mweber24

worldcitizen,
I assume that like the current government of Iran, you do not believe the U.N. has any legitimacy, otherwise your assertions make no logical sense. How can Iranian failure to comply with U.N. mandated verification standards to ensure it is compliant with the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty be "legal" if Iran has any respect for the U.N.? How can the presence of coalition forces in Iraq be "illegal" if it is currently authorized by both the government of Iraq (elected by popular vote, as opposed to the supreme Islamic council answerable only to God) and the U.N.? Sadaam was equipped with almost entirely Soviet and French military equipment during the Iran-Iraq war, but it was a U.S. sponsored war? Iran seems pretty buddy buddy with Russia today, why the lack of blame for past sins for the Russians, but America remains the Great Satan? Personnally, if Iran invaded a Mexico that had attacked and killed 2 million Americans, used chemical weapons against America, was in violation of about 18 U.N. resolutions, and showed every indication of continuing to pose a threat to America, I might feel pretty DAMN GRATEFUL that they removed a despicable tyrant that was a long term threat to my nation's security, with his son's being an even greater threat because by all indications they were CRAZY. Of course, I would prefer to have the military power to have done that myself, instead of waste my resources in proxy wars and with a centralized economy that squanders billions in easily earned oil wealth...Iran has every reason and right to desire influence in Iraq, it is a neighbor and a past security threat, but killing Americans is a stupid way of going about it. How about economic aid? How about improved defense ties? How about a free trade zone? How about ANY way other than promoting violence that seems to be the only contribution Iran has made to the region and the world since 1979?

Cut to the point, everything Iran does is justified in your mind because it is in the percieved best interest of Iran. I think Iran is pursuing a stupidly self destructive path, and has since it ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED the U.S. Embassy (a flagrant act of war by all historical standards), but I will not argue that a nation will always pursue what it thinks is in its best interest. The U.S. is no different, we act in our percieved best interests. Unfortunately, Iranian interests and U.S. interests do not have much in common. The U.S. wants representative government with respective individual rights and rule of law, free trade, and the absence of terrorist attacks. We believe this to be the best way to achieve regional stability and lack of conflict, while promoting economic development of the region AND the United States (yes we like less expensive oil). Iran seems to want theocratic tyranny, centralized markets with a stranglehold on the global oil market, a scapegoat to blame every problem it faces to justify its lack of progress to its people, and a nuclear deterrent to preclude any outside power from forcibly removing its government. Have fun with that.

__________________
The SWO

S-2

Nice shot across the pinko's bow, Navy guy.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Zemco

The US (and UK) is to blame for that.

The Shah had told Bill Sullivan (the US ambassador) that he had cancer, wanted to abdicate, and requested visas to the US for he and his family so that he could get treatment. Both the Shah and Sullivan agreed that Khomeini would be the next leader of Iran, and using French and British contacts, started low level talks with Khomeini's people that progressed quite well over the months.

They were just a short time away from a face-to-face meeting when the French caught wind of US plans and thwarted them. The French didn't want Khomeini, they wanted their man (another ayatollah whose name escapes me) to be the next leader, so they leaked word of the Shah's intended abdication, and that is how the "revolution" started.

The situation was salvageable, except Carter screwed up by listening to Brzezinski and Gary Sick. They sent General Huygens to Iran to convince the military to take over the country in a coup. Carter did not consult with Ambassador Sullivan or Army Chief of Staff Al Haig (who lived in Iran and speaks Farsi), and Brzezinski and Sick made sure of that, because both were opposed to military intervention. Haig knew the Iranian army was incapable of running the country.

When Khomeini arrives in-country and sees General Huygens and the Iranian army flat-dicking around, what do you suppose were the first thoughts running through his mind?

Any normal person with half a brain would believe they're being set up for assassination, or being double-crossed, or in the least worst case scenario, being played for a fool, so don't blame Khomeini for being human.

This whole mess and the last 30 years of nonsense could have been avoided if Carter had listened to Sullivan, and consulted with Al Haig, instead of listening to Brzezinski and Sick.

And that is not inherently problematic.

And that position fails to take into consideration the social and demographic constructs of Iran (and the region), specifically the fact that those countries are tribal and clan based societies along with nations, not nation-states, the history of the region, and especially the role of the US in supporting a murderous puppet dictator affectionately known as a Shah, and his CIA/DGSE trained SAVAK (Iranian secret police).

Well, the US and UK had more than 40 unimpeded years to act as a benevolent power and could have effected an entire generation by bringing about a primary and secondary education system, establishing stable democratic institutions, engaging in constructive dialog with the many ethnic and religious groups, and laying the ground work for a free market system raising the quality of life and standard of living for Iranians.

Instead, the US did nothing except help the government brutally suppress dissenting opinions, and the UK, a country where better than 90% of the industries and natural resources where nationalized, started frothing at the mouth and quibbling with Iranians over a non-event like the nationalization of its oil and natural gas fields. The multiple assassination attempts on PM Massadeq by the US and UK doesn't exactly leave Iranians with a warm fuzzy feeling (and neither do memories of family and friends being wrongfully imprisoned, brutally tortured or murdered by the SAVAK).

If the US is so heavily dependent on the centralized Iranian economy and its measly 5% of the world's oil and natural gas to keep the US from burning down, falling over and sinking into a swamp, then that is the fault of the US, not the fault of Iran.

US foreign policy in Iran for the last 70 years has failed. It might be easier and cheaper just to extend an olive branch, have a sitting US president go to Iran and publicly apologize for the cold-blooded attempted murder of PM Massadeq and ask forgiveness, offer to help the Iranians build desalinization plants and nuclear power plants so their economy can further develop, and teach them the benefits of a free market economy while simultaneously respecting the religious beliefs of the Iranians, and lastly, come to terms with, and accept the fact that, the Iranians (and others in the Middle East) want modernization, not westernization.

As soon as the US learns and understands the difference between modernization and westernization, it will find that things in the Middle East will go a lot more smoothly.

mweber24

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.

WorldCitizen

That's a tricky one. I think the fact that the IAEA has said that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program probably clears that. Any attempt by the UN to change the NPT to say "Any nation bar Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology for domestic power purposes" should be questioned, although I'm not sure by whom.

That's a good question. Of course, the premise is incorrect. The Iraqi Parliament demanded a timetable for US withdrawal, a demand that was almost entirely censored in the western media, and was ignored by the US.

The US was supplying arms throughout the conflict, but it's support was largely covert in order to maintain its apparent 'neutrality'. It had to abandon all pretense of neutrality when the a faction within the Iranian government leaked details of US arms dealings.

Kuwait was becoming increasingly worried by Iran's battlefield successes (possibly due to the volume of US arms it had received). In 1986, before the scandal broke, it approached both Washington and Moscow and asked if they would be interested in reflagging some Kuwaiti vessels, that is, flying their own flags on Kuwaiti ships and then protecting these new additions to their merchant marine. The initial U.S. reaction was lackadaisical. But when the U.S. learned in March 1987 that the Soviet Union offered to reflag eleven tankers, it promptly offered to reflag the same eleven ships -- which would both keep Soviet influence out of the Gulf and give the United States the opportunity to demonstrate its support for Iraq.

The results of the presense of the US Navy in the gulf is well documented. Needless to say, it was bloody.

The US and UK have been torturing Iran since what, 1953? 1979, that sounds a familiar date. Is that the date they finally overthrew the brutal dictator we installed?

Dreadnought

Iran tortures itself these days. There is absolutely no reason for them to follow the path that they are. Most problems could be worked out but their President is the wrong person for this job.

That particular man will bring that country more trouble then what the people are prepared to accept or deal with.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

lwarmonger

They have also said that they don't have anywhere near enough information on the Iranian program to be sure of that assessment. Back to square one.

The Iraqi government and parliment are fully aware that a continued American presence is necessary to prevent a civil war. A gradual draw down is what both we and the Iraqi government want, not a sudden and disasterous (for Iraq) pullout.

Untrue. Our support for Iraq was inconsistent and done largely through proxies (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, ect) who had a vested interest in using Iraq as a shield. The Iraqis ended the war using mostly French and Soviet equipment as well.

All of Iran's talk of "exporting revolution" didn't help win them any friends either.

We got involved there because a threat to Europe and Japans' oil supply was unacceptable, but that was exactly what was happening.


And replaced it with a brutal dictator of their own? Whose government threatens or has threatened the stability of much of Europe's and Asia's oil supply, and who sponsors active guerilla warfare against no fewer than three democratic governments (namely Lebanon, Iraq and Israel). Sounds like a great trade.

Albany Rifles

Across? It looked more like into the bow.

__________________
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves." TSGT Oddball, Tank Commander

S-2

We are awash in ill-considered views these days at WAB.

It's as though the buses pulled up and the characters from STRIPES piled out, all wanting to know when they can call home.

mweber24 done good.

Albany Rifles

Does that mean that Parihaka is our Big Toe?

S-2

...and our bestest buddy!

Bella

WorldCitizen,
Wow! Think about what your going to say before you say it!

1st! Would the U.S. defend Canada, and Mexico if attacked?........Yes!
Duh!!......The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have many different religious beliefs, but we don't kill, or hate each other over them!
In Iraq, you got the Sunni's, Shias, and Kurds that all hate each other and try to kill each other in the same country!
Why do you think Iran and Iraq were at war for so long and so many people were killed? They were both of Muslium beliefe, but still hated each other.
Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, all believe in pretty much believe that everyone has the right to "Freedom Of Religion!"
Since we are together as one, we will defend our rights!!

Anglo-American Invaision????!!!
Let me ask you! Is the world a better place without Saddam killing people that are not of his race or religion?
Like killing thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons?
I tell you what, maybe you should ask some older experience people about Hitler? OH! Wait! that might be a wrong question for you!
Irianians hate Jews and want to see them......excuse me, "WIPED OF THE FACE OF THE EARTH!"

Your other statement about the U.S. playing the "WORLD COP" roll!!
I'm just going to laugh at you for this statement! Why? Because the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world! If we did nothing...........oh like feed the starving nations, help other countries that were invaded, or whatever, you, YES YOU!! would be the fist person to B*TCH about how the U.S. is so rich and does nothing!!
Read my past threads about how superpowers are, "DAMNED IF THEY DO, AND DAMNED IT THEY DON'T!!".

Your last statment...........you said something about that maybe the U.S. caught Saddam, and that they should have paraded him around to let the world know!.....What do you mean?..........Like parade how Insurgents parade dead American troops that have been killled?
Oh!........the U.S. can do that!!.........but we're not going to stoop to your level!!

ba1025

Malaki has closer ties. With Malaki they get a puppet with Sadr a friend. Either way it's bed geopolitically for us. Death by hanging or lethal injection....neither is a good choice.

ba1025

Be clear on a few things. When Saddam was practicing genocide against the Kurds we were supplying him with military tech and supporting him against Iran. Remember the famous picture of Rummy shaking his hand on the Tarmac in Baghdad in 1985? If we were willing to spend blood to stop genocide we'd be in Darfour. The bloodiness of his regime is a revisionist reason for being there.

The shia were slaughtered when they rose up on our encouragement and we did nothing

Saddam, Sadr, Malaki.... the names change the policies will remain the same toward minority populations. How is having Shia kill Sunni any better than having Sunni kill shia? It's not like ethnic violence was higher in 2002 than it was in 2007. more ethnic killings have taken place since we ended the Secular regime of Saddam than the entire reign of Saddam. Here's another tidbit. What about the christians in IRAQ? have you read about how all our freedom has helped them. They all left or went underground. No more public celebrations of Xmas, no more liquor stores etc etc. We cleared teh way for Islamic law and destroyed secularism. Women used to be able to go out with uncovered heads....used to. It's great to say my country right or wrong but really WE WERE ****ING DISASTEROUSLY WRONG if we imagined invading Iraq would be good for us.



The best thing we can do with Iran is promote alternative energy. With the rise in oil prices we have propped up that govt with our own $. There economy is a ruin w/o $100 a barrel oil. Our poor policies are why the Iranian people haven't removed their own govt. Iranians as a people are not hostile to us and if they felt the pain of that govts failed economic policies domestically it would be history. So, the best thing we can do is create downward pressures on oil prices which will create increasing civil unrest inside Iran.
We know that govt system is the suck w/o huge oil revenues.

Myself I care about the interest of the USA of A and I'd of preferred a state opposed to Iran and bottled up with sanctions rather than a Puppet if the Badr brigade comes out on top or an ally if Sadr does. make no mistake one or the other will of siezed power after we leave. Invading Iraq was about non existent WMDs, then about taking down Saddam, then about bringing democracy...talk about mission creep. Anyway it was a blunder in a realpolitik world.

Parihaka

I would have considered it the complete opposite. America has an army of around 80,000 strategically placed for the next 50 years, the time the world needs to be weaned off oil. You want that and McDonalds franchises?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz