• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iran keeps humiliating the West

Pardalis

Banned
P
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
25,817
Since the Liberals of this boards are too busy bashing their own countrymen of the Conservatives party for having conservative ideas, meanwhile in the rest of the world Iran keeps humiliating the West in all impunity:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/01/iran.sailors/index.html

Thought I'd let you know.

It's about time the West started to unite to face the real problem which is this irrational regime in Iran.
 
Last edited:
Oh we should definately nuke them. That way Iran will be totally justified in setting off terrorist attacks in the USA and Britain. Then WW3 will be instigated and we wont have to worry about global warming because no one will exist.

War is not the answer.
 
We have to have assistance from people willing to officially help bring down Iran. We have interesting devices ourselves. (P. S. I really get bored here being told we are not paying attention to other things simply because we know and bother pointing out to those with short memories that Shrub and his Bboys are a group of flaming rectums. Oddly the two things are not in contradiction.)
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
What's the question?
Click to expand...

How do we deal with Iran?

Iran has a majority of the population that doesn't like Amadenijad at all. Don't act to make them choose between him and us. It will just make him more popular. We need to keep them on side. The UN is moving slowly, but surely, to more decisive actions. We also need the US to cuddle up to Iran when it is in a more friendly attitude to the world, and not insist, for stupid internal political reasons, to treat Iran like a pariah.

(Curiously, I saw a reference to Jimmy Carter recently. He was pilloried for wanting to move the USA to 20% energy independence.)
 
a_unique_person said:
Iran has a majority of the population that doesn't like Amadenijad at all. Don't act to make them choose between him and us. It will just make him more popular. We need to keep them on side.
Click to expand...

I'm symapthetic to this argument, but I'm not convinced by it. Yes, it's preferable to keep the Iranian people sympathetic to us. But what has their sympathy actually achieved for us? Nothing, because they don't have power, the mad mullahs do. Keeping their sympathy is primarily useful if they're actually going to topple the mullahs. Maybe that will happen soon, but maybe it will never happen. What matters the most is the opinion of the people in power, namely the mullahs. They hate us, and nothing we can do will change that. Making them fear us is the next best thing.

We also need the US to cuddle up to Iran when it is in a more friendly attitude to the world,
Click to expand...

We don't cuddle up to enemies because they're more friendly to the world at large: we cuddle up to them if they start being more friendly, or at least less hostile, to us and our allies. Which they have most decidedly NOT been doing.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm sure someone thought this was clever once upon a time. Now it's staler than a Debbie Gibson song.
Click to expand...

Why do you hate Debbie Gibson?

PS: All jokes aside, I think it's somewhat old to jokingly pull this statement out these days too, BUT... I still hear hardcore conservatives seriously use the "Liberals hate America" argument, so unfortunately it's not completely dead yet... :boggled:
 
Last edited:
I'd note there was a demonstration in Tehran outside the British embassy today and journalists calculated the crowd at around 200. To me that's something I think Supreme Council might take notice of. I'd also note that these hostages were taken by the Revolutionary Guard which has a sort of autonomy from the rest of the Iranian government. The situation over there isn't as easy as some would make it out to be.

Ziggurat said:
We don't cuddle up to enemies because they're more friendly to the world at large: we cuddle up to them if they start being more friendly, or at least less hostile, to us and our allies. Which they have most decidedly NOT been doing.
Click to expand...

Really? Because IIRC Nixon's overtures to the Soviets which eventally lead to the SALT talks and his historic visit to China came while we were actively engaged in a war with North VietNam - a Soviet and Chinese client state. Sounds vaguely familiar to something I've been reading in the news lately...
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
How do you suggest we do that? Nukes or invasion?
Click to expand...

No, of course not, but we got to show them our resolve and very vocally denounce what they are doing.

a_unique_person said:
How do we deal with Iran?

Iran has a majority of the population that doesn't like Amadenijad at all. Don't act to make them choose between him and us. It will just make him more popular. We need to keep them on side. The UN is moving slowly, but surely, to more decisive actions. We also need the US to cuddle up to Iran when it is in a more friendly attitude to the world, and not insist, for stupid internal political reasons, to treat Iran like a pariah.
Click to expand...


I somewhat agree with the first part of your post. What the UN is doing is good, and they are showing great solidarity, and we should be very careful about the words that are used so that we don't infuriate the more moderates Iranians.

I don't know who is giving the orders around there, as noted above the Republican Guard seems to have a mind of its own, but Ahmadinejad's rethoric doesn't need any help in making him seem like a pariah. I think the ball is in the Iranian's court, and their increasingly arrogant tone and irrational behaviour is extremely worrysome and shouldn't be taken lightly.

I also find worrysome the fact that Americans are showing more interest in their own endless political bickerings btween Republicans and Democrats than this whole issue which is much more crucial in my opinion.
 
If the West wants to keep from being humiliated, then the West shouldn't be so stupid as to send a small group of marines and sailors, with no effective power or backup, into situations where they have no recourse but to surrender. If the West wants to take on the job of policing the waters seriously, then the West shouldn't be so half assed about it.
 
shecky said:
If the West wants to keep from being humiliated, then the West shouldn't be so stupid as to send a small group of marines and sailors, with no effective power or backup, into situations where they have no recourse but to surrender. If the West wants to take on the job of policing the waters seriously, then the West shouldn't be so half assed about it.
Click to expand...

So why not surrender them back? Why even take them into custody in the first place?

Not much of an invasion force, these 15 soldiers... :rolleyes:

You're playing the Iranian propaganda, which doesn't make any sense when you think about it.

So it's the West's fault for having hostages now? What kind of topsy-turvy thinking is that?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom