POLL: When should the USA liberate Iran?

First of all, you have no right to decide what form of government another sovereign nation chooses to have. Secondly, they do NOT have nuclear weapons. Third, you apparently don't really care about whether or not they have nukes. For you it isn't about the nukes, it is about the oil. Fourth, Pakistan (an Islamic state) already has nukes, and yet I don't see you calling for invading/liberating them. And finally, buy a grammar book because, damn.

 

We can get the oil and exterminate Islamic Terrorists at the same time. Its win-win.

God bless America.

 

the USA liberated Iraq, and look what an amazing success that was.

same with Libya and Egypt.

maybe we should try not getting involved, for once.

let regional states deal with it.

 

Yes, this is also possible. We should support either Israel or Saudi Arabia to liberate Iran.

 

Indeed. We've armed the Saudis to the teeth. Let them deal with it. Iran poses no threat to us.

 

Iran is a great ally against Sunni extremist terrorists, i.e. Al Qaeda, ISIS, Assad, etc..

 

Assad is a Shea & because he has the support of Syrian Orthodox Christians could probably not be counted as an extremist. Al Quaeda, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood could all be regarded as extremist IMO.

Freddy.

 

Once America starts openly stealing from those Nations it bashes into subservience then it also openly becomes just another empire waiting for the enevitable fall.

Freddy.

 

We should just move in and take them over. Don't you think? Then, we could control the oil and preserve peace. Also, the people would be much better off. Right?

 

About the only way America could do that to Iran without sinking to the level of Nazi Germany or the Mongol Empire is to incorporate Iran into the United States of America as a number of new states. Once that happens there will be many Shea legislators in the US congress. There will also be the possibility of an American Iranian Shea being elected US president, I can almost visualize the Israelis & Saudis screaming to the roof tops.

As for the Iranian people being better off probably but not by as much as what you would think & there could be some downfalls as well.

Freddy.

 

In what alternative reality is this true?

 

What isn't true about it? America doesn't execute people for being gay, for being raped, etc. We also have freedoms that the Iranians do not. Perhaps you should explain how the Iranian people are "better off" under their current regime?

 

Good point. I think you meant to say "Shiite" though. My comment was just made out of sarcasm and was facetious. Personally, I really wouldn't want the headaches involved with trying to incorporate such people into our secular country. It could possibly cause more trouble than it would be worth.

 

The number of Mizraim (Oriental Jews) living in Iran today is closer to 30,000.

Many left because Israel gave them money, jobs, ad property which were denied to Palestinians and others already living there.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, by the way, how many Jews are living in Bush's favorite Arab country Saudi Arabia?

 

No, people left because they were persecuted for their religious beliefs.

 

Saudi Arabia and Iran are the same. The only difference is that Saudis want to work with America, because we meet their demands. There are virtually no jews in Saudi Arabia. Jewish services are prohibited on their soil.

 

Our military and political experience in the Middle East and South Asia is that those we "save" fair far worse than they would have if we had simply left them alone. Is Iraq better off? Definitely Not. Afghanistan? Probably not. So what's the point? Iran is no threat to us.

- - - Updated - - -

So what? No services that are not Islamic services are allowed in Saudi Arabia. It is, after all, the seat of Islam.

 

I said if we took over. If Iraq had become a territory owned by the US, those people would be a lot better off. They would be living by our secular laws. We would have contractors over there rebuilding, which means JOBS for those people. They would have electricity, running water, etc. However, like I told another poster, I was mostly being facetious because it wouldn't be worth the money we would have to sink into that hell pit.

 

Except that we don't have the right to force our laws or culture on ANYONE for any reason. They are a sovereign nation, dude.

 

Well, it used to be that when you went to war with a country, you gained the "spoils of war."

 

Yes, but this is the 21st century, not the 13th.

 

So what? Like I said, don't you think the people would be better off? Yes, they would be, whether they realize it or not. Like I said though, I am being facetious because in no way do I want our country to have put out that kind of expense, nor would I want to us to have to deal with all of their problems, but you cannot deny the fact that those people would be better off.

 

i am not at all certain of that
i agree that there are numerous "problems"
as there were in saddams iraq and Syria and Libya....but i just do not see the history of regime change as having a great record

 

Regime change? We aren't talking about dictatorships here. We are talking about the United States taking control and enforcing OUR laws. I already explained how the people would be better off under our rule, as opposed to the various dictatorships they have suffered through, and will continue to do so because people seem to believe that a country can adopt democracy overnight. It takes time for a democratic government to take hold and work, years and years, especially for people who are used to being ruled by a dictator. The United States is already an established democracy, so it would be completely different.

 

Are your really sure about this