Suddenly, Iran is aflame with protest

The ends justify the means, there is nothing we could do to the Iranian government that would not be fully justified.

 

Justified (in your mind) maybe, wise, definitely not.

Leave them alone, if we go to "help" them the Mullahs will stay in power for a hundred years

 

We also refused to help the poles and hungarian and it took them 50 years to get rid of their oppressors.

 

Leave them alone. Its a nstion millenia older than yours.

 

So your allies are the Islamic Mullahs, not the people of Iran.

 

My allies are the atheistic, nationalist iranians. I have news for you, they hate you even more than the islamic mullahs.

 

Sure.

Good luck with the "clubbing down".

 

we should have nuked the mullahs years ago and we should have supported the Shah more strongly and not allowed his fall.. we also should have gone to war with Russia after ww2 and we should have prevented the communists from taking over China

 

Today, Iran has the worst government it has ever had.

 

Oh really? Having highest education and more women achieving academic drades than USA. Achieving broader wealth than ever before sounds not too bad for me. They obviously do so,etjing right.

Having a glitter king with a super rich elite whioe your population stavs to death like under the shah doesnt sound too good for me.

 

The Shah had no support from the iranian people. Nothing could have stopped his fall. He had entire population against his regime.

As for nuking the mullahs, i doubt you would like your own cities uninhabitable after their counter strikes.

 

Counter strike?

They have no such capability silly bunny.

 

They have tons of high enriched uranium. They can put entire New York into a nuclear waste field with a dirty bomb.

Your secret service was not even able to stop some unorganized mumbo jumbo terrorists to blow up the WTC and Pentagon. Iran is well known to be very good in covered operations. There is a reason why USA doesnt dare to attack Iran, they always strike back and they have capability to cause enormous damage.

 

Not how it works.

Beside, have you visited nagasaki and hiroshima? Both are beautiful cjties today.

 

You obviously have no clue what a dirty bomb is.

In a nuclear bomb, the material sets free almost all radiation in a single blast. Most of the matter is turned into energy. After Hiroshima bomb exploded, radiation level were back at normal within minutes.

A dirty bomb is different. It just spews out dusted radiactive material. Like chernobyl it will poison evrything. Evrything contaminated with material that constantly spews out radiation.

 

Iran is in bad shape. The people are unhappy. And when they protest, they’re imprisoned.
Hell on earth.

 

Iran under the Shah was in worse shape. The people were unhappy, when they protested, they got tortured and executed by SAVAK. That was hell on earth.

 

Your knowledge of nuclear weapons is on the same level than your humanity, that is, barely registering on the most sensible of meter...

 

Have a link to back up your claim?

 

When you're among the last of the hereditary autocrats it sort of comes with the territory or at least it did then. I dunno, I don''t know when he became repressive really but I think it was well after 1949.

The Poles and Hungarians ASKED us for help. The Iranians emphatically didn't and the Mullahs have used the threat of American interference in their affairs to tighten their hold on power quite skilfully throughout their reign. It's why they rattle their sabres periodically, hoping that we will do a few threatening overflights and Guard enlistments will get another boost. I sometimes think they might be working with us on that, we're just so predictable

 

They asked for help with the yalta understanding that they'd be free to chose their own government after the war. Stalin betrayed the Yalta accord and enslaved them for 50 years.

 

Oh, I thought you were talking about 1956 and 1980. Stalin purposely ****ed over the Poles in WWII, letting the Germans suppress their revolt and kill most of the revolutionaries since he realized they would be fractious as puppets of the Soviets afterwards

Stalin was a real bastard, no doubt. Though it can be argued that his keeping a littoral of border states against German aggression was not an unreasonable precaution in light of history, and it was keeping these states that was a major reason for the Soviet bankruptcy in 1989 anyway.

 

No he was killing them in jail cells. He was as brutal as saddam, assad and the rest of those evil people over there. But he was willing to play ball with the international oil companies and was willing to buy arms from the US. Did we care if he used those arms to suppress his own people, hell no.

 

None of the narratives I read here about Iranian politics represent my view. Whether you accept my 'narrative' as fact, this is the narrative that is closest to the truth on issues being discussed:

1- Approximately 70% of Iran's public are vehemently opposed to any regime change of any sort in Iran, including specifically any revolts, rebellions, revolutions, implosions, etc. That includes a large majority who are dissatisfied with one thing or another in Iran but reject any of those courses of action as being in Iran's interests.

2- Roughly 20% of Iran's public is open or actively supportive of 'regime change', while another 10% lean in that direction. Many of them are opposed to the regime for their own reasons and have no direct foreign links or foreign support. But among them are those who have foreign links and foreign support and who do engage in unlawful, subversive, and even terrorist, acts within Iran.

3- The current protests in certain segments of the country were being steered by foreign agents and had terrorist and subversive elements. They presented a serious danger to Iran in some parts but for now, they have been put under control. Still, areas in Iranian Kurdistan and Iranian Khuzistan which border Iraq and which present a clear avenue for smuggling of weapons and subversive elements are still a point of concern.

4- The popular narratives about the Shah aren't exactly accurate and some of them are grossly unfair to him. Regardless, however, the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people rejected his regime and continue to reject his regime. And they also reject many of the folks people here like to assume are "democratic voices" in Iran.

5- For many years, the most popular political figure in Iran has been 'General Soleimani', who has 80% favorable popularity in Iran today based on the latest polls (which itself is very telling). The next most popular figure used to be Iran's foreign minister, Zarif, who still enjoys support among 2/3s of Iranians. President Rouhani used to have majority support but his support now (less than 50%) is less than the support for ex-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who has around 55% popularity still). Despite a plethora of satellite channels, social media and such, there isn't a single individual or political movement outside of the regime that enjoys even double digit support among Iranians.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amygut...s-science-and-engineering-students-are-women/

70% of iranian academics are women.

Thats better than in any other country in the world