Whether I want to give IR military immunity or not is irrelevant. I am in no position to give anyone immunity. The simple point was that Libya and Iran are two different countries with different situations and comparing IR with Libya and believing that an airstrike on Iran would bring in any kind of success is akin to believing airstrikes on Dresden and Hiroshima did the trick too so maybe etc.
The simple point is that as usual unfortunately as it has been the case for over 10 years now you and your buddies, in this case your one buddy the one guy who comes sucking up as usual, got no fucking clue what you are talking about.
The simple point is that as usual unfortunately as it has been the case for over 10 years now you and your buddies, in this case your one buddy the one guy who comes sucking up as usual, got no fucking clue what you are talking about.
It seems like some people have problem reading otherwise would have not come out with nonsense like that and jump in the middle of the good thread.
The argument here is : IF A happens THEN should B be allowed !!!! again, lets repeat it for the slower kid in the back of the class : IF A happens THEN should B be allowed !!!
Now, is Libya different with Iran ??!!
Of course it is and no one said it is NOT.
You don't have to "SUCK UP" or have "Fucking CLUE" to come up with that conclusion, So Lets try again for the sake, shall we
IF A happens, THEN Should B be allowed !!!
The argument here is : IF A happens THEN should B be allowed !!!! again, lets repeat it for the slower kid in the back of the class : IF A happens THEN should B be allowed !!!
Now, is Libya different with Iran ??!!
Of course it is and no one said it is NOT.
You don't have to "SUCK UP" or have "Fucking CLUE" to come up with that conclusion, So Lets try again for the sake, shall we
IF A happens, THEN Should B be allowed !!!
To the smart ass sucker up who goes a little bit too fast..
Taking into account other military actions of the past 10-15 years by US and allies(Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya)
If Iran comes to a point of a regional civil war, similar to the case of Libya, then depending on what exactly you want for Iran, whether an Iran separated in many parts or not, feel free to be for military strikes or not.
If Afghans join forces with Balochis in the east and claim that the region of Baluchestan with Zahedan as its capital should be an own country, IR goes out in full attack and comes up with something similar to an ethnic cleansing and humanitarian catastrophe, feel free or not free to be for an airstrike.
Keep in mind that both these attacks happened in countries close to "home" for the west, not in Iran.
If a terrorist organisation, say Hizbollah, is involved in a high terrorist attack on say Empire State building and the leaders reside in Iran, feel free or not free to be for a military option.
These are the 3 examples of the past 15 years of military strikes by allies(Nato partners) on various governments. There haven't been too many others and there won't be too many more.
If US decides for a preemptive war(highly unlikely given deficit) on IR without any real plan to get rid of IR, then again, your choice whether you want to be for or against an attack.
At the end of the day, in recent history, not as far as I can remember, not as far as anyone else can remember, has there been an airstrike against any country in the world because it was discriminating against its own people or being non-democratic or mass killings and imprisonment against its own people. There has never been and will probably never be. So a military attack on Iran, except for the cases I mentioned above, is not an issue AT ALL, never was and won't be in the near future. You could "hope" for an attack by Israel on Iran, but then again, this would be preemptive, only by Israel and there are lots of doubts about its success.
So at the end of the day, you either try to live with the fact that there won't be an airstrike helping your cause and solving your problems or you can spend the next 10 years on this board waiting for the military option to happen, not even if IR throws on a bulldozer and rolls over 100000 people. Whether I want IR to be attacked or not after this is also irrelevant, because it's the equivalent of me wanting a coaching job in Spain, a billion dollars, sports cars for free etc. I won't get it. I hope you learned something today..but I guess not because you were, are and forever will be the same dumbfuck aiming for cheap shots hiding online you always were.
Taking into account other military actions of the past 10-15 years by US and allies(Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya)
If Iran comes to a point of a regional civil war, similar to the case of Libya, then depending on what exactly you want for Iran, whether an Iran separated in many parts or not, feel free to be for military strikes or not.
If Afghans join forces with Balochis in the east and claim that the region of Baluchestan with Zahedan as its capital should be an own country, IR goes out in full attack and comes up with something similar to an ethnic cleansing and humanitarian catastrophe, feel free or not free to be for an airstrike.
Keep in mind that both these attacks happened in countries close to "home" for the west, not in Iran.
If a terrorist organisation, say Hizbollah, is involved in a high terrorist attack on say Empire State building and the leaders reside in Iran, feel free or not free to be for a military option.
These are the 3 examples of the past 15 years of military strikes by allies(Nato partners) on various governments. There haven't been too many others and there won't be too many more.
If US decides for a preemptive war(highly unlikely given deficit) on IR without any real plan to get rid of IR, then again, your choice whether you want to be for or against an attack.
At the end of the day, in recent history, not as far as I can remember, not as far as anyone else can remember, has there been an airstrike against any country in the world because it was discriminating against its own people or being non-democratic or mass killings and imprisonment against its own people. There has never been and will probably never be. So a military attack on Iran, except for the cases I mentioned above, is not an issue AT ALL, never was and won't be in the near future. You could "hope" for an attack by Israel on Iran, but then again, this would be preemptive, only by Israel and there are lots of doubts about its success.
So at the end of the day, you either try to live with the fact that there won't be an airstrike helping your cause and solving your problems or you can spend the next 10 years on this board waiting for the military option to happen, not even if IR throws on a bulldozer and rolls over 100000 people. Whether I want IR to be attacked or not after this is also irrelevant, because it's the equivalent of me wanting a coaching job in Spain, a billion dollars, sports cars for free etc. I won't get it. I hope you learned something today..but I guess not because you were, are and forever will be the same dumbfuck aiming for cheap shots hiding online you always were.
Last edited:
^^^^
I don't feel the need to talk about hypothetical scenarios that don't and won't happen and the above scenarios are exactly that, except for Tabriz. But then again, Tabriz would be a regional issue most probably, which takes us to scenario 1, the Libya scenario. The scenario of some people in Shiraz creating a regional army and then fighting IR is funny enough though, keep it up.
And it's not a matter of age but rather about me not seeing any need to talk to you like talking to someone I would need to take serious or have any respect for.
I don't feel the need to talk about hypothetical scenarios that don't and won't happen and the above scenarios are exactly that, except for Tabriz. But then again, Tabriz would be a regional issue most probably, which takes us to scenario 1, the Libya scenario. The scenario of some people in Shiraz creating a regional army and then fighting IR is funny enough though, keep it up.
And it's not a matter of age but rather about me not seeing any need to talk to you like talking to someone I would need to take serious or have any respect for.
^^^
If you would have asked that millions of Iranian will come out in street and protest the regime just 3 years ago or months before the election 2 years ago, 99% of people would have laughed and told you that it is impossible but we all saw that it happened and surprised everyone even the so called leaders of the Green.
What I said here was a hypothetical case ( hence IF THEN statement). Is it very probable in near future, NO , it is probably NOT. Is it impossible that we see such a movement in Kurdestan, Tabriz, Khozestan, Sistan or even Shiraz and Isfehan in future ?? No, it is not impossible.
Now as far as how you feel about me, the feelings are mutual but I don't see the need of embarrassing myself and acting like a child every time I have a 2 words exchange with you. But I guess we are just that different.
Have a Great Sunday Pal. It is a beautiful sunny day here in Toronto. Good to be alive
If you would have asked that millions of Iranian will come out in street and protest the regime just 3 years ago or months before the election 2 years ago, 99% of people would have laughed and told you that it is impossible but we all saw that it happened and surprised everyone even the so called leaders of the Green.
What I said here was a hypothetical case ( hence IF THEN statement). Is it very probable in near future, NO , it is probably NOT. Is it impossible that we see such a movement in Kurdestan, Tabriz, Khozestan, Sistan or even Shiraz and Isfehan in future ?? No, it is not impossible.
Now as far as how you feel about me, the feelings are mutual but I don't see the need of embarrassing myself and acting like a child every time I have a 2 words exchange with you. But I guess we are just that different.
Have a Great Sunday Pal. It is a beautiful sunny day here in Toronto. Good to be alive
Last edited:
IMO..and sure any shrewd MID east politicians point of view..in fact u gotta start worrying sick if U do get a “ military immunity” from U.S.A.
Just see how U.S. treats her allies.(.say.. Pakistan’s Musharraf would have belly full load of complaints on U.S.’s kindness )..and then u know..indeed NOT getting’ a “ military immunity can do any & all wanta be -despot a world of goodies …lucky IRI..some say..
Just see how U.S. treats her allies.(.say.. Pakistan’s Musharraf would have belly full load of complaints on U.S.’s kindness )..and then u know..indeed NOT getting’ a “ military immunity can do any & all wanta be -despot a world of goodies …lucky IRI..some say..
IF A happens, THEN Should B be allowed !!!
I assume "A" is a condition in which IRR and goones commit mass murder or genocide against Iranian civilians opposition, IMHO in that case the option "B" will be inevitable and possibly automatic and I will personally and wholeheartedly well come it.
All human beings have natural and moral responsibility to preserve life, but that is just me with an honest answer to your inquiry.
Shahin jAn
Sorry for the belated respond. I will try to explain what I mean by "Follow their route".
IMHO 3 factors are required for a regime change in Iran:
a- Nationwide protests by the masses.
b- Create a wide rift among ruling elite.
c- Massive strikes by all labor unions specially Oil&gas and other revenue generating industries.
Kudos to courageous Iranians who have already achieved a & b with minimum loss of lives (although those who paid the ultimate due will remain alive in Iranians hearts and minds for ever) and properties, bear in mind that protest does not have to be in the open in the street, the protest is continuous in daily lives.
The heaviest blow against the regime came from 1999, 09 and 10 uprisings which effectively stripped the regime from its "perceived" legitimacy in the eyes of the whole world to a point even regime's friends and allies around the world were ashamed to vote "no" to recent sanctions.
I know we all want this murderous regime to be gone like yesterday but "my understanding" is that Iranians inside Iran are not following a "Big Bang Strategy", they are weary of revolutions, 4 major revolutions in span of 103 years and after every single one they ended up in worse situation than the one they revolted against.
So I agree with their new and wise tactic of chipping away from the regime's foundation piece by piece until it crumbles on its own weight. May be I am too idealistic but in any case I personally don't believe that day is far away.
BTW1: Even though they were welcomed with open arms Green movement has always been part of the whole opposition not all of it and I don't believe Mousavi and/or Karoubi are in a position or possess the capacity to call themselves Iranian Opposition Leaders, they've personally and frequently mentioned this in several occasion.
BTW2: I say I must follow their path b/c they are the ones living that daily life and should always be 1 step ahead unless I have something positive and decisive to bring to the table.
mokhless
Sorry for the belated respond. I will try to explain what I mean by "Follow their route".
IMHO 3 factors are required for a regime change in Iran:
a- Nationwide protests by the masses.
b- Create a wide rift among ruling elite.
c- Massive strikes by all labor unions specially Oil&gas and other revenue generating industries.
Kudos to courageous Iranians who have already achieved a & b with minimum loss of lives (although those who paid the ultimate due will remain alive in Iranians hearts and minds for ever) and properties, bear in mind that protest does not have to be in the open in the street, the protest is continuous in daily lives.
The heaviest blow against the regime came from 1999, 09 and 10 uprisings which effectively stripped the regime from its "perceived" legitimacy in the eyes of the whole world to a point even regime's friends and allies around the world were ashamed to vote "no" to recent sanctions.
I know we all want this murderous regime to be gone like yesterday but "my understanding" is that Iranians inside Iran are not following a "Big Bang Strategy", they are weary of revolutions, 4 major revolutions in span of 103 years and after every single one they ended up in worse situation than the one they revolted against.
So I agree with their new and wise tactic of chipping away from the regime's foundation piece by piece until it crumbles on its own weight. May be I am too idealistic but in any case I personally don't believe that day is far away.
BTW1: Even though they were welcomed with open arms Green movement has always been part of the whole opposition not all of it and I don't believe Mousavi and/or Karoubi are in a position or possess the capacity to call themselves Iranian Opposition Leaders, they've personally and frequently mentioned this in several occasion.
BTW2: I say I must follow their path b/c they are the ones living that daily life and should always be 1 step ahead unless I have something positive and decisive to bring to the table.
mokhless
Be honest with you the uprising in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria and quick victory in first 2 made me feel envious with strange desire for our own quick victory against IRR. But then again I look at the first 2 and see nothing have really happened, 2 figure heads have retired to lushes resorts and both systems are still intact and governing, Libya has engulfed in full blown civil war and so far arab league and rest of the world have turned blind eyes toward ass-ad mass murdering his own people.
Lets look at our own scenario, within span of 18 months we Iranians put an end to 2500 years old Monarchy and knowingly or unknowingly (does it matter?) we mounted bunch of skin and bones dinosaurs and Obaashes in charge of the nation and now looking for another quick revolutionary fix.
Lets look at our own scenario, within span of 18 months we Iranians put an end to 2500 years old Monarchy and knowingly or unknowingly (does it matter?) we mounted bunch of skin and bones dinosaurs and Obaashes in charge of the nation and now looking for another quick revolutionary fix.
The fact that NONE of you dared to simply say:
Under no circumstances a government with the record of IR should be given any sort of immunity.
proves how confused we all are on the subject.
but at the same time...the fact that NONE of you dared to say: IR must be granted a military immunity
shows that all of you did understand the point I was making.
Under no circumstances a government with the record of IR should be given any sort of immunity.
proves how confused we all are on the subject.
but at the same time...the fact that NONE of you dared to say: IR must be granted a military immunity
shows that all of you did understand the point I was making.
Motori Aziz
thank you for addressing my question. I practically agree with everything you have said here. I too believe that the path should be defined by Iranians inside and changes have more chance of getting support from majority if they come from within. That being said, I think the next step in this struggle needs alot more planing, leadership and organization and some drastic movement.
Step C : c- Massive strikes by all labor unions specially Oil&gas and other revenue generating industries
will be the hardest to achive. Expanding the movement to all other classes of our society and all other sectors is NOT an easy task. At some point of time, people need to sit down and evaluate the plans of the leadership and see if the current people who are making decisions are capable of taking the next step. Are they even willing to take the next step.
As an example, many people here criticize khatami after the first student uprising for his lack of support of these students. I was one of them. But later, looking at what Khatami has been saying over the years and his vision, I see a consistency that is remarkable. He has been true to his ideas and has been standing by them. However, he has his limits and is not willing to take a next step.
I think this might be the case with the current leaderships and ... However, at this time, I think we just have to wait and see and give them some time to see what they are planing. It might be another surprise or they might be out of solutions and it will be time for next group to take over and ... I am in no shape of form looking for quick fix. what is happening in Iran is not directly effecting the life of a guy like me. Actually, a lift of sanctions can benefit a guy like me and what I do alot more
As far as this military and ... as I said many times here, it should be an option ONLY IF certain events happens before hand and as a mean of protecting civilians who are under attack by their own government.
thank you for addressing my question. I practically agree with everything you have said here. I too believe that the path should be defined by Iranians inside and changes have more chance of getting support from majority if they come from within. That being said, I think the next step in this struggle needs alot more planing, leadership and organization and some drastic movement.
Step C : c- Massive strikes by all labor unions specially Oil&gas and other revenue generating industries
will be the hardest to achive. Expanding the movement to all other classes of our society and all other sectors is NOT an easy task. At some point of time, people need to sit down and evaluate the plans of the leadership and see if the current people who are making decisions are capable of taking the next step. Are they even willing to take the next step.
As an example, many people here criticize khatami after the first student uprising for his lack of support of these students. I was one of them. But later, looking at what Khatami has been saying over the years and his vision, I see a consistency that is remarkable. He has been true to his ideas and has been standing by them. However, he has his limits and is not willing to take a next step.
I think this might be the case with the current leaderships and ... However, at this time, I think we just have to wait and see and give them some time to see what they are planing. It might be another surprise or they might be out of solutions and it will be time for next group to take over and ... I am in no shape of form looking for quick fix. what is happening in Iran is not directly effecting the life of a guy like me. Actually, a lift of sanctions can benefit a guy like me and what I do alot more
As far as this military and ... as I said many times here, it should be an option ONLY IF certain events happens before hand and as a mean of protecting civilians who are under attack by their own government.
The only person here who doesn't have a clue is you Masoud. Your question is totally meaningless. The obvious answer is that NO GOVERNMENT should be given military immunity, neither Iran nor any other. Your first question "should military option stay on the table" is slightly more meaningful but not much unless you can tell us where that table is!!
Keeping the military option on the table (presumably Obama's table or at best some sort of half-baked NATO table -- Israel's case is different but that's a whole other story) has nothing to do with the struggle of Iranians with IR. It's only a function of benefit cost analysis of those who own the table. And right now there is a lot more cost than benefit to that analysis and Iran is very well aware of that. So currently there is no military option on the table to be kept or not.
If there is ever a military option, it would be targeted attacks on military and strategic infrastructure. Believe me, the regime would love that option. There is no easier way to officially turn Iran to a military dictatorship than a limited form of attack. It will really make life easier for the regime. They'll blame all their financial problems on the west, clean up any type of opposition, strengthen their grip on people's throat (like Saddam did after 1st gulf war), get a lot of rhetoric for domestic consumption of their base, prepare for normalization with the west after the ceremonial barking (as the nuclear issue won't there anymore), and all that at the mere cost of few nuclear facilities that in likelihood were not functional to begin with.
The only possible military strike comes from Israel, simply because Israel would love all the above outcomes that result in continued existence of IR with hardliners in charge.
Keeping the military option on the table (presumably Obama's table or at best some sort of half-baked NATO table -- Israel's case is different but that's a whole other story) has nothing to do with the struggle of Iranians with IR. It's only a function of benefit cost analysis of those who own the table. And right now there is a lot more cost than benefit to that analysis and Iran is very well aware of that. So currently there is no military option on the table to be kept or not.
If there is ever a military option, it would be targeted attacks on military and strategic infrastructure. Believe me, the regime would love that option. There is no easier way to officially turn Iran to a military dictatorship than a limited form of attack. It will really make life easier for the regime. They'll blame all their financial problems on the west, clean up any type of opposition, strengthen their grip on people's throat (like Saddam did after 1st gulf war), get a lot of rhetoric for domestic consumption of their base, prepare for normalization with the west after the ceremonial barking (as the nuclear issue won't there anymore), and all that at the mere cost of few nuclear facilities that in likelihood were not functional to begin with.
The only possible military strike comes from Israel, simply because Israel would love all the above outcomes that result in continued existence of IR with hardliners in charge.
Khodam -
keeping the military option on the table = not giving military immunity
everyone got that except you.
the question is: Would you grant IR military immunity? Yes or No?
but I know - you won't answer the question - because you are not man enough to ever admit how wrong you were in the past, for attacking people like me. Same as your buddy Iranpaak whom this thread was directed at. Anti war cries of stelth IR supporters and the cyber Sandis crowd is certainly not for the sake of people of Iran.
keeping the military option on the table = not giving military immunity
everyone got that except you.
the question is: Would you grant IR military immunity? Yes or No?
but I know - you won't answer the question - because you are not man enough to ever admit how wrong you were in the past, for attacking people like me. Same as your buddy Iranpaak whom this thread was directed at. Anti war cries of stelth IR supporters and the cyber Sandis crowd is certainly not for the sake of people of Iran.
Na dadash, nobody (except shahin) shared your interpretation of your coined phrase "military immunity". Even within a thread like this in front of your eyes you live in lala-land. Most people in this thread are arguing with you that there is no such thing as "military immunity" and you come back with the line above. Seriously, do you have even one toe left in reality?
I can think of far better ways to test my manhood than that :yaay:
I can think of far better ways to test my manhood than that :yaay: