5 ms·

It seems that dictators generally need to make enemies out of the world's democracies. This is so the populations don't start to get ideas about why their junt

It seems that dictators generally need to make enemies out of the world's democracies. This is so the populations don't start to get ideas about why their junta's steal so much money and they don't have any freedom. "Democracy and freedom are just lies -- the westerners are degenerates which tolerate homosexuality, etc." So if Iran couldn't antagonize the West for what you consider "relatively unimportant reasons" (e.g. being one of the world's worst terror supporters), they would just try harder. And still be tight with other juntas which also fear democratic influences of their slav... population.

Zigurd 12y ago
Iran is roughly four times the population and GDP of Iraq. Beyond the sanctions already in place, what are we going to do to Iran? Invade?
- BugBrother 12y ago
  It is not relevant to my point to just say that an invasion of Iran would be expensive. (But you know that, I think.)
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    It is not just 'expensive', it is in-feasible. Not that that will stop the US from trying if they ever feel like it. Look at the mess in Iraq, then multiply by 5 or so (Iran + a new civil war in Iraq). You could very well end up with a much worse situation than there is today, loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and a very large chunk of the world with a strong motivation to hate everything and anything the West stands for. Very Bad Idea.
    - BugBrother 12y ago
      Again -- I didn't discuss or even think about US' military (or other) options for Iran. That is a totally different discussion to what I wrote about. (I don't have enough information to have an opinion. E.g. something like the bombing of Serbia's infrastructure would be cheap and really bad for Iran, afaik. For a good answer you probably need to ask the military in "relevant" countries.) And again, for the third time -- this has nothing to do with my point, so you guys can vote this comment down too now, since you obviously just can't give a relevant counter argument. 1/2 :-)
meric 12y ago
You do realise Iran is Iran today because of U.S. interference in Iran's fledgling democracy in the 1940's, right? "Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq[a] (Persian: مُحَمَد مُصَدِق‎; IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] ( listen);[b] 16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA.[4][5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
- BugBrother 12y ago
  First -- that is not relevant to my point that authoritarian juntas seems to need to make external enemies out of the world's democracies. Then... Uhm, that was 60+ years ago. The world is a different place now, after the cold war. Before 1989, juntas could say to USA -- "If you don't support us, we'll get support at the other place." Now, mostly Saudi Arabia can say that. So for informational purposes, since you like to complain about USA, do you have any examples from the last 20 years? (Please check the Democratic Peace Theory on Wikipedia. Not even USA starts wars with stable democracies.) Edit: I got a down vote on both my other comments, a few minutes after I wrote this. I guess this one is good? Some other explanation? :-)
  - jotm 12y ago
    Heh, times are different, get on with it - that's so easy to say... The problem is that it takes a lot of time to fix and/or undo things, just look at Eastern Europe, or China for that matter.
    - BugBrother 12y ago
      Maybe so, but also not relevant for my original point. I discussed the present situation. History is interesting, I agree, but to only start laying blame for events happening generations ago isn't a counterargument, it is lack of arguments. (And I did answer meric's "argument" that everything happening is USA's fault by pointing out why the situation is different now. No one seems to have a counter argument?) And for changing things in Iran et al, check the resource curse on Wikipedia. Countries that weren't democracies when they found oil didn't become democracies. (Norway already was democratic before the oil.) It is just too lucrative for the leaders to oppress the population and steal the money.

Zigurd 12y ago

Iran is roughly four times the population and GDP of Iraq. Beyond the sanctions already in place, what are we going to do to Iran? Invade?

BugBrother 12y ago
It is not relevant to my point to just say that an invasion of Iran would be expensive. (But you know that, I think.)
- jacquesm 12y ago
  It is not just 'expensive', it is in-feasible. Not that that will stop the US from trying if they ever feel like it. Look at the mess in Iraq, then multiply by 5 or so (Iran + a new civil war in Iraq). You could very well end up with a much worse situation than there is today, loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and a very large chunk of the world with a strong motivation to hate everything and anything the West stands for. Very Bad Idea.
  - BugBrother 12y ago
    Again -- I didn't discuss or even think about US' military (or other) options for Iran. That is a totally different discussion to what I wrote about. (I don't have enough information to have an opinion. E.g. something like the bombing of Serbia's infrastructure would be cheap and really bad for Iran, afaik. For a good answer you probably need to ask the military in "relevant" countries.) And again, for the third time -- this has nothing to do with my point, so you guys can vote this comment down too now, since you obviously just can't give a relevant counter argument. 1/2 :-)

meric 12y ago

You do realise Iran is Iran today because of U.S. interference in Iran's fledgling democracy in the 1940's, right? "Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq[a] (Persian: مُحَمَد مُصَدِق‎; IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] ( listen);[b] 16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA.[4][5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

BugBrother 12y ago
First -- that is not relevant to my point that authoritarian juntas seems to need to make external enemies out of the world's democracies. Then... Uhm, that was 60+ years ago. The world is a different place now, after the cold war. Before 1989, juntas could say to USA -- "If you don't support us, we'll get support at the other place." Now, mostly Saudi Arabia can say that. So for informational purposes, since you like to complain about USA, do you have any examples from the last 20 years? (Please check the Democratic Peace Theory on Wikipedia. Not even USA starts wars with stable democracies.) Edit: I got a down vote on both my other comments, a few minutes after I wrote this. I guess this one is good? Some other explanation? :-)
- jotm 12y ago
  Heh, times are different, get on with it - that's so easy to say... The problem is that it takes a lot of time to fix and/or undo things, just look at Eastern Europe, or China for that matter.
  - BugBrother 12y ago
    Maybe so, but also not relevant for my original point. I discussed the present situation. History is interesting, I agree, but to only start laying blame for events happening generations ago isn't a counterargument, it is lack of arguments. (And I did answer meric's "argument" that everything happening is USA's fault by pointing out why the situation is different now. No one seems to have a counter argument?) And for changing things in Iran et al, check the resource curse on Wikipedia. Countries that weren't democracies when they found oil didn't become democracies. (Norway already was democratic before the oil.) It is just too lucrative for the leaders to oppress the population and steal the money.