2046 wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:PunkMaister wrote:
SDN talking about morals is the same as Iran and North Korea together speaking about human rights but then again it is that kind of crowd anyway...
I don't recall Iran invading any country recently. Contrary to some superpower... so just try to avoid saying such things.
Did you just publicly reply to (a)
a frakking joke in (b)
a generally non-political thread by (c)
defending the human rights records of Iran and North Korea and (d)
attacking the US reputation on human rights by equating an invasion with a human rights violation, then after that trail of absurdity (e) have the gall to
tell a fellow poster to "just try to avoid saying such things"?
Dude. Seriously.
Neocon humour, I suppose? God, how could I miss that!
Not only Punk demonstrated once again a completely over the top hatred of SDN, literally comparing them to Iran and North Korea, which was just plain stupid, but I also don't see why that kind of bigotry should remain uncriticized.
Now, the guys who decide where to send the US army
don't give a shit about human rights.
The point, it's the Iranians' country, and as long as they're fucked up in their own country and no place else, it's their call and their own, and the only way to change this is an illegal war, again.
This country would have probably not been such a mess if instead of weakening Mossadeq and bringing him down with Operation Ajax, the US had tried to water down tensions and supported him, and tried to infiltrate Iran on the long term. Considering Mossadeq's clear anti-imperialist position, he'd have probably kept warm relations at best, so long term was most likely the only likely option.
We know that the
Shah's heir, Prince Pahlavi, could resume the reign of his father under certain conditions if, for some reasons, a war was waged in Iran and a decade later, the country got cleansed like Iraq was. This is, of course, completely unlikely. More than anything, an attack on Iran would trigger a rise of tensions in the entire region.
Still, pretending that a sort of NATO supervised peace could be brought into Iran, I don't hold my hopes high if the Prince's going to be the front figure, once the place is sanitized by the US, since the Shah was largely acting with the support of the US, and in the interests of the US and Britain, and neither the CIA nor the UK cared much about Shah's almost totalitarian-smelling politics, dismissal of growing poverty and, later, his terrorizing SAVAK (yeah, talk about human rights and political stability).
And just like if the US couldn't settle on a disaster after Ajax, they had to let the Islamic Revolution roll. They supported Khomeini because they didn't want to see Commies coming in the region, and that despite knowing the Ayatollah was firmly acting against the Shah's White Revolution, probably one of the few positives programmes the king had. Hell, it would appear that the Shah was even allowing some human rights organizations to monitor a couple of things in his country, including prisons, but I suppose this wasn't enough.
Isn't it even sad that among the many influential constitutionalist, communist and marxist groups, it had to be the islamist group which won the ticket?
The US had a very poor understanding of the situation over there. There plenty of liberals and even agnostics to fill the Prime Minister's shoes before it was too late. But instead, they let the Shah crumble, panic and pass martial law, along other terrible decisions.
Still, the guy was also becoming more nationalist and if what I discovered on
wiki is true, he even publicly decried the strong influence of US Jews in the US media and finance, and also said that "half of the arms to Iran were "being supplied or arranged by Israel".
Hell, even that wacko of Zbigniew Brzezinski has said in 2006 not to attack Iran, and that was wise. But it seems he may have changed his mind, and Israel is clearly pushing for an attack.
For good or for bad, we'll see, but don't pretend human rights ever were a fucking concern to the US, you'd be lying to yourself.
Oil (BP's and Halliburton's interests) and geostrategy are all that truly matter on the larger scale. Stability is only a relevant factor if it helps the former two.
