9 ms·

Inside the Former US Embassy in Tehran, Iran (2015)

73 points by boramalper 10y ago

yardie 10y ago
I don't know why people think the USAs relationship with other countries is complicated. I guess it's complicated in the fact that we aren't the good guys as we've been brought up to believe. "We" have overthrown democratically, elected governments, trained death squads, assassins, and insurgents. Our own Navy shot down a passenger plane, and we tried to convince the world it was terrorists,and the best we could do was sorry, not sorry. It's not complicated, the US does bad shit, too. Sometimes it blows up in our face.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  The Cold War was a struggle for the future of mankind. The spread of communism was a very real threat and would have been catastrophic, much worse than the fall of Rome; a new Dark Ages with mankind under a boot for a thousand years was a real prospect. The Iranian government was cozying up to the Soviets and bringing in communist forces into their government. There is good reason to believe that the Soviets were pulling off the kind of suriptitious legitimate-looking takeover that they had so successfully executed in Eastern Europe before everyone realized what was happening. Just like our support of Pinochet in Chile, it was a choice between two evils. We did what we though had to be done. In the years preceding the installation of the Shah, the iron curtain had fallen around Eastern Europe, China had fallen to Mao, the Soviets had tested their nukes and built an arsenal, Korea had been split, etc. This was an all out struggle.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    It's now obvious that the spread of communism was a straw man. It didn't turn out viable after all. Torturing or killing people in the name of straw man containment doesn't sound as a valid excuse anymore. > legitimate-looking takeover that they had so successfully executed in Eastern Europe before everyone realized what was happening. This is plain false. Takeover of Eastern Europe was a result of USSR winning the war that Germany lost. It was arranged so that USSR gets Eastern Europe that it has already took. Everybody realized what was happening. Don't see how it could happen in Iran, much less how post-communist Iran would be worse these days than jihadist nuclear Iran you now have.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      You're mistaken about the nature of Stalin's takeover of Eastern Europe. He maintained plausible deniability until the very last minute. He made it look like a democratic process while his cronies were throwing opponents out of windows. Some people did see through it, people like Churchill and Patton. But Roosevelt and Truman were completely fooled by Stalin, and thought they could trust him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Concealed_transformation_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Concealed_transfo... As for communism proving non-viable, how can you possibly judge actions in the 50s by what surprised everyone in the 80s? And we have every reason to believe that communism would have spread further and lasted longer if not for the extraordinary Western efforts to prevent and undermine them. They would certainly have taken all of Asia and South America, for instance.
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        > how can you possibly judge actions in the 50s by what surprised everyone in the 80s The thing is, your ends don't justify your means. It was Stalin's dogma and boy was he wrong. You can't justify crimes with "or what would have happened". The fall of communism just makes that apparent.
        marcoperaza 10y ago
        That's a worthless platitude. Your values mean nothing if you lose. Our ideals of democracy and human rights wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on if the Nazis or Communists achieved world domination.
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        But they didn't and they couldn't. However, what do your ideals of democracy worth when you overthrew democratic regimes?
        tome 10y ago
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > The spread of communism was a very real threat and would have been catastrophic, much worse than the fall of Rome; a new Dark Ages with mankind under a boot for a thousand years was a real prospect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      What an unhelpful comment. If you're arguing that the spread of communism wasn't a real prospect, then you're laughably ignorant of history given that they almost took control of all of Asia and South America, and did take control of Vietnam and Cambodia and China and others. If you're taking issue with my description of life under communism, then own your stance. Say what you really think about communism.
      - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
        Define communism, please?
      - blackoil 10y ago
        Between countries like Vietnam(where US lost) and Afghanistan(USSR lost), I would take Vietnam any day. Even latest victory of Iraq isn't any better.
        nixos 10y ago
        What about between North Korea (US lost) and South Korea (USSR lost)? You can't compare different cultures like that
    - cybertronic 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        Demanding someone support their bald assertions isn't the same as fallaciously dismissing the underlying claim.
- icegreentea 10y ago
  I think calling the relationship between two countries who do bad shit to each other, but generally don't want to have to do bad shit to each other (if nothing else because it distracts them from other issues, or cause bad shit includes getting your own economy starved) as "complicated" is okay.
  - yardie 10y ago
    The US went to Iran and did bad shit. Iran didn't go to the US to do bad shit.
    - icegreentea 10y ago
      Not denying the asymmetry of power and actions, but I think calling the relationship as purely "US is bady" is while less wrong than just "Iran is bady", it still pretty wrong, and an honest description of the relationship as "complicated" with both sides doing bad shit is the only way forward.
    - tome 10y ago
      If the power differential were reversed you'd better believe the bad shit coming out of the Islamic Republic of Iran would be orders of magnitude worse than what the US has ever done the other way.
      - Synaesthesia 10y ago
        Yes all superpowers act the same way. In fact all powers act the same way - try to maximize their own power and access to resources etc. When last did Iran attack a neighboring country? Anyways they're not much of a military power right now, even by regional standards.
        tome 10y ago
        > In fact all powers act the same way - try to maximize their own power and access to resources etc Do you think that Nazi Germany and the USSR were just "trying to maximize their own power and access to resources"?
- tome 10y ago
  > we aren't the good guys as we've been brought up to believe I'm afraid I have to contradict you and say, yup, out of all the powers acting during the 20th century, judged by capacity multiplied by intent, you were the best guys. You saved the world from totalitarinism again and again, and the free world thanks you.
  - toomanybeersies 10y ago
    Maybe in the 21st century, the USA could be argued to be "good guys", but it's early in the century. In the last 20th Century, the USA definitely weren't the "good guys", perhaps the "least bad" guys, but not good. They overthrew and helped overthrow a multitude of democratically elected and popular governments because they didn't suit the interests of the USA (which extends to not just the US govt, but also corporations, especially fruit companies). Manifest dynasty and American Imperialism never died out at the end of the 19th century. There is a reason why articles like this [0], this [1], and this [2] exist. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Covert_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_...
    - tome 10y ago
      > because they didn't suit the interests of the USA No, because they didn't suit the interests of halting the worldwide advance of totalitarian Communism. Great powers throw their weight around. What's creditable in the US case is that they threw their weight around in part to promote liberty and democracy across the world. Not every action can be taken as beneficent in isolation, but in bulk the US has been massively beneficent to the world.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        > What's creditable in the US case is that they threw their weight around in part to promote liberty and democracy across the world. Oh, come on. They, at times, overthrew democratically elected heads of state like Allende in favor of military dictatorships that went on to torture tens of thousands.
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  We do, but my problem is that this flies in the face of what our ideals say we should be doing, and it is often done by people I think are as close to treasonous as it gets (Kissinger, Brezenski, the other shadow players), and most of all, with almost 0 input from the public. The problem is on the beltway behind closed doors all these types will admit "it's just machivellian realpolitik, and thats how the world works, so yeah were going to destabalize an entire region just to maintain a foothold in order to control resources so when the resource wars come were are set up to squeeze china and russia" but then these people go into public and spout all this bullshit about democracy and the stenographer "news" media just picks that line and runs with it with nary a critical thought for fear of revoked access. Personally I think my country should be leading by example, not by force. I'm not religious anymore but I'm reminded of a biblical passage that says something to the effect of: "Before you remove the splinter from your brothers eye, remove the plank from yours." Now are you ready for the conspiratorial angle? I find Webster Tarpleys assertion that the British oligarchy conducts war by proxy (as learned and transplanted from the Venetians), usually by aligning with the second most powerful enemy in order to destroy the most powerful enemy, highly convincing. In this case, I trace most of our foreign entanglements to the OSS and CIA, proxies for wall street, proxies for London City. So my "conspiracy theory" (the terse version) goes like this: The monarchy and oligarchy never forgave America for the revolution, and their solution is global government that pretends to be democratic but is really just a return to neo-feudalism. Through their infiltration of the state department from the early 1900s and their control of the darker three letters from the top down, I think America is being setup as the fall guy in the wars of aggression so that they can essentially say to us once they drop the dirt: "Look, America is a young country, it had its chance at it's constitutional democratic republic, but it's obviously not working out, so join our global government. (and if t you refuse we will just keep entangling you in disastrous policy and eventually just neuremberg you.)"
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    >"The problem is on the beltway behind closed doors" I think you me "in" the Beltway. The Beltway is the actual highway that encircles Washington, D.C.
hymath 10y ago
is still Exist

73 points by boramalper 10y ago

I don't know why people think the USAs relationship with other countries is complicated. I guess it's complicated in the fact that we aren't the good guys as we've been brought up to believe. "We" have overthrown democratically, elected governments, trained death squads, assassins, and insurgents. Our own Navy shot down a passenger plane, and we tried to convince the world it was terrorists,and the best we could do was sorry, not sorry. It's not complicated, the US does bad shit, too. Sometimes it blows up in our face.

marcoperaza 10y ago
The Cold War was a struggle for the future of mankind. The spread of communism was a very real threat and would have been catastrophic, much worse than the fall of Rome; a new Dark Ages with mankind under a boot for a thousand years was a real prospect. The Iranian government was cozying up to the Soviets and bringing in communist forces into their government. There is good reason to believe that the Soviets were pulling off the kind of suriptitious legitimate-looking takeover that they had so successfully executed in Eastern Europe before everyone realized what was happening. Just like our support of Pinochet in Chile, it was a choice between two evils. We did what we though had to be done. In the years preceding the installation of the Shah, the iron curtain had fallen around Eastern Europe, China had fallen to Mao, the Soviets had tested their nukes and built an arsenal, Korea had been split, etc. This was an all out struggle.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  It's now obvious that the spread of communism was a straw man. It didn't turn out viable after all. Torturing or killing people in the name of straw man containment doesn't sound as a valid excuse anymore. > legitimate-looking takeover that they had so successfully executed in Eastern Europe before everyone realized what was happening. This is plain false. Takeover of Eastern Europe was a result of USSR winning the war that Germany lost. It was arranged so that USSR gets Eastern Europe that it has already took. Everybody realized what was happening. Don't see how it could happen in Iran, much less how post-communist Iran would be worse these days than jihadist nuclear Iran you now have.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    You're mistaken about the nature of Stalin's takeover of Eastern Europe. He maintained plausible deniability until the very last minute. He made it look like a democratic process while his cronies were throwing opponents out of windows. Some people did see through it, people like Churchill and Patton. But Roosevelt and Truman were completely fooled by Stalin, and thought they could trust him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Concealed_transformation_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Concealed_transfo... As for communism proving non-viable, how can you possibly judge actions in the 50s by what surprised everyone in the 80s? And we have every reason to believe that communism would have spread further and lasted longer if not for the extraordinary Western efforts to prevent and undermine them. They would certainly have taken all of Asia and South America, for instance.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      > how can you possibly judge actions in the 50s by what surprised everyone in the 80s The thing is, your ends don't justify your means. It was Stalin's dogma and boy was he wrong. You can't justify crimes with "or what would have happened". The fall of communism just makes that apparent.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        That's a worthless platitude. Your values mean nothing if you lose. Our ideals of democracy and human rights wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on if the Nazis or Communists achieved world domination.
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        But they didn't and they couldn't. However, what do your ideals of democracy worth when you overthrew democratic regimes?
        tome 10y ago
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > The spread of communism was a very real threat and would have been catastrophic, much worse than the fall of Rome; a new Dark Ages with mankind under a boot for a thousand years was a real prospect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    What an unhelpful comment. If you're arguing that the spread of communism wasn't a real prospect, then you're laughably ignorant of history given that they almost took control of all of Asia and South America, and did take control of Vietnam and Cambodia and China and others. If you're taking issue with my description of life under communism, then own your stance. Say what you really think about communism.
    - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
      Define communism, please?
    - blackoil 10y ago
      Between countries like Vietnam(where US lost) and Afghanistan(USSR lost), I would take Vietnam any day. Even latest victory of Iraq isn't any better.
      - nixos 10y ago
        What about between North Korea (US lost) and South Korea (USSR lost)? You can't compare different cultures like that
  - cybertronic 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      Demanding someone support their bald assertions isn't the same as fallaciously dismissing the underlying claim.
icegreentea 10y ago
I think calling the relationship between two countries who do bad shit to each other, but generally don't want to have to do bad shit to each other (if nothing else because it distracts them from other issues, or cause bad shit includes getting your own economy starved) as "complicated" is okay.
- yardie 10y ago
  The US went to Iran and did bad shit. Iran didn't go to the US to do bad shit.
  - icegreentea 10y ago
    Not denying the asymmetry of power and actions, but I think calling the relationship as purely "US is bady" is while less wrong than just "Iran is bady", it still pretty wrong, and an honest description of the relationship as "complicated" with both sides doing bad shit is the only way forward.
  - tome 10y ago
    If the power differential were reversed you'd better believe the bad shit coming out of the Islamic Republic of Iran would be orders of magnitude worse than what the US has ever done the other way.
    - Synaesthesia 10y ago
      Yes all superpowers act the same way. In fact all powers act the same way - try to maximize their own power and access to resources etc. When last did Iran attack a neighboring country? Anyways they're not much of a military power right now, even by regional standards.
      - tome 10y ago
        > In fact all powers act the same way - try to maximize their own power and access to resources etc Do you think that Nazi Germany and the USSR were just "trying to maximize their own power and access to resources"?
tome 10y ago
> we aren't the good guys as we've been brought up to believe I'm afraid I have to contradict you and say, yup, out of all the powers acting during the 20th century, judged by capacity multiplied by intent, you were the best guys. You saved the world from totalitarinism again and again, and the free world thanks you.
- toomanybeersies 10y ago
  Maybe in the 21st century, the USA could be argued to be "good guys", but it's early in the century. In the last 20th Century, the USA definitely weren't the "good guys", perhaps the "least bad" guys, but not good. They overthrew and helped overthrow a multitude of democratically elected and popular governments because they didn't suit the interests of the USA (which extends to not just the US govt, but also corporations, especially fruit companies). Manifest dynasty and American Imperialism never died out at the end of the 19th century. There is a reason why articles like this [0], this [1], and this [2] exist. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Covert_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_...
  - tome 10y ago
    > because they didn't suit the interests of the USA No, because they didn't suit the interests of halting the worldwide advance of totalitarian Communism. Great powers throw their weight around. What's creditable in the US case is that they threw their weight around in part to promote liberty and democracy across the world. Not every action can be taken as beneficent in isolation, but in bulk the US has been massively beneficent to the world.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > What's creditable in the US case is that they threw their weight around in part to promote liberty and democracy across the world. Oh, come on. They, at times, overthrew democratically elected heads of state like Allende in favor of military dictatorships that went on to torture tens of thousands.
arca_vorago 10y ago
We do, but my problem is that this flies in the face of what our ideals say we should be doing, and it is often done by people I think are as close to treasonous as it gets (Kissinger, Brezenski, the other shadow players), and most of all, with almost 0 input from the public. The problem is on the beltway behind closed doors all these types will admit "it's just machivellian realpolitik, and thats how the world works, so yeah were going to destabalize an entire region just to maintain a foothold in order to control resources so when the resource wars come were are set up to squeeze china and russia" but then these people go into public and spout all this bullshit about democracy and the stenographer "news" media just picks that line and runs with it with nary a critical thought for fear of revoked access. Personally I think my country should be leading by example, not by force. I'm not religious anymore but I'm reminded of a biblical passage that says something to the effect of: "Before you remove the splinter from your brothers eye, remove the plank from yours." Now are you ready for the conspiratorial angle? I find Webster Tarpleys assertion that the British oligarchy conducts war by proxy (as learned and transplanted from the Venetians), usually by aligning with the second most powerful enemy in order to destroy the most powerful enemy, highly convincing. In this case, I trace most of our foreign entanglements to the OSS and CIA, proxies for wall street, proxies for London City. So my "conspiracy theory" (the terse version) goes like this: The monarchy and oligarchy never forgave America for the revolution, and their solution is global government that pretends to be democratic but is really just a return to neo-feudalism. Through their infiltration of the state department from the early 1900s and their control of the darker three letters from the top down, I think America is being setup as the fall guy in the wars of aggression so that they can essentially say to us once they drop the dirt: "Look, America is a young country, it had its chance at it's constitutional democratic republic, but it's obviously not working out, so join our global government. (and if t you refuse we will just keep entangling you in disastrous policy and eventually just neuremberg you.)"
- bogomipz 10y ago
  >"The problem is on the beltway behind closed doors" I think you me "in" the Beltway. The Beltway is the actual highway that encircles Washington, D.C.

hymath 10y ago

is still Exist