Quote Originally Posted by Dream of the iris
P4B is right. The reason why the minority is controlling the majority is because of fear. And you're wrong daihashi . Bringing a Shah into power sounds like it would work but it wouldn't. Think about it. Yes the majority would love us and the new Shah but what about the 10 or 20 percent who feel their country is being corrupted by these western beliefs and practices? Its called terrorism and I gurentee you in a society like Iran it would probably end up being very similar to Iraq. We would come in everyone would be happy but then car bombs would start going off and people would start blowing themselves up. Then what? American soldiers get scared so they begin to act more rash....not to the terrorists who are convieniently hiding within its own people but to the people of Iran. Once the people of Iran begin to get affected by this liberation in a negative way, thats when you lose support from everyone and then you end up with people who hate you and more terrorists. To make matters worse unless we invaded right before they carried out their tests for a nuclear bomb, which is what would probably end up happening, we would be faced with an unstable Iraq like country with a nuclear bomb in their hands. Anyway that would be the least of my worries though because if you wanted to put a Shah in power that would mean at least some sort of attack on Iran that would probably lead to a war which we wouldn't win you know why? War torn soldiers, virtually no support from the American people, and the great incentive the Iranian people would have compared to us. I mean think about it, Iranians are fighting for their livelihoods whereas we would just be fighting because the government told us. And if this conflict went as long as Iraq did I gurentee you, that you would probably see some sort of limited selective service act which would ultimately lead to political suicide. Of course we wouldn't stay in the conflict that long because our economy is declining so we wouldn't even be able to afford it. Internationally its too hard to say exactly what would happen but I bet you we wouldn't get that much support, especially once it became another miserable failure. See that's the problem with getting into conflicts these days. We're so interconnected so one action affects millions. I don't think Obama nor any president will bring us to this point because they all know it would mean suicide for them. The only person who might do this is Bush but that's because at this point he really doesn't have that much to lose. But I agree with P4B when he says Obama isn't going to change anything. He might change something a little bit but you guys have to understand. Change, especially big change, doesn't just happen overnight and you can't necessarily depend on one leader to do the job. Obama is a politician and like every politician you have to be leery about him. Stop getting caught up in his words that he's spoon feeding you to get the vote. He'll do something like every other president but it might not necessarily be what everyone wants.....so get siked! This is gonna be an exciting ride!
All I have to say is the following, and I would like you to re-read what you wrote after reading the following sayings/cliches out loud:

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

"You have to learn to crawl before you can walk"

So the question is in knowing this.. do you please that crazy fanatical 10-20%... or do you try to please the majority 80% and then try to combat the terrorism?


Secondly.. you are seriously overthinking the situation. Car bombs, Soldiers getting scared and acting rash. Aren't you getting detailed. A little too detailed. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk... Meaning a course of action has to be determined first before you can start thinking as far forward as you are.

First off I never suggested that we go to War with Iran. Obviously, if you've been reading ANY of my posts, I have personal reason for NOT wanting the US to invade Iran.

I simply stated my thoughts on what would make that region less hostile and make the people of that region more happy.

Lastly, if you've read any of my posts you'll know I do NOT support Barack Obama.

It's one thing to misinterpret information. It's another to label me falsely.

daihashi Reviewed by daihashi on . Iran slams Obama's nuclear vow as 'unacceptable' Iran's foreign ministry on Thursday slammed US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's pledge to work to "eliminate" the threat posed by Tehran as "unacceptable" and biased. "It is undeniable that the nature of the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said, quoted by the official IRNA news agency. "These comments are certainly one-sided and unreal, and are completely contrary to the nature of the Iranian peaceful nuclear Rating: 5