• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

That Iran Deal

Efforts to sabotage peace seem so popular these days.
Yeah, Iran is so peaceful, with Iranian Revolutionary Guards running the show in Syria and Iran funding Hezbollah and Hamas. Not to mention Houthis in Yemen. :rolleyes:

Yes, only the US has permission to involve itself in Syria and other countries. Anyone else doing it is clearly out of line. The US has a beam in its eye criticizing Iran's mote in its eye.

The warmongers in the US have never forgiven the Iranian people for getting rid of the Shah.
Shah was not perfect, but he was much better than the weird beards in power now.

How did he compare to the Democratic government that came before? You know, the one the CIA toppled to make room for the Shah?
 
Yes, only the US has permission to involve itself in Syria and other countries. Anyone else doing it is clearly out of line. The US has a beam in its eye criticizing Iran's mote in its eye.

The warmongers in the US have never forgiven the Iranian people for getting rid of the Shah.
Shah was not perfect, but he was much better than the weird beards in power now.

How did he compare to the Democratic government that came before? You know, the one the CIA toppled to make room for the Shah?

The US feared the democracy movement would nationalize oil, and installed the Shah. He wasted money on extravagance. Back in the 80s who installed a system in the old Telex lines that searched for words like revolution. I believe the secret police were the Savak. I remember a video of people tearing down a building with their hands.

We, the USA, created the conditions that led to the revolution. The religious right stole the revolution from the democrats.

An Iranian told me about an American circa 1900 that was killed defending democrats. Up until the Shah Iranians thought well of America. He said there were streets named after him.
 


Why should we assume it has anything to do with Iran's nuclear program?

Israel bombs any attempt by Iran to deliver advanced weapons to Hezbollah, as well as any site that attacks anything Israeli. There have been many attacks in the past few years, why should we think this is any different?

Note, also, that this wasn't just a bomb, there were big secondaries on the ground. That almost always means the bomb hit explosives. You can get secondaries from hitting fuel but they're limited by the need of the fuel to disperse before it can boom. Also, look at all the fragments that went flying--whatever went boom was contained by something. Fuel doesn't go boom until it's dispersed. A fuel detonation can throw things sideways but after the initial bomb blew up whatever was there and then the fuel dispersed it's pretty hard to have much on top of it--thus little will be thrown upwards.
 
Efforts to sabotage peace seem so popular these days. The warmongers in the US have never forgiven the Iranian people for getting rid of the Shah.
War with Iran makes war in Iraq seem like an afternoon stroll.

A full blown war with Iran would indeed be difficult and costly to do. It's a much bigger country than Iraq and has more natural defenses.
On the bright side, if the theocratic regime is toppled, there is a much better chance of creating a stable, democratic and hopefully even somewhat secular country. Question is, could we help the Iranian opposition to topple their dictators?
No. Any help by the US would only strengthen the theocrats.
 
A full blown war with Iran would indeed be difficult and costly to do. It's a much bigger country than Iraq and has more natural defenses.
On the bright side, if the theocratic regime is toppled, there is a much better chance of creating a stable, democratic and hopefully even somewhat secular country. Question is, could we help the Iranian opposition to topple their dictators?
No. Any help by the US would only strengthen the theocrats.
Yeah, this isn’t Hungary or Czechoslovakia where we are egging on a revolution against the Communists and implying we’d be there to back them up.

Iranians likely want to open things up a bit, but they don’t want the US involved.
 
Yes, only the US has permission to involve itself in Syria and other countries. Anyone else doing it is clearly out of line. The US has a beam in its eye criticizing Iran's mote in its eye.
Mote? Are you aware of the extent of Iranian involvement in Syria? Yemen? Gaza? Lebanon where their puppets Hezbollah are part of the government?
I think it is opposite for many. US is considered evil whatever it does and meanwhile real evildoers like Putin, Assad, Kim Jong and the Ayatollahs are given free pass to do whatever they want. That comes from listening to RT and Glen Greenwald all day.

How did he compare to the Democratic government that came before? You know, the one the CIA toppled to make room for the Shah?
What democratic government? We must finally bury the myth that Mosaddeq was some kind of democrat. He gave himself emergency decree powers. He suspended elections so he would not lose. And he stole US and UK assets.
The whole story of his fall is much more interesting and complicated than the "US bad" version.
 
The US feared the democracy movement would nationalize oil, and installed the Shah.
That was not it. The issue is that Mosaddeq wanted to expropriate, nationalize without compensating the owners. And again, he was not really this great democrat anyway.

Back in the 80s who installed a system in the old Telex lines that searched for words like revolution.
From exile? The revolution happened in 1979.

We, the USA, created the conditions that led to the revolution.
I agree with the first part. Jimmy Carter hung the Shah out to dry and his UN ambassador referred to Khomeini as a "saint". So in the US it was the religious Left (Carter is very much a devout Baptist and Young was an ordained minister), not Right, that allowed the Islamic revolution to happen.
Young Praises Islam as ‘Vibrant’ And Calls the Ayatollah ‘a Saint’
One of many Carterian missteps.

The religious right stole the revolution from the democrats.
How many democrats were among the revolutionaries? My understanding it that it was done by Khomeinis Islamists working with Marxists. Like so often, the far left had allied itself with the Islamists.

An Iranian told me about an American circa 1900 that was killed defending democrats. Up until the Shah Iranians thought well of America. He said there were streets named after him.
Does the American have a name? Also, 1900s were a very different decade from the 1950s.
 
Regardless of our support, the Shah turned people against him and fostered the revolution that led to the theocracy.


Nationalization with or without compensation, doesn't matter. The Saudis nationalized oil after American business built the infrastructure. We still back the Saudis. The Shah's extravagance and repression led to revolution.

I was taking night classes at Portland State during the hostage crisis. There was a number of Iranian students. It was tense.

Some 20 years later I worked with Iranians at a company started by Iranians. Some were critical of the USA like anyone, none were anti USA. The sister of one was imprisoned under the Shah. It was a police state. Banning Iranian immigrants makes no dense.

We are not learning the lessons, screwing with the Iran leadership will be unpredictable.

They are bad actors funding terrorists, no question. But so are the Saudis. No question there either.

Iran is unlikely to mount any overt aggression, it is not in their interest. What I got clearly from the Iranians was that any US attack on Iran would galvanize the people against us. Further the GWB rhetoric calling Iran evil only served to strengthen the Iranian hardliners, the moderates were on the verge of making gains. They have a strong identity and sense of history. If you want to pick a fight call an Iranian Arab. I did that once.

It is not just Trump, Congress is making political use of a hard line on Iran.
 
A full blown war with Iran would indeed be difficult and costly to do. It's a much bigger country than Iraq and has more natural defenses.
On the bright side, if the theocratic regime is toppled, there is a much better chance of creating a stable, democratic and hopefully even somewhat secular country. Question is, could we help the Iranian opposition to topple their dictators?
Our record in the Middle East is not good, and our record with Iran is abysmal. There is no reason for the Iranian opposition to trust the US to help them (even if we wanted to) - look at our last "help". The notion that we can help the Middle East become stable and democratic without occupying the entire area is wishful thinking. And the idea that we can trust Israel (and especially an inveterate liar like Netanhys) to give us accurate and unbiased information is also wishful thinking.

Is Derec advocating regime change, and implying that the US is able to CREATE "a stable, democratic and hopefully even somewhat secular country"?
OMFG... and I supposed that having Forrest Gump at the helm is what will make this do-able despite the lessons of the past?

I´m having flashbacks of Loren et al advocating for invading Iraq while being to cowardly to join up themselves.
If I remember correctly Loren was gung ho to join up but he has some dietary restrictions so it was unfortunately impossible......"I would be a NAVY SEAL but I´m lactose intolerant".
 
Is Derec advocating regime change, and implying that the US is able to CREATE "a stable, democratic and hopefully even somewhat secular country"?
OMFG... and I supposed that having Forrest Gump at the helm is what will make this do-able despite the lessons of the past?

I´m having flashbacks of Loren et al advocating for invading Iraq while being to cowardly to join up themselves.
If I remember correctly Loren was gung ho to join up but he has some dietary restrictions so it was unfortunately impossible......"I would be a NAVY SEAL but I´m lactose intolerant".
Better memory than mine. I don't recall that. I don't even know if I recall Loren being for the invasion.
 
I´m having flashbacks of Loren et al advocating for invading Iraq while being to cowardly to join up themselves.
If I remember correctly Loren was gung ho to join up but he has some dietary restrictions so it was unfortunately impossible......"I would be a NAVY SEAL but I´m lactose intolerant".

1) I was never for the invasion. I was for taking some punitive military action. I had suggested one night the bombers go in and remove the "palaces" we weren't allowed to inspect.

2) Lactose intolerance is a tiny issue compared to my dietary issues.
 
I cannot accurately describe how fucking stupid it would be to renege on a deal not even five years old that seven separate nations agreed to simply because an Israeli Prime Minister who is under a pretty serious criminal investigation says so. It certainly sends a clear message to the folks in North Korea about any deal they might have with the US.

This is probably Trump's true legacy of his Presidency. He has, now and forever, cemented the United States reputation as completely unreliable in international agreements, subject to any whimsical change after the next election cycle.
 
I cannot accurately describe how fucking stupid it would be to renege on a deal not even five years old that seven separate nations agreed to simply because an Israeli Prime Minister who is under a pretty serious criminal investigation says so.

You have to understand that there are people (some of them commenting in this very thread) who feel that said Israeli Prime Minister can do nothing wrong. And even if that were the case, the State of Israel can do no wrong.

So if Bibi is opposed to the Iran deal, the Iran deal is always wrong.
 
Yes, only the US has permission to involve itself in Syria and other countries. Anyone else doing it is clearly out of line. The US has a beam in its eye criticizing Iran's mote in its eye.
Mote? Are you aware of the extent of Iranian involvement in Syria? Yemen? Gaza? Lebanon where their puppets Hezbollah are part of the government?
I think it is opposite for many. US is considered evil whatever it does and meanwhile real evildoers like Putin, Assad, Kim Jong and the Ayatollahs are given free pass to do whatever they want. That comes from listening to RT and Glen Greenwald all day.

How did he compare to the Democratic government that came before? You know, the one the CIA toppled to make room for the Shah?
What democratic government? We must finally bury the myth that Mosaddeq was some kind of democrat. He gave himself emergency decree powers. He suspended elections so he would not lose. And he stole US and UK assets.
The whole story of his fall is much more interesting and complicated than the "US bad" version.

There's this weird idea in US foreign policy that in every conflict there's a bad guy and a good guy. All we have to do is figure out which one is the good guy, back that one, and everything will turn out fine. It is also complete nonsense.

I can fix US foreign policy in the Mid-East with four words: neither side is good.

There was a time, up until the 20th Century, where staying out of a war was considered a virtuous act. If North Elbonia and South Elbonia went to war, all their neighbors would say "as we are not a part of this war, you have no right to attack our trading vessels nor detain our people without probable cause." And that right was respected by the North Elbonians and the South Elbonians. So when the Duchy of Grand Fenwick sells a barrel of wine to the South Elbonian merchant, the best the North Elbonian soldier can do is say "now if only I could outbid, then I could deprive him of his wine." Now if some Fenwickite were to decide to join the North Elbonian army and got captured by the South Elbonian army, his actions deprive him of the protection of neutrality and do not reflect on any position of the Duchy.

Once it became accepted and then expected that other countries would intervene, the world became a more dangerous place. For you see, the reason North Elbonia and South Elbonia are at war is because North Elbonia was jealous of the lush gerbil farming profits on the South Elbonian gerbil farms. So the North Elbonians engineered a coup and installed their puppet Grand Poobah of South Elbonia who gave very lucrative gerbil farming contracts to North Elbonian countries. The South Elbonian freedom fighters got their act together, rebelled against the Grand Poobah, had him executed for treason, and appointed their own Grand Poobah who promptly cancelled the contracts. That is when North Elbonia used their giant slingshot to stage a "limited strike with no boots on the ground" against South Elbonia. Since North Elbonia is a US ally and US companies had invested in North Elbonian Gerbil Farming companies, the US had a stake in preventing self-determination and gave lots of propaganda about how the current Grand Poobah was naughty and the previous one is good, and the one before that was so naughty he eventually made a fortune off of the coal in his Christmas stocking. They hurt the independent Duchy of Grand Fenwick by saying "we have established an embargo against South Elbonia, you can't sell them wine, we don't allow it."

We? Who are we to say who the Duchy of Grand Fenwick is allowed to trade with? And why is the CIA trying to stir up domestic discontent in the Duchy? Yes, now a limited war between two countries involves both a neighbor and the US, making the world more dangerous.

And yes, mote. I am aware that Iran has more interests than just Syria. Now shall we call of a list of all the places the US has interests?
 
What is fascinating is that Trump is posturing to put an end to deal that appears to be working while simulataneously signalling he will make a deal with North Korea on denuclearization. So, Trump does not trust Iran even though it has agreed to intrusive inspections, etc.... but he does trust North Korea?
 
What is fascinating is that Trump is posturing to put an end to deal that appears to be working while simulataneously signalling he will make a deal with North Korea on denuclearization. So, Trump does not trust Iran even though it has agreed to intrusive inspections, etc.... but he does trust North Korea?

I think that Trump just has so much hatred for Obama that he wants to reverse everything that Obama did.
 
Back
Top Bottom