That's all well and good, but the BIG problem and question still remain: how do we stay hands off long enough for an internal revolution to take place AND stop their violent involvement in Iraq AND prevent their current regime from acquiring nuclear weapons?
Originally posted by: Zebo
Pushing the boundies?
Liberal Persians and Muslims stand no chance since they are facing a army that doesnt follow standard rules of engagement. It's real simple speak out to much and die - speak out more or emmigrate and they'll kill/imprison your family too. Lets also not forget there are 500,000 children in Iran who can recite the Quran from memory so there will be plenty of enforcers for many generations. Another pipe dream by the west of counter revolution.
PS: I'm not sure I agree with the universality of Western culture type spin put on any of these stories (including Iraqi democracy project) It's a mistake to assume it's universal and I think most Iranians are convinced of the superiority of their culture and mores instead even with all it's restrictions to our eyes. This sets us up for disappointment when they rise up to defend their own no matter how bad, well because they are their people no matter what.
What would happen to you, specifically, if you decided to turn your back on God? How would your friends, neighbors, and countrymen respond to you? What would they do to you? Anything? Nothing?
OK, I understand why YOU are Muslim, but I wanted to know if you would be persecuted for changing faiths or ditching religion altogether.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
You try to force someone to not have something, and they want it more. There is no good answer but I feel it would be better to be opena bout and atleast walk through and help them with it. I know you might be thinking "GEEZ HE IS OFFERING TO HELP THEM...they threaten us and you want to assist!" But remember - if we help them then we know EXACTLY what they have and what is being produced. and for anything they might be hiding - well our sat systems can search for those because you can't easily hide a facility like that. Its like an exchange of information but this way we dont' need the operatives to figure out the information. Its still not the most ideal situation - but inflaming them and trying to deny it as if its our right to do it is an option that I see as worse.
While I have no insider connections to Iran much less know any Irani connected to the govt - their desire for nuclear technology seems to be about a) ENERGY [which is a REAL reason considering how Iran has to actually imort energy] and b) DETERRENT.
the problem of terrorists somehow getting it due to crappy security could occur, but then again Russia could be viewed in the same scenario - and if anything Pakistan would be a more worrysome situation and they already have them. These would be the only type of people to use Nukes because they don't have to worry about what will happen to their "country they represent" since they don't have one
and for iraq- dude you know it is the best solution save for complete disengagement.
How will Iranian agents get logistical support from Iran if the borders are heavily monitored with troops who have the order to investigate and shoot? They CAN'T - they may still be able to use their cell phones, but crippling that physical connection goes a VERY long way to ending Iranian influence (although we still have the problem of the Iraqi government, but that is a different story)
On the border- whether it is a desert, or more mountanous there are many advantages to the city. This isn't an urban enviornment where so many incidents based on "accidents" can occur- on the border it should be made very clear to anyone trying to pass that if you pull ANYTHING suspicious - you may die. the reason of "my wife is preggars and about to pop out a child so I ran the checkpoint" simply has no validity there!
And realistically the entire border doesn't need men - there are certain areas of the border that serve are crosspoints and easy to traverse terrain should be monitored- mucho f the other areas(south west of iraq) that is just intense heat and sand and is VERY difficult to traverse. In that case you can still have drones fly over to monitor and make sure there is nothing out of the ordinary, and then if someone/something is found it can be dealt with.
I have trouble finding any of the pitfalls of relocating to the borders. It is a + for Iraqis, and it is a + for us. Well, many Iran/Syria/S.A. and other countries looking to keep Iraq in turmoil (oh and the Bush Admin) may not like it, but inconvienecing them is actually an extra + for us
not to mention that we'd get a lot of practice in securing borders from which the lessons learned could be applied to our own darn borders... trust me, i'm with you on the border lockdown ideas! Always have been...Originally posted by: magomago
You try to force someone to not have something, and they want it more. There is no good answer but I feel it would be better to be opena bout and atleast walk through and help them with it. I know you might be thinking "GEEZ HE IS OFFERING TO HELP THEM...they threaten us and you want to assist!" But remember - if we help them then we know EXACTLY what they have and what is being produced. and for anything they might be hiding - well our sat systems can search for those because you can't easily hide a facility like that. Its like an exchange of information but this way we dont' need the operatives to figure out the information. Its still not the most ideal situation - but inflaming them and trying to deny it as if its our right to do it is an option that I see as worse.
While I have no insider connections to Iran much less know any Irani connected to the govt - their desire for nuclear technology seems to be about a) ENERGY [which is a REAL reason considering how Iran has to actually imort energy] and b) DETERRENT.
the problem of terrorists somehow getting it due to crappy security could occur, but then again Russia could be viewed in the same scenario - and if anything Pakistan would be a more worrysome situation and they already have them. These would be the only type of people to use Nukes because they don't have to worry about what will happen to their "country they represent" since they don't have one
and for iraq- dude you know it is the best solution save for complete disengagement.
How will Iranian agents get logistical support from Iran if the borders are heavily monitored with troops who have the order to investigate and shoot? They CAN'T - they may still be able to use their cell phones, but crippling that physical connection goes a VERY long way to ending Iranian influence (although we still have the problem of the Iraqi government, but that is a different story)
On the border- whether it is a desert, or more mountanous there are many advantages to the city. This isn't an urban enviornment where so many incidents based on "accidents" can occur- on the border it should be made very clear to anyone trying to pass that if you pull ANYTHING suspicious - you may die. the reason of "my wife is preggars and about to pop out a child so I ran the checkpoint" simply has no validity there!
And realistically the entire border doesn't need men - there are certain areas of the border that serve are crosspoints and easy to traverse terrain should be monitored- mucho f the other areas(south west of iraq) that is just intense heat and sand and is VERY difficult to traverse. In that case you can still have drones fly over to monitor and make sure there is nothing out of the ordinary, and then if someone/something is found it can be dealt with.
I have trouble finding any of the pitfalls of relocating to the borders. It is a + for Iraqis, and it is a + for us. Well, many Iran/Syria/S.A. and other countries looking to keep Iraq in turmoil (oh and the Bush Admin) may not like it, but inconvienecing them is actually an extra + for us
Facebook
Twitter