6 ms·

Destabilizing. But IMHO they're much less of a problem, as they don't act as randomly as Saudi Arabia.

by gpvos 11y ago

ZenoArrow 11y ago
How are Iran destabilizing that region?
- gadders 11y ago
  Chiefly: - Exporting IEDs that were used against coalition troops in Iraq - Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah Plus all the other items on this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    Okay, now compare their actions in the Middle East to those of the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's also worth pointing out that Iran has a very weak military compared to its neighbours: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-conventional-military-power-overrated-security-study-says-409736 http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-conventional-military-...
    - gadders 11y ago
      It's not competition. Saying one is doing doesn't mean others aren't as well.
      - 1024core 11y ago
        But YOU are the one bringing Iran into the discussion. You compared them with the Saudis, by saying "but Iran is too!" I honestly have no idea where the hate for Iran comes from. They really haven't done much to hurt US interests, even though they lost 10s of 1000s of men in the Iran-Iraq war as a direct result of US involvement.
        merpnderp 11y ago
        When you say "haven't done much to hurt US interests" does arming Iraqi insurgents with Iranian made weapons that killed many coalition soldiers, and further destabilized Iraq causing who knows how many innocent deaths, not count? And why would the US get more blame than the USSR or France and Germany? The USSR sent soldiers and pilots to fight for Saddam.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "When you say "haven't done much to hurt US interests" does arming Iraqi insurgents with Iranian made weapons that killed many coalition soldiers, and further destabilized Iraq causing who knows how many innocent deaths, not count?" Why did the US continue to support ISIS even after it was clear they were becoming a serious threat in the region? http://youtu.be/ccdeANvo2bg http://youtu.be/ccdeANvo2bg Why did Turkey continue to buy oil from ISIS even after ISIS started executing innocent people? http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-are-now-undeniable-2015-7?r=US&IR=T http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-... The point is, the whole thing is a mess, and not one of the main countries involved is free from blame. The most messed up thing from a political point of view is that Turkey are a member of NATO, in other words we're fighting a group that's funded by allies of US and Europe. Throw Russia in the mix with its support of Assad and we really could be looking at the start of World War 3. Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, but it does seem plausible. > "The USSR sent soldiers and pilots to fight for Saddam." Are you referring to the Gulf War (1990) or the Iraq War (2003)?
        gadders 11y ago
        I'm bringing them into the discussion as they are the counterpoint to Saudi Arabia, one Shiite and the other Sunni. >>They really haven't done much to hurt US interests This is laughably false.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "This is laughably false." It's not as straightforward as that: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/terror.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/te... Here's a key quote (from Robert Baer, a former CIA officer): "And how important [is] Hezbollah? ... It's extremely important. Hezbollah's divided into many parties. There's the Islamic Resistance in the south, which beat the Israelis. They attacked the Israeli army. They defeated the Israeli army on Lebanese soil. I do not know how we can describe that other than a national liberation movement. I don't agree that Hezbollah itself is a terrorist organization. It delivers powdered milk; it takes care of people. It's a social organization; it's a political organization. It fights corruption. Then there's the Islamic Resistance, which is an army, which is a guerrilla force, fighting for control of its own country. And then, under the Hezbollah umbrella, was the Islamic Jihad, which I call their special security, which was controlled by Iran, which carried out terrorism against the West. And you can paint Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. You can do that for political reasons, but strictly speaking, it is many things. Just as [with] the IRA, you got Sinn Fein and you've got the real IRA, which is conducting terrorism."
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Arming the rebels fighting in Yemen just for one tiny example. For the worst thing in recent memory, the Shiite death squads in Iraq were well supported by Iran (granted this was a response to Sunni death squads, by that is hardly a rationalizing for murdering innocents). http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/houthi-rebels-destroy-m1-abrams-tanks-with-basic-irania-1726478735 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/houthi-rebels-destroy-m1-ab...
  - 1024core 11y ago
    And who funded the Sunni death squads? The Saudis. Who funded the ISIS? Saudis. Who prevented the US from striking at ISIS? The Saudis.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      What's your point? I doubt anyone except a Saudi propaganda minister would argue against you. I was responding to the parent asking for Iranian instances.
eternalban 11y ago
The region has been under destabilizing pressure from the West since 1979. Iran has not invaded or subverted Iraq, Syria, Libya. Iran did not invade Afghanistan. (USSR, NATO). Iran did not train and arm the Taliban. Iran did not create ISIS (or whatever is their acronym du jour.) This isn't fox news forum. This is HN.
- gadders 11y ago
  Iran has funded numerous terrorist groups for years, ever since their revolution.
  - 1024core 11y ago
    Who defines what's a "terrorist" ? Were the IRA terrorists? Were the Red Brigade? Shining Path? Castro & Co.? The list could go on. Why is it OK for the West to fund their buddies, but no one else is allowed to? 19/20 hijackers were Saudi (and more recently, so was one of the San Bernardino shooters, for all practical purposes). UBL was Saudi. Please point out to me terrorists with similar profiles who are/were Iranian. Iran's funding of Hezbollah can be legitimately seen as defending their own interests. Just like we fund scores of militias all over the region.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      >Iran's funding of Hezbollah can be legitimately seen as defending their own interests. Which part of assassinating Lebanese politicians, kidnapping and torturing soldiers, starting a war with a nuclear-armed state, and randomly firing unguided rockets into civilian towns can be legitimately seen as defending Iran's own interests?
- gpvos 11y ago
  Well, first time anyone's accused me of that. And yes, I think the West is indeed worse than Iran in this regard.

Destabilizing. But IMHO they're much less of a problem, as they don't act as randomly as Saudi Arabia.

by gpvos 11y ago

Destabilizing. But IMHO they're much less of a problem, as they don't act as randomly as Saudi Arabia.

ZenoArrow 11y ago

How are Iran destabilizing that region?

gadders 11y ago
Chiefly: - Exporting IEDs that were used against coalition troops in Iraq - Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah Plus all the other items on this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Okay, now compare their actions in the Middle East to those of the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's also worth pointing out that Iran has a very weak military compared to its neighbours: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-conventional-military-power-overrated-security-study-says-409736 http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-conventional-military-...
  - gadders 11y ago
    It's not competition. Saying one is doing doesn't mean others aren't as well.
    - 1024core 11y ago
      But YOU are the one bringing Iran into the discussion. You compared them with the Saudis, by saying "but Iran is too!" I honestly have no idea where the hate for Iran comes from. They really haven't done much to hurt US interests, even though they lost 10s of 1000s of men in the Iran-Iraq war as a direct result of US involvement.
      - merpnderp 11y ago
        When you say "haven't done much to hurt US interests" does arming Iraqi insurgents with Iranian made weapons that killed many coalition soldiers, and further destabilized Iraq causing who knows how many innocent deaths, not count? And why would the US get more blame than the USSR or France and Germany? The USSR sent soldiers and pilots to fight for Saddam.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "When you say "haven't done much to hurt US interests" does arming Iraqi insurgents with Iranian made weapons that killed many coalition soldiers, and further destabilized Iraq causing who knows how many innocent deaths, not count?" Why did the US continue to support ISIS even after it was clear they were becoming a serious threat in the region? http://youtu.be/ccdeANvo2bg http://youtu.be/ccdeANvo2bg Why did Turkey continue to buy oil from ISIS even after ISIS started executing innocent people? http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-are-now-undeniable-2015-7?r=US&IR=T http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-... The point is, the whole thing is a mess, and not one of the main countries involved is free from blame. The most messed up thing from a political point of view is that Turkey are a member of NATO, in other words we're fighting a group that's funded by allies of US and Europe. Throw Russia in the mix with its support of Assad and we really could be looking at the start of World War 3. Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, but it does seem plausible. > "The USSR sent soldiers and pilots to fight for Saddam." Are you referring to the Gulf War (1990) or the Iraq War (2003)?
      - gadders 11y ago
        I'm bringing them into the discussion as they are the counterpoint to Saudi Arabia, one Shiite and the other Sunni. >>They really haven't done much to hurt US interests This is laughably false.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "This is laughably false." It's not as straightforward as that: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/terror.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/te... Here's a key quote (from Robert Baer, a former CIA officer): "And how important [is] Hezbollah? ... It's extremely important. Hezbollah's divided into many parties. There's the Islamic Resistance in the south, which beat the Israelis. They attacked the Israeli army. They defeated the Israeli army on Lebanese soil. I do not know how we can describe that other than a national liberation movement. I don't agree that Hezbollah itself is a terrorist organization. It delivers powdered milk; it takes care of people. It's a social organization; it's a political organization. It fights corruption. Then there's the Islamic Resistance, which is an army, which is a guerrilla force, fighting for control of its own country. And then, under the Hezbollah umbrella, was the Islamic Jihad, which I call their special security, which was controlled by Iran, which carried out terrorism against the West. And you can paint Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. You can do that for political reasons, but strictly speaking, it is many things. Just as [with] the IRA, you got Sinn Fein and you've got the real IRA, which is conducting terrorism."
merpnderp 11y ago
Arming the rebels fighting in Yemen just for one tiny example. For the worst thing in recent memory, the Shiite death squads in Iraq were well supported by Iran (granted this was a response to Sunni death squads, by that is hardly a rationalizing for murdering innocents). http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/houthi-rebels-destroy-m1-abrams-tanks-with-basic-irania-1726478735 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/houthi-rebels-destroy-m1-ab...
- 1024core 11y ago
  And who funded the Sunni death squads? The Saudis. Who funded the ISIS? Saudis. Who prevented the US from striking at ISIS? The Saudis.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    What's your point? I doubt anyone except a Saudi propaganda minister would argue against you. I was responding to the parent asking for Iranian instances.

eternalban 11y ago

The region has been under destabilizing pressure from the West since 1979. Iran has not invaded or subverted Iraq, Syria, Libya. Iran did not invade Afghanistan. (USSR, NATO). Iran did not train and arm the Taliban. Iran did not create ISIS (or whatever is their acronym du jour.) This isn't fox news forum. This is HN.

gadders 11y ago
Iran has funded numerous terrorist groups for years, ever since their revolution.
- 1024core 11y ago
  Who defines what's a "terrorist" ? Were the IRA terrorists? Were the Red Brigade? Shining Path? Castro & Co.? The list could go on. Why is it OK for the West to fund their buddies, but no one else is allowed to? 19/20 hijackers were Saudi (and more recently, so was one of the San Bernardino shooters, for all practical purposes). UBL was Saudi. Please point out to me terrorists with similar profiles who are/were Iranian. Iran's funding of Hezbollah can be legitimately seen as defending their own interests. Just like we fund scores of militias all over the region.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    >Iran's funding of Hezbollah can be legitimately seen as defending their own interests. Which part of assassinating Lebanese politicians, kidnapping and torturing soldiers, starting a war with a nuclear-armed state, and randomly firing unguided rockets into civilian towns can be legitimately seen as defending Iran's own interests?
gpvos 11y ago
Well, first time anyone's accused me of that. And yes, I think the West is indeed worse than Iran in this regard.