7 ms·

I am not sure what your point is in bringing Iran, maybe its to blame the US for the current situation there. Keep in mind that 1953 was over 60 years ago. To

I am not sure what your point is in bringing Iran, maybe its to blame the US for the current situation there. Keep in mind that 1953 was over 60 years ago. To keep on blaming US for acts committed that long ago and apply to today...well, it's ridiculous.

chinathrow 10y ago
I strongly disagree: it's not ridiculous at all when it comes to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Also, Iran was one example, the list of U.S. aggressions against sovereign nations without U.N. mandate goes on up to very recent times (Syria).
- bayesian_horse 10y ago
  The system of getting UN mandates has become useless because Russia is both on the security council and an offender of the rules it was supposed to defend. By all rights, there should be a UN mandate to fight IS in Syria. There should have been a UN mandate to fight the Assad regime, for that matter. Not intervening did not lead to less destabilization, just to more war crimes by the original regime.
  - jacobush 10y ago
    Make that Russia and the US. Still, it's better that they divide at least some spoils at the table in the UN. The alternative could be on the battlefield :-/
    - bayesian_horse 10y ago
      The US isn't getting any "spoils" from the wars it fought. At best they are keeping trade lines open. In no sense did they profit from their actions. Russia, maybe. The invasion of Crimea may have been profitable, if it weren't for the sanctions. Which is one of the best arguments in favor of these sanctions.
      - jacobush 10y ago
        I did not mean literally spoils in the form of land. I meant in the form of influence, economy or whatever is at stake. And that if you have two opponents, it's at least better that they communicate over a conference table than over the battlefield, proxy wars for instance. The UN voting process and security council may seem unpalatable, but it's better to have it than not having it. At least it is more transparent and on record what the various powers that be want. (I agree with what you said above. These sanctions are good. Crimea is the only conquered territory.)
  - paulmd 10y ago
    The point of the UN has always been - since its establishment - to keep the nuclear powers from going all-out on each other (and the rest of the world). You may not like the UN, you may not think it fulfills the mandate that the General Audience gives it (it doesn't). But it keeps the Security Council from nuking each other. And in this case - that's the design criteria. No nuclear wars, not ever. Nothing more, nothing less. This is in no way a moral judgement on either Russia or the US's activities in the Syrian-Iraq-Saudi-Iran quadrangle. Or any of the other players involved.
csallen 10y ago
My point isn't that the US is to blame for all the bad that happens in the world. There are plenty of places that are worse than we are. However, we act as if that absolves us of all wrongdoing, which is plainly absurd. I would like to counter that notion. In addition, we simply don't acknowledge what we've done. Our media won't report on it. I would like to see an end to this mass propaganda and willful ignorance. Finally, keep in mind that we only know what comes out during congressional hearings, via FOIA requests, and via heavily-redacted releases of classified documents. In other words, we only know the tip of the iceberg. This is not an accident. The US government makes heavy use of classification, often more to keep the public in the dark than to protect sensitive info from foreign enemies. Given these tactics, you can't fault citizens for relying on what information they have access to. And of course, there's no reason to assume that everything has magically changed and we are now angels.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  > In addition, we simply don't acknowledge what we've done. This is spot on, and the biggest difference between America and other countries which commit atrocities. America is allowed to forget. And it's not a trivial or minor difference at all. Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and there but it's completely incomparable.
  - seppin 10y ago
    > Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and there but it's completely incomparable. This is a completely subjective statement. The US has slavery museums in its Washington DC, and it's a topic that is never far from public conscientiousness. Compare that to Brazil, who's slave trade dwarfed that of North American, no formal recognition or ongoing efforts. Or Russia slowly and methodologically erasing the crimes of the Soviet union (and Stalin particularly) from public view. Or China reintroducing Mao as a folk hero, a mass murderer on par with Stalin. These are real omissions and cover ups. The US could be better, absolutely. But compared to others, it at least tries to reconcile their past with modern society.
mulmen 10y ago
How is it ridiculous when our actions then and since have consistently destabilized the region? Our actions then are still felt today.
- prawn 10y ago
  Exactly. 60 years is 2-3 generations growing up with that recent history in mind.
macns 10y ago
What? If 1953 looks ridiculous to you, the cruise missile on a passenger flight was in 1988!
- starik36 10y ago
  My point is that current situation where Iran is ruled by the religious authorities and the oppression that exist thereof -- cannot be blamed on the US. That is all Iranians' doing.
emptyfile 10y ago
60 years was a long time ago?!
- purple-again 10y ago
  Everyone old enough to vote for the politicians in power at the time must be at least 78 years old now. How many people older than 78 are running our country right now? Yes it was a long time ago when nearly every adult alive at the time is dead now.
  - scotty79 10y ago
    You just elected president that's 70. I bet at least a few 78s are running the country right now.
ionised 10y ago
Cause and effect. 60 years is not a long time.
- starik36 10y ago
  The current climate in Iran (being ruled by religion) cannot be blamed on the US at all.
pjc50 10y ago
But the "system" that encouraged those acts is still in place and unrepentant. By "system" I mean both the institutions and the set of beliefs that are held by the public and politicians that justify this kind of action. It shouldn't be forgotten until there's some kind of admittance of wrongdoing and resolve to prevent it. Such as by supporting strong impartial international rule of law. Which would actually help the US when dealing with Russian destabilisation efforts - at the moment they can just argue "you say it's legitimate when you do it".

chinathrow 10y ago

I strongly disagree: it's not ridiculous at all when it comes to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Also, Iran was one example, the list of U.S. aggressions against sovereign nations without U.N. mandate goes on up to very recent times (Syria).

bayesian_horse 10y ago
The system of getting UN mandates has become useless because Russia is both on the security council and an offender of the rules it was supposed to defend. By all rights, there should be a UN mandate to fight IS in Syria. There should have been a UN mandate to fight the Assad regime, for that matter. Not intervening did not lead to less destabilization, just to more war crimes by the original regime.
- jacobush 10y ago
  Make that Russia and the US. Still, it's better that they divide at least some spoils at the table in the UN. The alternative could be on the battlefield :-/
  - bayesian_horse 10y ago
    The US isn't getting any "spoils" from the wars it fought. At best they are keeping trade lines open. In no sense did they profit from their actions. Russia, maybe. The invasion of Crimea may have been profitable, if it weren't for the sanctions. Which is one of the best arguments in favor of these sanctions.
    - jacobush 10y ago
      I did not mean literally spoils in the form of land. I meant in the form of influence, economy or whatever is at stake. And that if you have two opponents, it's at least better that they communicate over a conference table than over the battlefield, proxy wars for instance. The UN voting process and security council may seem unpalatable, but it's better to have it than not having it. At least it is more transparent and on record what the various powers that be want. (I agree with what you said above. These sanctions are good. Crimea is the only conquered territory.)
- paulmd 10y ago
  The point of the UN has always been - since its establishment - to keep the nuclear powers from going all-out on each other (and the rest of the world). You may not like the UN, you may not think it fulfills the mandate that the General Audience gives it (it doesn't). But it keeps the Security Council from nuking each other. And in this case - that's the design criteria. No nuclear wars, not ever. Nothing more, nothing less. This is in no way a moral judgement on either Russia or the US's activities in the Syrian-Iraq-Saudi-Iran quadrangle. Or any of the other players involved.

csallen 10y ago

My point isn't that the US is to blame for all the bad that happens in the world. There are plenty of places that are worse than we are. However, we act as if that absolves us of all wrongdoing, which is plainly absurd. I would like to counter that notion. In addition, we simply don't acknowledge what we've done. Our media won't report on it. I would like to see an end to this mass propaganda and willful ignorance. Finally, keep in mind that we only know what comes out during congressional hearings, via FOIA requests, and via heavily-redacted releases of classified documents. In other words, we only know the tip of the iceberg. This is not an accident. The US government makes heavy use of classification, often more to keep the public in the dark than to protect sensitive info from foreign enemies. Given these tactics, you can't fault citizens for relying on what information they have access to. And of course, there's no reason to assume that everything has magically changed and we are now angels.

RodericDay 10y ago
> In addition, we simply don't acknowledge what we've done. This is spot on, and the biggest difference between America and other countries which commit atrocities. America is allowed to forget. And it's not a trivial or minor difference at all. Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and there but it's completely incomparable.
- seppin 10y ago
  > Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and there but it's completely incomparable. This is a completely subjective statement. The US has slavery museums in its Washington DC, and it's a topic that is never far from public conscientiousness. Compare that to Brazil, who's slave trade dwarfed that of North American, no formal recognition or ongoing efforts. Or Russia slowly and methodologically erasing the crimes of the Soviet union (and Stalin particularly) from public view. Or China reintroducing Mao as a folk hero, a mass murderer on par with Stalin. These are real omissions and cover ups. The US could be better, absolutely. But compared to others, it at least tries to reconcile their past with modern society.

mulmen 10y ago

How is it ridiculous when our actions then and since have consistently destabilized the region? Our actions then are still felt today.

prawn 10y ago
Exactly. 60 years is 2-3 generations growing up with that recent history in mind.

macns 10y ago

What? If 1953 looks ridiculous to you, the cruise missile on a passenger flight was in 1988!

starik36 10y ago
My point is that current situation where Iran is ruled by the religious authorities and the oppression that exist thereof -- cannot be blamed on the US. That is all Iranians' doing.

emptyfile 10y ago

60 years was a long time ago?!

purple-again 10y ago
Everyone old enough to vote for the politicians in power at the time must be at least 78 years old now. How many people older than 78 are running our country right now? Yes it was a long time ago when nearly every adult alive at the time is dead now.
- scotty79 10y ago
  You just elected president that's 70. I bet at least a few 78s are running the country right now.

ionised 10y ago

Cause and effect. 60 years is not a long time.

starik36 10y ago
The current climate in Iran (being ruled by religion) cannot be blamed on the US at all.

pjc50 10y ago

But the "system" that encouraged those acts is still in place and unrepentant. By "system" I mean both the institutions and the set of beliefs that are held by the public and politicians that justify this kind of action. It shouldn't be forgotten until there's some kind of admittance of wrongdoing and resolve to prevent it. Such as by supporting strong impartial international rule of law. Which would actually help the US when dealing with Russian destabilisation efforts - at the moment they can just argue "you say it's legitimate when you do it".