Iranian Leaders Ignore Obama's Outstretched Hand

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/iranian-leaders-ignore-obamas-outstretched-hand/


Iran's supreme leader said Friday that world powers had been persuaded they could not block Iran's nuclear progress -- making no mention of a warm new-year's message sent by President Obama to his country, Reuters reported.

Neither Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nor Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noted Obama's attempt to make a "new beginning" with their country in recorded messages they issued to mark the Iranian New Year.

Obama released his video Friday to coincide with the Iranian festival of Nowruz, which marks the arrival of spring. In the video, Obama said the U.S. is prepared to end the strained relations if Tehran tones down its combative rhetoric.

"This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," Obama said.

A press adviser to Iran's president downplayed the video, saying "minor changes will not end the differences."

Ali Akbar Javanfekr told the Iranian state-run English-language Press TV satellite station that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Ahmadinejad has said Iran would welcome talks with the U.S. -- but only if there was mutual respect. Iranian officials have said that means the U.S. needs to stop accusing Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism, charges Tehran has denied.

It wasn't clear how many Iranians were able to see the video, which was not aired on state television in Iran on Friday. It was likely shown on Farsi-language TV stations beamed in from outside of the country, but many Iranians don't watch television in the first days of long Nowruz holiday that is normally filled with family gatherings or vacations away from home.

[SnyderShrugged]

The telltale evidence that our foreign policy of meddling causes blowback...

"that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution."


but, but, but, they hate us for our freedoms!

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

The telltale evidence that our foreign policy of meddling causes blowback...

"that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution."


but, but, but, they hate us for our freedoms!
Why don't you love America? ;)

[BigMike619]

damn, theyre still mad about 30 years ago?

**** em then. be pissed. see how far that gets you.

[SnyderShrugged]

damn, theyre still mad about 30 years ago?

**** em then. be pissed. see how far that gets you.

And that is why we will never achieve results with the interventionist foreign policy.

[PeterMP]

The telltale evidence that our foreign policy of meddling causes blowback...

"that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution."


but, but, but, they hate us for our freedoms!

Yes, Iranian press releases accurately describe the reasons behind their foreign policy.

[PeterMP]

And that is why we will never achieve results with the interventionist foreign policy.

You mean other then being the world's only superpower?

[SnyderShrugged]

Yes, Iranian press releases accurately describe the reasons behind their foreign policy.


I was referring to OUR foreign policy

[Bang]

The telltale evidence that our foreign policy of meddling causes blowback...

"that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution."


but, but, but, they hate us for our freedoms!

Well, I guess we should just let them have their nuke then. It's pretty clear no one will do anything to stop them until they blow one up somewhere.
I'm getting about tired of the lunacy that goes into grudges that are held for decades, hell CENTURIES even.
They had their 1979 revolution, and since they let our hostages go, I haven't noticed where we've done anything to prevent them from having an Islamic government. Crying about the Great Satan is what keeps them in power.

~Bang

[SnyderShrugged]

You mean other then being the world's only superpower?


Yes, see 1979


edit: 1953

[BigMike619]

And that is why we will never achieve results with the interventionist foreign policy.

youre right. we should keep trying even though after 30 years they still havent forgiven Jimmy ****ing Carter for everything!!

nah, we treat them like I tell my child. You wanna act a fool then you can do it by yourself buddy. I dont wanna deal with you when you act like this.

[Prosperity]

immediate gains aren't necessary, let these comments be taken in... the real diplomatic efforts will have to involve other Middle Eastern countries and Russia. Either way anyone who's been knowledgeable about Iran-US relations will know that even now things are whole lot better than they were in the 80's and 90's and 2004-2006. The Islamic Republic's press releases are always like this, even when the IRI was helping the US in Afghanistan they were saying this sort of stuff, so any progress will be behind the scenes for a while.

either way it seems kind of weird to think one way or another on a comment like ""minor changes will not end the differences."

[SnyderShrugged]

youre right. we should keep trying even though after 30 years they still havent forgiven Jimmy ****ing Carter for everything!!

nah, we treat them like I tell my child. You wanna act a fool then you can do it by yourself buddy. I dont wanna deal with you when you act like this.


I may be wrong, but dont the bad relations go even further back (to the 50's) when the CIA helped overthrough their President?

[BigMike619]

I may be wrong, but dont the bad relations go even further back (to the 50's) when the CIA helped overthrough their President?

I would agree but it said 1979 so I just went off that.

[SnyderShrugged]

I would agree but it said 1979 so I just went off that.

I did the same thing, but then recalled something about the 50's afterwards.

[Ax]

Shocking! I tell you.

Just, shocking.

[PeterMP]

I was referring to OUR foreign policy
Part of their foreign policy is to interact with countries in manner that allows them to collect the material needed to build nuclear weapons and missiles/technology to deliver them (note those two goals don't necessarily mean that they want to build nuclear weapons).

Their reasoning for not negotiating with us (and others), to not conduct that part of their foreign policy, is because they hate us due to events that happened 30+ years ago that in face ended up benefiting those currently in power (who knows what would have happened if we hadn't supported the Shah for so long, but it is certainly possible the Aahytolla wouldn't be in power).

That is if you believe the statement that you quoted given to the press.

Of course, it is possible that they are lying to the press, and their reasons for not wanting to negotiate that part of their foreign policy away has much more to do with the current situation then 30+ year old history, and the fact that obtaining the ability to make and deliver nuclear weapons (w/o necessarily even assembling them) instantly makes them most powerful country in the region and will give them a greater voice in regional matters (e.g. OPEC output).

But that just isn't possible because there is no way that countries lie to the press.

[Bang]

I did the same thing, but then recalled something about the 50's afterwards.

Yes, after WW2, we placed the Shah in power to keep the oil fields away from the Soviets.
He of course abused the hell out of the power, and because he was in such a strategic position in regards to oil for the Soviets, we smiled and let him do it.

But in 1979 they threw him out, he came here and died within weeks of landing. In fact, other than Jimmy Carter, just about every American who ever had anything to do with those days is long dead and gone.
Course, their President is one of the radicals who took our people hostage, even though he claims he's not. His whole life has been defined by hating America and Americans, and this hatred is why problems still exist. Nevermind every reason they had to hate us is long gone, their country is theirs, it's prosperous, and their people are educated.
The fact he carries 30 year old grudges and still hates so much is his issue. Problem is, with his desire for nukes, he's made his hatred a global problem.

~Bang

[PeterMP]

Yes, see 1979


edit: 1953

You said we never achieved results. Yes, there have been some failures, and the government could do much better at foreign policy,

That Bush I and Clinton didn't see the rise of Islamic extremism and do something about the Saudi's aid to it financially and in terms of their education system was a big failure, and in retrospect is shocking.

But to pretend like that we got to be the world's only superpower completely independent of our foreign policy is ignorant.

[SnyderShrugged]

You said we never achieved results. Yes, there have been some failures, and the government could do much better at foreign policy,

That Bush I and Clinton didn't see the rise of Islamic extremism and do something about the Saudi's aid to it financially and in terms of their education system was a big failure, and in retrospect is shocking.

But to pretend like that we got to be the world's only superpower completely independent of our foreign policy is ignorant.


when did I "pretend like that we got to be the world's only superpower completely independent of our foreign policy"?

I have only pointed out that there are unforseen consequences in meddling in other nation's affairs. The Iran 30-60 year grudge is evidence of that.

[Prosperity]

interventionist foreign policy like most human endeavors can be done well or not so well, in the case of Iran there were mistakes, as well as poor circumstances and all that ended up being used by the a new powerful elite to consolidate their power. And here we are today. Thankfully the US hasn't done so poorly in other areas. Though to blame the US for crappy relations isn't the entire story, Iran has been incredibly paranoid and xenophobic too.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yes, after WW2, we placed the Shah in power to keep the oil fields away from the Soviets.
He of course abused the hell out of the power, and because he was in such a strategic position in regards to oil for the Soviets, we smiled and let him do it.

But in 1979 they threw him out, he came here and died within weeks of landing. In fact, other than Jimmy Carter, just about every American who ever had anything to do with those days is long dead and gone.
Course, their President is one of the radicals who took our people hostage, even though he claims he's not. His whole life has been defined by hating America and Americans, and this hatred is why problems still exist. Nevermind every reason they had to hate us is long gone, their country is theirs, it's prosperous, and their people are educated.
The fact he carries 30 year old grudges and still hates so much is his issue. Problem is, with his desire for nukes, he's made his hatred a global problem.

~Bang



Oh dont get me wrong! I think they are rediculous for holding current Americans responsible for the acts of long passed politicians.

my only point is that meddling has consequences in foriegn policy and should be considered before we act.

[SnyderShrugged]

interventionist foreign policy like most human endeavors can be done well or not so well, in the case of Iran there were mistakes, as well as poor circumstances and all that ended up being used by the a new powerful elite to consolidate their power. And here we are today. Thankfully the US hasn't done so poorly in other areas. Though to blame the US for crappy relations isn't the entire story, Iran has been incredibly paranoid and xenophobic too.


agreed (for the most part)

[Larry]

The telltale evidence that our foreign policy of meddling causes blowback...

"that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution."


but, but, but, they hate us for our freedoms!

Actually, what I was thinking of was "the countries broke off diplomatic relations after Iran kidnapped and threatened to kill our ambassadors".

[PeterMP]

when did I "pretend like that we got to be the world's only superpower completely independent of our foreign policy"?

I have only pointed out that there are unforseen consequences in meddling in other nation's affairs. The Iran 30-60 year grudge is evidence of that.


And that is why we will never achieve results with the interventionist foreign policy.

I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood, but the second comment certainly sounds like to me you are saying "we will never achieve (good) results" with an interventionist foreign policy.

The natural extension from that is our interventionist foreign policy is a complete failure (there are "never (good) results"), which then suggest either being the world's only super power means we've failed or we got there independent of our foreign policy.

[Prosperity]

His whole life has been defined by hating America and Americans, and this hatred is why problems still exist. Nevermind every reason they had to hate us is long gone, their country is theirs, it's prosperous, and their people are educated.
~Bang

The country had a median age of 17 years when the revolution happened (compared to the US median age of 35 years)... those were incredibly traumatic years. The revolution itself was traumatic and the Iran-Iraq war was the worst thing to happen to Iran for hundreds of years. That generation was very young and impressionable when all that horrible stuff went down. That is Ahmadinejad's generation they got the full brunt of all the propaganda and the pain of those years and they have developed a deep distrust of the entire world (the Shah had global support, and pretty much the entire world supported Saddam Hussein against Iran). So yeah from the perspective of the US, Iran's problems are tiny and insignificant, but from the perspective of Iran those years from 77-88 were some of the most traumatic in history and they've left their mark. Not saying the US is at fault, that's just how things turned out. Even after all that, the anti-US propaganda as at all time lows... you don't hear public US is great satan stuff as much anymore, those comments are now mostly robotic script responses whereas in the 1990's there was real deep seeded hatred.

[Larry]

damn, theyre still mad about 30 years ago?

**** em then. be pissed. see how far that gets you.

Actually, they're still mad about 70 years ago.

When the US overthrew a democratically elected government so the US could appoint a puppet as dictator.

(They're probably still mad about the Crusades, too. One thing you gotta give to the folks in the Mid East, they sure do know how to carry grudges.)

[SnyderShrugged]

Actually, what I was thinking of was "the countries broke off diplomatic relations after Iran kidnapped and threatened to kill our ambassadors".

I think we should think about why they did that. Yes, it was an awful thing they did, but I'd bet much money they didnt do it because they are jealous of us or that they hate us for our freedoms as many in neo-con land believe (sadly, I used to be in that camp too)

[Xameil]

ummm I think this article is mistaken...I am searching for the one I read, but I was told they did respond semi-positively.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29785710

ok after re-reading it...its not that positive, and an aide did respond.

[Larry]

youre right. we should keep trying even though after 30 years they still havent forgiven Jimmy ****ing Carter for everything!!

nah, we treat them like I tell my child. You wanna act a fool then you can do it by yourself buddy. I dont wanna deal with you when you act like this.

So, when are you planning on forgiving Carter? :halo:

[Prosperity]

ummm I think this article is mistaken...I am searching for the one I read, but I was told they did respond semi-positively.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29785710

ok after re-reading it...its not that positive, and an aide did respond.



well it's Fox News they want to make Obama look incompetent...

here is an LA Times article:


Ali Akbar Javanfekr, a ranking advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told The Times in a phone conversation that if Obama "shows goodwill and goes beyond words to take practical measures, the state and nation of Iran will not turn its back" on him.

"We welcome the wish of the U.S. president to put away past differences," he said. "Our logic is peace, justice fraternity and mutual respect and love of mankind."

Javanfekr said he was reading from a prepared statement, suggesting that his remarks were vetted by higher-ranking officials. Critical matters of state in Iran are often referred to the Supreme National Security Council, a powerful board that includes Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, as well as political and military leaders.

Iran has responded suspiciously to the Obama administration's conciliatory gestures, which are in marked contrast to the tough talk of the Bush administration. Obama, whose middle name, Hussein, is that of a revered Shiite Muslim saint, remains enormously popular in Iran and the Islamic world.


and this is the Ahmadinejad adviser which is the most xenophobic faction in Iranian politics.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fg-obama-iran21-2009mar21,0,7793027.story

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood, but the second comment certainly sounds like to me you are saying "we will never achieve (good) results" with an interventionist foreign policy.

The natural extension from that is our interventionist foreign policy is a complete failure (there are "never (good) results"), which then suggest either being the world's only super power means we've failed or we got there independent of our foreign policy.


I dont think you misunderstood, rather I probably wasnt very clear.

Let me try again.

I believe that an interventionist foreign policy has the potential to always have unforseen consequences. Even when we are 100% in the right to do so.

I find failure in the modern interventionist foreign policy decisions because we seem to have rarely made significant attempts to understand the root causes of why we are attacked.

I dont believe we can ever acheive the goals we have in international relations and security until an honest study of that is undertaken and accepted.

[Midnight Judges]

This is not the fault of the OP, but the FOX headline is pathetically inaccurate.

[twa]

Sure they are agreeable if we (the world) allows them to do as they wish.

Hell they might even let us pay for it if we ask nicely:silly:

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

This is not the fault of the OP, but the FOX headline is pathetically inaccurate.

at the bottom of the page they mention that they have taken their info from the AP :whoknows:

[BigMike619]

does it being from Fox really make it totally discredited? arent the facts in the article going to be the facts no matter who says it?

I would think their opinion is swayed sure, but numbers and facts have to be the truth and the same no matter what, right?

[zoony]

Well, I'm glad we had an interventionist policy in Japan and Germany. And I know hundreds of millions of South Koreans are pretty happy they don't have to say "dear leader" 100x's a day. By extension we all get to enjoy wonderful relationships with those countries, both economically and politically.

Iran has been a craptastic mix of ethnic friction, strife, tension, religious extremism and general ****tiness for thousands of years. I will be that way for thousands of years after we're all gone, too.

In other words, crappy example.



.....

[SoCalSkins]

Well, I guess we should just let them have their nuke then. It's pretty clear no one will do anything to stop them until they blow one up somewhere.
I'm getting about tired of the lunacy that goes into grudges that are held for decades, hell CENTURIES even.
They had their 1979 revolution, and since they let our hostages go, I haven't noticed where we've done anything to prevent them from having an Islamic government. Crying about the Great Satan is what keeps them in power.

~Bang



This goes back to 1953 when the CIA ousted the democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran and implemented the Shah's government and trained the Shah's secret police.

Since 1979, the US armed Saddam Husein during the Iran/Iraq war that Saddam initiated.

As far as the nuclear issue, why would they be anymore willing to use one than Israel?

Fear and violence is what keeps them in power, not anti-American rhetoric. The people are very pro-America.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, I'm glad we had an interventionist policy in Japan and Germany. And I know hundreds of millions of South Koreans are pretty happy they don't have to say "dear leader" 100x's a day. By extension we all get to enjoy wonderful relationships with those countries, both economically and politically.

Iran has been a craptastic mix of ethnic friction, strife, tension, religious extremism and general ****tiness for thousands of years. I will be that way for thousands of years after we're all gone, too.

In other words, crappy example.



.....


I'm pretty sure we actually went to war (you know, the whole constitutionally sound, declared war version?) with Germany and Japan. Not even close in similarity when discussing the ME nations and why they may hate us.

[zoony]

This goes back to 1953 when the CIA ousted the democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran and implemented the Shah's government and trained the Shah's secret police.

Since 1979, the US armed Saddam Husein during the Iran/Iraq war that Saddam initiated.

As far as the nuclear issue, why would they be anymore willing to use one than Israel?

Fear and violence is what keeps them in power, not anti-American rhetoric. The people are very pro-America.



I think the story about the CIA ousting the democratically chosen leader and installing the Shah is fairly well known.

But I also know that we don't hate the Vietnamese today for stringing up our soldiers naked and chopping their dicks off and stuffing them in their mouths. Or the Japanese for the bataan death march. Actually, Japan is one of our closest allies.


The CIA/Iran bull**** is a bunch of, well, bull****. Those actions have been pulled completely out of the context of its day and waved around by people without much knowledge of the overall world dynamic back then. But no doubt it was a mistake. My only point is that mistakes happen, and time for Iran to STFU and stop whining like a bunch of bitches. Really. Maybe they should take a little responsibility for themselves? It would have saved them from being Europe's colonial lackeys to begin with.

But if they did that (held themselves accountable), people in Iran might start asking questions. The first question might be, why do we have ass-clowns like Ahmadinejad and these mullahs in power?

So, that can't happen. Better to say, "America is the Great Satan. America is responsible for your problems. Israel is the devil", and other assorted fodder for the Iranian populace. It's worked beautifuly for the past 30 years... why not try for 50 more?

.....

[zoony]

I'm pretty sure we actually went to war (you know, the whole constitutionally sound, declared war version?) with Germany and Japan. Not even close in similarity when discussing the ME nations and why they may hate us.

It was interventionist policy that got us into war to begin with. We should have traded openly with Hitler. Those are his politics... who are we to pass judgement?

Besides, the German people elected him. We should have simply traded with him. It would have been the right thing to do.

[SnyderShrugged]

It was interventionist policy that got us into war to begin with. We should have traded openly with Hitler. Those are his politics... who are we to pass judgement?

Besides, the German people elected him. We should have simply traded with him. It would have been the right thing to do.


I think we both know the absurdity of trying to compare iran with nazi germany or WW2 era Japan.

[SoCalSkins]

Well, I'm glad we had an interventionist policy in Japan and Germany. And I know hundreds of millions of South Koreans are pretty happy they don't have to say "dear leader" 100x's a day. By extension we all get to enjoy wonderful relationships with those countries, both economically and politically.


Iran has been a craptastic mix of ethnic friction, strife, tension, religious extremism and general ****tiness for thousands of years. I will be that way for thousands of years after we're all gone, too.

In other words, crappy example.



.....


I call BS. Iran has been an example of tolerance among religious groups and ethnicities throughout most of its history. Cyrus the Great created the world's first human rights declaration. A replica of the cylinder is on display at the UN.


Iran has had a large Armenian/Christian population for centuries and sizable Jewish population since Cyrus freed them from slavery and built their second temple in Jerusalem. As well as Turkish and Arab populations.

The current government has certainly been a crappy example, but to base thousands of years of rich history on 30 years of government is not accurate. It has been the exact opposite of what you claim it to be.

[zoony]

I call BS. Iran has been an example of tolerance among religious groups and ethnicities throughout most of its history. Cyrus the Great created the world's first human rights declaration. A replica of the cylinder is on display at the UN.


Iran has had a large Armenian/Christian population for centuries and sizable Jewish population since Cyrus freed them from slavery and built their second temple in Jerusalem. As well as Turkish and Arab populations.

The current government has certainly been a crappy example, but to base thousands of years of rich history on 30 years of government is not accurate. It has been the exact opposite of what you claim it to be.



Persia is a crossroads, just like Afghanistan. Between Europe and the far east. It's been a place of almost constant war and turmoil. From the greco-persian wars to Islamic conquest to Ghengis Khan to the Ottoman Empire and WWI and European colonialism, etc. Actually, too much to list.

But keep in mind I never said there were no redeeming qualities of their culture. That was you that inferred that, so... really, not my problem. Yours. :)

[zoony]

I think we both know the absurdity of trying to compare iran with nazi germany or WW2 era Japan.


Which is why a lot of us found your comment about an intervensionist foreign policy never having a chance of working to be ridiculous.

http://extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=6240762&postcount=5


maybe you should qualify your statement. Such as...

"That is why we will never achieve results with an intervensionist foreign policy, except in cases that I think are okay."

[BigMike619]

Which is why a lot of us found your comment about an intervensionist foreign policy never having a chance of working.

very well played!!

[SnyderShrugged]

Which is why a lot of us found your comment about an intervensionist foreign policy never having a chance of working.

http://extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=6240762&postcount=5


maybe you should qualify your statement. Such as...

"That is why we will never achieve results with an intervensionist foreign policy, except in cases that I think are okay."


I suggest you go back and read the thread and see where I did in fact qualify my statement instead. edit**(hint: Post # 32)

a little lazy today, huh?

[Vicious]

They are a Democracy (sort of). Their elections are coming up. They're not going to change anything until after the elections.

[SnyderShrugged]

very well played!!


LOL, except that it wasnt;)

[zoony]

I suggest you go back and read the thread and see where I did in fact qualify my statement instead.

a little lazy today, huh?



I'll let that stand as you acknowledging your complete failure on this topic. Hey, if I was as dumb as you are on the subject, I'd try to backpedal and sling a bit of dirt too.

Going forward, just say what you mean.


....

[SoCalSkins]

Persia is a crossroads, just like Afghanistan. Between Europe and the far east. It's been a place of almost constant war and turmoil. From the greco-persian wars to Islamic conquest to Ghengis Khan to the Ottoman Empire and WWI and European colonialism, etc. Actually, too much to list.

But keep in mind I never said there were no redeeming qualities of their culture. That was you that inferred that, so... really, not my problem. Yours. :)

What area of the planet has not been in constant war and turmoil? Of the roughly 235 year history of the US and the colonial times before that, how many have involved wars? How many years of slavery did we have? How many years of eradicating Native Americans? How many years of open racism and racial strife existed?

So if Iran is a crappy example, name one that isn't based on your premise.

[GibbsFactor]

It was interventionist policy that got us into war to begin with. We should have traded openly with Hitler. Those are his politics... who are we to pass judgement?

Besides, the German people elected him. We should have simply traded with him. It would have been the right thing to do.

We still would have been at war with Germany regardless of what happened in the Atlantic. Remember, Japan attacking us?

[SnyderShrugged]

I'll let that stand as you acknowledging your complete failure on this topic. Hey, if I was as dumb as you are on the subject, I'd try to backpedal and sling a bit of dirt too.

Going forward, just say what you mean.


....


Must be nice to call someone dumb and never fear consequences.

class act.:doh:

[GibbsFactor]

Must be nice to call someone dumb and never fear consequences.

class act.:doh:

And you're not dumb on this subject, I hear you talking about it all the time. If you are truly deaf and mute, I am sorry.

:whoknows:

[SnyderShrugged]

And you're not dumb on this subject, I hear you talking about it all the time. If you are truly deaf and mute, I am sorry.

:whoknows:

why thank you!

[ljs]

well isn't Osama still pissed that we gave the jews Israel? Isn't that his whole reason for hating America? from everything I've read about him it is.

[Mad Mike]

interventionist foreign policy like most human endeavors can be done well or not so well, in the case of Iran there were mistakes, as well as poor circumstances and all that ended up being used by the a new powerful elite to consolidate their power. And here we are today. Thankfully the US hasn't done so poorly in other areas. Though to blame the US for crappy relations isn't the entire story, Iran has been incredibly paranoid and xenophobic too.

Wow. Aside from Bang, I didn't expect to find much reason in this thread but this post is outstanding. Well done. :cheers:

[Mad Mike]

I believe that an interventionist foreign policy has the potential to always have unforseen consequences. Even when we are 100% in the right to do so.

Great. Now take a moment to think about the unintended and unforseen consequences of a non-interventionist foreign policy in a world where real evil exists and other nations are intervening with the goal of harming us. :doh:

[PeterMP]

We still would have been at war with Germany regardless of what happened in the Atlantic. Remember, Japan attacking us?
And why did Japan attack us?

(It wasn't because they thought we would sit back quietly as they became the major power in the Pacific.)

The fact of the matter is that our interventionist policies prior to Pearl Harbor, including aiding the Chinese in their fight against Japan, was at least partly responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[GibbsFactor]

And why did Japan attack us?

Stay on topic!

:silly:

[Pwyl]

Stay on topic!

:silly:

[Farbod21]

Just wanted to chime in since I am very interested in this subject. A few notes:

- US intervention did help overthrow a popular leader in Mossadeq in 1953. They put the Shah back in power and helped keep him in power through abuse and corruption.

- Once things started going bad in 1979, US turned their back on the Shah and let him take the fall. They helped create the current regime by helping the Shah keep power and create a very large poor population in Iran.

- When students swarmed the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, already upset because of US' backing of the Shah, they found a document shredding party and a treasure trove of Iranian art and valuables in the bowels of the embassy, which was given the name, "nest of spies".

- US backed Iraq and Saddam during a very bloody and horrid 8 year war. Over 1.5 Million Iranians were killed, hence why there is a very small percentage of men over 40 years old today in Iran.

- A US naval ship "accidently" shot an Iranian Airliner with over 240 people on board. People are still very angry over this.

- Most Iranians are very proud and nationalistic people. They are NOT arab and do not like being associated with arabs. They have a very strong sense of tradition and celebrate a very old and rich history.

- The current regime thrives off of this proud nationalism by thumbing their nose at the US. The more tough talk from Washington, the more people turn to these fundamentalist and backward thinking people.

- I believe that the only way for a regime change would be with a very friendly American attitude that would defang the Iranian leadership. It would give Iranians no reason to back a tough talking leader and it would take away most of the current regimes strangle hold on the elections.

- Most young Iranians are disenfranchised by the current government in iran. They just dont care. They are either filthy rich and enjoy an easy lifestyle, or they are so concerned with getting their next pay check that they dont have time worrying about Iran-US relations.

[Mad Mike]

And why did Japan attack us?

(It wasn't because they thought we would sit back quietly as they became the major power in the Pacific.)

The fact of the matter is that our interventionist policies prior to Pearl Harbor, including aiding the Chinese in their fight against Japan, was at least partly responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Congratulations on one of the dumbest comments I have ever read. That you would suggest it was the fault of the US that lead Japan to attack us is beyond belief.

I guess in your mind the world would be better off if we did not do anything whatsoever to fight aggression. In your world we should never have helped China fight the brutal aggression of the Japanese, they would never have attacked us and the axis power should have been allowed to take over the rest of the world. I'm sure they would have left us alone though because we wouldn't have done anything to them. :doh:

[Johnny Punani]

Just wanted to chime in since I am very interested in this subject. A few notes:

- US intervention did help overthrow a popular leader in Mossadeq in 1953. They put the Shah back in power and helped keep him in power through abuse and corruption.

- Once things started going bad in 1979, US turned their back on the Shah and let him take the fall. They helped create the current regime by helping the Shah keep power and create a very large poor population in Iran.

- When students swarmed the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, already upset because of US' backing of the Shah, they found a document shredding party and a treasure trove of Iranian art and valuables in the bowels of the embassy, which was given the name, "nest of spies".

- US backed Iraq and Saddam during a very bloody and horrid 8 year war. Over 1.5 Million Iranians were killed, hence why there is a very small percentage of men over 40 years old today in Iran.

- A US naval ship "accidently" shot an Iranian Airliner with over 240 people on board. People are still very angry over this.

- Most Iranians are very proud and nationalistic people. They are NOT arab and do not like being associated with arabs. They have a very strong sense of tradition and celebrate a very old and rich history.

- The current regime thrives off of this proud nationalism by thumbing their nose at the US. The more tough talk from Washington, the more people turn to these fundamentalist and backward thinking people.

- I believe that the only way for a regime change would be with a very friendly American attitude that would defang the Iranian leadership. It would give Iranians no reason to back a tough talking leader and it would take away most of the current regimes strangle hold on the elections.

- Most young Iranians are disenfranchised by the current government in iran. They just dont care. They are either filthy rich and enjoy an easy lifestyle, or they are so concerned with getting their next pay check that they dont have time worrying about Iran-US relations.

That is a pretty good summary of US-Iranian relations over the last 60+ years. However, I wouldn't describe Iranian "nationalism" as nationalism. I think it goes deeper then that to a cultural/race based pride (Persian).

[ljs]

I'll let that stand as you acknowledging your complete failure on this topic. Hey, if I was as dumb as you are on the subject, I'd try to backpedal and sling a bit of dirt too.

Going forward, just say what you mean.


....

I was reading over the rules again the other day and came across rule #5.

5. Please be respectful of your fellow members.
Personal attacks or threats will not be tolerated. Go after the idea, not the poster. Free debate within the parameters outlined herein is welcome on these forums, and diversity of opinion lies at the heart of a good debate.

....... so my question/concern is this...isn't calling someone dumb a violation of that rule? If not, ok. I just would like some clarification. Cause if it's not against the rules, I just might call someone dumb in the future. :evilg:

[Farbod21]

That is a pretty good summary of US-Iranian relations over the last 60+ years. However, I wouldn't describe Iranian "nationalism" as nationalism. I think it goes deeper then that to a cultural/race based pride (Persian).

Trust me. Iranians have at one time and another been taken over by the Macedonians, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, etc. Yet they still have an extremely strong identity and refuse to give up traditions that are over 3000 years old.

BTW, Im Iranian ;)

[Johnny Punani]

Congratulations on one of the dumbest comments I have ever read. That you would suggest it was the fault of the US that lead Japan to attack us is beyond belief.

I guess in your mind the world would be better off if we did not do anything whatsoever to fight aggression. In your world we should never have helped China fight the brutal aggression of the Japanese, they would never have attacked us and the axis power should have been allowed to take over the rest of the world. I'm sure they would have left us alone though because we wouldn't have done anything to them. :doh:

Why is his comment dumb? Not getting into the reasons for US action against Japan but that's exactly what happened.

[GibbsFactor]

That is a pretty good summary of US-Iranian relations over the last 60+ years. However, I wouldn't describe Iranian "nationalism" as nationalism. I think it goes deeper then that to a cultural/race based pride (Persian).

Right, Iran itself is only, what? 70 years old?

[ljs]

I'll add this about the topic on Iran. A couple weeks ago I caught some public tv special where a guy went to Iran to specifically find out if the Iranian people hate us. What he found was that it's really their government, not the peopel themselves. Unless everyone he talked to was lying out of their ass, they were very friendly and some even came right out and said they do not hate America, their leaders might.

Wish I could find what that documentry was called...if I do, I'll post it.

[GibbsFactor]

Why is his comment dumb? Not getting into the reasons for US action against Japan but that's exactly what happened.

Mad Mike is a firm believer in American Imperialism and anyone with a different view is insane in his eyes. There's no room for rationality when talking to Mike on the subject of foreign affairs. America can do no wrong.

[PeterMP]

Congratulations on one of the dumbest comments I have ever read. That you would suggest it was the fault of the US that lead Japan to attack us is beyond belief.

I guess in your mind the world would be better off if we did not do anything whatsoever to fight aggression. In your world we should never have helped China fight the brutal aggression of the Japanese, they would never have attacked us and the axis power should have been allowed to take over the rest of the world. I'm sure they would have left us alone though because we wouldn't have done anything to them. :doh:

You need to read the thread better.

My point is that interventionism is blamed when something goes wrong (e.g. Iran), but the up-side (defeating Japan and Germany) is ignored (or at least minimized).

[GibbsFactor]

well isn't Osama still pissed that we gave the jews Israel? Isn't that his whole reason for hating America? from everything I've read about him it is.

America involved in his backwards ass home lands in any shape pisses him off. He likes beating women, keeping his kin in poverty, not advancing his culture and sparking hatred amongst his brethren, all in the name of religion. He's the scum of the earth.

[Johnny Punani]

Trust me. Iranians have at one time and another been taken over by the Macedonians, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, etc. Yet they still have an extremely strong identity and refuse to give up traditions that are over 3000 years old.

BTW, Im Iranian ;)

I kinda figured that. But you agree with me that it goes beyond nationalism to a cultural thing. When someone (besides you in this post) identifies themselves as being from Iran they don't say they are Iranian but Persian. At least I've found that with the people I've met from Iran but they are older then you and were the ones who left when the Shah fell.

[Farbod21]

Right, Iran itself is only, what? 70 years old?

Wow. Are you kidding? Iran is over 2500 years old. In or around 1925, the Shah of Iran got tired of Iran being called Persia by the rest of the world and officially notified other countries to call it by what Iranians themselves call the country, IRAN. IRAN in farsi means, "land of the aryan people." It has always been called Iran by Iranians, but for a long time, Persia by the rest of the world.

[GibbsFactor]

Wow. Are you kidding? Iran is over 2500 years old. In or around 1925, the Shah of Iran got tired of Iran being called Persia by the rest of the world and officially notified other countries to call it by what Iranians themselves call the country, IRAN. IRAN in farsi means, "land of the aryan people." It has always been called Iran by Iranians, but for a long time, Persia by the rest of the world.

Ah yes, it was WW1 that created Iran, not WWII.

So Iran is more like 90 years old.

[Johnny Punani]

Wow. Are you kidding? Iran is over 2500 years old. In or around 1925, the Shah of Iran got tired of Iran being called Persia by the rest of the world and officially notified other countries to call it by what Iranians themselves call the country, IRAN. IRAN in farsi means, "land of the aryan people." It has always been called Iran by Iranians, but for a long time, Persia by the rest of the world.

He means the modern day country...

[Farbod21]

I kinda figured that. But you agree with me that it goes beyond nationalism to a cultural thing. When someone (besides you in this post) identifies themselves as being from Iran they don't say they are Iranian but Persian. At least I've found that with the people I've met from Iran but they are older then you and were the ones who left when the Shah fell.

Persia is more of a racial/cultural thing, as most Iranians are of Persian ancestory. Persians are just one of many people in Iran. Always have been. The country (Nation) itself, is and always has been called Iran. So it depends on what you are asking me.

[Farbod21]

He means the modern day country...

I dont get the difference? We didnt change the name. We just told everyone to call us by the correct one. Iran has always been Iran.

[GibbsFactor]

I dont get the difference? We didnt change the name. We just told everyone to call us by the correct one. Iran has always been Iran.

I understand your people have occupied land in or around modern day Iran since 7000BC, but I was simply referring to the country known as Iran, before 1935 it was simply known as Persia, internationally.

[Farbod21]

Ah yes, it was WW1 that created Iran, not WWII.

So Iran is more like 90 years old.

Huh? Iran was created? To Iranians, its ALWAYS been called Iran. Nothing was created, we just let you know what our name was. Its like me calling you Jim, when your name is Michael.

By that logic, it is only 30 years old because the name changed again in 1979 to The Islamic Republic of Iran.

[Mad Mike]

You need to read the thread better.

My point is that interventionism is blamed when something goes wrong (e.g. Iran), but the up-side (defeating Japan and Germany) is ignored (or at least minimized).

Sorry. It sounded like another anti interventionist rant. My mistake.

[Mad Mike]

Mad Mike is a firm believer in American Imperialism and anyone with a different view is insane in his eyes. There's no room for rationality when talking to Mike on the subject of foreign affairs. America can do no wrong.


Yeah. That's my position exactly. I'm sure that's the opinion of everyone who thinks Ron Paul is a moron. We're all imperialists. :rolleyes:

[Farbod21]

Iran has been a craptastic mix of ethnic friction, strife, tension, religious extremism and general ****tiness for thousands of years. I will be that way for thousands of years after we're all gone, too.

.....

You are right because Europe hasn't had any ethnic friction, strife, tension, religious extremism or a history full of war... :doh:

[Larry]

You need to read the thread better.

My point is that interventionism is blamed when something goes wrong (e.g. Iran), but the up-side (defeating Japan and Germany) is ignored (or at least minimized).

Or perhaps a lot of people are capable of noticing the difference between intervention for the purpose of defeating aggression, and interventionism for the purpose of installing and maintaining a friendly puppet dictator.

They're both interventionism. (In the sense that neither is isolationist.)

But they aren't the same.

[Prosperity]

Huh? Iran was created? To Iranians, its ALWAYS been called Iran. Nothing was created, we just let you know what our name was. Its like me calling you Jim, when your name is Michael.

By that logic, it is only 30 years old because the name changed again in 1979 to The Islamic Republic of Iran.

Yeah I don't really understand their argument. Iran has existed as a unified group of people trying to rule themselves (though not always well) for LONG before Reza Shah decided to get them to change the name.

Maybe he means country in the same way that Germany wasn't a country when it was Prussia?

[Farbod21]

Yeah I don't really understand their argument. Iran has existed as a unified group of people trying to rule themselves (though not always well) for LONG before Reza Shah decided to get them to change the name.

The thing is, he didnt change the name, lol, he just said, "Can you please call us by our real name? IRAN!"

This is a ridiculous argument anyway, my original post had a lot more interesting aspects to it than the etymology of Iran.

[Larry]

However, back on topic:

Iran rejects US offers? Shocking.

The offer needed to be made, whether it was accepted or not. And it needs to be made again, too. But the fact that it didn't immediately produce results that were visible from here? Shocking.

[Farbod21]

However, back on topic:

Iran rejects US offers? Shocking.

The offer needed to be made, whether it was accepted or not. And it needs to be made again, too. But the fact that it didn't immediately produce results that were visible from here? Shocking.

Dont see how you are shocked. You are talking about a regime that originated as a reaction to US influence in Iran. Pure and simple. You really think that a 3 minute "Happy New Year" message from Obama is going to lead to dancing and sleepovers between the two regimes?

My hope is that throughout Obama's term in office, the current regime in Iran can be defanged and the reform movement be given some hope. Asking for any more than that would be dillusional.

[Prosperity]

Dont see how you are shocked. You are talking about a regime that originated as a reaction to US influence in Iran. Pure and simple. You really think that a 3 minute "Happy New Year" message from Obama is going to lead to dancing and sleepovers between the two regimes?

My hope is that throughout Obama's term in office, the current regime in Iran can be defanged and the reform movement be given some hope. Asking for any more than that would be dillusional.

he was sarcastic

anyway, on topic

The conferences on Afghanistan will be a start and after the Iranian elections. From then on Obama will have to be decisive in getting the Russians to pull all their support and so the IRI can be persuaded that isolation with nukes is much worse than engagement and prosperity.

[zoony]

What area of the planet has not been in constant war and turmoil? Of the roughly 235 year history of the US and the colonial times before that, how many have involved wars? How many years of slavery did we have? How many years of eradicating Native Americans? How many years of open racism and racial strife existed?

So if Iran is a crappy example, name one that isn't based on your premise.


There are degrees of turmoil. a couple thousand Cherokee waring with a couple thousand Crow is a bit different from Ghengis Khan, the Greeks, Muslim domination, Colonialism, etc.


As for a non-crappy example of really bad interventionist policy, I would say Vietnam.

....

[SoCalSkins]

However, back on topic:

Iran rejects US offers? Shocking.

The offer needed to be made, whether it was accepted or not. And it needs to be made again, too. But the fact that it didn't immediately produce results that were visible from here? Shocking.

What was the rejection? Not mentioning it in a prepared statement that they read on the biggest day of the year in Iran hours after Obama posted it.

Look at the LA Times article that Prosperity quoted in the thread.

What is not shocking is Fox News reporting in the manner in which they did. They didn't respond within minutes, so it must be a rejection, no need to confirm that is the intent.

The LA Times reporter called a member of Iran's government for comment and received it. Funny how reporting works.

[zoony]

We still would have been at war with Germany regardless of what happened in the Atlantic. Remember, Japan attacking us?


Japan saw us as a perceived threat to their domination of the Pacific. A threat based on our prior interventionist policies.


And Pearl Harbor was an excuse for Hitler to declare war on us. Had we not been supplying Great Britain, it would not have happened.


....

[zoony]

Must be nice to call someone dumb and never fear consequences.

class act.:doh:


I called you dumb because you're a great big dummy on this issue. Your words and thoughts as expressed in this thread leave no doubt. So, you've demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the rules, even going so far as to break them.

See you in a week. An email won't save you this time.

[zoony]

I was reading over the rules again the other day and came across rule #5.

5. Please be respectful of your fellow members.
Personal attacks or threats will not be tolerated. Go after the idea, not the poster. Free debate within the parameters outlined herein is welcome on these forums, and diversity of opinion lies at the heart of a good debate.

....... so my question/concern is this...isn't calling someone dumb a violation of that rule? If not, ok. I just would like some clarification. Cause if it's not against the rules, I just might call someone dumb in the future. :evilg:


I'm quite aware of the rules, thanks. :) Really, no need to post them.

And I'm quite certain you already know the answer- but it's okay, I'll play along, I've got a bit of time. :)

It is certainly okay to call someone dumb or ignorant if their words or thoughts on the subject leave no doubt. a.k.a. context.

For example, do a search on any one of luckydevil's posts about me whenever the subject of free markets comes up. He's called me every name in the book, and it's cool, because he does it within the context of the conversation.

What is NOT okay is to cry and whine when staff does it, and claim to be a victim, or to claim a double standard. That's never been okay.

That usually gets people a month or a perma-ban... but thankfully, it happened to me, not some of the other mods.

.....

[zoony]

You are right because Europe hasn't had any ethnic friction, strife, tension, religious extremism or a history full of war... :doh:



Absolutely it has. And it would be equally silly to blame something such as, say, the longstanding tension between the Croats and Bosnians as a result of the war under Clinton.

So that's my point.

[zoony]

Or perhaps a lot of people are capable of noticing the difference between intervention for the purpose of defeating aggression, and interventionism for the purpose of installing and maintaining a friendly puppet dictator.

They're both interventionism. (In the sense that neither is isolationist.)

But they aren't the same.


Exactly

The threat here is to cling to an idealogy, and paint everything with the same broad brush of idealism. i.e. "Intervensionism bad". In effect throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Unfortunately many people only think in black & white.

[Farbod21]

Exactly

The threat here is to cling to an idealogy, and paint everything with the same broad brush of idealism. i.e. "Intervensionism bad". In effect throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Unfortunately many people only think in black & white.

Definitely. If your neighbors house is on fire, sitting back and doing nothing until its spread to your house would be a tragic mistake. However, setting your neighbors house on fire because you dont like the color is a different concept altogether...

[zoony]

Definitely. If your neighbors house is on fire, sitting back and doing nothing until its spread to your house would be a tragic mistake. However, setting your neighbors house on fire because you dont like the color is a different concept altogether...


You'll get no real defense from me about our history with Iran. It's pretty shameful.

My only point is that Iran should probably put it behind them at this point and start worrying about themselves, rather than what the big bad colonialists did to them 60 years ago. Because at some point it becomes a pretty big cop-out. (actually it already has, imo)

[PeterMP]

Just wanted to chime in since I am very interested in this subject. A few notes:

- US intervention did help overthrow a popular leader in Mossadeq in 1953. They put the Shah back in power and helped keep him in power through abuse and corruption.

- Once things started going bad in 1979, US turned their back on the Shah and let him take the fall. They helped create the current regime by helping the Shah keep power and create a very large poor population in Iran.

- When students swarmed the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, already upset because of US' backing of the Shah, they found a document shredding party and a treasure trove of Iranian art and valuables in the bowels of the embassy, which was given the name, "nest of spies".

- US backed Iraq and Saddam during a very bloody and horrid 8 year war. Over 1.5 Million Iranians were killed, hence why there is a very small percentage of men over 40 years old today in Iran.

- A US naval ship "accidently" shot an Iranian Airliner with over 240 people on board. People are still very angry over this.

- Most Iranians are very proud and nationalistic people. They are NOT arab and do not like being associated with arabs. They have a very strong sense of tradition and celebrate a very old and rich history.

- The current regime thrives off of this proud nationalism by thumbing their nose at the US. The more tough talk from Washington, the more people turn to these fundamentalist and backward thinking people.

- I believe that the only way for a regime change would be with a very friendly American attitude that would defang the Iranian leadership. It would give Iranians no reason to back a tough talking leader and it would take away most of the current regimes strangle hold on the elections.

- Most young Iranians are disenfranchised by the current government in iran. They just dont care. They are either filthy rich and enjoy an easy lifestyle, or they are so concerned with getting their next pay check that they dont have time worrying about Iran-US relations.

1. The Shah was in power BEFORE the coup (the US/British returned him to power after the coup failed and fled).

2. There were issues between the Shah and Mossadeq independent of US/British involvement (who knows what the results of those issues would have been).

3. It isn't at all clear that the coup wouldn't have happened w/o the US (in fact, it is pretty clear that something would have happened because the British initiated the plans and weren't going to let the Iranian oil be nationalized w/o trying SOMETHING).

4. The US had backed away from Iran before the revolution. Despite the release of political prisioners and a cut back on attacking political dissedents, Carter wasn't happy with the Shah because of human rights issues (in fact, you could argue that revolution wouldn't have happened WITHOUT Carter's interventionism on the side of the revolutionaries).

5. The cleric's there have always been a powerful influence, and played a role in the 1953 coup and weren't happy w/ Mossadeq. Iran was a country in flux between a democracy, dictatorship, and with a strong religious authority, and some communist elements. It isn't at all clear long-term, which way the government would have gone. It is completely possible even w/o US involvement a theocracy would have arisen.

Generally, the judgement of US Iranian policy is time dependent. For a long time, it was considered a success. In the future, it is possible it will be again. Anybody unilaterally claiming it was a failure is essentially also claiming that they know everything, including alternate realities (e.g. what would have happened if there had been no coup) (Of course, I've made the same argument w/ respect to Vietnam.).

[Larry]

You'll get no real defense from me about our history with Iran. It's pretty shameful.

My only point is that Iran should probably put it behind them at this point and start worrying about themselves, rather than what the big bad colonialists did to them 60 years ago. Because at some point it becomes a pretty big cop-out. (actually it already has, imo)

I've said for a long time that if it were possible to do one thing that would improve the world moire than anything else, one internationally-recognized law or whatever . . .

It would be a Statute of Limitations.

(I'd suggest we open negotiations as to how long it should be at 50 years, which I will call "one generation". I could live with as short as 20 or so, and IMO 100 is way too long.)

(I came to this conclusion during the buildup to the Falklands War. They gave the history of those worthless islands, and Argentina and England had been trading them back and forth for like 200 years. Trying to sort out claims of who has the moral right to them is like trying to mediate an argument between two brothers. No matter what one of them did, the other one did something before that. My position on the Falklands was, therefore, that I don't care who owned that land 150 years ago, that the people living there now have been British subjects for all or most of their lives, and therefore those islands are part of England. (Unless England or the residents chose to dispute that.))

Folks, Israel (to pick one example) is more than 50 years old. (Is Taiwan over 50 years old?) It's over. You wanna argue about the West Bank? Maybe the Statute hasn't run out.

For example, I wouldn't mind a bit the announcement that the US is now implementing a new foreign policy, called The Larry Doctrine. We will defend any international border or government that has existed for 50 years, whether we like them or not.

[Mad Mike]

Back on this interventionist, anti-interventionist topic I want to clarify something that Prosperity touched on in his excellent post...

All choices have consequences including the choice of taking no action.

THAT is my problem with anti interventionists and isolationists. I don't have a problem with examining the choices and doing nothing if that seems to be the best option. What I do have a problem with is an ideology that assumes all action is bad. That assumption is just stupid.

[Larry]

4. The US had backed away from Iran before the revolution. Despite the release of political prisioners and a cut back on attacking political dissedents, Carter wasn't happy with the Shah because of human rights issues (in fact, you could argue that revolution wouldn't have happened WITHOUT Carter's interventionism on the side of the revolutionaries).

While I'll certainly agree that Carter's policy (which I support) likely providing a convenient time for the revolution, there's a big difference between "interventionism on the side of the revolutionaries" and "The US announces that we will no longer have a policy of providing aid to Satan Himself, up to and including training his forces in the latest techniques of torture and suppression, as long as Satan claims that his opposition are Commies".

[Larry]

Back on this interventionist, anti-interventionist topic I want to clarify something that Prosperity touched on in his excellent post...

All choices have consequences including the choice of taking no action.

THAT is my problem with anti interventionists and isolationists. I don't have a problem with examining the choices and doing nothing if that seems to be the best option. What I do have a problem with is an ideology that assumes all action is bad. That assumption is just stupid.

Larry agrees with Mad Mike.

[PeterMP]

Or perhaps a lot of people are capable of noticing the difference between intervention for the purpose of defeating aggression, and interventionism for the purpose of installing and maintaining a friendly puppet dictator.

They're both interventionism. (In the sense that neither is isolationist.)

But they aren't the same.

Who was the aggressor between Japan and China prior to WWII?

(Japan was in the short term, but if you go back longer, you could certainly argue that China was. We supported China over Japan because Japan was stronger and more of a threat to Western colonialism- which is also how we got involved in Iran supporting the British.)

[Jumbo]

Word of advice...never quote the rules to a mod. :)

If you do have a question, go read, think the best you can, and then you do what you have to do and so will the mods. If you choose to ignore that advice, then PM the mod to ask such questions. Don't do it in a thread.

There are some people who will never get the hang of #5, and sometimes just the rules in general. And with certain personality types and temperaments, it's just best of they don't try to explore stretching the boundaries, because it rarely ends well for them. :)

Per topic, I agree with Mad Mike and Larry.

Per Farbod's post, thanks for the addition. Those of us who have been around awhile and know the score, are familiar with how we have employed some very questionable policies around the world, particularly given the moral/ethical high ground we attemtp to project. Such policies do indeed create or feed some of the negative perceptions we face. It isn't that all those people resistant or uncooperative with our global policies are simply into "hating America " or "hating freedom." It's more complicated, and such events as farbod outlines need to be recognized in context and addressed in discussion with our more reasonable critics. With this of course, true fanatics or militants will not be mollified by such integrity, but the larger populations they inhabit may be more swayed to our favor by frank and credible dialogue with matching actions.

[Farbod21]

The point I was trying to make is that the hard line approach to Iran by the US, particular the Bush administration actually empowers the current regime. It allows their hallow chants and rhetoric to become a matter of national pride. The way you can severely weaken the fundamentalist regime is by removing the need for it.

What Obama is trying to do is what I think will be the most effective way for any progress to be made in Iran.

Most of the rhetoric you hear in the media, death to USA, and down with Israel, is purely red meat for the small but active fundamentalist aspect of the Iranian political machine. If you ask the average citizen of Iran, overwhelmingly (80%+) they will say that they love anything American and really dont care about Israel.

[PeterMP]

I just want to make the point that I'm not strongly supporting our pre-1979 Iran policy. I'm not going to say the initial "coup" was a bad idea, but clearly somewhere along the line things didn't work, and we should have done more earlier to either transition Iran away from the Shah or reign the Shah in.

I do pretty strongly support interventionism, with the understanding that humans aren't perfect and mistakes are going to be made, and the line isn't always clear in terms of this is a good guy and that's the bad guy, and this is what is in the best long term interest of the US and even the world.