Iran to Execute Protestors

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew ... 4520090626

The situation in Iran continues to worsen as the Islamic Fascist dictatorship continues to dig its own grave. That's a hell of a lot of people if they do try to do it. They'll likely have a revolution on their hands.

[Galloism]

That's it. It's time to... ahem... "liberate" them.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

They haven't made an official decision yet. So far, it's just one leading cleric calling for it. But we should hope that they are sane enough that they would not even try it.
Anyone who believes in prayer should pray.

[Kryozerkia]

It will only fuel the protesters' desire for reformation. The executions will likely be viewed as cowardice by a government desperately clinging to power. If they try and execute that many, it will no doubt put the government between a rock and a hard place internationally, causing to to lose legitimacy.

A thousand hands praying will never do a fraction of the work two hands deep in oozing sludge would.

That's it. It's time to... ahem... "liberate" them.

The people clearly desire democratic freedom, but would it be a good idea for the west to go in? Or would we end up with another Iraq?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Don't even think about putting that into practice, Cleric Ahmad Khatami.

[Greed and Death]

last time they had issues like this just a few years after the revolution.
The oil workers didn't want to work for what the government offered and refused.
The governments response was to begin executing the oil workers families in front of them.
Worked after the first thousand families.

[United Anacreon]

I say, to start a revolution you must have martyrs.

If we don't intervene, and we can fund a coup in Iran, we can bring back democracy and a pro-western government without "liberating" them.

[Londim]

That's it. It's time to... ahem... "liberate" them.

That would be bad. This is a situation where the Iranians have to decide the future themselves.

[Yootopia]

I say, to start a revolution you must have martyrs.

If we don't intervene, and we can fund a coup in Iran, we can bring back democracy and a pro-western government without "liberating" them.

This being a solid, proven strategy for the US in the middle east.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I say, to start a revolution you must have martyrs.

If we don't intervene, and we can fund a coup in Iran, we can bring back democracy and a pro-western government without "liberating" them.

There is a martyr already: Neda.

[Galloism]

That's it. It's time to... ahem... "liberate" them.

That would be bad. This is a situation where the Iranians have to decide the future themselves.

Your sarcasmeter needs fixin'.

[Londim]

That's it. It's time to... ahem... "liberate" them.

That would be bad. This is a situation where the Iranians have to decide the future themselves.

Your sarcasmeter needs fixin'.

It's already in the shop.

[Greed and Death]

I say, to start a revolution you must have martyrs.

If we don't intervene, and we can fund a coup in Iran, we can bring back democracy and a pro-western government without "liberating" them.

So treat the mideast like Latin America.

[Vervaria]

I say, to start a revolution you must have martyrs.

If we don't intervene, and we can fund a coup in Iran, we can bring back democracy and a pro-western government without "liberating" them.

Does not compute. Also, the only time there was ever democracy in Iran, the US and Britain overthrew the democratic government and installed a pro-west dictator, so the US bringing "back" democracy to Iran would be a little ironic.

[Galloism]

I say, to start a revolution you must have martyrs.

If we don't intervene, and we can fund a coup in Iran, we can bring back democracy and a pro-western government without "liberating" them.

So treat the mideast like Latin America.

Because that worked so well last time.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

It will only fuel the protesters' desire for reformation. The executions will likely be viewed as cowardice by a government desperately clinging to power. If they try and execute that many, it will no doubt put the government between a rock and a hard place internationally, causing to to lose legitimacy.

A thousand hands praying will never do a fraction of the work two hands deep in oozing sludge would.

That's it. It's time to... ahem... "liberate" them.

The people clearly desire democratic freedom, but would it be a good idea for the west to go in? Or would we end up with another Iraq?

Considering Iraq, Afghanistan, and now our decision to send weapons to Somalia, even if we wanted to, our hands our tied. We'd have to pull people from Iraq, Afghan, South Korea, Germany, Japan, kuwait, the US homeland, we'd even have to pull who ever we got in South America too. That would leave the lower 48 vulnerable.

[Eofaerwic]

Hopefully the regime is not so suicidal as to actually go through with this, I can't think of anything more likely to inflame the opposition (other than possibly the Supreme Leader coming out and saying "There has been no election fraud, nothing to see here". Oh wait, he did that )

There will be change in Iran after these protests. The question is, how much. The more the regime digs it's heels in and pushes, the more the protesters will push back.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

I say, to start a revolution you must have martyrs.

If we don't intervene, and we can fund a coup in Iran, we can bring back democracy and a pro-western government without "liberating" them.

Does not compute. Also, the only time there was ever democracy in Iran, the US and Britain overthrew the democratic government and installed a pro-west dictator, so the US bringing "back" democracy to Iran would be a little ironic.

That "democracy" was about to declare an alliance with the Soviet Union, putting the west's strategic interests at threat. It's the same thing that caused US policy in Latin America. The US interfered in these countries to block them from allying with the Soviet Union.

[United Anacreon]

Because that worked so well last time.

Thousands of dead Sandinistas can't be wrong!

[Grays Harbor]

I have a bad feeling it will end up a full-blown civil war in Iran and spill over into neighboring countries.

[United Anacreon]

I have a bad feeling it will end up a full-blown civil war in Iran and spill over into neighboring countries.

The US would be dragged in, uncontrollable insurgennts spilling into Afghanistan and Iraq would guarantee US intervention.

[Greed and Death]

I have a bad feeling it will end up a full-blown civil war in Iran and spill over into neighboring countries.

The US would be dragged in, uncontrollable insurgennts spilling into Afghanistan and Iraq would guarantee US intervention.

If it is in Afghanistan maybe the rest of Nato can be forced to help.

[United Anacreon]

I have a bad feeling it will end up a full-blown civil war in Iran and spill over into neighboring countries.

The US would be dragged in, uncontrollable insurgennts spilling into Afghanistan and Iraq would guarantee US intervention.

If it is in Afghanistan maybe the rest of Nato can be forced to help.

I am quite optimistic...I hope they can resolve this peacefully, but if not, NATO and US troops, and possibly AU and NZ could do much to help.

[Grays Harbor]

Or, in order to avoid any accusations of "interfering" we could just throw a cordon around Iran and let them fight amongst themselves.

Any US or NATO intervention would not go well as at least half of the international community would be against whatever the US did, not to mention all the domestic discord here in the US with a new round of anti-war agitation.

The US just needs to keep a strict "hands-off" policy in Iran going.

[Galloism]

I have a bad feeling it will end up a full-blown civil war in Iran and spill over into neighboring countries.

The US would be dragged in, uncontrollable insurgennts spilling into Afghanistan and Iraq would guarantee US intervention.

Don't worry. They'll greet us as liberators.