Prosperity Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 March 13, 2004 http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1631 The demonstrations began some hours ago. Fereydunkenar is a small town in the northern province of Mazandaran. The people attacked and were able to liberate a building used by the Islamic Republic's security forces (Sentry Post #2). They then started moving to the city of Babolsar, but were soon confronted by Mazandaran's provincial security forces. They've been pushed back into Fereydunkenar and the latest news I've heard is that the small town is now divided between the rebels and the security forces and the scene of fierce street battles. At least 5 people have been killed and scores injured. NOTE, THIS UPRISING IS STILL CONTINUING. "It has been confirmed that the house belonging to the Mullah in charge of the city's Friday Prayers has been BURNED TO THE GROUND. Two members of the security forces have been killed. I've read on another report that the hospitals are not, or are no longer accepting the injured. " Latest news from Peykeiran in Persian http://web.peykeiran.com/net_iran/irnewsbody.aspx?ID=12952 English Synopsis Below: Latest News from Fereydunkenar: Moghdad Najaf Nejhad Resigns He finally resigned from Parliament. As a result of the rioting of the people in Fereydunkenar Mr. Moghdad fearing for his life and possessions finally resigned from Parliament. It must be noted that the Guardian Council dismissed 3 ballot boxes in order to 'appoint' Moghdad Najaf Nejhad as the winning candidate to the 7th Parliament over Dr. Hojatollah Roohi. The latest news from Fereydunkenar, 6.30pm 24 Esfand After hearing news of the attacks by the Sepah (Revolutionary Guards) the people headed towards the Revolutionary guards headquarters were they fought the Revolutionary Guards and the soldiers. There are reports of gunshots being heard from inside the Revolutionary Guards compound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Thank God. We need them to capture some armories in the major cities. Be strong and be unafraid to take casualties, but still have good tactical minds behind each local rebellion. The regime is teetering. All that is now needed is a strong wind, that produced by a people willing to fight to the death for freedom, to topple it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 14, 2004 Author Share Posted March 14, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of LeBuster Jenkins Thank God. We need them to capture some armories in the major cities. Be strong and be unafraid to take casualties, but still have good tactical minds behind each local rebellion. The regime is teetering. All that is now needed is a strong wind, that produced by a people willing to fight to the death for freedom, to topple it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Hopefully just the beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 I can't help but feel that this would be a good time for the CIA to do some covert "regime-toppling." I was against the Iraq war, but could you imagine a free and democratic Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? Then Pakistan would be surrounded by democracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 I hate top be the pessimist, but I don't see the outcome of this being any good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black I can't help but feel that this would be a good time for the CIA to do some covert "regime-toppling." I was against the Iraq war, but could you imagine a free and democratic Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? Then Pakistan would be surrounded by democracies. Who said they aren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 What about Morocco or Algeria--they ain't democratic, partly because the Islamist parties were going to win the election(well, in Algeria) ?? Is democracy the goal or is it a more reliable means? Unfortunately, in some places the forces of tyranny are pretty popular and well-organized. In those cases, something less than democracy is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Ghost, are you advocating the establishment of US-friendly dictatorships? Or a weaker form of interventionism, such as is being practiced in Nicaragua? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Ancal Whatever is required. For instance, in Africa, I'd love to see Mugabe swinging from a yardarm, and I'd love to see the entire continent adopt non-state-dominated economic models--BUT, they are not, currently, a threat to US security and freedom. Therefore, I'd argue for a weaker form in that part of the world. But in the Middle East? Well, democracy is still the preferred option, but there may have to be an "out clause" that no Islamist party may hold power? Something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 That seems a dangerous path. The US adopted something of the sort with the Shah of Iran, and with the Contras in Nicaragua (and with countless other dictatorships in Central and South America). Indeed, the USA's history is rife with examples of our government propping up deeply unpopular governments because of "stability" (we did this to Saddam Hussein too, remember?). The result is always the same: popular revolution with a markedly anti-US flavor, or incredibly repressive tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 14, 2004 Author Share Posted March 14, 2004 What the US needs in the Middle East are genuine allies, countries that actually like Americans and the United States. (A good example would be Israel, which is America's only reliable ally in the Middle East at the moment.) If Iran's theocracy is overthrown with some help from the US and a constitutional republic or even a constitutional monarchy is set up then the Iranian people will genuinely be thankful and be a reliable ally against the forces fanatical Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 I really hope you're right, Equality--especially about that "constitutional republic" part. Not so sure we should go around setting up kings and queens. By the way, is anyone else a bit disturbed that if Bush wins the election, the next presidential battle might be (Jeb) Bush vs. (Hillary) Clinton? Seem a little dynastic to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Ancal It's a dangerous path, but I think what I mean is this: I don't care about "Stability" lol I just don't want fanatical ideologues intent on exporting whatever harebrained revolution of theirs via violence and slavery to the rest of us. So, no Islamist parties allowed to hold power. They can even organize, but they can't hold office. No Communist parties allowed to hold power. No Nazis. Very simple as to why--because these groups necessarily eliminate the democracy after they take over. Only parties that are dedicated to continuing the process and basic freedoms are valid. I guess it's kind of like Morocco where the king has issued some basic reforms. I don't know, I know power corrupts but I think you could have friendly AND non-malevolent authoritarian regimes in place. As long as they only suppress the aforementioned groups. The problem is those people we aligned with weren't interested in merely suppressing the one kind of ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black I really hope you're right, Equality--especially about that "constitutional republic" part. Not so sure we should go around setting up kings and queens. By the way, is anyone else a bit disturbed that if Bush wins the election, the next presidential battle might be (Jeb) Bush vs. (Hillary) Clinton? Seem a little dynastic to you? Yep. I firmly believe, as someone who wants to see the Republicans reformed from within, that a Jeb Bush nomination would be a disaster. The last thing that party needs is more mush-brained(though Jeb is much sharper) right-of-center statism. They need to set themselves up as truly different than the Democrats on more than just gay marriage, tax cuts(which are only part of a much larger picture) and security. Although a Hillary Presidency would be a disaster for the American people IF it coincided with a Democratic shift in Congress. Sorry, the B**** is pure evil( and I don't say that because of her affiliation) We need to end the days of career leeching politicians. Term limits, I dont' care about "if you vote them out, that is a limit." No thanks. NO THANKS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 15, 2004 Author Share Posted March 15, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black I really hope you're right, Equality--especially about that "constitutional republic" part. Not so sure we should go around setting up kings and queens. By the way, is anyone else a bit disturbed that if Bush wins the election, the next presidential battle might be (Jeb) Bush vs. (Hillary) Clinton? Seem a little dynastic to you? Jeb Bush for president? Haven't heard about that one but it would be pretty funny if he ran against Hillary. Hillary would probably lose people hate her for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 People hate her because she is a lying, backstabbing, law-breaking, power hungry, fat witch that cares nothing about the people. All she wants is to obtain the presidency so she can go into the record books as the first woman president. Her social agenda will further "dumb down" america and further damage the American family. As if spending money on the public education system will solve the problem..... as if nationalizing health care will lead to better health care..... as if taxing American people anymore will help the situation. I'll move elsewere if that witch is elected, but I'll do everything in my power to spread the word about her true motives up until her innaguration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 I'll move elsewere if that witch is elected... Will you really? I said the same of GWB and I put my money where my mouth was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 15, 2004 Author Share Posted March 15, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Will you really? I said the same of GWB and I put my money where my mouth was. Are you Tom Cruise?:paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 No, I would not divorce Nicole Kidman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Will you really? I said the same of GWB and I put my money where my mouth was. No offense, AtB, but I wish the rest of them would move away with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 AtB You moved to a country that has almost gotten rid of guns, even to the point of getting into a shootout or two with FREEmen, and is banning SWORDS and has "immigrants" gang-raping Australian girls(Immigrants from TROP) and who have embraced the worst of European leftist values----cuz GWB was elected??! Please tell me it was coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 If 2008 is Hillary vs. Jeb, I'm writing in myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.