• 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)

Matthew Yglesias put it best in the American Prospect today: "Conservative hawks, who just a few weeks ago were eager to drop bombs on Iran, have not hesitated to take advantage of the recent political unrest to launch criticisms on President Barack Obama for being insufficiently concerned with the welfare of the Iranian people."

You'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical that some of our resident warhawks are suddenly concerned about the welfare of the Iranian people and don't have any ulterior motives. Furthermore, I have seen absolutely NO evidence that the Iranians actually want the United States to get involved in the situation, and I have seen absolutely NO evidence that the Iranians are interested in fighting a bloody civil war against their government.

Whatever happens in Iran is still up to Iranians to determine, as it should be.
 
OxymoronP said:
No I am saying the US is in no position to actively help the situation. Any moves will only give more strenght to the Tyrants in Iran. We must show solidarity with the struggle for freedom, call for peaceful resolutions and be ready to recognize any new power center if it appears.
Click to expand...

They are already blaming the U.S. and demanding apologies, who gives a **** what the Mullahs say THEY'RE SLAUGHTERING PEOPLE IN THE STREETS!!!
 
Ikari said:
They need to turn these protests violent. The non-violence on the part of the People isn't working and their government has firmly set themselves against the rights and liberties of their people. The government will use violence against them, they need to respond in kind. They need a full out revolution.
Click to expand...

They need RPGs, Javelins, and Stingers first or they'll get slaughtered by helicopter gunships, armored patrol vehicles, and tanks.
 
They need to know the USA will back them if they go for the guns.
 
Redress said:
They need to get this Michael Jackson **** off the TV and report on this. Is there any firm evidence this actually happened? I am just appalled to think it might(probably) be true, and more appalled that Jackson is seen as a bigger story.
Click to expand...

Eyewitness reports, the foreign press is on lockdown in Iran.
 
Laila said:
No .. We did not invade Iraq for that.
Quit trying to give Bush undeserved praise.
Click to expand...

A strategic base of operations in Iraq certainly was an unstated objective though we did already have military and air bases in Kuwait, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.
 
Laila said:
Exactly.

The one thing i hate is when people try and twist Iraq as some form of humitarian act.
**** off, if we cared for human life, why are we not stopping massacres, genocides in the world. Our Soldiers are good enough to be killed for when it comes to economic interests but not to improve the lives of others. Why does the West throw away so much food and consume so much when there are parts of the world who are dying for food?
Why are drug companies allowed to charge such ridiculous prices making it impossible for treatment to be affordable?

The West is no more moral than any other country when it comes to war. We just lie more and fool ourselves into thinking we have a moral high ground.
UK says it does not torture, sure. But it sure as hell loves passing people onto Arab countries who do torture. Who does the blame lie with? With UK ofc.

Just ... don't get me started on Iraq
Click to expand...

Um again the Sudan has a ****load of oil.

Annual exports of 282,100 bbl/day.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/SU.html
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Matthew Yglesias put it best in the American Prospect today: "Conservative hawks, who just a few weeks ago were eager to drop bombs on Iran, have not hesitated to take advantage of the recent political unrest to launch criticisms on President Barack Obama for being insufficiently concerned with the welfare of the Iranian people."

You'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical that some of our resident warhawks are suddenly concerned about the welfare of the Iranian people and don't have any ulterior motives. Furthermore, I have seen absolutely NO evidence that the Iranians actually want the United States to get involved in the situation, and I have seen absolutely NO evidence that the Iranians are interested in fighting a bloody civil war against their government.

Whatever happens in Iran is still up to Iranians to determine, as it should be.
Click to expand...

What about the girl in the OP begging for help? Why do you think the demonstrators signs are in English not Farsi?
 
Agent Ferris said:
Actually Sudan has lots of oil. ;)
Click to expand...

If I were President I would take over Iran NOW! And their oil! (I'm serious)

no more ***** footing with these rogue countries that are a cesspool for greater future danger.

It is only a matter of time before the world catches up with us in military technology so we absolutely HAVE to do the dirty deeds NOW!!!!!
 
creativedreams said:
If I were President I would take over Iran NOW! And their oil! (I'm serious)

no more ***** footing with these rogue countries that are a cesspool for greater future danger.

It is only a matter of time before the world catches up with us in military technology so we absolutely HAVE to do the dirty deeds NOW!!!!!
Click to expand...

You lead the way!
 
Redress said:
You lead the way!
Click to expand...

Thanks I wish I was leader! We would go through some very serious military times right now that would actually save many lives in comparison to what it is likely we are going to have to go through in the future when these rogue countries play out their waiting game to catch up to us militarily....
 
I believe that the United States military would have a solid case before the U.N. if it were to decide to "meddle" a bit in Iranian affairs during this current crisis.

However, before doing so, the United States govt. really needs to think about possible repercussions from any direct intervention in Iran. It is entirely possible for the United States to go into Iran to help liberate the people from a repressive regime, only to have those very same people turn on the United States if one person were to yell "Death to America!" or "Death to Israel!" or something similar...these Muslims are a fickle bunch...and that makes them dangerous.
 
jallman said:
Reagan would bomb the Ayatollah. You think Obama's got the cajones to do something that proactive?
Click to expand...

Regan helped the government of El Salvador to do pretty much the same things that the Iranian government is doing now so I think its fair to say the worlds better off without him
 
Look guys, there's a limit to what you can do. I'm part of my college's Volunteer Activism club and there are plenty of countries in Africa that need our help more than Iran. Why don't we just invade all of those countries and make little democracies of them? It's because it's not feasible. I wish we could help every one of them, but a nation has to wisely pick and choose its battles. If we didn't invade Iraq, we'd have that much more money to help rebuild our economy and help our people.

I'm not saying that it all boils down to money, but if a police officer can't afford to pay the bills, how does that help the legal system?
 
Laila said:
:roll:

Then US or anyone in the West cannot claim to be helping another country by overthrowing a 'dictatorous' regime because sweetheart, there are more than one in this world.
Do we plan to go get every single one? What made Iraq more worthy of democracy than any other country in this world under a dictator?
Click to expand...

So we took out one.

Thats more than anybody else in the west can claim to have done. So while your busy shifting goalposts, and pointing to all the other troubled spots in the world, maybe you should realize that we did something, somewhere, as opposed to the rest of the free world, who stands by doing absolutely nothing. You should be proud of the work your British troops have done in Iraq and Afghanistan along side the US. Its a bit goddamned more impressive than any effort put forth by anybody else.
 
WI Crippler said:
So we took out one.

Thats more than anybody else in the west can claim to have done. So while your busy shifting goalposts, and pointing to all the other troubled spots in the world, maybe you should realize that we did something, somewhere, as opposed to the rest of the free world, who stands by doing absolutely nothing. You should be proud of the work your British troops have done in Iraq and Afghanistan along side the US. Its a bit goddamned more impressive than any effort put forth by anybody else.
Click to expand...

Yes, we should be proud that we spent so much money in Iraq when our own economy is turning to shambles.

If we REALLY want to do something, open the borders to Mexican immigrants. They have a crime-infested country where hard workers are willing to come over to our country and work for cheap, if we let them. Heck, many are so desperate for a job that they're willing to work for under minimum wage, get verbally abused by Americans, AND send home money to Mexico. We don't have to cross the Pacific Ocean just to be humanitarians. To say we're just trying to help a country is a lie and it's disgusting. Was it a fortunate consequence? Yes, but it's so hypocritical when there are easier things that can be done.
 
creativedreams said:
If I were President I would take over Iran NOW! And their oil! (I'm serious)
Click to expand...
you mean you would begin to mobilize now to invade a sovereign nation of 70 million? So instead of fighting just the Iranians in power, you would fight all the Iranians.
no more ***** footing with these rogue countries that are a cesspool for greater future danger.
Click to expand...
well, you better prioritize your rogue countries then. China and North Korea are more dangerous to the US than Iran, shall we attack them first?
It is only a matter of time before the world catches up with us in military technology so we absolutely HAVE to do the dirty deeds NOW!!!!!
Click to expand...
I think that's what Hitler said.
 
WillRockwell said:
well, you better prioritize your rogue countries then. China and North Korea are more dangerous to the US than Iran, shall we attack them first?
Click to expand...

No way in hell I attack China. Many Americans may hate them, many Americans may hate socialism, but facts are facts.

1) They have more money than us, which isn't hard considering...
2) They have basically all of our money (which we're borrowing from them)
3) I imagine they have plenty of allies where they're at that are willing to counterattack us (plus it would be hard attacking them on their own soil).

And if all else fails...
If they decide to go Japanese Kamikaze on us...
4) They'd have enough money to financially support it
5) They'd still have like 5 billion people left
6) With more children on the way.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Yes, we should be proud that we spent so much money in Iraq when our own economy is turning to shambles.

If we REALLY want to do something, open the borders to Mexican immigrants. They have a crime-infested country where hard workers are willing to come over to our country and work for cheap, if we let them. Heck, many are so desperate for a job that they're willing to work for under minimum wage, get verbally abused by Americans, AND send home money to Mexico. We don't have to cross the Pacific Ocean just to be humanitarians. To say we're just trying to help a country is a lie and it's disgusting. Was it a fortunate consequence? Yes, but it's so hypocritical when there are easier things that can be done.
Click to expand...

I agree we should reform our immigration policy with regards to our relationship with Mexico.

I disagree that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are hypocritical. Who's the bigger hypocrite, the countries that actually did fight to overthrow a dictator, or the ones that simply point fingers and say "but you didn't overthrow "that" one?"

If these other factions of "the West" are so concerned about the rest of the world, why the inaction on their behalf?
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Look guys, there's a limit to what you can do. I'm part of my college's Volunteer Activism club and there are plenty of countries in Africa that need our help more than Iran. Why don't we just invade all of those countries and make little democracies of them? It's because it's not feasible. I wish we could help every one of them, but a nation has to wisely pick and choose its battles. If we didn't invade Iraq, we'd have that much more money to help rebuild our economy and help our people.

I'm not saying that it all boils down to money, but if a police officer can't afford to pay the bills, how does that help the legal system?
Click to expand...

I definatly agree regarding the choosing your battles wisely. Iran could hit us pretty hard in Iraq and if Iraq and Afganistan go down the ****ter again then our involvement in these countrys will have been a tragic waste of life [though its argueable that they are already I think the situation is still salvagable] We already made the mistake of biting off more then we can chew by invading Iraq when we should have finished off in Afganistan. If we should be sending troops anywhere it should be Darfur were there is actually a potential for us to make a difference. The UN peacekeeping force in Darfur is the only thing keeping many civillians/aid workers alive but its massively under resourced

I do find the selective outrage of certain posters annoying. What were they doing when the United States cold war allies were doing pretty much the same thing the Iranian government is doing now except with the help of U.S intelligence, arms and even troops.

That said if some of our weapons accidently ended up in the hands off the Iranian opossition I wouldnt complain;)
 
I believe that this may be the perfect moment to become involved, if the reports have been confirmed. A period of diplomatic restraint, followed by increasing involvement - after the other side has shown it's true ugliness - would be most effective, in my view. It makes it plausible - from the perspective of the world community - that maybe, just maybe, we're in it for principle rather than self interest.

Unfortunately, the world has trouble believing us right now, after the flimsy excuses we used to enter Iraq. Our hands may be tied, now, even for justified causes.
 
I agree with Darfur. My volunteer organization recently worked with Invisible Children. It was one of the bigger college rallies considering we're probably one of the smaller colleges in the nation.

That being said, I don't ever want it to come across as either A) I value American lives more than other countrymen's lives or B) I don't care for other people (and only value money). However, the reality of things is that you can't afford to have all these battles. Part of me also feels like it's none of my business because I don't live in that country, but of course that almost makes it feel like it would also "not be my business" if somebody got raped in an ally right next to me.

Also, WI Crippler- I think the bigger problem is that we invaded Afghanistan to get Osama (justified) and ended up invading Iraq to get Saddam (not as justified). From your perspective, we're not hypocrites. However, according to our original mission- we didn't exactly do what we planned.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Also, WI Crippler- I think the bigger problem is that we invaded Afghanistan to get Osama (justified) and ended up invading Iraq to get Saddam (not as justified). From your perspective, we're not hypocrites. However, according to our original mission- we didn't exactly do what we planned.
Click to expand...

The mistakes we made with Iraq were 1. Not taking him out the first time. We had an international coalition, and there was every justification for removing him from power. We also had a greater number of troops in the area that would have been a help to stabilize the country. 2. When we invaded this time, we went for style over substance. This was Rumsfeld fault for relying too much on the idea of "Shock and Awe" rather than something more appropriate like the Powell Doctrine. We allowed the country to destabilize too easily, after the overthrow was complete. It allowed certain factions to take hold, until Petraus' strategy took over.

Do I believe we made mistakes with Iraq? Sure. We made several as far as the "selling" of the war, and its execution. But I do not believe the war to be unjustified or hypocritical. You must remember, we went into Afghanistan and overthrew their government as well, we didn't just go looking for Osama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom