US Opinion on Iran

djsomers

Hi All,

I have spoken to various people from US either working here or over on holidays. They have wide ranging and sometimes (unfortunately) ill-informed views on Iran. The one thing that none of them knew was the history of US involvement. What is your general perception of Iran, its people and its leader?

Brief recent history from 1950's (for those who do not know):
50's: US and UK plot and succeed in removing democratically elected leader.
60’s: Dictatorship kept in power by US.
70's: Iranian people succeed in overthrowing dictatorship in revolution.
80’s: An arms embargo and other sanctions are imposed on Iran. Saddam Hussein is armed to the teeth by the US. Iraq starts an eight year war on Iran in which chemical and biological weapons are used by Iraq. Saddam Hussein claims victory. There is no winner, but the Iranians are free.
90’s - present: Democratic elections, denounced by US and UK. More sanctions imposed. Accused of developing Nuclear technology for weapons not power.

Black Swan

djsomers wrote: »

90’s - present: Democratic elections, denounced by US and UK. More sanctions imposed. Accused of developing Nuclear technology for weapons not power.

• 29 January 2002 State of the Union Address by GW Bush coins the term "Axis of Evil," naming North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as this axis. 20 March 2003 GW Bush orders the massive military "Shock and Awe" attack of Iraq, one of the three nations named by him in the Axis. The future threat by the USA to the national security of both North Korea and Iran appears obvious by America attacking one of the named "Axis" not long after the GW Bush speech.
• During both the GW Bush and Obama administrations, BBC and VOA broadcast "news" and frequently incite popular opposition to the government in Iran.
• Since January 2009 the Obama administration has initiated "talks" directly with the Iran government, a practice discouraged by the GW Bush administration. Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China have joined USA and Iran in these talks. No meaningful solutions have been achieved in these talks, but at least they are now talking, rather than shooting first, and talking later.

Sources:
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/may_bad_mouthing_continue_iran_and_the_voice_of_america/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-09-28-column28_ST1_N.htm

djsomers

Of course I was paraphrasing. Thanks for the update. But where is the opinion? For an issue that causes so much discord in the US, I thought at least there would be a dissenting voice or something?

CIE

djsomers wrote: »

Hi All,

I have spoken to various people from US either working here or over on holidays. They have wide ranging and sometimes (unfortunately) ill-informed views on Iran. The one thing that none of them knew was the history of US involvement. What is your general perception of Iran, its people and its leader?

Brief recent history from 1950's (for those who do not know):
50's: US and UK plot and succeed in removing democratically elected leader.
60’s: Dictatorship kept in power by US.
70's: Iranian people succeed in overthrowing dictatorship in revolution.
80’s: An arms embargo and other sanctions are imposed on Iran. Saddam Hussein is armed to the teeth by the US. Iraq starts an eight year war on Iran in which chemical and biological weapons are used by Iraq. Saddam Hussein claims victory. There is no winner, but the Iranians are free.
90’s - present: Democratic elections, denounced by US and UK. More sanctions imposed. Accused of developing Nuclear technology for weapons not power.

WADR, everything you've posted is propaganda.

• Mossadegh was not democratically elected by the people. He was voted in by the legislature. He was also an international aggressor, declaring Britain and its allies to be his country's enemy. He turned the country towards totalitarianism, nationalising industry after industry, and even dissolving the parliament that put him in power.
• The "dictator" Reza Pahlavi was a reformist, engaging in the kind of modernisation that the country hasn't seen since, and giving suffrage to women. (Not very pleasing to the Shi'ite ultra-conservatives, that.)
• "People's revolution" modelled on communist revolutions. Those never lead to freedom, but to slavery. The means to an end for a repressive ecclesiocracy. Calling pseudodemocratic elections "democratic" is a common leftist insult to free societies.
• The entire West and the Arab states, plus the Soviet Union and Red China, armed Saddam against Iran. That's what a low opinion they all had of the Iranian "revolution", and what a danger they thought it was. It was a bit too late when they realised that Saddam had similiar, although different, aspirations.
• Pseudodemocratic elections must always be denounced. Anyone who does not does not stand for freedom. Iran's goals have been stated clearly enough by their most radical of speakers; those should be listened to instead of the propaganda.

Memnoch

CIE wrote: »

CIE, everything you've posted is propaganda.

• Pseudodemocratic elections must always be denounced. Anyone who does not does not stand for freedom. Iran's goals have been stated clearly enough by their most radical of speakers; those should be listened to instead of the propaganda.

Then I presume you denounce GW Bush's illegal ascendency to the US presidency and appointment by the USSC.

Clawdeeus

Em...Several points, Saddam was not armed by (exclusivly, nor foremost) the US, the vast majority came from France, Germany and the Soviet Union (primarily).

you ignore the most important event in shaping the US opinion of Iran; the hostage crisis (which, technically was an act of war).

There are no independant observers that believe the Iran elections were free or fair. Elections do not make a democracy, never have, never will.

It is common practice for the Iranian leadership to refer to the states as "the great satan" this hatred of the Us, though you may feel it is justified, is a perfectly legitamite reason for Americans to perceive them (or at least the leadership) as an enemy

The rest about dicatorship is right.

Clawdeeus

Memnoch wrote: »

Then I presume you denounce GW Bush's illegal ascendency to the US presidency and appointment by the USSC.

Illegal by what standard? international law has never taken a position on how a contested election is decided, the courts merely had a new body recount the votes, they did not (as popularly believed) "Decide" the candidate. To compare the quality of democracies in general is nearly impossible, to compare Iran's (which blatantly is NOT, though also not a complete dictatorship) and the US's ridiculous.

The US's elections are routinely monitored by oragnisations from all over the world, and officials from other governments, Iran refused even the most cursory oversight. Just one of the many differences between the two.

People can definitly make the point that Iran is not as dangerous or as "evil" as Bush tried to make them to be, but to try and describe them as a democracy just wrong.

Memnoch

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Illegal by what standard? international law has never taken a position on how a contested election is decided, the courts merely had a new body recount the votes, they did not (as popularly believed) "Decide" the candidate. To compare the quality of democracies in general is nearly impossible, to compare Iran's (which blatantly is NOT, though also not a complete dictatorship) and the US's ridiculous.

The US's elections are routinely monitored by oragnisations from all over the world, and officials from other governments, Iran refused even the most cursory oversight. Just one of the many differences between the two.

People can definitly make the point that Iran is not as dangerous or as "evil" as Bush tried to make them to be, but to try and describe them as a democracy just wrong.

You're making arguments against points I haven't made.

I'm not going to comment on the state of Iran's democracy or lack therefore because I'm far from an expert on the region and doubt I understand the deep nuances of the situation there, and I suspect, neither do you. You arguing against something that wasn't in my post is a strawman.

The point I made is simple, western hypocrisy. If for instance Iran had invaded Iraq in the way the US and its allies did and behaved the way the US and its allies did post war, I've little doubt that the actions would have been denounced "officially" as war crimes and against international law.

To me, these things are decided by power and real politic, not actual right or wrong, whether legal, moral or otherwise. The fact that Israel continues to annex Palestinian land is another great example.

Which leads to the point I was trying to make about the US elections in response to what CIE has said. From everything I've seen and read, the appointment of Bush was a total and utter sham as far as democracy was concerned and the mention of international standards and observers is a total smokescreen.

As far as I'm concerned, Western powers, specifically the US have no authority to lecture anyone on democracy, freedom or morality as they have shown a glaring bankruptcy where these ideals are concerned.

Manic Moran

Which leads to the point I was trying to make about the US elections in response to what CIE has said. From everything I've seen and read, the appointment of Bush was a total and utter sham as far as democracy was concerned and the mention of international standards and observers is a total smokescreen.

It's a sham because the US peaceably concluded its election through the internal processes, without having to resort to violent (and lethal) protests on the streets, and the elections continued on their regularly scheduled basis from then on without great controversy?

I'll take that sham.

NTM

djsomers

Regardless of whether the US elections that saw GW Bush in for a second term were a sham or not, they did bring violent protest onto the streets. Of course mainstream media did not broadcast this as much as the alleged protests in Iran where apparently millions of Iranians protested?

I for one am far more fearful of Israeli influence on the US, a rouge state that has not and will not sign the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty. Has refused point blank to allow any inspections and from the outset has created a nuclear weapons stockpile against the advice and to the outrage originally of the US. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, has signed the treaty. Simply put Iran has not started a war on any of its neighbours since its creation as a state and Israel has. Who is the aggressor here?

Number 10 Shirt

djsomers wrote: »

Hi All,

I have spoken to various people from US either working here or over on holidays. They have wide ranging and sometimes (unfortunately) ill-informed views on Iran. The one thing that none of them knew was the history of US involvement. What is your general perception of Iran, its people and its leader?

Brief recent history from 1950's (for those who do not know):
50's: US and UK plot and succeed in removing democratically elected leader.
60’s: Dictatorship kept in power by US.
70's: Iranian people succeed in overthrowing dictatorship in revolution.
80’s: An arms embargo and other sanctions are imposed on Iran. Saddam Hussein is armed to the teeth by the US. Iraq starts an eight year war on Iran in which chemical and biological weapons are used by Iraq. Saddam Hussein claims victory. There is no winner, but the Iranians are free.
90’s - present: Democratic elections, denounced by US and UK. More sanctions imposed. Accused of developing Nuclear technology for weapons not power.

What exactly did they say on the subject of Iran that has caused you to describe their views as sometimes 'ill-informed' ?

pablo_escobar

CIE wrote: »

WADR, everything you've posted is propaganda.

• Mossadegh was not democratically elected by the people. He was voted in by the legislature. He was also an international aggressor, declaring Britain and its allies to be his country's enemy. He turned the country towards totalitarianism, nationalising industry after industry, and even dissolving the parliament that put him in power.
• The "dictator" Reza Pahlavi was a reformist, engaging in the kind of modernisation that the country hasn't seen since, and giving suffrage to women. (Not very pleasing to the Shi'ite ultra-conservatives, that.)
• "People's revolution" modelled on communist revolutions. Those never lead to freedom, but to slavery. The means to an end for a repressive ecclesiocracy. Calling pseudodemocratic elections "democratic" is a common leftist insult to free societies.
• The entire West and the Arab states, plus the Soviet Union and Red China, armed Saddam against Iran. That's what a low opinion they all had of the Iranian "revolution", and what a danger they thought it was. It was a bit too late when they realised that Saddam had similiar, although different, aspirations.
• Pseudodemocratic elections must always be denounced. Anyone who does not does not stand for freedom. Iran's goals have been stated clearly enough by their most radical of speakers; those should be listened to instead of the propaganda.

Lies from start to finish.

Manic Moran

I can't tell if you're being satirical or not.

If not, then I wouldn't mind a little expansion on the details of the charge.

NTM

Exile 1798

CIE wrote: »

WADR, everything you've posted is propaganda.

• Mossadegh was not democratically elected by the people. He was voted in by the legislature. He was also an international aggressor, declaring Britain and its allies to be his country's enemy. He turned the country towards totalitarianism, nationalising industry after industry, and even dissolving the parliament that put him in power.
• The "dictator" Reza Pahlavi was a reformist, engaging in the kind of modernisation that the country hasn't seen since, and giving suffrage to women. (Not very pleasing to the Shi'ite ultra-conservatives, that.)
• "People's revolution" modelled on communist revolutions. Those never lead to freedom, but to slavery. The means to an end for a repressive ecclesiocracy. Calling pseudodemocratic elections "democratic" is a common leftist insult to free societies.
• The entire West and the Arab states, plus the Soviet Union and Red China, armed Saddam against Iran. That's what a low opinion they all had of the Iranian "revolution", and what a danger they thought it was. It was a bit too late when they realised that Saddam had similiar, although different, aspirations.
• Pseudodemocratic elections must always be denounced. Anyone who does not does not stand for freedom. Iran's goals have been stated clearly enough by their most radical of speakers; those should be listened to instead of the propaganda.

Just about everything you’ve just posted is propaganda. Projection?

“The Mossadegh wasn’t actually a Democratic leader” line is a pathetic neo-con attempt at coup apologia. The argument goes that he wasn’t directly elected like a US President, but instead was elected by the lower house of Parliament and therefore he was a tyrant with no Democratic legitimacy. Last I checked the Taoiseach, the British Prime Minister, the Australian PM, The Canadian PM and oh, every other Prime Minister in every other Parliamentary democracy in the world were appointed in a similar manner.

Now as you might imagine this is not a bit misinformation that travels well outside of certain ignorant back waters of the United States. The obviousness of the lie employed tends to hit most Europeans, Canadians and Australians straight away. Discerning Americans would also be able to pick it up fairly easily. You're either incredibly thick, or incredibly deceitful to be propagating such an absurdity.

CIE wrote: »

The "dictator" Reza Pahlavi was a reformist, engaging in the kind of modernisation that the country hasn't seen since, and giving suffrage to women. (Not very pleasing to the Shi'ite ultra-conservatives, that.)

If there's one thing Iranians across the political and religious divide seem to agree on is that the Shah was a dictator who had usurped Iranian Democracy.

I think it's great that you are aware of this truth that has completely eluded them though.

CIE wrote: »

Pseudodemocratic elections must always be denounced. Anyone who does not does not stand for freedom. Iran's goals have been stated clearly enough by their most radical of speakers; those should be listened to instead of the propaganda.

I agree. Dictators like Ahmandinejad should not be allowed the cover or legitimacy of the very elections that they have stolen.

Imperialist coups against young Parliamentary democracies must also be denounced, not praised and excused. Don't you agree?

silkworm53

The only reason this thread exists is because the person who started this thread is anti-American.

Iran has made no secret about it's aspirations to become a nuclear power and it's goal of dominating the middle east by military force and destroying the state of Israel.

The OP would prefer a totalitarian regime like that in Iran to triumph without any opposition because he/she hates America.

America is the greatest democracy on the earth and a free society for more than 230 years and the only the hope we have against dictatorship and tyranny.

Iran is escalating the tensions all the time and soon America will act, overthrow the mullahs and bring down the regime.

kaiser sauze

silkworm53 wrote: »

The only reason this thread exists is because the person who started this thread is anti-American.

Iran has made no secret about it's aspirations to become a nuclear power and it's goal of dominating the middle east by military force and destroying the state of Israel.

The OP would prefer a totalitarian regime like that in Iran to triumph without any opposition because he/she hates America.

America is the greatest democracy on the earth and a free society for more than 230 years and the only the hope we have against dictatorship and tyranny.

Iran is escalating the tensions all the time and soon America will act, overthrow the mullahs and bring down the regime.

:rolleyes:

(this smiley is being generous, I couldn't find a more satisfactory retort)

djsomers

silkworm53 wrote: »

The only reason this thread exists is because the person who started this thread is anti-American.

Iran has made no secret about it's aspirations to become a nuclear power and it's goal of dominating the middle east by military force and destroying the state of Israel.

The OP would prefer a totalitarian regime like that in Iran to triumph without any opposition because he/she hates America.

America is the greatest democracy on the earth and a free society for more than 230 years and the only the hope we have against dictatorship and tyranny.

Iran is escalating the tensions all the time and soon America will act, overthrow the mullahs and bring down the regime.

Far from being anti-American, as you put it, I am very pro-America. I do however believe that the American people have been for a long while lied to continuously by the media and the government (the latter through so-called intelligence agencies, lobby groups, advisors, etc).

Iran does not and will not attack another country. Iran's hatred is for the fascist government of Israel not its people (Jew, Christian, etc). Why should Iran not have nuclear power like every other country in the world?

India is the worlds greatest democracy.

The CIA escalates tensions by pushing for war, war that has NEVER had a good outcome for America.

Stop believing the Lies.

Clawdeeus

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Just about everything you’ve just posted is propaganda. Projection?

“The Mossadegh wasn’t actually a Democratic leader” line is a pathetic neo-con attempt at coup apologia. The argument goes that he wasn’t directly elected like a US President, but instead was elected by the lower house of Parliament and therefore he was a tyrant with no Democratic legitimacy. Last I checked the Taoiseach, the British Prime Minister, the Australian PM, The Canadian PM and oh, every other Prime Minister in every other Parliamentary democracy in the world were appointed in a similar manner.

Now as you might imagine this is not a bit misinformation that travels well outside of certain ignorant back waters of the United States. The obviousness of the lie employed tends to hit most Europeans, Canadians and Australians straight away. Discerning Americans would also be able to pick it up fairly easily. You're either incredibly thick, or incredibly deceitful to be propagating such an absurdity.



If there's one thing Iranians across the political and religious divide seem to agree on is that the Shah was a dictator who had usurped Iranian Democracy.

I think it's great that you are aware of this truth that has completely eluded them though.



I agree. Dictators like Ahmandinejad should not be allowed the cover or legitimacy of the very elections that they have stolen.

Imperialist coups against young Parliamentary democracies must also be denounced, not praised and excused. Don't you agree?

My understanding of neo-con ideology is that there would be no apologising for overthrowing an anti-market government (even if it is democratically elected) if it furthered the American people (how they see it) Im not 100% on this, so do correct if Im wrong.

I dont think the opinion regarding Mossadegh is based on nationality, rather where one lies on the political spectrum; much in the same way the far left will claim Iran is now a functioning democracy, Mossadgh for the far right (or interventionists) is not democratic, purely by his being deposed. Both views are wrong.

silkworm53

djsomers wrote: »

Far from being anti-American, as you put it, I am very pro-America. I do however believe that the American people have been for a long while lied to continuously by the media and the government (the latter through so-called intelligence agencies, lobby groups, advisors, etc).

Iran does not and will not attack another country. Iran's hatred is for the fascist government of Israel not its people (Jew, Christian, etc). Why should Iran not have nuclear power like every other country in the world?

India is the worlds greatest democracy.

The CIA escalates tensions by pushing for war, war that has NEVER had a good outcome for America.

Stop believing the Lies.

The Hezbollah terrorist organisation who run a mini-statelet in South Lebanon are funded, trained, armed and politically supported by the Iranian regime.
Hezbollah is in effect a branch of the Iranian army and southern Lebanon has in effect been annexed by Iran.
Hezbollah is committed to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.
Don't take my word for it - read any of the speeches made by Nasrallah, the leader of the Hezbollah political organisation.
Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran were the instigators of the '06 war between Israel and Lebanon when they fired Katyusha rockets deep into Israel targeting Israeli civilians - hundreds of thousands of Israelis were forced to flee or take refuge in concrete shelters. Many were killed.

In the south the Hamas terrorist organisation who were elected into power by Gazans have crushed all political opposition - murdering or forcing their Fatah opponents to flee. Hamas now operate a Taliban style regime in Gaza that brutally oppresses the Gazan people - girls are stoned to death or are victims of honor killings and anyone who dares raise object to their tyranny are brutally tortured or killed. This repression goes completely unreported by Western media who are anti-Israel.
Hamas' charter commits them to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people.
Before the Israel's constructed the security barrier sealing Gaza, suicide bombers were infiltrating Israel and murdering innocent civilians.
Since then Hamas has been smuggling weapons under the security wall with Egypt - among them rockets supplied by Iran which they use to bombard Israeli civilians.
Israel forcible removed all Israeli settlers from Gaza in '05 and gave the Gazans independence - they responded at Iran's behest to attack Israel.
President Ahmedinijad has hosted Holocaust denial conferences and rallies where thousands scream for Jewish blood.
He has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Iran seeks nuclear weapons and rocket technology which would enable it to strike Israel with a nuclear weapon.
A nuclear strike on Tel Aviv would decapitate the Israel state and enable the Muslims poised on it's border to invade and slaughter to Jews.

kaiser sauze

silkworm53 wrote: »

Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran were the instigators of the '06 war between Israel and Lebanon when they fired Katyusha rockets deep into Israel targeting Israeli civilians - hundreds of thousands of Israelis were forced to flee or take refuge in concrete shelters. Many were killed.

...and no Palestinians or Lebanese civilians were killed in retaliation?

Is 1 jew really worth 100 muslims? Because that is the logic you are arguing in favour of.

silkworm53

kaiser sauze wrote: »

...and no Palestinians or Lebanese civilians were killed in retaliation?

Is 1 jew really worth 100 muslims? Because that is the logic you are arguing in favour of.

Hezbollah and Hamas fire rockets from within civilian areas deliberately using Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as human shields - they used schools and hospitals as launch sites deliberately putting their own citizens in danger.
They fire their rockets at Israeli civilians giving the IDF no choice whatsoever but to protect their citizens by striking those rocket launchers.
The end result is the death of unsuspecting civilians who live close to the launchers from the heat, blast wave or fragments in IDF bombs or missiles.
The responsibility for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians clearly lies with Hamas and Hezbollah.

kaiser sauze

silkworm53 wrote: »

Hezbollah and Hamas fire rockets from within civilian areas deliberately using Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as human shields - they used schools and hospitals as launch sites deliberately putting their own citizens in danger.
They fire their rockets at Israeli civilians giving the IDF no choice whatsoever but to protect their citizens by striking those rocket launchers.
The end result is the death of unsuspecting civilians who live close to the launchers from the heat, blast wave or fragments in IDF bombs or missiles.
The responsibility for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians clearly lies with Hamas and Hezbollah.

It still does not justify the ratio of deaths I referred to.

silkworm53

kaiser sauze wrote: »

It still does not justify the ratio of deaths I referred to.

Are you saying that the Israelis should stop killing terrorists and stop air strikes on rocket launchers and allow their citizens to be blown up?
Do you think Israelis deserve to be attacked or something?
Because the Palestinians and Arabs are getting whipped everytime they attack Israel that means Israel should give them a chance and allow a certain number of suicide bombers and rockets to reach their targets so that the overall death toll ratio is evened up?
Is that what you mean?
Correct me if I misunderstood you because that seems to be what you mean?
The death toll of civilians is entirely the cause of Hamas and Hezbollah who invited IDF counter attack by launching rockets in the first place.
6 million + Jewish Israelis are not going anywhere - they have a state have kicked everybody's backside who tried to destroy it for over 60 years.
Don't ya think the Arabs should face facts and sort this nonsense out?

kaiser sauze

silkworm53 wrote: »

Are you saying that the Israelis should stop killing terrorists and stop air strikes on rocket launchers and allow their citizens to be blown up?
Do you think Israelis deserve to be attacked or something?
Because the Palestinians and Arabs are getting whipped everytime they attack Israel that means Israel should give them a chance and allow a certain number of suicide bombers and rockets to reach their targets so that the overall death toll ratio is evened up?
Is that what you mean?
Correct me if I misunderstood you because that seems to be what you mean?
The death toll of civilians is entirely the cause of Hamas and Hezbollah who invited IDF counter attack by launching rockets in the first place.
6 million + Jewish Israelis are not going anywhere - they have a state have kicked everybody's backside who tried to destroy it for over 60 years.
Don't ya think the Arabs should face facts and sort this nonsense out?

The death toll is not only the cause of Hezbollah/Hamas, that is Bill Kristol nonsense.

I am saying that both sides need to cop on, simples.

It takes two to tango, you cannot come on here and claim that the Israelis never hit pre-emptively or in response just like I am not saying that Hamas/Hezbollah are the only victims.

silkworm53

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The death toll is not only the cause of Hezbollah/Hamas, that is Bill Kristol nonsense.

I am saying that both sides need to cop on, simples.

It takes two to tango, you cannot come on here and claim that the Israelis never hit pre-emptively or in response just like I am not saying that Hamas/Hezbollah are the only victims.

What has the response of the Arabs been for the past 60 years?

'DEATH TO ISRAEL! DEATH TO JEWS!'

First it was Arab nationalists like Nasser who got his ass handed to him in 1967 and today it is Islamic fundamentalists in Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.
The so-called peace talk for past few decades have been nothing more than a bluff so the Arabs can rearm and regroup and attack Israel again.
If the Arabs really wanted to make peace with Israel, they Israelis would agree in a flash and all this crap would be over.
The Arabs break agreement after agreement after agreement.
What the Israelis are being told to do by the West is the same as pushing a man in room full of blood-thirsty hyenas and locking the door behind him and screaming that he is being cruel to animals by shooting them all with a handgun when they leap at him and try to tear out his throat.

wes

silkworm53 wrote: »

What has the response of the Arabs been for the past 60 years?

'DEATH TO ISRAEL! DEATH TO JEWS!'

Hmmm, and the other side has never said anything similar:

Hebron settlers desecrate mosque

--SNIP--
They sprayed "Death to Arabs" and an insult to the Prophet Muhammad on a mosque wall and vandalised a cemetery.
--SNIP--

All of that was done while being protecting by the IDF.

silkworm53 wrote: »

First it was Arab nationalists like Nasser who got his ass handed to him in 1967 and today it is Islamic fundamentalists in Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.

You mean the 1967 war that Israel started, but we don't need facts to get in the way of things.

silkworm53 wrote: »

The so-called peace talk for past few decades have been nothing more than a bluff so the Arabs can rearm and regroup and attack Israel again.

I am sure you have proof of this plot? From what I can see the Arab league couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone a cooardinated attack of anything kind against anyone. They seem to hate each other just as much as anyone else. Then there are those pesky facts again, what with peace deals with both Jordan and Egypt. Damn facts, getting in the way of a good rant!!!!

silkworm53 wrote: »

If the Arabs really wanted to make peace with Israel, they Israelis would agree in a flash and all this crap would be over.

I would say Israel constant land theft shows this to be rather untrue. Israel clearly desires more land, and we this has been a constant with Israel since it came into existence, and is in fact central to Zionism. The entire "Greater Israel" business, there settlers are implementing as type.

silkworm53 wrote: »

The Arabs break agreement after agreement after agreement.

Israel has also broken several agreements and cease fires. There really in no position to claim to be better than anyone else at this point.

silkworm53 wrote: »

What the Israelis are being told to do by the West is the same as pushing a man in room full of blood-thirsty hyenas and locking the door behind him and screaming that he is being cruel to animals by shooting them all with a handgun when they leap at him and try to tear out his throat.

Pointless hyperbole. I am sure crazies in the Arab world and Iran would describe Israel in the same fashion and would be condemned as evil anti-semites.

Hopefully that kind of insane thinking isn't driving US policy vis a vi Iran. As I don't think they can afford another war of aggression right now.

Clawdeeus

I tought this thread was about US opinion on Iran? We all know both sides in the Arab - Israeli conflict have done enough to hate each other; and where both Iran and the US come into that conflict.

I still contend US opinion of Iran was more shaped by the embasy attack and Iran's is shaped by US support of Israel (regardless of their own support for other belligerents), not US support of the Shah, that appears to be more tied to the UK in the Iranian psyche.

Whilst I acknowledge that the US has done little to make the Islamic regime in Iran a friend, this idea that they have done nothing to deserve US enmity is absurd.

All in the interest of keeping the flippin thread on topic...

wes

Clawdeeus wrote: »

I still contend US opinion of Iran was more shaped by the embasy attack and Iran's is shaped by US support of Israel (regardless of their own support for other belligerents), not US support of the Shah, that appears to be more tied to the UK in the Iranian psyche.

I think US support for Saddam during the Iran/Iraq is also a huge motivator for Iran. A million people died during that conflict, and Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran. I would think that informs them more than anything else.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Whilst I acknowledge that the US has done little to make the Islamic regime in Iran a friend, this idea that they have done nothing to deserve US enmity is absurd.

True enough Iran, hasn't done themselves any favours in regards to the US.

Clawdeeus

wes wrote: »

I think US support for Saddam during the Iran/Iraq is also a huge motivator for Iran. A million people died during that conflict, and Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran. I would think that informs them more than anything else.



True enough Iran, hasn't done themselves any favours in regards to the US.

Yes, that too certainly. Didnt remember that old biscuit. Although it was not the main supplier (money came from mainly the Arab states, material from Europe and the Soviet Union) US aid was much more visual in that it included actual training of Iraqi troops on US soil. Really there was only one way for the population of Iran to view that.

With regard to the shaping of US policy to Israel (and this probably has a bearing on Iran too) I think it is shared culture and to a large extent ancestry. Economic ties are also strong. The idea that Israel is surrounded by enemies or "blood thirsty hyenas" I think still has a cultural resconance in the US, who basically still see plucky little Israel as it was when it was formed, standing up to the bullying Arabs. Rather than the military powerhouse it is now (basically doing the bullying recently).

Since 9/11 there has been a perception that shared enmity with Muslims is what fuels it (I believe this is particularly strong in the Arab world), however I do not share this view, as the ties were equally strong before the attacks.

Shared antagonism to Iran may have added another layer, OR it could lead to tensions as many in the US see Israel pushing them towards a war that is not theirs to fight, that they neither want nor can afford.

Clawdeeus

kaiser sauze wrote: »

...and no Palestinians or Lebanese civilians were killed in retaliation?

Is 1 jew really worth 100 muslims? Because that is the logic you are arguing in favour of.

Israeli policy is now based on disproportionality (it has been described as such by its politicians and generals). So basically to them, yes an Israeli life is worth vastly more than a Palestinians (or other nationality).

Whilst I completly disagree with Israeli foriegn policy in general (I think they are their own worst enemies, as is so common in the middle east) I dont think this policy is really special. To all governments their own citizens lives are what are important. Obviously to us, as individuals, a life is a life. But a government does not have that remit.

Mr.Micro

Originally Posted by silkworm53

Iran has made no secret about it's aspirations to become a nuclear power and it's goal of dominating the middle east by military force and destroying the state of Israel.

The US instead or Israel should only be allowed to be Nuclear powers? The US can pretend it has installed democracy in Iraq or that it exists in Saudi Arabia?

America is the greatest democracy on the earth and a free society for more than 230 years and the only the hope we have against dictatorship and tyranny.

Was maybe, prior to Bush and his war on terror, now its just paranoid.

Iran is escalating the tensions all the time and soon America will act, overthrow the mullahs and bring down the regime.

As soon as the Republicans get back into power? Not that the US does not cause tensions in the world. The Hypocrisy is truly awesome. Start another war to get its economy going again......I am sure it will think of somewhere, maybe a country beginning with I.

Number 10 Shirt

djsomers wrote: »

Far from being anti-American, as you put it, I am very pro-America. I do however believe that the American people have been for a long while lied to continuously by the media and the government (the latter through so-called intelligence agencies, lobby groups, advisors, etc).

Iran does not and will not attack another country. Iran's hatred is for the fascist government of Israel not its people (Jew, Christian, etc). Why should Iran not have nuclear power like every other country in the world?

India is the worlds greatest democracy.

The CIA escalates tensions by pushing for war, war that has NEVER had a good outcome for America.

Stop believing the Lies.

You seem very certain of the Iranian regime's intentions.A regime which has hardly been 'whiter than white' during the long and troubled history of the Middle East.

pablo_escobar

Number 10 Shirt wrote: »

You seem very certain of the Iranian regime's intentions.A regime which has hardly been 'whiter than white' during the long and troubled history of the Middle East.

Even more troubled than the whiter than white regime who invaded a poor country based on a bunch of lies? Responsible for recorded 100,000 deaths in that same country alone? sanctioned torture and rape of civilians, wonder what regime that is...is it Iran? :rolleyes:

It escapes me what nation could carry out such crimes..

Clawdeeus

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Even more troubled than the whiter than white regime who invaded a poor country based on a bunch of lies? Responsible for recorded 100,000 deaths in that same country alone? sanctioned torture and rape of civilians, wonder what regime that is...is it Iran? :rolleyes:

It escapes me what nation could carry out such crimes..

... whats your point?

Mr.Micro

Clawdeeus wrote: »

... whats your point?

I think the point was made very well...........hypocrisy and double standards.