SergeantPsycho said:
I'm wondering what group of people would suddenly have a change of heart if the USA took sides. Surely not the protestors, they dispise the current Iranian Regime because of what it's done, not because of what we've done. Surely not their opposition because they're already convinced that their right.
I don't think anyone whose currently taken sides in the mater won't have their mind changed if we take a side.
Just because they don't like the current Supreme Leader and President doesn't mean they are pro-American. Every Iranian I have every met - regardless of their views of the Islamic Republic - was very ambivalent about the US. They have a serious love-hate view. Obama's being very clever to prevent the regime trying to distract fence sitters by pointing at the US as being responsible.
SergeantPsycho said:
And exactly what does having the legitimacy give us that we lack by not having the legitmacy? More over where does one get this legitmacy, and who gets to decide what's legitimate?
The US is not seen as an honest broker by anyone in the Middle East for many reasons. In Iran it is not seen as a harbinger of democracy and freedom because the CIA overthrew the last truly democratic government Iran had and replace it with the Shah. The Shah's tyrannical rule lasted as long as it did thanks to ongoing American support, which in turn led directly to the Islamic Revolution. I know some Iranian students who blame the US for the current state of their country because of 1953. I suspect they are not alone.
silversoul7 is quiet correct and the only way to overcome this lack of legitimacy is for the US to act with more regard for local sensitivities and actually work to put democratic governments in place in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Both of these states are nasty tyrannies who only survive thanks to US support, just like the Shah did. Hard for the US to be seen as a legitimate supporter of freedom and democracy in the Middle East when its best friends are as bad as those seen as US enemies.
SergeantPsycho said:
And the Shah had less willingness to use deadly force than the current Regime.
Say what? I'd like to see some evidence of that Sarge. The Shah killed an estimated 2781 during the Islamic Revolution and a lot more in the previous decades. So far the Ayatollahs haven't even begun to kill that many and show no sign that they want to; otherwise their first move would have been to unleash the security forces. This isn't to say that they are better than the Shah, but the Shah was by no means better than them in the bloody tyrant stakes.
SergeantPsycho said:
What are you basing that on? Our regime change in Iraq worked, as it did an Afghanistan. Both had democratic elections, and both saw the ousting of brutal regimes. If the Iranian regime is ousted, it's probable that we'll have an easier time in Iraq and Afghanistan. More over, we learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan that would be valuable in Iran. That 's if we go so far as to have a straight military intervention of course, but there are some increments between that and what we're doing now.
You now have a tottering, pro-Iranian government in Iraq that will remain democratic only as long as there are US troops in country.
You have a tottering, desperate government in Afghanistan that exists as long as we can be bothered to take casualties to support it.
So you are two down and counting at this point.
If the US openly intervened in Iran it would unite the vast majority of the population behind the regime. Whatever Iran is, it is not a barely functional collection of tribal and religious animosities like Iraq or Afghanistan. It has been a nation for millennia and it's citizens have a patriotism the equal of the US. Calm, rational, internationally supported diplomatic moves will deliver whatever results can be gained. I will also point out this has been the US policy since Bush and co realised their macho approach was counter-productive and pointless. This despite Darth Cheney's megalomaniac belief in military intervention.
As for military intervention it would make the casualty toll in Iraq look like a Saturday night out in the Castro. Sure the US would win the conventional invasion, but that is the easy part. The US would never be able to put in place another government as anyone who cooperated with the invading forces would be totally unacceptable to majority of Iranians as traitors. Iran is also as inhospitable - terrain-wide - as Afghanistan, making it perfect for guerrilla warfare.
SergeantPsycho said:
I'm wondering what group of people would suddenly have a change of heart if the USA took sides. Surely not the protestors, they dispise the current Iranian Regime because of what it's done, not because of what we've done. Surely not their opposition because they're already convinced that their right.
I don't think anyone whose currently taken sides in the mater won't have their mind changed if we take a side.
Just because they don't like the current Supreme Leader and President doesn't mean they are pro-American. Every Iranian I have every met - regardless of their views of the Islamic Republic - was very ambivalent about the US. They have a serious love-hate view. Obama's being very clever to prevent the regime trying to distract fence sitters by pointing at the US as being responsible.
SergeantPsycho said:
And exactly what does having the legitimacy give us that we lack by not having the legitmacy? More over where does one get this legitmacy, and who gets to decide what's legitimate?
The US is not seen as an honest broker by anyone in the Middle East for many reasons. In Iran it is not seen as a harbinger of democracy and freedom because the CIA overthrew the last truly democratic government Iran had and replace it with the Shah. The Shah's tyrannical rule lasted as long as it did thanks to ongoing American support, which in turn led directly to the Islamic Revolution. I know some Iranian students who blame the US for the current state of their country because of 1953. I suspect they are not alone.
silversoul7 is quiet correct and the only way to overcome this lack of legitimacy is for the US to act with more regard for local sensitivities and actually work to put democratic governments in place in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Both of these states are nasty tyrannies who only survive thanks to US support, just like the Shah did. Hard for the US to be seen as a legitimate supporter of freedom and democracy in the Middle East when its best friends are as bad as those seen as US enemies.
SergeantPsycho said:
And the Shah had less willingness to use deadly force than the current Regime.
Say what? I'd like to see some evidence of that Sarge. The Shah killed an estimated 2781 during the Islamic Revolution and a lot more in the previous decades. So far the Ayatollahs haven't even begun to kill that many and show no sign that they want to; otherwise their first move would have been to unleash the security forces. This isn't to say that they are better than the Shah, but the Shah was by no means better than them in the bloody tyrant stakes.
SergeantPsycho said:
What are you basing that on? Our regime change in Iraq worked, as it did an Afghanistan. Both had democratic elections, and both saw the ousting of brutal regimes. If the Iranian regime is ousted, it's probable that we'll have an easier time in Iraq and Afghanistan. More over, we learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan that would be valuable in Iran. That 's if we go so far as to have a straight military intervention of course, but there are some increments between that and what we're doing now.
You now have a tottering, pro-Iranian government in Iraq that will remain democratic only as long as there are US troops in country.
You have a tottering, desperate government in Afghanistan that exists as long as we can be bothered to take casualties to support it.
So you are two down and counting at this point.
If the US openly intervened in Iran it would unite the vast majority of the population behind the regime. Whatever Iran is, it is not a barely functional collection of tribal and religious animosities like Iraq or Afghanistan. It has been a nation for millennia and it's citizens have a patriotism the equal of the US. Calm, rational, internationally supported diplomatic moves will deliver whatever results can be gained. I will also point out this has been the US policy since Bush and co realised their macho approach was counter-productive and pointless. This despite Darth Cheney's megalomaniac belief in military intervention.
As for military intervention it would make the casualty toll in Iraq look like a Saturday night out in the Castro. Sure the US would win the conventional invasion, but that is the easy part. The US would never be able to put in place another government as anyone who cooperated with the invading forces would be totally unacceptable to majority of Iranians as traitors. Iran is also as inhospitable - terrain-wide - as Afghanistan, making it perfect for guerrilla warfare.
Thank you for responding to the Sarge's post point-by-point. You've saved the rest of us the hassle.
midnightblue69 said:
Dude that is the most backward ass logic I have ever heard.
The media you worship has rotted your brain. Think for yourself, you can do it, just try...really.
Your arguement against what I said is that the program will not not really work so why worry about it. If that is the case why are you not outraged that that Obapa is spending 4 BILLION on a failed program that will be of little consequence?
Where exactly is your upside to this again?
If the government wanted to give 4 bil accross the board for people to buy new cars it wouldn't be so bad. If their motive was simply to help the people and auto industry, why not just give the money in simple tax credits to anyone buying a new car? Because thats not what they are after.
Either I am right or the program is a massive waste of 4 billion dollars. Maybe you live in some sheltered wealthy libosphere or maybe you just have a lot of growing up to do but our government spending 4 billion of my tax money to crush cars poor people can afford is an outrage.
You can't have it both ways. You got it wrong and now you are shifting the goalposts.
Where, exactly, am I defending this program? It's poorly written, a sop to the domestic auto industry to get inefficient new vehicles off the lot at taxpayer expense.
None of that makes your interpretation any less wrong.
There is a great article in the Guardian by Ian Williams (a pommie journalist living in NY for the last 20 years) giving it to both sides on Iran
56
Voland
Trenton, NJ
June 2009
JUN 30, 2009 01:42 PM
Kundalini said:
Wow. I avoid your columns mostly (for my own reasons) but I agree with pretty much everything you've posted. We've allowed people like McCain to be our voices on the national stage for far too long. It's no wonder that the rest of the civilized world thinks that we are ignorant, media-hungry morons. Obama almost makes too much sense to be our president based on where we've allowed ourselves to be led for the last 8 years or so.
I agree sure obama is doing some.. Iffy stuff but I have faith that this is the best possible way to go.
Oh did you hear the mcain was just bush on an alt account?
gfvella
Australia
November 2004
JUN 24, 2009 10:03 PM