reply to post by SplitInfinity
I do understand your comments. And they do make a lot of sense. I.e. Iran saving face during a window of opportunity, rather than letting SHTF first.
I mean, it would make great sense for Iran to do that. They could keep their nuclear program - which if it is currently intended for peaceful purposes
- won't be a problem for them.
I have seen a lot of the videos linked here regarding iran's head of defence. I've also gotta watch the second matrix again - good movie haha.
But about iran's head of military - they are very intimidating, and almost disregard any chance of a real compromise between all nations.
This goes for israel as well. They hold very firm beliefs towards the iranian regime, but are told to refrain from an offensive-defence or "counter
attack" by the US.
Although, the ONLY thing i have great trouble with a lot of what people say, (including, but not limited to your post) is america's thirst for
democratic state in iran.
It's extremely difficult to approach this, because 50 years ago, the CIA helped impose a leader in favour of the anglo iranian oil company's plans
to take the oil away from the iranian economy. So america was widely seen as the culprits.
Although in the 70's, Ruhollah Khomeini was seen as a saviour to the nation, in favour of a democracy, and was brought into power as their first
However, as soon as he came into power, he introduced a referendum to swap the monarchy with an islamic state, which 98% agreed with.
I have an iranian-born workmate who was in the iran/iraq war who sat down in his office one day after work and told me all this, and how khomeini -
despite having good intentions originally, was an idiot as he was also corrupted by power and foreign interests towards his death, and ended up
removing oil from the iranian economy like his predecessor, against his own original goals.
We should try and push them towards a "state religion" (rather than secular), so that way, they can at least have a state endorsed religion without
having to let themselves be run ENTIRELY by "divine guidance".
Imposing secular belief would be to seperate government from religion entirely, but the former is a great compromise in my opinon.
Sure, the youth have always wanted a democracy, but they are being blinded by a theocratic government that is trying to get back at the western world
in a way that defies a lot of international laws. Unfortunately they don't see that they aren't taking a good path.
It's like you hitting my car on the road, so i pull you out of your car and beat you until you're unconscious rather than talking, and understanding
that maybe you made a bad judgement (in this context, iran shouldn't hold modern america accountable for the actions of the AIOC). Perhaps instead,
they should look at the culprits that are still in existence, like the CIA, who guided a leader into power, without the opinion of the iranian people.
Rather than stationing the US navy and airforce in the strait of hormuz, perhaps the UN should aim to comprimise between helping iran by holding those
accountable for their actions 50 years ago - WHILE also trying to offer alternative governments chosen by a predominantly young iranian population,
and if they disagree - well then the world will know the iranian regime has no goal other than domination.
That way, when they go to build nuclear weapons, it won't be on bad terms - or instead no one should have nuclear weapons. That would be a perfect