Benjamin Netanyahu wants War and Mitt Romney

[Crezth]

You mean besides calling their quite popular democratically elected government "evil" and a "dastardly, oppressive theocratic dictatorship" while claiming that you guarantee "that Iran's populace does not like being governed by an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship . The people's revolution was hijacked by the religious far right and the good people of Iran have suffered ever since"? You mean that sort of propaganda?

The democratically elected portions are vetted by a council of theocrats and hold no real power compared to the clergy. The imposition of sudden dramatic religious law caused unrest and turmoil in the ensuing decade following the revolution, silenced through blood.

The revolution itself was a cavalcade of many different sorts - Marxists, Republicans, and yes even Islamists - but in the wake of its victory came the fundamentalist government that installed itself with no consultation nor recourse and which promptly and brutally crushed all dissent. Many of these dissenters were also pivotal members of the revolution proper. So, yeah. Hijacked.

You might not be interested in Realpolitik but only a moron would dismiss it or say it wasn't important.

Well then go ahead and explain to me what pressing need there is for us to ally with Iran against Israel.

Except with the case of Iran, we are providing them with one.

So you're telling me that if we make friendly with Iran's government, the entire regime will come toppling down?

My jove, I think you've hit onto something here.

 

[WindFish]

Well then go ahead and explain to me what pressing need there is for us to ally with Iran against Israel.

There isn't one, but what pressing need is there for us to cripple Iran economically?

 

[Crezth]

There isn't one, but what pressing need is there for us to cripple Iran economically?

We have no obligation to trade with tyrants.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The democratically elected portions are vetted by a council of theocrats and hold no real power compared to the clergy.

Mousavi was also "vetted".

Don't get me wrong. There is much about any theocracy to be critical. But in the grand scheme of things, Iran is not deserving of this condemnation and vilification which is largely due to a massive propaganda campaign waged against them. A campaign which for decades has been led by a government that continues to try to again overthrow their sovereign and quite popular government. One which last time placed a true dictator in control in lieu of a democratically elected secular government. One which continues to be overly influenced by another government, both of which who are actually causing the vast majority of problems in the region.

We are largely responsible for the current situation in Iran. If they had been left alone in 1953, they would have likely continued to stabilize the entire region while providing a role model for others to follow.

Incessant greed for oil should never trump sovereign democratic governments.

 

[GhostWriter16]

We have no obligation to trade with tyrants.

We are under no obligation to trade with ANYONE. Nor are we under obligation NOT to trade with someone because another nation says so. I wish more people would understand this simple concept

 

[WindFish]

We have no obligation to trade with tyrants.

So in your head, the sanctions are the same as "not trading"?

 

[Crezth]

As a general rule of thumb I am more suspicious of propaganda that tries to paint a government in a positive light. The same goes for our own.

So in your head, the sanctions are the same as "not trading"?

If you're trying to make a point with this, it's incredibly obtuse.

 

[WindFish]

If you're trying to make a point with this, it's incredibly obtuse.

I'm not

I'm just trying to understand what you said.

 

[GhostWriter16]

As a general rule of thumb I am more suspicious of propaganda that tries to paint a government in a positive light. The same goes for our own.

I agree with this much

Our government has enough issues of its own right now though. We shouldn't be tryingto fix Iran while our own countries have so many issues.

 

[Ajidica]

We are largely responsible for the current situation in Iran. If they had been left alone in 1953, they would have likely continued to stabilize the entire region while providing a role model for others to follow.

Not really. Mossadeq had already managed to alienate his supporters and make the religous/social establishment hate him. Mossadeq was going to be thrown out anyhow. Western involvement simply ensured the Shah became leader rather than some random other sordid little dictator (probably drawn from the army).

 

[Cutlass]

This is nothing new, that area of the world has been in low-grade war for thousands of years. Before Israel was established the various muslim factions were killing each other. The Israeli stance isn't any different from the Islamic one of driving Israel into the sea. Lasting peace there really at this point is not a possibility. Israel is the only modernized country there, everyone else wants to live in the 14th century under Sharia law.

That's not really true. There are a lot of people in all the nations of the region who would prefer to be in a modern nation. They just mostly lack the power to make it happen.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not really. Mossadeq had already managed to alienate his supporters and make the religous/social establishment hate him. Mossadeq was going to be thrown out anyhow. Western involvement simply ensured the Shah became leader rather than some random other sordid little dictator (probably drawn from the army).

Sovereign democratic governments don't stage coup d'états and overthrow their elected officials. They simply replace or impeach them through legitimate constitutional means.

But that clearly wouldn't occur because Mossedeq was actually "hugely popular" for nationalizing the oil industry:


Link to video.

 

[Crezth]

What utter nonsense. Sovereign democratic governments don't stage coup d'états and overthrow their elected officials.

That's not true. What about JFK?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I was referring to reality, not bad Oliver Stone movies.

 

[Archbob]

I never said that Iran wants a western-like democracy. Quit twisting my words. I simply said that their government is immoral and repressive and that its people overwhelmingly suffer as a consequence of its rule.

If they'd have a vote they'd put similar people in power right now. They want a hard-line theocracy. Thats always going to be immoral and repressive by our standards. Heck, ultraorthodox sharia is extremely repressive but they want it. So let them have what they want.

 

[Leoreth]

We are under no obligation to trade with ANYONE. Nor are we under obligation NOT to trade with someone because another nation says so. I wish more people would understand this simple concept

Yeah, you must. Free market FTW.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Sovereign democratic governments don't stage coup d'états and overthrow their elected officials.

Sure they do. Weimar republic comes to mind, so does Portugal.

 

[Verbose]

I think you mistaken much of the muslim world for actually wanting a western-like democracy. They don't. Egypt(I believe it was Egypt) anyways just voted the Muslim brotherhood into power. They want ultra-orthodox Sharia law. I don't see Iran or any other of the ME muslim countries being any different.

Actually what happened in the first election was that the votes got split between a number of liberal candidates in such a fashion that they were eliminated by the ex-general former-Mubarak cronie, and the least offensive empty suit the MB could find (i.e. Mursi). Those two went on to the second round, and the empty suit won.

Looking at the break-down of votes in the first round however, it turned out the secular, liberal candidates between them carried the majority of the electorate.

Again the wonders of the technicalities of these kinds of presidential systems, as opposed to just proportional parliamentary democracy.

But if it can allow Americans to write Egypt off as Islamist, it's all good I guess...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sovereign democratic governments don't stage coup d'états and overthrow their elected officials.

Didn't we just have two threads a week ago about 9/11/1973 in Chile?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I wasn't claiming they never occur. Take Iran, for instance as well. I was claiming they are quite the exception and are frequently precipitated by countries like the US.

But I also think it is clear that they should not occur in a free and open society. That claiming that Mossedeq would have been overthrown by his own country if the CIA had not intervened is not a tenable position. He was quite popular for nationalizing the oil industry.

In the case of Allende, it was nationalizing the copper industry which caused his own demise.