the most painful poll of isp??as a iranian which one do you prefer?

WHİCH ONE DO YOU PREFER YOU HAVE THE ONLY ONE OPTİON


  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
Nov 14, 2005
2,098
0
35
in the dream of every basiji
#1
as a iranian surely all of us want to govern our own country.but unfortanately at that time we see that there is no another way except war.we have to except the reality.because the mollahs regime have a military power and they can kill anybody whenever they want.now the question is coming.BE ONVANE YE İRANİ DAR SHERAYETE FELİ KODOOM YEKİ BARATOON MAGBOOLTARE.VARED SHODANE SARBAZHAE AMRİKAİ TOO KHİYABOONHAE TEHRAN YA EDAME İN REJİME SARKOOBGARİKE TOO KHİYABOONHA DARAN ZENDEH ZENDEH MARDOMO KHODESHOONO Bİ RAHMANE DARAN MİKOSHAN??KODOOM YEKİSH??

and please write your opinion
 
Last edited:
Oct 18, 2002
11,593
2
#3
IMO the poll does not reflect the reality. A foreign force will walk the streets of Tehran only after the country's entire infrastructure (bridges, power plants, communication, major industries, ports) are destroyed and the army, navy and airforce are wiped out. and this is regardless of whether any resistance is offered or not. Iraq in 1991 is an example. It is wishful thinking that a foreign force would just land in the country to free us from political dictators.

So as much as some friends would like to wish, the choice in this poll is not just between the current political leaders of the country or the Americans in charge. The real choices of this poll are 1) Complete destruction of the country in hope that IRI is also destroyed along the way, and 2) Other less speedy and long term but less destructive options.

This is not really about nationalism. As brutal as the current regime in Iran is, one should question whether its removal is worth physically destroying the country, with no guarantee that the regime that follows would necessarily be better.

As a matter of fact, why would we even assume that once a foreign force conquers our country, they would remove IRI from power too? The US did not do that with Saddam in 1991 Gulf war. For foreign powers it is much better and easier to take advantage of a weakened dictatorship than dealing with a democratic government based on the will of people. After all, they have to protect their own national interests. Why should they protect ours?

Most of us lived through a devastating war in our homeland, and then saw what happened to Iraq in 1991. I don't think that is quite the scenario we would like to see in Iran. If the choice ever is up to me, I always vote against an external war on Iran.

My 2 cents.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#4
There might be attacks on specific targets but I don't see any country willing to shed blood and treasure to remove IR from power. So to all those who are reluctantly granting permission to let someone else do the work for us I am afraid there are no takers. That window is long closed.
 

The_Referee

National Team Player
Mar 26, 2005
5,534
0
Jabolqa Opposite Jabolsa
#5
I am absolutely certain that an overwhelming majority of our HAMVATANs do like IRI replaced. A sizable minority (I think around 30%) support IRI, some among them with their lives. But the majority of people have yet to decide to risk a bloodshed to rid of IRI. They do not know what comes after and at the moment are expressing their voices through the least risky methods of all. It is not working but they have decided this is as much as risk they are willing to take.

We need to respect people inside Iran for their decision. If they become far more fed up with regime, they will topple the regime in no time. There will be absolutely no need for a foreign intervention at all. Nothing can stop them, even if American army sides with the regime and Russians provide it all and China hacks on all anti-IRI sites.
The point is, although a great many of our HAMVATANs have put their lives at risk, not all our HAMVATANs who hate IRI's guts have decided the risk is worth it. So if they are not willing to risk it all, why we should be content to risk their lives for them by asking a foreign country's army to attack the country.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#6
I am absolutely certain that an overwhelming majority of our HAMVATANs dwhy we should be content to risk their lives for them by asking a foreign country's army to attack the country.
You make it look like there are armies just waiting for your permission to march on Tehran. There aren't any.
 

JazzedUp

Bench Warmer
Dec 1, 2002
1,688
0
42
London
#8
I understand a lot frustration that all of us feeling right now specially after 22 Bahman. As deeruz mentioned a war has devastating effects on a country. Even targeted attacks will destroy a lot of infrastructure which will put extreme strain on a any government. A good example is Serbia I was there couple of years ago and almost a decade after the war there are still many ruined buildings and bridges and roads everywhere. Now if that happens considering Iran's economy who's gonna pay to rebuild the country even if Iran has a democratic and corruption free government? A lot times we don't think about these side effects and aftershocks a war could have on Iran.

On a side note, I'm quite disappointed with Iranian Diaspora (including myself) over the past 8 months or so. Iranian expats in almost all the countries they live in have been a successful bunch (financially, education wise) however none of us have truly supported or provided aid to our hamvatans back home. All we have done so far is saying they should be doing this or doing that. Instead we could advance their cause and give them more exposure and find out what they need from us and what we can do to help them. I do believe we need to do more.
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,161
11
#9
I voted B - IR staying in power is worst than anything that can happen in Iran. Iran is already oocupied.
but US forces entering Iran won't be needed - Green is doing fine.
There will be the need for an armed conflict against IR - but it will be done by our own with help from others - and it will be finished in a few days.
 

Khorus

National Team Player
Oct 25, 2002
5,196
0
CA
#10
This is indeed a very difficult choice and I had a very difficult time deciding. In the end I went with the second option, for a couple of reasons. first of all, I don't believe that the US will need to completely destroy the infrastructure, if they were ever to set foot in Iran. Second, I may be wrong, but I believe the vast majority of the poeple in Iran will welcome them, and if some basiji and akhoonds need to perish in the process, well, that is just a bonus and I will nominate them for the Darwin award. What I hope this means, is that there will be a very quick and not too destructive incursion.

Having said all that, even if the US were to destroy a lot of the infrastructure, I can't imagine that no matter what they do, that the damage will be worse than what the IR has done to Iran in the past 31 years. We can rebuilt the country when our dignity, honor, and pride have been restored, and we have the right leadership in place. I would rather have a nationalist gov't in place with 30 years of work ahead of us (and I will go help personally 'til I drop dead), than have the current regime continue.
 
Oct 18, 2002
6,139
0
Los Angeles, CA USA
#11
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html

War games on an Israeli initiated war game. Not exactly the same thing but there are some correlations between it and a US led intervention.

People dont realize how stupid the idea of US military intervention is. Aside from it never having worked in history, the fact that it would lead to foreign occupation for many many years, the fact that it would cost Iran at least 1-5 million lives, it just wouldnt work...

I dont understand the thinking behind it. Do you really think the US is just going to bomb a few places, get rid of the akhoonds and leave??? They will set up a foreign presence for years, have a very large hand in choosing and shaping our government, and will always look out for their interests (and their allies) before Iran's. Trust me, you think its bad now, it would just be an american bending us over instead of a bearded mullah.
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,161
11
#12
ADC - you are making all kinds of assumptions...
the choice is simple:
1- IR to remain in place
2- IR to fall with the help of USA armed forces.

Before any of you start analyzing 2 - please try to understand what 1 means to Iran.
 
#14
i will defend my country no matter who is in power
it is about defending the country from foreign forces
I voted option 2 and I will write, a little later, in more detail as to why.

Dear arash-kaman, I am not trying to pick on your reply, and I respect your opinion of course, but since your reply reflects a very common place notion, let me just say that your sentence is built on words which are all very relative:

defend, who is in power, foreign forces.
 

R_E_Z_A

IPL Player
Jan 16, 2004
2,916
0
#15
^İNDİANA JONES^;768158 said:
as a iranian surely all of us want to govern our own country.but unfortanately at that time we see that there is no another way except war.we have to except the reality.because the mollahs regime have a military power and they can kill anybody whenever they want.now the question is coming.BE ONVANE YE İRANİ DAR SHERAYETE FELİ KODOOM YEKİ BARATOON MAGBOOLTARE.VARED SHODANE SARBAZHAE AMRİKAİ TOO KHİYABOONHAE TEHRAN YA EDAME İN REJİME SARKOOBGARİKE TOO KHİYABOONHA DARAN ZENDEH ZENDEH MARDOMO KHODESHOONO Bİ RAHMANE DARAN MİKOSHAN??KODOOM YEKİSH??

and please write your opinion
Do you mean that already have gaven up on your "green" revolution? I thought you had the majority and the regime has only a few thousands paid supporters !
 
Oct 18, 2002
6,139
0
Los Angeles, CA USA
#16
ADC - you are making all kinds of assumptions...
the choice is simple:
1- IR to remain in place
2- IR to fall with the help of USA armed forces.

Before any of you start analyzing 2 - please try to understand what 1 means to Iran.
So basically you are asking me if I would rather be raped by my brother or by a complete stranger. WTF kind of question is that?
 
May 9, 2004
15,126
179
#18
واقعا شرم اور است
این همه رای داده اند که امریکا بیاید و ایران را بمباران کند !!ا
در جریان جنبشتان چند نفر کشته شدند و شما وای ایران و اا وطنا و وا شهیدا کردید پس چرا الان
رای می دهدی که هموطنانتان را بمباران کنند ؟
نیایید و بگویید امریکا فقط بسیج و پاسدار را می زند
امریکا همین امروز سی و سه افغانی اعم از پیر و جوان و کودک و زن را کشت و تنها عکس العملی که داشت یک عذر خواهی بود
شما ایرانی نیستید
من باور نمی کنم که یک زره ایرانیت
نه بلکه یک زره احساس و انسانیت در وجودتان باشد
شمااز ان قاتلی که برای پول برای سکس برای هر چیز دیگری ادم می کشد پست تر هستید
می دانید چرا ؟
چون او پشت صورتک زشتی به اسم وطن پرستی و نوع دوستی پنهان نشده
واقعا شرم اور است
اگر از پیشرفت های ایران دلگیر می شوید و دلیلتان این است که این پیشرفت ها پیشرفت رژیم است
دلیلتان برای کشتن ان کودکانی که کشته می شوند چیست ؟
گیریم که بچه های بسیجی ها هستند
گیریم که بچه های قاتلان هستند
گیریم که بچه های دشمنانان هستند
ایا از خودتان شرم نمی کنید که ارزوی کشتن کودکان ایرانی را در سر می پرورانید
شما ایرانی نیستید
من باور نمی کنم که باشید
همین شمایی که رای به کشتن ایرانیان می دهید برای ندا عزا داری کردید
این عزاداری برای ندا نبوده برای نداها نبوده
زیرا اگر امریکا حمله کند صدها بلکه هزاران ندا کشته خواهند شد شما تنها به فکر خودتان هستید
ولی در اخر بگویم این رای گیری ثابت کرد
که جنبشتان مثل خودتان پوشالی بود و امیدی به ان نیست و نخواهد بود


بله جانم
 

Azhidahak

Bench Warmer
May 30, 2005
1,707
67
#19
IMO the poll does not reflect the reality. A foreign force will walk the streets of Tehran only after the country's entire infrastructure (bridges, power plants, communication, major industries, ports) are destroyed and the army, navy and airforce are wiped out. and this is regardless of whether any resistance is offered or not. Iraq in 1991 is an example. It is wishful thinking that a foreign force would just land in the country to free us from political dictators.

So as much as some friends would like to wish, the choice in this poll is not just between the current political leaders of the country or the Americans in charge. The real choices of this poll are 1) Complete destruction of the country in hope that IRI is also destroyed along the way, and 2) Other less speedy and long term but less destructive options.

This is not really about nationalism. As brutal as the current regime in Iran is, one should question whether its removal is worth physically destroying the country, with no guarantee that the regime that follows would necessarily be better.

As a matter of fact, why would we even assume that once a foreign force conquers our country, they would remove IRI from power too? The US did not do that with Saddam in 1991 Gulf war. For foreign powers it is much better and easier to take advantage of a weakened dictatorship than dealing with a democratic government based on the will of people. After all, they have to protect their own national interests. Why should they protect ours?

Most of us lived through a devastating war in our homeland, and then saw what happened to Iraq in 1991. I don't think that is quite the scenario we would like to see in Iran. If the choice ever is up to me, I always vote against an external war on Iran.

My 2 cents.
This
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,161
11
#20
Deerouz jaan - Were the Bosnian Moslems against US Military Support?
The assumption that US/Nato/Allies military actions in Iran requires destruction of the basic infrastucture is wrong. That only applies in case of a military occupation. A Military support can take many shapes or forms - from declaring Iran no-fly zones to striking military targets with drones, to getting engaged in distributing arms to freedom-fighters, or conducting covert operations to eliminate IR members......
USA went into Bosnia without devastating the infrastructure.....

General - Shameful is your conduct and sentiments of indirectly supporting IR - at least have the balls to do it the way Cheif and co. do it. When you equal US military action to bombing of Iranians - unless you deal with Omat - you lose any basis for further discussions. I don't recal USA bombing people when they helped Moslems in Yugoslavia.