7 ms·

It's things like this that make me wonder why there are so many people that defend the government of Iran.

Sapient 15y ago
I don't think many people defend the government of Iran, they just don't want to start a war with them and feel that if there is something wrong with the Iranian government, then the Iranians should bloody well sort it out themselves.
- Tangaroa 15y ago
  Tool around Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and CiF and you'll run into plenty of people who go well beyond that into deflecting any criticism of Iran, denying that there is any possibility that Iran might be developing a nuclear weapon rather than being skeptical of American claims that it is building one, denying that Iran has any links to Hezbollah (which was founded as the Lebanese branch of the Iranian revolution), and so on. In most online forums outside the right wing, people promoting Iran as a liberal democracy seem to be more common than those recognizing that it is not one.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    On the nuclear weapon front, at least, they have yet to do anything that falls outside the range of a civilian nuclear program, and the IAEA inspectors say there is absolutely no evidence of a weapons program. In fact, Iran had earlier agreed to halt their enrichment program and instead accept LEU for use in their reactors from other countries, but the US wouldn't take yes for an answer and now they're playing the silent game with eachother. I'm not defending Iran, and I think it's high time for the whole bloody revolutionary government to be thrown out and replaced with a democracy. That said, I find the claims of the US and Israel to be somewhat suspect.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "In most online forums outside the right wing, people promoting Iran as a liberal democracy seem to be more common than those recognizing that it is not one." This is patently false.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    I can't say this is what you've run into, but there have been rumors that nations are engaging in propaganda in online forums. Some people defending a nation may be paid to do so.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Yeah, they should send civilians up against the tanks and helicopters of the government. That way their deaths won't be on our hands. Much cleaner that way.
  - batista 15y ago
    Should another country had invaded the US for the actions of your government? From invading other countries, to using blacks as slaves, to segregation, to developing and having the Bomb, to the practice of the death penalty? Who told you you get to pick what government you like and what not, and act in another sovereign country? And who said the population of other countries want you to interfere with their affairs? You can find anti-government people in any country, including yours. Even anti-government groups and parties. That doesn't mean the general public of said countries want someone to invade and take care of their government for them.
  - Sapient 15y ago
    There is a very long list of bad governments, would you suggest the US should invade them all?
zalew 15y ago
I don't know what you mean by "defending" exactly, but if you wonder why people are sceptic on US-Iran relations, you must go back before 1979 - when a good ol' US buddy named Reza Pahlavi was brutally murdering it's citizens and US was in full support of his ruling, yet since he's gone US is on a 3-decades rampage of sanctions disturbing Iran's ability to function economically on the international scene.
- shareme 15y ago
  No further back than that when GB and Russia needed oil during WWI Someone was bribed/paid to over-throw replace the Father with the son..
ArcticCelt 15y ago
>why there are so many people that defend the government of Iran. Because there is not so many people who defend the government of Iran, they just care about the hundred of thousands of innocent civilians, children and women included, who will end up dead as collateral damage if the US decide to "liberate" them.
- tkahn6 15y ago
  I'm not sure I understand how it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians.
  - yahelc 15y ago
    By all accounts, an invasion of Iran would make Iraq look like a cake walk. Specifically, Iran has a more advanced military, as well as a more centralized force apparatus with hugely radicalized and patriotic forces. Iraq was largely a cult of personality regime that kept its influence through clientelism and tribal rivalries, lacking in a central patriotic spirit. (That's why sectarian conflict outlasted nationalistic conflict by a factor of 10.) The war in Iraq killed between 100k-150k civilians, according to most estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War All this implies that an invasion and occupation of Iran would take a huge toll on civilians.
    - tkahn6 15y ago
      Again, I don't understand why military action in any capacity is synonymous with invasion and occupation. I don't dispute your statements.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        Because the US doesn't do military action without death, without shooting, without explosions. I don't know any nation that does. "Military action" almost by definition, means there will be troops fighting or planes bombing (even if that means we're just supporting a force already fighting there). There is no military action we could take that would not result in Iran being torn to pieces, and when politicians talk about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", they mean just that. The populace is very Western, and very much like America. They're advanced, liberal, and young, and being led by a government they can't relate to and can't get rid of. We could do sanctions (we are). We could do cyber warfare (we might be/probably are). What we can't do is military action without using the military (who use deadly weapons). Any military action in Iran would be full-scale, classic-style war like America hasn't seen since WWII. If we started anything, Israel would join in, Great Britain may also, and Iran would strike back hard. They may even bring some allies. Even one soldier on the ground or one jet fighter in the air would leave invasion as the only remaining option.
batista 15y ago
What exactly is a "thing like this"? Let's take a hypothetical example of countries A and B. An ex-marine of country A is caught and sentenced as a spy in country B. Country A not only frequently makes open threats about invading country B, but has also invaded 2 more countries in the region in the last 10 years, one of those with a false pretext, and another to revenge the actions of a few men, not the actions of said country. Country A, 60 years ago, had the democratic government of country B replaced with a dictator of their choosing. Country A has imprisoned non-soldiers of other countries, taking them from their countries and keeping them in a remote prison in the tropics without even a trial. A lot of them where found totally unrelated to anything, i.e innocent, and released several years later without any compensation of course. Soldiers of country A are known to torture, rape and beat prisoners from other countries, and even take pictures of said torture with their phones and laugh at it. Several widespread cases where made known. Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is the only country known to have used two of those in a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, just as the war was ending and the enemy was surrendering. Country A has made medical experiments on people without their knowledge. In one case, they publicly said they are "sorry", 40 years after the fact. Country A is known to have very good relations with dictators and despotic governments in many countries where it serves it's interests. Everywhere country A invaded in the last 10 years, they brought mass instability, civil tension or war and chaos, in the name of "bringing democracy". Coincidentally it's mostly in strategic places with lots of natural resources. As late as 40 years ago, country A still practiced segregation in many of its cities. They have also assassinated their two most prominent anti-segregation activists. Even today, despite having made progress on the matter, a hugely disproportionate percentage of the black population of country A is in prison. Finally, country A practices the death penalty as much as country B, and has a lot of religious fanatics among its population, too, and certain places even prefer non-scientific evolution theories instead of the de-facto scientific theory on the matter for their schools. It's a known fact that an openly atheist would never, as it is, get elected to the top office in country A. Can you guess country A and country B? Would you get mad at country B?
- pyre 15y ago
  > Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is > the only country known to have used two of those in > a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, > just as the war was ending and the enemy was > surrendering. Is there credible evidence that the US knew that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, but decided to drop the bombs anyways?

I don't think many people defend the government of Iran, they just don't want to start a war with them and feel that if there is something wrong with the Iranian government, then the Iranians should bloody well sort it out themselves.

Tangaroa 15y ago
Tool around Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and CiF and you'll run into plenty of people who go well beyond that into deflecting any criticism of Iran, denying that there is any possibility that Iran might be developing a nuclear weapon rather than being skeptical of American claims that it is building one, denying that Iran has any links to Hezbollah (which was founded as the Lebanese branch of the Iranian revolution), and so on. In most online forums outside the right wing, people promoting Iran as a liberal democracy seem to be more common than those recognizing that it is not one.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  On the nuclear weapon front, at least, they have yet to do anything that falls outside the range of a civilian nuclear program, and the IAEA inspectors say there is absolutely no evidence of a weapons program. In fact, Iran had earlier agreed to halt their enrichment program and instead accept LEU for use in their reactors from other countries, but the US wouldn't take yes for an answer and now they're playing the silent game with eachother. I'm not defending Iran, and I think it's high time for the whole bloody revolutionary government to be thrown out and replaced with a democracy. That said, I find the claims of the US and Israel to be somewhat suspect.
- Steko 15y ago
  "In most online forums outside the right wing, people promoting Iran as a liberal democracy seem to be more common than those recognizing that it is not one." This is patently false.
- freehunter 15y ago
  I can't say this is what you've run into, but there have been rumors that nations are engaging in propaganda in online forums. Some people defending a nation may be paid to do so.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Yeah, they should send civilians up against the tanks and helicopters of the government. That way their deaths won't be on our hands. Much cleaner that way.
- batista 15y ago
  Should another country had invaded the US for the actions of your government? From invading other countries, to using blacks as slaves, to segregation, to developing and having the Bomb, to the practice of the death penalty? Who told you you get to pick what government you like and what not, and act in another sovereign country? And who said the population of other countries want you to interfere with their affairs? You can find anti-government people in any country, including yours. Even anti-government groups and parties. That doesn't mean the general public of said countries want someone to invade and take care of their government for them.
- Sapient 15y ago
  There is a very long list of bad governments, would you suggest the US should invade them all?

zalew 15y ago

I don't know what you mean by "defending" exactly, but if you wonder why people are sceptic on US-Iran relations, you must go back before 1979 - when a good ol' US buddy named Reza Pahlavi was brutally murdering it's citizens and US was in full support of his ruling, yet since he's gone US is on a 3-decades rampage of sanctions disturbing Iran's ability to function economically on the international scene.

shareme 15y ago
No further back than that when GB and Russia needed oil during WWI Someone was bribed/paid to over-throw replace the Father with the son..

ArcticCelt 15y ago

>why there are so many people that defend the government of Iran. Because there is not so many people who defend the government of Iran, they just care about the hundred of thousands of innocent civilians, children and women included, who will end up dead as collateral damage if the US decide to "liberate" them.

tkahn6 15y ago
I'm not sure I understand how it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians.
- yahelc 15y ago
  By all accounts, an invasion of Iran would make Iraq look like a cake walk. Specifically, Iran has a more advanced military, as well as a more centralized force apparatus with hugely radicalized and patriotic forces. Iraq was largely a cult of personality regime that kept its influence through clientelism and tribal rivalries, lacking in a central patriotic spirit. (That's why sectarian conflict outlasted nationalistic conflict by a factor of 10.) The war in Iraq killed between 100k-150k civilians, according to most estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War All this implies that an invasion and occupation of Iran would take a huge toll on civilians.
  - tkahn6 15y ago
    Again, I don't understand why military action in any capacity is synonymous with invasion and occupation. I don't dispute your statements.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      Because the US doesn't do military action without death, without shooting, without explosions. I don't know any nation that does. "Military action" almost by definition, means there will be troops fighting or planes bombing (even if that means we're just supporting a force already fighting there). There is no military action we could take that would not result in Iran being torn to pieces, and when politicians talk about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", they mean just that. The populace is very Western, and very much like America. They're advanced, liberal, and young, and being led by a government they can't relate to and can't get rid of. We could do sanctions (we are). We could do cyber warfare (we might be/probably are). What we can't do is military action without using the military (who use deadly weapons). Any military action in Iran would be full-scale, classic-style war like America hasn't seen since WWII. If we started anything, Israel would join in, Great Britain may also, and Iran would strike back hard. They may even bring some allies. Even one soldier on the ground or one jet fighter in the air would leave invasion as the only remaining option.

batista 15y ago

What exactly is a "thing like this"? Let's take a hypothetical example of countries A and B. An ex-marine of country A is caught and sentenced as a spy in country B. Country A not only frequently makes open threats about invading country B, but has also invaded 2 more countries in the region in the last 10 years, one of those with a false pretext, and another to revenge the actions of a few men, not the actions of said country. Country A, 60 years ago, had the democratic government of country B replaced with a dictator of their choosing. Country A has imprisoned non-soldiers of other countries, taking them from their countries and keeping them in a remote prison in the tropics without even a trial. A lot of them where found totally unrelated to anything, i.e innocent, and released several years later without any compensation of course. Soldiers of country A are known to torture, rape and beat prisoners from other countries, and even take pictures of said torture with their phones and laugh at it. Several widespread cases where made known. Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is the only country known to have used two of those in a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, just as the war was ending and the enemy was surrendering. Country A has made medical experiments on people without their knowledge. In one case, they publicly said they are "sorry", 40 years after the fact. Country A is known to have very good relations with dictators and despotic governments in many countries where it serves it's interests. Everywhere country A invaded in the last 10 years, they brought mass instability, civil tension or war and chaos, in the name of "bringing democracy". Coincidentally it's mostly in strategic places with lots of natural resources. As late as 40 years ago, country A still practiced segregation in many of its cities. They have also assassinated their two most prominent anti-segregation activists. Even today, despite having made progress on the matter, a hugely disproportionate percentage of the black population of country A is in prison. Finally, country A practices the death penalty as much as country B, and has a lot of religious fanatics among its population, too, and certain places even prefer non-scientific evolution theories instead of the de-facto scientific theory on the matter for their schools. It's a known fact that an openly atheist would never, as it is, get elected to the top office in country A. Can you guess country A and country B? Would you get mad at country B?

pyre 15y ago
> Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is > the only country known to have used two of those in > a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, > just as the war was ending and the enemy was > surrendering. Is there credible evidence that the US knew that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, but decided to drop the bombs anyways?