-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Trouble in Paradise......
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
I read that earlier this morning. What a bunch of schmucks. The people who decide on what factories get built that is. Maybe we can sell gasoline to them. It'll be like feeding a cow a cheeseburger. I also have read several stories about how the masses of younger, more secular minded generations of Iranians would have absolutely no problems with canning the whole government and system thats in place now.
I am reading a book right now about America sending agents to German occupied countries in WWII to foment rebellion and resistance against the occupation before troops arrived and it worked very well. Is the Iranian government near a point where all of it's wonderful nuclear aspirations and whack-job western hating islamic fundamentalism get crushed from within with just a little bit of help from a few smart agents?
I am reading a book right now about America sending agents to German occupied countries in WWII to foment rebellion and resistance against the occupation before troops arrived and it worked very well. Is the Iranian government near a point where all of it's wonderful nuclear aspirations and whack-job western hating islamic fundamentalism get crushed from within with just a little bit of help from a few smart agents?
Kinda like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan
I'm not talking about shock and awe and all that. I'm thinking like more of a revolution with an absolutely covert presence. "Spooks" that are capable of organizing the seperate groups. Not even a MEU near Iranian waters. I don't know much about the seperate factions there, but I do know that there is a significant secular presence there that wants its way. Right now those people just get out of the country. After all is said and done, if they're still an enemy, at least they won't have idealogical motivations that are damn near impossible to defeat without total war.
I think he was referring to the spec ops guys that went in to increase the guerrilla fighting in advance of any US armed action. Green Beret types.
Ouch. That can't be good.From the article said:
FUPaladin
couldabeen
This kind of fits with my belief that if we backed off a little bit on Iran, more Iranians would realize how bad their president is and feel freer to voice their dissent, and Iran is actually democratic enough that that would be big trouble politically for Ahmadinejad. As long as they feel pressure from the U.S., though, Ahmadinejad can stir up enough nationalism (which Iran has in great abundance, unlike Iraq) to maintain his political support. Iranians who may not like their government still probably like us even less, so any American interference in Iran would likely only drive more people into the Ahmadinejad camp, while goodwill between Iran and the West leaves Ahmadinejad without much political ground to stand on, since it robs him of his greatest political tool.
The above paragraph is something a completely out of touch liberal might say, so let me qualify it. I'm fully aware that backing off isn't really an option when someone like Ahmadinejad is going after nuclear capability. I'm just saying that when Iranians feel threatened by the United States, they're going to side with their president. And when something goes badly for Iran that has nothing to do with the United States, Iranians will oppose their president and push for change and we can just sit back and enjoy it.
The above paragraph is something a completely out of touch liberal might say, so let me qualify it. I'm fully aware that backing off isn't really an option when someone like Ahmadinejad is going after nuclear capability. I'm just saying that when Iranians feel threatened by the United States, they're going to side with their president. And when something goes badly for Iran that has nothing to do with the United States, Iranians will oppose their president and push for change and we can just sit back and enjoy it.
Man, don't you get it. EVERYTHING is Bush's fault.
Couldn't disagree more. Ass-jhad is clutching precariously onto power with a minority clergy. Reagan-esque power projection and political power is the remedy. Think of "Gorbachev, tear down this wall" and try to relate the current international alliance against Iran's quest for nukes. It's stunning and frankly brilliant.
You don't let your adversary breathe when you have him in the choke hold.
If your a fucking crazy whabbi Muslim cleric in Iran and you've got the US kicking ass in Afghanistan to your South and at least holding its own in Iraq to the West, you're scared shitless. The reality is, you're (Iran) in deep shit.
I will continue to banter, but I am drinking heavily...
You don't let your adversary breathe when you have him in the choke hold.
If your a fucking crazy whabbi Muslim cleric in Iran and you've got the US kicking ass in Afghanistan to your South and at least holding its own in Iraq to the West, you're scared shitless. The reality is, you're (Iran) in deep shit.
I will continue to banter, but I am drinking heavily...
FUPaladin
couldabeen
The biggest problem I see is that these crazy Muslim clerics you mention can't be counted on to act rationally and in their best interest like the Soviet Union could. You can scare them shitless, but their response is as likely to be to call for suicide bombings as to try to negotiate. I'm just not convinced that a Cold War-style foreign policy is the best way to proceed when dealing with radical Islam.
Sounds great. So exactly how do we go about doing this?
FUPaladin
couldabeen
Ninjas.
That's a good thing, because you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union, as well as what is and is not likely to motivate the Iranians. I'm a big fan of Reagan, but he is routinely given way too much credit for the end of the Cold War. Ultimately, the Soviets did themselves in, albeit with a slight nudge from Reagan. That model can not be applied to Iran - completely different set of circumstances.
Brett
Frankly, I'm impressed. It appears you learned something after all during your collegiate years. Oh wait, that was like last week, right?
Seriously though. I agree with your statement that Reagan is given too much credit with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think anyone who has really studied the history of the Cold War would agree. I'm a big Reagan fan, but I'm sorry, a "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall" does not cause the Soviet Union to collapse....among other things.