What's new

Israeli Air Force Gears up to Strike Iran.

The iranian members are deluding themselves with iran's power to a certain extent,but some of the facts are right.

The mesopotamian civilization is called the cradle of civilization,ie in modern day iraq-iran.
The first known empire was that of the assyrians.same geographical area.
The persian empire was hardle a few men on horses.The sassanid persians were a powerful empire,that they kept the romans at bay.
The chinese empire was a great civilization but the roman empire is widely recognized as the GREATEST empire in human history.I know ur from china but facts are facts.i am from india and could easily have claimed indus valley civ to be earliest ,but mesopotamian civ is historically regarded the first.
Unfortunately iranians delude their current situation with glories of their ancestors.
Thank u.

Well, we can put it this way:

Italy is a client state of the US.
China is a nuclear world power.

Guess the Romans didn't turn out so good did they? greatest empire my *** they were stuck in a small region smaller than China today and had an emperor that died in a Persian jail, and 1 that got killed by a bunch of weak barbarians.
 
.
Well, we can put it this way:

Italy is a client state of the US.
China is a nuclear world power.

Guess the Romans didn't turn out so good did they? greatest empire my *** they were stuck in a small region smaller than China today and had an emperor that died in a Persian jail, and 1 that got killed by a bunch of weak barbarians.
And the chinese were for centuries bogged down by the nomadic barbarians the mongols...so much so that they resorted to building a great wall around their country ..but in vain.Their forts were seiged by these tent living barbarians and the chinese had to resort to cannibalism in their own palaces to save their lives.
No doubt the chinese civilization was on of the greatest.
But the catch word is empire.The romans were the innovators of governance and modern rule.
 
.
t the roman empire is widely recognized as the GREATEST empire in human history...iranians delude their current situation with glories of their ancestors.
The Persian Empire was the world's largest, at times stretching from Libya to the Indus, and from Greece and the Caucasus to Ethiopia. It may be a "delusion" for Iranians to dream of re-establishing this, but it is the dream of the current leadership, and has been since the Islamic Republic of Iran was established.

If you read Persian history, there were two strategies the Persians employed: rule via local satraps wherever practical, and to make peace on all fronts save the one where military effort was concentrated. We see successful satraps in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, and attempts at establishing such in Iraq and even Egypt.

For now Iran's attempts are mostly westward. They mouth peace to neighbors who, if offended, have the strength to challenge them. But if mullahs ever attain their western goals, why do you think they wouldn't seek to turn their eyes on Pakistan next? Do the peoples of "Pakistan is my life!" look forward to becoming another Persian satellite?
 
.
The Persian Empire was the world's largest, at times stretching from Libya to the Indus, and from Greece and the Caucasus to Ethiopia. It may be a "delusion" for Iranians to dream of re-establishing this, but it is the dream of the current leadership, and has been since the Islamic Republic of Iran was established.

If you read Persian history, there were two strategies the Persians employed: rule via local satraps wherever practical, and to make peace on all fronts save the one where military effort was concentrated. We see successful satraps in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, and attempts at establishing such in Iraq and even Egypt.

For now Iran's attempts are mostly westward. They mouth peace to neighbors who, if offended, have the strength to challenge them. But if mullahs ever attain their western goals, why do you think they wouldn't seek to turn their eyes on Pakistan next? Do the peoples of "Pakistan is my life!" look forward to becoming another Persian satellite?

Iran phobia is a western project. are you trying for that?Ir-Pak relation is brotherhood
 
. .
The Persian Empire was the world's largest, at times stretching from Libya to the Indus, and from Greece and the Caucasus to Ethiopia. It may be a "delusion" for Iranians to dream of re-establishing this, but it is the dream of the current leadership, and has been since the Islamic Republic of Iran was established.

If you read Persian history, there were two strategies the Persians employed: rule via local satraps wherever practical, and to make peace on all fronts save the one where military effort was concentrated. We see successful satraps in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, and attempts at establishing such in Iraq and even Egypt.

For now Iran's attempts are mostly westward. They mouth peace to neighbors who, if offended, have the strength to challenge them. But if mullahs ever attain their western goals, why do you think they wouldn't seek to turn their eyes on Pakistan next? Do the peoples of "Pakistan is my life!" look forward to becoming another Persian satellite?

The only threat we ever faced from south west was that of Israel.Which we even face today.
 
.
Well, we can put it this way:

Italy is a client state of the US.
China is a nuclear world power.

Guess the Romans didn't turn out so good did they? greatest empire my *** they were stuck in a small region smaller than China today and had an emperor that died in a Persian jail, and 1 that got killed by a bunch of weak barbarians.

U speak of the times when rome was divided up into the western and eastern roman empires through later corruption and civil dissent.
I talk of Rome at its peak from the first punic war till the division.
Which empire has ever been able to claim THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA as 'OUR SEA'.
Rome is the foreleader of modern civilization till the 18th century europe ,north africa and syria still used the old roman roads as the major travelling roads ,that's after 1500 yrs.all roads did lead to rome.
The roman empire produced the most efficient military organization until frederick and napoleon.Its studied in all all major war colleges even today.Roman constructions were the backbone of european civilization.they also carried through the heritage of the greeks.

Why do u think every emperor hence styled themselves as a roman emperor since,huh?
from charlemagne[king of once the barbarous franks now civilized by exposure to roman culture,later to became the french]to frederick barbarossa,the emperors of austria who called themselves kaizer[german of caesar,they were descendants of the same germans'barbarians']to the russian czars,to ottoman sultans who formally claimed to be caesars of europe.
to the german kaizers, in world war 1.napoleon styled himself as a roman emperor.gave his army roman eagles as standards.

Why did the great men of their time have such fascination with rome if it was a small region that got whipped by barbarians.
rome's greatness lies in the fact that it held such a vast empire of different ethnicities,africans,gauls,germans,greeks,punics,libyans,egyptians,arabs and ruled with stability and prosperity for so vast a time.
They changed the face of the world and left an awesome legacy. Chinese empires never had to rule over such diifferent peoples.They kept to china.Rome held modern day france,part of germany,england,spain,italy,greece,the balkans,turkey,syria,parts of arabia,egypt,entire north africa.
The decline of the roman empire began with the advent of christianity.

Read up on rome.:pop:
 
. . .
I think you're right.

Go on, don't stop there. Tell everybody exactly how Israel is a threat to Pakistan.

lmao
I think you're the one that has to explain!
Iran is not the Persia of 2500 years ago lmaoooooo
why would we even DREAM of taking Pakistan etc?
Today small puny countries like England are many times richer than bigger countries like India and Iran. Size doesn't matter anymore.

If Iran is in Iraq today it is because Iranians and Iraqis have A LOT in common, believe it or not. To sunni arabs, shia muslims are all bunched up in a basket and are called kafirs. A few centuries ago Iran and shia Iraq were one. In the past century however, a lot has happened in the region. Iran was under the rule of the Pahlavi dynasty which tried to emphasize "persianism" unlike the previous dynasty who were Turkish speaking. In Iraq you had ultra nationalist leaders like saddam that tried to move closer to the sunni arab world and hated Iran. So effectively two brother countries became enemies after generations of hateful teachings on both sides. With time people will rediscover past alliances and who knows, some countries in the region might again join up BUT NOT THROUGH WAR! Tajikistan and Northern AFG both speak Persian. The accent of ppl in Tajikistan is closer to the accent of Tehrani Iranians than Isfahan and Tehran who are both major Iranian cities! Tajikistan and Northern AFG are also very poor countries. Who knows, maybe one day when Iran's situation is better and we have a democracy, these countries will see it beneficial to them to join Iran!

you're talking as if "the Persian empire" is on the verge of taking over the Asian continent when in reality we're more concerned with our out of control inflation lmao We haven't attacked ANY COUNTRY in well over 3 centuries and if we wanted to we don't have the power.
 
Last edited:
.
Grow up Kids , Persian times are over forever , stick to the topic.
 
.
lmao
I think you're the one that has to explain!...why would we even DREAM of taking Pakistan etc?
A fair and relevant question. As one pro-Khomeini demonstrator explained to me in the early months of the '79 revolution, with the withdrawal of Britain from the Gulf, the paralyzing post-Vietnam angst of the United States, and the absence of the Soviet Union they saw an opening for their own imperial ambitions.

You may see them as fanatical Shia Islamists, but I saw your masters as calculating manipulators, men who took political science courses at Western universities to learn about dictatorships and totalitarianism. Not so they could avoid that fate, but so they could build a better one of their own.

Thus informed by their boasting, the Iran-Iraq war was no surprise to me. If the Iranians didn't turn their attentions on Pakistan instead, that's probably because (1) Saddam started the war first; (2) Pakistan is a much bigger and stronger state than Iraq was, and (3) their principal goal was Mecca, where pro-Iranian revolutionaries tried (but failed) to seize the Grand Mosque in late 1979. Basically, the Iranian mullahs wanted then (as the leadership does now) to dictate their form of Islam to everyone, and conquest of Arabia was the way to do it. With no U.S. troops in Arabia at the time, if the Iraqi Army fell the way would have been wide open.

Today small puny countries like England are many times richer than bigger countries like India and Iran. Size doesn't matter anymore.
Oppression, opportunity, freedom, and the destructiveness of war matter more. Your point?

If Iran is in Iraq today it is because Iranians and Iraqis have A LOT in common, believe it or not. To sunni arabs, shia muslims are all bunched up in a basket and are called kafirs. A few centuries ago Iran and shia Iraq were one. In the past century however, a lot has happened in the region. Iran was under the rule of the Pahlavi dynasty which tried to emphasize "persianism" unlike the previous dynasty who were Turkish speaking. In Iraq you had ultra nationalist leaders like saddam that tried to move closer to the sunni arab world and hated Iran. So effectively two brother countries became enemies after generations of hateful teachings on both sides.
Nationalism - people having a country to call their own - is not the enemy of peace. The desire to expand to rule others - imperialism - is. Empires must always either expand or contract. That means war. Thousands of years of history back this up.

With time people will rediscover past alliances and who knows, some countries in the region might again join up BUT NOT THROUGH WAR! Tajikistan and Northern AFG both speak Persian. The accent of ppl in Tajikistan is closer to the accent of Tehrani Iranians than Isfahan and Tehran who are both major Iranian cities! Tajikistan and Northern AFG are also very poor countries. Who knows, maybe one day when Iran's situation is better and we have a democracy, these countries will see it beneficial to them to join Iran!
Possibly. So why don't they seek to join Iran now? Personally I thought the Azeris would be the first to desire this when the USSR collapsed, but I don't see even a hint of that happening.

you're talking as if "the Persian empire" is on the verge of taking over the Asian continent when in reality we're more concerned with our out of control inflation -
Yes, economics is not your masters' best subject.

We haven't attacked ANY COUNTRY in well over 3 centuries and if we wanted to we don't have the power.
Tell that to the Lebanese who suffer under Hezbollah's collar, or the Gazans who feel Hamas' lash.

There is something else I've noted - and I'm sure others have to. Did you ever ask yourself where the '79 revolution went wrong? I argued with the pro-Khomeini demonstrators that they were a minority, the opposition to the Shah was broad-based, and the Iranian people would stop them. They laughed. They were, of course, correct. They knew, as I did not, that the Iranian people lacked the sort of steel to resist their thuggery; all think they are entitled to an easy, risk-free life.

That's why even Iranians who despise the mullahs' regime don't want invasion or bombing to remove it, isn't it? Yet matters are reaching the point where such action may occur - and because the mullahs tend to locate key facilities near civilian targets, that will mean a lot of civilians will be killed. Very uncomfortable, indeed.

So what do you think your moral duty is in all this, Nima?
 
.
wait did i hear that correctly?

israel is supporting hereditary kings and dictators, instead of an elected government?

what an insight into the jewish mind. and yet they're still labled a "democracy" of the middle east.
 
.
A fair and relevant question. As one pro-Khomeini demonstrator explained to me in the early months of the '79 revolution, with the withdrawal of Britain from the Gulf, the paralyzing post-Vietnam angst of the United States, and the absence of the Soviet Union they saw an opening for their own imperial ambitions.

You may see them as fanatical Shia Islamists, but I saw your masters as calculating manipulators, men who took political science courses at Western universities to learn about dictatorships and totalitarianism. Not so they could avoid that fate, but so they could build a better one of their own.

Thus informed by their boasting, the Iran-Iraq war was no surprise to me. If the Iranians didn't turn their attentions on Pakistan instead, that's probably because (1) Saddam started the war first; (2) Pakistan is a much bigger and stronger state than Iraq was, and (3) their principal goal was Mecca, where pro-Iranian revolutionaries tried (but failed) to seize the Grand Mosque in late 1979. Basically, the Iranian mullahs wanted then (as the leadership does now) to dictate their form of Islam to everyone, and conquest of Arabia was the way to do it. With no U.S. troops in Arabia at the time, if the Iraqi Army fell the way would have been wide open.

Oppression, opportunity, freedom, and the destructiveness of war matter more. Your point?

Nationalism - people having a country to call their own - is not the enemy of peace. The desire to expand to rule others - imperialism - is. Empires must always either expand or contract. That means war. Thousands of years of history back this up.

Possibly. So why don't they seek to join Iran now? Personally I thought the Azeris would be the first to desire this when the USSR collapsed, but I don't see even a hint of that happening.

Yes, economics is not your masters' best subject.

Tell that to the Lebanese who suffer under Hezbollah's collar, or the Gazans who feel Hamas' lash.

There is something else I've noted - and I'm sure others have to. Did you ever ask yourself where the '79 revolution went wrong? I argued with the pro-Khomeini demonstrators that they were a minority, the opposition to the Shah was broad-based, and the Iranian people would stop them. They laughed. They were, of course, correct. They knew, as I did not, that the Iranian people lacked the sort of steel to resist their thuggery; all think they are entitled to an easy, risk-free life.

That's why even Iranians who despise the mullahs' regime don't want invasion or bombing to remove it, isn't it? Yet matters are reaching the point where such action may occur - and because the mullahs tend to locate key facilities near civilian targets, that will mean a lot of civilians will be killed. Very uncomfortable, indeed.

So what do you think your moral duty is in all this, Nima?

edit :undecided:
 
Last edited:
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom