Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher  I think you have a one-sided view of the US relationship with Iran , and Iran's with Israel. And it sounds like it came straight from one of those wacky talk-radio show hosts!
Don't forget it was the Russians and Britain, supported by the US, who interfered in the internal affairs of Iran when they installed the Shah in 1941 and forced the abdication of his father.
And when the Shah was overthrown in 1979, the US gave him shelter, which provoked the hostage crisis.
Then the US backed Saddam and helped kill thousands of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. The very thing we criticise Iran for currently.
I recommend you watch the MSNBC or 60 minutes interview with Ahmadinejad where he explains some of the Iranian attitude to Israel, basically:
-the attacks on the Jews in WW2 were a European problem, so why give them a piece of land in the Middle East that belonged to Palestine? It would make more sense to form Israel in Bavaria or Idaho
- when he talks about "driving the Israelis into the sea" he means driving them out of Israel and restoring the land to Palestine, not necessarily about genocide
-when the US warns Iran and other foreign fighters to stay out of Iraq, Iran repeats the same line back at the US
I'm not trying to pretend they are right, only that they have a point of view that we never ever consider. |
Oh, I think I'm fairly knowledgeable about the history of Iran (and Israel).
And I think I'm fairly aware of the Iranian regime's viewpoint.
So, what you said regarding Iran isn't news to me.
But, considering the observation that Iran is essentially a totalitarian state with a regime that actively acts toward achieving their lofty goal of conquering the Muslim world (in their own subversive way) and engulfing it in their theofascist form of governance, and given the observation that the Iranian regime seeks to essentially eliminate Western secularism, democracy, and capitalism from the world's stage, what outcome do you wish to see for the Middle East...and the World?
Perhaps it would be best if all states always acted in ways that always promotes the sovereignty of all other states and their interests and good will among all nations.
But, this isn't the way the world works.
All nations, in fact, act to protect, by military means if necessary, their own interests...even at the expense of some other nation's sovereignty and self-interests.
And, practical matters will eventually force almost all people to choose sides because they will realize that their ideals can only be achieved one battle at a time and because compromises will have to be made of their ideals along the way.
So, which would you prefer;
1) The continuation and spread of the secular, democratic, and capitalistic mindset the Western world has so far successfully embarked upon as a model for the world?
Or,
2) The abdication of that possible "ideal" future world state and the return of fascism to the world's stage...albeit with a theocratic propensity?
(Don't get me wrong. The world aught to be a fair place. But I'm a realist at heart, rather than an idealist. This, of course, doesn't excuse wrongs that are done by the US...or any other state. But, again, people will eventually have to take sides...myself included.)
[I'm curious, how exactly could Israel suddenly cease to exist without the very really potential for genocide? I mean, Israelis aren't going to simply pack up their belongings and leave the land that is Israel. So, I find it hard to believe that such a thing could be carried out without at least some level of genocide occurring during the process. And I'd add that, because of this reality,
Ahmadinejad's desire to "drive the Israelis into the sea" seems to me to be an extremist viewpoint.]