them? Us, that's who.

Amen. Or Bravo... Or whatever supporting word you prefer.

 

[Viggy]

Amen. Or Bravo... Or whatever supporting word you prefer.

Amen was fine, but thank you for being so sensitive to my preferences. :CHappy:

 

[Tsar Fire]

Amen was fine, but thank you for being so sensitive to my preferences. :CHappy:

You're welcome.:CHappy:

 

[Wing]

Iran accusing us Americans and our British brethren is blasphemy!

 

[Matt]

Bullshit.

We might of done it but I can't see the yanks doing something like this.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

The problem with Bin Laden was that we were irresponsible and took our eyes off of him. If we're working with groups who are trying to overthrow a government, we need to actually watch them instead of just pretending they don't exist after the job's done.

 

[Tsar Fire]

The problem with Bin Laden was that we were irresponsible and took our eyes off of him. If we're working with groups who are trying to overthrow a government, we need to actually watch them instead of just pretending they don't exist after the job's done.

Or we can just overthrow the government ourselves and cut (get it) out the middleman. Much simpler and more efficient.:CHappy:

 

[Viggy]

The problem with Bin Laden was that we were irresponsible and took our eyes off of him. If we're working with groups who are trying to overthrow a government, we need to actually watch them instead of just pretending they don't exist after the job's done.

America can watch its allies pretty closely when it needs to, but it's a lot harder to watch insurgents then to watch another state. Besides, even if you know everything they do all the time, no one can control an insurgency like the Jundallah. Such radicals are unpredictable and dangerous, and as difficult to be rid of as herpes if they should become a problem, because of their unconventional nature.

Suppose that with the support of British and American intelligence, these insurgents manage to topple the Iranian regime. What then? As the men of the land, the Jundallah would not hand over control of the territory to the West, no matter how grateful they may be for the support. They would want to set up their own new regime in the place of the old one, and run things in their country according to their beliefs. They could turn out to be even worse then the current government (though admittedly they'd really have to try). If that's the case, what can we do? Have CIA kill em all? It's not that simple.

Besides, supporting such terrorists is not only dangerous and unwise, it's also immoral. No Western country's citizens would like the idea of the West supporting an insurgency that uses terrorist tactics like suicide bombers - especially since the Jundallah target civilians as much as they do soldiers. It's just best not to involve ourselves with such people, imo.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Or we can just overthrow the government ourselves and cut (get it) out the middleman. Much simpler and more efficient.:CHappy:

Any American attempt at a direct overthrowing of a government would result in the people uniting behind said government, regardless of their views about it, because their country and government is therefore being attacked. Look at the United States. On September 10, 2001, George W. Bush had like a 40% approval rating. On September 12th, it was 90%. It's not like 50% of the country suddenly supported all of his views. No, the nation rallied behind its president and its government, supporting it during a time of turmoil.

The same thing would happen if we attempted to directly overthrow the Iranian government.

 

[Tsar Fire]

Any American attempt at a direct overthrowing of a government would result in the people uniting behind said government, regardless of their views about it, because their country and government is therefore being attacked. Look at the United States. On September 10, 2001, George W. Bush had like a 40% approval rating. On September 12th, it was 90%. It's not like 50% of the country suddenly supported all of his views. No, the nation rallied behind its president and its government, supporting it during a time of turmoil.

The same thing would happen if we attempted to directly overthrow the Iranian government.

And supporting terrorists is better?

We could just steamroll Iran. Build up a better infrastructure, let them pick a new government, and promise to leave the moment the bombs stop. Then, when the bombs stop, get the heck out of dodge. I know I know it wouldn't work, but It's an ideal situation really...

 

[Venom]

And supporting terrorists is better?

We could just steamroll Iran. Build up a better infrastructure, let them pick a new government, and promise to leave the moment the bombs stop. Then, when the bombs stop, get the heck out of dodge. I know I know it wouldn't work, but It's an ideal situation really...

And you actually think that would work?

 

[JM76]

And supporting terrorists is better?

We could just steamroll Iran. Build up a better infrastructure, let them pick a new government, and promise to leave the moment the bombs stop. Then, when the bombs stop, get the heck out of dodge. I know I know it wouldn't work, but It's an ideal situation really...

Ideally, that sounds like a good idea. However, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot exactly roll into Iran like one would role into, say, a European nation (Germany, Italy). They've got caves, vast deserts, and other crazy geological shit to hide in and around. Plus, they would use unconventional warfare to oppose western forces, a la terrorists in Iraq (hiding amongst civilians, planting mines, etc.).

And as Bac was saying, there would be no way in hell that Iranians would ally themselves with the "Great Satan" against their government.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

Ideally, that sounds like a good idea. However, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot exactly roll into Iran like one would role into, say, a European nation (Germany, Italy). They've got caves, vast deserts, and other crazy geological shit to hide in and around. Plus, they would use unconventional warfare to oppose western forces, a la terrorists in Iraq (hiding amongst civilians, planting mines, etc.).

And as Bac was saying, there would be no way in hell that Iranians would ally themselves with the "Great Satan" against their government.

Not to mention they could call on something like ove one million+ troops because they've got a national government militia...