It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irans solution<?>

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
At this very critical juncture in the history of the Middle East, the best insurance against our current cycle of violence, terrorism and nuclear threats, will be the replacement of an inherently undemocratic and intolerant system of theocracy with a pluralistic, progressive and all-inclusive democratic system, guarantying popular sovereignty and self-determination for all Iranians.

In closing, let me emphasize the crucial, yet limited window of opportunity which could enable a most legitimate process of change happening by the Iranian people’s own hands. Parallel to Iranian democrats fighting for non-violent regime change, the regime is gearing up for a final show down against its own citizens and the free world.

Who will get to the finish line first? Will it be the opposition, today armed with a pragmatic solution in the form of a referendum project which calls for the election of a constituent assembly charged with the drafting of a new secular constitution based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thus putting an end to theocracy in favor of democracy, or, will it be the ruling clerics ultimately armed with nuclear arsenal, thus blackmailing the rest of the free world?

To avoid the unpleasant, yet ultimate option of military confrontation, it is vitally important to maximize the chances of success for the process my compatriots and I are engaged in as we speak. I therefore hope that the international community will recognize the state of urgency that could significantly shape our near future: for the better, by standing with the people of Iran; for worse by ignoring the true intentions and inherent nature of the Islamic regime in Tehran. The choice ought to be simple and clear. I hope I made it clearer for this distinguished audience today.

Harvard University Speech.



What do people think about this? be keen to hear feedback.




posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I enjoyed reading it and hope that things turn out the best vis-a-vis with Iran. If not for the current crisis involving Nuclear activities, I think Iran's government would collapse on its own within 7-15 years just based on internal happenings there(ie the youth of the nation). My fear is that the Theocracy will plow ahead with its nuclear ambitions and at the same time fuel nationlism which would have been directed inward towards changing Iran and focus it outwards in a way that deflects the energy that the reform minded youths and others have for change in their country. The US walks a fine line trying to encourage reform while making sure our security interests are taken care of as well.

I hope things work out well.

Cheers and Good Luck


Sep

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   
If it is left on its own I would give it till 2008 til they fall.


About the speech, there were a lot of good points made. Of they were made by someone else I would have respected it more but for the son of the Shah to lecture people about democracy and human right, its just not right.

One point that he made during his speech was that he wouldnt mind at all if the United States intervined in Iran on his behalf.

He mentioned "The nationalization of oil by Iran in the early 50’s led to the formation of OPEC and changed the Middle East for the better" He should remember that his father was against it. The democracy which he is now totaly in favour of was overthrown by his father and other western powers in exchange for the Shah remaining in power.

Any way he made a lot of good points as I mentioned, but it is easy to be the opposition and critisize. I dont think the shah would have done much better economically if he was at was for 8 years and under heavy sanctions ever since.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
screw that bastard, he's another lying chalabi type pos-he's in it for himself and he doesn't care how many people die. not gettin fooled by one of those idiotys again. Iran already has some kind of democratic system, they have had elections and have made *some* reforms, a puppet zionist regime with the country in a protracted gurilla war like Iraq is not democracy..If the west wants democracy then they can encourage Iran to strengthen it's parliamentary body vis-a-vis the theocratic branch it shares power with. America isn't interested in democracy, just building up it's declining empire to breaking point and then to collapse.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
What is it about Iran that needs to be "solved"? It is just a society which doesn't share Western values. We all believe our values are superior - maybe they are - but they also believe that they are more civilised. Who is really impartial enough to say whether they are right or wrong?

We would be best to leave the Iranian people to their own devices, rather than squandering resources on a forced regime change. If they wish to change their society, they will do so, just as we in the west have over the course of history.

What is the difference between one volatile middle eastern nation (Israel) possessing nuclear weapons, and another? And where is the concrete evidence that Iranian nuclear research is geared towards weapons production? As of yet they are no threat to Europe or North America, and pose very little danger for Israel, an ally of the US who doesn't seem to give back much compared to what is given to it.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
What is it about Iran that needs to be "solved"? It is just a society which doesn't share Western values. We all believe our values are superior - maybe they are - but they also believe that they are more civilised. Who is really impartial enough to say whether they are right or wrong?

We would be best to leave the Iranian people to their own devices, rather than squandering resources on a forced regime change. If they wish to change their society, they will do so, just as we in the west have over the course of history.

What is the difference between one volatile middle eastern nation (Israel) possessing nuclear weapons, and another? And where is the concrete evidence that Iranian nuclear research is geared towards weapons production? As of yet they are no threat to Europe or North America, and pose very little danger for Israel, an ally of the US who doesn't seem to give back much compared to what is given to it.


Just pause for a minute.(Pause)Look at what your talking about. No one cares the Iranian government (per say), it is simply the threat that they pose to Israel. It isn't all that political and deep. Iran is a problem for Israel merely by the terrorism they support and the nucl programme can't chanced with the irritation Israel recieves from Iran. Iran being overthrown by it's own citizens because of disgruntled youth isn't realistic. No one is willing to face a military over such an improbable task. Such is to say that the Americans disgruntled Neo-cons and Jewish warmongering, low class whites, blacks and underpaid mexicans will overthrow America because of their condition. It simply isn't likely. I personally beleive that Israel should confront Israel's "problems" and not the U.S. Any pro-Israeli or American view is not realistic in that the r"reason" usually lacks facts. Iran have no regional allies to really be sen with a respect of fear and was on the road to fighting afghanistan before us!



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   

We would be best to leave the Iranian people to their own devices, rather than squandering resources on a forced regime change. If they wish to change their society, they will do so, just as we in the west have over the course of history.


I would be more than happy to not bother them at leave them to their own devices, however that is just not possible when their government and regime threat our interests. Example their support for hezballa their support and funding of the insurgents in Iraq their support for the death of the Infidels. And the latest their obsession with acquiring a nuclear weapon. When they stop all those things I would be more than happy to lave them alone and not give care in the world about WTF they are doing.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

We would be best to leave the Iranian people to their own devices, rather than squandering resources on a forced regime change. If they wish to change their society, they will do so, just as we in the west have over the course of history.


I would be more than happy to not bother them at leave them to their own devices, however that is just not possible when their government and regime threat our interests. Example their support for hezballa their support and funding of the insurgents in Iraq their support for the death of the Infidels. And the latest their obsession with acquiring a nuclear weapon. When they stop all those things I would be more than happy to lave them alone and not give care in the world about WTF they are doing.




People in Iran are really ****ed!! especially youth.




They have a government that does not support them and which they are mostly against ideologically!
The economy is dead and the outside world does not want to hear about it!

and they generally see the situation as quoted above.

well maybe this is Iran's way to get its plea heard!

I think leaving a cancerous cell alone and hoping it would go away is foolish. The only thing that the cell would do is grow and try to infect the other organs.

Help us if you can.

I am glad finaly at least you are hearing about the problems!

Iranian Youth.(Not Arab:for the record)



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
lets see what the young Iranians 30 and under will do
let us be patient.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep


Any way he made a lot of good points as I mentioned, but it is easy to be the opposition and critisize. I dont think the shah would have done much better economically if he was at was for 8 years and under heavy sanctions ever since.


I assume you mean War not was. Well you see if Imperial Iranian Army and Air force was functional Iraqi attack would not have happened. Secondly under shah Iran would not have been under heavy sanctions!


If RIAF were functional and running- not mostly in jail!!!!- Iranian Air Space would not have been un guarded so that the Iraqis using Russian Junk could penetrate and breach. They would have been blown out of the sky mostly in BSR.

You see your paradox?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
the US do something smart for once, covertly remove a few of the extrimist hardliners and let the Iranians work out the rest for themselves. The problem is a handful of powerful zealot extremists not the average man on the street. Eliminate the extremeist then engage the moderate who replace then so that they too do not become extremeists and you will have effected all the change necessary with any needless bloodshed.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The affairs of Iran is the business of the Iranian people. Any change to the political system and government of Iran will come from within Iran.
I am 1000% certain that the overwhelming majority of Iranians would agree with me. We can't have laws of the jungle or the Wild West ruling in the world. Furthermore, it is very unwise to believe that democracy is something that can be implanted in a country. Each country must be allowed to follow its own course of political, social and cultural evolution, and at its own pace. As much as I would like to see democracy work in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm confident that it won't, because it's not home-grown. But besides that, it's none of the business of the U.S. to overthrow governments of other countries and deliver "democracies". Particularly not since it's done with the wrong intentions and with a big dose of hypocrisy and double standards. Why is it so urgent that some societies that are not so friendly towards the U.S. government must become democratic according to the U.S., while some other governments that are really totalitarian like those of Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and the other sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf - all "friends" of the U.S. are being left alone more or less? One of the most characteristic traits of U.S. policy has always been its double standards and hypocrisy.

As for the Iranian opposition outside of Iran, it's a total mess! The Iranian opposition is largely made up of a bunch of incompetent and selfish bigmouths who are out of touch with the realities in Iran. And I would brand some of them as traitors. Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran is one of the incompetent bigmouths. As far as I'm concerned, he's not half as much Iranian as he's American. He has no clue about what the life of grassroot Iranians entails.

The exile TV & radio stations in L.A. that broadcast into Iran 24 hrs a day are a perfect example of the character of the exile opposition. Although most of them are supporters of the restoration of a constitutional monarchy in Iran, none of them gets along with the other. Instead of joining forces and creating one very good satellite TV channel and one very good radio station, with so much more funds and expertise available so that high quality programs could be produced, they have more than 10 different TV stations and probably hundreds of different radio stations. Iranians in Iran ridicule these clowns. If they watch their programs it would only be for the sake of the Persian music - although even their choice of Persian music is lowzy.

These monarchist radio and TV stations have a loyal following of a few thousand people in Tehran. Almost everytime there is a riot or anti-regime demonstration in Tehran, it has been instigated by these exile media outlets. And every time, there is never more than a couple thousand at the very most who participate on foot, and perhaps another thousand or two thousand who "participate" by circling around in their cars honking their horns - and that in a city of some 15 million inhabitants.

The reason that the masses never take to the streets except for on revolution day, is not because they are thrilled with what they have. It's because they know that there is no better alternative at the present time, and they also appreciate Iran's total independence and are wary of the fact that a lot of the opposition groups abroad, if not all, are to reliant on foreign powers. The overwhelming majority of Iranians do not want another revolution. They want gradual change and they'd rather be patient than to be too hasty and have to regret it afterwards. The last thing most Iranians want is any kind of intervention from the U.S. Iranians have still not forgotten the 1953 fiasco with the CIA backed coup against prime minister Mossadeq. A coup that actually failed, although the CIA and the Americans are eager to take credit for it.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
1) The Western World (US and Isreal)will not allow Iran in it's current incarnation to have nukes.
2)The Current Hardliners back terrorists and are unlikely to stop.
3)It is no stretch to see nukes fall into terrorist hands.
4)It is unlikly that the Hardliners will change their minds/step down.

Ergo Iran in on a collision course with the West and while there are many possible out comes the most likely are.

1)WAR bad for all parties concerned (especialy Iran), as Germany and France would probably particpate and Iraq is one huge staging area. (I have freinds that are Irainian expats although they call themselves Persian
great folks and if typical of the average Irainian it would be a tragedy.

2) Limited military action from Isreal or others....not as bad but again possibly catestrophic for the locals

3)Internal revolution/coup not likely in the US (good Lord President Cheney :O ) only slightly less likely in Iran.

4)Select clandestine removal (not necessarily killed but render politially impotent) of select Iranian officals to nudge the Iranian government away from a weapons program, then diplomatic engagement with the West to stabilise the region

5) Worst case Iran builds and deploys a nuke or sells/ gives it to a third party who deploys it. If it is used against Israel Tehran and Damacus will be
washed away by a man made sun, millions dead on both sides or worse yet an American city is nuked, the president would respind in kind and in all probability nuke Mecca,Medina, Tehran, Damascus, Pyonyang and 100 other cities billions dead.


What is your scenario?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
How about Iran sets up nuclear power stations, has the know how and potential to create Abomb but does not make them because they don't have to???? is that so impossible????


Sep

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan
I assume you mean War not was. Well you see if Imperial Iranian Army and Air force was functional Iraqi attack would not have happened. Secondly under shah Iran would not have been under heavy sanctions!


The man said the Islamic government is under-performing. I am saying that if under the same circumstances the shah was put in place he would not have done much better.

And thanks for the spelling tip. I assume you mean Imperial Iranian Army and Air force “were” not was.


Originally posted by zurvanIf RIAF were functional and running- not mostly in jail!!!!-


The RIAF? The Royal Indian Air force dropped its royal prefix after it became a republic in 1950, and none of its pilots went to jail. Now it is called IAF.

I assume you mean IIAF. And indeed they were powerful. But again do you blame the current regime for the war? Most people these days blame Saddam, an external problem which was forced on the Iranian nation. This sent Iran back many years and even if the Shah came back to power after the war the economic mess that was created by Saddam could not be fixed quickly.


Originally posted by zurvanIranian Air Space would not have been un guarded so that the Iraqis using Russian Junk could penetrate and breach.


Don’t make this an Iran-Iraq war thread. The facts are the war was imposed on Iran, it severely hurt Iran’s economy, and neither the Shah nor this new Prince would have done much better if they were put in the Mullahs place.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep


Don’t make this an Iran-Iraq war thread. The facts are the war was imposed on Iran, it severely hurt Iran’s economy, and neither the Shah nor this new Prince would have done much better if they were put in the Mullahs place.




The Iraq war is over, and the winner is Iran."
The Enemy of my Enemy is my Enemy



by the way to reply to your comment. If shah was in power the attack and war would not have happened or had it happened it would not have lasted long and Saddam would not have been able to inflict as much damage. Are you arguing against that?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join