World Affairs Board - View Single Post

mweber24 · 04-02-2008, 15:50 PM

So past grievances justify 30 years of promoting violence throughout the region, primarily against Muslims? That makes NO sense. Past grievances can justify poor relations and inherent distrust, they do not justify unending proxy war, sorry.

The US MAY have been able to enable a smoother transition from Shaw to Khomehni, but what would that have accomplished from the US standpoint? Would that have prevented nationalization of foreign own assets? Would that have allowed for representative government? Would that have prevented Iranian support for Hezbollah and its war against Israel? Would that have stopped an apparant quest for a nuclear weapon? Would that have prevented threats to disrupt the global oil supply? Would that have prevented Iranian arms and training being provided to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would that have made Iran a successful nation despite economic mismanagement? No. The U.S. and Israel are convenient scapegoats for the tyranical government to blame for all their incompetance. If the US enabled Khomeni, WE may not be such an obvious scapegoat, but Israel still would, as would ALL of western civilization, and probably every Sunni alive too. When will the blame game stop? 50 years, 100? Can the US use our grievances against the U.K. to justify a global insurgency against British interests and blame all our economic woes on colonialism?

Iran is less tribal than most nations in the region. Representative government in Iran would be in danger of trampling the minorities, but that is a danger in EVERY nation and can be overcome with established rule of law that applies to all individuals and some basic human rights (at least those guarenteed under Sharia law). Non-muslims may continue to get a raw deal in Iran, but religious tolarance does not have to be absolute to be acceptable to the global community.

The U.S. and U.K. DID NOT take advantage of the time of the Shaw in Iran. I would agree that a policy promoting representative government with rule of law would have served us better today than our support any nominal ally policy of the past. That being said, the larger issue before 1990 was first, economic growth, and then, prevention of the spread of communism which posed a threat to our national survival. Being annexed by the Soviet Union in 1953 would not have been all that benficial to Iran either, and don't think for a minute that the Soviets had no designs on Iran for their own ends, and were MUCH less friendly to Muslims than a Shaw led government, even with its human rights abuses and tyranny.

The US is NOT dependent on the Iranian economy. It can be argued that it is the other way around (we buy oil from Canada and Mexico, Iran would have NOTHING if not for US led global energy demand in the form of oil). IRANIANS are dependent the heavily centralized Iranian economy. Its failure is their poor living conditions despite oil wealth and geographic position. Their poor living conditions require an unsuccessful Iranian government to justify their centralized control and piss poor polices by pointing to a foreign boogyman scapegoat, deflecting blame for all their mistakes. A freer market would benefit Iranians primarily through economic growth, it would benefit America too through better trade, but primarily through less WAR and disruption to the rest of the world market.

The United States is never going to apologize for its past actions to the extent you recommend, especially when US troops are being killed by Iranian weapons. I don't expect Iran to apologize for seizing our embassy, taking hostages for over 400 days, supporting terrorists that killed over 200 Marines on a U.N. mission, laying mines in international waterways, or providing weapons to insurgents that kill U.S. troops today. I do expect that Iranian government to eventually becoming answerable to its own people, and that in time, a representative Iranian government can be persuaded to find some common ground (maybe not much) with the US government going forward. I don't believe the Iranian people would feel the burning desire (if they even do today) to carry out policies so damaging to their own economic growth and so disruptive to good relations with their immediate neighbors if they had a direct power to alter those policies and achieve better economic advancement. People with a bright future, and the power to shape it, do not find it so essential to look to the past for reasons to blame others for failure.

04-02-2008, 15:50 PM	#19 (permalink)
mweber24 *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-18-08 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 78 Country:	So past grievances justify 30 years of promoting violence throughout the region, primarily against Muslims? That makes NO sense. Past grievances can justify poor relations and inherent distrust, they do not justify unending proxy war, sorry. The US MAY have been able to enable a smoother transition from Shaw to Khomehni, but what would that have accomplished from the US standpoint? Would that have prevented nationalization of foreign own assets? Would that have allowed for representative government? Would that have prevented Iranian support for Hezbollah and its war against Israel? Would that have stopped an apparant quest for a nuclear weapon? Would that have prevented threats to disrupt the global oil supply? Would that have prevented Iranian arms and training being provided to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would that have made Iran a successful nation despite economic mismanagement? No. The U.S. and Israel are convenient scapegoats for the tyranical government to blame for all their incompetance. If the US enabled Khomeni, WE may not be such an obvious scapegoat, but Israel still would, as would ALL of western civilization, and probably every Sunni alive too. When will the blame game stop? 50 years, 100? Can the US use our grievances against the U.K. to justify a global insurgency against British interests and blame all our economic woes on colonialism? Iran is less tribal than most nations in the region. Representative government in Iran would be in danger of trampling the minorities, but that is a danger in EVERY nation and can be overcome with established rule of law that applies to all individuals and some basic human rights (at least those guarenteed under Sharia law). Non-muslims may continue to get a raw deal in Iran, but religious tolarance does not have to be absolute to be acceptable to the global community. The U.S. and U.K. DID NOT take advantage of the time of the Shaw in Iran. I would agree that a policy promoting representative government with rule of law would have served us better today than our support any nominal ally policy of the past. That being said, the larger issue before 1990 was first, economic growth, and then, prevention of the spread of communism which posed a threat to our national survival. Being annexed by the Soviet Union in 1953 would not have been all that benficial to Iran either, and don't think for a minute that the Soviets had no designs on Iran for their own ends, and were MUCH less friendly to Muslims than a Shaw led government, even with its human rights abuses and tyranny. The US is NOT dependent on the Iranian economy. It can be argued that it is the other way around (we buy oil from Canada and Mexico, Iran would have NOTHING if not for US led global energy demand in the form of oil). IRANIANS are dependent the heavily centralized Iranian economy. Its failure is their poor living conditions despite oil wealth and geographic position. Their poor living conditions require an unsuccessful Iranian government to justify their centralized control and piss poor polices by pointing to a foreign boogyman scapegoat, deflecting blame for all their mistakes. A freer market would benefit Iranians primarily through economic growth, it would benefit America too through better trade, but primarily through less WAR and disruption to the rest of the world market. The United States is never going to apologize for its past actions to the extent you recommend, especially when US troops are being killed by Iranian weapons. I don't expect Iran to apologize for seizing our embassy, taking hostages for over 400 days, supporting terrorists that killed over 200 Marines on a U.N. mission, laying mines in international waterways, or providing weapons to insurgents that kill U.S. troops today. I do expect that Iranian government to eventually becoming answerable to its own people, and that in time, a representative Iranian government can be persuaded to find some common ground (maybe not much) with the US government going forward. I don't believe the Iranian people would feel the burning desire (if they even do today) to carry out policies so damaging to their own economic growth and so disruptive to good relations with their immediate neighbors if they had a direct power to alter those policies and achieve better economic advancement. People with a bright future, and the power to shape it, do not find it so essential to look to the past for reasons to blame others for failure. __________________ The SWO