US Army Makes Playing Cards with Iran's weapons on them

The difference between someone engaging in propaganda and someone in trying to discuss facts, is that the person engaging in propaganda usually tries a stunt like the one you tried. And the person who likes to discuss facts, usually posts the kind of information I post.

Incidentally, it was indeed curious how "Baghdad Bob" (who was used effectively by propaganda artists to try to do what you are trying to do) was released by US forces when they captured Baghdad after he had turned himself in and has never been sought by them since. While I can't be sure, it is noteworthy that many Iraqi generals tasked with defense of Baghdad were later revealed to have been contacted by folks like Ayad Allawi (the guy appointed as interim prime minister after the US occupation began) and were enlisted and recruited to the other side before the US forces moved into Baghdad. That "Baghdad Bob" might have been one of them can't be ruled out.

 

It's a Hail Mary(a Prayer) not a Hail Merry!!!

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

While the Iranian economy, and - especially these days - an increasing number of Iranian people, greatly suffer from the sanctions imposed on the country and the ongoing decay of the currency, a death of Iran is a propagandistic myth. And not even a particularly subtle one.

It is not completely without irony, when supporters of originally revolutionary movements (eg. China or Iran) want to equalize the culture of a country with its regime, often expressing that Western individualism and defection against the collective were somehow antithetical to their cultural history. This transfiguration of one particular revolution as final and ultimate reveals the deep ideological constraints of the most zealous of these adherents, that goes no lesser than up to the denial of the cultural history of their own collective. Because most obviously, the opposite is the case: the establishment of a government through revolution itself proves that rebellion and defection are themselves part of a people's cultural identity and reality.

As for myself, I do not follow the logic of neoconservative thinkers - especially those of the already dead kind -, because their notions are not seldom structurally racist, orientalist and, ultimately, colonialist.

Nevertheless, the notion that talks about a "death" of the Iranian people, or of defectors as "corrupt scum" feeds itself from the other side of the same medal: victimism, conspiracism - and ultimately the racist implication of a people's mental retardedness through the denial of individual and collective responsibility for their own actions.

Both notions must be denied and are
dedicatedly unfair towards the Iranian people, who have rational individual and collective interests and a right not to be reduced to a negotiating mass. This includes specifically the huge amount of people who are still threatened by death for disagreeing with state policy (disguised as religious denomination).

The attentive observer, who is familiar with world history, knows that in the long run, there's only one scenario for the future of Iran - regardless of the path: that of increased individual liberty and that in which the irrational beliefs in world conspiracy theories are replaced by personal and political responsibility.

 

Starting a civil war in any islamic nation doesn't seem all that difficult given their easy proclivity for killing each other. Their eight year long war with Iraq that ended in a draw, with millions dead, gives the game away.

There can be no 'mutual respect' with regard to Iran. Their dress codes, and treatment of women and gays, is infamous throughout the civilized world.

 

How many Iranians will admit that Iran would lose if a war with the US and its allies would ever occur? They'd be imprisoned before dinner.

And there is no reason for the US to go to war with Iran. This 'slow death' policy is working.

 

Typical american bullshit. How many iranians do you know? I know a few. Tehy are all atheist, hate the regime and you know what tehy hate even more? USA. They despise USA. Any attack from outside leads a nation move together. In Germany we call this "Burgfrieden". No matter how much one disagrees, you have to stand united against an outside enemy.

God will Americans ever learn? You have horrible intelligence services since they fail evry single time.

 

I prefer the iranian womens dress code over americn ones





And i might add that Europe does see USA definitly not as part of the "civilized world".

 

I know Iranians who
- Live in Iran, support the regime
- Live in Iran, opposing both the regime and the U.S.-government, but are nevertheless fond of Western lifestyle
- Live in Iran, opposing the regime and who prefer the American government over their own
- Work for the regime but oppose it
- Have been attempted to recruit by Iranian intelligence but told me they'd rather work for the CIA than for them
- Live abroad and actively support the regime
- Live abroad and actively oppose the regime, support Israel
- Have been tortured in Iranian prisons
- Live and work in the U.S.
- Are religious, less-religious, atheists and other converts

Contrary to yours, my perspective on Iran is not one sided. Especially I do not project my own political perspective on the people of Iran.

There's a tendency for people to move together in times of war, which is exactly the reason why we hear a greater amount of war propaganda from Iran, these days: the support for the government is fading - just as even you with your relatively limited knowledge of Iranian culture and social reality - state above.

 

I am sorry but you are wrong. Iran faces a lot of internal dissent. I reckon if there was a war
this dissent will dry up quickly, but you can't deny dissent is there.

 

Dissent is also in my country Germany and USA. Thats normal for any nation.

Look i´m far right german nationalist. Our political enemy in Germany is the left. We hate us each other. yet when its against USA, we stand united.

 

Iranian dissent is more dangerous to that country than German or American dissident.
It seems that in Germany there is no love lost between the Left and Right, going back
a long long way. Why did you guys put Lenin in that train?

 

I don't get the point of this. Harris is associated with the mass killings of many German civilians.

 

Those are protesters of the German radical left. United with far right nationalists against the "West". Not!

 

And I do know more of almost all these Iranians you know. At the end of the day, until something happens, we can never predict the future with any certainty. On an individual level, in the circumstances of Iran today, there are too many Iranians coming from all backgrounds, who are quite willing to jump ship and switch sides. I admit that. There are quite a few (a minority, but not inconsequential in number or in their places in society) that are hopelessly lost and more than willing to betray their country. I actually believe they are, proportionally, even over-represented in Iran's messed up government bureaucracy -- a bureaucracy that has become a fiefdom of various mafia groups with corrupt links, some even to foreign interests. As a result, even those who aren't sharing in the corruption, or are stuck merely with the crumbs, will naturally feel little serious allegiance to the government they are ostensibly serving. And the corrupt ones have actually made half the journey to the other side already. But collectively, my judgment or feeling is that the people of Iran will rally behind their flag when the time comes. You can see that in their reaction to when Iran shot down the US drone. You can see the same in many other incidents that directly pit Iran against the West. We saw that during the Iran-Iraq war. Will it definitely happen again? I am not saying that but merely suggesting that the chances for it are higher than the reverse.

In the meantime, though, what I am saying unequivocally is the following: while what the specific things you mentioned are credible enough, almost everything else said about Iran in the West is basically propaganda. And that propaganda and attempts at painting Iran, its society, its people, even its government, and its policies, in ways that are simply false, rob many Iranians (outside the hopelessly out of touch emigres who help promote these falsehoods) the wrong way. Otherwise, with dozens of satellite stations beaming anti-regime messages constantly, with the proliferation of social media and the messages there, you would think that there would be one or two figures who would emerge from this emigre population to be able to lead at least a significant proportion of the population. But you know that is not the case. People in Iran watch these satellite stations for their leisure: for their music, shows, even sometimes their news broadcasts. But none of them have managed to give even those Iranians opposed to the regime and looking for someone, any they can rally behind. And, in this process, the more the US is seen getting close to a group that most Iranians truly detest, namely the MEK, the bigger the chance that few among them will have any interest to jump ship for any altruistic reasons. The ones who will, will do so for quite personal ones.

 

I was a bit reluctant to respond to this post, simply because it touches on issues that go beyond transient political things and to more significant issues on the direction of societal currents everywhere. But I will say a few things to at least clarify my stance, even if I can't justify what underpins it in a message of this sort:
1- You say you don't follow the logic of "neoconservative" thinkers, but you do seem equally possessed of the belief that ultimately the trajectory of events will take everyone to where western civilization has gone. There is, in a way, an "End of History" subtext in your own comments too. In this regard, while it is undeniable to me that (to the extent the balance of powers allow it), human beings every where will strive for the greatest personal autonomy, and that this quest can in some ways lead to notions of 'individual liberty' that may be in vogue in theory (if not practice) in the west, there are many different paths and detours on that path than the paths and detours taken by Western societies.
2- While I did use the term "corrupt scum", I am usually not the kind to pass judgment on individuals and their choices in life. But in cases where a society is threatened on many fundamental levels, the rationality I prefer can bend to more necessary instincts of self-preservation. Those who engage in their corruption, and betrayal, may have their own personal justifications for what they do. Most people will have some justification for whatever it is they do. However, that doesn't change the fact that their actions will constitute a real threat to the collective interests of their nation. And that collective has its own ways of reacting to such behavior, including using terms meant to ostracize the behavior. Ultimately, I must say, I have the least sympathy for the "corrupt scum" in Iran's government whose corruption is fueled merely by personal greed and aggrandizement.
3- Stories about any group in Iran being threatened with "death" by the regime for disagreeing with state policy are basically either propaganda o,r akin to propaganda, because they exaggerate the truth beyond recognition. On an individual level, Iranians are quite willing and often engage in "disagreeing with state policy" without any repercussion. Just ride a taxi cab in Iran, wait in any line even in a state bank or even a government office, or anywhere else: individually, the people of Iran aren't feeling what you mention. Even those whose "disagreement with state policy" takes them to organize, and hence become a threat to the state, aren't really threatened with "death". So this statement, coming from someone who claims to know Iran well, was surprising to me. You really don't know Iran if you believe that. And this is not because the government or its law enforcement and judiciary are progressive. It is mostly because the way the society works in the balances which have been reached within it, don't allow for what you claim unless the threat is serious and the actions taken can somehow justify harsh punishments.
4- I don't think the US sanctions are having nearly as much impact as some imagine. I have said that myself. Their impact was at its strongest more than a year ago when they were anticipated but had not even become reality! But that doesn't mean the continuation of current US policies does not pose a significant risk of succeeding in its intended purpose: to throw Iran in turmoil and cause the wet dream of many pro Israeli neocons, namely an "implosion" in Iran. I prefer an "explosion" to an "implosion" and, in any case, believe Iran (if it allowed more genuine, populist, voices to emerge again and rally people behind them) would have the ability to face down these threats just as it did during the Bush years. Except, it is even better prepared to do so now. While I have my doubts it will take that route, I hope it would.

 

As long as Americans are fighting an imaginary country that only exists in their own minds, ultimately all their shots (whether militarily or in the economic sense) will be at this imaginary country and not the real one that exists. Continue punching into the air. None of that will work.

The main instruments that the US has, and which can work, are the ones I have alluded to in my posts above. The propaganda, the lies, even the weapons in America's arsenal, aren't going to do the trick. But, unfortunately, there are other things the US has which can and do represent a more serious threat. Ultimately, it doesn't take all that much for a country with the freedom of action and resources of the United States, to zero in on some individuals and basically flip them. While the US cannot recruit and bribe (or coerce) the entire Iranian nation, its ability to recruit some of them in certain key sectors of Iran's government, society and maybe even its military, poses one of the greatest dangers to Iran's national security. This is probably the hardest challenge Iran faces and the one which I am not convinced it is fully prepared to handle.

 

Lenin was used like a Virus. The plan was to infect the Russian Empire and let it collapse from internal. As far as i know the plan worked better than we wanted it....

 

Yup, exactly those moronic left. But when its against USA they stand at same side as we are. Its amusing.

 

As usual you dont get what i mean.

Anti american demonstrations in Berlin



Performed from far left and also far right groups.

You get it now?

 

I don't get why they hate America. If the USA vanished beneath the waves, or were
washed away by Putins' nuclear tsunami - would Germany have to become the new
America? Someone in the West would have to, otherwise, no more West.

 

Germany does not see itself as the "West". I doubt anyone in Europe does. Its an american concept. The "west" is a synonym for american imperialism.

Beside that Germany always as a wanderer between the worlds with a very special role.

It was only European power that did not fall under Rome. That way it was not romanized but at the other hand accumulated some things from Rome. This made it a hybrid in many ways. That alienated it forever from the rest with totally different culture to Italy, France and so on. This hybrid role is even today, where Germany stands between East and West.

 

I find this "imperialism" thing, coming from the Marxist Left, to be amusing. I think
of empire as the colonizing another country and holding onto land. Marxism did
that by ruling over one third of the planet. And the Chinese talk about American
imperialism while ruling over Tibet, threatening it's neighbors and creating fake
islands in the Sth China Sea. And of course, Russia uses the term too, but is
gradually nibbling its neighbors so as to restore its Tsarist and Communist
conquests.

 

Well im far right, we hate USA for different reasons. We see USA as ultimate cancer for humanity. Its rotten culture. McDonalds, coca Cola and all this crap.