Preferable Option for Iran Is a Popular Revolution

[fariborze]

In my mind , there is third option for crisis of middle east , it's change Mullas' Regim in Iran by support Iranian people and their resistance, more than %90 of iranian people hate this regime and opposite them and want to change them, but this regime is on power just with execution , torture , public hanging and press the people with anyway that they can, in iran you can wear or eat or ... anything that you want
This regim export their crisis from Iran to all of the world with terror.
so I choose this group because you believe democrasi and freedom too


Preferable Option for Iran Is a Popular Revolution (http://www.english.iranmonitor.org/pagesEn/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=459%20&%20?cat=forum)

In an article the Washington Times on Sep. 5, highlighted the best solution for Iran to confront atomic threat by its regime is a popular revolt.
The article states: “Washington seemingly has three main options for stopping Tehran’s efforts:
1) hoping a popular revolution would drive the current regime from power before it develops atomic weapons;
2) persuading Europe and Japan to deny credit to the Iranian government and support sustained economic sanctions against the government;
or
3) using military force to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and/or remove the current regime from power.”

”There are huge problems with each of these alternatives. For U.S. policy-makers, the preferable alternative would be a popular revolution, in which the Iranians overthrew a despotic regime. But for that regime change to actually serve larger U.S. geopolitical interests, it has to take place before Iran develops a nuclear weapon… To be sure, there is plenty of popular dissatisfaction with the regime. Public-opinion polls and random, discreet interviews with Iranians on the street conducted suggest that most of them want to be rid of the clerical dictatorship. Whether this can be translated into regime change before Iran obtains an A-bomb is anyone’s guess.
As for sanctions and economic pressure, they too have a role to play in pressuring the regime to change its policies. But international economic sanctions have a spotty record in this regard, and even if they do manage to force the regime to change its policies, how do we determine whether it stopped Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?”


MORE (http://www.english.iranmonitor.org/pagesEn/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=459%20&%20?cat=forum)


best regards

[Wild Cobra]

At least you're making some sense here. Too many people don't.

I think that is one major reason why we resist temptation in taking Iran's toys away by force. Iran used to be so modern for it's time, during most of the 70's. Look at them now. The people want the good days back.

[MannyIsGod]

You think the number one reason we're not taking Iran's toys away by force is hope of a popular revolution?

No, the number one reason we're not taking them away by force is because WE CAN'T.

[Wild Cobra]

You think the number one reason we're not taking Iran's toys away by force is hope of a popular revolution?

No, the number one reason we're not taking them away by force is because WE CAN'T.
You are the idiot. I said "one major reason." You are a fool to put words in my mouth.

Can you read?

Keep coming up with useless discourse, and I will place you on IGNORE like I have a few others. You have not yet contributed in any meaningful way that I've seen recently.

You appear to be just another master-baiter

I wonder how many other people have you on IGNORE?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Feel free to put me on ignore. Am I supposed to straighten up at your "threats?"

Classic.

Its not my fault you're a twit dude.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao

Feel free to put me on ignore. Am I supposed to straighten up at your "threats?"

Classic.

Its not my fault you're a twit dude.


watch it he may do it.... put you on ignore. :lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

Keep coming up with useless discourse, and I will place you on IGNORE like I have a few others.

don't do it man; it ain't worth it dude. step away from the "ignore" button.

[Holt's Cat]

It's time to invade and speed up the process, correct?

[Nbadan]

The preferrable option for Iraq would have been a popular revolution too, but we all saw how that worked out....

[Wild Cobra]

don't do it man; it ain't worth it dude. step away from the "ignore" button.
LOL... Sure it's worth it. When all one has to offer is insults with no material of value to the thread...

Cuts down what there is to read!

Having Chump and Boutons on IGNORE had dramatically reduced the length of these threads.

[clambake]

LOL... Sure it's worth it. When all one has to offer is insults with no material of value to the thread...

Cuts down what there is to read!

Having Chump and Boutons on IGNORE had dramatically reduced the length of these threads.
why do you hate free speech and wish death on our troops?

[ChumpDumper]

WC, you aren't the first poster to give up after being shown you aren't as smart as you thought you were. It's more fun to insult you without hearing you whine about me -- which you just did -- so cut it out and really ignore me, stupid.

[clambake]

still pissed off about clinton military cuts that cost him his job in the field of antennas.

if you're still interested in antiquated devices, why don't you build a cotton gin.

[Wild Cobra]

why do you hate free speech and wish death on our troops?
LOL quite the opposite. Just shows how dumb you are for assuming such.


still pissed off about clinton military cuts that cost him his job in the field of antennas.

There you go, showing your ignorant assumptions again. My job field was phased out during the five year plan under president Bush (41). Remember the DD-214 I scanned? Someone made the idiotic remark (I think you) about the $20,000 subsidy, and I posted my DD-214 showing $28K+? I blacked out the record of service dates so it's not apparent. Anyway, the 34 week AIT ended Jul 82. It shows 10 years and 2 months as a 29V. That placed my discharge in September of 92 (9/28/92 to be exact.) That is before president Clinton was even elected. You assume I blame him?

Idiot.

When I spoke of the cuts enacted by president Clinton, I meant the additional cuts that went beyond any reasonable cuts. He devastated out military.



if you're still interested in antiquated devices, why don't you build a cotton gin.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here unless you mean the RLP antennas. They operated on a 3 to 30 MHz frequency, shortwave radio communications. Yes, obsolete for day to day communications, but the concept is that in case of a nuclear war, the EMP (electromagnetic pulse) will wipe out conventional communications systems using transistors and integrated circuits. We even used a tube based microwave radio and multiplexer for our link to Command and Control!

[clambake]

You claimed the troops died from bad kharma for exercising their right to free speech. so go fuck yourself

YOu made it clear that clinton was tied to your stupid position cut. eat shit.

I'm suggesting you go back to a time where what you say might matter. PreWWII?

[Wild Cobra]

You claimed the troops died from bad kharma for exercising their right to free speech. so go fuck yourself

Show me the quote or shut the fuck up.



YOu made it clear that clinton was tied to your stupid position cut. eat shit.

Show me the quote or shut the fuck up.



I'm suggesting you go back to a time where what you say might matter. PreWWII?

Whatever. At least that suggection is an opinion instead of you exposing your ignorance.

[clambake]

1. I urge anyone to go to GGA's thread about soldiers op-ed piece to keep this republican whore in a can.

2. Digging in your garbage smells.

3. Learn how to spell.

[Wild Cobra]

1. I urge anyone to go to GGA's thread about soldiers op-ed piece to keep this republican whore in a can.

2. Digging in your garbage smells.

3. Learn how to spell.
Attack--- Attack--- Attack. Is that all you know how to do?

You cannot find those quotes you accuse me with...

Can you say SLANDER...

That's all you are. A petty slanderer.

Like I said, find those quotes, or shut up. If all you can do is find fault in those you disagree with, you are worthless to debate with.

Facts please.

Do you even know what a fact is?

[WHOTTABITCH]

manny has managed to have both the face of a donkey and a dick. He's Donkey- dickface McFugly.

[Wild Cobra]

manny has managed to have both the face of a donkey and a dick. He's Donkey- dickface McFugly.
Well I have it wrong then. I thought he was sucking off the democrats icon.

[clambake]

Yes, WC...I'm sure God or Cosmic Justice made sure these guys got shot up for daring to question the Iraq War in a NYT op-ed.

What a douchebag.
wc, go fuck yourself

[clambake]

with your rabbit ears

[NO_PUEDE_SER_FADED]

Pixel Pusher es una grande panocha!

Dije yo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Booharv]

Some of these trolls just need to stay in the troll forum.

[ChumpDumper]

Show me the quote or shut the fuck up.


Show me the quote or shut the fuck up.
Bad karhma?
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1957235&postcount=2

[boutons_]

Proxy War Could Soon Turn to Direct Conflict, Analysts Warn
By Julian Borger and Ian Black
The Guardian UK Saturday 15 September 2007

US strikes on Iran predicted as tension rises over arms smuggling and nuclear fears.

The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional analysts are warning.

US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days, with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia militias.

The involvement of a few hundred British troops in the anti-smuggling operation also raises the risk of their involvement in a cross-border clash.

US officers have alleged that an advanced Iranian-made missile had been fired at an American base from a Shia area, which if confirmed would be a significant escalation in the "proxy war" referred to this week by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.

"The proxy war that has been going on in Iraq may now cross the border. This is a very dangerous period," Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said.

Iran's leaders have so far shown every sign of relishing the confrontation. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared yesterday that American policies had failed in the Middle East and warned: "I am certain that one day Bush and senior American officials will be tried in an international court for the tragedies they have created in Iraq."

In such circumstances, last week's Israeli air strike against a mystery site in northern Syria has triggered speculation over its motives. Israel has been silent about the attack. Syria complained to the UN security council but gave few details. Some say the target was Iranian weapons on their way to Hizbullah in Lebanon, or that the sortie was a dry run for a US-Israeli attack on Syria and Iran. There is even speculation that the Israelis took out a nuclear facility funded by Iran and supplied by North Korea

The situation is particularly volatile because the struggle for influence threatens to exacerbate a confrontation over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The US has called a meeting of major powers in Washington next Friday to discuss Iran's defiance of UN resolutions calling for its suspension of uranium enrichment. It comes amid signs that the Bush administration is running out of patience with diplomatic efforts to curb the nuclear programme. Hawks led by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, are intensifying their push for military action, with support from Israel and privately from some Sunni Gulf states.

"Washington is seriously reviewing plans to bomb not just nuclear sites, but oil sites, military sites and even leadership targets. The talk is of multiple targets," said Mr Cronin. "In Washington there is very serious discussion that this is a window that has to be looked at seriously because there is only six months to 'do something about Iran' before it will be looked at as a purely political issue."

US presidential elections are due in November 2008, and military action at the height of the campaign is usually seen by voters as politically motivated.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a security analyst, said: "The decision to attack was made some time ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his actions."

US and British officials have complained to Iran about the use by Shia militias in Iraq of what they say are Iranian-made weapons. The main concern is the proliferation of roadside bombs that fire a bolt of molten metal through any thickness of armour, which the officials say must have been made in Iran.

A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Major General Kevin Bergner, raised the stakes when he said the 240mm rocket that hit the US military headquarters outside Baghdad this week, killing an American soldier and wounding 11, had been supplied to Shia militants by Iran.

Gen Bergner used to work in the White House, where he was aligned with administration hawks, and his dispatch to Baghdad was seen by some as a move to increase pressure on Iran.

"There are an awful lot of lower level officers who are very angry about the deaths from explosively formed projectiles said to come from Iran. There is a certain amount of military pressure to do something about this," said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That said, it is very difficult for us to do anything without much better evidence. In that respect, border control is a sensible solution."

Any US decision to attack Iran would force Gordon Brown to choose between creating a serious rift in the transatlantic alliance and participating in or endorsing American actions. British officials insist that Washington has given no sign it is ready to abandon diplomacy and argue that UN sanctions are showing signs of working. They point to the resurgence in Iran of Hashemi Rafsanjani, seen as a pragmatic counterweight to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Hopes that a new war could still be avoided have also been boosted by Gen Petraeus's claim that Iran's covert Quds force alleged to be supporting Shia attacks on coalition forces had been pulled out of Iraq. If true, it could be that in the stand-off between the US and Iran, Iran has blinked first.

=============

Can moderates in Iran "get to" that hot-headed President and his like-thinking, supportive mullahs to quit supplying Iraqi Shiites?

Or have dubya and dickhead, as with the pre-Iraq bullshit, already decided to attack Iran, no matter what is going on in Iraq?

Attacking Iran would be, again, an elective war, not a necessity.

Iran is much more militarily and industrially powerful than Iraq was back in 1991, nevermind 2003. Faced against the US in 1991 and 2003, the Iraqi Army, including the Republican Guard, didn't show up. I expect Iran's Army will show up and put up a fight, inspired by their suicidal predecessors who died by the 100s of 1000s defending against Saddam's attack in 1980.

dubya won't be "kicking ass" in Iran without some serious ass kicking in return, and not only in M/E but all around the world by Iranian supported terrorists (eg, the Israeli embassy blown up in Argentina).