So, does anybody know what's up with Iran? A speaker I saw earlier (well, I suppose it was yesterday evening, at this point) seems to have a pretty good idea, and from what he's said I don't blame Iran for hating us. Here's a quick rundown of this man: grandson of an Ayatollah, went to school in Britain, and has called New York his home for the past 20-odd years. Has some political connections in, and was born in, Tehran, but holds a western education. What he focuses on is almost entirely 20^th century happenings between the Middle East and America. Keep in mind, during all of this, that Iran has had over 2,500 years as a country, and thus has a tad of pride in their nation and independence.

So, let's get to the point:

• 1941: Because of raising concerns of German sentiments, Great Britain and the USSR invade to utilize railroads, and the current Shah is forced to abdicate to his son. Whether this is or is not caused by the foreign powers is uncertain. Later, Britain leaves but the USSR remains. The USSR is forced out by threats from America during the Cold War, essentially transferring the feeling of Iran's subservience from the USSR to America.
  
  
• 1948: Israel, America's baby in the Middle East (I'll get to this, if I must), is established, and punishes not the perpetrators of the Holocaust (Germany), but Arab Muslims who had little, if anything to do with the Holocaust. Who said that the Jewish state gets placed there? The UN. Foreign powers.
  
  
• 1953: Operation Ajax is launched, and a successful coup is carried out. Publicly elected Mohammed Mosaddeq is arrested, and increasingly autocratic Mohammad Reza Pahlavi regains control of the majority the government.
  
  
• 1979: Ayatollah Khomeini leads a successful revolution, and replaces the Shah with a more-or-less democratic Islamic nation.
  
  
• 1980: Sensing the weakness of Iran's military, which had been disbanded during the revolution, Saddam Hussein uses chemical weapons and other equipment from the United States to fight Iran. Virtually all organizations have confirmed both that Iraq used chemical weapons and Iran did not. The war continues for 8 years.
  
  
• 1991, 2001-Present: We start two "military actions" against two nearby nations, and overthrow one government, which clearly disregards our own ideals of allowing the people self-government.
  
  
• Present: Nuclear energy/weapons debate. Iran wants the nuclear fuel for energy, to be self-sustaining. America argues that with the technology comes the ability to make nuclear weaponry, gets paranoid of those insane Muslim extremists, and imposes restrictions. Iran's economy gets hurt, but they continue to push. Needless to say, America is among one of the nations violating the IAEA, but Iran is still in perfect compliance with it.

My purpose for posting this is to bring it to your attention, and ask for comments and opinions. Obviously, America and Iran fail to communicate on a human level. That's not the question, the answer to that is too easy. Is it possible for the leaders to understand each other? Would we lift the restrictions if they could understand each other? Or, maybe, would Iran decide that nuking us is in their best interest? If they do get nuclear weapons regardless of our obvious...discouragement, would we find another excuse to invade a third Muslim country?

Iran is demonized, but they're certainly not blameless. A country whose president calls for the destruction of another country has no right to be indigant when its nuclear program is viewed with suspicion.

Their "president" holds no military power whatsoever. The figurehead everybody associates with Iran is the Ayatollah, who controls, for the most part, only the economy and basic day-to-day stuffs. You're looking for the Supreme Leader for military action.

Disregarding that moot point, I'm not up-to-date on this; which country are you talking about? If its Israel, don't you think they have a decent reason to be pissed? Off the top of my head, I can't think of another country they would be as mad at as Israel, so if I'm wrong please correct me.

... yes, Israel.

The President of Iran is the most visible figure in Iran. If he yells "We're going to destroy Israel", people are going to pay attention. If Iran wants to be trusted, then it should stop acting faggoty. While its leaders yell itself hoarse whining about Israel, they're not going to be trusted. If they acted like a nice European country, didn't vow to destroy others, and kept to themselves, no one would care that they have a nuclear program.

The Ayatollah has no direct say in military actions. Sure, he can influence those that make the decisions, but he cannot send over soldiers. It's very roughly the same as Congress saying we are going to war with Greenland. Sure, they can formally declare war, but they do not control the troops whatsoever.

For future reference, I do not advocate nor foresee a war against Greenland, it's just a random country I thought of first.

Do you think that Israel has done nothing to warrant the attention of other countries? Maybe if we decided to stop babying our child and saving them from punishment, Middle Eastern countries might disapprove of both Israel and the United States a little less.

Nevertheless, he is a prominent head of state. There is a big difference between some bum off the street who declares war and a head of state.


Bad analogy, just so you know. Congress can actually order troops into battle. They have both the power and authority to wage war, whereas the President only has executive authority for periods of 90 days, or authority after congress has declared war. Of course, in reality the President way oversteps what he is given in the constitution, but a better analogy might be if say, our representative to the U.N. says that we're going to destroy another country. He can't do shit, but it'd sure make headlines if he did that.

Israel is a very complicated topic. I think most people would agree that it was a mistake, but today, 50-70 years later depending on your point of view of israel as a nation, it's a little too late to pick up and say "oh israel isn't a country anymore, our bad." The issue has evolved from a western-U.N. mistake of moving a people into another people's land, into an issue of surrounding nations trying to destroy a nation. There's no issue anymore over whether Israel is a nation or not, its too late for that. For that reason, I don't think there's any reason to not help them, just as we would want to help any nation under the threat of being decimated by its neighbors.

Yes, bad analogy on my part, and I know it's different for a politician to say that, but your UN rep example is exactly what I was getting at. Little sleep, coupled with a rush to post is usually bad in SD, I know.

I'm not arguing for or against Israel's validity as a nation, that's a moot topic, and not even what I had intended to be touched on if we moved to Israel at all. Instead, have you noticed what Israel is doing to the West Bank (AKA land it does not own)? I don't blame you, the media tends to shine over this. Israeli settlers are moving in on high ground, soldiers occupy Palestinian homes, and Palestinians can do nothing about it. Below is an accurate representation of what's going on (sorry, SEN doesn't like the wikimedia link):



Although the Gaza Strip is relatively untouched, the West Bank is heavily divided up by Israel. "Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel" and "[a]lmost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance" (source, page 2). Don't you think that maybe our helping Israeli military, which wars on Muslim nations, fosters a negative view on Christian America? Furthermore, "Decimated by its neighbors" applies only to a country that does not "win" wars. Short story made even shorter.

That Israel's expanding into territory that Iran doesn't consider to be its is irrelevant. If you want to make an Israel thread, keep that separate. The fact is, Israel is supported by the United States, and when Iran threatens to destroy that, they're closely scrutinized. You know why no one cares that Germany and Japan can theoretically make an a-bomb within a year? Because they don't go around threatening to destroy other countries.

Plus, do you have any proof that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes? I tend to trust the United States government more than some wacko crying about how unfair life is in the middle east.

I feel bad for the wacko who's president wants to kill me only if he doesn't want to kill me.

Everything the leader-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-is doing is textbook politics. It's happened countless times before and it's happening now. "Our" hatred from them is product of politics as well. Sad world

Here's an interesting video for Ron Paul I found. Watch up to about 7:22, where it becomes a usual "vote for me" campaign video. Up until then, it's a nice little history of what effectively caused 9-11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

This is the reason it's disheartening to me that Ron Paul won't get the republican nomination. Every other republican candidate is a fear/war-monger who has no concept of why the US is in the predicament it is. Obama is no better.

Yeah, I have to respect him for this stance, although summarily pulling out of wars isn't simple and doesn't really work in reality. The problem is the rest of his batshit insane policies, like ending the USGS and hurricane tracking system...

Any proof of this? I don't see how it wouldn't work?

I was waiting how long it would take someone to ask this.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/05/iraq_bombings_at_least_57_dead.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/22/rash-of-bombings-kills-dozens-in-iraq-just-days-after-u-s-withdrawal/

You can't simply withdraw from a warzone without ensuring there's a stable government and peace-keeping force left behind. Note that these are bombing in Iraq, which the US has managed ok and had a well-publicised withdrawal timetable. The US war in Afghanistan has gone very poorly by comparison and they're nowhere near a state where they can leave the country without it being taken back by the taliban within months. No country has ever successfully invaded Afghanistan, ever.

Why not? What happens in Iraq or Afghanistan or any of the other countries the USA has invaded is quite simply not the USA's responsibility or problem. They shouldn't have been there in the first place, and they should get out as soon as possible. The consequences of the people who ordered it's actions will hopefully fill them with guilt such that they resign from their position because of their sheer incompetence, but again, what happens in Iraq is not the USA's problem.

Because the USA is allowed to just invade any country it wants and then leave whenever it wants, and whatever happens afterwards it's not USA's fault. Right.

I never said it wasn't their fault. It isn't their business, it isn't their problem, they shouldn't be there, but they definitely are causing problems now, and leaving will cause problems too. It still should be done.

They made it their business and their problem when they invaded. My point is that Ron Paul seems to imply that they could just snap their fingers and move out of Afghanistan (and formerly, Iraq) and everything would be hunky-dory because they wouldn't be spending all that money any more. But money isn't everything - international reputation matters and meddling in middle eastern affairs isn't a good idea in general. Better to try and come to some sort of sensible resolution than just pack up in the middle of an operation because it costs too much. The USA is screwed either way, but I don't think summarily pulling out is the best choice to make at the moment.

Iran has repeatedly committed crimes against humanity. For this reason I think the best course of action is to overthrow their government. Crime should not be tolerated. The UN has demonstrated a complete and utter lack of ability to do anything truly worthwhile. America is involved in its own corporate interests, and China is completely disinterested in promoting freedom or free thought.

The issue of Iran is hardly worth talking about. We impose sanctions and they raise the price of oil? Fine, seize their oil. We've given more than enough opportunities to talk things over. The Iranian regime should not be allowed to exist. Ahmadinejad should be locked up in an insane asylum, not running a country.

Or am I the only one bold enough to actually stand up for human rights?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 7 2012, 12:11 am by Sacrieur.