IRANIANS WOULD NOT DEFEND THE REGIME AGAINST A FOREIGN ATTACK

IPS ^ | Friday, February 11, 2005 | Safa Haeri

[PzLdr]

If Iran goes nuclear, or gets close, That's not a "legit" national security reason for potential military action? Enlighten me, what is?

[MD_Willington_1976]

IRANIANS WOULD NOT DEFEND THE REGIME AGAINST A FOREIGN ATTACK

Jeez, most of them will not even provoke an internal attack...I've said it before it's time for the younger Iranians to P!SS or GET OFF the pot

[ken21]

maybe.

but the nyt, cnn, cbs, abc, nbc, npr, etc will defend iran against an american attack.

(/s)

[rocksblues]

You have to remember that in 1979 the MSM was in charge of what we the people saw and heard. So of course they played up the dissident angle not the true picture of people's reaction.

[F14 Pilot]

And I hope you dont believe the MSM any time

[conservativebabe]

The tide is turning there. The natives are restless. That's why our president brilliantly spoke to the Iranian people in the SOU.

Pray for democracy in Iran.

[newsgatherer]

bump, by the way, are you really a TomCat driver?

[Darkwolf377]

"If" isn't a legitimate reason for military invasion.

Clear?

[rocksblues]

I stopped believing what I saw on TV and heard on the Radio in 1968 right after the Tet offensive.

[bahblahbah]

Well I would think I could believe our leaders 100% but it isn't like they've been deceived by expats before. We must tread lightly.

[Reza2004]

Iranians hate the mullah’s regime because it continuously tries to change the Persian culture into an Arab or Islamic culture as for one major reason. The Persian patriotism is way beyond anything to do with mullahs. This patriotism is very much a strong suit of Persian culture. Mullahs wish for an invasion with slightest bit of arrogance to use this suit and manipulate the situation. Invasion would alienate most Iranians and play into the hands of the fundamentalists while internal resistance supported by the free world would still leave Iranians with the sense of national pride and I would think that would be the healthiest way for Iran to region the free world.

[Sam the Sham]

Rule #1

Emigres will tell you whatever you want to hear. They will exaggerate their popularity back home. They will lie like rugs because they want you to do their fighting for them.

[ValenB4]

I think we ought to have learned by now that dissidents have their own agenda and are not to be trusted. Why we would trust anyone willing to see their home country, despite its bad government, attacked by another country is beyond me.

[Sam the Sham]

That's what Saddam Hussein thought.

[Darkwolf377]

Very well said. Why impose change from the outside when, seeing how their last revolt was taken from them, the Iranian people need something that will be THEIRS in a way to enforce cultural pride?

[oldleft]

We don't have any intention of invading Iran. It's a different situation than Iraq. There's already apparatus in place to take over if the mullahs have an "unfortunate accident." In Iraq we had to invade to avoid creating a power vacuum. In Iran you have an organized opposition already in place, ready to take over. You also have a regular military that can be active if the Revolutionary Guard has a bad day. I don't think there will ever be the need for one US boot to be on the ground in Iran.

[PzLdr]

Wasn't all that clear in Iraq, apparently.

[sionnsar]

Pray for democracy in Iran.

[Pookee]

Bay of Pigs, anyone?

Add Desert Storm to that list. We're still finding evidence of how well that uprising went.

[Darkwolf377]

Just ask our pilots who were getting shot at for a year whether it was clear in Iraq. Or Bush 41, the target of an Iraqi assassination attempt. Or Saddam's funding of terror outside his borders. Or even the inspectors who while saying he had no WMD he was all set to ramp up WMD production once the French and company succeeded in getting rid of the UN sanctions.