Anyone who is lucid must take a step back and look at the US-Iran "conflict" objectively.
Since WWII, the US has overthrown a legitimately elected Iranian government and replaced it with a bloody police-state dictator. (No, no... I'm not talking about Pinochet. I'm talking about Iran, under the Shah and the SAVAK.)
The US gave satellite intelligence to Iraq during its war against Iran. The dictator of Iraq - America's objective ally at that time - was Saddam Hussein.
For some reason, Iranians do not trust America. Gee. Gosh. Golly. What a surprise....
I'm not saying that Iran is all kindness and gentility... There's a small matter of a few hostages, for example...
I'm saying that Iran has grievances that are at least as grave as America has. We will never "win" as long as we ignore that fact.
take a step back and look at the US-Iran "conflict" objectively.I've done that, have you?
I've tried to.
I see nothing in your link that changes my basic perception of the situation: both sides have grievances, both sides are refusing to recognize the grievances of the other, both sides are acting like virgins on their first night.
I see nothing in your link that changes my basic perception of the situation
My link is, in fact, an "objective" historically accurate look at the strategic, military, economic ramifications of the geopolitical situation the United States found itself in during that period of time. The connection of the Tudah with the Soviet Union was a grave concern at that time is history. More so when one understands the nature of Tudah and its relation to the international Marxist movement. Which many consider murderous, destabilizing and dehumanizing. (history proved the view correct)
Tudah members Ahmad Qasimi, Mahmud Buqrati, and Ghulam Husain Furutan all attended the communist party of the Soviet Union's nineteenth party congress in 52. At this point, the USSR had the bomb and still had visions of a worldwide utopia (the dystopian reality came later)
A destabilized Iran was viewed as a clear and present danger to the stability in Europe, because of a need for oil, because it was still rebuilding after ww2. The war in Korea was going on, and many believed Russian intervention was likely if the Brits took any sort of military action. No matter how futile their effort proved to be.
Hindsight is always 20/20 They did not know then what we know now. I'm not endorsing what happened back then. They could not have know that it likely empowered Shia religious elements who supported the act of removing Mosaddeq only to gain more power themselves to use later. Shit America still has no understanding of Islam. My point is what happened, happened because of various very complicated circumstances and to use that to BASH America as you are doing now is unhelpful.
Does France have a better record in Indochina? How did that pan out? How about French West Africa? what was the thinking behind that, did I mention Algeria? what was that about? Or the Maginot line, a brilliant defensive idea, who would have thought the Germans would just go around it? All nations blunder, they do things that look dumb as fuck looking back.
Out of courtesy, I will not mention the anti-enlightenment nightmare of postmodernism best expressed in the French "Intellectualism" of Derrida and Foucault (LOL) A true blight on the humanities attempt at understanding reality.
How exactly is the US supposed to "undo" interfering with Iran all the way back in the 1950s? It seems like the revolutionary mobs in Iran had the chance to undo that themselves and they rallied around a medieval theocrat instead. And do you think Iran hasn't interfered with other countries? The terrorist groups they sponsor have killed, tortured and maimed who knows how many for decades. Any moral high ground they might have ever had was squandered long ago.
Just because Iran hasn't officially occupied land outside its borders doesn't mean it isn't a threat. They have numerous conflicts going on by proxy and unofficially control Iraq.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
John Kerry questions Israel's commitment to peace
Anyone who is lucid must take a step back and look at the US-Iran "conflict" objectively.
Since WWII, the US has overthrown a legitimately elected Iranian government and replaced it with a bloody police-state dictator. (No, no... I'm not talking about Pinochet. I'm talking about Iran, under the Shah and the SAVAK.)
The US gave satellite intelligence to Iraq during its war against Iran. The dictator of Iraq - America's objective ally at that time - was Saddam Hussein.
For some reason, Iranians do not trust America. Gee. Gosh. Golly. What a surprise....
I'm not saying that Iran is all kindness and gentility... There's a small matter of a few hostages, for example...
I'm saying that Iran has grievances that are at least as grave as America has. We will never "win" as long as we ignore that fact.
take a step back and look at the US-Iran "conflict" objectively.
i've done that, have you?
I've tried to.
I see nothing in your link that changes my basic perception of the situation: both sides have grievances, both sides are refusing to recognize the grievances of the other, both sides are acting like virgins on their first night.
My link is, in fact, an "objective" historically accurate look at the strategic, military, economic ramifications of the geopolitical situation the United States found itself in during that period of time. The connection of the Tudah with the Soviet Union was a grave concern at that time is history. More so when one understands the nature of Tudah and its relation to the international Marxist movement. Which many consider murderous, destabilizing and dehumanizing. (history proved the view correct)
Tudah members Ahmad Qasimi, Mahmud Buqrati, and Ghulam Husain Furutan all attended the communist party of the Soviet Union's nineteenth party congress in 52. At this point, the USSR had the bomb and still had visions of a worldwide utopia (the dystopian reality came later)
A destabilized Iran was viewed as a clear and present danger to the stability in Europe, because of a need for oil, because it was still rebuilding after ww2. The war in Korea was going on, and many believed Russian intervention was likely if the Brits took any sort of military action. No matter how futile their effort proved to be.
Hindsight is always 20/20 They did not know then what we know now. I'm not endorsing what happened back then. They could not have know that it likely empowered Shia religious elements who supported the act of removing Mosaddeq only to gain more power themselves to use later. Shit America still has no understanding of Islam. My point is what happened, happened because of various very complicated circumstances and to use that to BASH America as you are doing now is unhelpful.
Does France have a better record in Indochina? How did that pan out? How about French West Africa? what was the thinking behind that, did I mention Algeria? what was that about? Or the Maginot line, a brilliant defensive idea, who would have thought the Germans would just go around it? All nations blunder, they do things that look dumb as fuck looking back.
Out of courtesy, I will not mention the anti-enlightenment nightmare of postmodernism best expressed in the French "Intellectualism" of Derrida and Foucault (LOL) A true blight on the humanities attempt at understanding reality.
What does that have to do with anything? Considering the shift in topic which you have imposed here... I'm done.
How exactly is the US supposed to "undo" interfering with Iran all the way back in the 1950s? It seems like the revolutionary mobs in Iran had the chance to undo that themselves and they rallied around a medieval theocrat instead. And do you think Iran hasn't interfered with other countries? The terrorist groups they sponsor have killed, tortured and maimed who knows how many for decades. Any moral high ground they might have ever had was squandered long ago.
What part of
... do you not understand?
Let's be clear: the Ayatollahs are very not-nice. But Iran is not an international risk. The current borders have changed little in centuries.
America meanwhile has shattered countries all over the world.
The Iranian people don't like the Ayatollahs... but they don't trust America.
Just because Iran hasn't officially occupied land outside its borders doesn't mean it isn't a threat. They have numerous conflicts going on by proxy and unofficially control Iraq.
The question is why should WE trust Iran.
We shouldn't.
The Ayatollahs are not nice. That's why Inspectors are needed.
Try to look at the world through non-American eyes.
You mean those inspections where we had to let Iran know about in advance so they could hide their nuclear material?
No.
So just the same'ol/thing?