[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
I think that is a more accurate description using the neighborhood analogy when applied to US-Iran relations. We’ve tried your jingoist kill-em-all approach nincompoop, that’s why we have these problems with Iran in the first place.
[/quote]
I don’t remember ever trying that approach. I remember the Iran/Azerbaijan crisis in '46 when Stalin refused to end Soviet occupation of Iranian territory and oilfields after repeated assurances. I remember the Soviet/Islamist petro-nationalisation movement and the Islamist/Soviet assassination of the pro-Western PM in '51. I remember Churchill’s and later Eisenhower’s support for the Shah and operation AJAX/TRAJAX project.
I remember the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis. I remember Jimmy Carter fucking around for ages and the failed rescue attempt. I remember the support for Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war. The Iranian backed truckbombing of US Marine barracks in the Lebanon. The weapons for hostages. But I don’t remember the ‘kill-em-all approach’ ever being taken.
HH was talking about the US launching a nuclear strike on Iran BTW. I think it’s some sort of trolling attempt or something.[/quote]
That’s what the Iran-Iraq War was. USA prodded Saddam and enabled him to take down the Iranian’s at all costs. It resulted in a million Iranians dead. It’s the reason they all want us dead now.[/quote]
Do they have a crystal ball? Is that why they kidnapped 52 US embassy staff BEFORE the Iran-Iraq war?[/quote]
They did that to force the US out of Iranian domestic affairs. Do you remeber the 40 years the USA held the entirety of Iran hsotage via a Dicator known as the Shah?[/quote]
Read through the quote of mine above. Namely, ‘I remember Churchill’s and later Eisenhower’s support for the Shah and operation AJAX/TRAJAX project’. And the US didn’t hold ‘the entirety of Iran hostage via…the Shah’. The Shah made Iran the most liberal and free muslim country in the entire Middle East. Under the Shah’s rule women attended university and worked in professional occupations. Islamic fundamentalists were suppressed. In addition, it was Churchill who began support for the Shah not the US. Eisenhower was reluctant.
Following the revolution Iran became an Islamic fundamentalist oligarchy and millions of educated Iranians fled. The Ayatollah Khomeini brought down the legal marriage age to 9. Your argument that the Shah’s rule was bad for the country is utterly ridiculous.[/quote]
You call the wasteful opulence of the Shah just? He built magnificent palace’s while his people suffered from dire poverty. You call the SAVAK an instrument of freedom? The Shah was BS, and any reforms he implemented were simply to appear more Western and not actually progressive. Mossadeq was a progressive, and he was deposed by the CIA and MI6. Iran is not an oligarchy, Iran is a Republic based off Plato’s book by the same name. You can put fingers in your ears and say nah nah nah all you want, but it doesn’t chagne the fact that women DO get educated in Iran, they are involved in public dialogue and argue with men (watch Iranian TV on youtube), and that Iran has both Jew and Christian senators, despite the inevitable “OH THE JEWS” line you’re about to pull. Iran is messed up, but it’s not THAT messed up, TBH Saudi Arabia is far more f*ed up than Iran will ever be. If you dislike the Aytatollah, you have the Shah to thank for that because his pandering to Western powers and suppression of Islam is what resulted in him coming into power. Had the USA/UK never interfered Iran would probably be just a secular Republic with a large and influential Muslim population ala Turkey.
