You are at netAirspace : Forum : The Combustion Chamber - Off-Topics : General Off-Topics

After all the shocking photos and video of what it is like to live in the country and all the threats from its leadership, should we take them over?

I say no

While sad, we need to let the situation run its course. If enough people in Iran truly want change it will happen with no help from us.

Invade - No.
JDAM into Mahmoud's bedroom while he's sleeping - HELL YES.

I said No, for the same reasons you did, AFG. What would we do after we invaded? Install a democratic government? I've said it before and I'll say it again, some peoples of the world can't handle democracy, and Iran is one of them, along with Iraq. Their people are too weak-minded to handle democracy and they are not driven to success, which is necessary for capitalism to work properly.

Invade them for what?

They are a sovereign government. Can you imagine if the Russians invaded us because we said the election was rigged? It is their problem, they need to deal with it.

The majority of Iran's population is composed of young people...who have, shall we say, quite the love for everything American.

We don't need to invade, we need to encourage exactly what is happening now.

The Islamic part of the revolution was always a minority part of why the Iranian threw the Shah out.

AndesSMF wrote:The majority of Iran's population is composed of young people...who have, shall we say, quite the love for everything American.

We don't need to invade, we need to encourage exactly what is happening now.

The Islamic part of the revolution was always a minority part of why the Iranian threw the Shah out.

A simple, but perfectly worded reply . The extremists in Iran, and other radical nations, appear to love a good fight - what they can't stand is being abandoned by their own people in favour of a better life and the freedoms that come with it. The pen, or in this case TV/the internet, is, as they say, mightier than the sword.

I'll have to agree with Andes. Right now, invading Iran would be idiotic. Dun bass status.

davestan_ksan wrote:I'll have to agree with Andes. Right now, invading Iran would be idiotic. Dun bass status.

NOW we are communicating!!

That means you get a "reprieve from spreadsheet" status...for now...

As with the other 19 of you guys, NO.

First, 21 votes and like 6 replies.

Bunch of panty-waisted gutless pussified cowards voting and not posting IMO.

If you vote make a post, otherwise, you've the courage of a scrub brush and the courage of a door stop . . . .

Now that said:

No. The people in Iran will handle the problem. And unless Iran is a direct threat to the US, why should we bother? If they attack Israel, Israel will "handle it". And we'll back them. We damn well better back them. We'll see if Obama has the balls . . . (no bets there).

Otherwise, let them deal with their own issues.

If the US invaded Iran, what would the end result be? Nothing. We need not bother. There's a movement afoot there already, has been for a decade, progressive and modern. Iran will handle themselves. There'll be death, destruction, and civilian casualties (I know how civilian casualties is unfathomable to the left - get fuckin' over it), but Iran will handle their own problems.

ANCFlyer wrote:First, 21 votes and like 6 replies.

Bunch of panty-waisted gutless pussified cowards voting and not posting IMO.

Pep, I could see if the panty-waisted cowards voted yes, but as it stands, the thread is 21-0, I think you could guess everyones feelings

And before I raise your blood pressure, I voted no, and here's my belated reply :

NO, we should not invade Iran. Firstly, they ARE still a sovereign nation who has, at this point in time done nothing to provoke us invading. Yes, they are killing their own people and that IS despicable, and I hope the world continues to focus on this crisis and (relative) peace can return, perhaps even with a true democratic iran at the base of it.

Cadet57 wrote:Pep, I could see if the panty-waisted cowards voted yes, but as it stands, the thread is 21-0, I think you could guess everyones feelings
And before I raise your blood pressure, I voted no, and here's my belated reply :

NO, we should not invade Iran. Firstly, they ARE still a sovereign nation who has, at this point in time done nothing to provoke us invading. Yes, they are killing their own people and that IS despicable, and I hope the world continues to focus on this crisis and (relative) peace can return, perhaps even with a true democratic iran at the base of it.

Dude, there are a thousand reasons why not.

And depending on your political leanings, they'll vary. I despise people that vote in a poll and don't have the wherewithall to state why.

It's teh internets. I think that despising someone for not posting a reason for a vote is a bit extreme. But that's just my . I've made my position clear before.

And obviously, I voted "No."

EDIT:Pantywaist is a great word.

ANCFlyer wrote:
If you vote make a post, otherwise, you've the courage of a scrub brush and the courage of a door stop . . . .

Gimme a break - this is one of those no-brainers. I didn't pan down before I voted to see who said what, nor did I click to view results - only if Iran threatens us/our interests to where we have no option, do we then blast them back to before the times of the Persian Empire.

How's the whiskey?

And yeah, I voted no. Why? The people of Iran are doing well enough on their own; we don't need to go in and muck it up for them.

GQfluffy wrote:How's the whiskey?

Scotch.

Still . . . I hate it with all this intellect and diverse viewpoint, even the most benign of polls deserves a written "why".

We're lazy.

ANCFlyer wrote:First, 21 votes and like 6 replies.

Bunch of panty-waisted gutless pussified cowards voting and not posting IMO.

Boy, somebody's hat is on too tight this evening.

I voted no. That is all.

I think we need to follow the Prime Directive.

That's actually mostly serious.

ANCFlyer wrote:First, 21 votes and like 6 replies.

Bunch of panty-waisted gutless pussified cowards voting and not posting IMO.

Hey... some of us do have jobs that actually keep us busy...

That said, I agree with the reasons AndesSMF gave.

ANCFlyer wrote:First, 21 votes and like 6 replies.

Bunch of panty-waisted gutless pussified cowards voting and not posting IMO.

If you vote make a post, otherwise, you've the courage of a scrub brush and the courage of a door stop . . . .

Dude I just voted and here's my reply. Chill. Get the sand out.

It would be totally counterproductive to invade or even to be seen to be helping them - that would tend to unify the people behind the whackjobs.

This election (if you care to call it that) and the protests has left Ahmadinejad weakened and an illegitimate leader. Let the Iranian people deal with it (perhaps with a little covert help, some arms etc. I don't think it'll be too long till our Mahmoud is hanging upside down from a lamppost ala Mussolini.

No. It would be an unmitigated disaster. We'd lose a bunch of lives, and we'd lose a bunch of money.

I'm of the old Conservative belief that it's great to have a giant Defense/Army that does nothing.

Ok, I voted yesterday, but was too tired to write a post.
Here is my opinion on the matter:

At the moment Ahmedinejad and Co. try to make the protests look as if they were controlled by the West, especially the US and the UK.
Don´t forget that Iran doesn´t just consist of the educated urban population of the big cities, but also of the backward countryside, where all
the information the people get, comes from their local imam or government rep.
Any direct involvement of the US or other western countries would, at the moment, be disastrous and counterproductive, because it would help
the radicals to proclaim that the protests are controlled by abroad, which would unite the conservative rural population, despite their grievances like poverty, behind them.
If we help the Iranian opposition, it has to VERY subtle and discrete.

Jan

Interesting input now for my next question.

Why did we invade Iraq?