Join 3,411 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Iranians for peace
February 2, 2005 5:27 PM   Subscribe

Pre-emptive protest: Iranians for peace "No war can contribute to the establishment of liberty and democracy in our country. 'Iranians for Peace' welcomes the opinions of Iranian people around the globe who are in opposition to war."
posted by hoder (17 comments total)

 
Eh, he'll thank us later, after he's endured the deaths of one or two close family members and then he gets to vote for a candidate he's never heard of.
posted by psmealey at 5:53 PM on February 2, 2005


Pre-emptive protest: Canadians for peace.

Do you really believe we're looking for world domination?
posted by sled at 5:54 PM on February 2, 2005


good site, but i know my "dear leader" isn't listening.

the hope i have for Iran (and Syria, and everywhere else mentioned as next) is that we're so bogged down in Iraq we can't afford to have any more adventures in democracy-building"
posted by amberglow at 5:57 PM on February 2, 2005


i am terrified tho, that we'll drag Israel into all this to act for us, and start WW3 for real.
posted by amberglow at 5:58 PM on February 2, 2005


Invading Iran is impossible now, but attacking it not.
posted by hoder at 6:01 PM on February 2, 2005


i know---that's why i bring up the Israel angle. I hear we've been playing airspace games as well recently, too.
posted by amberglow at 6:08 PM on February 2, 2005


Oh, I'm sure Israel wouldn't dream of breaching international law or aggressing against a neighbouring country.

*cough*

"the hope i have for Iran (and Syria, and everywhere else mentioned as next) is that we're so bogged down in Iraq we can't afford to have any more adventures in democracy-building"

I've heard that Syrians are fighting the US in Iraq, seeing it as a first line of defence against invasion of their own country. If this is true, perhaps Iranians would be similarly inclined.
posted by Wataki at 6:19 PM on February 2, 2005


"If this is true, perhaps Iranians would be similarly inclined."
If they have no love for the future of Iraq that is.
posted by blackankh at 6:30 PM on February 2, 2005


I've heard that Syrians are fighting the US in Iraq

I have heard positing of this possibility as a worst case scenario, but no implication that it was actually underway. If it is, then, welcome to WW3, it's already been started.
posted by psmealey at 6:38 PM on February 2, 2005


If they have no love for the future of Iraq that is.

I'm sure they have no love for the future the US has in mind - a neighbouring country full of military from a state who has listed their country on an "axis of evil" and has a history of illegally invading people to disarm them of weapons they don't have.

Consider this Iranian opinion from the blog:

Iranians have been suspicious of American intentions since 1953, when an American backed coup ousted the popular and democratic leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, in favor of a dictator, Mohamad Reza Pahlavi, who remained in power with US support, until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Even with the passing of over 50 years, the Iranian public remains suspicious and pessimistic when it comes to the US policy.

It's possible they somehow doubt the pure, righteous intentions of the world's reluctant but dutiful policeman.
posted by Wataki at 6:41 PM on February 2, 2005


I've heard that Syrians are fighting the US in Iraq


I tell you who I think we're fighting in Iraq - Saudi militants. If it were Syrians, wouldn't the Administration raise a public stink about it? I think we're fighting Saudis out there and both their government and ours are too sensitive and too embarrassed about it to allow it to become publicly known. How many times have you read something like "n Marines died in fighting yesterday in the restive province of Anbar. No details were available."? If it were Syrians (or even Iraqis,) there'd be little downside PR-wise in saying so. Jordanians are possible, but more likely to be loners. Fighting Saudis (or at least hunting them) in Anbar is the only thing I can think of that would compel them to keep so quiet about the details.
posted by trondant at 7:48 PM on February 2, 2005


welcomes the opinions of [people] who are in opposition to war.

What about those in favor of it? Otherwise it just becomes a lame circle jerk.
posted by BradNelson at 7:49 PM on February 2, 2005


tron has a good point.

Brad, are people in favor of it going to convince Iranians in Iran that being invaded and occupied a la Iraq is a good idea???
posted by amberglow at 7:56 PM on February 2, 2005


My take on Bush's address
posted by hoder at 8:09 PM on February 2, 2005


good and accurate take, hoder--we won't stand with Iranians that rise up--we never do, unless they're our cronies or puppets, unfortunately.

i think that developing the nuclear stuff is the only way to be kinda safe from us, even tho that sounds horrible.
posted by amberglow at 8:27 PM on February 2, 2005


Pre-emptive protest: Iranians for peace

Setting up a weblog at BlogSpot is protest?


Also, aparently this 'protester' can not read:


From the 'protest site':
I click on a link and read an essay in Frontpage Magazine in which it’s written of Iranians welcome to possible USA military action against Iran. I read all the lies—the truth is that there is no staying at home to see that speeches of George W. Bush, and there are no discussions of welcome to USA troops in taxis and buses. Also no so-called Civil Disobedience Movement, which sounds more foolish than making any sense. No one here—at least among the people I know—welcomes a war.
From the Frontpage Magazine article he/she links:
Many Iranians, who were looking for the World's super power firm moral support and financial aid to credible secularist opposition groups, are now becoming sure that Mr. Bush's agenda is indeed to help them to gain Freedom, Secularity and Democracy. They do believe correctly that such way will avoid an unnecessary US invasion or military strike against Iranian facilities which will help the Mullahcracy to consolidate its illegitimate and unpopular power, while causing heavy financial damages and human causalities.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:28 PM on February 2, 2005


Steve, we won't and don't give real support to "credible secularist opposition groups"--we didn't in Afghanistan, or Iraq, for 2 recent examples.

We give real support only to people like Saddam, or the Saudis, or the Taliban.
posted by amberglow at 6:50 AM on February 3, 2005


« Older Nostradamus vs. Nas: We here at Terminus En decide...  |  The Abounding Gutter.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments