5 ms·

Not even close. What they want is their natural resources. Nobody in USA gives a crap about Iranian people's problems.

gpm 6y ago
This is why the US has sanctioned Norway? As near as I can tell the criteria for the us government getting involved is you have natural resources and you mistreat your people. Neither one alone seems to be sufficient.
- gruez 6y ago
  >As near as I can tell the criteria for the us government getting involved is you have natural resources and you mistreat your people. Neither one alone seems to be sufficient. the US seems to be pretty chill about saudi arabia, which does have oil and mistreats people. I'm sure the rest of the countries around that region aren't exactly a bastion of human rights either.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Thats because the US requires juvenile moral arguments to maintain support for things that have nothing to do with juvenile moral arguments. It derives it’s power from a population that has little history, prophecies or goals in common, so childish moral high ground is all it has to continue stewarding its massive resource appropriation efforts.
  - gpm 6y ago
    The US is involved in Saudi Arabia though, just as an ally instead of an enemy.
- decafbad 6y ago
  if (has(flammable_liquid) && does_mistreat_people()) { make_people_suffer_more(); } I don't see any relation between two inputs of that and gate. Norway shares oil revenue with UK and EU companies and therefore has strong defense against colonialist USA.
  - gpm 6y ago
    If you want to think about causality here it would be more like: Group a: If(has(flammable_liquid)) Try to acquire it Group b: If(behaves morally) Prevent group A from causing suffering The group consisting of both a and b act like what you describe, but not because that's rational behavior.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  The US mistreats its own people daily. The idea that they care at all about other countries mistreating their people is a farce. They dislike the fact that Iran is part of an axis of countries which want to challenge the dominance of the US in global politics today. That's it, period. The US's best buddies are Saudi Arabia, who both have natural resources and mistreat their people. Not true that "mistreat your people" enters into this calculus at all.
- vkou 6y ago
  > As near as I can tell the criteria for the us government getting involved is you have natural resources and you mistreat your people. Neither one alone seems to be sufficient. Surely, you must be aware of the history of US involvement in Iran. How do you reconcile the difference between the reality of US foreign policy, and your idealized view of its foreign policy?
  - gpm 6y ago
    Iran has always has always had policies that the US populace would consider mistreating people. Sure their "intervention" didn't help (it generally doesn't) and in fact made things worse, but the conditions were satisfied.
- stunt 6y ago
  Sorry but it's never that simple. Iran is very different than Norway. Iran was actually a friendly ally to US. Biggest ally in the region. So close that US designed a coup to overthrow Iranian democratically elected leader in favor of the monarchical rule of the Shah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Problem started when Iran became a founding member of OPEC. And Shah was controlling (raising) oil prices with his influence at the OPEC. "NYT: Shah warning US and UK to increase oil price in 70s": https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/20/archives/shah-warns-oil-prices-will-soar-if-gold-rises-dollar-usually-drops.html https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/20/archives/shah-warns-oil-p... Their relationship was damaged to the point that US intentionally didn't support Shah during Iranian revolution and he was overthrown and replaced by Islamic Republic of Iran. There are even conspiracy theories that suggest CIA even did aid the revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Criticism_of_reign_and_causes_of_his_overthrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Criticis... And after that a few more events completely destroyed their relationship. "Siege of the American embassy in Tehran" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis "Siege of the Iranian embassy in London" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege "US supporting Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, and during the Iraq-Iran war" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against... "Iran Air Flight 655" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 Both sides had many many more since then and the last major one was US withdrawal from JCPOA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#US_withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... Is Iran a good democratic country now? No! Do they deserve it? I don't think so.
input_sh 6y ago
Iran had a democratic leader. He was toppled in a 1953 coup and replaced by their last monarch, who was himself overthrown by the Islamic revolution in 1979. That 1953 coup was orchestrated by the United States (TPAJAX Project or "Operation Ajax") and the United Kingdom ("Operation Boot"), because the leader was too far left from them. The name Ajax refers to cleansing communist influence, because Iran wanted to nationalise the oil controlled by what is now a part of BP.

gpm 6y ago

This is why the US has sanctioned Norway? As near as I can tell the criteria for the us government getting involved is you have natural resources and you mistreat your people. Neither one alone seems to be sufficient.

gruez 6y ago
>As near as I can tell the criteria for the us government getting involved is you have natural resources and you mistreat your people. Neither one alone seems to be sufficient. the US seems to be pretty chill about saudi arabia, which does have oil and mistreats people. I'm sure the rest of the countries around that region aren't exactly a bastion of human rights either.
- vmception 6y ago
  Thats because the US requires juvenile moral arguments to maintain support for things that have nothing to do with juvenile moral arguments. It derives it’s power from a population that has little history, prophecies or goals in common, so childish moral high ground is all it has to continue stewarding its massive resource appropriation efforts.
- gpm 6y ago
  The US is involved in Saudi Arabia though, just as an ally instead of an enemy.
decafbad 6y ago
if (has(flammable_liquid) && does_mistreat_people()) { make_people_suffer_more(); } I don't see any relation between two inputs of that and gate. Norway shares oil revenue with UK and EU companies and therefore has strong defense against colonialist USA.
- gpm 6y ago
  If you want to think about causality here it would be more like: Group a: If(has(flammable_liquid)) Try to acquire it Group b: If(behaves morally) Prevent group A from causing suffering The group consisting of both a and b act like what you describe, but not because that's rational behavior.
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
The US mistreats its own people daily. The idea that they care at all about other countries mistreating their people is a farce. They dislike the fact that Iran is part of an axis of countries which want to challenge the dominance of the US in global politics today. That's it, period. The US's best buddies are Saudi Arabia, who both have natural resources and mistreat their people. Not true that "mistreat your people" enters into this calculus at all.
vkou 6y ago
> As near as I can tell the criteria for the us government getting involved is you have natural resources and you mistreat your people. Neither one alone seems to be sufficient. Surely, you must be aware of the history of US involvement in Iran. How do you reconcile the difference between the reality of US foreign policy, and your idealized view of its foreign policy?
- gpm 6y ago
  Iran has always has always had policies that the US populace would consider mistreating people. Sure their "intervention" didn't help (it generally doesn't) and in fact made things worse, but the conditions were satisfied.
stunt 6y ago
Sorry but it's never that simple. Iran is very different than Norway. Iran was actually a friendly ally to US. Biggest ally in the region. So close that US designed a coup to overthrow Iranian democratically elected leader in favor of the monarchical rule of the Shah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Problem started when Iran became a founding member of OPEC. And Shah was controlling (raising) oil prices with his influence at the OPEC. "NYT: Shah warning US and UK to increase oil price in 70s": https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/20/archives/shah-warns-oil-prices-will-soar-if-gold-rises-dollar-usually-drops.html https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/20/archives/shah-warns-oil-p... Their relationship was damaged to the point that US intentionally didn't support Shah during Iranian revolution and he was overthrown and replaced by Islamic Republic of Iran. There are even conspiracy theories that suggest CIA even did aid the revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Criticism_of_reign_and_causes_of_his_overthrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Criticis... And after that a few more events completely destroyed their relationship. "Siege of the American embassy in Tehran" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis "Siege of the Iranian embassy in London" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege "US supporting Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, and during the Iraq-Iran war" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against... "Iran Air Flight 655" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 Both sides had many many more since then and the last major one was US withdrawal from JCPOA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#US_withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... Is Iran a good democratic country now? No! Do they deserve it? I don't think so.

input_sh 6y ago

Iran had a democratic leader. He was toppled in a 1953 coup and replaced by their last monarch, who was himself overthrown by the Islamic revolution in 1979. That 1953 coup was orchestrated by the United States (TPAJAX Project or "Operation Ajax") and the United Kingdom ("Operation Boot"), because the leader was too far left from them. The name Ajax refers to cleansing communist influence, because Iran wanted to nationalise the oil controlled by what is now a part of BP.