6 ms·

Iran is not shy about its imperial ambitions and the barbaric tactics it pursues them with. Why are we putting our heads in the sand? Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaed

Iran is not shy about its imperial ambitions and the barbaric tactics it pursues them with. Why are we putting our heads in the sand? Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, these are just some of the groups that Iran has funded, armed, and sponsored at various points in time, including the present day. The same Iran, led by the same people, that we so eagerly made this deal with. What's happening is nothing but appeasement. Don't take my word for it, this wiki article is a good starting point for more information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

x0x0 11y ago
As opposed to our dear friends, the Saudis?
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  The Saudis are no angels. They proselytize their form of radical Islam around the world. Internally, they are a repressive oligarchy ruled by the royal family and the radical clerics. Private donors from Saudi Arabia contribute a huge amount to terrorism. These are huge problems and the Saudis shouldn't get a pass on it, but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    > but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire. I believe there's no worse party in the entire ME region than Turkey. They might be a NATO ally, but for years they have e.g. allowed free influx of foreign fighters and arms into the region and export of oil back into Turkey, thus directly fueling the rise of IS. (Granted, Saudi Arabia with sponsoring Wahhabite islam propaganda all over Europe also had its part) Also, Erdogan is rapidly transforming Turkey to an Islamist dictatorship... and he's using the Syrian refugees as a weapon against Europe. Europe pays 3B € and Europe looks away from him turning into a dictator and massacring Kurds as long as he keeps the refugees in Turkey. If Erdogan were to truly unleash the millions of refugees, Europe would be screwed. Europe couldn't manage the 2m refugees last year without nearly falling apart, another 2m (or more!) would break up the EU.
    - Cyph0n 11y ago
      That would be fun to watch. What goes around comes around, EU.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      What's happening in Turkey really breaks my heart. It reminds me of Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom, about the phenomenon of illiberal and failed democracies. His thesis is that democratization can't succeed without liberalization first, brought about by economic and social development. And that democracy, anyhow, is a lesser good than constitutional liberalism. That the ballot box is less important than the impartial judge and guarantee of liberties. This is difficult for us who believe in both freedom and democracy to swallow. Where would Turkey be today without Ataturk? And what if his dictatorship survived to the current day, would that be better than the populist, democratically-elected, Erdogan?
twelvechairs 11y ago
Many around the world would consider the USA worse in this regard than iran
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  >Many around the world would consider the USA worse in this regard than iran Many people think many things, many of them are wrong. What do you think?
  - baudehlo 11y ago
    I think that those many are mostly correct. The US has funded those it knows will sign contracts with US companies to purchase arms (mostly, construction and oil deals also). They may even prove to be correct in the Iran situation too. Time will tell.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - twelvechairs 11y ago
    I think being able to trade and move is good and builds cultural bridges which assists demilitarisation
jacquesm 11y ago
> Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, these are just some of the groups that Iran has funded The US has funded most of those very same groups, only at different points in time.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  This is absolutely false. The US has never supported Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and especially not the insurgency that was attacking us in Iraq. Yes, the US helped the Mujahideen fight off a Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, and unfortunately some of them went on to be part of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That's not at all comparable.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    The Taliban was formed because the "mujahideen" we funded to bleed the Soviets replaced Soviet-sponsored dictatorships with an almost lawless feudalism controlled by brutal warlords who we did, indeed, fund. The Taliban was an order-restoring reaction to an untenable situation we helped create. The US didn't "fund" the Taliban, but we have more than a little bit of culpability for it, as do several other countries. Unfortunately for the implicit message board psyche, there are no simple good-guy bad-guy narratives in the Middle East/West Asia. "It's all just a bunch of guys."
    - meric 11y ago
      I'd say it's all a bunch of bad guys, down to everyone who has any sort of political power. The further the guy try to interfere in matters away from their home, the badder the guy. That would make the US officials involved in training terrorists in Syria and invading Iraq just about the worse, and the village farmers in India who interferes with nothing except his plot, not even his family, the least bad.
  - timeu 11y ago
    Ehem ? http://i.imgur.com/qdCuOIk.jpg http://i.imgur.com/qdCuOIk.jpg
- 11y ago
Htsthbjig 11y ago
Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? Do you realize the US funded Sadam Hussein in a war against Iran? Do you realize the US invaded Iraq? Do you realize the US has supported terrorist Muslim organizations when they benefited from that? The most recent example the "moderate fighters" against al-Assad whose American weapons ended in hands of the most fanatical ISIS groups. Imperial ambitions? Let me ask you something: What the Hell is doing the US of America tens of thousands of miles afar from his country? For me Imperial ambitions applies to other countries much better than Iran.
- throwaway997324 11y ago
  >Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? No, when was that government "democratically elected"? EDIT: Removed bickering that was distracting from my real question
  - meric 11y ago
    Mossadeagh, before the Shah. His ousting was the cause of resentment that fuelled the rise of Iran's political system today. You can google when that happened and read the history from then to now and see its all connected.
    - refurb 11y ago
      Mossadeagh was about to be booted by his own people. There were mass protests as he had become very unpopular. Claims the US had a hand in his downfall is being very generous.
      - fencepost 11y ago
        It's possible that he was very unpopular. I'm pretty sure it's confirmed from CIA papers since released that the mobs of protesters were organized, paid for and in some cases paid by the CIA, so there's at least an argument that his unpopularity was purchased.
refurb 11y ago
I'm kind of surprised you're getting downvoted so bad. Your tone may have been over the top, but I don't see anything factually wrong. It's common knowledge that Iran supports groups that have committed terrorist acts.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Sometimes the truth can be very hard for people to accept. Western academia, media, and press all turned a blind eye to Soviet repression, gulags, and purges up until the late 40s and early 50s. George Orwell, a leftist, had a very hard time getting Homage to Catalonia published because it portrayed the Soviet-backed Republican forces in Spain in a very unfavorable light. The Western intellectual elite was infatuated with Communism and didn't want to deal with facts that contradicted their neat world view. There's a really powerful line in 1984 that has stuck with me: "He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past."

x0x0 11y ago

As opposed to our dear friends, the Saudis?

marcoperaza 11y ago
The Saudis are no angels. They proselytize their form of radical Islam around the world. Internally, they are a repressive oligarchy ruled by the royal family and the radical clerics. Private donors from Saudi Arabia contribute a huge amount to terrorism. These are huge problems and the Saudis shouldn't get a pass on it, but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire. I believe there's no worse party in the entire ME region than Turkey. They might be a NATO ally, but for years they have e.g. allowed free influx of foreign fighters and arms into the region and export of oil back into Turkey, thus directly fueling the rise of IS. (Granted, Saudi Arabia with sponsoring Wahhabite islam propaganda all over Europe also had its part) Also, Erdogan is rapidly transforming Turkey to an Islamist dictatorship... and he's using the Syrian refugees as a weapon against Europe. Europe pays 3B € and Europe looks away from him turning into a dictator and massacring Kurds as long as he keeps the refugees in Turkey. If Erdogan were to truly unleash the millions of refugees, Europe would be screwed. Europe couldn't manage the 2m refugees last year without nearly falling apart, another 2m (or more!) would break up the EU.
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    That would be fun to watch. What goes around comes around, EU.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    What's happening in Turkey really breaks my heart. It reminds me of Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom, about the phenomenon of illiberal and failed democracies. His thesis is that democratization can't succeed without liberalization first, brought about by economic and social development. And that democracy, anyhow, is a lesser good than constitutional liberalism. That the ballot box is less important than the impartial judge and guarantee of liberties. This is difficult for us who believe in both freedom and democracy to swallow. Where would Turkey be today without Ataturk? And what if his dictatorship survived to the current day, would that be better than the populist, democratically-elected, Erdogan?

twelvechairs 11y ago

Many around the world would consider the USA worse in this regard than iran

marcoperaza 11y ago
>Many around the world would consider the USA worse in this regard than iran Many people think many things, many of them are wrong. What do you think?
- baudehlo 11y ago
  I think that those many are mostly correct. The US has funded those it knows will sign contracts with US companies to purchase arms (mostly, construction and oil deals also). They may even prove to be correct in the Iran situation too. Time will tell.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- twelvechairs 11y ago
  I think being able to trade and move is good and builds cultural bridges which assists demilitarisation

jacquesm 11y ago

> Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, these are just some of the groups that Iran has funded The US has funded most of those very same groups, only at different points in time.

marcoperaza 11y ago
This is absolutely false. The US has never supported Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and especially not the insurgency that was attacking us in Iraq. Yes, the US helped the Mujahideen fight off a Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, and unfortunately some of them went on to be part of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That's not at all comparable.
- tptacek 11y ago
  The Taliban was formed because the "mujahideen" we funded to bleed the Soviets replaced Soviet-sponsored dictatorships with an almost lawless feudalism controlled by brutal warlords who we did, indeed, fund. The Taliban was an order-restoring reaction to an untenable situation we helped create. The US didn't "fund" the Taliban, but we have more than a little bit of culpability for it, as do several other countries. Unfortunately for the implicit message board psyche, there are no simple good-guy bad-guy narratives in the Middle East/West Asia. "It's all just a bunch of guys."
  - meric 11y ago
    I'd say it's all a bunch of bad guys, down to everyone who has any sort of political power. The further the guy try to interfere in matters away from their home, the badder the guy. That would make the US officials involved in training terrorists in Syria and invading Iraq just about the worse, and the village farmers in India who interferes with nothing except his plot, not even his family, the least bad.
- timeu 11y ago
  Ehem ? http://i.imgur.com/qdCuOIk.jpg http://i.imgur.com/qdCuOIk.jpg
11y ago

Htsthbjig 11y ago

Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? Do you realize the US funded Sadam Hussein in a war against Iran? Do you realize the US invaded Iraq? Do you realize the US has supported terrorist Muslim organizations when they benefited from that? The most recent example the "moderate fighters" against al-Assad whose American weapons ended in hands of the most fanatical ISIS groups. Imperial ambitions? Let me ask you something: What the Hell is doing the US of America tens of thousands of miles afar from his country? For me Imperial ambitions applies to other countries much better than Iran.

throwaway997324 11y ago
>Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? No, when was that government "democratically elected"? EDIT: Removed bickering that was distracting from my real question
- meric 11y ago
  Mossadeagh, before the Shah. His ousting was the cause of resentment that fuelled the rise of Iran's political system today. You can google when that happened and read the history from then to now and see its all connected.
  - refurb 11y ago
    Mossadeagh was about to be booted by his own people. There were mass protests as he had become very unpopular. Claims the US had a hand in his downfall is being very generous.
    - fencepost 11y ago
      It's possible that he was very unpopular. I'm pretty sure it's confirmed from CIA papers since released that the mobs of protesters were organized, paid for and in some cases paid by the CIA, so there's at least an argument that his unpopularity was purchased.

refurb 11y ago

I'm kind of surprised you're getting downvoted so bad. Your tone may have been over the top, but I don't see anything factually wrong. It's common knowledge that Iran supports groups that have committed terrorist acts.

marcoperaza 11y ago
Sometimes the truth can be very hard for people to accept. Western academia, media, and press all turned a blind eye to Soviet repression, gulags, and purges up until the late 40s and early 50s. George Orwell, a leftist, had a very hard time getting Homage to Catalonia published because it portrayed the Soviet-backed Republican forces in Spain in a very unfavorable light. The Western intellectual elite was infatuated with Communism and didn't want to deal with facts that contradicted their neat world view. There's a really powerful line in 1984 that has stuck with me: "He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past."