What If Iranians Don’t Want to Be ‘Free’? Derek Hunter

[mystery-ak]

What If Iranians Don’t Want to Be ‘Free’?
Derek Hunter


I’m not one of those people tapping their foot saying, “When is the war going to end? It’s been dragging on and is a disaster!” No, those people are idiots actively hoping the United States is damaged because of who the President of the United States is. Nor do I think the Iranian regime didn’t deserve to be wiped out – those who used to be in charge (and alive) were evil and them no longer existing is a great thing for humanity. But what comes next isn’t up to us, it’s up to the people of Iran to act. And there is still an open question about what it is they want, so we have to consider the possibility that most of them simply don’t want to be “free.”

The theory of the Bush administration was that the people of Iraq would greet us as liberators when we took out Saddam Hussein, which they actually did. But after that, rather than embrace their newfound freedoms, they simply reverted back to centuries old tribal warfare with each other.

How could that happen? Because they didn’t have any concept of freedom, or they simply would’ve liked to be the ones forcing their will on others, rather than having the will of others forced on them. Kind of like Democrats here.

If you’ve never experienced liberty before, you don’t know what it is. It’s not the natural state of humanity. Most of human history is riddled with oppression. Not in the way a leftist would have you think, but in a raceless way of there being a leadership that tells everyone else what and how to be. The idea of voting existed in some places, but it was often ignored or tossed when it went against the wishes of the leaders, like Democrats here when they lose a referendum and sue.

We’ve had the concept of liberty in this country for almost 250 years, but another way to look at this is we’ve had the concept of liberty in this country for only almost 250 years. Human beings have been around a lot longer than that, and most of them never experienced anything like we have today.

more
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2026/03/17/what-if-iranians-dont-want-to-be-free-n2672942

[DefiantMassRINO]

... or the Iranians don't have the societal infrastructure to be free.

The Iranian regime is not much different than the North Korean regime - they had to destroy societal institutions - family, education, government, police - in order to control that society.

[Wingnut]

Kris Kristofferson wrote "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." 

Iran hasn't got much left to lose.


Of course in the song he was talking about material possessions.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Then we just wasted a bunch of bombs and lives for nothing? Maybe it's one reason we shouldn't get involved in these things?

[Wingnut]

Then we just wasted a bunch of bombs and lives for nothing? Maybe it's one reason we shouldn't get involved in these things?

We need to war on some country every 10 to 15 years so we can get up to date on future warfare equipment and tactics.  Not to mention, getting rid of old ordinance safely and effectively.

[berdie]

... or the Iranians don't have the societal infrastructure to be free.

The Iranian regime is not much different than the North Korean regime - they had to destroy societal institutions - family, education, government, police - in order to control that society.

I think that is most likely true. Freedom sounds great until you realize there is a lot of responsibility that accompanies it. And if a country hasn't had freedom in years and has relied on government control will usually have problems.

It was an Iraqi, I believe, that I saw after we freed them. He said it was much easier when the government told them what to do and provided them with meager needs. I guess sometimes your chains become your comfort.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

We need to war on some country every 10 to 15 years so we can get up to date on future warfare equipment and tactics.  Not to mention, getting rid of old ordinance safely and effectively.

And our excess population right?

[Wingnut]

And our excess population right?

 "If they would rather die they had better do it"

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

"If they would rather die they had better do it"

And they are right?

[Wingnut]

And they are right?

"It's not my business,"

[Smokin Joe]

Then we just wasted a bunch of bombs and lives for nothing? Maybe it's one reason we shouldn't get involved in these things?

What you are doing is looking at the cost, which is not immeasurable.
What, however (and this question must be foremost), would be the cost of inaction? For 47 years this can has been kicked down the road, and for 47 years the periodically reasserted effects of this regime have been evident, without ballistic missiles that can reach across Europe and the very real threat of nuclear warheads.

Would allowing this to continue (kicking the can again) be the wise choice? 

No more than letting a worsening wheel bearing go until the wheel fell off.

Thankfully, we have a President who would take the necessary steps to 1: interrupt, if not stop the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a regime hostile to all in the region (as proven by proxy attacks).
2: provide the opportunity for the Persian people of Iran to overthrow the Arab, Shiite, totalitarian regime which has held them in thrall for 47 years.

If those people there find a rallying point to return to choosing their destiny under some other than theocratic regime, a secular government, so much the better.
I do not think we should impose that (which many have indicated they desire) on them, but instead give them the opportunity and tools, if requested, to chart their own national destiny.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What you are doing is looking at the cost, which is not immeasurable.
What, however (and this question must be foremost), would be the cost of inaction? For 47 years this can has been kicked down the road, and for 47 years the periodically reasserted effects of this regime have been evident, without ballistic missiles that can reach across Europe and the very real threat of nuclear warheads.

Would allowing this to continue (kicking the can again) be the wise choice? 

No more than letting a worsening wheel bearing go until the wheel fell off.

Thankfully, we have a President who would take the necessary steps to 1: interrupt, if not stop the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a regime hostile to all in the region (as proven by proxy attacks).
2: provide the opportunity for the Persian people of Iran to overthrow the Arab, Shiite, totalitarian regime which has held them in thrall for 47 years.

If those people there find a rallying point to return to choosing their destiny under some other than theocratic regime, a secular government, so much the better.
I do not think we should impose that (which many have indicated they desire) on them, but instead give them the opportunity and tools, if requested, to chart their own national destiny.

We cannot be the world's policeman. Rump, idiot boy, ran on that against jeb bush, remember? Trump criticized all the other GOP candidates for the same bullshit he's doing now.

[Smokin Joe]

We need to war on some country every 10 to 15 years so we can get up to date on future warfare equipment and tactics.  Not to mention, getting rid of old ordinance safely and effectively.

I wish we would get rid of some ordinances (half the laws on the books might just be a good start).
But yes, getting rid of old ordnance before it's just a big EOD exercise, is likely a good idea. It's also the best way to test and refine the new stuff, things we don't want to hand over to proxies just yet.

That said, eliminating this bunch of mullahs any time in the last 47 years might have been good.

[Wingnut]

We cannot be the world's policeman. Rump, idiot boy, ran on that against jeb bush, remember? Trump criticized all the other GOP candidates for the same bullshit he's doing now.

Trump isn't a world policeman.  He is blowing shit up and will let other country's clean up the mess.

[Wingnut]

I wish we would get rid of some ordinances (half the laws on the books might just be a good start).
But yes, getting rid of old ordnance before it's just a big EOD exercise, is likely a good idea. It's also the best way to test and refine the new stuff, things we don't want to hand over to proxies just yet.

That said, eliminating this bunch of mullahs any time in the last 47 years might have been good.

Stock rotation. 

[Smokin Joe]

We cannot be the world's policeman. Rump, idiot boy, ran on that against jeb bush, remember? Trump criticized all the other GOP candidates for the same bullshit he's doing now.

I agree we cannot be the world's policemen. But if not us, who? If not now, when?

Letting that bunch who was running Iran ('Twelver" Shiites, who live to bring about the Apocalypse) get nuclear weapons to stick on delivery systems with increasing range just might not be a good idea. These are people who dream of being caught in some apocalyptic rapturous martyrdom at the end of the world when the 12th Imam comes crawling out of the well.

This is now.


With North Korea's help (which means China and perhaps the Russians), those circles could be significantly widened, but even without, the obvious economic effects on the world of that threat being utilized has far reaching consequences.
They need not conquer those resources, merely deny them to the rest of the world. If they decide to lend a hand to the Muslim invasion of Europe, capitals would be eliminated, not just a few targets here and there.
The more dead infidels, the merrier.

I do not think Trump has overstated the threat, rather his predecessors have understated it and kept it small by bribing the regime with resources it has used to grow its ability to be a regional or global threat.

Time to shut that down. The cold calculus of strategic planning will allow a number of "acceptable losses" to accomplish the mission. Sadly, that means gold stars for families, children who will never see their mother of father again, brothers and sisters absent from the family table. Such is the cost our military personnel have accepted, even to being the one who did not return, whether fighting hostile natives on the frontier, the world's premier army for independence, the imperial goals of Nazi Germany or Tojo's Japan, or smaller threats to stop them from becoming bigger problems.

Again, the question is one of "How many lives will be saved?" to be weighed against the predicted losses that will be avoided by every means possible but inaction, the one choice that would cost more.

[the OlLine Rebel]

As an aside, I wish I still had this guy in local radio.

Instead our radio station manager (also a host) has been going full Ever-Trump and he had to leave.

[DCPatriot]

As an aside, I wish I still had this guy in local radio.

Instead our radio station manager (also a host) has been going full Ever-Trump and he had to leave.

He's on every weekday afternoon from 3PM to 6PM on WMAL 105.9FM   

https://www.wmal.com/

[the OlLine Rebel]

Yes, bomb the hell out of them, and leave them to pick up the pieces themselves.  And take your chances it won’t change much.

Moslems gonna Moslem.  Changing the specifics isn’t going to change the trend.

We have to stop this post-WWI UN view of war.  No EOs to simply start war, no excessive “rules of war” hamstringing everything, and no nation-building.  Bomb, and get the hell out.  Period.

[the OlLine Rebel]

He's on every weekday afternoon from 3PM to 6PM on WMAL 105.9FM   

https://www.wmal.com/

DC doesn’t reach very well up here.  But thanks.

[cato potatoe]

We need to war on some country every 10 to 15 years so we can get up to date on future warfare equipment and tactics.  Not to mention, getting rid of old ordinance safely and effectively.

We’re not going to have any ordinance left to blow up Cuba.  No bunker busters for the sewage network, no Mark 77 for the gonorrhea, nothing.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I think that is most likely true. Freedom sounds great until you realize there is a lot of responsibility that accompanies it. And if a country hasn't had freedom in years and has relied on government control will usually have problems.

It was an Iraqi, I believe, that I saw after we freed them. He said it was much easier when the government told them what to do and provided them with meager needs. I guess sometimes your chains become your comfort.

But don’t say that about black US slaves.

[the OlLine Rebel]

We’re not going to have any ordinance left to blow up Cuba.  No bunker busters for the sewage network, no Mark 77 for the gonorrhea, nothing.

Guys…not to be that person…but, there’s no I.

[cato potatoe]

Guys…not to be that person…but, there’s no I.

We can’t even afford a vowel.

[Kamaji]

But don’t say that about black US slaves.

Yeah; they should still be slaves. 

[the OlLine Rebel]

I agree we cannot be the world's policemen. But if not us, who? If not now, when?

Letting that bunch who was running Iran ('Twelver" Shiites, who live to bring about the Apocalypse) get nuclear weapons to stick on delivery systems with increasing range just might not be a good idea. These are people who dream of being caught in some apocalyptic rapturous martyrdom at the end of the world when the 12th Imam comes crawling out of the well.

This is now.


With North Korea's help (which means China and perhaps the Russians), those circles could be significantly widened, but even without, the obvious economic effects on the world of that threat being utilized has far reaching consequences.
They need not conquer those resources, merely deny them to the rest of the world. If they decide to lend a hand to the Muslim invasion of Europe, capitals would be eliminated, not just a few targets here and there.
The more dead infidels, the merrier.

I do not think Trump has overstated the threat, rather his predecessors have understated it and kept it small by bribing the regime with resources it has used to grow its ability to be a regional or global threat.

Time to shut that down. The cold calculus of strategic planning will allow a number of "acceptable losses" to accomplish the mission. Sadly, that means gold stars for families, children who will never see their mother of father again, brothers and sisters absent from the family table. Such is the cost our military personnel have accepted, even to being the one who did not return, whether fighting hostile natives on the frontier, the world's premier army for independence, the imperial goals of Nazi Germany or Tojo's Japan, or smaller threats to stop them from becoming bigger problems.

Again, the question is one of "How many lives will be saved?" to be weighed against the predicted losses that will be avoided by every means possible but inaction, the one choice that would cost more.

Exactly.  What’s funny is all the communists squirming.  They complain about dictators and placating, but that’s actually what the commie native Americans always do…they placate.  Because that’s really what they want, anything that will undermine their own country.

Plus, this is a preferred group there, and you can’t say “we know these guys are mean and ruthless” about anyone except America.  How dare we say theyre terrible?  Moslems are nice, just like anyone else!

I still am iffy on just going in on bombing.  Still much prefer the constitutional way, declaring war.  It’s possible that war could be a 6-day war, but really it should be Congress.  Imminent…that’s never really clear.  It’s nothing like Brits invading the Chesapeake.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Yeah; they should still be slaves.

Nope, not the point.

The point is how slaves were not easily simply dismissed as free people.  It would not be easy and they’d have to be prepared rather than just cast adrift.  Many did indeed not know what to do.

Which goes along with the posting about freedom and comfort in your chains.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think "making the Iranians free" is the wrong goal.  Making then "free" sounds too much like "making Iran safe for Democracy," and that's Nation Building. I'd rather just get a new regime that doesn't want to kill us on the daily.  The Shah would be fine, a Communist regime would not.

[andy58-in-nh]

Iran's history (as Persia) still possesses the living memories of a government not tethered to Islamic radicalism, but not truly "liberal" in the classic Western sense of the word.

A majority of their people may not wish to adopt a Western model of government under what we would consider democratic, republican or liberal representative governance.  But that is not necessary.

What is necessary is for them to adopt a form of government that does not pursue the means and ability to destroy us. Beyond that: their future is, and ought to be up to them.

[Cyber Liberty]

Iran's history (as Persia) still possesses the living memories of a government not tethered to Islamic radicalism, but not truly "liberal" in the classic Western sense of the word.

A majority of their people may not wish to adopt a Western model of government under what we would consider democratic, republican or liberal representative governance.  But that is not necessary.

What is necessary is for them to adopt a form of government that does not pursue the means and ability to destroy us. Beyond that: their future is, and ought to be up to them.

I like the way you said it better!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I agree we cannot be the world's policemen. But if not us, who? If not now, when?

Letting that bunch who was running Iran ('Twelver" Shiites, who live to bring about the Apocalypse) get nuclear weapons to stick on delivery systems with increasing range just might not be a good idea. These are people who dream of being caught in some apocalyptic rapturous martyrdom at the end of the world when the 12th Imam comes crawling out of the well.

This is now.


With North Korea's help (which means China and perhaps the Russians), those circles could be significantly widened, but even without, the obvious economic effects on the world of that threat being utilized has far reaching consequences.
They need not conquer those resources, merely deny them to the rest of the world. If they decide to lend a hand to the Muslim invasion of Europe, capitals would be eliminated, not just a few targets here and there.
The more dead infidels, the merrier.

I do not think Trump has overstated the threat, rather his predecessors have understated it and kept it small by bribing the regime with resources it has used to grow its ability to be a regional or global threat.

Time to shut that down. The cold calculus of strategic planning will allow a number of "acceptable losses" to accomplish the mission. Sadly, that means gold stars for families, children who will never see their mother of father again, brothers and sisters absent from the family table. Such is the cost our military personnel have accepted, even to being the one who did not return, whether fighting hostile natives on the frontier, the world's premier army for independence, the imperial goals of Nazi Germany or Tojo's Japan, or smaller threats to stop them from becoming bigger problems.

Again, the question is one of "How many lives will be saved?" to be weighed against the predicted losses that will be avoided by every means possible but inaction, the one choice that would cost more.

Israel could have contained Iran just fine.

[Wingnut]

We’re not going to have any ordinance left to blow up Cuba.  No bunker busters for the sewage network, no Mark 77 for the gonorrhea, nothing.

No Indian blankets with Small pox?