631–640 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m suggesting by referring to Iran as an Arab country, you have demonstrated you know very little about the Middle East.
Perhaps you may want to address my argument instead of nit-picking on that I used "Arab world" instead of "Middle East"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a brutal dictatorial regime that finances international terrorists on your doorstep does that to you.
Yes, all those radical Iranian-backed terrorists on Canada and France's doorsteps have radicalized them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't recommend Heretic by Ayaan Hirsi Ali enough.
For those of us who haven't read it, could you explain why it's salient on this topic?
However, the abandonment argument is only valid if one already accepts Western values as an axiom - which being an English-language book most of the readers would agree with. These readers will perceive the book to promote the reform of Islam into a religion that resembles a modern Christian denomination, just with different idols and prayers and holidays.
However those who do not come from the perspective of modern Christian values and as axiomic, will reject the argument outright. This is the Muslim population who might read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just saying this to someone this morning. Iran’s theocracy was the only one that has withstood the Middle East political wars in Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. To rephrase it… if The Middle East was the UK, Iran would be British. If the Middle East was the US. Iran would be California.
> The Middle East was the UK, Iran would be British. Did you mean England perhaps, not "British"?
I work with and know a lot of Shia (non-Iranian) Muslims and listening to them talk about this assassination I'm convinced that the likelihood of attempted terror attacks against the US has increased significantly. The non-Iranian part is key. Millions of muslims around the world viewed the Iranian theocracy as the only power in the world fighting for Islam. They are devastated.
I was just saying this to someone this morning. Iran’s theocracy was the only one that has withstood the Middle East political wars in Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. To rephrase it… if The Middle East was the UK, Iran would be British. If the Middle East was the US. Iran would be California.
It’s so funny reading most comments here, knowing that they’d be celebrating and saying this is good if it was Netanyahu. But when it’s a maniacal islamist declaring his goal to be the destruction of US and Israel, it’s suddenly very nuanced.
I wonder how old the rest of the commentators are. I watched the Shock and Awe campaign. I watched Saddam fall. I remember thinking this is great. Years later, I understand it was a complete folly. Removing Saddam in itself was good but what it did the wider region was not good.
I am old enough. Iraq is not perfect today but so much better than it was. Go talk to Iraqis and see for yourself. It costs us some time, money and lives to get to this point. But Saddam (a tyrant who killed his own kind in masses with gas and started wars with neighbors) staying in power would have been way worse for the wider region.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US is not at war with Iran. Only the Congress has the right to declare war.
Why can't you be at war without officially declaring it? We have had lots of wars not declared by congress. Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq. This seems like a weird way to think.
The caveat being that the president only needs to get the approval of congress after 60 days.
And of course Obama established a precedent with his intervention in Libya which weakened this even more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last thing they should do is to import the Shah's exiled family member and make him their figurehead again. Both him and the mullahs are bad news.
I think you are speaking about the last Shah's first son: Reza Pahlavi. You can read about his planned policy for Iran here: https://rezapahlavi.org/en To quote: > For the transition from the Islamic Republic to a national, secular, and democratic government One idea is to transition to a secular democracy with a figurehead Shah like a northern European (or Japanese) monarchy. Also, my personal opinion: I think it is…
To return to a scion of the man who put that all in place would - in my opinion, of course - be a massive mistake.
Keep in mind that the Shah was a client of the United States and the United Kingdom and that his son isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart but because he wants what he thinks is his birthright back (he's been pretty vocal about that since his late teens), and that he has been living off wealth stolen from the Iranian people and squirreled out of the country by his father.
Of course he would present this as a transition but just wait until his ass hits that pluche and see if it isn't going to take another revolution to dislodge him.