The Iranian Revolution has established an oppressive theocracy in Iran and sparked tendencies for islamization all across the Middle East. It has brought nothing but misery and suffering to Iran and the entire region. They are to this day funding terrorist groups like the Hezbollah and the Houthis, their revolutionary guards are still active on the ground in Syria.

Sure, there are selfish reasons for the antagonistic stance of the US towards Iran, but there are also plenty of good reasons to oppose them. Hence, my statement that "the US is not only antagonizing Iran out of evil reasons" is correct and your claim to the opposite is wrong.


Of course, nobody is surprised that you espouse the rampant and blind anti-americanism of the European far left.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 15 2019 12:28pm

why am i not surprised that you're swallowing the pro war propaganda hook, line, and sinker?



none.

so how is 'the opposite' true? nukes are an incredibly effective deterrent against military aggression. it's sad but it's true, that's why i don't have any problem at all understanding why a middle eastern country, that has been the direct and indirect target of american interference for decades, would want to have them.
and while iran is most definitely a shittier place to live for its own population, to the world america is by far the greater threat.

withdrawing from the deal was exclusively done for provocation, and so was classifying the republican guard as terrorist organisation. the complete abandonment of diplomatic channels, the ever increasing pressure in terms of sanctions on iran and the countries that still try to maintain diplomatic and trade relations, and the overall ramped up rhetoric couldn't be more transparent. the war drums are beating again, and the self-proclaimed 'non-interventionist' (who, to 'support' that stance, made john fucking bolton, probably the biggest hawk in washington, his national security advisor - so much for that label) is being maneuvered into another military conflict. our only hope, as terrible as that is, is a call from putin - seemed to have worked with venezuela...

Then lets go for a crusade to establish dominance/tyranny, that sparks tendencies for religious terrorism all across the world.

it's pointless, he probably doesn't even know what lead to the revolution in the first place, and how iran looked before american meddling...

I've already made it clear that I am strongly against a war with Iran.



or rather, the hope with the Iran deal was that they would use the financial freedom that the deal provided to strengthen their economy and make a step towards modernization. the hope was that this deal would strengthen the moderate forces within the Iranian society.

these hopes have turned out to be pipe-dreams. the Iranian leadership used the additional money to increase its activities in Syrian, Yemen and Lebanon, and in terms of domestic policy, the oppression went up, not down.


withdrawing from an agreement which had proven to be a huge miscalculation cant be explained as a simple provocation.



the republican guard is committing war crimes and helping spread the influence of Iran's theocracy in the region. they might not be a terrorist organization in a strict sense, but they are definitely a force which deserves to be dried up financially and isolated politically - labelling them a terrorist organization serves this goal. once again, there is a good substantative reason to do what the americans did, and calling it a provocation is a highly simplistic way of looking at the issue.


when it comes to the war beats drumming: I agree with you that there are strong forces in Washington trying to drag Trump and the country into this war. I dont think they will succeed though. Trump is an isolationist at heart, and this war would be hugely unpopular with his own base unless the US get attacked by Iran first. with a reelection campaign looming, Trump cannot possibly afford to get behind this war (unless it is literally forced on him by a new 9/11 or something similar).

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 15 2019 12:59pm

Was actually comparing his reasoning to not like a country, to my reasoning why I don't like the US for the war in Iraq.

But as usual my posts are to short and open for interpretation

well, one major cause is the political left opposing the shah jumping on the train of islamism and then suddenly awaking in an oppressive sinkhole
oops

looking at you and your fellow leftists constantly patting islam it looks you still havent learned
its not like i expect that happen though



i mostly agree with you, but it wouldnt be the first time that the US push a country into a corner until they finally start hitting back

This post was edited by ampoo on May 15 2019 01:04pm

i think that's a very dangerous causation vs correlation situation.

India is one of the US's allies, Israel exists by our good graces, we DID fight the USSR in sattelite wars knowing they also had nukes, China is only emerging now as a "problem" to the US. The UK and France are our oldest allies. Pakistan is the outlier, not our ally persay, constant issues in the Afghanistan war, etc. They didn't get invaded for 2 reasons, 1 their nukes, 2 India would have annihilated them under the guise of a US war most likely and i could have spawned a Holy war.

but overall half of the countries that "the USA hasn't invaded because of nukes" only have nukes because we gave them to them.

I never suggested anything like that.



I am well aware of it. Once again, it is you who's sticking to an overly simplistic worldview.

Due to its rich history and culture, Iran was one of the most secularized/westernized countries of the muslim world in the 1950s. And yes, the way the CIA had fucked with Iran had helped to create the prerequisites for the Islamic Revolution to take place in Iran (instead of somewhere else) and to succeed. It is faaaaar from the sole reason, but it contributed. I dont deny that.

But from Turkey over Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan to Indonesia, Somalia and Nigeria, we have seen the political islam and/or a radicalized interpretation of islam gain ground all across the muslim world for the last 50 to 70 years. In places were the US had a strong influence like Iran or Afghanistan, but also in places which are barely touched by US imperialism (like Nigeria or Indonesia). Therefore, American interventions have at times been the catalyst for breakout events of this long-term trend of islamization, with the Iranian Revolution being the most prominent example, but this trend has existed before the American involvement in the Middle East was ramped up, and it has proceeded everywhere, even in the absence of an American influence.

Simply put, actions like the CIA coup in Iran or the Iraq war under W. Bush have just added fuel to a fire which was already burning hot and bright anyway. There are huge social, economic and religious problems in the muslim world today, and their origin is the culture and ideology of those places. The West made things worse on many occasions, yes, but there are ZERO counterexamples of majority-muslim countries having a significant positive social and economic development, with or without Western influence.

Pretending as if Iran or the Middle East were fucked up exclusively due to the actions of the West is a biased and simplistic viewpoint which isnt backed by historic facts.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 15 2019 01:19pm

are you aiming those delicious little nazi tears at me ?