POLL: If Iran was attacked

Discussion in 'News And Current Events' started by Unregistered, Jul 21, 2009.


If an attack or invasion on Iran was imminent, what would you do?

I would support the attacks so they can destroy the mullah regime 1 vote(s) 16.7%
If would support the attacks, but only if the Green movement has been crushed or suppressed 0 vote(s) 0.0%
I would oppose the attacks but not do anything 0 vote(s) 0.0%
I would oppose that attacks and join protests 5 vote(s) 83.3%
  1. When a country devalues human life they become a third world shithole.
  2. Frylock-IRAN Member

    Actually only people can devalue human lives, not geographical locations, but by your benchmark, we (the US) were founded on the devaluation of human lives.
  3. It is a amazing what might be accomplished without Iranian interference.

    Turkish, Syrian leaders talk about Mideast peace


    DAMASCUS, Syria — Turkey's prime minister said Wednesday he has been asked to help mediate again in the Arab-Israeli conflict, speaking ahead of talks in Syria with the president.

    The Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan helped mediate last year in four rounds of indirect peace negotiations between Israel and Syria. But Syria suspended them in December over Israel's military offensive in Gaza.

    Before he left for talks with President Bashar Assad in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, Erdogan reiterated Turkey's readiness to help restart indirect talks between Syria and Israel. Turkey has also offered to mediate in other tracks of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

    "New requests regarding this process may come up. ... In fact, they have already started to come," Erdogan told a news conference. He did not say who made the requests.

    After the talks Syria's state-run news agency SANA said the two leaders discussed "the need to achieve a just a comprehensive peace in the Middle East which requires the presence of a real Israeli political will."

    Assad said earlier this month that there is no "real partner" in Israel to make peace, stressing that a halt to Jewish settlements in the West Bank is essential to restart talks.

    Syria has said it is willing to resume the Turkish-mediated talks if they focus on a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, captured in 1967. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he is not willing to cede the territory Syria wants.

    A state-run newspaper reaffirmed in an editorial that Syria is keen to restore all the Golan Heights and would not agree to start negotiations from scratch.

    "It's not in the interest of peace to waste time or efforts or to return to point zero under the pretext of preconditions," said the government's Al-Thawra newspaper.

    "Moving toward negotiations means an endorsement of a full withdrawal from the occupied land," it added.

    Assad said in a newspaper interview in March that the Turkish-mediated talks failed because Israel would not make a clear commitment to return all of the Golan up to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.

    Assad said Israel wanted to keep some disputed land around the Galilee, its main water source.

    Israel, for its part, demands that Syria end its support for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

    Direct talks between Israel and Syria under U.S. auspices also failed in 2000 over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan.

    Last month, President Barack Obama's special Mideast peace envoy, George Mitchell, became the highest-level U.S. administration official to visit Damascus since 2005. He acknowledged Syria's clout, declaring Damascus has a key role to play in forging Mideast peace.


    Associated Press reporters Suzan Fraser and Selcan Hacaoglu in Ankara, Turkey contributed to this report.
  4. Ray Murphy Member

    The U.S. is not trigger-happy now, so there won't be any bombs suddenly dropping on Iran from American planes. It doesn't want to increase domestic terrorism.

    I was continuing on from an earlier comment about the U.S. We all know that Israel will attack nuclear plants if they are convinced Iran is building nuclear weapons.
  5. Actually the Germans have just delivered evidence.

    Poli Gazette 20 July 2009: Germany: Iran Seeks Nuclear Weapons

  6. By your logic the whole of humankind has advanced on the backs of the meek. I think the US recently got better try to remember they have a extremely well educated mullato Muslim President. Also, what does the USA have to do with Iran why the constant comparison?
  7. even money that Iran drops the first nuke.
  8. Actually some modern bombs do, particularly the miniaturized, robotic bombs. For tactical reasons, these cannot be used in every case.

    It depends on which people you mean. There are more people in the Middle East than just Persian Shias. The regime is no question about it destroying its own people, but its also doing a good job of destroying other people as well. Remember Hezbollah?

    The truth is that the regime is holding the Iranian people hostage. Meanwhile it goes on doing whatever it wants to do.

    If folks want to side with a guy like Almonddinnerjacket, after all he has done against them, what is left to say about such irrational, short-sighted thinking? I don't think a lot of people will react this way. I think a lot of people are more intelligent than that.
  9. Oh read some history before you trying teaching it! :rolleyes:
  10. a desert Member

    Where the fuck is he Muslim? Religion is a choice, not something encoded in your DNA.

    Other than that, yes- Unreg is right and humankind, for a very long time, sustained itself on slavery, gender repression and the like. But I think that we (as in, those of us here) are the proverbial proof in the pudding that a good number of us have passed by such archaic standards and are moving towards a much more vibrant future for it.

    Back on target... Ugh, the nukes question is so frustrating. It will be good once we know for good whether they have it or not. I'm sick of people having to handle Jibber and his ilk with kid gloves because he might set us up the bomb or some shite.
  11. Could be. I honestly don't know. I don't think the US will pre-empt. Israel may have been on the pre-emptive route as of last week, but now that Clinton has come in both barrels blazing, I think Israel will relax a little.

    The ships are in the waters now. I think they will jam first. Then go to conventional navy missiles. But this is hypothetical. The hope is that the regime will fall first and that somebody with all his marbles comes to the table.
  12. that was what we kept asking about the wmds in iraq too :(

    the iaea and the us' national intelligence estimate report and other intelligence continually report that there are no signs of nuclear weapons

    unfortunately between the iranian regimes propaganda and interests and our governments agendas and interests, it will be the iranian people who suffer
  13. Yeah, and the media wanted the wmds all lined up in a neat row for a photo-op to make it easy for them instead of digging the desert up, unhinging drain-pipes, and travelling to Syria. Journalism-by-fax-behind-the-green-line.

    I just posted a link (above) with a very recent article from Germany. I guess folks what goes for evidence in a court of law doesn't go for evidence in the court of public opinion?
  14. It all depends on what you call a wmd?

    500 Tons of Uranium Yellowcake Moved From Iraq to Canada-Truth!
  15. Frylock-IRAN Member

    Not meek, oppressed, and did I say the whole of humankind, now may I have fries with my troll burger?
  16. "why Europe may give the Jewish nation-state the green light to do so"

    LOL. This statement cracks me up. What leverage does Europe really have over Israel, when the plausibility of Europe adopting a pro-Israel position after the fact, rather than a mealy-mouthed wish that UN resolutions had run their course, is so low?

    If there were concrete promises to resist the inevitable anti-Israel diplomatic and economic initiatives that would result, it would be a different story. But Europe is too much of a basket case to offer that even if it wanted to.
  17. Hi Unreg. In order to avoid toxic sites, I generally don't click on links unless the poster goes to the trouble of quoting some part of that other webpage.

    Are you saying that the article from Germany is incorrect?
  18. I have no idea if Germany is correct.

    The link in the previous post was a buried story 2007-2008 (did not support the liberal media agenda ie the bush haters) about 500 tons of yellowcake uranium(WMD?) that was moved out of Iraqbefore it could fall into the wrong hands ie Iran.
  19. Yes, I am aware of much of the coverup.
  20. Ray Murphy Member

    Obama is not a Muslim. He wasn't old enough to make an informed decision to commit to Islam when he was learning about - first at at both Catholic school and the at a Muslim school in Indonesia when he was quite young. Besides that he has stated he isn't a Muslim but he no doubt respects the religion and will help to protect it.
  21. Ray Murphy Member

    I won't believe that unless General Powell can produce a Powerpoint cartoon to show it really happened.
  22. حمید Member

    I can see very well how you disagree. I do not think this matter should satisfy an interest to discussion, rather more, I think if such interests are to be satisfied, then why not satisfy every body’s interest by discussing maters which contributes to a sustainable development towards democracy. What would be democracy if it was not defined to satisfy the mutual respect? I think in that frame work there are indefinite number of topics which can satisfy a sustainable development which brings joy to those subjected. There are talks about a bout ‘war, destruction, nuclear energy ‘and if interpreted by twisted mind then it all concludes to be possible by an invasion as a solution. Perhaps it would be more satisfying to discuss both nearsighted and longsighted effects of such a terrible act whose result destroys resources which could be utilized by humble people like Neda, Sohrab … This belongs to people. To those who are paying their life being ignored by being given options like flying unsafe. The only reason worries Iranian is that this regime is not noble enough to be considered having political capacities preventing them of misusing the concept. Why not discuss about what are the feature plans in the mind of those who find themselves worthy of being peoples mandate to give a strong signal from very beginning clearing that people put demand..………
  23. I think this is the purpose of the poll isnt it? (Maybe unintended) To see how people view Iran. Do they think of it only as the regime? Do they think of it as the people? Or do they think of it as their own counties interests and agendas?

    To me it is scary that a good number of people still would support a war after having witnessed the massive numbers of a democratic movement on the streets who would also be killed by the war. That either indicates a blind hatred of the regime (which is quite understandable for many Iranians living abroad) or people who really dont care about the democratic movement and just want war and bombs.
  24. JohnDoe Moderator

    I agree!!!
  25. Ray Murphy Member

    I wonder if anyone could write something stupider just for a bit of fun?
  26. I think people are arguing between faulty extremes.

    I think the West wants to avoid armed intervention. I think most of us here want to avoid armed intervention.

    As for how we define "the people" -- well that's a very valuable discussion, isn't it?

    1) As I said to another poster, the 'enemy' in Iran may be a brother, aunt, father, sister who is pro-regime or even pro-monarchist. It is important for Iranians not to leave anyone behind in their struggle for freedom. That's what I am hearing from Iranians themselves.

    2) But there are some unspoken assumptions here which have to be addressed. For example, is it OK to leave an Azeri behind? A Bahai? An Armenian? A monarchist?

    3) What about the 'people' in the rest of the Middle East, most of whom are not Shia? And some of whom are not even Muslim? Is it OK -- by nuking them -- to leave a Jew behind? A Catholic? An Evangelical? A Sunni?

    I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me that some folks want us to not look at the other 'peoples' who are being held hostage by the regime. And to remain silent about them.

    If we are discussing freedom, then freedom for whom? Freedom for some at the expense of others? That is not freedom, my friends. That is tyrrany.

    In the best of all possible worlds, the regime would not be training and funding Hezbollah, nor developing nukes (see latest German testimony above). And the Middle East and its allies could concentrate only on helping the Iranian people(s).

    But the regime does have ambitions of empire. It does have plans to expand its iron fist across the Middle East. That's the history. That's the reality.

    How can anyone in good conscience ignore one threatened people in favour of another threatened people? To do so is to cooperate only in a power grab where nothing of any worth changes.

    imho freedom is for all people. No hidden agenda. Nothing under the carpet. Nobody left behind.
  27. the regime has got to go! it doesnt matter if protesters get killed. im sure they know that price for freedom is blood. if the protesters cant get rid of the regime we will. i hope the protesters succeed.
  28. a desert Member


    It most certainly matter if protesters get killed- I'm sure at the very least, their family and friends will mourn them, as will we here. There's a difference between inevitable and acceptable. The death of innocents is never acceptable; it culminates as a battle cry against repression.

    What's this we bullshit? Who's we, and on what grounds do they have to enter Iran?

    [Rhetorically speaking, of course, since as humans we have grounds to aid the protesters as much as we can. But realistically/politically, trolling into Iran =/= not a good idea.]
  29. JohnDoe Moderator

    Landers - don't feed the Troll!!!!!!!
  30. *guilty look*

    But MOOOOOOOOM, its hungry! D:
  31. we brought freedom to iraq didnt we? khamenei will fall like saddam
  32. this is soooooo ripe for trolling

  33. OH Please!!!!

    The Green movement is out of Mousavi and Rafsanjani's is sad that the great democracy of the world is too busy bankrupting itself and allowing this opportunity to fix Carter's mistake. BTW, I ran has attacked other countries already-ever heard of Hezbollah!!!!
  34. blah blah blah war mongering blah blah blah buy your russian made rocket launchers here blah blah blah BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN blah blah blah

    Iran is currently in no position to terrorize its neighbors. The Green Movement is not completely out of the reformists' hands, otherwise there wouldn't be this much support still for Mousavi and Karroubi.
  35. Conplans

    About time, I wish you were president. The Obamanator hasn't the balls to jam anything. The US can block GPS-cripple the regimes terror infrastructure, block the regime's Internet and services (by a little known attribute flag in the TCP-IP header), establish reliable/anonymous communication for passing the word to the world and most importantly, show some interest in the struggle of this powerful nation to become a stable democracy. He can also swing the interest of the liberal press to show what is is going on in the news, instead of M. Jackson, or more taxes that we have to suck up. It would be in the world's interest to support this regime overthrow, instead we have AFRICOM; a new army command for Africa that is being charges to hunt down rebels in the jungles of the Ivory Coast (Stars and Stripes-July 2009) No nukes there, just oil, gold, diamonds...sounds like Somalia to me.
  36. There isn't much support for Mousavi and crew, the word on the street is Democracy, and Mousavi doesn't promise that for them. The regime is tolerating him because they can maneuver with one of their own. The rift is very deep with these protesters but regime has a broad base of supporters who for what ever reason will support them. This will be very hard struggle for the "greens" without some support by hitting the regime leaders economically and maybe personally. I think Mousavi would be respected more if he started as reformist (and had spent time being tortured in Prison just like the young kids are going through right now)
  37. He was pretty busy being the Butcher of Beirut, wasn't he? And oh yeah that small incident of the student massacres. How many dead? 40K? 100K?
  38. D-oh! I'm busted. No only kidding. My first name isn't Barak; it's Bugs. :)

    These conplans are old; way back from the Bush era. And they are Navy conplans which also involve NATO.
  39. If something horrible happened, (I'm talking Tiananmen Square x10 level bad) maybe.
  40. atmasabr Member

    The existence of the Green Movement probably would be a very big factor in affecting the politcal will for any sort of US military action against Iran. If it has any reasonable chance of succeeding, or even if it fails, we should not alienate them or the people they represent.

    But our national security needs, and those of our allies, come first. The decision not to take military action against Iran is every year weighed against the costs of inaction, which are mostly suffered by continuing fiasco between the Israelis and the array of Iranian-funded terror groups arrayed against them. As long as the death toll of these conflicts remains below a managable number, it's reasonable not to strike at Iran militarily. It's not what I would call justice, but sometimes the needs for peace and stability outweighs the needs of what is right. Even the "war on terror" didn't last longer than toppling two governments, both enemies.

    As with Iraq, the prospect of the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction by enemy or terrorist nations becomes the tipping point.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins