• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unimaginable Horror In Tehran Today (Baharestan Square Massacre)

you are so hypocritical.
Sometimes, I probably am. This is not one of those times.

What would you rather do, huh? Sit back and wait for thousands more to die? Who are YOU to say they shouldn'tbe helped, or prevented??????????

Do your homework.

What I have said, and what should be done:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ned-ayatollahs-comments-4.html#post1058095547

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ian-diplomats-tit-tat-row.html#post1058099623

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...ue-irans-monstrous-rulers.html#post1058095944

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...egards-iranian-protesters.html#post1058095297

It may not satisfy your adolescent thirst for blood, but the rhetorical guns right now are the best chance to keep the use of real guns to a minimum.

Military intervention may become necessary, but it is not yet so, and no good man who desires justice for this world or the next ever wishes that it become so.
 
Sometimes, I probably am. This is not one of those times.



Do your homework.

What I have said, and what should be done:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ned-ayatollahs-comments-4.html#post1058095547

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ian-diplomats-tit-tat-row.html#post1058099623

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...ue-irans-monstrous-rulers.html#post1058095944

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...egards-iranian-protesters.html#post1058095297

It may not satisfy your adolescent thirst for blood, but the rhetorical guns right now are the best chance to keep the use of real guns to a minimum.

Military intervention may become necessary, but it is not yet so, and no good man who desires justice for this world or the next ever wishes that it become so.

Not so much a thirst for blood as one for action. I hate people who do nothing, or act inadequately. Bush: Katrina,Economic. Obama: Iran, GM, AIG.

The problem is, we aren't dealing with a democracy over there. We are dealing with essentially a dictatorship. The ayatollah is in charge, the opposition has been arrested, and shut down, and the people have been killed. The last time few times something like this happened, we ended up with the Korean War ( Kim Il Jung), and more notably, WWII ( Hitler).

I'd rather not take a chance with something like this, and would rather shut them down before anything worse happens.
 
No, it's not.

This is about a portion of the Iranian people protesting/rioting/rebelling against the entities you mention.

Discussions about what the USA will or will not do is a related issue which is also under duscussion.

If we just up and killed the religious leader and his puppets, we would likely have the people of Iran pissed at us, and besides, others would likely step into their place. A change in the government system in Iran might prevent such incidents from occuring again.

I agree mostly. Iran needs more change than just killing a couple regime leaders. They need real change, change that involves setting up a new system of government. There is much more work to be done in Iran besides shooting a couple of nut jobs. I think action should be taken to end this injustice, but I would hope that this could be solved peacefully. The regime must be brought down, I just hope we use military strength as a last result. People are dying now, and so we must act quickly to save as many lives as possible.
 
The problem is, we aren't dealing with a democracy over there. We are dealing with essentially a dictatorship. The ayatollah is in charge, the opposition has been arrested, and shut down, and the people have been killed. The last time few times something like this happened, we ended up with the Korean War ( Kim Il Jung), and more notably, WWII ( Hitler).
The problem is, we are dealing with a sovereign nation. The Islamic Republic is theocratic, is with North Korea the axis of evil, is an odious and detestable exporter of terrorism, but it is a sovereign nation. It is recognized as the legitimate government of Iran, regardless of our opinions as to its character. Intervention is not merely aid to the Iranian people--it is war. Your solution to Iran's internal turmoil is international war.

You call for war where the case for war has not been made. You call for a war that may happen, perhaps is likely to happen, but which is not yet inevitable. You call for a war that will send good men and women to horrible deaths.

You call for a war you are too young to fight.
 
What would you rather do, huh? Sit back and wait for thousands more to die? Who are YOU to say they shouldn'tbe helped, or prevented??????????

How many thousands are going to die to save those thousands? Ever really seen a war? Smart bombs are awesome, but collateral damage happens. Know what collateral damage is? It's women and children in the wrong place, at the wrong time, blown to little pieces. And that is an inevitability in warfare.

In addition to all those Iranians we would kill in order to save them, how many US soldiers are going to die in the fight. This may make me a bad person, but I value the lives of those soldiers one whole hell of a lot more than I do any Iranian. I am not even going to apologize for that, it's just how I am.

Lastly, how long would it take us to gather a force large enough to win in Iran? Could we even get in there and invade in time to save any one?

It is one of the strengths of the young that they find causes worth fighting over, and they want to see good done in the world. I applaud you for that. It's the role of those who are older, who have seen war and have some experience to temper the innate rashness of youth.
 
The problem is, we are dealing with a sovereign nation. The Islamic Republic is theocratic, is with North Korea the axis of evil, is an odious and detestable exporter of terrorism, but it is a sovereign nation. It is recognized as the legitimate government of Iran, regardless of our opinions as to its character. Intervention is not merely aid to the Iranian people--it is war. Your solution to Iran's internal turmoil is international war.

You call for war where the case for war has not been made. You call for a war that may happen, perhaps is likely to happen, but which is not yet inevitable. You call for a war that will send good men and women to horrible deaths.

You call for a war you are too young to fight.

You want to wait for the government in Iran to solve things on its own? I want to snuff out the problem at it's root: the "leaders" of Iran.

What I am calling for, is one B-2 to fly some 30,000 ft above Iran, and drop maybe 15 or so smart bombs.
 
How many thousands are going to die to save those thousands? Ever really seen a war? Smart bombs are awesome, but collateral damage happens. Know what collateral damage is? It's women and children in the wrong place, at the wrong time, blown to little pieces. And that is an inevitability in warfare.

In addition to all those Iranians we would kill in order to save them, how many US soldiers are going to die in the fight. This may make me a bad person, but I value the lives of those soldiers one whole hell of a lot more than I do any Iranian. I am not even going to apologize for that, it's just how I am.

Lastly, how long would it take us to gather a force large enough to win in Iran? Could we even get in there and invade in time to save any one?

It is one of the strengths of the young that they find causes worth fighting over, and they want to see good done in the world. I applaud you for that. It's the role of those who are older, who have seen war and have some experience to temper the innate rashness of youth.

I am not calling for a ground war. We would win, but we would of course take losses. That's exactly what we shouldn't do.

Not trying to be screwed up, but I would never call for a war against a Muslim country, simply because it would turn into a guerilla conflict. If they got some balls, and met our army conventionally, maybe. We would take minimal casualties in that sort of fight.

What I want is a B-2 to fly high over Iran durign the night, and unload some JDAM's. They do have collateral damage, but theres a difference between a few dozen ( at the max) killed by a bomb, and a few hundred killed by being axed, stabbed, and shot to death. Iran's "Air Defence" is about as crappy as the North Koreans, that is to say they would be dead before they knew there was an airplane in the sky. and by the time the bomb falls from 30,000 and kills the b**tards, our plane will be 10-20 miles away at least.
 
I am not calling for a ground war. We would win, but we would of course take losses. That's exactly what we shouldn't do.

Not trying to be screwed up, but I would never call for a war against a Muslim country, simply because it would turn into a guerilla conflict. If they got some balls, and met our army conventionally, maybe. We would take minimal casualties in that sort of fight.

What I want is a B-2 to fly high over Iran durign the night, and unload some JDAM's. They do have collateral damage, but theres a difference between a few dozen ( at the max) killed by a bomb, and a few hundred killed by being axed, stabbed, and shot to death. Iran's "Air Defence" is about as crappy as the North Koreans, that is to say they would be dead before they knew there was an airplane in the sky. and by the time the bomb falls from 30,000 and kills the b**tards, our plane will be 10-20 miles away at least.

I worked in naval aviation on weapon systems. Please don't even begin to lecture me on the subject of bombs and what aircraft are capable of. Just a couple things to realize. Smallest bomb given a JDAM unit is 500 pounds. You do not even begin to know what a 500 pounder does in the real world. Secondly, USAF report max accuracy of 10 meters with JDAM..Yup, that's 30 feet at best. If it loses GPS, accuracy drops to 30 meters at best, or close to 100 feet. Fighting is being done in cities. Now, want to make another guess as to the numbers of collateral damage?

The sad part is your B-2's with their JDAM's are not going to stop what is going on in Iran.
 
What I want is a B-2 to fly high over Iran durign the night, and unload some JDAM's. They do have collateral damage, but theres a difference between a few dozen ( at the max) killed by a bomb, and a few hundred killed by being axed, stabbed, and shot to death. Iran's "Air Defence" is about as crappy as the North Koreans, that is to say they would be dead before they knew there was an airplane in the sky. and by the time the bomb falls from 30,000 and kills the b**tards, our plane will be 10-20 miles away at least.

And what will you say to the survivors of the "collateral damage" if Khamenei and Ahmadenijad don't play along and stay in the target area while the bombs are falling?

What will you say to the world if those bombs stray into a schoolyard or hospital?

Women and children blown to bits is a lousy way to make friends and influence people.
 
forgive my ignorance but is it not against the koran for a muslim to kill another muslim?

why do you think ahmadinejad is muslim? what kind of muslim lies, cheats, kills, tortures other muslims? if he's a muslim, I bet satan would be a better muslim.
 
soon everyone gets involved, after ahmadinejad declared that Iran has the bomb.
 
soon everyone gets involved, after ahmadinejad declared that Iran has the bomb.
I hope things can get resolved before then.

On a side note (but no less important note).....glad you're still alive and have avoided the random flying bullets. Whatever you do, don't get dead.

Salaam ‘alaykum wa rahmat-Allaahi wa barakaatuhu
 
Ya right, as if Robespierre has not gone down in history yet.:rofl

Yes he has as the precursor and inspiration to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Once again the main objective of the revolution was to remove the monarchy, and so it was a success.

It was also a policy objective of the revolution to foment a republican form of governance.

Not only did it remove the king but it also led to a republican constitution, short-lived certainly but still a republican constitution. I suggest you check your facts.

No it did not lead to a Republican Constitution all of the Constitutions were absolute failures the only one that lasted was the one which established a dictatorship not a Republic.

And what about the Declaration of Human Rights, such an awful thing right? I personally am very grateful for it as much as for cutting ties with bigoted religious hypocrites.

Didn't help stop the mass executions and the establishment of a tyrannical dictatorship did it?

The only thing I regret is that we did not do it sooner, we might have kept Louisiana to ourselves and let your ungrateful arses deal by yourselves with HRM the Queen of England!:2wave:

Um it was the French Monarchy which aided us.
 
That's it. Upon confirmation of these reports, we should be willing to send military assistance into Iran. If that's the way it's going to be, arm the protestors with American weapons and join the fight. I don't really see much else we can do if all this is true.

I think the best option for intervention would be to funnel weapons through a friendly Iraqi militia to resistance groups in Iran.
It would not look good for us to put troops, bombs etc in Iran and may even backfire on us.

We can help the Iranians fight for themselves.
 
We can help the Iranians fight for themselves.

Agreed. Iraq has a long border with Iran. Iran has a lengthy coastline.

Seems to me even the potential of weapons wandering into Iran would keep the military and the Pasdaran busy worrying about border security. Every unit tied down in border duty is one less unit that can be called out to suppress protests.
 
Agreed. Iraq has a long border with Iran. Iran has a lengthy coastline.

Seems to me even the potential of weapons wandering into Iran would keep the military and the Pasdaran busy worrying about border security. Every unit tied down in border duty is one less unit that can be called out to suppress protests.

Exactly, this situation is prime for an all hell causing intervention extravaganza.
If they do go this route, they must keep their distance to plausibly deny intervention.
 
Yes he has as the precursor and inspiration to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
He has... he will... you don't really know, do you?

Um it was the French Monarchy which aided us.
I guess that's why the US gov traditionally help maintain dictators such as the Shah in Iran, genuine democratic movements be damned - frigging right wing freaks!
 
He has... he will... you don't really know, do you?

Lenin himself admitted his avid support for Robespierre and that it was Robespierre's reign of terror that inspired the red terror. Are you honestly defending Robespierre?

I guess that's why the US gov traditionally help maintain dictators such as the Shah in Iran, genuine democratic movements be damned - frigging right wing freaks!

The Shah was better than the tyrant Mossadeq. At least the Shah never dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum and I'm not the one from a country who still celebrates a tyrannical dictator like Napoleon.
 
Iran's "Theocracy" has become a military dictatorship. Iran has this massacre and America has Waco under the iron fist of the whore Janet Reno. Was Waco a police action or a military slaughter?
 
Iran's "Theocracy" has become a military dictatorship. Iran has this massacre and America has Waco under the iron fist of the whore Janet Reno. Was Waco a police action or a military slaughter?
did you really just compare a small wacky cult in texas to a huge revolt in Iran?
 
Agreed. Iraq has a long border with Iran. Iran has a lengthy coastline.

Seems to me even the potential of weapons wandering into Iran would keep the military and the Pasdaran busy worrying about border security. Every unit tied down in border duty is one less unit that can be called out to suppress protests.
Send in the Mexicans. :mrgreen:
 
Lenin himself admitted his avid support for Robespierre and that it was Robespierre's reign of terror that inspired the red terror. Are you honestly defending Robespierre?

The Shah was better than the tyrant Mossadeq. At least the Shah never dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum and I'm not the one from a country who still celebrates a tyrannical dictator like Napoleon.

:roll:

Bonaparte was useful when every foreign armies were waging wars on France to try to end the Republic; the Kings and Queens of Europe loathed the Revolution just like some of you still do today. If you ask me would I do the Revolution again my answer is yes.

Robespierre himself has killed less people than Johnson, Nixon or Dubya; and what did any of your grand Presidents achieved in Vietnam or Iraq aside from removing their own sorry butts? Would you please give us your first hand impressions would you do it again?
 
Last edited:
:roll:

Bonaparte was useful when every foreign armies were waging wars on France to try to end the Republic; the Kings and Queens of Europe loathed the Revolution just like some of you still do today. If you ask me would I do the Revolution again my answer is yes.

Robespierre himself has killed less people than Johnson, Nixon or Dubya; and what did any of your grand Presidents achieved in Vietnam or Iraq aside from removing their own sorry butts? Would you please give us your first hand impressions would you do it again?

OH, OH I KNOW! What they did was disgrace their presidencies. And their names. And they made the US some more enemies ( as if we didn't have enuogh already).
 
:roll:

Bonaparte was useful when every foreign armies were waging wars on France
to try to end the Republic;

First of all the French Republic did not exist before Bonaparte unless you consider the government of the mass murderer Robespierre to be a Republican system of governance. :roll:

Second of all it is Napoleon himself that destroyed what little Rebulicanism that was there when he overthrew the Constitution of 1795 and it was he that was waging war against Europe. Napoleon did the same exact thing that Hitler did in the Weimar Republic IE destroyed it then proceeded engaging in an aggressive war of imperialist expansionism.

the Kings and Queens of Europe loathed the Revolution just like some of you still do today.

Napoleon was a king.

If you ask me would I do the Revolution again my answer is yes.

And would you likewise say yes to the reign of terror?

Robespierre himself has killed less people than Johnson, Nixon or Dubya; and what did any of your grand Presidents achieved in Vietnam or Iraq aside from removing their own sorry butts? Would you please give us your first hand impressions would you do it again?

Johnson and Nixon were engaged in a war against Communist expansionism, Ho Chi Mihn killed more people both before and after U.S. intervention than the U.S. ever did but of course his "revolution" followed the Robespierre model.

As to Iraq we have achieved an actual Constitutional Republican system of governance that has actually lasted longer than the first French so called Republic.
 
I have answered your question but you have not told me, would you do the Vietnam and Iraq wars all over again considering Johnson, Nixon and Bush are bigger mass murderers than Robespierre?

I enjoy your interest in history and your focus on France but could you tell about all the people who died at the hands of the US gouvernment, perhaps you could start with the Native Americans?
 
Back
Top Bottom