It is the worst thing we could do. Iran is on the edge of rebellion and may very well already be there (when you distill all the Tweets and news reports, the quantity of hard facts is still frustratingly small, making any firm conclusions about the state of things in Iran tenuous at best), but it is Iranian people rising up against Iranian government. This is an Iranian matter entirely, and every foreign nation should park its happy ass on the sidelines.
The quantity of facts as we, the average Joe Citizen are aware of, is not necessarily what the Intelligence Community knows. You're the same guy who didn't get the Velvet Revolution comment I made, so I question what you actually know about Iran to begin with.
What you are suggesting is directed regime change, and, as hostile and dangerous as the Islamic Republic could be as a nuclear state, the case for regime change just isn't there. Khameni is a lot of things, but a Shi'ite Saddam Hussein is not one of them.
I absolutely am suggesting regime change. And no, the situation in Iran isn't like Iraq, Khameni isn't Saddam. Iran is
actually an active state sponsor of terrorism, Iran
actually has an active nuclear program. The case for regime change absolutely is there, and you're being conveniently tolerant of the regime out of your desire to try and criticize me.
Arming the opposition would undermine their legitimacy as a native Iranian movement. Giving them US weapons and US material support, especially at this early stage, only makes the opposition another tool of the Great Satan; that's hardly a ringing endorsement for a revolution.
No it wouldn't, you're simply being melodramatic. It wouldn't undermine anything about this movement. Well, maybe in the eyes of the Iranian government and some other extremist Islamic organizations, but who cares? When is the last time you gave two ****s about what the world thought of the U.S.? And I didn't say arm them with "U.S. weapons."
Dude, stand down and try thinking for a change.
Rich coming from you. You do any thinking on the Velvet Revolution in Iran? Maybe a google search there smart guy?
You don't even know who the real players are or where they stand. Rafsanjani is more or less a moderate, but he's not the only mullah out there, and there's no guarantee him and Moussavi will be in control when the shooting is done. Not only do you not know if you'd be backing the winning horse, you don't even know if you'd be backing the right horse.
Did I suggest arming any specific group or backing any specific leader? No, I did not. I was speaking in generalities. I'd like to assume our intelligence community knows a little more about who the players are than you or I. One thing is for certain, the current regime needs deposed. Do not think for a moment we have not been in contact with opposition elements for the last two to three years. This is not a brand new situation that just sprung up and surprised us. There has been a strong undercurrent of dissent in Iran for years. We haven't just ignored it. Well maybe you have, but our government has not.
Arming one side of a factional protest is exactly what sponsoring a civil war is. We don't need to be sending any arms to Iran, and the necessary information flow is out of Iran, not into it.
So this is not an uprising against the government now it a factional protest only? Sure about that? And information is key for any force involved in any kind of battle. Being able to track the movements of specific military assets would be of great value to the opposition as it could assist them in knowing when and where to move themselves. They aren't armed at this time, any information on what the military is doing is good information. Try and argue against this.
The only message the protesters need to know is that the United States and the rest of the free world will be happy to shake their hand when they raise a flag of freedom over Tehran, and in the meantime, we wish them good luck and good hunting.
Right, so now the Dear Leader of the Anti-Obama crowd, which regularly criticizes Obama for "doing nothing" is in fact endorsing a course of "do nothing" about Iran. How very politically convenient for you Dear Celticlord.
I've participated in many debates on this forum and gotten many thanks for suggesting the U.S. and it's allies need to stand ready to strike Iran militarily if need be to cripple their ability to threaten the world and the region. Nearly everyone agreed the regime there was a definite threat. Yet when I suggest arming the citizens so that they themselves can take action to destabilize the government or possibly overthrow it, well then it's just not acceptable. It's not legitimate if the Iranians themselves take military action against their government, especially if we arm them. But we can bomb and Tomahawk the **** out of the country and that would be okay, that wouldn't really damage our reputation in the worlds eye.
