Iran needs some democracy

[DogOnPorch]

Having the Shah on the throne was a heck of a lot better than Iran being just another part of the USSR. 

Though no doubt a few of you Marxists think otherwise.

[Hudson Jones]

13 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Having the Shah on the throne was a heck of a lot better than Iran being just another part of the USSR. 

Though no doubt a few of you Marxists think otherwise.

Did you say something, Fascist?

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2018-03-22 at 11:53 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

Play footsies with the Nazis...get invaded by the Commies. Poor Iran just can't win.

Like much of Eastern Europe, then. And Finland. Wars make for strange bedfellows. The Nazis were worse, of course, but it's hard to condemn a country taking drastic measures when facing Stalin. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

19 hours ago, Hudson Jones said:

Exactly. The Shah wanted to nationalize the oil and give the profits to the Iranian people. He was no longer valuable to the West.

 

 

It was Mosadegh who nationalized Iranian oil 20 year before this video. It is though true that the Shah said that in 1979 Iran will not renew the pack with Consorsium anymore and guess what? The revolution against him occurred exact same year.

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/24/archives/iran-tells-oil-consortium-pact-will-not-be-renewed-companies.html

Edited March 24, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[DogOnPorch]

17 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It was Mosadegh who nationalize Iranian oil 20 year before this video. It is though true that he said in 1979 Iran will not renew the pack with Consorsium anymore and guess what? The revolution against him occurred exact same year.

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/24/archives/iran-tells-oil-consortium-pact-will-not-be-renewed-companies.html

 

A lot hinged on Iran during WW2 in 1941. Also on Rommel's Campaign in North Africa going on roughly at the same time. Had the latter succeeded, the entire Middle East and its oil would have likely fallen to the Axis Powers. Iran suddenly turning Axis wasn't an option for Stalin. And since he invaded, that forced the UK to act lest the USSR be the one to capture all the Middle East and its oil. This all in addition to Operation Barbarossa...which dwarfed EVERYTHING.

The Persian Corridor resulted which was better than outright occupation by the Soviets. However, the Iranian Army suffered hard after surrender at the hands of the Soviet NKVD and the like. They weren't going to view the Soviets as pals...ever. Which is why we should remember that the 1953 Coup was an Iranian Army job...with CIA assistance. Not just the CIA...all they had was a big cargo plane (so the Shah couldn't be arrested out of hand by the Communists) and suitcases full of cash to bribe the remaining officers not yet aboard with the Coup.

Voila...pizzas and Coca Cola for everyone. You play footsies with the Soviets at the height of the Red Threat...you get the horns. And lets not forget the investment the USA made in Iran during WW2. Airports...highways...modern ports....etc. All for the Commies? Think again.

Edited March 23, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:

I would disagree with this opinion.

Going into Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, etc, did the opposite of stabilizing. I believe that the more instability there is, the more the major industries like the military industrial complex and the government friendly contractors, like Halliburton make more money. These companies rely on instability and war. Look at all of the weapons that are being sold to the Arab countries. The more dangerous Iran is seen to be and the more conflict between Iran and the Arabs is created, the more $$$ the industries around war will make.

Saudi is anything but a 'stabilizing force'. They are the ones funding groups like ISIS and Al Quaeda. They are the ones who are carpet bombing Yemen.

Those countries were destabilized because of Iran regime meddling whose goal was to destabilize and concur. And to show Iranians that US invasions would bring a worse situation.

I was referring to stabilizing force in terms of OIL supply and flow not regional stability in terms of military action. Saudis are a reliable source of oil supply for the west and they have strong enough military to secure its flow.

Edited March 23, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:

Did you say something?

 

You're free to support and admire the old Soviet Union and Communism. I really don't care.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Like much of Eastern Europe, then. And Finland. Wars make for strange bedfellows. The Nazis were worse, of course, but it's hard to condemn a country taking drastic measures when facing Stalin. 

 

It was Persia changing its name to Iran and the old Shah sporting Hitler's mustache that were the first clues. Entertaining SS men was the next. Stalin had his spies. 

[Hudson Jones]

58 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Those countries were destabilized because of Iran regime meddling whose goal was to destabilize and concur. And to show Iranians that US invasions would bring a worse situation.

Even though Iran has had a hand in all of these neighbouring countries, you are giving them way too much credit. It was the U.S. who initiated the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and it was US' lack of insight and preparation that created the blow back we are seeing today.

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

2 hours ago, Hudson Jones said:

Even though Iran has had a hand in all of these neighbouring countries, you are giving them way too much credit. It was the U.S. who initiated the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and it was US' lack of insight and preparation that created the blow back we are seeing today.

 

I am giving them the credit they deserve.

Afghanistan is different as over 95% are both illiterate and religious fanatics with a strong support for Taliban but Iraq would have been likely a success if it wasn't for Iran regime meddling.

Edited March 24, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

First Mike Pompeo and then John Bolton both US nationalists and Europe joining US for some new sanctions on the outside and spreading anti regime demonstrations and a worsening economy and increasing corruptions and protests and widening political divisions on the inside,  I have a feeling that the New year (in Iran) may not be such a great year for the regime though it could be a great historic year for the people of Iran.

Edited March 24, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[marcus]

4 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

First Mike Pompeo and then John Bolton both US nationalists and Europe joining US for some new sanctions on the outside and spreading anti regime demonstrations and a worsening economy and increasing corruptions and protests and widening political divisions on the inside,  I have a feeling that the New year (in Iran) may not be such a great year for the regime though it could be a great historic year for the people of Iran.

From economic and political pressure or from a war that could be looming?

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

First Mike Pompeo and then John Bolton both US nationalists and Europe joining US for some new sanctions on the outside and spreading anti regime demonstrations and a worsening economy and increasing corruptions and protests and widening political divisions on the inside,  I have a feeling that the New year (in Iran) may not be such a great year for the regime though it could be a great historic year for the people of Iran.

Germany, France and the rest of Europe are not going to support any policy that leads to civil war and chaos in Iran. With Bolton, we may even see a US military offensive that will set back liberals in the country for another generation. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

9 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Germany, France and the rest of Europe are not going to support any policy that leads to civil war and chaos in Iran. With Bolton, we may even see a US military offensive that will set back liberals in the country for another generation. 

But they will support policies resulting in regime change. There are no liberals in the Iran ruling system. Some are wearing liberal masks (true liberals are all screened out or are in jail) but only to fool the people home and abroad (and they were successful to fool Obama and even the people for 4 decades but now everyone knows this fact that it has been only a political show game).

Edited March 24, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

But they will support policies resulting in regime change. There are no liberals in the Iran ruling system. Some are wearing liberal masks (true liberals are all screened out or are in jail) but only to fool the people home and abroad (and they were successful to fool Obama and even the people for 4 decades but now everyone knows this fact that it has been only a political show game).

Right now, regime change would mean war. The mullahs retain support among conservative, rural Iranians. An external attack on the country would force nearly everybody into the regime’s hands and put back any chance of meaningful change for decades. 

[kactus]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Right now, regime change would mean war. The mullahs retain support among conservative, rural Iranians. An external attack on the country would force nearly everybody into the regime’s hands and put back any chance of meaningful change for decades. 

100% agree with this sentiment and that doesn’t mean support for the mullah regime. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Right now, regime change would mean war. The mullahs retain support among conservative, rural Iranians. An external attack on the country would force nearly everybody into the regime’s hands and put back any chance of meaningful change for decades. 

It is estimated that about 20 to maximum 30% of population who are paid in various ways by the regime are backing the regime. Remember recent uprising came mainly from rural and poor Iranians so your statement is no longer valid. Once the flow of money to these people stops (by say a blokade of oil export) then the money based support will vanish too. A loyalty based on money is not very coherence as we all know it.

If there is an external attack which I am not advocating then it should come in the form of a massive military invasion using ground forces, toppling the regime,  holding  free elections in which everyone can take part and followed by a transfer of power to the one who wins the free elections. The worse scenario is a few isolated cowardly bombing attacks here and there especially by Israel which would only strenghen the regime as you said it as they will play the nationalistic game as they did in 1980.

Edited March 24, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, kactus said:

100% agree with this sentiment and that doesn’t mean support for the mullah regime. 

It is exactly this way of thinking expressed by SpankyMcFarland which kept them in power for 40 years and help them to turn a paradise into a hell on earth. By putting the fear of disintegration, civil war into their hearts and promise of reforms and better economy and more liberal laws which none materialized, creating wars in which hundreds of thousands got killed, masking as reformers, while stealing people's wealth making more poor people every day and destroying the land, sea and environment, putting 80 million in a big jail. If everyone thinks this way then be ready for another 40 years of tyranny and occupation of Iran to continue though long before that there will be no Iran. And the world played right into their hands for 4 decades. But new US administration and the highly educated new generations in Iran forming 70% of population are both smarter than that, At least we hope they are.

I am not saying it is 100% risk free but in every enterprise or progress there is a risk has to be taken otherwise never board a plane or drive on roads or cross streets or even sleep under a roof as it may collapse. You wish to get rid of a brutal regime. You cannot do this peacefully. Iran today is similar to Stalin Soviet era not Gorbachev Soviet. 

Iranian politics year review:

https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-poitical-review-khamenei-rouhani/29121036.html

Edited March 24, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[marcus]

9 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

If there is an external attack which I am not advocating then it should come in the form of a massive military invasion using ground forces, toppling the regime,  holding  free elections in which everyone can take part and followed by a transfer of power to the one who wins the free elections. The worse scenario is a few isolated cowardly bombing attacks here and there especially by Israel which would only strenghen the regime as you said it as they will play the nationalistic game as they did in 1980.

Can you show how a military invasion has worked and resulted in what you're saying?

A military invasion in Iraq and Libya resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of people and pushed back the countries by at least 3 generations. If Iran is attacked, the upper middle class, who have the wealth and the educated will leave Iran, just like it happened in Iraq and Libya.

The only way Iran will go towards the right direction is if it happens internally. You cannot force these types of changes.

Khamenei's health is deteriorating and at 78 years old, he will pass sooner than later. The hardliners are slowly losing their grip on power and are dying off. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Put yourself in an ordinary Iranian’s shoes. If a foreigner attacks, then no matter how much you despise the government you will defend your country. This is the truism that Saddam Hussein demonstrated in 1980. To think otherwise is to imagine that foreigners love their countries less.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Just to clarify I am not advocating any military action (but since you asked for example, military invasion into Nazi Germany worked as Germans liberated, Hitler was replaced by democracy and the region (Europe) became very stable and peaceful after invasion). As I have said it before on several occasions I suggested political and econimic pressure otherwise the defenseless Iranian people would be in grave danger. And the reason for economic sanctions should change from nuclear development which is the right of Iranian people to respecting human rights or lack of it. It appears the west only looks after its own interest and concentrated on nuclear matters and Iran's involvements overseas and have forgotten about the defenseless Iranian people. It is true that in any military action innocent people will be harmed for a short time but are the innocent people not being harmed now? Or for the past 40 years over a million killed or for the next 40 years if the regime stays in power?

This will not be an attack on the country but on attack on the regime. The Iraq`Saddam invasion was different. The Iraqi dictator invaded in order to take over the Iranian oil province of Khuzestan so of course Iranians defended their country whereas the possible American military action which I hope never happens is not to take over any part of Iran but to liberate the suffering nation and change a very unpopular regime and a free election.

I am on the side of the weak and defenseless (Oppressed Women, struggling Iranian people, Palestinians under attack, the underdogs, the suppressed minorities like Yazidis in Iraq and people of Syria and many other examples)

Edited March 26, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[marcus]

5 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Just to clarify I am not advocating any military action (but since you asked for example, military invasion into Nazi Germany worked as Germans liberated, Hitler was replaced by democracy and the region (Europe) became very stable and peaceful after invasion).

If you are applauding the entrance of Pompeo and Bolton into Trump's circle, you are turning a blind eye on their records and words.

I am curious as to why you are choosing Germany in the 40s as an example, when we have had several recent examples of 'regime change' through military action in just the past decade, where everything went wrong.

5 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

As I have said it before on several occasions I suggested political and econimic pressure

First of all, I would say you are naive if you think Bolton (one of the Iraq war advocates and architects) and Pompeo (a hawk who has consistently advocated for war on Iran) are going to advocate for sanctions and political pressure. 

Second, hasn't there been enough sanctions and political pressure on Iran? Has that worked?

5 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I am from international land. Internationalism does not recognize borders. I am on the side of the weak and defenseless (Oppressed Women, struggling Iranian people, Palestinians under attack, the underdogs, the suppressed minorities like Yazidis in Iraq and people of Syria and many other examples)

Not being alarmed about Bolton and Pompeo will create many more of those who you advocate. If the Syrian government could not be removed through a military confrontation, there is no way the Iranian mullahs will be.

My personal belief is that things will change within. As the young entrepreneurs replace the old generation, you will continue to see changes happening for the better. Even Khomeini's grandchild is advocating for the reformists in Iran. One reason why he was disqualified from the elections. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

First of all I had nothing to do with their appointments only Trump can do this. It is not like I am responsible for their appointments. As why Germany because Germany unlike Iraq did not have a neighbor to mess up things and create civil war after occupation and regime change. And I see the two countries very similar.

People say a lot of things but once they come to power either do another or realize that what they were saying is not practical to act upon. Reagan was a good example of that who was talking war with Soviets but actually after becoming predident signed peace with Russians and eventually Soviets fell because he made US strong and put political and economic pressure on Russians. As for Iran not even once Trump after presidency has spoken about military invasion.

Oh right so let's wait another 40 years and another million killed and a complete desctructin of the country (if there is any country left by then) is your suggested solution as alternative to a solid action now? Easy to say this when you are outside watching other people burned rather than if you are the one in the fire yourself.

Edited March 26, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

On 2/24/2018 at 11:25 AM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Iran security forces beating up peacefully protesting women before and after arrests.

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-hijab-protests-two-more-women-arrested/29059147.html

Iranian security officers have arrested two women who protested against the compulsory hijab in Tehran by removing their head scarves in public and waving them while standing on utility boxes.

Shaparak Shadizadeh, one of the two women arrested, was taken into custody on February 21. Her family said she was beaten up during the arrest.

Another woman was reportedly arrested on February 22.

A video shows a police officer kicking her down from a utility box where she had staged her peaceful protest.

The very couragous brave woman who was thrown off the utility box by the regime mercenary (so called police officer) was sentenced to one year in jail today for propagating prostitution!!! All because she went off a utility box and took off her hijab peacefully first thrown off and then beaten in jail (shown in quoted link) and now sentenced to one year jail. The only real prostitutes are those mercenaries who sell their minds and souls to the evil. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

Interesting article about The pro-Iranian regime lobby has gone into overdrive claiming that Bolton, a former is an ultra-hawkish warmonger who will not hesitate to attack Iran.

https://www.upi.com/John-Bolton-is-a-realist-on-Iran/3231522156093/

Iran is the most repressive country in the Middle East. It executes more people, per capita, than any other country in the world. Ninety percent of all executions throughout the Middle East take place in Iran, often in public. The regime tightly controls the media and education. 

The recent uprisings in over 140 cities throughout Iran show that the people are sick to death with this theocratic dictatorship. They long for freedom, justice, democracy and the rule of law, but the IRGC and its cohorts have met their protests with the usual brutal crackdown. Around 8,000 mostly young protesters, many of them women, have been arrested. At least 14 have been tortured to death. These are atrocious crimes that Europe has chosen to ignore.

Edited March 28, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015