That sounds a bit like diplomacy, comrade.

CIA assassination teams have already been dispatched

hockeyfarker:CIA assassination teams have already been dispatched

Now if only they could figure out who to kill...seems like our gov't can't even figure out who's running the show over there.

What the hell, let's just kill 'em all! Let Allah sort 'em out!

Good to hear him say that.

Watched Persepolis last night. Interesting take on the Iranian revolutions. Good flick too.

the West needs to encourage the Iranian people to rise up



/ Irie, mon ...
// Rise up freedom fighters
/// Rise and take your stance again.

Well if that's the plan then we have to do it right. Unlike Dubya's father, who while not nearly as bad a president in retrospect, did really botch the same plan in Iraq.

We pulled back from our support of the internal revolutionaries, but not before they were exposed. We left them out to dry, and many of them died as a result.

Trying to foment a revolution in another country is still a violation of their sovereignty, but it's a hell of alot better than the ham-handed "regime change" George is trying to pull off.

hockeyfarker:CIA assassination teams have already been dispatched

Hey, has anyone considered funding this by having the CIA sell cocaine to American kids?

/neat idea!

yes, blowing the shiit out of a country and murdering thousands of innocents just doesn't feel right anymore...

Iranians younger than 35 are much friendlier to western ideas than their grumpy old fathers. Doing nothing on Iran could very well solve any disputes it has with the West in 20 years. All attacking Iran is going to do is create hypernationalism and set in stone for another 30 years the style of adversarial government they have now.

Philip J. Fry:Iranians younger than 35 are much friendlier to western ideas than their grumpy old fathers. Doing nothing on Iran could very well solve any disputes it has with the West in 20 years. All attacking Iran is going to do is create hypernationalism and set in stone for another 30 years the style of adversarial government they have now.

/points at nose

The Iranians might want to talk to the Kurds in Iraq on this subject before taking action.

Yeah, it did work in Iraq.....

I'd be surprised if this weren't underway, and if the efforts hadn't been ongoing for decades.

Worked well the last time

He's right. Iran, were it to get rid of the Islamic theocracy, actually has the best chance of becoming a strong, democratic regional leader that will go pretty far toward stabilizing the region, but we have to stop making it an "us v. them" situation, as the Iranian people, like the American people, will always choose their own country.

If we'd kept Saddam's helicopter gunships grounded during Iraq's little shindig they'd probably have successfully revolted quite some time ago.

Problem is, they wouldn't be business friendly enough.

Diogenes: Well if that's the plan then we have to do it right. Unlike Dubya's father, who while not nearly as bad a president in retrospect, did really botch the same plan in Iraq.

We pulled back from our support of the internal revolutionaries, but not before they were exposed. We left them out to dry, and many of them died as a result.

Came in here to say exactly this. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind trust us in this scenario? "The Kurds trusted us, you should, too."

W is just the latest generation of the Bush family farking over everyone who gets in their way or doesn't fit into the master plan.

Philip J. Fry:Iranians younger than 35 are much friendlier to western ideas than their grumpy old fathers. Doing nothing on Iran could very well solve any disputes it has with the West in 20 years. All attacking Iran is going to do is create hypernationalism and set in stone for another 30 years the style of adversarial government they have now.

I agree with your overall point, but those grumpy old fathers are, for the most part, friendly to "western" ideas as well. Iran is somewhat of a tyranny of the minority and has been since 1979.

The Iranians might be on our side already if it wasn't for the Bushies twisting their arms behind their backs.
I know some Iranians. They love America, but they HATE Bush.

"You say you want a revolution..."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080711.wshah12/BNStory/Inte rnational/home

He'd likely agree with the Son of Shah

WTF?! Are we encouraging armed insurrection in other people's countries again? Imagine how Americans would feel about someone urging the Southern states to rise up, kill Yankees and secede. Our arrogance and hypocrisy just beggars belief.

Dang. Admin, plz erase previous goofed-up post, thx.

Yeah, cause American backed leaders in the middle east do so well.

Ironic tag taken hostage?

If we attack Iran and there's not immediate outcry for Bush's impeachment, I will have lost all faith in this country.

"You say you want a revolution..."
He'd likely agree with Son of Shah

America and Britain are responsible for Iran being a theocracy, which was a sensible reaction to a brutal, secular dictator backed by Western imperialists. On the whole, the Iranian people, a people that has a majority under 35, are gracious and pro-Western. The new thing there is to get cosmetic surgery in order to look more Western. There is a chance for Iran to become a beacon, a secular one too, and a model for the Muslim world. To screw this up by turning a pro-Western, young, cosmopolitan population against us would be the worst foreign policy decision ever. They, more than most, should feel hatred for America, but don't, and that says a lot considering we deserve their ire.


Let's not forget the Iranian's reaction to 9/11.

Don't bomb them with munitions. Bomb them with DVDs, CDs, Ipods & all sorts of fun pop culture to make them REALLY want to revolt against their fundamentalist leaders. Overthrow the government, and you'll get satellite TV & Xbox live.

I am confident that US action against Iran would be very different from what was done in Iraq. US recognizes that the majority of Iranis are well-educated and interested in Western association. Military action would be to eliminate Iran's military threat, not to take over & depose the leaders. IMHO, that is.

how about a suggestion that we stop farking with other countries and clean house at home?

discount sushi:Good to hear him say that.

Watched Persepolis last night. Interesting take on the Iranian revolutions. Good flick too.

I love that movie.

And good on Son of Shah. Need more people speaking out like him. I've been saying the same thing for a long time.

squeez cheez:I am confident that US action against Iran would be very different from what was done in Iraq. US recognizes that the majority of Iranis are well-educated and interested in Western association. Military action would be to eliminate Iran's military threat, not to take over & depose the leaders. IMHO, that is.

Here's my stance on it and why it's a bad idea. Where do you disagree:

It seems that these days more and more people are talking about how military action on Iran is a necessity. In my estimation, the case for this is not only built on shaky criteria, but also will deliver far more negative consequences than positive ones.

First off, the supporters of military action have two main supports that build off each other as to why action is needed. I will address both these supports in later sections, but will touch upon them briefly in this section. They are:

1) Iran's Nuclear Program
2) Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel

Considering our understanding of Iran's nuclear program is limited, and as based on our very own intelligence reports,^{1, 2} not for the purpose of weaponry, this starts the argument on very weak footing.

Following on this trail. Pro-military action supporters then use a quote of Ahmadinejad's to build the case that if Iran does get nuclear weaponry, they would indeed use it on Israel. (I will get into this quote in more depth in a later section)

Well, to use this line of reasoning, some very relevant facts need to be overlooked. First off, the quote most often used is indeed a mistranslation.^{3, 4, 5} The argument can be made that even the correct translation doesn't paint a rosy picture. This is true. However, if the original statement is alarm enough on it's own, why press the mistranslation? Why are people so reluctant to use the correct version? Obviously, the mistranslation uses more graphic imagery, and thus it is embraced the most by people who would like to see Iran painted as dangerous in order to make a possible strike more of a reality.

That aside, Ahmadinejad has no power over the Iranian military. (I will get into the VERY confusing explanation of the Iranian political system in a later section.) Also, Iran has had WMDs for years⁶ without using them on Israel.

So, the argument for a military strike against Iran is based on a nuclear program that as far as we understand is not geared toward weaponry, coupled with the fear that they will use nuclear weapons based on an incorrect quote from a person who has no control over the use of Iran's military, overlooking Iran's history with it's WMDs.

Still, in the face of this flimsy argument, supporters press on. Their support crumbling from the seemingly solid points addressed earlier to strictly gut feelings and the concept that it's too much risk to NOT strike, thus the lack of concrete argument shouldn't be a hindrance.

Entertaining this concept and overlooking everything mentioned earlier, what would be the results of even a very surgical air strike against Iran's nuclear sites only?



Part of that slide assumes that it's an impossibility to target most of Iran's nuclear sites. This is a concept that has recently been put forth by the pentagon⁷.

So there you have it. The Case for an Attack on Iran: A weak argument based on shaky criteria that needs to be overlooked altogether in order to begin to entertain the concept of a strike which will have definite negative long term consequences and no long term solution.

Sources:
¹Fox News. December 7th, 2007. Bush Administration Credibility Suffers After Iran NIE Report (new window)
²NPR. December 3rd, 2007. NIE Report on Iran Contradicts Bush Claims (new window)
³The Guardian. June 14th, 2007. Lost in translation (new window)
⁴BBC. March 6th, 2007. Wiped off the map? (new window)
⁵American Chronicle. January 18th, 2007. "WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century (new window)
⁶GlobalSecurity.Org Report. April 6th, 2008. Chemical Weapons - Iran (new window)
⁷Telegraph.co.uk. May 7th, 2008. US Pentagon doubts Israeli intelligence over Iran's nuclear programme (new window)

Suede head:WTF?! Are we encouraging armed insurrection in other people's countries again? Imagine how Americans would feel about someone urging the Southern states to rise up, kill Yankees and secede. Our arrogance and hypocrisy just beggars belief.

It's not about that. A lot of Iranian people are already angry with the shenanigans their government has been pulling, and should Iran be bombed, the theory is that the sentiment will go away quickly, and they'll rally around their own, which will only serve to push the politics of Iran further backward.

There was a time in recent history where Iranian culture was among the most progressive in the Middle East. Still is in places, but it's been stifled lately.

You know what other deposed prince asked his desert-dwelling people to rise up against their oppresive government?

Gothmolly:You know what other deposed prince asked his desert-dwelling people to rise up against their oppresive government?

Close, but Iran is not a desert country.

Which option doesn't cause gas to shoot up to $6.00 per gallon?

/Ever have Deja vu?

Party Boy:/Ever have Deja vu?

Hell, yeah, the next Harry Potter movie is going to KICK ASS!!!!1!

And good on Son of Shah. Need more people speaking out like him. I've been saying the same thing for a long time.

I like Son of Shah's p.o.v. as well. He's saying "let our young people do the job for you" and I think it's a good idea. Implosion of the Iranian go'vt means no nukes going anywhere.

In the future, I will simply link to Persepolis' profile. Awesome dude!

/Ever have Deja vu?

Yes. The problem is the American public seems to have Jamais vu or else we wouldn't make these same mistakes.

Eight years ago in Iran, we were getting stories about how they loved American crap, guys and girls were even go-karting together though not touching, growing problems of drug and alcohol abuse in Iran, and the changing demographics. What this sabre-rattling *should* have taught us is that dumbass leaders regardless of the location in the world, continue to use vague and ominous threats from other countries, and subsequent demonstrations of how strong a leader they are, as a means to keep otherwise crumbling support somewhat solidified behind them.... basically, they're just saying "No matter how much you hate me, if I'm not in charge, eeeeeevil foreign entity X wins! Er go, you should support me." What was true even back to the some of the earliest wars holds true today no less.... though I wish we could take a cue and learn for once, it seems from the 2004 elections, and even the latest surveillance bill... notsomuch. Oh wait, we were talking about *their* poor judgment and the need for an active and participatory citizenry.

LouDobbsAwaaaay:Which option doesn't cause gas to shoot up to $6.00 per gallon?

Why don't you want to reduce global warming and prevent traffic deaths?

This probably won't happen. The Iranian theocracy is ruthless and has probably brainwashed the population which keeps them so tightly under Amhenijad(or however you spell his name)'s thumb that this makes it practically impossible. It's a nice thought but I think the only way to free the iranian people is with a little outside intervention.

thenateman:LouDobbsAwaaaay:Which option doesn't cause gas to shoot up to $6.00 per gallon?

Why don't you want to reduce global warming and prevent traffic deaths?

Do you mean why don't I want to pay for it?

Persepolis:squeez cheez:I am confident that US action against Iran would be very different from what was done in Iraq. US recognizes that the majority of Iranis are well-educated and interested in Western association. Military action would be to eliminate Iran's military threat, not to take over & depose the leaders. IMHO, that is.

Here's my stance on it and why it's a bad idea. Where do you disagree:

It seems that these days more and more people are talking about how military action on Iran is a necessity. In my estimation, the case for this is not only built on shaky criteria, but also will deliver far more negative consequences than positive ones.

First off, the supporters of military action have two main supports that build off each other as to why action is needed. I will address both these supports in later sections, but will touch upon them briefly in this section. They are:

1) Iran's Nuclear Program
2) Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel

Considering our understanding of Iran's nuclear program is limited, and as based on our very own intelligence reports,1, 2 not for the purpose of weaponry, this starts the argument on very weak footing.

Following on this trail. Pro-military action supporters then use a quote of Ahmadinejad's to build the case that if Iran does get nuclear weaponry, they would indeed use it on Israel. (I will get into this quote in more depth in a later section)

Well, to use this line of reasoning, some very relevant facts need to be overlooked. First off, the quote most often used is indeed a mistranslation.3, 4, 5 The argument can be made that even the correct translation doesn't paint a rosy picture. This is true. However, if the original statement is alarm enough on it's own, why press the mistranslation? Why are people so reluctant to use the correct version? Obviously, the mistranslation uses more graphic imagery, and thus it is embraced the most by people who would like to see Iran painted as dangerous in order to make a possible strike more of a reality.

That aside, Ahmadinejad has no power over the Iranian military. (I will get into the VERY confusing explanation of the Iranian political system in a later section.) Also, Iran has had WMDs for years6 without using them on Israel.

So, the argument for a military strike against Iran is based on a nuclear program that as far as we understand is not geared toward weaponry, coupled with the fear that they will use nuclear weapons based on an incorrect quote from a person who has no control over the use of Iran's military, overlooking Iran's history with it's WMDs.

Still, in the face of this flimsy argument, supporters press on. Their support crumbling from the seemingly solid points addressed earlier to strictly gut feelings and the concept that it's too much risk to NOT strike, thus the lack of concrete argument shouldn't be a hindrance.

Entertaining this concept and overlooking everything mentioned earlier, what would be the results of even a very surgical air strike against Iran's nuclear sites only?



Part of that slide assumes that it's an impossibility to target most of Iran's nuclear sites. This is a concept that has recently been put forth by the pentagon7.

So there you have it. The Case for an Attack on Iran: A weak argument based on shaky criteria that needs to be overlooked altogether in order to begin to entertain the concept of a strike which will have definite negative long term consequences and no long term solution.

Sources:
1Fox News. December 7th, 2007. Bush Administration Credibility Suffers After Iran NIE Report (new window)
2NPR. December 3rd, 2007. NIE Report on Iran Contradicts Bush Claims (new window)
3The Guardian. June 14th, 2007. Lost in translation (new window)
4BBC. March 6th, 2007. Wiped off the map? (new window)
5American Chronicle. January 18th, 2007. "WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century (new window)
6GlobalSecurity.Org Report. April 6th, 2008. Chemical Weapons - Iran (new window)
7Telegraph.co.uk. May 7th, 2008. US Pentagon doubts Israeli intelligence over Iran's nuclear programme (n ...

Damn. That had to be the best presentation I've seen on Fark in ages. Just to add a little to the conversation, most Farkers have no idea how the Saudi government works either. They blame Abdullah for a lot of crap he has no control over. He is taking big risks by sticking his foot into places where isn't supposed to, but still gets painted as the lead terrorist monger here on Fark by the ignorant tards.

/OMG!!! Bush was holding Abdullahs hand!!!

AxisDenied:Worked well the last time

This.

Have people forgot how Iran's current regime started?

xen0blue:The Iranian theocracy is ruthless and has probably brainwashed the population which keeps them so tightly under Amhenijad(or however you spell his name)'s thumb that this makes it practically impossible.

1) Ahmadinejad doesn't rule Iran, he's out in 2009.
2) It's spelled Ahmadinejad.
3) The populace of Iran by and large don't like the government
4) They populace have access to the internet and satellite telivsion, making "brainwashing" tougher.
5) Thought the entire history of Iran/Persia (over 3000 years) outside intervention has ALWAYS made things worse. The last 60 years should be a lesson to us, specifically, as we were more involved there.


I've always said, if you want an egg to hatch, cracking it yourself won't help anything.

muck4doo:Damn. That had to be the best presentation I've seen on Fark in ages.

Thanks dude. Usually I get frustrated dealing with trolls. Now I just post this and ask them what they disagree with. Usually, they drop right out of the thread.

Well, thanks to someones stupid decision to invade Irans next door neighbor for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities (kind of), Freedom, OIL, it seems the Irans paranoid conservative wack-jobs won the last election.

Iran might stand a fair chance of actually electing a democratic government if our government would quit sending in the CIA to, well, overthrow their democraticially-electied governments.