Iranians want the USA to invade, why they dont invade?

[Khashayar]

There is a big question while the protests and opposes rised in Iran last week, Why the USA which is next to Iranian borders, dont come in to support or in other words why we Iranians do not see any effective behavior from the US officials. Me, as a citizen of any other country , do not like to see my country to be invaded or collapsed but the real fact in Iran is that the mullahs will not go or over thrown with out any military intervention or support from a powerful source. This is what you can hear in Iran now, I think those men in the Pentagon or the white house should take a decision fast. Are they taking care of the fate of the Iranians? So They have to be more responsible as well. We do not need just words, we need action. The great help America can give us now is to support us more and more not just by words but by actions. Please do something!

[SevenDaysInMay]

Our economy is more damaged by the trillion dollar thefts of Wall Street RICO incest and Pennsylvania Avenue RICO incest.

Outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China (our long-term strategic enemy) and tech jobs to India is eroding our know how sectors as we convert to a silly circle service economy. We are getting more strategically dependent and foolish because we are punishing those who know how to make things well and fooling ourselves as we hire more and more to arrange deck chairs and fill out the paperwork.

[nuconvert]

Exactly. If Amnesty international is the only group reporting, it does almost no good. So, if you had seen the plight of these people in Iraq every day on the news, it wouldn't have phased you? Or in Afghanistan? You would think it's okay for America to report on that kind of torture night after night and do nothing? As long as they aren't attacking us? Would that make you against the war in Iraq if we can't find major caches of WMD's? That it wasn't worth going in to rescue the people from Saddam's tyranny?
No debate in the UN; visuals will take weeks. It won't be 20 yrs. As for the students, they know the risks they take.

[norton]

Problem for the students is that with all of our own institutions in a stampede to prove that they are not "profiling islam" or whatever, "excessive force" would bave to be so brutal and so blatant that NO one could ignore it.

As long as the mullahs keep some control over their vigilantes they could easily slide.


There is also the EU/UN angle, they are out there praying that us cowboy guys will actually screw something up.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Iraqi's should be protecting and assisting our troops in mass, at least in the Shiite areas."

How can the Iraqis protect us? Are we handing out weapons en masse to everyone? I don't think so. I don't expect them to walk around our troops as human shields. Heck, we wouldn't even let them. Of course there are extremist elements in a country with ethnic tensions, Islamic extremism, that was ruled for so long by a genocidal nut.

When we have our first Tet Offensive sent against us, then I'll begin-- just being-- to wonder if something is wrong with Iraqis. Until then, it's prettymuch what I expected.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

[pinging backhoe]

"...in the case of turmoil in Iran, the ARMY ( not REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS) will take control of the streets and cities because they have been trained in the states, they have been hated for 25 years because they are still pro-shah..."

That is a major statemnt. The Army is still pro-shah? Trained by the states? Please add details on this if you can. This could be the key to making your point here.

[McGavin999]

This has always been the key Arthur. The army is mostly Persian while the Revolutionary Guard are a few hard line Iranians but mostly imported thugs who are Islamic fundies.

If the people can get the army on their side they've got this thing won.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"If the people can get the army on their side they've got this thing won."

Yes, but he says they have been pro-shah all this time. That, I think, is very significant. State trained? Iran is divided up into states? And the states aren't training in an anti-shah fashion? Very significant statements.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

>>> Tell me, how easilly could we have liberated ourselves from England without France's help?



Funny, I don't remember that part where U.S. "students" repaid them by overrunning the French embassy, and holding their staff and dependents hostage for more than a year. Sort of recall the U.S. getting involved in a war we didn't need any part of in 1914 and being drawn into another in 1941. (A leading French conservative recently remarked the France did not need to be liberated in 1944, they had worked out an accommodation with the Germans that worked well for both parties and did not need or welcome U.S. intervention. Which is exactly what Eisenhower said at the time.)


The US prevented the Soviet Union from overrunning Iran (and the Middle East) in the 1940's through 1991. France was acting in its own self interest in 1783, the U.S. out of self interest in the second half of the twentieth century. An Aussie who was in the same dormitory told me that older Aussies, remembering that the Japanese Navy got close enough to bomb Darwin, used to say "Thank God for the Yanks". Everyone in Europe and the Middle East should face Washington five times a day and say a prayer of thanks that they are not citizens of a Soviet republic.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Putting the cart before the horse, are we?

[Prodigal Son]

So, if you had seen the plight of these people in Iraq every day on the news, it wouldn't have phased you? Or in Afghanistan? You would think it's okay for America to report on that kind of torture night after night and do nothing? As long as they aren't attacking us? Would that make you against the war in Iraq if we can't find major caches of WMD's?

LOL! Don't get your knickers in a twist. I'm not yelling at you or even arguing with you. I disagree with you and that's all. But don't make the situation worse by trying to get me to agree with you all right?

WMD? I never gave a damn about WMD. Oh sure, they're a problem and they need to be dealt with. I agreed with the rationale behind using WMD as a selling point although it comes with certain obvious pitfalls. I enlisted in the US Army in 1990 for the sole purpose of taking Saddam out. My unit never got sent and I have mixed feelings about that nowadays. Had I gone, I never would have met my wife and I'm pretty happy with her so... Fate can cut both ways.

However, I never thought we should have let Saddam escape back then. It was obvious we would have this problem to deal with in the future. So now after a decade of war with Saddam, it's finally over. We didn't go to war in March. We ended the one that began in 1990 and I would've supported Slick Willy if he had wanted to go in and take Saddam out as well (one reason being because he was my Commander in Chief at the time and I wouldn't have had much choice ;-) ) I've supported taking Saddam down since 1990.

What you need to do is not assume too much about me if you don't know what you're talking about. I don't care one little bit if they never find WMD in Iraq. So take a chill pill. Relax a little.

You would think it's okay for America to report on that kind of torture night after night and do nothing?

Would you be asking George Washington this same question? Because that's exactly how he felt. My personal feelings have nothing to do with it. I already told you I would have nuked Afghanistan- so sure I wanted to do something about the problem- although, I'm not sure if you would agree with my methods. But you made an assertion earlier to back up your claim that was not true. You claimed there was popular support building for going into Afghanistan before 9/11. That is fiction.

First of all, the US would not have been able to go into Afghanistan pre-9/11 because the country was landlocked and we had no way to get to them even if we wanted to. The Russians and the Chinese would never have agreed to let us through much less the Pakistanis and the Iranians. That's assuming there was some big popular movement as you claim pre-9/11 to invade Afghanistan, which there wasn't.

Think about it. We didn't even want to invade Kosovo. We preferred instead to bomb it for 70 days. Clinton ran from overt ground combat. He had no stomach for it. It would've been his political undoing. Plus the public had no stomach for it. This was the roaring 90s we're talking about here. People were too interested in their mutual funds to worry about the Taliban. That's the fact. There was plenty of news about the ugliness in Afghanistan, just no will or reason to do anything about it. Needless to say, 9/11 changed all that.

Iraq was different. Iraq had/has strategic importance. Iraq has oil. Conquering Iraq allows us to put major pressure on the entire region. Plus, at the end of the day, it removes an evil f--ker from power.

But are you asking me if we should invade Zimbabwe? Sudan? Congo? Well, the short answer is no and the long answer is not yet. Do you want us in these places? I mean there's ugliness going on in these countries as well.

The thing is, and this is the bottom line at the moment- I support our military taking over the entire region in the Middle East. Syria, Saudi, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, China etc etc- the whole nine yards. Take all their sh!t from 'em. But at the moment (and this is the big drum roll moment)- WE CAN'T. We are stretched too thin on the ground. We have all we can handle at the moment trying to subdue the Iraqis (who were supposed to be a helluva lot more grateful to be liberated). We can do some covert things. This includes, obviously, SpecOps Forces and CIA dirty work- like providing the opposition with guns for example. You're the one objecting to this not me. I want to help the Iranians, you're the one arguing against helping them in favour of showing atrocities on television and debating.

The latest polls show a majority of people in the States back our military overthrowing the mullahs. I am one of them. Now, when you can sh!t me the four or five divisions it will take to do that- we're off to the races! Until then, I don't see what else we can physically do except what I've already said. Unless you want us to bomb the country flat- this is always an option of course. I just think it would send a stronger message to the rest of our enemies in the region if the Iranians did it themselves and if they need some guns to do it with- I say it might be a good idea to provide them- keep in mind you're the one that doesn't want them to get any. I have no problem with it at all. Not to mention this method saves many American lives.

No debate in the UN; visuals will take weeks.

I think you're naive, personally (no offense), if you believe the BBC showing the British public about the horrors of Iran will lead them to send in their troops. They haven't any to send in anyway at the moment and the public here is in no mood for extra wars- atrocities or not. Who's that leave? France? Germany? Don't make me laugh. So even if you get your media campaign- what's the bottom line? It ain't going to happen on anybody's timeline but ours if the Iranians can't do it themselves. And since we're not presently situated to help overtly in a big way that leaves guns to the opposition and SpecOps- exactly what you're arguing against..

Plus you're leaving out one huge fact- debate in the UN didn't produce anything worthwhile regarding Iraq. Remember how that fiasco ended? We came away with no resolution. What makes you think it would turn out differently for Iran?

[DoctorZIn]

First, welcome to the FreeRepublic.
As you are learning, we have a lot of strong opinions around here.
But I understand the risks you are taking in posting here and commend your courage.

You raised the question, let me paraphrase it, "Why doesn't the USA come in militarily and support a regime change?" I understand your frustration, I have heard it many times from others Iranians.

Reason #1: Our policy makers have been told repeatedly by Iranians leaders not to have a policy of invasion, but a policy of support of for the people of Iran to end the regime themselves.

Reason #2: It appears most fear that a US invasion of Iran would have the effect of fracturing the support for change that currently exists in your country. Most people tend to rally around their leaders, even bad ones, if they feel they are being invaded.

Reason #3: We have not yet made the case to the world that such an invasion would be legitimate. Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq both had international law on our side. The US may act if it feels it must, and is it building a case in the international community for this, ie. the nuclear weapons development issue.

Reason #4: There does not yet exist a leader or organization within Iran that we can work with if such a need were to arise. It would be much easier for us if we were invited in by a legitimate group under attack in Iran.

Please do not misunderstand me. I support your efforts and understand your frustration seeing US troops on the east and west of your country. I think a regime change will likely come when your own military chooses to support a regime change. I think you are right that many in Iran’s military will support the people’s desire for freedom. If and when the do, this will be the turning point. I can only assume that our government is attempting to encourage this in Iran just as we did in Iraq.

BTW, please visit our daily Iranian Thread. We post all significant news on Iran in one place here. There are many there that would love to hear from you.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/937208/posts

DoctorZin

[Travis McGee]

There is no need. See 14.

[Khashayar]

That is true, I didnt state this myself, I have heard this from a retired high-ranked officer of the Iranian Air Force.
He was trained in the USA and he told me that the basis of the Iranian Army is made upon the power that nation gave them. It is a national Army.
They are still pro-Shah and they have been trained in UK and the USA!
Well, I can prove this if any one want me to!
the most important reason is the coup they did in 1980 and that caused the death of 9000 Iranian Armed Forces personnel in less than 2 years.
I can offer the website of http://www.iiaf.net for more info and details.
Please stand with us and just listen.
That can work out.

[RightOnline]

No need to invade, my friend. Your countrymen are well on the road to overthrowing their dictatorial leadership. The average American is finally wising up to the fact that a) Iranians are NOT 'Arabs', and are a fine people with a noble past who don't tolerate such dictatorship forever, and b) the average Iranian is NOT happy and would much rather have close relations with the West, especially the U.S.

I'll never forget the fact that it was the Iranian people who demonstrated on behalf of our country after 9-11, unlike the populace of ANY other Middle Eastern country (except for our long-time friends, Israel). That meant a lot to us, and it just spoke volumes about the Iranian people. God bless, and let's hope the overthrow is as nonviolent as possible with little-to-no loss of life. Get rid of the mullahs, and you know you'll have strong friends here in the U.S.

Final thought........................just keep in mind what would happen throughout the rest of the Middle East if we DID invade Iran, no matter how badly you want it. The average Iraqi was ecstatic to see us invade and toss out Saddam Hussein, yet look at the pure hell we've caught as a country from the rest of the world over it. If we did it again................oh my...................

[DoctorZIn]

I just want to make a comment on your question, permit me to paraphrase it "Why should we send our sons and daughters to die in Iran?"

I don't think now is the time to send in our troops in, but there are a few reason's why we must consider it.

Reason#1: Ending the regime in Iran will make it easier for us to rebuild Iraq. The Iranian regime is undermining our efforts there. They have sent in thousands of militants back into Iraq for the purpose of pushing us out. If the regime ends, and Iraqi's hear how Iranians hated the Islamic Republic, the support for an Islamic Republic in Iran will wither up and die. The result fewer US soldiers would die in Iraq.

Reason #2: The Iranian regime has an aggressive program for the development of nuclear weapons and they are developing a missile delivery system with the help of the Chinese. This is the regime that has said that an attack with a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel, would be worth it, even if Israel were to retaliate and kill 10 million Iranians.

Reason #3: The end of the Iranian regime will end the support for Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that has killed more Americans than any other group prior to 911.

Reason #4: Iran is the largest supporter of terrorism in the world today, even giving refuge to Al Qeada.

Reason #5: In Iran we would have the support of nearly the entire nation, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq and would end Iranian efforts to undermine our work in both nations. Few US soldier would likely die in such a effort.

Reason #6: A change of the regime would send the loudest message to the middle-east that the change is permanent.

These are just a few of the reason why it would be in our best interest to support the people of Iran at this time.

DoctorZin

[LibWhacker]

I would love nothing better than to take down an evil regime that funds international terror groups and liberating the Iranian people at the same time. God willing, we will deal with Iran in time.

You're right, Arthur. I respect you and I apologize to Khashayar. I'm just bitter at the way we are perceived in the world, particularly in that part of the world. Lord knows anyone living under those ignorant, vicious, corrupt mullahs is suffering a thousand times more than he deserves.

Still, I'm convinced, if we help him, Khashayar's children or grandchildren will hate us for our "interference," and will someday seek ways to smuggle nukes into our country to slaughter our own innocents.

We keep reading all these impassioned pleas for our help in Iran (accompanied by lots of clucking about our previous "inept meddling") but never an acknowledgement of the REAL problem: islam and socialism.

Never has there been such a force for good in the world as the US. I just think it's way past time for us to put our foot down and start putting people who want our help to the acid test.

[piasa]

Thankyou!

[piasa]

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that we had already sent the Green Baret into Iran.

My brother's been in Iran during the late 90s. He had webbed feet back then though, not a green French hat. I don't doubt that there are people there now. I would be very much surprised if there weren't.

[FairOpinion]

"These are the same desperate pleas that came out of Hungary in 1956. "
---

Yes, indeed. The US encouraged the Hungarians to rise up, they did, they overthrew the communists by themselves, then were slaughtered by the invading Soviets, while the US just sat there and watched.

I am dismayed at the number of people right here at FR, who are telling the Iranians that it's their fight, they should do it by themselves, which shows how they really don't have any idea of what it's like to live under oppressive governments. If it were so easy to overthrow them, people would have done it long time ago, but these governments rule by terror, killing anyone who dares to speak out.
These people here at FR also seem to be forgetting that Bush put Iran as one of the three "Axis of Evil" for a reason: their (Iranian government's) support of terrorism and development of WMD. And just another point: while thousands in various Arab countries danced on the street celebrating our tragedy on 9-11, thousands of Iranians held candelight vigils in sympathy for our loss, supporting the US.

I also read some polls of the American People, where some 60% said they would support military action in Iran against the Iranian government.

And for you, Khashayar -- Thank you for posting. Please keep posting and informing us what is happening in Iran, as well as continue to call for help, I am sure help from the US is coming, despite what you may read even here.

President Bush is different from a lot of other US presidents. He recognizes the evilness of the Iranian government, that is why he put Iran as one of 3 "Axis of Evil" countries. We liberated Iraq, and I am sure he is going to help the Iranian people achieve their freedom and a democratic government. Bush spoke in support of you, the Iranian freedom fighters, and he is a man of his word, he wouldn't have said that, unless he were ready to provide tangible support, not just words.

Don't give up, keep up your fight, I am sure that US help is coming sooner, rather than later.