Should the World keep the “Military Option” against Iran “On the Table”?!!

Mar 13, 2007
2,966
0
I.D.M
Over 2500 years of continues statehood and significant amount of contribution to world civilization says you are dead wrong.
2500 years of 'statehood' that for most part has been run and ruled by unelected few, bunch of families and tribes, foreign countries and states and others doos not negate the fact that iranians are cowardly people!

There is no argument about iranian people's tremendous contribution, but that or even their intelligent level would say nothing about their cowardly charcater, they are easily both!


Does engulfing in sectarian and civil war requires balls now?
Yemen, sectarian war
Syria, sectarian war
Libya, tribal war
Iraq, sectarian and civil war.

Iranians are not good at civil war b/c they never had one in their history.
Yes it does! and in fact this is exactly even more reason as to why they are cowards!

Iran one of the very few if not last multinational countries on earth has not yet seen a major conflict along these lines cause kurds, azeris, arabs and others have not stood up for themselves! these groups with different religions and backgrounds have in fact endured and accepted the oppression and wrath of all kinds of central governments and currently IRI who has crapped all over them for centuries and more. What does this tell you about all these 'Iranian peoples'? that they love their country so much !? lol, come on give me a break! its called not having balls to ask and grab what they deserve like people in yugoslavia or soviets did.
 

shahinc

Legionnaire
May 8, 2005
6,745
1
Shahin jAn,
Do you predict that Libyans will establish a rosy looking democratic system after fall of moaa'mmar? or will they endure 30 or more years of a jihadist regime like we have in Iran?

We went through this in 1979, when we accepted a cure which was far worse than the disease we have been fighting against.
Motori Aziz
You raised a great point. There are no guarantee that Libya now will see democracy and be on its way to a better future. There are absolutely nothing that can guarantee that. That being Said, nothing in Life is guaranteed. It is now up to the Libyan people to take pride in their country and make sure they seek the democratic way for their future and DO NOT make the same mistakes as US about 33 years ago.

BUT NOW, Libyan people have removed a 42 year old problem as the FIRST step toward their future. With Gaddafi in power, democracy was just a dream for 42 years. Now, with the help on NATO, he is GONE and this problem has been SOLVED for these people.


Again, this post does not mean that the solution for Iran is a NATO attack on our country like some people have just said i here. I think we have discussed that enough on this thread and my stand is Clear here.

My post was directed to people like NILOUFAR khanom who thought NATO has failed just because Gaddafi was still in power month ago and all the NATO efforts was waste.

Today, Libya may not be in the path toward democracy BUT it has removed one of its greatest obstacles toward democracy if it chooses to take that path.
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
Dear Shahin, thank you for your respond.
Motori Aziz
You raised a great point. There are no guarantee that Libya now will see democracy and be on its way to a better future. There are absolutely nothing that can guarantee that. That being Said, nothing in Life is guaranteed. It is now up to the Libyan people to take pride in their country and make sure they seek the democratic way for their future and DO NOT make the same mistakes as US about 33 years ago.
Highlighted is where I disagree with you. Thinking about bunch of blue eyed, straw colored hair westerners flying modern jets who flown 20,000 sorties taking out more than 3000 targets in less than 4 month, helping them out to remove Quaky will not leave much room for pride. Now compare that to Poland.

BUT NOW, Libyan people have removed a 42 year old problem as the FIRST step toward their future. With Gaddafi in power, democracy was just a dream for 42 years. Now, with the help on NATO, he is GONE and this problem has been SOLVED for these people.
Not yet, but he will. I hope NATO will leave newly liberated Libyans alone and don't camp out there by building a permanent NATO base.


Again, this post does not mean that the solution for Iran is a NATO attack on our country like some people have just said i here. I think we have discussed that enough on this thread and my stand is Clear here.[/QUOTE]
I never said or believed you did. TBH I personally don't mind if West decides to conduct a cold war (a la Iron Curtains) against IRI. But looking at massive anti missile shields, modern jets and other defense apparatus which West is selling to our neighbors, I doubt it will happen any time soon.


Today, Libya may not be in the path toward democracy BUT it has removed one of its greatest obstacles toward democracy if it chooses to take that path.
That is what I meant by pointing twd Cure vs Disease. Above was also our mentality pre-1979. See where we are now.
NATO also went in Iraq and removed the most despotic bloodsucking dictator of all time, but I don't see a good future for Iraq. It will be carved in 3 pieces at least. I believe it would be different if 100damn was removed by Iraqis themselves alone, because they had to have a strong and lasting coalition to achieve it.
 

Niloufar

Football Legend
Oct 19, 2002
29,626
23
An interesting info about unrest in Syria, roadmap for the region,etc..

Chossudovsky: What Is Happening in Syria Is an Armed Insurrection Supported Secretly by Foreign Powers Headed by U.S. and Israel

OTTAWA, (SANA) – Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization‏ Michel Chossudovsky said that what is happening in Syria is an armed insurrection supported secretly by foreign forces including the United States.

In an article published on the Centre's website, Chossudovsky said that armed insurgents belonging to Islamist organizations have crossed the border into Syria and that the US State Department has confirmed that it is supporting them.

He pointed out that the U.S is expanding its contact with Syrian opposition figures who are counting on a regime change in the country, noting that U.S. State Department official Victoria Nuland stated that her country "started to expand contacts with the Syrians, those who are calling for change, both inside and outside the country."

Chossudovsky said that the destabilization of Syria and Lebanon as sovereign countries has been on the agenda of the military alliance between the U.S., the NATO and Israel for at least ten years, noting that former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark said that the action against Syria is part of a military roadmap and that the Pentagon had clearly identified Iraq, Libya, Syria and Lebanon as targets of an intervention by the U.S. and NATO.

He pointed out that in page 130 of his book, Winning Modern Wars, Clark quoted a senior U.S. army officer as saying in November 2001 that the U.S. was still on track for going to war against Iraq and that there was more to discuss as part of a five-year campaign plan targeting a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan, and that the goal is to destabilize Syria and implement a "regime change" through the secret support of armed insurgency in cooperation with Islamist militias.

Regarding the misdirection carried out by Arab and western media, Chossudovsky said that these sources continue to report profusely allegations of the involvement of the armed forces and the police in the indiscriminate killing of civilian protesters, but in actuality there was an exchange of gunfire between armed insurgents and the police from the beginning of the protest movement, with casualties reported on both sides.

He pointed out that with the beginning of the protest movement in Daraa on March 18th 2011 there were signs of secret support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad or western intelligence, with government sources pointing to the role of radical Salafi groups supported by Israel, while other reports indicated to the role of Arab countries in financing the protest movement.

Chossudovsky said that what took place in Daraa in the weeks following the initial violent clashes on 17-18 March was a confrontation between the police and the armed forces on the one hand and armed units of terrorists and snipers which have infiltrated the protest movement on the other hand.

He went on to say that what is clear from these initial reports is that many of the protestors were actually terrorists involved in premeditated acts of murder and arson.

Chossudovsky said that the center of the insurrection then shifted to the small border town of Jisr al-Shughour, 10 km from the Turkish border, noting that members of the Muslim Brotherhood confessed to taking up arms in northwest Syria, adding that what took place in Jisr al-Shughour wasn't a civilian protest movement, while the fighting between armed groups and government forces caused a refugee crisis that became center of media attention.

He also noted that on the other hand, the capital Damascus witnessed mass rallies in support to President al-Assad rather than in opposition to the government, which proves that President al-Assad is a popular figure and has widespread support from the Syrians.

Chossudovsky noted that mass media purposefully ignored in its reports the mass gatherings of tens of thousands of President al-Assad's supporters in Damascus on March 29th, and in an unusual twist, the western media used images and video footage of pro-government gatherings to convince international public opinion that President al-Assad was facing anti-government rallies.

He went on to explain that objective of the U.S.-NATO-Israeli alliance against Syria isn't supporting democracy, but rather establishing a political regime that is subservient to Washington, and that media misdirection aims at defaming President al-Assad and more broadly destabilizing Syria as a secular state through secret support of extremist Islamist organizations.

Chossudovsky said that the riots in Syria are complex and cannot be viewed as a straightforward quest for freedom and democracy, and that there have been attempts by the U.S. and the European Union to use the riots in Syria to pressure and intimidate the Syrian leadership, adding that Israel played a role in supporting the armed insurrection.

He pointed out that the violence in Syria has been supported from the outside with the goal of taking advantage of internal tensions, adding that media lies and fake footage have been used and that money and weapons have also been smuggled to the Syrian opposition by the U.S and the EU, and that funding has been given to "ominous and unpopular foreign-based Syrian opposition figures," while weapons were smuggled into Syria.

Chossudovsky explained that Israel and the NATO signed a long-term military cooperation agreement in 2005, and that if a military operation were to be launched against Syria, then Israel would probably be involved in it alongside NATO forces under the bilateral agreement between NATO and Israel.

He pointed that a military attack against Syria on fake humanitarian grounds would lead to an escalation of the was led by the U.S. and NATO over a large area from North Africa and the Middle East to Central Asia and from the Eastern Mediterranean to China's western borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Chossudovsky concluded by stressing that such an attack would contribute to political destabilization in Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine, in addition to setting the stage for a conflict with Iran.
 
May 12, 2007
8,093
11
I don't think millitary attack will fail like many posters imply. But the concequences are more teribble than you can imagin. I however belive the outside world can reinforce iranian people agaist the basterds.
The price of toppling IRI is high.
 
Last edited:

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
Exactly DS jaan -
What must scare Iranians - is for Iran being portrayed as some sort of military power....then dragged into a war with a neigboring country.
 
Oct 18, 2002
9,759
52
Sydney, Australia
Agha masoud: I want to answer your question but I need you to define the terms CLEARLY! What is "military immunity"? Such a phrase does not actually exist in political speak. That's fine though, if its your own phrase but at least define its parameters.

Immunity itself refers to a specific condition or scenario. I am immune to measles, mumps and rubella because I have had an injection which makes my body immune to those diseases. This doesn't mean I still can't get some other horrible disease. I'm only immune to those conditions.

Immunity in legal terms again refers to a specific charge. For example, I maybe granted immunity from prosecution for giving evidence against someone in relation to a fraud charge that we were both implicated in. The immunity though would not extend to charges in relation to an armed robbery I may subsequently commit.

What exactly do you mean by "military immunity"? Somehow I gather this "military option on the table" is linked to your idea of "military immunity". So please define military immunity so we're all on the same page.
 

shahinc

Legionnaire
May 8, 2005
6,745
1
Dear Shahin, thank you for your respond.

Highlighted is where I disagree with you. Thinking about bunch of blue eyed, straw colored hair westerners flying modern jets who flown 20,000 sorties taking out more than 3000 targets in less than 4 month, helping them out to remove Quaky will not leave much room for pride. Now compare that to Poland.
Motori Aziz, Sorry about the late reply. I am in SF on a little west coast vacation and do not have access to the site that often. Now, as far as above goes, you have to give more credit to the average Libyan citizens who took small arms and stood in front of Gaddafi's tanks and well trained army. Plus, it is not embarrassing to get help when you are a smaller guy in a very ONE SIDED fight.
Not yet, but he will. I hope NATO will leave newly liberated Libyans alone and don't camp out there by building a permanent NATO base.
Lets hope that is the case and NATO will allow them to build something meaningful after being under the brutal regime of Gaddafi for 42 years.

I never said or believed you did. TBH I personally don't mind if West decides to conduct a cold war (a la Iron Curtains) against IRI. But looking at massive anti missile shields, modern jets and other defense apparatus which West is selling to our neighbors, I doubt it will happen any time soon.
.
I agree with you 100% on the above statement.

That is what I meant by pointing twd Cure vs Disease. Above was also our mentality pre-1979. See where we are now.
NATO also went in Iraq and removed the most despotic bloodsucking dictator of all time, but I don't see a good future for Iraq. It will be carved in 3 pieces at least. I believe it would be different if 100damn was removed by Iraqis themselves alone, because they had to have a strong and lasting coalition to achieve it.
As far as the cure goes, sometimes if the Disease is just too strong, doctors need to make drastic treatment plans that can actually make the patient weaker at first before it makes them better. For example, look at chemo when healthy cells are effected as well because there is NO other way. Some time the disease is NOT a simple cold that you can just drink some OJ and take few well targeted medicine for it.

All the points that you are making above are 100% true. There is huge risk that Libyans can make the same mistake as we did. There is a huge risk that they could actually go back like we did 32 years ago.

BUT , on the other side, what would have been the cost of having Gaddafi stay in power for another 40 years ?
What would have been the chance of home grown opposition to Gaddafi, being able to make the so called slow changes from within !!
We all saw how he took his tanks to the street to kill the opposition last time. Even in our case in Iran, one has to sit down and ask himself, what is the real cost of the slow " ESLAHAT" over the years ? What is the REAL chance of it becoming successful ? We can look at many irreversible damages that IR has made to Iran over the years that will take this nation years to recover from, even if they ever manage to do so. World goes by when dictatorship regimes like Gaddafi and IR hold you back. Where was India 33 years ago and where is it now compare to us and where will we be in another 50 years under IR regime ??

So it is a risk, a huge risk one might say but sometimes you need to risk it and it is matter of choice because the price of staying quite and put and taking the very shaky and weak long way to changes, is simply too expensive for some.
 
Last edited:

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
Agha masoud: I want to answer your question but I need you to define the terms CLEARLY! What is "military immunity"? Such a phrase does not actually exist in political speak. That's fine though, if its your own phrase but at least define its parameters.
Dear Sporthead - I will try.
In the last century some countries started signing peace treaties, non-aggression treaties, or even in some cases military coaporation pacts...meaning if a country was attacked the other country would come to it's defense.....I recall during teh Shah era we had a CENTO treaty with Turkey and Pakistan which included the non-aggression pact.... this kind of treaty changed format over the years....when in the early 80's we heared of an undisclosed treaty between America and IR as part of the US Hostage negotiations process, giving the mullahs a 15 year immunity from all military aggressions from USA...from the little that was published about it (expectedly so) the treaty also included release of a couple of billion Dollars in frozen Iranian assets. True or not...America refrained from any agressions against Iran...and IR felt safe enough to committ one of the biggest crimes against the Iranian population killing some 6000 of our youth in a few months. Later on after the 15 years expired - IR kept pushing for the extension of that treaty in the late 90's....over and over afetr private talks between US and IR officials, we heared from US presidents and high level officials the phrase "The military option remains on the table" - some openly hiniting IR wanted military immunity from the US. For all I know, US may have already given that immunity to the IR.....otherwise they would not have dared to do what they did to peaceful protestors 2 years ago... then again, the IR aggression may have been the result of knowing Obama would do nothing.
 
Oct 18, 2002
9,759
52
Sydney, Australia
Agha masoud. Thanks for the explanation. Whilst I'm aware of such dealings in international peace keeping efforts (for instance Pakistan and India have one right now), I'm unaware of the specific one you referred to in your post. But nevermind that for a minute. Lets say such an immunity existed. That would surely have conditions and limitations placed on it would it not? I mean, the US isn't really going to sit idly by, if IRI attacked its warships in the Persian Gulf just because they have "military immunity". Don't forget, Flight 655 was shot down in 1988 because (according to the Americans) the Captain of USS Vincennes thought it was a hostile fighter plane! So even if an immunity exists, its not necessailly a blanket coverage that applies to every act of aggression and retaliation.
Secondly, your point about IR feeling safe to kill 6000 of its own citizens because of "military immunity" is flawed in my opinion. with all due respect, its not the role of America to play policeman in other countries domestic situations. Obviously, not for one second am I condoning the actions of IRI in slaughtering Iranians, but "military immunity" in place or not would not have made any difference to that situation. America only gets involved in other country's problems where its own interests are under threat, not because its Father Christmas and wants to bring joy and happiness to the world. SOVEREIGNTY laws also forbid it from conducting military operations in other countries internal affairs without first seeking the involvement of the international community first. With all due respect Masoud jaan, one would have to be very naive to believe the existence (however doubtful) of a "military immunity" directly affected IRI's decision to slaughter 6000 people.

So to answer your question if the "military option being on the table" is for US to protect Iranian citizens from IRI, I would kindly decline their offer. I have seen over the last 10 or so years how they've protected the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and would not seek their "protection" for my family and friends in Iran.