ISIS bulldozes ruins of ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud, Ira

Page 5 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

09 Mar 2015, 8:29 am

What we're probably looking at then in that case:

1) Nuclear Iran
2) Nukes used by Iran
3) Russia, China, or both sweeping in to take Iran and running even more of a police state than the US did.

People cry on us we capitulate, people cry on Putin it's a different story.

And.... if a culture in some places has gotten so out of hand and savage as to threaten the rest of the world, I'm not saying it's ethical, but do you think it's quite possible that some countries with close to our fire power and more shrewd/practical rather than humanist ethics might decide to take that freedom back from them to the degree that it's being abused? I'm starting to feel like people acting this way are begging for brass-knuckled conquest. We've become the soft-touches of the world, the most we'll do is a retaliatory run or to try and grab a terrorist leader or two, some of the other powers on the block I'm not so sure.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

09 Mar 2015, 9:31 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
^ However, the Shah regime wasn't all that rosy, it was a police state controlled by the USA - the Iranian people have democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh as Prime Minister back in 1951 who was pretty popular among the poor and wanted to nationalize the oil industry, then he was brought down by a coup d'état orchestrated by the British and the American intelligence and put the Shah in power, turning Iran into a ruthless western-puppet police state.

The rise of the Islamists in Iran was a direct consequence of this sh***y policy.


Hang on, according to the Wikipedia article, the Shah wasn't put in power after Mosaddegh's overthrow but rather that he was the same Shah that was in power during his time as Prime Minister, and in fact had already been in power since 1941:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

I don't agree with the British and US interference in Iran with ousting of Mohammad Mosaddegh as Prime Minister, I'm just saying that the Shah was already in power before the ousting, so the US and Britain didn't put him there. I do agree though that the "revolution" was a direct result of this interference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

09 Mar 2015, 9:44 am

I also realize that ISIS being Sunni and really trying to cleanse the Middle-East of Shia, if they succeed in Iraq and Syria it might turn out - Iran with or without a nuke - may have to jump in Russia's lap to survive. That may very well turn out the same way, albeit more clemently for Iran and the conditions, but resultant Russian and possibly Chinese imperialism over of anything that's threatening Iran.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

09 Mar 2015, 11:17 am

Jono wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
^ However, the Shah regime wasn't all that rosy, it was a police state controlled by the USA - the Iranian people have democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh as Prime Minister back in 1951 who was pretty popular among the poor and wanted to nationalize the oil industry, then he was brought down by a coup d'état orchestrated by the British and the American intelligence and put the Shah in power, turning Iran into a ruthless western-puppet police state.

The rise of the Islamists in Iran was a direct consequence of this sh***y policy.


Hang on, according to the Wikipedia article, the Shah wasn't put in power after Mosaddegh's overthrow but rather that he was the same Shah that was in power during his time as Prime Minister, and in fact had already been in power since 1941:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

I don't agree with the British and US interference in Iran with ousting of Mohammad Mosaddegh as Prime Minister, I'm just saying that the Shah was already in power before the ousting, so the US and Britain didn't put him there. I do agree though that the "revolution" was a direct result of this interference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh


The Shah after 1953 was an absolute king with total control of the country, it was a democracy before that. The police state of the Shah is what set the stage for the Iranian Revolution and the virulent anti-Americanism that has followed. This is another example of our enemy not hating us because of our freedoms. The rise of the Islamic Republic is textbook example of blowback, we can't keep making these same mistakes over and over and over again.

There is no proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, there is no proof that Iran would use them even if they were to acquire them. Iran hasn't attacked a neighbor for hundreds of years whereas Israel and the US have essentially been at war since their founding. It is hard to blame them tho if that really is the goal, they've been threatened with imminent American invasion and Israeli attack for decades now. It would be a deterrent, look at what has happened to almost every single country that has surrendered their weapons.

Israel is an undeclared nuclear weapons state that has never signed a the Non-Proliferation Treaty, their Samson Option calls for the nuking of Europe and they have attacked the United States with the sinking of the USS Liberty which they thought they could blame on Egypt to draw the US into the Six Day War. Diplomacy is the only thing that can work, we can't be forced into another war because of Israel. Iran poses no threat to the US or Europe, this isn't our problem unless we make it ours. Israel are not good allies, they are liars and it is a one way relationship. What does the US get out of supporting Israel? It is literally because some crazies in the US think that the state of Israel existing is necessary to usher in the rapture. If Israel wants war with Iran then Israeli children should go and die not Americans. We talk about sanctions on Iran all the time but what about Israel? Israel does not want peace, they do no want a Palestinian state, they don't even want a stable Syrian or Lebanese one.

The fact is that right now the Iranians are essentially the only people taking the fight to ISIS, this might make the Saudis and Iranians uncomfortable which is why they are not real allies but there is a shared strategic goal right now between the Iranians, Russians, and the US and it is an opportunity we should take to forge a closer understanding relationship with each other. We all have more to gain than apart.