This will surely not further radicalise the populace.
the populace are not the radicals
Hence why "radicalise the populace" is a phrase that makes sense.
The populace, containing many people who are radicalised and many others who are not radicalised, may become further radicalised by gaining a higher proportion of radicalised people in response to state repression.
If the populace and the radicals were the same set of people, then there would be no further radicalisation possible.
I agree with your comments, but I meant mine in an uno reverse kinda way, in that the Iranian government are the dangerous radicals.
Ooooohhh okay understood.
It won't galvanize the protestors, that's for sure.
Unfortunately, abusers don't care about bravery or persistence. They only respond to force, and if the abused doesn't have the force necessary to topple their abusers, they will continue to get abused.
It's really that simple. But yeah, thoughts and prayers. NO FOREIGN INTERVENTION. Just thoughts and prayers <3
Do you really want NATO to dismantle the government and then leave the country to sort its own shit out? Have you seen Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan recently?
The West generally lacks the public support necessary for an occupation of the length it would take to rebuild Iran. The international community has no appetite for NATO backed regime change.
No, I want them to slowly and steadily build and fortify settlements where people can live free from the oppressive regime.
Taking the entire country at once is asinine. Build smaller settlements within it to slowly change the culture over generations.
It won't be easy, but it's the only viable solution unless a cultural shift happens from within (it won't.)
Wake me up when these problems get solved doing something I don't suggest.
You'd have to take the land first, which means dismantling the government, which means having to occupy the nation.
There's no such thing as a fortified settlement in a world where artillery and precision guided munitions exist.
Sure there is, lol.
Find a place where people welcome intervention and go from there. Start small and build out over time. Will it happen without violence? Unlikely, but I'm interested to see if the problems ever get solved doing something I don't suggest.
Let me know when that happens. I can wait.
What you are suggesting would require defeating in detail the military of Iran, which would need to be followed by an occupation of the country likely against a well armed, trained, and motivated resistance.
Countries don't tend to take losing parts of themselves too kindly, it is not possible to "start small and build out from there".
What you are suggesting is frankly not a very well thought out idea, so the smarmy "LOL LET ME KNOW WHEN THAT WORKS" just comes across as immature.
Let me know when you come up with a better idea than "huge conflict that will kill hundreds of thousands at best and continue without end for decades". I can wait.
This will surely not further radicalise the populace.
the populace are not the radicals
Hence why "radicalise the populace" is a phrase that makes sense.
The populace, containing many people who are radicalised and many others who are not radicalised, may become further radicalised by gaining a higher proportion of radicalised people in response to state repression.
If the populace and the radicals were the same set of people, then there would be no further radicalisation possible.
I agree with your comments, but I meant mine in an uno reverse kinda way, in that the Iranian government are the dangerous radicals.
Ooooohhh okay understood.
It won't galvanize the protestors, that's for sure.
Unfortunately, abusers don't care about bravery or persistence. They only respond to force, and if the abused doesn't have the force necessary to topple their abusers, they will continue to get abused.
It's really that simple. But yeah, thoughts and prayers. NO FOREIGN INTERVENTION. Just thoughts and prayers <3
Do you really want NATO to dismantle the government and then leave the country to sort its own shit out? Have you seen Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan recently?
The West generally lacks the public support necessary for an occupation of the length it would take to rebuild Iran. The international community has no appetite for NATO backed regime change.
No, I want them to slowly and steadily build and fortify settlements where people can live free from the oppressive regime.
Taking the entire country at once is asinine. Build smaller settlements within it to slowly change the culture over generations.
It won't be easy, but it's the only viable solution unless a cultural shift happens from within (it won't.)
Wake me up when these problems get solved doing something I don't suggest.
You'd have to take the land first, which means dismantling the government, which means having to occupy the nation.
There's no such thing as a fortified settlement in a world where artillery and precision guided munitions exist.
Sure there is, lol.
Find a place where people welcome intervention and go from there. Start small and build out over time. Will it happen without violence? Unlikely, but I'm interested to see if the problems ever get solved doing something I don't suggest.
Let me know when that happens. I can wait.
What you are suggesting would require defeating in detail the military of Iran, which would need to be followed by an occupation of the country likely against a well armed, trained, and motivated resistance.
Countries don't tend to take losing parts of themselves too kindly, it is not possible to "start small and build out from there".
What you are suggesting is frankly not a very well thought out idea, so the smarmy "LOL LET ME KNOW WHEN THAT WORKS" just comes across as immature.
Let me know when you come up with a better idea than "huge conflict that will kill hundreds of thousands at best and continue without end for decades". I can wait.
That's okay. We'll both be waiting awhile lol.