[quote]ShunGokuSatsu wrote:
i think you should not think too one sided. Both parties are in a difficult position. Just image some forein power takes away your land and you cant fight it with anything but suicide attack. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist ( i know it’s overused). And by the way, during Second Intifada about 5 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis.
For the issue with the drone: how would you feel if there was some chinese / russian bomber was flying over NY without permission?[/quote]
Hey, I felt sorry for the Palestinians during the intifada, but when Hamas started a campaign of blowing up busses during peace talks, I changed my mind. The Palestinians had their chance at peace, but their current leaders derailed it. Who’s fault is that?
Which led to the Shah, which led to Khomeini and the embassy hostage situation and so on and so forth.
[/quote]
Is this a joke response? I thought we were talking about current events, not history. [/quote]
Without history there are no current events. Meddling in foreign affairs for its own benefit has led the USA to a point of no return. War with Iran will be that point, and if the USA chooses to go to war again, it will be its [and our] downfall.
Then why won’t you explain the ‘history’ that you brought up and that I’ve asked about? HOW did US/UK involvement in the Shah’s 1953 coup lead to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and everything since? Tell us the history.
How so? As you said:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Without history there are no current events.
[/quote]
So how so? Tell us the history. You are the expert on history and we need to understand it. And how can you understand the Shah’s 1953 coup without understanding what came before? Tell us all about the Iran crisis of 1946, Iran during the war - before. Tell us what US did wrong all along the way.
Meaningless.
What does that mean ‘go to war?’ You mean an invasion of Iran? Why would that be its[and your] downfall? If you are not prepared to explain what you are posting then why are you posting? And why do you hold such strong opinions on something you can’t/won’t explain?
Then why won’t you explain the ‘history’ that you brought up and that I’ve asked about? HOW did US/UK involvement in the Shah’s 1953 coup lead to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and everything since? Tell us the history.
[/quote]
For the same reason people gathered in churches in East Germany.
It was a safe place to meet and the clerics had the balls to say what everyone else was thinking.
Why revolution was in the air after the UK and the USA installed a despot cannot possibly have been the question.
Then why won’t you explain the ‘history’ that you brought up and that I’ve asked about? HOW did US/UK involvement in the Shah’s 1953 coup lead to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and everything since? Tell us the history.
[/quote]
For the same reason people gathered in churches in East Germany.
It was a safe place to meet and the clerics had the balls to say what everyone else was thinking.
Why revolution was in the air after the UK and the USA installed a despot cannot possibly have been the question. [/quote]
After? How many coups in the years BEFORE the Shah’s? Didn’t I explain my little weasel that Mossadeq had already lost and regained power? that there had been half a dozen coups in 3 years and that Stalin had instigated a Communist insurgency? - not to mention Khomeini’s mentors who assassinated the democratically elected PM in 1951? As I said, what should the US have done differently? No one can explain. The educated, urban elite gathered around the Shah in opposition to the Islamic fundamentalists, Communists and people like Mossadeq who courted Stalin and wooed the Communist vote with a radical oil nationalisation platform.
But I’m always interested in hearing the revisionist version. So far we’ve got to:
US involvement in Shah’s 1953 coup = 1979 Islamic revolution and everything since.
That’s where we are still at and that’s where we will still be until the good Doctor tells the zombies WHY he claims this.
Then why won’t you explain the ‘history’ that you brought up and that I’ve asked about? HOW did US/UK involvement in the Shah’s 1953 coup lead to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and everything since? Tell us the history.
[/quote]
For the same reason people gathered in churches in East Germany.
It was a safe place to meet and the clerics had the balls to say what everyone else was thinking.
Why revolution was in the air after the UK and the USA installed a despot cannot possibly have been the question. [/quote]
After? How many coups in the years BEFORE the Shah’s? Didn’t I explain my little weasel that Mossadeq had already lost and regained power? that there had been half a dozen coups in 3 years and that Stalin had instigated a Communist insurgency? - not to mention Khomeini’s mentors who assassinated the democratically elected PM in 1951? As I said, what should the US have done differently? No one can explain. The educated, urban elite gathered around the Shah in opposition to the Islamic fundamentalists, Communists and people like Mossadeq who courted Stalin and wooed the Communist vote with a radical oil nationalisation platform.
But I’m always interested in hearing the revisionist version. So far we’ve got to:
US involvement in Shah’s 1953 coup = 1979 Islamic revolution and everything since.
That’s where we are still at and that’s where we will still be until the good Doctor tells the zombies WHY he claims this.[/quote]
Oh they might have gotten into trouble without foreign involvement, the fact of the matter however is that they had plenty of help from both the US and the UK.
Before and during the Sha regime.
Add to that the help to Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war, who, as it turns out was not a particularly nice guy, the trade sanctions, US warships in the PERSIAN gulf (sic!), US bases all around Iran and the aid to groups operating in Iran that would be described as terrorists where they not furthering the US administrations goals and yes, Iranians are reasonably pissed and this actually does unite their people at least in part behind their regime.
This started (for me) with [quote]ephrem wrote:
Destabilizing the middle east for the benefit of the good ol’ US of A drags everybody else down too.
That’s modern times for ya.
Now cut it out.[/quote]
Now we’re at:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Which led to the Shah, which led to Khomeini and the embassy hostage situation and so on and so forth.
[/quote]
Is this a joke response? I thought we were talking about current events, not history. [/quote]
Without history there are no current events. Meddling in foreign affairs for its own benefit has led the USA to a point of no return. War with Iran will be that point, and if the USA chooses to go to war again, it will be its [and our] downfall.
[/quote]
So, did we “cut it out” in '53? Or are you just trolling? Eh, unless you have a serious response, I’m done. Sorry to feed the trolls everyone.
This started (for me) with [quote]ephrem wrote:
Destabilizing the middle east for the benefit of the good ol’ US of A drags everybody else down too.
That’s modern times for ya.
Now cut it out.[/quote]
Now we’re at:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Which led to the Shah, which led to Khomeini and the embassy hostage situation and so on and so forth.
[/quote]
Is this a joke response? I thought we were talking about current events, not history. [/quote]
Without history there are no current events. Meddling in foreign affairs for its own benefit has led the USA to a point of no return. War with Iran will be that point, and if the USA chooses to go to war again, it will be its [and our] downfall.
[/quote]
So, did we “cut it out” in '53? Or are you just trolling? Eh, unless you have a serious response, I’m done. Sorry to feed the trolls everyone. [/quote]
Well I say, I’ve never been called a troll before.
Short answer: you’ve never stopped meddling in foreign affairs. Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, Somalia and the list goes on, and on, and on.
Without another superpower cancelling your hunger for oil and control out, the lobsided push for more can only end in agony.
But I must admit, with SOPA, NDAA and your republican candidates you have far bigger problems to deal with, but I fear that ultimately we all will pay the price.
Oh they might have gotten into trouble without foreign involvement, the fact of the matter however is that they had plenty of help from both the US and the UK.
Before and during the Sha regime.
Add to that the help to Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war,
[/quote]
You skipped the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis. Any wonder U.S. aided Saddam?
Oh they might have gotten into trouble without foreign involvement, the fact of the matter however is that they had plenty of help from both the US and the UK.
Before and during the Sha regime.
Add to that the help to Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war,
[/quote]
You skipped the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis. Any wonder U.S. aided Saddam?[/quote]
No, no wonder at all.
A prick, is a prick, is a prick.
When that same prick considers it “an act of war” when his victim wont return a spy drone he just happened to lose it ventures into the realm of the surreal though.
When that same prick considers it “an act of war” when his victim wont return a spy drone he just happened to lose it ventures into the realm of the surreal though. [/quote]
I think any of these qualify as an act of war, but war crimes perpetrated by Iran against Americans/others are, like the Russians, given a free pass by the anti-american, revisionists.
This started (for me) with [quote]ephrem wrote:
Destabilizing the middle east for the benefit of the good ol’ US of A drags everybody else down too.
That’s modern times for ya.
Now cut it out.[/quote]
Now we’re at:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Which led to the Shah, which led to Khomeini and the embassy hostage situation and so on and so forth.
[/quote]
Is this a joke response? I thought we were talking about current events, not history. [/quote]
Without history there are no current events. Meddling in foreign affairs for its own benefit has led the USA to a point of no return. War with Iran will be that point, and if the USA chooses to go to war again, it will be its [and our] downfall.
[/quote]
So, did we “cut it out” in '53? Or are you just trolling? Eh, unless you have a serious response, I’m done. Sorry to feed the trolls everyone. [/quote]
Well I say, I’ve never been called a troll before.
Short answer: you’ve never stopped meddling in foreign affairs. Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, Somalia and the list goes on, and on, and on.
Without another superpower cancelling your hunger for oil and control out, the lobsided push for more can only end in agony.
But I must admit, with SOPA, NDAA and your republican candidates you have far bigger problems to deal with, but I fear that ultimately we all will pay the price.
[/quote]
So now [quote][purposefully] Destabilizing the middle east for the benefit of the good ol’ US of A[/quote] has become [quote] [the USA has] never stopped meddling in foreign affairs[/quote]. A huge shift, no? Shifting the conversation around like this so quickly is either sloppy thinking or purposeful trolling. I seem to recall you posting intelligent things before, so I’m guessing the later.
btw, since you brought it up, check out North Korea.
What exactly is your problem Gambit? The USA has, and continues to do so, destabilised nations and regions to gain a foothold there for its own benefit.
A war with Iran is another step in that process.
The difference is that we’re on the brink of a global economic collapse and another war will not prevent that, only expedite it.
I think, and this is just me, we will have to see what becomes of Iraq (obviously US military ‘advisors’ see circa. 1960 Vietnam will remain but the troops on the ground will not).
Iraq has the possibliity of being split in 3 by 3 of the biggest regional players in the Middle East
The Iranians, who have been supporting a Shia theocratic state, arming insurgents, and generally using proxies to be a nuisance.
The Saudis, who already feel threatened by the Iranians, but had the Sunni-led majority of Saddam’s Iraq as a buffer between them and the Iranians. No more. It’ll be interesting to see how they react, but I would be surprised if they weren’t developing nukes as well.
Also Turkey, who have their own Kurd problems, and probably wouldn’t be keen about a separatist Kurd state on their doorstep.
I think by this time next year, we will know where the cards will fall.
EDIT:
Let me just say I agree with Ephrem on one account - a typical war (ground invasion) of Iran would be an absolute disaster. It would wreck the world economy, bog the US down for another generation (and the UK if we are stupid enough to get involved) and just cause a massive clusterfuck.
However Iran AND Pakistan need to be confronted and their nasty regimes addressed. This can only be kicked down the road so long before it blows up in our faces. Whether conciliation or what the Israelis have been doing is the answer I cannot say. I think it is the height of Orientalism that all Iranians believe in 12th mehdi stuff. I believe that they have enough reason to understand a war is in no one’s interest. Then again, best laid plans and all that…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
What exactly is your problem Gambit? [/quote]
You made a wild claim, I bit. Now you seem to be dodging questions. I guess my “problem” is that some otherwise very intelligent people still like to “hate” on the US without honestly thinking about things.
This is exactly where we started, except you only mentioned the Middle East. I asked you for an example. You, thus far, have only provided one and it was from almost 60 years ago.
Perhaps I missed this, what “process” are you talking about?
[quote] The difference is that we’re on the brink of a global economic collapse and another war will not prevent that, only expedite it. [/quote] Agreed, that is a real threat. Now let’s weigh that against what will happen if Iran gets nukes and we can have a conversation.
I believe you implied that the US destabilized Korea, or at least that the US was wrong to go into Korea. Many South Koreans would argue otherwise. The pic shows in stark contrast the difference between North and South.
